A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Bonneville County adopts fee increase for concealed‑weapons permit to cover higher fingerprint costs

February 11, 2026 | Bonneville County, Idaho


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Bonneville County adopts fee increase for concealed‑weapons permit to cover higher fingerprint costs
Bonneville County officials voted to raise the initial concealed‑weapons permit application fee to cover higher fingerprint and background‑check costs reported by the sheriff’s office.

A sheriff’s‑office representative told the meeting that the change follows a state increase in the fingerprint/background‑check charge and that the county’s proposed increase would pass those costs through to applicants. "We are only asking that the initial bid be increased because that's the only one that has a fingerprint based background check," the representative said.

The motion to adopt Resolution 2603 was offered during the meeting. "I would then make a motion to adopt resolution number 2,603, changing the fees from $56.10 to $59.85 to absorb the state federal costs imposed on us," said an attendee who moved the resolution. The chair called for a voice vote; the meeting record shows affirmative responses and the chair stated, "Motion carries." The chair then declared that "Resolution number 2603 is in effect."

According to the sheriff’s‑office representative, the increase applies only to the initial permit — the permit type that requires a fingerprint background check — and other permit fees would remain the same. The representative also reported that the state’s background‑check fee has risen; the transcript records the figure as "from 2,825 to $32," a phrasing that was unclear in the meeting record. The county’s stated new total fee for the initial permit is $59.85, up from $56.10.

The meeting transcript does not record names or titles for the mover or for who seconded the motion beyond voice votes captured by the meeting host. The record identifies someone saying "Ron Smith is online," but it does not clearly tie that name to the motion or the recorded votes.

Resolution 2603 takes effect immediately, as announced at the meeting. The county did not provide a written breakdown in the record showing the exact state charge cited or a staff memo in the transcript; the sheriff’s office representative indicated the county’s increase is intended to offset that higher external cost.

What happens next: the record indicates the resolution is in effect. The transcript does not specify whether the county will publish an updated fee schedule or the effective date for fee collection beyond the chair’s statement that the resolution is in effect.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee