Idaho cities are experimenting with AI tools to improve services

Discussions about government use of artificial intelligence (AI) often begin with a simple question: "Is this tool going to help the taxpayer that is funding it, or is it just another fad?” Municipalities across the Treasure Valley in Idaho are already experimenting with AI in small, practical ways, whether it is admin efficiency, search tool utilization, or for Garden City “googly eyes” experiments.

The main question we are all wondering is, can these AI tools save government employees time? There are early indications that it will work if combined with common-sense guardrails, human review, and transparency. It is exciting to see city staff across the state embracing AI resources to move the needle for efficiency and innovation to better utilize taxpayer money.

Mountain States Policy Center has long argued that the goal should be using technology to cut waste and trim red tape so government employees can focus on what really matters and those activities that need human interaction. We previously highlighted a reform in Virginia, “which includes AI-assisted statute-to-rule traceability, cross-state comparisons to identify outliers/unnecessary regulation, and a public permit tracking dashboard that reports agency performance in real-time."

The Boise-area AI pilots are prime examples of the “assist, don’t replace” model that is critical in implementation. When AI generates a first draft of social media press releases, or helps staff sift through city code to find the right citation, that’s time freed for the work only humans can and should be doing: planning, permits, public safety, and direct service. It’s not glamorous, but it’s real productivity, and it is exactly the kind of thing that lets taxpayers see more value for the dollars they already are paying.

As governments begin to embrace these AI tools, the standard cannot change: public trust comes first. Taxpayers expect their governments not to waste time or money, and they expect bureaucrats to be straight with them about how they use new technology. That means labeling AI-assisted content when appropriate, keeping sensitive or personal information out of public models, and making sure a real person is ultimately accountable for every public-influencing decision.

If an AI tool or system can’t clear that bar, it shouldn't get deployed. If it can, it should prove its worth with transparent metrics and methods that taxpayers and local residents can check/verify for themselves. Those principles are the same ones that are highlighted in our broader modernization agenda, whether we’re talking about permitting “shot clocks,” better dashboards, or AI-assisted audits to reduce duplication.

When AI is implemented for helpful, quick fixes for useful and fast tasks, it should always be double-checked by a human. Ultimately, AI can make local government more responsive without growing government itself. That’s the balance all taxpayers deserve, and an exciting future full of innovation with accountability, efficiency with transparency, and service that earns trust every day.