Update: Senate Bill 204 was voted down Tuesday afternoon. But there’s an old saying at the Legislature: Nothing is dead until sine die, the last day of the session. Bills die, get revived, and die again, even with the ostensible deadline imposed by the transmittal break. Vote trading is rife. Language from proposed legislation that stalls in committee at the beginning of the session can be repackaged and reintroduced in the form of last-minute amendments at the end of session. As the last several days indicate, the future of these bills is anything but set in stone. —AKS

A pair of proposed bills at the state Legislature designed to give voters in municipalities like Missoula more opportunities to turn down tax levies have faced divergent fates, with one stalling in committee and the other amended and brought back from the dead through a series of procedural motions.

Both bills, despite their sponsorship by a member of the Montana Legislature’s substantial Republican majority, initially failed to make it out of the state Senate even with amendments designed to broaden their appeal. But Senate Bill 204, which would require regular voter re-approval of certain tax levies, was reanimated and ushered through a Senate floor vote during the Legislature’s meetings this weekend.

In committee meetings last week, the bills raised the hackles of an unusually broad coalition of local governments, school districts, police and fire departments and even representatives from normally tax-averse chambers of commerce.

“The fact is that this bill and ones like it are a death by 1,000 cuts,” Jen Hensley, a lobbyist for Missoula County, told lawmakers in a previous committee hearing on the proposals.

SB 204, sponsored by Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, would require voters to re-approve tax levies every 10 years or less. It’d gradually sunset existing levies unless voters chose to retain them. Through a series of amendments that have broadened the bill’s appeal since it was first proposed, certain levies would be exempt: fire, police, emergency medical services and education. Senate Bill 205, also sponsored by Hertz, would require a certain level of voter turnout to approve levies regardless of whether or not they receive majority support.

The bills were part of a suite of recommendations that emerged from Gov. Greg Gianforte’s property tax task force, a committee of state lawmakers, local officials, business leaders, analysts, agency heads and academics. Though ostensibly nonpartisan — and indeed comprising some Democrats — the task force membership mostly reflected the business sector conservatism that predominates in the governor’s office. And many legislators of that persuasion tend to blame municipal spending — which often requires raising revenue through taxation — for Montana’s property tax woes, relief from which is a key priority in Helena this session.

“Cities yank voters’ heart strings. It’s disingenuous,” Sen. Barry Usher, a Republican from the Billings area, said during a recent debate on Hertz’s bills. “This is one more way we can help with the property tax issue that we’re getting blamed for.”

(For the record, there’s good reason the Legislature’s been blamed for the recent spike in property taxes. To better understand the context and dynamics, we highly recommend watching the presentation former Montana Department of Revenue Director Dan Bucks gave at City Club Missoula back in August 2023.)

Now, briefly entertain a little inside baseball from this former Capitol reporter, if you would: Both of Hertz’s bills had failed committee votes. But Hertz took advantage of a legislative procedural move called a “blast motion” that, with enough votes in favor of the motion, brings bills back from the dead and places them on the agenda for debate before the whole legislative chamber. Legislators might turn to blast motions if they feel the bill would fare better before the whole body than it did the members of the particular committee the bill was assigned to — keeping in mind that committee assignments can themselves be political, and occasionally fatal to a bill’s forward progress. Or they may have agreed to amendments they feel can garner the bill majority support.

In this case, last Wednesday, Hertz corralled enough votes to blast both bills to the Senate floor for consideration the next day. On Thursday, he successfully introduced amendments to the bills exempting bonds and levies for schools. But questioning from other lawmakers revealed that a whole range of services would be subject to the bill’s restrictions.

“It could be parks, road maintenance levies, additional law enforcement support, a library,” Hertz said in response to questions from Sen. Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton.

Ellsworth asked what would happen to previously approved infrastructure that lost funding for maintenance through the process in Hertz’s bill. There’s a publicly funded pool in his district, he said. What would happen if it lost funding? Would it just be abandoned, like the ghostly stadium infrastructure left over from an ill-gotten Olympics?

“If this is what your voters want to do, if they decide they no longer want to support that maintenance on that particular pool, then I would say the community has a couple of options,” Hertz responded. “Number one, they abandon the pool. Or number two, they can provide it to a nonprofit. Or the community can get together and raise funds to keep the pool running through the summer months when they need it.”

And wouldn’t this be an abrogation of local control, asked Sen. Russ Tempel, R-Chester, a former county commissioner?

“The best form of local control is the voters,” Hertz responded. “This is a way to give the voters control of their property taxes going forward.”

Regardless, the Senate voted down the amended bill. But that vote wouldn’t be the body’s last say on the matter. On Friday, Hertz had enough support for a successful motion to reconsider the previous floor vote. He explained that he would be bringing an amendment to exempt police, fire and EMS levies in addition to school levies.

“I’ve had a number of individuals who would like to have further discussion on this,” Hertz said on the Senate floor.

One of these individuals came from an unlikely corner of the Legislature: Ellie Boldman, a Democratic senator from Missoula.

“I say to my friends on my side of the aisle that our people that vote for us, they’re hurting, property taxes are hurting.”

“I voted no for this bill yesterday,” Boldman told lawmakers. “The good senator did exclude schools. This amendment will also now exclude fire and police — public safety. With that, it’s a good bill.

“I say to my friends on my side of the aisle that our people that vote for us, they’re hurting, property taxes are hurting.”

Those levies should be held harmless, Boldman said. But the people should have the right to determine if other levies they previously approved are still relevant to them.

Not every Democrat was convinced.

“It’s an attack on local government elected officials,” Sen. Chris Pope of Bozeman said during debate on the motion to reconsider. “I think we need to pay attention to why we voted this down.”

The vote on the motion split both parties — a rare occurrence — but ultimately passed 29-20. The next day, Saturday, the Senate approved Hertz’s amendments and the bill itself following debate that included Hertz calling out city governments and their lobbyists for “beating up on” lawmakers like Boldman for supporting the bill. Those lobbyists are using tax dollars to advocate against the taxpayer, he said, even with his amendments. Incidentally — or perhaps not — Boldman voted against the bill in its amended form, despite having all but twisted Hertz’s arm to bring the bill back, as he put it.

“It’s an attack on local government elected officials. I think we need to pay attention to why we voted this down.”

Hertz repeatedly emphasized that the bills would give voters more control over their tax bill. But they’re already rejecting plenty of local tax increases, for better or worse. Last May, voters in Montana’s cash-strapped AA school districts approved less than half of the nearly 20 school levies on local ballots. While Missoulians approved three of four school levies, along with a fire levy, voters in other cities were much more parsimonious. In Helena, for example, voters rejected five school levies.

And other proposed legislation that local governments have said could be similarly damaging as Hertz’s bills have so far faced little resistance. House Bill 20, sponsored by Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings, which would require local governments to ask voters to approve tax increases in the form of dollars, not mills, merely awaits a signature from Gov. Greg Gianforte. It’d be a consequential change because mills, being a percentage tied to property values, allow tax revenues to keep pace with inflation, while dollars don’t — as prices rise, a dollar in tax revenue this year will go farther than the same dollar generated next year. Which is why the city and county of Missoula and other municipalities across the state oppose the bill.

Meanwhile, another Hertz bill that Missoula is opposing, Senate Bill 2, easily made it out of its first committee. The city has said the bill, which changes how cities can utilize tax-increment financing districts, would essentially eliminate the public and private incentives that make the economic development tool effective.

Terms of debate

The Missoula City Council last week rejected a pair of proposals framed as simple government transparency measures. But the bulk of the council has repeatedly said the changes are unnecessary, highlighting the particular factional divide on the council of Montana’s most liberal city.

The first of the proposals, both sponsored by council member Daniel Carlino, would have amended the body’s rules to allow debate on motions to table a certain issue. That change would mean a departure from Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, a parliamentary handbook that legislative bodies at all levels have widely adopted. In Mason’s, motions to table — technically a motion to postpone debate — are non-debatable.

“I think each council member should be able to represent their constituents and say whether or not something should be tabled/voted down before we take that vote,” Carlino said during Monday’s council meeting.

A second proposal from Carlino that would have set a public hearing on an ordinance imposing 12-year term limits on council members and mayor also failed. That outcome was no surprise. Both proposals had previously been rebuffed in committee — committee votes are merely recommendations to the council — which Carlino called “unfortunate for our democracy.”

City council positions and the mayorship are all nonpartisan. But the bulk of the council sits firmly within the realm of liberal orthodoxy, reflecting Missoula’s overall political hue. That alignment frequently leaves a small coalition of dissenters: Carlino and council member Kristen Jordan, both strident progressives, and the comparatively conservative or libertarian councilmembers Bob Campbell and Sandra Vasecka.

“Mason’s rules were written a long time ago, maybe back when we weren’t as politically divided as we are now,” Jordan, identifying herself as “one of the minority members of the city council,” said during the meeting Monday.” I’ve seen the tabling rule used to cut off council member comment and to also get something off the council floor that people don’t want to vote on publicly.

She added that she in particular feels targeted.

“It’s just disappointing to me to be on a council with a bunch of Democrats who continually vote against transparency and voter rights. We’re all on the same team here.”

Council member Stacie Anderson responded that if someone wants more debate on a bill, they should simply vote against the motion to table.

“Sometimes, as former Mayor John Engen would say, we have beaten a dead horse.”

“It is not used to target anybody specifically, or quiet any voices, despite what some people may think. It is not,” Anderson said. “And it really does impugn other people on council’s motives [to suggest so], which is against our rules. It is simply a tool to move debate along. And sometimes, as former Mayor John Engen would say, we have beaten a dead horse.”

The proposal failed by a wide margin, with only Carlino, Jordan, Campbell and Vasecka in support. The term-limit motion — not even to change city law, just to hold a public hearing on the idea — fared no better after provoking more testy debate.

“There’s a lot of arguments, whether you’re for or against term limits, but I think we can all come together and believe that the voters of Missoula should get to make this choice for themselves,” Carlino said. “I don’t believe that we should be having career politicians, and we should not have such advantages financially and through institutions to help incumbents but rather create an opportunity for everyday people to get elected to Missoula council and mayor.”

In a particularly spicy line, Carlino implied a philosophical connection between the council majority and President Donald Trump.

“I know we see a lot of people, like the president right now and many of us around this horseshoe, that would like to think that people should be able to run for unlimited number of terms, and that really comes with quite an advantage for incumbents and pushes everyday people out of the political sphere,” Carlino said.

Opponents of the proposal said that term limits often have negative consequences, filtering out institutional experience and policy expertise. Local politicians, they said, aren’t in it for the prestige or sub-minimum wage pay, and shouldn’t be treated like their more notorious counterparts higher up the electoral ladder. These arguments ultimately carried the day, and Carlino’s second proposal fell to the same 4-7 vote as his first.

The ledger #️⃣

$562,400

The median price of a Missoula home, according to the newly released 2025 Five Valleys Housing Report from the Missoula Organization of Realtors. That represents a 2.25 percent annual increase, a sign the market is stabilizing. A few years ago MOR reported a spike of 28 percent.

The week ahead 🗓️

On March 5 at 5:15 p.m., the Missoula Redevelopment Agency is holding a community workshop to gather input on redevelopment plans for an eight-acre city-owned property north of Montana Rail Link park in the Franklin to the Fort neighborhood.

Find a list of all upcoming city meetings here and county meetings here.