Full Text
Legislation of Note From 2009 Session As is common for municipalities and county governments, the City of Missoula spent considerable effort during the 2009 session identifying and defending against legislation that could have adverse financial impacts on local government. The City also proactively engaged in a number of legislative efforts with its allies to secure new funding sources and to push back on existing policy mandates that have adversely affected the City. With a few exceptions, the City was largely successful in its efforts, particularly in efforts to defend existing funding sources and policies. This document highlights some of the key successes that resulted from the City’s lobbying efforts. These include bills that were opposed, supported, or supported following extensive compromise and amendment efforts. HB630, by Missoula Rep. Diane Sands. The City shepherded this measure through the legislative process, from bill introduction, through committee hearings and amendments. The bill is intended to help make it easier for cities to get their bonds rated in order to get better interest rates and save taxpayers money. The City agreed to support a compromise to part of the bill, regarding exemptions from state‐mandated levy caps. The compromise addressed concerns raised by the Senate majority, and was necessary to ensure the bill would move forward. Provisions that were not included in the final version, including the exemptions from levy camps, may be considered in future sessions. SB490, which would have revised Class 8 business equipment taxes, increasing the exemption. Missoula and other municipalities were concerned about the potential and substantial reduction in collections. The bill died in House Taxation after the City and the Montana Association of Counties expressed strong concern that the funding mechanism for reimbursements to local governments was tied to a one‐time budget line in House Bill 2, which would have expired after two years. Testimony by the city and the association pointing out the dramatic tax shift this would cause were instrumental in the bill’s demise in committee. HB645: The main property tax reappraisal bill. This clearly became the most watched and contested issue during the 2009 session. While some legislators, including the bill’s original sponsor, remain divided over its effectiveness, most agreed the final compromise accomplished the most immediate needs. One of the City’s major issues concerned potential efforts to “phase‐in” reappraisal of new property. The city, along with lobbyists for other municipalities worked with lawmakers to address that concern and ensure the phase‐in provision was not dropped into the bill at the last moment. HB526. This was a “constituent bill” introduced by a Gallatin‐area legislator at the request of a voter concerned about the “sticky” nature of certain compounds of street and road ---PAGE BREAK--- de‐icers. The bill would have banned these substances throughout the state, specifically allowing only one kind of salt. The state Department of Transportation told lawmakers it had no issues with the bill and suggested municipalities that used other chemicals (those to be banned) could easily transition to a different type. Missoula’s lobbyist spoke with city officials, who very quickly raised concerns. The chemical salt compound the bill would require is not allowed in the city by local ordinance, and none of the city’s existing de‐icing equipment could handle the salt compound. With the bill set to go to a vote of the full House, the lawmaker agreed to pull it after the City raised its concerns. Had this passed, the City would likely have occurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses to replace or upgrade its fleet of de‐icing equipment. HB486: The main subdivision regulation bill of the 2009 session. This was a consensus bill supported by a very broad group, including builders, developers, conservation and planning organizations, and city/county planners. Despite that support, the measure went through repeated amendments in a Senate committee, largely in an effort to insert language from other subdivision bills that had been previously killed. An incredible amount of work by stakeholders, including the City, ensured the final version was scrubbed clean of the most onerous language, while compromising on key issues the Senate majority supported. HB331: Increasing fees for establishments that serve food and undergo health inspections. This bill was requested by city and county health departments and the Missoula City/County Health Department took a lead on the bill, assisted by the City’s lobbyist. It was tabled in committee twice, but brought back to life as many times. Republicans and the restaurant industry raised concerns about the bill and the fees being assigned by a rules committee, rather than the Legislature. The bill finally passed in an amended form that increased the fees nominally, but left it in the hands of the Legislature. The compromise version does allow the fee scale to be revisited again in 2011. HB484, HB494 and HB476: These “constituent” bills, were introduced as a package by the same lawmaker. They restricted the terms of bond limits and would have required a rewriting of language regarding definitions of “blight” for all Tax Increment Finance Districts. After several early, unsuccessful attempts to address the definition issue with the sponsor and reach a compromise, the City and other municipalities led successful efforts to defeat the measures in committee. HB408: Supported largely by firefighting unions and associations, the bill would have changed worker compensation rules to require certain diseases of safety officers be presumed to be caused by their work. Although well‐intentioned, the legislation ran into opposition from municipalities, insurers and others concerned about potential costs. Although there were initial efforts to compromise on language, the efforts largely failed and opponents raised enough concerns to have the bill tabled. Unions have promised to work on concerns raised by municipalities and others and bring a revised bill back in 2011. HB249 and SB478: Two bills with different sponsors that were intended to target conservation easements. HB249 would have taxed conservation easements, a move critics said ---PAGE BREAK--- was intended to discourage citizens from placing land into easements. SB478 would have banned perpetual easements, requiring all to have expiration dates. Both bills were opposed by a variety of interests, including the City, and were defeated. HB279: The innocuous short title of the bill, “Revise laws relation to transportation,” did little to explain this. Sponsored by Missoula Rep. Michele Reinhart, this bill established that the Department of Transportation could not recover costs from certain grant programs that flow to cities and towns. Although early drafts caught the attention and potential opposition of the DOT, the agency ended up speaking in favor of an amended version, which limited the legislation to CTEP only. Other Interesting bills and their outcomes: HB372: Revisions to jury duty. Signed by Governor. City originally opposed, but dropped opposition after reaching comprises through amendments. SB8: Authorize charter form of government for regional water entities. City originally opposed, but dropped opposition after amendments addressed major concerns. HB564: Prohibit local government competition with private sector. City opposed. A poorly conceived bill brought by a lawmaker with a special interest. Died in committee. HB287: Authorize utility tree‐trimming on rights of way and easements. Signed by Governor. City originally opposed, but dropped opposition after major concerns were addressed through amendments. SB402: Clarify property rights for which just compensation is due when taken. Died in committee. This bill made it out of the Senate, but died in House Judiciary on a tie vote. The City opposed and lobbied extensively. SB240: Residency requirements for public boards and commissions. Died in committee. The City originally opposed, but withdrew opposition after the bill was clarified to note it did not apply to local boards and commissions.