Latest news with #BrandonLer
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Major property tax proposals advance, legislators raise concerns with both
Photo illustration by Getty Images. With a maximum 11 days left in the session, legislators advanced two major but conflicting property tax relief proposals on Tuesday, one in the House and one in the Senate. Within minutes of each other, House Bill 231 passed in the Senate, and Senate Bill 542 passed in the House. Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, said many options have been flying around the Capitol, and SB 542 melds together ideas from other bills into one that isn't perfect, but needs to pass. 'We want to get something across for our constituents, and we want to be able to say that this legislature at least took a stab at lowering property taxes,' Ler said.'Is this bill going to do everything … that everybody in this room wants it to do? No. Does it do everything I wanted to do? No. But what it does do is it actually makes a difference in property taxes.' SB 542 includes a tiered rate drop and a one-time rebate among other provisions. Minority Leader Katie Sullivan, D-Missoula, said she had concerns about the bill, but it's 'past time' to do something for residential property taxpayers, more than just a rebate. 'People will notice this,' Sullivan said. 'Our constituents will open their bill, and they will say thank you. You guys dropped some rates for us.' HB 231 is a 43-page property tax bill so complicated Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvary quipped on Tuesday that 'nobody really knows what this bill is doing besides three, or four, or five us in the room.' The bill has gone through months of amendments, including two more added on the floor Tuesday that addressed an issue with taxation limits in the Billings and Sunburst city charters that has complicated property tax discussions. House Bill 231 looks to shift property taxes onto second homes, but has met resistance from some legislators who live in districts with large numbers of second homes and short-term rentals. Both bills still need a final vote in their respective chambers, and as both have been heavily amended, they will need to get another approval from their original chamber to pass. How legislators choose to push either or both forward to the governor's desk will unfold in the last days of the session. Reducing property taxes for residential payers has been a priority for the 2025 Montana Legislature because bills have increased significantly — more than 20% on average in the state in the most recent 2023 reappraisal, and are expected to increase again. Ler said SB 542 takes pieces from other bills, including a major proposal from Democrats, House Bill 155, and marries them into 'what the media now calls 'the Frankenstein property tax bill.'' It also takes pieces from HB 231, a proposal supported by the Governor's Office,. Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, said residential property tax bills will decrease 14.5% statewide in the first year, and those payers also will receive a one-time $400 rebate. Also in the first year, Jones said commercial properties will rise 4.6%, centrally assessed properties, such as railroads, will increase 10.7%, and agriculture will be up 4.3%. In year two, he said, bills for residential homes would be down 25.6% on average. After killing all but one amendment in a debate that ran nearly an hour-and-a-half, the House approved the bill on a bipartisan 80-20 vote. The only amendment that passed was proposed by Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings. Legislators have said the bill could cost the city of Billings millions because of an apparent conflict with its charter, which caps mills levied without voter approval. Zolnikov said if the city of Billings gets in legal trouble as a result, the amendment requires the state to pay any legal fees. 'I don't think anybody's intent is to, you know, bankrupt the city of Billings,' Zolnikov said. Ler said the bill already protected the city of Billings and its unique situation, but the amendment was friendly. It passed with 99 votes and none opposed. After the House passed the bill, though, a fierce debate followed over whether to send it to the Appropriations Committee, which reviews significant spending proposals. Some legislators argued the House shouldn't take shortcuts, especially because lawmakers didn't have a current analysis of the bill's cost. Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, said legislators need to work quickly, but they need to complete all their work too. 'This is the process. We shouldn't skirt the process just because we waited until day 79 to pass property taxes,' Zephyr said. Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, said it was a weighty piece of legislation, and he wanted to know who the losers were before he voted. He said he didn't believe all of them had been identified, nor did he want to vote on legislation without a current fiscal analysis. 'I am not wild about voting on this without a new fiscal note,' said Mercer, who voted no on the bill. However, Jones, chairperson of the Appropriations Committee, said the committee already had seen the bills that are part of SB 542, so the committee had a good handle on cost, and time was of the essence. 'I want to make sure that a tax bill crosses into the Senate before the Senate goes home,' Jones said. The House agreed to bypass the review in the Appropriations Committee. HB 231 'picks winners and losers,' Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, said on the floor Tuesday. HB 231 includes a property tax rebate on taxes paid in 2024. Someone who applied for the rebate also automatically qualifies for the homestead exemption built into the bill, a major piece of policy the governor has pushed. The bill passed on a narrow 26-24 vote, with a single Democrat in opposition and nine Republicans in support. Glimm's comments echoed the sentiments expressed by Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, and Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell. Hertz, Glimm and Reiger have all been in support of Senate Bill 90, which directs tourist dollars toward property tax rebates as part of their property tax solution. But they didn't support HB 231. In the final comment before bill carrier Sen. Dave Fern, D-Whitefish, closed on HB 231, Regier explained his reason — first to the legislature, and then to the people of Montana. He noted to the legislature it was spending general fund money, which has been a common discussion point in the chamber. And then, saying he was speaking directly to the public, he said tax rates, especially for agricultural communities, were going to go up if House Bill 231 passed. For second home properties and short term rentals, that increase could be over $300 million, according to a fiscal note for HB 231. 'There are a lot of options that actually do provide property tax relief,' Regier said. 'This is not it. So please, watch this vote, and hold those that vote for and against accountable.' Fern, though, said the bill would provide middle-class property tax relief, saying that 'for most folks, it will be a substantial tax decrease.' He also pushed back on the idea second homes were a major issue, saying that when he knocked on doors during his campaign, 'I'm going to guess 98% of them didn't have second homes.' However, Fern added HB 542 may end up being the vehicle for property tax relief and pointed to the urgency. 'Over the last couple sessions, we, the legislature and the Governor's Office failed to deliver property taxes, and so it compounded,' Fern said on the floor. 'Then we had a very volatile situation where appraisals and values went high. The system was not built to mitigate it in an easy way.'
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Montana Cattle Committee ‘checkoff' bill tabled in Senate Agriculture committee
A herd of dairy cows (Photo courtesy of Farm Watch via Flickr CC-BY-SA 2.0). A Montana beef marketing bill that caused waves in the agricultural community and would have created the Montana Cattle Committee was tabled in Senate committee on Tuesday. House Bill 119, brought by House Speaker Brandon Ler, R-Savage, would have created a program to market Montana beef, called a checkoff. The United States Department of Agriculture's 'Got Milk' campaign is perhaps the most famous example of a 'checkoff' program. The bill sought to create a 'favorable environment' for cattle producers in Montana to market their product both domestically and internationally. Part of the debate was an additional tax on beef cattle, which opponents said would add up for producers, who didn't want to be paying to help market their competitors' products. Proponents of the bill have said the program would have benefited cattle producers across the state. There was a small amendment to the bill that would have required the governor to appoint members of the Cattle Committee. One member of the Senate Agriculture committee, Sen. Dennis Lenz, R-Billings, said he was a supporter of the bill until the Senate hearing. He voted no both on the amendment and the bill itself. 'Ag leaders that I know (and) have worked with, were opposed to this,' Lenz said in the hearing. 'I feel like this bill needs a lot of work.' The bill passed the House 52-47 before the Senate ag committee tabled it in a 7-4 vote. Sens. Bruce Gillespie, R-Ethridge; Wendy McKamey, R-Great Falls, Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman and Mike Yakawich, R-Billings voted against tabling the bill.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cattle committee bill gets robust hearing in Senate Agricultural Committee
A cow is pictured on the Jordan Ranch in Livingston, Montana. (USDA/FPAC photo by Preston Keres) A fight over a beef promotion program saw boisterous debate in a Senate Agricultural Committee meeting last week. House Bill 119, brought by House Speaker Rep. Brandon Ler, would create the Montana Cattle Committee, which would run what's called a 'checkoff program,' or promotion program for a specific product, in this case Montana beef. Perhaps the most famous checkoff program was the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 'Got Milk?' campaign. In this case, it would be a state — not federal — program promoting in-state beef producers. However, the bill, if passed, would ask for a vote by cattle producers to create the [committee or program?]. The vote would also create a fee, $1 per head, on about 1.75 million beef cows in Montana to fund marketing or other promotional work. 'I just want to state that this bill is not imposing the tax,' said Ler, R-Savage. 'The state itself is not imposing the tax. That would be left up to a referendum of the producers.' He added he wants to see the bill passed to 'promote Montana beef.' The bill states the committee 'is uniquely situated' to provide benefits including 'advertising, promotion, food safety production research, nutrition, marketing research, the collection and dissemination of production and related statistics, and public education.' Essentially the bill seeks to create a 'favorable environment' for Montana cattle producers to market their product both domestically and internationally. At the heart of the debate was an additional tax on beef cows which opponents said would add up for producers, and they didn't want to be paying to help market their competitor's' products. Proponents of the bill have said the program will benefit cattle producers across the state. 'We're just asking for the opportunity to ask the producers of the state of Montana if they would like to tax themselves and see if we can improve the atmosphere for the livestock producers, improve the profitability, basically,' said Gene Curry, who is the chairman of the Board of Livestock, but was speaking for himself as a livestock producer. 'We're not asking for you to levy a tax on us or anybody. We're just asking you to give us the ability to ask the producers if they would like to tax themselves.' The cattle committee would be housed in the Department of Agriculture. It would be made up of seven members appointed by the governor. Originally the bill also dictated what groups can forward names for consideration to the governor, though it's since been amended to open up the nomination process further. The groups originally named in the bill as organizations that would pick the members were the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the Montana Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Association of Livestock Auction Markets, Montana Cattlewomen, the Montana Beef Council, the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, and the Montana Farmers Union. Representatives of two of those groups — the Montana Farmers Union and the Montana Cattlemen's Association — spoke against the bill during its Senate hearing. 'Ultimately, it pits neighbor against neighbor. That's a problem in my mind. As a business owner, I wouldn't pay for my competitor's advertising no matter how small the bill is, it just doesn't make sense,' said John Ferrat, a rancher and board member for the Montana Farmers Union. 'House Bill 119 is nothing more than taxation without representation, and if I recall, in 1773 there was some tea dumped into a harbor over just such a thing.' Blackfeet and Chippewa Cree representatives also spoke against the bill, as there is no direct tribal representation on the board. 'We do have Montana brands that were forced upon us to sell our cattle,' said Craig Iron Pipe, representing the Blackfeet tribal agriculture department and is a producer himself. 'We would like a voice at the table.' The bill was first introduced on Jan. 6. It had its first hearing two days later and some who provided testimony said they had little notice the bill was coming. Last week, the committee did not take immediate action on the bill. It passed the House on 52-47 vote to send it to the Senate. A fiscal note for the bill said the cattle committee would cost $1.5 million per year, but would be paid for by private donations and the head fee on livestock. Ler did not sign a third, most recent fiscal note, but signed the previous two.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana Legislature advances differing visions for MEPA's future
Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, speaks during a press conference on MEPA legislation on Feb. 12, 2025. (Nathaniel Bailey for the Daily Montanan) The Montana Legislature on Wednesday advanced four Republican-introduced measures that will tweak and redefine environmental policies in the state. Two of the measures that change the Montana Environmental Policy Act — one in each chamber — passed with bipartisan support, while a third bill brought by the Speaker of the House skirted through on party lines. The suite of environmental bills are a response to district and Montana Supreme Court decisions in the constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana, which upheld Montanan's constitutional right to a 'clean and healthful' environment and said limitations on MEPA fly in the face of the framers' vision. But that lawsuit 'ignored common sense and handed down an agenda-driven ruling,' according to Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage. 'Let's be honest. This isn't about climate This is about control,' Ler said at a Republican press conference on Wednesday. 'It's about shifting decision-making power away from the people, away from their elected representatives, giving it to judges and activists who have no accountability to the voters.' Ler is carrying House Bill 285, which he said would provide clarity and efficiency to MEPA. 'What was designed to be a procedural tool for transparency and information decision making process over the years has been twisted into something it was never meant to be,' Ler said on the House floor. 'This bill streamlines the MEPA process, eliminates unnecessary red tape, and reaffirms its true purpose — providing clear, accurate, balanced information about environmental impacts, not creating endless hurdles for responsible development.' The Speaker said the bill would not weaken the statute, but opponents in the chamber pushed back on that notion. 'I know that every single person in this body knows that both jobs and the environment are important to Montana, but it's a hard, nasty conversation to have,' said Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula. 'Where do you put the balance between jobs and environment? Different people will put it in different places.' MEPA, Marler said, provides a structured way, in law, to have the hard conversations and facilitate conflict resolution. 'Unfortunately House Bill 285 tries to take out the conflict by taking out half of the conversation,' she said. Ler's bill clarifies that MEPA does not carry any regulatory weight, and prohibits a state agency from withholding, denying, or conditioning a permit due to any findings from an environmental analysis. It passed the House 58-42 on party lines. Another MEPA bill that drew a broader coalition was House Bill 270, introduced by Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings. Her bill updates the language of MEPA to remove the parts invalidated by the Held decision, alters the process if someone fails to comply with the act, and prevents state agencies from acting beyond their purview. HB 270 passed unanimously out of the chamber. The House also passed House Bill 291, brought by Rep. Greg Oblander, R-Billings, with two Democrats joining all Republicans. The bill would prevent an agency from enacting stricter air quality standards at the local or state level than what is currently in place federally. 'If the federal government sets a standard, that's the bar. We're not going to let state agencies or local boards move the goal post,' Oblander said during the press conference. 'We've seen what happens when agencies are left unchecked. Businesses that meet every federal requirement are suddenly hit with additional layers of regulations from state or local entities, rules that do nothing to improve the environmental outcomes, but everything to drive up cost, delay projects and kill jobs.' House Democrats vowed to keep fighting for Montana's environment, specifically against Ler's proposal. 'Montanans expect us to defend their Constitutional right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, and that's exactly what House Democrats did today. We supported a common-sense bill that upholds that right while providing clarity for businesses and workers under MEPA. But some Republican politicians are determined to erode what makes Montana the last best place,' said Democratic Whip Jonathan Karlen of Missoula. 'We will continue to fight those efforts every step of the way.' On the Senate side, Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, got a 37-13 vote on his Senate Bill 221, which he described as a 'Goldilocks bill.' SB 221 aligns MEPA with the Held ruling and directs the Department of Environmental Quality to develop guidance on greenhouse gas emission assessments, while not stymying industry and development. During the floor debate on his bill, Galt's bill earned support from a handful of Democrats. Sen. Derek Harvey, D-Butte, said that while MEPA can help protect the state's environment, litigation over MEPA can adversely impact workers and unions. He said SB 221 helps 'strike this balance.' While the bill requires greenhouse gas emissions for fossil fuel projects, Galt said the bill contains a catch. 'These assessments are information only. They cannot be twisted into tools to deny permits or slap on burdensome conditions,' Galt told the press. 'No activist lawsuits, no bureaucratic overreach, just facts.'
