Photo illustration by Getty Images.
Let’s say voters in Great Falls approve a levy to pay for 10 new firefighters under legislation being considered by the Montana Legislature.
In just four years, the city probably would have to lay off two or more of those workers if House Bill 20 passes, said Danielle Bradley, representing the City of Great Falls.
That’s because the bill would tie the levy to a dollar amount, worth less every year, as opposed to mills, a taxing rate with a value that rises and falls as property values rise and fall.
The bill partially accounts for inflation, which Bradley said she appreciates, but she said it still means the city would have to dig out of a hole sooner or later, given the cost of a firefighter will keep on going up.
Tuesday, the Senate Tax committee heard HB 20, which already has made its way through the House. Sponsored by Rep. Larry Brewster, R-Billings, the bill would require voted levies to be expressed in dollar amounts versus mills.
A mill is a unit that expresses property tax rates, and it’s used to calculate tax bills. One mill generates $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value, and in Montana, taxable values have been going up.
That means tax bills generally have been going up too, and this session, legislators are interested in helping property taxpayers, some who have experienced steep increases in bills due to higher market values.
Several proposed bills address property tax formulas to help residential taxpayers, but HB 20 takes a different approach, and it gained some bipartisan support in the House.
Part of the rationale for the bill is that mills are not as accessible to the public as dollar amounts.
“Montana voters deserve to have the clearest possible picture about what they’re voting on, especially if it means increasing their taxes,” Senate Tax committee Chair Greg Hertz, R-Polson, said in a statement. “This bill will provide greater transparency on voted levies by putting the issue into terms that voters best understand.”
Some legislators also believe local governments spend money too freely, and proponents of the bill argue it would help provide accountability to voters.
Opponents, though, say local governments will end up having to play catchup when it comes to voted levies. That’s because mills float, but dollars don’t.
“Dollars don’t equal dollars year over year,” said Jennifer Hensley, representing Missoula County.
Opponents also argue local governments don’t have the authority to cut all the dollars in their budgets.
For example, Partnership Health Center in Missoula County is funded with significant federal dollars, “flow through” money counted as an expenditure in the budget, but not under control of commissioners, Hensley said.
Sen. Dave Fern, D-Whitefish, asked bill sponsor Brewster if an “unintended consequence” of the bill would be that local governments would lose dollar value on, say, an approved public safety levy, and then have to return to voters.
Brewster, though, said he believes that’s one of the best parts of the bill.
“I don’t know why engaging the taxpayers in the process seems to be an evil thing,” Brewster said. “I think it’s a good thing and requires a municipality to justify what they’re spending.”
Hertz agreed, and he grilled local government representatives on the predicament. Hertz asked what a property taxpayer should do when an increase in value means their home is suddenly worth double — and, he said, their taxes are doubling too.
According to the Department of Revenue, property taxes generally go up when assessed value goes up, although typically the increase is not proportional.
Hertz, however, said taxpayers vote at the ballot box on a certain amount for a certain purpose, and then it escalates without their control.
“Is that really fair to the taxpayer?” Hertz said.
He requested solutions from local government representatives, but he said he believes the best form of local control is allowing the voters to decide.
Kelly Lynch, with the Montana League of Cities and Towns, agreed property taxpayers need help.
However, Lynch said the bill would mean that taxpayers might approve a project, say to build a fire station, but if a local government wanted to ask voters for ongoing operations too, it would be difficult to figure out the cost in dollars.
Nonetheless, Lynch said if full inflation was included, the League would support the bill. Lynch also said the issue is relatively new; property values didn’t fluctuate as much in the past, and the legislature would mitigate changes by adjusting tax rates.
Lynch said voters already know what they want, even if expressed in mills, and the evidence is they’ve turned down many levies. At the same time, she said the League acknowledges the problem that property taxpayers are struggling.
“We know that taxpayers need relief, and we want to be part of the solution,” Lynch said.
An earlier amendment removed school district levies from the bill for simplicity, Brewster said.
To get the bill out of the House, he said the bill also was amended to say local governments can choose to ask voters to increase requested amounts at ¾ the rate of inflation averaged over the previous three years — instead of the current limit of half of the rate of inflation.
Bradley, with the city of Great Falls, asked legislators to oppose the bill unless it allowed for full inflation.
Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell, D-Helena, asked Brewster if he would support an amendment to fully fund inflation, but he said he would view it as an unfriendly amendment, especially because the bill allows voted levies to increase at a higher rate than general funds.
Brewster also said some cities can do a better job of managing their budgets. One city has a big budget for police, he said, but it can’t fill all those jobs, and it has a reserve fund as a result.
“Maybe they need to reduce their spending a little bit,” Brewster said.
The committee did not take immediate action on the bill Tuesday.