Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMontana League of Cities & TownMemorandum Montana League of Cities and Town~ P.O. Box 1704- Helen~ Mt59624 406 442-8768 (Phone) 406 442-9231 (Fax) NAY I 2 2008 CITY OF LAUREL To: Cities and Towns in Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 From: Alec Hansen Subject: District Legislative Meetings Date: May 7, 2003 The Directors have set the District Legislative Meetings in EasteTM M6ntana for the week of May 19. These meetings have been scheduled to give League members a better understanding of the bills affecting cities and towns that were enacted, rejected or amended during the recently completed Legislative Session. I will also provide current information on entitlement share growth rates, inflation adjustments and health insurance premium levies that will be important for your FY-04 budget calculations. It was a long winter, and I am looking forward to meeting with League members to talk about all the things that did and did not happen during the Legislature. The following is the meeting schedule: May 19 District 05 1:00 p.m. City Hall Lewistown May 20 District #11 10:00 a.m. City Hall Billings May 21 District 012 10:00 a~m. City Hall Miles City District 04 2:00 p.m. City Hall Glendive May 22 District #3 9:30 a.m. City Hall Glasgow *District #2 3:00 p.m. City Hall Havre *The District #2 meeting on this schedule is for Big Sandy, Chinook, Harlem and Havre. A second meeting will be held in Shelby at a later date for the cities and towns in the western area of the District. Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: Montana League of Cities and Towns P.O. Box 1704-Helena, Mt 59624 406 442-8768 (Phone) 406 442-9231 (Fax) Cities and Towns Alee Hansen .----\ 2003 League Conference May 7, 2003 MAY 1 2 2003 CITY OF LAUREL The 72nd Annual Conference of the Montana League of Cities and Towns will be held October 1, 2 and 3 in Billings. The Sheraton and Northern Hotels in downtown Billings will host the conference. They have agreed to special rotes of $55 per night for both single and double rooms. We have blocked 175 rooms atthe two hotels, and encourage League members to make early reservations. The host city is anxious to show off the new attractions in the downtown area that have been added through development and historic preservation projects. Billings is working with the League to plan an interesting and entertaining conference program, and Mayor Chuck Tooley, commission members and city staff are looking forward to hosting the annual meeting. The agenda has not yet been set, but we will gather comments and suggestions dta4~ng the district meetings to build a program that covers those subjects that are most interesting and important to cities and towns across the state. Economic and community development, legislation, management and regulatory policies are likely to be included on the agenda along with programs offering practical suggestions to improve the effectiveness of city governments. We also hope to put together a roster of guest speakers that will include business, community and pohtical leaders from across the state. It is a pleasure ,to~oin with the host city to invite League members to Billings for the association's 72n Annual Conference. 2003 Legislature - Final Report MAY 1 2 2O03 .C!T Y, LAUREL When it convened in January, the Legislature was looking down the million budget deficit and the possibility of a political train wreck that would rattle the bottom line of every public agency in Montana, including cities and towns. After 89 disagreeable days, the Legislature squared up the state's books with $188 million in tax increases, fund transfers and budget cuts, leaving a projected surplus of $45 million on June 30 2005. This was obviously a time of short money and 10w expectations, and the 53rd Legislature will be remembered for the good ideas that failed and all of the bad things that didn't happen. Legislators introduced at least 25 bills intended to reduce municipal revenues, restrict management authority, impose additional costs or violate the generally honored but practically damned idea of local control. This report will analyze those bills on the municipal "hit list" and the few good ideas that were enacted into law. Finance This Legislature was flooded from beginning to end with proposals to balance the state budget. Many of these bills would have boomed money from cities and towns under the lopsided logic that local governments were somehow responsible for the state's financial problems. The Executive Budget fully funded the Entitlement Program that was established by the 2001 Legislature to replace local government revenues that were transferred to the state under House Bill 124. The quarterly payments provide full reimbursement for funds transferred in the base year with a growth rate adjustment that is set at 70% of the four- year average increase in personal income and gross state product. In February, the House Appropriations Committee considered a motion to eliminate the growth rate adjustment for the next two years, which would have cut payments to cities and towns by $4.4 million. The motion failed, and cities can expect a 3.38% increase in entitlement payments in FY-04 followed by a 3.30% boost in FY-05. It was vitally important to hold the entitlement share program together this winter, because money cut fi'om the base payments and growth adjustment in the beginning would have been lost forever. The budget deficit was a critical test of all the good intentions that were written into the "Big Bill", and it is good to know that a promise still means something in Montane. House Bill 124 imposes a user charge on fines imposed by courts to fund the Law Enforcement Academy. Missoula offered amendments to assure that the state would not get first and final count on fines collected by cities and towns. House Bill 712 would have established a vested property right at the time a development plan was filed with local government. The bill was intended to assure that applications would proceed under the regulations that were in effect on the filing date, but it went far beyond this purpose. The House approved the bill by a one-vote margin, but it was indefinitely postponed in the Senate Local Government Committee. Senate Bill 60 was an old idea that came back again. The bill proposed to repeal the section of existing law that prohibits the incorporation of a municipality within three miles of an existing city or town. The real motive of the bill is to preempt annexation of unincorporated areas near fast growing cities. The Senate Local Government Committee killed this measure by unanimous vote. Senate Bill 246 corrects a problem in existing law that made it difficult for counties to exclude property from fire service areas following annexation. Senate Bill 326 revises growth policies. It extends the deadlines for adoption of growth policies, but also provides that they cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Senate Bill 368 was introduced at the request of the Building Industry Association. The bill was intended to allow all local governments to impose impact fees on development, but restrictive and complicated provisions would have made this authority virtually useless. Cities and builders failed to negotiate a compromise, and the Senate indefinitely postponed the bill by a close vote after a long debate. Senate Bill 396 would have required legislative delegation of local authority to collect impact fees. The bill would have reversed a Supreme Court decision on the application of self-government powem to development fees. The Senate Local Government Committee rejecmd the measure. Senate Bill 397 was the 2003 version of the biennial attempt to pass a "government takings law" in Montana. This bill, like others introduced in recent years, would have required government agencies to provide just compensation ifa court ruled that a regulatory decision had reduced the value of property. The Senate Judiciary Commiltee sent this bill to the floor, where it was rejected by a comfortable margin. Senate Bill 426 would have prohibited cities from including affordable housing provisions in land use regulations. The Senate killed the bill by the narrowest of margins (25-25) on second reading. Management and Local Control The Republican and Democratic Parties allege their support for the idea of local control, which is also an element of the conservative doctrine of smaller and less centralized government. There is a lot of talk about "the governments that are closest to the people", but bills that do nothing more than preempt the management authority and regulatory powers of local government routinely trump this theory. House Bill 249 requires the Department offish, Wildlife and Parks to work with cities to manage urban deer populations. House Bffi 272 prohibits state agencies from withholding entitlement share payments or other funds to settle claims against local goveromems. Senate Bill 7 exempts local elected officials from the lobbyist registration fee. Senate Bill 24 allows local governments to charge a convenience fee for electronic information. Senate Bill 31 clarifies that judgment levies are exempt from statutory property tax limits. Senate Bill 89 exempts local governments from the uniform unclaimed property act. Senate Bill 320 allows a city or town to adjust the base year value ora tax increment district to account for the effect of state enacted tax reductions. The law applies only to those districts that have not issued bonds. Conclusion Cities and tom played "bulldog defense" during the 53rd Legislature. The emphasis, as detexmined by the Legislative resolutions, was to protect entitlement share payments and Treasure State Endowment grants from bills that would have bled money out of these programs to balance the state budget. Cities were also committed to preserving the management authority and regulatory powers that are legitimate and necessary elements of the business of local government. With the few exceptions noted in this report, cities effectively defended these interests.