HomeMy WebLinkAboutMontana League of Cities and TownsMontana League of Cities and Towns
Legislative Meetings
2008
Introduction
This paper provides background information on issues that are important to cities and
towns across Montana as the League prepares for the 2009 Legislature. It is intended as a
guide far the discussion during the District Legislative meetings that will be held in 13
locations across the state to solicit comments and suggestions from the largest cities and
smallest towns on possible legislation and policy positions. The information gathered at
these meetings will be presented to the Legislation-Resolutions Committee which will
put together the 2009 Legislative Package. These positions will then be reviewed by the
Board of Directors and approved by the membership at the fall meeting.
Economics and the State General Fund
The Montana economy continues to expand. The mortgage crisis and problems in the
housing industry that are pounding the national economy are a distant thunder in our
state. Summer is coming, and while the forecast calls for continued blue skies, there are
looming clouds of economic doubt an the edge of the horizon.
There are bright prospects:
• commodity prices, particulazly for copper, oil and grain, are at record levels
• nearly 15,000 new jobs were created last year
• salary and wage income increased more than 8% over the same period.
And reasons for concern:
• employment growth may have peaked last summer
• corporate income tax collections are falling
• the crisis in the credit and housing mazkets may yet hit the Montana construction
industry, which is one of the sectors driving growth in Montana.
The prospects of new programs for local government or increased state transfers to cities
and towns are directly linked to economic conditions. State revenues are driven by wage
and salary income, corporate profits, commodity prices, interest rates and other
conditions. The boom years that preceded the 2007 Legislature produced a general fund
surplus of nearly $1 billion. Those were goad times and the Legislature increased
funding far schools, the university system and state institutions and agencies while
stabilizing public pension programs, increasing employee wages and sending $400
checks to most Montana property owners.
These programs and promotions cost a lot of money, and the Legislature left town last
May with a projected budget surplus of $182 million. Since that time, revenue
collections are exceeding estimates by more than $60 million, and while there may never
be another financial bonanza like 2007, the state should complete the current biennium in
solid condition.
S4endin~ Pressures
More money than mast people can imagine sometimes is not enough, particularly when
there is a hale in the bucket.
The competition for appropriations in the 2009 Legislature will be fierce.
School administrators estimate it will be necessary for the state to add $260 million in
state funding to comply with the constitutional provision that requires but does not define
"a quality education".
At the end of April, state agencies asked for an additional $403 million in the "wish list"
phase of the state budget game. These requests will be whacked down to reason by the
Governor's Budget Office and the Legislature, but they are indicative of the fantasies that
are presented for consideration every time the state is sitting on a fat budget cushion.
There are other considerations like wild fires, court decisions, ballot measures and other
disasters that will be part of the calculation of how much money is available and where it
will be spent. Cities must be at the table for these discussions to protect the entitlement
program and promote the possibility of a partnership with the state to finance desperately
needed capital projects.
Munici al Finance and the Structural Imbalance
For many years, legislative budget analysts were concerned about a structural imbalance
in the state general fund. They argued that each year the state was spending more than it
collected. Budgets were balanced with accounting tricks and transfers from earmarked
accounts and mysterious pots of money hidden deep in the treasury. This was a formula
for fmancial disaster and while the boom years have eased the problem, it is a continuing
concern..
Local governments now are the public agencies that are attempting to manage structural
imbalances in their general funds. Revenues are limited by statute while costs are being
jacked up by inflation, wage and salary pressures, service demands and state and federal
mandates. Most cities are operating on subsistence budgets and digging into reserves to
bring revenues and expenditures into alignment. The structural imbalance in municipal
budgets is more serious and dangerous than the problem faced by the state, because local
governments have very little authority to increase revenue.
The Wheel Horse of Public Finance
The praperiy tax is the wheel horse of public finance in Montana. It supports cities,
counties, schools, some special districts, the University System and a share of the state
budget. It is stable, predictable, reasonably progressive, generally condemned anal
absolutely essential to maintain adequate services at all levels of government across the
state.
There was a time when the property tax was balanced and fair. In those days, natural
resource industries paid about 30 percent of total collections which reduced the pressure
on residential and commercial property. Today, natural resources comprise about 10
percent of the base, business equipment taxes have been cut and the load has been shifted
to homeowners.
Property tax reform bills have been introduced in every session of the Legislature since
territorial days, and there have been measures on the ballot for the last 20 years to cap,
limit or abolish assessments. There has been a lot of noise, but very little progress. True
reform, laws that will actually balance or reduce assessments, depend on a simple
understanding -- Montana needs another tax horse to help turn the wheel.
The Riddle, of Options
Far more than 20 years, the League of Cities has offered a practical answer to the many
questions about the fairness and balance of the Montana tax system. The municipal
association has proposed bills that would allow every city, town and county to enact
resort taxes with the approval of local voters.
These tax proposals have been tested and proven in Whitefish, West Yellowstone and
other resort towns and districts. They offer many advantages:
• tourists and other travelers who use municipal services pay a fair share of
the costs instead of laying the entire bill off on local property owners
+ a report by the Department of Revenue prepared far the 2003 Legislature
indicated that nearly 48% of the collections from a statewide resort tax
would came from nonresidents
+ public support increases as people became accustomed to the benefits of
the tax
• the tax is reasonably progressive because it relies an discretionary
spending and does pat apply to "the necessities of life"
+ property taxes came down, which is affirmed by the fact that West
Yellowstone and Whitef sh have the lowest city levies in Western
Montana
+ businesses support these ordinances because of vendor allowances,
community improvements and clear evidence that refutes the nation that a
local tax will drive business out of town
+ the resort tax raises money to cover the costs of services and facilities that
are beyond the financial reach of mast other cities.
The big question then is why has the Legislature refused to authorize option taxes for all
local governments?
Many Republicans oppose local option authority because they believe it will be an
impediment to the enactment of a general sales tax. This is a fallacious excuse because
10 yeazs ago voters thumped a sales tax referendum by a 4-1 mazgin and there has not
been genuine interest or serious discussion of this toxic issue during any subsequent
session of the Legislature.
Some Democrats vote no because they have vowed to fight any and all sales tax
propositions for the full measure of time they are allotted under term limits.
Thane members representing rural azeas see local sales taxes as a way for the big cities to
reach out and touch their constituents. The provision to share some of the revenues with
smaller towns and rural counties, included in recent local option bills, beat down some of
this opposition but it wasn't enough to get anything more than a closer vote.
Cities have tried and failed to pass local tax bills in every session of the Legislature since
1981. This approach has not worked, and success will depend on support from a broader
coalition of interests that includes Main Street businesses, the local Chambers of
Commerce, police and fire unions, counties and public interest organizations that are
concerned about declining services, deteriorating public works and increasing property
taxes.
Cities may also want to consider other funding possibilities that could include:
• a local option accommodations tax that would raise mare than $12 million if it
was imposed across the board at a rate of 3 percent. Under this approach,
nonresidents would pay about 70% of the tax
• distribution to local governments of the 3% accommodations tax that was added
to balance the state budget during the 2003 Legislature.
Entitlement Payments
The 2001 Legislature passed the "Big Bill" (HB-124) that provides a stable and
predictable stream of revenue from the state to cities, towns, consolidated governments
and counties. Under this measure, local governments relinquished claim to gambling,
motor vehicle, wine, beer, liquor and financial institutions tax disbursements in exchange
for payments that are geared to the performance of the state economy.
Since 2001, distributions from the entitlement account to cities and towns increased from
540.60 million to $52.4$ million. This is a 29% increase which averages out to 3.65% in
each of the eight years. A table showing estimated payments for FY09 is attached to this
report.
InflnNan Adjustment
Under Section 15-10-420, MCA, local governments are allowed to increase property tax
collections by one half the rate of inflation averaged over the preceding three years. In
2007, the Senate passed a bill to allow collections to increase by the full rate of inflation.
The House Taxation Committee tabled this measure for reasons that made very little
sense. This is a fair proposal that may be resubmitted in 2009.
Ca ital Pro'ects Fundin
In the current two-year fiscal cycle, 56 capital improvement projects in cities, towns and
counties across the state received grants from the Treasure State Endowment Program
totaling mare than $32.6 million. The Department of Commerce initially approved 31
applicants for grants. The 2007 Legislature added an additional 25 projects at an
estimated cast of $14 million and ordered the department to borrow the money to cover
the difference.
The department estimates that about $19 million will be available for the 2009 biennium.
This total could be cut if the program has to begin repaying the 20071oan.
Grant applications for 2009 have been received from 65 local governments and special
districts.
Cities attempted to persuade the 2007 Legislature to approve aone-time $40 million
public facilities funding package. This bill was based on the legitimate argument that a
fair portion of the $1 billion state surplus should be invested in capital projects. This
proposal would have improved public safety, convenience and service while creating jobs
and reducing pressure an mill levies and special assessments to finance these projects.
A similar proposal is less likely to be fairly considered in the coming session of the
Legislature because a lot of the air has been let out of the $1 billion state budget balloon.
Tex Increment Financine
The Deparhnent of Revenue recently conducted a hearing on proposed rules to clarify the
intent and application of the tax increment financing statutes. There are differing legal
opinions an the authority of the state to control local functions through rule making
authority that really only applies to the general supervision of tax policy. This issue is
likely to be decided by the next Legislature.
S ecial Im rovement Districts
An interim legislative committee is working on a comprehensive revision of the special
improvement district laws. This study was initiated by the Association of Counties to
provide uniformity in the administration of special districts.
Municipal districts are generally used to generate revenue for special purposes like water
and sewer systems and street construction and maintenance. These districts do not have
administrative problems because they are managed by the city and routinely audited.
The committee appeazs to be focusing on county issues.as this study proceeds and
significant changes in the municipal SID laws will probably not be part of the package
that is recommended to the full legislature.
Land Use
In the last 20 years, Missoula is the only city in Montana that grew at a faster rate than
the unincorporated area of the county in which it is located. The explosive development
surrounding cities has caused a lot of heat, friction and political fire. The consequences
are obvious in the Legislature where land use issues burn up more time and lobbying
effort than all of the bills in the other categories on the municipal `watch list".
In recent sessions we have worked for or against bills to:
• allow incorporation within three miles of an existing city as a method of
preventing annexation
• reduce the protest provisions for sanitary sewer districts
• revise the density requirements for incorporation
• prohibit annexation across county boundaries
• revise planning, zoning and subdivision statutes
• continually revise the laws that apply to growth policies.
Many of these questions were left hanging without a conclusive answer. Most will show
up again when the Legislature convenes next winter.
Water, Quality
Water quality is among the most difficult, divisive and dangerous issues in our state,
because the problems have been ignored forever and the state is just beginning to
consider a fair and balanced regulatory approach.
Cities aze regulated while many other sources of pollution, including septic systems and
agriculture, aze exempt from standards or simply ignored. The League is working through
a special Water Quality Committee to assure that cities are not forced to comply with
standards that cannot be justified by science ar economics.
Municipal ratepayers should not be expected to compensate for the continuing failure to
regulate or at least recognize other sources of pollution that threaten state waters. Cities
are .committed to water quality, but they cannot accept a regulatory regime that does not
stand up to scientific inquiry, economic analysis, common sense ar any basic test of
fairness.
Public Safe and General Administration
Results from the last session of the Legislature and discussions wish interest groups
indicate that there is a reasonable prospect that the Legislature will be asked to deal with
the following issues:
• firefighters may ask for a change in, law to provide that overtime pay is included
in the calculation of retirement benefits
• West Yellowstone may arrange for the introduction of a bill to remove the age
limitation on paid firefighters
• there is continuing interest in legislation to require the payment of demolition
costs on abandoned buildings from casualty insurance proceeds
• construction and maintenance contracts between the Department of
Transportation and cities have opened up disagreements that may have to be
referred to higher authority
• finally, any other good, bad or nonsensical idea that could be covered by the
general assumption that "there aught to be a law".
Montana Department of Revenue
..... -~-
Dan Bucks Brian Sehweitrer
Director Governor
TO: Tom Hayes, Department of Administration
FROM: Vern Fogle, Tax Policy Analyst
DATE: April 4, 2008
RE: Inflation Factor for Mill Levy Calculation in 15-10-420, MCA For FY2009
I have calculated the inflation factor to be used in the mill levy calculation as prescribed
by 15-10-420, MCA far FY2009. Under that statute the Department of Revenue is
required to
"calculate one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3
years by using the consumer price index, U.S. city average, all
urban consumers, using the 1982-84 base of 100, as published by
the bureau of labor statistics of the United States department of
labor".
The rate of inflation for the three years prior to 2008 can be measured from December
2004 to December 2007. The U.S. City average CPf-U, not seasonally adjusted, was
190.3 for December 2004 and 210.036 for December 2007. These values can be found
at
htto://data.bls.gov.
The average annual inflation rate over this period is 3.344%_ That is, if you grow the
value of 190.3 three times at 3.344% each time, the result will be 210.038.
1 190.3 x 1.03344 = 196.7
2 196.7 X 1.03344 = 203.2
3 203.2 x 1.03344 = 210.036
One-half of 3.344% is 1.672%, ~ :~' ~ '~ ~'~~ ` ~~
.~ £' ~ ~~'
This is an increase from the 1.535% value used in the mill levy calculation for fiscal year
2008.
if you have any other questions please contact me at 444-1821.
Cc: Harold Blattie, MACo
Alec Hansen, MLCT
Randy Wilke, DOR PAD
Customer Service (406) 444-6900 ~ TDD (406) 444-2830 I, www.mt.gov/revenue
se+iea i+~ cuuRDDOasaa April 4 , 20D8
riot Seasonally Adl+sted
Area: U.S , vtiiy average
Iteme P9 Hems
Base P eriad: 188Q $4.100
pec
161,6 3619 162,2 162,5 162,8 163 163,2 1634 169.6 I64 164 163.9 ifi3 162,3 153,7
164,3 1545 165 166,2 166.2 166,2 156,7 1671 167,9 168,2 168,3 168,3 156.6 165A 167,8
+ + + 168,8 lfi9 .8 171,2 171,3 171.5 1724 172,8 1728 173.7 174 174,1 174 172,2 170.9 173,6
~ ~ 175,1 175,8 176,2 176.9 177,7 178 177.5 177,5 178,3 177,7 177,4 176,7 177,1 176.6 177,5
~+ I77,2 177,8 1788 179.8 179,6 179,9 1841 186.7 18I 281,3 181,3 180,9 179,9 17$.9 1BD,9
1 .1 8 ~ 3. I 1 .fi 18 4. iB 1 4.
2004 185.2 186,2 187,4 188 189.1 189.7 189.4 189,5 189.9 190.9 i91 190.3 188.9 187.6 190.2
2005 190,7 191,8 193.3 194.6 194.4 194,5 195,4 3.96,4 198,8 199,2 197,6 19&8 195.3 1932 197.4
20U5 198,3 198.7 199.8 201.5 202.5 202.9 203,5 203,9 2D2,9 201.8 201.5 201.8 201.6 200 .b 202.6
2U07 202A16 2x3,499 2D 5,352 206.69 20795 2D8,352 208.299 2D7,917 208,49 208.936 21D,1TT 210.036 207,34 205,71 2D8,98
~ ~ • 211.08 231,69 3
CA I
Iter~lr~ Mdi
d R LA7 Olri im p • thod
lo CPl-U C PI-U
YearD 2DD4 190.3 YearD 2004 150.3
Year 3 2D07 21 O.D36 Year3 2007 210.Q36
'fug Rb 3.;43933 Calculate compound growtf't factor 1.033439
1 Dfl D.D3343933 minus 1 =compound growth rate D.033439 3.344%
plus: 1
1 .D3343933 i ~6ir prpwth rgt/ D.Dt 1. 76
Raised to he prnaer. 3
1.1 D374994B
x CPI-Uy~ 190.3
CPI-Uy~{a~~cu~ak~ 21 O.D36D431 VERIFICATION;
error O.fl004D3 YearD 2D04 7!'n.3
CPI-i.l~ ~~~~ 210.036 times: 9.03344
Year1 2D05 196.T
3-yr rate of InrlatlDn 3.3439345 times: 1 .03344
Year2 2D06 903,3 Departrnert of Re~renue
half aP 3~yr rate 1 57197°I~ times: 1 .D3344 Office of Tax Pdicy& Resean:h
mounded 10 3 places Year3 2007 210.D36 Vern Fogle, economist
lfpl~ of 3 r rye 7 6T29i
Table 3
Calculation of FY 2009 Entitlement Share Payment for Cities/Towns
preliminary
FY200$ FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
Entitlement City Entitlement
Share Sham Share Quarterl
' y
C
- p
a ment
of Growth
a ment
Pa ment
..., :..
.....:.. .::,,..r::,,::, ,
.
......... .......
,.:._.
:... -:
.
.
.
Alberton 19
49,274. 2,046.55
51,320.74
/4 ..
,.,:
:.;~.
;
..
12,830.18
Bainville 38,707.52 - 1,212.69 = 39,920.21 /4 9,980.05
Baker 177,022.42 - 7,428.68 = 184,451.10 /4= 46,112.77
Bearcreek 3,779.03 - 262.18 = 4,041.21 /4= 1,010.30
Belgrade 536,851.62 - 27,489.62 = 564,341.24 /4- 141,085.31
Belt 84,753.80 - 3,200.16 = 87,953.96 /4- 21,988.49
Big Sandy 51,530.24 - 2,485.45 ~ 54,015.69 /4= 13,503.92
Big Timber 155,304,10 - 7,216.05 = 162,520.15 /4= 40,630.04
Billings 9,965,273.44 - 436,617.35 = 10,401,$90.79 /4= 2,600,472.70
Boulder 122,818.72 - 5,805.76 = 128,624.49 /4= 32,156.12
Bozeman 2,973,779.63 - 141,213.39 = 3,114,993.02 /4- 778,748.25
Bridger 140,392.21 - 4,$01.80 = 145,194.01 /4= 36,298.50
~Broadus 57,609.9$ - 2,275.48 = 59,$85.45 /4= 14,971.36
Broadview 21,666.00 - 810.62 ~ 22,476.62 /4= 5,619.15
Brockton 9,098.27 - 699.99 = 9,798.26 /4- 2,449.56
Browning 44,780.97 - 3,223.37 = 48,004.34 /4= 12,001.09
Cascade 63,355.52 - 3,071.72 66,427.24 /4= 16,606.81
Chester 86,847.56 - 3,548.02 = 90,395.57 /4= 22,598.89
Chinook 182,300.81 - 6,879.33 = 189,180.14 /4= 47,295.03
Choteau 131,951.84 - 6,529.01 = 138,480.85 /4= 34,620.21
Circle 60,930.33 - 2,568.71 = 63,499.04 /4= 15,874.76
Clyde Park 31,28529 - 1,436.$6 = 32,722.15 /4= 8,180.54
Colstrip 753,101.82 - 22,399.23 ~ 775,501.05 /4= 193,87526
Columbia Falls 518,741.44 - 21,713.91 = 540,455.35 /4= 135,113.84
Columbus 335,498.37 - 11,781.87 = 347,280.25 /4= 86,820.06
Conrad 256,637.37 - 11,192.15 = 267,829.52 /4- 66,957.38
Culbertson 82,372.96 - 3,370.29 = 85,74324 /4= 21,435.81
Cut Bank 474,295.95 - 17,526.74 = 491,822.69 /4-- 122,955.67
Darby 123,290.$0 - 4,628.68 ~ 127,919.48 /4= 31,979.87
Deer Lodge 341,083.38 - 14,664.42 = 355,747.81 /4= 88,936.95
Denton 23,417.78 - 1,123.76 = 24,541.54 /4= 6,135.38
Dillon 43D,051.30 - 1$,282.18 = 44$,333.49 /4= 112,083.37
Dodson 11,697.$2 - 488.42 = 12,186.24 /4= 3,046.56
Drummond 30,203.74 - 1,363.52 = 31,567.25 /4= 7,891.81
Dutton 37,587.85 - 1,609.70 = 39,197.55 /4= 9,799.39
East Helena 450,348.36 - 14,79$.75 = 465,147.11 /4= 116,286.78
Ekalaka 48,424.77 - 1,930.38 = 50,355.15 /4= 12,588.79
Ennis 103,485.87 - 4,472.36 = 107,95822 /4= 26,989.56
Eureka 92,667.40 - 4,245.90 = 96,913.29 /4= 24,22$.32
Fairfield 72,840.33 - 2,985.80 = 75,826.13 /4= 18,956.53
Table 3
Calculation of FY 21aQ9 Entitlement Share Payment for Citiesltowns
preliminary
FY2008 FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
Entitlement City Entitlement
Share Shane Share Quarterly
Payment of Growth Payment Payment
:~~,:.Y~... .... .
Fairview
Flaxville
Forsyth
Fort Benton
Fart Peck
Froid
Fromberg
Geraldine
Glasgow
Glendive
Grass Range
Great Falls
Hamilton
Hardin
Harlem
Hartowton
Havre
Helena
Hingham
Hobson
Hat Springs
Hysham
Ismay
~ Joliet
Judith Gap
Kalispell
Kevin
Laurel
Lavina
Lewistown
Libby
Lima
Livingston
'Lodge Grass
Malta
Manhattan
(Medicine Lake
Melstone
Miles City
,,. 101,442.84 - ~ ..:3,740.84 - 105,183.68, 14=. ......2. .
6,295.92
5,315.83 - 276.52 = 5,592.35 /4= 1,398.09
245,282.27 - 9,574.76 = 254,857.03 /4= 63,714.26
145,8$6.55 - 6,372.37 = 152,258.92 /4- 38,064.73
10,823.43 - 700.75 = 11,524.17 !4= 2,881.04
15,608.17 - 772.17 = 16,380.33 /4= 4,095.08
25,167.86 - 1,568.01 = 26,735.87 /4= 6,683.97
14,267.80 - $45.24 = 15,113.04 /4- 3,77826
394,157.46 - 15,178.86 = 409,336.32 /4= 102,334.08
522,520.35 - 21,602.04 = 544,122.39 /4= 136,030.60
7,809.87 - 476.90 = 8,286.77 /4= 2,071.69
5,915,424.28 - 251,958.22 = 6,167,382.50 /4= 1,541,845.63
$16,557.39 - 28,624.50 = 845,181.89 /4= 211,295.47
5$9,418.91 - 20,924.43 = 610,343.35 /4- 152,585.84
112,416.41 - 4,252.80 = 116,669.21 /4= 29,167.3p
119,715.74 - 4,601.54 = 124,317.28 /4- 31,079.32
1,122,471.89 - 45, 363.10 = 1,167,834.99 /4- 291,958.75
3,020,604.05 - 127,267.31 = 3,147,871.36 /4- 786,967.84
6,748.54 - 463.80 = 7,212.34 /4= 1,803.08
21,552.99 - 956.55 = 22,509.54 /4= 5,627.38
33,592.19 - 1,908.00 = 35,500.19 /4= 8,875.05
23,496.72 - 1,065.55 = - 24,562.28 /4- 6,140.57
836.37 - 69.86 = 906.23 /4= 226.56
33,784.51 - 2,031.58 = 35,816.08 /4` 8,954.02
30,856.88 - 1,434.78 = 32,291.66 /4= 8,072.92
10,144.13 - 514.93 = 10,659.07 /4 2,664.77
2,211,244.85 - 91,615.34 = 2,302,860.19 /4- 575,715.05
16,118.44 - 664.45 = 16,782.89 /4- 4,195.72
682,333.36 - 28,962.81 = 711,296.17 /4= 177,824.04
6,250.35 - 619.96 = 6,870,31 /4= 1,717.58
693,388.65 - 28,542.66 = 721,931,31 /4= 180,482.83
425,056.46 - 15,343.74 = 440,400.20 /4= 110,100.05
1$,337.44 - 8$3.71 = 19,221.15 /4= 4,805.29
866,332.91 - 35,038.54 = 901,371.45 /4` 225,342.86
17,584.48 - 1,452.81 = 19,037.28 /4= 4,759.32
214,808.73 - 8,818.02 = 223,626.76 /4= 55,906.69
115,690.03 - 5,728.12 = 121,418.15 /4= 30,354.54
18,034.73 - $67.4$ = 18,902.21 /4~ 4,725.55
7,169.28 - 448.47 R 7,617.75 /4= 1,904.44
939,139.22 - 38,271.59 = 977,410.81 /4= 244,352.70
Table 3
Calculation of FY 2009 Entitlement Share Payment for CitieslTowns
preiiminary
FY2008
Entitlement
Share FY2009
city
share FY2009
Entitlement
Share FY2009
Quarterl
COY
Pa ment
of Growth
Pa ment y
Pa ment
Missaul'... -.
a ;- : ,.,.,,: 5 787 $43.92
~ - 265,575.1
3
-
6,053,419.D5
/4- :: ,.. ,... ,
~ 1,513,354.76
Moore 10,905.97 - 630.17 = 11,536.15 /4= 2,884.04
Nashua 25,709.89 - 1,195.99 = 26,905.8$ /4= 6,726.47
Neihart 3,944.48 - 269.34 = 4,213.82 /4= 1,053.45
Opheim 8,281.45 - 396.57 = 8,678.02 /4` 2,169.50
Outlook 3,279.42 - 214.53 = 3,493.95 /4- 873.49
Philipsburg 90,$44.86 - 4,026.37 = 94,871.23 /4= 23,717.81
Pinesdale 21,239.26 - 2,198.63 = 23,437.90 /4= 5,859.47
Plains 178,420.45 - 6,621.22 = 185,041.66 /4= 46,260.42
Plentywood 206,133.52 - 8,302.64 = 214,436.16 /4= 53,609.04
Plevna 10,841.22 - 517.56 = 11,358.78 /4= 2,839.69
Polson 485,868.80 - 21,468.96 = 507,337.76 /4= 126,834.44
Poplar 100,613.16 - 4,171.83 = .104,784.99 /4= 26,196.25
Red Lodge 293,989.18 - 11,875.32 = 305,864.50 /4= 76,466.13
Rexford 13,578.42 - 628.99 = 14,207.41 /4= 3,551.85
Richey 8,909.60 - 564.18 = 9,473.78 /4= 2,368.44
Ronan 253,142.08 - 10,005.23 = 263,147.31 /4= 65,786.83
Roundup 207,261.36 - 8,801.88 = 216,063.24 /4= 54,015.$1
Ryegate 17,433.91 - 1,018.15 = 18,452.06 /4= 4,613.p1
Saco 16,108.69 - 776.27 = 16,884.96 /4= 4,221.24
S~~Y 95,511.59 - 4,155.65 = 99,667.24 /4= 24,916.81
Shelby 370,192.43 - 15,603.06 = 385,795.49 /4= 96,448.87
Sheridan 42,130.25 - 2,400.06 = 44, 530.31 /4= 11,132.58
Sidney 591,434.72 - 23,5$8.70 = 615,023.41 /4= 153,755.85
Stanford 42,713.67 - 1,837.76 = 44,551.43 /4= 11,137.86
Stevensville 136,990.12 - 7,102.56 = 144,092.67 /4- 36,023.17
St. Ignatius 37,590.17 - 2,546.22 = 40,136.39 /4= 10,034.10
Sunburst 24,031.17 - 1,231.49 = 25,262.66 /4- 6,315.67
Superior 134,666.42 - 5,009.93 = 139,676.35 /4= 34,919.09
Terry 65,721.72 - 2,639.71 = 68,361.43 /4= 17,090.36
Thompson Falls 267,951.58 - 8,922.96 = 276,874.54 /4= 69,218.63
Three Forks 124,568.01 - 6,645.45 = 131,213.46 /4= 32,803.36
Townsend 212,346.42 - 8,969.63 = 221,316.06 /4= 55,329.01
Troy 126,473.42 - 4,974.95 = 131,448.37 /4= 32,862.09
Twin Bridges 29,450.49 - 1,547.33 = 30,997.82 /4= 7,749.45
Valier 31,693.69 - 1,684.$0 = 33,37$.49 /4= 8,344.fi2
Virginia City 20,721.73 - 763.15 = 21,484.88 /4= 5,371.22
Walkerville 22,347.39 - 1,912.47 = 24,259.85 /4 6,064.96
West Yellowstone 213,874,68 - 7,506.37 = 221,3$1.05 /4- 55,345.26
Westby 17,137.75 - 689.36 = 17,827.11 /4= 4,456.78
Table 3
Calculation of FY 2gg9 Entitlement Share Payment for CitieslTvwns
preliminary
FY2008
Entitlement
Share
City ..., -.i
Sulphur Springs '
Wibaux
Winifred
Winnett
Wolf Point
Yotals
107,954.03
595,304.95
136,844.10
77,628.49
10,034.98
17,030.55
279,397.84
50,328,545.14
FY2009
City
Share
of Growth
- - ,4,551.51 ~ _
- 29,854.42 =
- 5,569.27 =
- 2,788.90 =
- 536.86 =
757.07 =
11,809.22
2,154,061.74
FY2009
Entitlement
Share
112,505.54
625,159.37
142,413.36
80,417.40
10,571.84
17,787.62
291.207.06
FY2009
Quarterly
28,126.39
156,289.84
35,603.34
zo,104.35
2,642.96
4,446.90
72,801.77
13,120,651.67