[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6125830,"mediaKeyId","2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144","parentId",2674998,"title","Bill would use unallocated marijuana revenue to centralize payment for sexual assault forensic exams","audioSeconds",1393,"startMs",3524000,"endMs",4917000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144&start=3524&end=4917","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144/thumbnail_3524000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125830/Montana/Bill-would-use-unallocated-marijuana-revenue-to-centralize-payment-for-sexual-assault-forensic-exams","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125830-762693b369481d7e7f05c3abee2aa02f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775626749&Signature=NpA0rXPdF3GlASbM07Vum3yRi8s7-TUU~xshja5Heo2YNQgBitSfl8k4TQ8mH01pGdVscWiVV8XYfOL1AibcU05N1kjicq5RLUxsoRW-Z694GsVRJkpqOYD7cBcZM59i0xo1FMuweNM4iKSYQpMXcWLWS0LvNdaILH4G-qCJEx3IorsrS2cLOsf6bRNgn0s~VZOJNN1u2ehDfms6f~zKU8uGlMHeSaIHiEK6QgQU71of2tukty0Bdix7YXWUiq3Hii9XVQ9DVQ8JANsb-QCxA9DC~V0JbjGhSwLPEOBaHA8SZ2KCCKNBqIROtpuk5-xTUed6FwCNJc3pW3ZobXi4gA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","Senators heard testimony on Senate Bill 491, a proposal to use $375,000 in unallocated marijuana tax revenue to create a centralized reimbursement program for sexual-assault forensic medical examinations (FREPs).

Sponsor Senator Bob Phelan (Senate District 17) told the committee the bill would direct up to $375,000 to the Department of Justice’s Office of Victim Services to administer reimbursement and that, under the fiscal assumptions in the bill, the money would cover up to 468 exams at a proposed maximum reimbursement rate of $800 per exam.

Hope Stockwell, program manager for the Forensic Examination Payment Program in the Department of Justice’s Office of Victim Services, said the program currently purchases and manages evidence kits and reimburses a small percentage of exams using existing crime-victim compensation appropriations. Stockwell said the bill would create a single-payer system that removes law-enforcement billing responsibility for exams and kits and would “support a single payer system,” while acknowledging the change would increase DOJ’s payment obligations.

Stockwell and other witnesses told the committee the program’s invoice data suggest an average reimbursable exam cost of about $1,000, with higher-cost outliers. The department noted the program’s current administrative rule lists a $600 maximum reimbursement and the bill would codify and raise the cap to $800. The department also said the funding as written does not permit the DOJ to purchase kits directly and staff asked to work with the sponsor on possible amendments to allow that.

Teresa Olsen, a physician assistant and sexual-assault examiner in Glendive, told senators forensic‑nurse and examiner programs are fragile in rural areas and that victims sometimes travel hundreds of miles for care. She and the department said the centralized reimbursement could help sustain services in frontier and rural hospitals.

Law-enforcement organizations including Montana Police Protective Association, Montana Chiefs of Police Association, Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and County Attorneys Association testified in support of the bill, saying consistent reimbursement removes cost barriers for victims and local agencies. Department of Revenue staff served as informational witnesses about state special revenue accounting.

Committee members questioned whether the proposed $375,000 would cover exams that do not result in a kit being collected: Stockwell said the department estimated roughly 350 exams in recent review period involved a forensic exam but no kit; those exams are currently billed differently and could increase the program’s obligations if the single‑payer framework expands. The sponsor noted an existing DOJ line item of $300,000 scheduled to terminate in June 2025 and suggested that appropriation could factor into funding choices.

The hearing closed with supporters emphasizing survivor access and local forensic-program sustainability; no committee action or vote occurred during the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance and Claims Tuesday, Mar 18, 2025 09:59 - 11:57","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 491 would allocate $375,000 in unallocated marijuana tax revenue to a Department of Justice program to reimburse forensic sexual‑assault examinations and create a single‑payer reimbursement system.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125839,"Senate hearing examines fiscal note and logistics for proposed government claims court",2700,526000,3226000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144&start=526&end=3226","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144/thumbnail_526000.jpg","/articles/6125839/Montana/Senate-hearing-examines-fiscal-note-and-logistics-for-proposed-government-claims-court","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125839-30e0f542034f2c808f83a729eaa951d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775626749&Signature=NAfVifZis6tk93e7-vvOy5oXi-HsdpeBSL~-RSqkp6zHW8bzTMh51LFRyI7uk0j0w-WfMlROQXcjNV0JkWTJirM~L3qcZTRhs~Chh~vqY90UYvABbwxRLmpE~Io7qiaJuax10QQz4~dF8va9xfN0aqLsAYtlwTH7Y6y1WDixRUh~xJPG36JMgoXvkBLcMhwP2V6ShGkmgfZmYp2InNpFj5cqcjkXLrvCYwh4BOnbdg66aoNLrlWjyK705bfZ~cqbL91-RVzCOq94tkTSPg7rN~5nvH-mtvgUOwImZ1ePe9VzakAcgVGDYHWgQWiuWMz1XM2IVkdLJe1Pm4vHZe-4qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senators on the Senate Finance and Claims Committee heard testimony and questions on Senate Bill 385, which would create a three-judge government claims court based in Helena and provide a new path for certain constitutional and government-claims litigation.

Sponsor Senator Tom McGillivray (Senate District 26) told the committee, “Senate bill 3 85 sets up a government claims court.” He said the court would have three judges who would sit individually on cases and sit en banc as a three-judge panel if an appeal from one of those judges occurs before possible further appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. McGillivray said judges would be based in Helena and that some trials moved into the court would still be heard in the county where the case originated.

Supporters said the court could reduce pressure on overworked district courts. Derek Oestreicher, chief legal counsel for the Montana Family Foundation, argued the new court would “take that burden off of our already overworked district court judges. It frees them up to take care of the cases that our communities are asking them to take care of first.” He also said the sponsor had identified savings elsewhere in the budget to cover costs.

Opponents focused on the fiscal note and constitutional questions. Anne Sherwood of Friends of the Third Branch said the fiscal note understates costs and criticized pay and technology assumptions, saying, “These judges are going to be some of the most highly paid employees in state government.” Heather O’Loughlin of the Montana Budget and Policy Center said there are likely additional costs not reflected in the fiscal note, including travel and litigation expenses, and urged caution.

Witnesses raised several technical and cost concerns: the fiscal note applies a 1.5% out-year inflation factor; the bill proposes pay for the new judges at about 20% above Montana Supreme Court associate justice pay; the court would require separate e-filing and case‑management software; and jury-trial logistics in the old Supreme Court chambers could add uncounted expense. Malcolm Gilbert, an attorney who represents Libby residents, also objected to including the existing Libby asbestos claims docket in the new court.

Dave McAlpin, court administrator for the Montana judicial branch, characterized caseload and cost estimates as inherently uncertain for a new court, saying it is “very difficult for us to estimate that” and that the fiscal note staff used best available benchmarks. Senators pressed staff and proponents on caseload assumptions, the basis for the 20% salary premium and how many additional staff positions and FTEs the fiscal note includes.

No committee action or vote took place during the hearing. Several senators said parts of the bill—most notably the asbestos-claims provision—may be revised before further consideration. The sponsor said he intends to advance certain amendments in the House and reiterated that he and the committee should review the fiscal assumptions in light of section D of the budget where he said offsets were identified.

The hearing closed without a formal committee decision; the matter will proceed through the legislative process with further opportunity for amendment and fiscal review.","Senators on the Finance and Claims Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 385, a proposal to create a Helena-based government claims court with three judges, amid debate over the bill’s fiscal note, a proposed 20% judge pay premium, and other startup costs.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125825,"Senators hear competing property‑tax relief proposals; sponsor says bill aims to target relief and reduce utility tax burden",1429,4941000,6370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144&start=4941&end=6370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144/thumbnail_4941000.jpg","/articles/6125825/Montana/Senators-hear-competing-propertytax-relief-proposals-sponsor-says-bill-aims-to-target-relief-and-reduce-utility-tax-burden","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125825-5d03d216daee517269e6adc7d9385821/orig.mp4?Expires=1775626749&Signature=DusgrIbyPZ2FvrDz2tRACBKVNVo5CEbeFF2CnCWiBLZFY~MgBYPEAKzzhGjF7GPpWMLF6F8dRCekuuodI9qcGlnOMBkFSMndVYn~H3DglXzHFvfqkm15y~81nYF3MO5K7Rs3ZxDLg2Wj8IFIUeMdsjy4QasBqRGaBgHbLBYyMWw4SAW3QQJ2bTiwxtalUxx0RiyIyS4HbMQHI7jm~0UuNGvTzYbQbELS2VtoGI1xeZIaXyPBYjrva8SGAm48EHjGNj0nsKW~Op113QPXFJYwCea4uNH6UQOO7iGqPKw-16jLXE84tnGQGqQjULyu-F2E~Pq0ooGJZXheZaIUTiVD2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Finance and Claims received extended testimony on Senate Bill 32, a property-tax relief bill that proposes changing class rates for taxable value and seeks to shift tax burdens among owner‑occupied homes, rentals, businesses and centrally assessed utilities.

Sponsor Senator Jeremy Trebis (Senate District 10) summarized his bill as a relatively simple change to rate structure intended to reduce owners’ tax burdens while reducing taxable value for utilities. He told the committee the bill “mostly just adjust[s] the rates,” and said it would set a lower rate for owner-occupied class 4 property (he cited 1.25% for owner‑occupied in his floor summary) while applying a 1.65% rate for many other property tax classes. The sponsor emphasized that most school funding formulas would remain outside the bill and that utility-related taxable‑value reductions should translate to lower utility bills for ratepayers.

Trebis walked members through elements of the fiscal note, including an initial staffing need tied to separating owner‑occupied versus other-residential classifications. He said the fiscal note shows an initial staffing increase (the sponsor referenced about 13 additional FTEs during initial years, with lower ongoing staffing) to administer the new classification, and projected multi‑year revenue decreases to state and local funds under the bill’s rate changes.

Opponents included the Montana Budget and Policy Center, which argued the bill’s flat rate reductions are less targeted than an alternative structure in House Bill 231 and would provide disproportionately larger cuts to high‑value properties. Municipal representatives, including the City of Missoula, told senators the bill could create revenue uncertainty for growing cities and restrict local governments’ ability to respond to growth because the bill’s inflation cap and rate changes reduce flexibility to float mills.

Department of Revenue staff and Legislative Fiscal Division witnesses were available for technical questions about the fiscal note, taxable‑value analysis and school funding interactions. Department economists and property-assessment staff noted that the bill’s long‑run effect could allow mills to rise with inflation so jurisdictions might recover revenue over time, but they warned of short‑run reductions that could affect local services.

Senators asked detailed questions about who benefits under different proposals and how the bill compares to other relief measures such as House Bill 154 and House Bill 231; proponents and opponents said those bills are complementary or competing approaches. The sponsor urged committee members to compare fiscal notes when weighing policy choices; no committee action or vote took place during the hearing.","Senate Bill 32 would restructure property-tax rates to lower the base rate for owner-occupied homes and change rates for other classes, with department fiscal staff, municipalities and policy groups testifying about potential local government revenue uncertainty and targeting of relief.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125835,"Sponsor removes conflicting language after MDT flags amber-light conflict with federal MUTCD",351,3203000,3554000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144&start=3203&end=3554","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674998-bada73d8ab316a490b0a3263eb1e9144/thumbnail_3203000.jpg","/articles/6125835/Montana/Sponsor-removes-conflicting-language-after-MDT-flags-amber-light-conflict-with-federal-MUTCD","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125835-f7e865d729235f0a31823bfefeab03bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775626749&Signature=awvxhfyk04~Rk2U4iJljnpY-g0txPQdJ533bwlsDnM6ckQiqWWM5gErsd1ZBHmF6SRH~qmwzlRzHjVvy03n~0~hhLejM2i9TT8kmOsgRyDXnPN9OwtMVuhRG8jDmr15aSWXB2mEuyn2IGIATOMqtiiDx6kfE1Z5vtOXSO8mnG0nMUxH6JlBstdm~qiyAQOZ8z4vjcQTCuO2yzU1e4ZiX4fIGPwIoM6-xMtyoDMccSonYz-gLdHJ~Y7TroRguH19BWtTmqaZKPCs5N4EDLsSrxrIqUqt0GbkevU8HjhyBMf5-qDjJijK74grrasvd2mZHSs47CL2JVSbh9~kNqyt42g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Finance and Claims heard a brief informational presentation and questions on Senate Bill 471, a bill clarifying the treatment of flashing amber and red lights at pedestrian crossings. Sponsor Senator Dave Fearn (Senate District 2) said an amendment before the committee removed the problematic language and — according to department staff — eliminated the fiscal impact listed in an earlier fiscal note.

Stan Breeland (Montana Department of Transportation) told the committee the prior language would have required vehicles to stop for flashing amber beacons and thus conflicted with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the federal standard the state uses to keep traffic-control devices consistent across jurisdictions. Breeland said a flashing amber is a yield condition under the MUTCD, while a steady or flashing red requires a stop. He said the earlier text would have created a direct conflict and likely forced the department to remove or replace flashing devices statewide.

Breeland told the committee the removed language drove the prior fiscal estimate of about $390,000 to modify or replace equipment. With the conflict language addressed, Breeland said the department expects no fiscal impact to its operations from the current bill language.

Senator Fearn said he will redraft the bill language to clarify pedestrian protections without creating the federal‑conflict issue. Committee members asked technical and fiscal questions and committee staff confirmed the department’s submitted concerns had been resolved in the amended language.

No committee action was taken at the hearing. The sponsor closed by asking for support for a clarified pedestrian-safety change that, he said, protects vulnerable road users while avoiding unintended equipment and compliance costs.","Senate Bill 471 was amended to remove language that would have required vehicles to stop for amber flashing beacons; Montana Department of Transportation said the original language conflicted with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and would have triggered a roughly $390,000 fiscal impact to retrofit or remove existing devices.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would use unallocated marijuana revenue to centralize payment for sexual assault forensic exams

Senate hearing examines fiscal note and logistics for proposed government claims court

Senators hear competing property‑tax relief proposals; sponsor says bill aims to target relief and reduce utility tax burden

Sponsor removes conflicting language after MDT flags amber-light conflict with federal MUTCD