Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative’s proposal to redirect lodging/gas tax revenue for gateway roads draws opposition; bill tabled
Summary
Representative Scott Rosenzweig outlined a plan to reallocate some state lodging and gas tax revenues to better support gateway tourism communities’ road needs; stakeholders and associations opposed the idea and the committee tabled the bill.
Representative Scott Rosenzweig presented a conceptual bill (House Bill 7 84) aimed at better aligning transportation funding with tourism‑driven road use in gateway communities. He told the committee that some counties hosting large numbers of out‑of‑county visitors — citing Park County and Yellowstone entrances — bear high traffic and service costs but receive a small share of existing gas‑tax and lodging tax distributions.
Rosenzweig discussed vehicle miles traveled and lodging taxes as potential data sources to rebalance distribution and said local receipts are small compared with the scale of tourism: he described county gas‑tax distributions to counties as “$16,000,000 for counties” in total (as presented) and a Park County example receiving “about $260,000” under current formulas. He said lodging tax collections statewide were on the order of $120,000,000 (as stated in testimony) and argued that gateway counties shoulder disproportionate maintenance and service burdens from tourists.
Opponents included the Montana Department of Transportation staff (testimony noting concerns about overall transportation funding), the Montana Association of Counties, the Montana Oil, Coal and Gas Counties, and municipal and county associations. Jason Riddle of the Montana Association of Counties told the committee the formula for distribution “seems to work” and that the central problem is the overall amount of funding rather than the allocation formula. Southwest and other county association representatives warned the committee that slicing the same funding pie differently would produce winners and losers.
Multiple witnesses urged a broader discussion about increasing overall transportation revenue — including indexing or incremental fuel tax approaches — rather than diverting lodging or existing highway funds. Several opponents said the bill as presented would create winners and losers across counties and urged the committee to table it for more study.
The committee agreed and tabled House Bill 7 84 on a voice vote during executive action.
Votes at a glance: House Bill 7 84 — outcome: tabled by committee (voice vote).
