Missoula County staff brief commissioners on several Montana bills, including procurement, voter registration and recall changes

Missoula County officials and staff reviewed a package of Montana bills during an administrative meeting Jan. 14, saying the county plans to support measures to extend contract terms and to allow online voter registration, while opposing proposals they say would limit local funding flexibility or complicate county finances.

County staff described House Bill 113 as a bill the county supports. "House Bill 113 ... is up this week for hearing that we are supporting," said Chris Lansbury, a county staff member presenting legislative updates. The bill would allow some local government contracts, particularly software agreements, to extend from the current seven-year standard to up to 10 years, the presenter said; staff argued longer terms can reduce disruptive, frequent software replacements.

Staff also said they support Senate Bill 8, which would permit online voter registration. "Conceptually it's a good idea if we offer more opportunities for folks to be able to register to vote," Lansbury said, while noting technical challenges in how systems will share information.

County staff reported opposition to House Bill 20, a proposal to require all voted levies be stated as fixed-dollar amounts rather than as mills. Staff said the county opposed the bill because converting existing levies from mills to fixed dollars would prevent levies from growing with assessed value or inflation, limiting service capacity over time. As an example, staff cited a voter-approved levy for Missoula Aging Services that previously moved from a fixed dollar to mills so it could capture growth and continue to meet expanding needs.

Two bills not yet scheduled for hearings drew extended discussion. One would change recall petitions by removing the current requirement that petition language state a reason for the recall and by eliminating the statutory, limited set of grounds now listed in the Montana Code Annotated (for example, mental incapacity, official misconduct, or felony conviction). Staff warned the change could make it easier to circulate recall petitions based on policy disagreements and underscored that the Montana Association of Counties (MACo) plans to oppose the proposal. County staff asked whether Missoula County should submit comments or have elected officials testify; several elected officials said they would be inclined to oppose the change and one volunteered to testify if needed.

The other pending proposal would require jurisdictions to submit to voters the use of protested-tax funds and the use of funds to satisfy court-ordered judgment levies. Currently, when a taxpayer protests an assessment the contested funds are segregated but may be used by the taxing jurisdiction while the protest is adjudicated; the bill would remove that authority unless voters approve. Staff said the judgment-levy provision would be especially problematic: court orders often include short payment deadlines, and staff warned that requiring a voter referendum before using funds could make timely compliance with court orders impossible and would likely force jurisdictions to carry far more insurance or otherwise raise taxes to cover potential judgments. Erica Grindy, the county risk manager, is preparing an estimate of increased insurance costs the county would face if it were required to seek voter approval before using funds to pay judgments; presenters said Missoula County currently retains the first $1,000,000 of liability as a deductible to reduce annual insurance costs.

Staff framed these two bills as likely to increase administrative burdens and long-term costs for taxpayers. For example, presenters said forcing voter referenda on judgment levies could chill settlements because officials might avoid settling claims that would require asking voters for funding; that choice could increase litigation risk and eventual costs.

County staff said MACo will oppose at least the recall-change bill and the judgment-levy/protested-taxes bill; staff recommended the county submit comments opposing the measures and offered to coordinate testimony by elected officials. No formal board motions or votes on positions were recorded at the meeting.

The administration said it will continue to track these bills, provide cost estimates (including the insurance estimate from the risk manager), and notify commissioners when hearings or remote testimony opportunities arise. Staff noted remote testimony via Zoom is available for upcoming hearings.

For now, Missoula County's stated positions as described at the Jan. 14 admin meeting are: support for HB 113 (contract-term flexibility) and SB 8 (online voter registration); opposition to HB 20 (dollar-only voted levies); and a preliminary opposition stance toward the recall-petition change and the protested-tax/judgment-levy referendum requirement, pending additional information such as the risk manager's insurance-cost estimate.

The county plans follow-up briefings as bills move through committee and asked commissioners to consider whether they or staff should testify on specific measures.