Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Policing Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would clarify how small towns secure law enforcement, add mediation and arbitration steps
Summary
The House Local Government Committee considered House Bill 333, which would codify a process for third‑class cities and towns without police departments to secure law enforcement services from counties, require the recipient municipality to pay, and use the MSU Local Government Center for facilitated talks and, if needed, binding arbitration.
HELENA — The House Local Government Committee heard House Bill 333 on a statutory framework for how small Montana towns and third‑class cities obtain law enforcement when they lack a municipal police department.
Representative Courtney Sprunger, the bill sponsor, said the measure would preserve interlocal contracting but provide a clear statutory process where no agreement exists: the county sheriff (acting on behalf of the county) would provide services, the municipality receiving services would be required to pay, and the Montana State University Local Government Center would facilitate discussions; if negotiations fail, binding arbitration would set the price.
Brian Thompson of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association outlined the bill's rationale: a 1907 statutory requirement that municipalities maintain police departments has not matched demographic and fiscal changes in some towns. Thompson told the committee dozens of municipalities rely on interlocal agreements and that without a statutory pathway some places face long disputes over who must provide and pay for policing.
Speakers from municipal governments and sheriffs described how existing arrangements work in practice and the costs involved. Teton County Sheriff Keith VanSetten and others described longstanding interlocal agreements in their counties; under current practice, contracts vary — from a few hundred dollars a year in some places to tens of thousands in others — and service levels vary from dedicated hours per week to on‑call patrol.
The Montana League of Cities and Towns and the Sheriffs association supported the bill. Thomas Jodin of the League said the legislation would "make absolutely certain" that historic contracting practice is legal and would give local governments a structure to negotiate service levels and costs.
The Montana Association of Counties initially objected on technical grounds but said it would withdraw opposition if several amendments were accepted. Jason Bridal, deputy director of MACo, recommended clarifications: have the county (board of county commissioners) be the contracting entity rather than the sheriff, place sideboards on binding arbitration (including a two‑year term for arbitration results), and require both parties to agree on the arbitrator. He told the committee those changes would address the association's concerns.
Committee members questioned witnesses about alternatives such as city–county consolidation of public safety departments and about how contracts are typically staffed and funded. Dan Clark of the MSU Local Government Center testified informally that the center would welcome a role facilitating moderated discussions between counties and municipalities; the center said its costs would be shared between the parties in the bill's text.
Representative Sprunger said she had circulated a conceptual amendment and praised the collaborative tone of proponents and opponents. The hearing ended with no committee vote; the sponsor indicated willingness to work with stakeholders to refine the bill.
No formal votes or motions were taken at the hearing.
