Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Travel industry representative supports additional spending request tied to natural resource damage program; committee staff briefed on railroad car tax trends

2129111 · January 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Montana travel‑industry representative urged the Section D subcommittee to support DP 101 and Program 1 for the Natural Resource Damage Program; committee staff also briefed members on railroad car tax trends and House Bill 103 staffing costs.

A representative of a Montana travel organization told the Section D subcommittee on Wednesday he supported the department’s request for DP 101 (Program 1) tied to the Natural Resource Damage Program and asked lawmakers to approve the funding needed to get the program “off the ground.”

Clayton Elliot (recorded as representing Montana Travel Limited) said the program will be cost‑recovery based and supported a requested appropriation to move the program toward self‑sufficiency as assessments and cost recovery progress. He noted there is a backlog in assessment periods and that recovery of costs can take time.

Committee staff later briefed members on questions raised about House Bill 103 and how Montana taxes railroad cars. Staff explained the railroad‑car tax is assessed as property tax on the value of railcars in the state, measured on a per‑day basis; pandemic years showed revenue volatility where more goods and longer port/backlog times increased railcar days in state. The memo discussed whether an 8% diversion in HB 103 to a special revenue account would be sufficient to cover six proposed personal‑service positions that agencies requested for railroad inspection work.

Staff said two inspectors are already funded in the agency base and would need to be moved into the new fund for accounting clarity; excluding those two, the cost of four new positions was estimated in the memo at roughly $425,000 annually (figure presented as an estimate based on Legislative Fiscal Division numbers and agency review). Committee members asked for a comparison with Washington state inspector staffing and incident rates; staff said they would follow up with that information.

No committee action or vote occurred during the brief public comment and staff briefing segment.