Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Statute Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Transportation panel hears cleanup bill to consolidate highway abandonment language
Summary
The House Transportation Committee heard House Bill 42, a Transportation Interim Committee cleanup bill that consolidates and clarifies definitions related to highway abandonment; proponents said the bill is non‑substantive though an amendment to include municipalities and clarify sale procedures was discussed.
Representative Denise Baum opened the House Transportation Committee hearing on House Bill 42, saying the bill “is revising highway and transportation laws under title 60” to consolidate and clarify definitions and drafting for uniformity. The sponsor and bill drafter described the measure as a housekeeping bill that does not make substantive changes to current law.
The bill drew support from Dustin Rouse, highways and engineering administrator for the Montana Department of Transportation, who described HB 42 as “a clean up bill” and urged the committee to pass it. Joe Carroll of the Legislative Services Division, the bill’s drafter, provided a section‑by‑section handout and said the bill moves definitions to a single location to reduce inconsistency across the Montana Code.
Several committee members asked technical questions about how the bill treats different highway classifications and local sales of abandoned right‑of‑way. Representative Byrne asked whether “commission designated highway systems and state highways” are distinct categories; Carroll said that distinction is preexisting in statute and that the bill does not change it. Representative Wirth asked whether the bill would restore any right of first refusal to original landowners after a state sale of abandoned right‑of‑way; Carroll and the sponsor said HB 42 currently does not change substantive law but could be amended to address that point.
Jennifer Olsen requested an amendment to ensure the abandonment process explicitly includes municipalities as well as counties on page 7, the sponsor noted that an amendment addressing the 60‑2‑107 abandonment language was anticipated. Committee discussion flagged a separate provision describing methods for sale of property interests that appears to limit sales by the Department of Transportation to “in person” or “online auction”; Carroll said those sale rules apply to MDT and not to counties, and he offered to study the concern further.
No opponents testified in person or online, and informational witnesses included Carroll and Rouse. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 42 during the hearing; the sponsor encouraged a do‑pass recommendation pending any technical amendments.
The hearing record shows proponents asked for clarifying amendments (including explicit municipal inclusion in the abandonment process) and the drafter committed to follow up on sale‑process and highway classification questions.
