Bill would create dispute‑resolution process when towns lack police departments

House Bill 333 aims to clarify responsibility for providing law enforcement services in small Montana municipalities and set a process for resolving disputes when towns and county sheriffs cannot agree on contracts or payment terms.

The bill would explicitly authorize third-class cities and towns to enter interlocal agreements with sheriffs or neighboring municipalities to obtain policing services and would require the sheriff to provide law enforcement if no local police department is operating. If a municipality and county cannot reach agreement on terms, the bill creates a dispute-resolution process, with the Local Government Center facilitating negotiations and, in rare cases, binding arbitration.

Why it matters

Sponsor testimony stressed the bill addresses situations where a municipality is required by law to have a police department but does not maintain one in practice. “What this bill does is…expressly allows for these interlocal agreements or other contracts to be entered into if you're a town or you're a third class city,” said sponsor Representative Sprunger. Supporters said the bill closes a legal gray area and aims to ensure residents receive law enforcement services.

Support and fiscal concerns

Cascade County undersheriff Scott Van Dyken and other sheriffs’ representatives testified in support and described existing contracting arrangements and the real costs to counties of providing localized policing (vehicles, radios, body cameras, dispatch, records). Van Dyken said those contracts are a way for small communities to specify what policing they want and that costs must cover the full service, not just officer hours.

Opposition and local-government view

Former Mayor Jose Hill of Chouteau and other opponents raised concerns that the bill would not resolve underlying funding gaps and could leave municipalities technically noncompliant with existing attorney general guidance about municipal policing; Hill urged further legislative work or interim study. Mayor Hill said his city had been left without enforcement after a county canceled a contract and described large proposed cost increases from the sheriff to resume coverage.

Municipalities, including Belgrade’s mayor, expressed concern the bill could impose obligations or limit local discretion if written too broadly; sponsors and the League of Cities and Towns said they are discussing narrower amendments focused on professional/occupational issues and dispute-resolution mechanics.

Questions and next steps

Committee members questioned whether sheriffs must provide services even if not paid and how municipal ordinances would be enforced; sponsors and proponents confirmed the sheriff’s duty to enforce state and county law across the county. Supporters said binding arbitration should be rare and that the Local Government Center already performs dispute facilitation. No formal vote or final amendments were recorded in the hearing transcript.