Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resort Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let resort communities ask voters to use extra 1% resort tax for workforce housing
Summary
Senate Bill 172 would allow eligible resort communities to seek voter approval for an additional 1% local resort tax (raising the optional cap to 4%) specifically to fund workforce housing; sponsor and proponents said it is locally popular and could generate roughly $760,000 in Whitefish while preserving existing property tax rebates.
Senator Dave Fern told the House Taxation Committee that Senate Bill 172 would let qualifying resort communities ask voters to approve an additional 1 percentage point of resort tax to fund workforce housing and related local needs. Fern framed the proposal as a narrow expansion of existing local-option resort tax authority and described the bill as a minor but practical change to current law.
Fern said resort taxes are local-option levies available to qualified municipalities (population under 5,500) and unincorporated resort tax districts (under 2,500), and eligibility requires that roughly 50% of a community’s economic activity come from tourism. He said communities qualify through the Department of Commerce and then submit the question to local voters.
Drew Geiger, representing the city of Whitefish, told the committee resort taxes are popular locally: a recent 20-year extension passed at about 83% approval in Whitefish. Geiger said Whitefish currently returns 25% of prior resort-tax collections to property tax relief (about $2,280,000) and estimated an additional 1% would yield roughly $760,000 if voters authorize it for housing or infrastructure.
Jackie Haines, director of economic and strategic development for the Big Sky Resort Area District, urged support from the perspective of a rapidly growing resort community. Haines said Big Sky depends on resort tax revenue to manage infrastructure and public-safety needs, estimated roughly 80% (about 5,000) of employees live outside Big Sky and commute in, and described a planned public–private partnership to develop about 400 workforce housing units. She said the district has purchased a corner parcel to support right-of-way conveyance to the Montana Department of Transportation for intersection improvements on US 191/Montana 64.
Committee members asked technical questions. Representative Greg asked what financing tools were available; Haines described land purchase for a community housing trust and public–private partnerships. Representative Durham questioned why the bill’s draft struck a definition of "workforce housing"; Senator Fern said staff told him the language was duplicated elsewhere, and committee staff (Ms. Moore) clarified that the stricken language was removed from the bill text only and would not change the existing statutory definition in law.
Fern closed by listing other policy tools—bonding, deed restrictions, low‑income tax credits and low‑interest loans—and asked for the committee’s support. Chair Fielder closed the hearing without a committee vote on SB172.
