Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on urban-transportation changes; SB 510 tabled after opposition from transit agencies
Summary
Senate Bill 510, proposing elected boards for urban transportation districts and permitting areas not served to leave without debt responsibility after five years, drew widespread opposition from transit agencies, municipalities and operators citing revenue loss and operational challenges; the committee tabled the bill after a failed do-pass vote.
Senator Willis Curdy introduced Senate Bill 510 to make several changes to how urban transportation districts (UTDs) operate: require elected boards, prohibit conditioning development approvals on joining a district, require updated district maps, and relieve areas not receiving service from responsibility for existing district indebtedness after five years.
Curdy framed the bill as a response to constituents who pay district taxes but receive no transit service, saying residents on Missoula’s west side have paid for 12 years without bus service and want local accountability. He read constituent emails describing what they called “taxation without representation.”
Opposition came from a broad coalition of transit districts, municipal officials and practitioners. David Kack (Big Sky Transportation District) said the bill’s election requirement and vague definitions of "direct transportation service" and "area" would create governance and operational difficulties for multi-county districts. Sunshine Ross (Bozeman Streamline) and Bruce Grubbs (Gallatin Valley UTD) said appointed boards allowed planned, representative governance and warned elected boards would be costly to run and difficult to staff.
Sebastian Strauss (Mountain Line, Missoula) said SB 510 could “potentially result in a 20% reduction of property tax revenues” for his agency and lead to service cuts and layoffs if districts lose revenue and cannot plan for growth. City and county officials (including Missoula and Gallatin County representatives) echoed concerns that prohibiting annexation-based additions and allowing opt-outs after five years would shift costs to remaining taxpayers and undercut long-term transit planning.
Supportive constituent comments were read into the record by the sponsor, who argued the law already provides petition and removal processes but that some districts are not following statutory requirements. Committee members asked witnesses about statutory mapping processes, how direct service is defined in practice and how districts that cross county lines handle petitions and service-delivery timelines.
In executive action, a motion to give SB 510 a do-pass recommendation failed on roll call (4 yes, 7 no). Vice chair Beard then moved to table the bill; the chair ordered the bill tabled without objection. The committee adjourned after taking executive action.
The record shows substantial opposition from transit operators and municipal officials; sponsors and some constituents argued the proposal addresses real cases where properties pay taxes and receive no service. The committee did not advance the bill.
