Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would clarify how small Montana towns secure policing: arbitration and county contracting proposed
Summary
House Bill 333 would create a process for third‑class cities and towns to secure law‑enforcement services—preserving interlocal agreements, requiring payment by the municipality receiving services, and using the MSU Local Government Center and limited binding arbitration when negotiations fail. County associations sought technical amendments on contracting authority and arbitration selection.
Representative Courtney Sprunger introduced House Bill 333 as a framework to ensure every community has access to law‑enforcement services while preserving existing interlocal agreements.
Sprunger said the bill ‘‘does not interfere with those agreements’’ but clarifies what happens when a municipality lacks a police department and no contract exists: the county sheriff would provide services, and the municipality receiving services would be responsible for payment. The bill also creates a role for the Montana State University Local Government Center to facilitate moderated discussions and, if necessary, a binding arbitration process with limits on duration.
Brian Thompson, speaking for the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, outlined the bill’s sections: leave in place the statutory requirement for municipalities to have a police department, permit class‑3 towns to enter interlocal agreements, require payment by the municipality receiving service, and—if the parties cannot agree—send them to moderated discussion and then binding arbitration. Thompson emphasized the bill avoids setting a fixed price and preserves flexibility to fit local circumstances.
Thomas Jodoin of the Montana League of Cities and Towns told the committee the bill would clarify longstanding practice under statute 732‑4101 and accommodate many small municipalities that lack the resources to sustain full police departments. Teton County Sheriff Keith Van Setten described local contracting history and recent renegotiations that showed a need for statutory clarity.
Opposition from the Montana Association of Counties focused on technical fixes. Joette Woods, who said the association opposed the bill as drafted, introduced deputy director Jason Rittal, who urged routing the final contracting authority through county commissioners rather than the sheriff, limiting binding arbitration to a two‑year determination, and ensuring both parties agree on an arbitrator; Rittal said those amendments would remove the association’s opposition.
Dan Clark, director of the MSU Local Government Center, appeared as an informational witness and confirmed the center’s willingness to facilitate the moderated discussions described in the bill.
Committee members questioned consolidation options, municipal funding sources, and staffing levels for contracted services. Witnesses said consolidation is legally possible but infrequent for political reasons, police departments are generally funded from general funds (primarily property taxes) and sometimes grants, and contracted service levels vary (examples included 20 hours a week or 8–12 hours a day), with pricing tailored to local needs.
Representative Sprunger closed the hearing urging collaboration; Chair Brewster said committee votes would be delayed until next week and the committee adjourned.
