Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonprofit Land Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated debate over HB 928 — amendment passes but amended bill fails and is tabled
Summary
House Bill 928, which would revise tax rates for agricultural land owned by certain nonprofits and target contiguous parcels (amendment: 2,500+ acres), passed an amendment 12–5 but the amended bill failed in roll call 8–9 and was subsequently tabled; opponents warned of constitutional problems and harm to land trusts and partnerships.
Representative Brandon Lear introduced House Bill 928, which would revise property tax treatment for agricultural land owned by certain nonprofit corporations and, in earlier drafts, had contemplated a cap and a tenfold tax multiplier. Lear said the bill aims to 'make the playing field even' for producers who cannot match nonprofits' purchasing advantages.
Proponents including Prairie County Commissioner Todd Devlin and Charles Denowh of United Property Owners argued that some nonprofits buying large parcels remove productive land from agriculture and reduce local economic activity. Denowh cited American Prairie Reserve (APR) and stated a goal of controlling 3,200,000 acres and noted APR had acquired over 527,000 acres, figures raised in committee testimony.
A broad coalition of opponents — including the Montana Nonprofit Association (Adam Jespersen), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (Charlie Bucher), The Conservation Fund (Gary Sullivan), The Nature Conservancy (Mark Aagenes) and multiple Montana land trusts (Prickly Pear Land Trust, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Bitterroot Land Trust) — said the bill would tax based on ownership rather than land use, risking equal-protection and special-legislation concerns under the Montana Constitution. Witnesses described legitimate conservation, military readiness and land-incubator models that rely on fee-title ownership by nonprofits and warned a tenfold tax would make those models infeasible.
Bryce Kautz of the Property Assessment Division explained current classification rules (multiple property classes, size-based thresholds and limited exemptions) and cautioned the department about administrative changes that would be needed if the bill passed.
The committee considered an amendment narrowing the proposal to continuous parcels of 2,500 acres or more acquired after the effective date; that amendment passed on roll call, 12 in favor and 5 against. After final debate the committee voted on the amended bill; the roll call found 8 in favor and 9 against, so the amended measure failed. Vice Chair Minor then moved to table House Bill 928 once amended; the motion to table was approved and HB 928 was moved to the committee table.
Committee members voiced constitutional concerns and warned of broad collateral impacts to land trusts, conservation partnerships and programs that lease land to beginning farmers. The committee did not adopt the bill and took the procedural step of tabling it for possible future consideration.
