Montana
Second home tax, other property tax relief bills clear the House
A trio of major property tax relief bills — Gov. Greg Gianforte’s flagship effort to pull down homeowner property taxes by boosting taxes on second homes and two other measures pitched by Democrats — passed the Montana House with bipartisan votes Thursday, advancing to the state Senate.
Gianforte’s bill, House Bill 231, was amended by the House Appropriations Committee last week in an effort to win the Democratic votes necessary to overcome opposition from some Republicans. It ultimately passed the House on a 68-30 margin. The bill’s supporters, including sponsor Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, also fended off floor amendments brought by Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, that would have rewritten the measure wholesale.
The two Democratic bills forwarded to the Senate include House Bill 155, an alternative to the Gianforte-Jones bill that aims to rebalance the state property tax system without singling out homes that aren’t being used as primary residences. The other is House Bill 154, which would offer homeowners and renters an income tax credit to help offset their property tax bills.
Separately, the Montana Senate gave support with a 50-0 preliminary vote Wednesday to a property tax measure that would divert some lodging tax dollars to a permanent tax relief fund. That measure, Senate Bill 90, has been amended to remove earlier provisions that would have defunded state tourism promotion efforts. It’s been cited as a preferred option by some Republicans who dislike aspects of the Gianforte-Jones measure, including Senate President Matt Regier, R-Kalispell.
Several other property tax proposals have also been proposed by lawmakers so far this year, including a measure that would permit local option sales taxes to offset property taxes, address a loophole that allows luxury homes to qualify for agricultural tax breaks, constrain the growth of local government revenues, make it harder to pass property tax levies, and rework the rates that translate market-rate property values to the taxable values used for tax bills.
Both the Gianforte-Jones bill and the Democratic alternative, HB 155, dial down the taxable value conversion rates for residential properties, making a smaller share of home values subject to the property tax math that divvies up the cost of schools, law enforcement and other local services. Both employ a tiered rate structure that focuses savings on lower-value properties and includes provisions intended to shield small businesses as taxes are shifted off homes and onto other classes of property.
In an effort to minimize how much its residential tax relief shifts taxes onto farms and business properties, the Gianforte-Jones bill also divides the state’s current residential tax category into homes that are and aren’t primary residences, taxing owner-occupied homes and long-term rental properties at lower rates than second-homes and Airbnb-style short-term rentals. Jones and the governor have justified that distinction by arguing that second homeowners often don’t pay the Montana income taxes that fund most of the cost of state-level public services.
Opponents of the governor-backed bill have argued that taxing second homes could produce a situation where Montana residents are saddled with untenable taxes on a longtime family vacation home. They also note that the state would have to ask homeowners and landlords to file applications in order to claim the lower tax rate.
While the bill specifies that an initial eligibility list would be based on homeowners who received property tax rebates following the 2023 session, opponents are worried that the application requirement would leave eligible property owners who miss the memo saddled with higher taxes.
Debating the Gianforte-Jones bill on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Mary Caferro, D-Helena, drew a comparison to the state’s Medicaid redetermination process, where she said tens of thousands of people lost their state-managed health coverage as a result of procedural issues.
“My concern is that we may have a similar experience with this application process for people who didn’t get the rebate,” Caferro said.
Jones said that the state would be able to offer a simple one-time, one-page application. “Once you’re signed up as a homeowner, then you’ll be able to remain signed up until there’s a change in the property,” he said.
Falk made a similar argument as he pushed to amend the bill so it would avoid the second home distinction, saying a simpler measure would avoid a “crazy application process.”
Jones argued the nature of Montana’s tax system means lowering taxes on one type of property isn’t possible without “squeezing the balloon” onto another type of property — making the effort to collect extra revenue from second homes a vital part of the governor’s proposal.
“This is a difficult problem to make work — you have to have a revenue source,” Jones said. “This wasn’t the executive or the governor’s idea — until I forced them to model this, they didn’t think it would work either.”
The second Democratic bill, HB 154, would create an income tax credit that offsets property taxes for middle- and lower-income homeowners and renters, specifying that renters can attribute 15% of their rent bill to taxes. Its sponsor, Rep. Jonathan Karlen, D-Missoula, has argued that tying property and income taxes together would make Montana’s tax system more responsive to individual circumstances.
“Unlike income taxes, property taxes don’t adjust based on means, or adjust when hard times hit,” Karlen said during Wednesday’s floor debate.
RELATED
Property taxes, explained — with pictures
Property values have risen dramatically in Montana, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you (or your landlord) will pay higher property taxes. If you want to know why, read our property tax explainer — with pictures.
Karlen and other Democrats also say a tax credit that includes renters would address their concern that under other bills landlords would either be left out of tax relief efforts or pocket any savings. Jones, in contrast, has argued that market competition will force landlords to pass the savings onto their tenants.
The Karlen bill’s journey across the House floor, where it passed 59-39, was boosted by a coordination clause added to the Gianforte-Jones measure as its backers sought to win Democratic votes. That clause, which could be removed by the Senate, specifies an additional rate discount for lower-value homes if the tax credit bill fails to make it to the governor’s desk.
House Minority Leader Katie Sullivan acknowledged in a press conference this week that tying the governor’s key policy proposal to a Democratic priority bill was “confusing,” but said it was consistent with the caucus’s efforts to advance proposals that it believes provide relief for working Montanans.
”We really are just trying to move more than just one bill through this process and continue a conversation,” Sullivan said. “And sometimes we do weird things to make that happen.”
The other Democratic bill, the explicit alternative to Gianforte-Jones bill, passed its final House vote this week 68-30.
Zeke Lloyd contributed reporting.
Montana
UM Western’s Tori Murnion receives Montana Athletes in Service Award
MISSOULA, Mont. — The Montana Campus Network for Civic Engagement has recognized 14 student-athletes with the 2025 Montana Athletes in Service Award, including Montana Western’s Tori Murnion. The annual award highlights one student from each affiliate campus who demonstrates exceptional commitment to community service while competing in collegiate sports. Recipients, honored during halftime at the Brawl of the Wild on Nov. 22, include Murnion, a senior from Jordan who is active in student government, local rodeo events, and peer mentoring.
Full release:
The Montana Campus Network for Civic Engagement (MCNCE) has recognized fourteen student-athletes with the Montana Athletes in Service Award (MAIS), including Montana Western’s Tori Murnion.
For over 30 years, the Montana Campus Network for Civic Engagement and its campus affiliates have supported students, faculty, and communities across Montana with programs that encourage and recognize community service. The CEO Council of the Montana Campus Network for Civic Engagement is proud to honor these athletes whose extensive volunteer efforts have greatly benefited their communities.
Each year, the MCNCE honors one student-athlete from each affiliate campus across the state who demonstrates exceptional dedication to serving their community while pursuing their college degrees or certificates and competing in collegiate sports. The 2025 MAIS award recipients are:
Tori Murnion – University of Montana Western – Rodeo
Kayle Addison – Little Big Horn College – Basketball
Cameron “Cam” Blevins – Miles Community College – Volleyball
Kennedy Venner – Carroll College – Softball
Tayla Undem – Dawson Community College – Softball
Walker Burshia – Fort Peck Community College – Basketball
Owen Smith – MSU–Northern – Basketball
Colton Seymour – Salish Kootenai College – Basketball
Justus Peterson – Montana Tech – Football, Track & Field, Rodeo
Blaine Shaw – Flathead Valley Community College – Logger Sports
Brooke Stayner – University of Montana – Track & Field
Nova Rosman – MSU Billings – Cheer & Stunt
Amelio Blackhorse – Chief Dull Knife College – Basketball, Rodeo
Taylee Chirrick – Montana State University – Basketball
The recipients were recognized during halftime of the 2025 Brawl of the Wild game at Washington-Grizzly Stadium on November 22.
Tori Murnion is a senior from Jordan, Montana, majoring in Business. Outside of rodeo, Tori is a senator in the Associated Students of Montana Western (ASUMW), an organizer for the Labor Day Rodeo in Dillon, and a peer mentor.
Tori exemplifies a strong commitment to service, both in and out of the arena. Her dedication to helping others—whether through supporting her community or mentoring —makes her an inspiring role model for her peers and the broader community.
Montana
Accident blocks Expressway in Missoula
MISSOULA, Mont. — UPDATE: Expressway lanes are back open after an accident.
The accident occurred around 6:45 p.m. today and obstructed traffic on Expressway from Majestic Drive to the Crestview Apartments Tuesday evening.
Missoula Police Department is asking the public to take an alternate route.
No additional information is available at this time.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
NBC Montana will keep you updated.
Montana
Montana Viewpoint: Money for nothing
Jim Elliott
Just before the official days of excessive purchasing named Black Friday, and Cyber Monday which follow immediately on the heels of the National Day of Gluttony, Turkey Thursday, I received a new credit card.
Just for giggles, I thought I’d read the fine print. The rate of interest would be 14.99 percent. “Didn’t Jesus throw the money lenders out of the Temple?” I thought. The late fee would be 29.99 percent and would apply to future purchasers at the discretion of the bank. I then thought of a friendly fellow I knew who was originally from Chicago. “What did you do there?” I asked him once. He smiled, and said, “I was in collections.” I wondered if he had worked for a bank or some other organization.
Where did these high credit card rates come from? Long ago there were state laws that prohibited usury, which is the charging of excessive interest on loans. When did that all change?
In the United State that date would be February 6, 1980, when a bill to abolish the South Dakota usury laws passed that state’s legislature. In the 1970s inflation was running at about 20 percent and to tame the trend, Paul Volker, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank had allowed the rate at which the Fed loaned money to banks to rise to 20 percent. In South Dakota and elsewhere in the 1970s farmers were having a very hard time of it for many reasons and needed to borrow money from banks just to survive. But South Dakota banks were not about to lend out money at the legal maximum rate of 12 percent when they had to pay 20 percent interest just to borrow the money from the Federal Reserve.
In a related issue, in 1978 Marquette Bank of Minneapolis was having their credit card business undermined by First National Bank of Omaha, which was issuing credit cards to Minnesota residents at 18 percent interest which was the top usury rate in Nebraska but with no annual fee. Marquette was issuing credit cards at the 12 percent maximum interest rate imposed by Minnesota, but they did charge an annual fee. They were losing business to the Nebraska bank. Marquette went to court, arguing that Nebraska banks could not charge a rate of interest in Minnesota that was higher than Minnesota banks could charge in their own state. Marquette lost. In a unanimous opinion the Supreme Court ruled that the usury law of the issuing state held, no matter where the cardholder lived.
In a second related issue, Citibank of New York was bound to the New York usury law of 13 percent and was losing money. After the Marquette decision, Citibank began looking for a new state to do its credit card business in. Under federal banking law a bank could not move to a state without an invitation to relocate, which was conveniently provided by (usury free) South Dakota on the last day of its legislative session in 1980. Citibank relocated its credit card operations to Sioux Falls, S.D. as soon as it could, bringing with it 500 new jobs, a new building, and as a special gift to its cardholders, a higher interest rate.
That’s the history of the beginning of high rates. The morality of charging high rates on loans goes back at least—as I have said—to Jesus throwing the money lenders out of the Temple when he said, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21:13 KJV).
People who loan money will tell you that the rate they charge reflects the risk they take that the loan won’t be repaid. The higher the risk, the higher the interest charged. It used to be that bankers didn’t like to take risks. They loaned money, sure. They made money on the interest charged, sure. But they also wanted the borrower to have a solid reason for borrowing money and to be successful in the business the customer was borrowing the money for. If it was a mortgage, they wanted you to be able to afford the loan. They did not loan money for toys or vacations. They looked out for themselves by looking out for their customers.
Now, it seems, all they want to do is make money off their customers, and the faster the better. Bankers used to educate their customers because success was a two-way street. Today, people are drowning in credit card debt, and nobody seems to care. Well, someone might, but it’s not the banks.
Have fun, but don’t go broke doing it.
Montana Viewpoint has appeared in weekly and online newspapers across Montana for over 30 years. Jim Elliott served sixteen years in the Montana Legislature as a state representative and state senator. He lives on his ranch in Trout Creek.
-
News19 hours agoTrump threatens strikes on any country he claims makes drugs for US
-
Politics18 hours agoTrump rips Somali community as federal agents reportedly eye Minnesota enforcement sweep
-
World19 hours agoHonduras election council member accuses colleague of ‘intimidation’
-
Technology7 days agoNew scam sends fake Microsoft 365 login pages
-
Politics6 days agoRep. Swalwell’s suit alleges abuse of power, adds to scrutiny of Trump official’s mortgage probes
-
Business1 week agoStruggling Six Flags names new CEO. What does that mean for Knott’s and Magic Mountain?
-
Ohio1 week agoSnow set to surge across Northeast Ohio, threatening Thanksgiving travel
-
News7 days ago2 National Guard members wounded in ‘targeted’ attack in D.C., authorities say