Montana

Second home tax, other property tax relief bills clear the House

Published

11 months ago

February 28, 2025

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.

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.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

Published

60 minutes ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes

This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.

On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.

That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.

Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?

Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.

MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?

Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.

MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?

Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.

MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?

Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.

MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?

Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.

LATEST STORIES

Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case

A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.

Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback

The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.

Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Lucky For Life, Big Sky Bonus results for Jan. 8, 2026

Published

13 hours ago

January 9, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 8, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-12-13-39-48, Lucky Ball: 13

Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 8 drawing

05-15-20-28, Bonus: 16

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.

Where can you buy lottery tickets?

Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.

You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.

Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

Montana

Montana minimum wage increases to $10.85 | Explore Big Sky

Published

1 day ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Montana minimum wage increases to .85 | Explore Big Sky

By Micah Drew DAILY MONTANAN

With the start of the new year, Montanans on the lowest end of the pay scale will get a small boost as the state’s mandatory minimum wage increase goes into effect.

As of Jan. 1, Montana’s minimum wage increased from $10.55 to $10.85.

Stemming from a 2006 law, Montana’s minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, based on the national increase in the consumer price index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

According to state law, Montana businesses not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act are those whose gross annual sales are $110,000 or less may pay $4 per hour.

Montana is one of 30 states — plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands — that have a minimum wage higher than the federal rate of $7.25.

Twelve states, plus D.C. adjust their wages annually based on set formulas.

Montana has one of the lowest minimum wages that exceeds federal levels, with only West Virginia coming in lower among states at $8.75. The highest minimum wage is in D.C., at $17.25.

Source link