No one showed up to cheer Sen. Carl Glimm’s proposal to return $437 to property taxpayers — but he figured all the supporters were at work, partly to pay their taxes.

Monday, more than 40 people from across the state spent roughly two hours telling the Senate Local Government committee that Senate Bill 90, to redirect dollars from lodging and rental car taxes to a property tax credit, is a “reckless” policy and would “wreak havoc” on Montana’s economy.

Opponents included representatives from the tourism and hospitality industry, a small farm, Main Street and historic preservation programs, and others.

Mandy Rambo, with the Department of Commerce, said her agency is acutely aware of the property tax problem in Montana, but SB 90 is “not the answer.”

One in 12 jobs in Montana is tied to tourism, and tourism is a $5.4 billion industry in the state, Rambo said. She said Colorado gutted its marketing programs and regretted it, and it took 15 years to rebuild it.

“This is not just about tourism,” Rambo said. “It’s about the economy in Montana. Tourism is an economic driver, regardless of how any of us feel about tourism in Montana.”

The bill is one of several pieces of legislation designed to return money to residential property taxpayers, who have been carrying a growing share of property tax collections.

As proposed, the bill would put $102.5 million into a property tax assistance account in 2026, although opponents argued the policy would lead to a drop in those revenues in the future. Money would be redirected from 65.5% of the lodging facility use tax, 82% of the lodging sales tax, and 75% of the rental car tax, according to the bill’s companion fiscal analysis.

In the Senate, Republican leaders have spoken in favor of Glimm’s bill, but other legislation to help residential property taxpayers is on the table, too. Gov. Greg Gianforte has a separate proposal, in House Bill 231, carried by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, also scheduled for a hearing this week.

The Local Government committee didn’t take immediate action Monday. Chairman Sen. Forrest Mandeville, R-Columbus, asked Glimm if he wanted to address any of the issues opponents raised in testimony.

Glimm said the committee was free to amend the bill as it wished. However, he also said he wasn’t convinced it was the job of state government to market Montana in the first place, and he wasn’t sure it was needed.

“Tourism is valuable. I get that,” Glimm said. “But tourism is also alive and well. Try and visit Glacier Park. Try and go camping. Try and get a hotel. Almost anywhere. Tourism is alive and well in Montana.”

The fund the new account, the bill would pull $48 million from the general fund, $37.9 million from the Department of Commerce, $1.6 million from the Montana University System — which operates the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research — and $4.5 million from a long-range building fund, according to the fiscal analysis.

To pay for the reimbursement, the bill would eliminate a number of programs, including Made in Montana marketing, the Montana Film Office, the Main Street program, the Japan and Taiwan trade offices, and statewide tourism industry research, the fiscal analysis said.

It also would cut grants, such as for agritourism and tribal tourism.

At the hearing, Scott Vollmer, a fishing outfitter and vice president of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, said fishing is just one part of the vacation for his clients.

But Vollmer said one thing needs to happen before they spend their money in the Treasure State at all, and it requires marketing Montana.

“The constant is that they first decide to come here as opposed to going somewhere else, and I simply can’t do that myself,” Vollmer said.

Even more troubling, Vollmer said, would be the loss of data from the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research out of the University of Montana, although he said the need to fix the property tax problem is “obvious.”

“We all feel it. We know we need to do something about it. But the benefits need to outweigh the cost,” Vollmer said.

Other opponents included the Montana Chamber of Commerce, representatives for agritourism, the Montana Travel Association, a small business owner and community advocate in Cut Bank, Preserve Montana (protecting state heritage), Montana Cattlewomen, the Montana Farmers Union, the Big Sky Resort Area District, and the Montana Learning Center (an education nonprofit).

Logan Smith, with the Old Salt Coop, a meat company with a restaurant and processing facility, said various Department of Commerce funds have supported the business, including its land stewardship festival in Helmville.

Smith said the festival, which attracts 2,600 people, led one participant to put a conservation easement in the Gallatin Valley.

Another, a teacher who had been looking for a job and liked Helmville, decided to teach there, and Helmville had been looking for a school teacher for roughly three years, Smith said.

Smith said the money has real impact in rural areas, for the development and growth of communities and businesses, “and especially for us and the agricultural industry.”