Connect with us

Montana

Tourism and travel reps argue property tax bill would 'wreak havoc' on Montana economy • Daily Montanan

Published

on

Tourism and travel reps argue property tax bill would 'wreak havoc' on Montana economy • Daily Montanan


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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.”



Source link

Montana

Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case – Transnational Litigation Blog


Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act discourages forum shopping in child custody disputes by assigning subject-matter jurisdiction to the court located in the “home state” of the child. In Allen v. Allen, decided on April 21, 2026, the Montana Supreme Court had to determine whether the child’s “home state” was Montana or the Netherlands. This case shines an important spotlight on the importance of timing in international child custody disputes. The left-behind parent’s likelihood of success is strongly correlated with how quickly he or she acts to vindicate their legal rights.

Facts

Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) and Petronella Gerline (Van Oosterom) Allen (Mother) were married in Colorado in 2009. Father is a United States citizen. Mother is a dual citizen of the United States and the Netherlands. Their child (R.A.A.) was born in 2015. In 2020, the family moved from Colorado to Montana.

In August 2023, after Father and Mother began having marital difficulties, Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands. In February 2024, Mother filed a petition for divorce and custody with the District Court of Central Netherlands (Netherlands District Court).

Advertisement

In January 2025, Father filed a petition with the District Court of The Hague seeking the return of R.A.A. pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This petition was denied. Although the court held that R.A.A. had been wrongfully removed from the United States, the court reasoned that the one-year automatic return period had passed and that R.A.A. had become settled in her new environment in the Netherlands. This decision was affirmed on appeal.

In September 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in Montana state court. That court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it held that it lacked the power to adjudicate the dispute because Montana was no longer the “home state” of R.A.A. Father, acting pro se, appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

Analysis

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) assigns exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to courts located in the child’s “home state” when it comes to matters relating to child custody. The “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” The UCCJEA specifically provides that courts “shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” for purposes of resolving these disputes.

On the facts presented in Allen v. Allen, the Montana Supreme Court correctly held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Father’s emergency motion. Mother and R.A.A. relocated to the Netherlands in August 2023. Six months later—in February 2024—R.A.A.’s home state shifted to the Netherlands. The Dutch courts—rather than the Montana courts—now had exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve custody disputes involving R.A.A. Father did not file his motion in Montana until September 2025, which was nineteen months too late.

Conclusion

If Father had filed his suit in Montana before February 2024, he could have shown that Montana was R.A.A.’s “home state” because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for six months. The suit was, however, not filed until September 2025.

Advertisement

If Father had filed suit in the Netherlands before August 2024, he could have argued that R.A.A. should be returned to the United States pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction because the child had not yet resided in the Netherlands for a year. The suit was, however, not filed until January 2025.

The key takeaway of Allen v. Allen is the need for speed in international child custody cases. The timelines baked into the relevant laws and treaties mandate that the left-behind parent move quickly to assert their rights. If they are slow off the mark, they be forced to litigate in foreign courts under less favorable legal rules.



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Clark Fork River remains central to Missoula’s identity, conservation groups say

Published

on

Clark Fork River remains central to Missoula’s identity, conservation groups say


The Clark Fork River has long been a defining feature of Missoula, shaping the city’s culture, economy and outdoor lifestyle.

The river is so closely tied to the area that it helped inspire the well-known book and film “A River Runs Through It.” But local conservation advocates say its importance goes far beyond scenery.

“Without the Clark Fork River, Missoula would just be another town,” said Lisa Ronald, Northern Rockies associate conservation director for American Rivers. “We wouldn’t be the River City. I think we’re known in Montana as Missoula the River City, and it’s really because of the Clark Fork River and its central role in business, in economics, in recreation, that really makes Missoula the town that it is.”

Carmen Murill, a field organizer with Wild Montana, said the river is deeply woven into daily life for people who live in Missoula.

Advertisement

“A lot of us would wonder what to do on a beautiful or a rainy summer day,” Murill said. “I mean, it’s really a lifeforce of town. And I think it’s pretty unique that Missoula, as a community is living and breathing on both sides of the river. It’s really like two downtowns but connected by the Clark Fork.”

Conservation groups say protecting the river begins with community involvement.

Advocates encourage residents and visitors to spend time outdoors, whether on a trail, in the woods or along the river, and to learn how they can become better stewards of the environment.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Forstag secures democratic nomination for Western Montana Congressional District

Published

on

Forstag secures democratic nomination for Western Montana Congressional District


MISSOULA — Sam Forstag edged out Ryan Busse to secure the Democratic nomination in Montana’s 1st Congressional District.

Busse conceded the race to Forstag on Wednesday morning. Forstag had trailed behind Busse Tuesday evening, but he made up ground as the votes were counted into the early hours of Wednesday morning. The other two candidates in the race, Russl Cleveland and Matt Rains, are sitting at third and fourth, respectively.

Forstag leads in close race for Montana’s 1st Congressional District

Advertisement

Forstag spent eight years as a wildland firefighter, including four as a smokejumper, and he’s been vice president of the local National Federation of Federal Employees union. Last week, U.S. House of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, held a rally in Missoula to support Forstag’s campaign.

He told MTN on Tuesday that his campaign has been for the working class.

“We got a whole lot of people here that have been working their tail off to finally get some working-class representation in Washington,” Forstag noted. “So proud of everything we’ve done and so grateful.”

Forstag further noted he wants Montanans to be able to afford groceries, have universal free childcare and restore and expand Affordable Health Care Act subsidies.

Advertisement

“Hearing people’s stories and struggles and commonalities in the ways that we’re all fighting in the system that does not serve us so often, and the government serves corporations and the richest people in this country more than working people. It has been frustrating and saddening, but it has also inspired so much hope in me, like the fixes we can actually make,” he told MTN.

The 1st Congressional District covers much of western Montana, including Kalispell, Missoula, Butte and Bozeman. It is currently held by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, who chose not to seek reelection.

By securing the nomination, Forstag is slated tol face off against Libertarian candidate Nick Sheedy and Republican candidate Aaron Flint in November. 





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending