Montana

Whitefish senator introduces revisions to Montana resort tax • Daily Montanan

Published

1 year ago

January 30, 2025

Whitefish senator introduces revisions to Montana resort tax • Daily Montanan

Tourism is a double-edged sword, says Sen. Dave Fern.

The Whitefish Democrat has decades of experience living in one of the state’s top tourism destinations to back up that statement.

More than half the economy of towns such as Whitefish, a gateway community to Glacier National Park and home to Whitefish Mountain Resort, stands on the backs of tourism and recreation-based businesses.

The town of roughly 9,000 people welcomes around 1 million visitors each year, according to the University of Montana Institute of Tourism and Recreation Research, and those visitors have an impact on local infrastructures, trails, and rising property values — all things a local resort tax helps address.

Fern, a Whitefish Democrat, said that West Yellowstone was the first community in the state to implement a local-option sales tax in the 1980s. Now, 13 communities in the state have a “resort” designation and leverage the resort tax.

“As tourism and visitation became more and more an essential part of the economy, lots of smaller communities — both unincorporated areas and municipalities — were adversely impacted by the effects of tourism and visitation,” Fern told the Senate Taxation committee on Wednesday. “You take some communities with a limited tax base and increasing infrastructure needs because of tourism, and you come into a collision.”

Fern is sponsoring Senate Bill 172, which would amend the current resort tax law to increase the population threshold for communities that can obtain a “resort” designation from the state, and allow an additional 1% tax to be collected and used for workforce housing.

“I think what is important is that the state recognizes that resort communities and areas face an extra hardship caused by tourism, and they need assistance,” he said.

Currently, cities with less than 5,500 residents and unincorporated areas with fewer than 2,500 residents that derive at least half their economy from visitor-based businesses can opt to enact a resort tax — with voter approval — and can extend the tax even if the population grows past the initial limits.

Fern’s bill would raise the cap for cities to enact the tax to 10,000 residents, and for unincorporated areas to 3,500, saying he had Whitefish in mind as an example town.

“Over the years, Whitefish, in particular, has doubled, or nearly doubled in population,” Fern said. “And yet we haven’t grown ourselves out of the problem, the problem being increased visitation that has a continued impact on the need for infrastructure.”

The tax, capped at 3%, applies to sales of non-essential “luxury” goods and services sold by food, lodging and destination-recreation businesses within a resort area, while exempting a long list of “necessities of life,” with the goal of maximizing tourism dollars and minimizing impacts on local residents.

At least 5% of resort tax revenue must be used to alleviate local property taxes, with the rest determined by the local governing body.

Communities can also leverage an additional 1% to be used exclusively for infrastructure, but that addition is capped for cities below the population limits.

Residents of Whitefish first passed the resort tax in 1995, and reauthorized it for 20 more years in 2021, when city officials said that annual tax revenue was around $4 million. Currently, the city of Whitefish allocates 25% of revenue to property tax relief, 48% to infrastructure projects, 10% to bike paths and parks, 10% to affordable housing projects and 2% to the local Whitefish Trail System.

Fern’s bill also focuses on workforce housing by removing the population cap for leveraging the additional 1% tax and allowing it to be used for infrastructure or affordable housing projects.

While new taxes are often perceived as unpopular, Fern pointed out to committee members that each time the Whitefish tax was put to voters, it gained support. The 2021 vote to extend the tax passed with 89% of the vote, while a recent vote to add a tax to the Big Mountain Resort District — comprising Whitefish Mountain Resort, which sits outside city limits — also passed with more than 80% support.

“I think that is because you can see progress. You see infrastructure changes, you see significant improvements in roads, side walks, shared use paths, that sort of thing,” Fern said. “And you get property tax relief, so that’s why it’s been very very popular.”

No one opposed SB 172 during the committee hearing, while a representative from Shelter Whitefish, a nonprofit focused on housing inequality, testified in support.

Source link

Click to comment

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

22 minutes ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life 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.
Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

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

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

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

12 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link