HELENA - The last hope of getting a local-option sales
tax out of the 2007 Legislature died Friday night on the floor of
the Montana Senate.
A bill by Sen. Kim Gillan, D-Billings,
that would have allowed the residents of any incorporated city in
Montana to vote on a so-called resort tax was defeated on a vote of
31-17.
Only three of the Senate's 24 Republicans supported
the bill, while 14 of its 26 Democrats voted yes.
A broader
local-option tax bill by Sen. Sam Kitzenberg, D-Glasgow, which would
have allowed cities and counties to seek a public vote on a
local-option tax, died last
week by an even larger
margin, 38-12.
The only other local-option tax bill this
session, by Rep. Dave McAlpin, D-Missoula, was tabled earlier Friday
by the House Taxation Committee on a 10-8 party-line vote.
A
law passed in 1985 gave resort tax authority to towns with
populations of fewer than 5,500 that relied on tourism as their
primary industry.
No resort tax can be imposed without a vote
of the people, and no resort tax can exceed 3
percent.
Gillan's Senate Bill 320 would have
extended
that authority to cities of any size, regardless of
how
heavily they relied on tourism revenue.
SB320 grew
out of a series of community discussions led by Larry Swanson of the
O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West in Missoula.
The
gist of his presentations to community leaders was that much of the
state's recent economic growth is tied to the dynamism of the seven
largest urban centers in Montana.
For the past several years,
Swanson has been telling anyone who would listen that those cities
need to invest in themselves if the economy is to remain
strong.
The best tool for that, he has said, is some form of
local-option tax, one approved by local voters and administered by
local officials.
Gillan's bill was developed jointly by the
city of Billings, Yellowstone County, the Billings Area Chamber of
Commerce, Montana State University-Billings, the Big Sky Economic
Development Authority and both Billings hospitals.
In
presenting her bill to the Senate Friday night, Gillan said the
Montana economy is booming but that the major cities are not sharing
in that prosperity. Because they rely so heavily on property taxes,
she said, they are falling behind in dealing with rapid
growth.
Her bill was not the perfect solution, she said, but
"local government really can't wait much longer."
Sen. Bob
Hawks, D-Bozeman, urged his colleagues "to allow cities enough
flexibility to solve their own problems."
Another Billings
Democrat, Sen. Lynda Moss, said a 2 percent resort tax on "luxury"
goods and services, targeted at tourists, would bring in $8 million
a year for Billings.
But opponents of the bill quickly
summarized the familiar arguments that have been used to sink all
previous attempts at authorizing local-option taxes.
Sen. Dan
McGee, R-Laurel, said he would gladly vote for a statewide 4 percent
sales tax that reduced or replaced local property taxes or the state
income tax.
"Unfortunately, what this amounts to is a
hodgepodge of 3 percent resort taxes all across the state," he
said.
Several senators questioned who would really be paying
the tax. Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, said the existing resort tax
works so well because it is restricted to small communities that are
truly resort towns.
If it were available to cities of all
size, he said, "the residents (would) end up paying all the tax, or
at least a major portion of it."
Sen. Jim Peterson,
R-Buffalo, noted that the bill had no provision for sharing tax
revenues with rural areas around the cities that would impose the
tax.
"It's good for cities," he said, "but there's just
nothing in here for rural areas."
After Kitzenberg's
local-option tax was defeated by the Senate, Peterson said, he heard
from a good friend in Lewistown who told him: "It's a Band-Aid on a
broken tax system. Hang in there until we can do it right."
Published on Saturday, February 24, 2007. Last
modified on 2/24/2007 at 12:47 am
Post your
comments, opinion or feedback about this story.
Billingsgazette.com encourages readers to
engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments
that are submitted go into a queue to be moderated and may
take several hours to be reviewed. By submitting a comment,
you are agreeing to the terms & conditions set out in our
comment policy.
If you would like to
report an inappropriate comment, click here.
The comments below are from readers of
billingsgazette.com and in no way represent the views of The
Billings Gazette or Lee Enterprises.
Why do the Dems wrote on February 24, 2007 5:39 AM always want to tax ...tax...tax...
Dear Senator Gillan wrote on February 24, 2007 6:09 AM You should have spent your time on the
"BIG BILL" this wont work in Montana, there are already to many
local taxes, mills etc., your "65%" were just the folks that wanted
you elected, and we know it was the ten surveys returned out of
mabye a 1000? I am glad to see these bills defeated, really in the
long run its better for Billings, the folks of low income, and small
business.
mikemac wrote on February 24, 2007 6:13 AM Good job legislature. Many of the
"tourist" dollars they talk about our Montana residents who travel
to large cities for necessary things like medical care. North Dakota
has a state sales tax of 7% but does not tax Montana residents who
spend at least $50.00. This encourages out of towners to spend money
there. If Billings (or any big town) added a 3% tax I would likely
never go there to shop, I'd go to Minot, ND.
jack wrote on February 24, 2007 6:13 AM I lean republican and I wonder when these
clowns disguised as republican law makers will initiate some real
property tax relief. Get with it!
J wrote on February 24, 2007 6:14 AM Montana has too many taxes as it is, so I
am happy it did not pass. Why not lower our taxes and stop spending
so much.
Hal wrote on February 24, 2007 6:30 AM I will be interested in finding out how
members of the senate and house from Billings voted on these
proposals.
tripolar wrote on February 24, 2007 6:32 AM Good job folks!! Just keep the inadequate
funding coming through your high income and property tax levies.
That way the masses who visit Montana from other more progressive
places won't be offended and cancel their trips over a 2% resort tax
and the regional shoppers and users of goods and services from WY
will not be offended either. Whew - that was a close call!!
HDrider wrote on February 24, 2007 6:40 AM Time for a constitutional initiative from
the voters. If we can't get the state legislature out of the way of
the cities, we better just go around them.
mr wrote on February 24, 2007 6:49 AM And let's let the whole local option tax
idea rest in peace. It is bad idea to create more special taxing
jurisdictions. If there is a sales tax it should be state wide so we
can all get property tax relief.
State Sales Tax wrote on February 24, 2007 6:52 AM will help, just don't think our elected
officials will ever do away with property taxes. At least EVERYONE
who buys anything will pay- unless we exempt Tribes from that too.
Sorry! That was just a slip-
DEFEAT Kim Gillan!!!! wrote on February 24, 2007 7:16 AM We must remain vigilant against these
greedy politicians such as Kim Gillan who are always looking at ways
of increasing people's taxes in order to make big, bloated
government even BIGGER! Kim Gillan is a disgusting tax and spend
liberal who NEVER fights for the taxpayer, only special interest
groups whose life blood depends on our rich and bloated government.
We must defeat Kim Gillan and replace her with someone who will
fight for the little guy instead of special interest groups.
Democrat wrote on February 24, 2007 7:16 AM In the past, I've voted democrat. I may
change and start voting republican. It seem the democrats want to
add more taxes.
Marv wrote on February 24, 2007 7:28 AM Was happy to see this fail as it would
reach into everybody's pocket, I have no idea how many restruants
and bars we have in Billings, tourists are not the major source of
their business, drive down the streets see most people eating or
drinking are from here. Or maybe during shows, sporting events folks
from rual places come in who don't need higher prices, I notice in
our neighbor Wyoming they have repealed the sales tax on staples and
food bought in gocery stores. Being a smoker with no intention of
quiting, pay the buck a pack notice the money generated is 80
million which either goes to chip and 42% goes into the black hole
called the general fund, Guess the person the majority voted for
needs the money on his trips ie this weekend Washington D.C.
(Governors Convention)It seems to me if that 40% was paid to the
city's where the smokes were sold, instead of the Gov's expense
account the demo's in Helena would't have to look for more reasons
to gouge the working class
Doug Stange wrote on February 24, 2007 8:02 AM What is so sad regarding this regressive
tax policy initiative is that so many members of the "party for the
little people," the Democrats, without shame, voted for it.
Tax & Spend Kim Gillan wrote on
February 24, 2007 8:17 AM Unbelieveable. We have a
$1billion dollar SURPLUS in this state. One would think the tax and
spend liberals like Kim Gillan would take a break for awhile and not
try to raise taxes on her constituents. It's extremely pathetic for
Kim Gillan to work so hard to help give birth to a NEW sales tax
after Montana taxpayers have already been OVERCHARGED by the State
of Montana. The State of Montana is rich, Sen. Kim Gillan, NOT your
constituents. One has to wonder about Kim Gillan's
priorities.
Close the gate wrote on February 24, 2007 8:32 AM I hope our city cuncil gets the message.
we are taxed to death. why should we have to pay all the costs of
more cops,more fire fighers,street repair and all those things. just
tell people to shop in their own cities
C Watts wrote on February 24, 2007 8:46 AM Thank you Senator McGee, same thing I been
saying, how do we get the Legislature to become trustworhty. Right
now Senate Bill 284 is going to put 3% of the Accomodations tax back
into Tourism. Funny thing, the 4% Travel Montana currently receives
has always grown on its own each year since its inception. The
additional 3% was put on by Martz to cover her securtiy and other
general fund expenses. The reason Montana had a slump in tourism
last summer was due to the price of diesel fuel. Why can't Montana
simply do away with the 3% and make it a Nation Wide Tourism Ad that
would be unique. Here is a State that reduced a TAX. Wow, wouldn't
that be unusual. Note that the 9 tourism partners that this tax is
going to be diverted to now already get Travel Montana funds and
they are all State agencies anyway. Come on Legislature, start
taking care of the Taxpayers and slow up the growth of State
Government. Reduce the tax back to it's original 4%.
To Why Do the Dems wrote on February 24, 2007 8:50 AM tax tax tax ... its to pay for the demands
of the righ wingers to keep dui offenders and others in jail by
'throwin away the key' as you all scream in righteous indignation...
where do you think the money comes from to build and staff jails? or
fix roads? or parks? or schools? or ambulances? or cops? or bridges
and "round abouts?" and all the other thousands of things that you
all demand but dont want to cough up the money to fund???? It don't
come for free. Someone has to show leadership and initiative solve
the problems rather than the tired rhetoric from the right of "tax
tax tax" boooo hoooooo and hoooooooo. Grow up and face the fact that
you want these things, YOU have to help pay for them; the waitress
with the frozen wages cant afford to do all of it.!
francois wrote on February 24, 2007 9:08 AM INCREASE local GAMING TAXES, increase new
hookup and subdivision fees, it is simple...
Hybrid Momster wrote on February 24, 2007 9:26 AM Thanks for trying, Kim. I don't know how
we can legally tax the tourists unless we institute some kind of tax
like this. I hope you try again. The small minds opposing you
apparently are afraid of a new idea that would generate some much
needed economic boost from a sector that gets off scott free now.
The Best Solution wrote on February 24, 2007 10:52 AM We should allow a Local Option Income Tax
in areas that are ineligible for the Resort Tax. The Local Option
Income Tax should be capped at 1% and be voted on by the people with
a re-vote every 10 years. It should only be used to improve local
infrastructure, and provide local property tax relief. The main
strengths of this tax is that it would not hurt our ability to
attract out-of-state shoppers, and we can write it off on our income
taxes at the end of the year. The state of Oregon uses this method
for local taxation.
Good Job wrote on February 24, 2007 10:55 AM We prefer high property taxes and our
income tax. Dont mess with what works!Why should rural
folks,visitors,tourists pay for the streets etc. we will be happy to
do that for them.Just raise our property taxes some more.
Yes Yes Yes wrote on February 24, 2007 11:05 AM Great job rural legislators. Don't let the
city slickers tax you when you visit.
M wrote on February 24, 2007 11:25 AM I understand the reasoning of this bill by
transferring the tax debt from property owners to everyone who shops
here. Whereas I agree the property owners get nailed way too much, I
do not think this is the answer either. People just don't have the
extra money to cover all these taxes. Now if we could get rid of
state income tax altogether, people would be more apt to
listen.
To CLOSE THE GATE wrote on February 24, 2007 11:27 AM WOW! Now that is a mouth-breather
mentality in action. The object of a local option tax is in part
guaranteed to capture some out-of-town money to HELP YOU offset the
exact costs that you are snivelling about. Good lord, pay attention
to the facts instead of the mindless rants of the "too many taxes"
doofuses. You NEED people from out of town to keep your city in
business. THEY need to help you pay for the services. Very simple
concept. Unfortunately, not quite as simple as some of the ranters.
steve wrote on February 24, 2007 12:04 PM Well good. Now this Wyomingan can keep on
coming to Billings to escape the onerous Park County tax. You know,
the tax I save on a typical monthly visit more than pays for the
gas. But folks here seem to think they need huge city and county
buearocracies and fancy swimming pools and libraries and the huge
taxes to pay for them. Then the business folk sit around rubbing
their hands together wondering why all the business is going to
Billings. I'm glad Montanans are smarter.
good try wrote on February 24, 2007 12:57 PM Ms Gillan tried. This is an option for all
cities to at least vote on it if they want it. It would have to go
to the voters. This is not only a "Billings, so called Magic City
issue." I continue to be amazed with the closed minded mentality of
our state.
To Hybird Momster wrote on February 24, 2007 1:44 PM Who is a tourist? Me because I live
outside the city limits? If I have to pay sales when I go to the big
city then I may as well pay the inflated prices here and don't have
to pay a local tax.
Go Gehhardt wrote on February 24, 2007 2:16 PM now that you helped vote down this monster
tax bill, I hope you work hard to get keep some of those Roundup
dollars in Roundup instead of supporting those big businesses in
Billings that dont need roundup dollars like the roundup businesses
need roundup dollars.
Kim Gillan and Rich Government wrote on
February 24, 2007 2:25 PM Why do the Democrats like Kim
Gillan always work so hard to raise our taxes and make rich
government richer? Why do the Democrats care more for special
interest groups than Montana residents? I am sick of people like Kim
Gillan taxing and spending taxpayer money like there's no tomorrow!
Lies about Tourists wrote on February 24, 2007 2:45 PM Watch Out! The Liberals are promising you
gullible citizens that candy canes and gumdrops will fall from the
sky if we allow a sales tax. They'll tell you "the TAXPAYERS are
going to foot the bill!" Good grief, do they think we Montanan's
have "stupid" planted on our foreheads? Get serious. Billings is NOT
a tourist town! Who will pay the price if a new sales tax is
implemented? Its the residents of Billings that will pay and they'll
be doing so each and every day of the year! But wait! Property taxes
will be lowered, liberals tell us. Give me a break. Everyone knows
that if property taxes go down it'll be only temporarily because
liberals and government buraucracies are outrageous consumers of
material goods and services. Government spending always goes up
every year, ALWAYS! And because government spending goes up every
year liberals have to pay for the increases by 1. creating a new tax
or 2. increasing current taxes. So in the future, property taxes AND
sales tax will creep up each and every year. Don't be fooled by
these charlatans aka "liberals."
Big Tex wrote on February 24, 2007 3:13 PM You people up here have it bassackwards as
far as taxes go (and game laws too!). Montana needs a big sales tax
and no income tax, just like Texas. With a big sales tax, you get
low property taxes and hard workers aren't penalized for their
labor. Let the sick, lame, lazy, and crazy pay their fair share.
Maybe they'll get the picture and get a job instead of sitting on
welfare and breeding in front of the tube all day. Texas is booming
with business clamoring to get in. Why would anyone want to locate a
business in the people's republic of Montana where they tax your
inventory and your income, but allow millions of tourists to pass
thru unscathed. Stop drinking the koolaide Montana and look at what
a real State (Texas) does. You could learn a thing or two.
City Slicker tax wrote on February 24, 2007 3:34 PM Just how much tax extracted from city folk
goes to the pockets of farm folk? Just where does that CRP payment
come from? May be its time we let our legislators know that it just
aint fair!
Dave Bovee wrote on February 24, 2007 4:29 PM Maybe this kind of increase or new tax
wouldn't be needed if there was more equity in who pays the taxes we
already have. Watch several County Commission meetings and see
wealthy and new out-of-state businesses get exemptions from property
and business taxes through the efforts of BSEDA, also, I believe,
tax-payer supported. Look who the city council gives your money to,
if you can watch ten meetings without retching. Only the honest,
working, unconnected citizens pay taxes in Republican
administrations.
Conservative voice wrote on February 24, 2007 4:41 PM Liberals have it wrong. Who are they
fooling, tourists dont come to billings. We like our property taxes
and our income tax. No body would pay the resort tax (on hotel
rooms,rental cars and meals) it would be US and we are taxed to
death.
Milkseat wrote on February 24, 2007 5:57 PM I wouldn't have minded the resort tax
going to the voters for approval until the new ball park levy
passed. Now I don't trust the voters to do the right thing. Keep tax
increases away from voters-they don't know what they want and will
pass anything.
Ben B wrote on February 24, 2007 6:38 PM No sales tax, ever. And, let's lower
personal property taxes and RAISE IT on large commercial buildings.
I'm so sick of people struggling to come up with lots of money to
keep even a modest home while I see downtown buildings 90% empty for
decades, having forced out business by charging grotesque rents. If
one has to struggle to keep a home, how can a large building be so
empty for so long? Because the owner either pays a pittance in taxes
or gets a weird deal for unrented space or both... And for that
matter, I think we should reduce government. They seem to only be
there to blockade the same roads in summer for pointless
re-construction, while other streets can swallow cars. Police are
always there to ticket law-abiding citizens for trivial issues, but
the real violent crime is growing as if they were afraid to face
anyone who might fight back. And the 'new businesses' our government
begs to move in from out of state act as 'cash vaccums', paying
lousy wages and putting others out of business.
To HD Rider wrote on February 24, 2007 7:09 PM You must have one of the 65%, I told you
last week I have a great proposal, all folks who own or ride through
Billings who own a Harley, if you ride through everything you do
gets a 2% tax, if you own one and live here, we increase your fees
for registration to 3.5%, and all this money stay local, then you
can have all the services you and Kim want. .........See how stupid
these taxes sound
David wrote on February 24, 2007 9:46 PM It's usually republicans sponsoring these
local sales tax bills in pastsessions. The democrats just want to
spend more of our money, because it's not a revenue problem with
cites but a spending problem.
Los Cangrejos wrote on February 25, 2007 6:33 AM I'll gladly trade either income or
property tax for a sales tax. I'll admit to being ignorant as far as
taxation goes, but this doesn't look like rocket science to me. A
state-wide 3% sales tax on everything but groceries, medicine and
utilities with local governements able to tack on another 2% for
their needs.
Wont happen wrote on February 25, 2007 7:44 AM Tax reform in Montana wont happen. Its
simple, too many of our resources get diverted to rural areas. They
know it. Rural schools receive $10,000 plus per student. Urban
schools receive $5500.
Kim Gillan Has Got To Go! wrote on
February 25, 2007 8:09 AM Do doubt about it, Kim Gillan
needs to be kicked out of office! We need to find someone to run
against Kim Gillan in the next election! Her love of more taxes and
her utter lack of resolve to curtail out-of-control government
spending leaves her extremely vulnerable to defeat! Is there anyone
out there? If so, please, please run against her and defeat her. If
you're a responsible Democrat who doesn't believe in additional
taxes you would have a great shot at defeating her in the primaries!
DEFEAT KIM GILLAN AND HER LOVE OF TAXES!!
To Doug Stange wrote on February 25, 2007 8:57 AM Carter County Montana received
$7,374,000.00 in farm subsidies in 2005. Where do you think that
came from??????? Not rural voters.
HDrider wrote on February 25, 2007 9:46 AM This is too important of an issue to just
be silly. I should pay, you should pay, everyone should pay. Don't
focus on groups, like Harley owners, Chevy owners, or worse property
owners. Everyone should pay.
Relax wrote on February 25, 2007 11:19 AM This bill was rediculous! There is no
reason that any city in Montana would classify as a resort... I mean
look at it, "Come to Billings and relax under the shade of the
refinery smoke stacks!" Doesn't seem so appealing, does it? I have a
hard enought time classifying Red Lodge as a resort... some call it
rustic, but I call it trashy.
response to tripolar wrote on February 25, 2007 11:20 AM This is one of the dumbest comments yet. I
am from Wyoming and if you think that the people in my state will
still support Billings your nuts!!!! Who in their right mind would
leave home to spend the same amount up here pluse the added cost on
top of this to stay when they can stay home and save the extra for
what they need. I think that you are either not thinking or just
plain dumb. Don't the people of Montana understand that if this goes
through that a big persentage of the incoming monies that let the
small businesses stay in business are going fall by the wayside. The
reason the surrounding states even come here is because of the money
they can save. A person or family can spend twice the amount. This
just goes to show how far greed and stupidity have gone. To quote
from a comment I read yesterday" If you ask for too much then you
are going to loose more then you bargined for." Greed and lack of
proper useage from the top down only can fall and lapse in to loss
and trouble for the whole state
B wrote on February 25, 2007 11:33 AM I agree, NO MORE TAXES. In fact I’m tired
of paying taxes for schools and public parks when I don’t have any
kids. Make only people with kids pay those taxes. If a local street
is going to be repaired make only the people who live on that street
pay for it. I don’t plan on going to any games at the proposed new
baseball field so I don’t want to pay for any of that either. Face
it nobody wants to pay taxes if they didn’t have to, but in order
for a community to grow the citizens need to pay taxes; even if they
aren’t directly going to benefit from all aspects of what the tax
dollars are used for. It would be nice if the horde of weekend
visitors could chip in a little more to improving the big cities
they visit in Montana. It seems most of the weekend visitors are
from rural areas that come to the cities to shop at stores that are
just not available in their areas. I know lets apply a weekend tax
to all the motels, restaurants, casinos, and big businesses. This
way locals can shop on weekdays and really stick it to those weekend
mobs. Or lets just make the big stores like Wal-Mart, Costco,
Lowe’s, and etc. charge a convenience tax. This might force more
people to use other local small businesses and make the one stop
shoppers pay a little extra for the ease of use. They could work but
I think any tax that is only applied in a certain area will push
business out of that community and cost them revenue in the long
run. It’s tough to know what would work the best in the long run.
good riddance wrote on February 25, 2007 11:40 AM These local sales tax options have always
been just another way to get a sales tax going in Montana without
requiring the legislature to severely cut or eliminate property
taxes. As such, keep up on this in future years- the goal of the
sales tax advocates is to cause death by a thousand tiny cuts. We
already have the bed tax, the resort tax, the alcohol tax, the
cigarette tax. We have sales taxes. Big ones actually. Don't let the
lemmings in the legislature get talked into any more until they
address permanent property tax cuts.
Democrats: MORE TAXES NEEDED! wrote on
February 25, 2007 2:38 PM We have enough taxes, damnit! We
already have to pay; 1) federal income taxes, 2) state income taxes,
3) property taxes, 4) automobile taxes, 5) gasoline taxes, 6)
cigarette taxes, 7) gambling taxes, 8) hotel room taxes, 9) rental
car taxes, 10) excise taxes on telephone calls, 11) airline ticket
taxes, 12) hidden taxes that are passed down to consumers by
businesses, and they 13) tax us when we die! There are a lot more
taxes out there that we pay. Our extremely WEALTHY state has over $1
BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS and GREEDY DEMOCRATS LIKE KIM GILLAN WANT TO
CREATE A NEW TAX SO WE CAN PAY MORE? Wow. Talk about heartless
politicians caring more for special interest groups than regular
folk trying to keep more of our hard-earned money!
to yes yes yes wrote on February 25, 2007 6:07 PM I don't know what planet you are from, but
I will bet that your taxes don't come anywhere near what we have to
pay for just one small peice of farm equipment, or even just one vet
trip for sick stock. Do you have to replace your truck or car every
1-2 years? I think the answer to that is probably not. Do you have
to woory about a crop that means you will be able to pay the bank?
No again.I think you owe the rual people a big I'm sorry. Not for
them you just might starve. And talk about taxes try paying ours for
just one year. On the land, the stock, and crops in the field. Has
to be paid even if you loose everything to unforseen problems. I
don't think, until you have lived, worked, lost and profited, you
have the right to put us down. You couldn't follow for even one day.
So quite complaining unless you are ready to either put up or shut
up.
Contact
Us | Subscribe
Comment Display Options
