Government

Fast Food Jobs At Risk With High Minimum Wages

22 January 2026
Press Room
No comments

By Sam Cardwell

Mountain States Policy Center

Across the country, raising the minimum wage continues to be a topic of conversation. Some claim that raising the minimum wage to $20 would help both low-income employees as well as employers. Though some are moving forward with this experiment, others are being more cautious.

For example, voters in Olympia, Wash., this year rejected a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. California, however, recently enacted this policy for the fast-food sector with disastrous effects. 

On April 1, 2024, California implemented a $20 minimum wage for fast food employees. To fit this definition, an operation has to offer limited or no table service, and customers pay for the items before they are consumed. Also, the restaurant has to be a part of at least 60 establishments nationwide.

The National Bureau of Economic Research found that California’s fast food minimum wage increase led to a detrimental effect on jobs , totaling around 18,000 jobs lost in the fast-food market in California from September of 2023 to September of 2024.  Relative to the rest of the country, employment in California’s fast-food sector declined by 2.7% more during that time period.

Using the 2023 figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a $20 minimum wage imposition for fast food employees would harm the labor force in every state. Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should pay attention to these results as they consider similar policies.

Washington state already has a high minimum wage of $16.66 for fast food workers. The industry employs roughly 100,100 fast food employees. Based on the California study, if the state implemented a $20 minimum wage, this would be a 20% increase from its current minimum, resulting in 2,402 jobs lost.

A study done by the Washington Hospitality Association found that eating out in Seattle already costs 17% more than it does on average across 20 major U.S cities. A majority of this unaffordability can be attributed to the high minimum wage, meaning employers have to increase menu prices to make up the cost on their razor-thin profit margin.

Idaho has a minimum wage of $7.25 for fast food workers, and it employs 20,840 workers in the industry. Increasing the minimum wage to $20 would result in 4,395 jobs lost, which would be a major shock to the industry.

Montana has a minimum wage of $9.95 and employs 15,380 fast food employees. With a $20 minimum wage increase, the state would lose about 1,860 jobs. Montana would find itself in a situation that sits right in between the estimated impacts for Washington and Idaho.

Wyoming has a minimum wage of $7.25. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t have as accurate job numbers for Wyoming and may have suppressed them. This is because Wyoming has a small fast-food employee population, and confidentiality could be breached. The best estimates are around 6,500 fast food jobs. Based on the estimates, a $20 minimum wage would result in a loss of 1,372 fast food jobs.

A simple economic principle is that when the price of something goes up, people will buy less of it. That exact rule applies to labor as well. Large minimum wage increases greatly contribute to job loss. As the wages increase, businesses may be forced to reduce staff to offset higher labor costs, as occurred in California. 

Proposals for large minimum wage increases have become a policy prescription to combat poverty, but they operate on a false premise. It says that raising the minimum wage will improve the well-being of the workers affected, but that is far from the truth. The minimum wage of a fast food worker let go is zero.

States in our region can avoid this outcome. If policymakers really want the best for these fast-food workers, they should avoid proposals that put their jobs in jeopardy. Let California’s failed $20 minimum wage experiment serve as a warning to the rest of the country.

Sam Cardwell is a Policy Analyst for the Mountain States Policy Center, an independent research organization based in Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Wyoming. Online at mountainstatespolicy.org.

How Short-term Rental Bans Hurt Families, Punish Success

18 January 2026
Dennis Pyburn
No comments

By Amber Gunn

Mountain States Policy Center

For most families, owning a hotel is a fantasy. But owning a single rental property is the ground floor of a bigger dream—a way to fund college tuition or seed a future business through sweat equity and a spare key. For those who can’t afford the overhead of a traditional business, short-term rentals (STRs) are one of the most accessible paths to move beyond a paycheck-to-paycheck existence.

Beyond providing a platform for growth, these rentals serve as a critical safety net for many owners. According to Airbnb, 43 percent of hosts use their earnings to stay in their homes, while 11 percent say the income helped them avoid eviction or foreclosure. Yet, as cities move to ban or cap STRs, they are not just limiting tourism; they are criminalizing the small-scale ambition that allows ordinary people to build financial independence.

STRs have become a useful villain for politicians seeking a scapegoat for the lack of affordable housing. In city council chambers across the country, the narrative is identical: ban short-term rentals and housing affordability will follow.

It’s a comforting story for a frustrated public. It’s also wrong.

In our upcoming study, Short Term Rental Regulations: Principles, Pitfalls, and Practical Reforms, we examine the consequences of turning our backs on the first principles of property ownership. A presumption in favor of peaceful property use is not a mere policy preference; it is the starting point of legitimate governance in a free society. When we abandon this—forgetting that a home is a private asset rather than a tool of the state—we create a vacuum filled by elitism and administrative whim.

STR bans act as a significant barrier to housing market entry, effectively shrinking the buyer pool to high-net-worth individuals. Before a ban, a middle-income family could sometimes afford a mountain or lake house by offsetting the mortgage with rental income. When that business model is outlawed, the buyer disappears and the ladder to wealth-building is kicked away.

The data consistently proves that STR crackdowns fail to solve the structural housing shortages they purport to fix. In New York City, a near-total ban eliminated 90 percent of available listings, yet citywide rents continued climbing to record highs—reaching nearly $4,700 for a one-bedroom apartment while vacancy rates remained at a critical 1 percent. If anything, affordability worsened.

The ban also had the unintended consequence of shifting tourism dollars away from local businesses in dispersed neighborhoods, instead funneling revenue toward centralized hotel chains. An analysis by Charles River Associates found that NYC’s restrictions resulted in $638 million in lost guest spending, while hotels benefited from a nearly 15 percent boost in nightly rates.

This isn’t just an American phenomenon. A 2024 Ernst & Young review in the U.K. found that over 95 percent of housing cost increases are driven by broad economic factors and supply constraints, with STRs accounting for mere pennies on the dollar. Similarly, when Los Angeles County slashed its listings by half, home prices fell by a negligible two percent.

While politicians fixate on STRs, they ignore the staggering cost burden of their own bureaucracy. A 2021 study by the National Association of Home Builders found that government regulation accounts for 23.8 percent of the final price of a new single-family home—a hidden tax averaging nearly $94,000 per house.

Restrictive zoning and regulatory overreach have made it nearly impossible to build enough homes to meet demand. Short-term rentals represent a fraction of the housing stock, yet they receive most of the blame. It is much easier to ban a vacation rental and claim victory than it is to unwind decades of spectacular housing policy failures.  

None of this is an argument for “regulatory anarchy.” Local governments have a clear role in managing noise, safety, and trash. But as our research outlines, the solution is targeted enforcement and market-based solutions, not blanket prohibition. A serious policy framework begins with a presumption in favor of property rights. It rejects arbitrary caps that create artificial scarcity and instead focuses on clear, standardized rules that address actual harm rather than speculative fear.

To that end, states should adopt narrowly-tailored, uniform rules focused on essential protections—accurate tax remittance and objective safety standards—while prohibiting municipalities from using STR bans or licensing regimes as indiscriminate substitutes for enforcing existing nuisance laws.

History is rarely kind to policies that treat property rights as expendable. Housing affordability will not be achieved by suffocating peaceful uses of private property, but by expanding supply and allowing markets to respond to demand.

A disciplined, property rights-centered STR framework helps move policy back toward that goal—strengthening opportunity for homeowners and keeping government aligned with its proper role in a free society.

AGs say ‘As You Sow’ May Violate Antitrust Laws

18 January 2026
Press Room
No comments

By Andrew Rice

The Center Square

A coalition of 18 attorneys general, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, called on the nonprofit group As You Sow to end activities that may violate antitrust and consumer protection laws.

As You Sow, a nonprofit shareholder advocacy organization founded in 1992, seeks to “create large-scale systemic change by establishing sustainable and equitable corporate practices.”

In a letter to As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar, the attorneys general said the nonprofit pressures companies to pursue net-zero emissions policies that are incompatible with the production of fossil fuels.

“As You Sow demands artificial transformations of entire markets and sectors, inevitably impacting the output and quality of the goods and services produced by those sectors,” the attorneys general wrote in the letter.

The attorneys general argued As You Sow seeks to implement policies that are aligned with its predetermined agenda, leaving it potentially in violation of antitrust laws. The coalition said the nonprofit attempts to discourage shareholders from investing in fossil fuel companies due to alleged unsustainability.

“As Attorneys General, we have a duty to protect the citizens of our States from unlawful business practices, and we are prepared to enforce antitrust laws if necessary to stop any illegal conduct by As You Sow,” the group wrote.

The coalition, also said As You Sow may violate consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive marketing regarding its relationship between the nonprofit’s various entities.

As You Know is a for-profit entity with a close business relationship to As You Sow. The attorneys general said As You Sow shared data about public companies with As You Know.

As You Know, the attorneys general allege, uses its benchmarking tools based on datasets from As You Sow’s database.

“As You Sow generates data for As You Know and supplies the activism and rules-based proxy voting underlying the market for As You Know’s products and services sold to investors,” the letter reads.

The attorneys general questioned whether the two entities’ relationship could be considered independent given the information provided publicly in advertisements.

“If companies do what As You Sow demands, they will score more favorably on As You Know’s benchmarks sold to them and to investors, which in turn influence investments and proxy voting,” the letter reads.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, criticized As You Sow for its policy agenda and misrepresentation of business relationships between entities.

“Instead of focusing on things like lower energy costs or strengthening the American economy, As You Sow’s only priority is to reshape the energy sector to meet senseless net-zero benchmarks,” Hild said.

Attorneys general Steve Marshall, Ala.; Stephen Cox, Alaska; Tim Griffin, Ark., James Uthmeier, Fla.; Christopher Carr, Ga.; Raul Labrador, Idaho; Brenna Bird, Iowa; Kris Kobach, Kansas; Liz Murrill, La.; Catherine Hanaway, Mo.; Mike Hilders, Neb.; Drew Wrigley, N.D.; Gentner Drummond, Okl.; Alan Wilson, S.C.; Marty Jackley, S.D.; Derek Brown, Utah; Keith Kautz, Wyo.; joined Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen to sign the letter.

“As You Sow, a little-known but influential member of the climate cartel, is attempting to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry, which will have a devastating impact on Montanans, especially in the winter when we need fossil fuels to heat our homes,” Knudsen said.

“Their efforts to push their green, woke agenda and box out the fossil-fuel industry appear to be a violation of antitrust and Montana consumer protection laws. As attorney general, it’s my duty to ensure they are following the law and hold them accountable if they are not.”

Sales Tax In Montana – Is It Time?

17 January 2026
Press Room
No comments

Sales tax will be a primary subject of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research’s annual Economic Outlook Seminar this year. The seminars, which will be held in nine Montana cities will commence on January 27 in Helena. It will be held on other dates in Great Falls, Missoula, Billings, Bozeman, Butte and Kalispell, Lewistown, and Havre. It will be in Billings on Feb. 3.

The research and history of sales tax in Montana in the context of today’s economic conditions and trends will be explored during the seminar, as well as the economic forecasts for communities around the state, along with a look at Montana’s important industry sectors.

Montana is one of five states without a general sales tax. Voters resoundingly defeated sales tax proposals in 1993 and 1971, and the idea still polls poorly today.

It’s been over 30 years since Montana voters have weighed in on sales tax, and interest in putting it on the ballot again is rising. At least five bills were introduced in the 2025 legislative session having to do with sales tax. As tourism increases and property taxes become more unpopular, some Montanans believe it’s time to reconsider a sales tax.

How would a sales tax affect Montana’s economy? How much revenue could it generate, and could it meaningfully reduce property taxes? Could it be designed to target tourists and reduce the impact on local residents?

That’s exactly what BBER economists and keynote speaker, Bob Story, executive director of the Montana Taxpayers Association, will be discussing at the 2026 Economic Outlook Seminars.

Register for the event a the Bureau’s website. A webcast will be provided for regions outside the nine cities.

More Licensed Occupations in Montana than Almost all Other States

17 January 2026
Dennis Pyburn
No comments

In recent years, 22 percent of the employed have reported holding a government-issued license, in professions ranging from physical therapy to cosmetology to public school teaching. Because occupational licenses can be costly in time and money to obtain, licensure matters for how the labor market performs and who can access economic opportunity, stated a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Montana is second, only to Maine, in having the most licensed occupations. Maine licenses 28.5 percent of their professions and Montana 28 percent, with 154,100 licensed workers in 2024. The national average is 21 percent.

Occupational licensure, both the share of workers who have a license and the number of licensed occupations appear to have stabilized in recent years, after several decades of growth.

By one estimate, the share of workers who were licensed in the 1950s was only about 5 percent. At the time, most people worked jobs that tended to be unlicensed: almost half of the employed were working in agriculture, mining, construction, or manufacturing. In the decades that followed, the share of licensed workers rose to 22 percent, and it’s stayed roughly at that level in recent years (2016-2025). The rise in the share of licensed workers was driven by two factors: occupations became newly licensed in many states, and employment shifted toward the service sector.

When deciding whether to license an occupation, states appear to be looking to each other: the decisions of adjacent states and a few bellwethers like California, New York, and Texas all have predictive power for when a given state licenses an occupation. Professional associations also matter. Once an association is organized in a state, licensure or other forms of regulation become dramatically more likely.

When the tasks in an occupation become more complex, the existence of professional associations themselves may become more likely. Another factor is whether an occupation is exposed to competition from immigrants. Prior work by Minneapolis Fed researchers found that licensing disproportionately reduces employment of foreign-born workers.

Regardless of the reason for the enactment of occupational licensure, one pattern in the data stands out: delicensure is rare. An occupation that started out licensed in any given year from 1950 to 2020 remained licensed 99.9 percent of the time in the next year.

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century and into the 2000s, the share of occupations that transitioned into licensure kept rising, to a high of 3.6 percent in 2001–2010.

Many occupations are currently licensed in some but not all states. The Federal Reserve publication concluded, low- and moderate-income workers bear a particular burden to the extent that the costs of licensing fees and delayed employment are large relative to their incomes. In turn, this burden deters interstate migration by licensed workers and can impair the efficient functioning of U.S. labor markets.

To address some of these issues, roughly 20 states have enacted universal licensure recognition (ULR) reforms with the intent of making it easier for licensed professionals to move among states and continue to work. Using data from the Montana Department of Labor & Industry, researchers volume of licensing in Montana pre- and post-ULR adoption and describe the challenges licensing boards face as they adjust their practices to comply with the new policy.”

In recent decades, some licensing authorities have attempted to reduce interstate licensure barriers by constructing profession-specific compacts. Among other anticipated benefits, these compacts aim to make it easier for licensed individuals to work across state lines—temporarily or after a permanent move. However, a compact can take many years to coordinate across participating states, has limited scope and may result in states agreeing to higher levels of requirements than some policymakers would prefer.

ULR is designed to avoid those downsides by allowing states to set their own standards for how to acknowledge licenses from other states. In March 2019, the State of Montana enacted a ULR reform by changing one word at the beginning of the relevant state law, from “A board may issue a license to practice …” to “A board shall [emphasis added] issue a license to practice … .” The reformed law requires boards to license out-of-state applicants if their original state license requires “substantially equivalent” education and experience. Some states have implemented even stronger reforms that omit that language.

Some proponents of Montana’s reform testified in legislative committees that the bill was a critical fix for workforce issues. They gave examples of workers licensed in other states who had to pay thousands of dollars for additional educational credits or who passed up opportunities because of differences in licensing requirements across states. Other supporters emphasized that the bill “simply reflects what is currently happening” or would reduce licensing-processing times.

Overall, Montana experienced an increase in licensing from 2012, when a total of 7,429 licenses were issued, through 2022, when a total of 15,575 licenses were issued, with particularly strong growth from 2020 through 2021. Licensure by endorsement grew especially quickly, from 2,428 licenses issued in 2012 to 7,527 in 2022.

Farm Bankruptcies Increase, Keeping Some Farmers Afloat

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

By Joe Mahon Director,

Regional Outreach, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

The past few years have been challenging for farmers in the Ninth District. Growing pressure is borne out in the Minneapolis Fed’s Ag Credit surveys, which show slumping incomes and worsening financial conditions over the last two years.

“Farmers … are suffering this year,” commented a North Dakota farm lender on a recent survey. “If prolonged into 2026, we could see some fail.” As that banker suggested, a consequence of leaner times is a rise in the number of farm bankruptcies. Though they have ticked up, farm bankruptcies remain low by historical standards, but there are reasons to expect a continued increase.

It’s perhaps surprising that bankruptcies haven’t increased more. For one thing, a Chapter 12 filing does not necessarily mean a farm is going out of business. In fact, it’s intended to allow farms to continue operating, possibly at a smaller scale after a partial liquidation and restructuring. But filing can help farms avoid liquidating completely when business gets lean.

The number of farm operations filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 12—the section of the Bankruptcy Code specifically for farms—increased in the first two quarters of this year, according to statistics from U.S. Courts. However, this increase comes off of a very low floor, and the overall level is still very low. Only nine farms filed for bankruptcy in the second quarter, in the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which includes Montana.

These have been some lean years. The agriculture sector saw a boom from about 2010 to 2014. But since then, farm incomes have been relatively weak for the better part of a decade, with the exception of a short surge around the pandemic. The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast that farm incomes will increase this year, though approximately three-quarters of that growth is attributable to a projected increase in government payments.

The weakness in incomes is largely driven by weak prices for crops. Following the same pattern as farm incomes, prices for core row crops produced in the Ninth District—corn, soybeans, and wheat—have receded significantly from their recent peak.

In something of a relief to farmers, prices have been idling slightly above their previous trough. For example, a corn price of $4 per bushel is roughly considered break-even over production expenses (though that threshold varies from region to region); as of July, U.S. farmers on average were receiving $4.29.

A key variable that has held up better than incomes is working capital, or cash on hand for farm operations. Having these cash reserves is crucial both for debt service and for avoiding additional debt needed to finance day-to-day farm operations. After cash reserves dipped in the last decade, farmers built up a bigger cushion during the last few years (see Figure 3).

According to the USDA’s latest estimates, these cash holdings were forecast to increase nationwide (data aren’t available at the state level). But it’s likely much of this aggregate cash growth has been concentrated among producers in more lucrative markets, such as cattle. Comments from lenders on recent Ag Credit surveys suggested that working capital ratios for crop-only producers in the district were weaker.

More troubling is the level of farm debt over the last few years, which has continued to increase even as working capital remained stagnant. Joseph Peiffer, an attorney in Iowa who specializes in Chapter 12 and farm debt restructuring, said that underlying the increasing debt is a change in the structure from short-term borrowing (for things like operating loans) to longer-term borrowing.

“Things haven’t been good the last couple of years, so what they’re doing is that they’re borrowing money on the land,” Peiffer said. This amounts to trading short-term debt, such as operating loans, for longer-term debt. “All we do at that point is increase the amount of payments we’re going to have to make next year.”

As Peiffer said, this restructuring is possible because farm land values remain very strong and serve as a source of collateral for farmers to borrow against. And strong growth in land values over the last two decades could actually accelerate Chapter 12 filings going forward.

One unique feature of Chapter 12 is that it allows for the discharge of taxes owed by farming operations. This feature sets it apart from the rest of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses. The tax-relief aspect was codified in 2005 and grew out of the original intent of Chapter 12, after Chapter 11 had proved inadequate to keep farmers operating during the 1980s farm crisis. However, use of these tax provisions was limited due to unfavorable court rulings. That changed with federal legislation in 2017 that clarified the provisions, after which the number of filings climbed a bit.

For a struggling farm looking to rightsize their operations through partial liquidation, selling off acres can be prohibitive, especially if the farm has been operating for many years. If the land was purchased or inherited decades earlier, the tax value (tax basis) would likely be much lower than its current market value, leading to a very sizable return when sold. That profit, however, would be subject to capital gains tax, which would offset the liquidity boost from selling the land. By filing for Chapter 12 after liquidating land, machinery, and other assets, overstretched farmers could avoid paying those taxes and possibly stay in business.

There’s a stigma to overcome for farmers, Peiffer said, a strong cultural aversion to the idea of filing for bankruptcy. But for struggling farmers, he said, the tax relief could be an attractive option.

Coal Lease Sales Cancelled

21 October 2025
Press Room
No comments

Auctions for coal leases that President Trump has made available are being postponed because the first one brought in only one very low bid. It seems that even though President Trump has reversed the past attacks on the industry, the industry is not very reassured about its future.

Wyofile.com reported that The Navajo Transitional Energy Company was the only bidder on federal coal at the Spring Creek mine and their bid was $186,000 for 167 million tons of federal coal – a fraction of a penny per ton. The last major sale in the area was in 2012 which was for $793 million for 721 million tons or about $1.10 per ton.

The industry is saying it is the consequences of the lingering impact from Obama and Biden’s decades long war on coal which aggressively sought to end all domestic coal production and erode confidence in the U.S. coal industry.

Also having an impact is cheap natural gas and the subsidized wind and solar energy.

Federal officials indefinitely postponed a Wyoming coal lease sale apparently in response to what many observers consider the lowball bid.

Navajo Transitional Energy Company’s bid stunned coal market watchers.

Navajo Transitional was also in the queue to bid on the 441 million-ton West Antelope III federal coal lease associated with its Antelope coal mine spanning Campbell and Converse counties in Wyoming. 

Bureau of Land Management and Interior Department officials are still reviewing the Spring Creek bid, and those close to the process expect that another date will be set for the West Antelope III coal lease sale.

“While we would have liked to see stronger participation, this sale reflects the lingering impact from Obama and Biden’s decades long war on coal which aggressively sought to end all domestic coal production and erode confidence in the U.S. coal industry,” the Interior wrote in an email responding to a WyoFile inquiry. “Fortunately, President [Donald] Trump and his administration are rebuilding trust between industry and government as part of our broader effort to restore American Energy Dominance.”

Others note that the coal industry itself sees the writing on the wall. If a fraction-of-a-penny bid is any indication, some critics say, the thermal coal industry — which relies on U.S. coal-burning power plants — isn’t yet confident that Trump’s policies will turn around years of market decline.

“It tells you that there’s no competition for that coal in the ground, and it’s not worth very much money,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis Energy Data Analyst Seth Feaster told WyoFile on Wednesday. “It points to the fundamental, structural decline the coal industry is facing — for thermal coal — and that story hasn’t been reversed, despite all the things that they’re talking about.”

The postponement in Wyoming and lackluster offer in Montana come just days after the Trump administration touted sweeping regulatory rollbacks and $625 million in federal spending to revitalize “clean, beautiful coal.” 

Navajo Transitional tried to set expectations regarding Powder River Basin coal’s market value back in September, urging the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to set its minimum bid requirement for the West Antelope III coal lease much lower than comparable leases in the past. Neighboring Powder River Basin coal operator, CORE Natural Resources, echoed that sentiment and told BLM officials, “the fair-market value of coal in the Powder River Basin will remain soft for the next number of years.”

Gov. Mark Gordon has said recently that Trump’s efforts to revive the coal industry will take some time to bear fruit. He has also underscored the administration’s notion that expanding the coal industry is necessary to meet increasing electricity demand, mostly driven by artificial intelligence and other computational facilities.

The Wyoming Mining Association declined to comment on Navajo Transitional’s Spring Creek coal lease bid, but acknowledged the industry still must reckon with 15 years of drastic market and policy shifts.

State Pauses Site Search for Mental Health Facility

10 September 2025
Evelyn Pyburn
No comments

By Evelyn Pyburn

Confronted with a lot of questions from local officials that are going without answers, State officials have stepped back from their pursuit of finding a site for a behavioral health facility, funding for which was approved by the Montana State Legislature.

After conducting a tour of potential sites in several communities, Director of the Board of Investments,  Dan Villa, who has been charged with the task of finding a site, announced that he needs more direction and information from legislators, the Governor’s office and the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) in order to better answer the questions he is being asked by county and city officials about what kind of facility is envisioned and how it will operate.

The Montana Board of Investments was assigned the task of assisting DPHHS in finding a site for the proposed facility following the approval of $26.5 million by the 2025 Montana Legislature to build the long-discussed need for a facility. The facility will serve an ever-growing waiting list of inmates in need of mental health services. The Montana Board of Investments manages state-owned lands, and it is hoped that a property can be found that is already owned by the state as  a site, thus saving in its cost.

Senate Bill 5, which advanced the proposal in the state legislature, states that construction should start on the facility by June of 2026. Some comments from legislators, recognizing its urgent need, have suggested that it needs to be completed in two years.

As Villa visited the prospective sites – especially in Billings which has been broadly discussed as the preferable location – he was pelted with questions about how the facility would operate, what expectations would be imposed upon the community and taxpayers, and even whether it is to be a general “behavioral health facility,” or a “forensic facility,” which would accommodate criminals serving sentences, who need mental health treatment.

In June, it was reported that Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton told a state commission that they hope to locate a new facility “in the Yellowstone County region.”

In making the announcement, last week, that the search for a site is being put on hold, Villa told his Board of Investments that he needs more guidance to answer questions, especially in Billings where concerns run high that the addition of such a facility will just add to the burden of providing social services for the mentally ill and other unhoused, unemployed, indigent people.

County and city officials in Billings have asked how the patients or inmates of the facility will be processed, concerned that they will eventually be discharged with no support, compounding social problems and imposing additional costs on taxpayers. The lack of information that Villa has been able to provide has generated charges that the State is not complying with the state’s public information requirements.

Montana Senator Mike Yakawich, Billings SD24,  who served on the legislative committee that dealt with how to address the issue of behavioral health in Montana, said that it is estimated that the proposed facility would be about 50 beds and would hire 50 people or more.

The idea of building a second location for a behavioral health center is not a new idea, said Yakawich. It’s been around for about 20 years.

The only other option for inmates needing mental health care has long been Warm Springs, which can accommodate about 100 patients, which has faced its own struggles over the past couple of years. However, it too received funding from the recent State Legislature, which is expected to help solve some of its problems — problems which resulted in it losing its federal accreditation and federal funding.  Sen. Yakawich said that he is confident that Warm Springs will regain its accreditation this year.

Some state officials have stated that they believe Billings is a preferable location for a second location for several reasons, including a more strategic location to better serve Eastern Montana.

As Sen. Yakawich commented, it’s a very long drive for communities in Eastern Montana to transport prisoners to Warm Springs in Deer Lodge County. Transporting prisoners across the state from Eastern Montana communities is an onerous and costly process, he said.

Even those questioning plans going forward readily concede the need for an additional facility in the State. Many of the inmates that are being held in local jails – including the Yellowstone County Detention Facility – should be in a facility that provides mental health care but there are no openings. Others are waiting long stretches in jail for mental health assessments they cannot get because of a lack of health care professionals.

Billings is the best choice for the site, say some civic leaders, because it has a wide variety of support services and a bigger workforce, as well as a larger community that might better attract prospective workers.  A shortage of prospective workers is a problem that has plagued Warm Springs, as well as law enforcement and jails, and other medical providers across the state.

That Billings is a preferred location because it already has other support services is exactly what makes the county commissioners and some city council members concerned about what such a facility could impose on the community and especially on taxpayers.

County Commissioner Mark Morse pointed out that the services that Billings has are beyond full capacity, with little or no funding available to expand them, while demand continues to grow.

Morse also emphasized that Yellowstone County decided some time ago to “invest in themselves” and take care of some of its needs for which county taxpayers have paid. They were not intended for use by the state nor should county taxpayers be expected to pay for the needs of the state, he said.

And, the State does not have a good record as far as the County Commissioners are concerned, in doing their part to support the full cost of State prisoners in the county jail. For more than a decade the State has refused to fully pay the county the daily cost of housing State prisoners. The State pays the county  $82.59 a day, while the County calculates the true cost at $117.

Morse further asked what will the State do when they release an inmate – just turn them out onto the streets of Billings?

In the past, there have been complaints from other county officials, who claim that other communities appear to give their troubled citizens a one-way bus ticket to Billings, which often means they are homeless and vying for the same over-capacity services in Billings.

Another county department head said that Yellowstone County does not have the workforce that the State is talking about. She said that while nationally they are claiming that there are two job openings for every worker, the figure is much higher in Yellowstone County. Every health care department, county sheriff and jail, as well as businesses, are struggling to hire the labor they need.

Questions about what the State’s plans are, went unanswered by the state officials, complained Morse and city officials. He said that in attendance during the site visit to Billings, there were representatives of a design firm and a construction contractor – “you don’t have them” unless there are plans available.

Yakawich pointed out that many of the answers about what the facility will be is probably not yet known because most of the planning won’t happen until a site is proposed.

Yakawich said he “gets” the concerns of the community, but has no problem with the facility locating in Billings. Yakawich said he understands the acute need not just for the State, but also for Yellowstone County and Eastern Montana to have a second health care facility.

County Faces a “Big Ask”

23 July 2025
Evelyn Pyburn
No comments

“It’s a big ask.”

Persistent overcrowding at the Yellowstone County Detention Facility (YCDF), the county’s jail, has brought forth a proposal from consultants to expand the jail by 512 beds with support systems at a cost of $225 million.  The expansion and updating of current facilities would carry the county to meeting needs through to 2039, as well as prepare options for future expansion.

“A year’s long -worth of work,” by consultants, Justice Planners, A&E Design and HDR Engineering, was presented to County Commissioners and other public officials last Wednesday. The consultants were engaged by the County Commissioners, at the recommendation of a County Attorney appointed sub-committee, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC), made up of people representing various aspects of the community.

The consultants spent the past year looking at projections, assumptions on growth, options, the current condition of the facility, recommended options and staff analysis.

They looked at a 20 year projection for the YCDF and also at the youth facility (Youth Services Center) which was stated to be in dire need of updating, with the recommendation that the County consider doing so in the near future.

The proposed $225 million cost is a sobering one for County Commissioners, to whom Sheriff Mike Linder commented, “It’s a big ask of the county taxpayers.” Building such a facility would undoubtedly require asking taxpayers for additional tax levy and spending authority. But, the proposal comes as a result of years of overcrowded conditions at the jail, a situation that has often prevented jailing perpetrators of lesser crimes, which generated disrespect for law enforcement and complications throughout the entire judicial system. The current capacity of the YCDF is supposed to be 434 inmates, but its daily population invariably ranges between 600 and 630.

The study shows that total projected Average Daily Population, by 2049, would be 1,030. By 2049, 1,277 beds would be needed to operate the facility safely and what would be considered best practice. It recommends the addition of another 512 beds in 2049 to carry the facility through to its projected total operating capacity need of 1,552.

The $225 million proposal is one of ten options explored by the team of consultants, which projected estimated costs ranging from $48.3 million to $469 million. A&E Design CEO Dusty Eaton explained that the selected option would include the top priorities for the facility, in addition to increasing total capacity to 946 (including 12 medical beds + 82 short-term beds). He pointed out that the construction of a short-term facility that is currently underway, would bring total capacity for the county jail to 1,040, which is expected to accommodate inmate population through 2039.

Eaton said he didn’t think they could get the cost lower “without compromising safety,” adding, “We are spending money today to plan for the future.”

The proposed option includes $144,954,000 for new construction, almost $8 million for an addition and almost $4 million in renovations. It also includes the cost of relocating and rebuilding outside buildings that must be moved in order to make room for the addition to the YCDF, located on King Avenue East. Eaton said that there is not enough room at the current jail site to add the addition, without removing outside buildings such as the Evidence Building. The buildings will be moved across the street to county-owned property.

Eaton also commented, “The existing jail is aging but is in pretty good shape. It needs some investment and upkeep.”

Even without adding capacity, the consultants said the YCDF needs at least $9.5 million in improvements to deal with the most pressing problems.

Melissa Williams, Chief Civil Attorney, Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office, who served on the committee, pointed out that many of the instituted efforts by the judicial system in Yellowstone County to drive down the jail population, have shown evidence that they are working. For example, without the new Arraignment Court, the current jail population would be 70 more per day than it is now. These impacts have been calculated into the projections for the addition to the jail.

Building is one aspect of expansion, staffing is another. The consultants’ study also looked at those costs.

“You have to have a certain level of staff to be safe, you need to reduce overtime  – -to eliminate staff fatigue and burnout,” said Alan Richardson, founder and president of Justice Planners. Staffing numbers should be reviewed at every milestone, he recommended.

Current staffing at the YCDF is 111.5 FTEs (Full Time Equivalent employees). Recommended for a 1040 bed facility is 243 FTEs at an estimated cost of $18,748,952, annually.

The biggest challenge to staffing is finding and keeping good employees. Sheriff Linder noted that the YCDF is down only four staff members currently, which is the closest they have come to having a full staff in a number of years. He commented that every day, the staff at YCDF, perform Herculean efforts.

Sheriff Linder said the problem with jail over-capacity is that more inmates are staying longer in jail. He also noted that the vast majority of the criminals are local.

Linder also went on to ask that since it is ‘such a big ask’ of taxpayers, which they might reject, “Do we have another option? Do we have a Plan B?”

County Commissioners Mike Waters and Mark Morse recognized the “Herculean efforts” of the jail staff and expressed their appreciation.

Morse commented, that “a big issue that has to be dealt with at every level in the state is that of mental health” of some inmates. “It is one of the biggest problems,” the detention staff has to deal with. “Some are in the facility for as much as a year.” He said he doesn’t see anything “on the horizon” that would solve that problem.

Waters added, “The cost is enormous.” He also noted that the county has been tightening its belt and cutting other budgets in anticipation of the cost the jail expansion will bring.

In looking at the need for an updated Juvenile Center, the consultants recommended a 48-bed facility with support spaces including food service, laundry, staff support spaces, etc. The facility is planned to be a separate stand-alone facility of approximately 55,000 square feet including education services. The cost was projected at $59,336,253.

MSU TechLink Assures Federal Programs

16 June 2025
Press Room
No comments

Montana State University TechLink  assures that federal programs for research  and development are not at risk of federal cost cutting. In a recent statement they stated, “we want to reassure our clients that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs are not only operational but continue to thrive.”

Federal agencies have active solicitations or are preparing to announce new opportunities, they reported. The Department of Defense remains a source of support for innovative ventures. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is actively engaging small businesses in cutting-edge research and development projects. Likewise, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continues to fund health-related innovations.

Moreover, NASA’s Ignite SBIR initiative is gearing up to propel small businesses into new realms of aerospace technology and research. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) websites state plans to roll out solicitations this summer that promise to support sustainability and agricultural advancements.

For entrepreneurs and small businesses navigating these uncertain times, the message is clear: the SBIR and STTR programs are very much “open for business.” These programs represent ongoing opportunities to transform innovative ideas into reality, with substantial backing from federal agencies committed to fostering scientific and technological innovation.