By Christina Lengyel,  The Center Square

A bill aimed at removing a 2007 tax break from wind energy producers has West Virginia legislators at odds over the supremacy of coal in West Virginia’s economy.

Senate Bill 439 would clarify that “wind power projects are not pollution control facilities,” which are taxed at salvage value. The clarification would subject them to real property taxes.

Supporters of the bill say the change would add millions in tax revenue to the state and take away an unfair advantage over the coal industry. Those who oppose it say the wind industry, which employs West Virginians and is an essential component of a clean-energy future, would suffer a huge blow.

Sen. Glenn Jeffries, R-Putnam, argued for an “all energy” policy, encouraging the incentivization of all energy production, including coal, rather than disincentivizing wind power production.

The bill’s sponsor and chair of the Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining committee Sen. Chris Rose, R-Monongalia, said the wind industry profits “at the expense of our hardworking coal and natural gas industries,” which he called “a slap in the face to the men and women who have powered this state for generations, digging coal and drilling gas to keep America running.”

County regulations on how private property is used by owners, which were rewritten a couple of years ago, are being tweaked by the city/county planning department, to correct errors, spelling, grammar, etc. and make changes that weren’t working, according to Nicole Cromwell, Zoning Coordinator for the Planning Division of the City of Billings.

The 96 page document with its changes was approved by Yellowstone County Commissioners. The county’s regulations, which are laws mandating how property owners may develop and use their property, are different than those imposed inside the city boundaries.

Restrictions on how a property owner may exercise his rights to determine how to use a property, ostensibly exist to assure “public health and safety” but they often extend into issues of esthetics, environmental preferences, consistency, compliance, or the majority sentiments of neighbors.

Cromwell reviewed some of the more significant changes before the commissioners during their regular weekly board meeting.

Included in changes are details about where a property owner must store garbage, ie. “must be located in either the rear yard, or interior side yard;” it may be located inside the building  with “access doors off the rear or interior side façade. . . “doors must be opaque, screening a minimum of 80 percent of the opening.”

Added to the document are regulations dictating maximum height of a building does not include “spires, belfries, cupolas, antennas, water towers or tanks, chimneys or smokestacks, power transmission lines, cooling or elevator towers” etc. To exceed height limits a property owner must seek approval by submitting an “approved application for Administrative Relief” or a “Variance.” Signs must be approved . . . trees trimmed up 8 feet clearance. . . canopies are covers “attached to and supported by the structure to which it is attached . . .”

Minimum requirements for arterial setbacks are included. “No building or structure shall be erected or maintained within fifty feet of the centerline of an arterial street.” “. . . no required parking area or portion thereof, including driving aisles, shall be constructed or located within forty feet of the centerline. . .”

The number of buildings (residents) allowed on a lot was increased from one to two, with up to three accessory buildings. Details on where a property owner can locate a driveway or a garage are also included.

Due to a change in state law the zoning regulations can no longer discriminate as to manufactured homes, so all language that did so in past regulations has been struck. Regulations that dictated that a two-unit building must be “ located perpendicular to the street in a U-shaped configuration with a courtyard or shared yard,” was eliminated.

However, it now restricts that garage entrances located on the front façade be limited to 50 percent of the front façade width. Eliminated was the mandate that only one entrance may be located on the street from the garage, now two entrances are allowed by the regulators.

If a property has no alley or other rear entrances, the law will allow the property owner to put a garage on their property fronting onto a street so long as it has  “. . . single-wide garage entry door of ten feet in width or less. . .” If a property owner wants two garage doors, not only must each be no more than ten feet wide but they must share the driveway, that can be no more than 25 feet wide. Front entry garages are prohibited from taking up more than 40 percent of the front of the lot, and the garage doors must be set back at least 8 feet behind the front door.

Also eliminated was a 20,000 square feet minimum size of a “parklet” or landscaped open space, which still is mandated to have 70 percent living plant material and extend at least 20 feet along street frontage. A “green” must extend as much as 50 feet along a street. A “natural area” is a large area “to conserve a natural feature, such as a stream, wetland or woodland” must also extend 50 feet.

How far different kinds of structures must be set back from a property line are also dictated.

In “mixed-use” permitted areas a restriction that dictated that only “upper stories” could accommodate residential and/or office uses, was struck in the revised regulations, and now a property owner may use any story of the property he owns for such purposes. Also struck were restrictions on allowing dwelling use below the ground floor level.

Another change stipulates that manufactured homes may not be used for any commercial use or as an office for a manufactured home sales area.

The regulations grant permission for either private or public ownership of amusement and recreation facilities, and they grant permission for such entities to charge fees. Ice arenas, playgrounds, picnic shelters, community centers, gardens and orchards and nature preserves were added to the list of acceptable amusement and recreational facilities.

The rules further restrict how storage facilities may be used, disallowing any business activity, mandating fencing and where it must be, and that stacked stored items cannot exceed the height of the fence. And shipping containers shall be screened from view from any public right-of-way.

Agriculture, commercial and industrial zones have been included as allowable users of “Antennas co-located on existing stealth communication facilities or existing antenna support structures which have previously received all required approvals and permits shall be permitted . . .”

Other regulations restrict the size and number of detached accessory structures, depending on lot size.

There are extensive additions to regulations pertaining to expanding by fifty percent or more the gross building square footage, requiring that it comply with current mandates. Many of the esthetic changes are only required if they front the street.

Some of the mandates regarding how the outside of such a remodeled building should look, require replacing existing front-facing façade with up-to-date approved materials and dictating the size of windows. Also the roof, should it need to be changed, would have to be changed to meet new standards. Lots larger than 1.5 acres will have to have a plan prepared by a licensed landscaper, and owners of smaller lots will be strongly urged to consult with a professional landscaper. Regulations note that a list of appropriate plant species for Yellowstone County can be obtained from the Planning Department.

“All multifamily residential projects, manufactured home parks, and all mixed-use and non-residential projects shall include on the landscape plan, a detailed drawing of enclosure and screening methods to be used in connection with mechanical equipment, trash bins, recycle bins, storage yards, service areas, loading docks, and other equipment storage areas on the property.”

“Any fence greater than a height of three feet and equal to or less than 7 feet in height shall require a fence permit.” Added to the planners’ list of acceptable fencing materials are “corrugated and uncorrugated metal panels framed in wood, vinyl, composite, brick or stone. Metal panels shall be coated with a non-reflective material . . . “

Changes have also been made to regulations dictating signage requirements for businesses and when they are required.

In a report from the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Montana is at the very top in terms of our Gross Domestic Product – or how much we produce, as compared to the other states in our district. The Ninth District is comprised of five states, including Montana.

The latest data, which is third quarter of 2024, shows that Montana has a GDP of 117.7 as compared to the next highest state, South Dakota at 111.7. We are also producing at a higher level than the US average at 114.5 – also we have had a very steep incline in the increase of our GDP, ever since COVID – exceeding all other states in the district.

Montana also has the highest percentage employment per 100 people than other states in the Ninth District and it has been steadily rising. Montana’s ratio is 111.3 as compared to the next highest, again South Dakota at 106.5. The National average is 106.3.

By Sarah Roderick-Fitch, The Center Square

The debate over whether taxpayers should be on the hook for constructing professional sports stadiums has made its way back to Capitol Hill as lawmakers look to end taxpayer subsidies for multi-billion-dollar complexes.

Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., and Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation calling for the end of taxpayer subsidies to build professional sports complexes.

The No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act would terminate the ability for professional sporting teams to utilize tax-exempt municipal bonds to finance the construction of stadiums. The lawmakers argue that the tax exemptions were “originally intended to help local governments fund essential public infrastructure projects,” including hospitals, schools and roads.

The legislators claim the “loophole has enabled wealthy sports franchises to benefit from taxpayer dollars, often with little measurable economic return to the surrounding communities.”

The lawmakers contend that in the last 25 years, over 40 sports stadiums have been “financed” using the tax-exempted municipal bonds, claiming to have cost taxpayers “an estimated $4.3 billion in lost federal revenue.”

In February, The Center Square reported on $1.2 billion in public funds requested to help build a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns, which is estimated to cost $2.4 billion.

In 2023, The Center Square reported on another stadium project involving the construction of a new stadium to house the Tennessee Titans, requesting a $500 million bond from the state of Tennessee.

The Tax Foundation reported that, according to sports economists, over 50 years between 1970 and 2020, taxpayers “‘devoted $33 billion in public funds to construct major-league sports stadiums and arenas’” in the U.S. and Canada. Adding that the public was left “on the hook for nearly three-quarters of the costs of each new sports venue.”

In 2023, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced a plan to build a “world-class” entertainment district in Alexandria’s Potomac Yard neighborhood to house Washington’s NBA and NHL franchises as part of a $2 billion public-private partnership.

At the time, Youngkin touted the development as a major economic boost. Supporters claimed it would generate a $12 billion economic impact for Alexandria and the commonwealth while creating 30,000 jobs. The deal to move the teams across the Potomac has since died.

Despite the governor’s claim, The National Conference of State Legislatures says the “economic impact of stadiums” on cities “is negligible.” However, construction of new stadiums does create jobs, such as, construction and seasonal employment.

NCSL questioned the “quality of the jobs,” citing stadium workers and “game-day personnel,” who often perform “low wage, temporary and part-time” work.

Beyer, whose district includes Alexandria, argues that taxpayers shouldn’t be “forced to fund” sports complexes. “Billionaire owners who need cash can borrow from the market like any other business. Arguments that stadiums boost job creation have been repeatedly discredited. In a time when there is a debate over whether the country can ‘afford’ investments in health care, childcare, education, or fighting climate change, it is ridiculous to even contemplate such a radical misuse of publicly subsidized bonds,” said Beyer.

Those advocating to expand passenger rail service in Montana, the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA), hang in limbo as HB 848 is pending in the state legislature, which would create a “Big Sky Rail Account” which would contribute to the estimated $2 billion price tag for a second rail line through southern Montana — the Big Sky North Coast Corridor, which would extend from Seattle to Chicago. (Amtrak’s Empire Builder passes through northern Montana.) 

“It would not be inconceivable,” said BSPRA Chairman Dave Strohmaier, that the cost for the line, “would be upwards of $2 billion for a 2,300-mile long route.”  He said a key component of their strategy is securing support from local governments and municipalities.  BSPRA has garnered pledges of support from numerous cities, including Billings, and counties in Montana, which implies commitments of local funding, in addition to federal funding, and anticipated state funding.

 HB 848 was introduced by state Rep. Denise Baum (D-Billings). It has passed the House and transmitted to the Senate.

Stephen Gardner, Amtrak’s CEO, recently resigned his position. The uncertainty of federal funding and priorities poses additional uncertainties regarding the future of the Big Sky North Coast Corridor.

By Haley Chinander, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Companies reported in a survey that profits and revenue declined, and some observed that additional economic uncertainty made already price-sensitive customers more skittish. The January survey received 568 responses from business owners across the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve Bank which includes Montana.

Amid this uncertainty, more businesses reported pulling back on hiring but for varying reasons. Many respondents mentioned that heightened labor costs hindered their ability to hire, while others noted that improved labor availability and slower turnover lessened their hiring needs.

Businesses also said that price increases moderated since last year, and their outlook was solidly positive.

Revenue declined for 44 percent of firms compared with the same quarter last year. Profits were also reportedly lower for nearly half of firms.

Expectations for future revenue and profits leaned negative as well, with 36 percent of respondents expecting declines in revenue over the next quarter and 30 percent expecting revenue to increase.

Respondents noted that heightened input and labor costs continued to chip away at their profits. Many also mentioned that their customers or clients were increasingly tightening their belts and unwilling to make large purchases.

“It appears that inflation is really having an effect on people’s spending,” observed the owner of a Minnesota accommodation business. “People generally have less to spend, thus we have seen a decrease in our gross revenue.”

Other respondents mentioned that increased economic uncertainty, especially due to proposed changes in federal policy, was creating concerns about future input costs and demand. “We are anxious about any possible tariffs,” wrote a North Dakota alcohol beverage retailer. “We significantly felt the impacts of the last round of tariffs in 2018 [and] 2019. We tried to stock up in advance of price increases to be competitive.”

Unusual winter weather patterns also continued to impact businesses in different ways. Some retail and accommodation businesses that depend on winter weather saw improved snow coverage and lower temperatures this year. “We are a motel that caters to winter sports enthusiasts, the amount of snow this year … has made a significant increase in business,” commented a respondent in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (U.P.).

Other businesses, even within the same state, weren’t so lucky with snowfall. A resort owner further west in the U.P. reported poorer snow conditions: “We took on this business because past numbers looked good,” but there’s “no winter up here and no winter tourism anymore.”

As heightened costs and economic uncertainty strained firms, hiring slowed to its lowest levels in the last three years. Nearly half of businesses were not hiring, and of those that were, only 18 percent were looking for new full-time workers.

The reasons for this pullback in hiring varied among respondents. Many pointed to declining revenue and difficulties affording wages. “Employees expect better pay. I’m not saying they don’t deserve [it]. Just that we can’t afford it,” wrote the owner of a Twin Cities construction firm.

Notably, most businesses were still reluctant to reduce staff despite declining revenue and heightened costs. Only 8 percent indicated they were actively cutting staff, and a majority expected numbers to simply stay flat in the next six months.

Some business owners mentioned other ways of alleviating labor costs without reducing staff. “We’ve been on reduced hours in our manufacturing area … due to reduced customer orders,” wrote a manufacturer in the U.P.

“We had to cancel health care & other insurance coverage for our staff due to high costs,” added the owner of a Minnesota retail business.

Other firms pulled back on hiring because they had success in becoming fully staffed as labor availability improved. Turnover was reportedly flat for three-fourths of firms, and the share of respondents that said getting new hires was “extremely difficult” was at its lowest levels in two years (see Figure 3).

“We have no turnover; We are seeing a marked increase in qualified applicants for our open positions over one year ago,” observed a North Dakota manufacturing firm owner.

“It seems like we are retaining employees better,” the owner of a South Dakota janitorial firm wrote. “We have improved our training, but I sense there’s less jobs available right now.”

By Thérèse Boudreaux, The Center Square

America’s natural gas industry celebrated after President Donald Trump signed into law a resolution repealing Biden-era fees on methane emissions.

The Waste Emissions Charge, which Republicans say is the equivalent of a natural gas tax, was authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024.

The resolution rescinds that regulation under the Congressional Review Act. The CRA legislation gives Congress the authority to repeal regulations issued during the final months of a previous administration.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., called the repeal “a victory for the American businesses and families who would have been forced to bear the cost of the Biden-Harris Administration’s natural gas tax.”

“It’s time to restore American energy dominance by harnessing innovation and producing the natural gas needed to support our electric grid,” Guthrie added.

Energy experts who testified before Congress in February said the high energy prices during Joe Biden’s presidency directly resulted from increased environmental regulations on energy production. The regulations slowed down domestic energy production and consequently led to increased costs, they said.

“AXPC thanks President Trump for signing the Congressional Review Act legislation – to undo EPA’s flawed rule to implement the natural gas tax,” AXPC CEO Anne Bradbury stated. “While American energy producers remain laser focused on reducing methane emissions, this punitive rule risked undermining those efforts.”

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that “Charging for methane emissions leads to an increase in the price of natural gas and a decrease in the quantity of natural gas produced and consumed.”

But environmental groups have argued that the legislation will increase energy costs and disrupt efforts to reduce emissions of a potent greenhouse gas.

City of Billings officials worry that a popular bill that promises property tax cuts for Montana, called the Homestead Rate Cut Bill, could have detrimental impacts on Billings.

HB 231 would reduce property tax rates for many residents but it does so in a manner that would reduce revenue for the City of Billings, which functions under a Charter that limits how many mills it can levy. The levy cap means that the city would not be able to increase its levy, as most other cities can do, to maintain the same level of revenue. The city is at risk of losing up to $7 million in revenue.

In a recent town hall meeting, Senator Sue Vinton, unveiled the conflict, saying that only one other city in the state faces the same dilemma. Should HB 231 pass, the City of Billings may have to consider changing their City Charter. It has a pretty good chance of passing since it has support of Republicans, Democrats and the Governor. 

The conflict of the bill with City Charters was not initially realized and reports are there are amendments being proposed to deal with the conflict.

Vinton’s husband, Mike Vinton, who is serving his first term as a Representative for House District 40, noted that the bill – as with most of the tax cut proposals – does not really cut taxes but shifts them to other entities. HB 231 would lower taxes on homeowners and renters by imposing higher taxes on short-term rentals, second homes, businesses, coal mines and refineries. It’s really not a tax cut for everyone. It is why, Vinton said, he did not vote for it.

Rep. Vinton also noted that there are some issues to be concerned about in regard to what the legislation says constitutes a “second home.” An adjoining lot with a shop on it will be designated as a second home and “hit hard.” While people may think that a “second home” will hit people with secondary recreational properties and out-of-state people, “it is going to hit Montana residents,” he said – another reason he voted against it. “I don’t think it is what citizens want in the way of reducing taxes.”

Governor Greg Gianforte, Senator Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, and local ag producers are urging support for reforms to the business equipment tax. Gov. Gianforte and Sen. Kassmier support a reform to permanently eliminate the tax’s burden for an additional 700 small businesses, family farms, and family ranches.

“With hardworking Montanans in mind, we’re once again prioritizing historic business equipment tax relief, eliminating this tax burden for more Montana small businesses and family farms and ranches,” Gov. Gianforte said. “Taxing critical business equipment makes it harder to grow a small business and is a wet blanket on job creation. Let’s continue our progress to eliminate the burden.”

Since 2021, Sen. Kassmier has led the charge in the Legislature to ease the burden of the business equipment tax for small businesses and family farms and ranches. Between 2021 and 2023, then-Rep. Kassmier sponsored bills, which the governor signed into law that expanded the business equipment tax exemption from $100,000 to $1,000,000 eliminating the business equipment tax burden for more than 5,000 small businesses, farms, and ranches.

“This is important because inflation keeps hitting these farms and ranches, the price of equipment keeps rising, and it doesn’t take long to get to $1 million with just a couple pieces of equipment. Raising the exemption to $3 million will help get another 700 farmers and ranchers off this tax roll and allow them to be able to invest in their operations and employees,” Sen. Kassmier said. “I appreciate the governor’s work and leadership on this, and I look forward to raising the exemption.”

During a visit to Circle View Farms in Fort Benton, Gov. Gianforte and Sen. Kassmier met with fourth-generation owner Brent Hanford on the importance of raising the exemption to take more farms and ranches off the business equipment tax roll.

“The business equipment tax is taxing equipment you bought with money that was already taxed. It shouldn’t be happening in the first place, but raising it from $1 million to $3 million would greatly help, especially small farms and ranches and businesses – to keep that money to put back into the business to keep it going,” Hanford said.

The governor and senator also heard from Eric Gray, owner of Heartland Seed and farmer in Highwood.

“I’ve been really lucky. As I’ve gotten into farming over the last few years here, and back helping my dad on his operation, I’ve been able to start accumulating my own equipment line and the business equipment tax has been stepped up, so I haven’t had to worry about it. So, increasing the exemption will only continue to help,” Gray said.

Gray continued, “When you start looking at $500,000 to $1 million for a combine, depending on what you buying, $1 million are for the exemption doesn’t go very far – you can tie that up in a hurry.”

Montana’s business equipment tax requires small businesses and family farms and ranches to reallocate resources, which they would otherwise use to invest in their operation and create jobs, to pay a tax on the equipment and machinery they need to operate.

The business equipment tax also imposes a costly compliance burden, with businesses required to inventory and report their equipment to the state each year.

Reducing the burden of the business equipment tax on Montanans, Sen. Kassmier’s Senate Bill 322 continues to encourage business investment and promote job creation. The bill was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Taxation Committee on March 27.

By Evelyn Pyburn

Yellowstone County Commissioners are taking a hard look at moving the county’s Election Department, in its entirety, to Metra Park.

With the Election’s Department Director, Ginger Aldrich, concerned about not having enough space for the Department to perform its functions, especially after what was experienced in the November general election, County Commissioner Mike Waters took on the challenge of delving into the problem to come up with a solution. At Wednesday’s discussion meeting county officials reviewed the options, challenges and recommendations.

Waters and Aldrich’s top recommendation is to do some renovations of Cedar Hall at MetraPark and make it the one-stop location for most aspects of conducting elections. While the move will not provide all of the space that Aldrich projected as needed it does come close and offers many benefits.

Such as: The location of MetraPark is well known to everybody and many people are already used to going there to vote. The location has ample parking and plenty of space to accommodate dropping off ballots. And perhaps most beneficial is that ballots remain in one location which generates more public confidence in the integrity of elections.

Other options that were scrutinized included splitting operations between the new administration building, which is in the process of being refurbished for county departments, and to continue to lease space from Wells Fargo, which is a solution that has been used in the last two years. Waters said he was anxious to end the cost of that lease.

Another suggestion was to continue with the plan to have the main “front facing” Election office in the County Administration Building (CAB), the former Miller Building, and perform some of the other functions in the Cedar Hall location. Aldrich and some of those working for the department commented that it was one thing to have to walk back and forth between the Election’s office and the Wells Fargo Building (often as many as five times a day) and quite another to have to drive back and forth from the CAB and MetraPark. It also increases concerns about security and election integrity.

Aldrich also announced out that the City of Billings offered first floor space in their new office building (the Stillwater Building) at a “very generous rate.” While the distance between the Stillwater Building and the CAB is greater than that of their current office and Wells Fargo, it would still be doable, and the great entry way into the Stillwater Building would accommodate the long lines that often occur for Elections.

Kevan Bryan, Director, Office of Management Budget at Yellowstone County, expressed concerns about the fact that the Cedar Hall location will still not meet all of the space that Aldrich, initially, estimated as needed.

Waters’ provided a statement regarding the positive aspects that the Cedar Hall option provides:

“The strength of this option is based on the fact that it can be used to maintain the front-facing office and the operational side in one place. This is a significant advantage and the Elections Department is willing to configure a smaller space specifically to ensure both registration and ballot processing stay together. Management of election judges and registration in two areas is challenging when they are one block apart. Separating them by more than a walkable space would not allow effective oversight or management of both registration and ballot processing.

The ground level space provides positive aspects for:

— Accessibility of the public including disabled and elderly voters

— Movement of mail, ballots, and other bulky items such as polling place material drop off by county staff and election judges

–Negates the need for adequate elevator space / a freight elevator

Rejected ballots and other materials flow between the registration office and the operations side. Unifying these processes ensures:

— Temporary election judges work under direct supervision from permanent staff

— Ballots and other election materials remain within the custody and control of election space, rather than having to move between spaces with additional paperwork requirements and the logistics of moving those materials to another site.