Village bill 'on life support'

The long awaited Community Self Determination Act, drafted as LC 0118, which endeavors to give unincorporated towns more control over their fate, may not make it out of the draft stage.

The original push for the bill came from Flathead County Commissioner Joe Brenneman, who, upon suggesting that such legislation could give unincorporated townships greater control in planning matters, gained widespread support from local planning groups from areas such as Evergreen, Bigfork, Somers and Lakeside.

Brenneman said the idea came as the result of a conversation he had with Bigfork residents, who were frustrated with the fact that there was no middle ground between being unincorporated and full incorporation. In Bigfork, incorporating would have driven taxes up by 30 percent, according to a study performed a few years ago, which is still lower than the tax increase that would result in Lakeside and Somers if either community were to incorporate.

As Brenneman originally suggested the concept, which he said had already been implemented in other states, a township form of government would entail the creation of a town council comprised of elected residents. Unlike the existing advisory boards, however, the town council would be granted veto powers, allowing them to deny any application for developments proposed within their planning area, while those applications approved by the council would then proceed to the county planning board and commissioners as they currently do.

With Brenneman’s help, the concept moved on to the state legislature and a bill was sponsored by Sen. David E. Wanzenried, D-Missoula, and drafted by legislative research analyst Hope Stockwell. However, due to growing controversy surrounding the bill, the draft legislation may never make it to committee.

Since the term “township” was already used in state statute, the term “village” was used instead to describe the proposed government. However, the controversies that have surrounded the bill have nothing to do with what such a government would be called.

Many who initially supported the idea claim the proposed legislation would not give the new governments the same powers Brenneman originally suggested, because it does not include any references to planning.

Brenneman said much of the confusion about the bill had been the result of misinformation.

“The bill as currently written is a balancing act. It endeavors to give communities as much, or as little, power as they desire without saddling them with a penny of unnecessary tax,” he said. “It should always be emphasized that incorporation is almost always an option for communities that wish to take complete control — with the accompanying tax burden — of their own destiny.”

Among legislators, the bill has also generated a fair amount of controversy pertaining to the implications, which have yet to be defined. In an interview last Friday, Brenneman said due to the extent of the controversy, the bill would probably lack the support required to proceed any further.

“It’s currently on life support,” Brenneman said. “It seems as if people liked the idea in theory better than they like it in reality. We’re still considering our options, but it doesn’t look like, with the current bill, that we’re going to carry it a whole lot further.

“Unfortunately, a lot of it has been misunderstanding. It’s something altogether new, and it’s rather complex. The implications are obviously unknown, and I think that fear of the unknown has caused a lot of people to react negatively without looking to see what the benefits would be.”

Brenneman said he would not push to introduce the bill unless it finds bipartisan support. Even so, he saw it as an impetus for consideration of the idea and said that, as such, it has served its purpose. He added that there remains significant interest in a “middle ground” form of government and that various groups wish to discuss the matter further.

“In response to the input I’ve received, if it doesn’t meet the needs of the people in the community, I have no burning agenda to get a village bill out there. If the needs can be met by making some changes, I’m certainly willing to pursue that and try to come up with something that will work.”

Rep. Scott Riechtner, R-Bigfork, suggested that Brenneman support an interim study on the village legislation, which would be conducted between sessions at a cost of $12,000 to taxpayers. Rep. Mark Blasdel, R- Somers, said he too believed an interim study to be the appropriate course of action to take at this time.

“I asked the Flathead delegation and they gave it a thumbs down,” Reichner said. “I offered to put it in a study group because maybe it does fit somewhere.”

“It’s a major piece of legislation,” Blasdel said. “An interim study does put it off for two years, but it gives (Brenneman) the opportunity to come down during the off time and work on it so that we have a more cohesive, bipartisan bill, which is essential for it to be successful.

“Right now, (the bill) doesn’t really do what it was intended to do.”

Brenneman addressed the Lakeside-Somers Chamber of Commerce regarding the proposed government on Tuesday, and expected talks to continue with other groups, as well.