'Village bill' finally tabled in Helena

It was an ignoble demise, but the so-called "village bill," which proposed creating a middle ground form of government to bridge the gap between unincorporated and incorporated communities, was tabled less than two days after it was introduced on Feb. 16, without any serious discussion.

David Wanzenried, D-Missoula, was the requestor, and the bill was drafted as LC0118 and sponsored by Rep. Mike Jopek, D-Whitefish. Despite an initial lack of support from local legislators, Jopek made an eleventh-hour move and introduced it as HB 620 on Monday, Feb. 16, getting it on a list of bills set to have a formal hearing on Thursday, Feb. 19.

Flathead County Commissioner Joe Brenneman first proposed the idea for such legislation last year, in response to frustrations expressed by the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee over the community's lack of influence with the county commissioners and the opinion that incorporation was not an option due to the increased tax burden it would create.

However, the draft bill looked like it would die early after drawing criticism from both legislators and lobbyists. Even so, Bigfork and Lakeside affirmed their support for the legislation, prompting Brenneman to engage Jopek in further discussion about introducing the bill.

Jopek, who initially stated that he would not introduce the bill unless he could get a Republican to co-sponsor it, changed his mind at the last minute and brought the bill forward without one.

As a result, HB 620 left the gate so late in the game that only a group of lobbyists opposed to the bill were present to speak during the hearing. Although each side was given 10-15 minutes to speak, only Brenneman spoke in favor of the village bill.

With eight other bills scheduled to receive a hearing that day and an overwhelming show of opposition to HB 620 - from everyone from American Dream Montana, which advocates property rights and non-regulated growth, to the Smart Growth Coalition, which advocates extensive, proactive planning measures to strengthen communities and limit urban sprawl - the Local Government Committee voted 18-0 to table the bill for the remainder of the session.

Opposition for the village bill did not appear limited to any particular group or party. To the contrary, the bill seemed to inspire an equal disdain from both Democrats and Republicans, whether politicians, planners or developers.

Presenting his case for the village bill during the hearing, Brenneman stressed that it could be summarized in just nine words, "Of the people, by the people, for the people."

To that, a spokesperson from the Montana Association of Planners, Linda Stahl, replied that she could sum the bill up more conservatively using only two, "Unintended consequences."

House District 9 Representative Scott Reichner of Bigfork, who spoke to Brenneman several times about the bill during the first half of the session and also sits on the Local Government Committee, said Stahl's words encapsulate a concern that is shared by representatives throughout the state and, in particular, the Flathead Valley.

"The opponents didn't like [HB620] because of the unintended consequences," Reichner said, referring to the government proposed by the bill as a kind of pseudo-incorporation.

"The unintended consequences with this bill are that when you create an incorporated area, you have to define where that boundary is. Therein lies the problem, because the property tax rates in those areas go up, and they can go up significantly. What that does is that it promotes development outside of that area, like what we're seeing in Kalispell. You create this bubble around the area and you lose development in that area.

"That's why Rep. Jon Sonju, who's in Evergreen, said his people didn't want it. Rep. Mark Blasdel is in Somers, and his people didn't want it. Dee Brown is in Hungry Horse and her people didn't want it. Every one of the representatives who were over towns that this would be applicable to opposed it."

Lakeside developer Charles Lapp said that with so many people from Bigfork and Lakeside in favor of the bill he was surprised that no one but Brenneman showed up to speak on its behalf.

"I guess the thing that I am most surprised - no, disappointed - about is that none of the so-called supporters of this bill showed up to testify," Lapp said. "I don't think that it would have made a difference on the outcome of this bill, but someone needed to show up to support Rep. Jopek and Commissioner Breneman, since this bill was not a bill that either of them should have been hanging their political hat on."

Reichner acknowledged that some of the lack of support could be attributed to the late notice of the hearing.

Brenneman agreed.

"It was scheduled at the last minute, so there was not a lot of time to organize proponents," he said. "There was quite a bit of opposition, but nobody who testified against it really gave what I would consider a definitive explanation of why it wouldn't be a good idea. They simply got up and said, 'we don't like it,' so I didn't learn anything from the hearing. I had hoped that they would present some information that would convince me that there are some reasons why we shouldn't go ahead with it, but nothing was presented."

Brenneman said he still feels like there is support out there for such a measure, but that he won't be flying solo to keep the idea alive.

"When I talked to people out in the communities, in the Flathead and around the state, they tended to say that they think it's a good idea. The people with agendas seem to not like it, although nobody really articulated what is so horrible about it. If communities decide to go ahead with it in subsequent years, I would have more information on what we need to do.

"It's not something that I'm going to carry the torch for all by myself," he said. "If the community is interested in developing 'version two,' we'll start looking at what worked and what didn't work, but it has to be up to the community."

Reichner, for one, was not convinced that such a need exists.

"I think that, overwhelmingly, the people of Bigfork like the idea of being a government of volunteers," Reichner said. "The same goes for Somers, Evergreen, Hungry Horse, Kila and other communities. The fact is that we already have a government that we need. It's county government. The county does a good job for us.

"Bigfork is a town of volunteerism. Once you get away from that, you start getting into the blame game and you diminish the spirit of volunteerism, which is really what makes Bigfork great."