HB 489 would create the “Local Option Property Tax Relief Act,” authorizing a county or consolidated city-county, if approved by local voters, to impose a local option sales tax of up to 4% for a term of up to 10 years. The tax could apply to a defined set of retail sales and services, including restaurant meals, alcohol by the drink, airport landings, and outfitting/guiding services, but would exclude several categories such as accommodations, rental vehicles, cleaning supplies, hygiene products, medical supplies, medicine, paper products, and pet food. The measure requires voter approval through petition or governing-body resolution and sets a turnout threshold: at least 40% of qualified electors must vote in the election for the question to be valid, and a majority of votes cast must favor it.
The bill directs that 90% of local option tax revenue be used for property tax relief for primary residences and long-term rentals, with the remaining 10% split between a statewide distribution account for property tax relief in jurisdictions that do not levy the tax and retailer administrative costs. It creates a formula for distributing relief as a credit on property tax bills, requires the Department of Revenue to identify eligible primary residences and long-term rentals, and allows owners to apply for certification if they are not already identified by the department. For long-term rentals, the bill also requires that 25% to 75% of the property tax relief be passed through to renters. The bill further creates a local option tax distribution account, provides a statutory appropriation, and gives the Department of Revenue rulemaking authority and administrative responsibilities for transfer and distribution of revenue.
HB 489 would also amend several existing statutes to integrate the new local option tax into Montana’s tax administration framework. It would require local governments that adopt the tax to report revenue, categories of retailers, and distribution of proceeds in annual financial reports, and it would redirect certain lodging and rental car sales tax revenue in taxing jurisdictions into the new distribution account. The bill also adjusts existing accounts tied to the Montana Heritage Center and historic preservation grants so that some lodging tax revenue is rerouted when a local option tax is in place. The bill is delayed until July 1, 2026.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record appears neutral to mildly supportive at the committee level, but the bill ultimately did not advance. The only recorded vote shown is a 17-0 committee action to table the bill, and the bill’s final status is listed as “Died in Process.” That suggests there was no recorded floor debate in the provided materials, and the measure was set aside in committee rather than moving forward.
The main points of contention are likely the creation of a new local sales tax, the complexity of the distribution and eligibility rules, and the policy choice to tie sales-tax revenue to property tax relief rather than broader local spending. The bill also raises administrative and equity questions by requiring turnout thresholds, defining eligible properties and rentals, mandating renter pass-through on long-term rentals, and shifting existing lodging-tax revenue streams. Local governments, retailers, property owners, renters, and taxpayers in counties considering the tax would all be directly affected.
HB 489 would add a new local-option sales tax framework to Montana law and amend multiple revenue and reporting statutes to support it. It would authorize counties and consolidated city-counties, with voter approval, to levy a local sales tax and would create new administrative, reporting, and distribution requirements for the Department of Revenue and local governments. It would also redirect certain lodging and rental car tax revenues in jurisdictions that adopt the tax, establish a new state special revenue account, and require that most proceeds be used for property tax relief for primary residences and long-term rentals, affecting property owners, renters, retailers, and local fiscal administration.
The available record shows no committee transcript debate, but the bill was tabled in committee by a 17-0 vote and then died in process. That indicates the measure did not have enough support to advance, despite being introduced by a sizable bipartisan group of sponsors. The lack of recorded opposition in the vote summary suggests the bill may have been set aside without a divided public fight, but the outcome reflects clear institutional reluctance to move it forward.
Likely areas of contention include whether local governments should be allowed to adopt a new sales tax at all, whether the tax rate cap of 4% is too high, and whether the bill’s voter-turnout threshold is appropriate. The bill’s detailed rules for eligible purchases, property tax relief calculations, and renter pass-through requirements may also have raised concerns about complexity and enforceability. In addition, redirecting existing lodging and rental car tax revenue away from current state uses and into the new property-tax-relief structure could have been controversial for tourism, heritage, and historic-preservation interests, as well as for local governments that would have to administer the program.