Montana Senate Bill SB33

Montana 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/12/24
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Engrossed: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Enrolled: 3/26/25
• Passed: 4/16/25

Caption

State buildings subject to state building code review

Summary

SB 33 transfers plan review, permitting, inspection, and building code enforcement authority for public buildings owned or operated by state agencies from local jurisdictions to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. The bill amends Section 50-60-106, MCA, to create an explicit exception for state-owned buildings from the general rule that cities, towns, and counties administer building code enforcement within their jurisdictions. Under the bill, all state agency buildings become subject to department jurisdiction for plan review, permits, and inspections. The department must still provide affected local governments with building plans and an opportunity to comment, and it must notify local jurisdictions of actions taken and transmit final plans. The bill leaves in place the existing framework for local building code enforcement over non-state buildings and does not broadly change county or municipal authority outside this state-building carveout.

Impact

The bill narrows local government authority under Montana’s building code statutes by removing state-owned or state-operated public buildings from local plan review and inspection processes and placing them under the Department of Labor and Industry. It directly amends MCA 50-60-106 and creates a new subsection specifying state agency buildings are under department jurisdiction, while preserving local review authority for other buildings and preserving notice/comment coordination with local governments.

Sentiment

The voting record suggests generally favorable support for the bill, though not unanimous. It passed the Senate with a comfortable majority and later cleared the House on concurrence and third reading, indicating enough bipartisan or cross-chamber support to become law. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded votes show some opposition, especially in the House, suggesting the measure was supported overall but not without reservations.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the shift of authority away from local governments and toward a state agency for state-owned buildings. Supporters likely viewed the change as a way to centralize and standardize review and enforcement for state facilities, while opponents may have objected to reducing local control or altering existing local permitting roles. The House votes, which were closer than the Senate votes, suggest the jurisdictional transfer and its implications for local oversight were the most likely sources of disagreement.