Commission votes to put marijuana tax on 2022 ballot

The Hill County Commission voted for a resolution to put a 3 percent tax on recreational and medical marijuana on the ballot for the 2022 general election at their weekly business meeting Thursday.

The tax, which would take effect 90 days after the election should voters approve it, would impose a 3 percent sales tax on products sold by medical and recreational dispensaries in Hill County, what Hill County Commissioner Jake Strissel referred to as a “sin tax.”

Of the money generated from the tax 50 percent would be retained by Hill County, 45 percent would be apportioned to incorporated municipalities in the county on the basis of the ratio of the population of the city or town to the total county population, and 5 percent would go to the Montana Department of Revenue to pay for the cost of administering the tax.

The commissioners said between now and the election there will be two public hearings on the proposed tax, and, in an interview earlier this week, Strissel said he’s interested to hear where people want this tax money to go.

In the meeting Thursday the commission voted down the original wording of the resolution after Hill County Clerk and Recorder Sue Armstrong pointed out a potential issue, primarily that the language seemed to indicate that her office would be the one that people would submit comment to.

Armstrong said that doesn’t really make sense, as the commission office is the really should be where comments go. The commission voted down the original version and drafted a new one with Armstrong’s requested change, as well as some other clarifying language, and they passed it unanimously.

Armstrong also said the exact language of the question that would be put to voters wasn’t included in the resolution, so the commission will need to pass a second one including the exact language they want to use on the ballot.

During the meeting the commission also addressed a recent request sent to them by a law firm representing Ray and Debbie Kallenberger, who allege that they, and their request for an allotment on Beaver Creek Park, were mishandled by the Hill County Park Board and its grazing committee.

Earlier this year, the board, at the recommendation of its grazing committee, rejected a request by Ray and Debbie Kallenberger to be granted a portion of grazing land on the park used by them in years past.

The decision came after several months of conflict between the Kallenbergers and the board, with the former arguing that their treatment by the committee is the result of a “good ol’ boys’ club” attitude that ignores present conflicts of interests and keeps most from having a fair chance to use the park for grazing.

In past meetings Debbie Kallenberger said they heard a family member of theirs — to whom they had previously given grazing allotments they had but were giving up due to health issues — was moving and would be letting his grazing lease go. When they inquired about this allotment they were told to call the family member for permission to use it.

Kallenberger said that under board policy, when existing grazers sell, retire or die their family members may apply for grazing in that area with no permission necessary, but when she inquired about an application she was told there wasn’t one and they only needed to get permission from the family member.

She said the parts of the allotment they were interested in were then divided up among area grazers without any consideration of them, or anyone else on the waiting list.

Kallenberger said the leaser of the land in question, upon leaving that area requested that part of it be given to specific family members, but not them, and the rest be returned to the park.

The Kallenbergers have argued that the handling of this issue was done in violation of board and committee policy, an accusation that has been denied by the committee in their recent recommendation to the board, which stated that because the Kallenbergers were not immediate family members they are not eligible.

Much of this was reiterated in a letter sent to the commission by Nate McConnell of McConnell Law Offices, which is representing the Kallenbergers.

The letter requests that the commission put together a three-person panel to review and investigate the actions of the board and the committee and to correct what it alleges are the illegal acts that led to the Kallenbergers being denied the allotment.

The letter also says if action is not taken to correct the actions of the board and committee legal action will be filed against the county.

At Thursday’s meeting the commission briefly discussed the possibility of setting up a panel, with Hill County Commissioner Mark Peterson saying it seems like something they should do.

Hill County Attorney Lacey Lincoln said setting up a panel like this is an incredible investment of time and resources, and because the commissioners, for various reasons, have been in and out of the office this past month, she feels more time should be taken to consider taking such a course of action.

She said McConnell will likely demand immediate action, but recommended that the commission send a response saying they need more time to consider the proposal if they are going to make an informed decision.

“I don’t think this is a decision that should be made lightly,” she said.

The commission then voted unanimously to take the letter under advisement and send a response to McConnell indicating as much.

During the meeting the commission also discussed a new draft for a county credit card policy, one that was tabled until next week’s meeting.

Department heads for several years had asked that their departments be issued cards they could use on expenses instead of paying out-of-pocket and asking for reimbursement, especially for out-of-town travel. The commissioners agreed in April to get one card for the county under the management of Hill County Auditor Kathy Olson, with the intention to eventually approve more.

Since then the commission has been discussing setting up policies for the credit card, but when they attempted to pass one a couple months ago Lincoln objected, saying she wanted to see the policy before they voted on it and that other department heads should be given the opportunity to go over it as well.

At Thursday’s meeting Lincoln said she’s been working on the policy since then and just sent a draft to department heads that morning.

She said one issue that has come up, is how the county will go about making payments on the card, in the form of a lump sum every month, or individual payments from each department.

Lincoln said her conversations with Independence Bank indicated that they would prefer the former, but that might be problematic, as late claims could hold up payment of said lump sum.

Hill County Treasurer Sandy Brown said she thinks departments should be making individual payments, which would sidestep such eventualities and ultimately be easier.

The commission then discussed how long they should table the matter, saying they want to get the matter done sooner rather than later.

“It would be nice to get it done, it really would,” McLean said.

The commission also voted to approve closeout documents for the Beaver Creek Dam Spillway and Basin Improvement Project.

McLean said the work on the project is done, but these documents need to be approved before it can be made official.

Brown said she hasn’t seen the documents yet and asked to look at them, but McLean said she didn’t have a copy on hand at the moment.

The commission also approved a task order from Great West Engineering for work addressing encroachments on the Milk River Levee.

After inspections in 2014 and 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the levee did not meet their standards. Problems with the levee include structures being built too close or against the levee and trees growing on it, as well as encroachments on the levee by the railroad, which says it has original right of way on the space.

If the levee — construction on which was started in 1955 and completed in 1957 — isn’t certified by the Corps, people determined to be in a floodplain will be required to buy flood insurance, a significant financial hit for many in the community.

People living in the floodplain would be required to have insurance, which could cost homeowners $600 to $800 a year and could run into the thousands for businesses. Some buildings in the worst part of the floodplain might not be insurable.

The levee was built after three major floods in the area, one in 1908, one in 1938 and one in 1952, shortly before construction began.

The floods covered much of northern Havre in the floodplain as well as North Havre.

The 1938 flood resulted in 10 deaths and destroyed 40 buildings.

At Thursday’s meeting McLean said this task order would let Great West Engineering work specifically on addressing encroachments on the levee. This would include holding meetings, drafting action plans for next steps, and working to get approval for a number of legacy encroachments for local landowners.

One proposal on how to pay for this project is the establishment of a funding district.

The establishment of such a district was not an element of this task order, but Brown asked the commission to keep her in the loop regarding such a district.