Most of us who have property pay our property taxes. We don’t like it much. We grouse and groan and twice a year we write a check to the county treasurer. That money pays for our schools, police, fire control, the courts, parks and recreation. . .basically all of the things that make Great Falls a nice place to live.
Churches are exempt from property tax. That is where we stumbled on the curious case of Great Falls Senator Jeremy Trebas and the property at 1300 1st Avenue North. The building is the home of Break Forth Bible Church. But it is owned by a limited liability company, Rearview Mirror LLC. The registered agent for Rearview Mirror LLC is Jeremy Trebas.
According to the MT Department of Revenue, the property at 1300 1st Ave N is classified as a religious institution. So, despite its appraised value of almost $360,000, it is not obligated to pay the amount of property tax most of us pay. The only Break Forth Bible Church registered with the Secretary of State’s office has its principal office in Glendive. It is registered as a non-profit corporation which is the usual practice for churches. BFBC is one church with six locations: Great Falls, Miles City, Glendive, Dickinson, Williston & Minot.
Most people know churches are exempt from taxation (and more than a few of us don’t like that much) but the law is the law. The thing is, it really has to be owned by a church to get the exemption. Montana law (15-6-201 MCA) states that in order for property to be exempt from property tax obligations it has to be, “buildings and furnishings in the buildings that are owned by a church and used for actual religious worship. . .” That means it can’t be used for any other purpose. On May 6th of last year Trebas posted on facebook that he had purchased the building to house his accounting office and that space was also available for meetings. Bottom line, the building is not eligible for the religious property tax exemption.
Turns out Trebas paid property tax of only $267 for the first half of 2022 and owes the same amount for the second half of the year which was due in November. He has failed to notify the Department of Revenue that the property is no longer qualified for the religious exemption. (Don’t worry folks, we have let them know). Just to put this in perspective for our readers, a smaller residential property which appraised for considerably less across the street paid $3,636.08 in property tax last year.
There are two ways to look at this situation. It is possible that Trebas simply didn’t know about the tax status of the building and the bureaucracy has been slow to catch up. Or it is possible Trebas knows very well what he is doing and is simply taking advantage of the situation to cut his tax bill—significantly.
We believe it is the latter for a few reasons. First, Trebas is a CPA and is much more knowledgeable about the ins and outs of tax law than the average citizen. Second, Trebas’ current tennant, the Break Forth Bible Church, which we assume is paying rent to Trebas’ holding company, (Rear View Mirror LLC) is a church. If it owned the building, it would be eligible for the exemption. And certainly having the sign for the church on the front of the building would make most people, including Dept of Revenue employees, assume that the tax exempt status is appropriate. Finally, when Trebas paid the tax bill on the building he had to know that the amount on the bill was extremely low. His own residence, which appraises for far less than the building at 1300 1st Avenue N at $160,000, has an annual tax bill of $1,819.22, over triple the amount of the much larger and much more valuable property he has in his holding company, Rear View Mirror LLC.
This could be a case of bumbling incompetence or a slick trick to avoid paying the property taxes he is obligated to pay. You decide.
On January 2, 2023, the 68th legislative session made its debut swearing in the newest batch of Montana legislators. This also marked the first time that one party formed a supermajority since Montana’s constitution was adopted 50 years ago. Speaking of which, this Republican supermajority is champing at the bit to introduce a slew of amendments to the constitution. They’ve proposed 54 such amendments already. Some of the topics they want to legislate on are: the way elections are handled, the way judges are selected, redistricting rules (read: gerrymandering) amendments defining gender, banning abortions, and enshrining school choice and a parental bill of rights.Their plans are clear. They want Big Government to control Montanan’s personal lives and public institutions. Confusingly, Sen Steve Fitzpatrick has proposed a constitutional amendment on proposing constitutional amendments. If Republicans have their way, Montana’s constitution will be unrecognizable before the session is through.
Concerned about Republican’s extremist agenda, a group of activists from Great Falls organized an event – Occupy MT Leg. We were joined by concerned citizens from around the state. Why occupy space on the first day of the session? To let these legislators know that we will hold them accountable for everything they do during this session. Our sizeable group from Great Falls, Helena, Belgrade, Conrad, and more, first gathered in the rotunda to protest Superintendent of Public School’s Elsie Artnzen, who had brought in a slate of far-right speakers (an abuse of the office) to mount yet another unfounded attack on our public school teachers and administrators. Artnzen’s “event” was small, disorganized, and met with Boo’s from protestors in the crowd.
We then moved to the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where the public reception was to be held for the newly-sworn lawmakers. Cakes were there, ready to be served, doubtless alongside much back-slapping and self-congratulations. We had aimed to speak with our legislators and make sure they know what we expect of them, but it turns out that they didn’t want to face the public. Not to be deterred, we gathered around the balcony of the rotunda, displayed our signs, and filled the space. We are here, and we will not be ignored.
Finally, following the swearing-in, we marched around the capitol building. The group was comprised of people from different generations, different parts of Montana, with different advocacy issues. But we experienced a solidarity that we believe we share with a large portion of Montanans. Far-right extremism is not representative of most of us, and this “super majority” does not represent us. They are not some aristocracy, and we are not some peasantry. We can and will raise our voice when they eat their cake and throw us the crumbs. We’ll be keeping a close eye on their votes, and the bills they sponsor. With this supermajority, they feel emboldened to show their true colors. And we are committed to rejecting fascist ideology wherever we see it.
We’re 3 days in, and Montana Republicans already seem to be vying for “Most Racist Representative Body in the Country.” Today Montanans learned of an alarming bill draftthat seeks to dissolve the Reservation system. Unsurprisingly, the bill is sponsored by a Republican extremist- Senator Keith Reiger (SD3, Kalispell).
Once again, Reiger and his Republican counterparts prove their ignorance is not only embarrassing, it will also be costly. When Montana legislators pass laws that directly contradict with federal law, we pay the price. Tax-payer money will be used for the ensuing court battles. Reiger will lose for several reasons, not the least of which is the Supremacy Clause.
So why write laws that will ultimately be shot down in court? Hate. Senator Reiger’s racist bill is but another addition to this supermajority’s disgusting attacks on Indigenous Peoples. Recently, a staffer for Repugnant Homophobe, Rep. Braxton Mitchell (HD3), gained attention for his bigoted remarks.The staffer not only used racist language around “government handouts” but also suggested that Indigenous people should not be allowed to vote. Reiger’s bill clearly aligns with the Republican’s agenda to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples at every turn- and to take away their right to vote.
While Senator Reiger claims to know what is good for Indian Country, his draft has been heartily rejected by Indigenous colleagues and activists, including Senator Shane Morigeau (SD48). In a post on Facebook, Morigeau wrote, “Anti-Indian legislation like this from Sen Keith Regier is why I will be bringing a bill forward this session to require Indian Education for all for legislators.”
Unfortunately, there’s no required education for Human Decency- a concept sorely missing from the Republican agenda this session. Therefore, it’s up to us to push back against Hate whenever we see it. We encourage all of our readers to call or email Senator Reiger and let him know we will not stay silent as he attempts to violate tribal sovereignty and Indigenous rights.
Contact information for Reiger and the entire embarrassing bill are copied below.
It seems some people are confused about which political party best represents their views. So we put together this list of things to help you decide (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)
If you think it’s a good thing that our Governor, Congressmen and one US Senator are all rich men from out of state—- You might be a Republican.
If you think women and health care providers who help them get abortions belong in jail—- You might be a Republican.
If you think local property taxes should increase while income taxes on big corporations and rich people are reduced—-You might be a Republican.
If you think climate change is a hoax while we are seeing annual increases in freezing temperatures and record setting drought—-You might be a Republican.
If you think we should spend more money on putting people in jail cells than we spend on educating our children—-You might be a Republican.
If you are happy having delusional conspiracy theorists representing you on the Public Service Commission and in the Cascade County Sheriff’s office—-You might be a Republican.
If you think higher power bills with a guaranteed profit for utility corporations is good for our economy—-You might be a Republican.
If you think nursing homes and hospitals in rural communities aren’t important to the communities they serve—-You might be a Republican.
If you think family farms should be replaced by big agricultural conglomerates—-You might be a Republican.
If you think teachers are paid too much and class size doesn’t matter—-You might be a Republican.
If you think public access to Montana’s great outdoors should be reserved for wealthy landowners and their friends—-You might be a Republican.
If you think wearing masks and getting vaccines don’t help control the spread of Covid and other respiratory diseases—-You might be a Republican.
If you think America should refuse to honor treaty rights of Native Americans because they “lost the war”—-You might be a Republican.
If you think that college should be more expensive and put young people on the hook for mountains of debt owed to private lenders at high interest rates—-You might be a Republican.
If you think businesses are attracted to communities with crappy schools and crumbling infrastructure—–You might be a Republican.
If you think elections are being stolen using electronic voting machines—-You might be a Republican.
If you think you are a “self made person” who got ahead without using government services we all pay for like education, the courts, and roads and bridges—-You might be a Republican.
If you think Donald Trump is an honest, patriotic businessman— We don’t know what the hell you are—other than greatly confused.
It is often hard to understand the convoluted process of regulating electric utilities in Montana. But that doesn’t stop us from taking a stab at it.
The basics
Electric utilities in Montana (NorthWestern Energy and Montana Dakota Utilities) are monopolies. The benefit of allowing these businesses to operate as monopolies is that it avoids risks created by a competitive market. No one wants to see their utility collapse because they provide a vital service. But monopolies can charge customers whatever they want and customers have no choice but to pay up. To protect consumers and make sure power providers didn’t go out of business, utilities were allowed to operate as monopolies BUT the price and services they offer would be regulated by the government. Here in Montana that is done by the Public Service Commission.
Fast forward to the 1970s
Following the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, America was in a panic about an energy crisis. Coal became “America’s Ace in the Hole” and utilities all over the country began building coal plants. The precursor to NorthWestern Energy, The Montana Power Company, and other utilities in the Northwest built four coal plants at Colstrip. Units 1 and 2 came on line in 1975 and 1976. Unit 3 came on line in 1983 followed by Unit 4 in 1985.
Colstrip Unit 3— Let the fighting begin
Though the Public Service Commission allowed Montana Power to charge customers for the cost of units 1 and 2 (including a profit for their stockholders), that was not the case with Colstrip Unit 3. Montana Power was not the only utility building generating plants in response to the Oil Embargo, and by 1983, utilities in the northwest were in surplus and the power from Colstrip 3 was not needed by Montana Power customers. To make a long story short, Montana Power asked the Public Service Commission to make customers pay for Unit 3. The Commission ruled that the cost of Colstrip 3 would not be covered by Montana Power’s captive customers because the power was not “used and useful”, the standard at the time for deciding if a power plant would be paid for by consumers. Montana Power went off to court and eventually succeeded in forcing its Montana customers to pay for Unit 3. It was a long and ugly fight and as a result Montana Power opted to sell power from Colstrip Unit 4 in the open market rather than try to put it into customer rates.
Fast Forward to 2007—Pre-approval, NorthWestern Energy’s Holy Grail
After the Colstrip 3 fight Montana Power, and it’s successor NorthWestern Energy, never forgot how the requirement that power be “used and useful” had worked to their disadvantage. They argued that it takes a long time to build a power plant and no one could reasonably be expected to predict markets and energy requirements that far in advance. So, they came up with a nifty idea that they should be able to go to the Public Service Commission with their plan to build a power plant and get “pre-approval”. If granted, the cost of the plant (including a profit for their stockholders) would automatically be charged to customers— whether or not it was “used and useful”. They went off to the legislature, which they basically owned, and changed the law to grant them the ability to get pre-approval for future plants.
A brief editorial comment
Pre-approval screws consumers! It represents a huge shift in the risk of building big power plants from utility stockholders to customers. Reasonable people can disagree whether pre-approval is good or bad for maintaining a healthy power system but there is no question that it reduces the monopoly’s risk from requiring the power be “used and useful” when placed in customer rates. In theory, if the utility’s risk is reduced, stockholders profit should be reduced as well. But NorthWestern remains remarkably silent on this issue.
Enter our Hero, Monica Trannel
Yes, that Monica Trannel. In addition to being the Democratic candidate for the Western District Congressional seat, Trannel is also a consumer advocate and utility lawyer. Representing the environmental group, 350 Montana, she looked at the law which allowed pre-approval in the 2007 legislature and said, “Wait just a minute, fellas This law is unconstitutional” and off to court she went. Her argument was that the law violated a couple of “special legislation” rules in the Montana Constitution because it only applied to one business entity in the state, NorthWestern Energy. The courts agreed, and the pre-approval law was found to be unconstitutional.
NorthWestern Energy Returns to The Legislature
So here we are at the beginning of 2023,. and NorthWestern Energy is returning to the legislature to “clarify” the pre-approval issue. There will likely be several bills on the pre-approval issue but the first one out of the gate is by Rep. Jerry Schillinger, a Republican from Circle. This bill will make the pre-approval law apply to all utilities, not just Northwestern energy, in order to bring it into harmony with the Montana Constitution.
NorthWestern Energy says jump! Republican Legislators ask, “how high?”
WTF406 has already covered the attempt of Great Falls Senator Steve Fitzpatrick to muzzle the state consumer representative in utility matters in the legislative rules. https://wtf406.com/2022/12/senator-steve-fitzpatrick-great-falls-very-own-utility-slug/ Fitzpatrick now says he will not pursue his rule making effort. There will be plenty of bills NorthWestern Energy will try to pass given the Republican majority in the legislature. Rest assured that Great Falls Republican Legislators will be lining up to give them whatever they want. They always have.
Last night, Montana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen, hosted a forum at Heritage Hall at Great Falls College MSU and it was standing room only. Several Great Falls legislators, school board members, and school district superintendents attended the event.
Why such impressive attendance?
In the days before the event, Great Falls Rising had sent multiple emails with a forwarded message from Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tom Moore. In the message, Moore stated “none of the superintendents have received personal invitations to attend” the four events that were scheduled by the Office of Public Instruction (OPI) and he urged people to attend the meeting. To be honest, there has been a lot of broken trust between the OPI and Montana’s public schools. A year ago, the superintendent of every AA school in Montana signed a letter of no confidence in the OPI due to several failings during Superintendent Arntzen’s tenure. A motivation to rally around our schools might have packed the room.
What was the event’s purpose?
Ironically for a meeting about “bridging” communication, communication of the meeting’s purpose was poor. After the first 45 minutes of the forum, one audience member took the mic and asked the question on many of our minds. “What is the purpose of this meeting?”
Elsie Arntzen took back the mic and gifted us with an incoherent, rambling statement. I wrote, “WTF” in my notebook because her answer made zero sense.
Excuse me, what?
The questioning audience member tried to ask her question again, but Elsie either didn’t want to provide the real reason and/or was unable to articulate a response. Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tom Moore stepped in and briefly explained that he understood the purpose of the meeting was to have a conversation with the newly elected legislators in our area. To engage our parents, school leaders, and legislators in discussing issues of mutual interest before the upcoming legislative session. It was nice of Moore to try to hypothesize why Arntzen decided to host these forums.
Okay, Superintendent Moore’s answer made some sense – but – an astute audience member asked a great follow-up question. Why were these meetings only scheduled in the “more red” cities of Kalispell, Great Falls, Billings and Stevensville? Why weren’t forums scheduled in Helena, Bozeman, Butte or Missoula? On brand, Superintendent Arntzen’s response was a confusing paragraph of buzzwords. While her answer made little sense, she implied meetings would be held in the bluer cities in the future.
Nothing political to see here people!
If Superintendent Arntzen was expecting a venue to spew anti-public school and “parental choice” gibberish, she sure didn’t get it. When newly elected Daniel Emrich (SD-11) stood up and said that if you want to raise teachers’ salaries, you need to cut administrators’ – the crowd booed! A teacher spoke up and said that we need to keep public dollars in public schools and loud applause broke out.
What did other Republican legislators have to say?
Besides Emrich, a couple other Republican legislators in the room spoke and had tense interactions with GFPS Superintendent Moore. Jeremy Trebas (SD-13) pressed Moore about accountability for student achievement. Moore responded with a graph visually demonstrating all of the extra demands we have put on the shoulders of our educators over the past decades. Scot Kerns (HD-23) complained that communication between the schools and the public needed to be a two-way street. Moore responded by saying there were procedures in place to request information, fill out a form to release salary information. Kerns loudly interjected that he had filled out the form. Moore responded that other legislators have made an effort to go to the schools and work with administrators and teachers directly. It seemed as if he was calling out Kerns’ accusations of non-transparency as being in bad faith.
Tough subjects were raised. I’m glad our legislators were there to hear them.
People brought up the fact that taxpayers are tapped out for increased property taxes. Multiple audience members mentioned that our students needed more mental health and prevention services, not less. That subject was raised in a direct response to Arntzen’s proposed elimination of mandated school counselor ratios.
Based on the mood in the room, I felt hopeful. Because the word had gotten out, there was a strong, pro-public school sentiment in the room. We didn’t have the attacks on our schools seen at the Kalispell and Stevensville forums. People were speaking out and paying attention. If we want improved student achievement, we need to invest in our children. We can’t do that by asking more and more of individual taxpayers. The state needs to allocate monies properly to fund our PUBLIC schools. An audience member asked, “Who is going to want to teach in five years with these attacks on our public schools?” You heard us, Great Falls legislators. SUPPORT OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
