MARYLAND MATT ROSENDALE IS A MULTIMILLIONAIRE EAST COAST DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO LOOSEN PRO-

AGRICULTURE RULES ON DEVELOPERS LIKE HIM Rosendale’s out-of-state dark money allies are deceiving Montanans by claiming he shares our Montana values. Rosendale’s real story? He is a multi-millionaire East Coast developer. He moved to Montana from the East Coast, and immediately started buying up land, including a ranch for more than $2 million. It's clear he doesn't share our Montana values - he pushed for land use rules that would help developers like him and hurt farmers. Rosendale is a carpetbagger with East Coast values who threatens Montana’s way of life – and he can’t be trusted.

OVERVIEW

• Matt Rosendale is a multimillionaire real estate developer, who moved to Montana from the East Coast and immediately started buying up land – including a more than $2 million ranch and 300 acres to develop up to 700 units.

• Matt Rosendale repeatedly voted for pro-developer measures to ease land use rules that would hurt agriculture in Montana by diminishing consideration of Montana agriculture in local government review of land use decisions.

MATT ROSENDALE – BAD FOR AG

MATT ROSENDALE IS A MULTIMILLIONAIRE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER

MATT ROSENDALE IS A MULTIMILLIONAIRE MTN News: “Matt Rosendale: The State Auditor And Real-Estate Manager From Glendive Reported Assets Valued From $7 Million To $32 Million.” “Republican Matt Rosendale: The state auditor and real-estate manager from Glendive reported assets valued from $7 million to $32 million, including MBA Consultants, which is his property-development company. His campaign said MBA manages the property he owns, including his ranch near Glendive.” [MTN News, 2/15/18]

• 2017: Matt Rosendale’s Average Estimated Net Worth Was $16,489,005. [Matt Rosendale, Candidate Financial Disclosure Report, filed 6/2/18; Personal Finances Methodology, Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 3/26/18]

MATT ROSENDALE HAS REPEATEDLY DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS A DEVELOPER Matt Rosendale: “I Develop Property, I’ve Said So.” [49:01, Missoula County Republican Primary Debate, 3/28/18] (VIDEO) Matt Rosendale: “As I’ve Told You, I Develop Property.” [1:41:04, Primary Debate, Montana State University College Republicans, Bozeman, MT, 3/22/18] (VIDEO) 2010-2016: MATT ROSENDALE LISTED HIS PROFESSION AS “REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER” ON HIS CANDIDATE DISCLOSURE FORMS AND LINKEDIN 3/25/18: Matt Rosendale’s LinkedIn Page Listed His Profession As “Real Estate Development And Brokerage.” [Matt Rosendale, LinkedIn, accessed 3/25/18]

• 2016: Matt Rosendale Listed His Profession On His Candidate Business Disclosure Form As “Ranching And Real Estate Development.” [Form D-1 Business Disclosure Statement, Matthew Rosendale, Commissioner of Political Practices, 3/7/16]

• 2012: Matt Rosendale Listed His Profession On His Candidate Business Disclosure Form As “Real Estate Developer.” [Form D-1 Business Disclosure Statement, Matthew Rosendale, Commissioner of Political Practices, 12/12/12]

• 2010: Matt Rosendale Listed His Profession On His Candidate Business Disclosure Form As “Real Estate Developer.” [Form D-1 Business Disclosure Statement, Matthew Rosendale, Commissioner of Political Practices, 1/20/10]

MATT ROSENDALE MOVED FROM MARYLAND TO MONTANA AND IMMEDIATELY BEGAN BUYING UP LAND, INCLUDING A $2 MILLION RANCH

2001-2002: MATT ROSENDALE MOVED FROM THE EASTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND TO MONTANA AFTER BUYING A RANCH AS A VACATION HOME June 2002: Matt Rosendale Moved From The Eastern Shore Of Maryland To Montana. “Longtime Queen Anne's County resident Matthew Rosendale, who was well-known on Kent Island and in Centreville for many years as a real estate broker, is wearing couple of different hats these days, far removed from the Eastern Shore…The son of Chris and Mary Lou Rosendale who owned Rosendale Realty and founded the Bay Times, Rosendale has lived in Montana since June 2002. Today, in addition to his work in the state legislature, he is also a rancher and is in the developing and consulting business.” [Easton Star-Democrat, 2/23/11]

• August 2001: Easton Star-Democrat: Matt Rosendale Purchased A Ranch In Montana With The Idea That “He And Jean Would Spend A Number Of Months There Each Year.” “In August 2001 he finally bought the ranch he wanted and spent the entire month there with the whole family working to spruce it up. They knew the neighbors and a lot of people in the community and felt ‘very comfortable.’ Rosendale described the countryside as ‘these big rolling plains,’ which he found appealing. The original idea was that he and Jean would spend a number of months there each year, but in 2002 they decided that all five of them would move to the ranch full-time. He worked with his brother on the transition at the family business and in June 2002 the family headed west to an area near Glendive, Mont., in the eastern part of the state about 1,789 miles west of Kent Island, give or take a few miles.” [Easton Star-Democrat, 2/23/11]

2002: MATT ROSENDALE BOUGHT A RANCH FOR $2.175 MILLION AT AUCTION August 2002: Matt Rosendale Purchased A Working Ranch At Auction For $2.175 Million In Glendive. “The Sobotkas worked hard to make their place an exceptional unit, Mike Carlson of the

Eastern Plains RC & D, noted. Carlson worked with them for 22 years, giving them ideas and encouragement, as they made improvements to their land which included 1.7 miles of river front property, irrigated crop land and pastures, dry land crop land with good soil, and range land with recently added artesian wells, stock pipelines and fiberglass stock tanks…Kniepkamp tried to start the bidding at $2 million, dropped it to $1 million and then to $700 thousand. The bidding opened there and went up rapidly in $50 thousand increments until it reached $2 million. At that point, Kniepkamp stopped to take a breath and get a drink of water, then worked the remaining bidders up to a final bid of $2,175,000…But in the end, it was a neighbor, Matt Rosendale, who made the final bid. Rosendale, his wife Jean and their three boys live on the old Tomalino place adjacent to the Sobotka land.” [Glendive Ranger-Review, 8/22/02]

2003: MATT ROSENDALE PURCHASED PROPERTY OUTSIDE GREAT FALLS HE BEGAN TO DEVELOP INTO A LARGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Great Falls Tribune: Matt Rosendale Planned “A Large Residential Development On 300 Acres He Bought” In Great Falls That Was Previously Farmland. “Matt Rosendale of Glendive plans a large residential development on 300 acres he bought north of 36th Avenue Northeast. The first phase of the project, called Eagles Crossing, includes 58 single-family home lots, one lot for multi-family housing and an 11-acre park on almost 36 acres. Previously, the land was farmed.” [Great Falls Tribune, 3/10/04]

• Matt Rosendale On Planned Great Falls Development: “The Growth Rate Isn’t What It Was Back East, But You Have A Healthy Growth Rate, And That’s OK With Me.” “A former real estate developer from Maryland, Rosendale and his family moved to Glendive two years ago. He said Great Falls’ progressive master growth plan and the chance to plan the development on such a big piece of property attracted him to the project. ‘Great Falls is in the center of the state. You have access to everything, fishing, skiing, the mountains, without being stuck in the middle of the mountains,’ Rosendale said. ‘Granted the growth rate isn’t what it was back East, but you have a healthy growth rate, and that’s OK with me.’” [Great Falls Tribune, 3/10/04]

Matt Rosendale Predicted His Eagles Crossing Development Could Eventually Encompass As Many As 700 Units. “Developer Matt Rosendale of Glendive plans to annex to the city his development, called Eagles Crossing, which lies 2,800 feet north of 36th Avenue Northeast…Rosendale, a former real estate developer in Maryland, is gearing his first project to a varied market, from first-time homeowners to retirees. Some lots will be small, while others will be oversized. A five-acre lot in the first phase is dedicated to multifamily use. Eventually, Rosendal said his project may encompass as many as 700 units. ‘But that could be 20 years from now,’ he added.” [Great Falls Tribune, 3/22/04]

• Great Falls Tribune: “Also Receiving The Go-Ahead Was The Preliminary Plat Of The First Phase Of Eagles Crossing, A 300-Acre Development That Eventually Will Include As Many As 700 Units, According To Developer Matt Rosendale Of Glendive.” [Great Falls Tribune, 4/8/04]

MATT ROSENDALE CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED LAND USE RULES THAT WOULD HELP DEVELOPERS AND HURT FARMERS IN MONTANA

MATT ROSENDALE CONSISTENTLY VOTED FOR PRO-DEVELOPER, ANTI-AGRICULTURE LAND USE CHANGES IN MONTANA 2011: MATT ROSENDALE VOTED FOR “PRO-DEVELOPMENT” ANTI-AGRICULTURE SUBDIVISION RULES HEADLINE: “House Endorses Pro-Development Rewrite Of Subdivision Laws.” [Billings Gazette, 2/22/11] Matt Rosendale Voted For And Spoke In Support Of A “Pro-Developer” Change To Montana Subdivision Review Laws That Would Restrict How Planners Could Consider A Development’s

Impacts On Agriculture Or Future Land Use. On April 2, 2011, Matt Rosendale voted in favor of HB 542 on the third reading. The Billings Gazette reported: “The Montana House on Tuesday endorsed a bill making pro-developer changes in Montana's subdivision review laws to restrict how planners can consider a housing development's impacts on agriculture or future land use. House Bill 542, endorsed on a 54-46 vote, also says any government commenting on the proposed subdivision must submit a ‘scientific, peer-reviewed report’ to support its opinion…Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Glendive, himself a real estate developer, said the bill's requirement of peer-reviewed material to support government comments prevents those entities from making ‘arbitrary and subjective comments.’” The measure was passed by a vote of 64-32, and was vetoed by the governor. [Vote 1516, HB 542, 4/2/11; Billings Gazette, 2/22/11]

• Rosendale Claimed That The Requirement Of Peer-Reviewed Reports Would Prevent The Government From Making “Arbitrary And Subjective Comments.” “Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Glendive, himself a real estate developer, said the bill's requirement of peer-reviewed material to support government comments prevents those entities from making ‘arbitrary and subjective comments.’” [Billings Gazette, 2/22/11]

House Bill 542 Required Government Review Of Developer Requests To Subdivide Land To Consider The Proposed Development’s Impact Only On The “Surrounding Agricultural Operations” Rather Than Agriculture In General. “The Montana House on Tuesday endorsed a bill making pro-developer changes in Montana's subdivision review laws to restrict how planners can consider a housing development's impacts on agriculture or future land use. House Bill 542, endorsed on a 54-46 vote, also says any government commenting on the proposed subdivision must submit a ‘scientific, peer-reviewed report’ to support its opinion…The bill creates strict deadlines for government response to developers' requests to subdivide land and says reviewers can consider the proposed development's impact only on ‘surrounding agricultural operations,’ rather than agriculture in general. It also says reviewers cannot consider the development's impacts on ‘a future subdivision or subdivisions for which an application is pending or has not yet been filed.’” [Billings Gazette, 2/22/11] OPPONENTS ARGUED THE LEGISLATION WOULD UNDERMINE STATE LAW PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPERS Billings Gazette: “Opponents…Said HB542 Is A ‘Fundamental Change’ In State Law, Which Is Meant To Protect And Preserve Agricultural Land In The Face Of Urban And Suburban Development.” “Opponents, however, said HB542 is a ‘fundamental change’ in state law, which is meant to protect and preserve agricultural land in the face of urban and suburban development. ‘This change is not in the interest of agriculture, and it's not supported by agriculture,’ said House Minority Leader Jon Sesso, D-Butte, who works as a city planner. ‘This basically says if it's OK with the one guy who's subdividing and OK with the people around him, then we should go forward with it.’” [Billings Gazette, 2/22/11] HEADLINE: “Subdivision Bill Bad For Farmers, Ranchers.” [Stephanie LaPorte, Missoulian, 3/14/11] Community Food And Agriculture Coalition’s Stephanie LaPorte: “House Bill 542…Would Allow Subdivisions To Run Wild Through Farming And Ranching Communities, Without Regard To The Permanent Loss Of Agricultural Land Or The Erosion Of A Community's Agricultural Integrity.” “Like most Montanans, I want to see a strong legacy of farming and ranching in this state. That's why I went to Helena in February to testify against House Bill 542, a bill that would allow subdivisions to run wild through farming and ranching communities, without regard to the permanent loss of agricultural land or the erosion of a community's agricultural integrity. Still, the House narrowly passed HB542, and the bill will now be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on Monday. Since the bill's sponsor, Rep. John Esp, R-Big Timber, says the motivation behind his attack on agriculture is merely to clarify the original intent of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, it's worth taking a look at the legislative history. I have recently pored through meeting minutes going back 38 years, when the MSPA was first established.” [Stephanie LaPorte, Missoulian, 3/14/11]

• Community Food And Agriculture Coalition’s Stephanie LaPorte: “HB542 Will Hurt Farmers

And Ranchers, Lead To The Permanent Loss Of Agricultural Land, And Jeopardize Montana's Top Industry For Decades To Come.” “It is no longer 1975, and the 2011 Legislature is free to establish the new intent to sacrifice farming and ranching communities for hasty subdivisions. However, I hope they have a little more respect for Montana's agricultural heritage and a lot more foresight for our state's leading industry in a hungry world. But make no mistake: if approved by the Senate, HB542 will hurt farmers and ranchers, lead to the permanent loss of agricultural land, and jeopardize Montana's top industry for decades to come.” [Stephanie LaPorte, Missoulian, 3/14/11]

Montana Smart Growth Coalition’s Dick Thweatt Opposed HB 542 In Part Because It Limited Subdivision Review And Consideration Only To “Surrounding Agricultural Operations” From Agricultural Use, Which Would Expedite The Erosion Of Quality Agricultural Land In Montana. “The Montana Smart Growth Coalition opposes this bill for the following reasons: Page 4, Lines 15-19, amending 76-3-608(3)(a) MCA This amendment would eliminate review and consideration of the conversion of the property to be subdivided from agricultural use and would limit review only to ‘surrounding agricultural operations.’ Quality agricultural land is as valuable a natural resource as any other and is being steadily eroded by conversion to residential use. It merits review, consideration, and mitigation as much as any of the other resources listed in this subsection” [Dick Thweatt, Testimony on HB 542, Montana Smart Growth Coalition, 2/17/11] Democratic House Minority Leader Jon Sesso: House Bill 542 Was “Not In The Interest Of Agriculture, And It’s Not Supported By Agriculture.” “House Bill 542, endorsed on a 54-46 vote, also says any government commenting on the proposed subdivision must submit a “scientific, peer-reviewed report” to support its opinion. […] Opponents, however, said HB542 is a ‘fundamental change’ in state law, which is meant to protect and preserve agricultural land in the face of urban and suburban development. ‘This change is not in the interest of agriculture, and it's not supported by agriculture,’ said House Minority Leader Jon Sesso, D-Butte, who works as a city planner. ‘This basically says if it's OK with the one guy who's subdividing and OK with the people around him, then we should go forward with it.’ Current law is ‘a matter of making sure (the subdivision) is consistent with the greater goal of this state, and that greater goal is to protect the soil,’ Sesso said. ‘We're not making any farmland anymore.’” [Billings Gazette, 2/22/11] GOVERNOR BRIAN SCHWEITZER VETOED THE LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT “COULD JEOPARDIZE…FARMING AND RANCHING” IN MONTANA Governor Brian Schweitzer: “I Issue This Veto Because The Amendments To Montana’s Subdivision Review Process Contained In HB 542…Could Jeopardize One Of Montana’s Most Important Industries – Farming And Ranching.” “I issue this veto because the amendments to Montana’s subdivision review process contained in HB 542 are unnecessary, contrary to the public interest, and could jeopardize one of Montana’s most important industries – farming and ranching. The amendments would unnecessarily tie the hands of local governments by limiting sources of information those governments can rely on in their decision-making absent any reasonable justification.” [Veto Message, HB 542, 4/13/11] 2013: MATT ROSENDALE VOTED FOR DEVELOPER-ENDORSED MEASURE TO REDUCE AGRICULTURE-RELATED HURDLES FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVALS HEADLINE: “Bill Would Limit Look At Subdivision Impacts.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13] 2013: Associated Press: Matt Rosendale Voted For Measure That “Would Have Restricted Local Governments’ Authority To Review A Subdivision’s Effect On Agricultural Operations.” On February 1, 2013, Matt Rosendale voted in favor of SB 147 on the third reading. The Associated Press reported: “Three other measures were among the governor’s vetoes Monday: • Senate Bill 147 would have restricted local governments’ authority to review a subdivision’s effect on agricultural operations.” The measure was passed by a vote of 30-20 and vetoed by the governor. [Vote 249, SB 147, 2/1/13; Associated Press, 4/23/13]

• SB 147 Reduced Required Analysis Of Proposed Subdivision Impact From “Surrounding” Agricultural Operations To “Adjacent” Agricultural Operations. “A bill that would change a decades-old subdivision law has roused opposition from farming and ranching land owners. Late Thursday afternoon, the House Local Government committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 147, which would reduce the area and thus the number of neighbors that local governments have to consider when reviewing the impact of a proposed subdivision. The Montana Subdivision and Platting Act requires an analysis of a subdivision’s impact on ‘surrounding’ agricultural operations, but SB 147 would reduce that to just ‘adjacent’ operations. That small change makes a huge difference, and it’s resulted in a bigger debate between those who want small government and those who want more private property rights. It’s also setting one farmer against another.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13]

• Bozeman Daily Chronicle: “Senate Bill 147…Would Prevent Local Officials From Considering General Agricultural Impacts When Reviewing Subdivision Requests.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/14/13]

Bozeman Daily Chronicle: “Developers And Real Estate Groups Favor SB 147 Because It Would Reduce The Hurdles For Subdivision Approval.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13]

• Montana Association Realtors And Montana Building Industry Association Endorsed SB 147. “Developers and real estate groups favor SB 147 because it would reduce the hurdles for subdivision approval. Bill Van Canagan of the Montana Association of Realtors said the Platting Act was intended to look at land, not larger concerns that should be dealt with in zoning or growth policies. Dustin Stewart of the Montana Building Industry Association argued for SB 147, saying the Missoula County regulation would create too many hurdles.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13]

• Montana Realtors Endorsed Senate Bill 147. “SB 147 – Generally revise subdivision review criteria regarding agriculture – This legislation would have clarified that impact to agriculture means adjacent agricultural land, not including the land being used to build the subdivision on. Why This Matters To REALTORS: Property owners have a right to change the primary use of their land. Also, the phrase ‘impact on agriculture’ is highly ambiguous. REALTORS believe that the intent of the phrase ‘impacts on agriculture’ means ‘impact of the proposed subdivision on surrounding agricultural operations,’ not including the land being used to build the subdivision on. Status: vetoed by the governor.” [Montana Realtor’s Digest 2013, published 7/20/14]

SENATE BILL 147 WAS OPPOSED BY FARMERS, RANCHERS, AND SPORTSMEN GROUPS BECAUSE IT WOULD UNDERMINE PROTECTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE LAND IN MONTANA Ravalli County Rancher Alan Mackey Opposed Senate Bill 147, Noting Many Subdivisions That Had Cropped Up Around Him Had Affected His Operations, Adding “This Take Away Control From The Local Level And Gives More To The State.” “Late Thursday afternoon, the House Local Government committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 147, which would reduce the area and thus the number of neighbors that local governments have to consider when reviewing the impact of a proposed subdivision…But Alan Mackey, a Ravalli County rancher, said many subdivisions have popped up around him, and they all affect his operation, from limiting his water to incidents of vandalism. Several farmers from around the state echoed similar difficulties. The details of farming are different in different parts of the state, so local governments should determine what’s best, Mackey said. ‘This takes away control from the local level and gives more to the state,’ Mackey said.” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13] Helena-Area Rancher Kelly Flaherty-Settle Opposed Senate Bill 147, Noting She Couldn’t Get Her Cattle To Summer Pasture Anymore Due To A Subdivision That Went In Above Her. “Kelly Flaherty-Settle, a rancher near Helena, said she couldn’t get her cattle up to summer pasture anymore due to a subdivision that went in above her. ‘Just because I’m not directly adjacent, I should not be barred from having a say,’ Flaherty-Settle said. ‘This takes away my right to participate.’” [Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 3/16/13]

Greenough-Area Rancher Juanita Vero: “As Written, SB 147 Dismantles The Purpose Of Considering Impacts To Agriculture In Subdivision Review.” “Please vote ‘no’ on SB 147. As written, SB 147 dismantles the purpose of considering impacts to agriculture in subdivision review. Promoting agriculture is a constitutional responsibility in Montana. I live and work on the 4,000 acre rural ranch my great grandparents started in 1906…A few years ago an egregious subdivision of 119 lots on 200 acres was proposed. About twenty acres of our neighbor’s land was between us and the proposed subdivision and the tributary that feeds the source of our irrigation ditch bordered the proposes site. Yes, we were concerned about wildlife conflicts because the site is in a wildlife corridor and the stream is whirling disease free cutthroat habitat, but we were also concerned about how 119 dogs and cats would effect our livestock (and wildlife). There has been sporadic but marked development in our area over the last 15 years and 4 years ago we noticed significant decline in springs that we use to water stock. Springs that have been steady for over 107 years, through many periods of drought. We’re not hydrologists but we know something has happened. If SB 147 were to pass my family would not have had a voice in that subdivision proposal because we are not adjacent operations. Yet, we would be impacted. There is a way to protect our agricultural and entrepreneurial heritage in Montana but SB 147 is not that way.” [Juanita Vero, Testimony on SB 147, House Local Government Committee, 3/14/13] HEADLINE: “Consider Agriculture When Reviewing Developments.” [Jonda Crosby, Helena Independent Record, 3/17/13] Helena-Area Farmer Jonda Crosby: “SB 147 Would Not Allow County Commissioners To Consider The Impacts On Surrounding Agriculture Enterprises When Approving A Subdivision.” “I have farmed on the Spokane Bench outside of Helena since 1999. I am opposed to Senate Bill 147 by Sen. Ed Buttrey. SB 147 would not allow county commissioners to consider the impacts on surrounding agriculture enterprises when approving a subdivision. Under current law, when a developer proposes a subdivision, local governments must look at how it will impact taxation, the natural environment, public safety and the impact that a subdivision would have on agriculture must be considered. SB 147 limits the agricultural impact requirement to only the adjacent agriculture operation. I know some landowners are relying financially on their ability to develop their land to supplement their retirement. Current subdivision law does not take that right away from them. Not to consider the importance of agricultural land in every development proposal is short sighted. As a state and nation, we must hold farmland in the very highest regard as an asset for generations to come-as a place to grow the crops and livestock necessary to sustain human life. Please join me in urging the legislature to vote no on SB 147.” [Jonda Crosby, Helena Independent Record, 3/17/13] HEADLINE: “SB 147 A Strike Against Montana Agriculture.” [David Tyler, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 4/22/13] Montana Conservation Voters’ Dave Tyler: “SB 147is A Terrible Bill For Montana And Montana Agriculture, As It Will Deny The Right Of Farmers And Ranchers To Raise Concerns About The Impact Of Proposed Subdivisions On Their Operations Unless Their Land Borders The Proposed Subdivision.” “The Montana Legislature has passed and transmitted to the governor SB 147, a bill that revises the criteria for local government review of proposed subdivisions. The bill modifies current subdivision review laws by replacing the words ‘impact on agriculture’ with ‘the impact of the proposed subdivision on adjacent agricultural operations.’ This is a terrible bill for Montana and Montana agriculture, as it will deny the right of farmers and ranchers to raise concerns about the impact of proposed subdivisions on their operations unless their land borders the proposed subdivision. It will also prevent local communities from considering a fair and predictable process for protecting agricultural lands. Please contact Gov. Bullock and urge him to veto this bill.” [David Tyler, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 4/22/13; Board of Directors, Montana Conservation Voters, accessed 3/25/18] HEADLINE: “Don’t Delete Agriculture From Subdivision Review Process.” [Neva Hassanein, Missoulian, 3/4/13] Missoula-Area Food Researcher Neva Hassanein: “Senate Bill 147…Will Erode Agriculture’s Long-Term Viability, And It Will Take Away Local Control Over Land-Use Decisions.” “Montana’s heritage

is rooted in working farms and ranches, and so is our future. Agriculture is woven into the fabric of our economy, culture and landscape. Of course, agriculture also provides the food we all need to survive. Given agriculture’s importance, it is downright shocking that Senate Bill 147 is making its way through the Montana Legislature. If passed, this bill will erode agriculture’s long-term viability, and it will take away local control over land-use decisions. Here’s why this bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Edward Buttrey of Great Falls, is so dangerous.” [Neva Hassanein, Missoulian, 3/4/13]

• Missoula-Area Food Researcher Neva Hassanein: Senate Bill 147 “Completely Disregards The Fact That Agriculture Is Our No. 1 Industry In Montana, That It’s A Key Part Of Our Heritage.” “Neva Hassanein, a local food advocate and researcher, said a hearing on subdivision regulations was supposed to be scheduled in February, but then the Montana Legislature took up – and eventually passed – Senate Bill 147. Since the 1970s, proposed subdivisions have had to be reviewed for criteria including impacts to public health and safety, taxation and agriculture, Hassanein said. She said the bill deletes agriculture from the criteria and replaces it with impacts on ‘adjacent agricultural operations.’ ‘It completely disregards the fact that agriculture is our No. 1 industry in Montana, that it’s a key part of our heritage, and agricultural soils are the source of all of our food,’ Hassanein said. She said she’s hopeful Gov. Steve Bullock will veto the bill.” [Missoulian, 4/14/13]

Montana Association Of Planners Opposed SB 147 Because It Undercut The Ability Of Local Governments To Consider Impacts Of Development On Local Agriculture. MAP’s arguments against this legislation: This legislation represents another imposition on local control; The wording of the proposed amendment suggests that a local government may consider impacts to agriculture as it relates to everything except the property being developed – this is contrary to the basic principles of reviewing a subdivision; While it is important to consider the impact to surrounding agriculture operations, it may also be important to local governments to consider the impact to the agriculture economy and resources specifically associated with the property being proposed for subdivision…The varying degree to which agriculture plays a role in different communities across the state demands that local governments maintain the flexibility to evaluate impacts of agriculture based on the unique circumstances of their community and how they have proposed to address such impacts in their growth policies.” [Montana Association of Planners, Testimony on SB 147, Senate Local Government Committee, 1/23/13] Montana Community Food And Agriculture Coalition Director Bonnie Buckingham: “Senate Bill 147…Is A Direct Attack On The Foundation Of Farming, Food Security, And Our Agricultural Heritage.” BUCKINGHAM: “Madam Chair, Committee members, my name is Bonnie Buckingham. I am a member of the Western Montana Chapter of the Montana Farmers Union and the director of the Community Food and Agriculture Coalition, and I thank you for taking the time to listen to us today. I am here asking you to reject Senate Bill 147. This bill is a direct attack on the foundation of farming, food security, and our agricultural heritage – the soil.” [1:44:56, Bonnie Buckingham, Testimony on SB 147, Senate Local Government Committee, 1/23/13] Montana Farmers Union Opposed “Anti-Agriculture” SB 147, Arguing “If Passed This Bill Would Not Allow A Community To Consider The Impacts On Agricultural Land That Is Not Immediately Adjacent To The Proposed Development.” COWGILL: “I’m representing Montana Farmers Union, and we stand in opposition to this bill. Agriculture in Montana is diverse. It consists of larger farms and ranches selling into the commodity market, as well as smaller farms of a few hundred acres or even farms of less than a dozen acres growing a wide variety of crops and animals such as vegetables, broiler chickens, or other high-value products. Furthermore these farms are valid businesses in these communities, with the ability to gross tens of thousands of dollars per acre. And those are dollars that are recirculated in their communities, that don’t get sent outside the state in the so-called highly efficient food system. This bill is not pro-development, this issue is not a property rights issue. This is an issue of an agriculture rights issue. Additionally I would argue that this bill is actually an anti-agriculture bill. I would further argue that agriculture is one of our foundations of freedom. If passed this bill would not allow a community to consider the impacts on agricultural land that is not immediately adjacent to the proposed development. In other words, the impact on a farm two doors down cannot be considered. We’re talking about a farm that has to use the county roads shared by all to move equipment, to move cattle, has to manage weeds – also shared by all, and has to utilize irrigation canals that run through multiple

properties. This issue is about giving those people a voice. Montana is historically an agrarian state. Currently its number 1 industry is agriculture, and that agriculture, from large farms to small farms, is vital to the future of feeding our neighbors and to feeding the economic engine in our communities.” [1:27:35, Jacob Cowgill, Testimony on SB 147, House Local Government Committee, 3/14/13] Ravalli County Real Estate Appraiser: “Senate Bill 147 Would Prevent Our Leaders From Giving Consideration To The Farmers In Our County” In Development Decisions. “My name is Sarah Roubik and I am a citizen of Ravalli County. I am also a real estate appraiser. Thank you for the opportunity to give my testimony. Please vote against senate bill 147. This bill would have devastating impacts on my county. Ravalli County has very few zoned areas and at this time we do not even have a growth policy. However, we DO have lots of agricultural land. Currently, when our local leaders are presented with a subdivision request, they review it with consideration of the six criteria as dictated by the state. One of these criteria is the affect that the new subdivision will have on agriculture. Senate Bill 147 would prevent our leaders from giving consideration to the farmers in our county. With the important of ag land in the state of Montana, it is amazing to me that this bill has proposed. Once again, a bill has been proposed to this legislature that will tie the hands of my local leaders when it comes to land use decisions. Instead of allowing them to make a decision that’s in the best interest of our farmers and ranchers, this bill would reduce their power to look out for their constituents…Will you take away a tool from our Local government to require reasonable development in the middle of agricultural lands? Please don’t take away our local control. Please don’t desert our farmers. Vote against senate bill 147.” [Sarah Roubik, Testimony on SB 147, House Local Government Committee, 3/14/13] Community Food Agriculture Coalition Of Missoula County Opposed SB 147 For “Drastically Chang[ing] The Way Agriculture Is Considered In The Subdivision Review Process.” “SB 147 Generally Revise Subidivision Review Criteria Laws Regarding Agriculture – OPPOSE Proposed by Senator Buttrey (R-Great Falls), this bill drastically changes the way agriculture is considered in the subdivision review process. Rather than looking at the impacts to agriculture as a whole, this bill limits consideration to ‘impacts on surrounding adjacent agricultural operations.’ This change prevents local government from considering the permanent loss of agricultural land as an impact of a subdivision. This language is contrary to the original intent of the MSPA and was vetoed in 2011. This amendment further restricts the impacts a local government may consider and mitigate. This bill passed its second reading in the House with a vote of 64-36. We must now count on a veto by the Governor to kill this bill.” [Legislative Session 2013, Community Food Agriculture Coalition of Missoula County, accessed 3/25/18] Montana Trout Unlimited Opposed SB 147, Arguing “This Bill Severely Restricts The Ability Of Montanans To Steer The Future Of Development In Their Communities.” [Montana Trout Unlimited Priority List, 3/25/13]

[Montana Trout Unlimited Priority List, 3/25/13] GOVERNOR STEVE BULLOCK VETOED LEGISLATION, ARGUING IT WOULD PREVENT COMMUNITIES FROM CONSIDERING SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE Governor Steve Bullock Vetoed SB 147, Arguing The Bill “Restricts The Local Governing Body’s Review To The Proposed Subdivision’s Impacts On Adjacent Agricultural Operations.” “Locally-elected officials are best suited to decide the impacts to their communities from subdivision development, including the impacts of that development on agriculture. Under current law, a local governing body must review a subdivision proposal for its impact on agriculture. This provides the opportunity for local officials

to consider a proposed subdivision’s impact on adjacent agricultural operations, as well as the overall impacts the conversion of land from agriculture to urban uses will have on agriculture in the area. Certainly, how locally-elected officials choose to look at this issue will reflect the specific values of that particular community. SB 147 significantly limits the ability of locally-elected officials to reflect community values. It restricts the local governing body’s review to the proposed subdivision’s impacts on adjacent agricultural operations. This would prevent a local official from considering the larger and cumulative impacts to agriculture as a part of the community. Agriculture is a vital part of Montana’s economy and culture. When evaluating a proposed development, a local community must be able to consider both short and long term agricultural impacts.” [SB 147 Veto Message, Office of the Governor, 4/22/13]

APPENDIX

GLENDIVE RANGER-REVIEW, 8/22/02

GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE, 3/10/04 [Great Falls Tribune, 3/10/04]

GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE, 3/22/04 [Great Falls Tribune, 3/22/04]

GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE, 4/8/04 [Great Falls Tribune, 4/8/04]