The Senate Local Government Committee late Thursday tabled two competing zoning bills sponsored by local lawmakers and approved a controversial bill addressing cross-county annexations.

Although the committee tabled the two zoning bills, it did approve another measure -- Senate Joint Resolution 26 -- which establishes an interim committee to study the state's zoning laws.

Senate Bill 325

One of the zoning bills, SB 325, sponsored by Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena, sought to extend the cooling-off period following a successful zoning protest from one year to five years.

The bill was prompted by folks in the Canyon Creek-Marysville Planning area who had successfully protested Lewis and Clark County zoning regulations last fall.

County officials, in previous interviews, had called Lewis' bill a "bad-faith effort" to stall growth planning.

Lewis said he would rather have seen his bill pass, but agreed that zoning laws do need study.

"If the Legislature and committee agree on a study ... on the zoning process, that isn't a bad second prize," he said.

"I think it's good they tabled both bills and take a real serious look at zoning."

The study committee would look at zoning laws, the protest process and protest statutes, he said.

He said he hoped the Lewis and Clark County commissioners "lay off of Canyon Creek" in the meantime.

"I talked with the commissioners. I think they will not go out there and impose zoning," he said.

Senate Bill 361

The other zoning bill that was tabled, SB 361, is sponsored by Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena.

It sought to change the requirements regarding who could protest proposed zoning rules.

State law allows citizens to stop officials from implementing zoning rules if either 40 percent of the property owners of a district protest or 50 percent of the owners of timber and agricultural lands protest.

Kaufmann's bill removed these two options and instead required that a protest vote consist of 40 percent of the registered voters.

Supporters at a hearing this week said the bill would give power to all voters, rather than just a handful of large landowners.

Opponents said it would disenfranchise large landowners, who they contend are the ones most affected by zoning.

Kaufmann said she was unaware that Lewis had also introduced a zoning bill until this week.

However, both bills grew out of zoning issues in the county.

"My concern was who gets to vote. His was how often the process can take place," she said.

"My concern was who has a right to vote on interests of public health and safety. I believed in my bill. I hope the study commission will get into this."

"I think this commission will find that when it comes to health, safety and welfare, everybody gets a voice."

She said that under current law, a handful of people can stop such an issue.

County Administrator Ron Alles said he was disappointed Kaufmann's bill was tabled, but he's glad the Legislature is studying the situation.

"I welcome the fact they want to study it," he said.

"We want to be active participants in the hearings."

"Urban growth counties need to get a handle on managing growth, so we can more efficiently deliver services."

"We need to look at land use at the state level," he said.

There is a need to better understand the laws governing zoning and the subdivision platting act and the Department of Environmental Quality's regulations and the relationship between all these things, he said.

"It's hard to understand the depth of what good land use policy is," he added.

Senate Bill 339

The annexation bill, SB 339, sponsored by Sen. Terry Murphy, R-Cardwell, squeaked out of committee on a 6-5 vote.

The bill would require cities seeking cross-county annexations to get approval from the neighboring affected county.

Murphy said earlier this week that his bill goes beyond a local spat between Jefferson County and Helena over a proposed annexation at the county line.

"It's simply trying to answer a legal question as to whether a county line means anything," he said.

"As far as I know, it's the first bill looking at this topic."

The state's annexation laws are 30 years old, he said. And while the local annexation issue may be the first involving cross-county annexation, it won't be the last.

"It's a new situation," he said. "Elected officials here have to have the same authority as city officials, so it can be worked out on an equitable basis."

"It's really unfair to the commission of the other county and the citizens of the neighboring county that their government is being shunted aside, and decisions are being made by a government they didn't even have a vote in," he said.

When looking at laws in other states, there is no clear pattern to follow, Murphy said.

Some states prohibit cross-county annexations without the county's permission. Others don't prevent cities from crossing county lines, Murphy said.

Jefferson County Commission Chair Ken Weber said, "I'm glad it moved out of committee. I think it's important it be heard. I believe it has state-wide ramifications."

Opponents to SB339 said this week that the bill would make cities subservient to neighboring counties.

Helena City Manager Tim Burton said, "There's still a lot of debate on this issue left."

"What surprises me is how little consideration the Paulsens (the affected landowners) have received in the debate so far.

"We feel we have been constructively engaged and will remain so," he said.

The committee also amended SJR 26, prior to approval on Thursday, to expand the interim study committee's scope to include annexation, Murphy said.

However, Murphy said, he didn't want his bill on hold until the study is completed.