Raylan Brandle.

Absolutely.

Excuse.

Laurie Casey.

Dan Denihy.

Here.

Mary McCarmick.

Cindy Purdue Dolan.

Here.

Cindy Shaw.

Here.

Chad Silk.

Here.

Matt Stephen.

I haven't heard from Matt.

And I don't know if uh Ray Lynn did or not.

So she might have.

So let's excuse Matt.

Ben Thielen.

He's been excused.

Can we have the pledge and the prayer, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for Richard stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Almighty God, we implore you to look upon us this night as we make decisions which will greatly affect our peace local community.

Amen.

Thank you, Cindy.

Do we have any comment on any item on the agenda tonight?

Seeing none, do we have any public comment on on anything not on the agenda tonight?

And I'm sorry, Matt.

Um even though it's not part of the uh agenda, I think the public comments section is probably the best section for me to update you guys on these two memorandums.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Um I'll start with the first one that was drafted for uh Chairwoman Brandle.

Uh she asked very specific questions with regards to revamping uh local government, size of the council, um certain things that need to be mandated and changed.

I will go through each one briefly and then you know, kind of the answers to them, and then you can look and see in depth where the rest of those questions went.

The first question the chairwoman Brandle asked was what would happen, you know, if uh this commission decided to go to a uh smaller commission, fewer commissioners.

Her current her question was specifically in relation uh to Article 3 of our charter.

Because charters have priority over statutes and structuring local governments, uh executive, legislative, administrative organizations.

Um there is legal room to define all of these, however, it will require significant change to Article 3 in our charter.

Uh uh commission slash manager style uh government.

Section 3.03E, which specifically authorizes the council uh to advise the council or authorizes the community to advise the council of commissioners.

One of the questions chairwoman Brandle asked was about advisory bodies located in the community.

Uh the charter language already specifically allows for those, so we can keep them in there.

What this commission needs to be aware of is there is a key question with that that I think needs to be answered is what legal authority, if any, will these bodies have um if they are put together.

Um purely from you know a legal risk standpoint is if they're given direct powers, those need to be specifically defined.

However, if they are just an advisory board, they are just that.

They are just advising the commission of things that are going on in their community and where they would like to see things go from there.

Um section 3.03H.

The council shall provide that all functions mandated upon either cities or counties shall be complied with.

So this is kind of a broad catch-all that's in our charter.

If we reduce the size of our commission, um this clause is actually probably gonna become a lot more burdensome, uh, particularly with fewer people shouldering, you know, more oversight.

Uh you know, it's mandated upon either cities or counties.

So this can involve state law mandates, you know, which compliance can be rigid, costly, effective.

Do they are they gonna have staffing?

Things that this commission might consider with regards to that specific section of the charter, you know, is refining or specifying what functions are meant and who is responsible, either the legislative or executive branch for ensuring compliance.

Alternatively, you could separate policy such legislative oversight versus administrative execution.

There's another section currently in the charter with regards to the annual evaluation and publishing those results in the newspaper.

Particularly under Montana law, transparency is always important.

Right now, our charter specifically requires that we publish, you know, the annual report, which is uh the what do we call it?

It's a budget, it's a special budget report that we publish, and it's supposed to be in a regularly circulated newspaper.

Uh, you know, mostly that's archaic, it's uh very costly.

Currently, we're relying on websites, social media and free local papers.

I do think that the charter can be revised to include those to allow for that flexibility, also to post uh here in the courthouse and things like that, but then also leave the newspaper part of it in there for generations that don't use social media yet.

And then uh also we can verify whether current practices match uh you know what our car charter is specifically requires.

If the evaluations are happening, you know, but not as intended or published as widely, um those are gaps that can be addressed in readdressing the charter.

Um restrictions on council of commissioners, you know, relation to the city manager.

So this is under section 3.04 of the charter.

Montana statute uh and the charter provide that the commission or council should not give orders to city employees directly but conduct matters matters through the manager.

Currently, this is the same exact thing, but we can the commission conducts them through the chief executive.

I actually think it is specifically important to leave this in here.

You have a chief executive or a city manager that is running the city.

They do the hiring, the firing, this the setting all those things up.

I think if we were to allow the uh charter to specifically allow the commissioners to start diving into those types of practices, what you're gonna see is micromanaging from the top down and nothing is gonna get done.

But the uh aspect of having a commission manager system does allow the commission to hire and fire a manager, you know, or let go uh a lot a lot easier, except you know, a lot more frequently than every four years, you know, if under an elected system.

So that is the benefit of it when looking at you know the question that was presented to me and how our current charter is structured, is if the commission decides to go to a commission slash manager relationship, excuse me, commission slash city manager style relationship to run the city, that does provide the council with significantly more power with regards to the uh manager of the city for hiring and firing purposes.

So if they're not doing what the commission likes or you know what they believe that their constituents want, they can look for a new city manager.

The other aspect of this, and I didn't put it in here and I thought of it afterwards.

You can put in the charter that the council, if it is smaller and full time, I think this is also appropriate, does have the ability to uh hire and fire directors.

Um again, I think that that might be more of a micromanaging type situation because again, if you have a city manager, you're gonna you know, they need to hire people that they know are gonna work for them.

If you've got a council that's deciding who gets hired and fired in all of the top management positions, you might not have a well-meshed system, but it is an option for this council to consider.

Presiding officers and tiebreaker votes.

So currently, right now, our chief executive is the tiebreaker vote when it comes to anything that the commission is doing if they are tied.

I do think that we still need to keep this in our charter somehow, whether that be you know, a mayor if we go to a city manager type position uh or another presiding officer, someone that could be elected almost, you know, as an outside third party that's brought in to break up uh any kind anything that is a tied commission vote.

But I definitely think we still need it.

I think that there's some room within the charter to revise that specific position if need be, so they're not connected directly with the council.

Uh you know, I still having it as the uh a mayor or someone similar or a different presiding officer is an option.

Uh she also asked a question with regards to 4.02 powers and duties of the chief executive.

Um her question related specifically to if we went to a city manager model.

And so if the county is to adopt a city manager model, the section has to significantly change to a to align with state laws.

Right now, state law doesn't specifically you know completely lay out what a chief executive is to do.

It does give them a you know, a brief like paragraph, hey, they're to run the county and do all these things in conjunction with the commission.

Montana statute specifically states through section 7-3, 4 4362 through 63, the commission managers, uh the commission slash managers, city manager style governments have clearly defined roles.

Now, um there is a question that uh Commissioner Silk presented that actually relates directly into this as well.

Uh there are certain things that a manager has to do, but that also doesn't mean that you can't add duties to it, if that makes sense.

There's a baseline and there's quite a few in that statute, but then you can add things to it.

Uh the ability to eliminate to eliminate a department.

Um Commissioner, or excuse me, Chairman Brandle asked, you know, if we were to put something in the charter to either eliminate, combine, or recognize separate departments, what language should be in there.

Um I do think that uh language should be put into the charter that uh allows for this to, you know, happen on a much easier basis.

Um I currently believe we're we're under an ordinance, but if we if we put something in the charter, um excuse me.

If we don't have it, you know, in the charter that we can do this through an ordinance or specifically the procedure for doing it in the charter, our charter may lock us into containing, you know, having certain departments permanently.

Because the charter as it stands right now has set up multiple departments and then allows for the county itself to develop other ones.

I do think that that could be uh a question that is cleared up either through the charter or specifically through ordinances, but again, we have to be careful because as we know with the firefighter situation, there are certain certain aspects of the law that have to be in the charter and can't be done through ordinance as of right now.

And then this question related directly to parks and or parks and rec and pulling it out of public works and having a director status.

Um I think you know, when looking at the law and looking what our at what our directors do, um, I think that that title uh does matter.

Um, you know, it it it's it's an authority issue, it clearly defines who has the authority within that department for the purposes of budgets, chains of command, pay scale.

Um, you know, if left under public works, a director title really doesn't mean anything for parks and rec because there's specifically a director for uh public works, not parks and rec.

Um the fire department, she specifically has some questions with regards to uh some redlining that the volunteers brought in with regards to the charter.

That is a memo in and of itself that will be provided.

And then there was just some things to watch out for, you know, public input and listing sessions.

You guys are doing great on those.

Uh budgetary impacts, so something to think about with fewer commissioners.

While it may appear we have a cost savings, um, it also could possibly put more burden on you know each one.

Um, in addition to that, you have to think about is each, you know, while it's not going to be in the charter, um, it's a question, you know, for a budget director or someone prior to you know us acting asking to put it in the charter or set it up that way that they're gonna need staff, they're gonna need a place to be.

Um so uh we need to be mindful of that, I believe.

Clarity versus flexibility.

Um charters need to be specific enough to define responsibilities, but also flexible enough to adapt.

I think our charter is okay in that.

It does allow for flexibility, it does allow for adaptation.

I think it needs to be updated in a few areas that you guys have already started going through, uh particularly one with you know the firefighter ordinances and things like that and the laws.

And then we just need to ensure that we're consistent with state law.

So anything that you guys are looking at doing, we just need to make sure we're following, you know, section 7-3-463 through 4362 through 4363.

Um accountability and transparency, you know, annual evaluations, reporting, you know, publicly available results.

I think all that can be put in the charter and clarified in our charter.

Uh you know, we don't want to give with reserves regards to the presiding officer or tiebreaker votes.

You know, we want to consider whether you know giving a legislative power to a chief executive or manager is uh appropriate specifically since they're listening to the legislative branch of the government.

That's where that kind of third-party independent tiebreaker vote idea comes in.

And then we want to you know keep that separation of powers with a clear chain of command.

So rather than allowing uh commission to, you know, basically tell a city manager or the chief executive who to hire and fire, keep that separate.

The only person that they can really deal with is either that man is the manager essentially.

That way you don't have undue legislative interference with the day-to-day administrative functions, you know, within the city county.

So then Commissioner Silk asked me um specific questions with regards to our ordinance 2-16-040, you know, and charter authority.

So, as we all know, that specific ordinance was the ordinance that uh gives the director of fire services command and control over fire services, um, but doesn't carry the full authority, you know, under our charter government in light of Montana statutes, or excuse me, his question is does it carry the full authority under specific statutes that he'd looked up.

So we have to remember that when we're looking at Montana statutes, that one specific statute also needs to be read in conjunction with the chapter that it's from, and then we need to pay attention to whether or not that chapter is also referencing something else.

So specifically, Commissioner Silk asked me to look at section 7-3-701, which establishes for the purposes of a charter government stat or excuse me, establishes the purpose of the charter government statutes and conforms that the self-government charter may establish executive, legislative, and administrative structures that are superior to conflicting statutes.

Now, when you read that, it sounds very much like our local government can enact its own laws that directly you know contradict state laws.

Under this specific section, that's that's not what it means.

What it means is we have the authority to enact our own local government and deal with the and put it together in a manner that we see see fit, you know, to establish the executive, legislative, and administrative structures of that government.

We don't have to follow you know to a T what the state statutes are saying.

This says local government structure and organizational matters we can control if we want to do that.

So it doesn't give us the power to override, you know, a bunch of state substantive statutes, um, which is actually later, which is found later on in the specific section or excuse me, chapter of that statute.

And I will get to that.

So there's a scope of charter powers under the Constitution.

The uh Montana Constitution, it's Article 9, Section 6, and Montana Code annotated section 7-111-102-73702, provide that a charter government may exercise any power not prohibited by the Constitution, state law, or the charter itself, these powers are to be liberally construed.

Um that's specific, it comes from a Montana Supreme Court case and several other cases.

And what the Supreme Court said is, you know, basically this this broad grant allows charter governments to set up their own form of government.

Again, remember it's that set up instructional organization of the government, levy taxes, and provide local services, but those powers are still subject to prohibitions express explicitly set by state law.

So we have some conflict between you know ordinance 2.16040 and then um Montana Code annotated 7-332110.

So 21604 attempts to centralize the command of all fire services, however, uh 733 2110 explicitly stated that all volunteer fire departments and companies or districts, you know, that were existing at the time of consolidation were unaffected.

So what we have here is the Montana Constitution and certain statutes saying local government, you can do all of these things.

And then we have an ordinance that we enacted, but now there's another outside state law that specifically states, hey, you cannot do anything with regards to these individuals.

So when looking at that, there was another law that um that I found in conjunction with this that also states where's the I don't want to roll over here.

Here it is.

Under section 1114, it's a par four, it's the application of Montana Code Section 114 and Section 1111.

This is in regards, and this is what I'm saying, we have to look at the total chapter.

That one places express limits, you know, uh on the principle by identifying areas where local ordinances cannot contravene state law.

So when you go through that section of the law, it specifically lays out you cannot over or you know, override any felonies that we put in place, you know, felony laws, any misdemeanor laws with certain penalties, things with certain taxes, zoning laws, things like that.

The interesting thing here is it does not specifically exclude um uh the volunteer firefighter section.

So what we have is three statutes that I don't know have ever actually had this, if this issue has not come up that are conflicting with each other.

We have uh a specific statute that says local governments can do all of these things except for this explicit list.

And but then we also have our constitution that states you know local governments cannot enact any ordinances or resolutions that conflict with state law.

So realistically, what we're looking at here is is we can clean up all of this in the charter, which at that point in time I do believe everything will be in compliance with state law as it's written now.

If the charter does not specifically lay out the dire uh you know director of fire services role um as required under 733 2110, and how that relates to you know the governing of uh paid for uh firefighters versus volunteer firefighters, I think the only logical next step that you have is to request um you know some judicial interpretation and ask a district court judge with authority and possibly the Montana State Supreme Court, which one of these laws supersedes the other one?

Do local governments have the right to do all of these things because they're specifically laid out in this list, or because we have another statute out here kind of in in a in a totally different section of the law that says also they can't do this, which one holds more water, if that makes any sense.

Um Mr.

Silk also asked a uh pretty good question with regards to you know comparison between law enforcement consolidation when Butte Silverboat County became a uh consolidated government, we combined uh the two police forces.

Um there's a statute specific to that 7-5-212 or 2142 that allows uh consolidated governments to combine county and municipal offices by ordinance.

Uh at that point in time, obviously the sheriff's office and the Butte City Police Department were uh you know governed under the authority of the county then and the city then, so they were municipal offices.

Uh the the key difference is that uh volunteer fire departments by contrast are independent entities, they have their own governing boards.

Um they were not ever subject to any local laws.

So uh that law specifically doesn't relate to consolidating them.

So then there was just a conclusion at the end that kind of revamps and goes through all of that.

And then as I was stating kind of earlier before um this meeting started, uh I have another memorandum coming with regards to uh key questions that have been kind of asked in multiple different variants.

Is uh I never got them in emails, but I wrote them down with regards to you know how many uh questions can we put on the ballot?

Is uh are we capable of revamping the charter and fixing you know small inconsistencies in it that aren't uh substantive changes, rather more grammarical, grammatical, excuse me.

And uh that will be provided uh forthcoming along with a more in-depth memorandum of uh the difference between putting in the charter uh a director of fire services and what all of their that individuals um uh authority uh will be uh in conjunction or in contrast to leaving it uh the way it currently is.

Does anybody have any questions?

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Matt, in regards to the tie-breaking vote, can you have an odd number of commissioners so you don't have to have a tie-breaking vote?

Uh yes, uh Commissioner Casey.

So I think so.

That's actually something that I thought of.

It's not in that answer.

It was one of the things that I I have been rambling around in my brain of how do we do that?

But here's your problem is is you may have an odd number of commissioners, but maybe that night someone is excused and you will say instead of 70 of six.

So I think that it still is appropriate to put some thought into having a designated tiebreaker.

Now, obviously, when you go to the commission manager style system, um you have a mayor.

I mean, and a mayor is is for all intents and purposes a handshaker and they're the face of the county.

Um they don't have much authority because that's their whole purpose is is not to have have that kind of authority.

Um so that's why they are one possibility of having a tiebreaker style vote.

Um, you know, they're an elected official, they're not subject to the commission at that time of being hired or fired, so they've really got no stake in the game outside of just making a good decision or trying to make a good logical decision one way or the other.

If that makes any sense.

Just a follow-up comment is I've always thought it was odd that the chief executive was the tie-breaking vote, because as a former department head that was part of that tie-breaking point, I uh I work for the chief executive, and if he didn't want me following, I mean, probably 90% of the council's agenda is submitted by staff on the on the uh executive side.

So I always thought it was because if your chief executive didn't want you working and going that direction to submit, it should have been done at that time and not before the council of commissioners with a no vote against you.

Commissioner Casey, that is that's correct.

Is is doing it this particular way or at least removing it from the chief executive's power or the city manager's power, you're looking at a more unbiased opinion because you are 100 percent correct in the sense of everything that comes before the commission goes through uh a department head.

Well, not everything, but 90 percent of it does at the direction of their boss, which is the chief executive or the city manager.

So having that third independent tiebreaking vote, I think would be beneficial.

Thank you, Mr.

Yanruth.

Cindy, please.

Thank you.

I was gonna say almost said madam.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I've been called worse.

Okay.

Uh on uh hi, Matt, thanks for this.

It's really very interesting.

I need to digest it all.

But uh Henri Lynn's question, section 3.04 restrictions on the council of commissioners.

If you if you look at the charter, this always bugged me because, well, as commissioners, we we felt that we should be able to at least ask questions in the very first part of section 304 in our charter, it starts out except except for the purpose of inquiry inquiry or investigation that always kind of rattled my cage a little bit because some executives and JP is one of them.

He said we could never ever do anything with the executive branch.

But it says right here, except for the purpose of inquiry or investigation.

And so I just wanted your take on that.

And it's a little bit of a rabbit hole away from what you had here for restrictions, but it always brings up the flag to me that the council of commissioners should at least have the opportunity to ask questions.

That's that's what I wanted to ask you about.

And that is true.

The charter does specifically allow for that right now.

Um the charter, in my opinion, states that they may inquire and they may ask questions.

They cannot direct.

That's right.

Uh and uh I still think that that is a very important thing to keep in place, is not allowing the council of commissioners to either direct the chief executive or a city manager to hire, fire or do anything.

The council of commissioners is uh the last step in the line.

Their authority is if they don't like something, is to vote it down.

Um if uh a couple of the most recent commissioner meetings, um, Commissioner Morgan has been very, very good about making that clear while everybody's kind of getting in the mud on certain things, he just brings it back around to the point of they have the authority.

Their authority is is either to accept or deny it.

And uh I think a lot I think that everybody's kind of starting to remember that is that there you don't need to get into um where it's coming from, why it, you know, who is presenting what, why, or any of the you know back thought behind it, it's just simply the commissioners have the authority to say yes or no, and now they're starting to do that.

It's it's working well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so to start with Ray Lynn's questions, um under section number one, under section 3.03, um the community councils, and if we were to adopt that, I would imagine that most community councils in other jurisdictions, other counties, um, they are advisory, and I would I would suggest that um getting down into legal authorities, budgets, and all those kinds of things.

Um, you know, we're we're hoping that folks around Butte Silverbow County are engaged enough to have an advisory council, but as far as giving them legal status, budgets and all of that, I think that's for another time.

I think we need to just get the advisory if if the voters want that and and it's established um in the charter um as an advisory role.

Um I don't want these community councils, if they were to be enacted to get too much on their plate to scare off people uh from engaging to be uh too much of a uh a lift.

Uh does that make sense?

And and do you know if most um around uh different counties are just advisory roles?

Uh Commissioner Dolan.

Yes, so this is actually in our charter already.

And we already have them.

We have fire advisory, we have all of them.

So that's I think why it got brought up is right now we have the advisory boards, and and I don't mean to put uh words in uh Chairwoman Brandle's mouth, so I'm not doing that.

What I'm saying is is I think the key question is, you know, should they have any legal authority?

And that's been brought up because fire advisory council is just that.

It is advisory.

So you can have a bunch of people sitting around the table and no one agrees on anything and they can't advise the council of anything, or if they all agree on anything, they've finally come to a place where they have something they want to bring to the council, but they have you know zero authority to get it passed past past the council if they don't like it.

So I think that's why the question was presented was should a new charter, you know, at this point in time give you know advisory councils that are set up by the commission or the local community, should they have any authority?

Now, my back end answer to that is is I do think they have some authority in the sense of they can't present communications to council, they can open up that floor and ask, hey, we want to do this, and this is why, and this is coming from fire advisory or the water district advisory or you know, or um Clark's Park Advisory if someone's down there.

And uh they still have that, and then they also have the ultimate authority of voting in the end.

But I think that's why the question was presented was um should you know, should should we give them some form of authority or maybe just uh a direction uh in the sense of you know, we have these advisory councils in the community.

If they wish to present something to council, this is how you know they do it.

And uh, and I think a community advisory board, I would I would hope that uh a council of commissioners would accept their input um you know as a higher level, not not necessarily high level of authority, but um look at it more because you've got a group of people that have come together that are technically you know supported by their community and and asking the council to do something further questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so going on to um Chad's questions, and I guess let's see which one do I have?

Oh, um could you explain to us what you foresee when you started talking about page two with regard to the the conflicting statutes and a judicial resolution because of our time frame and the fact that we're working to get things to the voters by November of 26.

This sounds very complicated as you have tried to explain it, and the fact that we might have to go to a district judge and possibly the Montana Supreme Court for a ruling on that con the that conflict.

What does that time frame look like?

Because that would that set us back.

I mean, and then I get the question of my initial question is judge shopping to get the you know particular answer you'd like.

I mean, so there's lots of things that are baked into that conflict.

So could you get into that a little bit?

Yeah.

Thanks.

So realistically, I don't think it affects your timeline at all if this uh body looks at presenting something within the charter.

So we have uh, in my opinion, right now, after reviewing all these, there are you know, basically two state statutes and our current ordinance um based off of our charter that all are semi-conflicting with each other.

So we can start with just the base part of it.

The the original charter was put in place.

The charter specifically developed a director of fire services, but then left out all of the things they were gonna do, all of the things they were gonna do were later passed in an ordinance.

Um the intent was was clear uh in my opinion, that the director of fire services was to have all of those authorities.

I just it wasn't legally done in the sense of it didn't compute with section 7-332110, which is the statute that specifically states that volunteer fire departments were not going to be affected based on consolidations of city county governments unless specifically provided for in the charter.

Um but then you start looking at 7-1-111, which places specific limits on local governments of what they can and cannot do, you know, in the ordinance sections.

And there actually is a section in 7-111 that states that you cannot that local counties cannot uh uh basically mess with any firefighters, uh it's either pay or their pensions.

I can't remember exactly what it was.

So it wasn't as if all firefighting stuff was excluded from that statute or forgotten.

I think you know that this happens is the law is vast.

It really really is big, and everybody tries their best to not write a statute that conflicts with another statute.

But it happens.

And when that happens, that's when you need you know, a judge to come in and say what is or is not what what they believe is or is not the law.

When it comes to judge shopping, um, you really can't judge shop in the state of Montana in a in a district court sense.

You get one bite at the apple, you get a judge.

If you don't like that judge, you can pay your hundred bucks and bump them.

But the way they've developed the new system, it's they try and keep it local, but if no one local wants it, then it just goes into a random pool and you get who you get.

Uh but I don't think this actually this is just if nothing changes.

So you still have the authority right now to go into the charter and specifically lay out what uh the director of fire services is going to do or how fire fighting services are going to work in Silverville County.

Um, and then that way it is in compliance with 733 2110 because it's in the charter, and it's also in compliance with 7-1-111 because it's not specifically prohibited from being done by the local county government.

So I don't think that this messes with any of your timelines.

What this is is just a brief statement of if you know there isn't an agreement on what's to be presented to uh the voters next fall, excuse me, not 2026, uh, that this is just the the next path forward is someone, you know, with a judge, and then most likely the Montana Supreme Court is going to have to provide clarity on the statutes of which ones hold water over the others.

So I don't think it will screw up anything with regards to what this commission is doing, no.

So, Matt, the conflict is between Butsu Rebo ordinance versus the Montana uh annotated section.

Yes.

If we change the charter language, yes that has a provision of lays out the specific responsibilities of the director of fire service.

Is that conflict now taken care of or is there still a conflict with state law after you specifically provided that's that recommendation and language in the charter?

That is correct.

If it's in the charter, then it gets rid of the the conflicts perceived or not.

Um it's uh when you break it down to its base elements, the charter specifically needs to lay out what the director of fire services roles are, what will happen with the volunteer fire departments uh in conjunction with 7332110 because that requires it be in the charter.

And then 7-1-111 doesn't say that you can't do this.

It's and it's one of those things where it expressly put limits on local counties from putting things in ordinances, and then we get a state law that also says, but by the way, you can't do this in an ordinance.

So you get this not confusion, but you get some contradictory, you know, legal uh on one side or the other, which is where a judge would have to come in and say one way or the other.

But if it goes into the charter, it is in compliance with all of those statutes.

So once it's removed from our ordinance and in the charter, depending on what the language is it's presented.

Laurie.

Oh, sorry.

Chad.

I think thank you.

Uh County Attorney Andrew, would it be specific enough if it was in charter to say that the legislative body of Ute Silverbow will run the fire department as it sees fit?

Is that specific enough to where it's vague enough, but also the community can decide through its legislative government without going through a study commission to change as it needs to, and the voters in the community can have more time to discuss this and through ordinance you can form your fire department?

Uh Commissioner Sill, that's very close to what we have now.

Um I think the charter would have to be very specific on what the if we have a director of fire services and what their role is and how they will be directing everybody.

I think what we have now is exactly what you're saying is we we said we have a director of fire services, and then through ordinance we will be doing this.

Now the difference between your question and that is the legislative body, the commissioners will make that determination.

I don't know if it changes it, um, but I will I will discuss that matter with uh deputy county attorney Sean Peterson uh and a couple other attorneys that I've been uh corresponding with with regards to firefighter services in the state of Montana.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Laura.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Matt, if we were to recommend laying out the duties of the director of fire services in the charter, you said it cleans up the two, but would it still be in conflict with the one that says consolidation can't affect the volunteers fire departments that were established?

No, because that's what that one says.

It specifically states that volunteer fire departments cannot be affected by the consolidation of local governments unless explicitly provided for in the charter.

And that is where I'm saying I I do believe, in my opinion, to make it very clear, is the charter not only has to lay out what the director of fire services does, but it also has to lay out what the community will be doing with uh volunteer and rural fire departments.

And then we also need to keep in mind volunteer fire departments and rural fire departments are different.

Um and then we also have some volunteer fire departments, not volunteer fire departments, some contract fire departments.

I do not think we have any of those right now, but we have to be very specific with the language, volunteer fire departments, rural fire departments, because we do have volunteer departments, fire departments that are rule.

I mean, that's mainly where they're at.

But uh that language is different in the statute, and we want to make sure that we sit down and specifically provide for each one.

So, Matt, like Melrose, it does operate different.

They're I guess rural department, I would still consider them because they are volunteers, they actually uh get their fees and their own budgets and that.

So would we have to be specific in the charter if we wanted them to still be able to operate the way they currently do versus uh racetrack volunteer firepower?

Yes, and that's that's what I was getting at is the charter also has to be specific, in my opinion, with the volunteer fire departments that are being affected.

So you can't just say all volunteer fire departments are affected.

I think it specifically has to lay out the ones that we have are being affected, and this is what is happening with them because uh yes, Melrose follows the state statute.

They have their own board, they do do their own budget, um, where uh uh the majority of the ones in Butte Silverbow County um uh still have their board, but a lot of their budgetary money comes from the county, and we've got that weird mashup mix over.

Thank you.

Cindy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Two quick follow-ups.

Um the first is you know, we're still hoping that Anaconda comes over to talk about how they initially consolidated and took and they had taken um the fire department out of the charter.

Um I would love it if you could um educate us, because this is just for education to figure out would this even fit, would this even work for Butte Silverbow versus Anaconda?

Um, and and learn more about that autonomy with the fire departments to take it out of the charter and and to get your opinion if that's a good idea or not, um based on what Anaconda has done.

I f uh uh Commissioner uh Dolan, I think a lot of that I I will I will put that in the memo, but it'll probably be specifically limited to the legal analysis.

I think a lot of that question is actually budgetary.

Um, in the sense of when you start looking at uh the fire departments in Anaconda, the size of Anaconda and where they're located.

I mean, I can picture them in my brains right now, but I'm not gonna say their names because I don't want to be disrespectful and not say the correct ones.

But I know for the fire departments out, you know, by Georgetown, they have their own people there, they supply their own budgetary funds and everything, but they are again outside of the city, you know.

We have they have their internal fire department inside city limits, and then their other ones are separated.

You know, when you start looking at Butte Silver Bow, um, the majority of volunteer fire departments are located within, while we don't have them, what you would consider city limits.

Um they're very well with inside the city.

And so the question then becomes is if you remove them from uh if you remove it all from the charter and and the volunteer districts stay in place, uh the legal analysis then becomes very important and the budgetary analysis.

Do they then have to go to the individuals in their community down by Floral Park and collect those taxes and fees?

Is Butt Silverville County still collecting them and then giving them to the volunteer fire department?

Um, I I think the statute's very clear that uh volunteer fire departments have the ability to uh levy special mills for their districts, so then you now have you know uh multiple, you know, career firefighter departments located within a city that are completely separate from volunteer fire departments that are located in the city and who starts covering what?

So I think you have to look at the historic nature of what those original volunteer fire departments were meant to do and then come and then look at that, you know, as a city grows and things get consolidated inside.

Um I can provide the legal analysis on it, but I also think a lot of that's a budgetary analysis, which is Director Hassler, and she would have to answer those questions.

Thank you, Dan.

Um one more question.

And if the voters decide to uh shrink the size of the commission and go to a city county manager, um, what does that time frame and I don't even know if you can answer this question, but what does the time frame look like once the vote is in in November of 26?

What does December of 26 look like?

What does the change look like for changing that whole system within Butte Silver Bow?

So I I can't provide uh excuse me, Commissioner Dolan.

Um I can't provide specifics on what the timeline looks like.

Because I think it's going to depend on what needs to be be implemented.

So realistically speaking, it's probably going to have a, you know, uh our current government would have a sunset date on it, and uh the new ones would be implemented, and you would have to look at uh if the say the uh commissioners, you know, went from where they're at now to six.

It's not just a matter of of a legal time frame, it's a matter of okay, the the county's got to look and make sure their budget's correct.

Do they need to to raise more mills in order to cover hypothetically speaking six county commissioners full-time salaries to the tune of probably somewhere between 65 and 85,000 a year, plus what do they get in their budget?

Do they have staff?

Do we have a place to put them?

Uh again, those are all things that I think would have to go through all the steps.

So you I mean you'd be realistically looking at at least one budget year.

Um, and then also the uh election process in the sense of uh we would have to look at how you know they people would have to run for election, be elected, half of those positions most likely would only be half of a term because then you don't have everybody rolling over on the same uh uh election cycle, and it would be very, very complicated, and I think take some time.

And and most likely, you're looking, I I would say one to two years, and also depending on uh you know where we're at in the election cycle, but if you you know, thinking of that now, if it passes in 26, you would have the year 27 to put all those things in place and then get the elections going in 28 on the next cycle.

Yeah.

Laura.

This is a good one.

And also Ron Davis's question, he didn't make come up with that question, someone else gave him that.

He's not that smart.

Laura.

Mr.

Chairman, do we have a copy of the fire districts, what their district boundaries are, or could we get an electronic copy of what that map looks like as we go through for our deliberation?

I think we did uh one of the last things that I think Ms.

Conn provided us was with a district map.

Maybe it was a maybe it was a commissioner district, I'm sorry.

But if we can ask Annie and Mac and McKinsey to look at what the fire district maps are and oh, Chad has one.

I'm I'm sorry.

I can't see out of the I'm getting a lot of questions from the I'm not and make this gonna make you mad, Cindy, from the left-hand side of the dais.

So go ahead.

Chad, I'm sorry.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Denheat.

So that's a great question, and I believe what Ms.

Cohn sent us was the response map uh for the fire districts, it wasn't the fire district map.

That is a very contentious issue in itself, even though it's in black and white in resolutions throughout the history of Butte Silver Bow, there is some theory that some of the volunteer districts have just grown over the years.

But if there's no resolution that have been appropriately documented and approved through the Council of Commissioners, the original district itself after 1977 we were consolidated would be the size of those uh rural fire districts.

Currently, GIS is working on going through all of the resolutions to document the exact location of those districts, and each district will have the full resolution that goes with it, so every boundary change will be documented within a file that is not complete yet.

But Silverbow has never had an accurate, believe it or not, on the fire department has never had an accurate, true accurate uh fire district map.

So with long story short, there is not a specific one yet, but it will be coming, and I imagine it will be coming before we're finished with our our duties.

Given that, I I think what we want to do is make sure that the map that we have is the final map of the fire district, not piecemeal in it together and and and make an assumption of where the line is drawn, has it changed, was there a resolution that changed it?

So I think we will have to ask the GIS Annie uh maybe we can get an update on their progress on the fire district maps and and maybe report back to us next week or the week after.

And then to sure just for public record too.

I know I've asked in fire advisory meetings before, and I'm sure there's some volunteers listening to this right now, but if you please again, we've asked for a couple years now if you have any documentation that would speed this process along that confirms the the district boundaries, please bring them to either GIS or the director of fire services so they can make sure they get it right the first time.

Um it would just all the information in one spot and then decide what is factual and what is not is would be the best thing for GIS.

Great.

Uh just one more question since we have uh Matt here.

Matt, we are looking at language that will probably drastically change the charter language.

For example, we make the recommendation of changing it to six full-time commissioners, city manager type of government, all of those things that has to be voted on from the public perspective.

Would it so when we're doing that, do we have to have that language prior to the election?

Or are we talking about that that length of time between November election and 2027 to incorporate the language that the voters have approved?

Or do we have to have that language up front?

Because I know other study commissions changed the charter mostly grammatical, and the changes of language were important, but it didn't change the structure of government any at any point.

This, however, has a major change, and to have that language prior to the election is I think problematic, but it's something that maybe we uh have to do.

What is your what is your opinion?

Uh I don't know the exact answer to that to be honest with you, but uh my gut feeling is telling me that yes, we need it before I think people know exactly what they're voting on, not we're voting to change it to six commissioners, and then afterwards we make up all the rules.

Uh but it that's that's in the other memo.

That's one of the questions that Sean and I, and we the th the thing that the deputy county attorney uh Sean Peterson and I do is we independently research and then we sit down so we don't influence each other on what we're finding and where we find it.

Very good.

Um so that is one of our questions of whether or not we have to present all that.

I've been trying to search for the old stuff that got presented, um, but because it was back when things weren't electronically stored, it's been difficult.

Okay, thank you.

Mary Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Well, it certainly seems to me that there's been a lot of maybe not, you know, we're unique in being a uh consolidated city-county government, but there's certainly been a lot of municipal governments, city governments that have um have done this, Bozeman, and I think they've done things as well as you know, go to the city manager and reduce the number of their commissioners, and I assume when you talk that you and and um Sean are are doing research that you're looking at what other communities have done and how what what level of detail that they had to provide in their ballot measure.

I mean, I don't think we can be expected to have a fully complete plan with all the costs addressed.

I mean, that would be wonderful, but I mean we're gonna have to have some basic things there, and it's certainly communities around Montana that have gone to city managers.

I'm I'm sure there's you know Bozeman only has three commissioners now.

I think they used to have more and what that means.

But there's you know, commun um counties and places in Colorado, I mean all over the country, so it seems like we should be able to with good research figure this out.

Yes, that is correct.

Yes, and Bozeman went to three counties, six six city.

Um again, we're just a little bit different because we're totally consolidated, and uh but yes, Bozeman is one of the places that we've been looking at with regards to that.

You'd actually I would think it would be easier to find a lot of Bozeman stuff online, but really it's not.

Uh but that's one of the places we have been looking and researching is how Bozeman went to their city manager system, Belgrade, how they went to the city manager system, uh and what was presented to their uh constituents, and uh we have been going from there.

We just want to make sure we have sufficient enough detail in what's presented to the voters uh that people understand and know what they're voting on.

But yes, you're 100 percent correct that we can't the the it is not the purpose of this commission to come up with the budgetary amounts and the things like that.

That's that's the afterwards, that's the implementation of uh after the what the commission decides to do.

Uh yeah, I know so Matt, I think the language on the ballot is fairly um simple.

Yes.

Yes, it's and uh I I know you looked at it all affirmation for the can exist uh government structure, which would be the chief executive council and commissioner or for city manager government.

Uh those are easy sort of language, I shouldn't say easy.

They're less they're they're much yeah, easier to have the language with us.

But the problem with that language is you have to change the charter to go with it.

Yes.

Okay.

So those so I'm thinking that from next wins or next Monday's meeting, the public hearing, until we have uh a preliminary report finalized to send it out to the public again.

We are have we're gonna have to do some due diligence and a lot of work to change the language of that charter that reflects what we are what the voters have approved.

So that is going to be a big job, and I'm glad Matt and Sean are on our team to help us do that.

And that's just it, is once this committee decides on what they want to present, we will start working, you know, on that.

You have your public hearing next week to allow individuals to come in and present to you, you know, what they are thinking and what they want.

Uh I think that's going to be a big help.

And then, you know, after that, uh my office will actually be at full capacity the following week, and I get to do my job full time.

It's fantastic.

Uh so we will be concentrating fully on study commission and things like that uh, you know, going forth here after basically October 6th.

Thank you very much, Matt.

Any um, sorry.

I I was uh thinking of something that might help Matt at his office is is the language something that MSU Center can help us with?

Because we did pay for that membership.

I have a lot of MSU stuff, yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Yeah, because we do have we did pay for the membership when we started this commission for some of their help.

When you the gold membership laurie.

And in fact, when you start researching this stuff, I would say 85% of it has an as a Montana State University tag on it.

Like you'll get through it and you're reading a statute and you're reading something, and then it's also Montana State University, blah, blah, blah.

And I'm like, yep, but it just keeps going back and back and back to that.

Thank you.

The other, Cindy.

Yes, I need some help.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I'm I'm thinking ahead here.

So when I did this 20 years ago, we had very specific one-liner almost.

Uh Bob can attest to that.

It they like you said, they were housekeeping things.

We we did establish a and animal controls to be on a standalone, very simple.

But we have some huge things that if we really want voters to understand what they're voting on, it's going to be a trick.

But Ray Lynn and I were talking about this the other day, and our report could easily state this is our reasoning why or this is what we have heard from the public, of course.

And maybe we can spell out some of the pros and cons, or however you want to put it, uh, so that people can make some kind of an equated uh understanding, I'll say, of why that is that we're proposing that it be on the ballot.

So I'm thinking uh budgetary issues, possibly that what pros and cons of manager versus chief uh numbers of people and how mainly it comes down to money.

I think a lot of these are going to be uh an issue of budget uh concerns.

But I think it's really important if we put something out there, it can't be too gray or too general because it's pretty complicated.

Yes.

And I think in our report, is that correct, Dan, that we could spell those sorts of things out.

And of course, we'll have a final report as well.

But sure.

And I think uh MSU School of Government has provided those sort of provisions in in comparison the existing form of government versus the proposed government that the commission is going to um recommend to the voters.

And it does um spell that out.

And if you recall last week when we're in Ramsey, we made it fairly clear that whatever the decision is going to be, it's it's the voters' decision, but there will be a price tag to that, which is we're not here for price tags.

It's the voters that say if it's important enough for them to change or form of government, if it's important enough for us to reduce the amount of legislative branch officials, there is going to be a price tag to that.

And if they say, yeah, we we get it, and we still vote for it, that's the people have spoken.

So that's primarily what just simply what I was getting up with.

A lot of these is you guys are gonna get hit with those questions.

That's the only reason I keep bringing it up, is and that's why it's in a couple of these of these memos is thir people are gonna ask, well, what happens when we go to six?

Does that lower the cost?

Does that raise it?

To be honest, you really can't answer any of those questions in the sense of giving them a specific.

The simple answer is yes, it will affect it.

We just don't know how Cindy, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I'll make a comment and then I have a question.

Um I think that uh because of these budgetary questions that we have no authority over, I think that brings in uh to the question that we were just talking about before we started the meeting is uh forensic audit and auditing forensically the Butte Silver Bow budget and and seeing if folks would like to do that could showcase it's just basically looking under the hood and what are we spending our money on in Butte Silver Bow County and having that kind of audit, which is different than just making sure all the numbers are in the right place and the the numbers add up.

That's a regular audit.

But a forensic audit is saying where do we spend our money?

And if that's the case, we can find uh maybe some budget savings to make it budget neutral.

But the again, those are questions that are for the council commissioners, really not for us.

But it gives us a tool to look at where we're spending our money and if there are some savings where we can move and shift um budgets or whatever.

Um but beyond that, I wanted to ask you, Matt, with the um excuse me, a county attorney and ruth.

Um I like I like how it's informal in here.

The the um I'm I'm looking forward to your next memo about the um ballot questions and how many, but I also want to ask you with the the other bucket we talk about recommendations to the council of commissioners.

Is there a is there a process where we could have bucket A of recommendations, just ideas that the commission could or could not effectively put into place.

But could there be another uh group of recommendations that are binding that may not need a vote of the people but we are suggesting that the public wants done.

I I just don't know.

Is that is there any differentiation there or it just has to be recommendations and dependent on whether or not the council of commissioners agrees or not?

If that makes all any kind of sense.

Commissioner Dolan, it does.

I I understand your question.

Uh I will look, to be honest with you, I don't think that there's any way you can make a binding recommendation.

Otherwise, it's not necessarily a recommendation anymore, it's in order.

Uh but um I I think what you're asking me really is there a way to have bucket A and bucket B, bucket A is hey, we have these recommendations, look at them, it's okay.

Bucket B is these are the recommendations that the people brought to us, and we really want you to look at them.

Like you need to take an in-depth look at them.

Now that process, if I'm you know just speaking off the top of my head, is semi-already in place.

It's entering a communication to the council and then saying, you know, we're requesting either judiciary or budget and finance or one of the committees take a hard look at this.

Uh but I will I will we can put it in the memo to determine whether or not um that is possible or if the process is already in place.

Um and if it is possible, how we do it.

And if not, that we just go through the standard.

Thank you.

Cindy, just yeah, I I think it's called supplemental reports is the name of the um is the I think function of supplemental reports is that it provides a recommendation to the Council of Commissioners for their um adoption or denying or vote on that we have heard.

For example, we've and and we'll probably be debating that and making our final decision on what goes into the ballot issue, the recommendations that the voters will vote on, versus okay, do you think we are uh making this uh voting our voting priority too much?

There's too many votes for some issues versus moving that to a supplemental report that goes to the council of commissioners and the chief executive saying the council of commissioners recommends that, for example, the coroner is not a standalone uh department anymore, that it should be moved into the sheriff's office, for example.

And what that could be that could be another ballot issue depends on what we decide in this issue, but there could be a number of supplemental reports that is part of the process that the uh that the study commission has the authority to make to the council to the governing body, I think it's called.

And um, they can say, yeah, we're gonna look at this, or you know, they could say they pun it down the road.

That's up to them.

Um one one follow-up to that.

I I wonder, and maybe this question is for not only Matt, but for Cindy and for Dan who have been on study commissions before.

Have you found it limiting the number of ballot issues you can put to the voter and trying to make that determination of what goes to a vote versus what should just be a recommendation?

I I'm just wondering as we the more information we get from the public, the more concerns they have, and the more I I think at home going, I think everything should be a ballot issue, but it can't be.

Matt.

So I I think there's actually a a simple ver a simple answer to that.

Very complicated question.

Things that go on the ballot are things that have to be in the charter.

So uh firefighter stuff.

Uh the coroner, if I'm not mistaken, also has to be in the charter.

Whereas if it is something that can be done through ordinance or resolution that's already within the power of the commission, whether they are six or twelve.

So I think then you think of that as a recommendation.

So if we're looking backyard chickens, that's an ordinance.

It doesn't need to go in the charter.

If for some reason this council wants to dive in on how cool backyard chickens are, uh, you know, that's awesome.

And I think you can make a recommendation to the council of commissioners that hey, this was brought to us, um, but it's it's within the council of commissioners purview.

We think, you know, here's the recommendation for you to please take a look at this.

I think that's the simple answer to that complicated question.

Please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And then your spot on, Matt.

I mean, either uh the we were taxed for as a study commission to look at form of government and any charter changes that we believe that need to be made.

Those are the legal aspects of what we're doing, and we're really beyond that.

But luckily, we do have this opportunity to make a list of very highly recommended recommendations from the public because that's the way we represent as a public, and there doesn't need to be a vote on that, but I would hope that if commissioners see a formal supplemental report of recommendations that they take it at least seriously.

But we I can guarantee you you cannot compel the council of commissioners to do anything.

Just saying.

Uh well, they have to take if we change if the if the voters change, the voters can do that, they can compel the council in a way.

But if the voters uh decide to go with ballot issues, and that's that's the only thing that we're here to do is to make the recommendations to the voters.

But yeah, you are a commissioner.

You can't we're kind of golden in a lot of ways, but you know, anyway, thank you.

Yeah, I I just follow up and say um in past administrations um with the county attorney, they didn't take those recommendations to the to the council of commissioners, and all that work was for naught, which was uh which I don't want to happen, and I'm adamant about that.

That and uh thank you to county attorney and Ruth for saying that you're gonna take those recommendations seriously, bring them to the council, and have them deliberate on those because it's what the voters have asked us to do.

So thanks.

And again, I I don't know the answer to the question, but uh it you know, if those recommendations come forth and then my office has to put them in a communication to the council, that's what we'll do.

You know, uh, you know, authorized, you know, requesting the council of commissioners authorization, you know, to take a look at X, Y, and Z, and here's why.

And whether whether, you know, it it uh you know you gotta make sure the communication is specific.

It's actually asking the council to do something that they can vote on.

Um but I think that that's appropriate.

That's important asking the council of commissioners to vote on looking at this, and then it goes to judiciary and you go through debate and you look at it and possibly draft a resolution or an ordinance or something that goes along with it.

Thank you, Matt.

Speaking of that, does anybody have any questions for me?

I got football.

You have to, you know, you're you you're you you have a holding or clipping penalty to call, so yeah, we understand.

Thanks, Matt.

That was uh thank you everyone.

Very, very helpful.

Yeah, thank you so much, Matt.

Cindy, did you have a question?

I'm sorry.

No thing, no questions.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, very good.

Any other questions?

Matt has to run out of here.

Okay, thank Matt again.

Thank you very much.

Okay, uh that was the public comment on anything not on the agenda.

That was uh Matt's very good language that he provided us.

Uh any other comments?

Mr.

Bandrob.

You betcha.

I'm sorry.

I didn't notice that it was five o'clock, not five thirty.

But that's my fault, not yours.

Items on the agenda.

Red Matter of 2601 Grand Avenue Butte Montana for and on behalf of the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation 8.

Reference public comment on any items on the agenda.

Item number nine, you've got a lot of work to do.

New business planning for the preliminary report.

And I do hope your preliminary report is a proposal.

In that the public, well, greater the subject is Greater Butte Silverbow Community Councils, District Community Councils, and Neighborhood Community Improvement Councils, a three-tier recommendation, in that the public has the right to participate in the local government's decision making process discussions.

The laws can be found at Montana Code anointed.

The recommendation in the code is that I hold these type of comments until you reach the actual item in the agenda, but in that it's on your agenda this way, we will proceed.

The decision making process entails, as you know, identifying the issue or problem, gathering relevant information through listening sessions, preparing a proposed solution for presentation, holding a public hearing before the final decision, making the final decision, and then implementing the agreed upon solutions.

In the nine years that I attended Butte Silver Bowl Council of Commissioner meetings on a regular basis, I do not remember the Council of Commissioners ever calling for or holding a public listening session.

They held public hearings after the fact.

Under the managerial form of government, the local government, executive branch, and departments are meant to provide services and implement projects, not propose and determine policy, and instigate projects.

There is no systematic channel established in our local government structure for the people to formulate, have approved, find funding, and have implemented consensual neighborhood improvement projects.

Therefore, we submit the following suggested amendments to the Butte Silverbow City County Charter.

There shall be added and deleted to the clause 3.03E to authorize community councils to advise the Council of Commissioners to read.

There shall be authorized A Greater Butte Silverbow Community Council to advise the Council of Commissioners.

The Greater Butte Silverbow Community Council to consist of one delegate from each commissioner's district.

There shall be an annual district neighborhood community improvement council's assembly of the participants and the various neighborhood community improvement councils within a commissioner district to select a district delegate to the Greater Butte Silverbow Community Councils.

Council, no yes.

The Greater Butte Silver Bow Community Council shall be responsible for the nomination and recommendation of termination of the Butte Silverbow City County Manager, not the appointment, not the contracting, and the initiative and initiating instigating or whatever of recall positions for elected officials and providing recommendations.

I got a double here, sorry about that.

There shall be various neighborhood community improvement councils within each commissioner district.

The formation and function of the neighborhood community improvement councils shall be in accordance with the original proposed Butte Silver Bowl Council Bill Ordinance 14-8.

The neighborhood community improvement council shall be responsible to instigate and facilitate the formation, approval, funding, and implementation of neighborhood improvement projects through their districts, Commissioner, neighborhood improvement projects to include but not be limited to public finance, infrastructure, safety, enrichment, enhancement, development, economic and land use, health and sanitation, and or other services.

This project criteria comes from Great Falls and from the Greeley Area Plan.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration and action.

Thank you, Mr.

Van Rob.

Because we will put this in our record and deliberate deliberate accordingly.

Do you have anything else?

I'm waiting for the next one.

Oh, okay.

Go ahead.

Sure.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Cindy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you for being here as always, Mr.

Vanderob.

Um, Ed, I I'm just still having a problem trying to digest this and not trying to think of it as not three more layers of bureaucracy.

And I know you disagreed with me last time we spoke, but having a greater Butte Silver Bow Community Council, a district community council, and a neighborhood council when we're living in 2025 and people don't volunteer for anything, and they and trying to get folks engaged in the process is a great thing, and I and personally I think a neighborhood community council is a is a good thing, a good idea.

Um, but these three layers and the layers in page two that you've just outlined.

I just don't know how it could be even feasible, let alone get the people to um to be engaged enough to have those layers.

Mr.

Chair.

I reply Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh actually, a comment period, there's no dialogue, and I don't I hate to set a precedent and nothing against Ed having an opportunity to do that, but there is no dialogue during a comment period.

It's just a strictly a comment.

Right.

But we changed that last time because Ed's here all the time, and Chairman Brand, I mean I think that sets a precedent.

I really said that last time.

I'm I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm just on the record, thank you.

Okay, everybody uh have um comment.

Uh Ed, you have another under Montana law, Cindy is absolutely correct.

Okay.

Comments are not to be discussed.

But this comment on the items on the agenda should be made during the discussion period.

And Butte Silverbow has been in violation of Montana law ever since I've been going there.

Unfortunately, we have not taken it to court to get it resolved, but they're both right.

I have the right to discuss at discussion period.

Now, in that you changed it last time and allowed me to speak during this time.

I'll let you make the decision over there.

The question was public comment on anything on the agenda or not on an agenda within our jurisdiction.

I understand the comment that you have.

I understand the debate and the comment back to you.

I think you have comments.

You have put them in writing, and we will provide the necessary deliberation on your comments.

You have a second comment tonight.

Do you have a second comment?

I have a second to comment to make on items not on the agenda.

Okay, very good.

So one of the things that we're doing next week is having public comment period.

And that's when we sit and listen to our public, not making any comments back, but to listen to the feedback coming toward us, not having a debate.

I mean, I guess if we have a comment, and I don't think it's a debate issue.

I think it's just a comment back saying your submission tonight is duly noted, and there is some people who might agree with your deliberation, and some people who are bringing up questions and uh concerns about your comments.

That's off that's totally uh correct.

And if anyone does not have any more comments on Mr.

Bondrop's first comment, we can move on to your second comment on items not on the agenda tonight, but in our preview.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to make sure that we're all straight on what precedent we're going with.

Um the no comment or no discussion is perfectly fine, and Cindy's absolutely correct.

But Chairman Brandle changed that a couple weeks ago when allowing, because Ed was here all the time to allow a back and forth.

I don't know if you were there for this.

So if we're going back to no questions for Ed, that's perfectly fine.

I just want to make sure on the record we're good with that.

Thank you, Cindy.

I appreciate that.

My my concern is setting a precedent.

If every time someone comes up to make a comment and believes that they have that opportunity for a dialogue, I think that's opening up a can of worms.

And I not that I have anything against talking to Ed.

I've done it for 15 years now, and we've had a lot of discussions.

But this this point in our agenda, it's very formal, is there is no dialogue.

And I appreciate that we I'm, you know, not that I wasn't here for that one, to be honest, or else otherwise it wasn't surprised when we did that.

But it does set a precedent and comments can turn into a huge conversations, and I don't think that that's a very good you know precedent.

Thanks.

I have no problem with that.

Okay, very good.

Our Honor Bandro 2601 Grand Avenue Butte Montana.

Public comment on any item not the agenda, but has relevance.

Subject is clarification of my comments on September 8th relative to the responsibilities of the Council of Commissioners, Commissioners.

I want to clarify the vision that we, the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation, Inc.

and the cluster of concerned citizens have for the neighborhood community improvement councils.

Even though I said what we need is more bureaucracy and another level of government, that is not the intent of the neighborhood community improvement councils.

Independent individuals working together to seek common solutions to common concerns for the common good.

Not the entitlement mentality that government should do something, but I am not willing to do anything but complain that I saw you encounter at your open houses.

As in the city and county counties of Montana, the neighborhood community improvement councils are to be independent, neighborhood improvement organizations officially recognized by the government, but as determined in the deliberation of the Rules Committee on the proposed Council Bill Ordinance 14 8, they are not to exclude any other organization or individual from going direct to the government.

They are not to exclude any other organization or individual from going direct to the government.

The neighborhood community improvement councils are not to be a homeowner association.

They are not to have any code creation or enforcement authority, or any governance authority, other than submitting consensual recommendations to the Greater Butte Silver Bowl Council to be forwarded on.

The role of the commissioner is to be an instigator, serve as the ex-official non-voting, non-government link to the government and function as the chair of the district annual district neighborhood community improvement council assembly.

And the only function of that assembly is to select a delegate for the Greater Butte Silver Bowl Community Council, which is the council that would be recognized as the one to pass on recommendations to the Council of Commissioners on a regular basis.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ed.

Do you have that written comment you can give to Annie or Pardon?

I didn't hear.

Do you have the written information you just spoke of to give to Annie for part of the record or do you have it?

We'll send her the email if she if she'll give me her email address.

Sure will.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

Can I just make a comment?

Uh thank you, Ed, for all of your information.

But maybe we could put Ed on our agenda for the next the next regular, you know, meeting.

And that would be an opportunity to have a dialogue and to have a discussion about a lot of things you've presented to us.

Don't worry, I'll be back.

Okay.

But I just I'm just saying that that would be the proper venue, I think, for that.

Very good.

And we won't do that next time because it's the public hearing, but the meeting after that.

Okay.

So Annie, if you could maybe note for your record that we might invite Mr.

Banderov back for official comment.

Cindy or Lori.

Mr.

Chair, I'd recommend that maybe the agenda says discussion of neighborhood councils and community councils.

Very good.

So that anyone else who would might want to come could also very good.

Have any that specifically says neighborhood councils?

So people who want to talk about that in our next can come, but not just Mr.

Bottenderab, but anybody who's interested in that.

Okay.

Thank you, Annie.

Thank you, Laura.

Good suggestion.

Any other comments?

Okay.

Wow, we're gonna approve the minutes of the meeting held September.

Anything else of September 8, 2025.

Yes.

I might as well jump just jump back in because I won't be here for a while after the next meeting.

Um anyway, I would just like to say that I approve the amendment the minutes that were presented by Annie, and I would ask for a vote to approve them.

It's been moved.

Is there a second to approve the minutes?

Second.

And seconded by Laurie.

I'll any question on the minutes.

Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The ayes have it.

Okay, any any or Mac, do we have any correspondence or study commission update from uh general public?

Anything that came in.

No.

Thank you.

Perfect, Annie.

Perfect.

Okay, very good.

Um some unfinished uh business is public outreach discussion.

Do we have any comments regarding the open houses both at Tech and at Ramsey?

What the heck?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

When are you leaving?

I was there.

Probably not too soon enough.

Just kidding, you're not sure.

No, next week will be my last meeting for six weeks, easily.

Um anyway.

Yeah, I thought it was a great meeting, and it was different than the other open houses that we had because before we would introduce ourselves and then folks just sort of went about their business.

But this one we were just in and with questions, and from the get-go, you could tell people really wanted to uh have a dialogue, a discussion with us about a lot of things, and maybe not even things that we uh but we want to listen to everything, of course, and uh yeah, it was a lively uh group, and I thought it was probably one of the more successful ones, so I did too.

So I did too.

I I agree, Cindy, and uh I think um I think Mr.

Bandrob uh issued the comment just recently, or just on his comments tonight is that we heard a lot of things about complaints.

That's right.

But one of the things that came out of those meetings is the neighborhood councils about how do we get more involved.

It might be an avenue, it might not be, but there's several questions regarding that.

And um uh also we didn't have the opportunity yet uh to provide the information of the survey.

I think that's really as as it stands now.

I think that's gonna be really important for the end of our discussions, but I I agree the last two, at least the one at Ramsey.

I I'm sorry, I didn't meet the one I didn't tend to want to tech was very good.

Okay, party line to be held the last Wednesday.

So we have a party line schedule for September 24th this Wednesday.

Who's who's doing that?

Mary's doing it, anybody and Ben.

No, but Ben was there last time.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, Mary.

It was originally scheduled for Matt and I, and I think Ben's is gonna join us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh any update on the Ep ed.

Matt is also not here tonight, so I don't have any updates.

It does anybody else have any updates?

I was just gonna say also not to interrupt, but but uh Ray Lynn and I went to the Koanas lunch in last week, and it was really well attended.

And boy, Shanna's just doing a great job.

She is she's there taking notes and making uh you know getting her thoughts together and how to do these things and uh yeah, it was it was a great group.

So that was fun.

Uh, some of the new business is discussion of the calendar and projects plan.

Oh, I'm sorry, Cindy.

Um I just wanted to put on the record.

Um our party line last week.

Um it was excellent.

Um we really hyped the survey to get people to do the survey, talked about fire, the coroner sheriff, uh audit, um, even the auditor assessor positions, and of course the um uh number of commissioners, chief executive, city county manager, mayor.

I mean, all these different things.

Um and I think it went really, really well.

Um it was nice having Ron there to ask the questions because he's you know been around so long.

He's been to all these different study commissions, so it was really, really good.

So thank you, KBOW.

Very good.

Any other comments on on that agenda item?

Seeing then going to new business, um, we wanted to have a discussion on calendar and projects planned for the uh preliminary report.

And so I I was kind of kicking it around with Ray Lynn about what sort of how we break the work product.

One, of course, we're gonna have to decide what are the ballot issues that we're going to provide for the the voters.

Um that's kind of a one topic of discussion, and we we will spend a number of weeks uh and discussion regarding that.

The other one is probably supplemental reporting, uh, what as you say, Cindy moves from one bucket as you asked Matt tonight to another recommendation to the council and governing body.

That is uh another issue.

Another issue probably is gonna be the fire districts and the po proposed language, not specifically with that, but specifically with what changes to the charter language we have to look at.

So that is going to be a very daunting task uh on what we recommend to the voters and what and how we're gonna change the language um of the charter to reflect our changes that the voters so we're we're we'll have our work product of the current um charter, our proposals of preliminary reports and our final report, all that will come into play, and then what the charter will look like um before we provide it to the final report to the public.

So we have a number of issues.

I would like after next week's public hearing to maybe schedule a time, maybe the next meeting is to take a calendar out and provide the information on our work product and our work sessions for that.

Mr.

Chair, um, I'd also put in that discussion of the calendar, um, additional presentations.

Absolutely.

Perfect.

Yes.

Thanks.

And that would be with Anakin Deer Lodge, and you brought up the coroner is your sheriff and corner issue and have some other people come in and comment and uh regarding their experience with those.

Thank you.

So we'll plan on getting after it after the public hearing.

Okay.

Uh public hearing that's next Monday, 529.

I would suggest that as we have done in a number of our open sessions or listening sessions, that we would have Shanna, Shauna.

Shanna, sorry.

Sorry, Shanna.

I'm glad you're not here.

Shanna here to put up strategically those poster boards and those big boards.

We can have a staff report prior to the public hearing, just saying these are some of the issues that we're going to talk about.

And after that staff report, have open it up for public comment and listening very clearly about what people are have on their minds and what they don't, and what they agree on and what they disagree on, and have that public hearing and close that public hearing.

We will have several public hearings, I would imagine, but this is the first one, and I think the way to do that is to continue to put those information up that Shana had uh in very good form and and to and to proceed from there.

Do I have any comments on that?

Am I out of off base there?

Or is that something we can do?

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Are there any other scheduling matters?

Okay.

Remember public hearing September 29th.

It's gonna be I hope uh well attended, and I know that we have the word out.

5 30, yeah, 5 30 to 7 30 next Monday.

Yes, Mary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I don't know if I I'm out of order in this, but you know, I I guess I've um I've missed a couple of the um open houses, and I was wondering if within the next week we're we could possibly get something from Shanna that is starting to consolidate what we're hearing from people from the surveys about about about the issues that they're concerned about.

I'm also really concerned about if there'll become a time when you know I know that the it's a lot of paper.

If if if she's gonna scan those surveys so that we can get copies and read them ourselves.

Yes, look go ahead, Laura.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I was just gonna suggest, because I know Annie's new to us, but uh the a lot of this paper information that we get each week.

Maybe we can start putting that out on the share folder of the OneDrive.

Like uh Shanna did um provide some initial where the survey is going, like 49 percent were in favor of this and that.

And no, because it it's been handed out as hard copies.

So I think if we could start maybe to scan that and maybe put it in one drive where we can if you're not there or that you can go back and find it.

Yeah, very good suggestion.

And Mary, uh Shana did have the kind of preliminary results of the survey, exactly what Laurie was saying, it has percentages of what people are thinking.

Uh huge percentages on some things, pretty close percentages on other issues.

So that is out there.

I I I don't know if she sent it to you.

I I haven't seen it.

You know, I uh I gotcha.

You know that percocette does a lot of good stuff and yeah, right.

Uh no, seriously, that the I think it's out there, but if you didn't get it, let us know and we'll send it to you.

Yeah.

Do you have a copy?

Thanks, Annie.

You're awesome.

Cindy.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

One of the things that um we talked about last week on party line was to have um surveys, maybe hard copy paper surveys that folks can drop by the radio station.

Um I'm thinking maybe even the chamber to if if folks don't can't do it online, they just want to write out their survey and have them available at certain places around Bute to make it easy because we really want to up that sample size.

I mean, right now we don't have that many people that have responded, considering the size of Butte Silverbow County.

So um, any way that we can make it easier for folks to fill that out and remind them it's very quick and easy, painless.

Hopefully they'll do it.

Thanks.

Thank you, C.

Cindy.

Thank you.

And also uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh also the sticky notes that were in all the boards.

Right.

I mean, they're just little capsules of information, but I would love to see them myself too.

I mean, and I don't know if Shannon can do some kind of a Shannon took them last week, yeah.

She did.

Yeah, so she is going to compile all of those comments that were on the postal boards.

Good.

That's another source of information.

Thanks.

You bet anything else?

Hearing none, I would ask for the adjournment of the meeting.

Move to adjourn.

It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn.

And I can't wait for next Monday for the public hearing.

Great.

Everybody ha all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Ayes have it.

Thank you very much for coming tonight.

Look forward to seeing you all next week.

530.

530 to 730.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

Awesome.