I would have I would have got full about that in the beginning.

Okay, I'll call the January 26th study commission meeting to order.

If we could have um we have Lori Casey, Cindy Purdue Dolan, Ben Thielen maybe late, uh Matt Steppen, myself, Danihy, Chad Silk, Cindy Shaw, and Mary McCormick.

Can we have our Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer, please?

All right, thank you.

I know we're loading a um PowerPoint, or we're waiting to get that done.

So I'm gonna just um make a couple of comments for the good of the order before we get that PowerPoint loaded.

Um tonight we do have our public comment section, and we welcome that comment.

We will not be able to engage back and forth with you in deliberations.

We will be making deliberations as a group tonight.

Um the other item that I wanted to speak to was really our um our our calendar of events and our schedule, because there's been some um discussion about you know what what is happening when and when our final decisions are coming.

And this process that we're in right now is still to form the preliminary report.

It is to help us look at what are the most important issues that are rising to the top that our community wants to hear about.

And then we will start that process of adopting that report by the end of February.

So the subgroup that's working on the report was working today.

We will have a report for the commission to be looking at in the next couple of weeks with all the things that we have heard about so far.

We will get that edited and ready to be presented to the public by the end of February.

Um and we'll adopt that for that preliminary report at that time.

And our our weeks might be a little bit flexible in regards to some of the work that we're that's ongoing right now.

Um in March, uh end of February into March, we will continue to have another set of public listening sessions.

So we'll go back out to public to hear from them about that preliminary report and what will come forward or what the public would like to see come forward to a ballot or ballot questions.

Then the second public hearing to gather citizen response to our tentative report would be at the end of March, and then moving into between March and July, where we adopt our final report, we will shape up and vote on those things that are going to go to ballot, and then those ballot questions will be affirmed by this this commission.

So that work between March and July isn't spelled out in everything that's happening every month, but we will be working on um getting those ballot questions ready and adopting a final report.

Um there will not be another public hearing between the um March and July time frame between the adoption of the prior to adoption of the final report.

So that's our process for everybody to kind of recall and for our audience members to understand.

It may be that things that we have think that we're thinking about right now in the tentative report do not go forward to ballot because this commission might decide that we need to focus our our public's attention on certain issues, or we may find out that we're truly limited to three, and that's all we can do, and we're still kind of working through that with uh county attorney and Ruth right now.

So um just be patient with the process and understand that it will unfold in the timely manner that we've agreed to.

All right, our is our our presentation is ready, yes.

Okay, nope, not yet.

Almost though.

I just wanted to make sure that you were ready to go.

All right.

Um so with that, um, we have public comment for any item on the agenda.

Okay, how about public comment and anything not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the study commission?

All right, moving on.

Um, approval of the minutes meeting held January 12th, 2026.

Ms.

McCormick.

I just had one comment that it's not any big deal, but on um page two under item six.

When you have the points, and there's the um the commission's work is focused on structure structural changes, including, and then there's two subpoints under that, and it's the review of the number and compares composition of commissions.

I I think that commissions needs to be changed to council of commissioners.

Okay.

Any further discussion, Ms.

Shaw?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, at this time, after we had Mary's uh correction, I would move to approve the minutes from the January 5th meeting with the amendment.

Is there a second?

I have a second from Dolan.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Say nay.

Motion carries, thank you.

All right, moving on.

Um correspondence and our study commission update.

Any correspondence that has come in to date, Shana, anything?

Okay.

And I didn't receive any in my inbox either.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did get a um some information for the uh fire working group from the volunteer fire council, and I'll forward that on.

Um it's just I I thought we were gonna get bullet points, but we got changes to the charter language, um, like two and a half pages.

So I'll forward that on to everybody when I get home.

Apologize to not do that.

I I forwarded it on to the working group.

Thank you.

Any other correspondence?

Okay.

So moving on to our excuse me.

I think we need to acknowledge that we did receive a letter from the fire advisory committee.

And then it probably should be attached to this week's minutes.

Excellent.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to unfinished business or no.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we need to bring up the fire advisory uh letter that was sent to us because after following up with members of that fire advisory board, there was some um discussion and dissension with regard to how that process went forward with the letter sent to us.

Um it wasn't drafted and approved, it was just sent according to the volunteers that are on that advisory board.

Um they do not did not agree with that letter.

So there's some thing we have to figure out with regard to how that was sent.

Wasn't dated, there's no letter head.

It was sent by the chair.

And so yeah, there's just questions to it.

So I'd like those answered as well.

Thanks.

Ms.

Dolan, can you remember refresh my memory?

Was this a letter that we received last week?

Okay, thank you.

Oh Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, madam chair.

On that note, I would suggest that the volunteers that I mean there should be maybe a rebuttal, or you know, is something could be written in re in rebuttal of that letter rather than just I don't know how else we would address it to be honest.

I'd rather have something in writing that we'd all get a chance to take a peek at.

So I don't know if anybody can try um ask that group to do so.

That would be, I think, a little better deal than just talking about it.

Thanks.

Ms.

Adams, I did not see an attachment to last week's minutes with a correspondence.

Ms.

Dolan, did you receive that correspondence?

Can you forward it to Ms.

Adams so it's included?

I don't see it as attached to last week's minutes.

Excuse me, Madam Chair, but it came in so it would go with this week's minutes.

This week's are you talking about the the item that you just received?

No.

I was talking about the fire uh the letter from Josh O'Neill.

Okay.

That would go on this week's minutes as uh correspondence that came in between our two.

Between the two.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I would encourage all study commission members to go through and read the minutes of the fire advisory minutes.

Um I was there in proponent of um encouraging a volunteer uh coordinator that is something that we're starting to implement through a safety sorbo fire department safety program, um which I'm very excited.

I would like to talk to you guys, anyone about it later on uh the progressiveness of that.

Um there's some interesting um uh conversation that happened for the fire advisory to come to a unanimous decision during that meeting.

Um so not only talking to the chair but also reading uh the minutes and reaching out to members that were at that um meeting as well to get a full understanding of why that letter was written.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comment and just for the good of the order, it was received on January 13th, and Ms.

Adams, I have forwarded it to you so it can be included in this week's meeting notes.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um thank you, Chad.

I think that's an excellent suggestion.

I went through and I read the minutes of 2024 and 2025, and also while I'm still waiting, I don't know if the it's been posted with January 6th minutes yet.

Is that the meeting you um are alluding to for the minutes of the January 6th council for 2026?

Last I saw last week, they haven't been posted the minutes.

I I believe it is the I believe it was the only fire advisory meeting in January.

So if that is it, then yeah.

Yeah.

But before um making any decisions or an opinion, um, just to make sure we have full context on probably why or when that letter was written.

Have those minutes been posted, do you know?

I'm sorry, I don't know.

Thank you.

Mr.

Denning.

Madam Chair, so just to clarify things, we have the letter of January 13th from Josh O'Neill, uh formal statement from the fire advisory board that was sent to us.

So if that can be included in this week's uh minutes and the minutes of January 6th that we haven't received, that would be uh really important to review those minutes and to understand kind of the flow of the meeting to where this letter came out.

So if we can maybe provide that to us in our next week's um packet, that would be good.

So I do have the letter from the fire advisory board, but don't have the minutes.

Thanks, Shana.

And one more piece of correspondence was the information that Ms.

Dowan received today that will also be included.

All right.

I thought that was the easy agenda item.

So all right.

So uh is there any other discussion about correspondence?

Okay, thank you.

So moving on to our unfinished business, our director versus coordinator manager positions and working group update.

I do have copies of the analysis that um Cindy and I had completed.

So if you need a copy, um Ms.

Adams has those to pass around.

Um you receive that analysis in your email.

I've just added to it.

It was we started with the other director positions and I added to this um this framework for you.

In our review of the um civic center director or adding the civic center to the charter.

Um Cindy and I were in agreement that we didn't feel that this particular department rises to the uh muster of being included in a charter um language change.

And so I give you the evaluation criteria that we walked through, and basically it comes down to um there is a public process in place for the civic center, and that there's a board that's appointed by the chief executive, the civic center manager reports to that board, and those meetings are public, agendas are published, notes are published, so the public does have an opportunity to interact with that.

Um Ms.

Casey had made an excellent point a couple of weeks ago in regards to when do we become micromanagers by putting everything into the charter instead of allowing the executive to unfold its business as it sees fit.

And basically that was where um Ms.

Shaw and I had landed in our evaluation criteria.

So I'll turn it over to my co-conspirator in this per this particular question.

Well, I don't know what I could really add.

That was very well done.

Yeah, and actually I when I talked to Bill Melvin, I don't think he really he just it was a matter of vernacular, you know, just what to call a head of a department.

Then the whole idea of department head is kind of the same thing, and it got a little bit muddled, and I do agree with Laurie that we got to be careful not to micromanage, but uh to give him his due, he did he did ask that.

And I I do uh agree that there is a board, and I know Dan Callahan out there, he's on that board, and he can probably tell you more probably more than we need to know, honestly.

But anyway, um I agree that we just uh we if he was already in, if it was already in the charter, you know, like in some cases when it's in the charter, we can just make a small change, but to actually put it in there, it other departments that aren't in there might wonder why suddenly we we chose one or over another to uh have in the charter.

So I I agree, and I think uh they do a great job, and um I think their board is very active, so that would be my consensus as well.

Discussion from other commission members, Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, first of all, I I really would like to thank you and Cindy for the work that you did on this.

I mean, this table is just great.

It's wonderful to read through it and you know help you clarify your ideas.

I thank Laurie Casey for initiating that um evaluation criteria earlier with another working group.

Um but um I agree with um your recommendation that this Civic Center hasn't been mentioned in the charter.

There isn't any thing that we need to remedy to make sure that it can you know maybe be a change in the future, but we don't have to direct that.

So um I I really appreciate the hard work you did on this, and I think you've made a really good strong recommendation.

Thank you, Ms.

McCormick.

Any other qu comments on this issue.

Okay, so to be clear, we will include a discussion of our findings and add these um evaluation criteria in our report, but we won't will not be recommending this for a ballot initiative or something to to carry forward.

All right, our coroner working group update.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I left everyone at everyone's desk um a handout.

Let me refer to that.

So we had a lot of testimony from the sheriff.

We had testimony from Dan Hagerty, a former sheriff coroner out of Jefferson County, just for educational purposes because we don't have a sheriff coroner in Butte Silverbow, so wanted to get his knowledge and feedback and edification of that position, and so we got that from Dan as well.

Um we talked to Jason Parrish, I don't so say we.

We've been the three of us are also on the fire group, so we've been a lot doing a lot with fire.

So we're trying to gather this together, and I've had some great help from Jason Parrish, the coroner.

And I also reached out to Sheriff's Department employee, and I and I apologize, I don't know his rank.

Um Jeff Williams, who works with the Sheriff's Department, he was very helpful along with Sheriff Lester.

So in the in talking with all of them, um possibilities for three different options.

One option one, keep coroner as a separate department.

Require some qualifications in the charter.

Coroner is also, and this is just those the second two bullets are just informational because they would not be in the charter, so to speak.

Also work to obtain accreditation and additional certifications.

That's something he all he is also working on.

And the question of fuller part-time is still out right now.

If um without the study commission, it goes through the chief executive, JP Gallagher first, and then the council of commissioners.

Um but that is something that we can discuss with regard to the coroner's office.

Um option two, a bit different than the sheriff slash coroner position.

It would put the sheriff's excuse me, it would put the coroner under the sheriff's department as an employee, have officers sworn in as deputy coroners to help when they are on shift, may need additional evaluation because there are concerns about time, pay coverage when a death happens, and officers who may or may not be on patrol would be taken off that patrol.

So those are some concerns with option two.

And then option three, sheriff coroner position and and melding into the sheriff's responsibilities, um, would assume the duties as coroner and will have staff as deputy coroners when on duty.

This job would require Montana Department of Criminal Investigation to come in if there's a death where the sheriff needs to recuse him or herself.

And right now, state law says that the only person in the county who can arrest a sheriff who has done nefarious things is the coroner.

So there's some conflict of interest there that would require outside intervention.

Um so that's what the possible path forward looks like.

Um and if I'm able, I gladly answer any questions.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In uh option number one, where you say keep coroner as a separate department.

Are you meaning keeping it as an elected position?

And then I have a follow-up to that question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Lori.

Um, so yes, it would be still the same.

Um excuse me, it would have to be have that addendum to it because another option would be status quo, and that would be an elected, but that would under option one, it would stay an elected position because option two says it would go under the sheriff's department as an employee, if that makes sense.

Thank you.

Follow-up, madam chair.

Um my question is um if are we able to put qualifications on an elected position and if so in the charter, and if so, who would review those because would you have to have those qualifications before you can um sign up to run for that position?

I guess I just trying to understand how that working would go.

Uh Ms.

Casey, if I may I would direct that to the county attorney and Ruth.

Thank you.

Section 7-3-708 of the Montana Code annotated states.

Charter forms are subject to state laws establishing election initiative and referendum procedures.

So we are subject to the state laws with regarding to the election procedures of a coroner and their qualifications.

Just read it.

I just peeling through things as you guys were asking questions, and there it was.

Um, yes, I don't think you can add any additionals to it.

It's just it's just what is required by state law.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um County Attorney, can you tell us then um would it be advisable to take the qualifications that are stated in state law and put them in our charter, or is does that get too specific to Lori's point?

Uh is that something we can do?

Because I remember you mentioning it when we had our working group meeting about the fact that the qualifications are stated in state law.

Uh Commissioner Chairwoman Brandle, Commissioner Dolan.

Uh, because it's already started, it's our charter states that we follow the state law with regards to the coroner, so it'd be redundant.

I mean, you could put him in if you wanted to, but it states out that's what we do.

I'll take Ms.

McCormick and then Ms.

Shaw, please.

Um, I sit spent some time looking back over what Sheriff Lester said and what Jason Parrish said.

And you know, this whole thing has been precipitated by a horrible event.

Um, but I think my feeling after looking at over everything, I think we should keep the status quo that should remain elected position.

You know, I was very, very impressed with Jason Parrish, as I'm sure you all were.

And I would say when an election comes up, that that elected official should be out there campaigning and campaigning on their qualifications.

And if we had another election and Jason was running, I think everyone would vote for him because he has such great credentials and he's got a good plan forward.

Certainly, I I what I really liked about him was talking about developing some training and criteria, and I think that could be in there, but let the public decide.

Thank you, Ms.

McCormick, Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um County Attorney Ann Ruth, I'm just wondering, I I know there are certain departments, uh, elected officials that are required to uh do continue education on an annual basis.

I know that is required by some of our uh elected officials, and I don't know at the coroner if that is possibly part of their requirements as they as they proceed in their job.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Membrandle, Commissioner Shaw, yes, that is actually part of their job.

They're required to do the continuing legal education requirements, excuse me.

Continuing whatever education requirements.

Uh, I do believe Mr.

Parrish, when he came up here and uh did his interview and all that actually stated that he would be doing them if elected this past December.

So that happens once a year, so that way they have the requisite qualifications under statute.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um thank you, Cindy, for that question, because um in talking with Jason Parrish today, uh he said not only he does the continuing education, but he wants to make that available with um several, he's he's done some outreach with several groups and associations that do accreditation and certifications so he can do them, but not only him, but also the deputy coroners as well to get them up to speed.

So that was a good a good uh piece of information.

Thanks.

Other comments?

Ms.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I think that, and Cindy and I have had good conversation about this and how it's ebbed and flowed our opinions over time.

And I think Mary, you hit it on the head.

I think that early on I was of uh an opinion that placing it under the sheriff provided us the most protection.

Um and then after after hearing Mr.

Parrish, I felt much more comfortable with the person that was in the role.

And I think in our working group meeting Tuesday night that the county attorney was part of, he brought up a good point that good personnel, bad personnel, it can happen within any department, right?

And so I also think about the opinions that we heard from the sheriff who wasn't particularly excited about the idea of it potentially going under his office.

And so I think that there's value in addition to what's likely to be a heavy lift in some areas based on other work this commission and the county commissioners might be doing at the tail end of the study commission that uh this may be one that's left best alone, is my opinion.

Mr.

Denehy.

Uh Madam Chair, I would agree with Matt and his assessment.

We heard from the uh sheriff he wasn't excited about putting coroner under his jurisdiction again listening to Jason.

I thought he was well versed and uh had some experience.

And so with those things in mind, I would opt for option one, keeping it the same as elected position and not touching it as part of our uh working assessment because I agree we have some other issues that we need to uh talk about and probably debate.

So thank you.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um not wanting to put my personal opinion in, um, but I did want to mention, and I agree, I think that um option one is a great way to go.

I just wanted to ask the county attorney um the op if we would go with option one, would it be something where we could put on a recommendation list or add language that fortifies the state law requirements of the job positions and just a couple tweaks to add some strength to the framework for um Mr.

Parrish to work towards um in what he's doing currently because I agree, I think he's doing a good assessment of the office, making changes where he can as soon as possible.

And so if we can at all help with not just and we had this conversation earlier today, um Mr.

Parrish agreed that not just for him, because to Matt's point, people change over time, and so if we're looking 10-20 years ahead, if we can do a nice framework for anybody else in the future having that position, if anything we can do to help would be great.

So what what do you suggest, Mr.

County Attorney?

Chairman Brandle, uh Commissioner Dolan, I think it would be it, you know, best as a recommendation to the council.

Um couple of reasons.

One, I think that the topics that uh this council intends on putting on the ballot are gonna be complicated enough.

And you know, in going through you know, some recent emails and things of some other counties that went through uh adding stuff to their charters, uh one of the reoccurring themes throughout that was simpler is better when it especially when it comes to people not being able to vote.

So I think that that would best be recommended as a best put forth as a recommendation to the current council or what council may be in effect there for their recommendations to add through ordinance and things like that.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So uh if I understand right, on option one, we we've already decided that qualifications are already in state law, um, so that would come out of there.

And I don't really see any other thing that we'd put in the charter on in option one, because it's already listed as one of the many other elected officials, but uh in am I right and right assuming that we probably would not have to make any charter changes to implement this.

I believe Ms.

Shaw, that's what um county attorney also affirmed is that no charter changes and make recommendations to council in regards to helping frame out what the department might look like according to state law and and all the procedures that Mr.

Parrish had um started to implement.

Is there other comments?

Okay, all right.

From the chair, I would say I agree um consistently with everybody that um you know one unfortunate event doesn't mean that we should change our structure.

And um, you know bad things happen to good people, and we have to trust the electorate to do their job to investigate who they are elected and um know the qualifications of that person.

Um so I too would agree that um keeping as is is um provides both that transparency that we're looking for because we have separated the coroner from the sheriff's office and it um also um ensures that voters have a method of removing a coroner if they so choose.

And so I think staying with the form is is um a good course of action.

Um so I don't think we need a vote at this moment.

Uh we'll include the analysis documents in our our preliminary report, but we'll keep as is, unless there's other discussion or anybody is dissenting.

All right.

All right, fire departments.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um what uh what you see up on the screen, and I have printed copies if that's that's something that anyone prefers.

I didn't feel that way.

I'm not sure if Shannon, I'm not sure if it's worth placing in the back for anybody wants to print a copy from the audience.

Oh, you put it oh.

Excellent.

So uh I want to just kind of set the set the table on this presentation and and how we came to this and what the what the goal of our working group is coming out of this meeting and going forward.

Um throughout our deliberations and conversations, which are still ongoing, and I think that's central to this conversation tonight.

Uh we still have conversations scheduled for tomorrow with union leadership and expect that this presentation, amongst other things, is going to help us with deliberations as we move forward as well, hearing the feedback from tonight.

When uh when we had a recent meeting, I think it was Tuesday, our working group in the county attorney's office, because as a group, we found ourselves asking the question regardless of the of the options that we were considering.

Do we feel comfortable as a working group that we understand what options are legally defensible and what are not?

And so we felt like before we I don't want to say pick a path, but before we were ready to bring options to this group, we felt that it was very important to meet with the county attorney to share where we were at and to make sure that before we put things into a report, that they were they were options that we felt as a county were legal.

In that meeting, I would say we came with two options and left with three with uh at with as we go through this.

Two of these options are things that we've talked about uh in this in this forum, one we have not.

Um there's a lot of layers to each of these options, which is why another reason why we felt compelled to bring multiple options to this group and ask this group to help with the formulation of that final recommendation.

And so having said that we'll jump in.

If everybody feels comfortable with that, and so this issue matters because fire services governance and butte Silver Bow has been marked by longstanding ambiguity.

They're conflicting interpretations of the charter and state law, and that ambiguity ambiguity has contributed to uncertainty and tension over time.

Go ahead, next slide.

One of the core responsibilities of the study commission is to look for opportunities, opportunities to improve governance clarity, and I think that's important.

The charter review is the appropriate mechanism for this process.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matt, um, can I don't know is this screen on the stream a full screen that people can see if they're streaming on YouTube?

Because if not, you might want to articulate the bullets if it's not, but if it is, then they can just read it.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so that might help be helpful.

Maybe I'll just roll through the bullets in my tightly crafted verbal will just go to the garbage.

So I can stutter through the rest of it.

Perfect.

Fantastic.

Thank you, Cindy.

Um, so where are we at?

Are we good to role of the study commission is to recommend charter changes with the goal of improving structure, clarity, and accountability, to identify options, consequences, and trade-offs, and to enable informed decision making.

Because it's not a form of government question, we can and maybe should have multiple options that go on to the preliminary report and potentially all the way to the ballot.

And so I think that if it looks like this group was taking the task, and if your hope was for us to come back with a singular recommendation, we felt that the four of us, what's best for this conversation, is to bring the options that we've brought to this point to the commission, and then together decide what steps we take from here, which is consistent with study commission authority.

So from a legal context, we believe, based on conversation with the county attorney, that all three options that we're going to share tonight are legally available.

That doesn't mean that all details, depending on some of those as these are fleshed out.

Each option offers different risk, complexity, and outcomes.

I think it's important to mention that we are a long way, and it'll take a long time for us to understand the potential outcomes based on decisions.

I think that we we feel that precision in the charter drafting is going to be critical to addressing issues that have been long standing over time.

So with that, I think I've just tried to kind of set the table on the three options.

Explaining what the options are, what the key implications to each of those options are, and if this option were to be selected by the voters, what we may expect from needed processes going forward.

Clarifies the independence under state law.

It would help remove the ambiguity by providing clear separation of governance.

But the volunteers would be independent under state law.

And the establishment of independent funding mechanisms.

Okay, option two.

This is not one that's been discussed in this forum.

This was one that came out of our Tuesday conversation with the county attorney as an additional option that we hadn't yet considered, but this would be the creation of one unified fire volunteer fire department in the charter.

It could result in potential consolidation of existing volunteer departments, and the establishment of a unified volunteer voice.

Key implications, it's legally permissible and complex.

In particular, I think to just be specific about that, it's the idea of it it doesn't necessarily answer the question on authority and whether or not you can have two chiefs under one fire jurisdiction.

Am I stating that correctly?

Okay.

If selected by the voters, option two, consolidation of existing volunteer departments into a single entity, a redefinition of volunteer governance leadership and bylaws, and the adoption of ordinances ordinances and transition plans to implement the new structure.

Okay.

Option three.

Affirm authority of the director of fire services with the addition of a volunteer fire coordinator.

Under this option, the volunteers would be retained in the charter.

There would be one director of fire services for career and volunteer departments.

And we would add a volunteer fire coordinator as the liaison to the volunteers and the single point of contact to the director of fire services.

The key implications under option three, it would affirm the director of fire services as the authority over career and volunteer fire services.

And this is subject to confirmation of compliance with state law currently under legal review.

Would create a formal mechanism for volunteer input through memorialization of a volunteer fire coordinator coordinator position in the charter and would require follow-up ordinances to define roles, processes, and expectations for that position.

So if selected by the voters, it would create a volunteer fire fire coordinator position with the drafting and adoption of ordinances to define those roles and responsibilities.

Some shared constraints and realities.

Ordinances will be required regardless of direction.

Each option involves trade-offs.

And I saw this statement, and I think it it spoke to me.

No option is self-executing.

Right.

This presentation is intended as an update and discuss discussion of framework only.

Thank you, Mr.

Steppen, and thank you to the study subcommittee.

We appreciate your work, and this has been a definite heavy lift.

And I know that Mr.

Thielen is returning from work and so also please pass on my thanks to him.

Because we were looking at possible ballot languages related, ballot language related to the city manager and commission structure.

And we were, I think we're still unresolved as to the number of questions.

Am I correct, Mr.

Enruth, or do you feel that we could bring more that aren't structural changes that are rather amendments to charter?

Uh Chairwoman Brandle, I I I'm confident at this time, unless I get told otherwise, that we are able to bring additional questions that are not part of the structure or governance, part of the structure of government or the form of government.

And when when you look at the commission or the statutes, those all talk about uh commission, CEO, commission, mayor, uh, you know, commission and council, they use interchangeably.

Any of those that that's what those relate to charter form.

So, yes, I I do believe at this time these are questions outside of a government structure.

It's not talking about partisan or nonpartisan elections as part of the government, terms and years of commissioners or appointed officials or things like that.

I do believe that these are still outside of that.

Excellent.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um and back to the the subcommittee or the working group, um, Ms.

Dolan or Mr.

Stepin, if you could answer for me.

I know that the um the option of removing the volunteers from the charter completely has been has been proposed by the volunteer departments.

And I just wonder, you know, as we've done our work and our homework, and we've been looking at all of the um possible dominoes that there could be from removing um those volunteer departments from the charter.

Has there been discussion with the volunteer departments on those domino effects?

And can you maybe speak to that a little bit?

Thank you, madam chair.

Yes, I've had um numerous discussions with volunteers.

I've gone to several fire council meetings of the major the chiefs that are um involved with the fire department um with the volunteers, um, and they are um with the email I got today, they are a hundred percent behind the removal of the volunteers from the charter.

They understand, and that was actually my go-to question was are you all on board understanding what that entails of you to do to lift that up if you are removed from the charter?

And they are, and they are willing and able to do that, with the caveat of knowing that if it's removed from the charter, then um the ball is in their court to figure out what the structure is going to look like, what the structure is going to look like, because they'll have to have some real serious conversations about consolidation.

Um there's there are a couple um volunteer stations that are a lot smaller, and we talked about this in our working group meeting with the county attorney, um, and they are well aware of some of these um issues.

Um, and this is the option that they like the best.

Um I don't think I'm speaking out of turn um to say that from what we've got.

We what we got this afternoon from the volunteers was uh language from the state law and um if there was a remove from the charter, how they would um go forward.

Um so I think they're very uh in they are in favor of option one.

Okay.

Um I will defer to other questions for further deliberations with the within the commission.

I just had that one right off the top of my head.

So um Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I'm not gonna exhaust everyone tonight on going debating back and forth, but I'm I'm truly going to try to understand after all of you guys' input that you've received, and just ask some basic questions.

And one of those basic questions is removing volunteers from the charter.

Means that some volunteers that don't have a good following, that don't have a lot of members and aren't able to respond to calls.

I imagine those districts would somewhat dissolve or be taken in by someone, right?

What now, and I don't know what that looks like.

I don't know if a dissolving of a fire district goes back to the city county or where that district goes, where is that response area, who who has the responsibility of that response area.

My main question gets to again.

I've asked this question over and over with with no input is how much money is the community gonna have to pay above and beyond what they're currently paying for fire services to fund a volunteer organization.

That that's one of my main questions.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um yes, it's interesting.

I had a conversation over the weekend about that very question.

So I appreciate that question, Chad, very much.

Um I I think it boils down to uh being autonomous and what what happens with that, but more importantly, I think it's for the county to look at fire funds, are separate from EMS funds, and the EMS fund is a lot of that.

I think 90% of that goes to wages and salary or wages for the fire department out of the EMS budget.

Um so I think we need to take a total look at what that looks like.

So I think uh for me that's something we can punt to the council of commissioners because we've said all along, we have the decisions that we make have consequences.

Some are monetary, some are structural, some are you know, things that need to be changed in ordinance and things like that.

So I think that's where they're coming from.

But I think the biggest issue is taking them out of the charter will suffice the state law and will hopefully not go to litigation.

But of course, that's not our concern.

Our concern, like I like you always say, and I repeat all the time, which I really like is how can we set Butte up for success?

And if this is an option that does that, great, but we also have to look at all the other options too.

I hope that answered your question.

Maybe it didn't, but a little bit of context.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't know that we as a commission can answer that question, Chad.

I think that part of, and I don't know what we can do to better answer that question, other than having the needed research and debate over a public process to determine if this is going to go on to a ballot, right?

I don't know if that makes sense, and I'm not trying to kick the can, but there's a lot of unknowns that we won't be able to answer, like which neighborhoods would be okay with the potential to to have a an additional levy on their taxes, right?

And I don't think it's we're in a position to speculate on that as well.

But in some respects, we almost have to bring this to the public to get those questions answered.

And that could be at the boat at the at the ballot box.

You know, I d I don't know.

I don't know the uh I agree with Cindy that this is the preferred option of the volunteers based on our conversation, and I think not to speak for the other members, but it it seems to be the only option that they're truly interested in when we ask those questions about what could what from our purview would benefit the work that you do, and this was kind of the beginning and ending point from their feedback.

And that's enough.

Um Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Cindy, for what you've been doing in uh kind of being the boots on the street with the volunteers and and giving us the feedback.

So I always try to get back to the uh the basics, I guess, but we we need to comply with state law, and and I also hope the volunteers really are I mean, there there'd be quite a lot of things to do and a big heavy lift, as we like to say, to make that work with the volunteers in the state that they're in now.

I mean, back in the day when they had a lot more people, a lot more uh things like that.

But um I I am more concerned about number one, you know, trying to level the playing field, give more of uh an opportunity for the volunteers to um speak for themselves and have good representation amongst themselves.

But it's a heavy lift as far as trying to get funding, you got a the whole thing about districting tax.

We found out that they can't be double taxed, that would not happen, and thank God, and we we kind of cleared that one up, I believe, in our meeting with Mr.

Henruth.

Um, but you know, being in compliance with the state law, you know, talking to their their attorney uh Kate, and going back again to all these years that we have not been in compliance in our charter with the state, and it it was getting like really critical, looking like it might end up in litigation.

I'm not saying that's the only reason to do something like this, but it's an option, and it is up to the voters, and like Matt said, we don't do a lot more than just making a very clear recommendation and options.

We get put all three options out there to let the voters decide, and then from that point on, we I mean, other than our transition report, it's kind of like you know, we're off the we're right out of the picture.

And so, you know, the county is gonna have to do a lot at at the council of commissioners level and the executive level and whatever, but um it is an option, it's option one.

We've got two others.

So, but again, this one to me, uh aside from anything else, it it brings us back into a compliance, which we never were other than before consolidation to be in compliance with state law.

So, and maybe maybe Matt and Ruth is gonna tell me I'm wrong.

Thanks.

County attorney and Ruth.

Chairman Brendel, I'm not gonna say that you're wrong.

I'm just going to say that there are two different opinions right now, one of them being that the Butte Silverbow County Charter isn't in compliance with the state law, which is the volunteers' position, the county's position being that no, that is what was passed, I believe, in 1996, and that it is in compliance with state law, particularly when you look at the statute that states that uh volunteer fire departments are not basically like their existence cannot be you know terminated or dissolved or modified unless by charter.

Umte Silverbow County's charter does do that.

The one thing it did not do specifically by charter was uh state that Butte Silverbowl County had authority over their budget, which is where that attorney general opinion comes in, and I believe the volunteers' position is that the county doesn't have authority over their budget pursuant to that, and because it's not contained in charter.

So it's not necessarily that the county is not in compliance with state law.

It's simply that there are two different opinions right now that at some point may have to be determined by a court Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Matt, could you explain um what you explained to us at our meeting in the working group?

And I thought it was a great explanation because I needed that explanation, and I saw Chad's look, so I think you have the same question, is can you explain to us why it's not going if they were to be removed from the charter, the volunteers, why it wouldn't be double taxation?

That question, and how you answer that in our working group was very good.

So I hope you remember what you said because I don't, but it was good.

So there uh are currently some Montana Supreme Court cases out there with regards to uh cities and counties on a double taxation issue, a lot of them related specifically uh to roads, but what the Supreme Court broke broke it down into was the type of services being provided.

So when you look at the statutes, uh particularly 7-33 2109 taxing levying debt incurrence bond, that specifically states that our county of commissioners has the right to levy taxes taxes for a rule fire district.

When you go back into the volunteer section, it also states that the powers and duties of trustees can level levy special taxes, and that those monies levied shall be submitted into the county treasurer's uh to the county treasurer and then sent back to that area.

So there's the ability of both individuals to tax the same district.

The reason it is not double taxation, in my opinion, I believe this is in accordance with the Montana Supreme Court case law, is the services that are being provided are different.

Volunteer firefighter services, from my understanding, a lot of them don't have the same qualifications as uh the county uh firefighters do, or what we'll call career firefighters with regards to being able to enter homes or EMS services or things like that.

Volunteers provide a different type of service, while the some of those services may be provided by career firefighters as well.

I think that's the distinction is it is not double taxation due to the two different types of services that are being provided.

Um I believe that would be in accordance with state law as well.

Working group, when you guys were visiting with the volunteers, did they have um a working idea of how much they budget they would need for each firehouse, or was that Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um we didn't get into those conversations because that's kind of out of our purview with regard to how they set things up.

Um it mainly was the and uh correct me if I'm wrong, but when we had our working lunch as we've done with other other groups, um, it was just giving them that autonomy to make those decisions, so I don't have an answer for you of specifics.

Not a problem.

I just was wondering if that was um, you know, how how far along in thinking about setting up that special tax district or com uh fire district they are, you know, in the structure and and how to how to get this done.

You know, and I was digging into how to do this, you know, they'd have to go through the process that's outlined in state law, which includes notification and publication and a letter to everybody in their tax district boundaries and gaining 40 percent approval um by those people that would be levied those taxes.

And that's you know, as you very eloquently both said, it's not our job to um do that work or or imagine if that work could be done.

It just my question is just really, you know, are we as a commission in recommending pulling them from the charter, setting them up for failure, or are we setting them up for success?

And you know, it's there's a lot of work to be done in order to make that that happen.

Dolan sorry madam chair um yeah that's a great point and I think with the volunteers that work with not only themselves and the attorney they have working with them they're also working with other volunteers across the state um and learning from them and this is what I've garnered um from the my many conversations with them of what those structures look like what does um the financial impacts look like what does consolidation look like so all of these questions they're continually getting information from other fire departments to get a clear understanding of how that path would look if the voters were to look at option one so that's kind of where I think they're at I I don't want to speak for them but that's kind of the what I've understood.

Yeah I would assume that they've done their homework and they they're feeling prepared but again I just I keep going back to our um our job you know and and what we we bring forward and ultimately I do think that public comment and you know bringing this back to getting opinion from our voters is important.

And I have lots of hands so I'll start with Mr Stepan and then I'll go to Mr.

Dunahy if that's okay.

Thank you Madam Chair I think with respect to that question I think another public survey that we expect to have would that would be a great question in the public survey is how do you feel about the potential of an additional tax in your district for fire services I don't want to whatever that language sounds like but it that seems like a mechanism to get that information and inform if we're which path we're likely headed down.

And the other thing that I'll just mention quickly and I should have when I set the table these three options are in no particular order when we say option one versus option three but you know uh not not with within the kit committee or or it wasn't intended to to put a ranking order I think that's important to to put on the record thank you.

Mr Denahy Madam Chair I first of all thank you very much subcommittee working group for providing us with a start a foundation to look at the options but as I hear people talk tonight we were asking the voters of this community to pick whatever options or hybrid of options without all the information how much is this going to cost where are the districts going to be what does the co uh consolidation of volunteer fire department from nine or eleven to one looks like even though it's may not our job we are going to provide that as a resolution or a ballot to the people of this community and I don't know that from I I get the options it's great.

I there's a lot of fill in on these options so to say well that's not our responsibility I think it is our responsibility to at least give a portion or an idea to the voters of what this means what does it mean that we have one volunteer fire department and how much does it cost what does it mean that the volunteer fire department are deleted from the charter I guess Matt would have to tell us a little bit about that.

But to say that we have a lot of answers yet to come up with means that we have a lot of answers yet to come up here before we say here's the ballot measure hey what do you think so if I had a and the options are fantastic but we have to fill in the blanks.

This is not where you send to the the voters on on a very limited amount of knowledge and and so uh I want to make sure that we understand that that we need to fill in the blanks that we have to answer those important questions because if I'm on my district and I'm paying for the career fire department to come put up my fire how much is them am I going to be charged for the volunteer fire department to come and uh put up my fire too or we are and I guess Matt you're saying there's no such thing as dual taxation but maybe maybe don't a lot of people don't understand that and I think we need to clarify that question and a number of questions.

And we don't have the uh the the note that you got today or a memo that's important too yeah Mr.

Yeah, Mr.

Dunnehy, thank you for those comments.

And I think that was the intention of the working group is to have us start deliberating and thinking about what questions we would need to answer with any of those options.

And I have a functional question for the ballot itself, because as I understand the ballot, it has to be written in you vote for this option or retain the existing language in the charter.

And so if we are offering three options, that seems confusing to me that it would be changing removing from the charter or keeping them in the charter, but then it could be I don't know.

I guess tell me where you're going with that.

I'm whoever wants to answer in that.

You both have your figure up.

Um thank you, madam chair.

Of course, I'll go first because I'm just pushing that way.

Um, but no, just kidding.

Um Dan, I I think Mr.

Denny, your questions are totally valid.

Um it in using Cindy's terms, this is like the first blush.

This is the first attack of this very heavy issue with lots of components.

So I totally agree with you.

Um we're trying to drill this down so people can get educated on what this will look like, filling in a lot of blanks that we still have.

Um so I think this is just the first run at trying to drill it down to some possible options.

But I think with regard to your question, Raylan, about how it will look on the ballot, um, I think clearly when you have a ballot initiative, it says, do you want this or do you want this?

Um, usually, you know, either or, but if you're something so um that will affect our community so much that to give them a couple options or the status quo, because this is so big and has been gone on for decades and decades and decades without any kind of clear resolution that I think a couple of options and then the status quo are valid for this ballot issue if it's acceptable and it sounds like from the county attorney it is acceptable to have multiple options for this bat this particular ballot issue.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe it gets to the it is not a form of government question, so we have more options in the question itself.

And uh and to speak to Commissioner Denny's comments, I I totally agree, but I think that's also true for everything that we're talking about and working on right now.

If someone were to ask what's the cost of full-time commissioners versus part-time, it's to be determined.

And and we have the next however long to try and drill that down.

If they ask what the redistricting looks like for that commissioners, we don't have answers to those questions yet either.

I I acknowledge that scale is probably much different with this question.

I just don't think we can answer those questions.

The timeline is is part of this, right?

We we are committed to a preliminary report with the information that we have.

And then the public portion of the next public portion of this process better include these conversations, and it's not just incumbent upon us.

It's incumbent upon the constituents and the interested parties to do that as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Steppen.

I'm gonna step through the options one by one, and then maybe we can um deliberate each of them.

But in option one, we've kind of been on the stuck on this one a little bit, but you know, you said that the implementation considerations were volunteer departments are independent under state law.

There's that resolution of asset and landownership, which I believe is probably a very big sticking point in terms of you're talking about the buildings and the equipment, correct?

Yeah.

And then um development of mutual aid and coordination agreements between the entities and establishment of independent funding mechanisms in that fourth bullet is is kind of what I alluded to before.

Like, are we setting up our volunteers for failure in that that district is not able to get formed because they they don't get the 40% approval from voters within that district to add a different additional levy?

Um so I think in our report, we need to spell out those considerations very clearly.

Um are there other implementation considerations or questions that this commission has right now that we could maybe add to this list?

Mr.

Steppen.

I don't know if it's to be added, but maybe a an understanding when we talk about when we talk about asset and land ownership.

Can our county attorney shed some light on what the baseline is on that?

What's the starting point?

On who owns what?

Is that the question?

Uh I wouldn't I wouldn't say here.

I don't have the documents in front of me.

The last that I can remember is Butte Silver Bell County owns most of the buildings and apparatuses, the volunteers do own some themselves, but without the list in front of me, I can't tell you.

I can tell you it is divided, though.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I believe that there is a Montana Supreme Court ruling from 2021 and 22 that probably would uh allow us some guidance, I guess not speaking for the county attorney, but the divvying up of the resource allocation just sounds like a that that in itself to me is gonna be a fight in a battle.

Um especially after volunteers have worked so hard to get some equipment, get grants, and then have them match through Butte Silverbo or their cells.

But then also the equipment or the property properties title and equipment's title in the name of the Butte Sorbo fire department recognizing us again as one and splitting up those resources.

I what I can do is I don't know if I've sent that Supreme Court ruling to read through, um, but that might offer some insight.

I know that Madam Chair asked for that a long time ago, and I can't remember if I did or did not send that um my concern with this option one is just the survivability of some volunteer departments.

And I I I know and I I appreciate so much that the working group has met with selected members within the volunteers, but I know for a fact after talking with some and hearing them that there's a lot of volunteers who want nothing to do with running their own budgets.

They want nothing to do with increasing the taxes within their district, they just want to do firefighter things.

But affords that opportunity to do that by making that happen.

There was a chief within a volunteer department that left his department because of the inactivity within the district trustees.

So this is a huge burden, as Madam Chair has said, of when you have to follow state law, you have to follow state law to a T.

So I think we need to look a little bit more into, and I really appreciate the options, and I think we can narrow these down.

But the these are facts.

These are people with documented emails, trustees that have been said over and over that are voted on by the people.

But it's it's hard for a volunteer to not only do training and establish the standards, but to do all of these extra things as well.

Some departments can do it.

I guarantee it, they'll crush it and they do a great job.

We appreciate that.

Some departments don't.

So to me, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.

And and I'm again I'm kind of going off on a tangent here, but the survivability of volunteers in option one definitely needs to be looked at.

And although a select group of volunteers has been talked to, there's 140 of them out there that might not all agree with that too.

But they get the option to do it when they go ahead to the ballot.

And I totally get that and understand that.

Um I'll go ahead and end it with that on my implications and considerations along with the the additional tax on option one.

Thank you, Mr.

Silk.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, thank you, um, Chad for that.

Um I would just say survivability.

I mean, we've been talking for I mean, we've been doing this for months and months and months.

Um the the volunteers have really stuck a flag in the sand with regard to getting out of the charter and to to um to rectify the the consternation charter versus state law and what a remedy looks like.

They're so small that they don't take calls and they can easily be enveloped in other stations, and that goes to the point of well, what will that look like?

What will the new district look like?

And so um, and it's the same kind of what you were talking about earlier with the fire advisory board.

That's a group of volunteers, career, and commissioners, and they're all not going to agree, but they come to a consensus, and I think the same can be said of the volunteers coming to some kind of consensus to come up with a plan they think will work for them and to bring to the voter as an option for the ballot.

Um and again it goes to um Mr.

Steppen's point of this is the starting point.

We have a lot of of information to gather.

We have a lot of questions to answer, and we have a lot of education to do ourselves with other folks and with the public before they get to the ballot box on November of 26.

Okay, if I could direct our our deliberations again.

Um any other comments or concerns off the top of our head as we see option one presented.

If not, I'd like to move into option two and have us think through that and imagine if there were one unified volunteer fire department.

Um I guess um you said create one volunteer fire department in the charter.

Would that include those truly rural outlying districts of um you know, Divide and Melrose and maybe Rocker and Ramsey?

I guess I that I uh direct that question at the um the working group, or if that was or maybe Mr.

County Attorney was it was I think this might have been your idea as well.

Chairman Brendel, uh commissioners, this is the most complicated of the three.

And it kind of came about with regards, I'm gonna I'm gonna throw Commissioner Thielen under the bus.

It's all him.

Um because he was talking about having the possibility of two fully distinct departments with chiefs in both of them.

Uh, you know, after further research, I I do not think it's plausible to have no, I don't think it's in accordance with state law to have two chiefs.

The municipality laws are clear that we shall have one chief.

Um but uh that's if the that's if the fire department is created, you know, by the council under a charter.

So what this would look like or entail is essentially getting rid of the volunteer departments and then restarting them over with new districts, you know, through the volunteer process.

That's why it's the most complicated.

It's a very long and tedious process if it were to happen.

And then so you would go through, you know, and present uh to uh the commission, you know, if 40% of the landowners in that area wanted the you know volunteer department, it would go to the commission.

Um it is it's possible, but I think it's very, very long and it'd be a very difficult and very heavy lift.

Uh the thought process on it was that it's possible, and it gave that option of of still a volunteer department under charter control with uh a career department still there, and then you know, different districts, new districts drawn for the volunteers' areas, such as those outlying areas, uh the Rockers, Ramsey's, excuse me, Rocker, Melrose, Terra Verde, uh, Walkerville.

Um it's possible, but it it is a it's a huge lift, and it's a lot of work to get that done.

Uh the kind of back end of that is the option three, which you already have the volunteer groups, but clarifying the charter.

But this was possible to to do as well.

Ms.

Dolan.

Um thank you, madam chair.

Um I presented option two to the volunteers I spoke with, and they're in very rudimentary terms because we're waiting for the county attorney to come up with a decision with regard to those two chiefs idea, and even if that was legal.

Um and so it was very much a here's option two, pretty much unified volunteer fire department, and that's basically all I gave is information because I didn't want to give information that was incorrect.

And so just from that initial brush of just generalities of option two, um, the the input I got was they didn't think that would work, and that was not an option they were looking towards.

Um to um county attorney and roof's point, it's a huge heavy lift.

So with that, but we have to know more, but it I think it's almost a moot point at this point because if if the two chiefs are not legal, then I don't know how we move forward.

And realistically, it was I mean, it was a working group, like we were trying to come up with with a possible compromise.

And once I got further into how our fire department is established and the municipal laws that they follow, it's it's clear that you have one chief in command, which is where I believe the option three uh developed, what it developed into.

Okay, so are there any other comments or questions on option two from the commission?

Okay, so moving on to option three to affirm the authority of the director of fire services and adding a volunteer coordinator questions or thoughts in this option, and then looking also again at our key implications and um implementation considerations questions that we might have.

Mr.

Steppen.

Yep, if I can provide a little bit of context to that.

What uh what that was that option was or a similar option was kind of the initial option that I'd presented to our working group as a starting point, was clearing up the ambiguity behind the authority through revised charter language that would hopefully um take us out of this loop between charter and state law, and so it was very important to work with the county attorney to find out if that's possible.

Um the addition of the volunteer fire coordinator actually came out of our working group meeting with the director of fire services, Osborne when we were discussing the idea of if this direction were to affirm the authority of the director, how do we create that formalized seat at the table for the volunteers?

And and he offered this as a potential solution.

This was a recommendation that came out of the the fire study that was done.

Um so it was actually his rec his idea to memorialize it in the charter so that uh it lives in perpetuity or until 10 years from now when the next dummies are up here having these conversations.

But um, so that's the context on that position, the way that it's that I've framed it in this option, because words matter.

This is a volunteer position selected by the volunteer contingent to serve as that singular voice of the volunteers and the singular point of contact to the director.

And so uh that's the that's the background on that option in three.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just add to that, thank you, Matt.

That was a good explanation.

Um, and what we're trying to gather from everybody that we're talking to.

Um, but I would say as an addendum to that, this option three still does not solve the question of overall authority, because even if you're adding a volunteer fire coordinator as a liaison and a voice, if the ultimate decision-making power lies with Chief Osborne as director of fire services, as it says in this option three, it does not solve any of the issues with regard to the volunteer structure, um, how do they work that, what's the role of the trustees?

I mean, if there's just a lot of things that again go back to Cindy's point about we have to comply with state law.

So there's a lot of questions with regard to option three and whether or not it actually will move the ball forward.

So when um if I may follow up, you when you're saying affirm the director of fire services as the authority over career and volunteer fire services, we have that existing language now, correct?

Mr.

County Attorney.

Uh Chairman Brown, yes.

So right now, like I said earlier, it's not a question about if we are or not in compliance with state law, it's two different legaling legal opinions from two different attorneys.

That's why we have judges, that's why we have a Montana Supreme Court.

The statute specifically states that a consolidated government has no effect on the existence of volunteer departments, volunteer fire companies or a fire district created and legally in existence pursuant to the provisions on this part unless otherwise specifically provided for by charter.

Our charter did that in 1996.

However, there is a disagreement about whether or not that complies with this law.

That's not for this body to decide, that's for a court to decide.

And to be honest, right now, the only thing that's you know separating this is uh an attorney general opinion, which uh County McTurty County Attorney Bob McCarthy got the charter does not specifically state anything about their budgets.

Um it doesn't, it's not clear on their budgets.

It says it provides the fire uh director of fire services is uh to provide administrative uh it's an administrative role and like how they work together, and that's how I read the charter is that he has authority over how they all work together, but not with regards to their budgets.

And so that's the basis of a lot of this argument is they're saying no, you don't have control over our budget, which I don't disagree with, it's not in the charter.

However, this statute specifically states, in my opinion, if it's specifically put in a charter, then it affects existing volunteer fire departments.

So if this body decides that there's to be one governing body, the charter has to be very specific on what the director of fire services is allowed to do with volunteers.

But to Commissioner uh Cindy Perdilon's point, I think that will be litigated no matter what.

Realistically, because this is not a very clear statute.

And that happens, that happens in with the legislature all the time.

We have to bring it in front of a district court judge, which then most of the time it goes to the Montana Supreme Court to determine is that what was meant here?

We look at legislative intent, we look at those types of things.

So, yes, I in my opinion think that the charter can do it.

There's another attorney out there that disagrees with me.

That's why we have courts.

So if I'm I'm gonna summarize this in an implication, perhaps.

So if we go with this option three, where we affirm director of fire services as authority over career and volunteer fire services, and then we create a volunteer fire coordinator position within that structure, likely we're ending ending in court if the voters were to affirm this non-change or slight change with the volunteer coordinator position.

Possibly.

And then listening to our um our working group's deliberations with the volunteers, this is their also least favorite option, correct?

Um thank you, madam chair.

Yes, um, they have voiced um concern because to them this is pretty much status quo.

Ms.

Shaw?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And then on uh County Attorney Inrus note, there um if we leave the status quo, we also face the possibility of getting involved in litigation.

So it's kind of a catch-22 in a way.

So I guess the fourth option, so this third option adds some language about a volunteer coordinator position, but a fourth option is do nothing.

Like we pitch it back to the county, which has been the the option of uh 50 years of study commissions, am I correct?

Okay, Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think in these conversations that we've had with options, I'm not sure that there's a scenario on amongst these three that doesn't end up in some type of litigation.

And I think when when we when we say that the volunteers most favorable option is removal from the charter, I believe it's it's from the from the leadership that has been part of our conversations, it's the only option in their mind.

And I don't know that that still keeps us from litigation.

They they were clear that there would likely be challenges over assets and taxing districts down the road.

And so, at least in our conversations with them.

So when we talk about concern over litigation, and I think county attorney framed it well, those things are in place to dissolve to to help solve some of these disputes, right?

Not necessarily need to be looked at as getting sued, so to speak, right?

And ultimately it's likely that an opinion outside of our county attorneys is ultimately going to decide some of these things down the road no matter which way we go.

But but I think our job is to frame a structure that can be successful going forward, and then it's up to the people to vote that in affirmation or not, and then for the constituents to make it happen.

Mr.

Steppen very well said, and I think you know, we have to remind remind ourselves that we have been elected and entrusted by the public to help make these decisions and to take all of the available research and information and the considerations of what could happen as we make our deliberations and providing a ballot for our voters.

So it is our job, very well said, to evaluate these.

And I'd hate to pitch it only to the voter.

Like we have a job of being the first stop and making sure that any initiatives we're presenting to the ballot or to the voter on ballot are thoughtful and likely will lead in a good structured direction and not end up in just another big giant mess.

Um miss Dolan, I know you had your hand up.

Um thank you, madam chair.

I I totally agree, and I think this was the um the reason, and this is my opinion.

This is the reason the governor vetoed House Bill 547.

He felt that he didn't want the state legislature to make the decisions for Butte Silver Bow when the Butte Silver Bow voter could make those choices and those um thoughtful votes for what's best for Butte needs to decide be decided by Butte people and Butte voters.

And so you're absolutely right, Ray Lynn.

It is incumbent upon us, it's incumbent upon the stakeholders who are varied in their options and what they agree and agree with and don't agree with, to educate the public in this process as we go forward towards November of 26.

It is incumbent upon us to do those listening sessions and do all that education.

And to Dan's point, we all need to be educated on what the implications are, some more specificity with that.

And I think as we go forward, we'll get following tonight's discussion.

I think we'll get some more with all the options.

And so we'll have some more meat to chew on with regard to these.

I think this hopefully was a good outlay of where we're at, and hopefully we can drill that down even further.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe this put probably my closing remark.

I guess I'm just exhausted with this.

Um I guess I get frustrated when I hear that Butte Sarabot is supposed to decide on how its fire service is supposed to be run when in 1996 it was voted almost two to one to have the chief executive and the council of commissioners have a clear relationship with the volunteer fire departments.

A living document that can allow the fire department to change instead of trying to change it in charter, which there was a study commission that did fix this.

But there's a group of people who don't agree with the way that the community voted, and that's what's frustrating to me.

If the fire department isn't run the most efficient way, why shouldn't the council of commissioners be able to decide and recommend ordinances that can have a democratic process to run its fire department through its people on an ongoing basis instead of being so strict in the charter?

If Butte Silverbo is supplying the money that has the final say without putting another burden on the volunteers and without increasing taxes to the community, why are we worried about what the volunteers want?

Why are we worried about what the career department wants?

Why don't we worry about what the community wants?

And we've seen that through our survey, and I agree with Mr.

Steppen that I'm looking forward to another survey from the community, which we have to look at this back and forth of both sides, career and volunteers was something that I was hoping we weren't gonna get into on this commission and worry about what the people wanted, and not what I want, not what a fire chief wants, whether it's a career volunteer, but what the community wants and what is best for them and to set the structure up to be moldable throughout the years instead of so strict in a charter.

Option three on key implications.

When I read through those, I don't see a lot of negatives.

I know that some people will, but I do know that there's people elected to change ordinances that allow the executive branch to go ahead and enforce those ordinances set by the legislative branch.

But if we don't have the ability for our council of commissioners to run a department by ordinance and then through the executive branch.

Why don't we have that ability and why don't we want that ability?

And that's almost a rhetorical question because I don't want to stay here for too long.

And I know that you guys are probably sick of hearing me talk now, but a a living document that allows the fire department to change through time and lets Butrabeau be in charge of a department, I think is just one of the better ways to go about it.

Thank you.

Ms.

Casey?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with with Chad in that I d don't want the charter to be so restrictive that our fire departments and our volunteers can't improve over time.

And the best way to do that is through the ordinance part process in the Council of Commissioners.

That is still a very public process that allows everyone to come up and put their opinions in, much like we are today.

But I do have a question and I asked Matt to clarify this volunteer fire coordinator position.

Did you say it's I was envisioning that that's a full-time position within maybe Butte Silver Bow, but you said it's selected by the volunteers, so it's just a volunteer position.

Is can you just uh clarify for me and the thought there?

That's that's how it is presented here.

We had discussion about the previous, and this is where some confusion comes in.

There used to be a a help me out here.

Coordinator that was a county employee that was absorbed, I think by J.R.

Richardson in his budget duties.

Along with there's just not the amount of work that justifies a full pipe full-time position in that regard.

And so the way that it is presented here, the volunteer coordinator is a volunteer and selected by the volunteer ranks.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think to answer um your questions, Chad, is um simply the fact that the study commission comes every 10 years to solve charter questions.

But this issue has been going on for almost 50 years.

And to answer your question plainly, you haven't been able to do that.

You haven't been able to have a structure of consensus from volunteers and career fire to come up with a game plan to move everybody forward that everyone that's why you've been litigating for 50 years and have different opinions that the county attorney has to look at.

So I think what we're trying to do is yes, you'd like to solve all the problems within fire services, but that's not the reality that we're looking at.

We're looking at options for the study commissioners to come up with options to give to the voter in November of 26th to make these ultimate decisions because what and I have to say, you know, these options can always go to status quo, and then you'll be back to where we started.

But I think that given enough education, enough engagement, I think the voters of Butte Silver Bow will take this task and try and figure out which the best option moving forward for everybody, and yeah, to the point, we we m will likely get the get litigation, but if if we can get a structure that makes sense to folks and and offer it to them, I think that's the most democratic way to do it.

Mr.

Thielen, welcome.

Um we if do you I don't know if you need the handout that Mr.

Steppen has, but we're going through your working group's three options that could be offered on ballot to our voters.

And so we've we've worked through numbers one and two, and we're currently on number three, but I would open it to you since you've joined us a little bit late to add anything that you'd like to from your perspective of the working group.

Um your other members of the working group have have offered their um advice.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Um I only got a look at this briefly today, so I am going to kind of keep my thoughts to myself for the moment, and then uh after I can study it and make a better argument, as it were, I think then I will do that probably next week.

Thank you, Mr.

Thielen.

I wanted to offer you the time if you would like it.

Thank you.

All right.

In these options, is there any other questions or things we'd like to think about?

I mean, obviously we're not making any decisions tonight.

We're hearing the options, we're considering them.

We're we're probably generating another another list of questions.

Is there any other things to talk about there?

Ms.

Casey.

Madam Chair, I I just want to clarify because of the preliminary report and thinking of that timeline.

Is the intent right now to put it sounds like option two is out that you cannot have two chiefs.

So is the intent to put both options, uh one and three in the preliminary report, and then go out to the public?

Is that I guess I'm a little confused or or is it this commission to vote eventually on one option to put forward in the preliminary report?

So what I heard from the working group, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that they want at least two options to go forward in that preliminary report, gather more public input, get some maybe some more survey data, and then this commission would come back, review that information, review our public um input, and then make a decision on which options to bring to the ballot.

And there it was proposed that we could bring more than one.

Um, but maybe that isn't when it's the decision of this group after we finish that process.

Did I capture it correctly, Mr.

Steppen?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mainly uh just speaking from the auth the the one that did much of the authoring, I think from my standpoint, I think the group felt that the group should decide how many options and which ones going forward, and we didn't feel that the four of us were in a position to make a singular recommendation.

Understanding that this was the type of topic that could have multiple options going forward.

Okay, so within our preliminary report, then you would be looking for us to maybe say put all three in the preliminary report, reject one.

Um do we want to deliberate about this more, consider time you know I guess I'm looking to the rest of the commission too.

And I'll I'll start with Ms.

Shaw and then I'll I'll move back to Ms.

Um Dolan and Mr.

Thielen.

Thank you.

Eight rules, I'm sorry, Cindy.

Uh also don't forget there's always the option of status quo.

Not changing anything.

I hate to say it, but that's gotta be in there.

We don't need not to forget that.

Not that that would be my choice, but you know, I don't know.

I I don't know how anybody else feels about that.

But yeah.

Uh Mr.

Thielen, I think you are next.

Madam Chair.

Um I I just have a question for Mr.

Anruth.

Uh they said that option two is not viable because you can't have two chiefs.

If one's a volunteer, I guess I'm a little confused by that.

Could you explain that to me, please?

Uh Commissioner Thielen.

Correct.

The way I understood it though, is you wanted two chiefs and the charter, someone in charge of paid in charge of the volunteers.

That was my understanding of what you wanted.

There is uh a section under the statutes with regards to rule fire protection.

Um the the problem with that is is under the rule fire protection section, if the area is already got fire protection from a municipality, that doesn't fall into play under that section.

It says we can appoint a chief and whoever else.

But yeah, you the currently abused silver bow follows the municipality rules that's in the charter.

And when you go to those sections of the statute, it states that you can only have one paid chief.

We have the person with that title is director Osborne.

I I I get that you can only have one paid, but if one's a volunteer, one's paid.

Um that's what I was saying was is if you if the question is if they're both paid, my answer is no.

If one is a volunteer, um yes.

Okay.

It's because I thought in the study group in our meeting earlier this week, we were talking about a paid position in the charter was how I interpreted that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I would just say that, yeah, I think that we should come up with some a couple viable options.

Um three, and then um status quo and go from there.

S Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I recommend that we just chew on this for a little bit for a week.

I know that we're trying to get to our timeline.

Um I imagine we're gonna have some input within this week after uh from the public who have listened to this or um we have discussions with.

So I would entertain the option of just digesting everything that we have heard tonight and then and then coming back to the next meeting with a decision on how many options we're gonna move into the preliminary report.

All right, I have hands everywhere.

I'm gonna start with Mr.

Dunnehina or go this way.

Um Madam Chair, I think it's important to get the information that the volunteer memo that came out today into our preview so we can make an informed decision on exactly what that said.

That's just more information.

So I I think just holding this in a band for a week is probably a good idea.

As Chad said, I think people might give us some more information as the week goes on, so it kind of makes us more educated on the options that we might um uh be um thinking of, but having that piece of information that we don't have tonight, I think it's a really important to read those since we w we read the advisory fire commission's letter.

I think this is a nice balance to that.

Thank you, Mr.

Dunnehy.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I believe that what we were planning based on the the correspondence from you was that we were we would review take the week.

We have meetings scheduled this week with groups that we've told that action isn't being taken tonight.

And I think it's important that we we stay the course on that.

I totally agree.

Thank you.

Any uh Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Matt.

That's exactly right.

So yeah, but I think we still have a lot of people that want to have some input um before we get to the option um vote on what what that looks like.

But I would also ask the you know, we're gonna get some additional information from the volunteers.

So for option three, could we get some sort of follow-up information in writing from the career department and to say with option three, what does that look like with regard to authority over the volunteer fire department and or fire stations?

Because I think that's the crux of the the consternation over the decades, and if that's applicable and doable, I think that would help um with our deliberations with option three on how that will look and if number two, if it will help the current status quo.

So to differentiate from what's happening right now and versus what it will look like if option three is voted in with regard to the coordination between career and volunteer, if that question makes sense.

I just have a clarifying question to your question.

Yeah.

So isn't it already spelled out in our ordinance as they stand right now in terms of the authority that the fire services director has?

Is am I reading that correctly, Mr.

Enrith?

I guess I'll give it to you.

That is correct.

Yeah, outside of his authority over uh their budget that is not contained in our charter that is contained in ordinance.

Okay, so then maybe the question is more about budget authority, is that or are you looking at Well, I'm I'm looking Madam Chair.

Um thank you, and thank you, County Attorney.

I'm just looking for some additional clarification because I think we'll be getting those questions in the week.

Um so if we can provide an answer um to how that elevates it from the status quo with regard to language, with regard to um what it looks like over the authority, um all of those additions will help in figuring out if option three isn't indeed a option to move forward, or if it's just pretty much status quo, I'll bet the change with the fire coordinator position.

Um I'll take Ms.

Casey and then I'll take you, Ms.

McCormick.

Um Madam Chair, a thought, because it seems like some of this is boiling down to budget, and who has can th control over it.

There is a somewhat uh fix to this in that just like other departments such as public works has a water division budget, a road budget, there could be nine different budgets for the separate volunteers that through the fire director of fire services and the chief executive or the city manager that you each come with your proposed budget, what you need, just like any other department, and you go back and forth because it is the chief right now.

It's the chief executive's budget that goes forward.

But once that budget's approved, then the chiefs through would have some authority to use that money just like we have authority to use our budget here once the money is approved.

I don't know that might be somewhat of a solution to because it seems some of this is boiling down to the authority of the budget also.

It's just a thought.

I guess I was under the assumption that they already did that.

That's what they do.

That's that's what they're supposed to do.

Is that what they're supposed to do?

But that's not what's happening in the market.

But Madam Chair, when you look at the budget book, it's all under fire services.

So if it's an equipment budget, it's just a total line item versus I don't know, 50,000th going to racetrack, uh 10,000s go into home authority, instead of separating out.

So if those were separated out like a lot of different, I would use the word division because you have the department, then you have different divisions where they're separating out their budgets.

Then that tells them what they have for the year.

And they also have to make a good argument for the money they need.

You have to be able to, all departments have to be able to convince the chief executive ultimately to bring forward their budgets.

So they would just have to be more involved in the budget process, and that would be through the director of fire services and working of what's important.

But and I've talked to Chad about this.

Um I don't know how uh the director of fire services feels about it, but there could be some options that might make some of this more amenable to them without getting so taken completely out, they raise their own money.

Uh volunteer coordinators.

I don't know.

It's just a thought to throw out there.

I appreciate the mechanism and um increasing the transparency in light items, if you would.

Then we know our dollars are going and how they're allocated, and then that volunteer department is there and therefore also responsible for the balance at the end of the year and reporting how they've spent those funds to the public.

So um something to consider and put in the in the hopper.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I think that is a good question.

Um unfortunately that's not the process right now, and that's another bone of contention.

The fact that you know the director of fire service currently deals um with the budget um authority unilaterally.

And so uh the fact that the volunteer in many departments, and this is what we've learned over time over the past year, of having questions and um and working group and all of that, is the fact that the monies are in one pot and the director of fire services currently decides where the money goes, how the money is spent, and it it doesn't filter to the volunteers.

They have equipment that hasn't been fixed, they they just is just something that needs to be figured out, and that is another good option.

But if we can get some meat on these options and come back, I think it will help us all a lot.

All right.

Other Mr.

So, Madam Chair.

I know that we've just been learning, you know, stuff over the last year, but being a part of this process for almost two decades, um, we do need to follow the ordinance.

And even if there is email sent out to volunteer chiefs to supply a budget, so the director of fire services can put that in his budget.

Um there's not full participation all the time.

So it's easy to say that you know uh the director of fire services gets to spend the money how it wants, but Ms.

Casey said it perfectly, it's the chief executive's budget.

And also I think it's very important if uh um to look at the director's uh uh request over the years for volunteer departments, because when I hear that there's no money filter to them, that's completely wrong.

An average of 253,000 dollars over the last four years has been spent on the volunteers, whether that's maintenance or PPE.

Um so we need all the facts before we get into this side or that side.

And and I don't want to get into that, but sometimes facts need to be put out there, and that is one of the facts.

Thank you.

And even if we change something, yeah, I think looking at this budget authority and making sure those line items are called out is a probably a very good idea.

It creates more transparency in the budget.

Um, if there's no further discussion on fire services, we can move forward um to new business.

And under that item, we don't have anything unless anybody has something on their mind they want to add to new business.

Very good job, guys.

Uh there's no public hearing tonight.

Other scheduled matters.

Um somebody sent an email about uh some public outreach.

Was that Mr.

Silk or Mr.

Ms.

Shaw?

Is it you?

I sorry, I can't remember who sent the email about uh another group that was inviting us to speak.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, the I am I'm a member of the exchange club and they were really anxious to hear what we're doing.

And uh I I did say maybe we could they have two dates that were after well, let's just see the the second date I told you in February, which is toward the end of the month, that might be a better one to discuss what you know once we have the preliminary report done, maybe if not then maybe in March.

But they're they're just interested.

They want to know how we're doing.

So and also there was a great article I thought in the paper, just a nice preliminary blush on and what you know what you were in there.

I I think Mike's uh Smith quoted you.

It was just a a little FYI how we're at you know where we're at in the whole process.

Uh we are scheduled also for February 25th on party line, so hopefully we have our preliminary report ready to t to tout out, and so we can um deliberate about who wants to go to that and etc.

Umnouncements our next weekly study commission meeting is on February second and in the council chambers.

And so with that, Mr.

Thielen.

What did I get here in time?

And Ms.

Shaw Seconds, any opposed, stay in your chair, and then we'll be able to do that.