I'd like to call the Butte Silver Bowl Council of Commissioners meeting regular meeting for Wednesday, February 4th, 2026.

Clerk, could we please have a roll call?

Twelve present zero absent.

Commissioner Walker, could you lead us in the prayer and the pledge?

Decline.

So when you come forward, please state your name, your address, and what item that you would like to speak about.

And we're going to have a full audience tonight, so I will hold everyone to three minutes on their public comments so that we can move along as we go here.

So welcome.

Member John Morgan abstained from the vote in light of his position on the council.

In alignment with BLDC's mission to build a vibrant economic environment that recruits retains and supports businesses for the benefit of our community.

This project represents exactly the type of strategic economic development we seek to attract to Butte.

We appreciate the thoughtful consideration the council is giving to SABI's request for an extension of its sale and purchase agreement for land located in the Montana Connections Business Park, and we respectfully urge the council to approve this request at its February 4th, 2025 meeting.

Thank you for your continued commitment to fostering economic opportunity and growth in our community.

Respectfully, Anthony Laslovich, Board President, Butte Local Development Corporation.

Thank you, Ms.

Sullivan.

There's a button if you want to push it there.

There you go.

Thank you, Chairman.

Council members.

My name is Elton W.

Ringshock, and I reside at 3310 Hannibal Street, Butte, Montana.

I'm here tonight to speak in opposition to extending the SAB buy-sell agreement.

Communications number 2026-74.

I'm deeply concerned about the adverse effects this project will have on this community for generations to come.

County signed a buy-cell agreement with Montana Horizons LLC nine months ago on April 16, 2025.

The council only had three days to consider the request, and the staff pushed for immediate approval.

This is after they've been dealing with Montana Horizons for nine months.

We now know that they represented SAB data centers.

The county approved an extension of buy cell in October 25 to February 11th, 2026.

Now they're asking for another extension.

The horse got out of the barn, and we sold the farm last April.

This requested extension should be denied, and we should ask for a renegotiated buy-cell agreement that has some sidebarns that will protect the citizens of this community before construction starts.

Data centers cause significant harm to environment and local communities.

They also create low frequency noise pollution that the human hearer doesn't hear, but is bad for human health and the animals.

The SAIB data center is in a TED.

I'm talking about taxes now.

Taxes from a targeted economic development district go into a special dedicated fund rather than the general fund to finance improvements within a specific district covering infrastructure, road sewage, land prep, etc.

TEDs in Montana typically have a year, a life of 15 years, but that can be extended with some newer rules passed in 2022 to 30 years.

TEDs are temporary, typically sunsetting after a specific period of time, 15 years, after which, after 15 years, the increased property tax revenues will then be distributed to all local taxing jurisdictions, including schools in the county.

Montana communities need to ask really do we need to say what are we can we afford these new neighbors?

We're going to replace 600 prime acres for economic development with 100,000 data servers and 5,000 racks that have to be changed every three years and will end up in our landfill.

That will be of little benefit to Butte Montana, but it will provide inner services to kids in San Francisco, Seattle, New York, LA for video streaming, war games, chat GTP, AI, chat box, and doing their homework.

You can spend an entire day on this kind of conversation that some of you remember the famous invisible rabbit, Harvey.

We all know.

Mr.

Ringsack, if we could wrap it up, please.

We all know that we're living on a planet with finite resources.

What we have is what we have, and the faster we use it, the sooner we'll have to get our hands on a depleted planet and try to save it.

We don't own this land.

Mr.

Ringsek, please I'm holding everybody in the three minutes.

We don't own this land.

We are now renting it from our children and our grandchildren.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chief Executive Gallagher Commissioners.

My name is Don Patriots.

I live at 2804 White Boulevard.

Tonight I'd like to speak on the communication 2026 74.

The Data Center ad hoc committee has provided information that was provided to them by the SABE corporation regarding full-time regarding jobs.

The wages would be in the 25 to 30 dollar range on starting range and with a hundred thousand dollar range on for advanced professional positions.

But what are these 25 to 30 $30 an hour jobs?

Are they maintenance, security, skilled computer techs?

How many of each?

How many per shift?

Are they eight hour, 10 hour, 12 hour positions?

Are they 24 but 24 by 7 by 365?

These are all questions that we have that I have and I think everybody should have, and we have not had any answers to any of these.

Now that those 200 jobs, contractors with the center are included in this number.

But the problem with it with this is where does the contractor work?

At this site, from home?

If at home, where is home?

Is it in Butte?

Somewhere else in Montana?

Is it even in the United States or out of the country?

If contractors are not working in Butte as an employee of SABE or the or the contractor, then that employee cannot be counted as a job in Butte Silver Bowl or should not be counted.

In the last ad hoc meeting yesterday, February 3rd, 2026, it was presented that there are six data centers in Quincy.

So does the 200 jobs number a compil compilation of the six data centers in total, or are there 200 at each center?

That was not explained.

And the ad hoc committee has provided a lot of information, but with this information comes a number of questions, many that have not been answered.

There is more to be learned before any informed decision can be made.

A new buy sell should be negotiated that is beneficial to the Montana Connections, Butte Silver Bowl government and citizens of Butte, and then SABE Corporation.

Please vote no on granting this extension.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Patrietz.

I'm Eric Nylon, 312 West Porphyry.

Uh thank you for the time.

I'm speaking today on communication 2026-74, the second extension requested by SABE data centers or the Shell Company Horizons Montana LLC, whichever is going to be the signatory.

First off, I want to thank this body for supporting the citizen-driven request to the PSC asking to protect electric ratepayers from rate increases driven by data centers.

Several of us are here tonight who are part of that request.

I'm pleased to report our case was accepted by the PSC yesterday, and Northwestern Energy will be served and have 20 days to respond.

And regarding the extension of the sale, I do have to clarify in the chief executive's op ed over the weekend about your action.

Northwestern hasn't filed a tariff or array case.

The only request that exists is the one from a group of Montanans who want to protect our pocketbooks against out-of-state corporations.

We want to ensure that the promises made by staff by SAIBE by Northwestern Energy regarding this data center, they have certainty, not just vague assurances.

And I thank the councils for supporting us, but I remain deeply concerned about the talking points that are coming out from staff and officials that favor corporations over the people of Butte.

The talking points about not raising power are only accurate with the appropriate sideboards and with the appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

Until we have those guarantees, we shouldn't be so hasty to commit to a deal that is full of unknowns for the people.

What we do know is Northwestern Energy, they've requested secrecy from the PSC.

We know Northwestern, their representatives, they're having comments on their on their integrated resource plan.

Their representatives are saying we're not going to answer questions.

We know that the Daterson lobbyists had a heyday and a successful year in Helena with thick stakes and old whiskey, and we know that they were on the corporate jet selling this project last year with the same day.

Despite the assurances you've had over the last year that this project has been fully vetted, it's clear that's not accurate.

The chief executive appointed a committee to allegedly answer questions, but those should have been asked and answered before the deal was ever done.

I encourage you to let this this extension lapse start fresh with actual protections for people and real transparency, not corporate winks and nods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Nylon.

Thank you.

Uh Scott Gray, 25 East Granite.

The ad hoc committee has been good about informing the public.

And the Butte Silver Bowl County Commissioners have always worked very hard and have been transparent and to make important decisions that they've had to live with and hope that it works well for the community.

And I thank you very much for that.

In this situation, it seems that SABE hasn't been completely transparent.

And the utility company hasn't been entirely transparent either, and has been changing course on some issues, maybe their portfolio on ownership direction.

I've discovered that several other data centers in other city states have been having opposition or roadblocks, even shutdowns for a variety of reasons.

So there really needs to be more discussions on this particular project of concerns that I think are not mentioned, being ignored, overlooked, or unrecognized.

I recommend to let the extension die and renegotiate the buy sell agreement with guardrails and protections.

These kind of deals take a long time.

We are at a watershed moment.

So let's get it right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there.

I'm Holly Hansen.

I live at Bucks out at Buxton.

I'd like to address the Chief Executive and the County Commissioners here tonight to not necessarily reject the extension, but really question the need that it shouldn't be rejected.

It should be rejected, I should say.

We are beginning to only scratch the surface.

The sale of 600 acres is a lot to be considered.

No one is making land.

I think the requested extension should include an amendment that changes the land purchase to exclude the purchase of tax parcel 1734510.

It is the 373 acres that is lying next to Buxton and many of the residents there.

That is the parcel that Bardon borders, the Buxton area residents.

Perhaps it is expensive to subdivision, but I cannot accept that it's not usable or perfect for subdividing.

After all, you have subdivided a recent property to for the cynic sonata, I believe, and and um that's what's given an extension.

The Quincy Data Center occupies less than a hundred acres in in Quincy.

I think it's about 63.

The 170 acres plus the other two smaller parcels in the connection park is double or triple that in Quincy and should be a sufficient start for SABI.

Please amend the agreement and perhaps later work towards how to protect the Buxton residents by allowing a greener open space in any proposed development that includes that acreage, that seven 376 acres.

Please either reject the um extension or amend the document.

Thank you.

Thank Ms.

Hanson.

Chief Executive Gallagher.

Members of the Council.

I'm Sister Mary Joe, and I reside in Leavenworth, Kansas, but I have a new mission from the Sisters of Charity, and that's to continue the work I have done out here on Superfund site and also now with the data center.

And so I thank you for this opportunity, and I can assure you I will be back.

When I heard about SABE and the data center, I was thinking maybe this is great news.

But then I have a lot of spare time in Leavenworth, and so I have been occupying my time with studies about the data centers, what they bring and what they provide, and how they affect communities.

Now you're building the status center right in a prime spot, and Ramsey community is right there, and there are several houses in that same district because I took a ride out to see what was there in that consumption part.

And then I've read the newspaper article where the chairman of the board for the Connections Park mentioned that his group studied it at great length from the lens of economic development.

I would like to propose there's another lens.

If you wear glasses, you have two lenses.

And it's the lens of ethics and morality, and how it will affect the people in the community where you are building this.

Some you can hear, some you can't, but it causes neurological problems.

You've got water that's used, and you have the electricity that they need.

And many Butte residents will end up paying for a lot of that electricity.

My begging you to postpone your decision tonight.

I'm not saying don't do it, but I'm suggesting you delay it until you build guardrails around this proposal.

And you put into that proposal some of the elements here, you're selling the prime land out there, and they say, well, it hasn't been developed yet.

Well, but it can be developed, or they wouldn't be out there looking for it.

And you're paying, they're going to pay you $2,000 an acre.

You know, I'm not stupid.

I don't know a lot, but that's awfully cheap.

That should probably be around the range of 5,000 or even more per acre, which would come back to Butte Silver Bow, which would help do something.

Now, if you're saying that Butsuwago doesn't own that land, but it belongs to the TIFFIT, that's fine.

That money would go into that.

And it just seems to me that wisdom would say that's the first opportunity you have to gain anything for people.

And tonight, or tomorrow sometimes, I'm going to beg you to go home and read the oath of office that you took to serve the residents of Bute, Montana.

Thank you.

Thank you, sister.

Chief Executive, ladies and gentlemen of the council, Brian Sullivan, 410 Roseville Drive.

Uh you may or may not know, but I am was asked to be on the ad hoc committee by Chief Executive Gallagher.

And the committee had actually voted for me to be the chairman of the ad hoc committee.

So I'm here to introduce myself, say hello.

I'm not prepared to speak.

Um but to to everybody in the room, please.

We put together this committee, and I told JP, Mr.

Gallagher, that I would look into this from a fact-based effort.

Not going to take a side to the best of my ability.

Put together a team of people that are all butte people or butte supporting people, because we do have a new dean at Highlands College and the and the Chancellor of Montana Tech.

They may not be Butte people, but they're here to be the best for they can for Butte.

The committee has done a great job, in my opinion, not because of my leadership, but they are looking into the facts.

And the facts are that we are looking into the big items, and I'll talk to everybody in the room, please.

We're looking at jobs, taxes, power, water.

Those are the big ones that everybody's questioning and questioning.

And we've looked into them, we've discussed them, and we have information on those.

We've looked into noise, traffic, housing, um, you name it.

We've been looking into it.

And what I ask is for you to please extend this motion for the uh by cell to allow us to finish our job that we've been tasked to do and present.

I believe we're gonna present, we'll finish up the slide deck this week on Tuesday and present to you the following week at the this meeting on the 18th of February.

And without those facts, it's hard to make a decision.

We hear a lot of rhetoric, we hear a lot of things being stated, but it gives us the opportunity to look into what the facts are on this project and what it's gonna do for Butte for creating jobs and creating taxes.

The TIFFIT that the TED is out there for a reason to do economic development.

Let's develop that TED park and grow it.

Something I tell everybody that when I talk to them, REC broke around 30 years ago.

It's taken 30 years to build that park to where it is today.

We don't have another company knocking on the door to look and buy property and hire 200 people, 600 construction people.

So I ask that you extend this so we have time to to further our studies and present to you a full package of facts.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Sullivan.

Okay.

I don't have no paperwork.

I've been researching the um, my name is Kathy Fry.

My address is 130 Saddleign.

It's totally overwhelming, all the information that's needed to go into this project.

But I do have a few concerns from what I've dove into in the last week or so.

SAIBE says they will employ 200 people.

Okay.

When you look at the website, they just have this little box that says 200 people.

They don't have any kind of an org chart saying what kind of specialists, what kind of maintenance, what kind of people are they going to use?

Just one little bullet.

We all know that things are done remotely anymore.

We are not going to have, I don't believe, a big organizational structure to run this operation for a long period of time.

Medium-sized data centers, if you look on the internet, it's some reputable sites.

I don't have them with me, but they take 25 to 30 employees to run it.

That's not too many.

As for other jobs, construction jobs, you know, you can meet with all the unions that you want and all the folks that you want this in the city to say, you know, we're gonna have a lot of these construction jobs, which which they will to get it up and built, but they're gonna bid that out.

So how do we know Butte Silver Bowl's gonna get the bid to build those sites?

The uh construction companies companies in Butte.

They might be subcontracted to a point, but you don't know that either.

I I don't know how far with the bidding process is gonna do.

As for the taxes, it goes back into the to the area that all those businesses are.

Yeah, butte server bowl.

Well, we might have money go back into the general fund.

Well, in the paper, it's always been taxes, taxes, the taxes that are gonna come.

And then last night we find out, well, maybe the county will do a uh an agreement to get the tax revenue into the general fund.

As for Northwestern Energy, come on, guys, they did a rate hike on us before the June meeting before the uh PSC.

They don't play by the rules, and I don't trust the Northwest Energy.

So, you know, maybe you guys, I don't know, I don't.

Um, you know, e-waste was another thing last night that was brought up for the first time, and that's gonna collect generate a lot of e-waste.

That's a concern too.

And noise.

Last night they said there was no noise at the facility in um Quincy.

Well, I'm sorry, but I kind of find that hard to believe.

I'm sorry.

I I just question that.

And water, Silver Lake, it's filled by um Storm Lake and uh Twin Lakes.

Look at it outside today.

Do you see any snow?

It's filled by snowpack.

How long is that gonna last?

Um it's just the future generations here that are gonna pay the price for this, and I think we're just jumping on it too fast and we don't have all the facts at all.

Um for like for jobs in the Northwestern Energy, um, I mean, there are a few other things.

I like I said, I was researching today, it was making my head spin.

And I I wasn't gonna talk tonight and well, maybe I will.

But um, I just don't think we have enough facts, and I feel we're getting this pushed at us.

And I don't believe that we really know what we're doing.

And and SABE has not, it's it's all done in a vacuum.

Water power.

SAIB is located on the Columbia River.

That's where they get their water and energy.

I mean, they're hydro 100% hydroelectric.

So, you know, there's just so many things that are a big concern for me.

I apologize, I'm not well prepared, but I don't support this.

Hi, I'm Denise Kelly, 107 Canada Creek Drive.

And I sent all the commissioners a packet of information because I have so many questions.

I don't think that we're in any position to go to move forward with this.

I think that we own we owe our community a no vote tonight.

There are too many questions.

This buy sell is so one-sided.

When I read it, I just I I really honestly couldn't believe we signed it.

I think we owe everybody a no vote, and if SABI wants to come back and we want to renegotiate, that's great.

But this is absolutely not okay.

I also think I tried to get a copy of the title commitment, and I could not get a copy of the title commitment.

However, I did hear a rumor, and it could be a rumor that either ASMI or REC has a first writer refusal on that land.

And if that's the case, then we're setting ourselves up for a big lawsuit here because we could very likely have two buyers on the line.

I think we have to vote no text in this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Kelly.

Mr.

Chairman, uh members of the council, Evan Barrett, 807 West Silver.

I uh I have a written statement that I'm going to give to you after I finish talking that I hope can be put into the record.

Uh as you know, I've spent 26 years professionally in economic development.

So I'm in favor of development.

I also spent a huge amount of time developing the park out there, developing the tax increment concept, uh, putting it into implementation, and uh I want to see growth and jobs but done right for the community.

Uh I don't not rise to oppose the project, but I do oppose granting the one year extension of the buy sell agreement.

It should be denied, and they should we should join hands with SABE and renegotiate the the current buy cell because as it is structured, it's a bad deal for Butte and Montana and needs to be made much better.

And we can do that in a partnership and do it right.

Uh it's but was rushed through the process with a lack of public input last April 6th.

I was here to say slow down then.

And I'm saying right now, let's do it right.

Uh it's time to do it right, and that requires renegotiation.

Uh, you heard the head of the ad hoc committee say we don't have all the answers yet.

People saying we don't have the answers.

Well, let's get them and negotiate the deal right.

That's how you do it.

You hear about the buy-sell, it's weak.

Now, let me just say the timing is bad.

Uh it's tying up 600 acres for more than a uh another year.

Uh that's a bad deal.

We're making a real estate agent out of SABE.

They get to tie up our good acreage for a long time.

It's a 32-month process.

You know, we put ASMI in here in 80 days because they knew what they were going to do, and they knew we could deliver it for them.

I want to mention that we have to do, and if you look find it here, we have errors to correct in that that I found in the buy-sell.

We have excess land usage.

You don't need 600 acres.

You put a million square feet of of space in the buildings, and that can be done on 25 acres.

Add another few acres for uh parking and stuff.

You need 30 to 50 acres to do it.

You don't need 600 acres.

Okay.

We have a triple parcel deal.

This is three parcels are being tied up, not one.

We've been led to believe they're by one one purchase.

It's three purchases.

Tying that up from development for anybody else.

We have important sideboards to put on and we should do it.

Power purchase protections, water guarantees, job numbers, and job quality need to be put into the buy-cell so they have to perform in order uh on on things important to the community in order to make the deal happen.

It's poorly crafted by a rushed process.

We don't need to kill the project, we just need to do it right, and I urge you to say no on the extension, and let's get back to the negotiating table.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Barrett.

Is there any other public comment to anybody on tonight's agenda?

Howdy.

Ready for OS, 2000 Roberts Avenue.

I would also like to talk about communication 23, 2026-74.

But I feel like I deserve you a little you deserve a little bit of context.

Now, as many of you know, I am a member of the Carpenter's Union, the local 82 state of Montana, uh Western State's Regional Council.

And it's honestly an honor being part of that organization.

Um I stand shoulder to shoulder with the men and women that build our roads, build our bridges, build our hospitals, um, work on historic buildings in town and turning them back into what they deserve to be, which are beautiful and older works of art that prides itself on.

Um we build most of the manufacturing buildings in Butte Silverbow.

Um ask any one of our contractors that are uh signatory, they'll tell you that's us.

Um and so I mean, even communication number seven.

Um 2026-58, uh the aging at home program, that is the local AD2 carpenters that are gonna be doing a lot of the uh labor on that.

And so to say all that, um I would just like to re-emphasize how in favor of um the resigning of the buy sale agreement with SABE.

We are Sabi himself, the owner of the company has the same journeyman card in his pocket that I do.

He pays his dues every month.

He is one of us, and this economic development, this data center that's going on will increase the standard of living for every Butte carpenter that has that union card in their pocket, every electrician that has that union card in their pocket.

Every plumber that has that union card in that in their pocket, all of our local guys, better standard of living, and that will come back into Butte Silver Bow more than anything else will.

And that's what we need.

I mean, there's plywood on tons of windows in this town.

We deserve better.

The people of Butte deserve better.

And the amount of economic development from that data center, I mean, boy howdy.

It's gonna be nice.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Is there any other public comment on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none.

We will move on.

Yes, absolutely.

Yep.

Good evening.

The chair, committee, council.

My name is Brandon Calwell at 528 Ambrose.

I hope everybody can hear me okay.

You can you can pull up the microphone just a little bit there.

Thank you.

A little bit of a voice not coming back very well after being sick, so I apologize.

But one of the things I wanted to point out was, you know, we don't really put this kind of energy and emphasis in uh in anything else.

We got subdivisions going in, we got ranches getting sold, houses put up all over the place by contractors from out of town, workers from out of state and out of the country.

We watch all this work go by while our sons and daughters gotta go to some other state to get a good job.

This isn't gonna be one of those things, and I think that's been clearly ignored in this case.

Another thing with uh you know, Northwestern Energy, nobody's gonna fault you for for not trusting what they're gonna do or or or what they say, and we know that they're not very transparent, they're not very honest.

That's not gonna stop with or without this.

That they're they're gonna do what they do, and they've already done it time and time again.

They've they've got jobs, they've got pensions from from the people that worked at those jobs, and everybody just sat by on that one.

I and I don't I'm kind of disappointed in that.

Excuse me.

You know, we talk a lot about they're gonna build this thing somewhere.

It might as well be here, and I think that's a good point, but on top of that, to to kind of second that is that they're building them everywhere.

You know, they're they're going up pretty much all over the country.

These jobs are already started, they're already being done, they've already been approved, they've already been deemed safe.

There's already people out there working doing this stuff.

I mean, it's it's it's gonna happen if it's good for the goose, it should be good for the gander on this one.

Another thing, real quick, I'm almost out of time, but you know, everybody talks about comes up and talks from their perspective as if they speak for everyone.

Well, I don't think they speak for me or a lot of other construction workers or people that work in the trades that are looking forward to this kind of work right here in our hometown.

We don't want to go somewhere else to make good money.

We don't want to have to drive a couple states away or ship off all of our kids or co-workers over to somewhere else to be able to do this right here, build this, get this kind of construction, and all the supporting infrastructure and economy that's gonna come with that's gonna be huge.

And I so for everybody that talks about oh the community you know needs to be represented by this.

Well, our side of it is is is clearly in favor of something like this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Todd Johnston, 17 Rudwood Drive.

Um, I just wanted to let uh and I'm speaking on the data center as well.

I just wanted to uh add some context.

Um I've been serving on the advisory board for the TIFIT and then the TED for the last 15 years.

And I had a lot of stuff that I wanted to say.

But I I agree with a lot of what the community is saying, right?

There there are concerns, but I believe the ad hoc committee is going to address that.

The real point that I want to make is the uniqueness of this opportunity.

In the 15 years that I've been serving in that advisory capacity, we have never had a project this size come through to be an opportunity in the in the TIFD or the TED.

Okay.

And so I do absolutely agree we need to do this correctly, but we also need to be cautious that we don't miss this opportunity.

Um, as far as the trades go, the biggest thing that we've seen in the 15 years that I've that I've been working on this is a quarter of this value.

Right?

We had some pie in the sky stuff as far as real stuff, it was a quarter of this value.

As far as the jobs go, half of this value.

And so again, um, we need to do this correctly.

Um, but I believe that Brian made a good point.

Uh, the extension of this buy-cell agreement and the year that that would add gives us the time to do that.

And I would encourage the uh the counselors to do that.

Um, just from a historical perspective, these kind of extensions are pretty common.

We've been putting forward these kind of extensions one or two a year for the last 15 years, and multiple extensions for other parties.

Frankly, if we applied the same criticality to all of the the tenants that we have in the current TIFD that were applying to this, we'd be less than half full.

So I I encourage that we do the right thing, but I also want to let everybody know this is unique.

We haven't seen an opportunity like this in the 15 years I've been serving.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones.

Uh Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioners.

Um, my name is Joel Wirth.

I live at 2416 South Maine.

Um, I've spoken with you guys all before.

Um, you know how I feel about this data center.

It's going to create a lot of good opportunities for young people here to get into apprenticeships.

Um, I believe that hack the the HOC program that you put on had delivered a lot of good information.

Um it's really sad to see people that have not people here that haven't attended that or people on Facebook commenting on things that have been talked about and proven, you know, with facts.

So I think maybe we need to do a better job of getting them facts out, I guess, because they're still getting brought up.

But um, I would recommend and hope that you guys would approve the extension on the sale.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Worth.

Thank you, Chief Executive Commissioners.

Um, Andy Durkin, 514 South Clark.

I'm a nerdy CPA, so bear with me as I talk taxes.

Um at our November TED meeting, Commissioner O'Leary attended and asked a lot of really good questions.

One of them in particular dealt with the capital investment that Sabia would be making that they would expect to make over a number of years.

And they talked about the capital investment, and O'Leary's question was how much of that investment was related to the building versus how much is equipment, which is an important distinction because of the way some of those property taxes are collected and how much volatility that a data center might have when they're talking about the equipment that gets installed, all of those servers will depreciate over time.

And I think a lot of people in that room were surprised when they heard the answer to that question that SABE planned on making capital investments of 1.5 billion to 2 billion dollars, just related to the building and infrastructure itself.

All the other equipment, the servers would be on top of that.

So when we think about what that tax impact would be at even at the lower rate that the Montana legislature approved a couple years ago at a 0.9% rate to that capital investment plus their equipment, that's about a $13 million of annual property tax revenue that would essentially hit Butte Silverbow.

Now 11 million of dollars of that would become increment, which would go into the TED district, which could be available as for economic development.

But I think it's important to look at how much how much dollars and put it into context.

When we think about the annual budget that that the TED or back then, the TIFID before its sunset had, that annual amount was three and a half million dollars.

So as a member of the TED board, do I think there's much ability that the TED board could spend 11 million dollars annually?

Unlikely.

We'd have lots of initiatives that we'd like to do, lots of rail spurs that could be added, things like that that could support higher paying manufacturing jobs in our community that would be great.

But whether or not we could spend 11 million dollars annually would be a huge endeavor, and I don't think that will happen.

But a lot of that money would transfer into Butte Silver Bow, allowing mills to decrease and as property tax or property taxpayers in this county.

I think we all could benefit from reduced taxes in the form of these additional millions of dollars.

The sheer magnitude of this project is just enormous, and I implore you not to ignore that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Durkin.

Council Commissioners, my name is Josh Cox, 114 Moon Lane.

Um I represent Sheet Metal Workers Local 103.

And I'd like to stand here uh with my Union brothers from the other crafts and sisters and uh in support of this.

Um we don't have a lot of people breaking down our doors, like they said, to build large projects here in Butte.

And I've seen the rest of the state start to grow quite a bit in different towns and areas, and and uh the buttes kind of falling behind.

And I'd like to see our apprenticeship grow as well.

Um I feel as if we could add 10 to 15 new apprentices just in this area, plus uh you know, maybe 20 to 40 more workers.

So uh I just encourage you all to pass this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

My name's Sean Roberts, uh 12 Avon Circle Butte Montana, and I'm in support to pass this and let our committee that we had you guys appointed, do their year worth of research on what potential that this uh dad's sorry I'll get kind of nervous now the potential that this data center could bring.

I do have a lot of experience working in the high tech places.

Um I worked at Intel in Hillsborough, Oregon for seven years.

So I know the potential that this can bring to this community.

So uh I'm speaking in favor to pass the extension and let the committee hammer out the details they need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comments on any item on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none.

Um, we will move on to the approval of the minutes from the January 21st, 2026 regular meeting.

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

At this time, I'll make a motion that we approve the January 21st, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there anything on the question?

Could commissioners please vote?

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years nay.

12 years nay motion passes.

Um moving on to items not addressed on agenda.

We have three items that uh we need to add tonight's agenda.

So, Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

We do have three items on tonight's agenda to for consideration to be added to tonight's agenda under the emergency suspension of the rules.

Um, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the rules and orders of the Council of Commissioners of the City and County of Butte Silver Bow, State of Montana.

The council hereby finds that an emergency condition exists, which requires the council rules be suspended to allow for communication 2026 to 77, 2026-7.8, and resolution 2026-04 to be added to tonight's agenda.

The reason for the suspension is as follows.

Uh, communication 2026-7 is a communication from Angie Mullikan Public Works Department for a bid opening scheduled for February 25th, 2026 for the 2026 Rose, excuse me, Rose Road Division MILF fill project.

This communication was not submitted by the deadline for the items to be placed on the February 4th, 26 regular meeting.

Um, this has been advertised to the website and to newspapers, so the time is sensitive to be able to have the bid opening on February 25th without the increase expenses for publications.

Communication 2026-78 is a communication from Cynthia Sherman, uh, clerk and recorder regarding an election that must occur on Monday, February 9th, 2026, regarding a special purpose election for the Melrose Water Sewer District.

Um, this communication was not submitted by the deadlines for items to be placed on the February 4th regular meeting.

Um, and the reason or resolution 2026-04 is a resolution from Cynthia Sherman, clerk and recorder calling for a mail ballot election for the Melrose Water and Sewer District.

There are three open trustee seats and the filing period for the candidates ended today at 5 o'clock.

At 3 33 p.m., they received the fourth oath of candidacy for the trustees for the Melrose Water and Sewer District.

The resolution for the mail ballot election must be approved by Monday, February 9th, 2026, hence the addition to tonight's agenda.

Um so based on the foregoing and to allow this matter to be acted upon, the council hereby finds that an emergency exists which requires this suspension of the council rules to add communication 2677, 2678, and resolution 2604 to tonight's agenda.

Um I'm gonna make a a different form of the motion on this, and I'll I'll highlight it here in a second.

So at this time I would make a motion to approve the suspension of the rules to add communication 2026-7, 2026-7.8, and resolution 2604, contingent upon the passage of communication 2026-78 to the regular meeting.

We have a motion and a second to uh suspend the rules in place on tonight's agenda communication number 2026-77, 2026-78, and 2026-04.

Is there anything on the question?

Could commissioners please vote?

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years nay.

12 years zero nay motion passes.

Moving on to next item, chief executive's report, and this is a time that I think I want to take and and uh and talk about um the items that are addressed on tonight's agenda, and kind of want to take us back on a history lesson here talking about when REC previously as me came to butte, in which some of uh people talked about this that within 80 days they got everything done in time, out for bid, and out to the public to do this.

Yet in here we're getting told slow it down, don't do this, don't engage in this, but in that 80 days, how much public process was done at that time?

How much time did the did the public have to respond to this?

I can tell you at one time there was a question about workers.

There were 1,500 jobs, construction jobs that were going on at that time.

The contract was engaged without any guarantee towards the water at that time.

The water came after without when Butte Silver Bowl had to figure out a way to get the water there.

The tippet was created for economic development.

REC was that anchor, and still is that anchor.

For 30 years is what that tiffit was a part of, and at sunset at two years ago.

At the end of that sunset, that tax base came to Butte Silver Bow and continues to do so.

Then the TED was created two years ago, which expanded that.

That tax base does not go back into the TIFF or now the TED.

That is the base and has to stay the base, and that money comes into Butte Silver Bow.

That was 30 years.

This TED is now a 15-year.

We're two years into it.

The construction time and in what is being announced to this body could last up to 10 years.

It's up to the body and the uh TED board to make a recommendation whether we would extend it.

I want this body to understand we have the ability to regulate.

We have the ability when they talk about waste going into the landfill.

That's under this purview of this body.

We have the ability to dictate what that water contract is going to look like with Silver Lake.

Silver Lake, the lake itself has not been used for industrial use for over 40 years.

The lake.

The water that comes from TWIN and uh Storm Lake continuously flows down, and that's what we gravity feed into Butte.

We use less than one-tenth of the industrial water that is available.

The water that is being requested from this project, which has been addressed by the by the ad hoc committee, is less than what most of the hotels use in a year of our potable water.

We've got to put this into context of what we're what's being asked.

When we're saying that we're rushing this, we're asking more questions on this project than we have in any other project in the that has been located out in the Montana Connections Park.

I created the ad hoc committee because it's important that we factually address the questions that are there.

But the contract and the extensions that are being asked for are the same extensions that we have done many times over for multiple projects out there.

I want to remind people that we've extended three extensions to Sonata and also a tax abatement.

And we didn't have this kind of public engagement on that project itself.

And I can tell you, and and I I think Sonata can be a fantastic project, but Sonata is contingent on REC continuing to facilitate in their ability to provide them with product.

And we all know right now that REC, they've had reduction in force.

There are anchor out there, and if they happen to close doors, which God forbid happened, are we looking at turning away economic opportunity within our community that is we we can go and look at the facilities that they're talking about building here?

I think the one thing that this body and our community needs to look at is this data center, this company, their promises that they're going to do, we can look at it and know that they are not just in Quincy.

They're in New York City, they're in Seattle, they're in Oregon, they're in Texas.

And I've looked at all of their projects they've done done, and I've never seen anything that says that they have not fulfilled their commitment to the communities that they've done.

It's contingent on us to do the homework on the company that is proposing to come here.

We can find all the data that is negative out there about any of these companies on data centers.

And there's cryptocurrency, and there's all kinds of different centers that are out there, but it's contingent upon us to realize what is being proposed in front of us, and are we willing to say we we're not ready for this, we need to push this away because I can tell you we have not had a project of this scale knocking on our doors.

I heard people say this is pristine area in our industrial park.

This is not pristine area in our industrial park.

It is probably the most the toughest to develop in any parcels that we have out there.

We have had no other companies come to us that is offered any project on those areas that we've had over the years that as I've talked to our economic development team, so to say that I'm not asking for us to say yes to this project.

That that comes at the final sale agreement here.

But what is being asked is to offer an extension.

The ad hoc committee is which is something that we have not done in any other purchase and sale of a property out there that we have not done is what we are doing now.

And that group that we formed together are experts in their fields, experts on energy.

It is true we can't control what Northwestern Energy is going to do.

Nobody can.

But what is guaranteed is they have 50 megawatts that is in the queue for Northwestern Energy.

They could take that guarantee of that energy and they could take it to another community into in the state of Montana, and they your and everybody's energy rates in Butte are going to be affected the exact same way if they build it in Deer Lodge County or if they go out in Coal Strip Montana and do that.

So please look at what we're talking about.

Again, this is not the final say on this facility, but what it could be is we are closing the door on them, and they could they could uproot and go somewhere else.

And I just want to say, I read a lot of the Facebook comments, I don't get on there because it's not worth getting on there, but there's a lot of misinformation that's used there, and it's kind of ironic because the technology that's being used is at mega data centers and Facebook, Meta, all those are being used, and that's what that's what the world is.

And we have an opportunity to work with that.

We get to decide what that looks like as a as a government.

And I am, when somebody says I'm bullish on this, I am bullish on it.

And no, I do not have any promises of a job from SABE.

Just like I'm not building my dream home on the East Ridge, which was proposed at one time as well.

The negative and the BS that is out there about things needs to we can we can address facts, and that's what we need to do.

And so that's what I'm asking this wadi.

I think in my from my perspective, an ask of an extension is no different than any other extension that we had with any other business there.

So that's my two cents.

I know we got a long agenda, we got things going on, but I thought a lot of this needs to be said.

So as we move on, we'll move on to Section One bid openings and public hearings.

We have six public hearings tonight.

Um County Attorney, do we have proof of publication?

Chief Executive Gallagher Commissioners, excuse me.

We have proof of publication on all of them.

Thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Um is communication number 2026-46.

Karen Mullachney Health Officer requesting Council of Commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal fiscal year 2026 budget for the BSBHD SSP September 8th, 2025 opioid abatement proposal project.

Welcome, Ms.

Mullachny.

Director Mulchney.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, members of council.

I'm here uh this evening to request uh to amend the fiscal year budget for 2026 uh for several items.

Uh the first one on the agenda is for in the amount of thirty-two thousand seventy-nine dollars to add uh to our opioid abatement proposal project for fiscal year 26.

Is there any questions of commissioners?

Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing.

First call for proponents.

Second call for proponents, third and final.

Ready for us, 2000 Roberts Avenue.

Umids are a problem in this community, um, as are narcotics, and any money that we can throw at abating them would would be great, I think, to our local community.

I'm in favor of this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Third and final call for proponents.

Next, I'll move to opponents.

First call for opponents.

Second call for opponents, third and final call for opponents.

I'll close the public hearing.

Next, we'll move on to communication number 2026-47.

Karen Mulchney Health Officer requesting council of commissioners permission to schedule the public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 2026 budget to conduct harm reduction surveys with people at risk for overdose.

Are there any questions of commissioners?

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll let you have Director Malchne.

Uh thank you again, Chief Executive Gallagher, members of council.

Um, this request is to amend the fiscal year 2026 budget uh to add an additional three thousand dollars for a grant from the Montana Public Health Institute.

Um, this money will allow us to conduct serve conduct surveys with people who are at risk for um overdose.

Thank you, Director Mullachny.

Is there any questions of commissioners?

Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing.

First call for proponents, ready for us 2000 Roberts Avenue.

I'm also in favor of this.

Um we got to do something about these these folks that are having these issues, right?

I mean, that's just what the country needs uh in in general, too.

You know, I mean it's I don't know.

They they need help.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Second call for proponents, third and final call for proponents.

First call for opponents, second call for opponents, third and final call for opponents.

I'll close public hearing.

Next we'll move on to communication number 2026-48.

Karen Mullachney Health Officer requesting council commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 2026 budget to support the comprehensive community health needs assessment for Butte Silver Bow, Director Mullachny.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher members of council.

Asking again for permission to uh amend the 2026 fiscal year budget to it add an additional $50,000 for our community health needs assessment and the 988 suicide crisis lifeline.

This funding came from Intermountain Health, St.

James Health Care.

Thank you, Director Mullachny.

Any questions of commissioners?

Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing.

First call for proponents.

Ready for OS 2000 Roberts Avenue.

Um yeah, we we ought to know what's going on in our community.

Um a proponent of this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Second call for proponents.

Third and final call for proponents.

First call for opponents.

Second call for opponents.

Third and final call for opponents.

We'll close public hearing.

Next we'll move on to communication number 2026, yes 49, Karen Mullachney, Health Officer requesting Council Commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 2026 budget, resulting in a contract with Bridget Care.

Director Mulchney.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, members of council.

Uh this uh communication is requesting to amend the fiscal year budget for 2026 to add an additional ten thousand dollars to implement an evident evidence-based program called Lyft, which is linking families and teens, and it's from Richard Care.

Thank you, Director Mullachny.

Any questions of commissioners?

Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing.

First call for proponents.

Ready for OS 2000 Roberts Avenue.

A lot of a lot of folks today have talked about the next generation, and I mean we we definitely do need to do them justice.

So anything that will help the next generation turn out better than we did.

Um is always a good thing.

I'm a proponent of this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Frost.

Second call for proponents.

Third and final call for proponents.

First call for opponents.

Second call for opponents, third and final call for opponents.

We'll close public hearing.

Next we'll move on to communication number 2026, S50.

Karen Mullachney Health Officer requesting council commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 2026 budget for several programs with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Director Malachney.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, members of council.

Uh this uh request is to amend the fiscal year budget for 2026 to add an additional $72,035 for our chronic disease contract.

Our contract was extended to June 30th of this year, and with that came an additional 72,035 dollars.

And that is from DPHHS.

Thank you, Director Mulchney.

Are there any questions of commissioners?

Could Commissioners I would open the public hearing?

First call for proponents.

Ready for OSS 2000 Roberts Avenue.

I'm a pro opponent of this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Second call for proponents.

Third and final call for proponents.

First call for opponents.

Second call for opponents.

Third and final call for opponents.

I'll close the public hearing.

Next we'll move on to communication number 2026 as 5-1.

Karen Mullachney Health Officer requesting Council of Commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on February 4th, 2026 for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 2026 budget to support public health preparedness planning and response.

Director Malachney.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, members of council.

I'm requesting permission to amend the fiscal year 26 budget to accept an additional $10,000 from DPHHS to revise our influenza and preparedness plan.

This will relate to our H5N1 or bird flu and other respiratory threats.

Thank you, Director Mulchney.

Are there any questions of commissioners?

I'll open the public hearing.

First call for proponents.

Ready for us 2000 Roberts Avenue.

I'm a proponent of this as well.

Just so you guys know.

Thank you, Mr.

Frost.

Second call for proponents.

Third and final call for proponents.

Next we'll move to opponents.

First call for opponents.

Second call for opponents.

Third and final call for opponents.

I'll close the public hearing.

Next we'll move on to presentations.

We have one communication number 2026, Jess 18.

Kelly Sullivan, BLDC Executive Director requesting Council Commissioners permission to schedule the presentation on February 4th, 2026 regarding the BLDC's recent recently completed five-year strategic plan.

We're moving it.

Oh this presentation will be moved to February 18th.

Thank you.

To March 4th.

Oh, I've got February 18th.

Okay.

So we'll be moved to March 4th, not February 18th, 2026.

All right.

Moving on to Section 2 consent agenda A1 through 4 and B 1 through 24.

Do we have any friendly amendments and or segregations?

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

I would like to segregate item number one out of the finance and budget committee meeting report.

Uh communication number 2026-20.

Of the committee of the whole uh finance and budget committee.

So that's communication number 2026-20 out of the finance and budget committee and the committee of the whole.

Are there any other commissioner Larry?

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Chief Executive.

I'd like to segregate communication 2026-74 from the regular agenda.

Number 23.

Number 23.

Thank you.

That's item number 23.

Communication number 2026-74.

Are there any other segregations or or commissioner Grubrand?

Thank you, Chiefs, Chief Executive.

I would like to segregate the first communication 20 2652.

That's item number one, 2026-52.

Are there any other friendly amendments and or segregations?

Seeing none.

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

At this time, I'll make a motion that we approve section two, the consent agenda.

A, the committee reports one through four with the exclusion of number one twenty twenty twenty-six-20 out of the finance and budget meeting report.

And B communications one through twenty-four with the exclusion of number one, twenty twenty-six-five two, and number twenty-three, communication twenty twenty-six-seven four.

We have a motion and a second.

I'm sorry.

A second.

We do have a second.

Sorry, I jumped again.

My fault, Commissioner Thatcher.

We have a motion and a second to approve tonight's consent agenda.

Is there anything on the question?

Could Commissioners please vote?

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 yay, zero nay.

12 yay, zero nay motion passes.

Moving to out of the uh committee of the whole report and finance and budget committee meeting report.

Item number one, communication number 2026, says 20, Jackie Thompson, environmental health manager requesting council of commissioners permission to apply for a NEHA FDA retail flexible funding model grant in the amount of five thousand dollars with an additional add-on training grant up to $7500 and will be used to improve the retail food.

I think that's it.

Commissioner That Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, uh Chief Executive Gallagher.

The end of that says regulatory program.

Um just I segregated this because it was in the finance and budget committee meeting of which I chair um I know Chairman Morgan sent it to us because he loves knowing for sure whether there's a match or not.

Um I'm happy to report that Ms.

Thompson said there is no match on this grant, uh Commissioner Morgan.

Um it was poor leadership on my part because I wasn't exactly sure what to do with this motion.

Um so Commissioner Shea had made a motion to send it to full council.

Um Chairman Morgan kindly pointed out that that doesn't really give us many options.

So at this time I would like to make a motion to concur in place on file communication number 2026-20.

We have a motion and a second to concur and place on file, communication number 2026-20.

Is there anything on the question?

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Um Commissioner Thatcher, thank you for that.

Yeah, when when I go through the agenda and I don't see either a matching request or uh or an earmark of where the matching is, I do think it's proven that the commission look at that to make sure that we're not gonna be surprised by an upcoming bill, as you guys all know.

Um I don't believe it was poor leadership.

Um as you as you stated on that.

On the recommendation, I've seen it come up a couple times, refer to the full council for approval.

My only question is is I don't know what that is.

And we we can hash that out after council just because I don't know if that goes to committee of the whole, if it goes where exactly it goes.

So that that's my question on that, but we can take that offline.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions of commissioners?

Could Commissioners please vote?

Commissioner Shea, I don't think yours went.

Thank you.

And would anyone like to change the vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years nay.

12 years nay.

Motion passes.

Moving to item number one, communication number 2026-52 ed Heard Parks and Recreation Coordinator requesting council commissioners authorization to have Chief Executive Gallagher sign a professional services agreement between Butte Silver Bow and Skyhawk Sports Academy to staff and operate sports camp at Stadden Park.

Commissioner Gerbrand.

Chief Executive Gallagher.

Um I have some questions about this.

Um first I want to say uh I want to give a shout out to Parks and Recreation for doing a great job in providing venues and opportunities for sports-minded people in Butte Silverbow County.

Um I play pickleball twice a week and really appreciate the indoor and outdoor facilities that you guys have provided.

My questions about the Skyhawk Sports Academy.

Um really have to do with what areas are they gonna uh occupy and what time frames.

Are they gonna use the softball field?

Are they gonna use the pool?

Probably not at a tennis courts.

Um will we have to skip teen off in hole number two?

Um secondly, will there be conflicts with other recreators?

What are the dates of the camp and what is the daily schedule of the camp?

Thank you, Commissioner Gerbrandt.

Uh and Director Um if you'd like to answer.

Chief Executive Gallagher, uh, Commissioner Gerbrandt, thank you for the question.

For the record, I'm Sean Frederickson, Parks and Recreation Director.

Uh all great questions.

We've had the Sports Academy, I think Skyclock Sports Academy has been uh participating down at Sodden Park since Chief Executive Gallagher was um parks and recreation director.

He's actually the one that that brought them in.

Uh to answer your questions on where they they participate.

Um it's generally the area between the um veterans amphitheater and the um the pool that that area.

Um it depends years.

Um it depends on how many how many kids participate during that week of um whether it's volleyball or uh but generally no, they don't disturb any of sort of the sports fields or anything like that.

They they'll set up their own nets, uh they have local uh instructors, and um and so yeah, to answer your question, it it hasn't been an issue in the past on on interfering with any sort of um activities down at Stoddon.

And to answer your question, one of the uh your question on the pool, they actually do have a week-long camp where they they have activities and then they'll they'll do that, whichever it's volleyball or kickball or whatever, and then they will go and swim when the pool opens.

And uh they pay for you know how many people go into the pool just like everyone else.

Director Frederickson, uh I think also was a question when the camps were.

Oh, yeah.

So we uh we're we're still working on the dates.

You know, we had to get this agreement in place first before we can really set the dates, but it generally you know runs through June and July.

And I think the the dates are actually on the uh the general dates are on that agreement.

Thank you, Director Frederikson.

Uh Commissioner Gerbrand.

I would move that we uh concur in place on file.

We have a motion and a second to concur and place on file, communication number 2026-52.

Is there anything on the question?

Could Commissioners please vote?

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years nay.

12 years nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to item number 23, communication number 2026-74.

Kayla Lappin, economic development coordinator, requesting counsel.

Kayla Lapin, economic development coordinator, requesting counsel, commissioners' authorization to have TB Executive Gallagher sign an amendment to purchase an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with Horizons Montana LLC SAIB data centers.

Commissioner O'Larry.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

I want to I want to start by thanking the chief executive for creating the ad hoc committee and for the ad hoc committee themselves.

All the work that they've done to try to answer many of the questions that the public has had for this proposed data center.

I've been to every one of those meetings and there's been lots of good information presented to the to uh help the public understand this project.

And I also want to thank all the public that came up tonight.

Uh this is uh obviously a very hot button uh issue and the public engagement is always um good good to see.

I also want to start by saying that I want to vote for this project.

I voted for the original purchase and sale agreement last April.

I voted for the extension in October.

Uh but that said, when I saw the agenda last Friday asking for a year-long extension, my gut reaction was no.

A year is a really long time to tie up this much acreage.

If SABE purchases this property, we will have two parcels left in the entire industrial park.

One that's 31 acres and one that's 6.4 acres.

I might be wrong on that.

I would love a correction, but I believe that that's true.

Generally, I'm all for allowing companies to uh get time to continue working to make their projects a reality in Butte, but I'm starting to think that we need to start standing up a little taller as a community and as a commission to work with folks that are serious about locating our community.

Large developments like this one that's proposed at the Montana Connection Connections TED should be a partnership with the public.

And I have been waiting for 10 months since this came in front of us for SABE to come to our community and sell their project to us.

And I have not seen that yet.

Uh they should tell us why we should want this in our in our community, why we should want this development in our community.

They should tell us how the community will benefit.

Uh the answer to answer these questions directly from the public about their concerns.

And and so far, we have not gotten any solid written commitments from SABI about their proposed development.

Again, the ad hoc committee has done a great job trying to answer these tough questions, but most of those answers are coming from local people and not directly from SABE, which to me is a little concerning.

So my personal opinion is that we should let this agreement expire and ask SABE to come back to the table with a new purchase and sale agreement and a and a community benefits agreement or development agreement or whatever you want to call it.

Uh additionally, I it would be helpful to have SABE directly answer some of the questions that are so vital to this county and the community on this project.

I'm just gonna quickly run through some of the things that I think are important for this commission to get answered prior to re-signing a purchase or sale agreement.

Additionally, some of what I'm going to say are recommendations about what I think should be changed or added as part of any future agreement with SABE or their subsidiaries.

Timeline construction and taxes.

I want to thank Mr.

Durkin for bringing up the conversation that we had of the fall TED meeting.

Uh you are right, this is a very unique opportunity from tax perspective.

Uh but right now we don't have assurances.

We just have a handshake deal and a purchase sale agreement.

What is the expected cost of the complete build-up?

I hear million or one billion, two billion.

Um I have not seen that in writing.

Uh how much of the investment is building versus real property.

You know, that that was said at that meeting, but again, no commitment.

How much is equipment?

Uh how much is power infrastructure owned by Northwestern Energy and it's centrally assessed.

How much should the citizens of Butte Silver Bow expect to be built out in each year?

I I would like to see a best estimate of the construction timeline in an easily understandable format that can be used for estimating tax revenues for the county, the MC TED, and the school system.

For example, in year one, 10 million dollars of real property investment, class 17 property, zero in equipment investment, five million of centrally assessed Northwestern Energy owned property, class 13 paid for by SAB Horizons.

Year two, 100 million class 17 property, zero in equipment, 17 uh class 17 property, 20 million class 13.

Uh one through five.

I want to see one one through five years of of how that will be built out because that's what we're relying on as a council is if we're relying on tax revenue, we should be able to see what they expect, what they expect to do.

What is the depreciation schedule of the DC equipment?

I know that you know it's been stated five years, uh three years.

Again, I would like to hear that directly from SABE in writing.

To the land sale portion.

Uh the land, the the sale of this land it is an advantaged rate.

It's a seriously advantaged rate.

$2,000 an acre is very uh below market, which is perfectly fine with me as long as it's for the purpose of economic development.

And I think it should be tied to a more substantial clawback provision.

The current clawback provision allows the purchaser to quote commence the improvement of any portion of the property within 12 months following the closing date.

And that would prevent any possible clawback by the county.

The in my opinion, the most conservative interpretation of this provision would only require them to do basically some dirt work to prevent the county from taking action to claw back the property.

I think the county should strengthen that provision so that some there is a more substantial amount of work that needs to be done to prevent clawback.

Each parcel should have its own purchase of sale agreement and clawback provision.

Construction on one parcel should not tie up the other parcels indefinitely with no option for county repurchase.

This is especially important with technology companies with high risk of quick demand changes that could stop or severely slow construction.

We've all heard the AI bubble is going to pop.

I don't know if that's true.

I'm not claiming that, but this is a this is a industry that tends to have uh quick changes.

So I think we should create separate agreements and we should have staggered dates that match SABE's expected build timeline.

An agreement should be put in place.

Let me back up just a little bit on that, because I I was reading the Montana Connections TED board minutes from the spring of 2025.

This is the April meeting, and this is directly from the minutes.

Quote: The jobs that this facility provide are all good, high-paying jobs.

John, meaning John Sabie stated that the 600 acres of about 200, or sorry, 600 acres, about 200 acres of all this would be usable for the data center construction.

John said that within 180 days, Horizons will know if they intend to proceed or not.

They will not hold up the land if they can't proceed.

That was John Sabie's words.

So I think we should hold them to that.

An agreement should be put in place between the city county of Butte Silver Bow and SABE on what the community expects from a large development like this.

The chief executive's ad hoc committee is trying to answer many of the questions uh that have been asked by the public, and I think honestly has been a good job uh answering those, but again, they're not coming from SABI.

And they've been pretty quiet on some of the most important issues.

So I would like to know how does SABI intend to prevent a major disruption in the local housing market.

Uh a city of 35 to 36,000 people does not have the ability to quickly absorb the demand of 600 plus additional temporary employees.

Even if you make the assumption that maybe 50% of those people come from the local job market, 300 additional families into our community is a an enormous uh impact on a community of our size.

And if you want a good example of this happening, uh this is my world.

I live in the world of real estate and rentals.

The the 1923 production, Paramount production a couple years ago created enormous pressure on our rental market, and it was really hard for a lot of tenants in this community.

It drove prices sky high before they settled back down in the following years.

I would like to know what it the ongoing uh noise that they expect from their facility.

Uh I don't know what that is.

Uh I know that uh director Burns said in the last meeting that uh she stood outside the building and it was nice and quiet.

I hope that that's the case, but again, I would like to see that as part of a development agreement or of community development or benefits agreement.

Something in writing about what that actually will look like.

I would like to hear from SABE what they intend in terms of water.

I have heard an average of 44,000 gallons per day and a maximum usage of three million gallons per day.

But those numbers came from the ad hoc committee, and I would like to hear it directly from SABE.

Because that's ultimately one of the biggest parts of this this deal is how much water they're gonna use.

A development agreement should be created in conjunction with the development that explicitly outlines the responsibilities and expectations of each party.

Some of these points may echo what I've said above, but uh there's some assumptions here, and and I just want to make sure I've got all my bases covered.

From Butte Silver Bow's side, this is assumptions.

But Silver Boa is selling industrial land far below market rate for the purposes of community and economic development.

The land in question has millions of dollars of existing infrastructure previously paid for by other taxpayers in the district and through outside dollars through grants that SABI will be taking advantage of, like the grant we just approved recently for the Silver Lake Industrial System, water system.

The other infrastructure includes water, sewer, roads, telecommunications, rail, power, gas, and fire infrastructure.

Butte Silver Bow will also likely provide water on site through the through the Silver Lake system, and this is a limited resource, and I think we should take that decision very seriously.

Because every every time we allocate water from that system, it potentially takes from another potential future user.

I think we probably have the water to do it, but it's a serious consideration that we we should think hard about.

Assumptions for SABI.

SAIBE is intending to build a large-scale secure data center campus at the site that will provide significant tax revenue to the Montana Connections TED.

SABI has stated that a significant number of jobs will be created as part of this development.

Some jobs will be short-term construction, some talk will be long-term on site.

It was great to see all the folks from the union show up tonight.

They have made they have made commitments in commute meetings, but they have not put it in writing.

Proposed development agreement pro uh for the future proposal.

SAIBE will indicate uh to BSB a minimum development and equipment that will be spent on this property and in what time schedule.

An agreement should be put in place that ensures that future changes to the to the state level on tax rate at the data center, currently 0.9%, does not negatively affect the revenue that the city, county of Butte Silver Bow, and the Montana Connections TED collects.

An agreement should be signed between the parties that if the state lowers the rate any further from point nine, that a supplemental payment will be made to SABI to BSB to make up the difference.

This is unlikely, but I think SABI should be happy to sign some kind of agreement like that.

The purchase and sale agreement will be split into three agreements.

These agreements will have staggered clawback provisions that align with SABI's build schedule.

If SABI cannot develop on their expected timeline, BSB will have the right to reacquire the land and market rate at market rate for other economic development purposes.

And to the point that we were talking about earlier, you know, that this is some of the land is undevelopable land, or not undevelopable, but difficult land.

And this was a map that was passed out at one of the ad hoc meetings.

And the the land that is around REC and the land that's across the street from REC is that property.

One of the parcels is along the the sugar loaf uh loop.

It's a sh shovel-ready property.

It's readily developable.

We we have lots of interest in these parcels, and that that particular parcel to me is the one that needs the most protection because that is the most readily available for other developers in our community.

SAIBE should uh submit a plan on how they plan to address the potential housing concerns.

Uh will they provide some kind of temporary housing on-site?

Will they donate money to local housing nonprofits to accelerate their programs?

I don't know.

SABI should provide document uh document addressing the concerns around noise and vibration.

Uh what approach will they take in mitigating this issue?

Or if they believe that their design doesn't need this mitigation, please provide some kind of document explaining why that's true.

SABE should provide a commitment on long-term jobs that they expect to create and over what timeline.

I'm not saying that they need to commit to 200 plus jobs as this has been mentioned, and that would be great if we get 200 jobs out of this, but I do think it's reasonable that they commit to a realistic number so that the community can understand the direct benefit.

SAIBE should acknowledge that Butte Silver Bow is in the middle of a major zoning code rewrite, and we expect that to pass sometime this year, and they should abide by whatever provisions eventually apply to their development type.

Finally, I want to read or reiterate.

I know this is a long rambling thing, and I apologize, but I want to reiterate I want to vote for this project.

I support it.

I agree with the chief executive.

I think this could be a really good thing for our community.

But I've had hundreds of conversations with folks over the last several months about this project, and I can tell you that there's amper apprehension in the community, and folks really don't like that SABI has not properly addressed a number of these issues directly.

I hope other commissioners will add their questions to what I've said here.

And if SABI is serious about locating to our community, then this list of asks should be pretty easy for them to accept.

I want to thank all of the commissioners for listening to this, and I hope that you will vote to deny this request and join me in inviting SABI back to the table.

I will commit right now that if SABI comes to the to this commission and puts pen to paper on these items, I will vote for the project.

Thank you.

I I would like to hear what the rest of the commission says.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Leary.

Commissioner Thatcher Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Leary.

Um I think we all should appreciate your thoroughness and the questions that you have.

I guess in my per from my perspective, I'm a little confused because you want these commitments from a company who is looking for our commitment in something as well.

And I understand you know the concerns behind this, all of which we're all trying to actively address.

Um, but I guess I don't understand why a company would put in all of this work if we're gonna say no, we're not gonna sell you the land, that you want all these assurances, and it might be like no, we're not gonna give you this extension.

So that's my first question.

My second thing is, you know, a lot tonight mentioned uh some of the public.

I was going through the proponents, the opponents that spoke during um public comment, and it was actually nine to nine.

And I think that that's a really good indication of where our community stands right now.

I think that you know some of us are very against this, some of us are very for this, and some of us are in the middle just trying to get answers to all of these questions.

And I guess it uh from my perspective, one of the big concerns tonight is the jobs.

What kind of jobs will this these data centers bring?

They won't they say 18 to 20 dollars.

Um a couple people in public comment commented on that, and I I I think that that's a fair concern, but also what about the jobs that you're gonna look around and see?

What about these trades jobs?

Are we not worried about those jobs?

I mean, that's a huge boost to our community.

So, sure, we can be worried about the job that once the data center is constructed in potentially 10 years, what kind of jobs those would provide, but what about the jobs in the 10 years leading up that that this opportunity could provide to our community?

That that's one big thing for me.

Second um concern is you know I I'm gonna leave it at that and I'll let other people talk, and I'm gonna come back to this, so thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Thatcher.

I I do want to say that Maria Randozzo from SABE is on the phone and is available to address some of the questions.

So if we wanted to put her on the phone, we'd be able to do that.

It's mine.

She's allowed to we've done it in the past on teams.

So do you have uh can we have her dial in here?

Commissioner Thatcher.

Oh, I'll go Commissioner Fisher and then I'll go Commissioner Healy and then we'll come back.

Commissioner Fisher, as we're waiting.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

Um, thank you so much, Commissioner O'Leary.

You've touched on so many great points.

Um my concerns are on uh these are just a little bit of research I've done is um the right of refusal now that um ASMI has enough property that Denise Kelly brought up tonight.

That's a major issue.

And I did call REC today and talk to the person that's kind of up the up in that, and they have not relinquished the right of refusal yet, and they don't have a meeting until later this month to decide if they're gonna relinquish that.

It don't sound positive that they are gonna relinquish that.

Another thing is I did talk to Joel Wirtz some time ago.

We have no commitment from SABE whether they're gonna hire local contractors or local labor.

There's no commitment at all from them at all.

And uh the way the state of Montana is the right to work law could pass long before SABE starts building.

I mean, the third point is uh, you know, you made a comment that you don't look at Facebook, Chief Executive, and I agree with that.

So, but you know, it's not what I think, it's what the public thinks.

And I have only got one call today, and that was from Don People's Sun, asking to support this.

Every other email and call that I've had from my community says they do not want a data center.

Now, I don't say I do not want a data center.

What I'm saying is this extension shouldn't happen.

You know, they've had enough time.

What they should do, we should vote down this extension, and what we should do is have them come with another agenda, uh, put another item on the agenda to be revised.

And that's a few things I'm concerned about uh as of now.

Thank you.

Um so Commissioner Fisher, um didn't have they called in for one.

Um do we have she's on, okay.

So we can have some of those answers.

We'll go to Commissioner Healy and then we'll we'll go back here on this, and then I think we can address some of the some of the questions.

Go ahead, Commissioner Healy.

Thank you, Chief Executive.

I'm just gonna make a statement.

So um good evening.

I I would like to say thank you to all the concerned citizens who have been attending the ad hoc meetings as well as the commission meetings.

I want you to know that I hear you.

One of the comments made by citizen Don Patriots at a at a ad hoc meeting stood out for me.

What Mr.

Patrice wanted to know is how many extensions will we keep giving the data center as a one-year extension would be allowing SABI to hold our public land hostage.

After consulting with Realtor Denise Kelly, I asked if she would read the original buy sale and the revised documents, which would give SAIB a one year extension.

I asked her that as an experienced realtor, had she ever known of an extension granted to a buyer for an entire year for over 600 acres.

The answer was no.

This is in summary what I've learned.

This is not a neutral administrative action.

It has real quant consequences.

Granting a one-year extension allows SABI to retain exclusive control over our valuable public land without demonstrating meaningful progress or delivering a completed project.

During that time, the community loses options.

The land cannot be offered to other developers.

Our land cannot be reconsidered for other economic uses and cannot respond to changing market conditions.

That loss of opportunity is a real cost to our citizens.

When a developer is given an extension, it may sound minor, but in this case it has real consequences.

Granting the one year extension allows SAIB to continue holding exclusive control of our land.

I am concerned as well as others about leverage.

The longer a project remains unresolved, the harder it becomes for our county to step away from later.

The risk shifts to the Butte Silverbow citizen to vote yes for this extension would be effectively tying up a public asset without a clear benefit to our citizens.

I am not saying no to SABI, I am saying no to a one-year extension for over 600 acres.

Butte has been found.

Let's not sell ourselves short.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Haley.

So I would like to give Ms.

Redazo Rondazo an opportunity to respond to a couple of the questions that we have here.

And I do just want to state, you know, we are asking a business to do something that we haven't asked any other business to do.

When we talk about housing plans and things like that, I that is uh we we have created a housing plan to address the growth of Butte and to what we have a housing plan that's to address 2,000 units in butte over over the next 10 years.

That's why we're doing this.

To say we can't house people, and so we're going to push away at development.

I struggle with that.

Um but I would like Ms.

Rodonzo and so um can we put her on speaker?

So welcome, Ms.

Rondazo, and I think that Mr.

O'Leary had a lot of questions that we talked about there.

Hi, Chief Executive Gallagher, hi Commissioners.

Can you all hear me okay?

Yes.

Yes.

We can hear you.

Go ahead, Ms.

Rendozo.

But I would uh note that I'm not a subject matter expert, so I I will defer on a lot of the technical points to uh my uh my colleague okay.

Um do you have any follow-up that you can have on that?

So I I'm sorry, I didn't I don't know if we can you know going through the phone here is is a tough way for us to do this, and maybe we can um follow up onto this another time on that.

I don't think we can address these through the through the phone on this.

So um but I appreciate you coming on and dialing in, but I don't think we have the we're not able to really facilitate the communication very well.

All right, Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

My thoughts finally came back to me.

Sorry, it's been a long day, but I guess another question I have, and maybe Director Burns can touch on this a little bit.

So how I am understanding this, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, is that in the event that the Council of Commissioners decides to deny this extension, SAIB still has the ability to act on the buy sell within the next 30 days.

Is that correct?

Um Commissioner Thatcher, Director Burns.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive, Commissioner Thatcher, members of council.

The extension um or sorry, the purchase and sale agreement expires officially on February 11th.

So if they were asked, they could ask to execute that agreement between now and then, and then there's a clause for how many days they have to close.

We have the link, you know, we do have to pass a resolution, even though that language isn't in the purchase and sale agreement that's in effect right now, but we would still have to pass a resolution.

So that would move that forward in that manner, in my mind, unless the county attorney thinks that's a good question.

Follow up uh Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

So I guess my question to counsel is if the body decides to deny this tonight, then SABI decides to act within the next couple days to execute this.

Are we in a position where we want to then deny it or approve it without getting more information?

I guess and Commissioner O'Leary, I appreciate all of the concerns that you have, but I guess that that's how I see this extension period is to be able to get all of those answers to to find the answers to your questions.

That doesn't sound like that's really in the cards.

And so now here our decision lies tonight is hey, are we gonna say no to this whole project?

Are we gonna say yes to this whole project?

Or are we gonna give this project and the public more time to be engaged over the next year?

And and people I understand, Commissioner Healy, you um Miss Kelly's concern about she's never seen it, but this is also a public transaction.

This isn't something in the private real estate market, so I I would imagine that Mrs.

Kelly hasn't probably seen a transaction like this.

As Chief Executive Gallagher stated, we have granted extensions to Sonata for one, I would assume over the period of a year, in fact.

And so I understand the concern, but uh we really are putting ourselves in a bad position here.

If we were gonna say no to development, we're gonna say maybe yes to development, or we're gonna say, hey, let's let's give this extension and and get some more answers for everybody involved for the community, for us, for SAIB.

You know, that's that's where I see it.

I don't know if any other commissioners, I'm sure some most of you maybe see it differently, but that's kind of where I see it.

And I hope that we do write by the public and we do write by everybody else.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Thatcher.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Shea and then Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Um, thank you, Commissioner Thatcher, for bringing up that little bit of a flip there, and thank you, Commissioner O'Leary, for your thoughtful commentary.

Um I guess I would appreciate if we could get somebody to go on the record about the um right of first refusal um to see if there's if we're in jeopardy by entering into an agreement that we may not be able to sell ever.

Commissioner Thatcher in that uh I I can I can speak to that, but I also can have uh director Burns.

We have sent a 60-day notice, so we've given um REC uh a letter saying that we we need the to find out if they are going to uh exercise the right to purchase that land they need to respond to us within 60 days, or that they forfeit that right to to purchase that property because we've given them notice.

Now we're hoping that they they let us know within that that's part of this timeline that we're we're talking about as well.

And um the the one thing that you know REC used to be ASME and there was a change of property at that time, and so we we think that there could be a legal legal uh ramification in there that they didn't exercise that right in the sale, and they didn't notify us, and so there could be a possible we'd we could go down that path if the fact that they didn't exercise that first right of a refusal and we could we could kind of challenge that, but we're hoping that they give us an answer so that we know which direction we can go.

Uh Director Burns.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive, members of council, Commissioner Shea.

I know you didn't ask for this, but I might give you the history a little bit if that's helpful.

So um back in 1996, and I there was a massive agreement and resolution that was passed through this body, it's over 350 pages long.

Part of that agreement um was a right of first refusal agreement with ASMI for what's considered a buffer zone around their property.

This is before any of the property out there was even subdivided.

It's a very complicated agreement.

And this buffer zone depicts the area that that I think Commissioner O'Larry pointed out on his map that kind of surrounds um what we know as REC.

Um when that agreement was entered into, the only thing that was filed officially in land records on a roll and card was an MOU that stated that there was going to be an agreement.

The MOU is not descriptive very well of what is included, any time frames.

So that MOU surfaced on a title report that was ordered and received by SAIB.

That MOU then they brought to our attention to say, hey, do you happen to have the agreement that this MOU is referencing?

So we had to go through permanent files and permanent records with our clerk and recorder's office to actually find the actual agreement that was executed that showed that right of first refusal agreement.

In that right of first refusal agreement, there is no term.

It it just says it's the right of first refusal for this buffer zone forever, basically.

But there is a successor clause in that agreement, and I believe that's what the chief executive was referring to.

That successor clause says if ASMI changes ownership, they have to let us know that they want to keep this right of first refusal agreement intact.

That has never been done over two changes of ownership.

So talking with uh lawyers, which I am not, I readily admit that.

We it is determined that since it was filed and it it goes with the property, it would always be a cloud on that title.

Always.

So for someone who wanted to execute a purchase and sale agreement with that sort of a cloud on the title, it doesn't give a clean title.

So there's a couple of options.

One, you ignore it and accept that there's gonna be this cloud.

Two, you try to terminate that agreement that was entered into in 1996 with a whole different set of people.

Or three, you give notice as required in the right of first refusal agreement.

And that's what we have done because we are still the owners of that property.

We need to give that notice, and I think that's been explained that we've done that, and so now we're we're waiting for that to come to a fruition.

Follow up Commissioner Shea, and then we'll go to Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Director Burns, for getting that out on for public consumption.

I appreciate that.

Um I'm in the same camp that um Commissioner Thatcher and Commissioner O'Leary are in.

Um I want to make this project work.

I want to make it work for the community.

Um I do think that this project is again uh Mr.

Uh Johnston mentioned the the uniqueness and the criticality.

Well, it's a really, really big project.

It's it's uh it's it's substantial.

It's it's kind of one of those make or break projects that might come along once in a lifetime.

Um that being said, I I would like to see the person who's gonna sign on the dotted line, the people that are gonna sign on the dotted line engage with our community because that's what the community wants.

They don't want to hear, they appreciate the information that we're bringing to the committee that the committee is bringing to us.

I appreciate it too.

I've either zoomed in or attended every one of those meetings as well.

Um but people want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth in beauty, Montana.

And I want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth in Butte Montana.

I don't have a problem extending the agreement a year, I have a problem with a few months in order to clean up this title issue and maybe give them an opportunity to come to the community.

I would love to invite them here to engage with the community in in some meetings and things.

Um it's important.

I don't want to see it slip through our fingers, but I want to make sure that the community's um concerns are addressed and what can be mitigated can be mitigated and what can't be needs to be up front, and it needs to be be out there for everybody to see.

Um I think that this is a this is a project that I I can't remember who said it.

It's going to go somewhere.

And the energy consumption is going to occur somewhere within the boundaries of the state of Montana.

That's going to affect everybody in the state of Montana, not just people in Butte.

Um so I would like to have some control over the project from the local level.

Um we just have to figure out what that is, and we have to do it, and we have to mean it and we have to do it because we do have some say here.

Um I guess if to Commissioner Thatcher's point, if they can if they can um execute within 30 days, we lose that opportunity to re-engage with them.

And I don't know that I haven't thought of that, so I thank you for bringing that up.

I don't think that any of us really wants to go there where we kind of give up a little bit of that time and that community engagement to to find a level of a comfort level or find a discomfort level, figure out what that's gonna look like.

Thank you, Commissioner Shea.

Commissioner, I'm gonna go to Commissioner Morgan because he has hand up O'Neill, and then I'll come back to you, Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

You know, uh a couple of things.

One, we could really go down the rabbit hole and start re-answering questions for questions that have been asked several times by both sides.

I mean, it's been, you know, pretty well received on people asking questions, getting answered.

We're getting to that point though that it doesn't matter what question we answer, somebody will always say that, oh, that person's not qualified, or this happened, so I'm not believing what they say, because it's not what I wanted to hear.

And that's the challenge that we're all going to be getting into.

And so you kind of don't know where where to continue on with this, um, other than we're all kind of answering the question in that there's still questions to be asked and answered, and by looking at the agreement that's before us tonight, we're extending it so that there's more opportunity for people to ask questions and answer them as well.

Now the the year to me is stretching it as I've communicated to the connections board that you know the longer we drag these out, you know, we're starting to question them from a commission standpoint.

But to my knowledge, as of sitting on the connections board, there's nobody looking at this property.

There's nobody in the hopper, if you will, that is waiting for this property.

Now that whoever's out there could say, well, maybe if this thing was released, they would contact them tomorrow.

I mean, that's that's the snowball that we could continue to go down.

And so the other thing that that I brought up to to the board members was if the if the caveat or if the amendment to this agreement tonight wasn't added after legal counsel advised us to put that in with the resolution of two-thirds, I would I would think twice about adopting this as well, because I you know, obviously things have changed.

We've we've looked at these agreements more in depth, but this does add an extra step that allows the council to still have that two-thirds majority vote.

And so it it it does add another safety line that as of today is not in that one.

And so by putting that in there, it does put us in a better position to to move forward.

And you know the phone calls, I mean, I got quite a few phone calls today.

It it's apparent that there's still a lot of miscommunication out there or a lot of misinformation because again, the phone call I got today, they were talking about well water, and and well water is not something that's been communicated on this.

And so I don't know how to communicate that there's certain things out there that people just don't want to hear.

The residential side of it, you know, is another thing that people can kind of look at it and go, aha.

But there's people that were there before that the uh industrial zone was was placed in, but then there's also people that bought land after the industrial zone is there, and so they know that that was there.

And and you can't think that the industrial zone is never gonna have something as an industrial point.

I I don't think, but but maybe.

I mean, I I don't know the answer to that.

And so it's kind of hard to argue that that a byproperty is a residential that's next to an industrial zone, that nothing's ever gonna be out there for an industrial purpose.

And so again, we're getting back to I'll find the answer that I want.

When we start asking local realtors or we ask surveyors or whatever, if I want to find the answer that I want, I can contact who I want and probably find the answer that I'm looking for.

So I think we all just need to look at that and make sure that we're comparing apples to apples on that.

And and remember, this is an opportunity to have more questions and answers done.

So and I'm gonna go to Commissioner O'Neill and then we'll come back.

But I do want to add that that SABE did agree to add that two-thirds language.

They so when they're saying that we're not working with them, they are working because that wasn't part of the agreement, and they have agreed to that.

That that puts language back in there that really does put control back to this council as as things move forward, so that they have agreed to that.

And I do want to throw out this too.

Um, I know that you know, SABI did offer for people to go out there, and I know the hesitation about flying out there or whatever, but I do want to put out there that I am willing to rank cars, put in and uh rent hotel rooms if needed, to go out to the SABE data center to look at the facility, to meet with their council members out there and meet with the public.

So it's not SABE taking people out there, but I would like to offer that to council members if they'd like to go out there, but also ad hoc committee members too, because again, most are looking at it from a lens outside of it.

And I I've said this before.

If GM came to Butte and said that they wanted to build a car manufacturing plant in our industrial park, and they said we want you to go out to to Detroit to look at it, I can tell you Butte Silver Bow has gone there to companies like that in previous times that we've gone and visited that.

So I don't think it's out of the realm, but I understand people's thought process that hey, I don't want that perception that we're we're on somebody else's dime.

Well, let's let's use Butte Silver Bow's dime to go and really vet a pro uh um the the facilities and uh and so I want to make that available and so we can talk about that and we can schedule that.

So Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chief Chief Executive.

Um, just one of my just real quick, I won't rant to it.

I don't want to be too repetitive.

But when this project came to us when we first voted on it, um one it was industrial park, um, proper thing to go in industrial park, and then the the how big and the amount, the dollar amount everything, you know, seemed like a an exciting situation, good opportunity for our community.

Um I just in this whole process, obviously we come up with many things that we're saying were rushed, you know, not nothing was done incorrectly um to how we've sold other land.

Again, I'm trying not not to be very repetitive, but um as a as a as it as it came, it you know it went 12-0 because if if I think it was 12-0, don't quote me.

I know it was maybe sorry, it was 11-1.

So with that being said, it was a again a great opportunity for our town.

Um so being in the seat and voting for that is obviously I hate to say no-brainer, but we are looking for good opportunities in beauty.

We're looking to grow, right?

We want to succeed in um our 35, 36,000 people has been we've been that for I don't know, quite a while.

So um again, uh as being in doing the best we can for our constituents and for our town, that's one thing that we do consider is you know what what is best and for the growing of the town.

So with that being said, the uh with the the cloud of the the title, um should we extend this for 60 days, 90 days, and then see what happens after that, or I mean what's wrong with that.

And we then we know what REC says and heck we can do an extension every month if you want.

I'm fine with it.

Let's and again I know the extension, let's talk about the extension.

This is a billion dollar project.

So I I don't like the year, hate the year.

I think it's way too long.

Can we go six months?

Can we maybe meet them back at seven?

And if not, we can do an extension again.

There's also a buy you can do a backup offer.

If somebody, if we get another billion dollar company in America that's looking to relocate here, throw a backup offer.

We can back them up as many as we want to, right?

So these are all things to consider.

Thanks for letting me talk.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

Commissioner Fisher, you were next.

And then Commissioner Thatcher and then Commissioner Healy.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

You know, I don't think any of us are against the project.

We're just against this extension.

As I said here a couple weeks ago, Deville's got land tied up out there, or G A T or whatever they got land tied up out there.

How much land do we want to tie up out in that area before we start making people do something with it?

I mean, let's face it, 2,000 acre.

That was a long time ago.

We got a railroad spur in there right now, spend a lot of money on.

Sister Mary Joe had a good idea.

2,000 acres pretty god dang cheap for around anywhere.

And uh now they've got the railroad spur and all that in there, economic build is fine, but these people are gonna tax break.

And as a point of clarification, Director Burns stated that ASMI is now REC.

Well, SABE is now horizon.

So if one shoe fits on one foot and the other shoots on the other foot, let's be real here.

If ASB gets to talking much in the legal term, because let's face it, Silverbow County doesn't have the deepest pockets of these people coming in.

So if they start saying ASMI, they change the REC, well, SABE changed the horizon.

You start getting a legal dispute, we're gonna have another super fund deal on our hands.

I mean Butte Silver Boat's gonna end up on the short end of the stick.

So buyer beware on all of this forte silver boat taxpayers.

And the reason I'll reiterate the taxpayers are telling me they don't want it not to pass this, and that's what we should do because that's what they're telling us to do, and then next time put in a new communication and see if we can't pass it then.

Thank you.

Commissioner Um I I want to correct something.

They are not getting a tax break out there.

There is no tax break that is going along that they have not asked for a tax abatement, there is and you guys have not passed that.

So Commissioner Thatcher and then Commissioner Healy.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

All due respect, Commissioner Fisher.

If the taxpayers are saying no, then who are all the tradesmen sitting in the audience?

Because not all the taxpayers are saying no.

I got calls today that people are in favor of this, people are in favor of just the extension, just like I am to find out more information.

So if we want to sit up here and say we aren't against the project, that's great, but we're really putting ourselves in a tough position if we deny this and have to turn around and say, hey, we got to make this decision in two weeks if we're gonna let this come or not.

Why not let all of us get get a little bit more time to say, hey, let's let's vet this even more, give everybody this opportunity.

And to me to Commissioner O'Neill's point, you know, we do want to grow, and I I think that one thing, and I think it's Commissioner Shea that says it, you know, we're all somewhat scared of change around here, and and we have to be okay with the fact that we want to grow, we want to change, we want good opportunities for this community.

And and good is sure can be different in the eyes of whoever.

Um but when billion dollar investments come around, good things follow.

So it isn't just a data center that could relocate here.

These are businesses that could fill up Harrison Avenue.

This is bit more businesses out at the Tet on the parcels that we have left.

This is a this is an overall growth for our community.

This is a stimulator.

So it it it is in and just for clarification for the public, i if it if the extension is voted on tonight and approved, that does not mean that this is done.

This this still has to go through resolution process.

As everybody's indicated, it takes two-thirds vote to even sell and approve the property of the sale.

So this would only approve the extension of the land, not the actual sale of the land.

So I just want to make that clear.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Thatcher.

Commissioner Healy, and then I'll come back to you, Commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Chief Executive.

Um, I did drive over there.

My mom lives close.

So I thought I would drive around.

I was more interested in seeing the area than inside a data center because most people are concerned about around the environment.

Um I took pictures, and maybe there that's where some of the noise comes from.

There was uh three large substations around the data center.

Um it is not apples and apples because they do have the Columbia River and they do have hydro um power.

Um I did ask questions, you know, about to AI since I was sitting right there, and their power bill in 2025 did increase to uh 6.2 percent in 2025, and it's I asked specifically about due to the data centers.

Um again, the water, the rivers right there in their backyard.

Um, but AI said that um ultimately it would not be a good thing.

And that was strictly for Quincy.

That was Quincy.

For the water.

I'm just telling you what I was reading, and that's all.

And I and and I I appreciate that.

I appreciate you going to the community, but to to be because I know it's a gated area for you to even get perspective that you have to go through gates to get into the data center.

Um it it requires that.

So to really get a perspective, I I I appreciate having community talk to you, but that's what we're asking to do so that you get a full picture, data center, also their council members, and community, and and be able to talk to them because to just put one perspective there, I think that that doesn't give us a full picture.

But I I re I respect for one that you went out there.

That's that that's initiative, and we and I respect that.

Um so we can talk more on that.

I know Commissioner O'Lair, you had more to talk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

I've got a couple different um things to talk about here.

First, to to uh Commissioner Thatcher's point, I I understand, you know, I I don't want Sabi to walk away either.

I think that this is this could be a good project for our community.

But yeah, I think if SABI is acting at good faith, they will listen to the concerns that we brought up tonight and they'll come back to the table.

And if they walk away from this project and uh you know, with because we deny this extension, even though we're all signaling that we want this project to happen.

I would say that they're not a very serious actor to begin with.

So I don't think that they're gonna walk away.

I think we we need to stand our stand up straight and say this is what our community wants and needs, and and uh you know, start over.

Um I I would like to reiterate the point about splitting this into three separate agreements.

I I think that's really important for us to talk about.

The reason I'm bringing that up is because this is one by sell with it's actually four parcels, two of them are concentric, three separate locations.

And the way that this buy-ell is constructed, uh I I read the portion from the buy cell earlier about the clawback provision.

If we allow them to close with this particular buy-cell, we we have essentially no way to claw back those other parcels if they decide to not develop them, even if they develop one.

So they go out there, they develop one parcel, and and uh you know it's a great thing for the community.

They could sit on and speculate on that land for the next decade, and we would get no guarantee that they're gonna develop it.

And you know, I do I think that they're gonna do that?

No.

Are they if they indicated they're gonna do that?

No.

But again, sideboards.

The community has been asking for sideboards all night.

And and I think that you know, even the people that are proponents of this project would would agree that we don't want to uh put ourselves in a position where we don't have industrial land if a if a company comes in.

We were you know, in the the uh economic development committee meeting tonight, uh there was a mention of another uh bigger company that is looking at butte, you know, looking at the industrial park.

That's that's great.

Uh that's exactly what we want.

And and there is a lot, we I mean, this year alone, I think we've signed four separate buy cells with companies uh out at the industrial park.

So there is interest in the industrial park.

I don't think it's just SABE.

So I I just want to have that conversation and I'd like the rest of you to jump in.

Uh to to Commissioner Morgan's point about qualifications of the people answering questions.

I would say that the most power uh qualified party is SABE.

They're the ones doing the development.

I think they should come in front of this this commission and do a presentation.

I I think that would be really good and healthy for the community, and that they could come back to us and say, hey, this is you know, we've had 19 months, they've had 19 months that they've been involved with this property.

Hopefully they've got some kind of plan in place, and they can uh come to this committee or this this commission and say, you know, we we want to do this, and this is what it's gonna look like.

I would love to see that.

And again, if I if I saw that and it looked good to me, I'm gonna vote for the project.

Um I appreciate the chief executive's suggestions about using BSB resources to go out and visit these facilities.

I think that'd be a really good thing for all of us to do, and it would I think the the community can agree that that's for all of us to to use taxpayer money to to go do this would be the appropriate way to do this instead of you know allowing SABE to pay for that.

So I appreciate that.

One last question, this is for the for the county attorney.

Uh there was discussion about this uh two-thirds majority vote, uh the the resolution language and uh concerns that it might create an adhesion clause or an adhesion contract.

Uh if you can just talk about that generally and and what we should be concerned about uh while adding that to this this particular contract.

Commissioner O'Leary, County Attorney Anne Ruth.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner O'Leary, uh the definition of an adhesion contract or a cohesion contract is one in which an individual or company is required to sign in order to continue forth with something.

So they're basically forced into doing it or losing their opportunity.

A contract in general is uh based on a very simple premise of offer acceptance consideration.

That also goes in the same premise of amending a contract.

So there are multiple arguments here.

The first being that you know SABI is requesting an extension.

Um that extension is an i that is a issue for the county though, because we're not the ones that you know, we're the ones with the first right of refusal clause hanging out there.

So there could be an argument made both ways that you know they said, hey, we want an extension on the contract because this is your issue.

So that's their offer acceptance consideration on the extension of the contract.

It could also be argued later on that they were forced to sign in the contract and adding that clause to it in order to continue on with their project.

There are multiple legal arguments that could be made there.

Thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Um I'll let you follow up here and then I'm going to Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Uh, thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth for for that clarification.

Uh additionally, I just wanted to ask about the one of the weird things that uh you know, looking at all the dates on all everything that happened.

Uh it appears that this title commitment was issued back in April of 2025.

And in the title commitment, uh number 23 is uh 25 is the memorandum of uh of right of first refusal agreement.

And I guess I'm wondering, and I don't know if SAB is still on the phone, but maybe they could answer it, why this was not brought in front of our uh the county sooner than now.

But if the chief if the county attorney could also just address uh that particular uh interplay with our contract.

Um Commissioner Larry, County Attorney and Ruth.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Leary.

Uh it would depend on whether or not they knew about it at that time when they knew about it.

She's calling in to probably answer your question.

So yeah, I I think that we could have her if we wanted to do that.

So if they're calling in.

And he asked directly, so we'll give them that opportunity.

You're on, can you hear us?

Hello?

Thanks, Commissioner Leary for the question.

We did not know about this rover until we discovered it and brought it to the county.

Um that's what triggered the 60-day discussion.

Um it wasn't something we knew about last April.

Um it it just came up and and was identified on the title report.

Thank you.

So then that's a question.

So can you tell us when that was?

Can you give us a date or do you remember when that would be oh we have I have Director Burns here and maybe she can clarify on that?

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher and members of council.

I just can clarify of when we were notified about um that uh exception number 25 that Commissioner O'Leary was referring to was on January 6th.

I cannot testify or speak to when um SEBI became aware of it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Burns.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

Uh Commissioner, you touched again on how you don't want to allow them to close with this by sell, but I again I'm raising the concern that if we decide to say, hey, we're denying this, they still have the opportunity in very short amount of time to close with this by sell at and you know, you want to uh have them act on a good faith, and I think that that's great.

I but I think that that's cautiously optimistic.

And I also believe that you know I'm a bet and woman on certain things, but I'm not taking I don't want a billion dollar investment in my community to be bet on.

I don't I I want the assurances that you do.

So again, I'm asking, I don't understand if you don't want this exact by sell to to be signed, why not sign the why not approve the extension and get this these conversations out, like you said, have SABI come.

Have these conversations with SABE and we work these kinks out.

We don't say, hey, you know, we're gonna deny this, and you come back to us in a week and we're gonna make that decision on that on that particular by sell.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Thatcher.

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Uh Commissioner O'Leary, I I completely agree with you that having uh SABI answer questions is always beneficial, but it it goes back to my original statement that if SABI comes into this body and starts answering questions, there will still be a question if they are qualified to answer their questions, specifically if they're asked questions on energy usage, energy rates, that type of stuff.

They cannot answer certain parts of Northwestern Energy's um issues or or concerns.

So again, it it just brings back to what I said before that it's like, yeah, we can have them answer it, but they'll there'll still be people that don't believe what they say because somebody else is telling them different, and so it just kind of gets into that quagmire of of what we're what we're looking at.

I do have a question for uh director Burns or Ms.

Lapp and if I can as I just my pin just went over the place.

Um Director Burns, so when we look at this agreement and and it's a year thing, one thing that we have not asked you yet is one, how did we get to the year?

And two, is six months a viable option that we should consider doing?

Would that be something SAIB would be okay with?

I mean, just to get that out there.

Commissioner Morgan, Director Burns.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Morgan.

Um we had discussed the length of time that they thought was going to be um reasonable to have all the answers to energy mostly.

Um that's the the biggest piece that's sort of hanging out there.

Um and so they said, you know, do you think a year could be entertained?

And we said yes, we can entertain it.

Um I do think that they would I'm I'm gonna jump out there and say I think a six-month extension would be very well received at this point, knowing that they might have to come back if the energy questions aren't answered and they're not in a comfortable place to be able to execute within six months.

So I think we asked for the year because we thought that that was prudent, given all the questions that are still out there.

Um but if if uh without having to come back again to ask for another extension, um, because we did relay to them that sometimes this this body you know doesn't like to see multiple extensions on the same project.

So we were trying to avoid that, but also give enough time to answer questions.

So I think I talked around your uh question quite a bit, but I do think that um six months is knowing that they might have to come back again is what I'm saying.

Sure.

Thank you, Director Burns.

Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

Hypothetically, what happens if RAC decides to exercise their option, and we already have a VISO with uh Horizon or Savey?

Commissioner Fisher, um County Attorney and Ruth.

It could lead to possible litigation, excuse me, Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Fisher, possible litigation.

Uh however, uh as Director Burns has said, and I believe Chief Gallagher said too, because there were the failures in the chain to exercise that option as it was, uh, you know, pass from one landowner to the next, that beat Silverville could be in a position to say, sorry, you failed to do that.

So it could end up in litigation.

Follow up, Commissioner Fisher.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive.

Thank you, County Attorney.

So, how does that weigh into SABI also changing, you know, from say because what you're saying REC did and ASMI did, the same thing SABI done with the Ryzen.

Uh Commissioner Fisher, County Attorney Amerson.

Two different topics, apples and oranges.

Uh the clause that is attached to that piece of land is something that we, you know, in the legal world seeing all runs with the property.

Uh Commissioner O'Leary is probably very familiar with this term.

The the uh uh it was attached to the property in order for it to move from owner to owner, it had to be exercised correctly, is how we're legally interpreting the document.

With regards to SABI purchasing the property and then putting it under an LL another LLC, it doesn't, it doesn't it's not affected the same way.

I think I I understand where you should where your question is coming from, but they're two totally different issues.

Thank you, County Attorney and Ruth.

I think Director Burns can follow up on that, and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Boyle.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

Thank you, County Attorney and Ruth and Commissioner Fisher.

I would just want to make that clarification that the ownership of SABE and the ownership of Horizons LLC are the same.

The ownership of ASMI to REC when it sold was completely different.

Whole different set of whole new company, different people.

Um LLCs are created often as we've talked about for land purchases, and they have the same ownership as the actual company.

Commissioner Boyle first, he's been waiting.

Commissioner Boyle.

I just like to comment that I agree with what everybody's saying.

We all have our own opinions and there are good opinions.

Uh a couple of weeks ago we put a land sale deal on hold because we didn't have all the information.

I feel that we're kind of doing the same thing here.

We have the ad hoc committee that has not came to this body and gave their statement or whatever their um presentation.

And I think we should give some kind of extension.

I don't agree with maybe years too long, but six months I think is a reasonable amount of time, because then we can get the ad hoc committees review on it.

We can also find out about the um land deal for the first right of refusal.

So it gives us both time to figure this stuff out before we make a decision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Boyle.

Commissioner Fisher, you had a follow-up there and then go back to Commissioner Boyle.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

I guess so.

Why are we if we're not concerned about the first right of refusal with REC, why did we send them a letter last week stating that they had a first right of refusal?

I mean, if that's not something we're concerned about, I did talk to them today, and they did receive a letter last week for the first time stating that they had a first right of refusal.

And now we're saying here that we're not concerned about a first right refusal because they changed companies.

Commissioner Fisher, I'll answer that.

You really that's what we legally have to do is send it to them to say, okay, you're on notice.

You need to you need to let us know if you're intending on purchasing that.

If they say that they intend to do that, then we would look at it and say, we don't think that you legally were able to do that, and that's when we go to a different.

But if REC relinquishes that right in the next 60 days, and I'm I'm not speaking for REC or anything, but it you know, as they're laying off people and having reduction of force, uh we want to work with them too.

We want to work with our community partners so that we have a clear understanding with that, and we don't want to be adversarial, so we're giving them that opportunity.

But if if we ended up with that, we would probably pursue what our legal obligation or legal ramifications are what we are avenues, not ramifications, legal avenues that we could follow that.

So Commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Um I guess back to the this uh contingency language.

Uh you know, the reason I brought up the comment about the adhesion contract is because you know there is this concern that by signing this by cell and adding that two-thirds language that we are we are putting um ourselves in a position where the two-thirds language is not even enforceable.

So uh I I guess my question to the the county attorney would be is it cleaner for us to let this expire and then come up with new contracts, uh and would that create the same situation or because we're starting fresh, um would would that uh uh get rid of that problem, and then I have a follow-up question for you.

We don't have a chief, so maybe I should have spoke longer, huh?

Sorry.

Oh county attorney, Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner O'Leary.

Uh no, I think it would create problems either way.

It could cause litigation either way.

I mean, we don't practice law open book.

If you wanted a full in-depth memo on it, we could provide it.

But the way that the contract has been presented to the commission now is there is some give and take on both sides.

It could be legally upheld.

Um if uh the council were to not sign the extension tonight.

Um SADE could enforce the contract within the next 11 days.

Uh if uh the council at that time chooses to not pass it based on the two-thirds vote of a resolution based on the initial buy sell, there is the possibility that SABI could enforce it at that time as well.

So again, there's not a direct answer on any of that.

It could all end up in litigation, or everybody can continue to continue to agree on you know the contract terms going forward.

Um and then again to Commissioner Fisher's uh question earlier with regards to the first right of refusal.

Um it's not that I'm not concerned about it.

Uh it's again, depending on who wants to do what, it could cause litigation.

Follow-up, Commissioner O'Leary.

Sorry about leaving.

You're all right.

Thank you.

Uh so I to the point of the the first writer refusal.

If we don't actually think that that first writer refusal transferred to REC does asking them to uh make a decision on the first writer refusal, even clear the title, or would the better action for this property be to do a quiet title action.

Commissioner O'Larry, uh County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner O'Larry.

The reason it was asked was to clean it up clean.

Um yes, there is a legal argument as well, though, to say that they don't have the right to, however, based on what the county chose to do was to ask them if they wanted to exercise that option to simply clean it up no matter what.

Thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Are there any other questions?

Commissioner Callahan.

We've been waiting for you for a while.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

I just want to make a comment first that you know I I really appreciate all the people that you put on that ad hoc committee and the amount of work they all put into it.

There was a whole bunch of people on that committee, and they all did a ton of work and got lots of information.

It's unfortunate that it was a short time.

It's unfortunate that the citizens didn't have more time to be able to get give uh questions and get answers back, and we're up against a really tight window.

And uh I also want to thank Commissioner O'Larry, he's put a ton of time into this also.

Um I I was able to attend three of those ad hoc meetings, and they were very, very good, and the people did a great job.

And uh we need more time, there's just no doubt.

And uh Commissioner O'Leary has some great comments here on there's some stuff we need to clean up besides get good answers.

So whatever we do here, we're here to do the what's best for the community and what the people want and what we need.

Um just one comment to uh Chairman Morgan's comment about the well.

That was brought up yesterday at the ad hoc meeting, and it wasn't the well of Sadie, it was the wells of the community around them that they're concerned that they could be contaminated.

And I mean that's that's a very important thing that we got to be concerned about as well.

And I think those are questions that Sadie could answer for us for their discharge or if it's uh if it leaks or what what protects those citizens from their wells, because when you when you don't have a water system to hook up to and in a week's time to clean it up and your water's back on and it's clean and it's your well, you don't go back and clean it.

So those are serious questions that's got to be answered, and those are things that Sadie needs to come and answer for us.

And like I said, the the ad hoc meet people did a great job, they really did a lot of work.

We just didn't have enough time.

Commissioner Callahan, I would just like to to respond to that, and I appreciate that.

The people that are on that committee have volunteered their time and put extensive amounts of effort into that, and people that are really busy in the community, but and so I appreciate what they're doing.

I think SABE's here in Loud and Claire, they need to get in front of this body.

But the I will say this that ad hoc committee, if we continue on with uh the extension, they're not stopping.

We're gonna continue to have them facilitate, and that's that's gonna continue on as well.

They're just preparing and and as you said, it was such a short time frame.

They also, you know, we talked about trying to get up here and present this to this body tonight, and it just wasn't fair to them or to everybody here to rush that presentation with all the information that they need to do, and they're still taking questions.

People are submitting them.

We set up a website, and as I said, you know, I I appreciate everybody's comments here about what the way we should do this, but I will say that the work that even Butte Silverbow and our staff has put in to create a website for this project in particular.

We're holding this project really accountable, and I understand because it's it's it's big, it's very impactful, but we're putting the time and effort into, and I I can say I don't if somebody could show me where we've ever done this before, I I don't think it's happened.

I don't think it's happened.

And I want to give credit too, also to the TED board.

They do vet out these things, and they're they do have the presentations and they've had SABE at their meetings.

And so those are those are things that they do, and we gotta we gotta recognize the work the TED board does as well when they when they make a recommendation to move forward as well, because we have lots of committees, and I never want to disparage the work that they put into it and say, well, thank you for your suggestion, but now we want to redo all of the stuff that you guys just did.

I think we need to really be careful of what the message that we're sending to committees that are out there that are working in other areas as well.

But so Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Chief Executive Geller.

Uh I guess my main concern tonight is the word litigation's been used a lot.

And um, you know, that bothers me when the counties in litigation with anything.

I mean, you know, that's that's a big deal, you know.

And REC is a great company for viewed silver bow, SAIB probably be a great company for buttesilver bow.

Is Butte Silver Bow gonna get caught in the middle of something here, you know, because no one knew about the first right refusal until January of 26th.

We signed a deal in 96 with REC.

We signed a deal in 25 with SABI.

I mean, I'm not a legal expert, and I have all the faith in the world of county attorney in with, but my concerns are is Butsubow might get caught in the middle of a bad situation here, and uh if it does happen where RAC at Butts of Bo getting a little litigation, that's gonna delay the project anyhow.

And that could force them more so to pull out than what we do tonight.

So I mean that word just kind of bothers me amongst all of this stuff is litigation, because we know one thing, it's never easy and it takes a long time, costs a lot of money.

Commissioner Fisher, I appreciate your your comments on that.

I don't think that's anything anybody would like to do, and you know, and even speaking with I think both, I don't think it's something REC or uh SABE would like to do either, because then nobody really wins when you go to litigation.

So Commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

So I I guess I just I I this whole thing feels very uh like we are in a bind, and I'm uh sitting here thinking that maybe one of the best things we could do is use some of our uh professional services budget to ask uh a legal opinion uh of of our current conundrum because we have a first writer refusal on land that we have a current contract on.

We have uh potential creation of an adhesion contract on with this if we pass this by sell.

We might have the same situation if we create new by cells.

Uh I I don't see a way forward where we don't have some kind of uh potential problem.

And and I guess maybe my suggestion, and I'd like to hear what the rest of the commission says, but maybe the thing to do would be to hold off on this and then schedule a a special meeting before next week's committee of the whole to make the final decision.

Just thoughts.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallery.

Just want to reference on the title report how that you know that I'm not making any excuses, but it's they they pulled the title report whenever that came up, it just happened to come up, right?

So now we know I don't I truly believe nobody was you know it just happened and always at fault, at least that SABE brought it to our attention.

Um I mean with that being said, I think that we need to if we do an extension for I don't know, 90 days that and then we gamble.

We're already gambling anyway, we're gambling the fact we're the REC is gonna not accept that.

So that gets that off there.

We then obviously I believe we'd have to re-record or do something on that.

I I don't know the proper thing.

I do, but I just can't think of the proper thing we do there.

Then at that point we can fire up and do another extension.

We can I think it should be short of six months.

Like again, at least we're looking at it, at least we're doing our due diligence.

We hey it's not a year, it's six months now, or it's heck, let's go three, whatever.

If we have to do another one, we can either not do it or we could keep moving.

I mean that kind of helps a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Let's get the ball rolling here.

Um as far as legality goes, everything we do every week, we are in a legal predicament.

And so that is the challenge.

I mean, there's always one side that is gonna maybe take legal action, maybe not.

I mean, so it's it's hard to to guide just on the principle of when we hear the L word that we've gotta kind of you know, obviously we have to be cautionary and we have legal advice, you know, right before us and and stuff.

And so it's just it it it's something that we can never 100% get out of a legal question.

And so um like I said, let's get the ball rolling.

At this time I would make a motion that we concur with communication 2026-7-4, but amend it to be a six-month instead of uh a one-year time frame.

We have a motion and a second to concur and amend to six-month time frame.

It and place on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Commissioner Mankins.

Uh thank you, uh Commissioner or Chief Executive Gallagher.

Uh I thank you all.

Um, the ad hoc, everybody here.

Um I I I need to hear more.

I think my constituents need to hear more.

Um I know that you know some people are very adamant right now on their decision, but I really think you need to think about like this is a compromise.

We've done a lot of different compromises to see.

I'm gonna stick fullheartedly when it comes to the six months.

But I really think there has to be more the things that we have to vent out.

I believe SAB will come here after hearing this.

I believe that some of us will be able to take in their personal to take a ride out.

I do believe that we'll hear the ad hoc.

I think we'll have our answers with the um right, the first ride of refru refusal.

So I think that's a really good situation for all of us.

So please really think about that because you're really showing something that you still have that promise to SABI right now.

And don't think they want to come back and say, oh well, it's a whatever vote.

Like everybody has said they want this project, so please really think about what you're voting for for this.

This is just the six months.

So please make sure that you just really think about before you make a a decisions with worth a billion dollars to our community.

Thank you, Commissioner Mankins.

Commissioner O'Larry.

Thank you, Chief Executive.

I I agree with you.

There this is a big project, and I'll reiterate my point that if SABI is it is gonna just walk away uh from this just because we deny this communication, then they aren't interested in the first place.

And and maybe we don't want them in our community.

I don't think that that's true.

I think that they are are a legitimate actor.

They're interested in our community, and I think coming back to the table is uh something that they would be willing to do.

They put a lot of time and effort into it.

Our staff are this commission, uh the ad hoc committee put a lot of time and effort into this.

Uh we're all I I think we are all uh legitimate actors in in this.

We are um looking at this from the standpoint that we all want to make this happen.

And uh again, uh nobody has really wanted a bite on on talking about the the three different uh buy cells, but I want to re-read John Sabies words from the April meeting last year.

200 acres is all that would be usable for the data center construction.

John said that within 180 days, Horizons will know if they intend to proceed or not.

They will not hold up the land if they can't proceed.

That was ten months ago.

And and I honestly think that uh they just he said that and he didn't mean it.

And and honestly, here we are ten months later.

I think we need to start over and make this right for the community and put some sideboards on things.

So I I understand what what you're where you're coming from and and ultimately if that's what the k commission decides, you know, that's what the commission decides.

But I I hope that we can um come to the table and and all make a make a deal that works for the whole county.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner uh O'Leary.

Commissioner Fisher, you wanted to speak in, I'm sorry, and then all that.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallery.

I'd just like to reiterate We're voting on the current buy-cell agreement.

No red line, no adjustment.

We're voting on the current buy-sell agreement, which is the one that has all the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fisher.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive.

So within that six months, we we still have the opportunities to change things, right?

Like so here, here I'm uh I don't want to kick them out.

Like if I guess if they don't want to buy it by next week, you know, cool.

Right?

We can play that game, but also want to play the welcoming part here too.

Like we're on we're going like this, right?

Ah, there's no water, there's no this, there's no that.

Oh, we screwed up the vice.

I don't know.

We could go in this all night.

So uh do we want it like do we want to push them out and say and and not?

I mean I I don't I don't want to do that.

But I mean I I guess either way I can't say that uh on the record, but uh um thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Neill.

Follow-up, Commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher.

I guess to answer your question, I don't think we if we approve this, we have no ability to change any of the terms of the buy-cell between now and closing if we extend it for six months.

I I don't believe that's true.

I would love the county attorney to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm gonna go Commissioner Shea and then we'll come back to Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Am I correct in the assumption that if we don't approve it, we have the same option?

That's correct.

So county attorney on Ruth, I didn't I think there was a question directed at you from Commissioner O'Leary.

I'm sorry.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner O'Leary, the buy cell has been changed.

You've added language to it.

You're adding an extension to it.

Right.

Yeah, but you're not gonna be able to to randomly change it throughout the process.

That's not how contracts work.

I mean it's it's a take and give process.

Yes, you are agreeing to sell the property.

However, you've added the conditions of two.

Like you know, the the council has to pass it uh under the two-thirds resolution, which is by law anyways, but it's added to the contract and made it part of it.

Um, and then the addition, you know, the extension in time.

So those are the modifications, yes.

And I would like to add, I think that there was a a good faith effort in that because they you know, if we're we're really looking at somebody that's looking to legally go and say, well, geez, you guys didn't put that in there.

Tough luck.

They did work with us and and say, yes, please add that to it, because I think that they they believe that they're gonna be able to come forward and and I I think they've heard you loud and clear.

I I and I can make sure that we are in communication with them about being here.

So I think that's really critical.

Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chief Executive.

Sorry to keep rambling, but not where I'm at is where we messed up on the parcels, okay?

I can say we or I with the different parcels.

Um, you know, that would have been awesome to know that then to be able to change that.

But this whole parcel is being sold as one, right?

It wasn't broken up, it was it's one parcel, correct?

It's four it's four parcels and we're because on here it's it's on the cadastrals obviously always incorrect just for the records, right?

So I'd like to have we do market did we market this property is this one, correct?

I'd like to have Director Burns answer the question on this.

She's a lot smarter than I am.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive members of council.

Commissioner O'Neill um are you referring to the parcel that wraps around the REC facility.

I can't see what you're pointing to on your computer.

Commissioner O'Neill thank you Chief Executive so the Russ is referring that there's four different parcels.

Sure.

I can sorry Mr.

Chief Executive Commissioner O'Neill so um the parcel that wraps around REC that is described as the buffer zone is actually two separate parcels.

There's a parcel within a parcel.

So um many years ago um I probably way before I worked for But Silverbow or maybe right after um a part of that buffer zone was carved out a 20 acre square you can kind of see it on cadastral that 20 acre square was carved out for the possible development of a power plant and um that parcel is not included in the buffer zone technically but it is it is there.

And so um that that parcel is this is a separate parcel but it's within a parcel.

So if that's part is confusing the other parcel is to the north of REC.

It's 170 acres there is no infrastructure to this parcel whatsoever um and that is the parcel if you remember this committee this commission looked at when we were entertaining a project with Mitsubishi.

So that is that parcel and then there is a parcel on sugar loaf loop um and that parcel was I think discussed tonight.

So that's the total of four um I also um wanted to mention that I think earlier there was a con a conversation that we don't have any other land available within the TED other than these parcels and two small other parcels that are scattered and that is not true.

The TED encompasses um a whole section of state owned land but it's within our district boundary and it has been zoned industrial and it also includes um large parcels of land um in the CNESCO Solvay complex um that we are always in conversations with Solvay about the further development of their property when they're ready um so we are going to continue those conversations um so there are there is additional land um to be developed just wanted to make that clear thank you director burns so as we're here we have a motion in a second to approve um communication number it's uh item number 23 communication number 2026-74 as amended to read six months instead of a year and place on file thank you okay could commissioners please vote oh sorry commissioner Callahan before we move on thank you chairman uh chief executive I guess I didn't quite understand I think our goal was was to be able to put some sideboards on as Mr.

O'Leary asked even if we extend this is that something we're not capable of doing or we just have to what we passed today is what has been amended already.

And then the next six months when we discuss this stuff with them we still can't change anything.

Um Commissioner Callahan I think I can answer that.

So it would be with the amendment of the two thirds vote of this of this body that wasn't part of that contract but it without any other stipulations within the contract so you you wouldn't be able to amend it but it's it really is you guys still have the final say on the two thirds vote it would they would be able to come they'd be able to answer the questions all those things that have been asked in here even with what Commissioner O'Larry had asked some of those questions could be addressed.

So Commissioner O'Larry just a quick clarification I think to answer your point we could amend it but it would be with the consent of both parties so that's the only way that we would we would be able to change any of the terms and so we if we approve this particular uh motion we are approving the original by cell as it was originally written with all the parcels combined and and any of the the things that we disagree with at the point at that point or pr you know up to this point so we are just simply amending adding the two thirds language there is some other uh language that was modified below uh and and extending the date thank you commissioner o'Larry okay commissioner fisheries thank you chief executive gallagher um how how can we amend this without having an agreement from them that they will accept it I mean you know that they will accept the six months the communications is states that they want a one year extension so if we say we want a six month extension go back to them and say that don't work what happens then we just wasted our time uh commissioner fish I'll ask Commissioner or County Attorney Ann Ruth but I believe you have that ability within this body to do that but I will uh I will uh

Um how can we amend this without having an agreement from them that they will accept it?

I mean, you know, that they will accept the six months.

The communications is states that they want a one-year extension.

So if we say we want a six-month extension, go back to them and say that don't work, what happens then?

We just wasted our time.

Uh Commissioner Fisher, I'll ask Commissioner or County Attorney Anne Ruth, but I believe you have that ability within this body to do that.

But I will uh I will uh ask County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Fisher, you are correct.

You're amending a contract that has already been agreed upon previously prior to the parties.

You can.

However, they are not required to sign it.

You know, they can sign it.

Uh it's it's kind of the weird way this the council works, and you know, in conjunction with the government or our local government, is the contract was put together, you know, by us, you know, on the local government level brought to the council.

You would like amendments to it.

There's nothing that says you can't, but that also doesn't require them to sign it.

Thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Uh Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Chief Executive.

I guess if that's the case, if we approve this six months and they don't sign it, then that means that the the deal dies because we didn't amend the original one.

So does that mean the deal dies?

Commissioner Callahan, County Attorney Anruth.

Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Callahan, it would mean that they didn't sign the amended contract, and they can exercise what of the legal options they have or choose to do so.

What would those be?

That is up to their attorneys.

I can't speculate to that.

Thank you.

Thank you, County Attorney Ann Ruth.

Okay, Commissioner Shea.

Super quick.

I'm sorry.

I believe that Director Burns may have some insight.

She had spoken to that a little while.

It seems like five hours ago, but it was a little while ago.

That she had had some conversations about what they wanted versus what they might end up with, and there might be some good faith um, you know, friendly agreements there.

Thank you, Commissioner Shea and um Director Burns.

Uh thank you, Chief Executive Gallagher, Commissioner Shea, members of council.

Um, yeah, so in the conversations um with them about what they would request for an extension, knowing that they were going to need one, um, we talked about what time frame would be appropriate.

Uh we talked about six months.

Um they have a hard time believing that they'll be to place with the energy negotiations in six months.

So knowing that they might have to come back again and ask for another extension, we said, okay, let's put a year out there because that gives a lot of time.

And so we agreed upon that, but we did talk about six months, and so what I said earlier in the meeting tonight, um, I know it's been long and we're all feeling a little a little loopy.

Um, but I I think that if if we do um they would be I don't want to say happy, I can't speak for them.

I'm losing my articulate way to speak tonight, but um, I do think that uh a six-month distention would be palatable for sure.

I think that this body should know that that would they would probably come back for an additional extension.

I can't say that for sure.

I'm just saying that it could be possible.

And I think that that's that's okay as we continue to answer questions.

Um and so I know that we don't like to use cell phones and read from cell phones in council chambers, but I also know that we're having a hard time hearing Director Burns, though I think Ms.

Fandazo, is it okay we just communicated with her to ask about the six months and how they feel about it and they are okay with that?

Commissioner or Director Burns, and I I will accept that because we have asked that question.

Would they be?

I think Commissioner Shea was saying it was really you know, are they amenable to that?

And so I that that thank you for that.

Thank you.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second to concur in place on file with the amendment of six months as placed on here.

Could commissioners please vote.

And would anybody like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

Nine yay, three nay.

Nine yay, three nay motion passes.

All right, moving on the agenda as we go along.

Thank you, everybody that was here and participated.

I know this has been a long night on this one agenda item, but that's what public participation is all about, and I do appreciate all sides of what we're doing here.

Um we do need to go to our items that were placed on the agenda.

So, Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

The first communication we'll talk about is uh communication number 2026-7.

I just want to note that this communication was dated January 30th, 2026.

I did talk to Director Neary, and for some reason it just wasn't submitted to this body, and and he did apologize.

He talked to me before the meeting on that.

So this is a communication for the public works department is requesting the council of commissioners to schedule the bid opening for February 25th, 2026 for the 2026 road division mill fill project.

This work has been budgeted for.

So at this time I'll make a motion that we approve communication 2026-7 in place on file.

Second.

We have a motion and second to place communication number 2026-7 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Approve and place on file.

Um could commissioners please vote.

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years nay.

12 yay zero nay motion passes.

Moving on to I should be reading this for you rather than you read next, but I'll let you.

Okay, Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

Second communication is number 2026-78.

Uh, this is a communication from Cynthia Sherman, the clerk and recorder slash at election administrator.

Um I request Council of Commissioners to pass resolution 2026-05 calling for a mail ballot election for the Melrose Water and Sewer District.

There are three open trustee seats.

The filing period for the candidates ended uh today at 5 p.m.

at 333.

I received a fourth oath of candidacy for trustee for Melrose Water Sewer District.

A resolution for a mail ballot um election must be approved by Monday, February 9th, 2026, according to MCA 13-1-504 number four.

At this time, I'll make a motion that we concur with communication 2026-78 in place on file.

Second.

We have a motion and second to concur in place on file 20 communication number 2026-78.

Is there anything on the question?

Could commissioners please vote?

No, where are we?

Oh, you want me to vote?

Yeah.

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 yay zero nay.

12 yay zero nay motion passes.

And we'll move on to item number three resolutions ordinance.

Introduce the judiciary.

We have uh two of those.

Please note those.

Um moving on to section four resolution ordinance for final reading.

Um we have two because we've added one on to it tonight.

So um first one is resolution number 2026-02.

Clerk, please read the caption.

A resolution authorizing the sole source purchase of Hugher parts for the city county of Butte Silverbow Metro Sewer Division and providing an effective date herein.

Commissioner Morgan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chief Executive.

I move to place council resolution 2026-02 on final reading and pass, having been deemed fully read at length.

We have a motion and a second uh placing resolution number.

God, I just lost it.

2026 02 on final reading.

Is there anything on the question?

Could commissioners please vote?

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 yay zero nay.

12 yay zero nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to resolution number 2026-04.

Clerk, please read the caption.

A resolution authorizing and approving the transfer of real estate property described as tract R1-R2 and tract R3.

I'm sorry, we I goofed up on that.

I think that it should be 2026-05 would be the resolution.

I apologize for that.

Clerk, could you please read the caption?

It says 04 on ours, but it's it's so wrong on here.

It says 04 on our number.

Is it so we'll need it as amended?

It's 05.

Yeah, it would be 05.

So we'll we'll be asking to do we need to amend placing okay.

So the the correction will be it'll be 2026-05.

Please read the caption.

Is that the one that I'm going to do?

The resolution calling for a director election, yeah.

Do you have it?

I can read it.

Sorry, I do not.

2026-05, a resolution calling for direct uh a director election, whereas section 7-13-2231 MCA requires the directors of the water sewer district are to be elected and can be appointed if nominations are made for the office of director and whereas section 131-502 MCA requires candidates for the Office of Director of the Melrose Water Sewer District file for a declaration of nomination oath of candidacy at least 85 days before election day, and whereas 131504 MCA requires election to be held on election day, where which is May 5th, 2026, and whereas the election may not be held earlier than 85 days after this election in order of the order of the resolution calling for the election pursuant to 131-504 MCA and whereas 1315-504 MCA requires the governing body to specify in the order of the or resolution calling for the election whether the election is conducted by mail and whereas the trustees of the Melrose Water Sewer District have determined that at least three director terms will expire May 2026.

And whereas the trustees find it is necessary to elect at least three directors in an election in 2026.

Now therefore be it resolved the trustee election for the Melrose Water Sewer District to elect three directors shall be held on May 5th, 2026.

The following provision shall elect three four-year terms for Melbourne's water sewer district director.

The director requests that the election be conducted by mail ballot declaration for nominations of Ouls and Candidacy for candidates for director may be filed with imbued Silver Bowl elections office no later than 5 p.m.

on February 4th, 2026.

If after the writing candidates filing deadline February 4th, the number of candidates is equal to the or less than the number of positions to be elected.

The Board of County Commissioners shall declare an election by acclamation.

Each candidate who filed for the position.

If a nomination is not made for one or more trustee positions, the Board of Accounting Commissioners shall appoint one or more trustees as necessary to fill those positions.

Commissioner Morgan.

Might have been the longest caption I've ever heard.

I'll make uh I move to place council resolution 2026-05 on final reading and pass having been deemed fully read at length.

We have a motion and a second placing uh resolution number 2026-05 on file.

Right?

On file.

All right.

Could commissioners please vote?

No.

It should be placed on final reading.

Yes.

I will update that.

It's just it won't let me write in the middle of this.

Okay.

So we can update that without any.

Okay.

Could commissioners please vote?

Commissioner Fisher.

And would anyone like to change their vote?

Clerk, please record the vote.

12 years.

1280 nay motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to calendar and other meeting events.

Um, please note all the dates and times of those meetings that we have.

And next I would call for any public comment on any item not on tonight's agenda.

See none, I will call to adjourn.

All those in favor, signal by aye.

Opposed?

We are adjourned.