Okay, I'll call the February 9th study commission meeting to order.

And if we can have roll call, we have Lori Casey here.

Cindy Purdue Dolan Ben Thielen will be late, Matt Steppen, Raylan Brandle, Dan Denehee, Chad Silk, Cindy Shaw, and Mary McCormick.

And if we could have our Pledge of Allegiance and PR.

Okay, so public comment on any item on the agenda.

We don't have any members in the audience tonight, and so we'll skip from four and five.

There are no comments.

Moving on to approval of minutes of the meeting held February 2.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I would uh move to approve the minutes from the uh February meeting.

Is there a second?

I have a motion from Sean, a second from Dennehy.

Um the notes or the minutes.

Um all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you, folks.

All right, moving on to our correspondence and our study commission update.

I understand there was an email from John Sorich.

However, I did not receive that, so we'll follow up with um Ms.

Adams to make sure it is shared with the commission and that we all have it in our inbox.

My inbox was very clunky with a lot of things that were caught in a spam filter, so I'm curious if maybe it went there.

But I will follow up with Ms.

Adams to get that to us all.

Any other correspondence?

All right.

So moving on to our fire department's working group update.

Should the voters approve to remove them from the charter if that ballot issue goes to the charter.

So I'll open that up for discussion, and if anybody from the fire districts um working group wants to chime in by all means.

Um and then the other qualification I wanted to mention tonight is um in talking with um Jason Willoughby um the initial information that was sent to the fire group and then forwarded on to the whole study commission with language and then it had a lot of corrections or markouts.

Um that uh because I know uh Dannehe had asked about you know is this an option four?

And I got the clarification from the volunteers, it is not they don't want that considered to be an option for they have come back to say no, this is what they would like with option one and of the three that we're discussing.

So I just wanted to make that clarification tonight as well to answer that question.

Ms.

Shah.

Thank you, madam chair, and and thank you, Cindy, for that.

And like we just spoke before the meeting, is that that uh red line language was considered chartered language changes, right?

Okay, thanks.

Other comments or concerns or things to talk about.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I have a question and I don't know who this question is to be directed to.

I wish County Attorney Enruth was here because it might be directed at him.

Understanding that this is meant to provide what the volunteers expected plan going forward under option one.

The question that I have is tasks for rural fire districts.

I don't there wasn't anything that we included in option one that talked about rural fire districts, and I I guess I want to those is that interchangeable vernacular with volunteer departments, or is that something totally separate?

Mr.

Seppin, thank you for the question.

I think others on the council have the same question about that language because I think in our charter we say volunteer, correct?

So if we're taking out volunteers, we'd be talking about volunteer districts.

I think as I'm reading this, I I'm not sure what the intent is, but I think they're trying to use the rural fire district language as related to um Montana state law.

And so it is definitely a question for um County Attorney Anne Ruth.

I as I'm seeing this, and I I you know I please chime in.

But if we have we were talking about having two very different options to look at in the in the ballot questions, and so if option one is remove them from the charter, you know, the ballot question can be as simple as strike all language related to volunteer fire districts in the charter.

It might be as simple as that.

And then the other option could be whatever that hybrid is, or um, you know, the recommendations that your group had made to uh acknowledge the chief as the um leader of this group and and the the authority for this group.

Um but I'm not sure what that second option might look like at this point.

But I agree with you.

We need kind of a county attorney.

I did um ask him to, he says he was stalled in the hallway.

There he is.

So Ms.

Dolan.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, so yeah, I'll defer to the county attorney on that question, but um I I think we need to take a step back for one second.

Um I don't think we've determined that it would be two options.

I think there were still three on the table.

Um the second option, option two is uh creating a volunteer fire department.

Um and then at first it was said that you can't because you can't have two chiefs, but then at the end of that discussion, county attorney said that it was well, if we're not if one's not paid, then you can do it.

So it would be legal.

So I think we need clarification on three options versus just two.

I know there was discussion last week of having a binary one and two, but I don't think that decision's been made.

And I think that um again, for all intents and purposes, rural fire districts, yes, they're probably taking that language from uh state law, but everything that we've talked about and the the meetings we've had in the fire group, it it's for taking out the volunteers from the charter.

So um, yeah.

Mr.

Steppen, I'll go ahead and let you redirect your question to Mr.

I since he's here.

been made and I think that um again for all intents and purposes rural fire districts yes they're probably taking that language from uh state law but everything that we've talked about in the the meetings we've had in the fire group it it's for taking out the volunteers from the charter so um yeah mr steppen i'll go ahead and let you redirect your question to mr since he's here thank you madam chair um the question that i asked was with respect to the information provided to us and headline tasks for the rural fire districts after remover removal from the charter what I had what we had presented under option one was removing the volunteer departments from the charter and I the the the term rural fire districts wasn't part of our review or discussion and I'm just wondering if that's interchangeable language volunteer departments or rural fire districts chairman brandle uh commissioners uh commissioner steppen I do not think it's interchangeable that's actually a uh contention I have with how the statutes are written because you have rural fire departments and volunteer fire departments uh but it's one of those pieces of the statutes uh where both uh deputy county attorney Sean Peterson I have looked at it and said wait a minute there's a difference here between a rural fire department and a volunteer fire department because you can have a rural fire department that is contracted by the city um you can also have a rural volunteer fire department so I do not believe they are completely interchangeable in the sense of one way or the the other at times I do think they can be the same thing.

You can have a volunteer fire department that is in a rural district but again the statute also allows for certain classes of cities to contract for rural fire services and they're not part of the county and those are called rural so no they are in my opinion not completely interchangeable at some time or some points in time though depending on what is going on they do mean the same thing but it's a a more correct way to state it in my opinion would be a rural volunteer fire department but I would not use rural fire department uh interchangeable with volunteer does that answer the question I hope you're okay uh Ms.

Dolan um thank you madam chair so may I ask you Matt um would it what would um to be this added to okay let me say that again sorry in order for this to be added to option one for additional information what langu what wording would be sufficient um task for rural fire districts after removal from charter um rural slash volunteer fire or what you know what so we don't we don't want to confuse people we want to make it as easy and simple each of these options um what would work best and be legal in your estimation thanks Chairwoman Brandon Commissioner Dolan I think the the best terminology to use and this is off the top of my head would be to call all of them volunteer fire departments because all of our we don't have rural paid for departments we we have truly volunteer fire departments and I and I do also believe that when we're talking about presenting this to the community that uh that's how they see them as well and I do think that that would be a correct legal term for all of the the volunteer departments that are out there.

The question could boil down to legally you know on down the road was a rural fire department created differently than like an internal volunteer fire department but that's that's here nor there for now but for the purposes I think of presenting it to the community would be volunteer fire departments.

It's how we currently have it in our charter I do believe going forward that would be the correct terminology for the charter um as well or for excuse me the correct terminology for presenting charter changes Mr.

Dennehy thank you madam chair um I was just gonna say to uh to the county attorney's point nowhere in the charter is there mention a rural fire district it's volunteer fire districts and butcher fire department um so that that gave me some concern when this was given to to me or to us today because this is the first time I've looked at rural fire districts and I understand that the fire council is saying okay if this is take if all the language out of uh of volunteer fire departments are taken out of the charter after that we will sit down and start thinking about a rural fire districts and what that might look like one or several rural fire departments and that decision in my opinion won't be the decision of this body that will be the decision of the chief executive city manager five commissioners or whatever the voters vote on in in November.

After that, we will sit down and start thinking about a rural fire districts and what that might look like, one or several rural fire departments.

Uh and that decision, in my opinion, won't be the decision of this body.

That will be the decision of the chief executive, city manager, five commissioners, or whatever the voters vote on in November.

So I I saw I also agree that if we're going to use language that is consistent, I would say volunteer fire departments is consistent, not rural fire departments, because that I think that's a total different sort of uh definition by state law.

Um so uh I would rather see volunteer fire departments continue as our vernacular until this sort of plan, if adopted, uh, is uh taken root.

Thank you.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again on the same point that uh Matt and also Dan mentioned the continuity, our ordinances, our fire department ordinance says volunteer, does not see for rural.

So to keep it across a board, you know, and consistent, I think that's another good reason not to kind of mix it up.

Thanks.

Mr.

Enruth, I have a follow-up question.

So we actually do have rural fire departments that are part of our fire service, correct?

It it's Melrose and Divide, correct?

Uh Chairman Brendel, I do believe you could classify them as rural departments, but they're called volunteer departments in our charter.

Yeah.

So those two are not um desegregated from the volunteer fire departments, it's rather nine of them altogether in terms of how the charter is looking at them.

Yes, in terms of how the charter currently looks at them.

The charter, when they redid the when they redid the charter the last time, they looked at all of them as volunteer departments.

Um and they did not specifically label any of the outside runs rural volunteer fire departments.

Mr.

Silk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question on option one is the volunteers want rural to be a rural fire district so the Board of Trustees can govern their district solely and not buttes and reboot.

That's the premise behind the governing body of a rural fire department is to have the five district trustees run the fire department.

Um if the volunteers want to be taken out of the charter and run as a rural fire district, but silver will have no say in any of the operations, the ordinances won't matter because legally, if the if the trustees run the fire department, that's the governing body because they're separate political subdivisions.

That's why it's so important that we understand this process.

The reason that rural volunteer fire departments is coming up now is because back when they originally formed before consolidation, they were in the county and considered rural fire districts, right?

And then after consolidation and growth of Butte Silver Bow, you could have a department on Grand Street that's considered a rural fire department if this passes right now.

So I think we need to be clear in just truly understanding the volunteers want rural fire district law so the trustees can run the fire department and not Butte Silver Bow.

My question is what are the benefits of this for the public, not for the volunteers, not for the courier, what for the public.

So when I go to explain option one or option three or option two, what's the benefit?

Can someone explain that to me, please?

Um just to follow on on that line of thinking, Mr.

Silk.

I think that it would be in our best interest to look at if we come up with three options or two options to take that that analysis framework that we've been working on for the other questions and kind of dive through and look at you know uh what do these outcomes mean for the voters and you know what does it mean for the public who is um being served by this district or not?

Mr.

Enruth?

Uh yes, and if I can for the purposes of this discussion, I can quickly provide uh memo tomorrow by tomorrow afternoon with regards to the differences between rural fire departments and volunteer fire departments and the overlap between them.

So everybody has a good clear picture on it.

That's if that would be beneficial.

That would be most helpful.

Thank you.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh county attorney.

Is there a difference between districts and company?

Because I believe one was organized as a company.

Does that matter with what we're trying to do?

Uh counselors, yes, that's what I was trying to get at earlier.

Is there's there's some different minute differences in there, and I do believe Little Basin Creek was originally a company, which is where I would like to provide um uh a memorandum, and it's not gonna take long.

I mean, this is all sitting on my desk and saved in my my Lexus folders, um, to do a quick comparison of a truly rural fire department versus a volunteer fire department, um, particularly with the types of cities and how Butte Silver Bow being a consolidated city-county government, uh, you know, has probably a little bit different, you know, rules with regards to that because when you're looking at when you when you go look at any of these other bigger cities, you have you know, Bozeman and Helena, uh, you know, they they do still have volunteer fire departments outs outside of the city limits.

We don't have city limits.

We have a city county, which is why we developed the the fire districts for taxing purposes.

Um so I would prefer to uh provide you guys with a memorable memorandum by tomorrow afternoon, um, so you can all have good solid definitions of the difference of these, how I believe they overlap with each other, um, and uh how you know a rural or volunteer fire department would um how they uh initially sh function under state statute and then what those subtle differences might be in a consolidated city county government.

Uh county attorney also would that if the voters were to approve something like this and they went back to their boundaries once they've you know got them.

Does that affect, and I think I think you said no because it's not a double taxation, but does that affect the Butte Silver Bow paid fire district, that boundary that they utilize?

That's the meets and bounds description.

Uh council, I don't uh know the actual answer to that.

It's I think it's there's a legal ambiguity with it because now you're talking about a county that has established a fire district, and now you're all then talking about volunteers wanting to establish internal districts with inside of it.

Now I do believe that there's a good argument that it is not double taxation because you're providing two different services.

Um so no, I do not believe it would affect the taxing authority of one or the other, you know, independently of themselves.

I do think you could have both taxing authorities.

Um, but then again, as uh everybody in this room knows uh this someone's gonna be upset with being taxed twice for a fire service if it happens, and then we're gonna get a question from a court, or we're gonna get a question presented to a court, or either the county or the volunteers will present the question to the court on what their authority is in there and what the arguments for them are, and it will be up to a district court at that point in time.

My legal opinion is they both can happen, and I do not believe it's double taxation.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, madam chair.

Trying to figure out how to ask this question appropriately.

What they provided to us and the the language of rural fire districts, is that how they see themselves, or is that what they will be if they're taking out of the charter?

I guess my question is if they are taken out of the charter, are they volunteer departments within the city county, or are they rural fire districts?

And and what they put on the paper may not be what determines that, right?

But for so we know the implications.

Will your memo state what what the what they will what you believe they'll be classified as if they're taken out of the charter.

I'll answer the question in the memo.

Because realistically, I can't answer what they what the what the volunteer fire departments are thinking themselves.

I'm I'm not them, I'm not their attorney.

I I would not uh put myself in that in their shoes to answer that because I think that's the answer that should come from them.

What I can do is answer that question though, is if this commission presents that question to the um people at Butte Silver Bow and they vote to remove what we currently have labeled as volunteer fire departments, legally speaking, what they would be classified as if they are removed.

And again, we have to realize we have multiple volunteer fire departments that are in different parts of the county.

Some are specifically inside of what most people would consider city limits, even though we technically don't have city limits, and then we have some that are truly our rule.

So I think the answer to that might actually differ depending on the department itself.

I'll take Mr.

Denhee and then I'll go to you, Ms.

Dolan.

County attorney in route.

County no distinct the the letter from the fire council said that this letter is issued by the Butterboard Fire Council for the limited purposes of what might happen in the event rural file districts are removed from charter.

But the there is no rural fire districts in the charter now.

So I'm a little bit confused on whether they I think that that issue should be volunteer fire departments, not rural fire departments.

There's no such thing as ruled to fire departments in our dip in our in our a charter right now.

So there isn't a future organizational framework, but I think we need to have, and that's what you're going to do that definition, because I think you you can't interchange the definition of rule versus volunteers.

Um it's it's even m muddling or mudding the the issue even more interlocal agreements between districts.

Districts of what rural fire districts or volunteer fire districts.

So I um I I look forward to your your counsel.

I'll take Ms.

Dolan and then I'll take you, Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so yeah, I I think it's just language.

Um I don't know where all this confusion is coming from.

I I understand with all of the state laws and statutes and things like that.

Um so we can certainly go back to them and get this following your memo.

Um but I will say um I would love to see or hear pros and cons for each of the options.

Um to Chad's question about benefits.

I mean, you just have to look down at organizational consolidation plan and what they're what I've gotten from the information in taking this on as option one for the fire group is they want to be able to determine their future.

And in the development of consolidation, they understand that consolidation with the volunteers needs to happen, but they want that determination.

They don't want a paid career department to make those determinations.

Um they want instead of you know, how can volunteers support the career versus can we work together?

Supporting being a supporting cast means you're lower than the ones who are the main, and so that I think boils down to a lot of the dissension, and that's just my opinion.

Um, from all of this from 50 years of working trying to figure this out.

I think they have a direction, and this is trying to explain the next steps.

Um, but it's not our and not in our purview to say one's better than the other.

Giving these options to the Butte Silver Bow community um is the goal here.

So that's um I'm trying to get all that figured out.

But I agree that the language does need to change to be complete and in concert with what's here currently, what's folks have said, we need to remind ourselves what's in the charter currently and changing that stuff needs to reflect that.

So thank you.

Ms.

McCormick.

Yeah, I mean, I look down and um under their established interlock agreements between districts, which Dan writ the first sentence of, and then the second of these agreements should initiate the transition toward unified volunteer operations with a long-term objective of forming a single consolidated volunteer district.

So I think that is their goal is to have a single volunteer consolidated district with a with a single chief.

They use rural, I think, in there because there are we do have this weird thing right now where we have these kind of hybrid volunteer departments embedded in urban areas, and we have rural districts, and I think you know, we're getting caught up in semantics, but I think we should look at what they are proposing of their long-term goal is to have a unified volunteer fire department.

Soak.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The reason uh volunteers want rural fire district protection is to have sole sole decision making power.

But Silver Bow will not have any decision making power, no money will go to volunteers if they are considered rural with an additional tax.

Again, I've stated before, and I'll say it again.

For the last 20 years, they've been asked to consolidate some departments and they haven't.

And it is great to put it on paper and say, yeah, we're gonna do it, but then why don't we just focus on option two where option one doesn't even option one goes away.

If the goal is to get to one volunteer fire department, then why not go to option two where there's one volunteer fire department?

And there's a lot of things on even though the November election, so when we go and go to option one or option two or option three that the public gets a vote on, right?

I would imagine this is a question for the county attorney.

Then is there a separate separate election for each district to vote whether they want to fund their individual district?

Because I should not have any say in a volunteer district about represent about people living in a volunteer district that they should pay.

That individual district should be the individual district that votes to pay.

So we're gonna have to have a separate district uh mill levy for that volunteer department.

And with that being said, what happens if it doesn't pass?

And we take them out of the charter.

Do they dissolve?

I mean, I would love to have this conversation back and forth because there's a lot of questions that there's some people on this commission don't know the answers to.

We're talking about the difference between volunteer departments and rural volunteer departments.

It's it's very it's it's it's the rural, it's it's not just a change in the word, it means a lot.

The rural fire department being run by district trustees is completely separate with no ordinances from Butte Silver Bow that will govern the volunteers.

Simple as that.

That does that means that sure we can have district trustees that run a volunteer district, right?

And in Melrose, it works in a rural area.

They're out by themselves, they get their own taxing authority, and that's what volunteers here want is they want their own taxing authority to be able to make the decisions.

What happens when we have district trustees?

Some of the seats that aren't filled, we have district trustees that meet so that don't meet enough to where we have volunteer chiefs that are leaving that volunteer department because of the inactivity of trustees.

We have trustees that haven't met in years, but all of a sudden they're supposed to be in charge of public funding.

Are we going to get more trustees that are going to want to be able to do that and answer the hard questions about how that taxpayer money is spent?

And when we go about what's good for the public on the street about operations, there is no cohesive law that is going to mandate cohesive and operational training at all.

The Butte Silver Bow taxpayer generally cannot come up here and change the fire department through ordinance because it'll be governed under the district trustees.

And we have volunteer departments that didn't even respond to their district last year, didn't even respond to one call within their district.

But we're going to go ahead and say, hey, taxpayers, you should have an increase in volunteer tax, and you're going to have the same service.

Mr.

Soak, before I take Ms.

Dolan's, you had some questions in there, and I wanted to make sure where those directed to county attorney and Ruth.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes.

The question of the charter change excluding the volunteers completely taking them out of the charter.

And then is there a separate vote in each individual district that the community members within that district would have to vote to fund an additional tax for the volunteer department or could deny it?

Chairman Brandle, Commissioner Silk.

The second question I believe is the easier one to answer.

The second question I believe is the easier one to answer under my understanding of the law and how the volunteer systems work is they were created.

They had a taxing district, they had taxing authority in that district.

So if you have multiple volunteer groups, you have multiple districts.

My opinion, the legal opinion is that it's the group within that district that would have to vote on whether or not they want the continued services of that department.

That's why we have different boards of trustees, you know, governing different uh volunteer departments.

Can you please state your other question with regards to the charter?

I don't think I quite understood it.

No, that was my that was my question, the original vote in November to eliminate volunteers from the charter.

That's gonna that whatever we put on the ballot in November is gonna be what it is.

But if the community decides to have rural fire districts eliminated from our charter, then there has those trustees have to go back to their constituents, which in their district and have an additional vote to levy taxes.

So it was just the one question that you answered.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I think um this brings a good point, and Ms.

Dolan, I know you have a question.

Um, like, okay, if we play what happens here, if if we put this uh initiative forward, the voters approve, they want the the districts removed from the charter, then what is the process?

Because now they're disconnected.

So do they receive money still?

Is there a transition period?

And then as I understand it with these districts, if they were if they are consolidating and they want to form one or two or whatever they come up with, then they have to gain 40 percent of the voters in that area to approve that district, as I understand it by the rules that were were laid out.

Um so then what happens if they don't, then do they dissolve?

And I don't know, I don't expect you to have the answer tonight, but I think there's needs to be some very good thought into you know what might the worst case scenarios be or the best case scenarios be um in this process.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

I think it's prudent for us um, you know, Chad, I appreciate all your comments, but you are a paid firefighter, so you coming up with all of these scenarios.

I think we need to have the volunteers come up and explain this document and what they see as next steps.

I don't um while I appreciate Chad's input and saying all these, you know, things are gonna happen and the sky's falling, I understand that completely.

But I would much rather have um someone from the volunteers who's a spokesperson for everyone with regard to each of these specific questions, because they are the best ones to understand that.

And I'll add also that over the past year, and I've learned more about fire than I ever thought I'd ever need or want to, but knowing that you know, we had this discussion in our fire group, the mission of the career firefighters versus the mission of the volunteer firefighter are vastly different.

The career firefighters are allowed to wear specialized equipment and go into a structure and fight that fire.

Volunteers stay in the exterior and they help and they deal a lot with wildland and grass fires and can get to a a site more quickly than a huge engine, um, especially if you're in the rural part of our county.

Um, you know, it so I'm not an expert, and I certainly don't take my word for it.

I don't want people to take my word for that's why we reached out to get more meat from the volunteers.

But I think we do them a disservice if we don't invite them back to have explanation and give us the added confidence with option one.

I don't think um without that, uh just getting rid of option one and going to option two or three um is not it wouldn't be fair.

I think there's a lot of evaluation that needs to be done here in regards to these options, and I think thinking through the possible outcomes is really important to that.

And while I agree that I appreciate what the volunteers have provided for us and what their steps might be and how they would go about doing their work, I think that it is our duty to evaluate and look at these things with clear eyes and having um a robust discussion about that.

And sometimes we as people want something that might not be good for us.

And I don't I don't want to put you know pressure on the volunteer fire districts or say no, I'm not going to support your initiative because if they want to be independent, I will give that option to the voters.

However, I feel it is important for us to educate the voters about what that option might mean.

And I don't I agree with you, Ms.

Dolan.

I don't know that we are fully through uh digesting and evaluating what that these options could mean if if they were affirmed by the voters.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I think that it's unrealistic to expect the volunteers to be able to answer some of these questions.

The law is clear that if we change the form of government that this body is to do a transition plan of how that happens.

So it doesn't happen the next day when the voters vote for it.

It's not so clear in this instance, but I don't think it I think it's not prudent to expect that your funding and everything's cut off the next day after the vote, and maybe that does happen.

But just like a school mill levy, there's got to be some kind of special uh election to vote for what mill levy.

Each district, all nine of them are gonna have a different mill levy because they have different valuations in their district.

Uh some have a lot of taxable value in their district, put it that way, and some don't have as much taxable value.

So what their mill levy needs to be is going to be different based on what their budgets are.

So to expect that to happen on the next day after the election, I believe is unrealistic.

But I think that's a question that maybe this body needs to find out some answers to, and I'm not sure how we do since we're a little bit unusual in that.

But it seems to me if the voters were to approve that, there needs to be some kind of transition plan.

Because we just can't shut, or I don't think anybody would just want to shut the lights off on the volunteers and say, sorry about your bad luck, you voted for this, now hurry up.

I mean, you know, we laugh, but that's kind of what we're saying here, and I don't believe, and maybe they're maybe they have looked into it, but I think that's unrealistic to ask a volunteer person, fire chief or not, to know that answer since they haven't operated like that since prior to consolidation, which was a long time ago.

That's just my thought.

Yeah, I I tend to agree, Ms.

Casey.

I'll take Ms.

McCormick and then I'll take you, Mr.

Stepin.

Well, I would just like to say I think the volunteers have probably been thinking about this a lot.

And they're gonna sometimes when people, you know, that this is their chance to form an organization that um that would be theirs, and they may be taking this very seriously and are gonna put a hard lot of hard work into it.

But whatever option is selected, I mean, whatever we put on the ballot, it's gonna be up to the voters to decide.

They're gonna have to convince the voters that this is a good deal for them.

The voters are gonna make the decision.

We may put it out there, but I don't think we are responsible for figuring out every nuance that may come along and and impede it.

Just just like if we just continue just have like it is right now, you know, how's how's that gonna move forward in the future?

We can't guarantee when you look at the chief executive versus the county manager.

We can't, I don't think we can second guess everything that's gonna happen.

So certainly, you know, we want to make informed decisions, and if but at the same time it's ultimately the voters' decision, and they're gonna have to the volunteers are gonna have to, I think, demonstrate to the voters that they know what they're doing.

Mr.

Stepin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mary, thank you.

I don't I don't disagree with that and and Lori same to your comment on a transition plan.

But if I'm being honest, what I'm struggling with is if this document is intended to be here are the steps that we believe we will begin to take in the case that they're taking out of the charter.

And on the second page at the top, review of existing taxing jurisdictions and levy framework frameworks to determine financial sustainability and compliance under proposed restructuring.

It's gonna be difficult for me, even on this commission for a preliminary report where there's an opportunity to do a lot of research, but I would hope that we would feel confident in financial sustainability before placing something on the ballot.

And the way this reads to this reads to me like once they're out of the charter, steps will be taken to determine financial sustainability, and that scares that scares me.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um again, that's why I hope we have time to bring up the volunteers, and I would say also once we're we work on option two and three, if that's the journey we're on, to also bring up folks to get more information with options two and three as well.

Um but Mary, thank you so much for bringing up the education piece because I have talked with many people, and and that's exactly what I've been telling folks is that once we come up with options, it's incumbent upon those folks, be there be they the volunteers with option one, um the careers with option three.

Um the task for them is to educate the public.

That's not, I mean, we can educate folks about the study commission and our framework and what we're doing with the charter to move the county forward, hopefully in a good space, setting us up for success.

Thank you, Chad again, um, for the next 10 years at least.

But for again, for the the meet with regard to the options, it's incumbent upon each of those groups and others as well, with like the city county manager and all the other questions that we have potentially to put on the ballot.

If those are options for November of 26th, they must reach out to the public and make their case, make their argument and make you know those determinations to educate the public because that's how you get things passed.

You need to need to do that in any scenario, so that's on them.

Thank you.

I'll take Mr.

Denhey and then Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I think when we have our public hearings, we'll be listening to a number of folks who have a proposition on one certain aspect and a negative negative position on another aspect.

But we as the study commission need to have the language that people understand.

And it's a binary, as I take from my friend Matt question.

Is are you are you in favor of a uh city manager?

Or are you in favor of the existing government chief executive?

Are you in favor of 12 commissioners as they are now?

Or are you in favor of reducing the size of the commission as we have discussed?

This issue, very hard, and I I all my kudos go out to my friends.

I wish the fire council would make it easier, and I know this is a it's just a stickler for me.

First, they call it a rule fire district, second, they call it a single consolidated volunteer district.

Then they go back to a rule fire district position.

So sometimes I think the language is important and it's just changing back and forth sometimes, I think, in the in the volunteer fire department question.

Is it good if I call it fire?

A rule fire?

Ooh.

Or is it good if I call it volunteer fire?

Which one's gonna help more?

Let's put them both in and see what sticks.

No, no, no, no, no, wait, no, I'm not done.

And so I think we deserve to, I think we are obligated to have that sort of language before the public hearing so people understand what we're voting for.

And I really like the issue of volunteer fire departments will not be mentioned in the charter from this day forth.

Substantive to that effect.

Or future rebound local government will have the authority, organization, financial responsibility for all fire departments, including volunteer, as we go forward.

One or the other.

That's fairly, I think what the volunteers want is independence.

And that's what the first option is.

They're out of the charter.

That's pretty easy.

And we can hear the discussion.

I'm sure it will be packed with people going, yeah, that's great.

Yeah, that's what we want.

And on the other end, no, I don't think you understand the viability and the training and the financial and organizational structure that's needed to run a very strong force of a fire department, both volunteer and career.

If you look at the survey, that's what it said.

Survey said we want to we want a vault, we want a paid fire department.

One.

I think it hit like 25, 35 percent, or hybrid, which is option three.

I don't think there is a whole lot of in the survey.

I know it's only 400.

I said, let's have separate paid and separate volunteer.

I think that was one of the last percentages.

So my point is is that when we are asking for public input and we're asking, and and Cindy, you're absolutely right.

When the tire hits the road, it's gonna be the voters that make this decision.

But I think we're obligated to give them a decision or language that they can agree on or make sense that is easily understood.

And so I think one option one and option three are absolutely appropriate.

Um that is kind of a and I know Matt is gonna give us a his legal opinion, which is very much important, and this is all my this diatribe I'm saying might all change after Matt's legal opinion, as a as it usually does.

Um, but I think we need to be very clear that people need a very clear understanding what the issue is and not to cloud it.

And I think you did a great job in putting three options apart uh a part of this, and I think we should continue to look that way as we go forward on a public hearing.

Thanks.

I think it was Ms.

McCormick, and then I'll take Ms.

Dolan.

I forgot what I was gonna say.

But um I do think you know what reviewing the existing taxing jurisdictions, there's gonna be people out in those rural areas and people that um they're gonna they're gonna want to know that stuff, and then so I do think that the volunteers are gonna have to come up with some stuff to present on how they see that these will be financed.

There's just no doubt in my mind, the the public's gonna be asking that.

But it's I think it's for them to answer, the volunteers, and not necessarily us.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Dan, I really agree with what you just said.

I mean, I think the simplicity of the language is so important.

I think the reason, and I'm the again, this is just my opinion guessing why the language is a little different in this uh document, is because all of the things that we've been discussing over the past year and the things we've learned about the past 50 years, I think there's so much confusion with the language that's stated in the charter currently, the language that's in X state statute, uh, and then another state statute that overrode that state statute.

So there's so much confusion with this, and then HB 547 language, and all of that is extremely concern uh confusing, and that's why our fire group really tried hard to kind of cull it down to three options.

But to your point, and this is why we asked last week to get more information to try and clarify it.

And so this is the first run for option one clarification.

But I Dan, I think you're absolutely right.

We need additional clarification because at the end of this process, I think you're right, and Mary's right, and Cindy too, that we need to make sure when we get something to the voter, it's crystal clear, easy to understand, not confusing, because if they have this, that, or the other, there'll be language, and we'll get to the ballot language later, but at least the ideas are succinct and digestible for especially when we go out on our second round of listening sessions.

Mr.

Silk?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Then I'll be I'm gonna make this quick.

I think we just need to make sure that we're putting the setting the public up the correct way with public safety.

You know, I know that there's discussion that this is a hard topic to talk about, to talk about.

When you are on scene and there are people inside of a trap building, that's where it counts.

That is the kind of decision that we're making right now.

When we talk about the finances, I don't care who gets money and who doesn't get money.

I care about when a fire department, PD, A1 arrive on scene, that they are operationally sound and they don't get a decide whether they're going to play with this operation or that operation.

That is what the public deserves.

Um this is getting very complicated when it doesn't.

And I know you brought up House Bill 547.

All that was designed to do was give the voters the ability to run the fire service through ordinance.

Please look at it very simple.

And that's all that I think, in my opinion, and I will continue to say this because I was elected to do this.

Run the fire department through ordinance.

Let's let's let's not make this as complicated as it needs to be because of tradition.

Tradition cannot impede progress for public safety.

Okay, so I think to kind of move us along.

Um the document that we received from from uh Chief Fisher, I think we consider that as draft.

He might want to change language or or do a few um changes to you know make sure that he's representing that well.

Secondly, in the way I'm thinking about this, this document would be part of our report or an addendum or appendix to our report because this is their their perceived process.

It's not a recommendation we're making, it's rather their process, and so it would be informational for the voter.

Our job is to decide on option one, looking at that language and how we'd want to shape it.

And I think we're not in the position to do that yet.

Uh we need to hear from um county attorney N Ruth from his memorandum and decide if we want to bring that um that issue forward.

Now I think we definitely want to include it in our report, our preliminary report.

I don't know that we need to vote on that, but we do need to um eventually get to a place where we're making recommendations and getting ballot language going.

So I'm if if we're okay, I think we need to sit uh option one aside, and then I would like us all to put our brains to do some evaluation here.

I think Mr.

Silk brought up a great question, and it was echoed by um Ms.

Casey as well.

It's like what does this mean?

You know, how how do we see this unfolding?

And yes, it's not our job to be able to see through the future or to do their work for them, but we need as the protectors of the voters or the informants to the voters to at least have thought through those things.

And then what might a transition plan look like, or what are our unanswered questions?

And you know, certainly taxing authority is one of them, uh safety of the public might be another.

Um so I'd like us to do some work um individually and come back with that sort of information.

Um and I think it is fine.

We can ask the volunteers to come up at the next meeting, you know, certainly and to answer some of the questions that we might have from their perspective.

Um is there any comments, questions, or anything I need to clarify in the work, Ms.

Casey.

Madam Chair, I don't think we're there tonight, but I do think it's important.

We voted on everything else that we put in the preliminary report, such as the park and rec becoming its own department.

So I think to stay consistent, we should vote when the time when we are ready to what o whether it's two options, all three of the options, what we're actually going to uh put in the report.

Uh and if we're ready tonight, that's fine too.

But I I think we've voted on all the other options to go forward and put them in the preliminary report.

Yeah, my apologies.

I misspoke.

Um I want us to vote.

I think not tonight, though.

I think we need to dig at this a little bit more.

Unless, you know, I go with the will of the commission if you want to take action tonight on if this option goes into the report or not, we certainly can.

But Ms.

McCormick.

At this point, I think we should vote on what options we're gonna include tonight.

It's just going into the preliminary report.

That way, all these things get to get in there.

We still will have time to do this additional research, educate ourselves a little bit more before we go to the public hearing and be able to talk to the talk to people.

But you know, we're not voting on the final thing.

We're just voting on the preliminary report.

And I would, you know, and then people from the public and other people can come and say what they think about that.

And we'll be they will educate us and hopefully we'll educate them.

I think you're saying it don't be a chicken.

Just take a vote.

Okay.

I like it.

Okay, so I have Ms.

Shaw, Mr.

Denny, and Ms.

Dolan.

So Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I agree with Mary.

I mean, we don't want to be sloppy about this, but I think that we can put together the options that we had presented.

I think they're still pretty viable.

And I also believe that this document that we got from the volunteers, which I think they put a lot of time and effort into doing this, but this definitely should be an addendum.

It's because it's their transition plan, really, and they would be responsible to do that.

I I think it's t we could never put this on a ballot number one, but I do believe it's very important to have it as a as an addendum that people can look at, like Mary said, this is just the first blush.

I hate to repeat myself, but of you know, the preliminary report.

And if we put too much extraneous things in this preliminary report, and I don't want to miss miss anything important, but if we put too much in there, I know how I am.

I mean, I I'd be like glossing over parts of it that be because it just it doesn't isn't consistent or is not or it's confusing.

And when people read the report, they're not gonna be able to call us and say, what does this mean?

Well, I guess they could, but most people wouldn't bother to do that.

So simplicity, I think is important, but don't but also the flip side is not to really uh miss something that's important.

So that's just my thought on it on it.

And I saw Cindy Purdue Dolan shaking her head, so go ahead.

Oh, okay.

Mr.

Denny is next, and then I'll take Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree.

I agree with Mary and I agree with Cindy.

I think that this is a preliminary report.

We make some draft decisions and what the language is and listen to the public when they come up and talk about it.

To do it the other way is we're not listening to the public.

So let's put it in the preliminary report.

We're gonna change, I would imagine we're gonna change several things in the preliminary report as they are drafted now.

I'm sure there's gonna be language on neighborhood councils.

I I think there are going to be changes on whether or not we would think part-time or full-time commissioners.

I think we're gonna change on what's the districts are gonna be.

But unless that is in front of someone and have that sort of public hearing and public comment, we might miss something.

So I agree with Mary and and Cindy that we should draft and make a decision on what the language should be tonight and move forward to listen to the public comment on what we have done tonight.

Thank you, Mr.

Denehee, Ms.

Dillon.

And then Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Dan, I don't know if we're able to put language other than option one, one sentence on remove the volunteers from the charter, and then more.

Is that what you're referring to?

Yeah.

Um I'm I'm referring to option one and option three.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um so I would just say in in our deliberation for a vote tonight to include option one, and then we can go option two and option three as as down the road.

But I would I would make just the one final comment to say every single option has pros and cons.

Every single option, you know, we just heard as this discussion for option one, the sky's falling and all this.

Absolutely, but there are pros as well.

And same with option two and three.

You know, three specifically, there's been a huge I say huge.

There's been input that we've received that, you know, uh mass exit at f exodus from the volunteers, um, and that scenario.

So there are pros and cons to each option, and I don't want to dwell on one saying, you know, the sky's falling.

Like Lori said earlier, or I think it was Laurie, sorry, um, but the volunteers worked independently prior to the charter.

So they're not going to invent the wheel.

The wheel has already been, although it's very old, there is a there is a structure there.

There is a precedent there.

So with that, I I'm so glad we had this conversation tonight.

I think it moves things along, and I think we can go back to the volunteers to say we need some changes to this to make that uniform with as far as language to make that consistent um for an addendum.

So thanks.

I think that was good.

And and just to put some punctuation back on the homework, that's exactly what I would like all of us to do before we come to next meeting is have some evaluation of these options from our perspectives, knowing that they're maybe not fully informed, we're going to have the information that we have and do our best thinking.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

My suggestion as we talk about moving options forward is maybe to have some discussion about option two.

Um information, I guess, that I was tasked to try and get from the county attorney we can discuss with respect to option two.

Maybe I'm saying should we move on to option two and have the discussion and then option three, and then maybe if we feel so inclined, we can take a vote on each of them on moving them into the report.

I think that's completely fine to do that.

So if you'd like to let load out option two, let's do that.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um the it appeared that the question the main question surrounding option two that we've we were grappling with, and then I asked the county attorney uh between last meeting and this meeting was to give his perspective on the two chiefs conversation, dual authority or not dual authority.

Um maybe with that, do you have information that you can share?

Uh chair chairwoman Brown and Council.

So the question is whether or not we can have two chiefs.

I read the state law as you can have a paid fire chief who's in charge.

Um I think you can have a paid fire chief and a volunteer chief, but I do not think that they can be on equal footing as the law reads itself, as the state statutes read.

Um interestingly enough though, uh, Commissioner Steffen, after you uh presented that question to me the other night, I I have thought about it.

The one thing that we I think we keep overlooking is the power of the charter.

The state statutes are clear.

The a county cannot modify a volunteer fire department except through charter.

So I I do believe that this council has the ability using the charter to lay out the specific terms of how a volunteer fire department uh that is in existence, continues to be in existence in a consolidated city-county government, such as um obviously option number one, since it's already in the charter is removing them from the charter.

Um, but option number two is consolidating them into the charter under a certain set of rules and guidelines.

So I do believe that the council can come up with the option of the volunteer fire departments will be incorporated into the you know city-county government of Butte Silverbow County, the ones that were in existence when we consolidated, um, and that their structure will be set forth as follows.

You know, chief, this, this, this, and what the that specific chief's responsibilities are, you know, and then who they would answer to.

Um I I believe that that is a true possibility.

I think that that's a large undertaking.

Um, but it's it's similar to option three, in which you know you have both of them still in the charter, but you're specifically laying out what the volunteers are going to be, what the current volunteer departments are going to be responsible for.

Now, again, the the the other reason this gets complicated with Butte Silverbow County is Melrose.

I mean, they are technically I mean, really, they are their own entity outside of us.

So I think whatever the council does, it has to be very clear on what volunteer departments it is affecting.

Um, I think you can pick and choose what volunteer departments it affects.

Uh I believe the statutes uh allow for that because of expansion and growth.

Um, you know, whereas right now we have some internal volunteer departments, but we still have the ones on the outside.

So the charter, you know, can say the volunteer, you know.

I believe the charter has the possibility of explicitly laying out under option two that the volunteer departments are incorporated, that their uh uh budgets and things of that nature are going to be taken care of by you know the county, but it can lay out how they function.

You know, one chief uh what their areas, what they're going to do.

I think that's possible, but again, that requires a lot of conversation with the volunteer departments and how you know they want to work together is as well, because the statute allows them to consolidate themselves.

Um they can do this by uh talking to with the members of their districts, having a vote with the trustees.

But the charter all the state statute also allows the charter to do that, allows the city-county government to make that decision.

So, yes, you can have, I think you can have a fully volunteer chief.

I just don't think you can have a paid volunteer chief.

Um I think they have to be a volunteer because they're part of the volunteer department, and I do think they have to answer to some other authority within the department within the fire department, because if that's not happening, then what you have is two separate volunteer fire departments with two separate sets of authority.

Um it would be like having two separate sets of you know road construction crews that one does uptown or downtown.

You know, you you need to there needs to be someone at the top that's running all of all the fire services is how I read the statutes.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So taking some liberties here, I'm just gonna give them how I'm interpreting what you're saying, and you tell me if I'm way off base or not.

But option two is the way you explained it, looks sounds a lot like option three, but with an explicitly stated consolidation.

Correct.

Whereas it seems to make sense to me that if option one is the preferred option of the volunteers and option three is the preferred option of the career.

Why would we want to take an additional step in charter to consolidate, particularly if everyone seems to think consolidation is inevitable?

Is it I guess what I'm what I'm looking at is if we have option, we don't need option two and option three.

If what I'm if the way I'm interpreting authority is accurate, we we think option two creates confusion and issues that may not be necessary and will likely work themselves out in options one and and or three.

Chairman Brenner uh uh Commissioner Steppen yes and no.

U op sh what I think option two does is allows this council to set the rules.

Option three allows Silver Boat County to set the rules.

That's the two big differences.

Um it's not this council, I shouldn't say that.

It option two, well, all the options give the public the ability to make their decision.

Option two is the option that can be presented by the council that says this is how we think it should be structured, where option three is uh we're completely moving the volunteer departments into the consolidated city county government and having the county will have full authority and and then make that decision later on.

Does that make more sense?

Mr.

Silk?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the questions I would just ask that fellow commissioners think about over the next week is what is wrong with running the fire department through ordinance that allows anyone to come up here and speak on how its fire department should be run without getting stuck in a charter.

The ordinances are laws for a reason, and if there's something that is running really well, um maybe you create an ordinance and you follow that for an extended period of time if something is wrong, then you fix an ordinance and it's fluid and it allows the community to change throughout the time, as well as when we talk about a transition period, what if we don't get it right and things need to be changed?

It could be changed through ordinance and still allow the community to have a say.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Because I don't know that I'm smart enough to understand exactly.

Are you saying that option three gives the power to the government and the people?

Well, option two is a little too prescriptive.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Steppen.

Yes, that's exactly it.

But through our ordinances, the community gets a vote on how that they want the charter, but then they can also vote to be more descriptive on how they want the fire department to be run, other than just what's listed in the charter.

So I'm I'm trying to um imagine Chad, are you uh asking like why not just leave things alone and run it through ordinance?

Or are you looking for like option three and then run through ordinance, you know, kind of guide me where you're going with your things?

And I'm sorry for not clarifying this.

So we talked about option one where um volunteers would be removed from the charter, and option two, they would be in the charter, but there would be a very, very descriptive framework, which would be very hard for this commission to figure out without understanding how a true fire department works, or option three, which still allows for the fire department to be run through ordinance.

Yes.

So in my opinion, going forward, and like Mary said, this is a preliminary report.

We don't have to die on the sword.

I would like to see option one and then option three move forward because then in option three, the community will still have the ability to come up and change the structure of the ordinance or the structure of the fire department through ordinance.

Ms.

Dolan, and then I'll take Mr.

Denny.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I'll just make this observation from our working group and even prior to the creation of the working group, and I'll still go back to what Lori said earlier about the after the vote in November of 26th, there will be a transition time.

And I think that's a great point to make.

Um I don't believe until the very end when we were having our last couple of fire group discussions and the one with the county attorney as well, that and this might be a uh incorrect uh observation from me, but I do not think option two was really a viable thing that the even the volunteers had come up with.

It was something of kind of a melding of a couple ideas.

And I think after tonight's discussion, um I have to agree with Dan and Chad and Matt as well, um, that after we're discussing this, and then of course, with your memo, Matt as well, uh county attorney, um, that it really seems that uh for all intents and purposes, one and three seem like viable options, and two, like others have said, it's a little confusing, and I don't know if it's right on the money as to what the volunteers have produced to us through testimony of everyone paid and volunteer with this kind of option, this option two.

So I would just add that and say, you know, I think we're really getting down to maybe two options, but I don't want to jump the gun, but that's just I think from this discussion, thanks.

Mr.

Denny?

Thank you, madam chair.

Yeah.

In the option three um bullets, it says require follow-up ordinance, divine roles, processes and expectations.

So uh I think option three, Chad does have ordinance involvement.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, and that's where I was I think it we eliminate option two to sum it up really quick.

Option one and option three, um, and and I made that way more complicated, I guess.

But I just think that running it through ordinance, because even if we don't get it right, there's still the opportunity to change it to make it right, not only in the short term, but in the long term as well.

Ms.

Dolan?

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to say one more thing on the record so it's you know, for posterity or whatever.

I just don't I I just can't remember in recent months or recent years.

Um has it maybe this is a quick question for Chad.

I don't even know if you can answer it, but um in the past, like say 10 years, let's just say 10, um, how many times has the fire department come up to the council of commissioners asking for changes or updates and ordinance with regard to fire?

Um, how many times has the fire department come up to the council of commissioners asking for changes or updates and ordinance with regard to fire?

I mean, if if that's the option, the idea that I know you keep talking about ordinances and that structure, I just don't know how many times the fire department has actually come up to change ordinances over the past ten years.

Madam Chair, thank you, and Ms.

Dolman, yeah, thank you for the question.

Very good question.

That's the problem with the way that the ordinance or the charter is written now, is there's ambiguity ambiguity ambiguity between who is in charge of district trustees or buttonsilver bow.

So until we know that very clear, what path do you take?

Right?

Now there's been ordinances changed on say how the career department hires through ordinance and in simple things like that.

There's been change through the urban fire protection district when those boundaries change.

But as far as operations, there's a lot of them still from the 1977 on original consolidation.

So my recommendation would be if option three does pass in the transition period, it is for the council of commissioners, the volunteers and the career to totally revamp and bring up to speed all of the ordinances under the fire services.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and just because I used to work with ordinances a lot, you know, if they can be changed, they can be taken away, they can be, you know, um decided that they're obsolete or they're not correct anymore, or they just be amended.

But there's a process that it I think is really great.

Chad and I have talked about this before, is if you put it in the charter, it's there for at least 10, and maybe more like this last time.

Uh there are th some things though that I think could go into the charter on option three, and that is the volunteer fire to coordinator position could be memorialized, like Matt had put in here, and that could be in the charter.

That's one thing that would be a solid piece that could be put in the charter for however long until the time that it gets changed.

But I I like the fluid idea of having ordinances as much as possible, really, because they have such a you know, an opportunity for for discussion change, and of course, is up to the commissioners, but that's what they do with the judiciary branch.

That that was just my comment.

Thanks.

McCormick.

Well, option three is the existing, and that's what all of our alternate I mean, we have an option for change, amending the ordinance, and then we have, and then they vote on keeping the same.

We have to so you can't add something in to what we're calling option three, which is the existing, the existing what it says for fires in the existing.

We can't change that.

It's either they're gonna vote, you know, correct.

We have to have the existing.

You don't get to change we have to have the existing.

Any changes that you make in the existing makes it another amendment, another option.

Does that make sense?

So, you know, it's it's gonna be yeah.

So the status quo for now, and it could be changed by I don't know.

But I mean, I think there are prescriptions in the existing.

It's not like it's there is a prescription in the existing that the volunteers are under the paid fire department.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, madam chair.

I'm gonna do my best to try and give my perspective on that through our conversations with the county attorney.

And so I'm glad Matt, you're here and you can steer me if I'm out of bounds.

But my understanding when drafting these for a form of government question, you are correct that for example, city county attorney versus chief executive is a form of government question that is limited to change or the same.

Because this is not a form of government.

We're not held to that same standard.

And so what option three was attempting, we believe that, or I believe, that the current charter attempted to provide the authority to the director, but somewhere in different legal interpretations, that's not that's not consensus.

And so option three, through adjustments to language that may help remove the ambiguity or strengthen to uh affirm the authority, along with the addition of the fire uh volunteer fire coordinator, could be presented as two options.

One remove from the charter, two give the authority to the director of fire services and revise the language to try to best hold that up to challenge.

Mr.

Step or Mr.

Enruth That was a pretty good way of describing it.

Uh option one is to remove them.

Option two is to uh revamp the language, particularly in section D, it's 7.03 D, um, of how the volunteers are incorporated into the statute.

Um currently, right now, the uh attorney general opinion that the volunteers are relying on states that butte Silverboat County um did not uh properly you know incorporate the authority of the county to deal with volunteers uh taxing authority uh in the in the the first charter amendment.

Then I believe it was in the 90s they did amend it again, and it's it states that Butte Silverbow County will have administrative authority, it does not say financial anywhere though, or taxing authority or that type of clearer language.

So, yes, um because it's not a form of government question, we can have this or this instead of the keeping it or changing it.

Um that's I believe what the council is looking at presenting is option number one removing the volunteers language from our charter, which then I do believe simply reverts them back to being subject to state law, or the second option is adding additional language under the volunteer section and possibly a couple other sections in 7.03 of our charter.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um so with that, my question is with regard to the options and fire, do we also want to have, you know, if we have these options and then have do you want to keep just the same?

I mean, we're status quo, or do we want to not have that as an option because we kind of all at this point understand status quo is not working, we need to do something, but we do we want to make that determination, or do we want to leave that to the voter as well?

Because as we said in the past few meetings, whatever we do and whatever we present to the voter will likely get litigated.

I mean, that kind of is where we're at.

That's not our purview.

I mean, we can't control any of that or any of the other discussions, what have you, but just to have that situational awareness that um whatever we do might have other consequences.

County attorney and Ruth, do you have an opinion on that?

I think the less likely litigated option is option three, where the charter language is corrected.

I think if it remains status quo, uh litigation will be required no matter what to determine exactly what the charter states, and then option number one, I think litigation will also happen mainly because we were told that.

Um I believe in the last meeting, uh Commissioner Steppen said that the volunteers would likely litigate to determine what apparatuses were theirs, what buildings were there, what their taxing authority is.

Um so I think the again, well uh Commissioner Dolan is correct, it's not necessarily the council's uh uh purview to try and stop any litigation from happening.

I do think that the least likely litigated option, if presented and voted on is the corrected language in the charter.

Um, because state statute is clear, city consolidated or consolidated city county governments do have the authority to pull in the volunteers and direct how they run an option.

The charter just has to be clear.

Um the other two options, status quo would require litigation to determine who's in charge, or option number one will require possible litigation to determine who owns what.

So, in thinking through the ballot questions, would you recommend that it be option one or option three and no status quo as a possible voting option?

That's not my decision to make.

That's the council.

I wanted to hear from you though.

I wasn't voted in to make that decision.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So my follow-up question to you, Matt, is uh why do you think option three would likely not get litigated?

I would think that option one and three would get litigated, because if you're going to have, I mean, I have to agree with Mary.

I really think that the, you know, we can talk about language and and what the verbiage is in the charter, but if option three is selected, I think there would be immediate litigation from the volunteers because, in all intents and purposes, again, option three is most is situated to be most like the current setup with some additional change.

Chairwoman Brandle, Commissioner Dolan, because the change corrects it, it corrects the problem.

The problem is the ambiguity in the charter.

It doesn't specifically state that the city-county of Butte Silverbow took these volunteer districts into its consolidation and now has authoritative control, taxing control, um, how they're going to function control.

The only thing that the state law, in my opinion, prohibits this county from doing is essentially messing with the retirement plan package that's part of those statutes.

If the volunteers would like to litigate the fact that the people of Silverbow County voted to pull them into the charter and allow the charter to have full control over them, they can.

Nothing is stopping them.

What I'm saying is is that litigation coming from a county standpoint, uh it's a lot simpler.

They corrected their charter as they you know they thought.

What that amounts to, in my opinion, is the volunteers not liking what the will of the people did, and they want to remain autonomous.

But that's where the state law allows for that modification.

It allows for communities that grow to pull in the volunteer systems and through a vote of the people run those volunteer systems, not through a vote of simply the volunteers themselves.

Do I think that litigation could still occur?

Yes.

But what m I was simply stating was cleaning up the charter, what it does is it uh it makes it, it makes it clear that this was the county's intention.

Our intention is through the charter as required by state law, these volunteer fire districts are now being being incorporated into the consolidated city-county government, and this is how we're going to control them.

I do think there's ambiguity in the the charter itself right now.

It doesn't specifically state that they have that the county would take full taxing authority or anything like that.

They did that through ordinance.

And so when you look at that attorney general's opinion, which actually happened prior to the newest charter being implemented, it specifically states that that the city-county government did not take into consideration in their charter the taxing authority of the volunteers, which is why when it states in 7.03D that we're going to follow the charter and state law, the attorney general at that time specifically stated state law says they have this because you didn't change it in your charter.

I actually think that Attorney General's opinion provides a very solid basis for stating that the county can do as they see fit with the charter so long as it is clearly laid out.

Ms.

McCormick, is there as a follow-up?

Follow-up, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I I guess I I'm having a hard time understanding this because so far, all of the time we've been talking, we've been talking about how state law trumps uh the charter.

Yes.

And so if it was that simple, I'm wondering why hasn't this been done?

I mean, this the simplistic nature of your opinion, I'm having I'm struggling with because over fifty years, why hasn't it been done?

And if it was that simple, I mean, now we have state statute, state statute, uh charter, charter language, you know, uh, who has and to Chad's question and point who's in charge and who is that authority.

So I'm I'm trying to try to wrap my head around that.

Would you like my answer?

My answer is because the people that sat in these chairs before you and myself simply didn't want to tackle the topic because of all of the issues that you're having now.

Because of the infighting, because of the consequences of those actions, because of all of that.

It's a topic that no one has wanted to tackle for 40 years.

I'm gonna take Ms.

McCormick.

Please she's been waiting patiently.

Ms.

McCormick.

Well, thank you for thank Madam Chair, and thank you, Matt, for explaining that because I was I realize how confused I was on these options.

You know, I I have a different interpretation of the state law, and probably then the county attorney when I've read it and when I've read, I mean the state law and what the attorney general how they interpreted it.

I differ.

What is gonna be the exact wording in the charter?

I want to see that language.

You know, like we did with changes to going to um a chief executive to county manager.

What are all what are I would like to see all that because this there's a lot more implications than changes in that charter language than what we gather from here, the the things that the county attorney said.

So I'd like to have those things spelled out.

What I've often thought when I'm thinking about this is if this was to pass, I think it would present to the state legislature and the government that the local people want this, and I think that's kind of what our governor was asking us for.

If we have that support, and maybe they could pass another law, like that law, I can't remember what bill it was that got that got kicked back.

I mean, I don't think why did they take that to there?

Because there was some ambiguity there and that and they wanted to straighten out make things in compliance.

So that's why I think this option would be good.

I don't think it's it's I don't think it's consistent with the state law.

I don't think it's consistent with the internees general's interpretation of the state law.

But what it could do is demonstrate that the people of Butte Silverbow want this, and that may be gained support.

But I want to see, I mean, now I feel more uncomfortable.

I want to see what our charter language would what we're proposing before.

Thank you.

Fair enough.

Ms.

Dolan.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, yeah, I just we we went from talking about option two right into starting to talk about option three with no demarcation.

So um I I would hope that just like option one, we need clear uh implications, clear road ahead, what what is it gonna look like just like we asked the volunteers?

We need to ask the paid, you know, for option three.

What does that look like?

What are the pros?

What are the cons?

You know, and get a fuller picture.

Um because that's extremely important.

And yeah, I I you know may or may not agree with the county attorney's opinion, but that's neither here nor there.

Um I just want to get them the most um information out to the public with regard to these options and do the best job we can in our purview.

Ms.

Casey.

Madam Chair, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to Mary's point.

We didn't go back and ask the chief executive what he wanted language, or or we didn't ask a city manager out there what kind of language.

So would it be easier if the working group proposed what that language would look like?

They've they've obviously talked to the paid and the volunteer.

I think option three added in a volunteer coordinator.

Um maybe some duties, your thoughts of from talking to them, maybe just simply put that in a a red-lined um charter so that we could look at it.

I think because we can go back and forth to what the volunteers want and what the the paid want all year long, I think, really and truly.

Nobody's gonna come and say, yeah, that's the perfect document, because if it was that simple, it would have been done.

I agree.

And um so maybe that's the direction we need to go.

Maybe we could tonight vote if we think option number two is completely out, so that we can the focus can be.

Option one seems pretty simple as far as charter language goes, that any anywhere that volunteered department is in the charter would be removed.

Uh but maybe option three, and maybe that would make everyone maybe then we could add more.

Because now it seems like we're just kind of going back and forth and keep circling that we need more information.

At some point we have information overload and we we gotta make the tough decisions.

Thank you, Ms.

Casey.

Um Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that.

What you described is where we have been as a working group saying we we are asking the group to help us pick a couple of directions before we start diving into language, right?

And I think it's important to number one get down to what we can vote on what what we decide the intent of the option to carry out, and then lean into the county attorney to say show us the language that accomplishes this, right?

And I think that's important.

That's kind of where that binary idea comes from.

That I think that if we can agree that option one is over here and option two is over here, and we're bringing it to the people, then option one makes sure we're over here, and option two makes sure we're over here, right?

And so you you've basically described how we've been feeling with respect to these options that they're they're extremely complicated to start go getting into charter language without deciding what as a group what we feel the intent of the options needs to be.

Mr.

Anne Ruth.

Uh to add to my answer previously, that's everything that you guys just discussed.

That's why it hasn't gotten done in 40 years.

It's hard.

You have two very diverse, not diverse, excuse me.

They're not diverse groups of people.

They actually have the same goal.

They want to protect and serve their community.

You just have two different diverse ways of thought processes about getting there.

I truly believe it really actually is a simple legal answer.

It is not a simple public answer or uh I can't think of a better word to describe it, but it's it's not an easy road to get there because of uh interpersonal relationships or community opinions.

The the legal answer I do think is simple.

It's the hard answer that this council has been tasked with trying to answer, and I think that if everybody looks at the fact that it's has taken this long to even get to where you guys are now, shows how difficult it is to answer that question.

And I do want to say I commend all of you for doing that.

Um you are the ones that stepped up and actually decided to tackle the topic, and that's a difficult thing to do.

And I just wanted to say thank you for that.

And that's you know, I wanted to add that to my answer.

That I think that's really why it hasn't been done, is just how hard it is to tackle the topic.

But the legal answers to it are simple.

It's what the county itself, the people want, and the people that are behind, not behind it, but the people that are on, you know, uh we want it this way or that way, and I think that's what makes it so difficult.

And so I just wanted to say, I think you guys are doing a great job getting to those answers because to be honest with you, my job's easy.

I literally just have to tell you legally speaking, this is all what you have to do.

It's not the legal answer that's difficult here.

It is the the possibility of the options that this council is putting forth towards the public that are the difficult ones to come up with.

Like legally speaking, we can very easily, whichever way the council decides to go, draft that language.

It's just a matter of what where do you where do you go to?

So, folks, um to the question I asked you about if we should have status quo on the ballot.

I think I mean we can we can consider that, but I I just think we need to come forward with solutions for our community, and I I think kicking the can down the road is the wrong decision.

And so I think it's time to vote on which options we want to bring forward to the report.

And Mr.

Thielen, I realize that you've came into the meeting late.

So if you'd like to answer or have any questions or kind of hear more about our deliberations, I'm happy to fill you in.

Um but we kind of looked at option two as being struck from our options to bring forward simply because as Mr.

Enruth was describing it, we would have to come up with the entire framework to make that work.

Like, here's what our charter is going to say, and we're going to have these people with this authority, and we would function to um provide um the framework for both the volunteers and and the paid, and it was an elaborate solution.

And so this can this council kind of had moved from that, but I I know that was one of the things that you had on the table, so I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

Madam Chair.

Okay.

I appreciate you, Mr.

Thielen.

So at this time, if we're ready, Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to um for the working group to advance options one and three to contel curtail further work on option two, eliminate option two.

And by our next meeting, they um hopefully, well that by our next meeting, you would have chartered language for both of those options, draft charter language that could be presented to the group before their next um at least a few days before our next meeting, so we can start to review it.

Is there a second?

Uh Ms.

Shaw Seconds, is there discussion?

Ms.

Shaw.

I know I seconded it, but the only thing I wanted to ask was did we also need to verbalize that we are not going to have status quo on it?

That that would be my question.

I mean, we're having option one and three, but do we need to actually verbalize that there is a option three, which is the status quo?

Mr.

Enrickey, uh Council, I don't think you need to verbalize that because you are presenting the two changed options.

Uh I do think that the way you simply get to status quo is by not presenting an option.

If you get there, I do not think you need to put on the ballot keeping it the same.

If the council cannot get to a uh consensus on option one or two, uh the status quo remains the status quo.

There's no need to put anything on the ballot.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to ask the working group if if that's realistic and the deadlines for them, or do you further need help from this group for charter language, or do you want to just kind of go to your group and proceed?

I just I just want to make sure because uh Matt has said they came back to us for this to proceed and what they think before we vote and say, here's your deadline.

Thank you.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

It's it's a hard question to answer.

I think option one will likely be a much simpler ballot language.

Um the way I first see option three is sitting with the county attorney and saying, what do we do?

You know, how how does what changes need to be made to present option three in a way that it's most likely to stand up?

And then it we're kind of leaning on his expertise.

So are you ready?

And I'm happy to be the person on our committee that that sees that through with the county attorney's support.

Yes.

We're ready.

We can sit down just like we did that Tuesday, uh, a two or three-hour meeting between the four or five people or the four we have four or five people in that room.

Four four of you guys and me, five.

I I think together we make a smart person.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, uh I did have one question for uh county attorney and ruth here.

What is the taxing authority?

Just because I don't know for the volunteers, what can they do?

Chairman Brandle, Commissioner Thielen, pursuant to state statute, uh, volunteer fire departments have taxing authority within their districts in order to um accomplish that taxing authority, they've uh file for special mills.

Um you missed a a great ex uh great explanation of that by Commissioner Casey earlier tonight that uh each one of those districts has different mill values, um, how many people are in the district, you know, what they're gonna be required to request uh for taxing authority based on the services that they're going to be providing.

Um it's a lot more in-depth of an answer than that, but the general basis is state law allows them through their uh trustees to present special levies to the people within their districts to collect taxes uh that then go to the uh county treasurer and then be distributed to them through special levies through special levies establishing the mills.

Um is there further discussion on the motion?

Ms.

Dolan.

Um thank you, madam chair.

app but the general basis is state law allows them through their uh trustees to present special levies to the people within their districts um to collect taxes uh that then go to the uh county treasurer and then be distributed to them um through special levies through special levies establishing the mills um is there further discussion on the motion miss dolen um thank you madam chair i just wanted to make the note that um i i think we can definitely do with the working group with the meeting our next meeting is not till february twenty third but what I also wanted to say is we got this uh you know additional information from the volunteers as an addendum for the public to learn and and read um if they go to the website and they look at our minutes and all of that I would hope and I would suggest the option three to have more additional information.

I know it's information overload but if there's an addendum for option one of what the next steps are I think it's prudent to ask those with option three to come up with again an addendum to have more meat like we asked everybody last week and I think we need to do have some equality there with the additional information on option one next steps and then to ask option three then if that is passed what does the future look like in that regard okay I I hear the request and I think that we can fold that into future meetings and and perhaps um the working group can reach out to career or you know get some more information but um I don't think that's about the vote right now so the motion is about moving option one and three forward to the working group and that the working group come back to um the next meeting on the 23rd with possible um charter language so if there's no further discussion I'd like to take that vote please okay all all those who are in favor please signify by saying aye.

Aye are there any opposed okay motion carries unanimously thank you folks for this great debate I appreciate the time and the thoughtfulness and yes I think Ms.

Dolan we can bring in some more information and do our thinking I like I do want us to each do our pros and cons and be ready with that discussion when we come back because I think it's important for our public to understand what we're viewing as that that those pros and cons.

Okay looking ahead in our agenda any new business and then we don't have a public meeting tonight or hearing tonight and then other scheduled matters um Ms Shaw thank you Madam Chair I know we we talked about um Sha Shanna and uh Rainland and I talked about going to the exchange club for follow-up and I it really is kind of con well there's two pieces but we have to go with what options we have that we already asked the exchange club in their next opening was March twent and until we really have this thing hammered out I can't see having a meeting until after our public our first uh preliminary report goes out so I it's kind of in flux right now I guess that's about the only but we need a a second person I'll be one and I don't know if if we can get someone to uh volunteer to be the second person then I would keep you in the loop on that date so thank you Mr.

Donahy Okay that's it all right um the other item is on February 25th we do have party line scheduled so if we want to exchange meetings or thumb wrestle on who gets to go on party line we can um certainly make sure that we have somebody there so I'm I'm okay with that just being um organized through email and then our next study commission meeting will be February 23rd here in the council chambers and Mr.

Thielen how about that uh I make a motion we adjourn and go home it's been a long day madam chair and I never want to disagree with my friend over there but can we talk a little bit about the working group in terms of language when when we get back what we should have ready for the uh tentative agreement or tentative report can we work together during that week or next couple week yeah and then get it done.

Okay thanks Okay now can we go home?

Is there a second Mr.

Donahue was like no I don't want to go I want to be here for a while okay and Mr.

Silk Seconds thank you all we'll see you in two weeks