I'd like to call the March 9th study commission meeting to order.

If we can please have a roll call, have uh Lori Casey, Cindy Purdue Dolan's excused, Ben Thielen, Matt Stepin, Raylan Brandle, Dan Denehy, Chad Silk, Cindy Shaw, and Mary McCormick.

If we can have our Pledge of Allegiance in prayer.

Okay.

Um emails.

And then public comment on anything not on the agenda, also nobody in the audience tonight.

So can I have an approval of the minutes of meeting held February 23rd?

We had a set of revised minutes that came out from Shanna.

Um, and we have the original minutes.

So if I can have an approved uh minutes from February 23rd.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is really difficult, but there's some things that are in the uh revised minutes, I think that maybe Shanna just took it like in the past where it was just done word for word.

And I just have I struggle with some of the things that are that were in there.

So I'm not sure how to address that uh with this body, but maybe you put it out to discussion.

Madam Chair.

So there's the amended minutes of February twenty-third.

And then there was the minutes that were provided to us by Shanna that weren't a minute were the originals.

Original minutes, which didn't have some of the uh comments and some of the uh corrections or additions to it.

Um I would say that I would rather approve the minutes that are not amended.

Um just because I think you have the opportunities to do that, but I think you get into a slippery slope where you know you might not know what the minutes are, or you want something to add it on after the fact.

Um just because I think you have the opportunities to do that, but I think you get into a slippery slope where you know you might not know what the minutes are, or you want something to add it on after the fact, and I think last week when Commissioner Purdue Dolan brought it up, no one knew what was in her mind, and then she sent the the um the additions, the amendments to Shanna for conclusion, and I don't I I don't think it adds to our debate, it doesn't take away from the debate, it's just some sort of I guess editorial comments and from my perspective.

I don't think we need those.

I think uh those people who are involved in that committee meeting in that that meeting itself knew what the discussion was, but I don't think it has to be approved and and made uh part of our record.

So I would say that in my mind I would rather have the non-amended minutes approved versus the amended uh approved just because if I don't like what happens here tonight, I want to go back and say, Shannon, could you look at the verbatim transcript?

And I want to add something to that, and I just don't think uh hindsight's 2020 in in this case, so I would rather have the non-amended uh minutes approved.

Are there other comments or discussion in relation?

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, madam chair.

I would agree with both Cindy and Dan.

I don't think the addition of what's in the minutes.

The minutes are supposed to be a summary of what transpired, and I don't think what's been amended is germane to what we are doing here.

It doesn't affect any decisions that we made or did not make during that period.

And so I I would recommend not approving the amended amendments also or be in favor of that.

Uh it is a permanent record because YouTube's a permanent record of what happened, but I just don't think as a summary of going back to look at minutes of what we need to do, or if somebody wanted to see what transpired.

I don't think the addition is germane to what we are doing.

Okay.

Is there any other discussion regarding the amended minutes?

Okay, Ms.

McCormick.

I guess I would just like to say, you know what Cindy and Dan and Lori have referred to as the minutes being summary of um discussions, is certainly comparable to what happens at a regular council of commissioner meetings.

You know, those are very long meetings, and there's always lots of discussions, but um I think the council secretary takes great care to summarize, you know, um really what the key points are and what the motions are and what the findings are.

So I agree with that um Dan's motion that we approve the original minutes.

I I don't think we have the motion yet, but we can definitely is there I want to make sure there's other discussion or room for other discussion all right.

Did you want to make a motion, Mr.

Denny?

Chair Mike Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion that the original minutes of February 23rd, 2026 be included as approved in the amended not approved.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion from Denny He and a second from Shaw, and I will take my roll call vote.

Ms.

Casey, Mr.

Thielen, if they want to look at it, I suppose they can go to YouTube, but I think we're here to do a service to the constituents and the public silver bow and fighting over shit like this is exactly that.

It's bullshit.

So I'm not gonna vote.

Mr.

Thielen, you can vote no.

You know, you don't have to abstain from the vote, you can vote no.

Okay, Mr.

Steppen.

Aye.

I vote aye.

Mr.

Denehy?

Aye.

Mr.

Silk?

Aye.

Ms.

Shaw?

Ms.

McCormick.

Okay, thank you.

Motion carries to vote or to approve the original minutes and reject the amended minutes for the meeting of February 23rd.

Moving on to the approval of minutes of the meeting held March 2nd, 2026.

Do I have a motion to approve the March 2nd minutes?

Madam Chair, I would make a motion that we approve the minutes of March 2nd.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion from Casey and a second from Denihy.

Is there any discussion about the March 2nd minutes?

Okay, so moving on, Ms.

Casey.

Aye.

Mr.

Thielen.

Mr.

Steppen.

Aye.

I vote aye.

Mr.

Denehy?

Aye.

Mr.

Silk.

Aye.

Ms.

Shaw.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Moving on to correspondence under Study Commission update.

I jumped the gun on that at the beginning.

I didn't have any uh study commission communication.

Has anybody else received any?

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to our unfinished business, this is gonna bring back um some a question of what happened on the December 30th, 2025 meeting.

So Mr.

Thielen, at our last meeting, you said that you did not vote for the four commissioners and a mayor.

So I did go back and review, and you did vote in the affirmative and you raised your hand on that vote.

If you would like to review the YouTube, it was at 109.

Um we had the motion and the second um full-time commissioners.

You seconded that um motion.

And then at 110, we had the four full-time commissioners and mayor and casey um had made the motion on that one.

And in that vote, you did raise your hand in the aye.

And then after that, we had a discussion about the unanimous votes for all of the things that were on that agenda that night.

Um and so I just wanted to bring that back, and we're now to the um point of where we're taking a roll call vote each time, which is fine, and we we need to do that.

Um with regards to what is being um voted on, we're moving things to the report.

So it's to the study commission report this preliminary report, then we're going out to get public comment and have a public hearing.

So between this point and the time that we finish our public sessions and our public hearing, we can change our minds.

You know, you very well may have heard from public that you know, four commissioners and a mayor is too much, and it's completely okay for us to come back and revisit that issue.

And then when we make our final votes about what we are are pushing to the ballot, that's where we'd have a hearty discussion and motions and maybe change our mind or you know, discuss what might be new or different in that and uh what needs to go to the ballot.

And so I want us to keep in mind that in some ways what's coming into the preliminary report, it's word preliminary means it's a draft.

It's our best thinking to date, and we're waiting for public comment.

And so it doesn't marry us to the decisions that are in that report.

We can change our mind if if we need to.

And we may be that we only put one thing on the ballot after all of our deliberations.

Um, but I just want to wanted to bring that back and clear up that um particular comment regarding the motions.

Um, and also in our meeting minutes from December 30th, there is a recording of the uh motion and it being recorded as uh the motion, the second, and then recorded as unanimous vote.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I I'm maybe wrong, but I thought it was the December 29th meeting, not the 30th.

Excuse me, December 29th, yes.

Okay, so our community outreach, unless there's further discussion, Mr.

Thielen.

Any further discussion or comments or Mr.

Thielen, you said you didn't vote on that one, and so I wanted to make sure that we brought it back.

You said originally it was for seven commissioners, and I think that's too many.

I think five are too many have been talked to since three is plenty, and that's where I'm gonna go with.

And if I voted for it, maybe it was in error, maybe at that time, maybe that's what I thought.

But since then, no.

Three people are plenty to be the commissioners.

And if you want to sit here and go over every vote that I've done, have added.

Because I'm not gonna sit here and be chastised by you.

You got it?

That's it.

If you want to go back and go over everything that I've done, do it.

Mr.

Thielen, when you make a comment that you didn't vote for something and we've moved something forward, and then you had no it's my please.

And it and then we've had um you abstain from votes, and then I didn't catch that you abstained.

I think it is important for me to go back and review.

And so we've done that.

Go check them all.

Then come back and give us another report.

Are we ready to move on?

Pardon me.

Are we ready to move on?

If you are, if we're done, Ben bash and get with it.

I think also it is our duty to make sure that we have everything recorded as well as we can and that we are bringing back the issues and we remember where we're at.

It's fine that you've changed your mind.

That's completely okay.

So moving on to our community outreach preliminary schedule review.

Um Ms.

Ms.

Adams had sent that to us for us to look at.

Um she had some suggested changes.

Excuse me, I'm trying to get to the right document.

Okay, so our preliminary uh report, we're hoping to meet we will meet that March 30th deadline that it's released to the public, and the community survey would come out uh March 30th.

Her changes, she had a conflict on April 9th and April 16th, so she adjusted the dates to April 14th would be Melrose, April 15th would be noon to 1 p.m.

at Northwestern Energy, April 21st would be Ramsey at 5 30, and April 23rd would be Butte Brewing at 5 30.

Um and she suggested a format of 20 to 30 minutes uh presentation by us, which we had um just done before, and then have the poster boards for each proposed ballot initiative and ask attendees to vote for various alternatives with dots and provide comments.

Um and the community survey surveys also available.

And so her question to us is do we need uh revised flyer as a takeaway?

And then are these dates good for the commission?

Mr.

Silk?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe the dates uh uh personally they work they work for me.

Um and then the I think as soon as we can narrow them down to let uh the public know and the flyers, regardless if they don't work for everyone, um, to just get them booked and let the public know.

Thanks.

Ms.

Shaw?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I I only see one real difference, and that's uh having two in a row, the 14th and 15th, which is fine with me, but otherwise I think it's pretty much what we had talked about.

And having them close together, I think is probably not a bad idea.

We'll have to reinvent the wheel each time we have a meeting.

And um we should have a noon meeting at at least one, you know, probably for people that work till six or eight o'clock at night.

I don't know.

But yeah, I I'm all I'm okay with it myself.

Mr.

Dennehy.

Madam Chair, I'm also good with it.

I I like the idea of having the meetings close together.

Um so we would uh figure out the times um that are during the week, which I think is a great idea.

So I have no problem with the schedule.

Any other comments or worries about that schedule?

Okay.

So we'll go ahead and roll with that.

Um and May 4th being our public hearing.

And so then that brings us to the conversation that we were having ahead of the meeting with our um with Cindy Sherman regarding when we need to get our ballots ready.

And so looking at the timeline at May 4th with our public hearing, I think we definitely need to be taking action on what's moving to the ballot on May 11th.

And so being prepared for that to give um our county attorney and Ruth enough time to get the ballot language, you know, finalized and over to her office in case we have any snags with the um the estate, and so that way we can get things, you know, we're ahead of the game.

So just want to put that date out there for all of us to consider as well.

All right, and also in this next um section, she gave us uh Shana gave us some details about um direct mailing costs, and so the 6.25 by nine-inch postcard with both sides to um you know just over 17,000 pieces would be $7,000, $7,300 $301.

And then um she's recommending an eighth page ad at 195 dollars at four weeks, which would be $800, and then some additional printing costs of $1,000.

And so she's looking for our authorization basically if we round this up to about um $9,000.

Ms.

Casey.

Madam Chair, I would just ask if anyone's had experience with the mass mailer survey, if if it is worth the if there's a cost benefit to doing that, that we would get more.

I personally am not a good survey responder on anything.

So I'm just wondering if others like maybe Mary or yourself or Matt have done this and if you get a greater response.

Mr.

Steppen?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I don't have much experience with it.

Uh I do think that part of trying to collect this information is to make sure that everyone has the opportunity, whether they choose to do it or not.

And this seems to me to be the way that ensures that everybody at least will get it.

That's my opinion anyway.

Ms.

Shaw.

Well, I ran for office five times.

I can tell you I was used to postcard, and I sent it to everybody.

Uh my well, my district's 1250 people, but um even even if it I know you're talking survey, but it just reminds people what we're doing.

It's sort of reminder, like a placeholder.

They may not do the survey, but just that we recognize that they are an important person that to reach out to, and then maybe maybe the card could even give the um I don't know if this is after or before well during the April um listening sessions, you know, maybe have the dates on there or something, I don't know, for people to see.

But at seven grand, that's really not bad, and especially to the whole county.

Um this is my seven thousand cents.

Other comments or concerns on the nine thousand dollars roughly, Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

Well, it does seem like a big chunk of money, but I agree with Matt that I mean it would be important.

I mean, it's one time.

This is I think the critical thing that we need input on so that we can make our decision on the final thing.

So the more input we can get the better.

I'm not sure what we'll get all everybody all over the county, but I definitely think we'll get more input.

I know I'm part of an organization and we send out a newsletter every year, and you know we have a donation form in there, and we get most of our donations from the from sending out that newsletter.

So there is that.

And I also want to know.

I mean, if we run into um financial problems, isn't there the idea that we might be able to go back and ask for some more money?

I believe we're authorized for what we're authorized for, but we do have eighty thousand dollars left right now.

And I I think that should carry us given we've been forecasting looking at Shanna's expenses, this expense, um, and then any other uh salaries that we might have for um our two ex officio members that are helping.

Well, I do think that you know I think we've done a lot of work and we've done a lot of things and we've done a lot of outreach, and it's really really hard.

But when we if we do this and we say we mailed it out to everybody, then we you know we we've done a comprehensive outreach.

So I'm I think it's a good idea.

Mr.

Thielen, Madam Chair, uh mass mailings seem like they do work.

We we use them a lot than like with Mary, another organization I'm involved in.

And uh it just people will take a look at it, yeah, and if they choose to choose to.

If not, then uh at least we tried, like she said.

They they can't say they didn't know.

Okay.

If I could, I would ask for a motion to authorize the expenses that Ms.

Um Adams is asking for, listed on our email from her.

Mr.

Thielen?

I'll make a motion that uh we authorize the funds for the mass mailing.

Second.

I'm sorry, madam chair, but is it all the she kind of has it lumped under direct mailing costs, but she has the the ads for approximately 800, um, some printing costs for a thousand.

So I think the motion would need to be amended to have authorize the full amount or what she's got listed here.

Well, we can amend that to everything that uh Shanna has listed for uh the community reach out to the mailings and uh all the advertising that she was requested.

So make that motion.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Thielen.

Ms.

Shaw has seconded.

Is there any more discussion?

Okay.

Ms.

Casey?

Aye.

Mr.

Thielen?

Mr.

Steppen?

I vote aye.

Mr.

Denehy?

Aye.

Mr.

Silk.

Aye.

Ms.

Shaw.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

So now moving on to the preliminary report work session.

I think for the case of the work session, we can just speak back and forth.

We can suspend our please acknowledge the chair piece for so we can talk freely and get moving through this.

And then we'll kind of set our agenda for what needs to get done by next Monday.

Does everybody have access to the report?

Yeah.

All right.

We did have some markup changes, so we want to make sure that people have those, but if we don't see the markup changes, I can I can definitely read those off.

This let me give you the kind of how it went.

Madam Chair, is there a I'm sorry.

Is there a copy, a paper copy for Ben, so you can oh I'm sorry.

Okay.

What?

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Okay, so um working through this, here's how this went.

So Dan, myself, and Chad started with what we called the very sloppy copy, dumped in what we could.

Um Shana had to had taken that back and she revised a few things, not really with content, but rather with the format and the flow of that document.

And so there are still things that need to be finished in this document.

Notably, we don't have uh fire services completely lined out what the two options are, and we also don't have a conclusion.

Um and so if we want to just you know start working through, we can start talking about comments.

I will work those comments and make changes as we're working through the Madam Chair, and also Mary did the drafting and the um editing of this document, which came out really well, I thought.

So thanks, Mary, for for your work on this document.

Thanks, Dan.

Madam Chair.

I uh didn't have Mary's copy, but I just have a few things, and I want to thank you guys for putting this together.

Your sloppy copy was done pretty well, in my opinion.

So thank you guys for working on it.

Um I just uh some of my comments were um let me just get to my copy here just a minute.

Um charter or it was where you you're talking about um reducing the number of uh commissioners in that section.

I thought we it in there you could also talk about that's where neighborhood councils would come into play too, is for people to have still that connectivity and representation, and I'm not finding my comments aren't going to where they should.

Um it was in section representation of the rural areas in that paragraph.

I thought that to me that's especially where neighborhood councils would work well is in the rural areas so that they could have better representation.

It was it's just another thing listed within the items that you have.

And the other thing was in the fire services, where you um under fire services and the background where it says Melrose and Walkerville maintain their own fire departments and coordinate with Bit Silver Bow.

I hesitate to put Melrose in like that.

I I think a better thing would be that that Melrose is their own fire department.

Um Melrose and Divide areas operate as rural fire departments and are funded through a separate rural fire taxing district.

And the reason I say that is I districts are good until they're not.

And I kind of go back to rocker water and sewer district.

I don't know if folks are familiar with it, but it ran well for a long time, and then when there was no volunteers or no money, they needed somebody to take it over.

And that somebody was Butte Silverbow local government.

So I hesitate to tie somebody into something for 10 years or longer in a charter change.

Um I would just wordsmith that a little bit, that right now they currently have their own taxing jurisdiction.

That was just my comment there.

But Walkerville is, I think, they are their own municipality, technically, unlike Melrose or Divide.

Separate like Walkerville.

Madam Chair?

Lori, so I I'm on page eight.

And so you're just responding to the one reference to Melrose and Walkerville maintaining their own fire departments and coordinating.

Is that what you're at?

I was just in the background section.

Background.

Oh, yeah.

Uh, parentheses, Melrose and Walkerville are their own fire departments and coordinate with Beat Suburb as needed.

Okay, that's where I was at on page eight.

Yeah, it's page six on the document that I had reviewed.

So sorry.

Thank you.

Um Lori said about neighborhood councils.

Okay.

First of all, I do think we should just c call them neighborhood councils, not community councils, but not that you said that, but just to avoid confusion.

And I think you're right, is that um the neighborhood councils approve neighborhood councils are a function of the council of commissioners?

So it may be better suited to where you suggested it be.

Um I did go through if you look up if you can see my red line, you it may not show up as red line, but I did a little more on neighborhood councils, what they were, and what the existing charter just says the um council commissioners may approve.

And I think you know that we wanted to expand that so that the council of commissioners will develop an ordinance for policies and procedures.

I I did add, you know, it gets a little cumbersome, and it's because and it's how we have it is okay if a neighborhood council follows that ordinance, gets a and is ready, then they come to the council, and then the council has to approve that, shall approve it.

So I don't know if we need all that in there or not.

So somebody sorry, does somebody have a stroke or okay?

It it reads and I I like it.

The reason why I like it is because we spend a lot of time debating the issue of may and shall.

Yeah.

And it said that authorizing, and one of the things we wanted to do is make sure the council of commissioners provide the game plan and the planning for neighborhood councils.

That the state that the council of commissioners will provide the policy, will provide the uh the policies and procedures, they are the ones, the council of commissioners are the ones that are going to ensure that neighborhood councils are appropriately established, organized, and so your idea of authorizing the council of commissioners to establish by ordinance policies and procedures for the formation of neighborhood councils.

The ordinance will provide a blueprint for neighborhoods, a blueprint for residents of the neighborhood to create an organized structure for the council and set goals and objectives that state the needs and concerns of the community.

Charter will be further amended to state the council commissioners shall approve neighborhood councils organize that and that have fulfilled the provisions of the ordinance.

Very important.

I'd like that.

I I think that if we don't have that in there, it's kind of like, well, they're just changing shall to or may to shall.

This provides the council commissioners the authority to establish the game plan and the rules for neighborhood councils.

So that was on page five of the printed copy and oh I'm sorry.

If um and it's page five of the printed copy, and then it's page four in the electronic copy.

And if you printed this before four o'clock, you have an outdated copy because I got Mary's copy.

So yours is updated, Mr.

Thielen.

I just had another one out to chat and uh Matt.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, I still go back to the original concept that they're they are mentioned.

There is a distinct mention about neighborhood councils in the charter.

I don't I don't mind the idea that we formalize some of the um procedures to start them, but I'm so worried about it is gonna get misconstrued that the council commissioners have to do things.

They are just authorizing, they're just saying they shall authorize.

It's a it's a grassroots, it's one of Mary's favorite expressions.

I love it.

It's a grassroots approach, it's a ground-up approach with citizens.

Now it says we shall authorize them and authorizing is simply blessing I just look at it as a blessing to do yes please do this but it's your job to organize you as Ms you know Mr John Q public to uh to do the the work and there should be guidelines which I think are important to even allow a certain group or or just one person to even pursue it but I I want to make sure that it it is a a ground up kind of an arrangement with the public so all the years I spent with with council it just never was clear of course what we have in there is just says here you go but um I like the idea that we're saying that there are criteria involved in starting it but it it's got to come from the citizens.

Thanks.

Ms McCormick well I I think what we're doing is um we're not charging the council was any duties in forming a neighborhood council or neighborhood councils.

We're just in that you know the council's the one that is supposed to write ordinances and approve them and so I think it's important that they you know they're they're just gonna write an ordinance or you know a lawyer or a county attorney or department head is going to write an ordinance that's just gonna provide the guidelines for setting up neighborhood councils and if you look um like in a lot of charters like Great Falls they have the whole process outlined in the charter and I don't think that's that's what we want to do in our charters.

So that's just they're just gonna make an ordinance that'll provide the guidelines and then the the neighborhood the residents people say we want to form a neighborhood council okay here's an ordinance that tells us how we do it so we're gonna do all the steps that it requires and then we're gonna go to council and we're gonna say here's our here's our neighborhood council um blueprint document organizational structure council reads through it and says you met all the guidelines we approve your thing but it's no way is it gonna compel the council of commissioners to go pounding on doors and telling people that are gonna form a council we're still reading madam chair and again just to reiterate this is really important when we were in our form in our working group that this would be included for some of the comments and some of the public involvement that we had on this issue but again it'll be the neighborhood providing for what that council looks like and the council will be providing those guidelines is there going to be an application process how many people in the neighborhood consists of a neighborhood council they have to the council will provide this sort of blueprint and they will have to the neighborhood council will have to approve or has to um set the standard for each one of those things.

If they don't then the neighborhood councils aren't established if they do then they are established Miss Casey thank you madam chair and just would the council also define what a neighborhood is what I'm thinking is like some people think greedy is a neighborhood and race tracks as a separate neighborhood so you could end up with 40 neighborhood council groups or you could they could be larger areas of a neighborhood so would that would would the thought be that the um neighborhood group define their area or the council of commissioners just kind of a procedural question that maybe has nothing to do with the charter but just in thinking that that some people think their neighborhoods real small and others it's a larger area area of coverage.

So I'm just wondering um to me it would seem that the council could probably define that and hopefully they would do that when they do their ordinance in the report do you suggest that we add the council will define neighborhoods or just leave it okay I think we can leave it open it was just kind of an open-ended question in my opinion but I I think it could be open that it didn't have to be that tight.

Under fire services, the first sentence under background.

Looks like it has a couple of things.

One, this the there's a footnote after departments.

But the I'm not seeing at the bottom where that footnote is explained.

It wasn't a previous copy.

And it looks like where that footnote is located.

I'm not sure if that's the end of the sentence.

Perfect.

But I mean that's what I would need to do is just copy that at least now and see.

I'm writing the right thing for T.

So required services, but I believe I think it's very important for us to be on subject as much as possible.

Um just deciding while I say what's the report.

So I think we have one of the issues that we have is kind of so I think we need to add a lot of stuff.

Um and Mary, you may have added this after, but the other important part I thought of option two piece was too was that volunteer coordinator that was going to be chosen by the volunteers.

And I the version I read didn't see that in there, but I I think that's an important piece of option option two, too.

But and you may have added it.

But I said that really work on the options, one of the key components for both of the options is a consolidated I thank you.

I think that the purpose as I understand it of including the volunteer coordinator is to memorialize a and formalize a seat at the table as a single point of contact.

But I think we want to be careful about prescribing consolidation regardless of the option.

I think that what the information that we were presented, it was understood that there's an expectation that consolidation is likely necessary, but I think we want to be careful about not requiring it into through charter language, if that makes sense, and allowing whichever option is chosen, the leaders based on the result of the vote to make the decisions necessary for efficient fire services.

So I I would I would disagree on that last part about putting consolidated language in the charter.

And if it's helpful, you said that you could use some help, particularly in this area.

I'm happy to help.

Yeah.

So one option, and so how do we discuss that?

We just say we're taking them out of the charter.

Do we go ahead and mention the things that the volunteer, you know, we got that letter from Ed Fisher, and all the things that you know he sees the steps forward, how they're gonna do things, and he does talk about making a volunteer chief, a chief of the chiefs.

Just he does talk about so I think an appropriate place for that is in the appendices.

So we could refer people to the appendices.

If this was the plan that was given forth, maybe that would be the place to put it.

Because I think if we start adding in everything that they propose, we'll have a uh novel.

So just a short suite would take them out of the charter.

They'll be out of the re they won't be part of the charter, they will no longer be part of the Butsilver Boat government, and just what they will be.

And just say, and that's gonna be just one little paragraph.

And I would add how they would be funded, that they would create their own taxing jurisdictions to be funded.

And I I think those are the key points of the volunteers to be out of the charter, is they'd be on their own, just like you said, and then they're gonna have they would be funded separately by creating their own individual taxing strikes, which under current situation would be nine different individual taxing strikes.

So and I so I just think that would be that's a fact.

They'd have to be funded.

That's not swaying one way or the other.

They'd have their funding would be separate from the fire services fund.

So when we talk about option two, um, where we um the volunteers are kept and the and they're under the command of the um fire chief.

And so I'll I'll talk about what those are those there are going to be some charter changes if we do that, like the volunteer coordinator position.

I think that needs to be added into the charter, correct?

Okay, I'll I'll I'll do that.

But then the next thing that'll be need to be done is somebody changing the charter language for that option.

Okay.

So I will try really hard tomorrow and I'll get something to you on that, and then you can make it look pretty.

That you know, in past reports, there was a table that had the existing language and then the proposed changes, and that gets very cumbersome.

And so we had a um idea to put in the proposed charter changes in the report and then just put the you know reference to that section of the existing in the appendices.

I don't know what folks think about that, or if we want to try to do the two um side-by-side comparison.

Mr.

Denny.

Um Madam Chair, I think that's section three comparison of existing proposed structure.

This tends to make our preliminary report very large.

It just seems to me, and I the reason why I'm saying that is that I'm the one that wrote this section.

So no, I don't like it, though.

Um actually Shana was going to do her AI stuff and she did a great job here, and but I got lazy and just put in just the captions of it, and I just capitalized it and said, well, if anybody wants to read it, I mean anybody on our commission can read it.

But I I think probably having that side-to-side changes is important, but that's gonna get cumbersome too.

Um so I I'm I'm good with the either one.

Um I don't know the comparison.

And and Chad did a great job in the comparison of his chart, which is where I would go to because it's easy to see.

And um, so I just threw this in there because I was scared that you were gonna yell at me, Ray.

And if because I didn't do my work, so I just kind of threw this all in.

So one of the things I kind of like, and it might come from reading legislative, but is if you just do a table that like section by section, like section one point one, no change.

Section three, new.

And then you just have a chart of what's new, what's been changed, and then you can go to somewhere for those changes.

But but the overall you could go like the t like section one point one, whatever that title is in the charter, no change.

And and then just note if it's a new section or a change in the section, and then you could go to that particular.

I for me that helps be um not only being on this commission, but when I looked at other things, it's like, well, I don't need to read this.

This isn't new, this isn't new, or this isn't a change.

And because while we hope everybody's gonna read this document, I think our best is if they read the executive summary and maybe go to some tables, really and truly.

Uh there'll be some that will read it word for word, but a lot of people will not take the time um to read documents, so the executive summary will be important to call out, and then I think somewhere that shows where you can go and look for the changes.

But that's just my opinion.

I I find that helpful.

I think that's a great idea because then you could just drop the existing charter as an appendix or reference them to it with a link or something like that, and we don't have to put those pages in, maybe might be helpful.

And then they could just go here's the sections that we have that are changing.

And those is our recommended changes, that makes sense.

Um and then just really quickly too, this introduction section was initially the executive summary or um letter to the it's in the preliminary report or the reports it's letter to the citizenry from you know that's what they said.

So that that section would probably be letter to the citizenry or summary.

Um and then report summary is the findings, etc.

Um and then so to that end, um Ms.

Casey, I think like when we go down on the electronic version on page 15, we put the executive officer section 5.01, but we don't have any recommended changes there, is that correct?

Right.

Because we pulled out or did we pull out um chief executive?

He was that chief executive was named ahead of that, correct?

Okay.

So we could probably pull that section probably same for.

Was there any changes for 5.02 in the charter?

When you were doing language on qualification and elections.

No.

That's original language.

Okay.

So there's no change in that section.

None of that is changed.

And then I got lazy and then put oh six, six point oh, seven point oh, eight point oh.

Please do take some time with the summary chart.

We batted this around a uh quite a bit, so we want to make sure that we have that well laid out, especially the evaluative comments there.

So please do take some time with that.

So I think keeping it um precise and concise is good.

I also think having the note changes in there um just correlates with Lori's idea of in even better just to make a consistent throughout the document.

Uh number five summary and conclusions.

Where is this come is this part of the MSU local government section, or did we talk about it's just kind of our conclusions government's gonna be have adequate checks about just those sort of three, four or five paragraphs that um explain this?

Yeah, so those those titles come from the report, the model report.

We can work on that summary and conclusions and think about um those sections if we'd like.

If there's something we want to add in there,

Thank you for thank you, Madam Terry, for cross-talking here.

No, I I said it was completely fine for us to be deliberative amongst each other right now.

Is that already in this so I I was taught I was thinking about the uh transition period?

You know, after the vote, and I didn't know where that might be if we even mention you know blah that blah blah blah, this will if if things are voted in that we will require to have a transition plan.

So I think the statement is just that we require to help create a transition plan because the council and the existing elected officers will have to um execute that transition plan as I understand.

We can make our recommendations and then we will stay seated and help them do the transition plan, but uh they could say we're gonna do it differently.

I I think okay if I got if I've got that right.

Does something need to be mentioned?

Um so that people don't think that the day after election we're gonna have a city manager.

Um that's kind of what I was saying.

Yeah, I you know that there is gonna be a period of of time.

Yeah, I think that especially on the council of commissioners because some of them are half of them I believe are up for election.

So they serve their four-year term if elected.

Yeah.

I think that's a great um thing to put in the summary and conclusions too, that should these be there's a transition period, but yeah, I don't think we want to put the whole plan in there in case it's no, I just think maybe some mention so that folks know there will be a transition period and plan created pending the outcome of the uh votes on uh on the commissioners and the city manager on those two forms.

All right.

Other questions you guys were having some questions over here or some thoughts?

Anything else?

Okay.

Is there and maybe this is what you're talking about in that language at the end, but there's probably some things that if the voters choose a specific direction that may require revision to the charter.

Would that be true?

Or can it hold as is under either option?

For example, I believe it's three commissioners.

If there's only four.

And then I think there has to be two separate charter changes so the voters can look at it and see it because the they're so vastly different that we we can't have a hybrid of that.

So there is going to be quite a bit of work that needs to go into that to make it appropriate, I guess, for a legal document of the charter.

Excuse me.

I'll get it for we're gonna have one charter amendment that's gonna take the volunteers out of the charter.

And I think that would mean that they probably get taken out of the fire advisory council, correct?

If they're out of it, yeah.

Yeah, I I believe so, and there could be something formed afterwards, right?

Like but it would be new and it would be on behalf of the trustees following their own local government or their their uh political subdivision decision.

So you're exactly right.

I think it just the whole 7.3 needs to be rewritten because you can't control entities outside of the charter if they're not in the charter.

Um something to think about.

It's gonna be a lot of work, you know, both amendments.

Both options, the amendments for both options are gonna require a lot of thought.

You know, we could just even take the fire advisory council completely out of the charter.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be something, and you know, I mean, Chad has talked about we could just do these things by ordinance, and there may be, you know, I was like, well, do what by ordinance, but there may be specific things that we could call out, especially for um if either one that the that maybe the have ordinances, I mean have some of the things that we can't figure out.

I don't know I'm no what I'm trying to say.

But anyway, we are gonna have to look at those very closely, and Stephanie, I think that's where there's gonna be a lot of effort needed.

I think a couple meetings ago too, we said we need those draft changes to the charter, what that would look like, and so um I don't know if the same group wants to work on those or we want to workshop that with a different group, so I'll just throw that out there for I know you two are part of that group, I don't know.

And Ms.

Shaw is Mr.

Thielen, Mr.

Steppen.

So just thinking about this, I mean, the fire advisory council, even if the volunteers are out of the charter, why would we have to eliminate that?

And if we did, couldn't we just call it something else?

You know, as a recommendation.

My my thought on that is under that option it we would have to work out what would the name the term for the agreements for services, and it's there that collaboration would probably have to be created.

I think I look at it different.

We probably can't require the volunteers to be part of fire advisory if they're out of the charter.

So it would it would be an opportunity to start a fresh collaboration.

Um I guess is but it's probably we would probably have to go that direction.

I don't think by taking them out of the charter, keeping it as is would say that the volunteers are required to be part of this fire advisory committee when we they're not under our jurisdiction, we can't compel them to do that.

I agree with that, but I also would think that the volunteers would want to be part of something of that nature, so everybody's on the same page.

You know, I I do truly believe that they need to train with the paid, so everybody's all on the same page.

Um, and that's just from a safety aspect uh for for the volunteers and for the paid guys.

Uh you know, they go to uh a fire.

I don't want to see nobody get hurt.

You know, it's bad enough the way it is.

So I would think that they would want to be part of some sort of a committee or council, even if we called it something different or made the recommendation to call it something different.

I would think that they would want to be part of that.

I do too.

I just don't think it can be in the charter.

So I I look at it as if we were including something about the road maintenance department and we required the the state snowplow group to be part of a committee, they would say you you can't require us to do that.

Right.

But so I think I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think it can legally be in the charter at that point.

Okay.

That's that's my best understanding.

I think you're absolutely correct, and it looks like others are in agreement with that too.

And I it's we can run it by you know our county attorney, of course, but I think it we can't compel an outside group.

Madam Chair, I would agree.

I don't I I don't uh believe it should be in there.

Um, bottom line is whatever options chosen by the community.

If somebody doesn't want to play in the sandbox, they're not going to, and they're gonna look at ways not to, and they're either gonna get out or they're gonna start throwing sand.

And so I think keeping the charter as clean as possible is what we need to do here.

And so I think they'd need to come out and I think back to what Mary's saying.

I think option one, I think you keep it option one is remove the volunteers.

Here's what the charter language for option one would be.

Option two would be what option two is, and here's the charter language if option two is chosen.

I I think you gotta really keep those separate and show right after what that option is, we show this is what the charter language would look like, because I think you're gonna have to to keep everything straight, not confused.

That's what that would be my thought of how to handle it since uh unless by the time we get to the final report, we're only gonna put one option forward to the voters.

But if we're going to put two options forward to the voters, we have to have both options of the charter because we would not have an opportunity to change it after the vote.

Yeah, exactly.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Call me crazy, but I think if they are separated completely on their own, you still work with the with the paid.

I think they know as a team, whatever the needs are.

I I believe that would be the case.

But they can't be in the they can't be in the charter, but by resolution or ordinance, there are options or MOU like Matt said, you know, there could be some kind of a connection in writing, you know, some kind of an arrangement that I believe would happen completely outside of our purview and and after, you know, whatever the decisions are that are made.

Thanks.

I think the county attorney started to look at all the sections that would require to be revised, and what he presented to us were kind of those bullet points on where.

So I think the next step is getting that specific language.

Um it was more a question that I had because I you know, I think our committee was focusing on that section without giving as much thought to the other sections that are affected by each option.

And so I think that's where we'll lean on the county attorney and I can work with him on getting those specific language changes to those sections.

Thank you for volunteering for that.

I forgot about that report.

It's one of the things I think I handed off to you.

So anyway, it um that would be helpful if you could do that.

And then um to that end, I mean, where do we want to go with this?

We've kind of just started to digest it.

We haven't necessarily read it to understand its content as well.

Um, but I think for next week for sure, if we can get those charter pieces, we can get them plopped in.

Um we can maybe divide or do this table of section by section of what's um changing and what's not changing, and then I can finish rounding out the conclusion part for us to review and then hand it back off.

I don't know if there's somebody that wants to take on the table.

Oh, do you want to do that, Laura?

They might be helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah, the table of like section one, no change, this new section.

Yeah, I I can do that.

Okay.

Ma'am chair, there's also the section.

Oh, sorry.

Um there's also the section of transition.

You know, given what the voters might be for, I know there's three council of commissioners are running for re-election right now, and they do have opponents in this race.

So they'll go to the polls on November of June and November.

And there'll be another four years of their term if they're voted in on November, right?

So we need to have a transitional language that says, you know, there's a s there's a date per there's a a date certain that this transition has to have to come in effect.

And that's that's also creating four districts and that large vote.

So those are the important things too.

I don't know if uh Chad provided I don't know if you've seen it yet, but a very good idea in terms of starting a discussion in terms of transition plan.

But just to note that I don't think we want to do all this work and then those three commissioners and their opponents get elected and wait for four more years for this to take effect.

That's gonna be in six years after that.

Yeah, right.

But another six years after that, there's another study commission being elected.

So I like to see what we do implement it, you know, before I see the pearly gates, and so you know, I I I would like to maybe talk to the county attorney as Matt says this make sure that that language is appropriate.

Um because we're gonna have to stagger election uh terms, we're gonna have to have different districts, we're gonna have to you know make sure that the people who are elected in November understand that by a date certain there's uh there's an a new election that might take place.

So that's kind of important.

Madam Chair, I think we do have to clarify because my understanding was if you're elected, they're there for four years.

So and it would be six of them, even though three because I think three don't have um proponents, but they're still being elected to a new term.

And so, yeah, it's kind of like the final transition would be in 2030, I think, because 26, you have four years.

Right?

So Dan, I don't know if we're gonna be here or not.

But um things.

I that was my understanding that if you're you're elected, you get to serve that term, and then so how you would bring in one or two of the full time, I don't know.

I guess that's what needs to be worked out, but yeah, I think that's definitely a conversation, but I do think it's important to let the public know that there is a transition period.

That's I think that would be the the point.

We don't have to get specific in the report, but just to let them know that there is a transition period.

I just added that heading in the summary and conclusion section.

So uh Mr.

Steppen, you had your hand up, so I didn't want to you wanted to say something maybe you forgot.

Okay.

I think it was I believe I was going in that same direction that I don't think you can unelect people that are elected.

And so it would likely be those that are beginning a four-year term after this cycle at the end of that four-year, you may have you may have people running for an interim two-year.

And I think that's probably I guess how my brain works on how that transition would work starting in four years.

Do you want to take that to Mr.

County Attorney too?

Since you're gonna go see him, there's some excuse me.

I seem to remember somebody, and maybe it was a county attorney at one time a long time ago talking about the transition period and how you know the each commission existing commissioner had to be able to fill out their term.

And then they would the these commissioners would go away, and the number of commissioners would reduce by two, and then next year would be next time by two more or whatever, however, they but I think it's it's something that I think the county attorney, as I remember, is aware of, so madam chair.

I I took a deep dive into the the elections uh and the transition plan that we are capable of providing to the public today, and that's the document that I sent.

And I guess it frustrates me a little bit that it takes so long if the community wants to implement something like that.

So I'm very curious to hear what the county attorney has to say about that.

Um just because of um I felt like I was taking my bar exam today and I just finally just stopped looking at it.

But it I'm I'm interested to see what he says.

Well, Chad, you passed.

Yeah, that work is much appreciated, Chad.

It's just a matter of how we we want to be correct with all the things that we put in there and and again like the seated commission will get to decide in some of that transition planning too.

We will recommend and you know, we can say we want four districts divided by a pie, and they're gonna be like, no, we want four districts divided by a square or something.

I don't know.

So we you know we have to just be mindful that we have limited authority.

Ms.

Shaw.

Oh, Mr.

Thielen.

Chair, kinda go back to what Mary said there a little bit ago and uh I don't have it with me because uh I otherwise I'd have uh three reams of paper in there.

But uh the Ed Bandrob came that one day and had that.

And I think that's where Matt had gotten some of the stuff the way that he had it uh cycled in for the for the change.

So I mean we can go look back at that as well.

I don't know if it holds water or if it's legal, but that's what it was.

I recall that conversation too, so we can go back and looking at that for sure, Ms.

Shaw.

We're re- reinventing the wheel because other cities have gone from a chief to a manager, and they had to go through this whole thing, and I I don't know if the state mandated how it's done.

But I could see of course we have the election on November 6th, and six people or four.

There's actually I think four that are two are uncontested, and the other four will be going forward with four years.

But during that four year time, then you have the midterms, and I think that there could be something once we know that we're gonna go with a manager and change the number of commissioners that uh before that's that midterm election.

So in that two year period, we could make some rules or maybe already be some out there saying that that you will only run for two-year term.

And then it would only be a four-year total time before we could get a manager.

I think it's still a long time, but I'm thinking there's we're not reinventing any wheels, I don't think.

Thank you.

All right.

Folks, in terms of our work, um I piled a lot on Mr.

Steppen.

I piled a little on on Ms.

Casey.

I I will finish up this bottom section and the um the conclusions.

And then Ms.

McCormick, you're gonna finish up fire services.

Yes.

Okay.

And then um next week let's come with all of those changes that we collectively have decided to make, and then hopefully we can get that to the rest of the body well before the meeting, so you have a chance to review it.

I sent it out Saturday, I think.

So hopefully we can, you know, be a little faster with that.

Um I'm probably gonna be close like Friday night.

But um and then next week we can do another round of of work session.

Does that sound reasonable?

Okay.

According to Mr.

Uh and Ruth might be our linchpin, but it's okay if he's you know missing from that.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Pierre.

Just one last thing.

I really like the idea of the introduction being considered a cover letter and you know, drafting it as such, just to give a more than just an introduction, but here we are, and this is what what this is all about.

I I like that idea.

I think I don't know who put the comment here.

This could be more of a cover later.

But I I would it it was that way in a sloppy copy once upon a time, but it's been AI'd, I think.

Um but we can go back to that.

And then okay, so for the people um that are working on things, I think just bring them separate and we'll start dumping into this preliminary document.

And then I've made edits in the document uh in the OneDrive.

I'll download it right now and send it to you, Ms.

McCormick.

And then the comments should retain there.

So I made comments tonight from everybody.

I hope I've captured everything.

Um I think I did.

I got the comments and then I was making changes in the document as we were going with their suggested language.

So um do we we have a good plan?

Okay.

All right.

Excellent.

Um so any new business we don't have a public hearing tonight and no other scheduled matters, so we would be here next week at five o'clock again.

Um and to complete hopefully get this report and dang near done.

And with that, I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

Madam Chair, I make a motion to adjourn and let's go home.

Sun's killing me.

Is there a second?

So I have a a motion from Thielen and a second by Shaw and all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, let's go home.

Thank you all.

I thought when the sun sh hit you, you melt it in.

Yeah, man.

Yeah, man.

Yeah, I thought that was good.

I thought what you did was pretty damn good.

Huh?

I can't.