I'll bring the Butte Silver Bow Council of Commissioners Committee of the Whole Meeting to order for Wednesday, March 11th, 2026.

Can we please have a roll call, please?

One presiding, ten present, one absent.

Uh please let the record reflect that Commissioner Shea is excused for tonight.

Uh Commissioner Walker, would you please lead us in the prayer and the pledge?

Next item on tonight's agenda is any public comment on any items that's on the agenda.

If there's a member of the public that would like to speak on any item that's on the agenda, now would be your opportunity.

Okay.

Seeing none.

But I want the commissioners to to be aware of that.

So that's why I'm giving it in my report of the chair.

Chief Fire Services Director Osborne.

Okay, good evening.

Some of you guys remember, this started last year when we um uh attempted to make this adjustment.

We ran into some timing issues, knew that we had basically just start over, and now we're starting over.

But before we jump right into what our plan is, tonight's presentation is just giving a uh history background of Montana Connections and uh uh how we treat it uh towards the fire fund.

I did bring, I'm fortunate enough to bring a couple guests with me.

Uh a few slides have to do with the history of Montana Connections that umette will cover for me.

She is very knowledgeable as you guys know in the in the history of this, uh, as well as finance director Karen Hassler is in the back that um uh said she'd be willing to come up and answer any finance questions when I'm done.

So um we'll start and now Danette's gonna talk for about four or five slides.

Ms.

Gleeson.

Um yeah, for the record, my name is Danette Gleason.

Uh my address is 8735 U.S.

Highway 10.

Like Zach had mentioned, I worked here at the local government for many, many years and um have the history and the knowledge um of the creation of the district and kind of how the fire districts were established.

Um time to 1994 and a little before, so nobody gets to comment on my age here, but anyways, um it's actually a pleasure to come and talk to um all of you again tonight.

Um, like Zach had told me um before we kind of talked about what I present to you is he gave me some ideas of some questions that he had faced um the last time he presented to you, as well as some recent questions.

So I just want to start by saying um you're gonna find out in these slides a lot happened between the time frame of 1994 and 1998.

There was a lot going on in that time frame.

Actually, you could run back to 1992.

And in 1992, um everybody's aware the water division was getting taken over by the local government.

And in those transactions as well, was the transfer of the Silver Lake Water System to Butso Reboe.

And all the result of that transfer and all the happenings that were going on, um we were able to create a tax increment financing district called the Ramsey Tiffet District number two, um, south of town here, and start to attract manufacturing and industry, and therefore needed a lot of different local government services.

So that included what were we going to do to add fire services.

You're bringing whole new manufacturing to town, it required a lot of different types of fire services.

How were we going to support not only the district as it expanded, but current to that time as me, now known as REC.

So I think you're also going to see that a lot happened.

Um we had some significant thought by our former leadership at that time.

Um had some transitions of chief executives.

So we had Chief Executive Don Peoples working on this, former Chief Executive Dave Fisher, former Chief Executive Jack Lynch, we had the 1994 Study Commission, and then of course the Council of Commissioners, all working together to try to resolve what were we going to do with the TIFIT, what were we going to do with fire services, how were we going to handle what was currently needed at that time, and what were the avenues to make changes for the community and growth in industry as we move forward.

So if we look at the slides up there, and I'm not gonna I put a lot of information on these slides.

Hopefully, um Zach can share this presentation with you, and you if you ever have to reference back to looking at old resolutions and all that, they're there.

I'm just not gonna talk about a lot of it, but the district again was created May 20th, 1994.

It was expanded under ordinance um 546 and 95 to take into the um property that ASMI was to be located on, now REC.

Again, I mentioned during this whole time period the study commission of 1994 was working.

They were doing a lot of different charter amendments at that time.

A lot of them uh were focused on fire services, and then also brought forth just as the study commission is meet today.

They were bringing people in asking them what do we need, and of course, at that time the former fire service director Barb Armstrong was bringing up this new whole TIFIT being expanded and how he was gonna serve that, and also you're gonna see the expansion of the uniform fire district.

So a lot was going on at that time, and then on June 4th in 1996, the voters approved these recommendations to the charter, eventually creating Article 7 and amending Article 7, um, section 703G1 and 70 um 3G2.

Some of these handouts were put on your desk tonight, just snapshots of the charters and the municipal code that I'm going to talk about.

So what really happened here in these amendments, the main goal was to change the 1976 uniform fire district boundaries.

So the original fire district boundaries of 76.

My the again, this is all my recollection of everything and how we operated when I was here, but the boundary was more down to just about row road area, picking up some of it from front to row road, a little bit a weird shot there.

Kind of now where we know Elizabeth Warren shooting a little bit over there, grabbing a little bit of the country club and coming up continental.

So 1997 or 1996, and then transitioned over to the consolidated government in 77.

We had a pretty small fire district.

And then all this stuff was happening in 94.

We had growth going south of town to serve.

We had the new district forming.

So what happened in was the expansion again.

So we expanded one up.

Okay.

We expanded to section 703G1 of the charter.

So that was enacted by ordinance 571 on November 20th, 1996, and then codified in section 2.16020B of the municipal code.

And what it did was establish different boundaries.

So the Uniform Fire District, the main what we call sometimes urban fire district, I hear it called that a lot.

So that moved everything more south and southern, and that's the borders that, and that's what you see in 2.1602B.

You see those boundaries in that section of code, and that's expanding just the uniform fire district south.

As we all know, um, when we're working through, and you will learn a lot more about this, and now that we have the study commission enacted, and a lot of amendments are going to be coming before you in the future, most likely.

Um it takes a little time to implement these.

So it took a couple years, and um March 18, 1998, a resolution was presented to council, resolution 98-12.

Um, that resolution was to bring uh vote to the public.

It gave the language of the ballot measure to vote to the public to create what we called back then a 10 mil emergency service fire district.

Um this was a result of a communication that uh fire service director Barb Armstrong was um chant, he was directed by um former chief executive, and then at that time the council of commissioners to bring back to them what did it look like to establish fire services outside the boundaries of the uniform fire district.

So that was the other amendment by that was brought forward and voted on by the 1994 study commission, and then and then codified in um 703 G2, and that talks about how we serve outside of the Uniform Fire Districts.

So those rural areas, Brown Sculch, uh the TIFD, the areas you know, I I always say this and it's not exact, but if you go south, it's pretty much the urban fire district goes where Highway 2 and Continental Drive intersect.

There's a few houses up on the hill up that it grabs when you're going up the road highway to going south going towards Roosevelt Drive, but Roosevelt Drive's not in the universe the fire district.

So there's um, so that's kind of what this what the first code did, the 7.03 G1, but now 7.03 G2 that the amendments that needed to take place by the study commission at that time was to figure out and resolve something for emergency and fire protection outside of that.

Again, knowing we were expanding greatly, especially with the um TIFID number two.

So that vote of the public went out and it was passed on June 2nd, 1998 to create a countywide 10 mil fire district for everybody excluding Walkerville.

So Walkerville is not in any of our fire districts, the emergency service fire district or the main urban urban fire district that we call or the uniform fire district that we call today.

Further um Council Bill 98-3 approved the 7.03 G2, like we just discussed, creating the 10 mil fire district or finding a means to levy, it was a way of a means to levy taxes on those areas outside the uniform fire district.

Also, it allowed, which is another key important um topic is that it allowed to change boundaries in the fire districts in both of the districts by two-thirds council vote on ordinance changes as long as you held the correct public hearing process at the time.

So as of today, we can come before you, or they can there can be a request before you to change the boundaries of those districts by 703G2 and change just change the ordinances that are in 2.1602, I think it is.

But then what do we do next to grow fire services in the future?

And that was the intent was to move it to the ordinances, so you don't have to wait 10 years for a study commission, or you don't have to go through charter changes, but you can go through ordinance actions and take the ordinance process to change the district boundaries.

The other important um thing that was brought about on these amendments that was allowed was also to enter into the TIFIT board could enter into an interlocal agreement with Butte Silverbow upon council approval for agreements to provide additional service to the TIFD.

So everything was going along really, really well.

Um I don't know the exact content of what happened.

I was here till uh March of 2007.

I left and came back in May for uh 2014.

But in 2012, um it was described to me when I returned that there was a need for a lot of equipment and the budgets, the fire service budgets, the emergency service, and the uniform fire district budget cannot support buying all this equipment that was needed, whether it was SCBAs, it was turnout gear, whatever was needed to support the fire department was it just didn't have the budget authority.

They just didn't have they were hitting their cap, and Karen can talk a lot more about 1510, 420 and the budget caps that are in place right now.

Um and but they were they were running up against caps and they needed more equipment.

So what happened June uh 12th of 2012?

Um the local government and the TIFIT board entered into a contract to support um the fire services, and annually about the time in the initial years it was around 214,000 that was generated.

I can tell you in 2014 when I came back, this number decreased significantly.

Um REC had a market decline in their value, and Department of Revenue dropped their value.

So this number quickly went from 214 down to about 100 and some thousand.

And then over time, as personal property depreciates, it goes down and down.

So the amount that was available in the district was always floating around 100,000 or a little bit less annually.

Uh this contract was set to sunset June 30th of 2022.

Uh it was renegotiated.

Actually, nothing really changed in the contract in 2016.

Um, the 18 mills remained the same, the scope of work remained the same.

We just requested that it come back before council to make it clear, because there was a lot of confusion about this, to make it clear that this contract sunset on June 30th, 2022, when the TIFD sunset.

And you know, again, there are a lot of misconceptions about this contract.

I'll give you a little bit on what I used to have to respond to was you know, everybody thought it was tied to the mills.

They thought it was actually a position in the mill levy, and it was not.

It's a contract.

It was nothing different than an energy in um in engineering contract.

Example my example would be my counting contract.

It'd be it was nothing different than a contract.

It had a termination, a 90-day termination clause by either party.

Um it was just strictly a contact, a contract and never guaranteed to continue on past June 30th, 2022.

But however, it's still in the charter and the in the code that they can enter into the TIFFIC can enter into future contracts.

Um, I think you know, tying it to taxes, I think the 18 mil was the issue.

I think people thought that just meant 18 mills went on forever, as long as there was people out there in that area paying taxes, and so I think that was a misconception.

We could definitely be, I definitely understand that.

Um, but it was clearly a contract, be an interlocal agreement between the entities.

So kind of brought you up to 2022.

I think um, like Zach said, we'll answer a lot of questions at the end, but I'll turn it over to Zach.

Sorry, I have all this paper with you.

Okay.

Thanks again, Danette, for giving a good history there.

So June of 2022, now to currently.

So since June 2022, the Butte Serverbo Fire Department has experienced a significant financial impact within the urban fire fund.

Expenses for equipment training that were previously covered through the TIFIT agreement now must be absorbed by the fire fund.

While we anticipated the sunset of the contract, the financial strain became fully apparent in 2024 when our budget reached its cap.

And as a result, we were forced to implement immediate budget cuts and reductions to remain within our financial limits.

And this situation brings us to the purse uh to the purpose of today's presentation.

So expanding the urban fire district to include Montana Correct Connections.

So the purpose of this presentation is initiating the process of ordnance change to include the Montana Connections area into the urban fire protection district.

Establish equitable funding across all protective areas, ensure long-term sustainability of fire protection services, and adapt with the growth of Montana Connections.

And there's no map.

Okay.

Once you look, if you would.

Yeah, passing around.

So when you get that and it gets passed around, um, and I apologize the map map is a little small, but you will see in the white boundary is the urban fire district boundary.

Um see off to the west in blue.

No.

You'll see in blue, and that that is the Montana Connections Park boundary.

Um you'll understand what I mean when you all see it.

So current funding structure.

So within Butte Silverbo, all residents and property owners contribute to the emergency service tax fund.

Again, that's all residents in Butte Serverbo, except for uh Walkerville.

Only residents and property owners within the boundaries of the urban fire boundary can contribute to the urban fire tax in the white.

So Montana Connections, they contribute to the emergency service tax fund.

They do not contribute to the urban fire tax fund.

So what is the emergency service tax fund?

Emergency service, emergency tax fund generates about 1.2 million dollars annually for our budget.

It provides a dedicated funding source that supports payroll expenses for nine career fire personnel within Butte Silverbow Fire Department.

It is important to clarify that this fund is restricted solely to salary and associated payroll costs to those nine positions.

No revenue from the emergency tax fund is allocated towards operational expenses.

No funds are used for training equipment apparatus, facility maintenance, or capital improvements.

The remaining 30 career fire personnel receive no salary or operational support from this fund.

So the urban fire tax fund.

Urban fire tax generates about $5.6 million dollars for our budget.

It serves as the primary funding source for the Butte Silverbow Fire Department and supports the majority of the department's overall operating budget.

Wages and benefits for the remaining 30 career fire personnel, all operating expenses, and that's training EMS, fire hazmat, technical rescue, all equipment, so PPE, medical supplies, radios, tools, hose, etc.

Apparatus, maintenance, fuel, insurance, replacement, building maintenance improvements, and capital, uh short-term, long-term capital improvements.

So including Montana Connections into our fire tax and why we think this matters.

Equity and fairness, Montana Connections benefits from fire protection services.

Other residents and commercial property owners are currently subsidizing fire protection coverage in that area, and equal service area should mean equal participation in funding.

Service demand and risk, growth and development in Montana Connections area, increased infrastructure density and commercial exposure.

Our fire risk does not stop at district lines, and long-term sustainability requires balanced cost distribution.

And another one is financial stability.

It is expanding the tax base, helps maintain staffing levels, helps maintain our training, supports our equipment, and stabilizes future levy pressures, and it reduces a disappropriate burden on current urban taxpayers.

So what inclusion would mean?

If it was adopted, Montana Connections would continue to contribute to the emergency service fund and begin contributing to the urban fire tax fund.

Property owners would receive full equality in district structure and long-term service planning.

What does it not mean?

No change in our emergency response model.

We are still sending vehicles out there.

No reduction in current service levels elsewhere, and no special assessment beyond standard district participation.

So, what is the financial impact if we include them?

If this plan was to be successful, and Montana Connections were incorporated into the fire tax fund service area, the fire department estimates an annual revenue increase of approximately three hundred to three hundred and fifty dollars to the fire fund.

In those implications, an increase of roughly that per year would strengthen long-term staffing sustainability, support operational expenses currently absorbed by the urban tax fund, improve equipment replacement and capital planning stability, enhance emergency response capacity in a high-risk industrial area, and provide increased hazard prevention measures.

So what possible strategic ways could we use this additional revenue?

Possible.

So Montana Connections Park is a very high-risk, low frequency area.

Montana Connections represents the community's greatest concentration of industrial and hazardous materials risks, making it the most likely source of a high-risk, low frequency event.

These events are among the most dangerous types of emergencies faced by our fire department.

High risk, low frequency event incidents are characterized by rare and often unpredictable events that can have catastrophic consequences.

Examples include technical rescues, train derailments, a large hazardous material release.

While these incidents occur infrequently, they carry the greatest potential for service consequences to both the public and responding firefighters.

Industrial environments require a high level of specialized knowledge, training, and operational readiness.

Many companies within Montana Connections have multiple hazards located on the same property, including the complexity, increasing the complexity and potential impact of an emergency incident.

Because of this elevated risk, a higher level of preparedness is essential.

So funding this position would support expanding training opportunities in these specialized disciplines, including hazardous material response, technical rescue, and industrial emergency operations.

A portion of this training would involve direct coordination with Montana Connections companies to better understand site Pacific specific hazards and response procedures.

The fire department currently conducts more than 10,000 hours of annual training with over 2,000 hours dedicated specifically towards hazardous material response and technical rescue preparedness related to those high frequency, high risk, low frequency incidents.

Continued investment is specialized training in specialized training is critical to maintaining operational readiness for those complex emergencies.

And an assistant chief of training and operations position would play a key role in coordinating, developing, and overseeing training programs and operational readiness for these high-risk, low frequency events.

This position will help ensure that personnel are properly trained, equipped, and prepared to respond effectively to complex and potentially catastrophic events.

Ultimately, this position directly supports safe and effective emergency response capabilities, not only for Montana Connections, but for the entire Butte Siverbo community.

I've went over a couple of these already many times, but our staff operations to protect this area requires or must maintain an advanced hazardous material capabilities and training, technical rescue capabilities and training, industrial and complex fire response readiness capabilities and training, specialized and advanced response equipment, and adequate staffing to meet elevated risk demands.

Another possible strategic use of this additional revenue could possibly be a deputy fire marshal.

Increased industrial inspections, hazardous material code enforcement, fire prevention and risk mitigation, pre-incident planning in those high risk occupancies, plan reviews and compliance oversight, and to assist our fire marshal with the growth of Butte Surbeau.

Prevention and risk reduction.

In high-risk industrial environments, strong emergency prevention measures significantly reduce the potential for catastrophic incidents.

Strengthening prevention capacity is both fiscally responsible and essential for reducing long-term liability for our community.

Currently, the Fire Prevention Bureau for Butte Silverbo operates with only one dedicated staff member.

Assistant Chief Fire Marshal Kelly Lee spends hundreds of hours alone annually conducting inspections, plan reviews, and consultations related to Montana Connections.

This workload represents a significant responsibility for a single person.

Adding a dedicated assistant to our fire marshal would greatly enhance the department's ability to conduct inspections, plan reviews, and maintain proactive engagement with high-risk facilities.

Expanding our prevention capacity would strengthen community safety, improve regulatory compliance, and reduce the likelihood of those large-scale incidents.

So our fire prevention marshal's office must hazardous must inspect to protect hazardous material storage, tank system, flammable and combustible liquids, plan reviews and inspections for all construction.

Plan reviews and inspections for all fire alarms and sprinkler systems.

Again, he spent well over a hundred hours just on Montana connections alone last year.

Another possible use of this revenue would be structural budget stabilization, provide operational flexibility, offset ongoing budget pressures, assist in bringing the fire fund back under the levy cap compliance, reduce reliance on temporary budget balancing measures, and create a financial buffer for our unavoidable costs, which we have daily.

And uh you never know what the price of those parts are going to be.

Fiscal sustainability.

In recent years, the fire fund has met levy cap limits, creating ongoing pressure on the department's operating budget.

This structural adjustment is intended to help restore long-term fiscal sustainability.

And bring the fire fund back into alignment with levy limitations.

Additional funding will provide the department with a greater flexibility to strategically plan for necessary upgrades, capital improvements, and operational enhancements.

This approach allows the department to address current needs while also preparing for the future demands of fire protection and emergency services within our community.

And I won't go over the last four slides in completion, but a couple of them are just our main hazards.

So REC has silicon gas reactors, multiple buildings, fire pumps, town pump, uh almost two million gallons of diesel, a half a million gallon tank of ethanol, half a million gallon tank of unleaded.

We have all these major industrial businesses out there that carry very specific risks.

Um port of Montana over 150,000 square feet of building space.

WASSAW over 200,000 square feet of business of building space.

So I will send you this PowerPoint for you guys to have.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Osborne.

Um I do have I have a couple questions just about the kind of the process going forward.

Um being that you're giving a presentation tonight, I would assume at some point a resolution would be introduced to this body to take action on.

Will that be in the next coming weeks, months?

What what's your plan there?

Yeah, Commissioner Chair Morgan, um, correct.

Uh it'll be sent in this Friday and be on agenda for next week.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh thank you, Director Osborne.

I feel like I kind of have a couple different questions.

I don't uh maybe Danette can answer them, maybe you can answer him, maybe Director Hasser can answer him.

Um but to start that 1510, 420, that's the cap.

How I understand it is that the it's that's obviously set by statute.

Firstly, can can you just talk to us about or Director Hasser, maybe about what exactly happens when we meet that cap.

And then when we collect, if this was to pass, we collect the 300 to 350,000 extra.

My understanding is you wouldn't want to spend all of that right away, correct?

Okay, so firstly, Dr.

Hassler, first question, could you just touch on maybe what the cap?

Talk about that a little bit.

Director Hassler.

Uh thank you, uh Chairman Morgan, Commissioner Thatcher, members of council.

Um 1510420 is Montana Code annotated title 15, Chapter 10, Section 4.

Um, that sets the limit on the number of mills that can be levied according to the taxable value for the district.

And so for this particular fund, um, it's based on the taxable value of the properties that are in the urban, that urban fire boundary.

And um I think uh then the next part of your question is what happens if you exceed the so a couple of years ago it wasn't um fiscal year 26 but fiscal year 25 when we got the budget requests, um, compiled everybody's budgets together.

We have uh spreadsheet called the resource and requirement, what that takes into consideration um the budget appropriation, um, accounts payable, other um and uh uh reserve funds, the six sixteen percent um reserve fund that council um has requested that Butte Silverbow, you know, have as a rever uh reserve in case of emergency, and then you look at um resources to help offset that appropriation.

So you have the cash that's in the bank, receivables that are coming in and other sources of revenue, um, which could be grant funds, they could be um in some cases they have their wild land fire protection when they go out and they're deployed on um wildland fires, they receive revenue.

uh reserve fund the six sixteen percent um reserve fund that council um has requested that butte silver bow you know have as a river uh reserve in case of emergency and then you look at um resources to help offset that appropriation so you have the cash that's in the bank receivables that are coming in and other sources of revenue um which could be grant funds they could be um in some cases they have their wild land fire protection when they go out and they're deployed on um wildland fires they receive revenue so we balance it all out and then we determine how many mills are required to balance the budget and they were over the number of mills that they had available and so at that point you have to cut the budget to come into compliance with 15 10 420 you can't levy more mills than you have the ability to per the calculation and that is all determined um the this calculation comes from the state of Montana um you enter what you the number um of tax dollars that were appropriated or levied the prior year um the taxable value of the district you back off the TIF or the TEDs or the URA um those increment dollars and then you back off um newly taxable property and it calculates the number of mills that you have available.

If you levy under the maximum you do have the ability to carry forward those mills into subsequent years but in that year um it took all of the mills that they had the ability to levy plus any carry forward so it required their budget to be cut to to fall within um the calculation from 1510 420 follow up Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you Chairman Morgan thank you Director Hasser.

I you've explained that a couple times I just want to make sure I was fully understanding it.

The next thing I have one question and then a follow-up to this but um miss Gleason stated that the TIFID used to be in an agreement or used to have the agreement with the 10 mil however that was whatever that statement was but is there with in that sunset when the TIF district sunset so a why can't we why wouldn't we I guess it'd be a thing have that same agreement in place now or is that because there's not enough money in the district as it is right now to be worthwhile to the fire district?

Is that how I understand it correctly Director Gleason geez I'm going I'm going back.

Director Hassler thank you Chairman Morgan uh Commissioner Thatcher members of council um that when the new Montana Connections park was uh created um in twenty twenty four the base value was significantly more than what the TIFID um base value was because it incorporated all of the improvements in the businesses um that were in place on the we know when that district was established and until they either have um more industry move in or significant investment that increases their taxable value that district will not generate enough revenue um in increment dollars to support an agreement for 18 mills or however many mills to you know the the fire department uh follow up commissioner thatcher thank you thank you Dr.

Hasler that's what I thought I just want to make sure the last question and I don't know if this is maybe like an elephant in the room or something but I guess what if we're gonna talk about equity and fairness and do all of those things I guess I'd just like to know the reasoning why we wouldn't expand the entire thing at once not just to the to the connections but you know if you're at the top of Beef Trail you're not paying if you're at Roosevelt drive like um former Dr.

Gleason stated you're not paying into that the fire district the urban fire district you're paying the emergency services but you're not paying the urban fire so the urban fire fund.

So I guess my question is why would we do this process again maybe not I mean in my mind if you have to go fight a fire up at Roosevelt Drive or at the top of Beef Trail, you're gonna use more resources than you would coming to fight a fire at my house on Moulton.

I pay that but those people in that district don't so I guess are we going to go after the go ha going to have to do this whole process again if you so choose to expand to those districts or why would we not just do this all at once?

Director Osborne Mr Chair Morgan Commissioner great question.

That was a topic of discussion many times that we've that we've had in the last two, three years.

The the best way I I suppose that I can explain is well let me go back you are 100% correct um if there was a fire outside of our urban fire district um they would get uh probably two to three times the amount of resources as your house would um on first alarm so uh you're you're you're spot on um in this uh charter change we wanted to um take what we felt was the most dangerous risk that we had in our county um the most time that our fire marshal was spending um the the uh certain percentage of our training hours total training hours were dedicated towards hasmat industrial fires technical rescue um uh railroad um

In this uh charter change, we wanted to take what we felt was the most dangerous risk that we had in our county.

Um the most time that our fire marshal was spending.

Um the the uh certain percentage of our training hours, total training hours were dedicated towards hazmat industrial fires, technical rescue, um, uh railroad uh decks, you know, uh semi trucks, and that's where we felt um what was most necessary.

Um but yes, uh will we have to do this again um one step at a time?

I I maybe and we'll see, we'll see how uh this plays out first, but uh I can't disagree with you.

Director Hassler, do you have a follow-up?

Sure.

Thank you, Commissioner Morgan, members of council.

Um also want to mention that we also have some outlying areas that already have fire districts that cover their area.

So we have Wise Waiver and Divide, and then um there's another one, the Melrose.

So they they already have existing fire districts.

So I mean, to include them in a in a countywide district when they already are taxing their residents for a service that are is provided for their area.

Sure.

Commissioner Thatcher, I'll go back to you in in just a second and give another another opportunity to another Commissioner.

Commissioner O'Leary, and then Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Morgan.

Thank you, uh Director Osborne for for the presentation, much appreciated.

Um I guess I'm just gonna kind of piggyback off of what Commissioner Thatcher was just saying.

You know, you earlier in the presentation it was mentioned that Walkerville does not pay in to this um, you know, they pay the emergency emergency services, but they don't pay the uh fire fund.

And you know, I I guess in some ways I I I kind of wonder if it makes sense or if there's a way maybe you can tell us if there's a way that we could uh restructure everything so that it's uh people are paying based on uh their the response time or something like that.

Um just makes I I I get what the the point of this is, but uh it would it would be interesting to explore that if it's a possibility, but I would like your somebody's uh opinion.

Chief Executive Gallagher you have a response.

Yeah, uh thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Commissioner O'Leary, we we are not able to do that because uh Walkerville is an incorporated uh community, so they have the right to tax their and so they are separate.

They and when we when we consolidated, they stayed separate.

So we do not have the ability to go in and dictate that.

Director Osborne, do you have a commissioner Leary, do you have another question?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh that's uh interesting.

Do we have uh some kind of agreement with Walkerville for fire services or how how does I mean obviously they pay the emergency services, but uh do we have a similar type of agreement with them because I'm sure we respond to their fires just like we do anywhere else in in the city county?

Director Osborne.

There you go.

Chair and Commissioner O'Leary.

Um yes, in our response plan, it's fully built that uh Butrabo vehicles apparatus, fire apparatus respond into Walkerville at certain incidents, fires, um, any kind of power line down, tree down uh medical emergencies, uh everything that they that they would call, we would go to Director Osborne.

I it could be wrong, but I thought there was a mutual aid agreement with the City of Walkerville for that.

Is that true?

Yeah, Chair Morgan, um that is just built into our response plan.

It's just uh it's just an agreement with the response plan that we would respond.

Okay.

Uh follow-up, Commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Chair Morgan.

So there's no there's no money changing hands between the city of Walkerville and Beats of Verbow.

Okay.

Uh so then I guess I have a slightly different question.

Um there was you know, last year you were here with uh the folks that did the the fire study, and I'm wondering if you could just discuss a little bit around how the recommendations that you were making tonight uh interplay with those recommendations from that fire study.

Director Osborne.

Uh Chair Commissioner Larry, yeah, perfect.

I'm glad you asked.

Um if you if you remember they gave us uh those recommendations that they have and uh this would be hitting or my three possibilities that I gave as possibilities would hit every one of their recommendations.

Um find more funding, um, fill an assistant chief training position and uh add somebody to our fire prevention bureau.

Um we've been uh we've been getting by with what we have.

Um we could do a lot better with this.

And uh the study on those types of personnel were spot on, and I agreed uh 100 percent.

Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Chair.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Chairman, thank you, uh Director Osmore.

Has this presentation been presented to any of the businesses in the TIFD or the Montana Connections?

Director Osborne.

Chair, Commissioner Fisher, thanks for asking.

Um I was going to make sure that we did this position per presentation first, and I'll let you guys know first.

Um my next plan was to try to set up a meeting with the Montana Connections Advisory Board, and um and possibly give them a similar presentation, sit down and talk with them.

Uh Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Director Osborne.

Do we have any idea what the amount of taxes will be spread amongst the businesses in Montana Connections?

I I know out there there's a lot of business we lured in, you know, with uh through years, years ago we lured them in to this district, and uh now times are tough throughout business in America, as everyone knows it's really tough out there in business.

And uh do we have any idea what it'll cost a company like RAC per year or uh any of the others you mentioned?

Do you have any idea you know dollar wise what it's gonna cost any of these companies?

Director Osborne?

Chair, Commissioner Fisher.

Um the Department of Revenue uh just gave us their estimated value of 300 to 320 or 350,000 annually.

Um they didn't separate that from businesses that's uh um it would be of course a tax based on their on their taxable value of the value of the property.

Um so fully understand that some of them will have a pretty substantial um tax, but I don't know uh exactly which which businesses would be taxed what.

Uh Commissioner Fisher.

Uh thank you.

I want excuse me, I wonder if uh Director Hasler or Miss Gleason had any idea what the effect would be on a on a business like REC.

I mean, they're a major employer out there, and I'd hate to see them get taxed out of business.

Uh Director Hassler.

Sure.

Thank you, Commissioner Morgan.

Um Chairman Morgan, Commissioner Fisher.

Members of council, uh at one time last year, we um had kind of preliminarily had the taxable values before we received um updated certified and taxable values in August.

Um and the revenue generated was even more because you know we have seen our you know some decline in the taxable values out there just due to depreciation.

Um I would have to I I wouldn't even venture to guess.

I don't want to, you know, stand up here and say it would be this much, um, but that's something that we can get to everybody.

We can get the the taxable values that are currently out on the our tax-wise system, and we can get those and send them to everybody.

I don't want to tell anybody something that isn't true.

Uh Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Commissioner Fisher, I was kind of wondering the same thing because I would imagine that it would probably be substantial or certainly different between all the properties out there.

I guess my only thing with that is Montana resources pays us, you know, like major employee players here in town pay this font, this tax, they they pay into the urban fire, they pay into emergency services, and so I guess where I'm at still, and it's gonna go back to the you know, equity and fairness is if Montana Resources has to pay it, they're a risky industry.

I I feel like everybody else should have to pay it.

But I I'm gonna go as far as to say then I still firmly believe that everybody within the district should pay it, property homeowners, industry owners, um and all of that.

I do have a question though.

Dr.

Hasser, you touched on how like Wisever has their own district, they pay their own fund.

When I was doing some research on this, um there's a I I was just looking up property owners up in Roosevelt Drive, and one like for example, I pay $150 roughly on the Urban Fire District, 30 56 in emergency services on my tax bill.

There is a property owner in Roosevelt Drive that pays $6550 in emergency, zero dollars on the urban fire, obviously, but they pay a forest fire special assessment.

Is that something that you're talking about with like the wise every district?

Or is that are we moving away from that?

We can still tax we would still tax uh on that specific property or would not, based on what you said about the wiser district.

Director Hassler.

Chairman Morgan, uh Commissioner Thatcher, members of council, that fire forest fire is um an assessment that comes from the state of Montana and has nothing to do with Silverbow County.

It's a special assessment.

So um if there were a countywide, you know, if the if the boundary was um expanded to include countywide, I believe they would pay the urban fire if they would pay emergency services, and then this fee that's assessed by the state of Montana has nothing to do, they would continue to assess that fee as well.

Uh Commissioner Thatcher, I I'll have to scratch or shake the dust out of my head, but back in the day there was a time where we as commissioners went and visited the wise river fire department because they weren't receiving any funding direct from either Beaverhead County or Butte Silver Bow.

They were basically for my memory, they were funding the fire district based off of bake sales.

And at that time, they were seeing the increase of medical calls and fire calls.

So they were they were looking to Butte Silver Bow and Beaverhead because the butt or the big hole is the county line, and they wanted an agreement, and and I think it was like a dollar or two that this body authorized to to go fund their fire department.

And I and that's where the funding for the wise river came from.

Um Ms.

Gleason might correct me if I'm if I'm incorrect on that, because I think she was there then, but that's where that would have came from.

So uh Commissioner O'Neill, you had a question.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Um appreciate the presentation.

Director Osborne, so you have one assistant chief currently now.

Uh Director Osborne.

Uh Chairman Morgan, Commissioner O'Neill.

Um yeah, that's correct.

We have uh an assistant chief who serves as my assistant chief and he's the fire marshal for Butte Silverville.

One.

Uh Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

So in the the ordinance, it allows the actual ordinance allows you to have more chiefs, or excuse me, more chiefs, more assistants, is that correct?

The you have a fire marshal.

And then who's the who's the assistants under that?

Basically the the charter lets you have allows you to have so many within.

So these aren't made-up positions, if you will.

They're not you're not like trying to replicate anything other than basically the charter speaks as you can have these positions, correct?

Am I making sense?

Director Osborne.

Uh Chair Morgan.

Um Commissioner O'Neill.

Um So the ordinance does state that within the Butte Silver Bow Fire Department there is two assistant chiefs.

One is the assistant chief fire marshal.

The other one was uh it was named the assistant chief of Administration and Operations or something.

Um that position has not been filled, I believe since like the 80s.

But it is in the ordinance.

Um it has not been filled for for decades.

Uh the deputy fire marshal um would uh that that is that would be a totally new position.

Um not in the ordinance, not in the charter.

That would just be adding a position to our fire prevention bureau.

Um but again, these are just these are just possibles.

Um if the outcome was, you know, the the 300 to 350, this is I'm just giving you guys what what maybe we could do.

Um number one goal would be to uh give us flexibility with the cap.

You know, not use not use everything.

Um but I hope I answered your question.

Yes, there's two in the ordinance, uh nothing that of the deputy fire marshal.

Follow up, Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I just want to go back to the Walkerville situation as far as I want to clarify they do pay for emergency services.

So I'm gonna make sure they're so correct.

Director Osborne.

Uh Chair and uh Commissioner O'Neill.

Um yes, it was always my understanding that Walkerville and Melrose paid into the emergency service tax, but not the fire fund.

Uh unless I am totally misunderst missioning something, but uh that's what I always understood is they were paying into that because that tax is a countywide tax is what I was always uh was I was always told.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Fisher, you had a follow-up.

Uh thank you, Chairman Martin.

Zach, thank uh Director Osman, thank you for being here once again.

Um in one of the slides there, you mentioned that if this took place it would reduce the fire fund for everyone else paying into it.

Is that correct?

Director Osborne.

Uh Chair and uh Commissioner Fisher.

Um I don't remember stating exactly that.

Um what what this would do for everyone else is um equal equal out, I guess what I meant what I think the the statement that you're you were referring to is um uh maybe when I said uh that the people inside the fire fund are subsidizing for Montana Connections, they are paying into the fire fund.

The fire fund is budgeting for their training for their response.

Um their uh fire fund tax, I believe would not get would not be affected.

Am I speaking correctly on that director Hassler?

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Morgan, uh Commissioner Fisher, members of council.

There's really no way to know exactly how it would impact everybody because it's based on the taxable value and the number of mills that have to be levied to balance the budget.

And so um if your property value went up and somebody else has went down, and whatever their their budget is, and we determine the number of mills, like it it it impacts everybody differently.

So there's really there's no way to determine that everybody else's uh tax for the the urban fire district would go down and theirs would go up.

Okay.

Follow up, Commissioner Fisher.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

One more uh thank you, uh Director uh Hasler.

Uh one more question, I guess it was here.

You stated uh Director Osborne that um the fire marshal spends one hundred hours per year at the connections.

100 per year seems like a small amount of hours to be spending on a facility that has that great a risk that you're expressing tonight.

100 hours is barely a month's worth of work for a man that works 40 hours a week.

That that kind of throws me that seems like a small amount of time to requesting a couple more employees to assist with this.

So I'm just questioning 100 hours.

Is that the correct number?

Uh Director Osborne.

Uh Chairman Morgan, Commissioner Fisher, um that is the correct number.

100 percent, and that's where that's where the danger comes from.

The amount of hours that he should be spending out there is substantially more because of the danger.

Um I'm super glad you you commented on that because uh when I had uh fire marshal leave run his numbers for me, um, and that's what he came up with.

Um I I thought he was uh joking to me.

But um it uh any time you go into um industrial area like that, it deserves many more hours.

Okay.

So any other questions.

Uh Commissioner Mankins.

Uh thank you, uh Director Osborne for coming and sharing that.

And I would have to do a couple sediments off of like uh Commissioner Thatcher with the equity and fairness.

Uh I think it's about time that uh uh everybody is on that same page and paying into this urban fire fund, and I'm glad that uh director or uh Commissioner Fisher brought up that hundred hours because I was gonna ask that same exact thing, and uh thank you, Director Osborne by um clarifying that that that shows the importance that we do need another position to uh help out in that.

Um so I hopefully everybody does keep this into consideration and to uh look moving forward that we uh I would like to, you know, moving forward with this, but like kind of what the Commissioner Thatcher said, um we have to come back to this again.

I mean, are we gonna look at this again?

And I mean, I know it's always nice to take baby steps with this, but uh, this urban fire fund uh needs to be addressed um from top to bottom, and I think we all understand that.

Um, so hopefully that we uh everybody is listening that that should be something that we need to address from top to bottom in all of our districts to make sure that there is that equity and fairness throughout our community.

So thank you for bringing that to our attention, um, Director Osborne.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh yeah, Chairman Morgan.

Mr.

Osborne, if you can go back to the page that said every citizen and every property owner pays uh emergency service funds.

The property owners pay the emergency service fund through property taxes.

How do the rest of them pay?

People that aren't property owners pay that emergency service fund.

Director Hassler.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh Commissioner Callahan, members of council.

Are I I just want to clarify the question?

Are you talking about people who potentially rent as opposed to because the when we tax somebody, they get taxed based on their taxable value of their property.

And so that if they're a property owner, then they would see that tax on their tax bill.

And if they're not a property owner, I'm only assuming that's because they're a renter.

Is that what you're referring to?

Well the page said that every person and every property owner pays emergency service fund.

Now I'm very well aware that every property owner gets assessed emergency service fund.

But there's a high percentage of people that aren't property owners that that page said pays the pro uh emergency service fund.

Director Hassler.

Thank you, uh Chairman Morgan, Commissioner Callahan, members of council.

Um property owners are assessed the emergency.

Not every person, it's it's assessed on a property tax bill.

So unless you're receiving a property tax bill, you wouldn't be assessed that tax.

I want to clarify that because the page did say every person in your comments at every person and property owner.

Follow-up, Commissioner Callahan?

Here that was You're good.

Commissioner Callahan, is that another question?

That's good.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

Uh Commissioner O'Neill.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Well, in theory, they would the person that's renting that pays the property owner.

And he pays the tax, so kinda.

Sorry, joking.

Commissioner Callahan.

All right.

Okay, the in theory, that sounds good, but when we were assessing the road fee, one property at uh Legion Oasis, they got charged one fee for the whole property.

And is that the same possibility with this emergency service fund?

Do they does the Legion Oasis with hundreds of renters?

Do they pay one fee as an emergency service fee?

Director Hassler.

Thank you.

Uh Chairman Morgan, Commissioner Callahan, members of council.

Um that is a road maintenance fee.

That is a fee that is assessed.

We're talking about a tax, and the tax is based on the taxable value of the property.

So if you own a big apartment complex or multifamily housing or duplexes, fourplexes, whichever, it's based on the taxable value of the property, not the number of people that are living there.

So if you have a significant property that has lots of apartments, taxable value is going to be higher.

You're going to be assessed the number of, you know, the number, the tax that you're going to pay is based on the taxable value multiplied by the number of mills levied for emergency services.

Commissioner Callahan.

All right, because a lot of our properties don't have a taxable value because they're nonprofits and they don't pay a tax value.

Is that my understanding?

Director Hassler.

Uh Chairman Morgan, uh, Commissioner Callahan, members of council, that is correct, I believe that they only pay for the fees that are assessed.

So if you're a nonprofit, you pay for the street maintenance district, you pay for landfill, you pay for Metro sewer because those are fees for services.

Um this is a tax, so they would be exempt from that.

Dad.

Yeah, just Gleason.

I don't mean to jump in here, but we haven't talked a lot about this in a long time.

Um Karen and I haven't really had time to talk about it lately either, but um before you we talked a lot about these nonprofits paying payment in lieu of taxes.

I think Chairman uh Morgan, you serve on a housing authority that uh used to pay a payment in lieu of taxes, but it's something that needs to be revisited again.

I think many times the nonprofits come before you um expressing that they will pay that, but then nobody sits at the table with them.

And I am as a fault as anybody when I was um here myself as the finance and budget director, we've met a few times with different entities, but never followed through on a a contract to finalize that payment aloop.

But the housing authority um used to pay on several homes for quite a while a payment aloo for fire services.

And so I know they have came f come forward and we had meetings before I had left to revisit that, and I think it's time again now that we're talking about implementing this to visit with those nonprofits and go back to the payment aloo for fire and um law enforcement.

Those were kind of the big when we did our assessment of it, they were big users of those services, but not paying for those services.

So I think it's probably time to revisit really quick way.

Um Commissioner Fisher is also reading some of the charter and the municipal code language when he talked about offsetting, because you're gonna see a lot of changes that need to take place in the municipal code um that can't be followed today for one reason or another.

And one was back in the original adoption, and I didn't get into all of it because I didn't want to have you sitting here for hours in the presentation, but back in 94 and in 98 when the ballot measure went to the count to the voters to approve the 10 mill, there was an offset.

So the whole intention was that those in the uniform fire district were going to be offset.

So we were going to be able to levy.

So what we did in the original years is that we looked at what 10 mills raised for emergency services, and we back that off of the uh uh uniform fire district.

That was in the original.

So we were functioning different cap.

It was called I-105.

We were limited with the number of mills, but we went to the vote of the people to get this 10 mill put in so that we could go above, but then we did that offset calculation.

Well, in 2003, when House Bill 124, the big bills came in that we talk about the implemented 1510, 420, and the budget caps and whatnot came in, all that went out the window because you can no longer do that.

They changed our whole method and structure.

And so I taught I was talking to Deputy County Attorney uh Peterson just before the meeting, saying there's a lot of language in there that still needs to be cleaned up that's kind of legacy old legacy language, and why you're looking at it now, we should be cleaning up that because you can't comply with those rigs because it doesn't meet 1510, 420.

So I just want to mention that because if you look at some of the language you're seeing today, you're gonna see that offset language.

You're gonna you pull some of these old resolutions up, you're gonna see in the resolution when we went to the vote of the people that the intent was to offset that those kind of things.

Just wanted to mention that to you.

Commissioner uh you had a question.

Thank you, Chair Morgan.

Uh I can't remember exactly who asked the question, but I just pulled up tax bills from down by Wise River, and they are paying the emergency services, but not the fire fund.

Uh same is true for Walkerville.

Just wanted to talk about that.

Commissioner Fisher.

Uh thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

And you know, we talked earlier about getting this resolution going.

We moved this, we moved this presentation from March 25th to March 11th, you know, and it's uh talking about putting this on next week and getting the week after.

I think it would be really wise if we step back and let the Tiffet people and the Montana Connections people review this a little bit and see what it's actually gonna cost them and see what it's gonna do to the other things, like uh Ms.

Gleason just said, with the county attorney sorting out some of this stuff.

I think it would be wise to let this play out for uh a little while, four to six weeks or some, and then get a get a a proper way to do this.

I'm not against it.

I just think it's one of these things that we want to review and let the public have input, let the Montana Connections businesses have input.

Let's have a good conversation, a good discussion about this before we start wanting to write resolutions and getting things going.

I think there's some things that has to be sorted out both legally and financially.

Thank you.

Have a response.

Uh Chair and uh Commissioner Fisher is it is a resolution of intent, so the public owners, property owners will have proper time to um for public hearings.

Kind of along those lines, uh Commissioner Fisher.

So the the TED board or or whatever board you're gonna be sending this to, just keep in mind that it's they're the advisory board, which I guess so it would be more for informational purposes only.

They they in theory wouldn't be taking action on approving or or denying this that that would be the the role of this body to do it, so it would be just for informational purposes only on that side, and then with a resolution there would be a public hearing that the members of the public would be able to come before us and state their pro or against as well.

So uh Commissioner Fisher.

Uh thank you, Chairman Morgan, and I do agree with that, and not so much about the TED board.

I'd like to hear a little bit from the individual businesses, they're gonna be affected by this.

You know, the TED board is a board that's the TED board, you know.

We understand that what they do, but I would like to hear from people the CEOs of these companies of these companies that we've lured in here into this connections deal with the idea that they're gonna make a business fly out here.

And uh, I'll just tell you as I repeated earlier.

Business is a little tough right now, fuel five, fuel is high and transportation.

Uh you know, there's a lot of things going on, and I just think it'd be pennywise and found foolish to hear from the people that got to pay the bill rather than the people that are you know wanting to collect the money.

I I'm not against it, I'm just saying proceed cautiously.

Thank you.

Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I agree, Mr.

Fisher, you're 100% right.

We gotta get this right with the people that are involved in this area.

Uh they should have a right to come up here and uh acknowledge, you know.

I've heard here many, many times by multiple commissioners up here, fair share.

How do you determine fair share?

If you go back and check your log book and see how many times you guys go out there, you said you spend a hundred hours just evaluating their their property.

I can assure you a place like ASMI has a safety team that is at the very top of their game on all the stuff they need just to be able to hold insurance.

So, you know, I I don't think we should downplay these places of being unsafe.

I don't I can't imagine a place like ASMI being unsafe and getting away with it because it's too much of a too much of a risk and insurance companies don't insure companies that are high risk.

But I want to add one more thing about the the uh fair the fairness and everybody pay equal.

Uh the the comments I made on some of these housing projects, they don't pay at all.

And you can you can assure everybody in here.

Some of them you go daily or multiple times a day.

I question why we're not looking into getting something more out of those as well.

Commissioner Thatcher, you had a question?

Uh thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I I don't have any issues with what the businesses coming up and stating their piece.

I guess we don't give that opportunity necessarily to every business in butte, like, hey, I don't want to be taxed this either.

I mean, that's not an option.

So I guess I don't really understand.

I I get that we that we want their input, but again, if we're if we're responding to a fire out there, I recognize that REC d certainly has safety protocols in in place, but it's a high like you said, a high risk business.

Like there I mean, there are things that could most certainly go wrong out there as well.

And and we I think we have to take into consideration that my my question though is just quickly, I I'm perfectly fine with with the business owners being notified.

I just have a question, Director Osborne.

So the resolution that you plan to to put forth, I would assume is going to have just the boundary expansion into Montana Connections.

Um what is your timeline, I guess?

Like is this something that you'd like done?

I mean, or you know, like what what's it look like down the road?

You know, what's the timeline on this?

Director Osborne.

Chair Morgan and Commissioner Thatcher.

Um it's on my phone, but umette Gleason has it memorized in her head, so I'm gonna turn that over to her.

Miss Gleason.

Not sure that I have it totally memorized date by date in my head, but Karen and I and um Fire Chief Osburn, uh Director of Fire Service Osborne had went through kind of a timeline in order to make it on the tax rolls, meet the obligations and the requirements of Department of Revenue to hit the tax rolls.

So just to make sure everybody understands the first resolution, and Deputy County Attorney Peterson can jump in here too.

But the first resolution is a resolution of intent, only a resolution of intent to possibly change the boundaries.

So the reason why it's kind of even an extra step you're doing here.

Um, because you could just kind of start with ordinance changes and hold your public hearings and be on your way.

This is another extra step.

This is an extra step to give more time for people to come forward, businesses to come forward, um, have discussion.

Give Zach time to go out, meet with individuals and kind of talk about you know why and and the processes and whatnot.

Um but the first resolution of intent comes before refers to the 18th to the council, but then goes to judiciary and sits in the judiciary, and hopefully the judiciary committee will set that public hearing that everybody's wanting to have right now and have that public comment and hold that public hearing.

And then after that, the next step with the public hearing is then if you're ready to come forward, then you come forward with the ordinance changes, which then again require more public hearings, two readings, and then the adoption.

So you're pushing your timeline to the end of June to even kind of get through some of the public hearings and the processes and the adoptions of the ordinances, and then if you hit the June 30th, do middle of June, June 30th adoption timeline of the ordinances, then you got 30 days of waiting period to have the uh finalization of the ordinance, and then you're at the Department of Revenues timeline because they need to know that because they're gonna want to certify taxable values for you by the first Monday of August.

And so, in order for you to meet your budget timeline too and get the certified values by Department of Revenue, you kind of have if you really want to do a resolution of intent and have a series of public hearings, then you kind of have to start working on it now, and then give the opportunity for people to come before you and have those conversations too on what's going on.

So I didn't have the dates.

We went through it all, we had the dates all ready for you, and I didn't grab a copy of it either, but any other questions?

Commissioner Fisher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

This may be a question for you, my friend.

Um it comes to the two-thirds vote, is that on the resolution itself, or is that actually on the resolution of intent?

I would bring that to our deputy county attorney.

That's the same thing.

Uh Commissioner Fisher.

Uh point of clarification, please.

The resolution, oh go ahead.

The resolution of intent would be introduced.

Okay.

And then if does that got it passed by two-thirds, or is that just majority vote?

And then it goes to the resolution, where it have to have two-thirds vote, or would that be after when it goes to the ordinance change?

Because the states in here, any ordinance changing boundaries, is this the fire district are relocating fire shall require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the whole number of the council of commissioners.

Beyond the ordinance, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, Commissioner Mankins.

So thank you, uh Chair Morgan.

Does that satisfy everybody with the timeline once we go through that?

I mean, that was a good like that was resolution timeline.

I mean, that seems to be quite a bit of time for the public and everybody to hear.

Hopefully, that is.

I mean, not that you can speak for anyone, but I mean that seems to be.

I mean, if we were looking March, April, May, June, July, and have to be there August.

So just thinking.

Uh Chief Executive Gallagher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh and that that's one of the things is why we're at the time that we are right now in last year.

If you remember when we started to have this discussion, we realized that we were going to run up against a timeline that we would not meet the state's um department of revenues timelines be able to get this passed at that time.

So that's why we're at the pace that we're at now, and this really does give us, you know, if you look at it, we're this will draw out almost until end of July, you know, the the later part of July.

And if there's any bumps on the road, we're still pressing up against it.

And so um this does give an opportunity, and that's what we felt as as we did this.

There's been a lot of discussion of why um the the boundaries and everything, and in Montana Connections, and I'll just kind of clarify on that why Montana Connections, it's as you said, the highest impact area that requires the most training, the most resources out there, and and it also has the biggest um impact.

And so the other outlying areas, I think that you know you you as commissioners are going to hear a lot from them as well.

Um I think that there was discussion when the 10 mil was done at a time that was kind of a concession that not moving the full fire district out there because a lot of the rule fire felt that you know even with the response that they would have and know that have to send out that amount of resources.

A lot of times the fire would not be able, they would be there more of just of them to make sure of mopping up, but not be able to protect a uh a structure.

So I don't disagree.

I mean, uh what when we talk about this, but there was a lot of discussion on what is what was the best move for the for the community.

But this body um if choosing wants to move forward with the expansion of the district to cover those that are not covered, you know, um, then that that could be taken into consideration, but uh there was a lot of consideration when we were looking at this.

So any other questions.

All right, director uh commissioner O'Leary.

Thank you, Chair Morgan.

I just was wanted to say if you could send us a copy of the I was looking for the fire district map online.

I can't find it.

So if you could send us a copy of that, maybe the the presentation that'd be great.

Okay.

Yep.

Any other questions, comments?

Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, General Mark.

I guess I do have one quick uh request if I could.

Um as I said, it's been brought up multiple times.

Pay their fair share.

Is there any chance that you could come up with numbers on what these people do pay in the emergency service fund?

And uh so we gotta, I mean, we hear pay their fair share, but what is their fair share?

You know, what's anybody's fair share?

It's assessed on 10 mils and property value.

A lot of them properties are valued very high.

Uh thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Uh, Commissioner Callahan, members of council, can you clarify?

Are you talking about just the people in the Montana Connections that they pay in the emergency?

Okay, yes, we can do that.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Class call.

All right, thank you, Director Osborne, for the presentation.

We look forward to that resolution.

Moving on to uh moving on to section two communications, communication 2025-581.

Will O'Connor land records coordinator requesting council commissioners to approve council communication 25249, a request from Patty and Chris Salmanson to purchase land owned by But Silver Bow located adjacent to the property located at 17 Tullamore Street.

This has been an ongoing communication on the agenda, but I'm proud to say that there have there was action on this communication last week, so we could cross-reference this communication with 26104 in place on file.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

At this time, I'd like to make a motion to cross-reference communication number 2025-581 with communication number 2026-104 in place on file.

Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded to cross-reference with communication 26104 in place on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Mr.

O'Leary.

Yep.

Uh, would anyone like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11, yay, zero nay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Uh number two, communication 25587, Bill Kelly for 403 Transit Street, Bugh Montana requesting council commissioners' authorization to purchase parcel 000-1904920.

That is directly bordering my property for improved maintenance utilization and management of the area.

You will take a look that this communication has been on the agenda as well, but it it there is a subsequent communication that the land sales committee is is looking at, which is communication 2026-93.

So they will be taking action on that one and not this communication since this is included.

So we could cross-reference this with communication 2693 in place on file.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

Um, I'd like to make a motion to cross-reference communication number 2025-587 with communication number 2026-93 and place on file.

Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded to cross-reference communication 2693 in place on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Would anyone like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 Yay 0NA.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Number three, communication 2618, Kelly Sullivan, BLDC, executive director requesting Council Commissioners permission to schedule a presentation on March 4th, 26th regarding the BLDC's recently completed five year strategic plan.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I'd like to make a motion to place on file communication number 2026-18.

Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded to place communication 2026-18 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Anyone like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 yay 0 nay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Number 4, communication 2663.

Mark Neary, Public Works Director, requesting Council of Commissioners permission to schedule a public hearing on March 4th, 26th for the purpose of soliciting comments on the final drought management plan.

A resolution will be submitted after the public hearing.

We did hold the public hearing last week, so Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I'd like to make a motion to place communication number 2026-63 on file.

Thank you.

There's been a motion made and seconded to place communication 2663 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Commissioner Boyle.

Anybody like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 yay 0 nay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Number five, communication 2664.

Mark Neary, Public Works Director requesting Council Commissioners permission to schedule a bid opening on February 25th, 26th for the hot mix for the Butte Silver Bow Roads Department.

Uh Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I'd like to make a motion to place communication number 2026-64 on file.

Been a motion made and seconded to place communication 2664 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Would anyone like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 yay 0 nay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Number six, communication 2677.

Mark Neary Public Works Director requesting Council of Commissioners permission to schedule a bid opening on February 25th, 26 for the 26th Road Division Mill and Fill Project.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I'd like to make a motion to place communication number 2026-77 on file.

Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded to place communication 2677 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Commissioner Callahan.

Anyone like to change their vote?

Yes.

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 yay 0 nay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Communication number 7 2693.

Bill Kelly 403 Walkerville, Montana.

Requesting Council Commissioners approval to purchase three parcels of land for improved maintenance.

Parcel number 1904920, 1903-480, and 1904910.

We'll continue to hold that in abeyance pending a report back from the land sales committee.

Number eight, communication 2699, Karen Mologney, Butte Silver Bow Officer requesting Council Commissioner's permission to schedule a public hearing on March 18th for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 26 budget to support the purchase of land equipment for family planning.

Utilization or utilizing grant funding from the bridge care via the sample foundation.

We'll continue to hold that in abeyance pending the public hearing on March 18th.

Number nine, communication 26102, Robert Farron, Butte Montana requesting Council Commissioners approval to purchase a parcel of land within the city limits of Butte Silver Bow, which has been taken back by the county on multiple occasions for back taxes.

We'll continue to hold that in abeyance pending the report back from the land sales committee.

Number 10, 26100.

Karen Mologney, Butte Silver Bow Health Officer requesting council commissioners' permission to schedule a public hearing on March 18th, 26th for the purpose of amending the fiscal year 26 budget to support HIV prevention services, delivery of HIV treatment, outreach and support, viral, hepatitis and HIV services.

We'll continue to hold this in abeyance pending the March 18th public hearing.

Number 11, communication 26106, Zach Osborne Fire Services Director requesting council commissioners permission to schedule the presentation on March 11th, 26th regarding the future inclusion of the Montana Connections area into the urban fire district.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Morgan.

I'd like to make a motion to place communication number 2026-106 on file.

Thank you.

There's been a motion made and seconded to place communication 26106 on file.

Is there anything on the question?

Would everyone please vote?

Would anyone like to change their vote?

Would the clerk please record the vote?

11 yay, 0 nay.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Number 12, communication 26107, Aubrey Jap, BSB Public Archives Director requesting Council of Commissioners permission to schedule a presentation on March 25th, 26 regarding the Archives 25 annual report.

We'll continue to hold that in abeyance, pending the presentation on March 25th.

Communication number 1326113.

Schedule of Federal Awards Audit Findings and Rated Audit Opinions.

We'll continue to hold this in abeyance pending the presentation on March 18th.

Next item on tonight's agenda is any public comment on any public matter not on the agenda.

If there's any member of the public to speak on any item not on the agenda, now would be your opportunity.

So I uh as I was perusing this, I I saw the um communication about the presentation on the Butte Archives.

And what a beautiful building.

I was just in there earlier today, um, actually right before coming here for your dad, actually.

Uh Russell.

Um, but I was there for an event put on by Wild Montana relating to the rescinding of the roadless rules for the uh forest the forestry service.

And I uh I'm really curious as to what our parks and rector and department think about the uh rescinding of that rule as well as all of you folks.

Um so I thought I'd publicly ask.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on any item on tonight's agenda council of commissioners?

Um I'm Cindy Sherman, clerk and recorder.

Um I'm here to speak about my decision to cancel the local portion of the primary election.

Um this is a difficult timing issue.

Um, the filing period ended on March 4th, and in order to put a communication on the agenda, I would have had to do that by February 27th.

Um, unfortunately, if you guys want to make a change in my decision, then you will have to hold a special meeting.

And I I'm sorry about that.

Um my decision.

Um there were eight elected positions up for election this year.

There's Commissioner District 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 11.

There's also a coroner position and justice court one.

When the filing period ended on March 4th, there were four contested races with two can candidates each.

The other four races are uncontested.

Um this does not fulfill the requirements needed for for me to be required to hold a primary election.

Um the statute on in Montana Code annotated 1314-115 allows me as the election administrator to cancel the election.

The governing body can uncancel the election by resolution.

But that resolution needs to be done by next Monday, March 5th or 16th, sorry.

I do want to clarify to the public that I am not canceling the primary election.

I cannot do that.

Just the local portion of the primary election, due to the fact that every single candidate will move on to the general election.

The primary is generally used to narrow the candidates down to two candidates in the race or in each race for the general election.

In this case, every single candidate will move on to the general election.

Either way.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other comments on any item that's not on tonight's agenda?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

Uh just really quick, Commissioner Morgan, are you waiting just till after we adjourn to get everybody's point on that?

Yeah, we can't have a discussion on it.

Okay.

So just as a reminder for that, okay.

Um then I would like to make a motion to adjourn.

Uh Commissioner Fisher.

Uh just a couple friendly amendments.

Uh I will not be here next week.

The uh