I'll call our meeting to order, please, if we can have our Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer.

Okay, Lori Casey.

Cindy Purdue Dolan.

Chad Silk is excused.

Cindy Shaw.

And so we'll skip public comment on anything not in the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

Can I have approval of the minutes of the meeting held March 9th, 2026?

Ms.

Shaw.

I guess I could turn on Mike.

I would move to approve the uh minutes of the meeting that occurred on March 9th of 2026.

Is there a second?

I second it.

I have a motion by Shaw and a second by Dennehy.

Is there any conversation about the minutes?

Okay.

All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

So moving on to correspondence and our study commission update.

I didn't have any correspondence in email or otherwise.

So we can move straight on to unfinished business.

So we have our preliminary work session, preliminary report work session to do tonight.

And then also our public outreach update.

And I would just move to that we maybe start with public outreach update and then go back to the report if that's okay.

And so Ms.

Adams, do you want to take a stab at the listening sessions, et cetera?

Yes, madam chair, thank you.

So I handed out a flyer, which looks like this, which has the confirmed dates.

So these um dates have each been confirmed at these locations.

We've got the public hearing information on there, as well as the new community survey, which is been converted to digital format and is live if you go to this QR code.

I think considering Ms.

Shaw's comments earlier, we should probably add the email, the phone number, and the mailing address for the commission on here.

But does anybody have any other comments or changes on the flyer?

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Shana, thank you so much.

These look these look really great.

Um, but I would say, like I said two weeks ago, um, maybe to add something for our older members of the community that are not computer savvy and QR code savvy, and that would be me on the latter part, but um as far as maybe getting where you can get a community survey uh physically and fill it out via like the chamber or other places, maybe to say something of that effect.

I don't want to put too much on a you know card or a or a flyer, but something to signal that folks can do it um on paper and not have to do it on a computer if that's possible.

Um yeah, I think that's fine.

I think um maybe just putting I don't know, maybe one location.

We could certainly have them at the chief executive's office.

Um we can have some at other locations as well in case people stop by, but maybe just call out that they can get them at the courthouse.

Open to other thoughts on that.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate that, Cindy.

Um I remember we had handouts, actual paper handouts at all of our open houses, so that would take care of some of the people that are coming to those.

But I felt the same way.

There's people that don't go on laptops or on their phones, they don't know how to scan a QR code and having a phone phone number, although we're debating where that phone number goes and who answers it, I'm not sure.

What study commission?

Um anyway, of a phone number and then an ability to write a letter, so an address, I think.

And we we've done that before, haven't we, Shanna?

I mean, so I think all of those we can cover probably most bases.

Thanks.

Mr.

Denih.

Um Madam Chair, maybe another suggestion would be at the library putting some surveys there.

Um so people use that and they can have them readily available at the desk.

So I think the courthouse is a good place, and maybe the public library.

I believe also, Ms.

Adams, that um Ron Davis volunteered to have him in his office.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

I think so I have um the library, the courthouse, the chamber, and KDBOW.

Anywhere else.

Okay, looking at our dates, um.

Adams if there's a date or a time that isn't gonna work for people.

And then I would suggest we talked about this a couple of meetings ago that we'll meet next Monday, the 30th to finish this report and make sure it's polished and ready to roll out.

Um and then we won't meet again in chambers here until the 27th.

And so we'll meet on April 27th to get ourselves ready for that public hearing based on everything that we hear in these listening sessions.

I just think that the work that we have in the listening sessions is adequate.

And um if we have any work that we need to do for polishing on the preliminary report, we can certainly do that over email exchange with a couple of folks that are are working on that.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just curious when we think we might be putting together or putting together the the results of the survey and all the other input, and would we have that before the public hearing?

Probably not, but just curious.

Ms.

Adams.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

So uh the survey is live.

I think the next steps on getting it out will be um ads in the Montana standard.

So I got prices to do all of those.

Um the ads will look similar, you know, similar to the flyer, similar to the postcard, and I should have pointed out this is just kind of a mock-up of what the postcard would look like.

Of course, these will be nine by six point two five inches.

Um and then back to Ms.

Shaw's comments, they do have the email, phone number and address added to that second page.

Um but yeah, so I think the survey can run, you know, from now essentially.

Um submittals until we really get the word out next week.

But all through April.

Um we can certainly have final results or preliminary results before the public hearing.

That's no problem.

I mean, I'll definitely summarize what we've collected to date before that public hearing, and then you know, if you want to keep the survey open longer, we can kind of make that decision at that time.

So on the 27th of April, maybe just a review of what we have to date at that meeting.

Okay.

And I think that would be great that can help inform anything that might be a change.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair, just a follow-up and so when do you think we'll be mailing out the postcard, Shana?

What was the plan on that?

Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Sa.

So I just wanted to get kind of any final comments and everybody's approval on the postcard, you know, kind of looking the way it looks, and then Park Street Printers is ready to go tomorrow.

All right, anything else on public outreach?

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Did um did the commission talk about how what the goal might be for numbers?

I know last time around it was what almost 400 uh responses.

Do we have a goal for this time around or the same amount, or do you think that there'll be more engagement?

I don't know if you talked about that last week.

Thanks.

We did not talk about it, but I think for you know, statistical significance and being able to say that we've done a robust job of the survey around that same number would be good.

Um so it's gonna take a push from all of us to make sure that that survey gets to all the people that it can and that we you know ask them to take it.

So we have a lot shorter window last time.

I think we left it over open several months, so well almost almost two and a half months.

So we're gonna have to push it.

All right, is there anything else for Ms.

Adams in terms of feedback?

Ms.

McCormick.

I think oh excuse me.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was thinking that um maybe we could have paper copies of the survey at the open houses.

Yeah, okay.

Thanks.

Okay, is there anything else for Ms.

Adams regarding public outreach?

Okay.

Let's go ahead and work on our preliminary report.

Um there is a section that um Chad just emailed that you don't have.

It's to cut it's kind of the summary section, so I will email that to you guys to look at as well after this particular meeting because we haven't had a chance to look at it.

Um and then Ms.

McCormick did start doing a little bit of reformatting, but it's not change of content, it's rather just calling that first section introduction.

So if we can just start walking through uh what we have in this particular version four and any changes or things that need to be added or things that we would like to red line.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I just I did start doing some formatting and it really makes you think about the different um, you know, you have different headings for different levels, and we do pretty good for the first heading and the second heading, but then we get down into our subsections further down, and it's kind of a mess.

But with that said, I thought, and maybe you know we don't want to talk about it here, but in the introduction, that first um section to the citizens of Butte Silver Bowl, I thought that could be pulled out and be put as a letter again, just to where we get to the study commission process, and then and then start the introduction with the study commission process.

Or I don't know what would be more appropriate to start first is the purpose of this report.

That kind of seems like you'd say what the purpose of the report is, and then you could talk about the process of NYX, but that's I don't know if I'm too, but I I think it would be good, and then that could be our introduction and pull that um first section out as a letter to the public.

Yeah, I think we had it as a letter to the public to begin with.

Um so I would agree.

I think that we should have that signed off by all of us.

So it would go to if in the report that you guys have in front of you, it would be page one, and then that little tiny overhang um in the second page, that would be our letter to the citizens, and that's but the page that we would sign off.

Um and then Ms.

McCormick, I think is saying we need an introductory paragraph before study commission process with um for section one introduction.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Mr.

So the study commission process would be now the number one introduction, and the purpose of the report would be section section two purpose.

Is that how you see it, Mayor?

I I agree.

That sounds it runs very well.

Yeah.

Or if I might suggest do the purpose of this report and then the study commission process second, but that's here no there.

But I do think if we had a little fluffy paragraph at the beginning, and that would be an introduction to you know, we this report needs just a little fluffing here and there to make it a little you cut all the fluff I put in.

I dad mean okay.

So I'm making I'm making a note to put in an introduction before study commission process.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Maybe a couple sentences to start off the report as an introduction and beyond the leather letter um to say what the statutory requirements are for the state of Montana and a study commission.

So folks know may that to put that.

Is that what you had originally, Mary?

Um thank you, madam chair.

Um Cindy.

The letter to the first if you look at the first page, the first paragraph there, that's kind of the what I think you're talking about.

But we want to take that whole section that's to the citizens of Butte Silver Beau and pull that out of the introduction and make it into kind of a letter that precedes the report and to the public.

So it's there instead of in the introduction.

We could easily massage that a little bit and say it again in a different way at the head of the introduction.

But um if you read that paragraph, it it it says, and we definitely want to keep that.

Ms.

Don, yes, thank you.

Um thank you, Mary.

Yes, and what I was thinking was if the letter and the report obviously are separate entities, just that reiteration so folks know, and just to keep saying, you know, this is what we're going off of the every 10-year requirement, just a sentence or two just to reiterate so folks understand what we're doing and why we're doing it.

Um but yeah, okay, something like that.

All right, I've got that.

All right, I've got that mcormick.

Another editorial thing that I thought we should do, and I did in that thing I turned in today, which is I know kind of late, but I've been busy doing some other stuff, is to we have a lot of bullet lists, and I don't like bullet lists that hang out below the paragraph that they're associated with because you don't know that.

So I pulled them up to the paragraph to the so there's not a a line break between the paragraphs and then made a little indent.

So to me that ties them together closer instead of anyone okay.

I think that's perfectly fine.

Yeah.

Um Ms.

McCormick, did you take all of just so that if I I might make sure I work on the most current document when you reformatted with the major headings, did you take all of the um comments from the last one and make those changes in the next version?

Yes.

I just use the latest version and I just went in and you know there's styles and word, and you can go up and you can you can format your number one header, your first header level.

And I formatted that first header level and I applied it to what I thought like the introduction, the sum report summary, and I applied that.

And then I made one for the NICS level, level two, which we have some of them, they have A, B's and C's, and then I applied that, but I didn't get all the way done, and then when I got down to doing the third level is where it all fell apart.

Okay, because we have all different ways of doing things.

And if I sat there and thought about it a long time, I could figure it out, but I didn't have enough time.

But you know, there's we just have all kinds of highlighted bolded stuff that and I think it's very important for us to have you know consistent levels.

It'll look more polished and professionals, and then when you do that, when you use those heading levels, you can go in when you're ready to you can we have a table of contents, and you can just go into where the table of contents is supposed to go and hit a button and it'll format automatically format your table of contents and pull up your page numbers, which is really really nice.

So you don't have to do that manually.

And you can, you know, then you can edit and change and you can regenerate your table of contents over and over and over again, but you don't have to do that.

So if anyone had, you know, I think when we're looking through this, it'd be nice if people would think about what how we want to go with our subsections starting with level threes.

Yeah, I think in the original um we were starting with it was set up that way because it was generating that table of contents.

I can go back and look at that format, and then maybe you and I can just agree that that works, and then um then we can start making those changes in here.

How about content-wise?

Are there other questions or concerns content-wise?

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I think that it it looks great.

I think it reads clear.

And it for me it serves as a you know, packing around my folder full of stuff.

It puts it all into one document that I can reference, which I think is the goal when we're giving it to the public, right?

So I think it was written very well.

Good job working group.

Thank you, Mr.

Sepin.

Is there anything missing or that we we didn't include in your preliminary reading?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I have a question about um page eight in the top, and um I know we're gonna ultimately vote on this preliminary report, and of course, knowing that it's preliminary, but I don't recall making a having a vote about making park and rec its own department.

I know we talked about it, and I know the public had concerns about maintenance and making sure there's enough money, but there was never an articulation other than the current head of park and rec saying that it needs to come out of public works.

So I have that question.

Yeah.

I believe we did.

We did have a vote on that.

It was at the same time that we voted on reclamation and environmental services department, and I'm gonna not remember the date, but I want to say it was before December 30th that we had that vote.

Ms.

Dolan, did you suggest that we need to add uh concerns from citizens in that section or does it read okay as presented?

Well it reads fine, um, other than the fact that um I if we have voted on that, uh knowing that's preliminary, I just I've to me personally I've not gotten any kind of explanation as to why it needs to move.

I mean what the benefit is other than moving it for the sake of the director.

I don't know what the benefit is to the public.

So that's you know, moving things around.

I mean, I I'm wondering if if some of these things can be moved to the suggestions and not put on a ballot and put on the list of for the council.

Yeah.

We did have the analysis document, I'll refer you back to where we looked at the all of the pieces in regards to what um service we were adding.

So I'll refer you back to that.

We can maybe include some of those analysis pieces with this this document.

I don't know if that would be helpful or make it more muddy.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We definitely voted on this.

And it's just kind of like how many commissioners we voted for.

We we already had a vote.

I don't know how we can go back at this point and change our vote.

We did vote on this.

I distinctly remember that along with the um the environmental services department.

Yeah, just for process, just to remind us again, because it gets so muddy with our process.

So the preliminary report, we're going to present that to the public, they give them an opportunity to respond.

We'll go through our um outreach sessions, we'll have our public hearing.

After the public hearing, we will take each issue up as a commission and vote whether or not we wish to move it forward for a ballot initiative.

So that's you know, that's our process.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And we pardon me.

Yeah, this is the preliminary report.

I think we all know that by now.

But uh we do have a survey, and I'm really anxious to see when once people read this, they get to the survey, and the survey does say, you know, yay-nay, or I don't I don't know.

And I think that's gonna give us give us some numbers and some feedback on that to consider.

Um we even leave a blank, I think, for the reasons why, you know, so people can explain that.

Um I like I like the way this is set up.

Uh parks and recs definitely have increasing and increasingly important roles in quality of life.

I know what Cindy's saying though is what's the value added.

And I think uh we talked about budgeting, you know, they have their own budgets and they there it it gives I think it gives the department an a more broader uh experience that they can have as being a standalone.

And um anyway.

And I guess and then I have a question.

Okay, sorry, unless somebody wants to tag along with me on that.

Anyone else?

Okay, so Ms.

Shah, um go ahead and then we'll take Mr.

Stephen.

Okay.

Yeah, my question was uh and talking about the second bucket, you know, that we talked about the uh recommendations that aren't gonna be as they're not gonna be on the ballot.

Can we say anything about the fact that you know just sort of an open-ended thing that we will we will be you know putting some things out there that that we think that are gonna be highly recommended by us that aren't gonna be voted on?

Just to leave a kind of open open invitation, not that they're gonna say something about it.

You know what I'm saying, just to show that we are not just concerned with these items that several other things have raised to the top, but they're not gonna be voted on.

I don't know how it's yeah, I think we can put that in our summary and conclusions.

That's reasonable.

Thanks.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um question that I have when reading the number three adoption of a city county manager and number four, reduction of and restructuring of the council commissioners.

Right now the mayor being elected at large is placed under the council of commissioners section when really I think that's tied to the outcome of the city manager vote, not the council commissioners vote, right?

So for example, if the people elect to reduce the commissioners, but keep the chief executive model.

And so we would probably I think we need to put the mayor under the chief executive portion of the report and vote under that section under that section on the ballot, right?

So that if there is a reduction in commissioners but not a change in the form, we wouldn't have the need for the mayor, and we would have conflicting language on the roles presiding over council.

I think we kind of battled through this a little bit when we're looking at the possible ballot items.

Mr.

Um and Ruth, do you have a recommendation there?

We kind of talked about the if-then scenarios.

Chairwoman Brandle, um, Commissioner Steppen Council.

I I I agree with uh Commissioner Steppen's uh analysis, you know, off the top of my head.

It's it would make sense to put it in under underneath the the chief executive section of the report because it is true.

We can technically, we it being the community of beats of Verbo can vote to reduce the number of commissioners and how they are, you know, whether they're part-time, full-time.

Um however, but if they do not change the chief executive model, the mayor is not, you know, it wouldn't be appropriate to have it there.

However, I think we need to also somehow make it clear though that if the if the mayor is elected, he is he sits as the on my if my numbers are wrong, I apologize.

The fifth commissioner or sixth, however, whichever way it was determined, um at that point in time, or the chief executive would preside over council if it remains the same.

So I do think that it's appropriate to put it in that section.

I think it would make it clearer.

I think if we add it into the I think if it stays in the set section where it's at underneath the council section, it almost makes it appear as if you know you have you can reduce it, have a mayor and have a chief executive.

Ms.

Casey, thank you, madam chair.

I think if we move it, it's really important that we explain in the report that the mayor is still on the legislative side.

Uh because I I think I agree if the mayor's not going to happen if the chief executive stays, but then I think it gets confusing because they are the legislative side, will be elected at large, and so I think we need to maybe really make that clear in the re report when we move uh to move it under the chief executive side just because they are the legislative portion of the branch.

Mr.

Stepin.

Thank you, madam chair.

I agree.

I think that it should state that the what I believe the purpose of having the mayor was that if we have a city county manager that can focus on operations, we still have a representative of the people.

And so I think we can say that under number three, but note that it will be part of the legislative branch and preside over the council.

But I but I I think it's important that that and then we can keep the commissioner at four district commissioners as it's as it's already listed.

And so I think what we just have to reconcile is in the case that the vote happens where the chief executive is retained, we have we still have a commission of four.

So it reduces our legislative branch by one.

There's my just trying to capture all of that, so thank you for your patience.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I mean, maybe it'd be possible to um just add another section, adoption of a city county manager, then um have the mayor be its own little section after that.

Does that make you know I don't know what we want to call it adoption of a mayor as point number four, and then reduction of and restructuring of the council of commissioners would be number five.

Just kind of have the mayor be out there on its own.

So I think that works pretty well.

Mr.

Stepin.

My only suggestion is maybe three point A or three point something, because they're still tied together.

One doesn't happen without the other.

It would be in just so just to make it clear that that falls under the outcome of the city county manager vote, and not separate to it.

And then I think you can just take the second bullet under number four and move it up under its like a three point three point one or you can three point a or whatever you like from a four-manning standpoint.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I like that.

I think you could have um adoption of a city county manager be three, and then three A could be just city county manager, and three B could be mayor.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, just a thought just to pull back a little bit to start thinking about our listening sessions.

I think it would be really great if we could come up with a one-page um document that we could hand out at all the listening sessions that encapsulates this preliminary report of the major things and major changes that are on the table within this report that folks can get an understanding about the number of commissioners, what that mayor role is, because I think that's very important educational purposes to let people understand what that is.

It's not a duplication of jobs, it's a it's a separation of duties, like Matt had said, about administrative versus out and about with folks and and what's the even almost a civics lesson of what the executive branch does, what the legislative branch does.

I mean, I don't want to make more work, but I think if we got something encapsulated in a one page that could be easily handed out and inform people about what we've been doing for the past year, that might be very helpful and uh folks just to give them a sense of what's coming with all of this, but kind of give them an idea of where we're headed.

Ms.

McCormick.

That's a great idea.

And if you want to do that, Cindy, I would appreciate it because you know, trying to even I'm very busy right now, and I think a lot of other people that have been working on this report are very, very busy, and trying to even get this done is a major feat.

It's a great idea.

But anybody else that wants to jump in and do something like that, that would be great.

Ms.

Adams, you've been kind of parallel tracking things for our um listening sessions.

What what do you think there?

Yeah, thank you, madam chair.

So um, you know, just the materials we have today are just what's gonna go out to try to, you know, inform people about the meeting.

We haven't even started to talk about the materials that we'll have at the meeting yet.

Um, but I think that's a great, you know.

I think we definitely need to have a one-page handout, you know, what what exactly all we want on there we probably need to talk about, but I think that's a great idea.

Um, I do think you know, having the commission give a presentation right at the beginning of each listening session will be really helpful this time around.

It's a little more of a here's what we're thinking, here's what we've heard, um, as opposed to the earlier listening sessions were just a little more what do you think?

Um so a one pager, a presentation, again some boards.

Um, we'll have to think about you know how we want people to be able to give their input if we want to give them you know stickers, they can kind of heat map things.

Yes, I like this, no, I like this better.

Um so all of that will need to be developed over the next like two weeks.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair, thank you, Mary, and I appreciate that.

Um I'd love to volunteer.

I don't want to drop the ball and very busy these days with my own work.

Um, so unfortunately I can't give that time to do that one pager, but I'd certainly help if someone wanted to take the lead.

I think also we you know, next meeting we have a chance to.

I'd like this to be polished for next meeting and ready for us to affirm it's ready to go.

Um that's my goal for the week with Ms.

McCormick.

She's rolling her eyes at me.

Um but that's my goal for the week.

And then I think we can we can imagine what those things need to be, and Ms.

Adams is here to help us with some of those things, and I don't think the one pager will be too hard.

We can ask AI to pull it from our report.

Um Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I think most of my homework's done at this point, so I'd be happy to put a one page and then maybe work with Shanna on graphics to make it pretty.

Does that sound okay?

Thanks, Matt.

We appreciate you.

Yeah.

Okay, back to content of the report.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a question.

Um the uh on to page nine um and the options for the fire.

Um I'm wondering if we can make the option one, option two header a little bit more generic, um, so it doesn't really tilt.

Um removal is almost always a negative connotation.

So um maybe independence of the volunteer fire departments from the charter.

Um, and then option two, clarify a united fire service instead of affirm, because again, that tilts to the positive.

I just want to make sure that we're not tilting um the report in either way, just to say these are the options on the table.

Um, but I don't know if anyone agrees with my assessment of option one and two headers.

I think it's reasonable to pull and affirm from option two to say clarify united fire services, that makes sense.

But the first were removal of volunteer fire departments from the charter.

I'm struggling to come up with how to reword.

And what did you say there, Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Maybe removal um slash independence of the volunteer fire departments, because we did allude to and I appreciated in the um in the background under fire services was the first paragraph in the parentheses about Melrose and Divide.

I thought that was excellent to let folks know why those aren't included in the footnote, the bottom of page eight about the volunteer departments that are affected.

So I appreciated that, Mary.

Thank you, or whoever wrote that, that was good.

So I'm I guess what I'm the clarification is the removal, but to say that they're not going anywhere is just independence of the charter.

So maybe I don't know how that could be worded.

Mr.

Denny.

Uh madam chair, I think the the word removal came from the volunteer fire department's language from their attorney from the charter.

They wanted to be removed from the charter.

I I have no problem about keeping that in or keeping it out or having the information or the the verbiage that you say, Cindy, but removal came from their own uh their own study and their own discussion with us.

Ms.

McCormick.

Maybe I see what Cindy's saying, and I think maybe be if we're gonna having clarify we could have two clarifies.

We could have clarify the independence of the volunteer fire departments, and then the other one is clarify a united fire service governance.

So clarify the independence of the volunteer fire departments.

Mr.

Enruth.

We the first one for the clarifying their independence.

So you you're not clarifying their independence.

They're they're currently in the charter.

We're stating that you're clarifying their independent.

I I'm struggling for a different word besides removal as well.

But that's literally what the option is removal from the charter.

I I think you still need the word removal, but I think you could incorporate independence in there somehow, but I but I think if you take the word removal out, you'll actually confuse voters because they might think that they they are independent like Melrose and Walkerville already.

Where I think it's the the heading has to be clear that they're being removed, the you know, removal of the volunteer fire departments from the charter.

And then something independent, not to clarify their independence, but then whether acting independently of the charter itself.

I think you still need the word removal, but you can add independence anywhere in there you want to.

Mr.

Stepin.

Thank you, madam chair.

I think what what my attempt in those headers was to simply describe what we're doing in relation to the charter.

So I think under option two, we could say revise charter language to clarify United Fire Service government governance.

Now we're talking about revising one section and removing in one section, so we're maybe that does something to the tilt.

Because we're just talking about what we're doing to the charter and not I think we want to be careful not to say that we're prescribing outcome of the services themselves, but rather the the intent was to describe what we're doing to the charter to remove there there's two ways to remove the uh the language that is causing the confusion, and the two ways to do it is to revise one direction or remove in the other direction.

So maybe option two revise charter language to clarify United Fire Service government governance.

Ms.

Dillon?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um yeah, I think you're on the right track, Matt.

I think that maybe option two could be um revise revise the governance for united fire for a united fire service.

Um and then possibly option one removal um because I think Dan's right, um that was the exact language we got from the volunteers was a removal from the charter, but removal um slash independence of the volunteer fire departments from the charter, somehow just incorporating those two words to give them a little bit more context.

But I like the revising on option two with the word independence, um aren't they already independent though?

I mean, we're they are just part of our charter because of what we did in consolidation, but they are considered their own independent groups.

Is that not correct, Mr.

Enruth?

Uh Chairman Brennan, that is correct.

They are still considered independent entities under state law, they have their own governing boards, they have all of that.

So that's where I was trying to think of that same language as is the same thing that that uh Commissioner Perdulan just said for the other one.

We've we've said so many sentences, so I might screw it up.

But you know, revised governance of a United Fire Services, and then the other ones could be the same as you know, removal of uh something about the noz it is removal.

It's it's because we're not going to clarify their independence.

We're we're not stating that they're independent, like nothing is gonna say that they are now independent, they're simply being removed from the charter.

Their independence is an operation of law.

I don't know how to change the first one from anything different than besides what it is, because it simply is is a removal of the volunteer fire departments from the charter to in which they would then act independent.

No, because they're still they still act independently, they have their own governance structure.

Mr.

Steppen.

I'd use AI.

Ask ask Chat GPT.

I I think the under option two the term revise governance might not be accurate either, because I don't think what we're proposing is a change to the governance structure.

I think you know, we we've sort of used the term status quo, although it's not status quo.

It's uh at least in my view, it's it's changing the language to meet what the original intent of it was.

So I don't know that it's changing the governance.

I agree.

Uh just simply I think it's you know clarify, you know, the unit clarify uh the revise and clarify united fire services governance, I think would be appropriate.

I think governance is what needs to remain at the end.

Ms.

Dillon.

Um thank you, madam chair.

Yeah, I think that comes right down to the fact that option one, removing from the charter, um, and if we want to keep it that way, I mean, I I would still fight for it in the independence of some sort because they're trying to get out from under the governance of the paid.

And then on the option two, um, revising the governance of the United Fire Services, that's been the beef in state law and the versus different years that things were changed, changed that governance, and who do they look to for that governance?

So I think you know, in those things we can't change, we're changing our charter.

Um that's out of our purview, but we can say that it would revise the governance of fire in Butte Silverbow because it would change the hierarchy and you know, all of that in the authorities, even though some things have been written into charter currently, but are not followed.

So with the option one and the paragraph that follows it, you know, we say under this model the volunteer fire departments would be independent entities rather than components of the consolidated city county fire protection structure, which is in itself a little bit tricky because of what we just discussed earlier, but does that satisfy the independence piece?

Um Madam Chair, um I I think it would be better to be in the option as the title.

Um so the more clarity we can give folks the better.

Um and again, I appreciate everyone agreeing that um just changing up some wordage so it's not tilted one way or the other, and that was the point of the discussion.

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

So with the two options is stated that you know we're talking about the charter, removal of the fire volunteer fire departments from the charter or revise the charter to clarify united fire services.

I think that seems like two options that are about the charter, and they don't they don't feel to me tilted.

So I I want to hear other conversation.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I was just looking at our survey.

And you know, it it should come close to what we're saying, you know, without adding everything on there.

But the first on our survey we say option one is to remove the volunteer fire districts from the charter, thereby allowing them to function autonomously under state law.

And that's kind of a clear sentence in my opinion.

If I were totally Joe Blow on the corner, didn't know anything about this.

It and what the way it's written here, it it gives more detail, like uh removes reference, you know, it's the charter has to be a little more legal ease, I think, probably.

But maybe just that first sentence that and I think Shannon might pull that out of this report.

Um is to allow them to function autonomously under state law, which is kind of like the big deal with the volunteers.

I don't know, just throwing it out there.

And then the other thing on option two is just the opposite, it doesn't say anything about um option two is to be everyone was under the fire chief.

It doesn't really say anything in there, and I think that might be something that people would want to know because that's kind of like what the big rub in a way um to a lot of folks is about fire services being, you know, including everybody.

If you read uh and I'm just looking at the survey, which a lot of people will get this, and you know, I don't know, maybe we should add that in.

Sorry, Mary.

Ms.

Ms.

Shaw, were you asking for the sentence um from the survey to be added to the paragraph after option one, or you were were you suggesting that as a title for option one?

No, just a clarification underneath the title of option two.

Okay, under this option, the charter was amended to expressly declare um it I don't know.

It I just love that sentence that says allowing them to function autonomously under state law.

It's it's pretty easy to understand, but you might be able to fold that in somehow.

I'm not sure.

Okay.

I think we can just review a rabble browser.

Sorry.

I've got that note.

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

Sorry, Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we should keep remove I think we should put it removed volunteer fire departments from the charter, not removal of.

But otherwise, that's what the volunteers, like we say, that's what the volunteers have asked for.

That's what they understand.

I don't think it's trying in any way, shape, or form to sway anybody's opinion either way.

It's it's what we're doing, and I think it's clear, and you know, the and the suggestions that have been made for option two, revise revise the United Services fire services governments.

They're short, they're sweet, they're clear.

I I don't want to spend the next hour belaboring this.

I think that's pretty clear.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think you're right, Mary.

I think just clarifying those words and and um just sharpening those options is a good thing.

Thank you.

All right, I think I've got everybody's comments in their document, so we are good.

Other content clarification questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On page 14, um, I just this is just a thought.

Um I found out recently there's commissioners in Southwest Montana that have six-year terms.

I didn't realize I thought it was mostly four-year terms, but I didn't know if that was something we wanted to uh again, maybe on the one pager two ask folks if that's even a concern.

Um it was just something I learned only a couple weeks ago that someone had a six-year term.

Um I thought, oh, that was interesting for a commission, uh, for a council of commissioners as opposed to this group.

But um anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Thank you.

Yes.

On uh page 11 subsection three comparison of existing and proposed structure of government.

We've talked a little bit about not including that, and I think Lori was doing the uh comparison by table.

Can we put the table in here or do we need do you think we need the the um the verbiage that are coming out of here?

It says I think it's an excellent idea.

We could do an impendency appendix of the two-column comparison, and so I would like to discuss that, or do you think having this comparison is a viable option?

And I guess I would ask Matt and Ruth whether or not he thinks that should be in here so that the voting public knows what the existing and proposed structure of government looks like in the charter.

You're talking about putting the chart that's at the end in that section?

Yeah, it's the comparison of existing and proposed structure government for charter languages.

It has the uh comparison in section three and it goes through some ver verbiage, legal verbiage uh that you need uh or versus the table that Laurie was working on that compares the proposed language versus what is in there now.

Um the existing language versus the proposed language.

Could we put that in here, or do you need uh do we need the verbiage that is in there that people can look at in terms of powers and structure organization duties of the commissioners if that's not changing much?

Honestly, I think people are gonna read the chart more than they're gonna read those giant sections in there.

I mean, I think you you want the sections in there, so in case someone wants to get fully in depth, but obviously everybody is about you know being able to do something quickly anymore.

I would add the chart if it's me and I'm per and I'm presenting it, you know, for instance to a jury or to anybody like that in my world.

I would put the chart forth first.

And then have the longer explanations after.

So that way if someone has an issue with you know looking at who presides over council, they can go back and look at the longer rules.

I would put the chart first.

So under section three, I would I would rather than looking at appendix A, I would insert the chart into it, and then you can reference after you can reference it afterwards, I think.

Or not reference it afterwards, but then people can reference to the extended sections.

That's how I do it.

Is that your question?

Exactly.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, and I think having the existing or having the um the change charter language in the report is important, and then we can give them the detailed existing language in the appendix.

But I like the idea of putting the chart first because I did the same thing to be honest.

I looked at Lori's thing.

I'm like, ooh, I get I get this.

Yes, I I like I like the chart, and I think it needs to be first, and then I and then people can look at it and they can say, well, I don't quite understand that.

So then they can flip to the next section in the report.

Ms.

I want to revert back to another section, but I want to wait make sure that this discussion's done first.

Any other comments on the comparison of existing and proposed structure.

Okay, Ms.

Dillon, take it away.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm actually going back to fire.

Um so on option one, page 10.

Um at the end of and I I like the the sections that say potential charter changes and the potential strategic benefits that are on both options, which are great.

But in option one, um there is a another paragraph at the top of page 10.

Um beyond just the bullets, that's not included in option two.

Um I'm wondering if that last paragraph, which should be included because it does say uh what the restructuring would what would happen if option one is selected.

So I would ask that that paragraph be turned into bullets and added underneath potential charter changes, maybe potential result or or issues um underneath that, because again, going back to fairness, um, if you read option two, it has potential charter changes, the end of um page 10 and into page 11 that says then goes to potential strategic benefits, but it does not include anything about the potential um outcomes, like this paragraph of the volunteers that says, you know, they're gonna have to do organizational restructuring.

Um I think there's something that needs to be said about the potential of what happens with volunteer departments post um option two if that's ratified.

Um so I think we need to be more clear, option one and two with the potential outcomes, and I understand that's kind of a crystal ball because we're not sure what that will look like, but I I don't want those things removed.

I want them added, but I want again to make sure that we're putting them in the correct place so it flows.

Um because if you have the last paragraph saying all of these negative things or potential perception of negativity, um, and then you don't have anything, let's say, you know, what if there's a mass exodus of volunteers following in the adoption of option two?

I think people need to understand that and say this could be a possibility of of the volunteers.

So I don't know how we structure that, but I think it's important to raise the question.

Mr.

Enruth.

Uh respectfully, I wouldn't put them under potential charter changes.

Those aren't charter changes.

I think you need another bullet pointed section of because those aren't charter changes, those are just things that would happen if they're removed.

I mean, but those are things that we know legally have to happen.

Potential outcomes.

Like, yes, we're in option two, you don't know what the potential outcomes are because they're not legal outcomes, they're director dependent outcomes.

They could literally change from director to director.

They I just my my saying I uh specifically what I'm just saying is is they do not, in my opinion, belong under charter changes.

Uh you could bullet point it and put it in another fashion somehow, but those aren't charter changes, those are just simple, simply legal things that will have to happen.

Whereas if uh option two is picked.

Let's see.

Clarifying language.

I don't know how to be labeled it.

I just I'm just saying those are not charter changes, and you don't put them under the charter.

They're those are by law changes.

So I think you could bullet point them, you could do whatever you wanted with them, but they're they're not charter changes where the other ones are actual charter changes if they pick option two.

Yeah, I I kind of like the summary paragraph because it helps us a little bit with the things that will have to happen if this option is chosen.

And then I understand, Ms.

Dylan, where you're going on option two.

Um there could be a summary paragraph there that there's going to be some need for you know them to get together and do some restructuring and and reaffirm their struct yeah, I forget what we were calling it, the director of volunteer director and such like that.

I think that's a pro yes, I agree with that.

I think that you'll have to put in there.

That's something is that if they pick option two, the the director volunteer, the the coordinator, uh volunteer coordinator position will have to be like you will have to determine their role.

You you know that that's 100% something that would have to happen, whether it's same director or new director.

Um I wouldn't want to speak for director Osborne, but I mean you could possibly do this a similar paragraph of where uh kind of the same things would have to happen, is things would have to be clarified.

The volunteer fire department's involvement would need to be clarified with regards to who will be doing what and when uh same with the volunteer fire department uh coordinator position will have to be determined on what they're actually going to be doing.

I think you could do that too.

That's that's definitely one.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off the um so manner chair.

Could we do um maybe uh in page nine under potential charter changes, and you're right, County Attorney Ann Ruth, it would have to be another little section of bullets that say possibly potential legal outcomes and bullet point that last paragraph underneath the if those chart changes happen, these are the potential legal outcomes because those are very important to bullet and then to have an option two again with potential charter changes, list all of those, and then maybe uh a small couple bullets from the chief that will say potential legal outcomes and to maybe add in what he was saying about adding uh the volunteer position or whatever some of those outcomes that he thought would be um beneficial, um, but just to again um or potential outcomes, not the word legal.

Yeah, madam chair, could we change?

Could we look at potential outcomes under option one and that are bulleted?

And potential outcomes under option two.

Not charter changes, unless there is a charter change, but potential outcomes Mr.

Enruth.

Again, though, option one is specific.

Those outcomes are going to be legal requirements.

Okay.

There are no legal requirements under option two that would have to take place in the sense of there's if if option two is you know presented and voted on, and that's what goes in, there's nothing legally speaking that would need to be done by the the career fire department and director Osborne to incorporate the volunteers into the system because they already are incorporated into the system.

Rather those outcomes are director decisions.

They're how the director wants to run the department.

That's that's the difference.

And I think we were talking about that it would be a transition period with the new council, new chief executive or city manager, and that director in looking at ordinance.

I believe we said we should leave it in ordinance is where we were kind of going with the discussion about um the volunteer director and such like that.

So I think maybe we could softbile that a little bit.

That is technically a legal outcome, yes, because you have to pass an ordinance.

I I do think the volunteer one, the volunteer coordinator position, correct.

That could be a possible legal thing that needs to be done because it's needed to be dealt with an ordinance and whatnot.

But I mean, these are if the volunteers are removed, these legal things have to happen.

Whereas if they're not removed and the charter is clarified that the silver vote intended to incorporate them in and take control budgetary control and administrative control, there's well, so there, so there's the legal ones.

The the legal options under option two are the county is then responsible is is then responsible for budgetary control and authority, like they have to take over the governance.

They they they take on the responsibility, legally take on the responsibilities of the uh their board their um boards.

Um well not the operations, uh um I'm I'm withdrawing Senator Brainford and we're all talking about it.

Um they're elected officials that run their other uh trustees.

Thank you.

Yeah, the board of trustees.

Uh the the county takes on the legal responsibilities of the board of trustees uh because they do.

They take on the uh budgetary authority and making sure that everybody is funded correctly.

The county takes on the responsibility of making sure that um uh all of that is done.

So those are legal things that can go under that section.

So they're it's not as big as the the volunteer ones, but yes, there are probably three or four legal things that the county would be responsible for if option two is picked.

Okay, hold on, Mr.

Seppin.

Thanks, madam chair.

Um I'm happy to work on a paragraph under option two that represents the legal requirements if option two are to be selected, including the uh volunteer coordinator position taking on the league the legal budgetary responsibilities of the board of trustees.

Um also they there's still uh it's not new, but it would be incorporated into the county that they're responsible for their work comp and retirement packages.

Say that again.

Uh there uh the county would be legally responsible and they and they do it the way it's functioning now, but if it's codified, uh it would be fully in there that the county is responsible for paying for volunteer firefighter workmen's comp and their um volunteer firefighter uh retirements, um, because those don't even if you incorporate those don't go away.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Would it be easier now that we know that there are potential legal outcomes for both options to include just instead of making a summary paragraph?

Um I think it's uh I I disagree with Mary.

I mean, my personal I love bullets, I love the bullets, and it makes it really easy to read.

Um so maybe in between the charter changes and the strategic benefits to each have the potential legal outcome bullets, whether they're several, like the like you said, the volunteers have several that need to be documented, and then maybe not as many on option two, but still there are legal things that the council of commissioners need to do post option two.

It might be easier just to have those bullets in between strategic benefits and charter changes instead of a paragraph at the end.

This is not a hill that I'm worth I find worth dying on.

So if Mr.

Steppen, you want to bullet point those and put it as um potential legal outcomes after strategic benefits.

I think that's wonderful.

We'll come back and look at it next week and make sure we affirm.

I I'm a fan of the summary paragraph because it's how things move forward, and you kind of say here's the other things that may happen, but I don't I don't have a personal opinion.

Why don't you do this?

Why don't I do both?

And then we can decide uh what we what we like.

Okay.

I did leave you many um comments on this section in the document.

So tonight I'll make sure that you get the one I'm working on so you have the comments as I've captured them when we're working on that.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

This is directed to Matt.

You'll see in the potential charter changes when I added in those provisions at the bottom about um their budgets being you know reviewed.

I've I left in to in an insure one that has the word insure in it twice.

Insure revenues raised.

And you know, we talked about that, and I so I thought we could have put something like improved fiscal accountability and transparent transparency by requiring that um revenues raised within the city county for fire protection are administered by the Butte Silverbow budget and finance department.

It's the second one from the bottom under potential charter changes.

Are you are you saying get rid of that and just get rid of insure?

And one suggestion would be improved finished fiscal accountability and transparency by requiring revenues raised within the city county for fire protection are administrated by the Butte Silverbo Budget and Finance Department.

Yep.

So for context, Mary and I had a phone conversation where we decided that using words like insure were probably not in our best interest.

Yep.

And so revising to capture the intent without prescribing an outcome.

I don't think we want to insure anything.

No.

I don't think we can.

Any other content clarifications or questions?

Ms.

Dillon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um on page, I don't know if it has a page.

It's after page.

Sorry.

One back.

Section 3.03, powers and duties of the Council of Commissioners.

And then you go to that next page that continues section 3.03 under the letter E.

And letter E says to provide for an independent audit of finances of local government.

Some counties have you know audits every year, which we do, but I think that we also still wanted to make sure that at some point, maybe every few years, that was a forensic audit to have that word forensic at some point somewhere to really go through what the money goes.

Um not necessarily that all the numbers are in the right boxes and everything adds up.

That's an audit, but a forensic audit finds out exactly where the money's going.

And I think that was a uh a large discussion that we've had um as we've gone through this, and I don't want that to be laid on the table unless we said that specifically.

We we said we weren't gonna recommend a forensic audit based after the um discussions that we had with Ms.

Hasler and then the um uh accountant who came in and I forget his name, I apologize.

The accountant who came in and gave us the description of what forensic audits were, and that those were in response to something when there was a indication of wrongdoing, or perhaps there was some um fraud, some that it was a response that is just like its word implies forensic, looking for a specific problem that it wasn't accurate or helpful to an entire county budget to have a forensic audit.

That's right there, Mr.

Enruth.

Uh additionally, I do believe it's within the council of commissioners' authority, whether it changes from 12 to 5 or not to make a communication, pass a resolution if fraud was there.

I think even if it's not, I think that the charter would bind the county in my opinion, whereas I do think the council has that independent authority themselves if they believe a forensic audit is necessary.

I also believe that uh a forensic audit is a precision tool.

So if you put it in the charter itself, you would be doing a forensic audit of you know the entire county, multiple departments.

It you know, whenever that would be deemed in the charter, whereas the commissioners have the ability to target specific departments.

Um I do think that they have the authority to do that right now, to be honest with you.

Uh uh communication can be put in, a resolution is passed, uh budget authority is granted that a forensic audit of X department is going to be done in 2026 for X amount of years.

I think that allows for that tool to be used in a much more effective manner, such as so everybody is aware of that.

I do think the council has the authority to do that and use it in the manner that it you really would want to.

Yeah, Mr.

Enruth, in that that meeting section to in that session, we did discuss the um authority of the council, and that was affirmed by Ms.

Hasler, and I I believe you are in the chair as well.

Ms.

Casey.

Madam Chair, doesn't the auditor also have that authority?

We do have an elected auditor, and we're keeping that position in the charter.

Do they not have the authority to do a more in-depth audit if they need to if something were to come up?

I'll defer to Mr.

Enruth.

Commissioner Casey, I honestly don't know uh what Ms.

if Mr.

Miss McReth has that authority or not.

Uh we had the the audit presentation last Wednesday, and her her role seemed to be kind of parallel with everybody else.

She was that like that double check type standard.

So I don't know if it's within her authority or not, but it's obviously something we can ask.

Mr.

Denehy.

Madam Chair, just for experience um when the health department a few years ago, quite a few years ago, went through some issues, the chief executive um chief executive peoples that we celebrated today, asked the council of commissioners for uh forensic audit of the entire health department.

He had the communication that went into the council, and council approved that communication, and that the contract was completed by both federal auditors and I think our local at that time I can't remember who our local auditor was or accounting firm was, but that was uh granted by the council commissioners.

So just for FYI.

Um thank you, madam chair.

Just a question.

Um what Lori just said, have we decided to keep the auditor and assessor in the charter?

Uh even we're only at a preliminary report.

I didn't know if that was already decided.

Well, again, when we were walking through all of the departments, um I'd have to look at the YouTube videos to be certain, but I believe that we did decide to leave assessor and auditor alone at that at those meetings after we had all of the department heads.

We talked about the um amount of work that they do, the importance to the voters, and then their you know, the idea that our voters like to vote for their people is another discussion, but I can't remember uh the details.

I apologize.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I do remember those conversations and but I just don't know if we voted to keep those and not to pursue them further beyond the you know, with the preliminary report and knowing that we had a final thing to do.

So um, yeah, because I think there's a lot of people out there that are still worried that we're funding if we're going to fund full-time commissioners, we need to find that money.

And if these two jobs are done by the state, I mean this some of these things still need to be fleshed out in my opinion.

Thanks.

Mr.

Stepin.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I yeah, I don't think we've decided anything, but I don't it's not in our recommendations for preliminary reports.

So I think it would be based on public feedback for us to bring that forward.

Otherwise, I think we're trying to if it's not in the report and we don't get that strong feedback, we're just adding things that the public doesn't have the time to view and vet like we have in here.

So I think it would be a result of strong public feedback that tells us we should be considering it.

Um but what right now it's not in our recommendations.

Thank you, madam chair.

Back 20 years ago when I was on a city study commission or local government back then there were several that the community decided they wanted to take a look at it even before 06 in 96 and 86.

But I was I have to say, and I thought we all I got the vibe from everybody else sitting here that after uh interviewing both the auditor and the assessor and their not only their own department but their co their coordination with other departments like the treasurer, for example.

I I was really overwhelmed by what I thought was a value to those two positions, and not that we voted on it, but I think I just got that feeling from everybody.

I have some people, including my other half that would disagree, and he wants to know why it hasn't come up.

But I told him that we we are here to review and recommend, and if we don't hear enough people that really want wanted us to do something like we had other issues too that just didn't quite get to the point where we thought it was something that should be and we only have so many things to put on the ballot.

I do think that maybe again it could go on a request list of some sort to look at it for for the future.

But personally, I was highly impressed by the amount of work those folks do, even though we have the last assessor in the whole state of Montana.

I I think our people have told us in more ways than one that they are uh important.

So Ali is on with the state.

So that's just my comment.

Dusty, I'm dusting things off in my memory too.

So um, and I recall the conversation also being about priorities, like what was the most important things to bring forward to the voters, and we were thinking about the three ballot questions that we have.

And so we felt that there was bigger priorities this session given those questions.

Um and so, you know, and and then we've you know learned a little bit more in terms of how the questions work, but I recall the conversation being clear that we didn't prioritize those at this time.

Um Ms.

McCormick.

Would it be good if we made a motion now that we're not going to consider um removing the positions of auditor or assessor or changing the coroner position for the purposes of the preliminary report?

Just to have that established or we did vote on the coroner.

Oh, we did vote on the corner, I'm sorry.

But we can um certainly I can entertain any motion that anybody from this commission would like to make.

Okay, then Madam Chair.

Go ahead.

I I I think we would have to put that on the next agenda.

Exactly.

Uh, because I don't think we can be voting on something that's not on the agenda.

Exactly.

I would also say, and uh County Enroth can tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe the charter still says something about if those positions go away in state law, then the council of commissioners can do away with them if they choose.

There's some kind of wording like that, and I don't know about the auditor, but the assessor position is not in state law and hasn't banned for a very long time.

So I think the the council of commissioners would have the ability if they so chose to not have an assessor position any longer.

Because there's a section in our charter, I believe, that says if it's no longer in state law, then the council of commissioners have that authority.

I can't remember what section, but I believe it's in there.

Uh Chairwoman Brandle, Commissioner Casey.

Yes, that is correct.

There's a section in the charter that specifically allows for the council to buy ordinance and resolution uh remove one of those positions if they're no longer allowed or required by state law.

Actually, I read it in there earlier I was looking for it, but it's in there.

So do you guys want to bring this back to the next meeting to consider?

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, madam chair.

My opinion is there's a lot of positions within our charter that we didn't take a vote on.

And I think we we prioritize based on what we were hearing in the in the public survey and in the public comments.

And I and I think that we can still, and uh I think it's likely we will hear from the public on some of these positions that we're not taking a hard enough look, and and we can revisit those.

But I I think in my opinion, I don't know that it's necessary to take a formal vote on each position.

Um but that's just my opinion that and if we put it on next week's agenda, what does it do to our timeline for a preliminary report that that we've published?

And I to me a priority should be getting that out to the public as soon as possible.

Understanding that we can still revisit if based on public feedback that we haven't heard as a body in our meetings or in the public's in the in the survey that we did.

Thanks.

I'll take you, Ms.

Dillon, then I'll take you, Mr.

Denny.

Um thank you, madam chair, and and I agree, Matt.

I don't want to I I wouldn't want to hold up the process.

I think it might be good to again take a step back and say maybe we need a like we're doing tonight with the preliminary report, maybe have a work session with regard to the list we ultimately create for the council of suggestions and give some meat to that, not just say look at the auditor and the assessor positions.

Add to that some of the meat of our discussions about what Lori mentioned about the difference of the auditor position versus the assessor and state law and what the the job entails and all of that stuff, but I think that might be a better way to go about it to say because it wasn't a priority.

with regard to the list we ultimately create for the council of suggestions and give some meat to that not just say look at the auditor and the assessor positions add to that some of the meat of our discussions about what Lori mentioned about the difference of the auditor position versus the assessor and state law and what the the job entails and all of that stuff but I think that might be a better way to go about it to say because it wasn't a priority I just didn't want to you know say that you know I didn't think we voted on that I just want to make that clarification but if it's you know it's a not a ballot thing um to create that list that's uh a quality document for the council from our work um that kind of like this report this is excellent this gives a lot of info to not only the council commissioners but to the general public I was imagining that that work session would happen after this um public hearing and we're getting things moving towards the ballot is where it's in my brain if I haven't communicated that my apologies.

Mr.

Denih Madam Chair thank you um I think we have an opportunity to change a lot of things that we've done in the preliminary report um if there's a groundswell of commons for any elected office that we should eliminate them or add to them or whatever we hear from the public comment so I think it's premature to take anything off the table.

I think I agree I do agree with Matt Stephen that let's hear what they say but there's a you know there is a defined line of what's going to go on the ballot and I think some of the issues that that can be a recommendation the council are very important but for the voting public in November to dilute that sort of ballot issue with other things that didn't rise to that sort of specific idea and uh level of importance I think is a little bit premature and like again to repeat myself we might have that opportunity if there is uh huge public comment and if the survey say you you missed the boat on this we could redo that uh we can re-dis discuss that we can I um take a mulligan as matt likes to do on every whole he golf so uh so we can have that uh that uh uh understanding and we can still make that happen Mr.

Steppenwork thank you madam chair um and if it's already in here throw something at me Mary but I think that what one thing we could add to the preliminary report is even just a statement that says that what's inside of here isn't it doesn't pre preclude us from considering things prior to ballot and that based on public feedback things can and may change and I I agree I think we should mention our role includes the opportunity to make recommendations and we can include that in a paragraph as well I don't know that I would put any potential recommendations in there yet but let people know that there's still that avenue as well and so maybe a paragraph and I can send something to you for draft purposes that says what's included in this report is not does not exclude future recommendations along with our ability to make recommendations to council or to local government I don't know the right verbiage recommended changes.

So the public knows that that's also one of our buckets I think it can go in that purpose of the report section well it doesn't matter but if you're gonna give us a paragraph great and I and I think I I recall this conversation being really about priorities and so you know again if we get a groundswell as you've said we can we can move that so I'm I'm hearing and please correct me if I'm wrong that we don't want to bring this forward to our next meeting.

Okay so we're not gonna bring it forward to our next meeting um all right other comments on content yes Ms.

Casey when I was doing the um charter revisions and noting what's changed and not there is that section at the very end um I think it's section 11 where the transition period and I noticed like when they did the animal control department and that there was actually a did deadline on those does that type of thing need to be in the report that there would be a deadline of what the transition period would be or does that just go in the charter itself that's a question for Mr.

Anruth if the council wants to put the transition period in there they can I don't know specifically what the transition periods will be.

That's a question for the Secretary of State specifically with regards to if that happens what will happen it's probably one of those pieces where we want to give everybody all the information but in your preliminary report you could overwhelm them.

I do think it needs to go into at least the final report.

Um, so that this is what will happen if that happens, but you still don't have a final determination on what you're gonna do, so transition periods could technically change.

You know, if if years change if things like that change.

So once you guys are definitive on years for commissioners and and a few things like that, we can uh 100% speak with the Secretary of State on what the transition plan needs to look like and how that would proceed forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Anruth.

Um Ms.

Casey, you had more questions too, did in this uh chart if we want to walk through those I can uh madam chair.

My first one was with the section with the fire department.

I can now update those with the appropriate sections numbers to and I we won't have the specifics, I guess, yet like the subsections, but we can say that those sections will change.

I can go through and do that.

Um we have the reclamation section, and I think I have these backwards, but because I think that's 7.08, but then we don't have a park and rec section, I don't believe yet for the charter.

Is that correct?

We we did we did that um language.

Um it's 708 and 709.

I think we have the the um language and did I email it to you?

Uh no, but um I can update this if it's in is it in the latest report?

Yeah, preliminary report.

I can get it then.

Um I uh there was and I think I think uh county attorney answered both the last two because the terms of elected office um I had with this change based on the election.

I think that will have to be wait until the final report and the same with uh and then the other in section 11 was like there was a timeline of bringing up the finance and budget uh system, the personnel, the HR, land records.

Do we still need that?

To me, that could all be re uh deleted out of that section, but I wasn't sure because it it seems to be left over charter language from previous reviews.

I think we had those questions too of like how much cleanup language stuff can we do because it is it's true that all those have to be voted in as well.

It's like one we could Mr.

Enruth.

Can we make one um cleanup language question or do they have to be separate?

I apologize.

I think I've asked you this question three times.

I believe we can do one, but we'll double check with the Secretary of State on that one as well, uh, because it'll be a ballot provision, so we'll make sure that they are in agreement with how we want it to proceed forward.

But based on the last ones, it was one.

It was this is it was presented as this is the ballot clean, or this is the cleanup language, and that the document was presented showing what was cleaned up.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thanks, madam chair.

Um Lori, were you talking about specific language and sections related to fire services that we don't that you said we don't we don't have yet?

And I think that was part of my homework.

Um it was included in County Attorney Enruth's memo, the specific language.

So I and I couldn't find them, I couldn't find that in the in the link to documents or the minutes, so I had them resend it, and I I did make copies that are highlighted that language that I can share.

Uh yeah, if you would share that because what I would what I was trying to do was go through any on e say what even the subsections changed, or if we're removing subsection A, and then they were renumbered or re-lettered.

I was trying to do that in the thing, so I didn't have any of that for fire for the fire changes.

I couldn't find it on my in the online stuff.

Take a look at that and let me know if that's what you're talking about.

And if it is, then I'll I'll give that same copy to uh to everybody.

But that that's the charter language with respect to option two, correct?

So I I think so, because this has proposed replacement for section like subsection 7.03D.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think this is what you do you have this electronically?

If you want to send that to me, and then I'll take another stab at that table, and then if you just double check that that I've got them all listed, that would be great.

Okay.

I'll I'll send it to everybody so that everybody sees what it is that we're referencing.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just confirm exactly what uh our county attorney said was 20 years ago.

We had one item it was for grammatical or housekeeping requ changes, you know, just the basic stuff, nothing that would change any interpretation or anything like that.

And it's page 19 on the public um parks and rec's department for you.

And then I think with that in the report too, we'll need to dump that language into the report.

Um when I send you tonight the version four, or I'll I'll call it I'll rename it version five.

If you would just dump it in version five, and then Mary and I will work on a um polished document from version five.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a clarifying question for you.

Um in the preliminary report, will we have just the generic language for folks to understand um with regard to the transition that there will be a transition to make folks understand that on November 8th or whenever the day after everything doesn't change and everything's not you know if we can just get even though we don't have dates and stuff, we can get something generic that says there will be a truth transition and there will be a transition plan, and this is how it's going to go for any changes that are made.

That would probably be very helpful.

Yeah, we have that as a um bullet that or a um section that's yet to be finished.

So it's in the summary and conclusion section.

And I think Mr.

Silk took a stab at it tonight.

I haven't read his um his uh email yet.

So Mr.

Seppin.

Yeah, sorry, I'm feeling like I'm hogging the microphone here, but I think that was part of my homework as well, was to work with county attorney on what legal options are for transition.

Um he was on vacation two weeks ago and I was on vacation last week.

Um it appears that there's options.

One being that anybody that's elected in November in principle shouldn't be unelected through change, right?

So your transitions then would have to start when those newly elected officials start to s serve out their term.

Did appear that there's a potential option to change that if the language on the ballot is very specific to the voter that if A is voted in, B changes to this kind of thing.

Um so I don't I think we're a long way from knowing that, but I think knowing what our options are is going to be important even when we're getting into the public phase of this so that we can generally speak to if it's 2030, which it very well could be from a commissioner standpoint, or if it can be sooner.

And so maybe working with did you say the Secretary of State to figure out the legal options so that we can speak somewhat generally to the public on when they could expect these things the fastest some of these things could potentially happen.

Correct.

Anything else on content?

I think we have quite a bit of work to do in terms of finishing up all these comments and Mr.

Stephen's homework, and then including um including all of Mr.

Silk's uh pieces that he gave us tonight.

And then um Mary, you and I let's set a couple of times to sit and do some polishing.

Maybe if we just sit together, it will go easier, and then we can pass it to Ms.

Um Adams, who can really polish it for for good.

Um and then with our goal of next week, we would be um coming back with that to vote on an affirm is ready to roll out.

Um is there anything else tonight before we we leave this topic?

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say thank you to Mary and Raylan for all your work and Matt.

Your expertise is so valuable and Cindy as well.

So thank you so much because it really is appreciated what you guys expert are experts in.

It's really going to help us a lot.

Thank you.

Are we ready to move on?

Okay.

So some new business.

Party line is Wednesday.

And Mr.

Denehy has volunteered to go with Mr.

Thielen.

So I know double check that you're on the calendar and definitely show up so I don't have to call in.

Okay, Mr.

Dunhey.

And then back to our, I just wanted to go back for our um making sure we have our to our uh schedule in mind.

So we'll meet next Monday.

Then we won't meet again in chambers until the April 27th, which is the meeting prior to the May 4th public session.

In that interim, we need to create our presentation that we had talked about that we'd like for the public meeting.

We'd have the issue on the screen and we take the comments by issue so that we stay kind of focused.

And I think Mr.

Dunnehy, you said you would be willing to take that on.

Okay.

So then maybe you can bring that back for the meeting by the 27th and we can review it.

And then so all of our uh public listening or public listening sessions, please coordinate with Ms.

Adams with your schedules and what's available for whom and who will be you know up first to give the presentations and whatnot.

Um any questions on that stuff?

Okay.

All right.

Other scheduled matters uh or public hearing, we don't have one today, and other scheduled matters we don't have those as well.

And I've already done our announcements.

Um with Mr.

Thielen's absence, who wants to be our motion to adjourn?

I have a motion from Shaw.

A second.

From Dennehe.

Anybody opposed?

All in favor say aye.

Thank you.

Motion are uh we're adjourned.