I would assume so.

Are they locked?

No, they just said it's the front or back.

I was a little bit of mic to tell you.

What are you doing?

That's my spot.

I don't sit there.

I will call the judiciary committee meeting for April 22nd, 2026 to order.

Um for roll call.

We have it looks like everybody's present.

Um Commissioner uh myself, Commissioner Shea, Commissioner Thatcher, Commissioner Callahan, Commissioner Mankins, Commissioner Healy, and Commissioner Gerbrand are all present.

Um I would ask um well I'll start with communication number uh 2026 175 Mark Phillip, 1150 West Gold, Butte Montana requesting Council of Commissioners to affirm that butte American Butte Americ Butte American finds cause for and recommends that the U.S.

House of Representatives vote to impeach President Trump.

Um Mr.

Phillip, is there anything that you would like to speak to regarding this tonight?

And go ahead and pop there you go.

Um yes, Commissioner Shay, thank you.

Um a binder, which had a draft resolution uh as well as several uh total of 16 exhibits that are referenced in that resolution.

Uh things like the U.S.

Constitution, the UN Charter, the Hague Convention, um, and so forth.

I have uh now provided this evening uh the letter that um would be sent out on the basis of this resolution should it be passed.

Um I apologize for the delay.

Uh there was a misunderstanding uh about um the resolution form uh and the requirement for a second letter.

Um so I've now provided that letter tonight um for you to continue to reflect upon along with the the packet of information I provided two weeks ago.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I believe that uh Mr.

Phillip has provided everybody with a copy of the letter.

Not sure if anybody has had an opportunity yet to review it.

Um would any of the commissioners like to say anything.

Commissioner Gerbrand.

Yes.

Um Madam Chair, I'd like just a minute or two to read this letter.

Okay.

Yeah.

So we can hold this in in abeyance again.

Um I I was able to read it.

I did have an opportunity to because I was I got this when I first got here tonight, but um committee, would you like to move forward to the resolutions?

Okay.

Um I'll we'll uh table this for the moment and I'll move to item number two, resolution number 2026-18.

A resolution of intent to modify City County of Butte Silverbo ordinance two dot sixteen.20 to alter the boundaries of the city county of Butte Silverbo, Montana's fire services district to include the boundaries of three MCT district and providing for an effective date here in.

Um I believe this is ready to go to final if that's the pleasure of the committee.

No.

Uh thank you, Chairman Jay.

I believe we're still holding this pending the public hearing next week.

Um but while I have the microphone, I just you know, I I know that all of the council of commissioners received a letter from REC regarding this.

Um I guess my perspective on this is I'm I'm a little frustrated because you know in in a portion of their letter, they talk about REC is currently facing significant financial financial and market challenges.

The company continues to incur losses each quarter, but it's also working towards the goal of returning to profitability in the future.

Um so in my mind, I I can understand that point.

Um the news today of a purchase of 1.2 million dollars worth of land would seem to indicate otherwise, in my opinion.

Um but just to this specific communication.

It was talked about in in their letter about equity and how REC they want they want a more proportionate alloc allocation, geez, allocation of costs that would be more equitably distributed, the financial burden among all taxpayers who benefit from the fire department services, rather than concentrating the burden on REC.

And I think that in my opinion, we're looking at this the wrong way.

Um we have several major taxpayers in our community, Northwestern Energy, Montana Resources, and REC are our top three.

Montana Resources pays 935,000 plus of just in fire services.

Northwestern Energy pays 668,000 dollars, just in fire services, and just a little bit north of that.

REC pays zero.

And so in my mind, that isn't equitable.

Um I can understand certain concerns, you know otherwise, I guess, but in my mind, if we're gonna talk about being equitable, this has to be looked at from from other perspectives as well.

So I think that I I just hope that you know, even as we head into the public hearing next week, we think about these points.

Um the last point I kind of want to make is they've been in an economic district for 30 plus years, which is great.

That's why we have them, and they've reaped the benefits of that in my opinion.

And and so in my mind, I think another fair and equitable thing is for them to pay their share of taxes when it comes to this.

And then just again, as a refresher for for the listeners, if anybody is listening, the reason that this is so important for the county and for the fire department is because if if the fire department meets its cap, which is essentially what will happen, maybe not next year, but in the next in the following year, if they meet their cap, they will face budget cuts.

It's inevitable.

That is that will be what happens.

And so, in order to not meet the cap, we have to be able to find revenue from other sources.

And so that is what the expansion is for, just in case anybody is listening.

Um those were I I thank you for giving me just the the minute, but those were my concerns.

I I wanted to address some of the points in in the letter that we received, and so that's all I have for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Thatcher.

I um I totally agree.

Um County Attorney Andrew.

To Commissioner Thatcher's point, I reviewed the letter from REC uh specifically clause by clause.

One of the cases that REC quotes is CODL versus State of Montana 2002, Montana Coda annotated 278.

Excuse me, does Montana 278?

This is the section that talks about equal protection under the laws, which is one of REC's big points.

What REC does not point out in their letter is a specific ruling in that uh case, and I would like to read it now.

Under uh paragraph 54 of the Montana Supreme Court held in CODL.

Equal protection of the law is seldom, if ever, obtained, and because of the very frailty of human agencies, the authorities all recognize the right of the legislative branch of government to make reasonable classifications of subjects for property or occupation taxes.

And if the classification is reasonable, and if all the subjects within a given class or accord of the same treatment, the legislation cannot be said to deny anyone within such class equal protection of the law, even though the burden imposed upon him may be more onerous than imposed upon another member of that class.

AKA if their taxes are higher because they're worth more based on what the state classifies them as, it doesn't violate equal protection.

Thank you, County Attorney Enroof.

Commissioner Thatcher.

Uh thank you for that, County Attorney Enrith.

I certainly didn't wouldn't understand the law side of that.

Um but just for a point of clarification, the numbers that I quoted from Montana Resource and Northwestern Energy were for tax year 2025.

So I mean they've both of those companies have been paying that or not much less year and year and year or year before year before year.

And so I just think that those those are important points to consider moving forward, but that's all that's all I have.

I'll make a motion to continue to hold resolution number 2026-18 in abeyance pending the public hearing on May 6th.

Thank you.

Um I believe that we were holding this in a as amended.

Okay.

I'll amend my motion to hold in abeyance as amended, pending the public hearing on May 6th.

Okay, there's a motion a second to hold this in abeyance as amended, pending the public hearing.

Although anything on the question.

Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Chairman Shea.

I just want to add in there when the comment was made that they pair zero, they do pay.

They pay under emergency service fee, which goes to the fire department.

That is also fire protection.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Callahan.

I believe that everybody pays that.

And I did clarify I said in fire services.

That's why I said in fire services they don't pay the fire services tax.

That's why I said that.

I just want to make sure everybody knows they do pay for some fire protection.

Yeah, thank you very much for that clarification.

Um, all those in favor?

Aye, opposed.

Motion passes.

Uh item number three, resolution number 2026-21, a resolution authorizing and approving the sale of a certain parcel of real property legally described as lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 of block 9 of the transit additions to the city county of Butte Silverbow County, Montana for the purpose of community development in accordance with the procedures of Butte Silverbow municipal code and providing for an effective date herein.

Um is there anything to report from the county attorney's office?

Uh firm momentary no.

Okay.

Commissioner Thatcher.

I believe this one's going to final, so I'd like to make a motion to move resolution number 2026-21 to final reading.

There is a motion and a second to move resolution 2026-21 to final reading.

Is there anything on the question?

Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Chairman Wilman Shea.

Uh, could you refresh us on the location of this property and give us some information on what we're selling and who to or is there a map attached to this?

I don't have it in front of me.

We always used to get when these things came before us, they always came with maps.

We always had, you know, the people that are involved in it would come here to ask questions.

Yeah, so um it's in the transit edition.

Um the block the lots 11, 12, 13, 14.

Can you pull that up?

Yeah, I can pull my phone and look and see if that's gonna see if I can pull it up.

Commissioner Shea, can I jump in here while you're looking for that?

Uh certainly.

Um I looked at the property, it's up in Walkerville.

It's like two blocks south of Daly.

It's um the it's I guess ARCOL land or county land that's been uh been remediated to the south of it.

It's a very steep slope.

Looks look looks to me like it's hard to develop that.

Um but you know I don't have any any opposition to that.

Yeah, thank you for that.

I don't see a map attached in um in this.

Um what's uh this this would also be ready to move to final.

Um take a motion.

Oh, did you already make a motion?

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Thatcher already made that motion.

It was seconded.

Is there anything else on the question?

Commissioner Callahan.

Yeah, I would uh before we move this to final.

I would ask that we you know we've run into this issue before with rec reclaimed land.

Are you do you know anything about the land?

Is it available?

Is there a chance they can build on it?

Is it one of those that it can't be used for construction?

We don't have any of that information.

Why are we moving something forward?

And we don't know nothing about the land.

Whoever's involved in selling this land should be here to answer our questions.

The land is suitable for community development, which is in indicated in the resolution, so I wouldn't consider that it would be undevelopable or unbuildable.

Is there anything else on the question?

Okay, there's a motion a second to move this to final.

All those in favor?

Aye, opposed?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Director Frederickson.

Um thank you, Commissioner Shea.

Sorry, I wanted to make sure that I was looking at the correct property.

So this did go through land sales committee.

And uh Director Hassler was there, and he had commented on the recommendation and made the recommendation for this to proceed forward.

So I'm not gonna speak for Director Hassler, but in that meeting he did say that it was um he recommended that this goes through the process for sale.

Yeah, thank you, Director Frederickson, and I would like to just note for the record that you are on the land sales committee.

I am yes, yeah.

Uh Commissioner Callahan.

Thank you, Mr.

Frederickson.

That's how this process is supposed to work.

Somebody's supposed to be here to answer our questions.

Yeah, and these things come before us.

This has been going on month after month.

You know, in the past, we've always had maps, they've always had somebody from each department here explain what you know is going on with this land, and instead we're just rubber stamping these things, and we got to change that.

So thank you.

I appreciate you being here.

Commissioner Shea or Chair Shea.

Uh Director.

Uh that's good feedback, Commissioner Callahan.

I uh I didn't realize that, and so I will bring that to the land sales committee and uh make sure that we have all the information for you going forward.

Yeah, that would that would be helpful for the at the committee level.

Super helpful.

Um in the interest of time, I'm since this motion this resolution has already been moved to final, I'm gonna go ahead and move forward.

Um item number four, resolution number 2026-22, a resolution calling for the continuation of the imposition of a one-mill levy for economic development purposes beginning in fiscal year 2025-26 and continuing through fiscal year 2026-27 and providing for an effective date here in.

Um this is the economic development mill levy grants that we listened to the presentations last week, and this will be for the next cycle.

Is there anything?

Uh Commissioners have any questions?

I would entertain a motion.

Um I have a quick question.

This might be for Commissioner O'Neill, because I believe that this was your request.

Um, and maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly, but for fiscal year 2025 and 26, that's done.

We're in that right now, and we just went out for bid on those.

So are we needing the funding right now, or would this be for fiscal year 2026, 2027, and then 2027, 2028?

And maybe Director Hassler's here, maybe she could answer that question too.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, Commissioner Thatcher, I didn't hear the question.

I'm sorry, can you repeat it?

No, you're good.

I and I'm probably thinking about this incorrectly.

So um the resolution calls for it for to for fiscal year 2025 and 2026, but aren't we through that?

So wouldn't it be 2026-2027, or do we need the approval for this year's money that we just went out for bid?

I'm a little confused.

Director Hassler.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Thatcher.

I am I didn't hear anything of what you were discussing.

I left the room, so I don't even know which resolution you're talking about.

Oh, Director Hassler, this is for the economic development mill levy.

Ah.

So the money in the resolution that you're going out for bid.

So last year's money was carried over because it wasn't expended before the end of the fiscal year.

So it was carried over and then awarded.

This is this year's money, and so it doesn't need to be budgeted, it's in the budget.

So the I do believe that there is a community.

Thank you, Director Hass.

Did you have more?

I was gonna say I do believe that there's potentially a a communication because we'll have to extend this in a continuing resolution because this funding expires this year.

So next year um it would have to be uh approved in a continuing resolution in order to to budget for it in fiscal year 27.

Okay, thank you, Director Hassler, Commissioner Thatcher.

Thank you, Chairman Shay.

So that's what this is asking for is the continuation of the imposition, but that's what I'm saying.

So we wouldn't need it for 2025-2026, because we're almost through that, so it'd be 2026, 2027.

2027, 2028.

Correct?

Yes, Commissioner Thatcher, that is correct.

Um I think the um county attorney would like to take an opportunity to review this outside of committee.

So um I would ask that if we could get a motion to hold this.

I'll make the motion to hold resolution 2026-22 in abeyance.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to hold resolution 2026-22 in abeyance.

Anything on the question?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Okay, item number five, council bill number 2026-01, ordinance number 2026-01, and ordinance amending chapter 8.24 of the server boat municipal code VSBMC entitled special events and specifically sections 8.24.0.050, 8.24.060, 8.24.090, and providing for an effective date here in Director Frederickson, please give us a report.

Thank you, Chair Shea.

Uh, just a little history on this one, and and some of you were probably here, or maybe Commissioner Callahan.

Um this original ordinance was uh adopted in 2010, and then it was amended in 2015.

And so this is kind of just a as we move forward with our special events and we're getting a lot more uh just kind of updating it.

Um I won't go through all the red lines um and and read what we're doing, but we added a few different sections on um so we have two different permits that come through the the parks department.

One is a special event permit, which is for street closures or events more than 500 people, and those are the ones that come before council uh regularly, Montana Folk Festival on Rera.

Um if uh yeah, maybe uh music on Maine.

And so uh so there's no real changes to that.

Um but then if there's if it's less than 500 people, it goes through a uh parks facility form right now.

And uh so we're just kind of adding a few different things on there's a lot of events that are less than 500 people, as you can imagine.

Um so you know, one of them's weddings that that don't come before council, they just get signed by and every department head signs off on it, and then uh and then they're able to do their events.

So one of them's weddings, reunions, picnics, parks and recreation sponsored events are um ones like we we partnered with uh the Butte community market that was at um Clark Park, um, which would have never gone before council anyway, but that's kind of a similar park sponsored event uh or you know, um just we we have so many, it's you know it's kind of and then what we added was business use, so we didn't really have anything for if someone wants to uh do something in a in a mine yard or a park, so we added that, and something like that would be if someone came to us and said, hey, we want to have yoga classes, but we want to charge people, you know, so they would essentially be making money um in our parks.

If they came to us and said, hey, we want to have yoga classes on uh you know 11 o'clock at Clark Park, but we're we're just doing it as a community thing for free.

That would be similar to a park sponsored event.

We would we would get the sign off on it, make sure they have insurance, all that sort of thing.

Um, but we certainly wouldn't really, you know, it's uh it's mostly for for folks coming in and you know using our facilities to make a profit.

Uh other things that we didn't really have that were gray area were guided tours specifically within our mine yards.

We have some folks that may give a a tour and we don't really know what's going on, or we might not know what that group is.

Um unfortunately we have a lot of our our locks and combinations, which we're in the process of switching over with directler Hassler and the Department of Reclamation.

Um a lot of people over the years have the combinations to our our facilities.

And sometimes we get tours in there that we don't even know about.

And we're not saying that we're preventing that sort of thing from happening, but we just want to know that it's happening, and we want to know who's who's gonna be there, how many people, that sort of thing.

So we're we're just trying to we're not trying to restrict anything on this, but we're just trying to we want the public to know hey, if you want to give a a tour in the mine yard, you need to go through the proper channels.

Um the other thing is photography and videography for profit.

Um, if someone's going to get uh their wedding photos in front of the Mount Con mine, um you see those a lot.

We're not worried about that.

who's who's gonna be there how many people that sort of thing so we're we're just trying to we're not trying to restrict anything on this but we're just trying to we want the public to know hey if you want to give a a tour in the mine yard you need to go through the proper channels um the other thing is photography and videography for profit um if someone's going to get uh their wedding photos in front of the Mount Con mine um you see those a lot we're not worried about that but sometimes we get people that come in and say hey we want to have a uh a commercial and we don't we never really had any sort of mechanism to you know and maybe we would charge them for that I'm not saying we would or wouldn't but um we're trying to you know just get our ducks in a row uh the other thing is sales and rentals of a promotional events that might be someone on a Wednesday night uh setting up a booth in a park and soliciting soliciting things or gathering signatures we're just trying to like I said we're not trying to prevent these things from happening we just want to know about it.

The other thing that gray area that we had is and and I know that we have five minutes and we'll have plenty of weeks to talk about this but uh sporting events we have races that will happen around uh the city and they just organize the race they say show up at three bears at you know Sunday at 9 a.m and we're gonna run a 5k well no we need uh to make sure that you have a traffic plan we need to make sure that you have you have insurance uh so we're really trying to just kind of put some guardrails on some of these activities we're by no means I'm gonna repeat it again trying to prevent these things from happening but um we want to make sure that that the organizers have uh have the the the proper paperwork uh some of the other thing uh uh uh other those are the main and that's through the the parked facility um when they amended this ordinance in 2015 I think that was uh or maybe it was even 2010 when they created it I think that's a the time when we had a lot of festivals coming evil can evil days um folk fest on RERA and the thinking was that we would get more so in this ordinance current currently it says you have to fill out a hundred dollar application fee as far as going back I've never seen uh the the parks department charge a hundred dollars for an application fee and looking at other parts departments that's pretty high uh so what I'm proposing in here is to drop that fee to $25 and we'll actually start implementing that there is a a lot of administrative work that goes into these uh applications with our special events coordinator which is currently Ed Herd um you know getting the the sign off on the other departments uh making sure they have insurance follow up with uh uh director Aguary on parking that's one example uh police department fire department so there's a lot of work so we're proposing that we have a $25 uh application fee which is general from other uh departments across the state um moving on uh and so that's that's pretty much oh the the one last thing um so currently in the ordinance the original mine yard and if you were to rent the NSEMO it would be a a fee of 500 um we did quite a bit of research and that is very low especially for a wedding so I'll give you an example on a wedding um they will let's say the a wedding's on a Saturday you get the original mine yard Friday afternoon uh you get it all day saturday for setup and then you get it Sunday morning for takedown um so uh looking at other vendors uh across the city that's um you know the the lowest one I thought I think I found was three thousand dollars and we're not looking to charge three thousand dollars but we do need to increase that rate um just to cover some of our costs because you're getting the you know you're getting a mine yard for 500 that's uh a pretty good deal so um so my suggestion is to take that out and then have that um that fee go through my parts and recreation board uh similar to what the the the Civic Center board does with commissioner callahan's on so the commissioner the this and correct me if I'm wrong but it if from talking to uh civic center manager Melvin it sounds like the board is able to establish the the the prices and so that's what I'm proposing something similar and and I know I have one more minute and the reason before that is we we get concerts and some concerts are you know let's say we get Garth Brooks or you know they you know we're not gonna charge Garth Brooks 500 for the original.

We need to have some flexibility on what type of backs come in.

So great sorry I got to give you the hook.

Yep.

So we'll uh we we'll take a motion to move this to second reading so we can keep moving through the ordinance process.

I'll make a motion to move council bill number 2026-0 on that ordinance number 2026-01 to second reading.

There's a motion in two seconds to move this to second um reading.

Anything on the question?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, Director Frederickson.

Um motion passes.

Um we will move back to communication number one, but we'll need to reconvene after the meeting, after the uh committee of the whole, due to time constraints.