[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6151739,"mediaKeyId","5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1","parentId",5501288,"title","Commissioners begin budget work session; treasurer seeks part‑time staff and road crew costs draw scrutiny","audioSeconds",2789,"startMs",10971000,"endMs",13760000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1&start=10971&end=13760","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1/thumbnail_10971000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6151739/Granite-County/Montana/Commissioners-begin-budget-work-session-treasurer-seeks-parttime-staff-and-road-crew-costs-draw-scrutiny","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151739-50de0c07e6b8b6811d31c34d32231ad3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775415373&Signature=QUOsPyHyEIH9PfBKXn66gCvwQj~i8seI1odzp5Z32VNXGeb1g8BKhDx815UDVkub9W0HJDVYRlyA0CXI-~hG8tvUfcdPZEfukz2yKDG-ldHEj9jNk8Hue6ri4RcbQirmOdNPNAQMT~NbAULuZzoE72qPiA1yWbDxD2e3sc1VHyOy0DZuKkjksxzsnWOXZNiWwL~leHkwhiul1qtmWHXYUGFulSHon8bpBMZX-D9zzOANgyOtfr1WhvqVPyZ2uNBiToXDDahEuSEZdBmTDrtQijmAfCxIoZDU5U7hTjkiR3jQ5YdcQPjmFKugy-QKB8DrZX2RUBmrKJupBaLqBDyLxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Granite County, MT","date","2025-07-29T22:03:35Z","article","Granite County commissioners used part of their July 29 meeting to review draft budgets and to flag items requiring further detail before formal adoption.

Key items discussed
- Treasurer: The treasurer requested funding for a part‑time (approximately 20–30 hours/week) position to handle increased workload; staff estimated a fully‑loaded cost of roughly $45,000 with benefits. The commission asked staff to include the request for formal budgeting and to return with specifics.
- Road department: Commissioners and staff reviewed road and street accounts and flagged large overages tied to gravel purchases and rented equipment. Staff noted gravel costs are normally funded by the gas‑tax fund but some charges had posted to the road operating account and would be corrected with journal vouchers. The board asked for a line‑item detail printout for roads and streets to review vendor and rental charges and identify where cuts or reclassifications could be made.
- Solid waste: Commissioners noted capital needs for transfer‑station equipment and discussed whether to use capital‑projects funds or finance replacements. Staff said some capital money remains and that the county can consider staged replacement or financing depending on operational needs.
- Grants and special funds: Commissioners reviewed Forest Reserve (payment-in-lieu) receipts and noted recent receipts were smaller than typical; staff recommended budgeting conservatively for the coming year.

Process items and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to provide detailed line‑item printouts for roads, solid waste and one capital/project item in advance of a focused budget work session. They agreed to meet early next week (proposed 7:30–8:00 a.m.) for a concentrated review. The commission did not adopt budgets at this meeting.

Outcome: No budget votes; staff to return with requested line‑item detail and proposed journal vouchers to correct misposted gas‑tax expenses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At a July 29 budget work session commissioners reviewed department budget requests, heard a treasurer’s request for a part‑time staffer and discussed road and solid‑waste line items and gas‑tax allocations.","taxTitle","Granite County , Montana","taxId",79639,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151745,"Commission approves HDR scope of work for Georgetown Lake dam assessment",292,9790000,10082000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1&start=9790&end=10082","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1/thumbnail_9790000.jpg","/articles/6151745/Granite-County/Montana/Commission-approves-HDR-scope-of-work-for-Georgetown-Lake-dam-assessment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151745-471ce0df9d1f2f982698257c083d149b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775415373&Signature=JLchsSeugAitRXMlwbPLv3gPKqLlQkNYoKNMFnqnWqdfPfht3W1sVc-hV2EwXmeVfAcrwl0wfR3ZenjZIpKCYuJ7ezLfVASoLnpxfljKUVRQD1sbQ5BBkLosEwSQJX33LN6gQ~88ZXxjICR31Hs~YU23ABcBH25EKvXuCk2tpC9QqIZ5UCh~2ys9V~rRs8X05dasY9t3fzXRI-JZfr3H4JNo6hn9a1ZgH1fSAaGvyWSuADJYiaLwSBCiarZjCPeHAoDRwfT3jEXoOqpnaLRQy6lFGgPyAu8bOy~gIu5rGHNAagTG9l8Dt7Js9PN1UqOZRYF8jHdQMNsK1M6OsG6VnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Granite County commissioners approved on July 29 a scope of work and agreement with HDR (listed in the meeting as the consultant for a reservoir/dam assessment) to perform a comprehensive assessment, failure‑mode analysis and related studies for Georgetown Lake and its dam.

What was approved: According to staff and the consultant’s representative, the scope covers field inspections, a level‑2 risk analysis, a potential failure‑mode analysis and a final technical report. Most field work is planned for the winter-to-spring window; substantial tasks were described as occurring from the current fiscal year through next spring.

Why it matters: County staff and residents identified the HDR study as important to long-term reservoir operations, safety and compliance with licensing requirements. Several speakers said the report will help the commission and stakeholders understand risk, permitting constraints and flood/operational trade-offs.

Vote and outcome: The commission voted to approve the consultant scope and the contract; a motion to approve passed and staff were authorized to finalize the agreement.

Next steps: The consultant and county staff will finalize the contract and schedule field inspections (staff indicated field inspections would be scheduled in a May timeframe for on-site work), then deliver the draft and final reports per the contract timeline.","The county approved a contract scope of work with HDR (consultant) for a Level 2 risk analysis and reservoir assessment related to Georgetown Lake and dam operations.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151750,"Residents press county on dump-site policy after generator refused for containing fuel",516,428000,944000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1&start=428&end=944","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1/thumbnail_428000.jpg","/articles/6151750/Granite-County/Montana/Residents-press-county-on-dump-site-policy-after-generator-refused-for-containing-fuel","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151750-27a69ffaf6c4f801d25c39bf08445eb3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775415373&Signature=XtCzpvyHaQlXv~jc823CCGIf2VUVfh0IkTaW03MSN9knuR~2cWuSo09rvvCfi8byZQb9XRqUFu61-agY-YdfZ7zpcKEzZ0QWYkhsDz7S2~HFIJmvy5TbbhwMbTQYTIyoweqETjD2CfmZrZEoUmo2A6nRQ-fNvzYr2KiB2aa4hnWj0bYUnkIj96x1gvICEiXTsl02cMvEOdqeSbe9R6y6MYvZ5qWnV~psnZtE4dX4l~AN9Pk0KTWYzopdZ~D8R1fhAYdYXcIxTcvdqcxeyWC2CpxIbPvDLJa-Eu9a2OpPfKE-BZi2IVpnEsnH47hlIvSh0XPdLqJeWoRB-1KKxBmEYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Public comments at the July 29 Granite County Commission meeting raised concerns about enforcement and notice of solid-waste rules after a resident said county staff refused to accept a small generator because it still contained fuel.

What happened: A resident, Jackie Butler, described bringing an old generator to a county dump and being told by a site attendant that the county would not accept equipment that still contained gasoline and oil. Butler said the rule was not posted, that long-standing practice had been to accept such items and to drain fluids at the facility, and that she was surprised to be turned away. She said she later drained oil from the unit and placed it on her burn pile.

Why it matters: Residents said inconsistent enforcement or failure to post rules at disposal sites creates confusion for people who regularly donate vehicles or bring metal for scrap. They asked the county to clarify whether the rule exists, to post clear signage at sites, and to confirm whether private contractors (e.g., Pacific) require items to be drained before acceptance.

Staff response and next steps: County staff acknowledged the concerns and said they would investigate which policy or instruction the attendant had relied on, ask the attendant who told the resident the rule, and contact the contractor that hauls metal for the county. Commissioners told staff to obtain any written rule or contractor requirement and to bring back clarification. The board also instructed staff to post clear signage at dump sites if the county intends to require items be drained before acceptance.

Quotes from the meeting: \"If there is no rule and we don't know, then we shouldn't be sent away,\" the resident told the commission. The board asked staff to confirm the rule in writing and post it at the site if a policy exists.

Outcome: No formal action or ordinance change was taken; commissioners directed county staff to investigate, confirm the applicable rule or contractor requirement, and post guidance at transfer/dump sites where appropriate.","Public commenters told commissioners that a resident was turned away from a county dump because a generator contained gasoline and oil; residents asked for clearer posted rules and staff follow-up.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151755,"Granite County Commission approves temporary higher releases from Georgetown Lake to help irrigators",3871,3268000,7139000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1&start=3268&end=7139","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5501288-2042ea9b0c59b61b90ad95df6a4a31a1/thumbnail_3268000.jpg","/articles/6151755/Granite-County/Montana/Granite-County-Commission-approves-temporary-higher-releases-from-Georgetown-Lake-to-help-irrigators","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151755-a74079e6bc81b38bdb3d5a3dc111262f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775415373&Signature=KO4hD8AGuSQlA7M3rX0SzargHbJxVN4yU-tl01Xkc0r-Ll~0RFlXR6D~40UCky2PZRU2Y31Wrea225DwCw05E-LeWbWukWjE53Yug-Ir7bP6gd0ERmytvnWSv~bKGtAi26Rn2aaMj~omRl-i~aKzRyBKHoBvoOFw04mttKsjlJrQvvnzi3HuOvfjBJDHcXCk9omEnNHwZBItwqzPmxNP-8nHTgCzD-PCMkmsWxKt5dwv0WZExh0MFvsECAs1JfpjCC7ichgyh8ounbDB6tJmvreqMlRZ6o113LMiRwS2eqBp4utMUKayyd~LZhw4mqpD8bQewVnnGiFfl0opgEUrVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Granite County commissioners voted July 29 to temporarily increase outflows from Georgetown Lake to 40 cubic feet per second for seven days to help irrigators downstream, then require irrigators to restore the volume during the late irrigation season.

The move came after more than two hours of public comment from irrigators, homeowners and state agencies about drought conditions and downstream impacts. Commissioner comment and a motion approved by the board said the increase would be followed by a scheduled payback period near the end of the irrigation season.

Why it matters: Lower- and Upper-Valley irrigators told the commission they were facing imminent shortfalls that could force livestock sales and reduce hay production. Several speakers said limited creek inflows and reservoir storage meant a short-term release from Georgetown was the most practicable way to keep downstream ditches charged until harvest.

The commission unanimously approved a motion to raise releases to 40 cubic feet per second for seven days, with the payback to occur in the last week(s) of the irrigation season so the water would be returned before October 15. The motion was seconded and passed on an “aye” vote; no roll-call of individual commissioners was recorded in the audio transcript.

Who asked for what: Frank Prince of McAllen Ranch and other irrigators said the Lower Valley would “run out of water on the August 8” without extra inflow, adding that East Fork storage and creek carrying capacity limited their options. Brian Clark, president of the Georgetown Lake Homeowners Association, and other lake residents asked the commission to watch lake elevations and noted legal and operational constraints tied to the FERC license and the project’s operating requirements. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks staff and other state officials spoke by phone and said they would work with the county if a short-term modification was authorized.

Legal and operational constraints: Speakers referenced the FERC operating license and the project’s operating regulation (cited in testimony as “Article 402” and related temporary-modification language). Homeowners and attorneys in the meeting pointed to sections of the operating order that limit outflows in summer months unless temporary modification is authorized; they also said FERC has an established complaint process. County officials said they had sent notice to the agencies and that the county has used temporary modifications in past years.

Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners emphasized the drought emergency and their willingness to approve a measured, temporary increase. They also urged irrigators and agencies to coordinate on the timing and payback. Commission discussion said the board expects the payback to be calculated by staff and that irrigators would need to confirm how the water would be accounted for in flow gauges.

Next steps and follow-up: County staff said they will calculate payback volumes and timing and communicate with irrigators and agencies. Commissioners and several irrigators recommended convening an irrigators’ meeting and additional county outreach to try to build consensus before similar actions in future seasons.

Outcome: Motion to increase outflow to 40 CFS for seven days, with the payback to occur in the late irrigation season — approved (motion seconded; vote recorded as “aye”).","Faced with drought and competing irrigation claims, the commission approved a one-week increase in outflow from Georgetown Lake to 40 cubic feet per second, with a required payback window later in the irrigation season.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners begin budget work session; treasurer seeks part‑time staff and road crew costs draw scrutiny

Commission approves HDR scope of work for Georgetown Lake dam assessment

Residents press county on dump-site policy after generator refused for containing fuel

Granite County Commission approves temporary higher releases from Georgetown Lake to help irrigators