Study commission reviews options to shrink commission, add city/county manager; timeline, costs unclear

Butte-Silver Bow — Members of the Butte-Silver Bow Charter Study Commission discussed whether to recommend shrinking the elected commission and adopting a commission–manager (city/county manager) form of government, but said voters would need clear ballot language and the county would face budget and implementation questions if they approve a change. The commission heard a detailed memorandum from Matt (staff member) explaining that moving to a smaller, possibly full‑time commission and a city/county manager would require substantial edits to Article III of the county charter, and that charter language must be precise on responsibilities, staffing and transparency requirements. “If the commission decides to go to a smaller commission, fewer commissioners,” Matt said, “it will require significant change to Article 3 in our charter, particularly if we go to a manager, commission slash manager style, government.” Why it matters: changing government form affects who hires and fires, how budgets are set and who holds executive authority. Commissioners and staff emphasized voters should know the practical effects — including likely new salaries, staff, and staggered election schedules — before approving a charter amendment. Commissioners asked about timing, ballot wording and cost. County Attorney Andrew Enruth told the panel a change adopted by voters would not automatically be implemented overnight: “You would be realistically looking at at least 1 budget year … and most likely 1 to 2 years,” Enruth said, describing steps including setting a sunset date for the current structure, drafting implementing ordinances, and holding staggered elections for new seats. Commissioners also pressed for clearer ballot language. Several members said a simple referendum question is typical — for example, whether voters prefer to retain the current chief-executive/council system or move to a city/county manager — but that the commission’s work must provide enough detail so voters understand what they will be approving. Commissioner Casey asked whether an odd number of commissioners would eliminate the need for a tie-breaking vote; Matt replied it could but cautioned absences can still produce ties, so the charter should provide a tiebreaker mechanism. Budget and staffing questions rose repeatedly. Commissioners noted a smaller full‑time commission could increase personnel and salary costs: “You have to look and make sure their budget’s correct. Do they need to raise more mills in order to cover, hypothetically speaking, 6 county commissioners full time salaries … plus what do they get in their budget? Do they have staff?” Matt said. He and Enruth recommended the commission present basic implementation details to the public so voters understand tradeoffs. Process and public outreach: Commissioners discussed ballot timing for a November 2026 election cycle and whether the charter text must be final before the election. Matt said his team and Deputy County Attorney Sean Peterson are preparing follow-up memoranda that will recommend whether the charter language must be provided to voters up front; his “gut feeling” is voters should know the language they will be approving. Commissioners noted Montana State University Public Service/School of Government materials may be available as drafting templates or explanatory comparisons. What’s next: The commission scheduled a public hearing and additional outreach; staff will prepare a more detailed memo about ballot question wording, estimated timing for implementation, and the budgetary uncertainties accompanying a shift to a manager form of government.