Study commission seeks clarity on volunteer fire department authority after attorney general guidance

The study commission moved to probe a long-standing question about the governance of paid and volunteer fire services after County Attorney Matt Enruth said a past attorney general opinion limits the effect of a local ordinance when the charter lacks explicit authority.

Enruth told the commission that an attorney general opinion from the 1970s and later statutory language require matters affecting volunteer fire departments — notably budgetary authority — to be set in the charter. "The attorney general's opinion specifically states that because it's not contained in the charter and state law requires it to be contained in the charter, that the ordinance doesn't have any any effect over the volunteers ['] budgetary authority," Enruth said.

Why it matters: The question affects who sets volunteer departments’ budgets, whether trustees may levy special mills, and how paid and volunteer services coordinate. Commissioners said the issue has practical budget and operational consequences for local fire coverage and levy authority.

Background in the meeting: Commissioners and staff identified a 1996 Butte-Silver Bow ordinance and cited earlier attorney general guidance (1970s/1979) as key documents. Enruth said the county has been operating under an ordinance that assigns duties and budgets to the director of fire services, but the attorney general guidance suggests volunteer trustees retained specific budgetary powers. The meeting noted that House Bill 547, which would have affected related language, was vetoed by the governor, leaving the statutory and charter questions unresolved.

Follow-up steps: Commissioners asked county staff to compile the relevant ordinances, statutes and attorney general opinions and to invite knowledgeable local witnesses. The commission agreed to request historical context and technical advice from former Director of Fire Services Jeff Miller and planned to have the current director of fire services attend a future meeting to explain operations and to bring the relevant legal opinions.

Discussion vs. decision: The meeting recorded a discussion and a request for additional documentation and expert testimony. No ordinance or charter change was adopted at the session; commissioners asked staff and counsel for a written memo explaining the legal relationships among charter language, ordinance practice and the attorney general opinions.

Ending: The commission scheduled follow-up briefings and a likely session with Jeff Miller to establish the historical record and inform any charter or ordinance amendments.