Greeley neighborhood group asks Butte‑Silver Bow to formalize community councils in charter

R. Everett Banerov, representing the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation, asked the Butte‑Silver Bow Charter Review Study Commission to add a charter procedure to authorize community councils and to create a process for formally recognizing neighborhood alliances through a memorandum of understanding.

Banerov told commissioners the Greeley Area Plan was completed in 2011 and included in the Butte‑Silver Bow master plan in 2012. He said the plan called for a neighborhood alliance organized with bylaws and official recognition by local government and that the group had sought recognition for years without a formal procedure. "This clause was included in the Butte‑Silver Bow City‑County Charter in 1977, but has never been implemented," Banerov said.

The Greeley group submitted a petition and communications to the council in 2014 and later collected signatures again in 2015–2016, Banerov said. He reported that organizers contacted about 500 voting‑age residents and that 447 signed the petition — a figure he described as an 89 percent positive reaction from the sample. He asked the commission to include in its charter recommendations a mechanism "by which to call for, authorize, and recognize community councils to advise the Council of Commissioners."

Allison Anderson, who said she lives in Butte and presented the materials for the group, described earlier community engagement around the Greeley plan and neighborhood projects. "I agree in this idea, and I would love to implement this in my neighborhood as well," Anderson said.

Banerov reviewed the group’s recent history with the county: a request and draft ordinance (council bill 14‑8 / ordinance 14‑8) was developed and at one point the rules committee prepared an all‑volunteer draft, while a later staff redline version expanded the proposal into a 13‑page plan with an estimated $100,000 annual cost to taxpayers. Banerov said that a redline amendment proposed by staff was denied by the council by about a 7‑5 vote and that the county attorney clarified the charter calls for "community councils," not "neighborhood community councils," during that discussion.

Commissioners asked questions about scope and mechanics. Commissioner Ben Thielen asked whether Banerov envisioned part‑time commissioners rather than full‑time commissioners; Banerov said his proposal called for a single full‑time council chair and for other commissioners to serve part time, each holding a weekly half‑day in a district office. Banerov also suggested separating the council chair (a public representative elected at large) and the chief executive officer (a six‑year position with city‑manager qualifications) to provide checks and balances.

Commissioner Dan Dennehy asked how active the community council had been; Banerov said the Greeley group had regular meetings and engagement with state and federal agencies through about 2015 but that activity waned after the group did not receive formal recognition and after some logistical issues with meeting space. Banerov said the group had worked with county staff on stormwater improvements and neighborhood cleanup while it was active.

Commissioners and staff raised implementation questions. Study commission members noted that the charter contains clause 3.03(e) (powers and duties of the Council of Commissioners to authorize community councils) and that legal opinion will be needed on what language the study commission can propose. Staff and commissioners also noted existing examples in other Montana cities and that the Montana Local Government Center supplied sample charter language for Helena and Great Falls.

No formal vote or charter amendment was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners said they would review the materials, consult with legal counsel and consider the Greeley group's request during the charter review process. The commission asked staff to distribute copies of the Greeley presentation and to follow up with legal questions and with samples of other municipalities’ charter language for neighborhood/community councils.

The commission recorded the request for further study and moved on to other charter provisions. No ordinance, resolution or formal recognition was approved at the meeting.