Butte‑Silver Bow chief executive outlines duties, Superfund challenges and governance changes he recommends

Chief Executive J.P. Gallagher told the Butte‑Silver Bow Study Commission on the evening’s first substantive agenda item that the elected chief executive combines the responsibilities of a mayor, a city manager and a county administrator and described day‑to‑day duties, budget and staffing issues, and several governance changes he said could improve efficiency.

Gallagher said the job includes preparing the city‑county budget, supervising department directors, representing the consolidated government on regional boards and negotiating labor contracts. “The chief executive is like a mayor, a city manager, and a county administrator all rolled into one,” Gallagher said.

He told commissioners the county’s largest immediate public challenge is Superfund cleanup and public communication about it. “One of the biggest challenges is to show the community that progress is happening within our Superfund work,” Gallagher said, adding that Butte‑Silver Bow must hold outside agencies accountable for timely public explanations and progress updates.

Gallagher also identified the county’s many boards and commissions — which he said are “into the mid‑40 range” — as a recurring administrative problem because some meet infrequently and oversight is inconsistent. He said his office is working to publish up‑to‑date meeting information on the Butte‑Silver Bow website.

On staffing and budgets, Gallagher said the total workforce “fluctuates” seasonally and estimated about 480 employees overall, including seasonal hires, and said some positions are grant‑ or fee‑funded rather than paid from the general fund. He described using outside professional contractors for technical work — for example, stormwater engineering reviews — to avoid permanently adding staff that would otherwise sit idle.

Gallagher offered several structural changes he said would likely increase efficiency if the commission and voters choose to pursue them. He recommended placing the coroner position under the sheriff’s office, saying it would allow deputy coroners to be deputized and create 24/7 coverage. He also proposed establishing a professionally qualified administrative aide or deputy (a manager with city‑management training) who would serve at the chief executive’s pleasure to provide continuity and handle technical decision‑making between chief executives.

On the commission’s size and role, Gallagher said 12 part‑time commissioners poses communication and coordination challenges and suggested the study commission examine whether fewer commissioners with a greater time commitment would improve governance — but added any change would require public review and voter approval. “What you bring to the public, just understand what the changes could mean to our structure,” he said.

Gallagher described other operational issues raised by commissioners, including volunteer vs. paid firefighter relations, a fire mill cap that limits the department’s revenue options, and the need to maintain grant‑writing capacity to capture federal infrastructure and recovery funds. He also described SARTA (the local trust board) as publicly posted on the county website and said the trust funds support festival and program funding as well as the Superfund oversight structure.

Gallagher repeatedly urged the commission to approach charter review with an open mind and to interview a broad set of stakeholders. “Come to this with an open mind of what can be done for local government, not to have preconceived notions,” he said.

The session included back‑and‑forth with commissioners on specific questions of compensation, staffing, and whether some positions are paid through trust or enterprise funds rather than the general budget. Gallagher said the chief executive salary was about $124,000 and that the chief of staff salary was in the high‑$80,000s to about $90,000, and added that many chief‑executive office staff are covered by the clerk’s union collective bargaining agreement.

Gallagher concluded by offering additional records the commission requested, including a review of boards and commissions and funding sources, and invited the panel to contact his office for follow‑up materials.