Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Service Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated Hearing Over Bill to Restore Butte-Silver Bow Local Control of Fire Services
Summary
House Bill 5-47 would repeal limited statutory protections and return fire-service governance in Butte–Silver Bow to the local charter, creating a single director of fire services accountable to the chief executive; proponents stress safety and training, opponents warn of loss of volunteer autonomy, legal uncertainty and rushed process.
Representative Scott DeMouris sponsored House Bill 5-47, which he described as a narrow cleanup of state statute to allow Butte–Silver Bow to follow its 1977 charter provisions regarding fire services. DeMouris said the change would only affect the two consolidated city–county governments (Butte–Silver Bow and Anaconda–Deer Lodge) and aims to remove conflicting 1979 statutory language so the county’s charter can operate as intended.
Proponents, including the Butte–Silver Bow chief executive (J.P. Gallagher), director of fire services (Zach Osborne) and many career firefighters, presented a unified case: a 3rd-party fire study (Emergency Services Consulting International) and decades of operational experience justify returning chain-of-command authority to a single director of fire services to improve training, incident command, resource allocation and safety. "We need every member of our department to walk away from every dispatched emergency... unhurt and alive," Director Osborne said, describing inconsistent training, multiple chiefs on-scene and equipment oversight gaps.
Proponents emphasized liability and compliance obligations under the Montana Safety Culture Act and argued the current split between charter language and state statute leaves the county "legally liable but structurally powerless," in the words of the county’s safety coordinator.
Opponents—dominated by volunteer fire chiefs, trustees, rural fire-district leaders and two county commissioners—urged the committee to reject or table the bill. Commissioner Trudy Healy said the council of commissioners had not taken a position and objected to the bill’s apparent advance without full local discussion. Legal counsel for several fire districts, Catherine Dinwidie, pointed the committee to a 1987 Attorney General opinion and urged caution, saying HB 5-47 removes statutory protections that preserve the existence, budgetary authority and rights of rural fire districts created before consolidation.
Speakers opposing the bill raised similar themes: threat to volunteer autonomy, unclear handling of assets and budgets, possible erosion of the ability to create new rural districts, and a perception the bill was rushed without stakeholder engagement. Several volunteer chiefs warned that changes could discourage volunteers and harm insurance classifications and operational capacity in rural areas.
Committee members probed both sides on the fire study timeline, training attempts and prior efforts at consolidation. Proponents said the third-party study and multiple training efforts underpin the bill and pledged to work with opponents on amendments; opponents repeatedly asked for more local deliberation and mediation.
What happens next: The committee closed the hearing, leaving the bill open to amendments. Sponsors said they were willing to work with opponents in the amendment window; many opponents asked that the matter be resolved locally through collaboration and the Butte–Silver Bow study-commission process before state action.
