Cut Bank council moves to seek firms for police building; members debate fees, garage and impound security

Council members opened a meeting that included a motion to begin a request-for-qualifications process for a proposed police department building and discussion of the expected costs of advertising and consultant fees. The council recorded routine consent approvals for minutes and warrants before taking up the building discussion.

The presiding speaker outlined the procurement approach, saying the city would increase advertising exposure to attract firms and avoid the six-month delay experienced previously. “So the plan would be to put it out to as many newspapers as possible. Multiple weeks would be ideal for capturing firms,” the presiding speaker said during discussion of the RFQ approach. Staff also noted that some consultant fees are fixed because firms already have produced scope work; the city will need to pay those known costs even if it reissues the RFQ.

Council members asked for clarification about a fee from a previously engaged firm, Slate, and why parts of its slate work appeared to be billed at a different rate. A council member asked whether the $4,000 fee was for entryway specification work; staff confirmed it covered the front-entry specifications and related field work the firm completed. Officials emphasized the trade-off between potential savings from a new competitive process and the expense of duplicating prior work and advertising.

The project’s PAR (preliminary assessment/report) and federal-funding implications drew more discussion. Staff said the PAR included multiple building options to satisfy federal requirements when grant funds are sought. That background underpinned debate about whether to include a garage in the project scope: some council members said the police department needs vehicle work space in winter, while others objected to spending large sums on architecture without clearer funding commitments.

The meeting also included an extended discussion of impound-yard security and vehicle storage. Council members and staff described repeated incidents of break-ins and stolen property at the current impound area and debated moving vehicle storage closer to the police department, adding cameras and fencing, and clarifying whether storage responsibility rests with the city, the county or private towing shops. One participant summarized the problem: the current location is not a secured impound area, and some larger felony-related evidence vehicles should be stored indoors to preserve chain of custody.

No final vote on the RFQ motion was recorded in the transcript; a motion to proceed was made and discussed. The consent agenda (minutes and warrants) was approved during the meeting. The council did not adopt a final scope change (for example, adding a garage) during the session; further procurement steps and budget details were left to future staff reports and subsequent meetings.