Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Missoula County begins review of proposed 2025 budget; commissioners weigh hires, service requests and account transfers

Missoula County Board of Commissioners · August 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During an initial review of the proposed 2025 budget, commissioners discussed new positions (sanitarian, communications officer, business manager), capital needs (animal services truck), detention staffing and an accounting transfer of lease revenue tied to the Housing Innovation Fund; several items were held for later decisions.

Missoula County commissioners spent substantial time reviewing the proposed 2025 budget, focusing on department requests for new positions, capital replacements, contracted services and an internal accounting transfer for significant lease revenue.

Health department staff described a new sanitarian position funded by projected new revenue ($120,000) and a communications officer covered by grant funds; staff said these would not require a tax ask and reminded commissioners that department expenses are shared 60% by the city and 40% by the county. Staff also proposed restructuring an administration director position into two supervisor roles and creating a business manager position at an annual cost of roughly $59,000, with the city agreeing to cover about $35,000 and the county’s ongoing share estimated at $23,000.

The animal services program requested an additional $20,000 to replace an upfitted animal control truck (total replacement cost around $50,000). Commissioners discussed treating this as a one-time expense for the current year while exploring longer-term strategies.

Detention staff asked for an increase to the physician assistant salary (outside Wellpath’s contract) to address market pay and retention concerns, and also requested an additional cook to respond to rising inmate population. Commissioners indicated budget constraints may prevent approving those positions this year.

Several technology and telephone service requests were noted but commissioners suggested holding or deferring items in the absence of the appropriate information-systems staff. A separate proposal would hard-fund a former grant-funded position (used for RSID projects and recording-fee work) with increased recording fees projected to cover the cost; Tyler, the presenting staff member, expressed confidence the fees will cover the position and said it would not be a tax increase.

Commissioners also discussed a request to add a half-time public-safety radio communications worker to overlap with a retiring employee to maintain mountain-site infrastructure; the position is planned as a backfill and commissioners considered one-time funding versus an ongoing hire.

On finance, staff described current lease revenue from a county-owned building housing DIRECTV, which brings in about $759,000 annually and carries approximately $687,000 in annual debt service. Staff proposed moving those lease receipts out of the tax increment (TIF) account into a non-TIF fund to avoid mixing restricted TIF dollars with other county revenues, and suggested a discretionary $50,000 annual contribution into the Housing Innovation Fund. Commissioners asked staff to clarify account terminology and how best to bracket or allocate the discretionary funding.

Public comment during the budget discussion included residents who urged caution on hiring and tax impacts. Sonia Quackenbush, a longtime resident, said property taxes already exceed $7,000 annually for her household and opposed hiring multiple grant administrators and a climate-action coordinator. Brad (self-identified) challenged climate-related spending and requested public input and transparency on temporary positions and past hiring trends.

Overall, commissioners approved some items or expressed tentative approval when funding sources were identified (for example, the fee-supported position), while holding other items for additional detail or deferral to later meetings.