Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Uniform Fire District topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judiciary committee holds Resolution 2026-18 in abeyance after questions on fire‑district tax impacts

Judiciary Committee (Butte-Silver Bow) · April 8, 2026
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

Members of the Judiciary Committee questioned dollar‑impact estimates for an expanded uniform fire service district, sought more public notice and data on call volumes and overtime savings, and voted to hold Resolution 2026-18 in abeyance pending a May 6 public hearing.

Butte‑Silver Bow’s Judiciary Committee voted to hold Resolution 2026‑18 in abeyance as amended after members pressed staff for clearer estimates of the tax impact of expanding a uniform fire service district and for additional notice to affected property owners.

Commissioner Thatcher, who led the questioning, told the committee she had received inquiries from residents in the 3MCT district about the potential dollar impact of the expansion and noted the draft uses a mill levy of 55.65. “I just had questions from people out in the 3MCT district about what the actual impact dollar‑wise could potentially be with the expansion of the uniform buyer district,” she said.

The committee heard that the fiscal‑impact figures in the draft follow Montana law’s practice of showing effects at market values of $100,000, $300,000 and $600,000 for residential properties and sample commercial thresholds ($1 million, $5 million and $10 million). Dr. Hassler told the panel that Montana code requires disclosure of residential impacts at those values and that state‑issued valuation figures — used to compute taxes — are not available until August and therefore could change the estimates. “The Montana code requires you when you have a tax to give the financial impact to residential property owners at values of 100, 300, and 600,000,” Dr. Hassler said.

Committee members also sought clarity on outreach and timing. Commissioner Thatcher asked whether the amendments could be added and the resolution held so the public hearing could be redrafted with red‑lined language. County Attorney Endres confirmed a motion could be made to add the amendments and hold the item, and Director Osborne said staff would resend notices to property owners by email or letter as needed so affected parties would have time to review the amended language.

On staffing and cost questions, Commissioner Callahan asked for historical overtime data and call counts to evaluate whether hiring four firefighters under a SAFER grant produced the projected overtime savings. A staff speaker who reviewed past files said a presentation from former Fire Director Jeff Miller estimated the new staffing model saved about $30,000 annually in overtime. Director Osborne said the district responded to 12 calls in 2025 and described the area as “low frequency, but high risk.”

After discussion, Commissioner Thatcher moved to hold Resolution 2026‑18 in abeyance as amended pending the May 6 public hearing; the motion was seconded, put to a voice vote and announced as passed. The committee did not record a roll‑call tally in the discussion; the chair declared the motion adopted.

The committee closed by instructing staff to update public notices and return the amended resolution for the scheduled May 6 public hearing. The meeting then adjourned.