Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
REC warns council that proposed expansion of Butte-Silver Bow urban fire district would place disproportionate tax burden on company
Summary
REC Advanced Silicon Materials sent a formal letter opposing a proposal to add Montana Connections to the Urban Fire Protection District, saying the plan would shift roughly 70% of the new tax burden onto REC and raising potential Montana constitutional and statutory objections; the council scheduled a public hearing.
The Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners on May 6, 2026, scheduled a public hearing on a proposal to expand the Urban Fire Protection District to include Montana Connections after receiving a formal written objection from REC Advanced Silicon Materials.
The objection, submitted to the council and delivered as an attached letter, was signed by DeeAnna Worley, vice president of Butte operations for REC Advanced Silicon Materials. The letter says that based on 2025 taxable values the Montana Connections area has a combined taxable value of $9,593,780 and REC's properties account for $6,682,837—about 70 percent—meaning REC would bear an estimated additional annual burden of up to approximately $250,000 if the district were expanded as proposed. "Roughly 70 percent of the new funding anticipated from the Proposed Expansion would be generated by a single taxpayer: REC," the letter states.
REC's letter argues the company already maintains substantial in-plant emergency response capabilities—its specialized emergency squad receives roughly 1,500 hours of specialized training per year and REC provides its own protective equipment—and that the practical burden on Butte-Silver Bow Fire Department for incidents at REC's facility is therefore reduced. The letter asks the council not to approve the expansion "in its current form," and urges consideration of alternatives, including a broader or more proportionate allocation of costs among all beneficiaries of fire protection services.
The submission also raises legal concerns, citing Montana constitutional equal-protection principles and state case law and arguing a noncontiguous taxing area that excludes other properties receiving comparable fire protection may be "arbitrary" and susceptible to legal challenge. The letter recommends the council fully explore these legal issues before adopting any boundary changes.
At the meeting, proponents and opponents were noted on the communications list: Ready Frost was listed as a proponent of scheduling the hearing and council members including Commissioner Jim Fisher raised questions after the REC letter was circulated. No vote to adopt the boundary change was taken on May 6; the item was set for public hearing and further committee consideration.
What happens next: the council has scheduled the public hearing required for boundary changes to the Urban Fire Protection District (Communication 2026-177). The hearing will give property owners and public safety officials a chance to present evidence on costs, service differences and boundary definitions before any final council action.
