Butte–Silver Bow commission advances two options to address volunteer fire districts, requests Director plan

The Butte–Silver Bow Government Study Commission voted 6–2 on Feb. 23 to advance two options for addressing the status of volunteer fire districts and to request a written operational plan from the Director of Fire Services.

Chair Rayelynn Brandl opened the meeting and introduced continued discussion of the Fire Department Working Group options and the County Attorney’s memorandum analyzing legal implications. County Attorney Enrooth summarized two approaches: Option 1 would remove volunteer departments from the charter while leaving their districts intact under state law; Option 2 would strengthen charter language to consolidate volunteer districts (excluding Walkerville and Melrose) under Butte–Silver Bow authority and transfer operational and budget authority to the Director of Fire Services and the Council of Commissioners.

Enrooth told commissioners that removing volunteers from the charter would not dissolve their districts but could create overlapping taxing authority, dual or conflicting incident command, increased liability exposure, insurance‑rating impacts and possible service gaps, and could spur litigation between volunteer districts and Butte–Silver Bow. He said the strengthened‑language approach would clarify authority and reduce ambiguity but likewise could prompt lawsuits from volunteer districts.

Commissioner Perdue‑Dolan pressed for equitable treatment of both options, asking for a memo from paid firefighters to mirror the volunteers’ submission and requesting a forward‑looking plan from the Director of Fire Services describing how Option 2 would operate. Commissioner Casey emphasized transparency in budgeting and suggested separate line‑item budgets for volunteer districts; Casey also moved to advance both options and request the Director’s plan. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion.

Other commissioners voiced concerns and clarifications: Commissioner Thielen said constituents worried about increased tax burdens and voted against advancing the options pending more information; Commissioner McCormick raised the risk of volunteer attrition and asked the working group to define duties for a volunteer fire coordinator; Commissioner Silk noted that any major changes requested by the Director would require a two‑thirds vote of the Council, limiting unilateral action. Commissioner Stepan volunteered to request the Director’s written operational plan.

Casey’s motion specified that the Director’s plan be due within one week if possible and no later than March 9, 2026. The motion passed 6–2, with Brandl, Casey, Silk, Shaw, Stepan and McCormick in favor and Perdue‑Dolan and Thielen opposed.

The County Attorney clarified that an abstention is generally treated as an absence unless a conflict of interest is declared. The commission set future agenda items including public outreach planning and a public hearing schedule; the next meeting is March 2, 2026.

Votes at a glance: • Approval of minutes (Feb. 9, 2026): Motion by Commissioner Shaw, second Commissioner McCormick; unanimous approval. • Motion to advance Option 1 (removal from charter) and Option 2 (strengthened charter/consolidation) to the preliminary report and to request a Director of Fire Services operational plan: Motion by Commissioner Casey, second Commissioner Shaw; passed 6–2. • Motion to adjourn: Motion by Commissioner Thielen, second Commissioner Silk; meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Next steps: The commission will await the Director of Fire Services’ operational plan and proceed with drafting the preliminary report and a public hearing schedule.