Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City seeks to use 10% of resort tax for fire capital as contract amendment is negotiated
Summary
City representatives told the resort tax advisory committee they are negotiating an amendment to the Red Lodge Jewel Fire Department contract and asked that up to 10% of resort tax collections be used for fire capital (capital expenditures only); the committee discussed mechanics of a percentage‑based allocation and how it would vary with collections.
City officials requested the advisory committee’s awareness and input on negotiations to amend the municipality’s fire protection contract with Red Lodge Jewel Fire Department so the city can move from a mill‑based payment to a dollar‑based arrangement and apply about 10% of resort tax collections to fire capital expenditures.
A city representative explained the current 28‑mill payment from the general fund has become unsustainable as assessed values shift, and the amendment would replace that mill‑based calculation with a dollar amount supplemented by a 10% resort‑tax capital allocation. “Currently, the city is looking to amend our fire protection contract with Red Lodge Jewel Fire Department... we are looking to use 10% of our resort tax funds, for the fire, to the fire department for capital expenditures,” the representative said.
Committee members pressed for clarity on whether the 10% would be an ongoing allocation and how shortfalls would be handled in years with lower collections. The chair said the 10% would be based on prior‑year collections and would therefore rise and fall with resort‑tax revenue; he added that, in practice, other programs would be adjusted before breaking a negotiated fire contract. The proposal remained under negotiation and was not finalized during the advisory meeting.
The committee did not adopt a recommendation specific to the fire contract in this meeting; members requested additional contract details and clarifications about whether the city or some other entity would own funded capital items and how the proposed use aligns with the resort‑tax ordinance’s capital‑only requirement.
