COMMISSIONER TRYON – 1/16/2024 MEETING HIGHLIGHT – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW RESOLUTION / 1993 LIBRARY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW

Commissioner Tryon said, “I believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to have a comprehensive review and public conversation concerning the 1993 library management agreement, including all of the aspects of the agreement before we get into the fiscal year 25 budget process. And before the agreement automatically renews, at the beginning of the year, I proposed the public safety funding plan for fiscal year 25, which included a number of the public safety plans that included terminating the library management agreement and folding the seven mills that were in that agreement back into the general fund for public safety. But that is not the initiative I am bringing forward tonight. Tonight I am asking that the city commission schedule a special commission meeting for this Friday and direct the city manager and staff to draft a resolution for consideration to give the library board a 90 day notice of the intent of the city to opt out of the 1993 agreement. “
The intention is not to strip the 7 mills from the library agreement. The initiative I am offering tonight is a chance to give everyone, including the library board, a 90 day period to look at and review the 1993 agreement between the library board and the city and all of its aspects. No funding would be stripped from the library with this initiative. No changes would be made to the current agreement with this initiative. All that we would do is have a meeting, a special commission meeting, this Friday to determine whether or not to go forward with the proposal or resolution to give 90 days notice of the city’s intent to opt out of the agreement. During that 90 days, a new agreement or an amended agreement or the same agreement could be drafted and proofread. So there is nothing in this initiative that strips money from or changes in any way the current library agreement until the 90 days expires. Within that 90 days, I would hope we could have a conversation about the terms and funding levels in that agreement and that we could bring to the table and I know we’ve already been able to solve some of this, we could bring to the table all of our department heads and other people that in our city that are affected by and impacted by the general fund and the funds in the general fund. We should have all available resources on the table when we go into the fiscal year 25 budget process, all available resources. And that includes those resources that were included in the 1993 agreement, 7 mills, which is about $900,000. At some point during that 90 days after we’ve had a discussion, after we’ve had the conversation, after we’ve had plenty of opportunity for public input, we can then discuss a new agreement, a different agreement, the same agreement or something else to put in place by that date. So what we’re doing tonight is just what I’m asking for tonight is just a consensus from the commission to schedule a meeting to consider a resolution on Friday. And the reason Friday is important is because the deadline for the 90 day opt out notification is January 20th. And in order for us to consider this, we would have to have public notification of a meeting. And then we would have to have the resolution considered. And if it was passed on Friday, if that resolution was passed on Friday, that would be the 90 days notice of the city’s option to opt out of the agreement. Doesn’t guarantee the city will opt out of the agreement. It doesn’t mandate that the city opts out of the agreement. It gives us the option of looking at all of the funding and all of the other aspects of that agreement that we need to look at as well. It’s a 30 year old agreement, 30 years ago. And just two more quick things here before I’m done, just to point out that we have agreements have terms for a reason. The reason there is a one year term on the agreement is because things change, conditions on the ground change. And so that’s why you have terms on agreements. The 1993 agreement between the city and the library board was never meant to be a guarantee written in stone in perpetuity with no discussion ever. It was never meant to be that way. We have had circumstances on the ground change significantly. We have pressing almost crisis level public safety needs in this community. And I think it would be irresponsible for us to go into the fiscal year 25 budget without considering needs in other departments. And at least having options on the table for that. And so the other point that I would like to make here is that we really need to hear from Chief Newton. We need to hear from Chief Jones. We need to hear from our city attorney. We need to hear from all of the people that are involved in our public safety. What their emerging needs will be in fiscal year 25. They’re going to be some real decisions that have to be made. And we want to make sure we have all of the resources available. So I want to hear from them. I want to know whose life is going to be in danger in fiscal year 25 because we don’t use the resources that we have to adequately fund public safety. I want to know that before I make it this before we close off the door to all available funding. This could very well end up being if we do a special meeting and we need the commission votes for a resolution to give 90 days notice to opt out of the 1993 agreement. We could very well a month from now after hearing from everybody and getting public input. Decide that we keep a similar or exactly the same agreement. We could put forward an amended agreement. So there’s no danger in this being a. We make a decision tonight and that’s it. All that money stripped out of the library agreement. There’s no danger of that. Everything remains the same until we hear from all of the interested parties in our city. I think it would be a irresponsible if we didn’t hear from all of them and keep our options open. So what I’m asking tonight in this initiative is a majority consent from our city commission to proceed with a special meeting on Friday commission meeting on Friday. Have staff draft draft a resolution that we can then have public comment, vote on, have a discussion about on Friday. And then we can go from there. Just keep in mind nothing changes if we do that. Nothing changes if we do that. Except we have breathing room to have the discussions. So that’s the the initiative on the table and I’m happy to hear further comments or discussion. And then we can decide whether or not we want to proceed with that initiative. “

In discussion, Commissioner Wolf follows up, “I want to respect what Commissioner Tryon is suggesting because our needs for public safety are, as he said, dire. They’re more than dire. But I cannot support two things. What he’s saying is to have a special meeting Friday. Commissioner Wilson is not here. I’m not able to attend on Friday. And so I don’t think that that’s going to be what I would consider a fair conversation and decision making process. What I do want to say though, of the people who are up here at this table other than our new mayor, there’s probably nobody up here who has spent more time with people in our police department and our fire department than I have in the last two years. I have been with them. I have been in their vehicles. I have seen things that many of you never, never, ever see. I’m extremely, extremely concerned about the safety and the health of all of our people who work in public safety. We had an officer shooting. We don’t want anymore. And the citizens chose not to vote for the public safety levy for all kinds of reasons. And you know, you can’t fault people for voting the way they want to. But I do know that when I hear people say, why don’t we have police officers out on 10th Avenue South. People are speeding. There are so many wrecks or whatever. They have no time. I was at the 911 center one night and they had calls coming in five times for officers and we had no officers to send. This is a dire situation people and I’m really starting to get pretty frustrated with the fact that when we had situation downtown where it was pretty unsafe with our people who were unhoused at the church and our police department was working with the church people, how quickly it seemed that our businesses forgot that work. Because that support from businesses wasn’t there during our safety levy and in G. I’m not looking at you specifically at all. But I’m just saying that where were people in this community? We just had four fire, you know, structural fires. People say, well, it’s not in my neighborhood. Well, get involved. Find out what’s going on. Talk to the people. Go out with them and find out what these needs are. I get pretty heated about this because we need it. We need them. We’re going to start losing officers. We’re not going to be able to retain the ones we have. We won’t be able to recruit new ones. Same thing with the fire department. There are we as a city if we want to grow and we know the population is going to be growing in the near future because of the Sentinel project. So we do have to find funding. There is no doubt about how are we going to fund this. But I can’t support doing this. I want to take the year. I want us to look under every stone. I want us to involve as many people who care to get involved. And I hope a lot of people care to get involved. And then come forward as a community and have this as a community effort. So Commissioner Tryon, I cannot support your request.”

And then Mayor Cory Reeves states, “Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Wolf. I’ll just say briefly. Based on all the reasons that you just articulated, Commissioner Wolf, I do support Ricks, Commissioner Tryon’s initiative. Only because he did redraft his original proposal. I would not support just stripping the seven mills from the library. But I’m all for having an open discussion dialogue with not only our police chief or fire chief and for that matter for the library board. I’d really like to hear from them. I have not personally heard from the library board but I’ve heard scuttlebutt rumors that they would also like to separate from the City of Great Falls. I would like to know if there’s some truth to that. So for that reason, I would like to support Commissioner Tryon just for discussion purposes only.”

And then Commissioner McKenney chimes in, “Thank you all. So you are and once we go down this path, there’s no such thing as for discussion purposes only action will want to be taken. And I think about the library, they came to the previous commission some time ago. And due to the city commission continuing to prioritize public safety as we should. Their funding through many, many years was was stagnant not keeping up with inflation. And it’s just not the library. It’s happened to others to happen to the park district. And another one that I’m not recalling right now because the priority is funding public safety. And the library came to the commission. It’s that we understand that. But we’d like to ask for a little more. And we’re willing to do the work and put it out for a vote. And we agreed. And so we had the library levy. And it was very difficult for that group to get that past. It was a pretty tough campaign. Some might used the word vile. It was very tough emotional campaign. And it’s really hard to get anyone to approve a price increase by voters. I mean, I’ve been in the private sector my whole life. And if I ever had to ask my my customers for a price increase, I’d be out of business. And would most other businesses. So in the public sector, you have to ask. So right away, it’s a tough nut to crack. The library went to community and they did crack that nut and the community spoke. I will always respect the will of the voters always. And then it comes to the public safety levy. Another tough nut to crack. And that one, we failed. And I failed. I worked for that levy to pass not in my role with my name tag on, but as a private citizen, I did work for that to pass. And I failed. The community spoke once again. I will always respect the will of the voters always. So if we want to come up and review the library agreement, I’ve had many hundreds of agreements throughout my business career. And many of them had automatic renewals, two years, five years. It’s very common for two parties to talk to each other before the renewal date, way before the renewal date, we don’t have to wait for you to have 90 days. Here’s the last minute deal. We can talk to the library at any time and ask if they would like to renegotiate is there a way to do this better. But to come at the last minute. I’m saying I’m not with you, Commissioner Tryon. I don’t think we should do that.”

Commissioner Tryon went on to say, “Okay, good. I respect that. And I would just say that I appreciate and respect that Susan and Joe, you’re well and apparently that’s where you’re at. So we’re not going to go forward with it. So I will say this, even though I respect it, I disagree with your position on it. I respect it. And I hope that as we go into the fiscal year 25 budget, that you guys have some ideas because to be frank, I am fresh out of ideas on how we fund our public safety people. I have no more ideas and I cannot support another levy and ask taxpayers to sacrifice when we’re not willing to ask our own departments to make some sacrifices. And unfortunately, that’s what it’s going to take. We are going to have to ask some of our departments to take some cuts or else we’re going to say to our public safety people. Pound sand. There’s nothing we can do. And so I hope you guys have some good ideas.”