A proposed public safety mill levy and bond were both voted down by Great Falls residents in November 2023. 62% of voters were not in favor of the levy while 38% were in favor. The bond vote was much closer, but it also failed to pass. 54% of voters were not in favor of the bond while 46% were in favor. 

In an effort to limit tax increases, Great Falls has never passed a public safety levy – but after 50 years without supplemental funding, the City’s public safety departments (police, fire, legal, and court) and the Great Falls community are suffering the effects.

Our current public safety funding and staffing levels are not meeting the community’s present and projected needs. While our departments have risen to meet the needs of our community by working smarter, creating efficiencies, collaborating with stakeholders, and prioritizing what types of service we can provide. Maintaining the current level of service and commitment to the community while balancing our employees’ needs, health, and well-being is becoming increasingly difficult.

Due to the growth of the City, the compounded effects of inflation, and limits on tax revenue funding imposed by the legislature, a levy would provide increased public safety funding for additional personnel, training, and fundamental resources and equipment.

The Great Falls Public Safety Levy would have provided funding needed to increase and maintain the level of safety within our growing community. Below is a summarized breakdown of the resources that the levy would have funded:

• 32 firefighters, 1 fire prevention staff member, safety equipment, and training = increased coverage, improved response times, expanded fire prevention activities, and greater access to emergency medical services.
• 24 sworn police officers, including 2 School Resource Officers, along with equipment and training = increased patrol coverage in the community for crime prevention, proactive enforcement, response to calls and investigations, and security and safety programming in Great Falls schools.
• 2 additional 911 dispatchers and equipment = enhanced resources for the community during emergencies.
• 8 new court and legal positions and software = improved efficiencies of the overloaded court and legal system and the impact of an additional judge and the increased number of officers on the street.
• And more!

Since a majority of voters rejected the levy, the City is faced with difficult decisions about how to address the growing need for public safety services. Great Falls has always been a community where quality of life is a top priority, and that is the standard that our public safety departments will continue to strive for. Despite the failure of the Great Falls Public Safety Levy, residents can trust that safety is and will always be at the forefront of our mission.

That said, a lack of additional funding, resources, and personnel will continue to put the City’s public safety departments behind – affecting the overall safety of the Great Falls community and resulting in slower emergency response times, a decrease in proactive patrol, deteriorating equipment, an increase in plea agreements, and court dismissals.

The City Commission is evaluating next steps to solve these public safety issues. The Commission created the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) in April of 2024 to evaluate Great Falls’ public safety needs and to recommend improvements. The PSAC met eight times over several months and delivered recommendations to the City Commission in September of 2024. A few of those recommendations included:

• Add approximately 14 patrol officers
• Add two investigators and two dispatchers
• Enhance School Resource Officers programs
• Add approximately  16 firefighters
• Add one fire prevention personnel
• Add one jury clerk and one courtroom clerk in the Municipal Court
• Add one prosecutor and one victim/witness coordinator in the City Attorney’s Office

The full list of the PSAC’s recommendations can be found here.

Shall the City Commission of the City of Great Falls, Montana (the “City”) be authorized to levy mills for the purpose of paying costs of public safety services, including operations, maintenance and certain capital costs of the police department, fire department, city attorney and municipal court services and related public safety expenses?   

If this mill levy proposition is passed, the City will be authorized to levy permanently up to 103.75 mills per year, to raise approximately $13,675,910.  Based on the taxable value of the City in fiscal year 2024, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would increase by $140.06 per year, of $300,000 would increase by $420.18 per year, and of $600,000 would increase by $840.36 per year.  An increase in property taxes may lead to an increase in rental costs. 

Shall the City Commission of the City of Great Falls, Montana (the “City”) be authorized to sell and issue general obligation bonds of the City for the purpose of paying the costs of public safety improvements in the City, including acquiring land and designing, constructing and equipping thereon a new fire station, which may serve additional safety functions, purchasing new fire equipment and, if funds remain, making improvements to existing fire stations; renovating and expanding the police department and city attorney’s offices; and related improvements; and costs associated with the sale and issuance of the bonds?   

The bonds may be sold in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed Twenty-One Million One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($21,175,000.00), bearing interest at rates to be determined at the time of the sale, payable semiannually over the term not to exceed twenty years for each series of bonds.

If this bond election is passed, based on the taxable value of the City in fiscal year 2023, and assuming the bonds are issued in one series at the interest rate of 5.00% per annum, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would increase by $22.20 per year; property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $300,000 would increase by $66.60 per year; and property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $600,000 would increase by $133.20 per year.

An increase in property taxes may lead to an increase in rental costs.

Great Falls residents would have seen an annual increase in their property taxes. When fully implemented, the Great Falls Public Safety Levy would have cost approximately $140.06 per year ($11.67 per month) for a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000, and $280.11 per year ($23.34 per month) for a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $200,000 if milled to the maximum.

The State of Montana Property Assessment Division appraises and values properties and administers certain property taxes in Montana. The property values appraised by the Department are used by counties to determine property taxes. To find information on your property, visit https://svc.mt.gov/dor/property 

Learn more about property appraisals and how property taxes are calculated. https://montana.servicenowservices.com/citizen/kb?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0013692

Cascade County Treasurer’s Office

https://www.cascadecountymt.gov/274/Property-Tax

Search Your Property Market and Taxable Value

https://itax.tylertech.com/cascademt/

Based on an in-depth study and recommendations by the Great Falls Crime Task Force, the City of Great Falls has strategically proposed a Public Safety Levy in the amount of $103.75 mills. While this number is significant, the chosen levy amount falls on the conservative end of what is needed to optimize the City’s public safety efforts.

The funds would have been used for the operational needs of the legal, court, fire, and police departments as follows:

• Fire Department $6,740,856
• Police Department $5,966,799
• Municipal Court $296,768
• Legal Department $671,487
• Total Request $13,675,910

No. In November of 2022, Cascade County voters passed the Cascade County Public Safety Mill Levy. The funding for this levy went primarily toward salary increases for existing Cascade County Sheriff’s Office and Cascade County Attorney’s Office employees—no part of the county levy funded the City of Great Falls public safety departments.

It’s been more than 50 years since Great Falls voters have passed public safety funding – that effort allowed construction of our current four fire stations. Since then (1969), the footprint of our City has grown by 44%, and the strain on our public safety system continues to increase.

While our public safety departments are always looking for ways to reallocate existing funds and secure outside funding resources, such as grants, these efforts are both restricted by law and only begin to meet the growing public safety needs in our community.

Due to the growth of the City, the incessant march of compounding inflation, and statutory limits on tax revenue funding available to municipalities, a public safety levy would provide increased public safety funding for additional personnel, training, and fundamental resources and equipment.

The Montana Department of Revenue (MTDOR) performs property tax appraisals for all property in the state of Montana.  Recently, MTDOR issued new appraisals to all property owners.  Taxpayers should be aware that the estimate for tax impact is based on the new taxable value and last year’s millage rate.  The millage rate used by MTDOR was based on last year’s taxable revenues.

When MTDOR adjusts property values significantly, it generally means that the City’s tax base has grown and actually reduces the amount of mills permitted to support the City’s budget.  On that note, Montana property taxes are capped and can only be raised one-half the three year average rate of inflation.  The estimates provided by MTDOR are misleading and deceiving.

Public Safety Operational Levy Impact

If the levy had passed, the City would have been authorized to levy permanently up to 103.75 mills per year, to raise approximately $13,675,910. Based on the taxable value of the City in fiscal year 2024, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would have increased by $140.06 per year, of $300,000 would have increased by $420.18 per year, and of $600,000 would have increased by $840.36 per year.  An increase in property taxes may lead to an increase in rental costs.

Public Safety Bond Impact

If this bond election had passed, based on the taxable value of the City in fiscal year 2023, and assuming the bonds are issued in one series at the interest rate of 5.00% per annum, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would have increased by $22.20 per year; property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $300,000 would have increased by $66.60 per year; and property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $600,000 would have increased by $133.20 per year.

Additionally, there are resources available for a taxpayer to review and hopefully better understand the impact of both the tax appraisal and the proposed Safety Levy and Bond.

• MTDOR Property Appraisal Notices – https://montana.servicenowservices.com/citizen/kb?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0013692
• Montana Free Press Article – https://montanafreepress.org/2023/06/22/property-taxes-explained-with-pictures/?utm_medium=email&mc_cid=b412a40c33&mc_eid=420b7e80ca

CARES/ARPA Background

CARES allocation to the City of Great Falls during COVID:  $10,159,163

• CARES Funds have been and will be used to offset revenue losses in the General from COVID.
• Taxes, fees, and assessments were not raised for two budget cycles.
• The funds are unrestricted and reside in undesignated fund balance.
• https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/coronavirus-relief-fund

Great Falls ARPA allocation:  $19,472,737

• ARPA funding is restricted – only to be used for certain COVID impacts, recovery, or prevention.
• The chart bellows shows ARPA funding to eligible Public Safety Projects (highlighted).
• https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds

Yes, CARES funds could be used to pay for Public Safety related expenses. Use of CARES funds is a policy decision of the City Commission.  This topic was discussed at City Commission meetings.

As the city manager, I do not currently recommend using CARES for Public Safety funding for the following reasons 1) the General Fund has not recovered from revenue losses during COVID 2) the City has started the last two budget processes in a deficit, CARES was/is being used to offset that deficit 3) use of CARES is a one-time opportunity; in other words, it would be best to offset the cost of capital projects rather than using it for ongoing operational expenses without alternative revenue offsets (like a levy) 4) in the event that the City/s General Fund fully recovers, then I would support use of CARES for Public Safety Capital purposes only.  I do not expect the General Fund to be fully recovered for 2-3 more budget cycles.

But of course, these are recommendations and the Commission has the final say on how the money is utilized.

If passed by the voters, all property owners within the City of Great Falls would have been assessed for the Safety Levy and Bond with the exception of those that are exempt from property taxes such as nonprofits. Yes, the owners of the apartment buildings do pay property taxes and they would have paid their portion of the levy and bond if it had passed. Renters do not “own” property, so they would not have directly pay the tax, but they may have seen higher rental rates if the landlords recouped the tax increase by raising monthly rent rates. 

Currently, there is one SRO assigned to CMR, one at GFHS (also covers Paris Gibson), one at East Middle School, and one at North Middle School. The middle school SROs also provide coverage to all the elementary schools. The two additional SROs would assist at the high schools and elementary schools, based on the data where the resources are required. The following are the populations of all schools, including staff: 

Fire District #1 – 5:31 

Fire District #2 – 6:26 

Fire District #3 – 6:37 

Fire District #4 – 6:56 

Response times have many variables. The most impactful variable is the location of the responding engine company to a call. When an engine company is already committed to an emergency and another emergency happens in that area, an engine company must respond from another station or part of the City. For example, if an engine company from Fire District #1 is already on an emergency and another emergency happens within that district, an engine company from Fire District #3 has to respond from their assigned district to cover the new call. This scenario leaves no fire or EMS protection on the East side of the river until one of these companies mitigates the emergency.

The personnel requested in the levy would have provided additional resources (engine companies) to be placed in areas of the City with higher call volume and/or multiple simultaneous calls allowing engine companies to remain in their districts. Based on current call volumes, the additionally staffed companies could be located at Fire Station #1, or potentially in a new Fire Station if the Bond Levy had passed. The goal is to reduce the overall response times by keeping resources (engine companies) in the districts they are assigned.   

The image above illustrates the areas covered by a four (4) minute response time from the fire station that protects that area of the City and the Insurance Services Office evaluation of a 1.5-mile radius of protected road miles around a fire station. Both maps show the areas protected to industry standard and those that fall outside that standard. The areas outside the shaded area are the identified areas that fall outside a four (4) minute response. Without adding additional fire stations into the city limits (especially in the areas outside the colored areas of the maps), we will not be able to adequately address response time in the areas of the City that have expanded since 1969.  

If each squad was fully staffed with 8 officers, plus a fully staffed Direct Engagement Team, it would provide additional undedicated time for officers to conduct traffic enforcement, investigate suspicious behaviors/complaints, work problem areas, and conduct additional follow-ups to complaints, rather than respond call to call. As it stands now, GFPD averages 5 officers per squad. It is difficult to state a specific percentage increase of undedicated time with full staffing, because the City has never had any of our patrol squads at full staff. If the squads were at full staff levels, data could be obtained to determine dedicated versus undedicated time.

The capacity to house new officers and firefighters exists in current facilities with renovations. The City Commission also asked the voters to consider a $21,175,000 bond for improvements including: 

With regard to space at Great Falls Police Department, new police officers would have been phased in over time.  Additionally, the employees would have been working in separate shifts, which minimizes the impact. The current approved ARPA Evidence Expansion Project would have potentially freed up some space within the current building, but the station will require additional renovation.    

With regard to Great Falls Fire Rescue space, if the bond had passed, the new personnel/resources could have been moved to the next busiest fire station after Station 1. The personnel that would have been assigned to Fire Station 5 could have been assigned as an additional resource out of Fire Station 3.   

41% of the City’s growth since 1969 is not covered by GFFR’s targeted four (4) minute response time.

As a whole, 50.37% of the time there are two (2) or more emergency calls occurring simultaneously in the city.  When two or more calls for service occur, emergency response times and resources obviously become more limited.   

For example, a cardiac arrest patient receives an engine company and a shift commander.  A motor vehicle wreck receives a shift commander and 2 engine companies.  A fire alarm or working fire receives every resource assigned to the City.   

Two (2) or more calls by district: 

• Fire district #1 – 15.35% (of the time there are 2 or more calls) 
• Fire district #2 – 7.75%   
• Fire district #3 – 10.69% 
• Fire district #4 – 8.36%  

The City of Great Falls received its actual taxable valuation in August of 2023.  Taxpayers would have seen the potential tax impact of the levy on their properties at that time. 

However, if the levy had passed, the City could not collect taxes for the levy until December of 2024.  Additionally, the City will receive another annual certification of taxable values from the Montana Department of Revenue in August 2024, therefore, the taxable value may have changed again. 

Funding needed to implement portions of the levy proposals would not have been available until December 2024.  At that time, only half of the annual levy collection would have been available (taxes are distributed by the county to the city twice annually).  The availability of the funds, procurement times, and slots for training academies for both fire/police would have impacted the timeline for hiring officers/fire fighters.  It is highly unlikely that all positions would have been filled for 2-3 years.

Proceeds for the levy/bond can only be used for the purposes outlined in the ballot as approved by the voter.

It is the City’s intent to utilize the necessary number of mills annually to implement the proposed public safety levy plans.  The use of the Public Safety Levy mills will be adopted annually by the City Commission after public hearings.

No funds would have been transferred from existing Urban Renewal Districts, Industrial, or Airport TIFs to the General Fund in support of Public Safety. The levy/bond taxes would have remained in the Urban Renewal and/or TIF District to be used for eligible public improvements under the statute.

Background:

• For the City’s industrial districts, including the Airport TIF District, all voted mills, including the proposed public safety mills, are included in the combined mill rates used to calculate tax increment.  This includes:  East Industrial Park, GF International Airport and International Malting Plant/Central MT Agri Tech Park Districts.
• The City’s urban renewal districts were created before April 6, 2017 therefore all voted mills, including the proposed safety mills are used to calculate the tax increment. This includes Great Falls Downtown Urban Renewal and West Bank Urban Renewal Districts.

Senate Bill 505 (https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0505.pdf), enacted by the 2023 legislature, clarified whether voted mill levies are included in or excluded from the calculation of tax increment. 

Additional Information on URDs, TIFs: https://greatfallsmt.net/planning/tax-increment-financing-tif

Short Answer:  The Commission was aware of the Library Trustees’ funding request and that a Public Safety Levy would be submitted to the voters in calendar year 2023.  The Commission felt that voters should be given the opportunity to voice their support in two needed areas of the City budget.  The Commission understands financial impact of the ballot requests, but also considered the impact if the City does not reinvest in its Public Safety services.  Ultimately, the voter had the choice and final say on funding the Public Safety levy and/or bond.  

Background: 

Long Answer: The topic of funding both Library and Public Safety needs has been an ongoing community conversation between businesses, residents, elected officials and staff at regular meetings, work sessions, retreats, and especially during the annual city budget process.  

Since 2008, the Great Falls City Commission has prioritized Public Safety in their stated Commission Goals.  In 2009, the Commission presented a levy request to voters and it failed.  

In April 2021, the City Commission established the Great Falls Crime Task Force (Crime Task Force).  The findings from the Task Force included the following recommendation: 

The Task Force recommends that the proposals and funding options be presented to the City Commission and the public for deliberation by the beginning of the 2022 budget process. 

The Task Force recommendation to explore funding options was the impetus for exploring a Public Safety Levy for Court, Legal, Police and Fire Departments.  In March 2023, the funding option discussion culminated with Resolution 10500, which called for the submission to the electors the questions of permanently increasing the mill levies of the City to pay costs of Public Safety Services, including operation, maintenance and certain capital costs of the Police Department, Fire Department, City Attorney and Municipal Court Services and related Public Safety expenses. 

Since the City Commission began capping additional assistance to the Great Falls Public Library in 2014, there has been a growing concern about their ability to maintain operations and address capital needs.  Eventually, operating costs exceeded resources available to the Library.  The Library Trustees requested additional funding from the Commission to meet community need.    

The Library’s request was not a levy, but a City of Great Falls Charter amendment.  Great Falls’ City Charter is slightly unusual in that it includes a provision for funding the Great Falls Public Library (Article 1, Section 3: Mill Levy Limit) 

Per Montana Code, the City Commission could not legally place the Charter Amendment question on the May 2023 ballot for regular school elections.  Instead, the Library Trustees recommended to the Commission a Special Election date in June to comply with the City Commission’s timing request and state law. 

The Commission was well aware of the Library Trustees’ funding request and that a Public Safety Levy would be submitted to the voters in calendar year 2023.  There was a strong desire of the Commission to allow voters to determine the funding priorities and needs for both the Library and Public Safety departments. Additionally, the Commission did not want the two funding questions on the same ballot.   

Finally, the Commission acknowledges that the Public Safety Levy and Bond requests are significant.  The Commission wanted to provide taxpayers ample time to learn about needs in Fire, Police, Court and Legal Departments.  The November election timeframe allowed more opportunity for community conversation and education.    

Background: 

December 20, 2022 – City Commission Work Session on Public Safety Levy Update AND Library Mill Levy Update. 

February 7, 2023 – City Commission Work Session on finalizing Public Safety Levy ballot language. 

February 21, 2023 – Discussion at the City Commission regular session on Library’s City Charter Amendment request included that the Commission did not want both the City Charter amendment (increasing Library Mills) and the Public Safety Levy/Bond questions on the same ballot. 

March 7, 2023, the City Commission voted to submit to the voters a Public Safety Levy Ballot for additional mills to support Police, Fire, Court, and the City Attorney’s Office.  

Summary of General Fund Library Support: 

Providing effective Public Safety services has been a priory of every City Commission since 2008. 

Despite the availability of online/line streaming of the City Commission meetings, social media, and news coverage, awareness and interest of local government issues remains low.  During the annual budget process, public meetings are usually poorly attended. 

The topic of funding Public Safety needs has been an ongoing community conversation, especially during the annual budget development and adoption process.     

The City Commission asked voters to support a Public Safety Levy for Police and Fire Department operations in 2009.  The levy failed. 

Administration and elected officials annually review options to fund Public Safety.  Some viable options included: eliminating General Fund subsidies to outside organizations, capping General Fund contributions to internal/external departments, applying for and utilizing grants, altering shifts, privatizing services, eliminating certain services, adjusting revenue streams, and special assessments to reduce General Fund dependence, to name a few.   

Background: 

Adopted Commission Goals since 2008 

FY 2008 – 2009 

• • Supporting Economic Development 
  • Balancing Annexation and Service Demand 
  • City Park Maintenance and Expansion 
  • Capital Improvement – Facilities  
  • Parking Facilities 
  • Animal Shelter 
  • Public Safety Levy 
  • ECP 

FY 2009 – 2010 

• • Housing Bubble 
  • Public Safety Levy 
  • General Fund Subsidies 
  • Golf Course and Animal Shelter Operations 
  • ECP Consultant 

FY 2010 – 2011 

• • Full recession impact 
  • Capping General Funding Subsidies (Build capacity in General Fund) 
  • Natatorium Status 
  • GFFR Aerial Platform and Rescue Boat 
  • F-15 Mission = MANG uncertainty 
  • ECP exit plan discussed 

FY 2011 – 2012 

• • Economy poor – recession lingering 
  • Four new officers (COPS Grant) 
  • General Fund Subsidy Caps 
  • Nat Engineering Assessment  
  • Civic Center Engineering Report 
  • ECP Litigation 
  • Outside agency allocations reduced  

FY 2012 – 2013 

• • Commission Priorities 
  • Infrastructure, Community Image, MAFB/MANG Support, Public Safety, Oil development CIP Planning ECP Resolution 
  • Level funded General Fund Subsidies 
  • Capital Funding Concerns 
  • Pools, Fire Station, PD Space, 911 Center 
  • ECP litigation stayed; Southern Bankruptcy Filed

FY 2013 – 2014 

• • Commission’s prior goals same, but included 
  • Citizen participation, Financial Position, and Employee recruitment/retention  
  • Southern Bankruptcy – Reorganization; City Bankruptcy warning – Settlement  
  • Full COPS Grant Impact ($325k) 
  • Montana Retirement Increase 
  • Quarterly Budget Review 
  • Fee review, Fund Reviews, Capital Plan outline

FY 2014 – 2015 

• • Same broad Commission Goals as 2013 (includes Public Safety) 
  • Fund Balance
  • Goal to maintain Moody Bond Rating 
  • Full fee, capital, ICSC, Fund reviews 
  • Address some Capital needs 

FY 2015 – 2016 (From Manager’s Transmittal) 

• • Long Term Investment in Infrastructure to attract Economic Development 
  • Promote a Positive Community Image 
  • Total Commitment to Supporting MAFB/MANG 
  • Commitment to Public Safety 
  • Encourage and foster citizen participation 
  • Improve the city’s fiscal position
  • Attract and retain quality employees

FY 2016 – 2017 

• • Public Safety 
  • Adopt revised 911 Center Interlocal Agreement 
  • Monitor and if necessary, address equipment, training, and personnel needs 
  • Park and Recreation 
  • Review Park Master Plan recommendations (including aquatics) 
  • Explore adoption of Park Maintenance District  
  • Civic Center 
  • Consider office space needs 
  • Determine finding process for façade 
  • Library  
  • Work with Library Board to develop sustainable business 
  • Evaluate future financing options 
  • Support the City Manager and Department Heads 
  • Prioritize key community issues 
  • Provide clear policy guidance  

FY 2017 – 2018 

• • Implement 2016 Park Master Plan by pursing a Park District  
  • Develop financing and bid specifications for Civic Center Façade and Roof projects. 
  • Address office space needs by utilizing existing city property  
  • Focus on Public Safety needs including capital, operations, training, and equipment replacement 
  • Refine the Boards and Commissions appointment process  
  • Re-establish a Historic Preservation Officer 
  • Explore options to retire Golf Fund debt from the General Fund  
  • Renovate Animal Shelter using a grant 

FY 2018 – 2019 

• • ADA accessible public facilities 
  • Police and Fire Rescue have the resources they need 
  • Affordable access to culture and recreation 
  • Health and safety infrastructure 
  • Better communication – Commission to community 
  • Committed to our downtown 
  • The health of our community – mental, drug use, abuse, crime; 
  • Economic diversification and growth;  
  • Better engagement with Neighborhood Councils 

FY 2019 – 2020 

Community 

• • Response to Development Review Changes 
  • Shifting conversation from City at fault to community deterrents and market force education 
  • Soil Policy for residential construction 
  • Ensuring a solid foundation for potential growth  
  • Potential GBSD Impact  
  • River Development 
  • TIF Requests 
  • Building on Downtown redevelopment (transportation, parking, use of TIF) 
  • Animal Services (RFP due Feb 24) 
  • Perceptions about Public Safety 

Organization  

• • Department Head Retirements  
  • Wage compression 
  • Drug Testing Policy – Court Action 
  • 911 Radio/Dispatch System hardware/software 
  • Transition of payroll to HR 
  • Communication Specialist – role, responsibilities  
  • Public Works 
  • Storm water requirements 
  • City Engineer recruitment 
  • Aquatics sustainability – Mustang Pool 
  • Facility plan for future  
  • Fire station sewer repair/replacement 

Finance Highlights 

• • Calumet Appeal 
  • Parking Management Proposal 
  • Engineering Fund – Fees 
  • Golf Fund – Expecting results 
  • Swimming Plan B for Mustang 
  • Civic Center – External repairs; internal repairs 

FY 2020 – 2021 

• • Crime Reduction Task Force (w/Commissioner Tryon) 
  • More public information and reporting on the Aim High Big Sky Recreation Facility 
  • City infrastructure extension to encourage development  
  • Collecting, analyzing, and understanding available city data for policy making  
  • Develop long term plans for Solid Waste Disposal 
  • Capital Planning  
  • COVID Exit 
  • Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) Preparation  

FY 2021 – 2022 

• • Promote, educate and take action on the viability, sustainability and efficacy of the Police and Fire Departments 
  • Explore the option of a Public Safety Levy 
  • Approve and implement appropriate Crime Task Force recommendations 
  • Commit to an intentional approach to the housing issue with community partners 
  • Continue to work with community partners and the City’s development review process to ensure Great Falls is a growing, business friendly community 
  • Focus on City facilities and resources 

FY 2022 – 2023/2024 

• • Focus efforts on passing the Public Safety Levy 
    • Town Hall Meeting(s) 
    • Plan B education pertaining to the consequences if the Public Safety Levy doesn’t pass to address the needs 
  • Complete an updated Growth Plan/Policy 
  • Manager Doyon noted that it is needed enough that he would recommend using fund balance to pay to get it done, after a new Director is hired 
  • Align development review process and City Code with the Growth Policy 
  • Get Great Falls Legislative Delegation on board and representing the interests of the Great Falls community and keeping decisions local 
  • Engage more with the public at meetings, when appropriate, and keeping management of the meeting and time 
  • Explore use of TIF funds for City properties in the TIF District, such as an evidence building or seating for the auditorium 
  • Explore the proposition of creating a Transit District that includes the incorporated city limits and expands as new properties are annexed; and expanding routes 
  • Municipal Court relocation after determining if Children’s Museum is a possibility 
  • Cascade County agreements 
  • Energy savings report 
  • City Manager’s annual review 

A “Mill” is short for millage.  Millage is a unit of taxation.   One mill will generate $1 for each $1,000 in taxable value.  

As expressed in a formula:  Taxes Due = Taxable Value x Mills/1,000

The Mill Levy Language on the official ballot states the following:

Shall the City Commission of the City of Great Falls, Montana (the “City”) be authorized to levy mills for the purpose of paying costs of public safety services, including operations, maintenance and certain capital costs of the police department, fire department, city attorney and municipal court services and related public safety expenses? If this mill levy proposition had passed, the City would have been authorized to levy permanently up to 103.75 mills per year, to raise approximately $10,717,305. Based on the taxable value of the City in fiscal year 2023, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would have increased by $140.06 per year, of $300,000 would have increased by $420.18 per year, and of $600,000 would have increased by $840.36 per year. An increase in property taxes may have led to an increase in rental costs.

Pursuant to Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 15-10-425, the City Commission may ask the voters to exceed the state property tax cap for a specific purpose. There are two methods by which voters can approve mills:  By amount or by mills

Option #1:  When submitted to the voters by amount, the ballot must detail the specific amount of money to be raised and the approximate number of mills to be imposed

Option #2:  When submitted to the voters by mills, the ballot must detail the specific number of mills to be imposed and the approximate amount of money to be raised.

The Great Falls City Commission opted to submit to the voters a ballot to specifically raise a set number of mills (Option #2) to fund public safety.

Mills are set by the City Commission after the City’s certified taxable valuation has been determined by the Montana Department of Revenue (MT DOR).  The certified taxable valuation determines the value of one (1) mill. 

If the City’s taxable value increases, the value of one (1) mill will increase. If the City’s taxable value decreases, the value of one (1) mill will decrease.  In other words, the amount to be raised in taxes for the proposed Public Safety Mill Levy will increase when the value of mills increase.  Conversely, when the values of the mills decrease, the amount to be raised decreases.  

Taxable valuation is set by MT DOR on a calendar year basis and received by the City in August.  The City’s budget is set by a Fiscal Year that runs from July 1 to June 30.  Annual increases or decreases in the City’s taxable valuation affects mill rates.

The estimates provided on the ballot were based on the best available information from the MT DOR as of October 2023.  If the Public Safety Levy had been authorized by voters, the tax increase would have appeared on resident/business tax bills in November 2024.  It is important to note that the City’s taxable value will change before that date due to city growth, tax appeals, and assessments.  

The next certified values were received by the City from the MT DOR in August 2024.