Latest news with #NicoleGirten
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Audit report suggests changing wildfire protection fee structure
The Big Knife Fire outside of Arlee, Montana, on the afternoon of Sunday, July 30, 2023. (Photo by Nicole Girten, Daily Montanan) Landowners in Montana are not paying their fair share of wildfire costs to the tune of at least $30 million, according to a new report from the Legislative Audit Division. An audit of the state's Wildfire Assessment Program found problems with the funding structure for fighting wildfires and made suggestions to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Legislature to overhaul the system. The Wildfire Assessment Program is overseen by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Fees are assessed to some property owners in high-risk fire areas, but the report noted the state gives an 'estimated annual subsidy of over $30 million' to private landowners. It said the payment split in Montana is more than six decades old, and not at all even, with landowners are paying just 10% of fire costs. Best practices, which the report based on extensive interviews and document review, would have them paying more than 90%. Montana spent more than a half billion dollars on fire suppression from 2002 to 2023. Suppression is one of three wildfire activities in which the state partakes — mitigation and readiness are also places where it spends money on fires. In 2023, for example, the state spent $41 million on fires — $4.5 million on attempts to mitigate risk and damage from fires, $13.5 million on capacity and ability to dispatch firefighters and then $23.1 million on actual suppression efforts. Landowners do not pay the state for suppression efforts. The report suggested some fixes, including shifting the burden of wildland fire protection to those who live in the most dangerous areas. Statewide, landowners paid just $4.3 million on wildfire protection fees in 2023. Their cost is also calculated out of the 'readiness' portion of money spent on fires, not mitigation or suppression. This categorization leads to issues, the report noted. 'Applying the proportions to the readiness budget instead of total wildfire protection decreases the amount landowners are responsible for paying and increases economic inefficiency,' the report stated. The DNRC said it has 'historically excluded' response and suppression efforts from its definition of 'wildland fire protection,' whereas the report's findings look to combine preventative measures with active firefighting where funding is concerned. DNRC director Amanda Kaster said in a letter in response to the audit that it 'proposes a significant philosophical shift' in the state fire program's funding structure. The report also suggested the agency isn't always following statute, while the DNRC said it interprets the laws differently. 'The Montana Legislature and stakeholders have confirmed and reinforced this distinction since the creation of the fire suppression fund in 2007, which is designated primarily for wildland fire suppression activities,' Kaster wrote in response to the audit. 'In contrast, the program base budget for wildland fire protection work has been widely understood to be intended for conducting work related to preparedness. The audit report fails to recognize this distinction and risks misrepresenting the DNRC's efforts to comply with statute.' This matters for landowners, because the report makes a case they should be paying for more than preemptive mitigation. The report said best practice would be for private landowners to pay 92% of wildfire suppression, readiness and mitigation costs. That number is currently about 10% and does not include suppression. According to the report, applying state law as written would ask landowners to completely cover mitigation efforts, which would increase landowner contribution to 33% of wildfire cost. Kaster asked for clarification from the legislature on several terms, including 'annual operation assessment plan,' 'fire protection costs,' and 'state's portion of the cost.' She also said it was the Legislature's job to make decisions about what people are paying, not the DNRC. 'The DNRC does not believe it is our responsibility, nor do we have the appropriate standing, to make recommendations on how or why the cost burden of the program is shared amongst Montanans,' Kaster wrote. 'Ultimately, it is the legislature that chooses how to fund this work, and it is our obligation to respond to wildfires on behalf of the State of Montana.' Kaster also noted an upcoming wildland firefighting study, passed as House Bill 70 this session, will lead to 'further clarification' and funding expectations. Fees collected from property owners come mainly from fire protection districts, where residents who contribute get a more direct response. Some property owners within these districts are required to pay — according to the report, it's a $50 per-owner, per-district charge, and then a $0.30 per-acre charge for each acre owned in a district more than 20 acres. However, Gov. Greg Gianforte recently signed HB 421. That legislation increased fire protection fees for land classified as forest from $50 to $58.70 for each landowner; for those with more than 20 acres of land, there's an additional fee per acre that increased from $0.30 to $0.49. The process for deciding who has to pay is complex and is maintained by one full-time staffer with assistance from two other DNRC employees and a seasonal intern, the audit report noted. It went on to say the Fire Assessment Programs manual is also outdated, employees don't understand technical aspects of the fee program software code, and if the department lost employees who work in the program, they would be difficult to replace. 'Department staff spend significant time manually reviewing and updating information as part of the fee assignment process,' the audit noted. 'Department staff stated they cannot determine if a fee should be assigned to over 2,000 properties each year due to a lack of time to review the properties and a lack of updated property data.' The current split for fire protection costs is based on a 1958 national study by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Beyond being six decades old, it did not account for individual states, meaning what Montana is using to calculate the share isn't even based on data unique to the state. 'Recommendations include recalculating the public and private funding share, clarifying statute, and establishing a fee structure informed by cost and wildfire risk data, and improving data practices to help determine efficient funding and areas of elevated wildfire response,' the audit report stated. According to an Oct. 2024 presentation from the Legislative Fiscal Division, about 63% of all homes in Montana are in the wildland urban interface, a term used to describe high fire danger areas where natural land and housing meet. About 1.5% of Montana falls within the area considered the wildland urban interface. The presentation noted this was not the best way to assess fire risk in Montana, but did not specify why. The DNRC has the direct responsibility of protecting about 5 million acres of land in Montana. Additionally, the state also shares responsibility — primarily with local governments — for an additional 55 million acres, while the federal government is the primary responder for 33 million acres. Montana is slightly more than 94 million acres in total. FINAL-23P-06-Fire-Protection
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Montana Senate tables two bills aimed at restricting libraries
The Great Falls Public Library photographed on June 7, 2023. (Photo by Nicole Girten/Daily Montanan) The Senate Education and Cultural Resources Committee on Friday tabled two bills seeking to put limitations on public libraries. The bills, both sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, would have put stricter rules around how the state's public libraries handle 'sexually explicit' material and prohibited libraries from offering services 'not related to their core function.' During a hearing on Feb. 27, Emrich described how sad he was that his local library was bereft of books and no longer focused on 'library related things,' which prompted Senate Bill 451. 'My local library has decided that they would rather, you know, become a resource for offering homeless people, you know, getting them signed up for public services. That sort of thing really has nothing to do with the library,' Emrich said. 'This bill just says, get back to being a library and quit trying to be a public outreach for services that are otherwise covered by other, government organizations or governmental entities.' No one spoke on behalf of his bill but critics decried the insinuation that libraries should strictly stick to books and information. Susan Gregory, director of the Bozeman Public Library, wrote in testimony read in committee that a library's services 'vary from one community to another, depending on local choices and patron requests.' 'Some examples of these services include providing test proctoring, notary and passport services, partnering with local food banks to provide free lunches for children who don't have access to free and reduced hot lunches,' Gregory wrote. 'Last year, six Montana libraries worked to address the epidemic of loneliness by hosting artists and residents that offered classes to lonely seniors, offering free health and wellness classes. And the Belgrade community library supports wellness through a fitness library.' Susie McIntyre, director of the Great Falls Public Library, also opposed the bill and added that she welcomed Emrich to visit the library and see the work they do in person. 'The mission of the Great Falls Public Library is that we serve as a connection point,' she said. 'We empower the community and enhance the quality of life by providing individuals access to information and social, cultural and recreational resources. We work to serve our community based on our community needs.' One example McIntyre provided was when a retired nurse asked if the library could find a way to support families dealing with dementia. The library applied for a grant and began hosting educational workshops on Alzheimer's, and monthly social spaces for people experiencing dementia and their caregivers. 'This falls in line with our mission of connecting people to the resources that they need,' she said. Emrich pushed back against his critics, saying the bill was worded to describe a core function of a library as accessing information, including printed, digital and onsite information. 'That's pretty darn broad, and could cover anything,' Emrich said, but noted that the bill was meant to put some guardrails in place, eliminating uses such as healthcare and fitness. 'Childcare has never been a function of a library in any stretch of the imagination. That's an extracurricular that really has nothing to do with a library being a library.' 'The library seems to have forgotten what their purpose is,' Emrich said. 'If we fund them as libraries, people expect them to be libraries.' The committee tabled SB 451 in an 8-6 vote. Emrich's other bill, Senate Bill 396, would have required libraries to house materials of a sexual nature within the adult or young adult collections, even if they're intended for a younger audience, and directed chief librarians to develop cataloging standards for materials. But opponents to the bill said it infringed on the local control of library boards and discounted the expertise of degree-carrying librarians. 'Local library boards and professional librarians already established policies to ensure that materials of any subject in any section of the library contain the resources that are appropriate for that section's target audience and subject,' said Danny Hess, on behalf of the Montana Library Association. 'These policies are grounded in professional standards and best practices and also outline the process by which patrons can challenge books in their libraries.' Two proponents for SB 396 are current trustees of the Flathead County Library, which went through several years of turmoil after the conservative-leaning board ran off multiple library directors and attempted to censor the library's collection. The trustees argued that the bill is in the best interest of families and kids. 'Placing sexually explicit material in the adult section, as this bill demands, empowers parents and caregivers to choose whether to expose their children to the material or not,' said trustee Dave Ingram. 'It also creates children's and teen sections where all parents can let their children wander freely, knowing that no child will encounter sexually explicit content until the parents decide to expose them to it.' Many librarians testified against the bill, including Bozeman Public Library children's librarian Ellie Newell, who said the law could have unintended consequences with its definitions. 'The bill's fault lies in its overly broad and incorrect description of public library materials of 'a sexual or graphic nature,'' Newell said. 'Historically, such language has been used to exclude materials that discuss anatomy and physiology, puberty, consent and sexual abuse. While these topics may cause discomfort for some people, my experience is that many Montana families need and value age-appropriate material on these subjects from their public library.' The committee tabled the bill in a 9-5 vote.
