Bozeman Cover Page

REPORT TO:

City Commission

FROM:

Chuck Winn, City Manager

Greg Sullivan, City Attorney

Jamie Grabinski, Procurement Coordinator

SUBJECT:

Authorize the City Manager to Sign and Accept the 2025 Montana Department of Emergency Services (MTDES) HazMat Sustainment Grant Award and the 2025 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant Award

MEETING DATE:

November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM TYPE:

Grant

RECOMMENDATION:

STRATEGIC PLAN:

3.1 Public Safety: Support high quality public safety programs, emergency preparedness, facilities, and leadership.

BACKGROUND:

This item brings together two grant agreements related to public safety.

Bozeman Fire Department has been awarded the fiscal year 2025 Montana Department of Emergency Services (MTDES) HazMat Sustainment grant. The grant is a federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program that is administered by MTDES. The grant provides funds for maintaining training and equipment for the hazardous materials technician team response efforts. City Commission approved the grant application in March 2025 and the awards are just now being implemented. This is a bi-annual grant application and award for the continuance of the HazMat Task Force. This grant is essential for operating the City of Bozeman Fire Department HazMat Team. With these funds, we perform fire equipment calibrations, testing, repairs, and maintenance to remain primed for rapid response. Lastly, BFD is one of six (6) Regional Hazardous Materials Teams in partnership with Billings, Missoula, Kalispell, Helena, and Great Falls.

The second grant award and agreement is also for Bozeman Fire Department. The BFD received the FEMA Assistance to Firefighters grant award for enhanced firefighter wellness and cancer screenings. In addition to the City of Bozeman's annual wellness screening through the MMIA, through this grant, firefighters can opt-in for specific occupational cancer early-detection screenings and advanced cardiac screenings. This grant will fund 67 early-detection cancer screenings and 34 advanced cardiac screenings.

Contributed by City Attorney Greg Sullivan:

I was asked to evaluate the MTDES HazMat grant agreement and the agreement for the FEMA assistance to firefighter grants. I provide the following and will be available during the meeting on November 17^th to answer questions.

Over the past two years, numerous Presidential executive orders (EOs) have been issued which require federal agencies to adjust their procedures related to Congressionally authorized grant programs. These EOs have resulted in federal agencies modifying their programs, including modifying the Notice of Opportunity of Funding (NOFO) (a federal agency’s grant notice) and the grant agreements which must be signed by a grantee before a grantee will be provided the grant funds.

Many of these requirements federal agencies are placing upon grant awards are the subject of litigation throughout the country. A discussion of the diversity and specifics of this litigation is beyond the scope of this memorandum; however, I reviewed litigation that is directly applicable to the MTDES HazMat grant and the FEMA Assistance to Firefighters grant (AFG). I believe several of the provisions included in these agreements cannot be enforced or if enforcement was attempted, such enforcement would most likely be held to be unlawful.

The MTDES Haz Mat grant has several conditions that I directly reviewed. The AFG grant has similar provisions. The HazMat agreement includes Articles,11, 19, 33, 60, and 68. I consider these conditions to fall into three categories: (i) immigration cooperation; (ii) anti-discrimination; and (iii) compliance with executive orders.

States and local governments have brought litigation targeting the specific provisions included in the HazMat and AFG grant agreements. First, a consortium of states led by Illinois, obtained a decision from a federal court enjoining DHS from requiring grantees accept these grant requirements as a condition of receiving funding. See Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 801 F. Supp.3d 76 (U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island) (9/24/2025). The Court enjoined DHS from requiring the conditions as to the plaintiffs. In addition, the Court determined the imposition of the conditions violated the Administrative Procedures Act, a holding that more likely that not limits the enforceability of the conditions to the City of Bozeman.

As for the AFG grant, a consortium of local governments who rely on the AFG program for wildfire preparedness, filed suit against FEMA challenging the imposition of conditions for the AFG program similar to those challenged in the Illinois case. See County of Santa Clara et. al. v. Noem, 815 F.Supp.3d 979 (United States District Court, N.D. California) (11/21/2025). Among other holdings, the U.S. District Court issued an injunction applicable to the parties to the litigation. Importantly, the Court also ruled that the Court’s order, “shall apply to the maximum extent provided by [] 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706.” This is a reference to the Administrative Procedure Act and is similar to the holding in the Illinois case. Please note the Santa Clara case is currently being appealed by the federal government to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Based on the above, and the holding in both cases that the conditions are in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, I believe the conditions in both the MTDES and AFG grant agreements are most likely unenforceable. If a State or Federal agency attempts to enforce the conditions against the City, I believe there is a reasonable likelihood the City would prevail in seeking an injunction against enforcement.

By providing the above, I cannot issue a definitive opinion on enforceability as the City is not a party to either of the above-mentioned cases. Nevertheless, given both cases found the imposition of the conditions to be in violation of the APA, I believe the City can accept the awards and sign the agreements knowing strict compliance with the conditions subject to the above discussed litigation to most likely to be unenforceable. As a result, the City need not adjust its practices to comply with Articles 11, 19, 33, 60, and 68 of the HazMat agreement and similar provisions in the AFG agreement.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

None.

ALTERNATIVES:

As per the Commission.

FISCAL EFFECTS:

For the Bozeman Fire Department HazMat grant, total expenditures are expected to be $80,000. Expenditures are included in the adopted FY27 biennial budget.

For the Bozeman Fire Department Assistance to Firefighters grant, total expenditures are expected to be $85,754.54. Expenditures will be made in the general fund and may require a future budget amendment.

Memorandum