Did They Kill The Kill Floor?

Dillon, MT — The Dillon City Council convened Wednesday night for its regular monthly meeting, drawing a packed chamber and ongoing tensions that have characterized recent gatherings.

Over the past few weeks, community members—including homeowners and business owners—have voiced concerns and sought resolutions on various issues, particularly regarding livestock slaughter regulations. Last night’s meeting was no different, marked by heated debate over city policies and recent correspondence from the state.

Key among the issues was a letter sent by the Montana Department of Agriculture, instructing Beaverhead Meats to cease all livestock slaughter at their facility at 620 N. Montana Street. The department clarified that their license only permitted slaughter in the field, not at the facility. In response, the city’s director of operations and city attorney issued a letter to Beaverhead Meats, reiterating that keeping livestock at their location was also prohibited.

However, questions arose over the phrasing and recipients of this letter. During a previous special meeting, Councilwoman Orourke and Councilwoman Schultz requested the letter be amended to explicitly state “no slaughtering” and to include the owner, Mike McGinley, his son David, and the building owner—all of whom were not fully addressed in the original correspondence. The existing letter only named David McGinley, prompting further debate.

Adding to the controversy, three council members submitted a request to include an agenda item—to draft and send a cease-and-desist letter to halt animal slaughtering at the facility. The mayor argued that this matter was already addressed and should not be on the agenda. Councilwoman Orourke contended that, according to council rules, the request met the criteria to be included. A vote on the issue ended in a 4-4 tie, leaving the mayor to decide. Recognizing the oversight, the mayor admitted it was likely a mistake and allowed for discussion, emphasizing that Beaverhead Meats’ operations did not directly affect his personal life.

The meeting also covered the approval of minutes from July 2nd and a special session. Councilwoman Orourke expressed dissatisfaction with the minutes’ accuracy, claiming that previous records misrepresented the council’s stance on the kill floor. The council agreed to postpone approval pending corrected transcripts, citing concerns over proper documentation.

Adding to the complexity, discussions turned to the enforcement of city ordinances related to livestock slaughter. The director of operations explained that enforcement is limited without permits or complaints, and she was uninformed about certain issues until a Facebook post brought them to light. She criticized the city council for leaving her in the dark regarding complaints dating back four years. Many council members, however, cited historical laws dating back to 1982 that prohibit animal slaughter within city limits.

Debate also ensued over recent incidents involving animals being kept in trailers overnight to be slaughtered outside city boundaries. The director clarified that any citations for such activities would depend on specific violations. After nearly an hour of discussion, the city attorney announced he would send official cease-and-desist letters via certified mail to the involved parties.

Between this letter, the states letter, and the owners stating they are pursuing other options many hope the kill floor in city limits is not going to happen and can be put to rest.

As the meeting concluded, questions about transparency and proper governance remain. The recent proceedings highlight serious procedural flaws, including the omission of agenda items, restrictions on public comment, and potential violations of open meeting laws. The takeaway from last night’s meeting raises additional concerns, particularly regarding adherence to open public meeting laws. Not allowing public comment might have broken these laws, and the mayor needs to pay closer attention to the requests made by the city council, ensuring that items they ask to be placed on the agenda are included. When items are omitted, it prevents meaningful discussion of those topics. Transcripts also need to be better documented and more accurately worded to truly reflect the meetings.

Currently, the city hall appears to operate more like a frat house than a professional city government—characterized by a chummy atmosphere, past issues such as growing pot on city property, and a lack of accountability. This is your city, funded by your taxes. Proper governance can only be achieved if the city’s bylaws are followed, the council, the voice of the people—is allowed to discuss topics that are correctly placed on the agenda, and citizens are granted their right to participate. As questions about transparency and accountability continue, the community’s trust and the integrity of local government are at stake.