Local Vocals

January 28th Bozeman Study Commission Meeting

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 16:44:18 GMT

This Thursday, January 28, the Bozeman Study Commission will be meeting and deciding on the following issues:

Deputy Mayor: Section 2.03 (b) eliminate Deputy Mayor position
LV position: YES eliminate Deputy Mayor position
Partisanship: Section 6.01 (a) Election of Mayor and Commissioners will continue to be nonpartisan or switch to partisan
LV position: Switch to partisan (a long shot)
Filling Commissioner Vacancies: Section 2.06 (c) Filling of Vacancies shall occur within ___ days
LV position: 30 days
Other Elected Offices: Article IV
LV position: elected Sheriff (as is) elected City Attorney (a change from what is)
Duties of Commissioners: Should there be a change in Section 2.01? Options include: keep it the same, make a comprehensive list, or state that the Commissioners must write a job description and then review it every 5 years.
LV position is to define as part-time (see below)
Number of Commissioners and Part-time/Full-time LV position keep at five and keep part-time
Do we want Citizen Representation? Do we want the ability for Commissioners to work in Citizen Representation is part time, yes we want commissioners to live and work under the policies they put in place. Bozeman?
Mayor part-time/full-time: Section 2.03 (b) LV position is to keep as is
Dictate salary or describe salary outcome or guidelines. Commissioner part-time/full-time: 2.01

LV Talking Points:

Part-time Commissioners:

1. Citizen Representation, Not a Political Class

Part-time service reinforces the idea that commissioners are citizens first, not career politicians.
When commissioners live and work in the community outside City Hall, they stay grounded in real-world consequences of policy decisions.
This helps ensure the commission reflects the diversity of lived experience in the city—business owners, renters, retirees, parents, and workers—not just those able to make politics a full-time job.
The City Commissioner position should be clearly defined as a part-time public service role, with compensation reflecting that status and not structured as full-time employment or salaried executive compensation.
It should not be within the authority of the commission to redefine the office for its own benefit.

2. Prevents Professionalization of Local Politics

3. Strengthens Accountability to the Public

Full-time positions can unintentionally turn local government into a career ladder, rather than a temporary civic duty.
Part-time roles reduce incentives to make decisions based on job preservation, benefits, or future political ambitions.
This preserves independence and reduces susceptibility to institutional groupthink.
Commissioners who earn their primary income outside city government are less insulated from the effects of taxes, regulations, and service delivery.
They experience city policies the same way residents do—as taxpayers, customers, property owners, or employees—creating natural accountability.

4. Clarifies Roles Between Policy and Administration

A part-time commission reinforces the proper division of labor:
Commissioners set policy and direction
Professional staff implement and manage operations
This helps avoid micromanagement and protects against commissioners drifting into administrative roles that belong with city staff.

5. Encourages Focus on Core Responsibilities

Limited time encourages commissioners to focus on high-level policy decisions, priorities, and oversight rather than day-to-day operational detail.
This can lead to better preparation, clearer agendas, and more disciplined decision-making.

6. Expands Who Can Serve

Full-time positions with modest pay can unintentionally limit service to:
retirees,
independently wealthy individuals, or
those seeking political careers.
Part-time service—especially when paired with reasonable compensation—can broaden participation and lower barriers to entry.

7. Reduces Cost and Perception of Self-Interest

Part-time roles reduce pressure to justify higher salaries, benefits, and staff support.
This helps maintain public trust by reinforcing that service is about stewardship, not personal advancement.

8. Aligns with Montana’s Tradition of Citizen Government

Montana has a long tradition of citizen legislators and local officials who serve while maintaining careers and community ties.
Part-time service is consistent with that cultural and historical model of governance.

Ex Officio Seats on Advisory Boards

Sat, 29 Nov 2025 18:29:35 GMT

THE FACTS

The City Commission is considering a proposal from the Associated Students of Montana State University (ASMSU) to create a non-voting, ex-officio student seat on every “Super Advisory Board” in the City of Bozeman.

According to the staff memo, these seats would:

Be designated for MSU students (nominated and trained by ASMSU)
Represent “student interests” on city policy issues
Participate in discussions but not vote
Produce “official student opinions” and collaborate across boards
Require no fiscal impact

WHY IT MATTERS

Even without voting power, presence and participation on advisory boards shape the direction of policy. Advisory boards don’t just vote—they set the agenda, frame the debate, and influence staff and commissioners long before items reach the final vote.

Key concerns:

1. Transient population, permanent influence

Students are in Bozeman temporarily. Their priorities often reflect short-term, student-centered concerns—not the long-term stability, fiscal responsibility, or property implications residents live with for decades.

2. No skin in the game

Most students are not taxpayers , do not pay property taxes, and will not bear the cost of the policies they influence. Yet advisory boards shape ordinances for housing, transportation, zoning, climate plans, spending priorities, and more.

3. Unequal representation

Creating designated seats for one demographic elevates that demographic above all others.
No other group—seniors, small landlords, homeowners, business owners, low-income families—has guaranteed seats on every advisory board.

4. It teaches the wrong lesson about civic engagement

The democratic process is based on showing up, applying, serving, and earning a seat—not being granted automatic representation because of age or affiliation.

This proposal teaches students that their voice is owed, not earned.

5. Advisory board influence is real

Even without voting rights, ex-officio members:

Shape narratives
Push staff recommendations
Influence public opinion
Change the direction of policy conversations

This is influence without accountability.

6. Risk of political capture

Student political organizations—whether progressive or conservative—change yearly. These seats risk being used as rotating ideological footholds on every advisory board in the city.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1. Submit a written comment

2 . Attend the meeting in person

Showing up matters. Commissioners react to the room.

3. Give public comment (even 30 seconds helps)

You can pick a single point and expand on it. For example:

“I support student engagement, but not special representation that elevates one group over others. Advisory boards should represent the residents who live with the consequences of policy.”

4. Share this Alert with neighbors

Many don’t know this is happening. Awareness is our strongest tool.

5. Ask the Commission to expand public participation without creating permanent demographic seats

For example:

Promote advisory board openings to all young adults
Create optional student liaisons on an as-needed basis
Hold joint listening sessions with students instead of giving permanent positions.

Tenant Right to Counsel Ordinance

Sat, 29 Nov 2025 18:21:01 GMT

THE FACTS

The City Commission is advancing a tenant right-to-counsel ordinance that would create a new, city-funded legal services program for tenants.
They are holding a special meeting on Tuesday Dec 2 at 1pm.
The proposal comes despite the City’s own history of development choices that created a permanent renter class and invited large out-of-state corporate landlords into Bozeman.
Bozeman already has a tenant advocacy organization (Bozeman Tenants United) with dues-paying members. Nevertheless, the City wants taxpayers—including homeowners, small landlords, and families—to subsidize legal services for tenants.
Costs are unknown : demand, staffing needs, long-term funding, and the educational program budget remain undefined.
The ordinance covers far more than eviction defense —including security deposit disputes, repair claims, damage claims, and pre-litigation representation.
Only tenants are required to attempt mediation; landlords are not, and nothing prevents immediate escalation into litigation.
The City has already diverted federal Community Development Block Grant funds toward the program, with no clarity on how long that funding will last or what taxpayers will be responsible for if it disappears.
The City previously claimed it was facing a $1.77 million general fund deficit , yet now claims to have “savings” available to launch this new program.
This ordinance would result in the City using taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers to sue local landlords .

Resources:

Bozeman Staff Memo Tenant Right to Counsel | Expanded Talking Points

ORDINANCE Adopting TRC and Mediation Programs | RESOLUTION Adopting TRC Mediation & Education

WHY IT MATTERS

This proposal shifts responsibility for the City’s own housing policy failures onto taxpayers instead of addressing root causes.
Small, local landlords—those who keep rents stable—are the most likely to be harmed, pushed out, or pressured to sell, leading to even more corporate landlord dominance .
The City is committing itself to a long-term entitlement program with no reliable funding source at a time when it cannot meet basic needs like fire protection, police staffing, and emergency response times.
It undermines public trust , especially after the City justified higher taxes and additional mills just months ago by claiming budget shortfalls.
The ordinance invites more litigation and conflict , not less, and creates an uneven system where only one side gets taxpayer-funded legal representation.
This adds yet another financial obligation at the exact time when both property tax revenue and development-related revenue streams are uncertain.
It accelerates Bozeman’s transition into a renter-majority city , which increases dependence on government programs while eroding local property ownership—one of the pillars of community stability.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Send written public comment to the City Commission opposing the ordinance to comments@bozeman.net
Attend the upcoming meeting and speak during public comment—your presence matters even if you don’t speak.
Contact commissioners directly and ask for:
A fiscal analysis
A list of cost projections
An explanation of how this aligns with their claims of past budget deficits
Share this alert with other homeowners, landlords, property owners, and renters who value transparency and accountability.
Ask the City to prioritize core services first —fire, police, and infrastructure—before expanding into new legal entitlement programs

Bozeman Study Commission to Discuss Adding the Following Amendments to the Bylaws at Nov 19th Meeting:

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 23:50:31 GMT

Facts: Bozeman Study Commission to Discuss Adding the Following Amendments to the Bylaws at Nov 19th Meeting:

Section 3.04 External Communications. There will be several opportunities for Study Commission members to speak to the public through presentations, online, written and spoken media. Study Commission members must act in accordance with the following rules where feasible:

Matters of external communication must align with the Bozeman City Code of Conduct and Decorum as stated in Bozeman City Ordinance 2157.
As a general rule, external communication should be provided by at least 2 Study Commissioners.
When addressing issues outside of the scope of responsibility of the Study Commission, writing, presenting or electronic posting as an individual person must not include any reference to being a member of the Study Commission.
During the term of service, unless specifically authorized through a vote by the Study Commission at a meeting, writing, presenting or electronic posting regarding subject matter within the scope of the Study Commission’s jurisdiction by an individual may include the title of Bozeman Study Commissioner, but must also include, “The views expressed here are my own and only my own.”
All external communication should be reported during the Study Commission meeting during the Outreach agenda Item. If timing allows, this should be done prior to external communication, and then the Study Commissioner should also share the results following the external communication event.

Why It Matters:

We must keep communication open, simple, and honest. Don’t add restrictions that get in the way of the relationship between citizens and their representatives.

What You Can Do:

Send written comments before noon on Wednesday to: govreview@bozeman.net
Attend the meeting Wednesday at 4- 6pm City Hall, 121 North Rouse, Bozeman

Talking Points:

“Don’t restrict how our commissioners talk to us.”
“As a citizen, I rely on commissioners being able to talk with me openly. I don’t want them to have to bring another commissioner to the conversation or file reports every time they speak to a neighbor. That feels more like surveillance than transparency.”
“We elected individuals — not a group that has to speak in unison.”
“I voted fora specific commissioner because I trust their judgment. They should be free to express their views as individuals. Not everything needs to be said by two commissioners at the same time. That makes communication confusing, not clearer.”
“The only real communication problems we’ve seen can be solved with a disclaimer.”
“The issues that have come up were because someone spoke in a way that sounded like the Commission had made a decision. That’s easy to fix. Just make sure people say when they’re speaking as individuals. We don’t need a whole system of restrictions to solve a simple issue.”
“Overregulating communication hurts minority voices.”
“When acommission requires another member to be present, that puts the minority at adisadvantage. The majority can always find someone to pair up with. A dissenting voice might not. That’s not fair representation — that’s shutting people out.”
“Public service doesn’t require a chaperone.”
“I don’t need a second commissioner in the room when I talk to the one I elected. That’s not transparency — that’s control. Commissioners should be allowed to meet with constituents one-on-one.”
“Transparency doesn’t mean reporting every conversation you have.”
“Good representatives talk with people all the time — at the grocery store, at church, at community events. They shouldn’t have to file official reports about every conversation. That’s not practical. It’s not reasonable. And it’s not what we expect as citizens.”
“Protect the right of commissioners to tell us what they think.”
“I want to hear each commissioner’s perspective. I don’t want them silenced or restricted because a bylaw makes them afraid to speak without permission.”
“A disclaimer solves the problem without restricting communication.”
“The simplest solution is the best:
If a commissioner is speaking as an individual, they should say so.
That’s it.
Everything else in this proposed bylaw feels unnecessary and intrusive.”
“This feels like it creates barriers instead of trust.”
“When you add restrictive rules, it creates a sense that commissioners are being policed. That doesn’t build trust — it erodes it. We need open communication, not managed communication.”
“Bozeman values open doors and plain talk — not bureaucracy.”
“We’re a community that believes in straight answers and open dialogue. This bylaw proposal leans toward bureaucratic control instead of common-sense communication

Please weigh in on this issue at govreview@bozeman.net before noon on Wednesday.

For Liberty!

Your Local Vocals Team

Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – Thursday, November 6

Sun, 02 Nov 2025 23:02:29 GMT

Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – Thursday, November 6

A major development demands public attention.

Without prior discussion or consensus from the full Commission, a new agenda item has been added for Thursday’s meeting:

Working Ventures, the out-of-state firm hired as the public engagement consultant, is now asking for an additional $9,000 — or at least $4,500 — to conduct “additional research.”

Here Are the Facts:

The Study Commission approved a $50,000 budget for this work.
Working Ventures presented itself as a team of experts in municipal engagement and civic research.
They submitted a detailed proposal for $48,000+ and signed a contract agreeing to deliver the full scope of work outlined in the RFP.
A local firm — with extensive experience in Montana municipal government — submitted a competing proposal for $25,000 plus time and materials, not to exceed $50,000. The Commission chose to hire Working Ventures instead, trusting their stated expertise.
To date, Working Ventures has held three public engagement events, with a total attendance of only 17 people.
Now, despite that track record, the firm is asking taxpayers to fund their learning curve.
In their own words, they are seeking money to conduct research that will “explore key areas of municipal governance to inform potential updates to the City Charter and ensure alignment with best practices, state law, and community needs.” — exactly what they were hired and paid to do in the first place.
Working Ventures has also identified twelve “community partners” they plan to meet with during their December 4–6 engagement events. Not one conservative organization identified in prior meetings is included, while Forward Montana — a well-known activist group — is being given two special engagement sessions.

Why This Matters:

Bozeman taxpayers already paid for this expertise. Paying more to complete the same work is fiscally irresponsible.
Every dollar spent here is one less available for essential city needs.
Rewarding poor performance undermines public confidence and accountability.
Local voices warned early on that this out-of-state firm lacked understanding of Bozeman’s local dynamics. The results confirm it.
Representation in community outreach should reflect all viewpoints, not just one side of the political spectrum.
Accountability matters. The firm claimed expertise in community engagement and local government review. Performance to date shows they over rated themselves and now expect taxpayers to pick up the slack.

What You Can Do:

Attend the Study Commission meeting on Thursday, November 6 at 4:00 -7:00 PM, City Hall.
Submit written public comment before the meeting to govreveiw@bozeman.net
Urge commissioners to vote NO on any additional funding for Working Ventures.
Remind them: the public deserves accountability, not excuses.

When citizens speak up, government listens. Let’s make sure they hear us loud and clear.

Opposition to City Commission’s Letter Supporting Tenants United

Mon, 06 Oct 2025 21:17:42 GMT

Background: From City of Bozeman

The City of Bozeman has spent several years prioritizing affordable housing, using every tool available – from tax breaks to taxpayer revenue – to support projects throughout the city.

The 338 workforce homes within the King Arthur Park and Mountain Meadow Estates mobile home parks represent nearly 1/10th of the affordable mobile home stock within Gallatin County. Those homes, while outside city limits, house individuals and families who work and shop within city limits and/or go to school within the city.

The two mobile home parks offer important, dignified affordable housing within the region that require neither tax breaks nor public subsidies. With the owner of the land beneath those homes seeking to sell the properties, that housing stock is now in danger. Residents have unionized and are seeking to negotiate a purchase with the owner, Gary Oakland of Billings-based Oakland & Co., but so far have been rebuffed.

The attached resolution lays out a strategy to appeal to Mr. Oakland’s “better angel.” It contains a letter from the Commission asking Mr. Oakland to look at Montana’s long tradition of Montanans – particularly those graced with good fortune – helping each other. If the letter produces no response from Mr. Oakland within five business days, the Commission will submit the attached op-ed to the Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle for publication.

Talking Points:

Opposition to City Commission’s Letter Supporting Tenants United

Government Overreach Outside City Jurisdiction
King Arthur Trailer Court and Mountain Meadows Estates are outside the Bozeman city limits and therefore beyond the City Commission’s legal authority .

By using their public offices to influence a private sale in the county, the commissioners are extending city influence into areas where they have no jurisdiction .

This is a breach of local self-governance and sets a troubling precedent for future interference in county and private matters.
Misuse of Public Office and Taxpayer Resources
City commission meetings, staff time, and public communication platforms were used to draft and promote a letter of support for Tenants United (TU) — a private activist group engaged in a real estate negotiation.

This amounts to taxpayer-funded political lobbying , not legitimate city business.
Bozeman citizens did not elect their commissioners to serve as advocates for private organizations or to interfere in housing disputes beyond city limits .
Intrusion on Private Property Rights
The letter and op-ed openly interfere with a private contractual relationship between a property owner and tenants.
Government has a duty to uphold private property rights, not to undermine them through public pressure campaigns.
Using the authority of elected office to sway a private sale violates the principle of free exchange and due process that property owners depend on.
Inequality of Representation
Bozeman residents — the taxpayers who fund city operations — receive no reciprocal representation in county affairs.

Yet their elected officials are taking positions on issues that affect non-city residents while ignoring equally urgent challenges within Bozeman’s boundaries : rising property taxes, infrastructure strain, and housing affordability.

Public officials owe their focus and allegiance to the people who elected them, not to external advocacy networks .
Partisan and Activist Alignment
By taking a formal stance alongside Tenants United , the City Commission has blurred the line between governance and activism.

Tenants United is an advocacy organization, not a neutral party.
When public officials align the city with activist causes, they compromise the City’s appearance of impartiality and erode public trust in fair, balanced governance .
Distraction from Core Municipal Duties
City commissions exist to govern — not to campaign.
Time spent on this action detracts from urgent city matters: infrastructure maintenance, fiscal accountability, water and sewer management, and transparent oversight of city departments. Citizens expect their commissioners to prioritize essential services , not to act as agents for special-interest campaigns .
Risk of Legal and Ethical Liability
City officials who involve themselves in private real estate negotiations risk exceeding their legal authority and creating exposure for the City.

Even well-intentioned advocacy can be viewed as interference or misuse of office , particularly when undertaken with the City’s name, letterhead, or official resources.

Once the City becomes a participant in private transactions, it assumes moral and potential legal liability for the outcomes.
A Call for Restraint and Refocus
Bozeman citizens should insist that the City Commission:
Rescind or retract any public statement supporting Tenants United;
Reaffirm the City’s commitment to neutrality in private market transactions;
Prohibit future use of city resources to lobby on behalf of non-governmental or activist organizations; and
Refocus on the Commission’s core responsibilities — fiscal management, infrastructure, and fair representation for the residents who fund city operations.
In Summary
Public office is not a platform for activism.

The Bozeman City Commission’s role is to serve its citizens — not to interfere in private property matters, not to spend taxpayer resources on political causes, and not to overreach into county affairs. This episode should remind us all that governance and advocacy are not the same thing — and that preserving that distinction protects both the integrity of our government and the rights of its citizens.

Urgent Call to Action: Halt Bozeman City Commission's Overreach on County Property Rights!

Tomorrow night, Tuesday, October 7, 2025, at 6:00 PM , the Bozeman City Commission will vote on a blatant overstep that abuses your tax dollars and erodes private property rights. King Arthur Trailer Court and Mountain Meadows Estates lie outside city limits in Gallatin County , placing them squarely beyond the Commission's legal authority. Yet, commissioners are using public offices, staff time, and city platforms to lobby a private county landowner—pressuring them to sell at an unfair, below-market price to Tenants United, a partisan activist group working with the City of Bozeman. This isn't governance; it's taxpayer-funded interference in a private real estate deal, breaching local self-governance and risking legal liability for the city.

By drafting and promoting an official letter of support, the Commission is misusing public resources for political advocacy, blurring lines between impartial governance and activism. This intrudes on a private contractual relationship, undermining free exchange and due process that every property owner relies on. Bozeman voters didn't elect officials to champion external causes—especially while ignoring pressing city issues like rising property taxes, strained infrastructure, and housing affordability within our boundaries. Aligning with Tenants United compromises the city's neutrality, distracts from core duties like fiscal accountability and essential services, and sets a dangerous precedent for future meddling in county affairs.

Your voice can stop this now—demand restraint, neutrality, and a refocus on what matters: serving Bozeman's taxpayers.

What You Can Do—Right Now:

Submit Written Comments TODAY : Urge the Commission to reject this overreach by emailing comments@bozeman.net (or submit via bozeman.net/public-comment . Keep it concise and cite the jurisdictional breach, taxpayer misuse, and property rights violation: (see talking points below)
Call for rescinding any support for Tenants United.
Demand reaffirmation of neutrality in private transactions.
Insist on prohibiting city resources for activist lobbying.
Push refocus on core responsibilities like infrastructure and fair representation.
Show Up in Person : Pack the Commission Room at Bozeman City Hall at 6:00 PM. Arrive early to sign up for public comment (3 minutes max)—your presence will amplify the demand for accountability and restraint. Bring signs: "No Overreach—Protect Property Rights!"

The vote is tomorrow , so share this widely with neighbors, property owners, and networks. Public office isn't a platform for activism—it's time to remind the Commission of that.

Meet the Candidates

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 20:27:53 GMT

Bozeman City Commission Candidate Interviews

Join us as we sit down one-on-one with Bozeman City Commission Candidates Eli Anselmi, Roger Blank, Trevor Nameniuk, Alison Sweeney, and Emily Talago. You’ll hear them discuss everything from housing, the City’s budget, and public safety to their priorities for Bozeman.

All six candidates were invited to conduct an interview. Appointed City Commissioner Emma Bode declined to participate.

Eli Anselmi

https://www.facebook.com/p/Eli-Anselmi-for-Bozeman-City-Commission-61575802675531

Roger Blank

Property Tax Levies

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:20:18 GMT

The City of Bozeman claims that a new Montana state law reducing property taxes has caused a $1.77 million budget deficit in Bozeman’s general fund, primarily affecting police and fire department staffing. The law lowered the city’s total taxable value by nearly 9% and reduced the value of a mill from $245,000 to $218,000. To address the shortfall, Bozeman commissioners approved using 4.5 of nine previously untouched mills, set aside in 2006 to ease taxpayer burdens, and cut the general fund budget by $810,000 through delaying non-essential expenses and keeping vacant positions open. The decision was justified by changing city needs, as the 2006 assumptions no longer apply. Commissioners also converted fixed mill levies for police and fire staffing to dollar amounts for consistency with other voter-approved levies. As a result, the property tax bill for a median home (assessed at $671,800) will decrease by about $126, with the total tax bill, including services like water and parks, set at $3,427.28, slightly lower than last year.

Click the link below to read the full article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Communication Strategist for the Bozeman Study Commission

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 18:56:10 GMT

Regarding the Bozeman City Government Study Commission.

43 citizens wrote-in requesting the hiring of Andrew Thomas, from Helena, MT, as the Communication Strategist for the Study Commission.
0 (Zero) citizens wrote-in on behalf of Working Ventures, from Nebraska.

The Study Commission, has voted 4-1 to advance Working Ventures for approval on the agenda.

If you are able, please show up to the August 7th Bozeman Study Commission Meeting and express your opinions on this issue and the other topics on the agenda below, it is important. The Study Commission needs to hear what citizens truly want from their government structure.

Bozeman Study Commission Meeting

- August 7th 4 PM to 7 PM -

City Hall - Commission Room

121 N. Rouse Ave.

Bozeman, MT 59715

Please consider attending this meeting; the Commissioners need to hear from us loud and clear.

How to Participate:

If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission.

Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agenda items but you may only comment once per item.

As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in the City on cable channel 190.

For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321, or visit bozemanstudy.com .

Resources

These are the resources we used to formulate our opinion of who the Study Commission should hire for this position. We encourage you to view them and listen to the interviews to form your public comments.

RFP explaining the role of the Communication Strategist
Andrew Thomas’ proposal
Working Ventures’ proposal
Candidate interviews (Andrew Thomas starts at 7:51; Working Ventures starts at 35:45)

Gallatin County Study Commission to Hold First Public Hearing

Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:25:00 GMT

Details of the Public Hearing:

Date : Thursday, April 10
Time : 5:30 p.m.
Location : Community Room on 3rd floor of Gallatin County Courthouse; 311 W Main St, Bozeman
Virtual Access : Microsoft Teams link on www.gallatinmt.gov or www.gallatinlocalgovstudy.com , scroll down to calendar
Public Participation : Open to all residents of Gallatin County

For more details on the Study Commission, including meeting schedules, contact information, and virtual access to weekly meetings, visit www.gallatinlocalgovstudy.com .

The Gallatin County Local Government Study Commission will hold its first public hearing on Thursday, April 10, at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Room on the third floor of the Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 W Main, Bozeman.

The public has tasked the Local Government Study Commission with evaluating the existing form and powers of a local government, and how local government services are delivered, and comparing them with other forms available under Montana law. Members of the public are encouraged to attend in person or virtually. During this hearing, the commission will share an overview the study’s scope, introduce the current form and structure of the county government, and share examples of different county government models in Montana.

The commission will also share a timeline for key milestones for the study process. Residents will have an opportunity to share feedback and ideas about Gallatin County’s government structure. All comments and feedback will be captured as part of the study. Residents will have many more opportunities to provide feedback at listening sessions that will be hosted around the county over the next year and a half.

“We strongly encourage your participation in this discussion and invite you, a member of the public, to provide insights from your work and interaction with our county government. Your input will be invaluable in helping us form our understanding of how our local government structure supports or challenges your work.” says Vice Chair Study Commissioner Jackie Haines

"The Montana Constitution is unique in that every ten years it allows the citizens of a county or municipality to review if the current form of county government could more efficiently, and effectively, deliver services to the county residents. The seven citizens elected to study our local government have begun the review process and invite the public to become involved with the process." says Study Commissioner Don Seifert

About the Gallatin County Study Commission: In the June 2024 primary election, voters across Montana had an opportunity to decide on studying their local governments. This question is posed to voters every 10 years, as required in Montana’s constitution. Montana is the only state where voters regularly decide whether to evaluate their local government structure. In 2024, voters in 12 counties and 44 municipalities across the state voted to conduct a local government review.

Voters in Gallatin County voted in favor of the independent study, as did residents of Bozeman and West Yellowstone. In the November 2024 general election, voters elected seven volunteer members to serve on the nonpartisan study commission for two years. The elected members of the Gallatin County Study Commission are (alphabetically): Janae Hagen, Jackie Haines, Jeff Krauss, EJ Porth, Don Seifert, Klaas Tuininga, and Steve White.

Local Vocals

January 28th Bozeman Study Commission Meeting

LV Talking Points:

Part-time Commissioners:

Ex Officio Seats on Advisory Boards

THE FACTS

WHY IT MATTERS

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Tenant Right to Counsel Ordinance

THE FACTS

Resources:

WHY IT MATTERS

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Bozeman Study Commission to Discuss Adding the Following Amendments to the Bylaws at Nov 19th Meeting:

Facts: Bozeman Study Commission to Discuss Adding the Following Amendments to the Bylaws at Nov 19th Meeting:

﻿

Why It Matters:

What You Can Do:

Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting – Thursday, November 6

Opposition to City Commission’s Letter Supporting Tenants United

Background: From City of Bozeman

Talking Points:

Opposition to City Commission’s Letter Supporting Tenants United

Urgent Call to Action: Halt Bozeman City Commission's Overreach on County Property Rights!

Meet the Candidates

Bozeman City Commission Candidate Interviews ﻿

Eli Anselmi

Roger Blank

Trevor Nameniuk

Alison Sweeney

Emily Talago

Property Tax Levies

Communication Strategist for the Bozeman Study Commission

Bozeman Study Commission Meeting

- August 7th 4 PM to 7 PM -

Resources

Gallatin County Study Commission to Hold First Public Hearing

Bozeman City Commission Candidate Interviews