Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting - February 5, 2026

The Bozeman City Study Commission met on February 5, 2026, to continue discussions on potential changes to the city's charter. Key topics included filling commissioner vacancies, the role of the mayor, the commission-manager form of government, commissioner duties, and public engagement. The meeting featured a presentation by Dan Clark on various models of executive power and included public testimony opposing certain proposed changes.

Consent Calendar

• Approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• James Linsky (North Tracy Avenue) expressed strong opposition to dividing Bozeman into wards, drawing on his 14 years as a county commissioner. He argued that at-large voting ensures commissioners consider the entire community. He also supported increasing the commissioner stipend.
• Abby Jones (Gallatin Valley Sentinel) urged that commissioner vacancies be filled by special election rather than appointment, noting that four out of five recent appointees won subsequent elections due to incumbency advantage. She opposed transitioning to full-time commissioner or mayor salaries, stating it would exclude working residents and create career politicians. She supported expanding to seven ward-based seats.
• James Diltz (2204 Buckrake Avenue) disagreed with the statement that low public engagement indicates satisfaction. He recommended vacancies be filled by election, opposed full-time positions, and suggested lowering pay to match smaller communities like Billings.
• Natsuki Nakamura (Bozeman resident) commented later on the vice mayor and vacancy processes, advocating for clear criteria and consistent appointment procedures.

Correspondence/Study Commission Update

• The commission discussed outreach efforts, including an upcoming op-ed series, radio appearances (February 17), and presentations to neighborhood associations and the League of Women Voters (March 23).
• Anna and Stan presented a summary of January's digital media campaign: reach of 26,000, 808 clicks (3% engagement rate), and an 83% drop in landing page performance. Commissioner Deanna questioned effectiveness, noting low conversion and demographic gaps (limited reach to ages 55+). Mike explained technical issues with website updates and that the engagement rate was within industry standards. The campaign’s goal was awareness; further adjustments were planned for February.

Presentation by Dan Clark – Executive Branch Options

• Dan Clark, from the Montana Department of Commerce, presented various models of municipal executive power: the commission-executive (strong mayor/strong council), commission-manager, and a hybrid with a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).
• He detailed statutory options for appointing/removing department heads, veto power, and budget preparation, using examples from Montana cities (Missoula, Great Falls, Bozeman).
• Clark noted that Bozeman’s current charter gives the elected mayor some executive functions (e.g., intergovernmental relations, agenda-setting), unlike purely ceremonial mayors in other cities. He also discussed the importance of clear roles between a city manager and commission to avoid operational conflicts.

Discussion Items – Unfinished Business

Process to Appoint Vice Mayor

• The commission considered language to replace the former deputy mayor position with an annually elected vice mayor from among the commission, to serve in the mayor’s absence. The motion included placement in Section 2.03 (Mayor).
• Motion passed unanimously.

Filling Commissioner Vacancies

• Debate centered on the 30-day appointment process versus requiring a special election for vacancies with more than one year remaining. Public testimony supported special elections due to perceived incumbency advantage and transparency concerns.
• Logistics were discussed: special elections require at least 85 days, cost roughly $105,000 at-large (less with wards), and must be coordinated with the county elections office. Mike noted that 60 days would improve the appointment process and allow more public input.
• A motion to table the discussion for further study (including inviting the elections office) passed 4-0 with one abstention.

Duties of Commissioners

• A proposal to require the city to adopt a formal commissioner job description, reviewed every five years, was debated. Some argued it would provide clarity for candidates and the public; others worried about rigidity given changing state laws.
• Motion passed unanimously (to be included in the charter as a requirement, with the job description adopted by resolution within 90 days of charter approval).

Key Outcomes

• Approved: Creation of a vice mayor position (annually appointed, serves in mayor’s absence).
• Approved: Requirement that the city adopt a commissioner job description, updated every five years.
• Tabled: Discussion on filling vacancies (special election vs. extended appointment) for the next meeting on February 18, with additional research and a potential visit from the elections office.
• Next Steps: February 18 meeting will focus on continued learning about executive leadership and preliminary discussion on number of commissioners, compensation, and the commission-manager vs. mayor-council system. Preliminary decisions are targeted for March 5.