OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Bozeman, Montana/City Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Joint Bozeman-Belgrade City Council and Commission Meeting - September 29, 2026

City Commission — Tuesday, September 29, 2026
BodyBozeman, Montana
SessionCity Commission
DateTuesday, September 29, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 6:26:26

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Unassigned speaker

0:00

our uh respective um elective bodies compiled some of the pieces that we were gonna d dive into tonight um first and foremost i'm just thrilled one to um have all of you here with us we were in in your home turf last year um and also just to for the the record this is only the to our understanding the second time this has ever occurred um so this is if in further efforts of you know deepening the relationships between our two two jurisdictions and also to uh bring closer some new council members commissioners on on each of our respective sides um mayor meese and i uh on unfortunately for him we have to spend a lot of time together um we serve on a variety of of boards and but our colleagues don't necessarily uh interact with each other quite as often so i'm excited to have an opportunity for us to um think through discuss items that we're currently working on as well as um think about what we're gonna be looking forward to this upcoming legislative session um mayor meese is there anything else that you'd like to add in our grounding here I would like to uh thank you for the invitation and and accepting us here with you tonight and I I too echo that having our two uh governing bodies jurisdictions coming together and and having discussions I think makes sense for each of our towns and and the region as a whole better so I appreciate the opportunity great um is there anything any opening remarks or thoughts that anybody else from our commission would like to add okay welcome yeah yeah I'm I'm really grateful we're doing this again and it's um two years running so let's keep the streak going we scraped by we've only got a couple more months and we would have already ruined our one year streak um just for the for the the folks um in the in the audience and and at home um we basically came down to four different items um of talking about regional growth and infrastructure um there's a variety of ways that we um overlap in our planning jurisdictions as well as um in in some um district boards that overlap regional transportation uh regional mental and behavioral health and our considerations for the 2027 uh Montana legislature and what our joint priorities may be um we hadn't necessarily prepared a way that we wanted to kick this off per se they are there are sample questions for us to consider um for regional growth and infrastructure our question of ponderance is what does the Bozeman Belgrade corridor look like in 2045 and where should urban growth occur is there anything that Belgrade especially would like to add with um the uh extraterritorial jurisdiction changes the relationships with the county and the the donut um if there's anything that would be important context sure I'll I'll uh jump in a little bit um with some of the changes at the last legislator legislative cycle uh Malupa kind of made sense for the city of Belgrade to kind of stay within our city limits um we used to have a joint partnership with Gallatin County where when that donut area outside of the city limits uh that several mile donut there is that it was our planning department that was uh processing all of those requests um with Malupa made it more uh difficult and more complicated to you know go with what the county regulations were versus if you were within the city um and so just this past year uh we decided to uh hand that back over to the county and us focus on on the city jurisdiction uh but one thing with Malupa as well is that it doesn't take any of our work from zoning away from us even if it's not within uh the city jurisdictions right is that we can go through the zoning processes and identify those parcels that are are right outside of our our boundaries and so then it I think it also for property owners and developers and builders and and such if I think it gives a clearer picture is that hey if you do annex into the city um this is kind of what the the zoning that we're looking for and through that process so even though that we kind of shrunk down a little bit of the formal uh process we're still looking at that greater area as well so great thanks for um adding that that bit um I know uh many of us have been following along that process um so appreciate a bit of an update um is there anyone uh from our commission that wants to kick us off um on this growth and infrastructure question of really thinking about the corridor between Bozeman and Belgrade

Speaker 1

5:00

So

Speaker 2

5:03

great.

5:04

Thanks for um adding that that bit.

5:07

Um I know many of us have been following along that process, um, so appreciate a bit of an update.

5:14

Um is there anyone uh from our commission that wants to kick us off on this growth and infrastructure question of really thinking about the corridor between Bozeman and Belgrade,

Unassigned speaker

5:31

yeah,

Speaker 2

5:31

Commissioner Sweeney.

Unassigned speaker

5:35

I

Speaker 3

5:35

suppose I'll take a stab at

Unassigned speaker

5:36

it.

Speaker 3

5:37

Um thank you guys all for being here and having this conversation.

5:42

Um

Unassigned speaker

5:44

I

Speaker 3

5:44

took some time to look through the triangle community plan um before this meeting, and you know, growing up here, it was always this joke like you know, Bozeman's growing so fast, eventually we're gonna smash into Belgrade.

6:04

And you know, only a few years ago I learned that actually is the plan.

6:09

Um I have reservations about that.

6:14

I would actually prefer to see uh an open space delineation between the two communities, and not just for nostalgic reasons that feels very Montana.

6:26

You leave one city and then you have a little while and then you enter a new city, but because of the work that um a lot of people did over a few years for the sensitive lands plan, I think there are some really important wetlands and some environmental resources and some wildlife corridors in that area that I would really like to see us start actively working towards protecting um maybe funding conservation easements, maybe um looking into wildlife overlay zoning, um, lots of different tools, but basically starting to bring that sensitive lands plan into both of our planning documents and actions.

Speaker 1

7:18

Maybe I'll I'll kind of um jump in a little bit.

7:22

You know, I know I know at last year's meeting uh we had our our public works and engineering directors uh from both uh City of Belgrade and and director uh coates there from the city of Bozeman, and and really what makes sense.

7:38

I I don't know if I'm really focused on the boundaries and where we may end up smashing together, but from a utility perspective, whether it be water, sewer, roads, is that we are we need to kind of plan together, right?

7:51

And and for one thing, you know, is that um just with the topography and things like that, where you know, Belgrade could potentially you know help out Bozeman or Bozeman could potentially help out Belgrade, you know, I think it could be stronger and and really kind of focusing on that utility aspect.

8:13

I do think you know the planning and and all of that, but where my mind is is always kind of gone is is to the is to the infrastructure, right?

8:22

Of what we both need to maintain, and instead of potentially each of us doing our own thing, is that there may be make sense of when we kind of start getting closer is looking at some of those different alternatives of you know, maybe just not staying within the city of Belgrade or not staying within the city of Bozeman, and how does that regional utilities kind of look at like so

Unassigned speaker

8:52

uh

Speaker 4

8:53

Chris Minacucci.

8:55

I agree.

8:56

I think uh I lived in Melgrade 36 years, so I was there when it was 3,000 people.

9:02

Um I think surprisingly, we're going south instead of coming um east.

9:12

So our growth now is north and south.

9:17

So I don't know what that means in the future, I'll be dead probably, but um I I'd like to agree with Mike that we and uh Alison that we are cognizant of the things that we have that are can't put a monetary um section on, and so um I don't know what's going to come.

9:50

It's surprised all of us.

9:51

I've been on the council about 14 years, and it's shocking, it's shocking.

Unassigned speaker

10:00

So that's my four sense.

Speaker 4

10:02

I like to talk, by

Unassigned speaker

10:03

the

Speaker 5

10:04

way.

10:06

It seems to me that growing towards Bozeman is impeded by the gravel

Speaker 6

10:14

pit.

Speaker 5

10:15

And I'm curious if there are any plans to do to the gravel pit, what has been done kind of on the north or close to the airport um ramp.

10:33

Any plans to kind of wrap up the gravel pit and fill it?

10:38

Or is that uh pipe dream towards some future generation?

10:44

Yeah,

Speaker 1

10:45

I I might jump in here a little bit on maybe look to our city manager to fill in any holes.

10:50

But um the original uh in the pit, essentially on the north side of the airport interchange there, uh is that they really kind of just done phase one, right?

11:01

And I don't think that it's um taken off quite as quickly as they at first hoped.

11:09

And so multiple phases as it continues to east into the development there, um, you know, a lot of like the asphalt and and other things are gonna eventually transition to the south side, and that development's gonna keep on going uh further east.

11:24

But I think it's a little bit of trying to you know wait for the developer and and them, you know, business partners.

11:32

But we have just recently opened up the second hotel down in there, the Hampton is in there.

11:38

Um there is uh some uh apartment buildings as well, and then we also I know have a low-income uh community that's that's looking at uh also going into that area.

11:50

So we're starting to see some a little bit more action on that front, but yeah, it is I think slowly um kind of on the at least the the north side of the interstate with uh gravel pit operations and things that I think will you know continue to develop over the next 10-15 years or so.

Speaker 5

12:10

Okay.

12:11

Um so you're still operating within phase one.

12:17

Are there other phases contemplated?

Speaker 1

12:21

I saw the the master or the visionary plan at one point where they did have uh proposed some different uh entertainment.

12:31

There was one time movie theater, bowling alleys, things like that that but I think that's a little bit of um a pipe dream, and then COVID did you know happen, and so whether the developers still have the the same thought.

12:46

I'm I don't believe that they've shared anything with the city, and I don't know if our city manager has any newer information there, but but yeah, at least for the original things when charter development was uh proposing that build out uh through there is that they had uh a lot of aspirations, but their their first piece that I think has gone on slower uh from uh you know vertical construction perspective.

13:12

So haven't heard of any timelines yet for their subsequent phasing there.

Speaker 5

13:17

Got it.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Tax Increment Financing██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Public Engagement███████7%
Procedural██████6%
Urban Redevelopment█████5%
Mental Health Awareness█████5%
Community Engagement████4%
Transportation Safety████4%
Economic Development███3%
Snow Removal███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Joint Bozeman-Belgrade City Council and Commission Meeting

September 29, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Bozeman City Commission and the Belgrade City Council held a joint meeting to discuss regional growth, infrastructure, behavioral health, and joint legislative priorities. The meeting began at 6:30 PM and extended past midnight due to extensive public comment and deliberation on a later agenda item regarding tax increment financing (TIFF) for the South Bozeman Technology District. After the joint discussion, the Bozeman commission convened its regular business session, which included annual assessments and two resolutions concerning the extension of the TIFF district and the issuance of bonds.

Joint Meeting Discussion (Bozeman & Belgrade)

Regional Growth & Infrastructure

  • Participants discussed the Bozeman-Belgrade corridor growth projection for 2045, focusing on where urban growth should occur.
  • Belgrade Commissioner Chris Minacucci noted that Belgrade has handed back extraterritorial planning to Gallatin County after changes in state law (MLUPA) and emphasized the importance of utility coordination.
  • Bozeman Commissioner Alison Sweeney expressed a preference for preserving an open-space greenbelt between the two cities to protect wetlands and wildlife corridors.
  • Belgrade Mayor (or representative) Mike Meese highlighted the need for joint infrastructure planning, especially water, sewer, and roads.
  • Commissioner Matt McGee (Belgrade) discussed Belgrade's identity shift from a bedroom community to a growing city with a young, active population, noting 3,000 people commute into Belgrade daily.
  • Transportation and multimodal options were discussed, including expansion of the Streamline bus system (the pink line) to the airport and potential microtransit in Belgrade. Bozeman Commissioner Douglas Fisher noted that the pink line would serve the airport with four trips per day, with a goal of increasing to ten trips. Commissioner Sweeney raised concerns about bike/pedestrian safety on connector roads.

Behavioral Health

  • The group identified behavioral health as a critical unfunded mandate, straining police, fire, and hospital resources.
  • Bozeman Commissioner Terry Cunningham (former mayor) and others emphasized the need for regional collaboration, including with Gallatin County.
  • Potential solutions discussed include a mobile crisis response unit, a crisis receiving center (possibly at the former warming center location), and the need for dedicated funding from the state or voters.
  • Commissioner Bowdy (Bozeman) noted that the mobile crisis unit has been highly effective but funding is not secure.

2027 Legislative Priorities

  • Both bodies agreed on the need for a local option sales tax or other revenue sources to relieve property tax burdens and fund services, especially given the tourism impact.
  • Belgrade Councilmember (unidentified) noted that Belgrade has the highest-grossing liquor store in the state and the highest per-square-foot grocery sales, and cautioned that a poorly designed sales tax could distort commercial behavior between cities.
  • Commissioner Fisher (Bozeman) raised the idea of a tax on rental cars or an increase in the bed tax, with revenue directed back to municipalities.
  • Mayor Morrison (Bozeman) stressed the importance of the state recognizing the “big eight” cities’ growing population and political weight.

Public Comments & Testimony (Joint Portion)

  • Gallatin County Commissioner Zach Brown expressed support for the joint effort and offered the county’s partnership. He noted the county is undertaking a growth-area zoning reform process that will impact the triangle area between Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners.
  • Mike Magrins (Alla Real Estate Partners) praised the collaboration and offered the development community’s input on why Belgrade is currently growing faster than Bozeman.
  • Gabe (MSU student) linked cost of living and mental health, advocating for housing affordability.

Bozeman Regular Business – Consent Agenda & Annual Assessments

Consent Calendar (Items G1–G7)

  • Approved 5-0 without discussion.

Business Improvement District Assessments (FY27)

  • The total assessment is $295,000, billed through Gallatin County property tax bills. Approved 5-0.

Annual Lighting District Assessments (FY27)

  • Total billing of $583,600 for 84 districts; some districts with sufficient fund balance were not assessed. Approved 5-0.

Delinquent Snow Removal Charges

  • For the winter season, 213 notices were issued, 21 abatements performed, 4 appeals with 2 partially or fully approved. Three outstanding bills originally $6,675; one was paid, leaving $5,450 for two bills. Approved 5-0.

Delinquent Weed Removal Charges

  • Between July 1 and September 17, 64 abatements were performed; 8 appeals. Originally 7 bills totaling $1,917.50; after one payment, 6 bills totaling $1,731.25. Approved 5-0.

Delinquent Utility Charges (Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Garbage, Recycling, Organics)

  • Originally 52 bills totaling $26,955.87; one paid, leaving 51 bills for $26,838.20. Approved 5-0.

South Bozeman Technology District – TIFF Extension & Bond Authorization

Resolution to Extend TIFF Provision (Item 6)

  • David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager, presented the staff recommendation to issue bonds to reimburse a developer $3.894 million for public infrastructure at the innovation campus. The bond would be secured by tax increment from the district and would extend the district’s termination beyond its original 15-year term (to a maximum of 25 years). Staff argued the developer met all obligations, and the city must honor the agreement to avoid litigation and damage to its bond rating.
  • Public Comment: Over 30 people spoke, the vast majority opposing the extension. Many cited ties to military technology and the war in Gaza (companies such as Reveal Technology and Metria, and the “Department of War on-ramp hub”). Others argued the money would be better spent on community services like transit, housing, and schools. A few supportive comments came from MSU representatives emphasizing research and job creation.
  • Commission Discussion: Commissioners expressed frustration but felt legally obligated to proceed. Commissioner Bowdy moved a supplemental motion to direct staff to explore methods to limit TIFF support for military-industrial activities and have the TIFF board review options. After debate, the motion was amended to: “Direct staff to explore methods to limit the ability of beneficiaries of TIFF to participate in particular activities within urban renewal districts, and for those possible methods to be reviewed by the TIFF board.” This motion passed 5-0.
  • Vote on Main Resolution: The resolution to determine that fulfillment of the development plan requires pledging tax increment to bonds extending the TIFF provision beyond 15 years passed 5-0.

Resolution Authorizing Private Negotiated Sale of Bonds (Item 7)

  • Authorizes the administration to proceed with a private bond sale of up to $3.894 million with terms including at least 1.7x debt service coverage and a 25-year term. Staff will seek call provisions to allow early payoff.
  • Public Comment: Several speakers reiterated opposition, calling for the commission to “name and shame” the innovation campus and MSU for war profiteering. A handful expressed gratitude for the earlier supplemental motion.
  • Commission Discussion: Commissioner Bowdy made a supplemental motion to direct staff to explore bond options allowing early payoff, which passed 4-1 (Deputy Mayor Fisher voting no).
  • Vote on Main Resolution: The resolution passed 5-0.

Key Outcomes

  • Joint Meeting: Agreed to collaborate on regional infrastructure, behavioral health, and LOST legislative advocacy. Next joint meeting scheduled for 2027 in Belgrade.
  • Annual Assessments (Bozeman): All five assessments approved 5-0.
  • TIFF District Extension: The resolution to extend the TIFF provision beyond 15 years passed 5-0.
  • Bond Authorization: The resolution to pursue private bond sale passed 5-0.
  • Supplemental Directions: Staff directed to explore (1) methods to limit TIFF support for specific activities and have TIFF board review, and (2) bond options with early payoff provisions.
  • Next Steps: The bond sale will proceed with private placement; results and final terms will be brought back to the commission for approval.

Meeting Transcript

our uh respective um elective bodies compiled some of the pieces that we were gonna d dive into tonight um first and foremost i'm just thrilled one to um have all of you here with us we were in in your home turf last year um and also just to for the the record this is only the to our understanding the second time this has ever occurred um so this is if in further efforts of you know deepening the relationships between our two two jurisdictions and also to uh bring closer some new council members commissioners on on each of our respective sides um mayor meese and i uh on unfortunately for him we have to spend a lot of time together um we serve on a variety of of boards and but our colleagues don't necessarily uh interact with each other quite as often so i'm excited to have an opportunity for us to um think through discuss items that we're currently working on as well as um think about what we're gonna be looking forward to this upcoming legislative session um mayor meese is there anything else that you'd like to add in our grounding here I would like to uh thank you for the invitation and and accepting us here with you tonight and I I too echo that having our two uh governing bodies jurisdictions coming together and and having discussions I think makes sense for each of our towns and and the region as a whole better so I appreciate the opportunity great um is there anything any opening remarks or thoughts that anybody else from our commission would like to add okay welcome yeah yeah I'm I'm really grateful we're doing this again and it's um two years running so let's keep the streak going we scraped by we've only got a couple more months and we would have already ruined our one year streak um just for the for the the folks um in the in the audience and and at home um we basically came down to four different items um of talking about regional growth and infrastructure um there's a variety of ways that we um overlap in our planning jurisdictions as well as um in in some um district boards that overlap regional transportation uh regional mental and behavioral health and our considerations for the 2027 uh Montana legislature and what our joint priorities may be um we hadn't necessarily prepared a way that we wanted to kick this off per se they are there are sample questions for us to consider um for regional growth and infrastructure our question of ponderance is what does the Bozeman Belgrade corridor look like in 2045 and where should urban growth occur is there anything that Belgrade especially would like to add with um the uh extraterritorial jurisdiction changes the relationships with the county and the the donut um if there's anything that would be important context sure I'll I'll uh jump in a little bit um with some of the changes at the last legislator legislative cycle uh Malupa kind of made sense for the city of Belgrade to kind of stay within our city limits um we used to have a joint partnership with Gallatin County where when that donut area outside of the city limits uh that several mile donut there is that it was our planning department that was uh processing all of those requests um with Malupa made it more uh difficult and more complicated to you know go with what the county regulations were versus if you were within the city um and so just this past year uh we decided to uh hand that back over to the county and us focus on on the city jurisdiction uh but one thing with Malupa as well is that it doesn't take any of our work from zoning away from us even if it's not within uh the city jurisdictions right is that we can go through the zoning processes and identify those parcels that are are right outside of our our boundaries and so then it I think it also for property owners and developers and builders and and such if I think it gives a clearer picture is that hey if you do annex into the city um this is kind of what the the zoning that we're looking for and through that process so even though that we kind of shrunk down a little bit of the formal uh process we're still looking at that greater area as well so great thanks for um adding that that bit um I know uh many of us have been following along that process um so appreciate a bit of an update um is there anyone uh from our commission that wants to kick us off um on this growth and infrastructure question of really thinking about the corridor between Bozeman and Belgrade So great. Thanks for um adding that that bit. Um I know many of us have been following along that process, um, so appreciate a bit of an update. Um is there anyone uh from our commission that wants to kick us off on this growth and infrastructure question of really thinking about the corridor between Bozeman and Belgrade, yeah, Commissioner Sweeney. I suppose I'll take a stab at it. Um thank you guys all for being here and having this conversation. Um I took some time to look through the triangle community plan um before this meeting, and you know, growing up here, it was always this joke like you know, Bozeman's growing so fast, eventually we're gonna smash into Belgrade. And you know, only a few years ago I learned that actually is the plan. Um I have reservations about that. I would actually prefer to see uh an open space delineation between the two communities, and not just for nostalgic reasons that feels very Montana. You leave one city and then you have a little while and then you enter a new city, but because of the work that um a lot of people did over a few years for the sensitive lands plan, I think there are some really important wetlands and some environmental resources and some wildlife corridors in that area that I would really like to see us start actively working towards protecting um maybe funding conservation easements, maybe um looking into wildlife overlay zoning, um, lots of different tools, but basically starting to bring that sensitive lands plan into both of our planning documents and actions. Maybe I'll I'll kind of um jump in a little bit. You know, I know I know at last year's meeting uh we had our our public works and engineering directors uh from both uh City of Belgrade and and director uh coates there from the city of Bozeman, and and really what makes sense. I I don't know if I'm really focused on the boundaries and where we may end up smashing together, but from a utility perspective, whether it be water, sewer, roads, is that we are we need to kind of plan together, right? And and for one thing, you know, is that um just with the topography and things like that, where you know, Belgrade could potentially you know help out Bozeman or Bozeman could potentially help out Belgrade, you know, I think it could be stronger and and really kind of focusing on that utility aspect. I do think you know the planning and and all of that, but where my mind is is always kind of gone is is to the is to the infrastructure, right? Of what we both need to maintain, and instead of potentially each of us doing our own thing, is that there may be make sense of when we kind of start getting closer is looking at some of those different alternatives of you know, maybe just not staying within the city of Belgrade or not staying within the city of Bozeman, and how does that regional utilities kind of look at like so uh Chris Minacucci. I agree. I think uh I lived in Melgrade 36 years, so I was there when it was 3,000 people. Um I think surprisingly, we're going south instead of coming um east. So our growth now is north and south. So I don't know what that means in the future, I'll be dead probably, but um I I'd like to agree with Mike that we and uh Alison that we are cognizant of the things that we have that are can't put a monetary um section on, and so um I don't know what's going to come. It's surprised all of us. I've been on the council about 14 years, and it's shocking, it's shocking. So that's my four sense. I like to talk, by the way. It seems to me that growing towards Bozeman is impeded by the gravel pit. And I'm curious if there are any plans to do to the gravel pit, what has been done kind of on the north or close to the airport um ramp. Any plans to kind of wrap up the gravel pit and fill it? Or is that uh pipe dream towards some future generation? Yeah, I I might jump in here a little bit on maybe look to our city manager to fill in any holes. But um the original uh in the pit, essentially on the north side of the airport interchange there, uh is that they really kind of just done phase one, right? And I don't think that it's um taken off quite as quickly as they at first hoped. And so multiple phases as it continues to east into the development there, um, you know, a lot of like the asphalt and and other things are gonna eventually transition to the south side, and that development's gonna keep on going uh further east. But I think it's a little bit of trying to you know wait for the developer and and them, you know, business partners. But we have just recently opened up the second hotel down in there, the Hampton is in there.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com