Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Self Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney outlines Bozeman charter and scope of self-government powers
Summary
Greg Sullivan, Bozeman city attorney, briefed the study commission on the city charter, Montana’s self-government framework under the 1972 constitution, statutory limits, and recent case law. He described examples of how Bozeman has used self-government powers and cautioned on areas preempted by state law.
Greg Sullivan, Bozeman’s city attorney, gave an extended briefing March 6 on the Bozeman charter and the scope and limits of self-government powers under Montana law. The presentation covered constitutional background, the statutory framework in Title 7 (chapter 3) for charters, and how courts and the attorney general have analyzed local authority.
Sullivan told the commission that the 1972 Montana Constitution established a framework allowing charter governments to exercise “any power” not prohibited by the state or the charter. He said the legislature’s implementation appears in Title 7, Chapter 3, and explained the three-part test used by the attorney general and courts: consult the charter and constitutional limits; review state statutes for express prohibitions or preemption; and assess whether a claimed local power is inconsistent with state law.
“Montana’s system is a shared-powers concept,” Sullivan said. “The city could do anything unless it was unconstitutional or the legislature had said you can't.” He walked commissioners through examples where self-government powers have been upheld and where they were constrained: local smoking bans and clean indoor-air ordinances, system development fees, business-license challenges, and the state’s express prohibitions on several topics (for example, plastics and certain utility connections). Sullivan also described Bozeman’s local uses of self-government powers, including impact fees, wetland and floodplain regulation integrated into the Unified Development Code, landscape and outdoor water-use standards, inclusionary zoning (later prohibited by the Legislature), personnel and contracting policies, and the city’s ethics program.
Sullivan cautioned that some authorities (notably municipal courts, certain election rules, and licensing for professions) remain governed principally by state law and that when state law expressly occupies a field or prohibits local regulation, the city cannot act. He discussed the plastics initiative litigation and said the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legislature’s prohibition on local initiatives regulating plastics.
Commissioners asked questions about whether a charter can restrict self-government powers, about how neighborhood recognition and designated agencies are implemented, and about campaign-finance authority. Sullivan said the charter statute allows charters to include limitations but that answers depend on the specific statute and legal context.
Sullivan also highlighted the city’s ethics program: annual training for staff and appointed officials, an internal team that develops curriculum, and the city attorney’s office’s role in providing opinions and, when needed, outside counsel for hearings where the city attorney is conflicted.
The briefing closed with commissioners asking for follow-up presentations from department heads on budgeting, neighborhood coordination, and program evaluation as the commission moves into substantive work.
