Missoula County plans ordinance to formalize community councils, favoring appointments over elections

Missoula County officials briefed community councils Oct. 22 on a plan to adopt a county ordinance to formalize how community councils are established and administered.

Chris Lounsbury, the county’s chief administrative officer, said a county review found that community councils in Missoula County have historically been established by resolution and local processes, but that the Montana Code Annotated requires establishment by ordinance for counties operating under an elected-official form of government. "What it says in state law is that we need to have an ordinance if we're going to have community councils," Lounsbury told attendees.

Under the draft approach described by staff, community councils would be standardized (the county is contemplating a seven-member membership), membership would be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners rather than administered through an annual candidate filing and election process, and the county would take on more of the administrative workload for council finances (for example, invoicing and paying hall rental and Zoom subscriptions) through a new county finance system. Staff said the intent is to preserve the existing $1,000 annual allocation for each community council while reducing volunteer administrative burden.

Lounsbury said county staff will circulate a draft ordinance after the meeting and asked councils to provide feedback ahead of a planned January 2026 public meeting before the commissioners so the county can align procedures with the Elections Office candidate-filing schedule. He said staff would also update council bylaws to reflect any ordinance provisions.

Participants asked whether appointment would preclude elections in the future; Lounsbury replied that under current statute there is not a separate election process for advisory boards under Missoula’s form of government and that appointments are the practical path now, though he did not rule out future statutory changes.

Staff also clarified operational details: a council that cannot meet for six consecutive months could be considered for dissolution by the commissioners, and the county intends to continue supporting council allocations while reducing the administrative recordkeeping burden placed on volunteers.