The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986 Study Commission Final Report.pdfBOZEMAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1984 - 1986 Final Report Minority Report Recommendations to the City of Bozeman Submitted May 31, 1986 FINAL REPORT BOZEMAN CITY GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION FINAL REPORT To the Citizens of Bozeman: The Bozeman Study Commission elected by the voters on Nov. 6, 1984, present this final report to the citizens of this city. The purpose of the study commission, as defined in state law, is "to study the existing form and powers of our City Government and procedures for delivery of local government services and compare them with other forms available under the laws of the State of Montana. If some change is deemed necessary, the study commission may submit such proposed change to the electors. In the conduct of their review the study commission has sought advice and information from a number of people in the city. Opinions and recommendations were solicited from local government officials, community organizations and citizens. All meetings of the study commission were open to the public. Public hearings were held to determine citizen opinion. As a result of discussions held with the people and groups mentioned the Bozeman City Study Commission has concluded that there is general consensus that the existing city commission manager form of government has served this city well since its organization, and will continue to .do so in the future. We therefore, recommend no change in this form of government. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Knapp - Chairman Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung Jay Wilson Bozeman City Study Commission May 30, 1986 BOZEMAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION MINORITY REPORT While in general agreement with the activities and decisions of the Bozeman Local Government Study Commission, it is our position that the issue of a city charter with self government powers should be brought to the immediate attention of Bozeman voters. The original intention of local government review was for the purpose of citizen participation in local government. Other than a town meeting form of government, (which is void in Bozeman because of population figures), self government powers provide for the most direct form of citizen participation in decision making. Self government powers have been available to Montana cities and counties for the last ten years. Nineteen cities and counties in Montana are now governed by self government powers. Many of these 19 government entities are considered the largest and most progressive in the state. While it is acknowledged that self government powers have not been used to their full potential in Montana, recent State Supreme Court decisions have ruled in favor of communities with self government powers, making self government powers appear even more attractive for the following reasons: (1) The voter approved charter that would accompany self government powers could be quite specific as to what types of revenue the city could and could not raise and place specific limits on the city's ability to tax. (2) Standards such as air quality, water quality, and hazardous waste storage and disposal could be set at levels higher than the state or federal government standards now in place. (3) Practices now dictated to local government through state statutes, such as the establishment of city fees or employee work hours, could be revised by city administrators to reflect the specific needs of Bozeman, leading to increased savings of city expenditures. (4) Bozeman will be receiving less money from revenue sharing programs at the federal and state level. Faced with this serious loss of revenue, self government powers would provide the City with every possible option for making up these loses in revenue through programs or fees that are acceptable to and approved by the citizens of Bozeman. (5) While this does imply that the city would have the power to levy fees, self government powers would allow for the citizens of Bozeman to determine not only the level of taxation, but also the allocation of that tax_ money to specific services or programs. 1 VI, L� Respectfully submitted, James L. Goehrung Robert K. Johnson May 30, 1986 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO THE CITY OF BOZEMAN The Bozeman Study Commission has spent 17 months studying Bozeman's local government form and performance. The Study Commission interviewed the City Commission in open hearings, and met with a broad spectrum of City employees informally to understand the working of City government. In addition, the Study Commission held public hearings and conducted a public issue survey to understand the preception the citizens have of the form and performance of government. While studying the performance of Bozeman's Commission /Manager form of government the Study Commission investigated all the other possible forms allowed by state statute. While it is the conclusion of the Study Commission that no change in the form of government be recommended, and placed on the ballot there does appear to be several areas where helpful changes could be made within the existing structure. Attached you will find these recommendations listed separately. Each recommendation is signed by the study commission member(s) who feel its importance. Beverly Knapp - Chairman Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung Jay Wilson Bozeman City Study Commission May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION We the undersigned suggest that the provide the necessary funding for a the possibility of a ballot issue powers for the City of Bozeman. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung city by 1989 appoint and study group to investigate proposing self - governing May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Need for a City Personnel Director A Personnel Director would be available to deal with the following problems: (1) The omnipresent problem that surfaced in the majority of interviews with City staff, directors and division chiefs, appeared to be one of communication. Frequently cited, were problems that could have been avoided if the people with hands -on responsibility had been consulted or been allowed to give testimony or have in -put in the decision making process. (2) There is an apparent need for codified hiring and firing, (regulations) from a central city office and officer so that searches and dismissals are done within allowed parameters. This should lower the possibility of costly legal suits. It can also handle the routine time consuming functions of job description advertisment. (3) There needs to be developed a complete set of job descriptions with an equitable pay schedule for all employees. Currently, some hourly jobs have very limited requirements and duties and pay more than other jobs requiring professional degrees and experience. (4) A personnel director would be able to develop a useful and flexible organizational chart of City government and functions, so that resources could be allocated on actual needs rath6r then historic ones. In times of dwindling, resources this is not just a cosmetic bit of paper shuffling. (5) Develop and maintain a professional enrichment program for all personnel. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Clerk of Commission maintain a record of any matters of City Business that could be dealt with more effectively if self government powers were in place. Also if there are any matters that could be affected in a negative manner by self governing powers , that they be recorded also. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOM WENDAT I ON Need For Lona Ranae Plannin The below signed Study Commissioners commend the City Commission for its determination to do long range planning and goal setting. The need to set goals and priorities is very evident. The development of the Capital Improvement Plan to even out large capital expenditure is a good start. Goal setting can help elminate some problems which end up calling for crisis management. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Commission & City Manager review annually the purpose & function of all advisory boards. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION City Commissioners pursue & promote volunteerism among business & community groups. Beverly H. Knapp Mike Kennedy James L. Goehrung Robert K. Johnson May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Interviews with a number of department heads suggested somewhat of a problem with bottom to top communication. Recommendation: Quarterly meetings to discuss operations, current needs, future needs and develop appropriate strategies. All department heads along with City and Assistant City Manager would attend these meetings. Mike Kennedy Beverly H. Knapp Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Pursue interlocal agreement feasibility with the following departments: (1) Street Maintenance (2) Solid waste collection & disposal (3) Parks & Playgrounds & Recreation (4) Law Enforcement & Fire Protection (5) Purchasing Department 4 -XV/ /� , / � 14,1_1 Mike Kennedy G Beverly H. Knapp Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Institute & execute a goal planning, and progress evaluation program on a annual or bi- annual basis. Recommendation: Annual goal setting (workshop) (1) Attendance of all advisory board members sharing community needs. (2) Initiate citizens board to help with process. (3) Coincide budget process with goal setting process. (4) Publish goals. (S) Evaluate progress half -way through year at commission meetings w /public invited to participate. Mike Kennedy Beverly H. Knapp Robert K. Johnson James L. Goehrung May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City consider turning services over to private agencies, such as cities like Phoenix, AZ have done successfully. (a) Garbage Collection (b) Sewage Treatment (c) Water Supply (d) Street Maintenance (e) Fire Protection Jay Wilson .� u,,., May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City consider cutting personnel in Planning and Zoning, and putting larger percentage of scarce resources into Police & Fire Protection. Jay Wilson '"`7 May 30, 1986 RECOMMENDATION Recommend user's fee for non -city residents' use of library. Jay Wilson May 30, 1986 a ' MONTANA'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW The idea that it's a good thing to examine local government. is not new. Many states provide various methods allowing such review. However, no other state does it in the sweeping way that it is done in Montana. The authors of the 1972 Montana Constitution wrote in their own method of local government review, not matched by any other state. Article XI, Section 9, provides for a review of local government every ten years, beginning in 1974. They decided that periodic self examination of local government was a healthy idea In fact, they decided that it was such a good idea that they required it of all units of county and municipal government. The first voter review process began in 1974 with the election of unpaid, non - partisan study commissions comprised of 3 - 9 members. They had two years to complete their work and were required to put a proposal on the ballot for citizens consideration. The voters could choose between the existing form of local government or the proposal of the study commission. For two years (1974 -76) a study commission examined the organization and structure of its local government, interviewed members of the government, held hearings for the public to acquire and share perceptions of the representativeness, responsiveness, and general capacity of their government to deliver services efficiently and to provide for the health and safety of their community. As a result of the first local government review process, four units of county government and 27 municipal governments were changed by a vote of their citizens (See Table 2). The Constitution was amended in 1978 to change the review process. This change made the process more permissive in that the voters were given the opportunity to decide whether or not they wished to review their government every ten years. At the primary election in 1984, 25 counties and 73 municipalities voted to review their governments yet again. Study commissions were then elected at the general election in November, 1984, and once again had two years to study their governments and write a report. In contrast with the first review, these study commissions were not required to put a proposal for change on the ballot. They could decide, after examining their local governments, that there was no need for change, they could make certain'recommendations directly to their local government, or they could put a proposal for structural change on the ballot. This time 13 county proposals and 24 municipal proposals were put on the ballot of which 16 (2 county and 14 municipal) were approved by the voters at the general elections of 1986 (see Table 2). As a result of the third round election for review of local government, 33 counties and 79 municipal governments will be reviewing their form of government (see Table 1). Study commissions will study the existing form and powers of their local government and how it provides services. They will then compare the local government with other forms of government available under state law. Study commissions will ask their local voters to evaluate their government so that the review process can become a community wide performance audit of local government (see Study Commission Questions). The choices that are available for change are described in state law. Charter writing plus five optional forms of government are available for study commission consideration. If a study commission decides to write a charter it has more freedom to design governmental structures. Charter writing by a study commission is analogous to a mini constitutional convention. However, a study commission also has limits defined by law to guide them. In addition study commissions may. 1. Propose an amendment to the existing form of government 2 Propose a new form of government authorized under state law: a. commission - executive (mayor - council) b. commission- manager (manager) c. commission (elected county official) d. commission- chairman e. town meeting (for cities of less than 2000 people) 3. Draft a charter (write its own constitution for the government) 4. Propose city -county consolidation if both city and county study commissions agree to such a proposal 5. Submit no recommendation 6. A city study commission may recommend: a. disincorporation b. service consolidation or transfer in cooperation with a county study commission or one or more city study commissions 7. A county study commission may recommend: a. service consolidation or transfer in cooperation with a study commission of another county or with a study commission of one or more municipalities b. recommend county merger in cooperation with a study commission in an adjoining county The study commission must write a final report. If they make no recommendations the report is simply published and distributed to, the appropriate agencies. If the study commission recommends an alternative plan of government it must be placed on the ballot no later than November, 1996 (see Deadlines for Study Commissions). If the voters adopt the recommended alternative plan of government a special election will be held to elect the officials required by the new form of government. The new plan of government takes effect when the new officers take office unless otherwise provided in any charter or consolidation plan. Local governing bodies have tasks and responsibilities in regard to study commissions (see the following Chart of Responsibilities). Prepared by: Local Government Center, Montana State University 2 .. DRAFT RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN REGARD TO STUDY COMMISSIONS DEADLINE AC70N STATUTE COMMENTS SECOND MONDAY IN AUG. APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO 7-3-1840 (at) AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FUND STUDY. SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 MILL AG HAS SAID THIS IS SUBJECT TO 1 -105. LOCAL GOVT. SHALL 73.154(2) (b) IN -IQND SERVICES MAY BE PROVIDE OFFICE AND USED TO FULFILL MEc;1NG SPACE, CLERICAL APPROPRIATION ASSISTANCE. REQUIREMENT. LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY 7- 3- 184(2)(c) DISCRETION GIVEN APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL GOVERNING BODY. FUNDS. ALL MONEY RECEIVED BY 73- 184(4) STUDY COMMISSION MAY STUDY COMMISSION RECEIVE OTHER FUNDS DEPCSTTED WITH LOCAL WHICH MUST BE DEPOSITED GOVERNMENT. WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT_ AFTER NOV. 8, 1994 IF THERE IS A T1E VOTE, 73- 176(4) GOVERNING BODY BREAKS T1E NOV. 18, 1994 EX- CFFICIO MEMBER MUST 73-177 THE EX -OFFICIO NONVOTING BE APPOINTED BY MEMBER MAY BE A MEMBER GOVERN,NG BODY BEFORE OF THE GOVERNING BODY OR ORGANIZATION OF STUDY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR COMMISSION. EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. NOV. 28, 1994 OR 10 DAYS CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNING 73- 179(1) AFTER ALL MEMBERS OF BODY SETS TIME FOR FIRST STUDY COMMISSION ARE MEETING OF STUDY ELECTED OR APPOINTED. COMMISSION. NOV. 28, 1994 IF TOO FEW STUDY 73- 176(5) NO ELECTED OFFICIAL OF COMMISSIONERS ARE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED, GOVERNING BODY MAY BE APPOINTED. CHMRMtiN, WITH CONFIRMATION OF GOVERNING BODY APPOINTS NUMBER NEEDED. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF LOCAL GOVERNING BODY 73- 178(2) VACANCY ON STUDY APPOINTS NEW STUDY COMMISSION COMMISSIONER WHENEVER A VACANCY OCCURS. ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS 7.3 -190 LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES SUBMITTAL OF MAY RECOMMEND ARE EXPECTED TO RESPOND SUPPLEMENTARY CONSOLIDATION OF TO SUGGESTIONS MADE IN REPORT. SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS AND INDICATE POTENTIAL BY STUDY COMMISSIONS. AREAS FOR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS. Prepared by: Loral Government Center, Montana State University DRAFT DEADLINES FOR STUDY COMMISSION ACTION DEADLINE ACTION STATUTE COMMENTS November 8, 1994 Study commission ekwted 73- 176(1) November 11, 1994 Election resutta canvassed 13-15- 401(1) November 18, 1994 First organizational meeting of study commission (If 73- 179(1) First meeting called by chair of governing no appointments were made). Study commission body includes an ex- officio non -voting representative of governing body. Election of temporary or permanent chair 7-3 -1790 Budget preparation for presentation to governing body begins. Fiscal year covers July 1, 1994 7.3 -184 through June 30, 1995 November 23, 1994 Study commission election report filed with 7-3-1740 Secretary of State November 28, 1994 Appointments necessary to complete study 73- 176(5) Chair of governing body appoints, with commission made. consent of governing body December 8, 1994 First organizational meeting for commissions which 73- 179(1) Follow same action as November 18, 1994 had appointments February 16, 1995 ff ail members of commission were elected, the 73186(1) Timetable to be published, Timetable may be commission establishes timetable for its work revised. Timetable has requirements. March 8, 1995 If commission has any appointed members, the 73- 186(1) Same as above commission establishes timetable for Re work As determined by Conduct one or more public hearings to gather 73- 186(2) Work conducted as specified by the adopted the local study information on the current form, functions, and timetable commission problems of local government Formulate, reproduce, and distribute tenative report, following guidelines for final report Conduct one or more public hearings on tenative report Spring and Summer Prepare budget for July i, 1995 - June 30, 1996 to 7-3-184 Local governing body procedures to be 1995 submit to local governing body for approval followed Spring and Summer ff necessary, prepare budget for July 1, 1996 - June 73-184 1996 30, 1997, to submit to local governing body for approval October 6, 1996 Adopt final report 73-187 Final report must be made available to electors at least 30 days prior to election on any proposed alternatives As determined by Publish summary of findings and recommendations 73-191 Summary must include comparison of existing local study and proposed plans of government commission prior to, or on Hold election on any proposed govemmental 73. 192(1) Election must be held within 120 days of November 5, 1996 alternative adoption of final report if any governmental changes are proposed November 23, 1996 File report on results of Nov 4 elections 73-174 If election was held earlier, the report is filed within 15 days of the date that the election results become final Prepared by: Local Government Center, Montana State University Ll TWENTY QUESTIONS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ,7T STUDY COMMISSIONS MIGHT ASK Questions for Local Government Officials and Employees 1. What are the specific responsibilities of your elected officials? Z. What are the most important problems confronting your elected officials? 3. Does the city /county government have a current organization chart? Can a copy be made available to the Study Commission? 4. What changes, if any, in governmental structures, organization or powers are necessary to deal with the local government's most important problems? 5. What is the present rate of compensation of each elected official? Is it fair? 6. What is the total of all budgeted expenditures (total annual appropriation other than municipal water, sewer, or other enterprize funds) for the present fiscal year? a. How does this year's total budgeted expenditure compare with the past five years? b. What have been the causes of any significant change in expenditure levels? 7. What is the total budgeted property tax revenue for the present fiscal year? a. How does this year's property tax revenue compare with the past five years? b. What have been the causes of any significant change in property tax revenue? 8. What utility services (e.g. water, garbage collection and land fill operation) are provided by the government? a. Have there been any rate changes during the past five years? b. Can service be improved or costs contained through consolidation of utility services with similar services provided by other local jurisdictions in the area? 9. When was the most recent audit of city /county financial management and what was the outcome? Can the government provide the Study Commission a copy of the audit report and management letter, including the audit reports of all enterprize fund activities? 10. What are the responsibilities and, duties of the non - elected department heads? 1 a_ If so,. is there. a Study Commission for the other government and will they work with you to study and evaluate consolidation possibilities? 17. Is an alternative form of local government likely to be more efficient, or has it worked more efficiently only in certain kinds of communities? 18. Would self - government (home rule) powers give your government greater flexibility? 19. Even if you choose not to place a proposal on the ballot, can you use your final report to recommend to the governing body improvements in service delivery through consolidation of services or functions? 20. Have you done everything you reasonably can to assure that every citizen in the jurisdiction has had an opportunity to know about and participate in your local government review process? Prepared by the Local Government Center, Montana State University 3 . TABLE 1 Local Government Review Election Results June 7, 1994 3 Votes Votes Per cent Study 4 for Against Votes for Com. Com. Review Review Review Pos. Cand. Anaconda -Deer Lodge 1988 1060 65.2 5 16 Beaverhead 1203 846 58.7 3 10 Dillon 589 299 66.3 3 5 Big Horn 1260 772 62.0 3 5 Hardin 401 257 60.9 3 2 Lodge Grass 61 19 76.2 3 0 Blaine 884 697 55.9 3 0 Chinook 360 267 57.4 3 1 Harlem 133 113 54.1 3 0 Broadwater 464 365 56.0 5 2 Silver Bow 6175 4437 58.2 9 34 Walkerville 160 72 69.0 5 5 Carbon 1268 989 56.2 3 8 Bridger 99 91 52.1 3 2 Fromberg 68 49 58.1 3 4 Joliet 100 68 59.5 3 0 Red lodge 362 215 62.7 3 4 Cascade 13175 6855 65.8 5 26 Belt 104 63 62.3 3 0 Cascade 10 2 83.3 3 2 Great Falls 10305 5236 66.3 7 17 Chouteau did not pass Fort Benton 305 276 .52.5 3 6 Geraldine 53 50 51.5 3 0 Custer 1532 1411 52.1 5 9 Miles City 1205 922 56.7 5 7 Daniels did not pass Scobey 126 124 50.4 3 1 Dawson 1496 1110 57.4 3 7 Glendive 863 603 58.9 3 5 Richey 42 35 54.5 3 1 Fallon did not pass Baker 220 207 51.5 3 1 Fergus 1547 1356 53.3 5 15 Lewistown 849 555 60.5 5 10 Flathead 9206 6451 58.8 9 37 Kalispell 1678 1297 56.4 5 10 Whitefish .566 339 62.5 3 0 Gallatin 4241 3580 54.2 5 18 Bozeman 1603 1126 58.7 5 10 Three Forks 167 143 53_9 3 1 West Yellowstone 127 64 66.5 3 0 3 J _ Glacier 1317 810 61.9 3 z Browning 148 35 80.9- 5 2 Cut Bank 502 376 -57.2 5 2 Granite 473 463 50.5 3 2 Drummond 112 40 73.7 3 2 Hill 1848 1327 58.2 3 7 Havre 1044 633 62.3 3 5 Jefferson 1351 1094 55.3 5 17 Boulder 260 200 56.5 5 0 Lake 2560 1792 58.8 3 11 Polson 435 270 61.7 5 6 Ronan 162 121 57.2 5 1 St. Ignatius 105 56 65.2 3 0 Lewis & Clark 7233 3927 64.8 7 30 East Helena 266 222 54.5 3 6 Helena 4312 2068 67.6 5 20 Lincoln 2781 2394 53.7 5 11 Libby 439 341 56.3 3 0 Rexford 29 26 52.7 3 2 Madison 1188 1114 51.6 3 5 Ennis 259 90 74.2 3 4 Twin Bridges 77 65 54.2 3 0 Virginia City 46 35 56.8 5 2 Mccone did not pass Circle 132 118 52.8 5 0 Mineral 601 548 52.3 3 4 Alberton 61 42 59.2 3 2 Superior 192 155 55.3 3 0 Missoula did not pass Missoula 5743 5434 51.4 7 33 Musselshell 566 507 52.7 5 3 Roundup 364 279 56.6 3 1 Park 2558 1565. 62.0 5 13 Clyde Park 49 30 62.0 3 1 Livingston 1360 597 69.5 5 8 Petroleum did not pass Winnett 48 43 52.7 3 1 Phillips did not pass Malta 356 282 55.8 3 2 Pondera 1005 873 53.5 5 10 Conrad 506 375 57.4 3 0 Valier 85 81 51.2 3 3 Powell 692 634 52.2 3 5 Deer Lodge 492 393 55.6 3 1 Prairie _ did not pass Terry 129 124 51.0 3 1 Ravalli 3135 2127 59.6 3 19 Darby 83 44 65.4 3 4 Hamilton 397 189 67.7 5' 6 Pinesdale 65 64 50.4 3 4 Stevensville 146 118 55.3 5 6 Richland 1008 905 52.7 5 6 Fairview 75 64 54.0 3 1 Sidney 418 356 54.0 5 0 7 Prepared by: Local Government Center, Montana State University E. Roosevelt did not pass Bainville 22 17 56.4 3 0 Brockton 25 18 58.1 3 0 Poplar 101 59 63.1 3 0 Wolf Point 373 337 52.5 3 0 Rosebud 951 854 52.7 5 13 Forsyth 340 284 54.5 3 6 Sanders did not pass Thompson Falls 297 230 56.4 3 2 Stillwater 1054 836 55.8 5 16 Columbus 348 245 58.7 3 4 Teton 940 872 51.9 5 9 Choteau 338 333 50.4 5 4 Fairfield 143 101 58.6 3 0 Toole 921 745 55.3 5 12 Kevin 31 17 64.6 3 0 Shelby 578 406 58.7 5 2 Sunburst 81 53 60.4 3 0 Treasure did not pass Hysham 101 96 51.3 3 0 Valley did not pass Glasgow 451 411 52.3 7 0 Wheatland did not pass Harlowton 288 237 54.9 3 2 Judith Gap 30 25 54.5 3 0 Wibaux did not pass Wibaux 95 88 51.9 3 0 Yellowstone 10778 7623 58.6 7 25 Billings 7977 4985 61.5 7 25 Laurel 704 498 58.6 3 7 Total County 151 407 Total City 305 322 Prepared by: Local Government Center, Montana State University E. 1974 1976 -------------------------------- EXISTING PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY FORM FORM ---------------- ALBERTON - - - CON - -- EX ANACONDA— CON EX DEER LODGE CON NCN PART BAINVILLE CON EX BAKER CON EX BEARCREEK COM EX BELGRADE CON EX BELT CON EX BIG SANDY CON EX BIG TIMBER CON EX BILLINGS CON EX BOULDER CON EX BOZEMAN MGR NON PART BRIDGER COM EX .o BROADUS COM EX BROADVIEW CON EX BROCKTON CON EX BROWNING CON EX BUTTE- CON EX SILVER BOW CON GENERAL CASCADE COM EX CHESTER COM EX CHINOOK CON EX CHOTEAU CON EX CIRCLE CON EX CLYDE PARK CON EX COLUMBIA CON EX FALLS CON COLUMBUS CON EX CONRAD CON EX CULBERTSON CON EX CUT BANK CON EX DARBY CON EX DEER LODGE CON EX DENTON CON EX TABLE 2 MUNICIPAL VOTER REVIEW EXPERIENCE 1976 1984 -------------------- - - - - -- ADOPTED FORM CON EX (A) CON EX MGR (C) * MGR (C) * CONSOL. NO ELECTION CON EX (A)2 NO ELECTION CON EX (A) CON EX (A) CON EX (A) CON EX (C)* MGR (C)* CON EX (A) MGR (C) * COM EX (C)* CON EX (A) CON CH (A)* NO ELECTION CON EX (A)* CON EX (C)* CONSOL. COM CH (A) MGR (A) * CON EX (A)* MGR (C) * CON EX (C)* CON EX (A)* DISINCORP. 1986 1986 � a EXISTING PROPOSED GOVERNMENT Fr,•. OF FORM FCCRM FUM ELECTION POWERS CON EX NO REVIEW 0114 EX NW ...T GENERAL is • • n Z E• MGR • PART SELF CON EX (A) CON EX CON NO EIFCTICH CCM EX NCN PART GENERAL CON EX ( A) CON EX CON NO EIECTICU OCM EX NON PART GENERAL COM EX (A) * CON EX CON NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL COM EX (A) COM EX COM MGR (C) * MGR (C) * NON PART SELF CON EX (A) CON EX CON AMEND OCM EX AMEND OCM EX NON PART GENERAL. CON EX (A) * CON EX CON NO ELECTION OCM EX PART GENERAL CON EX (C) * CON EX CON NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL MGR ( C) * MGR ( C) * NO REVIEW MGR (C) * NON PART SELF CON EX CON EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL MGR MGR NO EIEC.'TTION MGR NON PART GENERAL COM EX ( C) * COM EX ( C) * NO ELECTION OCM EX (C) * NON PART SELF CON EX CON EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL COM CH ( A) * COM CH ( A) * NO REVIEW COM CH (A) * NON PART SELF CON EX CON EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) * COM EX (A) * NO ELECTION OCM EX (A) * NON PART SELF CON EX ( C) * COM EX ( C) * AMEND CHARTER OCM EX (C) * NON PART SEIF COM EX CON EX AMEND CCM EX AMEND CCM EX NON PART GENERAL COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX CON EX CCM EX (A) 2 OCM EX PART GENERAL CON EX CON EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX ( C) * CON EX (C) * NO ELECTION OCM EX (C) * NON PART SELF CON EX (A) * CON EX (A) * NO ELECTICN OCM EX (A) * NON PART SELF CON EX CON EX NO ELECTION CCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) CON EX CON EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NCN PART GENERAL CON CH ( A) CON EX CON EX NO ELECTICN CCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) * CON EX CON EX OCM EX (A) OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) CON EX ( A) CON EX ( A) NO ELECTION OCM EX (A) NON PART GENERAL CON EX (A) * CON EX CON EX AMEND OCM EX AMEND OCM EX NON PART GENERAL CON EX (C) * CON EX CON EX NO REVIEW CCM EX NON PART GOAL TABLE 2 (conit) 1974 1976 ------------------------------------ EXISTING PROPOSED MUNICIPALITY FORM FORM ------------------------------ - - - - -- D I LLON DODSON DRUMMOND DUTTON EAST HELENA EKALAKA ENNIS EUREKA FAIRFIELD FAIRVIEW FLAXVILLE FORSYTH FORT BENTON FORT PECK FROID FROMBERG GERALDINE CD GLASGOW GLENDIVE GRASS RANGE GREAT FALLS HAMILTON HARDIN HARLEM HARLOWTON HAVRE HELENA HINGHAM HOBSON HOT SPRINGS HYSHAM ISMAY JOLIET JORDAN JUDITH GAP 1976 1984 1986 1986 FORM FORM r:•: •:•: ELOMCH ••. ID•.. COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX EX (A)* COM EX COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX EX COM EX COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX COM COM EX COM EX COM CH (A) COM EX EX COM EX COM EX COM EX (C)* COM EX (C)* COM EX COM EX TOWN MEET (C)* COM EX EX (A) COM EX COM EX COM CH (A)2 COM EX EX COM EX COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX COM EX (A)? COM EX EX COM EX COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX EX (A) COM EX COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX (A)* COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX (A)* COM COM EX MGR (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM MGR COM EX (C) *1 MGR MGR COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX COM COM EX MGR (A)* COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX COM COM EX MGR (A)2 COM EX COM MGR MGR (C)* MGR (C)* MGR COM EX COM EX (A)* COM EX (A)* COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX COM COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM COM EX TOWN MEET (C)* COM EX COM (A) (C) (A) EX EX (A) * EX EX (A) * EX EX (A) EX EX EX EX EX (C) EX (A) EX EX EX EX EX EX EX • •� t D • �1 a r • 21 a r • •� RD • O1 0 • • •� to • OI D • • •J /D r.• • � a r • 01 a • • 11 RD • •1 1D • •1 /D • •� I • •� t D (A) (A) CICH E •• OC14 EX OCH EX 03M E► OCt4 EX •r OCM E► OCM EX ID • ••' 011 0CM E► 03M E OC14 01 00H EX OCH E C cam a► • • 0• OOM t► •• 0• r.• la • OC24 E► OCM E► OCM EX OCN E 014 E► r. CCH as 014 E OCH E OCK 0• Ocm 01 OC14 t► OCt4 E► •• y ...J NCN PART NM PART =PARTy M"N PART N•; ...T • PART y; PART ,• AR NCV PART NON PART Nai PART r.a 121• • r.a la• . ra 121• . ra 121• . ra 121• . ra 121• . •101 ' ra 121• . !1D 121• . !ID 121• . ra 121• . na 121• . ra 121• . ra 121• . ti01 ra 121• `101 CD la• r.D 121• . 21 e+a 121• er21 121• r.D 121• ela 121• ela 121• . •101 !ID 121• . ra 121• . e"1211211. -D log' ela 121 • • H1 . 21• 121; ; TABLE 2 (con't) 1974 1976 1976 1984 1986 1986 EXISTING PROPOSED ADOPTED EXISTING PROPOSED CXn7T FORM OF MUNICIPALITY FORM FORM FORM FORM Fam Fum ELECTION POWERS KALISPELL COM EX MGR (A) COM EX COM EX COM EX (C)* OCM EX PART GENERAL KEVIN COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) AMEND OCM EX (A) AMEND OCM EX (A) NON PART GENERAL LAUREL COM EX MGR (A) * COM EX COM EX • NO REVIEW OCM EX NOUN PART GENERAL LAVINA COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX AMEND OCM EX AMEND OCx'4 EX NON PART GENERAL LEWISTOWN COM EX MGR (C) * COM EX COM EX OCM EX (C)* OCM EX NON PART GENERAL LIBBY COM EX DISINCORP. COM EX COM EX Mst (C) * OCM EX NON PART GENERAL LIMA COM EX COM CH (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX PART GENERAL LIVINGSTON COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) MGR (A) MSR (A) NON PART GENERAL LODGE GRASS COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) NO ELECTION OCM EX (A) PART GENERAL MALTA COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX AMEND OCM EX 014 EX PART GENERAL MANHATTAN COM EX TOWN MEET (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELBCIION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL MEDICINE LAKE COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO EIDCTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL MELSTONE COM EX COM CH (C) * COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL MILES CITY COM EX MGR (A) COM EX COM EX MGR (A) MGR (A) NON PART GENERAL r, MISSOULA COM EX COM EX (C) *l COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX PART GENERAL +- MISSOULA CO. COM CONSOL. COM MOORE COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OOM ESC NON PART GENERAL NASHUA COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL NEIHART COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX (A) * COM EX (A) * NO REVIEW OCM EX (A)* NON PART SELF OPHEIM COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL 'OUTLOOK COM EX TOWN MEET (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL PHILIPSBURG COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCM EX NON PART GENERAL PINESDALE NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL PLAINS COM EX COM EX (A) 2 COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL PLENTYWOOD COM EX MGR (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL PLEVNA COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) NO ELECTION OCM EX (A) NON PART GENERAL POLSON CdM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EC NON PART GENERAL POPLAR COM EX MGR (C) * MGR (C) * COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL RED LODGE COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX AMEND OCM EX 2 AMEND COM EX * NON PART SELF REXFORD COM EX TOWN MEET (A) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL RICHEY COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCM EC NON PART GENERAL RONAN COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECIION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL ROUNDUP COM EX COM EX (C) * COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PART GENERAL RYEGATE COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL SACO COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION OCM EX NON PAW GENEf2AL TABLE 2 (con't) 1974 1976 1976 1984 1986 1986 EXISTING PROPOSED ADOPTED EXISTING PROPOSED GOVERNMENT FORK OF MUNICIPALITY FORM FORM FORM FORM Fri FORM ELECTION PIOWERS ST. IGNATIUS COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCM EX NO1N PART GENERAL SCOBEY COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NM PART GENERAL SHELBY COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX MaR (C) * CCM EX NON PART GENERAL SHERIDAN COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERAL SIDNEY COM EX COM EX (C) * COM EX COM EX AMEND CCM EX AMEND CCM EX NUJ PART GENERAL STANFORD COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCM EX NON PART GENERATE STEVENSVILLE COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO IIIECITION CC24 EX NON PART GENERAL SUNBURST COM EX COM EX (C) * COM EX (C) * COM EX (C) * NO ELECTION CCM EX (C)* NON PART SELF SUPERIOR COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO EII=ON CCM EX NON PART GENERAL. TERRY COM EX TOWN MEET (C) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW OCM EX NON PART GENERATE THOMPSON FALLS COM EX NO ELECTION COM EX COM EX NO REVIEH] CCM EX NON PART GENERAL THREE FORKS COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCM EX NON PART GENERAL TOWNSEND COM EX MGR (C) * COM EX COM EX NO EIECITION CCM EX NON PART GENERAL, TROY COM EX COM EX (A) * COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCM EX (C) * NON PART SELF TWIN BRIDGES COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) NO REVIEW CCM EX (A) NON PART GENERAL VALIER COM EX TOWN MEET (A) * COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCM EX NON PART GENERAL VIRGINIA CITY COM EX COM CH (A) * COM CH (A) * COM CH (A) * NO REVIEW CCM CH (A) * NON PART SELF WALKERVILLE COM EX COM EX (A) ? COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCM EX PART GENERAL WESTBY COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX (A) COM EX (A) NO ELECTION CCM EX (A) NON PART GENERAL WEST YELLOW- COM EX DISINCORP. COM EX COM EX (C) * NO REVIEW CCM EX (C) * NON PART SELF STONE WHITEFISH COM EX MGR (C) * COM EX MGR (C) * AMEND CHAR'I'ER AMEND C-iAF= NON PART SELF WHITEHALL COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCM EX NON PART GENERATE WHITE SULPHUR COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX MGR (C)* CCM EX NON PART GENERAL SPRINGS WIBAUX COM EX DISINCORP. COM EX COM EX NO ELECTION CCf1 EX NON PART GENERAL WINIFRED COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCK EX NON PART GENERAL WINNETT COM EX COM EX (A) COM EX COM EX NO REVIEW CCM EX NON PART GENERAL WOLF POINT COM EX COM EX (C)* COM EX COM EX AMEND 014 EX CCM EX PART GENERAL * Indicates self- government powers. All others have general powers. (C) Indicates a charter. (A) Indicates an alternative form of government. 1 Type of chief executive submitted to the voters as a suboption. 2 Type of powers submitted to the voters as a suboption.