The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19- Response to Campaign Practices Complaint - City of Bozeman - BATES NUMBERING1 Jordan Crosby From:John Newman <jnewman@boonekarlberg.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 05, 2019 5:06 PM To:Jordan Crosby Cc:Christopher Gallus; Adam Shaw; Jim Zadick; Randy Cox; Tasha Jones; Tina Sunderland Subject:Koopman/City of Bozeman Ethics Complaint -- written materials Hello Jordan, For your reference and that of the Bozeman Board of Ethics, the City’s response to Mr. Koopman’s Complaint, which the City filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices on December 6, 2018, can be downloaded here: https://boonekarlberg.sharefile.com/d-sba6456bcba24d999 The response includes the affidavits and documentary materials referenced in the COPP’s January 28, 2019 Dismissal. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. John M. Newman Associate 201 West Main St., Suite 300 P.O. Box 9199 Missoula, MT 59807 Phone: (406) 543-6646 Fax: (406) 549-6804 City 00001 Randy J. Cox Natasha Prinzing Jones John M. Newman HAND DELIVERED BOONE KARLBERG, P.C. P.O. Box 9199 Missoula, MT 59807-9199 Tel.: (406) 543-6646 Fax: ( 406) 549-6804 rcox@boonekarlberg.com njones@boonekarlberg.com jnewman@boonekarlberg.com Attorneys for City of Bozeman RECEI 'ED ZO f 8 OEC -b p 5: 4 8 COMMISSIONER or:- POLITICAL. PRACTICE S BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLITICAL PRACTICES OF STATE OF MONTANA IN RE: THE MATTER OF: ROGER KOOPMAN ET AL. v. CITY OF BOZEMAN ET AL., 2018-CFP-057 CITY ·OF BOZEMAN'S RESPONSE TO CAMPAIGN PRACTICES COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION This case is not about government ethics, improper advocacy, or the sanctity of our elections. This cas.e is about political sour grapes, plain and simple. The City of Bozeman ('~e City") has a statutory and 1noral duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to plan for the future. The City fulfilled that duty on November 6, 201 ·s, when Bozeman electors, by an overwhelming majority, endorsed the City's issuance of municipal bonds to construct the Bozeman Public Safety Center ("BPSC"). The City knows the rules governing bond elections, and it followed those rules with discipline. Now, Bozeman resident and Public Service Commissioner Roger Koopman and Bozeman business owner Paul Johnson, in an obvious political move1 designed to obstruct the 1 See e.g. https://tomegeJhoft:podbean.co.m/e/111718-open-for-business-with-tom-and-shane/; https://www .gofundme.comlhelp-stop-illegal-activties-by-the-city-of-bozeman ~ 1 "' \ \ City 00002 BPSC project, claim the City, its officials and employees, violated Montana campaign practices law merely by educating the public about the need for the BPSC. There is zero factual basis for these allegations. If there is factual support, the City demands it be produced to the Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices ("COPP") in this proceeding. Koopman does not and cannot claim that the BPSC is unnecessary-his lengthy Complaint takes no issue with the facts presented by the City regarding the compelling need for the BPSC. He simply takes issue with any local initiative that raises taxes, regardless of necessity, quality of life, or good governance aimed at improving public safety. Koopman's Complaint-which the City had to self-refer to the COPP-is a dead letter. The undisputable evidence accompanying this response demonstrates: (1) the City, its officials, and employees engaged in lawful, necessary public education regarding the effect of passage or failure of a bond measure pertaining to an essential public safety issue, the BPSC; (2) there was no unlawful coordination between the City and Bozeman Citizens for Safety2, a private political committee, or any other entity; (3) certain City officials exercised their fundamental First Amendment right as citizens to free speech by advocating in favor of the BPSC bond on their own time and using their own resources, in absolute compliance with Montana law; and ( 4) there is absolutely no basis for voiding the results of the BPSC bond election. Koopman's goal is to defeat the bond, after the fact, by causing delay and increased costs. The clock is ticking for the City's bond counsel to issue an opinion regarding the grade of investment of the BPSC bonds. This Complaint and the coITesponding district court action filed by Koopman in Gallatin County deliberately and deceptively frustrate the City's ability to move forward with the bond. If these issues are not resolved quickly, Koopman's unfounded 2 While BCFS is neither affiliated with nor a political committee of the City, as discussed below, the City further contends that BCFS was properly named in accordance with Montana Code Annotated § 13-37-210. -2 - City 00003 allegations jeopardize issuance of the bonds, heap massive and unnecessary costs on City taxpayers, and threaten the BPSC project-which voters overwhelmingly support-altogether. This is exactly Koopman's intent: to trip up a popular measure because he personally disagrees with it. The COPP should foreclose Koopman's brazen attempt to torpedo a necessary piece of public safety infrastructure, reject his claims, and find in favor of the City in this case as quickly as possible. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The City of Bozeman is growing at a rapid pace. The City's population is projected to reach 50,000 by 2020 and, with an annual growth rate of 4.3%, is projected to double by 2040. With this increase in population comes an increased need for public safety and law enforcement services. The City has seen a 16% increase in police calls since 2008, and a staggering 59% increase in fire calls in just the last seven years. With increased law enforcement activity comes a corresponding increase in the work load of Bozeman Municipal co mi, prosecutors, and victim services. At the same time, as these City departments are busier than ever, the physical facilities supporting them are utterly failing. The City leases space for it criminal justice functions in the Gallatin County-owned Law and Justice Center. The Law and Justice Center, located at 615 South 16th A venue, is a retrofitted sixty-year-old school and lacks: (1) adequate space to house the various functions cun-ently located there, including municipal courts and a rapidly-growing police depaiiment; (2) security and safety waining systems; (3) fire sprinklers; (4) secured parking for judges and comi staff; (5) adequate space and secure storage for emergency response -3 - City 00004 vehicles and equipment; ( 6) secme records and evidence storage; and (7) adequate space to maintain separation between prosecutors/victims and defendants. Likewise, the fire depa1iment's Fire Station No. 1, built in the 1970's and grossly undersized for today's needs, currently has eleven munitigated structmal seismic deficiencies related to the roof, walls, and floor; nine non-structural deficiencies; and a failing HV AC system. The facility is literally crumbling around the City's first responders. The BPSC is a necessary response to these substantial public safety concerns-a response required of the City pmsuant to its obligations to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Proposed for construction on a piece of City-owned property at the intersection of North Rouse A venue and East Oak StTeet, the BPSC will house Fire Depruiment personnel and equipment from Fire Station No. 1, the Police Department, the municipal comis, and prosecution and victim services personnel. The BPSC will alleviate the above-described deficiencies without a moment to spru·e, and will also defer the need to construct a fourth fire station for at least six years. The proposal also makes Fire Station No. 1 available for sale, and the proceeds will help offset the costs of constrnction of the BPSC. On July 23, 2018, the City Commission3 voted unanimously to adopt a resolution "submitting to the qualified electors of the [City] the question of issuing general obligation bonds for [the BPSC]" in the November 6, 2018 election. One month before then, in light of the City's obligations to protect health, safety, and welfare, and to educate the electorate regarding these issues, the City registered with the State of Montana as an incidental political committee for the 2018 election cycle. Contrary to Koopman' s assertions, the City was required by law to do so. Changes to state law under the 2015 Montana Disclose Act require local governments wanting to 3 The City Commission is composed of Mayor Cyndy Andrus, Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl, and Commissioners Jeff Krauss, Teny Cunningham, and I-Ho Pomeroy. -4 - City 00005 distribute educational information pertaining to bonding issues to register and file financial reports if expenditure on those communications will exceed $250.00. See Mont. Code Ann. § 13-1-101(31); Admin. R. Mont. 44.l l.605(3)(d). The City's duty to inform and educate-and to expend more than $250.00 doing so-triggered its legal obligation to register as a political committee and make financial disclosures. The purpose of the City's incidental committee, as stated in the Statement of Organization, was to "[i]nform [the] public of [the] impact of passage or failure of [the] Bozeman Public Safety Center ballot issue on City operations." (See City Statement of Organization, attached as Exhibit A to Koopman Complaint.) Beginning in May 2018 and continuing through to the November 6, 2018 election, City officials, including Mayor Cyndy Andrus, Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl, Commissioner Ten-y Cunningham, Commissioner I-Ho Pomeroy, Fire Chief Josh Waldo, Police Chief Steve Crawford, and City Manager Andrea Surratt, as well as other City employees: (1) arranged and participated in dozens of public meetings to answer questions and educate the public regarding the ballot measure; and (2) distributed informational materials describing the cun-ent state of affairs and the need for the BPSC. City officials and employees are trained in and knowledgeable about the critical distinction between education and advocacy in the context of elections. (See A.ff. City Attorney Greg Sullivan,~ 11 (Dec. 6, 2018).) Officials and employees know that when acting in their official capacities representing the City, they may educate and inf01m the public about a bond measure like the BPSC, but may not expressly advocate for or against the measure. These same officials and employees also know and appreciate that they do not surrender their personal political beliefs upon entering office or accepting a job with the City. To that end, the City continually trains its officials and employees that on personal time, using personal prope1ty and -5 - City 00006 resources, they are free to express their personal political views publicly. (See Aff. Mayor Cyndy Andrns, ifif5-7 (Dec. 6, 2018); Aff. Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl, ifif 5-7 (Dec. 6, 2018); Aff. Commissioner Jeff Krauss, iii! 4--6 (Dec. 6, 2018); Aff. Commissioner TeITy Cunningham, ifif 5-6 (Dec. 6, 2018); Aff. Commissioner I-Ho Pomeroy, if 4 (Dec. 6, 2018); Aff. Fire Chief Josh Waldo, if 16 (Dec. 4, 2018); Aff. Police Chief Steve Crawford, if 13 (Dec. 5, 2018); Aff. City Manager Andrea Sunatt, ifif 5, 13 (Dec. 6, 2018), attached collectively as Exhibit A.) The City, its officials, and its employees put their understanding of the above distinctions into disciplined practice with regard to the BPSC bond educational outreach effort. Understanding the need to provide detailed information in a memorable, understandable way4, the City developed a messaging and communication plan. With the contracted assistance5 of Bozeman public relations fom The Nest Collective, LLC, City officials and employees developed various educational materials, placed ads in local publications and on local radio stations, posted infmmation to social media, and gave public presentations at locations around the City. The materials and presentations often included the following elements: i. A logo graphically depicting the four City functions proposed to be housed at the BPSC, along with the words "Bozeman MT" and "Public Safety Center": BOZEMAN MT PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER 4 The City received significant public feedback critical of its educational eff01ts pertaining to previous bonding measures and, recognizing its duties to protect safety and educate electors, determined to do things differently with the BPSC bond in response to that criticism. (See Aff. Andrus, if 4.) 5 (See Professional Services Agreement, attached as Exhibit A to Aff. Surratt, if 10.) -6 - City 00007 11. The words "Keep Bozeman Safe" or "Bozeman is Safe. Let's Keep it that Way." iii. Factual material concerning the City's rate of growth, its police and fire reporting statistics, the state of existing City infrastructure, and cost of constructing the proposed Center. 1v. A text block providing the date of the election, a website to visit for additional information, and attribution for the material: Make sure your voice is heard~ VOTE on November&. Visit www.bozeman.net · for more information. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 (See Informational Materials, attached as Exhibit B.) The City placed informational materials in public places around Bozeman, and used and distributed these materials when making public educational presentations. In total, between presentations, event tabling, open houses, and town hall meetings, the City participated in sixty- eight scheduled events between May 24 and October 31, 2018. (See Scheduled Event List, attached as Exhibit C.) City officials and employees spent approximately 566.2 hours of on- duty time preparing for and engaging in educational outreach activities related to the BPSC. As required by law, the City reported this time as in-kind contributions to the City of Bozeman incidental political committee, with a total value of $33,955.52. The individual officials and employees, the nature of every one of their activities, and the time spent on those activities are documented in the rep01is submitted to the State of Montana. (See Finance Repmis, (Aug. 8, 2018; Oct. 2, 2018; Oct. 25, 2018; Nov. 21 , 2018), available at https://campaignrepoti.mt.gov/.) -7 - City 00008 The BPSC addresses critical deficiencies in City public safety infrastructure, and the City took its educational obligation surrounding this bond issue seriously, as it should. City officials and employees did not, however, cross the line from educating to advocating while on City time, using City prope1ty and resources. Indeed, as numerous individuals attest, at no point did any City official or employee witness any other official or employee inappropriately advocate for or against the bond measure while in their official capacity representing the City. (See e.g. Aff. Andrus,~ 13; Aff. Cunningham,~ 13; Aff. Crawford, ii 16; Aff. Waldo, ii 23.) Not only were officials and employees knowledgeable and trained as described above, but included with the materials accompanying public presenters to every scheduled event was a "do's and don'ts" list outlining the distinction between education and advocacy. (See Presentation Instruction Sheet, attached Exhibit D.) Again, if Koopman or his lawyer have evidence supporting their allegations, the City demands it be submitted in this proceeding. In their personal, individual capacities-off City time, off City property, without using City resources-City officials and employees were free to express their political views, and did at times. Chris Mehl, along with Terry Cunningham and former Bozeman Mayor Carson Taylor, f01med Bozeman Citizens for Safety ("BCFS") and registered the committee with the State of Montana. (See BCFS Statement of Organization, attached as Exhibit B to Koopman Complaint.) Chris Mehl and Terry Cunningham chose the name "Bozeman Citizens for Safety" because they were conscious of their roles as citizens in forming the committee; were personally, privately interested in public safety and the BPSC; and hoped to attract contributions and interest from other private Bozeman citizens with similar concerns. (Aff. Cunningham,~ 10.) BCFS received an $800 loan from Chris Mehl (which was repaid); a $400 contribution from the Bozeman Police -8 - City 00009 Protective Association; $150 contributions from Terry Cunningham, Travis Barton, and Andrea Sunatt; and $100 contributions from I-Ho Pomeroy, Carson Taylor, Jeff Krauss, Cyndy Andrus, and Assistant City Manager Chuck Winn. (See BCFS Finance Reports (Oct. 1, 2018; Oct. 24, 2018; Nov. 16, 2018), available at https://campaignreport.mt.gov/.) BCFS officers and contributors listed their home addresses for reference in financial filings, and made contributions using private funds. (Id.) The committee, which was unaffiliated with the City, perfo1med two tasks: (1) BCFS purchased 150 yard signs; and (2) BCFS produced a radio spot which ran the week of October 16-23, 2018. (See Aff. Cunningham, ii 11.) Because the BPSC logo shown above was public property and not copyrighted, after informing Bozeman City Attorney Greg Sullivan, BCFS used the City's logo on its yard sign. (See Exhibit C to Koopman Complaint; see also Aff. Mehl, ii 13.) However, because the signs constituted private political speech, BCFS expressly advocated a "yes" vote on the bond on its signs. (Id.) BCFS independently hired and paid The Nest Collective, LLC to design its yard sign. (See Aff. Mehl, ii 12.) Chris Mehl initially distributed yard signs. (See Aff. Andrus, ii 9.) Cyndy Andrus received yard signs from Chris Mehl, and Teny Cunningham distributed signs himself after receiving them. (See Aff. Andrus, ii 9; Aff. Cunningham, ii 11.) BCFS did not store signs on City property or at Headwaters Economics, Chris Mehl's employer. (See Aff. Mehl, ii 12.) Chris Mehl, Cyndy Andrus, and Te1ry Cunningham knew the signs represented advocacy, and knew where the line was. Other officials exercised their protected First Amendment rights in other ways. Jeff Krauss, who has a weekly radio show on KMMS 1450 in Bozeman, advocated in favor of the BPSC bond on his show prior to the election. (Aff. Krauss, ii 11.) Cyndy Andrus, Terry Cunningham, and Josh Waldo went door-to-door in neighborhoods around Bozeman, sometimes -9 - City 00010 simply dropping off City educational literature without speaking to residents, and other times engaging in conversations and, at times, advocating for passage of the bond. Each understood the distinction between their public and private roles. (See Aff. Andrus, ifif 5-8; Aff. Cunningham, iii! 5-8; Aff. Waldo, if~ 16-17, 24.) Cyndy Andrus and Terry Cunningham wrote op-ed/letters published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle advocating a "yes" vote. (See Aff. Andrus, iii! 11-12; Aff. Cunningham, if 8.) Ultimately, City officials and employees understood that while out and about in Bozeman-in grocery and hardware stores, walking downtown, relaxing in their own backyards, on their own time and living their own private lives-they were free, as citizens, to express support for the BPSC bond. On November 6, 2018, the BPSC bond measure passed by a margin of 60% to 40%, with 13,580 ballots cast in favor and 9,134 ballots cast against authorizing the City to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $36,900,000 to construct the BPSC. The next phase of the project for the City is to develop build plans and coordinate building contractors. The City hopes to being preparing the site in the summer of2019, and begin construction after design and engineering are complete sometime in later 201 9 or early 2020. Time is very much of the essence for the City with regard to issuing the voter-approved general obligation bonds and moving forward with construction of the BPSC as planned. The pendency of this action means bond counsel is unable to issue an unqualified legal opinion, negatively affecting the City's ability to sell bonds to finance the construction. (See Aff. Anna Rosenberry, passim (Dec. 6, 2018).) As a result, the City either will be unable to acquire funds for the project altogether, or will be subject to a higher interest rate and other increased costs. (Id.) If the City is unable to acquire funding or waits to issue the bonds until this matter is -10 - City 00011 resolved, the City anticipates substantial increases in construction costs as materials prices climb daily. Koopman's unfounded political attack should not be allowed to delay or prevent the City from constructing a facility critical to public safety and approved by 60% of City voters. (See Aff. Waldo, passim; Aff. Crawford, passim.) PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Friday before the election, on the same day he discussed the BPSC bond with Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl at a scheduled City educational event, Koopman filed a complaint in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Koopman made no mention of the lawsuit to Chris Mehl that day, and did not discuss any of the allegations in the pleading. (See Aff. Mehl,~ 14.) Koopman dismissed his initial lawsuit for unknown reasons, and refiled essentially the same complaint on November 19, 2018. The November 19th pleading is attached to the City's COPP Complaint and incorporated therein. Koopman claims the City, its officials, and its employees engaged in improper advocacy with regard to the BPSC bond measure, in violation of Montana Code Annotated§§ 2-2-121(3) and 13-35-226(4). He also claims that BCFS is improperly named, in violation of§ 13-37-210. Among other forms of relief, Koopman seeks: (1) "a judgment declaring that the Defendants incorrectly interpreted Montana law and violated the [above-cited statutes] and engaged in advocacy to supp011 the bond issue"; and (2) "a court order voiding the bond election results." (Compl., Request for Relief,~~ A-C, E (Nov. 19, 2018).) Koopman's attorney is no stranger to election law cases and to the statutes for which the COPP has investigative and enforcement authority. He is aware that the COPP enforces§§ 2-2- 121(3), 13-35-226(4), and 13-37-210 initially, and that a district com1 action is available, if at -11 - City 00012 all, only after the COPP has reviewed and ruled on a campaign practices complaint. Yet, he filed Koopman' s claims in state district comi as a declaratory judgment action. The City assumed that by doing so, Koopman either misunderstood the statutes cited in his complaint, or was intentionally trying to circumvent COPP investigation and review of his allegations. The City therefore self-referred Koopman's complaint against it to the COPP so that the procedural steps mandated by Montana law are followed and the COPP can make the decisions reserved to him by law. The parties have agreed to stay the district court action pending the COPP's ruling, and will file a stipulation to that effect before Judge John Brown in Bozeman. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Montana law grants municipalities the power to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and requires the provision of police, fire, and justice court services. Mont. Code Ann. § § 7-1- 4123, 7-1-4124(24), 7-5-4101 , 7-14-4101, 7-32-4101, 7-33-4101, 3-6-101 et seq.; 23 C.F.R. §§ 450.200 et seq., 450.300 et seq. Likewise, upon a jurisdiction's adoption of a growth policy under Montana Code Annotated § 76-1-601, the jurisdiction "must be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the growth policy in the ... authorization, construction, alteration, or abandonment of public ways, public places, public structures, or public utilities." Mont. Code Ann. § 76-1-605(1)(a). Specific to Bozeman, § 5.07 of the City's Charter mandates that the City identify long-term goals regarding capital expenditures, including a statement of the need for the expenditure and detailed description of cost and means of financing. In short, federal, state, and local laws obligate the City to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to conduct the planning necessary to afford such protection into the future. -12 - City 00013 One such method of :financing capital improvements and other initiatives is municipal bonding, a power extended to local governments by the Montana Constitution and statute. Mont. Const. art. XI, part XI,§ 8; Mont. Code Ann.§ 7-1-4124. However, Montana law restrains the conduct of public officials and employees in the context of elections pertaining to ballot issues, including bonding: 2-2-121. Rules of conduct for public officers and public employees. (3)(a) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), a public officer or public employee may not use public time, facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, or funds to solicit support for or opposition to any political committee, the nomination or election of any person to public office, or the passage of a ballot issue unless the use is: (i) authorized by law; or (ii) properly incidental to another activity required or authorized by law, such as the function of an elected public officer, the officer's staff, or the legislative staff in the normal course of duties. (b) As used in this subsection (3), "properly incidental to another activity required or authorized by law" does not include any activities related to solicitation of support for or opposition to the nomination or election of a person to public office or political committees organized to support or oppose a candidate or candidates for public office. With respect to ballot issues, properly incidental activities are restricted to: (i) the activities of a public officer, the public officer's staff, or legislative staff related to determining the impact of passage or failure of a ballot issue on state or local government operations; ( c) This subsection (3) is not intended to restrict the right of a public officer or public employee to express personal political views. * * * -13 - City 00014 13-35-226. Unlawful acts of employers and employees. ( 4) A public employee may not solicit supp01t for or opposition to any political committee, the nomination or election of any person to public office, or the passage of a ballot issue while on the job or at the place of employment. However, subject to 2-2-121, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to perform activities properly incidental to another activity required or authorized by law or to express personal political views. Mont. Code Ann.§§ 2-2-121(3); 13-35-226(4). Taken together, while public officials and employees "may not use public time, facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, or funds" to advocate for or against a bonding-related ballot issue "while on the job or at the place of employment," they: (1) may use those facilities, resources, and time for the purpose of "determining the impact of passage or failure of a ballot issue on state or local government operations"; and (2) cannot be prevented from expressing their "personal political views" while on their own time. Simply put, "[a] public officer or public employee can present neutral facts and information to electors related to a ballot issue or candidate." Juve v. Roosevelt County Commissioners, COPP 2014-CFP-063 at 5 (Dec. 8, 2014) (citing§ 2-2-121(3)(a)(ii)). The COPP, interpreting United States Supreme Court case law, has developed a framework for determining when speech constitutes advocacy. In the electioneering context, "general discussions of issues are distinguishable from more pointed exhortations to vote for or against [a] particular [issue]." In the Matter of the Complaint Against Eric Griffin and Lewis and Clark County, 8 (COPP Nov. 19, 2009) (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 39-45 (1976)). "[E]xpress advocacy requires words such as 'vote for,' 'elect,' 'suppo1i,' 'cast your ballot for,' 'Smith for Congress,' 'vote against,' 'defeat,' 'reject,"' Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52). While activities and/or publications -14 - City 00015 pertaining to an election issue which do not expressly advocate for or against a particular issue may, under certain circumstances, be considered "the functional equivalent of express advocacy," this is true "only if [the activities and/or publications] susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." Id. (citing McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 193-94, 206 (2003); FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449, 470 (2007)) (emphasis added); see also Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1014-16 (9th Cir. 2010). With regard to political committees, Montana Code Annotated§ 13-37-210(1)(a) provides that any committee required to register under Title 13 must "name and identify itself in its organizational statement using a name or phrase: (i) that clearly identifies the economic or other special interest, if identifiable, of a majority of its contributors; and (ii) if a majority of its contributors share a common employer, that identifies the employer." With the underlying, governing law in mind, the City turns to Koopman's individual claims. ARGUMENT The City's BPSC bond educational effort is a blueprint, a playbook, for other municipalities-not a source of legal liability, and ce11ainly not a ground for overturning a duly- conducted, fair election. The facts described above, and the infonnational materials and affidavits underlying it, is the story of a city doing things right and by the book. The City, its officials, and its employees knew the bright line between education and advocacy, and did not cross it on City time or using City resources. When some officials and employees took a position on the BPSC bond at limited times, they did so as private citizens exercising their fundamental democratic rights of free speech and association. These actions are entirely -15 - City 00016 consistent with Montana Code Annotated§§ 2-2-121(3), 13-35-226(4), and 13-37-210, and Koopman's claims under these statutes fail on the merits.6 Consequently, absent a Title 13 violation, there is no basis in law or in fact for overturning the BPSC bond election under § 13- 35-107(1)(a). A. The City's educational effort regarding the BPSC bond was in compliance with §§ 2-2-121(3) and 13-35-226(4). The City recognized its duty to educate the voting public on the need for and specific details pe1iaining to the BPSC. The City had been criticized for failing to adequately inform electors about past bond issues, and dete1mined to do things differently with the BPSC. (See Aff. Andrus,~ 4; Aff. Sunatt, ~ 9.) The facts surrounding the project-including rapidly- increasing demands for police, fire, and justice services, and the state of accelerated decay of the associated City facilities-were dire and compelling, and drove the outcome of the bond election. Bozeman citizens passed the bond because they saw it was necessary for public safety, not because the City, its officials, and its employees broke the law by advocating. The COPP should reject Koopman's claims. 1. The City's educational effort was neither express advocacy nor its functional equivalent. The City registered as an incidental political committee as required by law, not for the purpose of taking a position on the BPSC bond. Through printed materials, media, and public presentations, the City presented factual info1mation outlining the cunent state of public safety facilities in Bozeman, and describing how the BPSC related to issues pe11aining to those facilities. Officials and employees were trained to educate the public and to refrain from advocating for or against the BPSC bond. Their training was ongoing, and a reference sheet 6 Koopman, a PSC Commissioner publicly opposing approval of the bonds, presumably is acting as a private citizen, not in his elected capacity. -16 - City 00017 reminding them of the distinction between education and advocacy accompanied the City's presentation kit. The City meticulously logged and reported as in-kind contributions the time spent by officials and employees, in their capacities as City representatives, educating the public. These were all "properly incidental activities ... related to detetmining the impact of passage or failure of [the BPSC bond on] local government operations"-not unlawful advocacy. Mont. Code Ann.§§ 2-2-121(3)(a), 13-35-226(4); Juve, COPP 2014-CFP-063 at 5. Likewise, the printed materials designed and produced by the City, with the independently-contracted assistance of The Nest Collective, were neither express advocacy nor its functional equivalent. No City postcard, poster, mailing insert, banner, or advertisement expressly urged electors to vote in favor of the bond-deliberately, none of the materials contained any of the "magic words" listed in Yamada and Buckley. Moreover, similar to the COPP's decision in In the Matter of the Complaint Against Eric Griffin and Lewis and Clark County (COPP Nov. 19, 2009), the information contained in the materials is susceptible to more than one interpretation, and therefore is not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The Griffin case involved a mill levy for road construction in Lewis & Clark County. In the week prior to the election, County Public Works Director Eric Griffin published two separate ads in two separate newspapers containing the following: (1) the amount of the proposed levy; (2) what the funds would be used for; (3) the "deteriorating" conditions of roads in the county and the resulting effects on law enforcement, fire, mail delivery, and commerce; ( 4) the amount the levy would cost individual taxpayers; (5) a website and contacts for learning more info1mation; and (6) the phrase "Your Vote is Your Voice! Vote November 7, 2006." Id. at 2-3. The COPP, reviewing a complaint alleging, in pati, a violation of§ 13-35-226(4), concluded that: -17 - City 00018 Although these facts may well have been set forth to convince the reader that the mill levy was a reasonable and justifiable request for money to improve the road system, a reader may just as well have believed, after reviewing the information, that the county roads were in good shape, or that the cost of the mill levy was prohibitive, or may have disagreed with the uses to which the money would be put. Importantly, neither ad urged the reader to vote one way or another on the mill levy, but instead simply advised them to vote on Election Day. Id. at 9. The COPP ultimately found no violation of§ 13-35-226(4) on the facts presented in the complaint. The circumstances here are the same. The City's educational eff011 focused on the facts demonstrating the need for the BPSC, why upgrading public safety facilities is important, and what the BPSC would cost the average prope11y owner. Given these facts as presented by the City, Bozeman electors could just as readily have interpreted the City's inf01mation and materials not as supportive of the proposed project, but as describing a proposal that is too expensive, unwananted, or inadequate to address the needs of public safety.7 The results of the election are prime evidence on this point-9,134 people voted against the BPSC bond issue, in spite of the City's educational effort. But this was the point. The City was not trying to persuade people to vote for or against the bond issue. The City was presenting info1mation in fulfillment of its obligation to educate voters. That the set of facts delivered by the City led a majority of Bozeman electors to arrive at a paiticular conclusion does not transform the City's delivery of those facts into advocacy. Moreover, the City has no obligation to present an alternative set of oppositional facts- i.e. that it is unnecessary or too expensive-while educating the community. It is up to electors 7 Indeed, both the Gallatin County Attorney and Gallatin County Sheriff did not support the BPSC bond, and expressed so publicly. -18 - City 00019 to interpret the single set of facts, not to be provided two competing narratives and decide which one they agree with. City officials and employees used public resources to meet their obligation to educate the public on the "impact of passage or failure of [the BPSC bond on] local government operations," and did so without improperly advocating for the bond. See Nelson v. City of Billings, COPP-2014-CFP-052 at 8 (Dec. 9, 2014) (noting " ... the officers and employees involved with providing safety to the residents of the City of Billings have an implied duty to present information and observations as to the policy or infrastructure improvements involved in providing safety to City residents."). 2. City officials and employees at limited times expressed their personal political views on their own personal time, using their own personal property and resources. Montana law clearly recognizes and does not tread on public officials' and employees' protected First Amendment rights to free speech and association. See Mont. Code Ann.§§ 2-2- 121(3)(c), 13-35-226(4). As demonstrated by the testimony attached hereto, to the extent they advocated at all, City officials and employees did so on their own time, using their own personal property and resources, and with full knowledge of the rules governing their conduct. (See Aff. Andrns, passim; Aff. Mehl, passim; Aff. Cunningham, passim; Aff. Waldo, passim; Aff. Sunatt, passim.) Off City time, off City property, and without City resources, officials expressed their personal support for the BPSC bond through conversations and discussions, both public and private, as they are allowed by law. The most Koopman can point to is the inadvertent use of City email. (See Aff. Andrus, if 12.) However, the COPP has ruled that the act of sending an email to a recipient who is not the target of advocacy is not, itself, advocacy. See Monforton v. Laslovich, COPP-2016-CFP- 002(A) at 7-11 (Mar. 6, 2016). There is no factual or legal suppo1t for this claim. -19 - City 00020 3. There was no coordination between the City and BCFS. Koopman alleges the City and BCFS coordinated efforts such that BCFS 's express advocacy is imputed to the City. This claim is dispelled by the facts, paiticularly the testimony of Andrea Surrat, as well as Chris Mehl and Terry Cunningham, who were involved with the conception and formation of BCFS. (See Aff. Sunatt, ~ 14; Aff. Mehl,~~ 10-13; Aff. Cunningham,~~ 10-13.) While there are facts demonstrating ce1tain City officials engaged in advocacy, they did so carefully and entirely within the "personal political view" space allowed under Montana law. By intent and practice, these personal, political actions were caiTied out solely by individuals volunteering their time spent in advocating a "yes" vote on the bond. Volunteer time (i.e., services) is specifically exempted as a contribution or expenditure under Montana law. Mont. Code Ann.§ 13-1-101(9)(b), -101(17)(b)(i). The COPP has noted that "the US Supreme Court has directed a liberal application ofthis volunteer exemption." Nelson v. City of Billings, COPP-2014-CFP-052 at 8 (Dec. 9, 2014). As noted in Nelson, a volunteer election activity "was not an expenditure and therefore triggered no reporting obligation nor any coordination issues." Id. This leaves the funds BCFS spent on yard signs and radio ads advocating a "yes" vote as the only possible expenditure susceptible to a coordination analysis as an illegal expenditure by the City. The COPP likewise addressed this issue in Nelson. Because the rationale for the bond is based on public information, there will be shared use of data between those simply providing info1mation and those using the information to advocate. See Nelson at 9. But that does not, by itself, constitute coordination. Instead, there must be some factual showing or an act of coordination. Except for one mistaken allegation regarding BCFS's use of the City's logo, -20 - City 00021 Koopman offers no evidence of coordination. BCFS appropriation and use of the ballot issue logo developed by the City of Bozeman cannot show coordination because the logo was in the public domain. As rm-copyrighted, public prope1ty, BCFS or any other party was free to use the logo. Indeed, opponents were free to use the logo as the target of the universal "not" sign-the logo circled with a red slash across it. And as a private citizens, BCFS contributors were free to donate their own money. As was the case in Nelson, the people involved with BCFS acted with rigorous independence from the City. The COPP should be reluctant, without proof of coordination, to "cast aspersions on the volunteer exception to Montana's contribution law and make the difficult [l]evy task of public officers that much harder." Nelson at 9. City officials and employees are afforded the same rights as any other citizen to freely use their personal volunteer time in the manner they choose. Indeed, that appears to be precisely what PSC Commissioner Roger Koopman was doing. B. The political committee name "Bozeman Citizens for Safety" does not violate § 13- 37-210(1). Koopman alleges BCFS was improperly named. Even though this was an act by BCFS, not the City, the allegations are nonsense and requires a response. Under Montana law a ballot committee shall name and identify itself "using a name or phrase ... that clearly identifies the economic or other special interest, if identifiable, of a majority of contributors ... " Mont. Code Ann. § 13-37-210. The COPP has, in the past, considered naming and labeling complaints against political committees, most recently finding that a political committee whose funding came from lawyers had to include the word "lawyers" in its name. See Eaton v. Montanans for Experienced Judges, COPP-2016-CFP-035. The Eaton decision and those cited therein present a straightforward -21 - City 00022 measure of whether ballot committee contributors come with special interests which must be accounted for in the committee name. The majority of donors to BCFS, however, do not present such a straightforward measure of interest. COPP records show eleven donors to BCFS, consisting often individuals and one political committee (the Bozeman Police Protective Association). The ten individual donors include two cuITent City employees and eight past or present City elected officials. Two cunent and one former City official-Chris Mehl, Terry Cunningham, and Carson Taylor-formed the BCFS. As a matter of fact and statutory law, the identifiable interest of the eight cmTent and former City officials (the majority of contributors) determines whether BCFS was properly named and labeled. The interest of a City official is a dual interest illustrated by the "bright line" instructions provided each official by the Bozeman City Attorney and others. (See Aff. Sullivan, if 11.) Those instructions were that Montana law, based on public funds concerns, did not allow a Bozeman city official to advocate for a "yes" vote, but did allow the city official to educate using facts and infmmation. At the same time, those instructions, as they must, recognized that under§ 2-2-121(3)(c), a City official retained his or her private right as a citizen to express personal political views. (See Exhibit D; Aff. Cunningham, if 10 ("Part of the reason for using the term 'citizens' was to distinguish between roles as elected officials and as private citizens".).) The City officials who formed and funded BCFS clearly understood this dual role, that was unique to each of them as a City official and citizen. (See Aff. Mehl, if 10; Cunningham, if 10.) They just clearly understood that BCFS was a means by which they were expressing their personal political views as citizen. Based on that understanding, they named the ballot committee Bozeman Citizens for Safety. Given the distinctly different roles of a City official -22 - City 00023 and citizen (education vs. advocacy), it was a correct to identify their citizen interest as the special interest underlying BCFS-the committee was acting as an advocate and therefore could not align itself with the City or with the officials' public role. The name is an expression of their special citizen interest, as opposed to their City official interest. The name was therefore entirely proper and in compliance with§ 13-37-210. C. There is no basis in law or in fact for overturning the BPSC bond election under § 13-35-107(1)(a). Section 13-35-107(1 )(a) provides "[i]f a court finds that the violation of any provision of this title by any person probably affected the outcome of any election, the result of that election may be held void." In light of the above, there is no basis for voiding the BPSC bond election- neither the City, its officials, and employees, in their official or personal capacities, nor BCFS, violated any provision under Title 13. However, even if the COPP did find a violation under the facts stated above, any violation was the result of excusable neglect and mistake, and therefore warrants the application of de minimis principles. See Juve, COPP 2014-CFP-063 at 9-13; In re Matter of Vincent Complaint, COPP 2013-CFP-006, -009 at 3-7 (June 26, 2013). As the COPP determined in Hansen v. Billings School District No. 2, COPP-2013-CFP-030 at 7 (Dec. 24, 2013), "there is no basis for an action to void [the] bond issue under§ 13-37-107(2)." Voiding the November 6, 2018 bond election is a drastic remedy, and is wholly unwarranted here. CONCLUSION City officials and employees knew the difference between education and advocacy regarding the BPSC bond, and knew they were required to maintain separation between the two. They did so, and consequently complied with Montana law. As a matter of law, there was no coordination between the City and BCFS, which was itself appropriately named under § 13-3 7- -23 - City 00024 210. Absent a violation of any s01i, there is no basis in law or fact to overturn the BPSC bond election. Koopman's complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. DATED this 6th day of December, 2018. BOONE KARLBERG, P.C. ~ John M. Newman Attorneys for City of Bozeman -24 - City 00025 City 00026 EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “A” City 00027 City 00028 City 00029 City 00030 City 00031 City 00032 City 00033 City 00034 City 00035 City 00036 City 00037 City 00038 City 00039 City 00040 City 00041 City 00042 City 00043 City 00044 City 00045 City 00046 City 00047 City 00048 City 00049 City 00050 City 00051 City 00052 City 00053 City 00054 City 00055 City 00056 City 00057 City 00058 City 00059 City 00060 City 00061 City 00062 City 00063 City 00064 City 00065 City 00066 City 00067 City 00068 City 00069 City 00070 City 00071 City 00072 City 00073 City 00074 City 00075 City 00076 City 00077 City 00078 City 00079 City 00080 City 00081 City 00082 City 00083 City 00084 City 00085 City 00086 City 00087 City 00088 City 00089 City 00090 City 00091 City 00092 City 00093 City 00094 City 00095 City 00096 City 00097 City 00098 City 00099 City 00100 City 00101 City 00102 City 00103 City 00104 City 00105 City 00106 City 00107 City 00108 City 00109 City 00110 City 00111 City 00112 City 00113 City 00114 City 00115 City 00116 City 00117 City 00118 City 00119 City 00120 City 00121 City 00122 City 00123 City 00124 City 00125 City 00126 City 00127 City 00128 EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT “B” City 00129 BOZEMAN 000001 City 00130 2020 = 50,000 2040 = 100,000 BOZEMAN IS GROWING. With the highest growth rate in Montana, Bozeman population will double by 2040. SAFETY NEEDS ARE INCREASING. Bozeman Fire calls have increased 59% since 2011, and Bozeman Police calls have increased 16% since 2008. The Bozeman Public Safety Center is A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION to increased emergency service needs for the City of Bozeman. $The Bozeman Public Safety Center would sit on existing City-owned property on N. Rouse, with a total building and equipment cost of $36.9 million. That investment equates to $101.78/year for a typical homeowner. Make sure your voice is heard. VOTE on November 6. Bond FactsBozeman Public Safety Center BOZEMAN 000002 City 00131 HOW DOES THE BOZEMAN PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER HELP RESIDENTS? • 4-in-1 safety hub of fire, police, municipal courts and victim services for Bozeman residents. • Provides space for emergency services and courts to expand and grow as Bozeman grows. • By investing in our emergency services, residents invest in safe neighborhoods. WHY INVEST NOW? • Failing current facilities and cramped spaces could impact emergency services response time. • Bozeman residents can save $2.25 million in construction inflation costs. • Selling Fire Station #1 will offset cost by $2.5 million. • Shifting fire station locations will save residents $1.2 million annually in operations. • The Bozeman Public Safety Center will delay the need for a fourth fire station for 6-8 years. Visit www.bozeman.net for more information. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 Public WorksPO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 CONTINUED COMMITMENT: Gallatin County supports the Bozeman Public Safety Center, and cooperation between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department and Gallatin County will continue. Make sure your voice is heard. VOTE on November 6. 07/30/18 2K BOZEMAN 000003 City 00132 Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 BOZEMAN 000004 City 00133 BOZEMAN 000005City 00134 1BOZEMAN 000006City 00135 Slide 21 Becky Edwards, 6/18/2018BOZEMAN 000007City 00136 BOZEMAN 000008City 00137 BOZEMAN 000009City 00138 BOZEMAN 000010City 00139 BOZEMAN 000011City 00140 BOZEMAN 000012City 00141 BOZEMAN 000013City 00142 BOZEMAN 000014City 00143 BOZEMAN 000015City 00144 BOZEMAN 000016City 00145 BOZEMAN 000017City 00146 BOZEMAN 000018City 00147 BOZEMAN 000019City 00148 BOZEMAN 000020City 00149 BOZEMAN 000021City 00150 BOZEMAN 000022 City 00151 BOZEMAN 000023 City 00152 BOZEMAN 000024 City 00153 BOZEMAN 000025 City 00154 BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP ITTHAT WAY. • Bozeman is growing and our safety needs are increasing. • Fire, police, courts and victim services need more space and dependable facilities. • Let’s plan for Bozeman’s safe neighborhoods now, and in the future. • This is a need we can’t ignore. Invest today. Make your voice heard: VOTE NOVEMBER 6. Find out more at WWW.BOZEMAN.NET A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 BOZEMAN 000026 City 00155 KEEP BOZEMAN SAFE. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. VOTE NOV. 6. WWW.BOZEMAN.NET BOZEMAN 000027 City 00156 Make sure your voice is heard. VOTE on November 6. Visit www.bozeman.net for more information. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP ITTHAT WAY. Learn about the upcoming ballot initiative for the proposed Bozeman Public Safety Center. TOWN HALL MEETING Wednesday, October 3, 6-8pm Bozeman Fire House #3, 1730 Vaquero Parkway BOZEMAN 000028 City 00157 BOZEMAN PUBLIC SAFETY CENTERBOND FACTS Make sure your voice is heard. VOTE on November 6. Visit www.bozeman.net for more information. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 The proposed Bozeman Public Safety Center bond item will be on your November 6 election ballot. Whether you vote absentee or in person at your polling location, CHECK THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR BALLOT TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. 2020 = 50,000 2040 = 100,000 BOZEMAN IS GROWING. With the highest growth rate in Montana, Bozeman population will double by 2040. SAFETY NEEDS ARE INCREASING. Bozeman Fire calls have increased 59% since 2011, and Bozeman Police calls have increased 16% since 2008. The Bozeman Public Safety Center is A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION to increased emergency service needs for the City of Bozeman. $The Bozeman Public Safety Center would sit on existing City-owned property on N. Rouse, with a total building and equipment cost of $36.9 million. That investment equates to $101.78/YEAR for a typical homeowner. HOW DOES THE BOZEMAN PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER HELP RESIDENTS? • 4-in-1 safety hub of fire, police, municipal courts and victim services for Bozeman residents. • Provides space for emergency services and courts to expand and grow as Bozeman grows. • By investing in our emergency services, residents invest in safe neighborhoods. WHY INVEST NOW? • Failing current facilities and cramped spaces could impact emergency services response time. • Bozeman residents can save $2.25 million in construction inflation costs. • Selling Fire Station #1 will offset cost by $2.5 million. • Shifting fire station locations will save residents $1.2 million annually in operations. • The Bozeman Public Safety Center will delay the need for a fourth fire station for 6-8 years. CONTINUED COMMITMENT • Gallatin County supports the Bozeman Public Safety Center. • Cooperation between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department and Gallatin County will continue. • The jail will remain at the current Law and Justice Center off of 19th Ave. BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP IT THAT WAY. BOZEMAN 000029 City 00158 BOZEMAN 000030 City 00159 BOZEMAN 000031 City 00160 BOZEMAN 000032 City 00161 BOZEMAN 000033 City 00162 MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARDVOTE NOV. 6 A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP ITTHAT WAY. BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP ITTHAT WAY. BOZEMAN PUBLIC SAFETY CENTERBOND FACTS 2020 = 50,000 2040 = 100,000 BOZEMAN IS GROWING. With the highest growth rate in Montana, Bozeman population will double by 2040. SAFETY NEEDS ARE INCREASING. Bozeman Fire calls have increased 59% since 2011, and Bozeman Police calls have increased 16% since 2008. The Bozeman Public Safety Center is A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION to increased emergency service needs for the City of Bozeman. $The Bozeman Public Safety Center would sit on existing City-owned property on N. Rouse, with a total building and equipment cost of $36.9 million. That investment equates to $101.78/year for a typical homeowner. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARDVOTE NOV. 6 A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 Find out more at WWW.BOZEMAN.NET Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 BOZEMAN 000034 City 00163 MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARDVOTE NOV. 6 WWW.BOZEMAN.NET A 4-IN-1 SOLUTION BOZEMAN IS SAFE. LET’S KEEP ITTHAT WAY. • Bozeman is growing and our safety needs are increasing. • Fire, police, courts and victim services need more space and dependable facilities. • Let’s plan for Bozeman’s safe neighborhoods now, and in the future. • This is a need we can’t ignore. INVEST TODAY. BOZEMAN 000035 City 00164 HOW DOES THE BOZEMAN PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER HELP RESIDENTS? • 4-in-1 safety hub of fire, police, municipal courts and victim services for Bozeman residents. • Provides space for emergency services and courts to expand and grow as Bozeman grows. • By investing in our emergency services, residents invest in safe neighborhoods. WHY INVEST NOW? • Failing current facilities and cramped spaces could impact emergency services response time. • Bozeman residents can save $2.25 million in construction inflation costs. • Selling Fire Station #1 will offset cost by $2.5 million. • Shifting fire station locations will save residents $1.2 million annually in operations. • The Bozeman Public Safety Center will delay the need for a fourth fire station for 6-8 years. • The Bozeman Public Safety Center would sit on existing City-owned property on N. Rouse, with a total building and equipment cost of $36.9 million. That investment equates to $101.78/year for a typical homeowner. CONTINUED COMMITMENT • Gallatin County supports the Bozeman Public Safety Center. • Cooperation between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department and Gallatin County will continue. Make sure your voice is heard. VOTE on November 6. Visit www.bozeman.netfor more information. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 BOZEMAN 000036 City 00165 BOZEMAN 000037 City 00166 BOZEMAN 000038 City 00167 BOZEMAN 000039 City 00168 BOZEMAN 000040 City 00169 BOZEMAN 000041 City 00170 BOZEMAN 000042 City 00171 Bozeman is growing, a lot. We know you all feel it every day and as your Police Chief and Fire Chief we see a special side of the impacts first hand. Growth and public safety are connected and as one increases, so does the need for the other. A lot has changed in our community and we’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the big picture, trying to find the best solution for Bozeman. The Bozeman Public Safety Center is a 4-in-1 solution to Bozeman’s four pressing public safety needs now and in the future. Fire Station #1’s current location has some benefits. We like being able to cross the street to visit City Hall or step out the door to help with large events downtown. But, the truth is, our current facilities just don’t fit our needs anymore and they’re not fitting the needs of this community. This facility will move us half a mile north onto property the community already owns. The location would provide quick access to the growing west side of town by way of Oak Street. Even though we see lots of development on the outer edges of the city, the bulk of work (for both of our departments) remains downtown. The proposed location would allow us to continue our quick response times to that area. The facility is designed to accommodate us for the growth we’re experiencing and the growth that’s to come. As Chiefs for our agencies we’re excited for a building that would bring our two departments closer together. While we respond to many of the same calls every day there is much to be gained by developing our working relationships away from chaos of a scene. Building those interpersonal relationships will improve our service for you in the form of department efficiencies and keep up our excellent response times. Beyond the day to day we will see improved synergy as we plan for the large scale events that become more prevalent in our busy community. Co-locating our departments encourages uninterrupted teamwork and thoughtful problem solving – upping our game to the highest standard that our city deserves. Yes, the move does mean officers and deputies would no longer be based in the same building but we’re committed to maintaining our strong collaboration with them as well as keeping our shared teams for issues ranging from sexual assault and domestic violence to large scale emergencies and tactical incidents. Even though, if approved, we’d be in separate buildings we’ll continue to work together on cases and respond to public safety issues on a daily basis. That won’t stop. Our departments have worked hard to reach the high professional standards worthy of our city. Just last year the Fire Department moved up to a Class 2 rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) placing us in the top three percent of departments nationwide and saving the community money on insurance premiums. The Police Department continues to maintain Bozeman’s high level of public safety and in 2017 Bozeman had the lowest crime rate amongst other large cities in the state. There is a need for a professional facility equal to the professional safety work force we have here. We’re proud of the good work being done here but have now reached the point that the facilities are holding us back and threaten to stifle us at a time when our demands are higher than ever. The typical home owner would pay $101.78 per year for the $36.9 million bond. That’s about $8.50 a month. That equates to about two coffees a month, or a box of treats for pet at home, or less than three gallons of gas. The amount, however big or small it is to you, is a sacrifice and we do not take that lightly. Finally, on behalf of the staffs of the Bozeman Police Department and the Bozeman Fire Department we want to say thank you. Your support for us is felt every day and does not go unrecognized. BOZEMAN 000043 City 00172 The Bozeman Public Safety Center is a solution to ensure that we can continue the safety and quality of life we all enjoy here; now and into the future. We encourage you to make your voice heard on November 6th. Police Chief Steve Crawford & Fire Chief Josh Waldo BOZEMAN 000044 City 00173 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2124905270906391:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2120260938037491 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2123383704391881 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2121262414604010:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2120093804720871:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/videos/278123759494591/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2118517731545145 https://www.facebook.com/events/318463568743367/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/videos/244098122933380/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2109301625800089:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/videos/176834829916159/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/videos/501426297022625/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2099768653420053 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2099101126820139:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2094968087233443:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2090342927695959 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2093088500754735:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2090200144376904 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2081516268578625 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2079099828820269 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2079014542162131 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2073352989394953 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/videos/1829481497168452/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2071909552872630 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2070916719638580 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2064795353584050 https://www.facebook.com/events/2011010308955960/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2063011010429151 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2058597564203829 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2058564154207170 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2057646784298907 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2056047374458848 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2054996431230609 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2053196508077268 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2046146135448972 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2045112535552332 https://www.facebook.com/events/264041454232353/ https://www.facebook.com/events/1871916986451211/ https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2038669909529928 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2037539199642999 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2036641313066121:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2032202953509957:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2029194613810791:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2028895183840734 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2027465063983746:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2025105860886333 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2023974134332839:0 BOZEMAN 000045 City 00174 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2016436138419972 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2016336381763281:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2014479731948946:0 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2007652312631688 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2005497552847164 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2005629782833941 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2000960863300833 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/2000941359969450 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/1992311830832403 https://www.facebook.com/bozemangov/posts/1989981064398813 BOZEMAN 000046 City 00175 BOZEMAN MT PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER KEEP BOZEMAN SAFE Bozeman Public Safety Center •KEEP BOZEMAN SAFE BOZEMAN"' PuaeL�lfRETV Bozeman Public Safety Center BOZEMAN 000047 City 00176 Montana Parent BPSC Article 9.12.18 On November 6th, Bozeman voters will see the Bozeman Public Safety Center bond on their ballots. This bond initiative would fund the Bozeman Public Safety Center, a $36.9 million facility off of city owned property on North Rouse Ave that would house four major safety departments: police, fire, courts and victim services. Bozeman is growing at a rate unmatched in other parts of Montana. By 2020 population is expected to reach 50,000, and by 2040 census numbers are expected to top 100,000 residents. Many residents are drawn to Bozeman because of safe neighborhoods, quality schools, proximity to recreational amenities and the quaint, welcoming downtown corridor. As our population grows, so does Bozeman’s need for emergency services to maintain the high quality of life that make Bozeman, Bozeman. Since 2011, Bozeman Police calls have increased by 16% and Bozeman Fire calls have increased 59%. Both the police and fire departments operate in cramped, outdated and unsafe conditions. Both Fire Station #1 and Bozeman Police headquarters are at capacity, while rapid growth dictates additional firemen and officers to maintain low response times. The Bozeman Public Safety Center is a 4-in-1 solution for significant safety needs for the growing Bozeman community. In addition to allowing elbow room for police and fire to expand and plan for future growth of both departments, municipal courts and victims services would also receive a hefty increase in both simple square footage but most importantly, safety and privacy for victims and employees. Currently, victims of crimes have no separation or privacy from their accused. They are forced to sit in close proximity to the defendants and to the jury, and there are no secure hallways or rooms to hold and transfer criminals. By investing in safe facilities, we invest in peace of mind for both the victim and employees of courts and the prosecution department. By building the Bozeman Public Safety Center now, residents can save $2.25 million in construction inflation costs each year. Additionally, by relocating Fire Station #1 locations taxpayers would save $1.2 million annually in operations expenses, and would free up valuable downtown property that offset costs of construction. Bozeman families invest in their children each month through recreational activities, arts and musical lessons, and more. A similar investment of $101.78 per month in property tax for the average homeowner is also an investment in Bozeman families, maintaining safe neighborhoods, low emergency response times, and services targeted to Bozeman’s unique needs. Make your voice heard on November 6th, and VOTE! BOZEMAN 000048 City 00177 BOZEMAN 000049 City 00178 PROPOSED LOCATION OF Keep Bozeman Safe. VOTE NOVEMBER 6. Paid for by the City of Bozeman, Brian LaMeres, Treasurer, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771 8ft x 4ft vinyl banner BOZEMAN 000050 City 00179 BOZEMAN 000051 City 00180 BOZEMAN 000052 City 00181 BOZEMAN 000053 City 00182 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Place holder for BozemanSafety_sm Commercial (electronic video) (BOZEMAN 000053) City 00183 BOZEMAN 000054 City 00184 BOZEMAN 000055 City 00185 BOZEMAN 000056 City 00186 BOZEMAN 000057 City 00187 EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” City 00188 Scheduled Events Name Date Number of Events Hours Blue Presentation Bozeman Senior Center 05/24/18 1 1 Green Tabling Bozeman Lions Club 05/29/18 1 1 Red Open House Kiwanis 06/04/18 1 1 Pink Chat Bozeman Chamber of Commerce 06/27/18 1 1 Yellow Town Hall INC Board 07/12/18 1 1 Grey Other Bozeman Police Foundation 07/12/18 1 1 Gallatin Empire Lions 07/17/18 1 1 Lunch on the Lawn 07/18/18 2 1.5 Sunrise Rotary 07/20/18 1 1 Prospera Board 07/23/18 1 1 Fire Station Open House 08/02/18 1 3 Sweet Pea/SLAM 08/05/18 1 27 National Night Out 08/07/18 1 3 Law and Justice Center Tours 08/08/18 4 2 Art Walk August 10 08/10/18 1 2 Bogert Farmers Market 08/14/18 7 24.5 Music on Main 8/16 08/16/18 1 3.5 Fire in the Park 08/18/18 1 2 Bozeman parks wellness in Park 08/18/18 1 1 KABOOM playgound build 08/18/18 1 1 Firehouse 5K 08/18/18 1 0 EagleMount Digger Days 08/25/18 1 2 Biz 2 Biz, Bozeman 3 Chapter 08/28/18 1 1 Biz 2 Biz, Bozeman 2 Chapter 09/05/18 1 1 Gallatin Assoc of Realtors 09/10/18 1 1 League of Women Voters NOON 09/10/18 1 1 Noon Rotary 09/11/18 1 1 Biz 2 Biz, Bozeman 4 Chapter 09/11/18 1 1 American Legion 09/13/18 1 1 Fire Station Open House 09/14/18 1 3 Art Walk September 14 09/14/18 1 2 Downtown Urbal Renewal 09/18/18 1 1 Library Town Hall 09/19/18 1 2 Rotaract 09/20/18 1 1 BDC Editorial Board 09/20/18 1 1 MAP Brewing 09/26/18 1 3 Biz2Biz Chapter 6 L&J Center TOUR 09/26/18 1 0.5 does not need sign-up Rocky Mountain Bank staff 09/26/18 1 1 need volunteers Bozeman Climate Partners 09/27/18 1 1 need to send out Biz2Biz, Bank of BZN 10/03/18 1 1 need to send out Fire Station#3 Town Hall 10/03/18 1 1 need volunteers School Board Presentation 10/08/18 1 2 need volunteers Gallatin Valley Interfaith Association 10/10/18 1 1 Emily Dickinson PAC 10/12/18 1 1 ERA Landmark Realty 10/12/18 1 1 MSU Homecoming Parade 10/13/18 1 1 Biz2Biz Chapter 7 - Yellowstone Bank 10/16/18 1 1 send out NENA Meeting- Story Mill 10/16/18 1 1 Need to send out University Neighborhood Assocation 10/16/18 1 1 SW MT Coad Meeting 10/17/18 1 1 need to send out Biz to Biz Ch 7 10/17/18 1 1 Biz2Biz - Farm Bureau 10/18/18 1 BAR Association 10/18/18 1 1 Halloween at Fire Station 1 10/31/18 1 2 Total Hours 121 Presentation Hours: 37 City 00189 EXHIBIT “D” EXHIBIT “D” City 00190 City 00191