HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-21 Public Comment - H. Happel - Board ConsolidationFrom:Henry Happel
To:Agenda
Subject:Comments on the Proposed Consolidation of Bozeman Citizen Advisory Boards
Date:Tuesday, May 25, 2021 10:50:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commission Members—
These comments concern the proposed consolidation of City Boards, Item K.
on this evening’s City Commission Agenda.
I am the chairman of the Bozeman Planning Board. The Planning Board has
not reviewed or discussed matters in connection with the proposed
consolidation. These comments are submitted only in my capacity as an
individual citizen.
1. I am strongly in favor of consolidating the Planning and Zoning boards. This
would increase the efficiency with which development projects are reviewed, to
the benefit of both the City and developers.
2. I am quite concerned about the composition of the new Community
Development Board. As proposed, a majority of the Board would be required to
have a special interest, competency or knowledge in historic preservation.
While I think historic preservation is important for the City of Bozeman, the
focus of preservation is on what we have now. The Community Development
Board’s focus must be on what we can create in the future. A majority of the
members of this new Board need to have interest, competence, and knowledge
in planning, the planning process, and the interplay between the public and
private sectors in the development of the City. Given the State requirements for
the Historic Preservation Board, I think it might be best if it were left as a
stand-alone Board.
3. I believe it would be a bad idea to limit memberships on the Community
Development Board to two terms. My personal experience is that it takes more
than three years to fully understand and appreciate the functioning of the
Planning Board. Above all else, the City should seek to have competent and
experienced individuals serving on the Community Development Board. I
would prefer language that was substantially less prescriptive.
4. I think board officers should be appointed by their respective boards, subject
to the review and consent of the relevant Commission liaison. The City
Commission itself should not be burdened with this task.
5. Sections I.B. and I.C. of the Commission Memo assume that all boards
engaging in essentially proactive activities. While that may be true in most
cases, the Planning and Zoning boards are primarily reactive, in that they
review development proposals brought to them by the City. Communications
and work plans for the Community Development Boards would necessarily be
different.
6. A less significant point, but Section I.B.5. should be rewritten to say that a
board member, when speaking to the Commission, must either a.) clearly state
that she is speaking only on her on behalf, or b) clearly state that she is
speaking on behalf of her board, in which case she must have been expressly
authorized by the board to do so.
Overall, my impression is that the current proposal from City staff is not ready
to be acted on and requires further thought and work before preliminary
approval should be given by the City Commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Henry Happel