HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - To_ City Commission packet, Reflexions on the UDC Engagement Report_Survey ResultsFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Erin George; Tom Rogers
Cc:Jennifer Madgic
Subject:[EXTERNAL]To: City Commission packet, Reflexions on the UDC Engagement Report/Survey Results
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2025 10:24:53 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 Ms. George, Mr. Rogers, City Commissioners, and Mayor-
I attended the Community Development Board (CDB) meeting last night and wanted to sharesome of my takeaways and suggestions for the City Commission and City staff to consider for
the next phase.
First I'd like to thank the staff for all their hard work over the last couple of months during thefirst phase of public engagement to identify strongest areas of interest.
Next, after having some time to reflect, I'd like to offer 3 primary suggestions for the City
Commission and Planning Staff to consider as they move forward with the next phase of theUDC update and 2 secondary considerations.
Primary:1. Have all 5 topics presented at each meeting because they are so stronglyinterconnected and to make it easier for the public to participate. (SeparateTransportation and Environment.) I think people are going to want to talk about multiple topics/focus areas without having to
attend multiple meetings which will be cumbersome at best. This is certainly true for myself. Limiting the meetings to one topic each will also diminish public input due to scheduling
conflicts with potential attendees. Each of the 5 topics should receive equal time at eachmeeting.
2. Define the purpose of the next phase of public meetings and explain that to the public.
I left last night's CDB meeting unsure of what we, the community, are going to try toaccomplish in the next phase. Without clearly defined goals we run the risk of having
"engagement for engagement's sake" which would be a waste of everyone's time, staff andparticipants alike, and something nobody wants.
3. Explain to the public how their comments might, or might not be incorporated into theupdated UDC codes.What will the process be in general?
How will bias be avoided?Will the community's priorities be included in the new UDC even if they are not the staff's
priorities? And if so, how?
Jason Delmue's suggestion at the CDB meeting to use the City's Community PlanningDocuments for guidance seems a good one that would help eliminate bias and provide a
foundation for UDC text improvements. However, I worry that the 2020 growth policy is toosubjective with a heavy lean towards promoting increased growth over balance- something
that has caused much conflict with the community since its inception.
Secondary:1. Define how the advisory boards will be used. The staff will be presenting the survey and open house results to the advisory boards over the
next 4 weeks, but will the board members have an opportunity for meaningful input duringtheir meetings?
2. For Staff primarily:
Missing from the Survey Results slide deck were the 104 responses to Question #2- whichasked what other focus areas the respondent was interested in (Page 4/23). I hope this
information will be in the presentation for the City Commission and future presentations, andincluded on the UDC website page.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and concerns,
Marcia Kaveney