Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-25 Public Comment - K. Powell - Kathy Powell Comments to Bozeman Local Government Study CommissionFrom:KPowell & S Griswold To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission Subject:[EXTERNAL]Kathy Powell Comments to Bozeman Local Government Study Commission Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 2:39:06 PM Attachments:Comments KP Local Stdy Comm 4-24-25.pdf 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. To: The Bozeman Local Government Study Commission From : Kathy Powell1215 S 3rd Ave Bozeman powellgriz@icloud.com Attached are my comments and suggestions about/for City of Bozeman Government. April 24, 2025 To: The Bozeman Local Government Study Commission From : Kathy Powell, 1215 S 3rd Ave, Bozeman powellgriz@icloud.com What is Working? What is Not Working? Suggestions to Improve? Issue A: Full City not represented by City Commission Positive: City Commissioners are reachable & do communicate with residents by phone, email and in person Negative: The AT-Large City Commissioners do not necessarily represent or have contact with all areas of the city. Need a few more City Commissioners. Hard for working residents to Run for City Commission economically and time wise. Suggestion: Need to divide city into 4 geographical districts Increase # of City Commissioners to 7. Each district elect City Commissioner + 1 At Large + Mayor+ Deputy Mayor Each district elects their city commissioner and candidate must live in that district. Change Charter so City Commissioners can reach out to Dept heads but must report this contact/interaction to city manager so all are in the same loop. Pay City Commissioners more and find ways to reduce workload (see Issue B suggestions) Issue B: Workload of City Commissioners Positive: City Commissioners review a lot of issues affecting the city Negative: City Commission meetings are so long – going sometimes to midnight. Hard on commissioners and reduces the time residents are willing or able to stay at meetings. Suggestions: Have Advisory Boards discuss more issues and make more recommendations to City Commission so City Commissioners do not have to review in detail all issues at meeting. Have commissioners ask questions and get answers in writing from staff prior to weekly city commission meetings. Share this written communication with other Commissioner prior to meeting. Issue C: City Manager structure and power Positive: Current City Manager, Chuck Winn, is community focused, local, willing to talk to residents and he follows up on actions. These qualities must be criteria for any City Manager. Negative: City Manager has too much power. If acting city manager is community focused, respectful and is willing to talk and act with residents – well maybe OK. But last City Manager did not have these qualities and was power focused. So it depends on who the person is. Suggestion: Keep City Manager organizational structure rather than Mayor be lead. City Managers are not usually political, have more assured experience in finance, organization, management, etc. A Mayor may have these abilities, but they may not and mayor election vote may focus on popularity, political focus. More regular checks on City Manager’s performance with input from staff, public and city commissioners. Need more careful hiring practices, & vetting. Give qualified local applicant preference. Change Charter so City Commissioners can talk to Dept Heads but must report this contact to City Manager. Issue D: Vetting when hiring City Manager & Dept heads Positive: Transportation & Engineering Director, Nick Ross is also community focused and seeks and encourages feedback from residents. He too follows-up on resident interactions. Suggestion: Make these qualities part of vetting process in hiring new Dept heads. 2 Issue E: Sustainability Positive: City promotes and supports Sustainability & Resilience with issues of Climate Change. City hires some staff (enough) and has an Advisory Board. Issue F: Neighborhood Associations Positive: Neighborhoods are the heart and soul of Bozeman. Neighborhood Associations are a way to give neighborhoods collective voices to advocate for neighborhoods which may have more impact than just an individual comment. Also it can bring neighbors together to give city a better understanding of concerns and needs. The Inter Neighborhood Council (INC) is a way for Neighborhood Associations to advise the City Commission, communicate with each other, learn in more detail about city programs or proposed policies and share this information with their neighbors. It provides more interaction and familiarity with city staff and makes communication easier between staff and neighbors. It is a way to learn more about the city structure & operations and to get acquainted with how to connect with city staff. Suggestions: Neighborhood Associations (NA) are part to City Charter and should continue to be part of the Charter. NAs should continue to elect their own officers and appoint their own INC representative -they should not be appointed by City Commission. It would be really good to have NAs in all parts of the city. Maybe the city could actively work with areas of the city to determine possible boundaries and promote NA formation. Issue G: City Advisory Boards Positive: City Advisory Boards are helpful. Negative: ` Recent Consolidation of Advisory Boards went too far. It took away opportunity for citizens with talent, expertise and experience who were on previous boards to still participate, but the former 32 boards were too many – unwieldy. Community Development Board has too much power. Suggestions: Reinvigorate advisory boards. Consider reconfiguring these boards. The consolidation did result in better cross communication of some of previous boards, reduced number of meetings for citizens and city commissioners, but they were compressed too much. Reevaluate the influence/power of Community Development Board Issue H: Records of City Meetings Positive: Having videos of City Commission and Advisory Board meetings that are put up right after the meeting is a good idea. You can see and hear what was actually said and decided. Negative: There do not seem to be any written minutes available to public any more. This is not good. If you are looking for comments about a certain part of an issue or the decision of an Action item, it is time consuming to scan thru the video to find this information. And for future reference if there is need to look at a past meetings, videos are cumbersome and they can fail. Videos are harder to research/review and pull out statements that can be referred to or included in a future document. Suggestion: Continue to make videos available right away to the & written minutes available to public and easily found they are approved. Issue I : Engaging with Public Positive: Having public comment at City Board meetings is essential. Negative: Citizens do not feel they are being heard. Public comment of 3 minutes/person is too short. Suggestions: Increase public comment to 4 min/person. On major topics/issues have some informal Town Hall meetings where citizens and City Commissioners and Board members can talk to each other, ask questions (not possible currently at city commission meetgs)).