Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-25 Public Comment - L. Paul - Letter CC SG April 26 2025page 1 of 4 April 23, 2025 TO: Bozeman City Commission Study Group FROM: Lynn Paul DATE: April 23, 2025 I am still relatively new to understanding and engaging with the City Commission and the assigned Study Group. I have attended several City Commission meetings over the past 2 years and participated in two of the Study Group’s community input sessions. I am interested in providing input to the Study Group regarding their mission of receiving information from the community regarding the current form, functions, and problems of local government. The materials I needed to provide initial input include: 1. Overview of Bozeman’s government structure 2. Structure, responsibilities, priorities, and strategic plans of the of the City Commission 3. Structure, responsibilities, priorities, and reports of the City Commission. In both the City Commission’s Strategic Plan and Priorities for 2024-2025, public engagement was the top priority. It is my opinion that even though it is listed as a priority, the current form of government is not encouraging input by failing to offer accessible, non- threatening strategies to provide input. However, the major problem in my view is CC voting in opposition to the will expressed by the public. It is apparent to me that public input does not have the significance and weight in determining the outcome of CC decisions. A prime example is the recent vote regarding the Guthrie building. Strong public opinion opposed the vote based on valid reasons, such as inadequate few parking spaces, but this level of engagement did not carry enough weight to counter CC’s vote. In the last 10 years, Bozeman residents have expressed concern over the lack of affordable housing, in part due to the rapid growth of luxury homes, and significant increase in the number of high-rise apartments and hotels. Even though Bozeman residents have provided significant concern and input on these issues over the past ten years, the CC continues to approve of the large-scale development of high-end apartments, hotels, and single dwelling homes without concomitantly promoting financially feasible housing units for moderate to low-income residents. The number of recent high-income housing units in comparison to affordable housing is striking. Even though Bozeman residents have taken the time and energy to express real concerns about the number of luxury housing units, the CC continues to disregard the public’s opinion. This pattern of disregard over many years page 2 of 4 has created a low level of trust among Bozeman residents for the current structure and functioning of city government. As stated previously, Bozeman residents provided significant input, participation, and engagement regarding construction of the Guthrie building. If this amount and significance of residents input and engagement did not qualify as important enough to override the most recent vote, what will be enough? Even though the city professionals recommended construction, the City Commission had the opportunity to vote against the construction but chose not to regard the public input as significantly important. The residents had very valid reasons for their opinions such as the height of the building, limited parking, and undue strain on well-establish neighborhoods. This is a prime example of how residents’ significant input and engagement was not valued, did not carry the weight needed to vote down the proposal. If public engagement is top priority as stated in the Commission’s Strategic Plan and Priorities for 2024-2025, what type of input and level of engagement will be enough? It clear to most Bozeman residents that the trend of decision making that prioritizes developers and investors over residents’ voices shows the lack of concern and respect of the voters. The frustration of residents is growing and the need for another form of government is necessary to ensure the city governing body factors in the input of the people. City Commissioners need additional strategies to receive the public’s input. Reviving the Advisory Councils would be an important source of community engagement. During the April Study Commission meeting, several people suggested the creation of wards within the city limits. In my understanding, a ward is the division of a city for representative, electoral, or administrative purposes. I think this would be an advantageous government structure to improve input and participation. Adding alternate strategies for public input is important during the City Commission meeting. For example, I am aware of only two ways to provide input during the City Commission meeting. One is to approach the speaking platform positioned before the commissioners and provide your input within 3 minutes or via Zoom. This in-person approach is unacceptable for most people. Public speaking, especially before a group of commissioners while being video recorded, creates a great deal of fear, enough to prevent providing in-person public input. Providing real-time input via Zoom is helpful but also daunting. Either method does not allow discussion with the CC. Lack of clarity of CC type of meeting also creates an obstacle for public input. For example, during April 23, 2025, meeting with WARD, the CC were unclear if the meeting was intended as a “working meeting” or a typical meeting. This was a major problem with WARD proponents if they were prepared for a “working meeting” but instead ending up page 3 of 4 listening to city professional talk for 3 hours before they had an opportunity to make public comments. Another recent example of CC lack of clarity was the April 15, 2025, discussion regarding whether the 1991 NCOD rulings were mandatory or recommendations. If the Bozeman Chronicle was correct in reporting, the mayor and city staff thought the NCOD were recommendations while the neighborhood association viewed NCOD as mandatory. Obviously, the difference in interpretation played a significant role in voting’s outcome. The vote should have been postponed until the NCOD question was clarified. The facts and policies stated in the 1191 NCOD document needed to be the reference, not opinions. I think the vote should be nullified until an agreement of NCOD’s intent has been reached. Expressing opinions during this significant conversation and vote is unacceptable. I was surprised to hear the mayor express how long he has been a proponent of affordable housing having worked diligently since 2017. I reviewed his considerable contributions but was struck by how little affordable housing is currently available, yet the rapid and excessive building for primarily of those high-income prices has taken precedent. What conditions reversed the affordable housing progress made by the mayor and others? General Questions: 1. When did CC’s voting in opposition to the views of public input begin? What were the topics causing this divide? Other than listing public input as the #1 priority in two separate City documents, how has the divide been managed? Were any changes made to policy? What can be done? 2. Over the past 5 years, A. How many times has CC approved a vote against significant negative public opinion? B. How many times has CC approved a vote with significant positive public opinion? Of these votes, what were the primary topics for A. and B. Bozeman growth? Land use? 3. Numbers of New Housing Units and Proposed Housing Unites a. How many new housings units and hotel rooms have been built in the last 5 years? b. How many are currently being built? c. How many are currently approved by CC but not yet broken ground. d. How many buildings have been submitted but not yet voted on by CC? page 4 of 4 e. Will this data influence the number of new housing units allowed by CC? When is enough? How/who determines that growth? 4. Is there a method to determine the number of housing units that are vacant? Vacancy over the last 5 years and in the future? Are vacancy rates significant to the CC? Are developers and investors able to financially benefit from these vacancies? 5. Who will monitor the external and internal conditions of these large-scale high- rises? I have already noticed the high-rise units built close to university are already in need of repair. 6. I am genuinely concerned about who will be paying for the many facets of Bozeman’s growth. I have found the CC providing financial incentives to developers and investors against strong public opinion. What are CC’s plans for addressing the lack of parking due to developers’ incentives provided by City? Who will pay? It is obvious to me that the developer should be paying for adequate parking and not put financial burden on Bozeman taxpayers in addition to placing undue burden on established neighborhoods. 7. I am also concerned about the viability and integrity of Bozeman’s growth plans. Our tremendous growth rate requires research-based, coordinated plans the cover many facets of growth. During the April meeting of the Study Group, I asked who and how will the increase need for police, firefighter, public health workers be addressed. I was told the various city departments would make a request for addition personnel. What is the source of money for new requests? Increase in taxes? I think most moderate- to low-income residents are fearful that taxes will exceed their ability to remain in Bozeman. 8. I also unsure of the facts provided by city staff. For example, I attended one meeting when the increase in Bozman’s population (calculated by the number of people moving into Bozeman minus those who have moved out) in the past few years was approximately 2,400 people and the current projection is 2,700. I would have the numbers would be much higher. FYI: A “packet” of information that included the above topics and where/how to access the materials would have been helpful, as I found this task time-consuming.