HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-25 Public Comment - A. Kociolek - 5_5_25 CDD Memo re Phase II of the Supplemental Engagement of the Unified Development Code (UDC) 2022 UpdateFrom:Angela Kociolek
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode
Cc:Chuck Winn
Subject:[EXTERNAL]5/5/25 CDD Memo re Phase II of the Supplemental Engagement of the Unified Development Code(UDC) 2022 Update
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 9:47:43 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.
Hi, Commissioners -
I just re-read the Community Development Department’s Phase II of the Supplemental Engagement of the
Unified Development Code (UDC) 2022 Update memo dated May 5, 2025. As someone who attempts to be
a relatively informed and engaged citizen, I am thoroughly confused.
On Page 4, Identified Primary Issues, the memo states,
"Through the development of areas of concern gleaned from Phase I of the Supplementary Engagement and
more detailed discussion of the workshops of Phase II, all comments and were compiled and analyzed for
actionable outcomes and direction the City Commission can consider.”
Yet, earlier, on Page 3, it reads,
"The community chat toolkits wrapped up on April 30th and the online survey is still open until May 8th.
No summary of these engagement outcomes is available yet. The City Commission will receive an updateon the completed Phase 2 Supplementary public engagement process on May 20th. A work session
discussion of possible changes to the draft and direction from the Commission is scheduled for June 24th.”
How then can it be said that "all comments and were compiled and analyzed for actionable outcomes anddirection the City Commission can consider?”
I understand this memo is intended to be an update to the Community Development Board (CBD) rather
than a comprehensive report. But how can we expect the CBD to make a well informed recommendationbefore all the public engagement data is in?
I, for one, conducted an adapted version of a Community Chat, I registered it as directed, and took the time
to go to City Hall to make an in-person public comment about it. Additionally, I took the Deep Dive Survey
and spent time to provide detailed responses. I have to ask myself, was all that a waste of my time?
On another note, there are phrases in the memo which lead me to believe there must be crossed wires
between the Commission and the CDD. On Page 5, “Any expansion of the scope must be directed by the
City Commission…Nevertheless, comments on specific projects and subject areas outside of the scope of
the UDC Update.”
An expansion of scope has already happened. And that direction to staff was made clear. I was there in the
Commission Room. You, too, must remember the protracted discussion on how to address and conduct
Phase II meetings about Environment, Transportation and Neighborhoods... You directed staff. The scope
was expanded to include these primary issues important to Bozeman citizens. To claim this didn’t happen is
a head scratcher.
With regard to “ensure[ing] any associated amendments to the contracts with any associated costs be
allocated from another project or funding source,” surely, as a matter of course, City counsel and
management would have advised the Commission to do so.
This memo is unsettling. I ask that you, as a Commission, set the record straight on the agreed
upon evolution and future direction of the UDC. Otherwise, there will be the appearance thatthe supplemental engagement period was, at best, a waste of people’s time and, at worst, all a
charade.
Sincerely,Angie Kociolek