HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Removal of Item G.4. from Consent List, 8_5_25, City Commission mtg.From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison; Emma Bode
Cc:Chuck Winn
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Removal of Item G.4. from Consent List, 8/5/25, City Commission mtg.
Date:Monday, August 4, 2025 2:48:33 PM
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 Commissioners, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and City Manager-
After the recent controversy about the Boutique Hotel on the consent items list, I wasdisappointed to find Item G.4. "Ratify the Signature of the City Manager for a Professional
Services Agreement with Strategies 360 for Ballot Education Communications Services" as aconsent item for Tuesday, August 5th's City Commission meeting and respectfully request that
G.4. be removed from the consent list for the following reasons.
On Page One of the staff Memorandum (memo) for item G.4., the Fiscal Effect is stated to be$50,000. Most readers would stop there because that aligns with what was publicly
announced. However, when digging deeper, we find on Page Two, the very last attachmentincludes "Updated Budget" in its title. Yet we still have to open the pdf to find whether the
budget has been increased or decreased. In this case, it is increased by $20,000!
Leaving this item on the consent list is clearly not an example of the transparency thecommission says it is striving for and is especially unacceptable for a controversial item such
as spending $70,000 to oppose a fairly won grassroots citizen's ballot initiative.
Additionally, at the end of the staff memo, we learn of the urgency felt by the City Managerin the following statement, "City Manager Chuck Winn signed this contract on Friday, July 25
to ensure the project could proceed quickly ahead of summer tabling events."
But this urgency shouldn't eliminate the need for good public process and transparency aboutthe use of taxpayer dollars unless in the event of an emergency. And this isn't an emergency
because the City has known about the initiative since 2024.
I disagree with the staff memo that there are no "unresolved issues" due to thepreviously unpublished budget increase and respectfully request that you remove item G.4.
from the Consent list and reassign it as an Action Item for a future meeting so the public hastime to learn about it and hear directly from staff why the additional $20,000 is needed.
Finally, if you haven't yet had a chance to read the Budget Allocation attached to the staff
memo, I encourage you to. It may persuade you to move the Consent Item to an Action Item. Why would we pay for things like "brand identity" and "logo designs" or "targeted" mailing
lists, and "stakeholder" meetings if the goal is to be neutral and not to oppress a grassrootseffort that over 15% of registered voters approved? And who are the stakeholders if not also
the public? The budget allocation does not sound like neutral education efforts and the publicdeserves to know why the budget has been increased.
Thank you for considering my comments and request to remove G.4. from the consent list.
Sincerely,
Marcia Kaveney