HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-25 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Lakota Group and Board functionFrom:Alison Sweeney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Lakota Group and Board function
Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 8:20:37 AM
Attachments:Consent agenda item F - Google Docs.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.
Hello City Clerk,
Could you please file this public comment (attached) that I delivered orally at the October28th Commission meeting in the folder for the Lakota Group. If it's not written it's not really
part of the record.
Thank you so much,
Alison B. SweeneyBernadette's Handmade Jewelry
Bozeman MT406-404-5740
alison-bernadettes.com
Consent agenda item F.6 Lakota group.
Alison Sweeney
Chair of the Better Bozeman Coalition
Chair of the Jandt Neighborhood
Speaking for myself
I want to thank Director George for providing the additional information
about the Lakota Group’s project team for the rewrite of our NCOD Design
Guidelines.
I was so relieved to learn that the Senior Associate assigned to the project,
though conspicuously absent from the Lakota Groups website, does in fact
have a Master of Sciences degree in Historic Preservation. And the firm
has subcontracted with an Historical Architect, Mr. Gilbert.
The fact that the first time the public has learned about this contract being
awarded, was on the consent agenda and it had incomplete information, is
not good.
When we have a community that is so conditioned to a trauma response,
by the systematic dismantling of our preservation efforts over the last
decade, we should anticipate a high level of scrutiny on something like this.
The public has proven that we will do the digging. It will be so much better
for everyone, if complete and accurate information is included in the
agenda packet for full transparency.
I hope the raw data from public engagement on the Landmark Program will
be provided to these consultants during task 1.2 the background
information review , not just the Phase 1 report.
Because the raw data clearly conveys the public support for strong
standards and guidelines with teeth. And MLUPA will prevent our ability to
weigh in on deviations later.
I would also suggest that the whole board could have been asked to weigh
in on crafting the wording of the scope of services, and reviewing
application materials from different firms responding to the RFP.
As it stands, the language in the scope of services is far too permissive,
leaving things open to interpretation through different lenses.
The phrase “Bozeman’s evolving community character" is vague and can
be used to justify weakening preservation standards, particularly in areas
where character has already been altered.
Also the phrase “...while addressing local conditions and priorities" is
immensely troubling. Whose priorities? What are these priorities? This
language again is far too permissive and subject to manipulation.
I would like to know who will be invited to participate in task 1.6 the historic
preservation focus groups. I hope it will include the neighborhoods within
the NCOD. In any case that needs to be public.
I hope we have all learned a lot from this situation.
And now that I know the Lakota Group does have the needed expertise to
update our NCOD Design Guidelines I’m really excited to get people
participating in the public engagement for this project.
Thanks