Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommunity Survey Results1 LIFTING ALL VOICES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT Engaging Bozeman in a transparent, inclusive, compliant study of local government structure Survey Results Review | Dec 4, 2025 City of Bozeman, MT Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Average 18-64 years 65+ years 1 2 3 4 5 bout local government issues in Bozeman. who leads and makes decisions for our city. t structure of city government in Bozeman. I stay informed about localgovernment issues in Bozeman. I understand who leads andmakes decisions for our city. I am confident in the currentstructure of city government inBozeman. 2 CURRENT STATE PERCEPTIONS RESPONDENTS FEEL INFORMED ABOUT THE CITY, BUT HAVE LOWER CONFIDENCE AND MIXED PERCPETIONS OF STRUCTURE Current State Word Cloud Survey respondents provided the topwords they would use to describe thecurrent structure of local government. Understanding & AttitudesSurvey respondents rated items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Working age (18-64; n=299) respondents generally had morepositive perceptions than did older (65+; n=163) respondents. 3 LEADERSHIP PRIORITIES TOP PRIORITIES INCLUDE ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, RESPONSIVENESS, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & DEMOCRACY Leadership PrioritiesSurvey respondents voted on theirtop 3 priorities for how they wantthe City of Bozeman leadership tofunction going forward. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Accountable Leadership Transparent Leadership Responsive Administration Fiscally-Responsible Model of Government Democratic Representation Efficient Administration Stable Administration Term-Limited Leaders Visible Leaders Other MAYOR INVOLVEMENTSurvey respondents selected howinvolved the mayor should be in dailycity operations. 4 CITY MANAGER ROLE Survey respondents selected whetherthe city should retain a professionalcity manager. MAYOR & CITY MANAGER FEEDBACK PUBLIC WANTS GREATER OVERSIGHT AND BALANCE OF POWERS, GENERALLY SUPPORTING A HYBRID EXECUTIVE MODEL OPEN-ENDED THEMES Professional Management. Broadly, respondents support keeping the expertise of a professional City Manager, but with stronger oversight, transparency, and accountability. Hybrid Mayoral Power. Comments on mayoral role were very mixed. A hybrid model where the Mayor sets vision and has limited executive authority and the City Manager runs operations would strike a balance. Public Trust & Transparency. Comments regularly mention difficulty contacting leaders, non-transparent decision-making, confusion, outside influences (e.g., developers), and feeling unheard. Hybrid Executive 33.8% Legislative Leader 31.3% Executive Leader 18.5% Hybrid Legislative 13.7% Yes, Reduced powers 50.5% Yes, Full Executive Authority 34.6% No, Mayor Executive Authority 11.7% Hybrid Executive: Mayor handles some executive tasks, but City Manager still manages most daily operations Legislative Leader: Mayor leads commission meetings and represents city, but does not run departments (current form) Executive Leader: Mayor elected separately, directly manages city operations Hybrid Legislative: Mayor breaks ties in commission meetings, but does not manage day-to-day government Yes, Reduced Powers: City manager handles some operations, while the Mayor takes on more authority Yes, Full Executive Authority: City Manager runs all operations; Mayor is mostly legislatively focused (current form) No, Mayor Executive Authority: The structure should allow the Mayor to hold all the executive authority 5 ELECT ADDITIONAL OFFICIALS RESPONDENTS SHOW SOME INTEREST IN IDEA OF ELECTING ADDITIONAL OFFICIALS, BUT MORE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED CITY MANAGER ROLE Survey respondents selected whether they would support the idea of having additional city officials elected by voters. For example,in some cities, positions such as City Clerk, City Treasurer, or City Attorney are elected. Yes, I would support electing more city officials 40.3% No, I would prefer these positions remain appointed 34.4% Not sure / Need more information 25.3% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Commissioners live in district, Voters only from district Commissioners live in district, Voters from across the city Commissioners live across city, Voters only from district No preference Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Overall Quadrant OutsideOverallQuadrantOutside 1 2 3 4 5 Overall (n=523) NW (n=168) Outside City Limits (n=12) NE (n=119) SW (n=36) SE (n=182) 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.2 No 41.7% Yes 33.7% Unsure 24.6% 6 GEOGRAPHIC VS. CITY-WIDE COMMISSIONERSSurvey respondents rated their preference on a scalefrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). CITY COMMISSION FEEDBACK RESPONDENTS SHOW SOME PREFERENCE FOR GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION BUT MIXED OPINIONS ON EXPANSION POTENTIAL GEOGRAPHIC RULESSurvey respondents also considered IF geographic-basedcommissioners were used, which rules would make the most sense. I believe Bozeman should prioritize geographic district- based representation rather than total city-wide votes for commissioners. COMMISSION EXPANSIONSurvey respondents also selected whetherthey thought Bozeman should expand itsCity Commission beyond 5 members. Public stakeholder meetings generated the idea of a hybrid model with both ward-based and at- large commissioner elections 7 ADVISORY BOARDS & NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS FEEDBACK OVERALL, RESPONDENTS SUPPORTED THESE GROUPS SERVING ADVISORY ROLES WITH SOME SHARED INFLUENCE ADVISORY BOARDS & NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILSSurvey respondents selected what they thought should bethe “main role” of City Boards and Neighborhood Councils. BOARD/COUNCIL INFLUENCESurvey respondents selected how much influence theythought these entities should have on city decisions. 0 50 100 150 200 250 e policies, limited decision-making power to Commission, not make final decisions power, approve or block certain actions Unsure Share input and shape policies, limited decision-making power Provide advice to Commission, not make final decisions (current form) Formal decision-making power, approve or block certain actions Unsure 0 50 100 150 200 250 Shared influence Advisory only Strong influence Unsure Shared Influence (Boards help set priorities and may have authority in certain areas) Advisory Only (Commission may consider input, but makes all decisions- current form) Strong Influence (Boards can veto or block decisions made by Commission) Unsure THEME THEME DESCRIPTION RESPONDENT QUOTE Desire for Greater Transparency Calls for clearer information, better outreach and engagement, and greater explanation of decisions. “Increase transparency: decisions should be made openly, with clear communication to residents beforehand." Groups Remain Advisory Only Belief that advisory boards and neighborhood councils should advise but not decide. Final decisions must stay with elected officials. “Neighborhood councils and boards are not elected by the people. They should not have decision making or final authority. " Avoid Pro-Development Bias Perception that city government caters to developers or special interests over residents. “Listening to residents and not bending to out of state developers… Who is the city representing?” Recognize Frustration & Input Expressions of frustration, cynicism, or hostility toward city government and feeling that input is ignored "I feel neighborhood councils have been largely ignored and decisions have been made that defy their wishes. This is a very disagreeable situation." Prioritize Quality of Life Concerns about quality of life issues such as affordable housing, sprawl, traffic, infrastructure, water, and the environment. “We need more green space... more trails... and more actual affordable homes." 8 OTHER FEEDBACK ON REPRESENTATION RESPONDENTS ALSO CALLED OUT THE FIVE THEMES BELOW AS THINGS THAT WOULD HELP TO FEEL BETTER REPRESENTED ZIP CODERespondents were primarily from 59715. 9 LOCATIONMost respondents lived within city limits. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (1 OF 2) RESPONDENTS WERE PRIMARILY FULL-TIME CITY RESIDENTS ACROSS QUADRANTS, WITH FEW STUDENTS REPRESENTED QUADRANTThe SE and NW quadrants were moststrongly represented in this data. RESIDENCY STATUSMost respondents were full-time residents(more than 6 months per year). STUDENT STATUSMost respondents were not students. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 59715 59718 59717 0100200300400500Within Bozeman city limits Outside city limits in Gallatin Valley 0 50 100 150 200 SE NW NE SW Outside City Limits 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Full-time resident Other Part-time resident 0 100 200 300 400 500 Not a Student Student at MSU Student at Gallatin College Census Survey Working Age (16-64)Older Individuals (65+)0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Census Survey Female/WomanMale/ManNon-binaryPrefer not to respondPrefer to self-describe0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Census Survey WhiteHispanic/LatinoAsianAmerican Indian/Alaskan NativeBlack/African AmericanNative Hawaiian/Pacific Islander0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% AGE CATEGORIES Survey respondents (average = 55 yrs)skewed older than census populationestimates (average = 35 yrs). 10 GENDERSurvey respondents included a slightoverrepresentation of women (54%)compared to census populationestimates (47%). DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE (2 OF 2) THE AVERAGE RESPONDENT IDENTIFIED AS A WORKING AGE WHITE WOMAN RACE/ETHNICITYSurvey respondents mirrored theracial/ethnic profile in censuspopulation estimates. Note. Additional exploratory analyses by age did not meaningfully change results or conclusions. 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY TAKEAWAYS Summarizing the broad feedback gathered from the community survey and stakeholder engagement sessions, the four topics below emerged as top interest areas for future change through charter updates. Hybrid Geographic District/At-Large Representation in City Commission Clarified Relationships among City Commission, City Boards, and Neighborhoods Distributed Powers Between Mayor and City Manager Altered Deputy Mayor Policy THESE AREAS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF DEEPER EDUCATION AND INPUT OVER THE NEXT MONTHS LEADING TO POTENTIAL DRAFTED CHARTER LANGUAGE.