HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-26 Public Comment - H. Stanley - Inputs on Study Commission Meeting of 1_15_26From:halstanley@me.com
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Inputs on Study Commission Meeting of 1/15/26
Date:Thursday, January 15, 2026 8:10:06 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.
Hello Study Commissioners,
After listening to the meeting and the review of surveys, I have a few thoughts and concerns
that I hope are helpful:
1. Though I have huge respect for Carson and your past work as Commissioner and Mayor, Iwas not happy with your summary of the survey response. I think you probably know that
only a minority of people have the time or interest to take these surveys, but this is notnecessarily a reflection that they are happy with the current structure. Here are some inputs on
why I think this is a false narrative: a. As I mentioned to Deanna and Becky when I took this survey at the Senior Center, a
survey with y/n questions and no education on how other systems work and their pros/cons isvery limited in value. The survey did a one word to describe current government which
should be taken more seriously as an indication of how respondents felt. But even morerevealing is the question allowing written narratives on 5 themes. If you look a little harder I
think you will find public concern!b. As Dan eluded to, maybe examining whether we are getting the results we want from our
government should be the first question. Then examine whether the negative results arebecause of structure. If you ask the average Bozemanite about problems or things they are
not happy with, there are lots of feelings that we are not getting the results we want. Wouldchanging the structure improve these concerns?
c. Staying with the current form of government is the easy way out for the Commission. Aswe have grown to be a big City with fast growth, is the current structure really preparing us to
respond best?d. My personal extremely limited experience interfacing with the City government is that
simple things are well done, but complex things like planning department interface are notwell managed even though I feel your City Manager is better than average. Would allowing
the Commissioners to be more involved since the voters go to them when things get reallybadly done, be more effective? Jan’s comment on “effectiveness” was good and though
maybe the word needs more definition, an “effective City government” is a key area to look at.
2. The Study Commission Agenda sent out to the public by email didn’t mention most of whatyou talked about - i.e. review of studies, learning session that Dan did! Education and
discussion of the pros/cons is what I believe most of the Public cares about. Until we have anopportunity to get at least a detailed summary of this, we, The Public, are ignorant of why we
should care or why we should respond to what you are doing. I saw some documents tonightthat I did not know were available and I will bet most of the Public is also in the dark. I have
been looking at the Study Commission website but felt there was nothing of value there andwondered where some of the detailed documents shown tonight were. Much to my chagrin I
now discover they are under the “resources” tab. Bad on me, but maybe there are lots ofothers like me.
3. I disagree with Carson that you can’t get more input on these detailed things than youalready have! Jumping to a conclusion that “it ain’t broken” without doing more work to get
Community input may cause the Study Commission big protests later. I see the tension in theCommission between wanting to make progress by starting to vote on things next meeting
without sufficient information or Community input and Deanna’s concern that you don’t haveenough information to vote and are "jumping the gun”. Barb is right that this must be an
iterative process with the Community without us thinking you are dictating results.
4. While the spreadsheet of what towns/Cities in Montana are doing with governing structureis useful, I believe you should be looking at what other Cities in similar areas of the West that
at at 80-120K in population is more relevant as we should be looking ahead! Part of whyBozeman has been struggling the last 10 years is we are reactive and not proactive. Our
structure is part of the problem in my view. We need to be putting in place a structure thatgets us to a population of 90,000+ by 2036. This probably means a full time Mayor at a
minimum and maybe full time Commissioners. By full time I mean this is their only job andif it takes them a 60 hour work week they are compensated for that. Maybe that means
minimum experience requirements? Some examples to look at more relevant comparisons -Bend OR, Boulder CO, or St. George UT. Billings is probably the only Montana City of
relevant size and it is not growing at the rate of Bozeman. I would guess Dan’s expertise inCity government could provide benchmarks of successful cities in similar regions that have
grown from 50K to 100K or more in the past 10 years to guide us better.
I don’t know if this will be considered “Public Input” or if you have restrictive rules for howthe Public can input, but I hope you will all at least read this and take my thoughts into
consideration.
Sincerely,Hal Stanley