Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-26 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Commission Priority setting session From: Alison Sweeney To: Chuck Winn; Bozeman Public Comment Cc: Jennifer Madoic;Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode Subject: Commission Priority setting session Date: Wednesday,March 4,2026 10:47:44 AM Attachments: Priority Confusion.odf Good Morning, City Manager, Mayor Morrison, Deputy Mayor Fischer, and fellow Commissioners Bode and Madgic, I'm submitting this to comments@bozeman.net because I would like this conversation to be available to the public. I do not believe we have given sufficient direction on our priorities for the next two years, and would like to discuss publicly what our policies are, before staff spend time allocating resources and creating timelines for vague ideas. Please read my attached letter, and I hope it can be part of the public comment repository surrounding our priority setting. Thank you, To my Commission colleagues, and the Bozeman City Manager, March 41h, 2026 The priority setting session March 3rd was very confusing. I am unclear about who is driving the bus in this City. We adopted priorities, and now staff is going to assign resources and timelines? How does staff have enough information to create the tasks under each initiative? When Mayor Morrison used tenants right to council as an example, that is a very specific task that was also a priority. That is actionable. Some of our initiatives under the broader priorities are like that. 2.d. for example says review the city's strategic plan to ensure it reflects current community goals. I can see how that is clear enough for staff to proceed with allocating resources and assigning a timeline. Other initiatives under broader priorities are very vague, like 2.b. strengthen the relationship with Montana State University. How does staff know what actions to work on to achieve that. The Commission has never had a conversation about it. If staff don't know what actions to take, how can they assign resources or a timeline? How is staff going to assign resources and a timeline for something like 3.a. Improve housingaccess through a variety of programs and strategies. How do they know what programs and strategies to budget time and money for? The Commission has literally NEVER had a conversation about what programs and strategies to pursue to satisfy this initiative! Is staff coming up with the programs and strategies and we just... what... say yes or no? To me, many of the initiatives under the broader priorities seem vague enough that staff will go to their own work plan and choose things they are already doing and say, oh look, that meets this priority here. Nothing else to do. This is so backwards! Shouldn't the commission be deciding what the tasks are to carry out each of the initiatives under the broader priority? And then staff can assign a budget and timeline. Shouldn't the Commission be deciding what programs and strategies the city will pursue to improve housing access in initiative 3.a. for example? Or is staff going to assign a budget and timeline for the Commission to have the conversation about strategies and programs to improve housing access? I have no idea what this Commission's housing program is, because we've literally NEVER had the conversation. Who is deciding what we work on, or which direction we take this city in? I thought it was supposed to be elected officials. Here's how I thought for example we would tackle priority number 3. 3. Bridge the affordability gap. a. Improve housing access through a variety of programs and strategies. b. Review and revise the affordable housing ordinance. c. Streamline the development review process to eliminate unnecessary steps that add cost and delay, while maintaining quality and compliance. d. Support efforts to improve living wage opportunities in Bozeman. e. Support efforts to improve access to childcare. In a work session dedicated to this broader priority we would decide what each of these initiatives under the broader priority mean and identify tasks towards achieving them. At that point staff could assign resources and a timeline. For example, in a discussion around initiative 3.a.we would discuss our preferred programs and strategies and come to consensus on manageable items to make progress on within two years. This is where we would discuss Fowler, of course, AND other strategies. I'm sure each Commissioner has ideas. One idea I would like to propose is that we consult the bond council to learn how we can use revenue bonds to buy smaller multi-family rentals and take them out of the market to maintain affordability in perpetuity, or rescue expiring LIHTC properties. This would be a more comprehensive strategy addressing both for-sale and for-rent affordability. Initiative b. is clear enough for staff to assign resources and a timeline. 3.c. of course needs more clarity. I would like us to have a discussion about small projects with small impacts being expedited (like folks adding a deck or room to their house) but large projects with large impacts still need strict scrutiny. Even Mr. Egge, a member of multiple boards, suggests that we should pursue pre-approved plans for infill housing. What does neighborhood participation in that pre-approved design look like? 3.d. what does that look like? Are we happy to continue our Economic Development approach of ONLY focusing on traded sectorjobs or is there room to support local jobs in providing better wages too? Addressing initiative e. the City Manager highlighted the childcare dashboard, so is that just done? We don't know. The public doesn't know. Because we've not given any direction. I would love to speak with any of my Commission colleagues about this issue. Please let me know if you're interested in a conversation. And I would appreciate next week during my one-on-one meeting with the City Manager to go over this as well. Thank you, Alison Sweeney