The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCharter Comparison Charter Comparison: Neighborhood Associations and Advisory Boards TOPIC EXISTING CHARTER STUDY COMM DRAFT GVS DRAFT RECOMMENDED NIC WHAT THIS MEANS NEIGHBORHOOD FORMATION City sets recognition requirements and boundaries City divides Bozeman into no more than 20 neighborhoods Neighborhoods formed by residents; city cannot dictate boundaries Focus not on who draws boundaries but building effective participation structures Control vs. participation structure CITIZEN INPUT NAs may make recommendation Input is advisory and consensus-based Formal Neighborhood Impact Statements required Input should be early, ongoing, and build into planning and budgeting processes Reactive input→ Structured, early engagement CITY RESPONSE No requirement to respond City provides “timely responses” with explanation City must explain decisions on the record if rejecting input Effectiveness depends on formal, reciprocal communication —not just access Being heard → being answered Real distinction is scope, timing, and enforceability ADVISORY BOARDS Boards created by commission; advisory only Remain advisory; emphasize engagement role Boards remain advisory but cannot be restricted; include minority reports Boards should be deliberative advisory bodies, not advocacy or political tools Advisory vs. effective advisory PARTICIPATION AND CAPACITY Focus on structure and recognition Adds communication, liaison and engagement principles Adds funding, formal processes, and defined participation pathways Effectiveness requires training, leadership development, and sustained support Structure alone→ Structure + capacity Submitted by Commissioner Deanna Campbell for April 24, 2026 meeting Artificial intelligence tools were used to assist in synthesizing and organizing information; all content has been reviewed and refined for accuracy.