HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-26 Public Comment - E. Talago - Public Comment on Adoption of Biennium BudgetFrom:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment on Adoption of Biennium Budget
Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:00:16 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.
Dear Commissioners,
I've spent the last several weeks reviewing this proposed budget, the City's fiscal policies, anddepartmental performance measures. I appreciate the work that goes into producing a
document of this size and complexity. My comments focus on three amendments I believewould strengthen accountability and public confidence in the City's budgeting process.
I'll start with a simple observation. Throughout this budget, departments requested staffing andresources beyond what is ultimately being funded. We have already acknowledged that
resources are limited and tradeoffs are necessary. That reality makes it especially importantthat General Fund dollars remain focused on core municipal functions and that departments
receiving public subsidies demonstrate measurable value in return.
I believe competition within the General Fund has become a growing problem. Montana's
local government finance system is generally structured so that core municipal services aresupported through the General Fund, while voters have the opportunity to approve dedicated
levies for additional community priorities when they believe those priorities warrant additionaltaxation.
When voters say yes, we move forward. When voters say no, doesn't that also carry gravitas?
In 2021, Bozeman voters rejected the Affordable Housing Mill Levy. It was a close vote, but it
failed. Yet every year since then, General Fund resources continue to support housingprograms and administration. If someone supports affordable housing programs there are
many opportunities to still contribute. The question is whether voter decisions should berespected or gradually worked around through annual budget decisions. My first proposed
amendment is straightforward: begin phasing General Fund support for the CommunityHousing Fund out of the budget and require future expansion of those programs to be funded
through dedicated voter-approved revenue sources. The General Fund should first ensure thatcore municipal services are adequately staffed, adequately resourced, and meeting community
expectations before taking on responsibilities voters have previously declined to fund directly.
The Planning Department raises a similar accountability concern. It plays a major role in
housing production, redevelopment, business investment, neighborhood change, andultimately the cost of living in Bozeman. Yet the proposed budget continues to rely on
substantial transfers from other City funds while simultaneously increasing planning fees byroughly fifteen percent per year throughout the biennium. Taxpayers are subsidizing the
system. Applicants are paying more to use the system. Yet the budget provides very littleaccountability for whether those additional resources produce better outcomes.
My second proposed amendment is to reduce the Planning Fund subsidy by at least fiftypercent and redirect those dollars to core General Fund services, while requiring the
department to return next year with measurable evidence of operational improvements beforeany future subsidy increases are considered. That recommendation is not intended as a
punishment. It is intended to align incentives. If taxpayers and applicants are contributingmore resources, the public should see measurable improvements in return. Just as important,
we should be measuring the things that actually matter.
The department's current performance measures focus heavily on individual review cycles.
But that is not how applicants, residents, businesses, or neighborhoods experience the process.What they experience is the total timeline from application to decision. They experience
uncertainty, repeated rounds of review, and the cost of delay.
A metric showing that one review cycle took fewer days tells us very little if the overall
process still takes eighteen, twenty-four, or even thirty months to complete. My third proposedamendment is to revise the Planning Department's performance measures to:
• Track average total entitlement timelines from application submittal to final decision.
• Establish a baseline that reflects actual current conditions.
• Publish annual performance benchmarks and progress reports.
• Adopt a goal of reducing average entitlement timelines by at least sixty percent by the end of
FY28.
I recognize that is an ambitious target. It is intended to be.
When projects routinely require eighteen to thirty months to navigate the entitlement process,incremental improvements measured in days or weeks are unlikely to meaningfully improve
housing affordability, business investment, or public confidence in the system. A thirtypercent reduction would still leave many projects spending well over a year in review. If we
are going to ask taxpayers to subsidize the department and applicants to absorb annual feeincreases, the public should expect transformational improvements, not marginal ones.
The broader issue is that every year these problems persist, local government hands criticsanother argument for state intervention. Whether we like that reality or not, it is happening.
When local processes become too slow, too expensive, or too difficult to navigate, pressurebuilds for the Legislature to step in and make decisions on our behalf. If Bozeman wants to
preserve local control, we need to demonstrate that our systems can deliver timely decisions,measurable results, and accountability for the resources entrusted to them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Emily Talago
bcc Bozeman Commission