HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Article VII Public CommentFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Cc:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Article VII Public Comment
Date:Thursday, July 23, 2026 12:57:05 AM
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.
To the Bozeman Study Commission:
We are writing to follow up on the public comment we submitted on July 15, which we havenoted does not appear in the public comment repository; yet, a public comment submitted on
July 17 from another resident has since been uploaded. We want to flag this as an issue sincewe understand that the Study Commission and public rely on the public comment repository to
track input to the new charter and final report, and we would ask that it be located and added.
For reference, our July 15 comment is included at the end of this message. This comment isintended to expand on some of those points as the Study Commission finalizes the draft and
final report.
Article VIIFirst, we want to express support for the layout of Article VII. The reordering of the items
makes sense based on the additional language that may or may not be necessary depending onwhat voters choose this November.
Regarding Section 7.04, we have the following comments:
It may be worth explicitly stating in Section 7.04(a) that there will be one commissionerper ward and that they forfeit their office if their principal residence is no longer within
the ward the commissioner represents.In Section 7.04(b), we suggest the following:That the language stating that, "No more than two advisory board membersmay belong to the same political party," be removed. We very clearly
understand the intent behind this statement, but it is not something that we see asbeing enforceable. Bozeman's elections are non-partisan, and Montana does not
require voters to declare a party affiliation at registration, which means there is noofficial record against which this requirement could be verified. The only
practical way to apply this criterion would be to require applicants to self-reporttheir political party, which is both an unreliable and an inappropriate basis on
which to screen candidates for a nonpartisan advisory board. Further, advisoryboard applications have historically become a matter of public record
(example, https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=307258&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN), and given the nature of today's political
climate, members of both political parties may be reluctant to apply for the boardknowing that this information will be publicly available, which may discourage
many people from applying.We also want to flag an issue with the proposed process for appointing members
to the board. As currently written, the city commission would appoint fourmembers to the board, and those four members would then select a fifth member
to serve as chairperson. This creates a two-tiered process where four members are
appointed through the city commission's public process, and the fifth, who alsobecomes the chairperson by default, is selected internally by the other four,without the same open solicitation process. The current language also does notspecify how a tie would be resolved if the four appointees split evenly on the
selection of the fifth member. We recommmend that all five members beappointed by the city commission via an open public solicitation process for the
sake of fairness and consistency, and then those five members decide amongstthemselves who will serve as chairperson.
We recommend revising the last sentence of this sub-section as follows: "Theward advisory board must be appointed and must divide the city into [four or
six] wards (i) following adoption of this Charter; (ii) if a review, conductedevery two years and following each decennial census, determines that the
population disparity between wards exceeds ten percent, including as a result offuture annexations." This recommended language achieves a few things:
The current text of (ii) requires the boundaries to be redrawn after everydecennial census, regardless of whether or not there is a population
disparity greater than the threshold. The recommended language onlyrequires the redetermination of boundaries if a review of the census reveals
a disparity. Land annexations have been a big part of Bozeman's growth in the past few
years, and there is currently a large swath of land being prepared for futureannexation in the northwest part of town
(https://engage.bozemanmt.gov/goochhill). We believe it would bebeneficial to explicitly name annexation as a potential cause of disparity
that would trigger a redraw, rather than leaving it to be inferred from thegeneral disparity trigger.
The current text of this sub-section calls for re-drawing ward boundaries ifthe population disparity exceeds five percent. We are recommending a 10%
threshold because it is a more workable threshold based on Bozeman'sgrowth pattern. We would like to walk through a hypothetical example:
Assuming a population of 60,000, and hypothetically six wards, eachward's ideal population would be 10,000.
A 5% threshold would mean a deviation of only 500 people. Thegap between the most- and least-populated ward can't exceed 5% of
10,000, or 500 people. So if one ward has 10,300 and another 9,800,that is a 500-person gap and would trigger the need to redraw
boundaries. A 10% threshold would effectively double the allowable deviation
up to 1,000 people. The same wards could then range from roughly9,500 to 10,500 before triggering the need to redraw.
Given that new development and annexation in Bozeman tends to bedense, one apartment complex or annexation could easily push one
ward's population up by several hundred people, potentiallytriggering the 5% threshold with just one new large apartment site. A
10% threshold is more likely to be able to absorb this kind of normal,uneven growth without requiring the city to repeatedly redraw
boundaries.In Section 7.04(c), we recommend the following:
We again recommend changing the threshold to 10%.We recommend adding the language, "and shall preserve existing Neighborhood
Association boundaries to the maximum extent feasible," to the second sentencethat describes that wards shall be "compact, contiguous ..."
We recommend adding the language: "Newly annexed territory shall, by default,become part of the ward with which it shares the longest contiguous
boundary." We question if the last sentence should read as-is or changed to, "Changes to the
boundaries of a ward may not be made between the date that is six months priorto the opening of the candidate filing period and the date of the corresponding
general election." This would give individuals considering running for officetime to know definitively which ward they reside in and eliminates any confusion
once the candidate filing period opens. In Section 7.04(d), we recommend the following:
To the first sentence, based on what Attorney Sullivan said at last week's meetingabout public meetings, we recommend tweaking the language slightly to
read, "The board shall conduct its work in public meetings in an open,transparent manner and shall hold a minimum of two (2) public hearings
before finalizing any ward map." Again, we would change the threshold to 10%.
We recommend removing the last sentence that disbands the ward advisory boardupon adoption of the ward boundaries by ordinance. There should be some degree
of continuity in the board members, at least for a period of time, and theordinance that will officially establish this board can define terms, term limits,
etc. We also note that our trigger (ii) in 7.02(a) (trigger (iii) in the current proposed
version) relies on someone being responsible for monitoring ward populationdisparity between census years, including disparities caused by annexations. The
current draft is not clear on who holds this responsibility. This could be fixed withthe addition of this sentence: "The ward advisory board shall review ward
population data at least once every two years, and in no case later than twelve(12) months following the publication of each decennial federal census, to
determine whether the population disparity threshold has been met. Anyresulting boundary adjustments shall be finalized no later than six months
before the opening of the applicable municipal candidate filing period." Thistimeline would mean that ward boundaries are reviewed prior to municipal
elections, and also solves for making sure that a review of ward populations ishappening in an ongoing manner.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
Sincerely,Katie Adams
The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 3:01 AM The Gallatin Valley Sentinel <info@thegvsentinel.com>wrote:
To the Bozeman Study Commission:
We would first like to offer a suggestion for your ballot education discussion. Ourrecommendation is for you to record a video explaining the work you've done and
presenting it to voters. This video could easily be shared with the connections you have at
various organizations, as well as the general public and pushed through the city'scommunication channels. If you are going to do in-person presentations to verious groups,
there should be a standardized presentation and speech used to ensure that the same messageis being presented everywhere.
Regarding the charter, we want to start by acknowledging the progress reflected in the
current draft, particularly the changes proposed to the compensation board, the wardboundary criteria, and the vice mayor role. These are improvements over prior drafts, and
we would like to offer a few suggestions where further clarity and refinement wouldstrengthen the final charter language.
Compensation Board
We want to register strong support for the public feedback indicating that sitting
commissioners should not serve on the compensation board. We encourage the StudyCommission to adopt the recommendation to have a fully independent board.
If two sitting city commissioners were to remain on the board, it raises an immediate and
difficult question: who decides which two? Any selection process, whether by seniority,appointment by the mayor, or a vote of the full commission, reintroduces exactly the self-
interest dynamic one could reasonably assume the board is intended to eliminate. Acommissioner who has a say in either their own appointment to the board or their colleague's
undermines the board's independence in both appearance and practice.
We urge you to accept the recommendation we sent in previous public comment that was
supported by the overwhelming majority of public comment received both in writing and atthe public hearing in June. The compensation board can of course consult all commissioners
to obtain a broader perspective on the work required, which will certainly vary fromcommissioner to commissioner based on their work and lived experience.
Allowing the board to be independent will also help build public trust.
Vice Mayor
The latest draft still leaves ambiguity around what happens if the vice mayor is unable orunwilling to serve as mayor. A succession similar to what has been previously stated and
supported in our public comment is recommended.
Wards
It is an improvement to move away from the city commission setting ward boundaries andchanging them at will.
However, we will refer to our previously submitted public comments, also supported by themajority of other public comments on the subject, and recommend adoption of that language
or something similar.
We see that you did accept the recommendation to look at the legislature's process, and
would encourage you to consider that language and adopt it to what suits Bozeman at thelocal level.
It is also worth considering increasing the population disparity threshold to 10%, aspreviously recommended. With Bozeman's future plans for growth and its zoning, one or
two apartment developments could cause the current 5% threshold to be triggered, therebycreating the need for ward boundaries to change more frequently than they likely should.
Also consider who is monitoring for those changes in population if the board is beingdisbanded after their recommendationd are adopted.
It is also important that the members of the ward advisory board be appointed by the citycommission via an open public solicitation process and that all five members of the board be
appointed by the commission out of fairness. We also do not see the need to have politicalparty be a criteria since Bozeman's elections are nonpartisan. Also per public comments, it
should be added that existing neighborhood boundaries be honored as much as possible.
Misc.
The transition timeline presented could use some work. Namely, if voters choose to increasethe size of the commission, there is no reason to wait until 2029 to elect them. They could
and should be elected at the next general election in 2027. Further, we recommendconsidering the opening of candidate filing for the 2027 municipal election and make sure
that if wards are approved by voters, that the ward advisory board has their recommendationto the commission in ample time for adoption before the filing period opens.
Lastly, we recommend that you meet again next week to allow whatever decisions you maketomorrow to be incorporated into a final draft of the charter, and subsequent final report, so
that the public can see the draft and comment one last time before final adoption on August6. It may end up being a short meeting, but it would be worth it to have all of the changes
together and not wait until the absolute last minute prior to the August 6 meeting for thepublic to be able to review and offer any final tweaks or even proofreading. You could also
use this time to review everyone's responses to Danegeld's homework, whatever that mayhave been. The document uploaded to your Reference Materials folder that is supposed to be
a copy of their "homework" does not display properly, but whatever that homework was,should be a part of a public discussion.
Sincerely,
Katie AdamsThe Gallatin Valley Sentinel