HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-26 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - Additional Public Comment on Charter TextFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Goverment Study Commission
Cc:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Additional Public Comment on Charter Text
Date:Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:39:59 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:
First, thank you for finding and adding our public comment from July 15 to the repository.
Second, based on the public comment shared with you, public feedback we have received, aswell as our survey results, we broadly support your latest round of edits to the charter. We
offer the following comments as further recommendations:
Overall - We recommend going back through and verifying that the number and letter
formats of each section are consistent. Some sections use letters for subsections, whileothers use numbers. It is easiest to read when it follows the number, letter, number
format, for example: Section 2.06. Preamble
We agree with City Manager Winn's recommendation to remove "human rights"from the preamble. We understand clearly the intent of adding this language, but
as Mr. Winn said in his comments, it is not addressed anywhere in the charter likethe others that are listed. Commissioner Strout has previously stated that voting
would be included as a human right in this sense, and we understand thatargument. However, the other terms listed in the preamble are reflected in
specific, substantive provisions elsewhere in the charter. "Human rights," bycontrast, are not addressed by name anywhere else in the charter with the same
degree of specificity. If the intent behind including this term is to capture the rightto participate in local government as a human right, we believe that concept is
already given concrete, operative expression through the charter's new articleon the role of public engagement.Article ISection 1.01 - Does the city itself actually exercise all three branches of
government since Bozeman's municipal court is actually a part of the state judicialbranch? The city only funds and operates it. The city commission and city
manager derive their authority directly from this charter as an exercise of thecity's self-governing powers, but the municipal court is established pursuant to
state law. This might be worth asking Mr. Sullivan to weigh in on. Article IISection 2.02 - The clearly defined blue box and the revised language for the sub-options is much clearer both visually and how it reads.
One very minor recommendation would be to add "and the mayor" in thesecond sentence of the first paragraph, so "four plus the mayor ... total of
six commissioners plus the mayor." You might switch the order the sub-options are presented to match the order
on the ballot. Currently, Section 2.02(c) presents Selection 1 as fourcommissioners, but the ballot presents Selection 1 as six commissioners.
Whichever order they appear in, they should match.
This same comment applies to Section 2.02(d). At-large is presented asSelection 1 in the charter, but it appears as Selection 2 on the ballot.Section 2.04 - The changes decided at the last meeting are a significantimprovement over prior versions. We have only three recommendations as
follows:Increase the number of residents on the board to five. It seems
disproportionate for there to be three ex-officio members compared to onlyfour residents.
This is the most important of these three recommendations,regardless of how many commissioners are ex-officio members.
Reduce the ex-officio members to one city commissioner and the financedirector. One commissioner would be sufficient to serve as ex-officio, much
like how one commissioner serves as a liaison to other city boards, not two.The intent is well understood that two voices are better than one in terms of
communicating the duties and time commitment of commissioners, but thesame thing could be achieved by slightly modifying the first sentence of the
second paragraph to end before the comma, and then add a sentence thatsays, "The board shall survey all members of the city commission and take
into consideration the duties and obligations of the commission and mayor."This will provide an even broader view of the duties rather than just two of
the five (or seven). Section 2.06 - All of the concerns previously flagged have been solved, and we
appreciate Commissioner Campbell pointing out the potential issue of the vicemayor's term being shorter than the remaining term of the mayor, and also
appreciate the solution that Mike Maas presented. This section works well now. Section 2.06(c) still mentions the mayor in the second sentence (pertaining
to the public forum). This just needs to be removed. Patti Steinmuller alsoflagged this item.Section 2.07 - We agree with Patti Steinmuller's suggestion in her publiccomment from June 26. Another solution could be to add that the notice of the
hearing should be published electronically.Section 2.11 - We agree with the suggestion in Mr. Winn's comment to remove
#6 Regulate land use and development because this is now governed by MLUPA(Montana Land Use and Planning Act).Article IIISection 3.04(5) - We recommend removing "annual" as a descriptor of the budget
and capital program since the capital program is no longer annual, and it wouldleave the budget flexible to whatever is required by state law.Article VSection 5.04 - Should "the city shall..." be "the city commission shall?" Article VISection 6.03 - We would really like to see the language in the current charter
added back in that says the city's debt position and ability to raise additional fundsshould be a part of the city manager's budget message. We have received a lot of
feedback that people are concerned about the reporting of the city's debt, andbased on recent city commission meetings, there are a lot of plans to ask voters to
approve more levies in the future, so this commentary from the city manager willbe of even more importance then.Section 6.09 - Could there be a condition added to the city commission's ability towaive the requirement to where they would be required to demonstrate that there
was an effort made to find an alternative vendor? Article VIISection 7.01 - After reading Patti Steinmuller's comment on this, we looked intothe MCA and found MCA 7-3-708 that says: "(2) Charter forms are subject to
state laws establishing election, initiative, and referendum procedures; andcharters shall not contain provisions establishing election, initiative, and
referendum procedures" It might be worth asking Attorney Sullivan if the additionof the language about the number of signatures could violate this. This section
might just need to end with the first sentence. This issue appears again in Section10.01.Section 7.02 - Again, this presentation and wording of the sub-option is muchimproved.
The selections presented in the charter are in a different order than on theballot. This is another area that should be modified to remain consistent.Article VIIISection 8.01 - Since the concern seems to be the use of the word "shall" as a
command, could the language remain the same but say that the city shall"encourage" two-way communication, etc.?Section 8.03 and Section 8.04 - We agree with both Mr. Winn's and PattiSteinmuller's concerns about the prescriptive nature of all of the "shalls" in this
section, but instead of removing this section altogether, we offer the suggestion tochange the word "shall" with "should." This is more of a middle ground and
makes the section a "strong suggestion" memorialized in the city charter.For example, Section 8.03(a) would read: "Public Participation.
Engagement provides opportunities for residents to participate in matters ofsignificant public interest. The city should be proactive in outreach ..." This
could be repeated for items (b) - (d).Section 8.04(a) could read: "The city should seek to strengthen
neighborhood participation ..." etc.Section 8.04 - Rather than require the staff liaison to expand
the voluntary neighborhood program, we recommend changing the language to:"The staff liaison should work with the Inter-Neighborhood Council to
recommend strategies for growing the neighborhood program." Ultimately, thegoal is to encourage new neighborhoods to join, not to force it upon people. Mr.
Winn also commented on this section and said that it conflicts with earlierlanguage about encouraging and supporting neighborhood associations. This
language offers a fix without completely deleting it.Section 8.04 - We also recommend adopting the language for HOAs
recommended by Mary Frances McHugh in the public comment submitted onJune 26 (https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?
id=312034&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=1#docaccess-f465cfbd79afaff21f7e02c049baca8a).
We have also received a lot of feedback on how difficult it is for HOAs toalso form an official neighborhood association recognized by the city and
subsequently have representation on INC. These recommendations wouldhelp solve for this, and would help to achieve your stated goal of expanding
the neighborhoods program.Section 8.04(d)(7) - We agree with Takami Clark's concern on this item as shared
in her public comment from July 13(https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?
id=312034&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=1#docaccess-8e1a437ecd129c0f33292b2e9bf41536), and offer the suggestion to replace "shall"
with "should" so that it is not a requirement, but rather a strong suggestion. Section 8.05(a) - Should city boards be doing public education on all topics, or
just those that are the focus of the board? For example, should the SustainabilityBoard be responsible for doing public education on the rewriting of the city's
historic preservation policy? Or should that be the duty of the HistoricPreservation Advisory Board?
Also in this section, we recommend adding language to make it clear thatthe meetings of city boards are to be public meetings.Section 8.05(c)(1) - We do not think that the wording "for a minimum of 30 daysprior to the vacancy being filled" meets the intent. It could instead say something
like, "The city shall conduct public solicitation for board membership at leasttwice annually and whenever a vacancy arises or a board member's term
expires."Section 8.05(c) - In the previous Section 8.04, you added (d)(2) that the INC shall
follow the city's Code of Ethics. We recommend adding this language to thissection for advisory boards as well. Article XSection 10.01 - We recommend shortening this section to simply say "in the
manner proposed by state law." This section currently runs into the same issuepresented by Section 7.01.Article XISection 11.03 - We recommend adding to the last sentence something that says
"adopted as soon as possible within one year of adoption of this charter or asotherwise provided by state law."Section 11.04 - Overall, this section is improved, but the proposed timeline willnot have any changes to the charter implemented until 2030. The feedback we
have received on this is very displeased that it would take this long for changes tobe implemented when there is a municipal election happening in 2027. The
timeline should be shifted to have all changes, such as expansion of thecommission and wards, if approved by voters, implemented in time for the 2027
municipal election. Looking ahead, this would also allow for the maximumamount of time possible for these changes to implemented and evaluated
thoroughly for effectiveness before the next study commission opportunity in 10years.
We appreciate that the Study Commission has added today's meeting and the meeting on July30 to further refine the language of the charter and final report and remain hopeful that these
recommendations will be considered and adopted.
Thank you.Sincerely,
Katie AdamsThe Gallatin Valley Sentinel