HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-26 Public Comment - R. Muldowney - Note to CommissionersFrom:City of Bozeman, MT
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]*NEW SUBMISSION* Public Comment Form - City Clerk
Date:Monday, July 27, 2026 6:37:47 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.
Public Comment Form - City Clerk
Submission #:4973447
IP Address:37.19.210.22
Submission Date:07/27/2026 6:37
Survey Time:6 minutes, 14 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Read-Only Content
Full Name
Robert Muldowney
Email
bobmuldowney@gmail.com
Phone
(406) 595-4865
Comments
Mike / Alex - would you please distribute the attached to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager
as well as City Attorney
If you would like to submit additional documents (.pdf, .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .gif, .jpg, .png, .rtf, .txt) along with
your comment, you may alternately address comments@bozemanmt.gov directly to ensure receipt of all
information.
Note to Commissioners 07.27.26.pdf
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
Exercising Democracy in Three-Minute Bites — Commission Submission — July 2026 Page 1
TO: Mayor Morrison; Deputy Mayor Fischer; Commissioners Madgic, Bode, Sweeney; City Manager Chuck Winn
DATE: July 27, 2026
People make choices which are guided by their own understanding of circumstances. The City Commission, made
up of people, makes choices which are guided by their own perspectives.
This past Sunday evening three motorcycles raced up North Ferguson where the posted speed limit in a residential
neighborhood is 25 mph. They were traveling about 50 mph. I considered calling the police but I chose not to, as I
understood the City made a choice to continue the diversion of property tax receipts over and above a frozen TIF
base away from the General Fund and therefore the City does not have the funding to pay for police to enforce traffic
regulations. As traffic enforcement, understandably, is a secondary consideration, police do not have the bandwidth
to respond. As you can see choices are interdependent.
Previously, the City thought to address the underfunding of police by presenting a new mill levy for a vote. What the
City chose not to tell residents is that the size of the levy was itself a function of 30 years of TIF diversion: a larger
General Fund tax base — undiminished by TIF capture — would have required a smaller levy increase, or none, to
fund the same police staffing need. The size of the General Fund is directly affected by who contributes to it and how
much; residents were not told that a portion of what the levy was asking them to cover was revenue the General Fund
would already have had, absent the TIF diversion. In other words, the City chose to ask Westside residents to
subsidize General Fund services for downtown businesses and residents. Although there is nothing in the statutory
law requiring disclosure, the City chose not to present this fact to the voters. The residents made the choice to vote
down the requested increase regardless.
Although the City has $9.7m of accumulated DURD TIF monies idling on the balance sheet, the City chooses NOT to
settle the outstanding bond and continues the diversion of property tax receipts away from the General Fund even
after 30+ years. In my view, the City chooses to maintain the perspective that these funds were generated by the
DURD and therefore belong to the DURD. But in reality, these funds are the result of the DURD TIF redirecting tax
receipts of the appreciated taxable value since 1995 away from the General Fund and into the TIF coffers choosing to
prioritize the desires of the business owners, even though blight has long since been remediated, over those of the
residents living outside the DURD.
Doing nothing is as much of a choice as taking action. I have indicated several instances where the City, in my view,
is acting contrary to Montana Code statutory law and have provided MCA citations to support these claims. And
although the initial decisions were made years ago, the City is currently choosing to make no changes.
I have come to the realization that the City will do what the City chooses to do regardless of what I believe, as that is
their right.
The 1995 Commission, which drafted Ordinance 1409, appears to have understood that redirecting ALL appreciated
property tax value away from the General Fund and into a TIF which only financially benefits downtown, while
starving the General Fund of the resources that pay for the services that the entire City depends upon was wrong.
Therefore the 1995 Commission capped the amount of property tax appreciation that could be diverted.
The state made a similar determination for districts created on or after April 6, 2017, that new voter-approved mill
levies are excluded from TIF capture.
In 2011, the City, County, and School District entered into an interlocal agreement addressing excess tax increment
above the Ordinance 1409/1628 inflation-adjusted cap, which had been reached in the 14th year of payments. The
agreement directed the County's and School District's shares back to those bodies. The City's own share, however,
was pledged back to the DURD under Section 2 of that agreement — a modification of the Finance section of
Ordinance 1409 for which no authorizing ordinance has been found in the public record, raising a question under
MCA §7-15-4221(2) and (5)(b), which require such modifications to occur by ordinance after a public hearing. In my
view, it appears that the 2011 Commission also chose to prioritize the interests of Downtown Businesses over that of
the City residents at large, causing residents outside of the DURD to subsidize General Fund services for the
Businesses.
I feel that this perspective persists today. Attached to a City of Bozeman Memorandum dated August 19, 2025,
authored by the Executive Director of DBP, is the City of Bozeman Downtown Design and Construction Standards,
which describes the Downtown Urban Renewal District as a member organization of the DBP. That document goes
on to state that the DURD was created in 1995 AND as mandated by Montana Code, the DURD invests in
infrastructure projects that add long term value to the district.
Exercising Democracy in Three-Minute Bites — Commission Submission — July 2026 Page 2
Unfortunately, that interpretation turns reality on its head and is grossly incorrect. MCA §7-15-4202 and
Ordinance 1409 are rooted in blight. The statutory framework exists because of “the existence of blighted areas” and
the resulting public health, safety, and welfare problems. The 1995 plan identified specific blight conditions — Main
Street unfriendly to pedestrians, inadequate parking, deteriorating infrastructure. “Investing in infrastructure projects
that add long term value” is DBP's recharacterization of the district's purpose established by ordinance — language
that conveniently strips out the blight nexus and replaces it with an open-ended development mandate that justifies
spending on anything downtown. That's not what the 1995 Commission envisioned or authorized but it apparently is
the view that persists today. And a choice that is reinforced every day that this view persists.
That same attachment goes on to state: “The Downtown Bozeman Partnership (DBP) is a member-managed limited
liability corporation. The member organizations include the Downtown Bozeman Association (DBA), Business
Improvement District (BID), and Downtown Urban Renewal District (DURD) which established the Partnership as an
incorporated management agency. The Downtown Bozeman Partnership provides combined operational support in
the form of offices and employees for the three member organizations.”
This statement also turns reality on its head. A TIF district has no independent legal personality to “establish”
anything. Under MCA §7-15-4232, urban renewal project powers may be assigned only to a City department,
municipal officer, or “existing public body corporate.” DBP fits none of these categories. The Commission itself lacks
the power to confer URD administrative authority on DBP, regardless of how many successive PSAs have approved
the arrangement. But I digress.
Among the issues I have pointed out over the course of presentations to the Commission and submissions to the
public record;
● MCA §7-15-4232 limits delegation of TIF management to a City department, a municipal officer or an
existing public body corporate. The DBP is not a “public body corporate” as defined by MCA §7-15-
4206(13), it is a Domestic LLC and is therefore ineligible to supervise spending of the DURD TIF.
● Ordinance 2144 (August 2023) re-vested all DURD administrative authority with the City Commission. The
Commission may be advised on matters pertaining to the program by either a department or other officers of
the municipality or a district board created by the Commission — not a private LLC.
● MCA §7-15-4288(7) authorizes TIF for “administrative costs associated with the management of the urban
renewal area.” Read with §§4232 and 4233, that cost category flows only to the Commission, an authorized
municipal department, or a properly constituted urban renewal agency — not a private LLC.
● 2011 Interlocal Agreement (Laserfiche ID 44679): County and School District #7 receive their shares. The
City permanently pledges its own pro-rata share back to the DURD. The General Fund has received zero
benefit for at least four documented surplus years (FY2021, FY2023, FY2024, FY2025) — cumulative
foregone revenue ~$2,395,000.
● MCA §7-15-4221(2) and (5)(b): an urban renewal plan may be modified only by ordinance after a public
hearing. The City's pledge-back modifies Ordinance 1409's Finance section distribution mechanism. No
authorizing ordinance has been found in the public record. I do not believe, and the MCA appears to
support, that an interlocal agreement passed on a consent agenda can supersede an ordinance.
● MCA §7-5-4302 — states that construction contracts over $80,000 must go to competitive bid. FY2027 Work
Plan describes $5M (FY27) + $3M (FY28) for an unnamed “Public-Private Partnership” to expand parking
supply. There is no named counterparty.
● MCA §7-15-4286(2)(c) (April 6, 2017): for districts created on or after April 6, 2017, new voter-approved mill
levies are excluded from TIF capture. This modification was not retroactive; although it should be. Voters
were not told that a portion of any new levy on those four pre-2017 districts would be diverted from public
safety to TIF. Taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being allocated and spent.
● There is an obvious conflict of interest that a member organization is given Grant making authority to its
membership, but a choice has been made by the City to continue this practice.
In my view, Bozeman is being run as a series of independent fiefdoms, whereas the reality is that Bozeman is a
single community with co-dependent needs and it should be seen and managed as such. Taking from one group of
residents to subsidize services for a different group of residents without full disclosure of such an arrangement is a
choice the City makes — and an unfair one. The last safety mill levy failed and that's without the residents knowing
the inequities of the TIF arrangement; once residents understand that their tax dollars are being used in part to
subsidize the structural inequities of the TIF, the next mill levy increase request may fail as well.
Exercising Democracy in Three-Minute Bites — Commission Submission — July 2026 Page 3
As stated, I feel that the City will do what the City chooses to do and that offering an alternative is an exercise in
futility. In my opinion, this view is supported in part by;
● A $9.7m balance in the DURD TIF that apparently the downtown and BDP seems to believe the monies
belong to them and is therefore theirs to spend as they see fit, rather than funds accumulated by NOT
contributing to the general fund and having residents outside of the DURD subsidize the DURD's General
Fund needs.
● The City choosing to align itself with a faulty 2011 Interlocal Agreement that is contrary to the original
governing principles and intent established by Ordinance 1409 that capped the revenue that could be
diverted from the General Fund on an annual basis.
● The City choosing not to modify any of the four pre-2017 TIF districts to align with the State of Montana's
realization in 2017 that TIFs should not capture revenue from new mill levies. Not taking action is the City's
choice to make.
● The City choosing to accept the view that as mandated by Montana Code, the DURD invests in
infrastructure projects that add long term value to the district, when the clear language of Ordinance 1409 is
rooted in contending with and remediating BLIGHT.
In my view it is the Commission's choice and responsibility to ensure the City is working in the best interests of ALL
its residents and treating the community at large equitably and fairly as well as to correct for any prior missteps past
Commissions may have made. Not simply accept “business as usual”.
Exercising democracy in three-minute sound bites feels like yelling into a darkened cavern. The only result received
is that of your own words echoing back to you.
Regards
Robert Muldowney, Baxter Meadows