Coaching in the last public.

I think he got asked and then I probably somebody probably said you're gonna kill yourself if you keep going.

Two minute warning.

Are they gonna be good again?

Oh, I think so.

Oh yeah, you want that you've got the wrong one.

Right or not.

Um double shot, double shot.

And then we'll get into the agenda.

Thank you.

First item on the agenda is changes to the agenda.

Are there any changes?

All right.

Next item is our first round of public comment.

Please, if you would like, step forward to the podium to give uh up to three minutes of public comment on anything within our jurisdiction.

Um you will have an opportunity on it for public comment any time that we take a vote and at the end as well.

So whatever suits you.

And you can get up on the motions and talk about something and then talk about something else at another time.

But you can't talk about the same thing every time.

Thank you.

My name is Pam Bodie.

I'm a resident of Bose.

Microphone.

There you go.

My name is Pam Bodie.

I'm a resident of the Cooper Park Neighborhood Association.

And as you deliberate today to make potential changes to the association, neighborhood association bylaws, I would urge you to consider that the current bylaws are working fairly well for the folks who are currently involved in the neighborhood associations, and evidently they are not working very well for the people who are not involved in the neighborhood associations.

And so as you consider the input from Inc., I would like you to imagine what the input is from those citizens who have not gotten involved in neighborhood associations to date.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pam, very much.

We will take that into account during our discussion.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Uh hello again.

My name is Abby Jones, and I'm a Bozeman resident, and I'm here on behalf of the Gallatin Valley Sentinel to share a message from them.

So today you will be making decision on whether or not you will fulfill our public records request from January 1st to share the complete raw data of the surveys you conducted.

At first, we were told that you would release the raw data but only in a scrambled format out of concern that we might be able to take the raw data and somehow be able to determine who completed each survey, even though the surveys were anonymous and any personally identifiable information such as names, email addresses, or IP addresses could be redacted.

When our requests remained unfulfilled in February, given the time-sensitive nature of interpreting the data and using it to inform the decisions of the study commission.

Montana's right to know does not recognize a blanket exemption for survey data based on the possibility that someone might infer identity through cross-referencing.

Further, we were told that the city does not have the raw data in its possession, but this does not relieve the city of its obligation to produce records that were used, relied upon, and held by working ventures on the study commission's behalf and paid for with public funds for public purpose.

I'm here today to request that you approve the release of this data to us at the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

This leads me to my next point, which is to say that since before you were all elected to serve on the study commission, the Gallatin Valley Sentinel has made an effort to educate the public on this process, having paid Dan Clark from MSU to come and give us a presentation to our candidate forum that we held in September of 2024.

Since that time, we have tried to come alongside the study commission to supplement your work where we felt there was an obvious gap in public education and engagement.

We are not your adversary in this process.

As an organization, we have listened to every city meeting for the past two years, engaged one-on-one with hundreds of Bozan residents, conducted surveys and focus groups, and read every public comment submitted to the Bozeman Study Commission.

We have mirrored the engagement of the study commission, received more organic survey responses from Bozman residents that you as the study commission have received.

Earlier today, you should have received a copy of the draft charter language that we wrote for you based on all of this feedback.

As you may have noticed, the overreaching framework of what we are recommended compared to what was drafted for your meeting today are nearly direct opposites.

But the language that we are putting forward is truly the product of listening to the public feedback from a diverse sample of Bozan residents.

As you have your discussion day, I encourage you to keep in mind the recommendation of the interneighborhood council and to also to keep in mind that our organization has been deeply involved with our community and local government in recent years.

And we are at the forefront of Bozeman's issues and how to solve them.

Please consider adopting language that have been provided for you today and keep Bozeman neighborhoods organic.

Word should be the unit that covers all of Bozeman and the neighborhoods, the subunits within them.

We have charter language prepared for establishing word-based representation that will go alongside the language we have proposed for neighborhoods and advisory boards.

And we strongly believe that the two of them together is boson's best chance to truly have a transparent local government.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hey, I'm wondering if the Gallon Valley Sentinel would share with us the results of Bit Survey.

I can get back to you on Stephanie right after this if you'd like.

I'll be staying till the end of the meeting.

Yeah, I'm not saying now.

I know, but yeah, you have my phone number.

And we will take your uh comments into account.

And I say that a little blithely, Pam.

I hope you it didn't come across as yeah, we'll take we'll pay attention to your comments.

We really are working hard to pay attention to everybody's comments and integrate them into our discussion.

So thank you both.

Hi, Mary Bateson, uh Bozeman resident.

And I'm not sure if this is when I should be saying this, but I didn't want to wait just in case I wouldn't get a chance before it's pertinent.

So this is concerning your item G3, the review draft charter language.

Um this is for Article V1.

Um it's under Section 7.3 neighborhood associations.

Um Part B.

You say the Commission will establish by ordinance minimum recognition requirements for neighborhood associations, and then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And then you say these standards shall include.

So I'm thinking that it would be better to use the same word, pick either requirements or standards, keep the language simple.

Uh you don't want to have different interpretations of the same thing.

Okay.

Then down to part nine.

Um, the standards should include part nine capacity to develop and transmit reasoned, consensus-based advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues.

I would say strike the words consensus-based.

Consensus-based decision making is much more complex and nuanced than standard democratic processes that citizens are more familiar with.

I say this as a huge supporter of the consensus process, but also with eyes wide open to the difficulty of the process and the importance that those involved consent to engaging in the process.

People must agree that if the decision in consensus, you have to agree that if the decision goes against your own thoughts, they you will accept the group's decision if they feel the point of view has been heard and understood.

I'd say to impose this on neighborhood associations is not appropriate, and to please remove that.

I'd say if you want to start imposing that on the city commission, there's an idea.

Make them make decisions by consensus first, not impose it on the boards or uh councils.

Uh then under part C composition and responsibilities, uh, you have part two and three, the city being divided into no more than 20 neighborhoods, and da-da-da-da-da.

Those parts I did not understand from the last meeting that you agreed to that.

I thought you favored a more organic process.

So, and then under D6, yes, I agree with that.

So thanks.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you very much.

We will take into account what you've said, particularly when we get to the neighborhood association discussion.

Mr.

McCarty.

Uh Daniel Cardi, I'm a 213 North Third.

Um, first of all, um any any data collected by uh this board should be made available in raw form to the public.

This process needs to be completely transparent, and anything else is unacceptable.

Second, um, since everybody's weighing on the weighing in on the inc right now, I think I'll do the same.

Um the Inc.

is a partner board, not an advisory board.

Those two things are different in the charter, and they should remain so.

The Inc.

not only advises the Commission, but it advocates for neighborhoods.

And so in the Charter, it should not be relegated to simply being advisory to the Commission.

Advisory and advocacy have two different definitions, with advisory being the weaker word.

Excuse me, with yes, advisory being the weaker word.

Advisory focuses on providing expert objective or strategic guidance to help someone or an organization make decisions, whereas advocacy involves actively speaking for, supporting, or representing a person or group to secure rights, influence outcomes, or create change.

Advisors remain impartial.

Advocates champion a specific position, and the Inc is a champion for neighborhoods.

Any reference to anyone trying to speak for those who don't come here and get engaged, smacks of speaking for what used to be called the silent majority.

We have not heard language like that since the Nixon administration, and I would suggest that this board not try to speak for people who don't show up and become involved.

Thank you.

Dan, thank you for your comments.

We will take them into account.

Good morning.

Thank you for serving.

This is a very tough job.

I appreciate it.

I've been on the other side of the dais, and I know it's hard work.

So no, you are appreciated.

Jane, can you say that?

My name is Jane Jelinski, and I uh live on North Side.

Um I'm very concerned about some of the people advocating for voting in wards, having uh our electorate divided into wards, and I have some experience, so I want to share that with you.

Uh we are seeing on the national and state level a great deal of effort to suppress voters.

And one of the ways, I know it's not your intent, but voters one of the way to suppress vote voters is having all sorts of residency requirements that limit uh voters' ability to vote for whomever in their jurisdiction that they favor.

All of the commissioners in Bozeman live on the South side.

We all know that.

But creating wards is not going to change that, because a lot of commissioners who live on the South side really look at the whole and know that their votes are for the entire city of Bozeman, uh, even on the west side.

And so um I I don't think that where you live is going to change how you vote.

It's what you think in value.

We have a number of of people, residents on the north side who make a lot of profit building on the north side, and that is not going to change their their vote.

Um, the city votes, it does affect all of Bozeman.

And I want to share my experience as a 14 years as a county commissioner, that um we we were elected had to live in our district, but we that all of county elected um residents could vote on us.

So we had to consider the entire county.

So I lived walking distance to the courthouse, but I had to consider the farmers and ranchers and Willow Creek and Three Forks and all of that, because they were my constituents as well.

And I think that dividing us up in wards creates conflict, lack of consideration of the big picture.

And if you if your voting segment is just your neighborhood, you're not going to be as open-minded if you want to get re-elected.

Um you're gonna have to consider the whole.

And so I think that is a better to leave it wide open.

Thank you very much.

Okay, and thank you very much for your thoughts.

We will consider them particularly when we get to the discussion of wards and districts in our next meeting.

Good morning.

I hope you'll forgive me for speaking right now.

I'm supposed to be at the Arbor Day tree planting event very shortly.

I would like to give you my comments now, if I may.

Um thank you, Commissioners.

Oh, I'm sorry, Alison Sweeney, uh Bozeman resident, uh city commissioner.

Um thank you for your diligent work in bringing us a new draft charter and for the language before us today.

I actually really like that you've created a new section seven describing the role of public engagement in local governance.

Um I'm grateful that you've included the language in 7.03 D number six, stating the city commission and or designated city staff shall provide timely responses to formal recommendations submitted by the interneighborhood council, including an explanation of how such input was considered or the reasons for any divergence.

Too often we have seen the city commission be the place where good recommendations from the public go to die without acknowledgement or explanation.

This dismissal has had the effect of breeding apathy among residents who come to the conclusion that their participation doesn't matter.

So why show up?

Which is contrary to the stated purpose of the new section of the charter.

So thank you for including that language.

A section of language that I see as problematic for inclusion in a city charter is 7.03 B 8 and 9, imposing additional requirements on neighborhood associations in order to be recognized by the city.

Requirements that neighborhood associations demonstrate, procedures to encourage leadership development, representative participation, and continuity of governance, the capacity to develop and transmit reasoned consensus-based inventory, or advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues.

These are all unnecessarily subjective.

They're aspirational for sure, but in the hands of a vindictive organization or a commission, they could be used to deny public participation and governance.

Particularly problematic is the fact that you are attempting to saddle neighborhood associations with a requirement that their input be consensus-based.

By requiring this, you are hamstringing associations by allowing a single individual on a steering committee or a single particularly vocal individual to derail the traditionally accepted method of a majority vote that is foundational to our democracy.

You are imposing a burden on a civic voluntary organization that is above and beyond what is required of our elected leaders.

Whether intended or not, this will have the effect of increasing the barrier to participation, which is why we voted to study our form of government in the first place.

Also, please include the language suggested by Inc.

that defines membership eligibility as including residents, property owners, business owners, and nonprofit organizations located within a given neighborhood association.

That is how you be inclusive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Allison.

We will take this up and hopefully um integrate all of the comments that we have into the decisions that we make today.

Is there any other public comment at this time?

Good morning, and thank you again for all of your hard work as others have cited here.

Jim Webster, South Third Resident, also member of the Storic Preservation Advisory Board and a member of the inner neighborhood council.

Just to point a clarification here, because I'll save it for later, hearing some people talk about some of the other issues later.

I just want to make sure.

Will there be separate public comment periods during or after the discussion on the INC and during or after the discussion on the advisory boards?

Because I'll save that.

Okay.

There when we when we get to the point of making a motion to accept XY and Z language, there will be time for public comment at that point.

Perfect.

Just wanted to clarify it, then I'll state it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Any other public comment at this time?

We do have one online.

All right.

So we have Zara Osman and you can start.

Whatever.

You can start.

Hello.

This is Zara Osman, and I am a resident on the West Side of town.

I'm also INC representative for the Valley Unit Neighborhood Association, but I am speaking on my own behalf.

I have a comment on the inner neighborhood council item uh the section DI, where it says the City Commission, it talks about the response or form on for the two formal recommendations.

I would like to request that this be strengthened because this particular item does not necessarily prevent the city commission from uh avoiding discussion of their decision of whether or not to uh uh deliberate or to discuss in one of their meetings uh what the INC has presented to them.

So I would request that you add language that the discussion of their decision to an INC recommendation be made in a public forum at one of their um at one of the city commission meetings so that the public the entire public is aware of why they decided not to discuss or to discuss and vote on a recommendation made by the INC.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Zara.

We'll take that into account.

We'll take that in now.

And then we do actually have one more.

Um we have Lori J.

I will allow you to talk.

You can begin whenever.

Uh Lori J, Bozeman resident.

Thank you for your diligent work regarding the Bozeman Study Commission's proposed charter language.

I have a couple of thoughts regarding it.

Uh number one, I think you should adopt eligibility requirements for those serving on the advisory boards such that there are no material conflicts of interest, such as receiving grant money from the city or having open lawsuits against the city to maintain good governance practices.

Number two, advisory boards should have the right to add items to their own agendas.

Otherwise, they are not truly allowed to function in the way that they have been elected to do.

It also opens up the process to puppetry by unelected city staff and potentially the city commission.

Three.

Adopt some form of a process or impact statement such that neighborhood associations have the right to be recognized for their hard volunteer work with a formal response from the city commission required when the commission chooses to vote against the recommendations.

Accountability and collaboration improve both the motivation to serve on these uh groups and functioning of the city overall.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Laura, for your comments.

We will take them into account as we work our way through the discussion later today.

Is there any other public comment?

Uh not at this time.

Great.

All right.

Next item on the agenda, the consent agenda.

Approval of study commission minutes.

Is there any public comment on that?

Since there will be a motion, seeing none.

Zero motion.

Carson, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Do I have a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

On the consent agenda, we don't discuss items.

All those in favor so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Next item on the agenda, new business.

Decision on Gallant Valley Sentinels request for public information.

Who's going to start us off on that?

Greg?

Want to start?

Yeah, so back in January, we received the request from the Gallant Valley Sentinel on the survey data.

We as staff uh process those in uh consideration of what they're asking for and the uh terminology and any specific any specific language, we look at the actual wording of their request.

So there's portions in there that we're not asking for your your decision on.

Um some of the materials I had sent you asking you to provide to us, things like how you distribute it and similar uh so the only question that we had was specific to the to the raw data.

As you know, Montana does have a right to no provision in our constitution.

We also have a right to privacy.

So when we have a conflict between or a potential conflict between those two rights, we have to do a balancing test.

And that first starts with myself and our records coordinator when we when we look at those requests.

So before reviewing the data, we routinely reach out to a requester if we think there may be some privacy issue, and um see if there's uh willingness to change the request or modify it to help alleviate that.

That's where our initial response to them about if they would be willing to accept scrambled data came from, not knowing what the actual data looked like, but knowing that that potential for privacy concerns existed.

So their initial response was no.

And at that point, we proceed with going through that balancing test of raw data in its entirety and the public's right to know and the public's right of privacy.

This body had presented this survey both for the community and the employees, the staff survey, with the acknowledgement that all responses would be confidential.

That's the quote in all of the materials that we sent out.

That creates the expectation of privacy.

So we have to consider that people who are taking that survey are doing so with that expectation.

I personally anecdotally heard from staff that said they only filled it out because their responses would be confidential.

I have to believe that members of the public did so similarly.

So that expectation of privacy exists in a form that was presented by this body.

One of the key things that our records coordinator and myself talked about was the raw long form data that this body had requested.

Regardless of what our considerations were with the rest of the data, it was my opinion that that information should be released as much as possible.

So the privacy concern is not simply name, address, contact information, but things that could reasonably link a specific response to a specific individual or group of individuals.

So at the very beginning, my position was that we would review that the long form with any necessary redactions to protect that privacy.

And then the rest of the data was what was in the balancing test on privacy and right to know.

We requested a sample of the data from working ventures and records coordinator myself, split that up and started looking through those.

Knowing that each response in a column or in a row would be all of the responses that a single individual provided.

So that's where we were consulting with Greg and to get a more sound interpretation of that balancing test.

So this is a this is a process that we'll go through with any records requests.

Sometimes these do take a lengthy amount of time for the consideration and the analysis and just the determination of factors.

So that brings us to where we are today.

So if this was a staff or a city commission information, we would present the if it was staff, I would present what my interpretation is to Greg, he would make his legal interpretation of the information in that balancing test.

With the city commission, we would make a similar recommendation and present if it was their information, what our guidance is.

Ultimately that decision would be in the legislative body.

That's where we are today.

We can release the raw data in its entirety.

We can provide some modification and redaction, the scrambled approach, or we can deny the request in its entirety.

Those are the three main points and any kind of spectrum between them.

And that's where we present to you today to ask for your deliberation and decision on how you want to proceed with your information that's been requested.

Do you have anything you want to add?

So with that, I'm available for any questions.

Any questions of Mike?

Yeah, I'm I'm also interested in balancing those two rights.

And in that in that way, that middle course that you're talking about of redacting, editing, if you will, some of the potentially identifying aspects of the raw data.

Would you agree?

No, that's not the fair question.

What of the three options do you think would make the most sense based on balancing the two rights to privacy and to the right to know?

So I'll I'll tell you that if you determine to release the raw data in its entirety, we are still going to go through those long form answers and redact any particular identifiable information.

That's an obligation we have to protect privacy and that information.

If you recommend withholding it in its entirety, I would still emphasize that those long form answers that were provided to you outside of the standard report be considered for release.

As far as my personal opinion, I think in the balancing test, uh having consulted with Greg and the lack of direct case law on point, as he's pointed out to us, I think a middle option of scrambling the data to where it would be much more difficult to start identifying responses to individuals based in the format as well as that redaction portion that we discussed.

Thank you.

So uh Greg Sullivan City Attorney, under the Montana law, you also have an obligation if you're not going to release the information as requested.

So Jan, your other two options.

One is scramble, then the other is say no.

You need to give a written response.

So Mike in his role as a city clerk, me in my role as your appointed attorney for the study commission, we can help you with that.

So I would suggest you also have a discussion about the balancing, you guys make findings, then we can distill that into a written response.

Other questions.

By scram what what I understand if you uh in the employee um surveys that, yeah, if you have a department of five people and somebody says I've been here for 50 years, we know who that person is.

So that clearly would be you could redact that uh without really um impacting the um uh uh the value of of the data.

I think scrambling actually does lose quite a bit of context.

So how do you um how do you justify that much of an action to preserve privacy when simple redactions of ages or sometimes I I know people wrote their name on the survey uh uh when we gave them paper uh options.

So those obvious redactions, um, why would you need to go beyond that and scramble things?

So based on the questions that were asked in the survey, demographic questions uh in the community survey, which portion of town do you live in uh and combined with the long form answer, it is possible to start narrowing that to a group of people or a specific individual.

Similarly, with the um staff, simply taking out their their department or those some of the information in that long form still would provide the opportunity through what data scientists call the nebula effect, create the ability to narrow in on specific individuals or groups of individuals.

The idea between scrambling would be to disaggregate an individual's responses.

So instead of it being in a format where all responses from one person are together, it would be all responses to a question are together.

I think that significantly um alters the data.

I mean, we want they would want to know that this is the feeling in the north side of town, the south side of the case.

Yeah, it would just be a good idea.

I'm gonna get to I want to get to the S and then you can go.

So Deanna, you asked the question of Mike about how can he justify?

That's your call.

Um neither Mike or I, as Mike had said, have the authority to make the call on this balancing because it's not a city function.

It's not a city record.

It's the record of the study commission.

So it is the charge of the study commission.

Because the study commission promised the confidentiality, I think I agree with Mike that that started to create that expectation.

So given what Mike had described about the layout of the data, these other concerns, that's why we're here to present to you that the study commission has that obligation to make that balancing.

Other questions.

So I I guess I'm objecting here.

You say the word scramble.

It's it's merely reorienting the answers.

People aren't gonna get um aren't gonna lose people looking at the answers to all of question four in a in a row, so to speak, aren't gonna miss any of those answers.

They'll all be provided, will they not?

Correct.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh I would just use as another um reason to have that data not understood with individuals is for safety.

And as someone who co-founded the Haven a number of decades ago, I started receiving death threats.

I've received death threats for a number of human rights actions I've taken.

And I feel that it's really important.

It is still a small town where we can be more identified.

I don't want my answers to be identified by anyone, and I would hope all of us would care about that in addition to making sure that the public has a right to know what those directions are.

Is there a question there or yeah?

I'm so sorry.

Um how does safety uh affect the decisions that we ought to make regarding the balance of right to privacy and to right to know?

I consider personal safety as part of the right of privacy.

So uh in my opinion, it is a contributing factor to the privacy side of that balancing.

Yeah.

Could you clarify scramble for me?

Because my understanding is if you have a data set and you scramble it, then you are not going to get data that says the people on the north side of town predominantly predominantly had these feelings and because it's going to be scrambled.

You're not going to know where the people who made those responses reside.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Well, that would considerably alter the data.

I disagree.

The data is the data.

So the conclusions that you may be able to draw by com combining certain pieces of the data, yes, I would agree that it would change your ability to make those conclusions, but it doesn't underlyingly change the data.

That's the balance between the privacy and the right to know.

Part of the right to know would be your ability to make those conclusions based on the interrelation between data points, but that's also conversely also what allows you to make the connection to individual people that is balanced by privacy.

And can I just mention on H5 of our summary?

About the different quadrants and zip codes and how that relates.

So we already have that information.

We're asking questions at this point.

Would it be complicated if we decided that the sole data point?

In other words, if we said here are all the um answers from people on the west side, or however you divide the neighborhoods, whatever the demographic graphic is, and then did it the rest in the scrambled way that you're doing it.

Because I understand if you go where do you live, how old do you and you keep doing it, the more demographic information you combine.

Would we lose and how complicated would it be to provide the geographical demographic only with the answers thereafter in the form that you call scrambled?

So let me make sure I'm understanding.

You're saying that the potential so we asked the the quadrants, the four quadrants.

So you're asking that we would essentially break it into four specific data sets that disconnect the answers.

So you have the data but not one person's response and say these are the responses from Northwest, Northeast, et cetera.

Yes, unless of course only one person or two people answered from a given sector.

Uh so to answer your second part of that question first, any um any modification to presenting the data in that way would add complication until we actually tried to do that.

I can't give you a good answer.

I imagine that it would be essentially just breaking it into four.

Um as far as the effectiveness and balancing the privacy.

I would have to go back and look through it all because we didn't consider that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Um we want to get a motion on the floor and then we'll follow it with public comment on that motion.

I'd be happy to make a motion.

Or do we want to have deliberation first?

Just get a motion going.

Um get a motion going and then we can have a discussion.

Yeah.

Greg?

So we just wanted to make sure that you were presenting you with a draft motion.

And I want to walk you through it real fast.

Okay.

Um again as the study commission is the custodian of the record.

And the then the body tasked with doing things doing this balancing.

The motion begins by authorizing the city clerk's office on your behalf.

And then fulfill the requests.

And again, that's both for the data for the employee survey and then for the citizen survey.

And then there's a finding that in order to balance that it and this was I think Mike's recommendation, it only be released in a format that shows every response to each question rather than all responses provided by each respondent.

The remainder of that motion then authorizes the city clerk's office on your behalf to redact any privacy information contained in a written response.

And then as Mike had also noted, there's other components of those of the request that he'll need to work with you guys to provide.

That don't seem to have the same sort of balancing requirement that the raw data does.

So that's why we wrote it that way.

Obviously, the motion that you would make is yours.

But just as a recommendation to sort of get to components that we think are important to address in your motion to make sure that we can actually do this work on your behalf, those are the components that are that are presented to you.

Thank you.

So I go ahead, Barb.

If you want to, I'm I would be comfortable making this motion if we want to start discussion.

But if you want to do that, I suggest we start with the motion, then we have something to work off of, and then we can go from there.

Barb, this is um similar to what I was going to say, but of course, has pieces in there that I would have never really thought of in terms of the you know legal form of the motion.

So uh if you want to go out right ahead and then we can go from there.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna read it.

Um I move to authorize the city clerk's office to fulfill the records request submitted by the Gallatin Valley Sentinel, and in doing so find that to balance the privacy issues of those who responded with the requester's right to know, the raw survey data only be released in a format that shows every response to each question rather than all responses provided by each respondent.

In addition, the city clerk's office is authorized to redact any privacy related information that may be contained in a written response to the surveys and to work with the study commission to fulfill all other aspects of the request.

And I will second that motion.

Okay, that there's a motion on the table on the floor, whatever it is, and it's been seconded.

So the question is whether I I think we should take public comment, um public comment on this motion, and then have discussion based on that.

If there is any.

Is there any public comment on the motion before us?

That is not already stated.

Uh Daniel Cardi, Bozeman resident.

Um basic survey sampling methodology would have dictated that this board hire a professional to conduct any public survey with predefined goals and objectives, predefined data tabulation, data summaries, predefined qualitative and quantitative analysis, so that mixed objectives and goals could be achieved.

This survey is, of course, a mess, and it is on this group for not hiring a professional to begin with, and you find yourself with a motion in which probably none of you will be satisfied with the way the data get tabulated, summarized, and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively.

That is a disservice to the public.

And I would ask this board in their findings to admit their mistakes and come to some sort of agreement on what the public really needs to know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Sure.

And I I will just start based on my own experience of being involved over the years in many surveys and sharing of raw data and surveys that were put out under the understanding that it would be anonymous and confidential.

Um it is both best practice and common practice to protect anonymity and confidentiality to release the data by question in a randomized fashion so that responses are not attached to a specific respondent number.

So for example, all the responses to question one would be presented with question one, and then responses with question two would be presented in a different order, but all of those responses to that question would also be presented.

So you wouldn't be able to, the data would be disaggregated from specific respondents.

If you were to present the data in a way that respondent one, you could see all of the answers, especially when we have long form answers, I do believe that it would be possible to start narrowing down the identities of groups of people.

And so I am comfortable releasing the raw data in a disaggregated way with the additional step of redacting anything in the long form answers.

I guess since we have the summary report of who responded from where and what different demographics of the city responded, I'm not sure we would get that much more information based on this aggregating it by quadrant.

So then generally we go to the second or for comment and then open it up to the rest of us.

Yes, thank you.

Respectfully, we hired professionals and we got some incredible information that provides us with an ability to start to think about what our community needs.

That was the only intent.

What is our community need?

That helped us be able to start to think about what parts of the charter do we need to study more.

And what are the thoughts around this?

We didn't stop there.

We had public hearings.

We asked for public input.

We have held meetings and announced every single meeting so people could come and provide us with public comment.

We've got people stopping us on the street and asking and providing public comment.

So it's not the only thing, and then we got to study with Dan Clark and a bunch of other resources that were provided to us to help us study the different issues that are very complex in the charter, with an idea that in three weeks we will have a finalized version of the proposed charter for the public to look at, and then on June 17th, we'll have another public hearing.

And if we when we get off this topic, we're gonna jump into the neighborhoods and the writing of the of the charter as it's actually happening.

All that to be said, this survey does not provide policy decisions.

It does not dictate anything, it's just one data point.

In addition to that, we were very clear, and we made this decision as a body that we were going to add these are confidential.

And when we said that, um we uh we were ensuring the privacy.

And I feel very strongly that when we said that as a form of trust that we need to withhold that, you know, stand up to it and say, yes, we said it was confidential, and by God it is.

And so with that, I want to make sure that yes, we're fully complying with the Montana laws with right to know, while also upholding the constitutional privacy rights of the people we serve.

And so for that, I would vote in the affirmative for the discussion.

Deanna.

I would like to thank uh Dan for his uh public comment.

And uh I do uh think that there were problems all along the way in the um uh data that we received and the uh interpretation of it.

And I think that there is room for seeing it perhaps in a new perspective.

But if and and also I don't think we should be viewing uh the uh request from um Gallatin Valley Sentinel as uh some sort of uh uh attempt to do something nefarious with the data.

I think their attempt is uh above board to compare with the data that they're receiving and to reanalyze it and eliminate perhaps some of the overreach that we saw in the analysis given to us by working ventures.

And I think that it is incumbent upon us to make that data as valuable as possible because we put a good deal of money into it.

And if we're going to mix it up in such a way that it is no longer able to provide information.

What we have is data, and what comes out of the data is information.

If we give uh a bunch of scrambled data to Gallant Valley Sentinel, they're not going to be able to derive really good information out of it.

And I think that it's important that we redact any names on the on the uh long form answers or forms.

Um and those years of service that could uh indicate only one person.

Uh redactions I'm in favor of scrambling, I am not, and I think that it's uh a matter of public trust that um uh will not be broken if we uh provide survey data that is usable.

Further discussion?

Jen?

I'm supporting the motion because I believe it is addressed some of the fundamental issues I'm most concerned about.

I do trust the working assets uh professionals, as uh Becky stated, because we really highly reviewed their uh backgrounds, their training, uh had a full um session, lots of public comment.

Uh, and it is one source for us to do this work.

I would personally welcome other surveys, other uh ways that people have tried to engage this process.

I hope we do get a chance to see the surveys that are out there, um, and we should put out uh any other calls that we have.

That's been our goal all along, is to have as much information as we possibly can.

And some of it is going to come from this type of um measurement, but it's also coming in from many other areas.

So I would agree that we should support it and um continue to learn.

Thank you.

So I've spent a good portion of my life as a mediator and facilitator, and uh I can tell you from my personal experience when you talk to people and it's a confidential talk, you get franker, better information out of them.

So when we first talked about this survey and talked about confidentiality or anonymity or keeping um people's names out of it, I thought and remain believing that we got better information by virtue of our promise that it would be kept confidential and um the that the people that filled out the surveys would have a level of confidentiality.

And I think that is the most important thing of all.

If we had done a survey where we said we're gonna uh release your name.

With all of your answers.

I think I should turn my microphone on.

If we're gonna release your name with all of your answers, um we would have gotten a lot fewer and a lot less candidation.

And I I think there is value in doing it, and that's probably the most important piece uh in all of this.

The fact that we're releasing the raw data in its entirety, just not in the order that it was received to document the document, says to me we're doing the best that we can to let this information out so people can look at it.

And um I can't conceive of us doing it any other way.

Uh I would also take uh issue with Mr.

McCarty of the people who applied for that job, the working ventures was by far the most uh qualified, and I feel quite comfortable that we made the right choice there.

Um it's always easy, and uh I've done it myself.

It's always easy to be critical of uh the um the person in front of you who's done it as opposed to the theoretical person who might have uh been hired by you otherwise.

Um I do think that at the time that we had the discussion, it would have helped if we had thought about how would how will it be reversed, how will it be released to the public in a way that maximizes the public's uh understanding of that input.

And I fault myself for not thinking that through uh far enough in advance so that when we did it, we could say this is what we're gonna do, and this is how we're gonna release it.

Speak now or uh forever hold your peace.

And uh I I cop to that.

I wish I had uh understood where this was gonna go.

Um the um so I'm gonna support the motion.

Uh the idea that I presented to Mike of sort of disaggregating, but in a certain way and doing it when I look at what the uh the responses are.

I don't think that my idea would give anybody significantly greater information than is already available and out there.

So I'm gonna support the motion as well.

Further discussion.

Jan.

I think the word scramble is not helpful, and I really appreciated Barb's talk uh helping us understand that it's really randomized.

And I think that would be the words that we ought to be using um to uh further answer the request of the Gaunt Valley Sentinel, and also um as we talk about it ourselves.

Thanks.

Barb.

Oh, you look like you wanted to say something.

I think we almost and the other discussion.

All right.

All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed to the motion, so indicate by saying nay.

Nay.

Motion carries four to one.

I think I do this.

Next up on the agenda is decisions on neighborhood associations.

All right, we've been at this for an hour.

Uh I'm going to suggest we put about 20 minutes in and then take a uh a bio break.

That's what I'm saying.

It's the cooler way to say it.

Yeah.

And they're fairly cool, Carson.

All right.

Uh Becky, you want to lead.

Well, let me just say this.

Um what we're about to do is discuss what is essentially a proposal from Barb and Becky, who have put together um their understanding of the discussion so far, and put together some ideas.

The idea is to look at it, um, make changes in it, um, get it to the right place so that it can ultimately become a part of the um proposal that either goes to the voters or is part of the recommendations.

And you've done both, and I really appreciate the energy and effort that you put into it.

But until someone makes a motion, we pass it.

Um, this is not a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination.

So, do you want to lead it off, Becky?

Yeah, um, this is an iterative iterative process, uh, just so everyone knows.

Um, and um so Barb and I have captured um ideas both in the learning and from uh other places, and Barb's gonna explain this better, so I'm not gonna go too deep into it.

Um, but know that it doesn't have a big draft of uh in front of it, but um, but it is uh a draft, and we're gonna be listening today and and on the 30th, and you can just keep right on coming.

And the 13th of May, we're gonna get um more of a of a final approval of this draft, and then bring it be able to release it to the public so that folks can come on the 17th of June for a public hearing.

I'm gonna let Barb take take it to help uh everyone understand, and um, and then I'll I'll take it back for the neighborhood specific section and then we will be getting to the advisory board section, so just know that.

Go ahead, Barb.

Great.

Thanks, Becky.

Um so obviously over the last year plus we have gathered a lot of information, both about neighborhood associations and citizen advisory boards, including from the inner neighborhood council.

Dan Clark has provided us with a bunch of useful information.

Um we've reviewed a bunch of different city charters to see how they set up their neighborhood programs.

Much of that is in the materials that are reflected in agenda items G1 and G2 of today's packet.

Becky and I thought that for the purposes of today's beginning discussion, it might be useful to begin synthesizing some of that learning into some new draft proposed charter language, which is what was reflected in item G3 on the agenda.

So feels worthy to be clear that this is a very first crack at a straw dog, if you will, that we bring forward to guide our discussion today between the commission and all of the members of the public.

We fully expect that we'll get lots of feedback and we'll go back and we'll rewrite and revise.

So this is not this is the first, it is not by any stretch the last opportunity to comment on all of this.

In putting together the two documents today, our overarching goal was to strengthen civic engagement generally in all aspects of our city government, and specifically to strengthen both the neighborhood association program and the advisory program to improve and strengthen the voice of residents in our governance process.

So you'll see that we have some divisions to article the existing article four in our charter that lays out departments, offices, and agencies.

That is where neighborhood associations and advisory boards used to live in our current that live in our current charter.

What we are proposing is to take those two elements out of Article 4 and create this new Article 7 that talks about civic engagement broadly and then goes into specific elements, both of neighborhood associations and advisory boards.

This Mike, do you want to put the um the article seven up on the screen?

Thank you.

This is based on what we learned from reviewing the National Civic League's model charter, their updated version, and they have created in that model charter this new article four, and we made it unique to us.

We took some of it from the model charter, we added our unique Bozeman things, including all of the neighborhood association and advisory board pieces.

And the idea is that this article of our the Article 7.

Um, this Article 7 will create some shared and reciprocal responsibilities between all of the structures of city government, from the count commission to staff to the advisory boards to the neighborhood associations, and the public for our local governance.

So with that kind of setup, I'm going to turn it to Becky first to walk through the elements of the neighborhood council piece, the neighborhood association piece, and then she'll hand it back to me to walk through the proposed changes to the advisory boards.

So with that, Becky.

Sounds good, Barbara.

Um, should we should I walk through the neighborhood and we all talk about the neighborhood section, then you do the advisory board, and we okay?

That sounds great.

So Barb, you set us up uh correctly in terms of how this all rolled out.

Um I do want to acknowledge that people who uh help to write the ink recommendations.

Um you will see um your words in this, not all of your words, uh, because we also took into account all the other pieces that Barb did, and for those of you who um speak public comment, we appreciate that a lot, and we really also appreciate the written public comment because I could we could pull all those public comments up on our computers and see it.

It's like, wait a minute, there's those words and those words.

So you so you may see if you provide a public comment pieces of your public comment in here.

But when you look at Article 7, and there is currently an Article 7 in the charter, we will be renumbering those, but we wanted this in the order, so that number seven, we added this whole section of public engagement and local governance.

And 7.01 really is the purpose of why public engagement is so important.

And when we think about public engagement, it is about coming up and speaking before the body, but it is also about how do we engage in our communities with both neighborhoods and advisory boards.

So that's why this all landed here.

So section 7.1 is simply just uh a discussion about and a definition of that public engagement, and then 7.02, we actually lay out this is neighborhood associations, city advisory boards, commissions, and committees, departments of administrative positions, and participatory budgeting processes.

So those are the four pieces that we saw that fit most with our city of Bozeman.

Um when we get to 7.03, you're gonna see some things in black.

That's the stuff that was originally there.

You're gonna see some things with red with a line through it that was there, but we are uh suggesting taking it out, and then anything in red is what has been added.

One of the key things that we were trying to figure out, um, and we heard very clearly at our last meeting that that um people do not believe that the city should draw the lines.

We get that, and only 28% of the population is actually in a city in a in a neighborhood association, and to be honest with you, I'm not one of them.

I don't have a neighborhood association where I live.

Um, and so only 28% get this voice.

So, how do we balance all that?

Was kind of looking.

We put in the purpose, which was recommended to us at the last meeting, and you can see that we look on part B of 7.03, and and Mike, if you don't mind, just can't keep rolling or Caleb, whoever's doing it, keep rolling along.

Um, that's the recognition of the neighborhood associations and how are they recognized, and thank you for that comment about uh requirements versus standards, appreciate that a lot.

Um we looked at those, so the first seven were already there.

Um, and we wanted to try to all the way through the document um reinforce or enhance, should I say, enhance the um value of neighborhood associations and the two-way communication of no of neighborhood associations, and how the associations speak with the city commission.

So, so like for example, in number seven where it says regular accessible two-way communication with all residents in the neighborhood in the neighborhood.

Um, so I think that's important.

And I'm interested to hear more about the the concerns about consensus, and and it's interesting.

So, being the the uh Google person that I am, I've got the definition.

Consensus is a general agreement, harmony, or collective opinion shared by most or all members of a group.

And so as we think about this section, how do we make it so that two people of the association don't end up just speaking for the entire association?

Too bad for all of you, because I'm the loudest voice, right?

And so, whatever words we use, how do we get that across?

That this is a we want the whole community to be in a neighborhood association, and we want everyone to be able to have the opportunity to have a voice, not just have someone come forward like, well, for me, this is what's gonna happen.

There has to be some way, so if we could all be putting our our our thinking caps on.

For part C, you can see that it was called minimum standards, and we cross that off.

We changed the name to composition and responsibilities because there's all these other responsibilities.

Um again, everything in black was there.

We added number two to C, which is that the entire city shall be divided into no more than 20 neighborhoods and no neighborhood associations shall be formed to represent the residents in each neighborhood.

That is not drawn by the city, and we're trying to figure out how do we make it so that neighborhood associations have equal voice.

So if Carson and I live in the same neighborhood, which we don't, and then we called on our 10 homes in our neighborhood, and we're like, we're a neighborhood association, then Barb is part of the her neighborhood, and she's got 150 homes in her neighborhood, but now our voice with our 10 neighbors is as loud as her voice, has the same voice on ink, and now we've got 100 people on ink.

How's that work?

Right?

So, how do we put some some kind of guardrail?

So Helena has seven, Greg Falls has 13.

We already have 15.

We're not abolishing those 15, but we're but we'll say, hey, y'all, you're pretty smart, Inc., y'all figure it out, right?

Just figure it out.

How do we make this work?

How do we get enough representation?

How do we give an opportunity for everyone to be on there?

So that's kind of where that I've heard someone say this that this wipes out the current neighborhood associations.

Negative, not at all, not even the intent, not gonna happen, right?

It just might change some things.

That's it.

Um so so there, and then also you can see in number three that this this the neighborhood liaison staff members is gonna be working with Inc.

to develop boundaries to include all Bozeman residents in the neighborhood association without any neighborhood having more of a voice than any other.

So that was the intent.

Might not have gotten it right to Barb's uh uh thoughts.

Um then we tried to figure out, and you'll see it written in repeatedly in number four, you'll see that is how do we make it so that the city must shall you can see we use the word shall be responsible for notifying early and often.

So now that the um the uh building uh uh things have changed, and the city commission is not involved in approving um building anymore.

How do we make sure that the neighborhood associations are informed early and often?

So you'll see that peppered in here frequently to make sure that um we can try to do that.

We can't really name a step.

Mike really helped me understand that the last meeting.

So I said, well, let's just do it upon uh upon application.

That's it.

Well, no, it's not always the way, right?

And so with budgetary building things, so we added that in.

Um, and then on number five on the top there about how the um neighborhood associates associations at Inc.

shall be responsible for reporting to the city commission when they have concerns or interests, um, that they have time with the city commission able to do that.

So that was really important.

Looking at the inner neighborhood council, and I'm sorry this is long, but I want to make sure that we all understand the what we're talking about, the intent, so that we can have meaningful conversation.

Um with the ink, we just added a little bit more um language in there to make sure that things are transparent, inclusive, that there's deliberation, it's not just us and them, but there's actually dialogic communication going on between the two.

So that's why we added a lot of that.

Um, and then in number three, that the city should appoint a city commissioner as a non-voting liaison of the inner city council.

Um I mean inner inner neighborhood council, that was really important.

Um, and then we added number five and number six that when when practical, that the ink um should be consulted or shall be consulted, excuse me, um, during the formative stages of the citywide planning budget policy initiatives, right?

So we added that in to deepen that.

Um, and then also the the number six.

With number E, you can see that you know, in the last charter it said that we had that there had to be a staff member that works on behalf of the neighborhood councils.

It didn't say full time, so it started full time, and now that position is only a fraction of a full time.

So we wanted to put in there at least full time, because maybe it needs to be more, but at a minimum full-time person, that that's all they do, and that they shall support coordination, leadership development, training, two-way communication, and also may assist in facilitating participatory planning, budgeting, and policy engagement processes.

Um so we added that in.

I'm almost done, I promise.

Um no, actually, that's it.

And then uh at the very bottom, Mike, because here comes the the boards, but can you go down to the green?

There are two recommendations that we made regarding the first the first one, A, is about advisory boards, so we'll get to that later.

But B and C B is, and remember the recommendations aren't in the charter, but we in the final report we have a uh part of the document is recommendations.

The city commission and the city can choose to do it.

They cannot do it, they can read it, they cannot read it.

We hope they read it and they take it into consideration.

But that first the city should create budgetary line to support the activities and meetings of the neighborhood associations, and we found that there are quite a few communities that did that.

The second is that the city should work collaboratively with Inc.

to determine the number of neighborhood associations and how they're created as the city grows to ensure equal voice between the different neighborhood associations, and it kind of takes us back to if we were just gonna do the two of us with our 10 friends, right?

That's not a neighborhood association.

Um, so that's what it is.

Uh Barb, have I missed anything?

Yeah, and so with that, Carson, I'll turn it back to you for because we would love the input on what we've tried to put together after listening to everybody.

So we we've got a good bit, have had a good bit of public input on this section.

So I'm gonna suggest we discuss it a little bit, and then if we get to motions or consensus, we're gonna have a little fun talking about what consensus means, and I think that's a good thing.

We'll get back to public comment as well.

So who wants to lead it off between Jan, Deanna, and Carson?

All right, I'll lead it off.

Then it's you all are reticent.

Um thank you very much for doing this.

I I think it's a uh valorous attempt to do something that makes the neighborhood associations uh more valuable to the city.

And um there's uh the few tweaks I would make uh and certainly a good bit of clarification that we need to do as to sort of how this moves forward.

And and I will say, just to put it in some level of context.

I as we dropped into this discussion, I started thinking about what do you want in a city commission and what do you want it to do?

And um I I probably can't put it as um in the perfect language, but it's something like you want a city commission that represents and understands the desires and needs of the citizens and makes decisions based upon the common good, but also has a role of leadership, meaning um if the city commission is doing its job right, each and every city commissioner knows more about a given issue than the average citizen does.

So it's this very complicated give and take between what the citizens want and uh the commission understanding that moving the community forward in a way that makes sense.

So, how do you get from uh a city commission of five people who doesn't ever listen to anybody at all?

And I'm not saying that's true of our city commission, but um five people that are anointed and they just make their decisions.

How do you get to the other place?

You turned your button up.

How do you get to the other place where um you have the right balance between public input, um public information, public knowledge, and um a group that's looking at the common good.

And then I made my own little list.

What would you have?

Well, neighborhood associations, good idea.

I think that could uh make a difference.

They would focus on small neighborhoods or large neighborhoods, but they would focus on the issues of the people that that are facing on a day-to-day basis.

But then you need advisory boards because you need to look at the issues that are citywide and uh can't really be looked at uh in a way that would be productive uh in little pieces.

And so I see the need for advisory boards uh to look at citywide issues, but the neighborhood associations to look at what's going on in the in the communities.

And and I feel like we as a city have all the pieces in place.

It's a question of how they're executed, and it's a question of creating enough of a structural foundation that the commission and the staff, who are of course most important in this, understand sort of how we're going and how we're doing this.

So I I generally think this is um really a good thing.

Um couple things.

When I read the words consensus-based, that to me is so totally different than um consensus.

Can you um when whenever anyone talks, we say on in 7.0, whatever number, whatever, so that I can make sure that I'm always looking at what you're looking at.

You're suggesting that I could read 703 B.

Nine.

Got you.

Thank you.

Right.

Uh and I like the word consensus-based because it encourages people to work to reach consensus, to reach an agreement with one another.

It um it suggests um interest-based negotiation, which uh not everybody knows about and is engaged in.

But it it does suggest, let's try and work this out.

I don't think that consensus based should be interpreted as you must reach consensus in order to have any advisory input to the city commission.

It means though that you're trying to do that.

And I will tell you that when I was on the school board and we negotiated with the uh the teachers union from time to time, there was a gentleman, Bob Chadwick, who was a consensus-based guru, and um it changed the way we could look at the contract between the union and the school board.

We have had ad hoc committees which were consensus-based.

I had the um great pleasure of facilitating the library land task force and the affordable housing task force.

We're talking 20 years ago, something like that, where uh the city put together the stakeholders on given issues, and they worked towards consensus.

I don't think we're asking the INC to come up with consensus-based decisions by using the words consensus-based.

I would leave them in there because they uh encourage a concept, which I think is really important.

Okay.

Um C703 C2.

Um, 20 neighborhoods.

Uh I'm a little curious where you got that number from, but um it's it's an interesting number.

What I like about it is it encourages the concept of figuring out the best way to have neighborhood associations across the city.

And that is going to be uh a mighty challenge to whoever is involved with that, whether it's Inc.

members or uh city employees that that help with that.

I I I'm not wed to that number, but I don't think that it's uh a bad number either.

Can I can I yeah, can I answer the question?

Yeah, yeah, just because we're not wedded to the number either.

The the thought process was we have 15 advisory councils or neighborhood, um we have 15 neighborhood associations currently.

We know that those 15 neighborhood associations only include 28 percent ish of our current residents.

Those 15 neighborhood associations unto themselves are very different size-wise from Nina being very large to others being smaller.

And we want Inc., which will have a representative from each neighborhood association to still be a functional size.

So we were trying to figure out how to grow the amount of neighborhood associations, whether that's by having some current neighborhood associations expand boundaries if they're small, if that makes sense, um, or whether they, you know, however we grow, we want to grow because we want more people to be a part of them, and still have Inc.

be a functional size so that it can still serve its purpose of being a forum for all of the neighborhood associations.

So we are open to ideas of how we balance those things because we think it's important, and maybe we don't put a number in, uh, you know, whatever, but we'd love people's thinking on how to achieve those kind of goals, if that makes sense.

And I'll just add that um and then hand it back to you, Carson.

But um, we we did some research about well, how big should neighborhood associations be?

And and we did that um, you know, 10,000 people uh uh, you know, for small or medium size, so for a 50,000 population, you should have three to eight.

Like, well, that sounds really small.

That doesn't sound like enough.

Um, and then again, we looked at all the other ones across the state, and you know, Helena's I don't know, bigger about our size, whatever, but seven.

I'm like, well, that's kind of small too, and then you know, 13.

But but yeah, when we did the research, it said three to eight, like that, yeah.

So, anyways, yeah, the number is, but also fast forward our thinking to the ink, because that was a really good point.

Carson, I turned back to you.

Great.

Um on section three, right below section two.

I'm wondering somewhere whether it's in recommendations or um in this spot in this document, whether there should be some guidelines, meaning what's the range, and I look at it not geographical, but I look at it as number of houses.

So what's the range of uh size that would make sense because I do know that there are some um uh existing uh uh neighborhood associations that like have 300 people and then some that are in the 3000s.

So some there may have to be some consolidation.

On the other hand, I I think that we have some very well um organized neighborhood associations that have come from a neighborhood that has issues in common and it makes sense for them to exist.

So I I would want somehow to have in here some notion of respect for existing neighborhood associations that have been formed over a period of time.

I I've received some public comment that the city commission is going to abolish all of the neighborhood associations.

I would strongly oppose that.

I I think we have some really good functioning ones, and um they should not be touched at all.

And frankly, the ones that are of the right size and the right geography and and sort of fit together, that ought to be encouraged, and um they ought to be uh brought back into action more so that we have the idea of neighborhood associations across the uh across the city.

Um the uh now I'm going backwards and I'm sorry, under 703A purpose.

I I like the use of the word two-way communication.

I I think maybe it's four-way communication, but this is what I would envision, and I think you're after here.

You have a neighborhood association.

You have a group of neighbors in that association come to a meeting and they say, Real the way this street is operated, it needs a stop sign.

Let's make it um simple.

Um, and for whatever reason um we need to have that happen.

That um neighborhood association goes to the inc, the ink talks about the stop sign, or maybe that's too mundane for the ink, but something somehow that happens and it goes to the city.

The city in turn needs to come back to the neighborhood association that needs to talk to the people who did it so that there can be a rationale and a f and then knowing that, and you've got some of that in here.

Um, so I I'm not sure I would change any of the language, but I I like the concept that it comes from the bottom up and then goes back and back down as well.

There's another piece to that though, and I think you also have it in here.

When the city wants to take an initiative that perhaps is citywide but will affect the neighborhood, start with the city.

This is what we're talking.

We want input from you.

The neighborhood association goes to the neighbors, what's your input on this?

So that you really have um two-way communication, but from the bottom up and vice versa, all the way around.

And and I think you've captured that here.

Um, but certainly um I'm impressed with the idea that that would be it.

Um let's see.

I I fully support the idea of a full-time staff member.

I I think we need that if we're gonna get to the place.

This is it, Section E, 703E, um, if we're gonna get there.

Um, and then my final statement uh just from my thoughts is I do like the way you organized it, uh creating a new set section for it because it it emphasizes the two most important ways that the city gets information and connects to people.

On the advisory advocacy issue, uh I don't know how to cope with that.

Yeah, I'm gonna do that.

Um I think we need to figure out what that means.

Um advocacy to some people means um I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm not gonna let go of this.

I don't think that's those people that advocate for advocacy mean that.

Um, and um, but advisory I I sort of get is a little too um wishy-washy or a little too ignorable.

Um that would be a place where I don't know what I would do with that, but I I think it's worth um sort of playing around with those words a little bit better.

And then I think you've got you've you've hit correctly what the relationship between Inc.

and the City Commission is, and the need to have the City Commission be responsive to the things that Inc.

brings up in a way that is reflective of the various positions that are held.

And I'm just gonna say this and I stop me if I ever try to say it again.

The fundamental thing that we do in this city that gets lost in a lot of these discussions is we elect the people on the city commission.

And if you elect the right people to the city commission, the structure is not nearly as important.

If you elect the wrong people, the structure is very important.

So what we need to do is get get that balance, but we also need to recognize that as citizens figure out who the right people to elect are, and you won't have nearly the strife that we seem to be having right now.

Um and um and if you don't like them, vote them out.

Vote them out.

Uh and I will stop now.

I probably have talked too long.

If I talk longer than you, Becky, it was definitely too long.

I know, right?

And um, as everyone talks, it is so helpful.

Like um, Mr.

McCartney, I like where does it say advisory?

What line does it say so that we can know versus advocacy, like I don't even know where that is.

So if everyone can speak to the different places, because Barbara and I are editing up a storm right now, and so thank you so much, Carson.

703 703A inclusive deliberate and advisory.

Ah, got it.

I'm guessing that Mr.

McCarty would add advocacy somewhere in that concept.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm sorry to take so long.

Um who wants to go next?

Deanna.

Well, I would like to take a moment to just kind of step back and reflect a little bit in terms of this commission was formed in order to answer the people of Bozeman who have felt unheard.

And I think that what you brought forth here is um uh uh a little bit more than what we have currently.

And um, but I I don't see that there is a lot of enforceability.

And Carson, when you say that elect the right people, you know that doesn't always happen.

And and that is why I believe that we need to be certain that the document that we put in place for the next 10 years has those guardrails, and I've been talking about guardrails from practically our first meeting, how important that is.

Oh, life is definitely going to be better.

Because there are no um there's no points of enforcement in uh in this language.

There's still a lot of uh room for the uh commission or uh uh city departments, whomever, to uh waffle or uh discount input.

Now I am sorry that um Gallatin Valley Sentinel didn't get their um uh draft language to us.

That it's been all over the uh social media and they've been posting it um liberally, but for some reason they didn't submit it to the commission as uh public comment.

And um, but I did pull it down off of one of their uh social media um postings.

Did you get it?

I haven't read it okay so long.

Yeah, and and it came to us late, and and it's late in the game.

You know, and it's gonna be hard hard to uh to bring it forward, but I really do believe that we need to step back and look at um uh our draft, the inc draft, and the GVS draft, and make sure that we are making changes that are structurally um defined and structurally enforced.

It uh you know, and it's gonna be hard hard to uh to bring it forward, but I really do believe that we need to step back and look at um uh our draft, the ink draft, and the GVS draft, and make sure that we are making changes that are structurally um defined and structurally enforced, so that one of the things, and I haven't had time to go through the Gallatin uh Valley Sentinel uh document with a really fine-toothed uh comb, but I have gone through it.

And one of the things that they're suggesting is that when a neighborhood or the um inner con uh neighborhood uh the inner council neighborhood um uh brings forth their recommendations that they are formalized and presented to the uh city clerk who presents them to the commission, and uh the commission um uh must take it up in their meeting and and consider it along with staff proposals and and such, the inner uh uh the neighborhoods are given that same respect, and then um there is feedback immediately and on the record.

And I would really like to take a look at that and see if we could beef up our language, because when we're done with this is our shot for the next 10 years, and if we miss the mark, um frankly, if we miss the mark too much, I don't think we'll we'll get support for uh what we are so um diligently trying to effect change.

So I'm just asking that we kind of slow down and that we take the time to um consider these other um uh language proposals, and I am particularly um concerned about Deanna, can I back you up before you go to the next thing?

Uh-huh.

Which page um section 7.03 of the neighborhood association, which page and number are you thinking that you'd like to add what you just suggested?

And and just so you know, we have gone through with a fine-tooth comb all the documents that we were provided prior to uh two days ago.

Did you oh absolutely we didn't receive that item?

That's what I understand, but we were writing this just so you know.

I understand that.

So my my guess is that which one that if you took D6 and changed it to the NIS proposal from Gallon Valley Sentinel that that would be it.

I'm sorry, where are you D6?

703 D6 talks about City Commission's responsibility to to respond.

Yeah.

Um, formal recommendations of the INC.

Right.

Um and and what the um what what uh uh what I think we can do is formalize the whole process.

You know, this is how you bring your your uh recommendations forward.

Uh you will be guaranteed so much time to present uh your uh recommendations to the city commission, and the city commission will be um bound by the record to respond.

And uh that language is very nicely done.

How is D6 different than that?

Well, there's no formal process for bringing it forward.

There's no guarantee.

I mean, we just saw an example uh where um this they're not operating under D6.

I'm sorry, I should not interrupt, but I mean we can commission shall provide timely responses to formal recommendations.

That seems pretty uh managed to do that.

What's timely?

What's timely next month before the next month's meeting, before the end of the fiscal year?

What will what determines timely?

I think that would be a to jump in timely would depend on the the subject and the the project specifically if uh if a recommendation comes in on the growth policy, timely would be before the adoption of the growth policy.

That can be a three-year process.

Our last UDC was almost three years in and of itself.

That's a little different than a you know, a project application hearing or an appeal that has a set public hearing and a statutory deadline.

So I I don't think if you put a concrete timeline on that that you're gonna do anything uh productive.

I think you're gonna cause a bigger issue because the timely response, if it was set to be within 30 days, maybe forgotten by the time you get to action three years down the road on a growth policy.

Go ahead and I've got my document here, so let me know which section you're talking about.

Well, at this point, I guess I'm talking about um about uh section, oh, here we go.

Uh the um D6.

Okay.

Okay.

And what I'm and I'm gonna just pass these out because I know that uh that we didn't get them.

And I think it's premature to uh to be uh excuse me, these are the this is the uh GBS language.

Um I think that before we've really had time to look at their suggestions that it's premature to be uh discussing them because they really are um thoughtful, they're quite different.

And um before we just dismiss it or try to plug in little phrases here or there, I think we need to look at what they're what they're suggesting by way of a formalized process with guarantees that the public will have a voice that is heard and that is responded to.

And um, so I'm going to hold Becky to uh the promise that this was our first conversation and that we would be uh moving forward with this in a meaningful manner, and I would like the ability to uh come back with a fuller report on this part of their uh proposition.

I can tell you that Barbara and I will take the what you've handed out from the Galton Valley Sentinel um along with all the other public comment, because that's what it is is public comment, and we will be making edits to this document and we'll bring it back to the next meeting.

Absolutely.

And I think to know who else is in on your meetings.

Is it just you and Barb?

Barb and I have been chosen um as commission members to be putting together these drafts and redrafting and redrafting so that we can have a document to be brought to the community for our public hearing on December.

I mean, shoot June 14th.

Do you want to do that?

Is there anybody?

June 18th.

Dan, a much I'd like to give Jen the floor and then I'd like to go to the bathroom and ask the public to then come back ready to go.

Beth, are you all right with that or do you need to leave?

Okay.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

So, Jen.

I'm gonna try to make this really short, not go through item by item.

But I first of all want to really appreciate all of the effort that has been put into bringing us what we have today.

And I can't unfortunately look at things and try to integrate them.

Um I also feel that we have been working long and hard all along the way to come to this place.

So it feels a little difficult for me to want to stop and perhaps go wherever this is gonna take us.

But I will certainly read it and respect it.

But I wanted to just mention that I think structures help ensure people are elected and selected to uphold city values, the charter and our Montana Constitution.

And I think those are interactive values, not right or wrong people elected, but really what what are this, what can the structures do and the structure of a charter do to be able to help us have people, and that geography is not destiny in my point of the broader question that people were raising.

But I think that the opportunity of geography in a neighborhood association is incredible.

And many of you know I'm uh very active uh in participating in my own neighborhood association in the Northwest.

And also um I've seen those associations in other communities.

That's why I brought Seattle to you, Eugene, some other examples where I've seen it in action, and it seems like they fulfill several different purposes.

One starts out basically with neighborhood orientation, new neighbor orientation.

We used to have a welcome wagon concept.

We used to have a lot of different ways new people could be oriented to their community and oriented to some of the major issues, let's say facing the community uh and the particular neighborhood that they live in.

Also, it seems to me that we're um folks that are community builders using those associations for um what if I've labeled sometimes socials or opportunities to get to know people, develop mutual aid, all of those ways that we can be community builders, and lastly, but not in any ranking order, this is the the associations can be policy makers and defenders in terms of when my neighborhood was facing a major development.

And lastly, but not in any ranking order, this is the the associations can be policy makers and defenders in terms of when my neighborhood was facing a major development.

We did not want, it was not being done in the way we wanted.

We all came together to try to both defend the values we thought were important to our community neighborhood and for the city itself and resist what was happening.

We've succeeded so far.

So I see all of those roles, and I see really most of them impacted by the new language that you put in.

So I just wanted to um also say to uh add a new perspective.

I am not certain we ought to put a number on anything.

I'm not sure t the number 20 or whatever number that you've all come up with is going to necessarily be helpful to recognize whatever the word equal means as we think about what would 20 equal neighborhoods look like as an ultimate cap right now, um, given the varieties of neighborhoods, given the histories, and given the ways that neighborhoods have formed.

So I would like to not see a number put on there because I think it was driven by an important structural concern, which was the number of people that should be on the inner neighborhood council.

But that could be capped already as an independent aspect of it if that is the goal.

But why tie the neighborhood numbers to that?

Because I think that would not allow for more organic and um creative opportunities if we were to be locked into that.

So I'd like to um speak against that number or any number quite.

Can I ask you one question with that?

Yes.

Um if a neighborhood doesn't have if if the ink is capped at let's say 20, and that but you can have as many neighborhood councils as uh associations as you want.

Would that mean that some neighborhood associations would not have representation at the table for Inc.

And would that give us you know, so I I'm hearing what you're saying, and I'm just trying to I'm trying to think through and I'm asking you to think through with me.

And I have been thinking about that too.

Um trying to think that perhaps there's other ways that uh that that ink is also not the end all be all.

In other words, there can be task forces, there could be blocks of as compared to uh a full neighborhood association that are involved in different projects because that's where their interests lie.

Not everybody may want the exciting policy dimension of an ink, the excitement of conflict, uh, etc.

I'm taking off on that one.

But anyway, it's not for everyone to have that level of involvement.

But I'm not sure how the equality or equity would be necessarily derived in having a finite number.

And as Carson and I were talking earlier today, would that mean at a level of 60,000 people, we all have to be uh th 3,000 in each one, or even have a range of between two and four thousand people if we were to reach that necessary uh 20 uh percent limit.

So I think we ought to be creative in both cases and not lock it into the charter.

That is my point.

Don't lock it into the charter so there can be more creativity, more flexibility, but the other elements that I want to strongly support uh is how you describe the purpose and how you've built in the accountability.

I don't think uh we want that accountability to be as finite as I'm starting to hear from the folks at the uh Sentinel, but I do think we want to make sure that that accountability coming from both the um staffing side and financial commitment side of the city, including the city commissioners' jobs, and that will be coming soon.

But also the fact that we do have that staffing that is declared.

So I will say that for now and um hope this is added a new dimension to the discussion.

Thank you.

Mike, do you want to weigh in on any of this?

Uh if I could, I'd save my comments till after we have our break.

Okay, you're reading my mind.

What we're gonna do now is we're gonna take a very fast break.

One o'clock, I'm hitting the gavel to start the meeting again.

Mike will talk, then we'll take public comment from all of you who have so patiently sat here.

Uh and uh then we'll continue the discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public comment.

Yeah, so um I just feel it's important to know it.

Uh see you all I guess it's uh I feel it's important to know it's uh Daniel Cardi, not McCarty.

So I just wanted to I was afraid you said that out that and I was hoping nobody I thought they I was hoping they thought I studied, stuttered rather.

Um card annual.

Um I think one of the first things I want to bring up is uh I think this body in this instance, we we did the public a procedural disservice.

So we've been talking about this meeting being the decision-making opportunity for neighborhoods and advisory boards, and then the inclusion of draft language as a late addition created a level of confusion that we didn't necessarily need.

I feel like we could have had this discussion without the draft language in front of us conceptually, and it leads to the perception that there may be some preconceived notions prior to the decisions.

So our um intent and the um the reasoning for why this draft language is here, 100% understand it now that it's been explained.

But when we put it on the agenda, the public, as well as myself, did not understand that in advance.

So I just wanted to say that I think we could have handled that a little differently, but now that we're here and we're looking at some language, I want to talk about that in a couple things.

The consensus-based, that's a purpose statement.

That's not charter language.

That's not a charter provision.

Uh I also think that the idea of consensus versus majority vote, that's a question for ink bylaws.

That's a question for neighborhood association bylaws, not a charter provision.

Um speaking of bylaws, the city has templated bylaws that we provide to neighborhood associations when they're looking to form.

Um, as we heard from Natsuki uh before, the the process to form a neighborhood association is not overly burdensome currently.

And that's by design to stimulate that organic approach.

I think the um the idea of a representative number of 20, um, just to give an idea, roughly that's going to be in that 3,000 person.

Um Nina is our largest neighborhood association by residents.

Uh last estimate was about 3,600 people.

So if the idea is to balance to 20, there's no way that the current other 14 can stay anywhere assembling what they are currently.

So I just want to make sure that if if we're setting a number and we're gonna say that they all must be equal, the the current structure of neighborhood associations, the vast majority of them would likely end up within one to meet that number, or maybe a small handful to match that.

So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

So, Mike, what would you recommend in there to make it so that we've got some some assemblance of order and that the ink can function and that the voice can actually come through, then we don't have one for every block.

You know, that that that's the extreme end of the one for every block and now the I think the decision has to be whether or not the city as an entity is going to dictate the number like Missoula does, or you maintain the organic approach and deal with the ramifications of having a 40-member ink meet meeting at some point in the future.

I don't think you can split the baby on that one.

The uh like one of the things that I've heard is why not convert every HOA to a neighborhood association.

That'd be about a hundred and twenty, hundred and thirty members.

If that were the case, you would obviously need some sort of other structure to solve the issue you were talking about of some neighborhoods wouldn't have representation if you had a capped number on ink.

Uh I think that that that's where this struggle is gonna lie.

Is you either go organic and you take however many you get, either creating minimum standards that require X number of residents, or you just let it happen and we get to where we're at.

We've had this process in place for 20 years.

We have 15.

In another 20 years, are we gonna be at 30?

Are we gonna be at 60?

We don't know.

And that's just one of the things that this body's gonna have to wrestle with.

Um so when you're thinking about abolishing your remodeling, if there's an equal balance, you're you're gonna have some significant changes.

If you don't cap it, Inc.

could become an unwieldy beast very quickly.

Um looking at the uh the specific, um, since we're right here, one of the ones on my list, I don't think it's appropriate to dictate full-time equivalency in the charter.

Uh just it doesn't matter the position.

Um, my opinion is that's it should be staff shall designate sufficient resources.

That allows flexibility.

Um there may be a time where there isn't full-time work for a neighborhood coordinator.

So then what do they do?

So if you don't have 40 hours of work every week for a position that you're mandating 40 hours a week, what does that person do?

Um what would be your solution to what's got us exactly where we are today, which is that that it's because it says sufficient resources, hired a full-time person.

Now there's a very small time person that doesn't, and we hear the neighborhood say that they they don't get the support they need to be able to function.

So what words should we do would you suggest to be put in there?

Because plan A designate a staff member didn't pan out.

I think that the issue is um what we've heard and what I've talked with our last two, and my experience with the third neighborhoods coordinator prior to that, neighbors aren't asking for the support from the neighborhoods coordinator.

So we heard maybe we want to do the um movie on the lawn at the story mansion, that's doable.

Nobody's asked for it.

So the idea that the I think it should say something along the lines of sufficient resources.

Uh you have in here, and I'm not exactly sure the point the line item budget in the recommendations, I think is where you had that.

They already have that.

They have a line item budget for from the neighborhood's coordinator.

So if sufficient resources aren't being provided because the requests are outpacing what is provided, then the charter would require that those resources become increased.

As it stands now, the resources are there and people aren't asking for them.

We provide money to help for the neighborhood meetings, the annual meeting.

That's their required meeting to have.

So are they required to have multiple meetings and the city and the city's responsible for facilitating those?

That would require more sufficient resources.

So I think that gives the the flexibility in the charter to not handcuff the the city into a designated full-time equivalent if that person doesn't have full-time equivalent work.

Uh and then I'm trying to find where the other one was.

C4 was the note that I had, and I think it's on the noticing stuff.

Um shall be responsible for providing information on city and neighborhood issues.

Uh I have a fundamental disagreement with the current Inc.

representatives and others in the community that we aren't doing this currently.

We provide e-notifications available for anybody, not just neighborhoods.

The community development department consolidates those notifications into one weekly notification that goes out that they would also be receiving.

And our neighborhood's coordinator looks at every one of the notices that's in that weekly and forwards it on to the neighborhood representative of something that's happening in their neighborhood.

As we see less project-specific noticing under MLUPA, more of these are gonna be citywide policies.

These are gonna be land plans, our uh tree management plan, our uh integrated water resources plan.

These are things that are even the budget, these are things that all have a legally required public noticing period.

All of those public notices generate an e-notification, anybody can sign up for them.

Our staff is already taking those notifications and sending them to specific targeted neighborhoods based on those projects.

So I I don't have an issue with this language being there.

I'm saying we're already doing that.

That's fine.

There's nothing saying that in an advisory capacity that Inc.

couldn't provide an advocacy role for a matter before that.

If they are advocating for a specific inclusion in a growth policy, I don't see the term advisory means that they're unable to do that.

So just for clarity, um the sentinel comment that came in was at 122 a.m.

So everyone received that in their city email today.

Um so I'm not surprised that most of us haven't read through it.

I did this morning a little bit, and to Deanna's point, the formalized process that they're describing is uh 10-minute presentation from Inc.

The same as staff makes a presentation to the city commission.

Um I'm not certain that that is a uh provision that I think should be in the charter outside of what you have here with the um in the timely response for formal recommendations.

So any public comment and the general themes of public comment have to be responded to by the city commission in their findings.

That is just the basis of land use decisions in in the in the state, and in policy decisions that's not required the same way as it is in land use and um that kind of governance, but those responses are in their findings in the this is why I'm voting for or against a particular issue.

Having it be a specific requirement to write a separate response, typically staff reports and general presentations address the public comments that have been received.

So if we're looking at taking this formal recommendation and making it require a formal response, I I think that the process already has that in place, unless you want a specific written response similar to a staff report, and that's a much higher burden than commissioners just stating their opinion.

And then the question I had for Deanna, you were talking about the lack of enforceability.

Uh I'm confused by what you would want to see as enforceability within a charter.

The provisions, much like state statutes say you shall do this, there isn't a shall do this or else.

You get kicked off the island.

It like the that enforceability mechanism, I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for there.

And Jan said something that I I just want to be mindful of.

There's a lot of things that we would like to see, but to quote Jan, don't lock it into the charter.

The charter needs to be the higher level, not a necessarily uh a specific full-time equivalent, a specific process.

If in the implementation of something similar to the how six is written here, the city commission determines that their policy to meet that charter provision, they can adopt an ordinance that would outline a procedure that then they would be able to modify.

If you lock a procedure in in the charter, what happens in 2027 when the legislature changes the the requirements, and now you have a procedure in the charter that is in direct conflict with state law.

Which part are you talking about that?

So right here in procedures.

So you have the timely responses responding to Deanna's comments about wanting a formal process outlined that correct.

So a formal process, if you get too prescriptive with the exact steps that has to be met, and then state law changes.

Imagine two years ago you said this is in the charter how we're going to review site-specific projects and the requirements we're going to allow or need from public comment, and then the legislature passes MLUPA that removes project specific.

And then the legislature passes MLUPA that removes project specific.

So what is there a part of number six that you change?

That you suggest changes.

I would not suggest changes.

I'm saying don't put a more formalized prescriptive, very detailed procedure in place of this.

Okay.

We've got 15 minutes before we hit 1.30, and we need to discuss the next meeting.

Jan needs to um do what she needs to do.

She has a doctor appointment.

We've known that since day one.

Let's take public comment.

Mr.

Webster.

No, no, no, I gotta get your name wrong.

Mr.

Repster.

Repster.

Sorry.

Jim Webster, South Third Avenue member of the preservation advisory board, and Inc.

member.

And um as far as Zenc goes, I'm curious, because we've got three board officers, a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary, and I happen to be the secretary and also rep for the South Tracy, South Black and Bonton neighborhood collectively known as Scan.

I'm just curious, with everything that's been going on, I'm not aware since coming on to the board in January.

There could have been something before that, to be sure, but since January, I'm not aware of any discussions back and forth between, say, your group and our group.

And I was saying to Carson just outside the room here a little while ago at the break, that I think it would be great to have, say, a couple of us from Inc., whether it's board officers or neighborhood reps, we don't have to specifically say who right now, because we can have a discussion to figure out who in Inc.

would like to do this, and you all, you know, maybe it's Barb and Beth.

And I think that'd be great to have the dialogue so that we get out of our solo or solos, get out of our silos and share information.

I've suggested that for the HPAB board, the Stork Preservation Board, and the CDB, the community development board and Jason Delmu and Ben Lloyd thinks that's a fantastic idea.

It just seems like what a concept.

More communication between these groups so that you guys don't take off too fast in one direction with some thoughts, and maybe you don't have uh say some of the feedback from INC in this case and INC just a snippet of history with the 15 associations.

Seven of them come from the NCOD, the neighborhood conservation overlay district where we had no homeowners associations, so eight other neighborhoods have come from outside the NCOD.

Some have homeowners associations, and I know we just had the newest one instead, maybe I butchered her name there, but she put together the neighborhood in the lakes area out west of town, and that's great.

That's the first new neighborhood in a while.

So what I'm suggesting here, and I know I can't really have a two-way conversation right here and start a mini work session, but it seems like a little dialogue between the various members, because there's so many things.

I mean, we could tell you about how that survey went down about the interim zoning ordinance, so much behind that, and I've got one second left.

So at any rate, Jim.

Thank you, Jim.

I do want to let you know that um last fall we met with the entire Inc.

sitting out there on in tables.

Um since then we've talked with um Alison Sweeney, Mark, I'm gonna say his last name wrong, Campanelli.

Campanelli, yes.

Um they worked as some other folks, they have submitted a bunch uh uh uh some sample language that we have and that Urban and I looked at.

Then I sent it back to them after our last meeting with a bunch of documents that were provided.

They're like 14 obnoxious documents, that's a lot, but sent it back to them and said, hey, now that we all know more, can you send us another revision?

And they did.

And so um we've been trying, and given this draft and the um timeline that we are under to be able to, you know, make changes if some of you would like to meet this week with me and Barb to be able to tell us what of this draft is helpful and some of the things that we were discussing, the 20 and the all the things, please reach out to us um sooner than later so that we can find a time to get together.

Please reach out to us sooner than later so that we can find a time to get together.

So thank you for your input.

You bet and then as constructively as possible, so say on Monday, maybe just to turn that around.

I'll give you my list.

The two of you talk after the meeting.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for waiting another 25 minutes for that moment in time, Jim.

You betcha.

We'll have it.

I'll look forward to starting, you know, two and uh getting that going.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Beth Boys and I'm an inner neighborhood council representative of the New Highlight View neighborhood, and I'm here because I'm a representative of that neighborhood.

I'm not here.

Inc.

didn't specifically send me.

I serve on that committee with Mark and Allison.

And um, yeah, thank you.

But I am a little surprised to see this.

I I don't but we'll just stay on topic.

I I wanted to know where the 28% are represented by Inc.

statistic came from.

Because I can tell you, I the first time I heard it was from former mayor Terry Cunningham, and less than 28% of the population elect the city commission.

And we don't ever say to the other 72%, well, you don't matter.

And I don't ever say to anybody, you don't live in my neighborhood, so I'm not going to talk to you.

Anyone that lives in Bozeman that wants to bring something to Inc.

can talk to any rep.

We and we talked a little bit about electing the right people.

And one of the things, if I'm sitting having lunch in the co-op and somebody's coming at me, I know what they're gonna say.

They're going to say, why doesn't the city commission hold another special election rather than appointing people?

Because over the last few years, I think we've appointed five commissioners.

And they feel completely left out of that process.

These are the issues that people have on their mind and want to see resolved and hope that somehow Inc.

can do it.

These neighborhoods, like for example, my neighborhood, they evolved organic, they were in existence long before the charter established them 20 years ago.

That neighborhood I live in, I think it was built in bit built in the 60s or 70s, and they all hung out together and they had phone trees and they gabbed and they had parties.

And what Inc.

what the charter established was to just formalize that a little bit.

I know this because that charter was written in my kitchen when my husband served on the last 20 years ago of the Charter Committee.

And I thought it was a good idea, and I remember this neighborhood coordinator position, and they felt like, no, we have to get that written into the charter, or we were talking about enforceability.

Thank you.

Thank you, Beth.

Good points.

We will consider them for sure.

Mr.

Go right ahead.

Henry Hapel Bozeman resident.

So I don't have any answers.

I unfortunately think I just have uh questions, um, maybe problems.

Um I think is not clear in the charter is whether the neighborhood associations are responsible for to use Carson's example, uh, a traffic problem in the neighborhood, or whether their brief also extends to citywide issues.

And I think that ought to be clarified.

Um there's arguments both ways, obviously.

Um of the problems I think the city faces, and I think you ought to face, we ought to face it with clear eyes, is the difficulty of creating these neighborhood associations, which we'd all like.

And I'm not smart enough to know whether the right answer is the sort of top-down approach that's being proposed in the draft language or whether a better approach is an organic approach where you go to areas where there aren't current neighborhood associations and you try to help them along, for example, perhaps by the city uh suggesting uh locations where they could have their meetings and maybe by meeting with individuals who you know were interested in civic-minded individuals who might be interested in trying to promote a neighborhood association.

I I'm not sure which is the better approach, but um I f the notion of the city just saying we're gonna have 20, and this is what they're gonna look like does furrow my brow a little bit.

The last thing I want to say is something about public comment.

Um I was on the community development board for a long, long time, and from my perspective, uh part of the a lot of the problem with public comment is the public doesn't comment.

Um we the city engaged in a very elaborate uh effort to get the public to comment on the unified development code over a three-year period when it was under consideration.

Um lots of uh in-the-evening meetings, lots of efforts to publicize these lots and lots of work.

I think maybe five percent of the city uh ended up providing public comments.

And so um it's a problem.

Uh and uh the problem is compounded by the fact that um the public comment we do get is skewed towards uh people like me, elderly folks uh who've got uh time on their hands, and skewed against young families with uh two jobs and two kids and a dog and uh uh young single people um not long out of MSU who want to be here.

Don't know the answer to that problem, but it's a problem.

Thank you, Hap.

Can I ask a follow-up question on Mr.

Hart?

Yes.

Mr.

Hapel, can I ask a follow-up question?

Um First of all, just so you know the the proposed language does not say the city will draw the neighborhoods.

It only says right now, my which may change that there's a maximum of 20, but that they're drawn organically.

So just so you know that.

But you said something that I think is well everything is interesting, but I want to clarify something that you said.

Um are you saying that the that it should be put in the charter that the inc should be addressed to help um uh solve citywide issues, that there should be a backwards.

What what were you saying about that that that the ink should be involved in in addressing citywide issues?

I don't think I said anything about inc and citywide issues.

Oh I thought I thought you were saying, okay.

Then I don't understand.

No, I I uh I the point I was making was about the neighborhood councils and whether they should focus exclusively or primarily on neighborhood issues or whether they should also be involved in uh weighing in on citywide issues.

Okay, so you did say that.

Okay, great.

And that's one of those areas where I'm not smart enough to know the answer, but I think it ought to be clarified.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Caleb?

Yes, we do have Sarah Ostman.

Um I will allow you to talk.

You can begin whenever.

Hi.

My name is Zara Osrin, and I live on the west side of town.

I am um an INC representative for the Valley Unit Neighborhood Association, but I'm speaking on my own behalf.

And I'm um I wanted to make a couple of uh uh uh comments.

One is that I agree with Jim Webster's comment that the study commission Mink uh meet again with Inc.

Um I I I agree with that what Deanna Campbell presented and on her statement um on item 7.03 D B.

Um But mostly I wanted to talk about the INC bylaws.

Um the subcommit that we formed a subcommittee recently, and we would like I think it would be great idea for us to meet with uh Commissioners Sisteros and Frank regarding the issue of 7.03 B9.

Uh INC is in the process of updating their bylaws, and we have really put a lot of work on how the INC uh neighborhood association reps can vote.

We divided votes up into two different kinds.

One is administrative, that might be something like, okay, we agree that we're gonna form a subcommittee.

But the other vote is representative.

And for those votes, um, for example, that we are as a as a body going to make a formal recommendation to the city commission.

What we came up with is that there is a requirement of each neighborhood association, INC rep rep to demonstrate um that their vote is truly representative of their neighborhood association.

So, you know, pursuant to their bylaws for each neighborhood association, each rep would poll their neighborhood association and then have evidence of the majority neighborhood association vote.

And then the INC has a vote on the uh each neighborhood association rep on the INC then has a vote, a representation representational vote.

And um then and we and those votes are just like any other advisory board.

It's a majority vote, just like an advisory board, just like the city commission, and it's not necessarily a consensus-based vote.

And then just on the on the issue of um does the neighborhood association talk about stop signs or citywide issues?

We talk about all of those things because it's in the bylaws and it's also in the charter, I believe, that um the INC uh talks about citywide issues as well as um uh talking about what neighborhood associations individually may bring up as individual issues.

Um so thank you very much.

Thank you, Sarah.

Okay.

Uh I'm gonna ask us the question now.

What are we saying it's 132?

I definitely would have more to say on this topic based on response to others.

I think a good conversation is a good conversation.

What do you all want to do?

I I guess I I also I want to flag that we didn't talk about section 7.04, which is the changes to the advisory board.

Right, he's and so I guess what I would propose is that we put this up again at our meeting next week and and finish the neighborhood association conversation and um the advisory board piece.

And then but Becky and I don't like if we can meet with some Inc.

folks next week before that meeting, we do that.

Um, but we don't make any changes yet until we have time to finish the conversation and and get the sense of the board about what we want to what we want to do.

So, Barb, do you think we should just keep talking about neighborhoods then and bring up advisory boards at the next meeting?

Well, I think there's I understood that we have to now that it's 1.30 move on to talking about next week's meeting because Jan has to leave it too.

No, she has to leave a quarter to two.

So I thought we were gonna have to finish this conversation today anyway.

So I think next week we would pick up the rest of the neighborhoods conversation and the advisory boards and sort of close out whatever changes we're gonna make to this new second.

I mean, I'm not hearing anybody quarrel with adding a new article to our charter that focuses on these public engagement um structures, but the the actual words in the structures needs work, but I don't think we should do that work until we finish the conversation next week.

I I think you could go either way.

I think you're I actually think you're closer to there.

I think so too.

Um whatever you all think about it, but if you came back with the new draft, that wouldn't bother me at all either.

Um and then maybe we're in the tweaking mode if we're capable of that.

I'm not sure we are, but um one step at a time.

But the next meeting, one, we're gonna finish this conversation.

Two, we're gonna take up advisory boards.

Three, if there's time, we're going to get to wards and districts.

And the question is, are we gonna try and do anything else in that time?

Um what in how much time?

That's a Thursday meeting that starts at four.

I I won't have any conflicts to go on that evening or whatever.

So stay as long as even you know, I uh I turn into a pumpkin at five hours.

Um maybe um four hours, whatever it is.

I think we just need to power through it uh and do the best that we can.

Uh Jan and I had the opportunity to talk to um uh the court people from the municipal court about the suggestions that they had.

And um they would like to come and present to us at the next meeting.

Um I don't know.

I I think that we owe it to them to spend half an hour hearing from them.

I I actually think there are a couple small constructive um pieces that we could add to this uh focusing on the independence of the municipal court and the and the separation because there are um a lot of um attacks across the country on the court system, and um they're doing some pretty interesting things there, and I'd hate to um see that lost by um not recognizing the importance of their independence.

Um I don't know what your pleasure is on that one.

Um I know Becky sent them a thing saying leave that time open, but without a commitment that um we would hear from them.

So I I think we need to decide that we want to hear from them then or some other time.

Um we certainly did not get as far through this as maybe um we unrealistically or I unrealistically thought, but Deanna.

I wonder if you could encourage them to uh uh get something to us in writing with their ideas.

Well, they did.

Well they they've done two things.

But I I presume this is something in addition to what we've already received.

Yeah, I I think at our urging they're gonna pare it down significantly.

So you're right, that would be nice.

That'd be helpful to have that.

Um if we're gonna discuss it, if we if we're gonna decide not to discuss it, then let's not do that.

But I think that uh a half an hour discussion we should just put aside for it with language from them that's pared down, and we could put together the the response that they sent to you, Becky, um, that you set out at our request.

So um, but that but that's up to us.

Does that work?

That we would do that in the first half hour, four o'clock.

Okay.

Thank you, and appreciate it.

I'd love to keep hearing about neighborhood things since it's on our minds.

Yeah.

So I think if we jump in advisory boards, we're gonna be two more hours, is what I worry about.

Won't get far enough to get far enough.

Is that and I'll tell you, I I read through the Gallatin Valley Sentinel stuff, and I didn't think it was materially different.

I realized others might, but I did not think it was materially different than um the main good points that you all have already captured.

Okay.

Anything more on the next meeting.

We have six more minutes, uh Jan.

I was gonna say I need I'm gonna scoot out you all can continue, but um I don't think you'll be making any decisions that I need to vote on.

So stay, but I apologize, I just have to I have to take care of myself.

So thank you.

Okay.

And I'll see you next week.

So, Jen, before you leave, do you have anything you want to add based on what you've heard from the public and from us?

On the neighborhoods, yeah.

Um I just welcomed all of the comments, and I think I've had my say.

I hope it's been helpful, and uh I know we're gonna still have another opportunity um at the next meeting.

So thanks you.

Thanks to everyone.

And also, Mike, I appreciate um the deliberation way that you helped us understand where the city is always, and the fact that you put a lot of work into that, both on this and the work around the um uh reveal uh reelease of the uh the survey data.

A lot of effort.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jan.

Thanks for attending.

Good luck.

All right, let's continue our discussion.

Um we've sort of gone around the table.

Uh Barb, do you want to respond to anything you've heard?

And then we're gonna ask you, Becky.

So be ready.

I mean, I I think I took a lot of notes.

We got a lot of good feedback.

Um again, it it seems like uh emphasizing the importance of public engagement in our civic infrastructure generally by creating this new article.

Um I didn't hear anybody quarreling with that concept.

Um, and then the feedback on the neighborhood councils, I think was really good and spot on, and we'll have more conversation around um, I mean, I I at least understand the point about using the term in uh 703Bine of consensus-based input.

I I understand the confusion that that could cause because a true consensus-based decision-making process is something that requires a lot of time and a lot of training, and um may not be appropriate for this particular civic engagement structure.

So I really appreciate that, and I think we can figure out some other words to make sure that we are getting to inclusiveness in that decision-making um process without a formal consensus-based decision-making process.

Um I think we're gonna have to continue to talk about um how we continue to foster more participation in the neighborhood program and continue to ensure that inc can function in the role that it functions at.

Um, and and we'll work on revising all of that language, because our definitely it was not our intent to have a top-down city dictated draw the lines process in this, nor was it our intent to diminish or disband any of the existing neighborhood associations.

So we'll keep working on it.

So those are some initial thoughts.

Becky.

Yeah, I think um some of the challenges are um how do we help get better representation?

You know, ideally, when you look at all the research, it demonstrates that communities to Jan's point that have a lot strong neighborhood engagement, um, is a way to get the voice of the people and to do public engagement, right?

And so if we have 28% of the population in a neighborhood association, that means there's a whole bunch of people not in a neighborhood association.

And so I think some of that will be simple.

Um, there's a there's a neighborhood near me that has a neighborhood association, and I don't think they'd be offended if they just invited my neighborhood in their rhythm, right?

So some of it will be very simple, some of it will be very hard, and I'm I'm curious for us to think about um if there's a let's just say there's a you know, Carson and I and our 10 homes have a neighborhood association.

Maybe we have a neighborhood group.

And it doesn't stop us from still getting together and having a neighborhood group.

But if you want to be part of the Inc.

and have a neighborhood association, then that's different.

It's kind of like advisory boards, right?

If you want to be on the advisory board, you're on the advisory board.

If you want to sit around and do a think tank with people who think like you or who have similar skills and knowledge, you nothing stops you from doing that.

And you can call the city manager or this or you know, talk to the mayor and say, hey, the four of us got together, we have a great idea.

Nothing stops us from doing that.

So I'm curious as to because it will be organically developed, and yet if the neighborhoods have started when we were teeny tiny with dirt roads, and now we're a bigger city, and we're looking for a formal way for neighborhoods to talk to the city commission, engage with the city commission and policy and budgetary things.

Do we need to formalize something?

Right?

And so, how do we go about doing that?

Um so that I think that'll be interesting.

Um I also am hearing in section D about how we may be able to include some kind of during a public meeting thing and kind of formalize the back and forth of um uh Deanna, when you talk about um and others have said that uh the ink should have to, you know, had the ability to to make a formal recommendation.

Well, gosh, isn't what they do that do I just assume they do that anyways, because they're on a there's the ink.

So you think that that's what they would do, that would be their thing, but if we need to put that in there to make sure that that's a thing, maybe it's not a thing, maybe they don't make any formal recommendations to the city commission, but um but adding some kind of public meeting thing in there.

I'm wondering about with um some terms have been mentioned partner, uh so maybe in E with the city support that that liaison is at liaison and partner with Inc.

or the neighborhood associations somehow like that.

Um Mike, I'm curious when you talk about how we have a budget line item, people can already ask for that, but nobody does, but yet when we talk to the people of Inc.

like with every meeting, there's a whole lot of and we don't have any support.

So that could just be potentially a logistics situation.

Maybe they don't think they can ask for it, but that should maybe shouldn't assume that they don't want it.

Because I've heard that a number of times from neighborhood association folks is that they want that.

They they they want someone to um help with orientation, they want them to be able to be responsive and be able to bring information to the city commission, engage with them, and then I know a lot of communities have like grants and things where they can have budgetary things, and so what I've heard from the Inc.

is that there's no money.

So if there's money and then no one's getting it, maybe it's logistical, but I'm I still want it in charter.

I think it's important that even though it's like, yeah, we're doing that, yeah, we're doing that.

Key concepts that have been brought forward, I think need to be in the charter.

So that's just what I'm thinking.

Great.

Um thank you.

Uh I'm gonna divide the time between you and me, Deanna.

Oh, okay.

So I'm watching the clock carefully.

I I just want to say a couple things.

First of all, I think the future of neighborhood associations is going to be decided in the next 10 years.

Meaning if we don't grow neighborhood associations more across the city, then we're gonna have to find another way to capture the spirit, desires, and needs of people across the city.

And um I I take Beth's point about 28% of the people vote.

Um that's not um I don't like that.

I I it is what it is, and you know, every now and then I'll say something that gets me into big trouble, like, well, the the other people that aren't voting are not voting because they're satisfied with what's going on.

But there's a lot of reasons people don't vote, they don't have time, they don't feel like they're informed, and they don't feel like it makes any difference.

So I retract any statements like that that I've said in the past.

Um I think the present progress of neighborhood associations has been hindered by the city not putting a full-time employee in it.

And um I think that the when the time comes that we don't need a full-time employee because we're running um uh uh neighborhood associations across the city.

Good.

Well, then we'll then we'll have that conversation, but it's not gonna happen in the next 10 years.

Um and I I feel like um when I was on the commission, there were the budding, growing organizing um neighborhood associations need needed money.

They needed um snacks, they needed um ways to reach out to people.

Um and uh I I think we need in the city someone whose mission is let's get as many people involved in neighborhood associations across the city as we possibly can.

Um so I I think that's important.

Um I I'm sticking with um Dan Clark's statement that everything that we do is a form of an experiment.

Hopefully it's as an informed experiment as we can get.

Um, but certainly we've talked a lot about, read a lot about, heard a lot about neighborhood associations and how they work.

And um I think that that you all have captured most of it.

You know, the consensus-based thing, um, I I if you cut that out, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna die on that one.

I do think though, that people need to be um encouraged to talk to one another in the way of convincing each other rather than berating one another.

And I see that there's a lot of berating going on.

If if we put something in the uh charter and then state law changes, um I believe there's a clause in the uh um in the charter that says if we conflict with state law, then state law wins.

So I think that that can cover it.

Um I'll stop there, Deanna.

I used I don't know how long.

Go for it.

Thank you.

I just have a few things to say about neighborhood associations.

And I think that we've heard that um uh we would like for them to be organic.

One of the things that I heard was equally based number wise.

And I'm I'm thinking about this because I think that the very character of an or the very definition of a neighborhood is that it has unique character.

For example, uh the university neighborhood association that I belong to.

They're very um, they're very uh protective of their boundaries because they feel no, you the our neighborhood faces these very unique problems um or challenges with our interaction with the university students and paternities and sororities and uh traffic, parking, very unique problems.

And um I know of a uh group of houses that uh wanted to join the university neighborhood, and they said, no, uh you you really belong somewhere else.

And I don't know how many people are in our neighborhood uh association, only I would say rough estimate.

Uh under 70 people appear at our annual meeting.

You count students, you're like the biggest one of all.

Yeah.

Oh, really?

If you count students, say well, no, students aren't uh included in the boundary.

Oh, really?

MSU campus is not within the neighborhood association.

Okay.

Never mind.

Uh so in any case, what I'm saying is I don't think we want to uh uh uh put anything that would uh uh limit the number, first of all, limit the number of of neighborhoods.

I think we need to to take numbers away as as Jan pointed out, and face the problem if it if if it occurs uh that we get too many.

Um because uh and just to finish it, there might be, and I'm just guessing, there might be a thousand residences in the university neighborhood, but if you were to take uh the west side of town, their unique problems, their situation is very different.

I mean, it's it's apartment buildings for you know a couple of miles.

So they're going to be concerned about bike paths and what have you.

Um but that can't be defined by numbers.

What I'm saying is that numbers are not really a part of the character of a neighborhood.

And I don't think we should put uh I think we to be sure that we don't um um make that mistake.

And uh and I think I think we all heard uh organic and and uh so that's all I have to say about uh neighborhood associations um in terms of how they develop.

So so when I say we need to cover the city, uh I'm um not precluding organic, but I'm saying some growth can come from um a concerted effort by the city and by the coordinator to to foster that.

And I I think the hardest problem with with ink is everybody gets one vote, and yet the um representation is totally different.

And which is why, of course, consensus is always a better process, but we're not going there right now.

Um and so for instance, take the neighborhood that's to the east of Lunley Park, um, and then it's got KE on the other side.

It's like 300 houses or less.

It's very few people.

It couldn't be 300, it's like 50 or something.

How do you how do you and they have very specific needs, right?

They have a park on one side and uh a grocery store and and um all sorts of commerce on the other side.

So I don't know how we work that through.

Other cities have done it.

That's what we can look at.

So I think somewhere in here should be a respect for organic growth and understanding that we need more people involved in the city, and um looking at what other cities have done to solve the problem, or some of it we may just live with.

We just may have to live with it.

And I think Carson, that's one of the things that I'm thinking about, and Barbara, I'm thinking you're thinking the same thing, which is we definitely look to other cities to grab a lot of language, but that's this is one area that we need to dig up more cities.

We've got more at our at our fingertips.

We've been told about different cities, big cities and small cities, but we'll do that and see if we can't come back with some different language around the intent.

Um, and then how you know how do we spell it out clear enough without being too prescriptive, too, you know.

Yep.

Yep.

So Barb Becky.

Mike.

Yeah, just real quick.

Um Becky, you had mentioned about formal recommendations from Inc.

They can and they have.

Um, they're able to do that.

Some of the uh individual neighborhoods have it in their bylaws that they don't take positions, they're information only, so they don't get to vote at Inc.

for a recommendation.

Really?

Um yeah, uh Bogart Park Neighborhood Association, for instance, in their bylaws, they do not take a formal position, so they don't vote on a recommendation by Inc.

Uh I want to clarify when I said people aren't asking for things.

Uh I was talking about like when they had mentioned the types of events they want to do, that's what we haven't been seeing the request for.

Uh I looked up the line item for the budget.

It covers Good Neighbor Day, Neighborhood Association meeting supplies, off-campus living events, Westside Engagement slash block parties, meet and greets, reception, coffee, and meeting supplies.

So that's the that's what's one of the line items.

That was the easy one I could find real quick.

And has that budget item been exhausted every year?

Uh I don't know about every year.

Um I'd have to go back go back and look at a lot.

Uh real quick.

It's been well, 2020 doesn't really count.

Um it's been usually expended and increasing on a regular basis.

So when they ask for additional resources, I'm saying that the the line item goes up.

Great.

And then um when we hear from Inc.

members and neighborhood associations that they want additional support, I'd be really curious what specific things they're talking about from the city.

Um like since I've taken over, we started providing this room, this recording equipment, the agenda system, uh we send out postcards for all of their um residents for their annual meetings, we do the supplies for their meetings, we pay room rental fees for their meetings.

So I'm I'm not entirely sure what what it is that they are looking for.

Fair enough.

Any other comments on the theory that we're gonna adjourn it to?

Are we wanting are we wanting an um another version at the next meeting?

Well, I I loved having this, and right, but you all are doing your person's work.

And it's tough.

So if if you think you'd be better off waiting, then that's good with me too.

But I would love to have an updated version.

Well, I think part of the challenge is getting it updated with enough time to get it into the agenda.

Yeah, because we didn't, you know, I sent it to Mike late Sunday night, but it didn't get from the get-go included in the agenda.

So it's Monday night.

Monday night, essentially.

So then we had to amend the agenda and then and and to Mike's point, it resulted in a lot of confusion that was not necessary.

So uh if we have to turn it around to get it into the agenda in time for a Thursday meeting, I'm not sure we can do that logistically.

And Mike, um to that point, we sent it to you and Caleb, and then did you not get it?

Like what should we have done?

We'd already published the agenda by then.

Oh, even though you knew that these documents were coming.

I didn't know they were coming.

Okay, you missed that email.

Okay.

Okay.

So that yeah, I didn't know they were coming.

And so we had published it on Monday, and then they came and we amended it on Tuesday.

So let's do this.

If you all get something together by Monday at noon, do it.

And if you can't, then we'll move ahead without it.

Is that fair?

That's fair.

Anything else for the good of the order?

Is there anything else on the agenda that I've missed?

All right.

This meeting is adjourned at two o'clock.

All right.

One last round of public comment.

And Mary, you better not utter one word that you've already uttered.

Like the.

No, we can't say the.

Mary Bateson.

I'm just wondering if this can be answered quickly.

Is the 28% number that the INC represents?

Is that area or population?

When was that determined?

Is it still correct?

And I mean it doesn't change things much.

But quick answer, it was determined by our GIS department using population estimates of geographical area last October.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there any other public comment that's not repetitive?

And Mary said the word the three times.

Sorry.

It's okay.

All right.

Well, we do have Sarah Osman online as well.

She's our spoken.

Sarah, have you spoken twice?

Do you have something that you haven't said to us?

Go for it.

Okay.

You can talk now.

Thank you.

I thank you that I uh for the opportunity to speak twice.

My name is Zara, Zara Osman, and I live on the west side of town.

Um I just wanted to respond to the question um that you all had at the end of the meeting talking about um INC support and neighborhood association support.

Um it I don't want to speak uh for everyone, but it may be something that's different than just some of the funding.

I think it's things like um having the opportunity to reach all the people who live within a neighborhood association.

Right now, the way we get people's addresses is if they come to a function like an annual meeting or if there's some other kind of function that we have and we get people's addresses and we add them to the email list, and then they uh then that that's the way that they get information from the steering committee that's um but if we don't have that um that contact information that we can't reach them unless we go door to door.

And in Valley Unit Neighborhood Association, I I counted rooftops and it was something like six hundred people uh houses, and I and four four of us on the steering committee cannot possibly put flyers up on everybody's door for every single issue or or or um or gathering or whatnot.

So there if there is possibly a way with the current technology that we could get um the email addresses, or if we could allow for people to have some real easy way to get onto the um email list for a specific neighborhood association, that's the kind of support that would really be helpful.

Um, right now people everybody gets a utility bill.

And on the utility bill, there might be like a little message.

Um like you know, during elections and things like that.

Well, maybe there's a message that says, hey, you're in the Valley Unit Neighborhood Association, and and here's a link where you could sign up on the email list.

Um because neighbors come and go.

And somebody a lot of times when we send out an email notification, we get a lot of responses back.

Hey, I no longer live there.

So anyways, that's the kind of inform um help, and I that's just one example, and maybe we could just put our heads together with the staff.

Emily Kylie does a great job.

Uh she's just one person, and um she's also doing a bunch of other projects for public engagement.

So um all right, thank you.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

And at the risk of attracting more ideas, is there any other public comment?

See, none.

This meeting is adjourned at 2 05.