Good evening, everyone, as we call this April twenty eighth, twenty twenty six Boltzmann City Commission meeting to order.

Follow along and engage in the meeting today.

Um if you're in the in the room, you're already here, check.

If you're wanting to attend virtually or online, you can dial in uh ver via the phone number that's on any of our agendas.

You can join us remotely from our uh city videos page.

And you can just watch um live via cable channel 190.

Um all of those have an uh different ways in which you can engage.

Some of them have the opportunity to provide remote public comment.

That's only coming through our city video page.

Um if anyone submitted written public comment before noon today, we have all gotten those.

Um they were socialized throughout the commission and and the related staff for public comments that came in before noon today.

Um so just as a reminder for anyone trying to submit public comment comments at Bozeman.net.

Um, if they come in before noon, we will get them and we will be able to consider them for this meeting.

Um without further ado, we will move on to our Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.

Moving on, do we have any changes to our agenda this evening?

Good evening, Mayor.

There are no changes tonight.

Excellent.

Now moving on to FYI.

Are there any commission FYI this evening?

I have one.

Sure.

Commissioner Magic.

Um I am doing a walk with the commissioner tomorrow.

Uh Commissioner Sweeney is gonna join me on this one.

It's gonna be a walk of Bozeman Creek, at least that part of the creek we can actually see.

Uh we're gonna start here at City Hall in the parking lot at 515 and go approximately let's see, past Bogard to the lineier park.

There's a place where the creek kind of crosses the bridge.

This is gonna be dog friendly, and we're also gonna pick up trash.

Sounds like a great time.

Thank you.

Yeah, Deputy Mayor.

Um I just want to speak briefly.

We have been uh we have received a uh a letter from the inner neighborhood council asking us to consider an interim zoning ordinance or uh pause uh on on larger developments within the um COD, the neighborhood conservation overlay district.

Uh the historic preservation board has voted to ask us to take up this matter.

Commissioner Sweeney, you've been asking us as well from your spot here.

Um I just wanted to speak briefly, if I could, to that request, um, just to explain some of my the reasoning.

And and I I see that I have a responsibility as deputy mayor and a member of this commission to ensure that our um our public processes and votes have integrity, that our city government and our uh commission are predictable, and that our vision and policies work citywide.

Everything hinges off those.

And I have given honest consideration to uh two of these requests for interim zoning ordinance and concluded that that request doesn't meet that threshold on several points.

The first one is that we already made this decision through a legitimate process.

We spent four years um rewriting the development code with extensive public input.

The process was explicitly included discussions about downtown scale and neighborhood concerns and protections.

And the result was a new code that reflects those concerns and that we just adopted.

And to me, government has to be predictable or it stops working.

My responsibility, and I would argue our responsibility as a commission is not to respond to every request, but it's to provide stability and predictability.

And if we pause projects just immediately after adopting a new code, we undermine that trust in the system, not just for developers, but for residents, for city staff, and for anyone trying to invest in this community.

We have a process underway.

I'd like, and I feel strongly that we need to let it work.

We knew when we adopted the code that the NCOD was in was uh guidelines were unfinished.

That work is underway right now, and I'd like us to complete that work thoughtfully and not disrupt it with an emergency pause.

Because a pause has real consequences.

Uh an interim zoning ordinance is not neutral.

It stops projects midstream, it produces legal and financial uncertainty.

It risks unintended consequences for housing, for jobs, and for downtown's vitality.

We as a commission have many needs.

We we need to address many needs.

And that I believe needs to be both this commission's and the community's focus.

So that this afternoon or this evening, we're going to be considering we have a 20-page work plan from the city manager over priorities that we have identified as as being as needing our attention.

And they cover public safety, affordability, infrastructure, services.

Reopening a subtle debate pulls time and attention away from those.

So I finally I just I would like to also I think it's we need to weigh this through a citywide fairness lens.

We have to be mindful both of voice of the voices we're amplifying and those whose needs may be less visible.

Many of the strongest calls for a pause come from areas that already already are the most stable and protected in this city.

So Inc.

and our the inner neighborhood council and our historic preservation advisory board represent voices.

They matter.

I've listened, I've considered the request, and I've concluded that my responsibility is to the entire city.

To include residents who want more housing options, a stronger downtown, and a functioning permitting system.

A year ago, we asked this community to engage on Bozeman's growth.

Our citizens did.

We made a decision, and the job of this commission now is to follow through on that, not relitigate it.

Any further FYI?

Yeah, Commissioner Bodie.

We're running into some technical difficulties.

Oh boy.

Yeah.

Yeah, you you talked.

Scott was just in here to say.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, that are understanding.

Okay, is that gonna work?

Check, check.

Check.

Okay.

Um we are back online.

Okay, so um I also wanted to provide my thoughts on the interim zoning request in independently, um, not having a discussion here, but just kind of sharing what my process was and thinking through this request.

And I I would like to associate myself with the comments that Douglas made.

I are Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Um, I I agree with a lot of them, but um mostly I I want to talk about the interim zoning ordinance um in Montana Code annotated, and I I think that's what I looked to when considering this request.

So the first thing is that the purpose of the interim zoning request as written in Montana Code Annotated says to regulate or prohibit uses that may conflict with a zoning proposal that the governing body is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.

And I want to really draw attention to that word uses.

This is a place where I get caught up with this request because the NCOD guidelines update and the request to kind of pause while we do that update is addressing design or development standards, not what uses are allowed in those different buildings.

Um the overall zoning that we already have in place separate from the NCOD is what is determining those those uses.

So I don't think that it meets the um muster of what that particular section of code in Montana Code annotated was was written to address.

A bunch of different issues with the NCOD and ways in which we can make it better.

But honestly, some of those differ depending on we're talking to the development community or the neighborhoods.

Um that resident by resident variation is one that I think um creates some complications here.

And currently with the NCOD guideline update, we are doing a big engagement process where we are asking our community what is the thing that's wrong with the current NCOD?

How can we make it better?

How can we make it stronger?

And I worry that to state a clear judgment on what is the threat to public health, safety, and welfare, I'd be presupposing the end result of our public engagement effort.

And I don't want to undermine that process.

And then lastly, we must make a finding that the events that are unfolding in the community require us to take this step urgently.

Um I think one of the the supporting um case law says exigent circumstances.

And while I do think that each new development impacts our community and um changes our our landscape, I I'm having a hard time finding that one specific individual building is a threat to public safety, health, or welfare that is urgent enough to kind of enact this ordinance.

Um that there's not even a specific application that we're talking about here.

It's it's the possibility of an application in this time.

And I think that feels like a really um gray gray position to be supposing that there is that that type of threat.

Um while I say all that, I do want to note that there are important clarifications, changes and updates that we need to make to the neighborhood conservation overlay district, and that's why we are going through this update process to address those things.

So while I am still very committed to the NCOD update process, I don't think that this interim zoning ordinance request is going to support our our ongoing effort to address the issues in the NCOD and want to let the process unfold.

Thank you.

Any further FYI from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Magic.

Thanks, Mayor.

I can add a little bit to the interim zoning discussion.

So I started talking about interim zoning um last summer.

And at the time, I believed um there was enough going on in our community to justify a pause on large scale development, particularly while we were updating the UDC and the NCOD.

There was so much change, rapid change happening in a particular part of town.

I did feel it was justified.

I know we've received a lot of comment on this issue with a desire to kind of put in place either a moratorium or an interim regulation.

Yeah, so you you have options you can put in place a regulation, or you could stop a particular type of development.

And I am saying that it's really the large-scale development that's falling through the cracks when it comes to protection by our NCOD.

Whoops, and I just lost my notes.

Sorry about that.

Um I'm an advocate for the public process.

And sorry.

My computer, hold on one second.

Um I have been an advocate for the public process and for neighborhoods, and would support looking into the feasibility and the legality of such a regulation and holding a public hearing so we can kind of balance and hear from all sides of the issue.

I personally and professionally feel less urgency now than I did last summer.

I feel like development has slowed somewhat, and we have since updated our UDC, and we're in the process of updating the NCOD, so I'm feeling a little bit better about things, but I would still be open to the idea of investigating it.

Essentially based on some of the comment we've received and the kind of widespread support for at least looking into this as an option.

Um I share some of the comments about adding another project to our list at big projects.

Um I would rather spend that energy on our NCOD process right now, quite frankly.

Um, but again, I want to be open-minded and responsive to community concerns.

Thank you.

Any further FYI from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner's Green.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I've commented a lot on the issue of interim zoning, so I would refer people to my statement last week, um, April 21st.

Um I guess I would just like to read a section from the 1990 interim zoning ordinance as a matter of public information.

Um, the state law read largely the same.

And so the interim zoning ordinance that the city of Bozeman adopted at that time, said, whereas during the interim period in which the city considers the permanent adoption of the proposed draft zoning ordinance, land use developments could occur under the existing city zoning ordinance, which would be in conflict with the intent and provisions of the proposed draft zoning ordinance.

So yes, we had a citywide conversation on the UDC.

We did not have the citywide conversation on the NCOD and the NCOD, I'll draw everybody's attention to the word conservation.

Um this area was set aside to be conserved for future generations.

And um that leads largely to my support for interim zoning.

Um I would just also ask that my fellow commissioners keep an open mind.

The historic preservation advisory board voted to write a letter to us outlining the pros and cons of adopting an interim zoning ordinance in this situation.

And I know a lot of criticism has been given to the neighborhood council, but this board, the historic preservation advisory board, is made up of industry professionals, AICP planners, historic architects, and design professionals.

So I eagerly await to see their analysis of this issue as well.

Um could I also give an update on the urban parks and forestry board?

Thank you.

Um last week, the Urban Park and Forestry Board uh met to approve their work plan for the next two years and met with the consultants who are updating the urban forest management plan.

The work plan includes giving feedback on codification of the Pratt plan, parks, recreation, and active transportation in the parkland section of the UDC, the development code.

They will also, the board will also weigh in on the award for the cash in lieu of parkland dedication, which is a grant the city gives.

And they will participate in the urban forest management plan update.

The plan will give us an updated mission statement and vision statement, achievable canopy coverage goals, vulnerability analysis from multiple factors, recommendations for a heritage tree program, but this plan is not going to give us a fully fledged program.

So we will have work to do on that front after the plan is adopted.

And it'll also give us code recommendations and comparisons with peer cities.

One of the board members had a great idea, and I just think this goes to show you know what we get when we have the public participate and we bring them in to advise us.

Someone suggested, you know, we're always tight on funds and manpower.

Um adopt a boulevard for a business to sponsor planting trees and watering them for the first few years until they get established.

Um that could be a great partner idea.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Um I will also provide some um thoughts on the interim zoning question.

Um and first, sort of even why we're sort of in this spot.

Um I I understand that there's been folks in the community wanting to know where's where does everybody stand and wanting us to have a meeting and not having a majority of the commission that wants to have that meeting, nor have I wanted to put that on the agenda.

And there's a few reasons about just process.

Uh putting something on the agenda is not a light lift.

Um, there's a lot of analysis, staff time background, and then the meeting itself that go into putting something on the agenda.

And so if three don't want to do it, um, I don't think it's necessarily worth just putting it on the agenda for the sake of the conversation, um, especially on something that we have an ongoing process for, and that we had discussed um without the without being explicit about the NCOD.

We've talked about zoning growth, density density, and things like that over the last several years.

Um for me, that the main thing just comes down to, and I'd I'd be happy to be proven otherwise uh by um any members of the public or the historic preservation advisory board um as to uh there's nothing that I'm seeing at the moment that is suggesting uh a level of threat to uh health, safety, general welfare that merits urgency by which zoning is the only mechanism to address that urgency.

There are other things that we have seen affect health safety, general welfare that merit uh us to act with swiftness, and we have.

We we had a traffic fatality, an enormous amount of time and resources have been mobilized to try to rectify and address the deficiencies in our transportation system.

It also stands on top of years and years of focus on our transportation system to to work on these issues.

Those if if we start seeing threats to general health and safety, the general health health safety, general welfare that come from prospective applications that do not yet exist, then I think that is what to me is a necessary first before looking into an interim zoning measure.

Um but I appreciate the the public that's been pushing us and wanting to have this conversation.

Um we're not having that conversation tonight, but uh I at least wanted to offer the opportunity for all of us to share why we're not um diving into that conversation.

Any further FYF from commission?

Any FYF from staff?

Um Thank you, Mayor.

Two things I am excited to talk about tonight.

Uh the first is the Hidden Creek.

Uh on Friday is a groundbreaking.

Um this project uh is an example of a partnership about how government and local partners can come together to do a really hard thing, an impossible thing, honestly, if we didn't have um that cooperation.

So this project transforms a five-acre county-owned parcel.

And the city of Bozeman into a new neighborhood uh with rental and home ownership opportunities.

So there's 182 apartments available to people earning 30, 30, 60, and 70% of the area median income.

There's also uh in this community an opportunity for nine for sale homes.

Um the city supported this project through $2 million uh in money, both in Galton Impact Fee Funds and the Affordable Housing Fund as well.

So this is a mix of donated land, financial subsidy, development incentives, and partnership and collaboration among many different entities, and we are excited to uh groundbreak for this project on Friday May 1st at 1 p.m.

to 3 p.m.

at 805 Oak Park Drive, um, just behind the county rest home there.

Um we're super grateful to our partners at Gallaton County, HRDC, and the United Housing Partners for all their hard work.

Last thing I think is a win for the environment, for sure.

Uh this change order on the uh agenda tonight, you'll see on the consent agenda is the last piece that we need to complete the Riverside Lift Station, which takes those 140 homes off of a failing system that is leaching nutrients straight into the East Gallatin there.

And we were able to through an incredible gentleman who has since passed the Gene Gaines, uh, really rallied that neighborhood uh into a cohesive group that understood the needs and partnered with the City of Bozeman to annex and get this Lyft station built.

So it's a million dollars under budget, which is pretty amazing.

And we're about to turn that switch on.

The last piece that we needed to, uh the transfer switch on the emergency generator is here and will be installed.

Um super grateful and welcome to the new neighbors out at Riverside Country Club.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Manager.

Um from FYI to disclosures.

Are there any disclosures from anyone on the commission related items this evening?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh moving on to consent.

Is that the one item you wanted to highlight?

Thank you very much.

We will move on then to public comment on consent.

Um so this is just public comments related to our consent items.

Um, anyone in the room that wishes to give public comment, this will be true for a consent as well as all the rest.

You'll have three minutes.

Um it will start out green, go to yellow when you've got a minute and then red and it'll beep telling you you've run out of time.

And if you could just tell us uh your first and last name and your relationship to the city and why you're giving us a public comment this evening.

Good evening we're gonna get you also a portable microphone.

This is what happens when we let the IT folks in here before the meeting starts.

Sorry, as a as an IT person, I resemble that remark.

So thank you, Commissioners, Deputy Mayor Fisher, Mayor Morrison, for the opportunity to comment on the consent agenda, specifically the findings of fact uh regarding appeal 25769.

Um I'm here today to ask you to um set aside.

Could you uh remind us who you are?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I uh fracked bystead, I started to do that.

Um my name is Jeff Poole, and I'm a resident of South Bozeman.

Um I'm here today to ask you to reject the findings of fact in their current form and continue this item just to your next meeting so that you can fully consider the comments that I submitted um either this morning or this afternoon, I'm not sure.

Um with my co-appellants, Tim and Nancy Swanson.

Um as I read through the proposed findings of fact, I'm not surprised that they contained assertions that I, as an appellant don't believe are factual.

These are points of disagreement, and you have ruled that the staff's assertions are more factual than my own, and I accept that ruling.

However, the long exchanges I've had with staff and with you over the past four years have not been fruitless.

We did reach consensus on two important facts.

First, the applicable standard of review is uh first the applicable standard of review is the United Unified Development Code in effect on October 25th, 2025.

Second, the PUD's development guidelines contained uh contained in the covenants should be enforced.

Regarding these two points, I find that the assertions and the finding of fact are correct when they're considered individually and as far as they go.

However, taken together, the discrepancies uh the description of the requirements of the Unified Development Code and the PUD's development guidelines in the findings of fact omit seven clear and relevant requirements found in the UDC and the development guidelines.

The omitted requirements can be found in the two-page appendix appendices attached to my comments, some are submitted today.

Given that there is broad consensus on the relevance of the October 25th 2025 UDC and the PUD development guidelines, I believe the interests of the Commission as a body and the city of Bozeman as a community are best served when the findings of fact in your consent agenda are weighed against the requirements contained in the UDC and the development guidelines.

In light of the discrepancies, I'm asking that you remove the approval of the findings of PAC from your contents consent agenda and continue that item to the next meeting.

This would allow you each as independent jurists to take some time to review the omitted provisions that we've called out.

As you know, the commission is the final arbiter of the building standards in the city.

When reviewing the findings of fact, we ask that you take the time needed to ensure that all the requirements of the AFCL UDC and the PUD's development guidelines are accurately per portrayed in your findings.

Thanks for your kind attention to our concerns.

Thank you.

Any further requests for public comment in the room on consent this evening?

Second request on consent and one final request for consent.

I'm showing no requests, Mayor.

Okay.

Um seeing no further comment requests, uh, we'll bring this up here for a motion and vote.

Um Commissioner Magic, would you be able to help us out with consent one and consent two?

Just to we'll do them as separate items.

If I may just the point of order, if in order to even discuss a consent item, we need to one of us needs to pull it.

Is that right?

I I think we can opine on general discussion on any of it.

Yeah.

Is that would you like to?

That's fine.

Okay.

Um so I'm gonna start with consent items one through six and a motion to support.

Oh.

Second.

Yes.

Okay.

Any discussion on consent one?

Okay.

Seeing none, Mr.

Moss, would you pull the commission?

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Bode.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Consent one is approved five to zero.

Now consent two.

I move to support consent two.

Second.

Well, yeah, second.

So it's been moved, it's been seconded.

Is there any discussion on consent item?

I would like Greg or City Attorney to weigh in, please.

Based on public comment.

So late this afternoon, I recognize Mr.

Poole has sent a letter.

I real quickly read it, but I haven't had a chance to like dive into what he's actually asking.

So the decision on that appeal has already been made.

This document is intended simply to memorialize the process that the Commission went through and the decision that was made at the end of March.

It's not intended to relitigate anything to give you an opportunity to make additional findings that already occurred back at the end of March.

What we do when we put these together is simply give something for your determination that is a written memorialization of already what you had already done.

So this is your document, right?

That will memorialize your decision.

It is up to you guys to determine whether it adequately does that.

You can see in there that there's findings that you made that were embedded in the motion, such as adopt the staff findings.

There's we went back through the record and determined where a majority of you had said something, then we would memorialize that in language in this document.

If we didn't see the majority of you having made a finding, certainly individual commissioners can do that, and that is already part of the record, but where a majority of you had coalesced around a finding, that was memorialized in this document.

So if you want to take a pause on this, certainly can because this is your document that memorializes your decision.

I would just ask that you give us the chance to review the legal necessity to add additional items that are being requested and also the implications of doing so.

So I think that's what I would offer.

Thank you.

Yeah, Deputy Mayor.

Is there any um well it's just from my perspective?

I understand that that put the Mr.

Poole's comment came after our deadline, our noon cutoff.

And so I I just haven't had a chance to see it.

I don't know if anyone else did.

I'm wondering, is there a is there a reason why we have to vote for this today?

Would there be any any um any harm or problem with putting this off a week to give us a chance to just look at it?

So we were attempting to get this findings document to you within a month.

If a party is interested in seeking judicial review, their timeline will start at the point their timeline for doing that will start at the time that this written document is approved by you.

Yeah, Commissioner Smeeney.

Would be in favor of polling this today.

Umce I didn't get to read Mr.

Poole's comment.

Um I'm not interested in in religigating.

I understand that you know we made a decision.

What I'm concerned about is that I did not go back and read the staff findings in the staff report to see if they include what Mr.

Poole has raised.

If they do, you know, that the 2025 UDC is the um code of of record or a code of review, and that the um development guidelines need to be applied, then I would be fine adopting this.

But I haven't had the time to do that, and so it makes me feel uneasy.

So mayor, can I offer a suggestion?

So the law in place at the time an application receives adequacy is the law that controls the application.

So there was an issue that was that arose throughout the course of this about whether the city was required to apply the UDC as it was in effect at the time that PUD was approved, way back in the 90s, versus applying the UDC as it existed.

The commission made that finding with the first application that was in your finding document with the first application.

So that was what the staff did was apply the law in place at the time the current application received adequacy.

So that is just not not something that has to be embedded in the findings because that's what the law requires.

Then the commission also made a finding with the first application that the staff needed to look at the design guidelines.

So then if you remember back during the hearing, one of the first things that the director of community development said was this we did.

We went back and looked at it, and there was a complete evaluation of whether the application complied with the design guidelines.

Commission said yes.

Can I just ask if if this is delayed a week, will it delay the applicants from continuing on with their application?

Um I don't think so because that's already been decided.

So I don't know where they are in the status of have they done anything more.

I have not heard that they were interested in moving forward with uh getting the preliminary or to final site plan.

I I don't know.

Yeah, I I think like hearing that it wouldn't delay the applicant from continuing on with their plans.

I I feel a little bit less heartburn.

I I think generally speaking, we we have those noon deadlines for a reason.

And I I don't want um one commenter's um timeline from when they decided to submit that to impact another resident um given our established process.

But but it sounds like delaying a week won't impact um the applicant, the the other you know, party in in this appeal.

Um so I I would be comfortable delaying it, um, but don't anticipate it changing my mind.

Yeah.

Commissioner Magic.

I feel comfortable approving this tonight.

The hearing we had is a record of our findings as well.

Um both hearings.

So um I'm I'm feeling in a comfortable spot to approve this tonight.

I think I would uh I would resonate with with that.

Um I feel I I reviewed these the findings of facts um right before we met yesterday during LPT, didn't have any concerns to bring up then.

Um they are there's eight points.

None of them feel counterfactual to anything that that the majority discussed um during that meeting.

Um understanding that um the the appellants may and probably should think otherwise of the findings of fact that we've decided.

So just uh wanting to say at the end of the day, this is not necessarily gonna be a document that that pleases everyone, um every party involved, and I've I feel more than comfortable approving it as it is tonight.

I mean, you know, I would say I I I think it it perfectly captures what happened, and I I think that I support the findings.

I just I part of me would like to have a chance, is especially if there's no real harm in uh in in delaying week, just to to read the the the comment and and and consider that and just give it consideration.

Um but I don't anticip I don't anticipate my my vote changing because I think that the the document itself is is accurate.

Um but I I'm inclined to say if if it if it's if it's a harmless thing to hold this for a week, let's let's just take a look at uh the comment because it's it's it's uh it's it's from one of the parties involved and um and then have this vote tomorrow, uh unless it's unless you see a problem with that.

Um the only thing I would suggest is if you want to wait.

You certainly can wait.

Um I read that comment.

I'll read it again.

If there's anything that changes my mind, I'll let you know.

Um we're just gonna move it on to next week's consent.

And if you guys have any questions, feel free to reach out in the next few days.

It does need to get published Thursday.

Right.

So just for that, right?

Other unless I see something, it will just be the same item next week.

Okay.

We will be given Mr.

Poole's comment, though, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is that the majority will um I'll I'll be absent next week, and so I just feel like me desiring to delay actually has no, I wouldn't actually be able to make a ruling based on what um Mr.

Poole's comment has to say.

So um I I think I would abstain, I guess, um, from the determination of either either or I I think given all this, I I would feel comfortable voting today.

Um and also if if it's a strong will of um Deputy Mayor Fisher and Commissioner Sweeney, then um that's that's their uh opportunity to to do it next week, but I I won't be able to participate.

Okay.

Then it sounds like with this isn't something that we need to make a mess over.

It sounds like there's the will to continue it to next week.

Do we even need to make a motion to continue?

Is there a motion on the there's a motion on the floor right now?

So you would just move to continue that great next week.

Motion uh can to um move consent item two regarding the adopting the findings for send and springs to next week's meeting.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Okay.

Our findings of fact and order on that appeal are continued to May 5th, 2026.

Um moving on to uh public comment on non-agenda items.

Um so same as public comment before, you'll have three minutes.

Um introduce yourself first and last name and your relationship to the city.

Um, we'll open it up for public comment now.

Good evening.

Um, Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident.

Um, I'm a member of the economic vitality board, but not speaking on that behalf.

Um I wasn't planning on talking about interim zoning, but since it came up to now, I'll just say a few comments.

Um, first of all, thank you guys for sharing your thoughts.

Part of the request for the public discussion was for the public to hear your thoughts and be able to respond to them.

Um, but it's unfortunate that um this wasn't noticed, and so people didn't get to hear it now, and we'll have to watch the recording.

So it would have been great if we could just put it as agenda so people knew that they could hear your thoughts and have a proper discussion.

But um, thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Um I want to spend the rest of my time uh speaking as a member of the Teamsters Union and the president of the Galton Park Central Labor Council.

Um I just want to shout out my fellow teamsters who are at the city who will be starting their negotiations tomorrow with the city for their new contract.

Um I have Teamster siblings and water reclamation, water treatment, water and sewer, vehicle maintenance, sign and signals, streets, solid waste, parks, and forestry.

Um these workers keep our city running, including clearing our streets, picking up our garbage, keeping our elect uh emergency response vehicles running, treating our water, and maintaining a vast amount of park space and boulevard treats.

Um I guess I'll thank Director Ross for highlighting some of that expansive work that he oversees in a presentation a few weeks ago.

Um I look forward to the city negotiating good faith with my fellow teamsters and coming up with a fair agreement to help retain this valuable work first that helps keep our residents safe and Bozeman livable.

Um also wanted to invite you all to an upcoming presentation hosted by the Gallatin Park Central Labor Council that will feature Bridge Arstead, uh state archivist for the Montana Historical Society.

He'll be giving a presentation about some of Montana's labor history.

It'll be um Monday, May 11, 530 p.m.

at the Gallatin Labor Temple.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh good evening to the commissioners and thank you for taking comments.

My name is Aidan Rasmussen, and I'm here as a representative of Bozeman DSA's housing working group, which has been encouraging the city to explore alternative development solutions that may address the affordability crisis for renters in Gallatin Valley.

Our research and connections to chapters across the nation continue to affirm that social housing is a worthy public investment.

If cities can use revenue bonds to build a new wastewater treatment plant, for example, why can't we do the same to build or preserve affordable housing?

We urge the city commission and staff to investigate further by consulting the bond council, which we know Alison Sweeney has expressed interest in doing, and see how the use of revenue bonds could be used to start a revolving fund to develop and sustain a social housing program.

According to the city's own economic and market update report, the vacancy rate for units built in 2024 and 2025 is 44.2%, a jarring number compared to 9.2% for 20 pre-2024 units.

A healthy vacancy rate is between five and eight percent.

The inflating vacancy rate for recent developments indicates to us a surplus of luxury and otherwise unaffordable units where there is dire need for market shield solutions.

Social housing has the potential to directly address how Bozeman develops in ways that promote smart infrastructural planning that is both convenient for residents and aligns with city goals, boost activation of shared green spaces such as community gardens, parks, and trails, encourage prevailing wage in the housing trades and support union businesses, foster a community of neighborhoods across social economic statuses, and continue funding for future units, repairs, and other public work projects.

We, as the housing working group, have created a letter of support for the commission to seek bond council and seriously consider how funding social housing can uh serve Bozeman as a public good.

With 190 signatures in counting, we as the Democratic Socialists believe that housing is a human right, and so do the community members who signed.

We urge you to seek bond council and fund social housing in our community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi, I'm Anthony Smith.

And you can reach me at 406-209-0350.

Tonight I want to address the widening gap between the concept of justice and the reality of injustice in our city.

Recently, during court testimony, the facts began to service regarding the treatment I have faced since I first stood before this commission to speak out against police brutality.

I came here in good faith to ask the city manager, the city attorney, and this body to implement policy changes so the violence our community witnessed in 2023 and 2024 would not follow us into 2025 and 2026.

Despite the significant tax bearer funds allocated to city leadership, the primary result I have seen is what appears to be a pattern of retribution.

This includes an arrest for driving where it was alleged I was under the influence, yet my toxicology report came back completely clean of any substances.

While some may argue this isn't targeted retribution, it demonstrates that our system of justice is failing when law enforcement relies on unfound allegations because they cannot find constructive solutions to local issues, the entire community loses.

Nowhere is this failure more evident than in the 27-hour standoff on 20th and cotch that occurred late in 2025 2024.

I saw the second person killed by police in 2024 die in an apartment filled with tear gas.

We are still waiting for a transparent coroner's inquest.

I have submitted 25 specific questions for that inquest.

If they are answered, we will finally have the truth.

If they are ignored, it will simply be another case of the department grading itself and A plus while the public is left in the dark.

To put our current situation into perspective, with two killings in a population of 55,000, our rate of police involved fatalities is staggering.

For a city like Chicago to match the rate we saw in 2024 in Bozeman, they would have had to kill nearly a hundred people instead of the six people who died at their hands.

This is not just a reflection of the police.

It is a reflection of a justice system that is failing to protect its citizens.

When people feel that justice is unavailable through policy and dialogue, they are forced to seek it through the courts.

Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits are beginning.

If you are unwilling to or unable to change these policies yourself, then at the very least, do not interfere with those who are working to find justice.

Stand aside and let the process of accountability work.

We all want to live in a community that truly reflects the last best place.

But this requires peace, safety, and above all, actual justice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I wasn't prepared to speak tonight, but I thought I would make note of a statement made earlier.

In highlighting the fact that a traffic casualty is what resulted in swift action by the Commission to act in ordinance to public safety, I posed the question that I find myself frustrated by in government today.

Why must we wait to respond, even if swiftly to casualties or time-sensitive concerns rather than take proactive measures to prevent these issues when they are pointed out by a concerned public?

I bring this up as someone who has voiced concern with the ongoing development of our city, and as someone who has heard from a wide variety of residents on the matter of improper growth and management of our development.

So swiftly recognized as a casualty.

But if we are talking about spending our city commission and staff's time and resources productively, I would argue that proactivity now saves time later later, while reactivity consumes time in the present.

Trying to address issues already happening.

Whether it be zoning or permit approval or choosing to invest in housing as a public good, I hope you see the worth in proactivity when it is available rather than continuing patterns that have exhausted a jaded voting populace.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mary Bateson.

I wasn't gonna speak about this, but you know, usually when I want to speak to you, I inspect what you've said, I write letters to you, et cetera, et cetera.

This is not that.

I just heard a qu uh one little phrase tonight from Emma Bode, and that was what's wrong with the NCOD.

And it was, of course, in the middle of a long discussion, which was quite articulate.

And what popped into my head was uh, well, the problem is that it's not enforced.

So and then uh the discussion about the interim zoning.

Uh very many of you spoke about the importance that there is a level of threat to health, safety, and general welfare that must be uh proven.

And I would want you to think about this, that there is a threat to the general welfare of people living in the shadow of new very large buildings out their front front porch that affects their welfare in a very immediate and destructive way.

Please keep that in mind.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I hope I can talk to you again tonight about the priorities.

Good evening.

Uh Daniel Cardi, Bozeman resident.

First thing I want to do is support DSA's call for social housing.

I appreciate appreciate them coming tonight and making public comment.

Second, interestingly, and I apologize, Alison.

I'm gonna do that right up front.

Um, this commission, Allison excluded, has just had a one-sided lecture, denying the public a public hearing on an interim zoning ordinance.

This is an interesting way of denying the public its Montana constitutional right of participation on this issue.

And this is not engaging meaningfully with the community.

So you're already failing at one of your uh commission priorities.

All that said, it doesn't take an IZO for the public to advocate for reducing building heights in B3 from ninety feet by right to sixty feet, which is what is the maximum allowed in BC3.

So as a member of the public, I will continue to advocate for a reduction in building height in B3.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um Isaac Buttery.

I'm a Bozeman resident and uh student at NSU.

And um this recent winter uh prompted me to kind of do some independent research on um on snowpack and water.

And um one of the key things that I learned was that within um the next 35 to 60 years, winters like the one we just had, as well as winters with zero snowpack will become the new reality for um for towns in the mountain west like Bozeman.

And um at this stage of the game, it is um critical that we focus on adaptation to uh rapidly decreasing water supply and increasing water demand.

Um here in Bozeman, 80% of our water supply comes from snow melt from the Gallatin range and in particular highlight reservoir.

Um like many towns across um the Western US, um the winter snowpack directly affects the water availability in the summer, especially September and August and September.

Um we feel this as a town that uh where outdoor recreation is part of um kind of why a lot of people live here, but as well through um water availability.

And so I'm asking that that water use should be made more efficient through more stringent plumbing and um and like lawn watering policies, which should be backed by heavy funds as penalty-based uh drought management policies have been shown to be the most effective um throughout many other towns across um the U.S.

And so I'm asking that when considering policies that come up concerning drought management and water conservation, you consider the urgent timeline and policies that other municipalities have found successful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further comments in the room?

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Autumn Michaels.

I'm a resident here, Bozeman Montana.

And um I know we have a lot of different priorities to go over today, but I just wanted to reiterate very shortly and very clearly the ask that the DSA has right now.

The our social housing campaign has been going on for five years, a very, very long time.

And so looking back retrospectively, we want to take really small incremental steps to make sure that we are working with the commission in a way that we can make this accomplishable.

Um specifically, we are asking for the bond um that the commission consults the bond council to see if revenue bonds can be used for social housing.

If you're talking about wanting to engage with the public, we have over 200 signatures signing on from people in Bozeman that have said that they wanted this discussion to happen.

It's not even necessary action, it's just um a discussion itself on the issue.

Um further, we um are pushing for inquiry of how much money we have in these bonds so that we as members in the community can engage more clearly in the social housing conversation and how this can um financially be feasible through revenue bonds.

And yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any further requests for public comment in the room this evening?

Second request for comment in the room.

And again, to reiterate there will be comments associated with our action item as well.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

First up, we have Emily Tolego.

Good evening.

Good evening, Emily Toledo Bozeman Resident.

Uh, thanks for letting me join you remotely tonight.

I wish I could be there with you, but I cannot.

Um I'm actually commenting in reaction to what I just heard earlier this evening, and I agree with um Riley Dunn, who just um gave you some comment about being proactive.

Um Mayor Morrison, you cited a recent pedestrian fatality and the mobilization around traffic safety as an example of what is urgent.

And I'm certainly not going to minimize that, but I am going to challenge your definition of urgency.

I have spoken ad nauseum to this body about the unintended consequences of dysfunctional land use policy.

Policy that chases urbanization ideologies without the budget, the experience, or the expertise required to actually manage high density.

So I'll I'll ask plainly.

Uh is it healthy for trash bins to overflow?

Is it safe when there's nowhere left to put the snow when years meaning we have it?

Is it welfare when one by one contributing residents pack up and leave because they simply had enough?

Those are not abstract impacts.

That is the lived environment you are creating.

And when the optics of this organization make it so easy to dismiss those impacts to long-time residents, why would we be surprised when individuals start doing the same?

Why would we expect drivers or anyone to consider how their actions affect others when the governing body models that those impacts are secondary?

When you reduce constituents to data points, in pursuit of a nebulous ideology, you set a tone of acceptability that it's fine not to consider how your decisions affect the people living with them.

Land use decisions are not theoretical.

They're cumulative and they're felt every single day.

It takes a really strong stomach to look someone in the eye and own that a decision you made might hurt them, but that is the responsibility of this body to make findings to defend your position and to acknowledge the real impacts of your decisions.

You owe people that honesty.

Right now, that impact is happening, and you really all need to talk about it.

This organ this group is it has been so long since we have seen deliberative discussion of growing amongst this body.

Um and I just have to say I'm really disappointed by it.

So I hope that you are willing to have the discussion.

It seems like you've got some wiggle room in your agenda.

Um you've had some light loads the last couple weeks.

Um but I really encourage you to to drill down into this and um and to have the conversation.

Please.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any more public comment requests online?

I'm showing no additional requests, Mark.

Okay.

Seeing no further public comment requests on our non-agenda items.

Um we will bring it up here for our one work session this evening, a work session to dive into some high-level considerations and guidance for our city manager on our joint city manager priority, joint city manager work plan and city commission priorities.

Mr.

City Manager.

I'm gonna try something different tonight and uh try to do this from here.

Mike, can you hit the escape key?

Thank you very much.

Um we've never done this before, at least in my 41 years here, we've had a conversation like this with the commission and the community in the at this level of depth.

I think um last time um some of you were here, some of you weren't.

The city commission priorities were reduced to nine bullet items on a piece of paper, and uh staff was to interpret that and get the business of the commission done.

And I think we've made some really important uh changes in that process in the last couple of years.

This effort uh included in your commission package tonight is not intended to be a comprehensive review or description of all of the work this city does.

It is far too complex across our 550 employees, 60,000 residents, uh 230 million dollar budget that would be uh impossible to capture, and I don't think that's the intent of the city commission priorities as we have discussed.

So we're trying to uh bring that together tonight and uh create a document, get your fingerprints on this document as you determine the policy for the city of Bozeman and direct me as your city manager to carry out that policy through the resources that you approve in the budget, and also uh our staff and uh our workforce so where we are tonight is uh we have taken you adopted a set of uh city commission priorities, and I have presented and discussed with the staff and with you in uh a city manager work plan.

Tonight we attempt to put those things together into the city commission priorities work plan.

And these are things specifically that um we uh want you to consider supporting uh in terms of your staff to complement and to achieve your city commission priorities.

So these are like enabling initiatives to accomplish the work uh to accomplish those priorities in your uh adopted priorities.

So what it is and what it isn't, um, this document tonight uh includes high-level strategic summaries.

Uh they are not detailed step-by-step lists or descriptions of all of the work that we do.

It does not include, as I mentioned earlier, the work done day by day with city staff.

Um these initiatives are the core elements in my city manager's work plan that directly advance your priorities.

So if I didn't feel, and this is why we're having a conversation tonight, that that work directly supports one of your priorities.

That's the work that the your staff will continue to do, but it's not included in the document tonight.

So what you decide will inform the budget that we are putting together now.

So a budget is um really the value of the work that you want to see done.

And um we'll continue that development as we bring the city's recommended budget to you over three meetings in June.

So, as a reminder, your four commit your four commission priorities is adopted or to advance Bozeman as a safe and welcoming place for all, engage meaningfully with the community, bridge the affordability gap, and protect Bozeman's heritage, neighborhoods, and natural resources.

Those are uh lofty, aspirational, but they are specific.

And the work that uh we propose to do, or the work that you have asked us to do or funded us to do through previous budgets and this upcoming budget all support those priorities.

So let's take each one of those four priorities and I'll talk briefly about the work that uh is in this document that supports that.

We a number of these initiatives could have lived in different places.

So if it's um we picked one, I picked one that that I thought made sense, but you can certainly uh we can certainly have a conversation about that.

So under advanced boseman is a safe and welcoming place.

We have the fire staffing issue, we have the police staffing issue, we have the EMS transport services, and I can talk about each one of these specifically.

I'll um leave that up to you how the commission wants to.

A coordinated response with the mental health and crisis stabilization.

Um we have some pretty exciting work going on in that.

The belonging and Bozeman initiative and endeavor, and then continued implementation of safe streets for everyone.

Under the engage meaningfully with the community, we have the consensus program.

We have the review of city advisory boards, we have enhance our partnership with Montana State University, we have telling our story, we have the strategic plan update.

Admittedly, that one's a little foggy to me.

I think we need a lot more conversation with the commission on that, but it is on there, and then we have um develop a citizen's academy, which is an ongoing effort, we're pretty excited about.

Um title for an enormous amount of work that the city has been doing and plans to do.

Uh, we have the implement the tenants right to council program or a um eviction prevention program.

Uh revise the affordable housing ordinance.

Uh we have review of the development review process, review the review.

I think it's um a really worthwhile and and that's ongoing as well.

We have the living wage initiatives.

Part of how you address affordability is you uh support high-paying jobs or living wage jobs, and then we have the child care initiatives, some of which the commission has heard earlier from staff.

Your last priorities to protect Bozeman's heritage, neighborhoods, and the natural environment.

So we have the ongoing work with the landmark, historic preservation, and the NCOD projects.

We have the urban forest management plan and the implementation of that plan.

We have parks, recreation, and active transportation plan, that's the Pratt plan.

We have the integrate integrate.

Commissioner Magic will point that out to me.

I missed the D.

Integrated water resources plan update.

I apologize for that.

We have the ongoing green power uh program.

We have UDC and zone map revisions, and we have the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan.

So that's a general description of what's in this document.

I am not here to tell the commission anything, but to uh answer questions, have a discussion, and if you have any direction for me, uh I'll take that down tonight.

Uh, if based on all that, we'll bring the this document for or toward to you in a um upcoming meeting for your formal adoption.

And I'm happy to take this wherever the commission desires, Mayor.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so where we'll go next.

Uh what I think is really our opportunity to get into together tonight is the sticky items that we want to make sure we're providing specific timelines, guidance vision that we have for specific pieces here to make tweaks, changes that we um think that this that the city manager um took our guidance and and we want to alter it in in some way, um, and to open it up for a conversation between each of us on how we might think that these uh we want to see these realized.

Um again, wanting to reiterate, you know, we're not getting into necessarily you know the translation of these into into work plans and policies.

This is gonna remain pretty high level.

Um but consequently, we could be here for a long time.

Maybe we won't.

It's hard to say.

I'm not sure where everybody's at.

Um but I I think what for the for the start as we go through with questions before we turn over to public comment is just clarifying questions from our city manager.

If I could add one sorry, please mayor.

If I could add one more comment, um we received a public comment about animal control.

Why isn't animal control in this document?

This is not that kind of document.

Animal control is important, it is ongoing work that the city does.

If we got that, if we got down to that level of effort, this would be a thousand pages.

And I'm not sure how much we will certainly talk about animal control or any other thing that the commission wants to talk about, but again, that should maybe not be in this level of conversation.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Deputy Mayor.

So believe it or not.

Well, first of all, I just appreciate the work that went into this.

This is a real I think this is a good foundation for us to start our discussion on.

I don't have any clarifying questions for the city manager.

I'm looking forward to hearing from the public and then getting really into a discussion among the five of us.

So I'll pass the mic.

Understood.

Commissioner Sweeney, any questions or clarifications from our city manager.

And this isn't the last.

I didn't organize my notes in that fashion.

So I'm going to pass for now.

Okay.

Commissioner Bodie.

Tried to turn on the wrong mic here.

It's like when I have the two phones out, you know.

Yeah, I've got a couple uh scattered questions, and maybe it would make more sense to put them in in the sections that they are, but I can also just kind of go down the list.

There's only a few of them.

Okay.

I I think however you want to organize it.

Um when reading through the fire staffing section, I was just curious about there's three options listed.

Um absorb six of the firefighters into our general budget and let six of them go, absorb six of or pay for six of them through a levy and let six of them go, or put forward a staffing and bond levy for 24 firefighters and and a fire station.

And I'm just curious about um why there's not something kind of in the middle.

There's 12 firefighters that are on this um grant that we have that we know is approaching a funding cliff.

So I was just curious to kind of get some more information about why there's not a suggestion to keep all 12 firefighters either through a levy or through absorbing them through our general fund.

And um to kind of follow up to that, I'm wondering if we only need six given the number of fire stations we have.

And you know, we don't need to keep all 12 if we don't get another fire station.

Um I'll stop there.

Let you diag in.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner.

Uh these these hire these firefighters um were hired under the safer grant that we received, as the commission knows, uh, in anticipation of opening uh fire station number four.

We put that question before the voters.

Uh the timing of this, we had to make a decision uh whether to do this or not.

And I made a decision to apply for the grant.

We were awarded it, the bond for the fire station construction failed, and the stat and the levy for the staffing failed.

So we um through this, we knew that uh it was a commission priority and in our work plan to um stand up a quick response unit.

And that is two firefighters in a um in a um uh uh a smaller vehicle that responded to medical emergencies and um would um be quicker, more nimble, and replace a full fire engine or a ladder truck responding to medical calls.

So we um six of those firefighters are to staff that QRU.

The other firefighters, I don't want to call them extra.

Could you ever have too many firefighters?

But they are not needed for minimum staffing of our existing fire stations, the three fire stations we have.

So unless we did some serious cuts in other general funded areas of the operations, we would not have enough to keep those firefighters on.

So when I say in there, it says make room, find money for the six, that would be for the QRU.

Now we've also talked about um one of the options on here is to go back to the voters in next year, 2027, November, and ask them again for a fire station construction bond and a staffing levy that would cover the cost of those six QRU firefighters and six of those firefighters for staffing a new station for the okay, thanks.

That's really helpful.

Um I next have a couple questions in the police staffing section.

I am curious, um kind of the the strategy around hiring five officers per year.

Um I know this was I think the same strategy that was put forward in the levy that failed when we when we gave it to the voters.

And I'm just interested in kind of reimagining how we could approach our public safety needs.

And I'm curious if some of the things that officers do maybe don't need to be done by a sworn officer, and if there could be a strategy to bulk up neighborhood services or code enforcement, for example, rather than um you know, sworn sworn officers.

So our police department right now is focused on on crime.

Um if it's not a crime, then our neighborhood services does that already.

So our police officers are focused on traffic control and focus on investigations or focused on proactive patrolling.

So we have been able to add civilian positions to our police department that have taken um significant workload off of those sworn officers.

So we're already doing that, and we are able to now through neighborhood services address those um quality of life issues and other safety issues that are not law enforcement.

So I believe that's happening right now already.

Okay, thanks.

Um I also wanted to follow up about um a impact fee for police.

That's kind of the only major bin of impact fees um kind of enumerated by the state that we don't have in Bozeman.

And I am curious if there is staff capacity to address that within this kind of two-year commission priority setting, and if we could kind of add that as a bullet point, um, recognizing, of course, it's like the the will of this commission, but um uh in this question period.

I'm just curious if you could highlight for us any um conflicts that may come up with us trying to uh pursue that type of impact fee um staff capacity wise or legality-wise, etc.

Sure.

Thank you for the question.

It would be um we are allowed to do law enforcement um impact fees.

Uh they are um we cannot use them for operations.

We cannot use them for ongoing maintenance.

We cannot use them to cure an existing deficiency.

So the things that we could consider after in a full study, an impact fee study, which is about a $50,000 effort.

Uh, what we could do is uh um bring forward to the commission a police impact fee proposal that would um be uh and now would be a good time to do it because we do really don't have any um capital existing deficiencies in the police department with the construction of the safety center.

Um we are in a pretty good spot.

Our next big thing would be some sort of um substation in the western side of town, but we would consider doing that um with the construction of a fire station or another another municipal facility out there.

Uh impact fees could not be used for cars, so they have to be used for um capital items that have a lifespan of 10 years or more.

And we do not get 10 years out of even our best maintained um patrol vehicles.

So we couldn't use them for cars, that's a significant, we couldn't use them.

Um most of the capital items of a police department um uh have a less than a 10-year lifespan.

So it would be we could do this.

Uh it would be uh used for, we'd probably bank it and use it for some capital uh projects for the police department in a future year.

Thanks.

And just you know, for the the context of the question for my colleagues, um the intent of that question was not to use impact fees to pay for um you know staffing.

It's more that this is all coming from the same pie, the general fund.

And if there's ways in which we can decrease the pressure on the general fund, it may make it more possible for us to um meet these needs without having to go to the voters for for a levy.

It's kind of the yeah, the context.

Okay, my last question is about the um citizens academy.

I am just curious where this idea came from, given that it's not something that this commission has talked about, and I've seen that in your work plan.

Um, and I don't ask this to say that I dislike the idea or think it's a bad one, um, but just in the context of all of the different ways in which we can be um communicating better with and engaging our our residents in a more effective way.

Like where did the idea come from?

Why why is this a good use of our time?

Is this kind of a question?

Yeah, we're pretty excited about this effort.

So we have uh it was born from our success in the uh police citizens academy and the fire citizens academy, which are um ongoing initiatives in the fire department and the the police department.

Other cities uh in America in our country, and one other city in Montana does this, and it is I think a very low drag uh low cost uh way to um discuss things that with the community to share our challenges to collect ideas and just build um a level of knowledge in our constituency that doesn't happen any other way.

So it it's very intentional.

It might have like six or eight sessions in the evenings uh perhaps, maybe a day session, but it would cover the major functions of the local government in a very uh collaborative and um interesting kind of way where the the staff is really um uh surprisingly interested in this in in this idea, and we've had several conversations.

So it wouldn't require any budget, uh any new budget.

Uh it just would require some effort on primarily uh behalf on uh from the director team and uh we have the rooms, perhaps a few snacks and just uh have really interesting conversations with interested members of our public.

Thanks for that.

And just just to follow up, have you um seen any indication of of interest from you know our our citizenry?

I mean, I I can imagine like that we might want some of the very folks in this room, for example, to go through this um citizens academy, and I I just wonder if they are expressing any interest in this or have been asked if it's something that they want.

Um we haven't had anybody line up our door ready to apply, but we haven't advertised it yet.

The police and fire department citizens academies are enormously popular, and that's where we uh would model this new program from.

Okay, thanks.

Those are all my questions.

I'll pass it on.

Yeah, Commissioner Manchester.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um City Manager, just one follow-up question.

Um to understand how the safer grants work.

Uh you're saying that the safer funding ends March 2028.

Is that the current grant without an opportunity to apply for another safer grant?

Or what's what's going on there?

The city's the city's made many applications, and we've been granted the safer grant twice since I have been here.

So it's not an ongoing grant.

It has a beginning and a defined end, and it covers a hundred a hundred percent of the firefighters' salary uh salaries and other uh gear for that three-year period, and then it ends.

And there's an opportunity to apply again for the grant.

Not for those same 12 firefighters.

We maybe could get it for another 12 firefighters.

It is it's to hire new firefighters, it's not to pay for existing firefighters.

So it's uh kind of a way for a community to get a kickstart with new staffing, and then you've got to fill in or uh find budgeting to if you want to keep those folks on.

Yes, that's correct.

And we were uh anticipating uh or hoping for a successful um vote on the fire staffing levy.

Okay.

Okay, that's all for now.

Okay.

Um I think I only have you started, right?

Um I think I only have a couple questions.

One is just on our uh to follow up on Commissioner Bodie's question that I if if you had said this, I might have missed it.

When is our opportunity to add a police impact fee to that study?

When's the next time we're gonna have an impact fee study?

Um we uh if the commission was interested, we we would do a uh a separate fire.

I'm sorry, a separate police impact fee study.

Yeah, and I think the timing is good.

As I said, we've addressed our deficiencies, many of the expensive ones with the voters' approval of the public safety center, so we're in a good spot to do that now.

Okay, thanks.

And then the the only other um specific one for from me before um opening up for public comment is uh the belonging and Bozeman plan has or belonging and Bozeman subpriority has in partnership with the school district, which uh seems really exciting.

It seems like a good opportunity, but I've not it's the first time seeing that, and just curious what the background is if that's already a partnership that's being cultivated.

Yeah, we have an amazing relationship with our school district, amazing.

And um we see it, we seek out, we look for, we talk quite often about opportunities where we can work together, and we see a real synergy between uh some of the elements of the belonging in Bozeman plan and the ability to work with the school district to um work with those um more vulnerable populations in a more proactive way.

It's pretty exciting.

Um I think it's exciting work, and we're looking forward to continuing and even strengthening that already strong relationship.

Great.

That is all my questions.

Yeah, Commissioner Smeedy.

Uh thank you.

I just have one question um sort of tangentially related to stuff.

Um the nationwide community survey is out right now, and I did complete the survey and noticed there was a question about um asking the public if they would agree to fund a levy for a new fire station.

When do we get the results of that survey?

Because that could potentially help inform our strategy.

Yeah, we this this summer will um we'll have the uh the uh uh company part of our contract with the National Citizen Surveys to have them come and present the results.

I think remember probably that from two years ago, and that will that will happen this summer.

We don't have an exact day yet.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Can I address a please some of the public comment?

So um Commissioner Sweeney has brought this up, as have other commissioners this idea of a uh revenue bond or a GO bond and our the city's kind of exploration and uh um to see if that could meanful impact meaningfully impact our housing program.

We uh have with the mayor a very preliminary uh conversation meeting set up to talk about this rather than have our bond counsel, who's an attorney, uh, come and just take questions.

Um that's not fair to him.

He needs to know more about what the city would be asking for to prepare.

These are very detailed uh conversations and legal um requirements for bond issues and for operating levies, and we are having those conversations right now, and that's part of the ongoing work in the housing program is to provide the commission with um options, and uh our staff is looking for new ideas and is doing some amazing work across the housing continuum from emergency shelter to uh what the Fowler idea is that we have um affordable uh for purchase units, housing units of all different types in a new neighborhood with um um amenities.

So we're still looking at that.

Everything in between the city has, and the city will continue to support those efforts.

Um and we spent millions of dollars every year on housing.

So if we're gonna do something different, um we need to fund, we need to find additional revenue.

And I think the idea of a um revenue bonds or geo bonds, probably, or a affordable housing mill levy ask of the voters are all things that we're looking at, and we're gonna bring um more information back to the commission already.

And Commissioner Sweeney, you'll be included in those as well.

Um further questions or any further responses.

Okay.

Um then we'll turn it over to public comment, um, starting with public comment in the room this evening on our work session on our priorities and work plan.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mary Bateson Bozeman resident.

As you discuss the priorities work plan, I would like you to remember some things you have said and done.

Last December 2nd, uh the city commission set the height limit in B3 zones in Bozeman to 70 feet tall.

On December 16th, the Commission reversed that decision and set the height limit to 90 feet tall.

On the 16th, three commissioners stated they wanted to continue discussion of this issue with the public.

I sent you a transcript of this, pretty long.

But for the record, tonight I will read the quotes of three of you stating desires to continue discussions on the height limit.

Douglas Fisher said, the amount of uproar and interest in this issue underscores the interest in the need for a more robust public discussion.

He also said part of the thing is that it is clear that that question gets to the core of what I think produced 60 public comments and 25 responses today.

And I think that is what deserves a larger, more thoughtful, more deliberative discussion.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Jennifer Magic said, I want another level of discussion and input from the community.

Thank you, Commissioner Magic.

Joey Morrison said, I still think it means for us in the future to have that conversation of what is, what is a desirable height for this zoning district.

Joey went on to say, let's have that conversation in the future.

I think the 90 feet is actually us saying this is a conversation we need to have.

Thank you, Joey Morrison.

So please discuss publicly the possibility of revising height limits in the B3 zones as you prioritize revisions to the UDC and updates to the affordable housing initiatives.

Please do what you said is deserved.

Douglas.

What you said you want, Jennifer.

And what you said we need, Joey.

Honor your own words.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further requests in the room this evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Bonnie Rice, and I'm here tonight representing the Conservation Committee of the Sacagewea Audubon Society.

And my comments tonight are in regard to protection of the night sky in Bozeman and the broader Gallatin Valley from artificial light pollution.

We are requesting that the Commission formally incorporate preservation of the night sky and the update of relevant lighting codes in the city's work priorities and the UDC updates that the city will be working on over the next several months.

And with respect to the goal of protecting Bozeman's natural environment.

Overall, we're fortunate to still have dark skies in Montana compared to many places, but with the rapid growth in Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley, our night sky is under increasing threat and can be easily lost.

The sky glow from Bozeman's light is increasing, and it's important to take concrete steps now to protect the night sky.

Globally, light pollution is increasing at 10% per year, and over 80% of people in the U.S.

can no longer see the Milky Way and experience the corresponding sense of wonder about our place in the universe.

A large body of research has linked light pollution to many adverse effects on the health of people, wildlife, including birds and pollinators, and plants.

Light pollution wastes energy and money, and it threatens an important part of our local economy, Bozeman's photonics industry and research being done by MSU that depend on having a dark sky.

The good news is that, unlike many other environmental problems, light pollution is relatively easy to fix.

So as you know, Bozeman has an outdoor lighting code developed in the early 2000s.

The code includes a goal of protecting the night sky and has many good elements, but it's over 20 years old and it needs to be updated to incorporate new innovations and best lighting practices in order to comply with current dark sky friendly guidelines.

So last year we contracted with Dark Sky International, which is the main organization working to protect the night sky around the world to do a formal analysis of Bozeman's outdoor lighting codes.

And we have the results of that analysis, including specific recommendations on where Bozeman could improve its codes in respect to outdoor lighting requirements.

And Dark Sky International also just this year updated their template from municipalities on how to make cities and towns dark sky compliant.

So these specific recommendations will reduce a lot of the work needed to bring Bozeman's lighting codes up to date with dark sky guidelines.

And we would welcome the opportunity to work with the commission and city staff to go through these documents and specific recommendations related to Bozeman to update our outdoor lighting codes accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Commissioners, and staff.

My name is Nathan Stein.

I'm the executive director of Headwaters Community Housing Trust.

We're a local 501c3 nonprofit focused on building and preserving homes that are permanently affordable to middle income households in our community.

I'm commenting commenting tonight in support of the commission's priority to bridge the affordability gap.

We are generally supportive of the different ideas proposed in the work plan.

That said, we think that the city's efforts can be more finely tuned in this next biennium to address the key missing pieces of our community's housing supply.

New multifamily supply has stabilized and brought down rents from pandemic era highs, and the current LITEC pipeline is robust with several hundred below market rental homes delivered with several hundred more on the way.

That's good news.

But now our community needs to focus on both entry-level home ownership opportunities as well as transitional and supportive housing.

This commission has already moved the ball forward on both by supporting the Hidden Creek Project, Homework Point, and the Family Promise Facility Expansion, as well as leading the way on the Fowler Project to create more middle income homeownership opportunities, and we encourage continued focus in these critical areas.

Without stability and support for our lowest income neighbors or attainable homeownership for our workforce and middle class, Bozeman risks losing the people that we all depend on to have a thriving and diverse community.

To that end, we urge this commission to consider ways to create new sources of funding to create new permanently affordable housing.

New funding could be used to acquire land for new projects, offer low or no interest financing to capitalize on timely opportunities, and close capital gaps to grow our pipeline of permanently affordable homes.

I'm glad to hear uh city manager talk about some of the conversations that are happening to this end, both with revenue bonds, geo bonds, and mill levies.

The 2020 affordable housing levy failed by a very slim margin, but that community need has not gone away.

And I'd argue we know a lot more now than we did back in 2020.

And I think we could be a little bit smarter about how we're uh articulating that argument to the community.

Um that said, we appreciate this commission's commitment to creating a more affordable Bozeman and protecting economic opportunity for all Bozemanites and appreciate the work that you're all doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public comment requests in the room.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Catherine Barry with and I'm with the Gallatin Watershed Council.

Sorry, this is a little funny.

Um thank you for the opportunity to continue engaging on the City Commission's priorities.

I think this is a really great process and just appreciate how many meetings that we've been able to show up to.

Earlier today, we submitted a comment encouraging the city to prioritize developing a wetland and water course on-site mitigation manual along with mitigation mitigation replacement ratios as a next step to implement the new code.

It's encouraging to see this work identified in both the January and current draft plans, and we think progressing that work is pressing as we already have development applications being reviewed under a new code without guidance to take full advantage of what we achieved in this new code.

At the same time, the new wetland and water course regulations introduce more technical complexity into the review process, where decisions like a wetland buffer based on a functional assessment fall on a review authority that lacks technical expertise.

We do not have dedicated natural resource staff on site, and we usually rely on a consultant which who comes in at potentially different times during the review process and is not on the development review committee.

The on-site mitigation manual and replacement ratios are important tools to help with this guidance and implementation of the new code, but they need to be supported with the technical capacity to review plans, provide feedback, and ensure the intent of our code is being applied consistently.

And this doesn't just appertain to development.

This matters because many of the city's guiding documents and priorities on the list tonight, the integrated water resources plan, urban forest management plan, the Pratt Plan, the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan are all impacted by and will impact the way we manage our water resources.

The city is investing a lot of time and money to plan a future where we can keep fishing in our local creeks, have birds in our backyards, and be able to turn on the tap.

Given the level of investment, having a natural resource specialist and staff seems important for advising, coordinating, and implementing across all of these plans and our regulations.

So as you're thinking about next steps in the work plan priorities and that this is informing the budget, we'd encourage you to move on both.

Thank you.

That would be helpful to know what would it take in order to not raise taxes in order to increase the pool for housing.

I'm curious about um how the discussion will be about engaging meaningfully with the public, especially given that a limited discussion on the interim zoning um squeeze into the FYI this evening.

Um just to respond to some of those comments in the discussion today, um, and connected to the priority of making necessary edits to the UDC.

Um the concern about 90 feet by right in the B3 is a separate issue as the request for interim zoning um for the NCOD.

There's some overlap, but those are separate issues, and I hope they are addressed separately those concerns.

Um I think some of the comments about we've seen it slow in development where we can't predict what kind of problems we'll have is exactly the reason that we're asking for the interim zoning ordinance.

We won't have the ability to deny a problematic project when it comes to a phase.

That's what happened with the Guthrie.

That's why we called it a loaded gun, because we can't predict it before it comes to it, and then we have no means to deny it.

So that's why we're asking you to address it before it becomes an issue.

Um regards regarding to the uh V3 issue of 90 feet by right, that ties into the revising the affordable housing ordinance.

Um, we're losing parking as a very valid or very the most effective leverage.

We've seen that there are two projects that asked to pay cash and low of two additional stories, um, and they had a height allowance of 60 feet, and they asked they basically went up to 90 feet.

So those are two direct projects that we would be losing out in the future future if they were in B3 instead of B2M.

Um I'm also curious about the subpriority to leverage evidence-based um survey methodology to better understand community attitudes.

I'm curious to hear from each of the commissioners when do they feel that the commission should spend extra money for statistically valid survey instead of just a self-selecting one like most of our surveys are.

Um there have been times when the commission, it feels like has selectively diff dismissed survey results or public input not being valid due to a small sample size or being an unrepresentative sample.

But if we didn't in the front end say that we're gonna go the extra mile and get a statistically valid survey, then it feels unfair to dismiss those opinions.

Thanks.

Any further public comment requests in the room this evening?

Second request for a comment request in the room and one final request for public comment in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

Seeing no further requests for public comment, we'll bring it up here for commission discussion.

Deputy Mayor, would you like to kick us off?

Sure.

Let me I guess one quick point of order is just a clarification of anyone that has uh has something they'd like to change in the work plan specifically, not just discussion about adding depth to items in the work.

If I may, I'm anticipating this being a long conversation.

I'd like to get a cup of tea, use the restroom.

Could we break for our seven, our seven minutes or five, whatever, whatever we need to do to keep the ship tight?

Um yeah, let's do an even 10 till eight.

Just since we're 750.

Yeah, that's three extra minutes compared to mayor.

Finance or fund or something.

Bringing it back up here for commission discussion.

So the question that I was posing before uh Commissioner Bodie kindly requested a break was if there are any specific We're in a work session, so it's not amendments, but it's I'm I'm basically asking for amendments.

If there are things that folks are saying, um, here is a discordant translation from commission discussion or direction in the past that we want to um have a discussion around and correct.

Um or are we just ready to kind of get into general discussion on each of the however we decide to dive into things?

I have one kind of corrected language.

So an amendment so to speak.

Okay.

Does that feel I I guess I'm for the sake of process, I'm trying to get through get to those because I think they might be short discussions before getting into the broader discussion on direction that we'd like to give to staff.

Does that sound good?

Yeah.

Okay.

What do you got for us?

Um on page 13, but my page 13.

Um C the idea of streamlining the development and review process to eliminate any unnecessary steps that add cost and delay.

I think the correct way to say this, I think this is the concept that we're trying to get on, is to improve the development review process to add predictability and cut inefficiencies that add cost and delay.

I don't think we're looking at eliminating a necessary unnecessary steps per se.

It's really I think what we're hearing from the development review or the development community is just more predictability and the steps for the most part are okay.

Okay.

Does that language I was seeing some nods as Commissioner Magic was reading that um change?

I'm happy with Commissioner Magic's change proposed.

Um funny, I didn't expect that, Commissioner Magic.

But sorry.

I mean, that is what I'm I'm hearing.

Um there aren't necessarily there aren't unnecessary steps.

It's just that the the the you know, this process we need to change.

I I didn't um I mean I can live with this, I can live with Commissioner Magic.

I just think you know, looking at that development review process and the and we can have a discussion at the at the appropriate time on on that is fine, but if we want to change it to what you suggested, I'm I'd be fine with that too.

Um but I think the the work is still there to be done.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we've got three, four that guidance.

Thank you for that clarification.

I think it's it's great.

The steps that that I was thinking of when we wrote this were the internal process, not the steps that the exterior that the external applicant would make, but how we reviewed that work in-house.

So I think we can do both.

Your amendment makes sense, and I'm happy to make that change.

Okay.

Do you have all of that?

Thank you.

That's what we're talking about.

Um did you were you just gonna say that you also do or do you support the question?

I I I do support, but I was gonna propose another thing.

Okay, great.

What's the next thing?

Yep, please.

Yeah, um, I would like to suggest that we move development of a citizen's academy up to the section on um engaging meaningfully with the community that starts on page six.

Um the Citizens Academy is currently under leveraged evidence-based survey methodologies to understand community attitudes.

And I just don't feel that the Citizens Academy actually does that.

Um think it fits better under those um that other heading.

So um I'd like to have a you know, a conversation about the Citizens Academy and also other evidence-based survey methodologies, but I'll leave that to the discussion part.

That's just the the moving part of the amendment I would I would make.

Great.

Does that have support to move that up if we decide to we want to keep that as a as a part of the work plan?

Great.

Any other clarifications, edits before we so that we're all reacting to the same document together?

Okay, uh Commissioner Magic.

Um my page five under the uh continued implementation of the SAFE plan.

It says uh success project will be completed once the three initiatives listed above are implemented.

Um I would say that I would not want to end it with the three initiatives that I believe that there is more to the safe plan that we'd want to implement and see through.

I would support that.

Could you clear could you say that again?

I don't know if I quite caught.

So our safe plan.

Yep.

The section on it talks about three specific things, three bulleted items.

And that we're gonna have completion of the safe plan once those three bulleted things are done.

And I would say I think our expectations of the safe plan based on our traffic safety work session are greater than just the three bullets.

So here's what I have a question.

I mean, I yeah, I I agree that we need kind of a more ambition in this section, frankly.

Um and I have a bunch of questions about this, but I'm wondering, you know, um, it feels that we're doing this little piecemeal like like working with wordsmithing on some specific language before we've had a chance to say, does this does the ambition that's kind of captured here really fit?

Um Yeah, and that's I I think that's where I would say for this.

I I think that is different than I'm trying to make sure that we're all we're not getting to a point where then somebody wants to amend the language later so that we're not all chewing on the same document together that we're agreeing is the document.

So those are the pieces that I'm sort of looking for now.

Um and I think that I think that will be a part of this discussion.

That that sort of um about ambitions about how we decide when something's completed.

So that prompted a similar, and I even wrote down a note about um the final priority, page 15, protect Bozeman's heritage neighborhoods and natural environment.

Um I had a similar concern under the success and completion.

Um that we're just done once we adopt it, but actually success looks like adopting something that protects, you know, not I'm nervous that you know we might get something that is less powerful even than what we have now.

And I just want to spell out in the success completion area that this project will be complete when an NCOD update and a landmark update that I think you're getting at exactly what I think is the next part that I hope we're gonna get into.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bodie, any specific language changes or pieces that you feel strongly need to be addressed before we pass to the deputy mayor for opening discussion.

Yeah, yeah, I understand the difficulty of discerning here.

And I I would just um offer that I think in the bridge affordability gap on page 10.

Um it starts by saying under policy pass the affordable housing ordinance revisions.

Um, but then down lower on um page 12.

There's a whole heading about review and revise the affordable housing ordinance.

And and the amendment that I would make would be to cut that language from the um housing program heading and just keep it in the affordable housing bucket for clarity of of the different projects.

So just to clarify that that because the AHO shows up in specifically its own item to remove it from the where it shows up above.

Yeah.

And I mean the thought process there is that um I don't think like right to council is referenced in this area.

Um and yet it's something that we're doing down below.

Um the review of the development review process is also a way that we're trying to address affordability, and it's not um specifically mentioned in the policy section.

I just think it's not consistent for like the the framing of the document.

And that we'll you know be able to fully flesh out the AHO revisions in the section under the heading of AHO.

Would would you feel comfortable with us just saying here for staff to consolidate that into one?

And for us to not necessarily make that call in this moment as to which one, which heading to cut from I think our original past commission priorities does have them set out as a separate bucket.

I I'd have to reference that.

Um real quick, let me let me pull that out.

Um thank you.

Um let's see.

Review and revise affordable housing ordinance is specifically, you know, item 3B of our commission priorities.

And there's a second item, the the first item 3A is improve housing access through a variety of programs and strategies.

I I think when we were having our conversation on the commission priorities, we weren't ready to hone in on one specific thing.

There was conversations about a housing authority or um revenue bonds, or finding some way to decommodify housing or a levy to generally finance the housing strategies we're already using.

I I don't think we're at a place to consolidate around what is that that thing.

And so we left it broader to um have a a bigger discussion, is my memory um of why 2A is written in the way or sorry, 3A is written in the way that it's written.

Whereas we knew that we needed to revise the affordable housing ordinance specifically, and so we we spent the ink there to enumerate that separately.

Sure.

Commissioner But I yeah, you know, I agree 100%.

I think that the housing that 3A, the bridge, you know, uh has to need a kind of a higher level ambition that that's too you know to be specific about the policy at this point, we haven't identified that.

But that's part of this larger discussion that I'm hoping we can have when we get, you know, if you know, as we we get deeper into this.

So I I mean we could we could say yes, we we're gonna strip the affordable housing ordinance out of the policy section, right?

Subsection there, but but I uh I'd love to have a bigger discussion about kind of what does what is that how how are we going to we're not gonna answer what is that policy tonight, right?

But but how we decide what that policy is, I think is is I'd love to see a roadmap.

And that's part of the discussion I'd love to have as we get deeper into this.

Yeah, and I'm not saying we need to have that conversation now, and and if there's discomfort about my potential amendment, I I'm not gonna, you know, yeah, I I think we may get there organically by getting into I suspect we're gonna spend a lot of our time on housing and what our housing strategy is.

And I think that's the spot to have that conversation for um for staff's benefit.

Um if if we feel ready to get into that, then I'll then deputy mayor, you have the floor.

However, you choose.

I appreciate the start that we've had to this.

It's um it kind of shows how messy this is going to be in some ways.

Um a lot of uncertainty over this.

Uh but it also reflects the fact that this is the only time the five of us ever get a chance to talk at one spot.

So I'm I think what I just if I may, just to kind of start this one is is um step back and look overall, like we have um in the essentially the first three you know work plan sessions at least are all asks essentially potential asks of voters.

Fire stay, fire staffing, police staffing, EMS transport services, continued, you know, coordinated responses for behavioral health requests, all you know, as as the city manager said, right, to do something different, we need to find additional revenue.

So we also have a potential housing, big question about housing.

Is it is it a general obligation bond?

Is it a levy?

Is it a revenue bond?

We have safe streets that we've been talking about, you know, and and some maybe some extra, you know, kind of how do we do trails or whatever.

We even have this what's even not in here, really, is the whole question about what to do about streamline as it hits its funding cliff.

We're just surrounded by cliffs around here.

Um I'm I'm just what I'm not seeing in this document, what's my question is, I guess, to the five of us, maybe six of us here city manager, is how do we decide not what do we decide, but how do we decide kind of what's what's our what's our plan for if we want to have a plan of asking to voters to are we going to go to the ballot in 2026?

Is it 2027?

You know, I I again we're not gonna answer that question here, but I just would love to have some sense of a roadmap of how we make a decision around here.

I just I just know for a fact that you know an action step of the the commission needs to decide by you know, for if we were to take up this question in January or February 2027 for say fire staffing, that's that I think that's just too late.

So I'm just wondering, you know, how we as a group is it can we put a work session on the on the calendar?

Is it you know what what does that look like for us to decide what of these many priorities we want to ask the voters to support?

I mean, the sh the short answer is we can absolutely just find time to have that discussion.

And if we want to pair them together, presumably there's not a reason there could be you know predictability reasons for why we might want to or what might not want to say, here's the question we're gonna ask in 26 and the question we're gonna ask in 27.

Um there could be some some clarity predictability that that gives, and and maybe that's the type of conversation that we just need to have specifically is what are we putting, what are we going to be asking the voters to consider?

Is that part of what I'm hearing in that?

Yes.

And the question is what's the schedule, I guess for me.

You know, you know, again, we we're we're talking with different we have, you know, not that we're giving it kind of like what's the time frame?

Do we want to do that in like in July?

Do we want to do it in September?

Are we gonna are we gonna have and maybe I'm um this is really messy, but are we gonna have that larger discussion about housing and how we fund it and see, well, okay, we don't have to you know go to taxpayers for that if we use say revenue bonds or whatnot, or we're we punt on housing and we decide the fire staffing is the higher priority, or can we come up with some sort of a housing and policing um package or vision for our city that you know, like um I mean I it just uh I I don't understand how you know what which which train leaves the station first in order to get to a decision of we're you know we have to make a decision is 2026 too soon?

Is 2027 the appropriate time?

What's the ask?

Are there multiple asks?

How do we package it?

You know, it's it's really complex, and I'm just um I think it deserves a discussion.

I just I'm not sure.

It's unclear for me in this document that we're even gonna have that discussion or you know, a more of a comprehensive discussion.

Well, if if we want to have 2026 on the menu, then it's like yesterday.

You know, it's uh it's in the next month that we need to try to find time.

And if that if we find that is the will from this commission, then the I can work with the city manager to find a time for us to have that conversation.

I don't feel that that's realistic.

Um I just to follow up on what the deputy mayor is saying, it seems to me that there are a couple of uh package items here that are worthy of their own work sessions, so we can talk further about how we would like to see these happen, including timing, and it seems like a cut like we need to prioritize the ballot issue, housing to me seem pretty important that we want to have work sessions here fairly soon on those.

We can kind of dive into them.

Um and then decide what other of these we want to have kind of a more robust discussion on.

I mean, I and maybe this is a clarifying, I think this is the the challenge in facilitating the spaces when we come together, the five of us, without specifically an action that we're having to vote on, right?

Is that uh we're all coming in with different expectations, different desires of what we want as the end product from this discussion tonight.

Every item on here we will touch again before it's out the door.

That's that's been clear since the start here.

And so I think it is you know, we can have as much discussion or as little discussion as we like to have this evening, but especially I think there are naturally buckets that I identified questions about what are we putting in front of voters in the next couple of years.

Um what does our housing program even look like?

And when do we slate that for a meeting in front of us?

I I think those are maybe things for us to chew on here, the five of us.

Um, but I'm not sure if everybody came with the same expectation for what we wanted to get into this evening.

Yeah, Commissioner Bode.

Yeah, I I just wonder um first I want to validate Commissioner or Deputy Mayor Fisher, noting that um these things impact one another.

And I I think maybe the underlying concern here is that if we have the conversation about a fire staffing levy in a vacuum without thinking about the other potential levy questions that one horse may leave the the barn and then the other ones are that's not the right um metaphor.

You know what I'm trying to say.

One state one train has left the station and the other ones are are stuck back there.

You know, only one train can be on the tracks at a time.

And so needing needing to stage those, and I I support that, but I don't think we can actually get to conclusion on that without discussing each of them individually.

So I wonder if we could pin this and plan to kind of return to it at the end of this conversation.

And then secondly, I just wonder, I I think it would help me if we followed the order of the document and everybody could discuss the fire staffing.

We could kind of talk ourselves out and then move down through each heading.

Is that a potential format we could use?

This is literally the way my brain works and the way I set up my notes.

And I think we might come to some ideas about what we're gonna put to the voters if we do this.

The only so I'll be transparent with my desire to not do it that way.

I'm happy to relinquish that is that when we all go around and opine on every single thing, then we each react to what every every person said.

So I I will I'm I will respect us going that way if each if each of us can commit to some discipline of how many comments we want to offer on something, whether it feels important and essential for the conversation.

But I do think if that, especially if that's how some of us learn and process, that's we should go that way.

I I think it will help some efficiency in that we won't have to return to conversations multiple times just by nature of when people change the topic.

Okay.

So fire the fire staffing question.

Well, actually, can I we have a I mean to take this already off the rails, I'm sorry.

But there is uh I kind of agreed with Commissioner Bodies, like we have advanced Bozeman as a safe and welcoming place for all.

Ensure policies, practices, and services foster a community where all people feel safe.

To me, I feel like that's where the belonging and Bozeman plan subs you know, work belongs, honestly.

And I will say we have we haven't talked about it, but we have that other section that's hanging out in the back on the enterprise data for government efficiency and the city shops complex.

I see our our role is is to come is two-sided.

We have we have to bring the community's will to the to the city staff, and we have to bring what staff says, okay, we need to in order to have uh our our policy, our practices and our services are the standards of what our citizens expect.

This is what we need.

I would suggest that we bring in Edge and the City Shops Plex out of their Siberia and put them under A as priorities that we need to focus on as and work that we need to focus on as a city.

I'll leave it there.

It is part of addressing our services component of how we deliver you know, Bozeman feeling safe and welcoming.

I would support that.

Um I I'd support that.

I think that's that's fine.

Okay, so there's support to house the edge project and City Shops Complex under A under our top.

Along with the belonging and boson plan.

And belonging boson.

So move that out from well, move it out from the the uh you know is it the school district?

I I think if we move it, then there's not anything in the school district.

I have some thoughts on that.

Oh, I see.

But but we we can come back to the belonging and bousement plan.

Yeah, can we talk about that when we get down there?

Yeah, great.

Um I don't have actually any comments about B, frankly.

Um I think that those are things we need to discuss.

Um I think how are you defining B as in regard to the funding for staffing, police fire, and emergency response?

Sorry if I could is that the appropriate appropriate uh uh framing or my mapping for this document.

I think uh my understanding of going item by item meant fire staffing than police staffing, then the actual item that's that's translated with okay, specifics underneath it.

No quite uh I'll pass the butt mic on fire staffing.

Do you so you don't have any comments on fire staffing?

Okay.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Yeah, so um I really appreciated Chief Waldo's presentation to us, and actually you asked the question that prompted him to um speak to it is that they are working on reducing response time by addressing some like how dispatch functions.

Um so I guess I don't know, for my purposes, I circled bullet point number three that you know that would be my preferred method, but we're if we're not making decisions.

Um, I think a more acute ask for the voters for me is a countywide um emergency response district.

I think our ambulance situation is just critical right now.

Um those are my thoughts.

Commissioner Bodie.

I I think the content here is sufficient enough for a later conversation, so I have nothing more to say.

Okay.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, just high level and all these things together.

So fire police and EMS, um public safety.

Um I am just concerned about going to the voters again.

I don't want this to fail.

And so want to think, you know, how can we be creative about making sure we're successful?

And I know a lot of effort was put into the past ballot issue, a lot of work by um city staff and so forth, but I would love I've seen a couple of ballot measures now.

The city to take on uh has taken on some the public took on one as you guys know with Ward, and to have these things fail after so much effort.

So to learn something from that and to see how we can try to work better together and kind of consolidate our effort.

So it's kind of a more of a bigger picture just uh flagging anything that we put out there to give to the public.

I don't have a problem at all with what fire department or police are proposing.

Okay.

Not to fly too close to the sun, but maybe is there a way that we can knock out police EMS behavioral health?

Because I Commissioner Magic touched on a few of those.

I would love to knock those out.

I would just suggest that you know for EMS and maybe behavioral health, we need to be thinking about a Bozeman-only solution.

I don't have faith that the county or that the you know larger valley is going to be able to come together at this uh the either the scale or the time frame we need.

I'll leave that.

And I think on the on the behavioral health, I think we should we might want to mention that we need a solution for our library so that it does not become the de facto day center for um, yeah.

Commissioner Sweeney, anything on behavioral health EMS.

Yeah, I just wanted to really uplift um Commissioner Bode's questions earlier about the impact fee study.

Um I'd love to see us like you know, city manager said now's a good time to do it.

I'd love to see us do it.

Yeah.

Yep, Commissioner Bowdy.

Yeah, I I just want to reiterate I very much want to see an impact fee here.

I think $50,000 for the study feels like a big price tag, but I'm certain that we will recoup that cost if we institute an impact fee.

Um and I know that this community has asked us again and again to make developers pay for the impacts of having to the community.

And this feels like like a clear place in which we haven't um implemented this tool to the full extent.

So um I I'd like to see us do that.

And um I wonder if it could offset some of the costs that we're talking about around staffing, um recognizing that's coming from the the same general fund or maybe reduce some of our needs there.

Um I am also curious about um how we can just kind of uh assess our community's interest in um or our our community sentiment around like policing.

I I know that we've had a commenter come here repeatedly um just expressing concerns about the way in which our our police are conducting themselves around town and I um don't have concerns um broadly speaking that that there's like a um undue problem in the police department, but I I also think that when we're considering staffing, um expanding staffing and increasing funding, I I want to do that really intentionally and um make sure that we are funding um a culture and a structure that our community is is really proud of.

Um and so I know we've had conversations in the past about um looking into the the culture and the structure of the police department, and that's something I'd really be interested in doing in conjunction with this effort to think about how to um support our officers in in the most effective way possible.

Thank you for that.

Um Commissioner Magic, any any follow-up on EMS or behavioral health?

Uh no.

No, um I tend to agree with my fellow commissioners on their comments, including um deputy mayor about uh how much we can rely on the county's help at this point.

And I very much agree with um implementing a police impact fee.

Okay.

Um I would also be supportive of police impact fee, um, even if we find uh as we're starting to you know study the study that actually what it could pay for is so limited that we end up accruing or you know, levying an impact fee that doesn't because it's such a specific set of criteria, capital ten years or more can't be for previous deficiencies, et cetera.

Um that just to add the to grow that fund is slow because it's based on development coming in.

So it's not necessarily kind of a reliable thing that we can um count on.

Yeah.

Um and I think uh it it'll be tough to, I would say, in some ways, if you know, not opining on a full post-mortem of the 2024 ballot language, but I do think not having the county on board um hurt it's the coalition that could support it was not as strong.

It wasn't five out of five commissioners, the whole county, the school district, all saying in one unified voice, this is something that the whole community needs, not just the city of Bozeman.

And so I'm grappling with that tension of where our job is to serve the citizens of the of this community and and our community has different expectations and different demands and requests of what they will say yes to and fund and pay for than Belgrade does, than county residents do.

Um so I I look forward to having that rich conversation around those issues.

Ums on the blind and Bozeman plan, and Bozeman item.

So if I could just say so that's C, you know, work with the school district and other partners to ensure Bozeman remains a welcoming place.

I I kind of actually I always thought I had a welcoming place for families, but um realizing it's just a welcoming place.

To me, um housing needs to be a component of this subsection.

Um maybe we keep belonging to Bozeman there, fine.

Yes, it seems to fit there, we can keep it there.

But but this notion that where I was thinking when I when I first suggested that, or we got a what got me excited about this priority was was that um this is a way we could you know kind of work on maybe some single family housing that we or that missing middle housing.

Um work work with the school district other partners on parks and trails.

Um and that's that's uh safe routes to schools, for instance, you know.

Um but really my concern there is that the school district sees flat enrollment for the foreseeable future or declining enrollment in the elementary schools for the foreseeable future.

That is dangerous both for a school district and for a city.

And so how do we kind of maybe either reverse that trend or or buffer it or what do we need to help help you know with the with the challenges both the school district is facing and we're facing.

And that's where I was hoping we could look a little deeper into that.

I think what I've heard in again, we're not solving the problems here, but one of the things I've heard in shaping that goal is that is that if you're a family looking to move into this area, you're more mostly moving to Belgrade because you can buy a single family home as opposed to buying a condo or down home here.

And that's something I would love to look at.

I think uh for the sake of clarity amongst the the various bullets that put in a subsection of housing underneath the school districts point.

I don't I don't think I can get behind that, but I I understand they feel ideologically the same to me and coherent in that way, but I think for the simplicity of looking at uh the way it's organized here.

Um I don't I don't know if I if I want to support that, but I yeah.

So maybe let me withdraw that and the notion that we're gonna have a very robust conversation on housing here in a few minutes and and just let belonging to Bozeman be there.

And maybe, you know, I mean there are lots of cross-references that are implied here, but maybe not explicitly stated, and let's move on.

And this certainly isn't the this is the spot that we are prepared to say this is a way we're gonna partner with the school district, not the only way that we're gonna be partnering with the school district over the next couple years.

I did just have a question about this one.

Have the 10 goals been identified yet, or are we gonna have the economic vitality board weigh in on that?

Or what's the process?

I think some were determined that are probably holdovers on the last priorities from the previous commission.

So they are outlined um there.

Um, but I suspect they'll we'll get different ones.

I um just kind of want to clarify your original comment about moving belonging in Bozeman up to the very top versus keeping it here.

It sounds like you're okay with keeping it where it's at, or are you interested in having it in both places?

No, it it could be fine here.

I mean, I think it fits better up higher, but it's fine here.

Um yeah, I I think it's it's a weird straddle in that I I think it fits in both places as well.

And moving it up would leave this school section empty, um, which would be awkward, but uh also um it it feels a little bit absent in the first you know goal, section A.

So Commission Magic.

Uh oh, you started with Yeah, yep.

Okay.

Um are we good to move on from Belgian Bozeman?

Okay.

Continue to implementation of I guess now to our next.

Nope, we're still on the same heading.

Um anything on the safe plan other than what um Commissioner Magic had brought up earlier of saying the three initiatives listed below when implemented will mean completion.

Yeah, I I think that subheading D, it says advance the safe plan and the urban transportation district and explore funding opportunities.

Um and I just don't see the urban transportation district um named down in the actual implementation here or um kind of the the funding question.

And so I I would be interested in kind of holding a work session or a a placeholder here for us to have a broader conversation about how are we funding the um transportation safety capital investments that we need to make in our community and how does that interplay with our public transit system.

I would also I would echo that.

I would love to have a robust conversation, honestly on on streamline.

We we pay 400,000 a year as a as a community, as as just as a city, you know, for that.

And I'd love to see what what did where does it need to go and what do we need to do?

So I'd love to have some sort of reference, and particularly because it is uh part of specifically mentioned in item D, and we are facing that funding cliff.

I think that should be lifted up as something that's on our radar.

Yeah.

Yep.

I I think that makes sense.

Does that feel clear?

I feel like we kind of scrolled around on that.

But something some at some point having a conversation of what we're doing, what we get out of streamline, what's the community benefit to streamline um how is it financed now and sustainably?

Yeah, and and I think like kind of the subtext under there is is talking with our um other you know local governments within Gallatin County and um this urban transportation district board to kind of coordinate our our strategy here and um make sure that we do that in a way that we are all in the know about what decisions are being made when and can um make sure that we're not stalling the process out, the city of Bozeman um in like their approach, their their runway towards running a possible levy question or considering other other options of funding.

Like I I want to emphasize that we my intent, these priorities is being um uh partners in in their goals.

Mayor, if I may, um please.

The um this document was created to um have these exact conversations in the sense that I would love to come out of this with a um a uh list of work session sessions that the commission wants to have, and then we can schedule them where they make sense and where um we have the capacity to give the commission the information they need to make decisions on direction or whatever.

So this this is exactly it's painful, I know.

It's probably why we haven't done this before in the past.

It hurts a little bit, but um, this is how we um make tomorrow look different than yesterday.

So I'm keep on keeping on.

Can I just briefly speak to the general commissioner magic's um I guess you know uh the just maybe a little desire for maybe a little more ambition on what success or completion looks like, especially around the safer plan.

And I don't I don't know what that looks like again, not uh not to solve it here, but I'd like us to think big on in terms of you know transportation around here.

We're revising the transportation master plan.

Um and I don't I don't you know how do we incorporate we've had a prep plan you know developed since we've had that transportation master plan.

I'd I would love to see how we work a little more active transportation into our view when we look at our transportation grid.

I don't know what the language is, but I obviously agree with that.

Um we've already had one work session, and we talked about having another one and at that work session.

We talked about being more ambitious.

Uh and that one of her challenges is additional revenue.

So uh we heard from a member of the public earlier who um suggested that we be more proactive when it comes to public safety, and I think this is one way to do that, but um just kind of flagging the fact that I think a few of us would like to ramp this up and keep talking.

I I think it's important to know that we have the opportunity to kind of establish that big long-term vision, I think, within the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan.

And I I wonder if that's the place where we can not only just talk about what we want to accomplish in the next three years, like kind of the last version of the safe plan, but say here's here's our plan for the next 30 years.

Um maybe not in hyper detail, but like what what is the North Star that we're heading for?

And and that's what I'd like to see in this safety action plan, so that um when we complete the items on the immediate checklist, there's not this feeling of like, well, we did it, I guess we're done.

Right.

There's there's this sense of like, okay, we we did the low-hanging fruit.

What's next towards this long you know, North.

Yeah, and uh I think we're in a really good place because we're starting to add transportation master plan update.

So I I want to offer something that I I saw our city manager's mic is on as well.

Um I just want to add a few things.

One, I think actually these three bullets are actually quite ambitious.

They have huge, you know, these are not plans that are updated often.

They come with a lot of guidance and probably funding recommendations that come with each of them.

And I think to me, having uh an item that says continued implementation of the safe plan is a carryover from previous commission priorities.

And I would say most of the time when I'm looking at these, the word success is not an important word.

Completion is for the sake of plan implementation is the operative word that that matters most to me because success of of a safe program is meaning, you know, net zero trap, you know, zero traffic fatalities, all these types of things that are the goal, and completion of the programming needs to have an end, right?

For us to say the priority has been completed.

Um so that's where to me those three initiatives are actually extremely ambitious, and the next that will not be completed by probably any of the five of us sitting here, and the next commission will then have to decide what what does what is our active transportation road safety transportation system programming look like.

City manager, do you have anything else you wanted to add?

I have to stand up for staff here.

Um the the notion the city needs hasn't been proactive, I believe is completely false.

I think our staff has looked at our roads for a long, long time.

We have suggested and funded and completed very important safety improvements.

Do we have a ways to go?

Yes, we do.

But this notion that was mentioned earlier that the city is not being proactive, is not taking this seriously.

I I really take offense to that.

And we have an amazing transportation director, we have an amazing transportation department, and we can't prove a negative.

We will never be able to have a conversation about how many lives have been saved, how many accidents have been prevented by the four Ps.

So I just want to put that into this conversation.

Um, because I'm pretty dang proud of our staff and the work that this commission and previous commissions have done uh to improve safety on our roads.

And there is a very limited and finite amount of funding, and we're having uh really important conversations tonight about a lot more funding that we need to find room for too.

So I just asked that that be in the conversation, and we'll take your direction and we'll move forward with it.

But I I've done some pretty amazing work as a city.

We're not perfect, I think we're amazing though.

Yeah.

Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor.

I appreciate you putting that in the room.

I mean, I'm coming at this from a disc like we're we're privileged to be able to have this discussion that we're able to dream in part because of the work that staff is doing, and that's putting in us in a strong position here.

Um maybe we're asking for or I'm thinking a little too ambitiously here, but but it's like you know, I and maybe it's because staff is doing so well that that I see kind of the this these little three bullets here, completion of safe streets for all, implementation of a citywide neighborhood traffic calming program, beginning uncontrolled.

I see that almost as akin to that, yes, of course we're going to do that as a city.

That's the work that's like plowing the streets, it's it's picking up garbage.

We are we're making our streets safe.

I think us as a commission, you know, we don't I you know it's partly because those are well managed that I see us as I don't have to worry about those.

You have got them.

You know, Nick, you know, Director Ross has them.

I think our job as a commission is to say, well, success or completion looks like when we have a kind of that long-term vision, maybe not 30 years, but maybe 10 years or 15 years of a long-term vision for Bozeman's future.

That's something we can engage the community in.

We can engage staff in.

We're, you know, it's not something necessarily staff can do, but it's and and it's not going to come kind of organically from, or it could come organically from the community, but we could be that conduit for creating that longer term vision for what does Bozeman's transportation network look like.

I think that maybe is what Commissioner Bodie, if I I don't want to put words in your mouth, but but I see that as our as our role here.

And again, it's not about what's what staff is not doing, but but it's it's what we have power to do here is from this dais.

This is uh I think yeah.

I I think the what I'd want to add to that, why I think what we have here, because each of these, of course, this is gonna be cliche.

These all touch these other priorities.

But I think the the part that we consistently, I think, talk around.

Um accept it in moments, you know, during the UBC of saying, you know, one of the ways that we want to focus on our transportation system is multimodal transportation options.

But that means higher density.

That means building and and centering our our highest density zones near commercial centers, civic centers, jobs, um, major arterials and collectors.

Um that feels like pretty robustly is a transportation plan, but it doesn't fall under this transportation category.

And so I I think that's where I'm you know, the that's the the push and shove in this of you know, our transportation master plan has things like that, you know, that we should center high density near arterials collectors, major thoroughfares, accesses to the interstate, et cetera.

And so, you know, does that belong?

To me, that's that's actually the North Star ambition of a strong transportation-centered city uh is one that takes into account some modern urban principles.

I I just wonder if we're starting to have the conversation before.

I mean, this is like this is really meaty, and I'm excited about it.

Yes, that's the thing that I was just like this is a sticky part of where to me the the deepest ambition of our future transportation goals is actually in counterintuitively, I think in other programs.

100%.

But I'm just worried about this, you know, maybe specifically not to well, I'm gonna board Smith, right?

We have success completion.

The project will completed once these three initiatives listed above are implemented.

I do think Commissioner Magic has the idea that this is you know it's gonna be going on.

And I'm wondering if we would consider or you know, say changing that successor completion is a long-term vision for Bozeman's future.

And we could leave it at that and define that later, but that's the ambition I'm looking for.

That works for me.

I'm happy to support that.

I think you know, if we create a safety action plan and update the transportation master plan, and the Pratt plan is currently like it's part of the board's work plan and staff is currently working on codifying those things.

I'm really happy with that priority.

I I wonder if I could offer like a friendly amendment there.

Like I I do want to honor the two-year nature of our commission priorities and having a deliverable so that you know when Jennifer Magic and Joey Morrison's terms are up, they can say we completed this.

Um but also the fact that this work is gonna continue.

Could we say near-term commission priorities will be completed once the three initiatives listed above are implemented and then comma what you said project continues beyond?

Yeah.

Yep.

I mean, I'm fine with that.

I'm gonna I would hope that we could come up with a vision in two years, but sure.

Yes, it's fine.

And we need to move on.

I mean, I I think the vision we're we're gonna do that in the transportation master plan and the safe streets for all safety action plan.

Like I I think it's there.

Okay.

Are we ready to move on to the next setting?

That now includes Citizens Academy.

Because we moved it out of the statistically representative sampling.

Um Deputy Mayor, thoughts on consensus program?

Well, for this next section, I'd let me pass the mic to um Commissioner Sweeney.

Yep, Commissioner Sweeney.

You're you're top of the order now.

Any thoughts on the consensus program?

Yeah, I mean I think you know.

The work we're doing to create a pilot is great.

We'll see how it turns out.

Um, I I think I think there's an important differentiating when a consensus process is important and when a majority vote with a dissenting opinion is appropriate, right?

So I'm fine with this.

I have no changes to that section.

Okay.

I don't either.

Um the only thing.

Yeah, I'm I'm fine to withhold.

Um city advisory ports.

Any um thoughts on what's presented in front of us here?

Yeah, I mean, I got I got a load of notes.

Uh, I think resolution 5323 is a problem.

I think we need to deal with that.

Um there are a couple of public comments from people who have served long tenures on advisory boards, they've given those to Cola, um, assistant city manager Rowley, and you know, I would elevate everything in those.

I've told her that.

Um, yeah.

Just to clarify, like we're gonna have that conversation.

I think that's a session about that about what we want out of our advisory boards.

Does that be or is that just gonna happen internally with staff?

No, I I mean it'll have to I think it's gonna be probably pretty substantial.

Um and if I think if we're gonna change anything that's outside of 5323, then it's gotta happen up here.

Uh I as an update on that.

I call and I just met this afternoon about this.

She has a um um a report uh that summarizes her findings.

We're trying to put it into uh a organization of like themes, um recommendations and then considerations for a work session with the commission.

The last thing that uh she and I agreed to today was to do a um more of a survey with the board members as well.

So we talked to the staff liaison.

She talked with all five of you and we talked with the board chairs.

Thought that next little deeper dive needs to be with the board members.

And so she's gonna start that work right away, and we're gonna be back before the commission soon.

And works.

Would that be now?

I don't want to frighten the horses.

I'm not saying we go back to 40 advisory boards, but what if there was like one other advisory board that we thought would be valuable?

Is that the time we would have that conversation or okay?

Um the advisory boards are creation of the commission.

And you the commission can do whatever they want, organize them however they want, have as many as they want.

And I think that where maybe we could have done better was that um back after they were created, we committed to uh coming back to the commission with a report, and we never did back years ago.

But now we're trying to um make good on that, and I think we're learning a lot of information, um, both pros and cons to how it's organized.

Great.

Any other thoughts from anyone on what we have in front of us on advisory boards?

I I'm excited for this conversation.

We'll have a lot of thoughts, but think the the stuff here is sufficient to have that conversation later.

Great.

My concern is a timeline.

Um a report by the fourth quarter of 2026 to me feels too late.

Um I don't want to jam everything into the beginning of this, but uh I th I sense a sense of urgency um in the both in the community and among us.

Um and so I don't know that you know not for us to direct staff, but but I'm wondering if we could start this conversation either before that report is issued to us or if we could have a work session where we start to kind of maybe hear preliminary findings from staff.

Um it just it feels like we have room in the six-month calendar to to put this in before the fourth quarter.

Thank you for that comment, Deputy Mayor.

Your job is to direct me, and I I will have that.

Um I can commit to that if June's soon enough.

We can we can find a time in June to do it.

We're we're just we're almost there.

The citizen advisory board, citizen advisory boards and budget.

That's June.

Um what about the item enhancing our partnership with Montana State University?

That's great.

So I had a question about where did it go.

You know, MSU is so much more than just the students.

Students are a huge part of the university, and I think they're the most, you know, public-facing part component of the university.

Um, I I really do think this town and gown, you know, relationship.

It says continue existing semi-annual meetings between MSU planning and facilities and relevant city department directors.

I mean it's great that MSU and Bozeman City Planning are communicating, but I think we might need to communicate across other sectors as well.

So I don't know if this language leaves that open for us to I think I would see it as one students are are centered in the conversation, I think largely because um that's where the deficiencies lie right now.

It's it's who's you know, who we have the most that bring the most tension with our constituents.

Um we don't have necessarily folks that come in and say, hey, the faculty at MSU won't shovel their sidewalk.

It's usually students.

You know, that's that's like the the pain point.

That's where we're seeing growth.

Um so I think that's why there's so much focus on that is because that is one a gigantic source of growth vibrants beauty in this community, points of tension, and is obviously just the majority of people associated with university.

But it doesn't any of these do not preclude these other conversations for sure.

All right.

Then I am happy with the language.

And the third bullet from the bottom there is that I called it administrative relationship, but that's a consideration.

Would this commission want to do a regular meeting with MSU, ASMSU uh to talk about that?

I will say that we have an amazing relationship with President Tessman, one that I haven't seen um as collaborative in in my time here.

And I I've had conversations about strengthening that relationship where it makes sense.

Not to create some artificial conversations, but where we're aligned and where we have challenges together uh working on those.

And uh I'm just really excited about the future in the in our town gang relationship.

Any other thoughts on the MSU item?

Yeah, I noticed the bullet point rental and housing coordination there, and I I just want to like underline or emphasize it.

I know we have a whole other section for housing, but I think one of the things we hear the most from the community is why aren't we the city pressuring the MSU to build more housing for students?

And I I don't think that there has been an absence of that kind of conversation between the city and and um the university, but I I just want to like name that here and know that we can kind of address that through both this priority and our our housing priority.

Great.

Any other thoughts on MSU?

Um so not the not to monkey winter to this too much, but uh my feeling is that this is just too this is too detailed for a commission kind of work plan in some ways, right?

Uh I and I like I definitely don't need a report on the progress in each area each year.

I mean, again, it's one of those things where I trust staff has going on, is is working with snow angels.

I trust staff is is the the don't curb your crap program.

I mean it's going I would I would suggest again this is a spot where when I looked at this the sub-bullet strengthen the relationship with Montana State, I was thinking, how do we help with housing?

How do we how do we talk better about housing and about some policing issues and you know some parking issues and um between our neighbors and our and and the and the university?

And so I mean I I think the annual meeting with ASMSU is a very appropriate thing to put in here, and that and it was very helpful, and it's I love that relationship.

Um having ASMSU students on our advisory boards is productive.

A lot of this stuff I think is is staff's work, and I would love again understanding that we're going to be talking about housing to have to have housing and policing and parking be kind of lifted up to yours in some way.

And city manager, I did actually circle that bullet point, city campus, connect quarterly meetings, and it's under the um programs and initiatives are underway.

Um is that a thing that's been happening for a long time?

I'm just not aware of it.

What's that third bullet point that you I literally wrote on my notes what is this?

Um that's a program that um the uh connect program, which is doing a lot of what you just described.

And I I gotta this is exact this is this is a passion for me, so I probably put way too much stuff in there because I want to be excited about um the ways that we work with the MSU.

So I I I get it.

And we do talk about um policing a lot.

They work like hand in glove, literally all day every day.

Our parking um MSU is making big parking.

They just announce another big uh student housing um pro uh project up there.

So you can tell which ones are super excited about, they're longer than the ones that I'll shrink it though.

Any thing else on MSU?

Okay.

What about telling our story?

I've I can I I've seen the evidence of this already, and I think it's great.

Um so uh I don't think we need to be involved per se, but um I do think it's a good thing to you know kind of broadcast and help citizens know kind of all the work that we do.

I um I think I'm I'm like a both and on that.

I I do think we're doing a good job and seeing all the things that are planned in this section um is exciting.

But I I would be interested in having a conversation as a commission about what areas we think were not telling our story well and um how we might target certain certain things for um telling our story better.

I think you know, staff staff hear a lot walking around town, but I think we as commissioners are kind of uniquely positioned to hear a lot of the ire of um you know our constituents, and um I think it's our our job to kind of flag these areas that are our pain points or areas that you know maybe could be highlighted on um the mayor's podcast or um focused in on for a particular like outreach or education effort.

And so I I wonder what it would look like to have a work session here where we can have a little bit of a conversation rather than the um action steps just being getting a special presentation when it's all done.

We can certainly do that, Commissioner.

Um you can also tell me um when we meet weekly about things that you want to communicate better about as well.

That was kind of my thought of just uh a little more informal kind of passing on the information to you.

Seems like we have a lot of work sessions piling up, and this to me would be a lower priority, even though it's a big priority, but not that we have to have a you know big meeting about it.

So my question is kind of what's not under this uh sub item C, cultivate public-private partnerships and collaboration.

I mean, telling our story is good.

But again, when I looked at this budget when we when we put this together back in January, um I was thinking that this is where we could like work with, say, Prospera on economic development, or we could work with um you know, kind of uh, you know, work with other entities that are out there working on or Hope a Mountain on and on child care, or you know, or other services that that these other organizations, entities are working on in our community, either working for you know child care or jobs creation or things that are our priorities, and we could maybe uh again understanding that some of that work is already going on, you know, but but um how do we how do we elevate that and and um leverage that I appreciate that it I and that's the risk of trying to organize it in this way.

Um Cola did a interesting uh diagram across walk of the board uh with all these arrows going everywhere.

I think you know it could get so complicated that pretty much everything we've talked about so far supports this initiative.

And if there's a glaring deficiency, then we sh you know we should talk about that.

But all of these we talk about partnerships throughout this whole document and much of what the city does, it doesn't do by itself, it does it through partnerships and is more effective through partnerships.

And that's kind of our ethos.

That's our our way that we work here.

So I I understand your point, and if there's a better way we can do that, but I think yeah.

I'll just say to that that I'm yeah, I mean that the crisscross is confusing, but like way down lower on page 13 under like the affordability um efforts.

Point D is support efforts to improve living wage opportunities in Bozeman.

And a lot of those bullet points have to do with um enhancing small business and better coordination between um skills development, child care, traded sector industries.

Um just like I don't know, I think yeah, enhancing the not to read the whole thing here, but there's a lot of the bullet points that feel similar to maybe what you were addressing, but I'd be curious if you feel like there's something separate that that doesn't belong in this bucket that should go up in the bucket we're currently discussing.

Um I mean it's kind of like you know, elevator growing creative arts industry cluster, right?

Uh like on on page 14, that's like I can bullet it from the top.

I mean, that's a natural place where we want to be collaborating with you know other folks.

I mean um kind of stings that that um you know live from the divide is on the other side of the Bozeman Pass.

Right.

I mean those but uh um uh that's too detailed here, but but that's those yes, there is you know, there is that that Venn diagram or whatever all those arrows.

I mean we could we could chart this thing out and we would probably take this entire wall to you know in terms of interrelations.

But that's the kind of thing I was thinking about for item C here.

I know we've all been working really collaboratively, and I think I don't want to harm that mood, but I do feel compelled to say that I have had multiple people say to me that they don't trust us.

And so if we go out and start telling our story, people come at it with a cynical view.

And so I want us to be really careful and not spend a lot of resources actually doing whatever this is.

Um, just today I had someone say to me, if they would just get the development under control, then we could listen and celebrate because our city does everything else really well.

Someone said that to me today.

So I don't know.

I don't want a logic a lot of budget going to this priority.

And uh I appreciate those comments.

Certainly that's a common theme with development in the city.

It's not a common theme with a lot of the other things the city does.

And I'd when I say tell our story, I'd like to tell the story of Matt Workman in our streets department and how he takes a very limited budget and does amazing things in service to our community.

If we don't tell that story, nobody's gonna know it.

And the person at the water treatment plant who um produces our safe drinking water, that's not an issue in Bozeman, Montana.

We've never talked about you know having to boil boil orders and stuff.

We take this stuff for granted.

When you when you pull the lever on your toilet, where does that go?

And how do we take care of it?

That's the story I'm trying to say.

I'm not trying to convince anybody about uh the the height the buildings or our processes for that kind of thing.

That's the commission's work.

What I'm trying to do is to take the other 500 employees who do amazing work to provide the city is to elevate that up a little bit so people can be proud of the city they they live in for the things that they're proud of and the things we don't talk about.

So that's that's mainly where that is is very little money.

It's not we're not gonna go out and hire a $5,000 production for to make a Matt Workman video.

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I'm just talking about using these things.

We do our podcasts in-house.

We're gonna do our newsletter in-house.

We're gonna do these little video vignettes that that it's not one thing, it's a whole bunch of things.

And the city is not one thing, it is a whole bunch of things.

And that's the that's the impetus behind that.

Is there so uh I want to see if we're if there's more discussion on telling our story as an item or cultivating public-private partnerships and collaboration, which I uh you know, we're providing direction to staff.

There will be a follow-up of uh, you know, revisions to this document.

We don't have to be perfectionistic here.

Um is there more on the item that we've been currently discussing discussing?

I would just want to lend support to um deputy mayor's comment about, you know, working with Prospera.

I I sort of interpret this cultivate public-private partnerships in a similar way, you know, working with the hospital on housing, working with Prospera on supporting local businesses rather than traded sector jobs, um, supporting the arts industry, all of those things.

That that is more sort of what I interpreted that to be.

I'll just also add that I I like the telling our story section here, and agree that it doesn't exactly fit the heading of cultivate public-private partnership and collaboration.

Um and maybe I'd suggest just pulling it out from under that and putting it up at the top with like and then um what was at the top?

Consensus program.

That one's like not even underneath the heading.

I think it could just go up there, and then there could be like a bullet point or two about it.

I think it could just go up there and then there could be like a bullet point or two about or yeah I think there's a variety of other things that maybe we're just putting in under cultivate public private partnerships and collaboration is really um one I think there are parts of this that are for staff.

I also think a lot of this is for us um that this is building relationships with other municipalities, other jurisdictions, um the big employers, stakeholders in the community, community organizations, faith community, et cetera a number of these that I know we've all talked around before and just saying this is specifically a priority that we are we are tasked with going and deepening these relationships for a variety of different reasons.

Yeah in some ways I mean telling our story is not really a and I guess that's the question is is this document for us as the kind of as a roadmap because we don't we're not going to be involved we it's not like we necessarily pick the subject I mean rely on city manager you you know the the work that we're doing it's really a staff thing.

It's not something we're gonna have like a work session on or we have to make a policy decision about I I like it.

I you know this is not to say it's not important but it's just it's not a um it's not something we're going to shape or put our fingerprints on.

Well I think I think you can I think I think you've been I think you've shaped it.

I think it was an idea from the commission or commission from a podcast for a newsletter for other outreach kinds of things where we um you know we do have collaborative partnerships with the weed district on the flyer that we're um putting out in the water bills that the counties request and they're helping us fund it.

Those kind of things happen all day every day and if we don't let you know that or we don't let the community know that it gets lost is one of those things that people take for granted.

So I'm not patting ourselves on the back.

I'm just recognizing the incredible work that your staff does all day every day and I think we need to share those success stories or people don't know about them and that's I don't that's the intent I think of letting you know letting you be involved in sharing the work that this city does all day every day because it it happens because of you five so where if if we're comfortable with the direction we've given on C and telling our story the one thing I'm just curious to check in of of how this process is going we're not even halfway through this document.

It is 920 do we I'm I'm looking for guidance here on how we want to what how are we measuring success at the end of this evening?

Well I think I think basically I think we can punt over the strategic plan update.

I think Mayor Morrison that's something maybe you and I could talk to and or or you know I I have a suggestion a thought of how we could maybe approach this and bring it back to the commission.

Without a bit a lot of ever a lot of ado we move the Citizens Academy out oh we have the leverage survey methodology so that's so we have two big things I think housing and this and this survey that come to just go to those that's kind of what I'd like to do to the big stuff.

I mean maybe success tonight looks like a list of work sessions we definitely want to have and sort of what is the more important one I I think we've done a lot more work than it looks like based on where we are on our scroller like we've moved a lot of stuff to the top I I think there's some meaty things to still talk about but I'm I'm finding this pace while it is a little slow to be really um informative and meaningful so I I would just keep forging ahead okay um then let's move on to and again um this is we will get a work session on housing in our housing programming what's I think on the menu for us to chew on together here are some specific things that we want to make sure that we get information on if there are pieces of this that we feel aren't hitting what we want to be seeing.

Just for clarity are we talking about housing now or are we going to the evidence-based survey methodologies heading I think I think housing is next in on the um the evidence based survey methodologies is next after strategic plan update sure is and can I just interject one thing the strategic plan I as someone who is not part of the leadership team meetings on Monday mornings I I don't want that to just be something you guys do please like as the whole commission.

I I don't want that to just be something you guys do.

Please, like as the whole commission.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

If we are putting two cents in, I feel like this document can be our two-year strategic plan.

And I think we're putting a lot of work into this.

And I I honestly was not one of the yes votes on putting strategic plan on our priorities.

So I maintain that position.

Okay.

So evidence-based survey methodologies.

Can I start now?

We'll pass it down the line.

Sure.

Thanks, Commissioner Smeene.

Okay, so yeah, I this is one that I feel really passionate about.

And I um have put the the bar of like the the gold standard is a randomized controlled test where we have statistically significant results and we can kind of see different constituencies.

Um the only number out there for how much that costs is how much it cost for Headwaters community land trust to run a survey with somebody that they they went through that that $15,000 number.

I don't know if that's how much it would cost for our city to do it once, or if we um could get a better deal by kind of signing some sort of contract for regular services.

And so I I think what I'm interested in here is kind of having staff do some some fact finding and figuring out you know what what's the the price tag on something like that, and then also kind of looking at some of the um maybe lower cost but still statistically you know scientifically helpful methods and and some of the ones I might suggest there are kind of looking into uh stakeholder panels where we identify what constituency groups we want to hear from and kind of find um people to come together.

We we did that on right to counsel and found that to be really helpful.

Um I also think that um when we're doing our our typical surveying processes where it's anybody can answer, um, those can be designed in ways that might just give us a little bit more um data on who's who's participating and what differences of opinion might be between different different groups.

Um so that's kind of the the conversation I want to have once once staff have looked at what what the options might be.

That's exactly the kind of feedback that I had hoped.

And you and I had talked about this um last time we met.

And the challenge for when you have to create this document a week before the meeting uh is that uh um Takami's done um made a uh initiative that does exactly that, and I couldn't get it into the packet before.

Um so um we're aligned on your vision there and the and the commission can decide where this tool gets used.

Like the consensus process is not something you would do for every decision.

I don't think a statistically valid survey would do for every decision.

I I think the effort we're going through right now is closer to $50,000 for a survey.

So I would be interested in looking how if we could get a statistically valid survey for a city of 60,000 people for $15,000, I'd be really interested in having that conversation.

But we are, we're gonna look, and if you'll allow me to bring back a initiative in this form addressing that, I'd be happy to do that.

We'd be happy to do that.

So the nice thing about having this conversation is that I realize this is right, frankly, where the consensus subsection belongs because that is an evidence-based methodology, not necessarily survey, but it's an evidence-based-based methodology that we are using to understand community attitudes.

And so, you know, I kind of frankly I would suggest we put telling our story under this sub-edited move um move consensus here with the evidence-based poll, the statistically valid polling.

Because and they're both they're really very expensive tools, they're very uh labor-intensive, and we're not going to use them for every decision.

I'd support that.

Great.

Okay.

Now on to housing.

Do I start?

Okay.

Didn't realize I was getting that baton.

Um, so I I think one thing I would just like to emphasize before digging into the little subsection is just that I I think um staff and and our city manager did a good job of enumerating very specific goals that we know are projects we wanted to work on.

And I think that we're just missing kind of a like what else style conversation where we talk about the funding mechanisms, um, some of the other tools that I think many of us here who who just ran talked about in candidate forums and at the doors, and um what I've had kind of one-on-one conversations with a number of you.

I I think I've I've heard interest in a housing authority, I've heard absolutely not housing authority, I've heard revenue bonds, um the levy.

I I think that I'd like to see a work session where we kind of talk on about the the what else and the funding mechanism part, um, and then also dig into the the things lower down in this section around the different aspects of you know distinct projects that we have listed.

Um I have you know, specific feedback on like the affordable housing ordinance section, but should should I stop there or jump down to that?

Feedback on again where it where it's placed.

No.

Or um specific things I want to have staff look into for the work session that we'll have on that later.

I think I think this is the spot.

Okay, sweet.

So in the rev revised affordable housing ordinance, um, it's it's kind of mentioned twice, right?

It's it's up above and it says consider replacements for parking incentives, neutralized by state law, incentives could include priority or expedit expedited review.

Um I would be interested in adding to that list of what what staff proposed to us for discussion, a exploration of um allowing more density in RB specifically.

This is where you know the architects came to us and said, we can build this really affordable type of building that's three stories and four units on each level with a central stairwell.

And when we passed our unified development code, we said maximum of six units allowed in RB.

And I was sorry, eight.

Thank you.

It's it's getting late already.

Um eight.

So I I'm really interested in in the ability of getting to 12 there, if the architects and the development community can put their money where their mouth is and show us that they can make an affordable building with that design.

Um and right now in code, it's it's not allowed in RB.

Um so that's what I'm interested in.

I I'd love for our staff to look at that proposal and see if um there is teeth, if if there if it has muster to stand on as a potential incentive.

And I I wouldn't recommend that across all of the zones.

Um I think we have sufficient density in the zones above RB, and um, I don't want to touch RA, but um yeah, that's that's a additional incentive I'd like to explore with this commission in a work session.

Yeah, Deputy Mayor.

Well, here's where I worry that you know that this text in the housing program is too specific, you know, and that we're already starting to kind of it leads us to down that road of starting to solve the problem here.

I you know, I I was I read this, and I my my thought is I I just want to again have a higher level.

It seems like what I've heard from the community is like how do we create you know a housing fund that revolves essentially, right?

And I'm wondering if that, you know, if we could sh maybe sharpen this we have the AHO somewhere, you know, somewhere else in here.

Um for this housing program, improve housing access through a variety of programs and strategies.

I'd love to hear from staff what some of those options are.

I'd love for us to maybe, and maybe it's something here where we are like maybe we could put down, you know, affordable housing is one of the strategies, a flywheel fund, the you know, a revolving loan fund, you know, could be another strategy.

I mean uh how do we get to kind of even know what that map of possible strategies are?

That's the question I have reading this.

Um I don't need to get into the community development block grant funding in this document.

You know, we're that's being taken care of.

But for us, it's like how do we get to information about if we want an affordable housing fund and who manages it, how do we, you know, how do we have even that discussion.

So here's you know, and again, I don't want to preclude anyone from having this conversation here.

My proposal would be, because housing is so wide and a priority for each of us electorally and that in our discussion up here that we work to just get a work session on what is the city of Bozeman's housing strategy.

Whether that what's the ways we're getting them off the ground, what's the ways we're preserving what we have, what's you know, the touches on a bunch of these different things rather than I think opine on each item throughout here that will make sure that we have the resources to talk about um revenue bonds, geo bonds, the levy, et cetera.

I um will we have the opportunity to opine on each of these things at said work sessions is maybe my follow up question?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

That's that's what I where I think is the most appropriate place to have that conversation rather than right here.

I I think my only hesitation there is if I don't have the opportunity to say I'd like staff to review a density bonus opportunity in RB, they might not have done the background to answer the questions I want to discuss in the work session.

So, but you could relay that to Chuck before the work session.

Yeah, I just worry that if I'm the only one who wants that, then then that doesn't make it over to staff.

I I think I'm I'm looking for three knots to say that density question has enough interest from me.

You still could do that, you know, via one-on-one conversations with us as we do now.

Like we don't all three tell Chuck to direct staff to work on this.

I I think I think we can.

I thought that's sort of what this period was for, but if we're wanting to expedite this in the interest of time and the lateness of the hour, I I could move to that strategy.

Commissioner Bodie, I appreciate that.

And the the intent here isn't to um uh um specifically define all of the elements of uh a work session with the commission.

I think the work session with the commission would define those elements.

And that particular idea that you just described has a zoning impact back to the UDC.

So there's that conversation, and then the structural or um financial uh uh opportunities with that type of um development um is another conversation.

And at some point those would have to marry together.

Uh um, and that's for the commission to decide about the UDC and to have a zoning conversation, which we are coming back to the commission for a more uh timely um text amendment or policy with the STRs, this short-term rentals and the grandfathering issue.

Then we have, since we have been using the uniform development code for a few months now, we see some things in there as we expected and intended to that we need to tweak a little bit.

So all of these now under MLUPA require the commission to direct us or to have a public hearing about those um prior to us doing the work.

So all these things are coming together.

I'm excited.

I think the housing pro the housing work session is going to be infinitely interesting and um looking forward to that.

Can I maybe just speak to a few items that are on here and see if there's any support for I wouldn't want the staff to devote time and energy to working on them if there is not support on this commission ahead of that work session?

The one thing that I'm really thinking, you know, we've heard a lot of comment, we've heard time and time again this design standards modifications.

Um this community is not okay with substandard buildings in order to get affordability.

We heard that in the UDC engagement because it was one of the options in MLUPA, we heard the community say resounding no in the change.org or ideas for change or whatever, one of the top 10 unifying ideas was stop giving developers concessions, they'll build here anyway.

So I just, and you know, and then we had public comment tonight again about you know, reducing these standards.

I just wonder instead of having staff devote a bunch of time to figure out which standards they could decrease or whatever.

Is there support on this commission for removing that item?

The affordable housing ordinance item.

Yeah, so it's um under consider replacements for the parking incentives.

Um and then it goes on to list incentives could include priority expedited review.

Honestly, I think the expedited review, or we're trying to streamline review anyway for everybody.

Um and then it says design standards modifications, reduce setbacks, relax landscaping requirements, modified open space requirements.

I just I think our community has told us time and time again they don't want us to go there.

And so if there is support from this commission from removing that, we won't have staff work on it.

I don't know.

I think um maybe to look at that a different way.

We've already modified some of the design standards for affordability.

So I would propose keeping that on there to um see if it's working and that if the community indeed is uh is against that, then maybe we can make adjustments, but um, I think it still should be talked about.

I I also want to have this in a broader conversation.

I I think um people love the bridge review development, and through their PUD, they got reduced setbacks and relaxed landscaping designs.

And so there's I think there's ways to do that in ways that people love.

There's also ways to do it in ways people that make people really upset.

So I I think that's a nuanced conversation that we need to hold for another day.

I also agree.

I think we're getting into the trying to solve this.

And I think that you know, the uh my question is I don't I don't my sense of the community is not as unified or homogenous as perhaps what you're seeing, Commissioner Sweeney.

I I don't see a you know uh unanimous call on this.

I see a lot of a lot of questions, but it but this is a this is too detailed for for tonight's discussion.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other um must inserts on our housing conversation?

Can we go back?

So your what's can I get a sense of your vision then is we would have a um housing work session where we would kind of talk about everything from setbacks and reducing setbacks and the efficiency of those to more density in RB to uh uh uh revenue bonds.

I mean, that's kind of the scope of a housing work session you'd like to see.

I think that is what we consistently, I mean, really what I've watched over the last couple of years is that uh we sort of keep lumping things onto David Britt and now Brian's plate in sort of piecemeal fashion rather than saying here is what the housing program of the city looks like in an evergreen perennial fashion with this new, I mean, at the moment it's it's the AHO, AHO and TIFF as our main tools.

And if we're trying to add in this consideration of a levy revenue bonds, et cetera.

I mean, I think that plus these additional pieces that we're gonna have to chew on at some point.

I don't know if it's gonna line up perfectly with when staff are gonna be ready to propose us with something for purchase AHO or you know, replacements to parking incentives being taken away.

But I think those are the pieces that I think are still they're they're what's here in this priority.

And so if we're gonna move this priority forward, we need to have a commission conversation about what those things look like.

So I'll just say my vision for housing in Bozeman.

Um I think it's futile to continue to try and get a for-profit industry to give us a thing that we're asking them to not make a profit on.

So I, you know, I have problems with the AHO.

I can't imagine right now what is a thing I'd be willing to trade.

Um then our use of LITEC is not financially sustainable.

We can't keep as a city whose only source of funding is property tax.

And we are giving up that property tax.

Lite tech projects do not pay property tax.

So we're giving that up in order to make that developer whole and get the profit that they need.

And we have no oversight over those projects.

Honestly, I hope the tenants union organizes every single one of those buildings because a lot of them have really negative reputations for living conditions and maintaining credits.

So, you know, if we're talking about what is the housing program for Bozeman, for me, I don't like either of those.

So I think that's part of the conversation that we'll get to have as the five of us and with this additional information about where we getting additional revenue.

Because I think that's the other piece we're running into is that there is a there's a dollars and cents question of saying if we're trying to build housing that the private sector is unable or unwilling to build, um, do we say, okay, I guess we just won't solve it, or do we try to find another mechanism to solve it?

Yeah, and that's why I'm really excited about the you know conversation with the bond council, because as public comment, you know, made clear, and I'm not sure everybody understands, you know, revenue bonds and conduit bonds, they do not impose liability on the taxpayer.

And we have, I think, a real duty to investigate that.

Yep, I agree.

I agree.

We have an uh I guess it would be helpful, maybe Mayor Morrison, to have a uh um a map from you, a really high level of what you think we should talk about on in this housing work session, and that we could then react to and send you notes back.

And you I think you guys would see, you and the city manager would see um kind of where the alignment is, you know.

I mean, there's several things that are being lifted up here at Lightek, you know, our you know, zoning changes, density, you know, but I I think keep it super high level and and then we can kind of maybe go from there.

Yep.

We can do that.

Okay.

I think I'm ready to move on.

I I feel okay with that proposal.

Okay.

Um what are there other items that folks want to make sure that we discuss tonight?

Meaning there are things that we want to make sure we have a discussion here tonight about rather than saying we're okay shipping these that we're gonna have a future future conversations about them.

I think the only one, and I'm skipping ahead here, is the UDC.

Um and so on Map Revision, since we had so many comments on it, uh just ensuring the public that this is going to happen kind of in a timely fashion.

And uh, you know, we are committed to making changes to the short-term rental situation and um dark skies and wetlands and just following up on the public comment.

But yeah, I know we're committed to getting that done.

Yep.

Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, I just would like to um I it's not it's not adequate to say pre-review later this year.

I would love to I would love to see um, you know, we've we've kind of made a commitment, or at least I did, that we could look at this, give the give staff four to six months.

We we've kind of settled on six months that it will be August.

Um and and I would, and there's this notion that okay, staff has ideas that they you know, things that they need to change.

We we're hearing from the public about things we need to change.

Um, you know, we may, you know, so I just how do we I would love to have a a commitment to the community that we will be looking at this in August.

Um and it would be nice, frankly, to have our boards like particularly the historic preservation advisory board and the and the um community development review board have um have some input to us about those.

So that process essentially kind of needs to start sooner rather than later.

Um if we want to have a work session in August, as some of us have committed to.

Yeah.

So an idea that I wrote down for this section, our city charter allows us to create subcommittees.

And I wonder, since there are a lot of things in the UDC and the zone map that need attention.

Would it be amenable to create a subcommittee of people who of commissioners of us who do the work to engage with some public and potentially engage with some staff if that's permitted and put together some ideas to bring back to this body so that it's not just putting this on staff, but us engaging with the public as a subcommittee.

I don't know.

And I guess if you need more specific, I was thinking Commissioner Magic and I have had walks with neighborhoods talking about their zoning.

Staff even thinks that we could, you know.

So I just wonder if subcommittee.

Yeah, I I think that could happen informally, that it doesn't have to be a formal process or commitment that I'd be happy to kind of work with you on some of that and others might want to take another part.

Yeah, please you guys, you five absolutely should be connecting with your constituency.

That's that's your job.

You got elected.

Is that if the process and your work doesn't coordinate with what the commission has directed the staff to do already, that that can get balled up and crossways really quickly.

And it will, you know, we've all heard the term go slow to go faster.

I think we're being very deliberate about what we're doing.

And um I am very supportive and uh of the direction that the commission has given staff.

I would just ask you to consider that sometimes we have to let the processes that we've started finish and to try to interject some other committees or committee work in that.

I think we need to be real intentional about that, and we need to be really considerate of that.

And I think um I'll stop there.

I'd just like to take a moment to name that I I think there are a bunch of kind of miscellaneous things that the um public has asked for, and I might I think it could be helpful to staff if we were to go around and see if we've got three folks interested in having staff look into that.

Um maybe that's you know something we do in another work session later.

Um but I I have on my list of things I've heard B3 Height, Dark Skies, um, the on-site wetland and water course mitigation manual.

Um I think I've heard zone edge transitions need to be revisited.

Um, in addition to the things that are already listed in here.

And I just I I know that when we had our commission priority setting session um several months ago, we talked about dark skies and said, actually, we don't have capacity to do that, we're gonna cross that off our list.

And I think that I've heard um some very specific uh line item amendments are coming and the involvement of this international dark skies group that could potentially make this a more viable thing for staff to look at.

I'm I'm I'm interested in revisiting that conversation, but I think as it lies, our past direction was don't do dark skies.

Um so I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page about what we're asking staff to bring to us in that work session.

So we are at capacity right now with everything that we're trying to do well, and and I know that because I I hear this that that the public's asking for this and the public's asking for that, and we hear that.

That's all information that's being taken in and being considered through these processes that the commission has adopted and sent staff to do.

So I I understand the urgency.

I am if you want if if not you, if this commission wants to do a big dark sky initiative, remember this is two years.

This plan is two years.

And I would just urge us to I hope that we can think about finishing the work that we have ongoing right now and bringing these conversations and these work sessions with the commission so you can make these important decisions before we take on another initiative.

And if you want us to do another initiative, then I hope that you would give us a chance to let you know the impact on the current initiatives.

So that's like probably a bit of a dream killer here.

And I'm just trying to share with you some things that I think are important you consider as we talk about adding additional work or changing the processes that were underway already.

Give them a chance to work because I think they're solid, and you're gonna be deciding.

The five of you are gonna be deciding on all of these things.

I certainly appreciate that.

And it's a helpful reminder that goes slow to go fast.

Um I think I'm it could be helpful.

Yeah, I think you know, um I'll just speak for myself.

I made a promise that we would look at the B3 height, you know.

Um and I would love to see, you know, kind of how you know what's our strategy for how we do that, right?

We we agreed, or I agreed on December last year that that making decisions from the dais from us is is unwise.

Um I would love to have some um strategy or suggestion from either from staff or from this commission on how are we going to make a decision about whether 60 feet, 90 feet, whatever is is the appropriate height.

And to me, that means getting kind of our advice our experts on our advisory panels involved from the business improvement district on up.

I do think I mean it would be nice to have to invite um, you know, I don't know what I don't know.

And and I I was taken by Ms.

Rice's um from the Saca Jouay Autobons, you know, invitation that they had they have done the analysis of the UDC.

It would be nice to see that.

Um and just have staff say, okay, look, this is a big lift, and we can deal with this in first quarter of 2027 or whatever.

But but I don't know, you know, or or are there just a few things that staff is like, yeah, actually we could put that into place and start to start to chip away at this.

But I I you know it's a balancing act, I get it.

Um, but I would love to just at least look under the hood and see what do we need to fix, what's possible, where where are the where are the fires, maybe, you know, SDR is clearly one.

Um B3, I would say is another big community concern and and transitions, you know.

We have heard these things from the community, and I think we owe it to the community to say, okay, we've been with this thing for six months.

It's either it's we don't have enough information or we need to we we have some suggestions.

And I would like to add to that and say that not only have we heard a lot of things from the community, the community has done a lot of the work.

So Sacage Wea Audubon Society contracted with the dark skies and has actual recommendations.

I mean, and then Gallant Watershed Council, you know, they have templates and the ability to help create this manual with offsets that you know, I understand that staff is really busy.

It you know, I'd rather have us work with those, have staff work with those groups to create these two initiatives than have a citizens academy.

Because honestly, this is more important to deliver the work than to have people come and learn about the city.

I just I think we squander this amazing public resource at our peril.

And the way I'm seeing our UDC update.

Um, so the B3 height issue I'd separate that's a policy discussion that we're gonna have to have versus what I see as line item edits.

Um I don't see the dark sky as this new initiative coming, and we've got a policy already.

We have to update little pieces of it.

Um and I see wetlands kind of that's the same way.

I don't envision our I see it more as fixes and edits.

And if there is a big initiative, that's gonna have to be pushed off for a later later time.

Thank you for that.

And and we are gonna so these conversations are happening right now inside, and we it's not on the six-month agenda yet.

We've had that that conversation about putting these things.

If you'll let me, I'll I will work with Erin and her team to schedule these conversations to find out from them when the best time is where they are in their process.

And I know there's we do have amazing people in this community.

And I think sometimes we've done the work for you.

There's a lot more work to be done to put it into our code.

And if you want to because everything's interconnected.

Everything's interconnected and what seems like a simple thing to me I go back and I talk with the team who actually does it and say Chuck you need to consider this and this and this and this.

And I I'm not saying this to I'm just saying we have to do the right thing the right way.

And that's my job.

And again I will have these conversations with Aaron I'll get with the mayor about calendaring putting these work sessions that you've given uh direction to tonight through our conversations and and we'll start to flesh this out and that's exactly what the my hope was with this document was that we would have these harder conversations not get into the decisions tonight but get to the uh scheduling the work session where we can have those specific conversations and make decisions give us direction and we'll carry it out.

I'd also like to just add that the B390 foot height issue is one where I would feel comfortable forking over 15 grand for a statistically valid survey because the downtown historic core belongs to everyone not just the people who develop in it.

Are there any other items that folks want to make sure that we spend time on this evening so the support efforts for long term watershed health to me it's much more about the it's uh again I understand we're interconnected it's about kind of how we grow I'm can my I again I'm concerned about what's not in here is that the I think we need we passed an ambitious water um wetlands ordinance or the previous commission did um that has you know kind of uh a lot that still needs work on you know and and it needs um has ongoing kind of compliance uh monitoring to make sure we're enforcing that I you know Ms.

Barry was kind of eloquent in the need that okay how are we staffing that and I and and what are the what's the guidance we we provide.

Oh I will ex we'll extend it to 11 to be safe we hopefully we don't need it but um but let that be the sort of Damocles over you.

I'm ready to go let's see uh 11 11 minutes but I was just wondering if we could put some I I don't have specific language but something about you know we that wetlands I I think is some unfinished code and and I just would love to hear maybe it is just a work session maybe it's much later but but uh you know um how are we doing in living up to those ideals that we we we put out there I I will note that I had a conversation with a constituent that said um the current way staff are interpreting this is a one-to-one ratio for replacement and that's just not um the like scientifically supported ratio um that is utilized across other communities and so I I think this is uh important place for revisitation and it I don't think that we miss the mark here I think we have a lot to be proud of in this wetlands um code and that it just looks like it it needs a a quick revisitation for those kind of line item edits and I I think this manual would help inform that okay anything else for tonight it would be helpful just have a quick so you're you're it would be helpful to have if you feel prepared a sense of kind of well where where do you see the work plans not necessarily what which one we may when but but you know what are the maybe top level work plans or work sessions you see us having as a as a commission that we need to you know schedule I was trying to track ones that I think were not intuitive that we're gonna have transportation management plan things like transferred master plan things like that the the three big ones that I identified um is housing programming uh perhaps somewhat urgently one on questions for voters things that we would want to put in front of voters um the UDC various UDC text and map in August and then most of the others that we were going through um I think coincided more intuitively with an existing priority um that may not even be work sessions you know interview

Top level work plans or work sessions you see us having as a as a commission that we need to you know schedule I was trying to track ones that I think were not um intuitive that we're gonna have transportation management plan things like transferred master plan things like that the the three big ones that I identified um is housing programming uh perhaps somewhat urgently one on questions for voters things that we would want to put in front of voters um the UDC various UDC text and map in August and then most of the others that we were going through um I think coincided more intuitively with an existing priority um that may not even be work sessions you know integrated water resource plan um NCOD rework um a bunch of them are housing related some sort of conversation not sure exactly what that would look like for how we're talking about the storytelling um I don't know if if there were others that you were tracking that you'd want to lift up I I think that uh you know certainly the the bigger plans will all come back to the commission for your fingerprints on that I'm not uh keeping track of those those are just kind of automatic and we'll schedule them as the plans get done but um I definitely um the question to voters that I think is really important that's going to inform what might happen this year yet and then um what uh we got a big public safety question particularly with the fire department and I think we need to we need to uh address that um and then housing I think that's probably that um might be two I I will ask the commission if you have um any appetite to have some of these work sessions during the afternoon during the day I think that is more effective sometimes and going into the wee hours of the morning um but we'll we'll we'll work let me I a lot to digest here a lot to keep track of off to get with Mike and make sure that we capture all the edits I'll get that to you um as soon as we have that completed and then um I'll create a list of kind of ongoing work sessions calendar with the mayor and then um I'm anxious to have a detailed uh conversation with Erin and her team about how we um can um talk about these uh UDC and B3 all of the things that are wrapped into the UDC and how we I know that she has some ideas about um kind of uh bringing some of these things in three phases to you I think the first one's gonna come in June is the um and we have a lot of noticing requirements for all these things too which we have to overlay over these conversations so I might not seem like it at 10 at night but I really very much appreciate um the conversation that you've all had tonight um and um it's not easy but it's really important work and you've all shown up tonight in a in a real positive way and I appreciate it.

Great we had any mentioned advisory boards potentially in June I it suddenly feels like those are maybe less of an issue priority you know I um the housing questions for voters the UDC text and map those feel big I don't know how you have this feel but I don't I we could push the advisory board discussion a little later into the calendar I would concur that the housing the questions for voters and the UDC text and map are my top three priorities.

Okay.

See mostly not okay any final just thank you for this work.

It's really helpful I really appreciate this a chance to have this conversation and thank you to all of you guys for sitting through all of this I'll just also add that I I think it was really challenging to keep the discussion part until later and I think for the most part we we did a decent job of that so I just appreciate you all for the restraint and holding the conversation to another day.

And I would add just based on past participation in commission priorities this dives into so much more than we've really looked at in the past in diving in in kind of a comprehensive fashion so I it I think was and is a good exercise and what's helpful I think ultimately to help us great okay that will conclude our work session on our priorities now on to FYI and discussion.

That will conclude our work session on our priorities now onto FYI and discussion.

Any commission?

FYI.

Yeah.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

I have kind of a fun one.

Um starting Thursday night and going to Friday night is give big.

This year there are no fees, so you donate to your charity of choice and they get to keep all the money.

A really uh wonderful nonprofit that I'd like to lift up that is doing a slate of some fun activities on Friday is the Extreme History Project.

They're doing short walking tours downtown from noon until five.

A donation is encouraged, but not required.

They're gonna um take people on the back alley tours, looking at ghost signs, um, Bozeman's historic saloons, early brickwork, all the beautiful brickwork we have downtown.

Um and then minority communities focusing on Samuel Lewis and our historic Chinese communities.

So if anybody has an hour or two to kill on Friday afternoon, meet in front of Mocha Boutique at 122 East Maine, uh, make a donation and enjoy a tour.

All of the donations are going to create new walking tours through funding staff time to research, but also purchasing um historic photographs and records.

So uh you'll be supporting uh history and Bozeman and uncovering the past.

Thanks.

Any further FYI.

Um I I've I sometimes never know how to uh whether it's best to respond to public comment in in the moment or um to wait till the end.

Often I think the advice I've sort of internalized over you know two plus years doing this is to never respond.

Um as much as people say at times they want to hear a response.

Um but tonight was was tough uh to hear hear insinuations of things like uh because apartment complex have been built in Bozeman that people drive recklessly.

To hear an insinuation that land use policies that this commission has made um minimize or simplify the complex conditions that lead to the tragedies of traffic fatalities.

While and I and I don't think this was being thrown in staff space.

I think it was being thrown in my face, but I appreciate your coming to the defense of staff.

Uh this commission's this commission sitting in front of you for the last two years, as well as commissions in the past have been extremely proactive on prioritizing transportation safety in a variety of different ways.

And so to have the insinuation that, well, you know, what's really making people drive recklessly is that they don't like the how development's happening is is disturbing, frankly.

Um so the the piece that I think we responded to is a community sentiment from some that are are giving submitting us public comment that are showing up here, um, writing us in saying, hey, we want you to have a conversation on interim zoning.

But it's not really have a conversation.

It's inact interim zone.

It's do it.

It's do the thing.

And a majority of this commission has made clear we don't want to do that.

That that so the point of having the conversation, putting it on a meeting for the sake of just tension with the community for staff uncertainty in so many different parts of the community.

Uh, when what I was trying to illustrate, and I think a majority up here also tried to illustrate was we need to see what is the five alarm fire that means harm is happening in interim zoning needs to happen.

To throw things like right to know, right to participate is like is just absurd.

Um like nobody is entitled to come and tell the commission you have to have a work session on something, or you have to have take the take this direction.

And I and we are getting to chew on it here, and and now this is like, you know, this is I think why the the advice I often get to myself is to not respond to public comment.

Um but it is it it it's it's a tough part of this job where I think there's times where the implication from folks that are giving public comment that are calling us that are coming here is that we don't hear from anyone else that we don't hear from folks that are saying they they do think that things are going well, that Bozeman feels safe, um, that have disagreements, have tensions, etc.

something or you have to have take the take this direction and I and we are getting to chew on it here and and now this is like you know this is I think why the the advice I often get to myself is to not respond to public comment um but it is it it it's it's a tough part of this job where I think there's times where the implication from folks that are giving public comment that are calling us that are coming here is that we don't hear from anyone else that we don't hear from folks that are saying they they do think that things are going well that Bozeman feels safe um that have disagreements have tensions etc like there there it's not like a universal opinion that everything that's happening is is terrible um I don't know it's it's like an unprocessed response but it is just it's it's a frustrating part of um not in a what was what was us for this job but just trying to see where is a path where is a unifying path forward meaningfully on on any of the things that we're that we're chewing on here um when we're asked hey give us give us your opinion and then we do it um and it's it's thrown as that we're you know being reactive we're being too late um I yeah I I think it was just hard hard to sit um through um through some of that public comment today and there's times where I just feel like I need to say something back even if it's incoherent babble any other FYI okay seeing no further business to come before the commission speeding is adjourned goodbye