Bozeman City Study Commission Meeting - May 13, 2026

The Bozeman City Study Commission met on May 13, 2026 from 4:02 p.m. to 6:02 p.m. to discuss further edits to the public engagement article (Article 7), deliberate on ward and district electoral options, and defer a decision on the elected mayor. The meeting included unanimous approval of the consent agenda, reports on charter corrections and public outreach, and public comment on both agenda items.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was approved unanimously (5-0).

Reports

• Commissioner Carson reported a correction to Article 4.01 of the draft charter: two paragraphs inadvertently copied from a 2006 draft version have been removed to match the final 2006 charter. Carson completed a full word-by-word review and found no other substantive discrepancies.
• Carson and Becky met with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle editorial board to update them on the commission's progress; the newspaper expressed openness to weekly op-eds for public education.
• Website meeting links for May were corrected; lost document links from February/March were recreated.
• The commission approved engagement with Danegeld consulting to assist with educational materials, with a kickoff meeting to be scheduled.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Angie Kachelek (Northeast Neighborhood Association representative to INC): Spoke in favor of at-large elections, stating that wards are not the right direction for Bozeman. Emphasized the importance of a strong neighborhood program and INC to address geographic concerns. Submitted written edits for Article 7.
• Natsuki Nakamura (resident, not speaking for Economic Vitality Board): Expressed concerns about wards, particularly wards elected at-large, arguing they do not lower campaign costs and can dilute ward voices. Suggested a sub-option for voters to decide, with a requirement for further study before the next charter review.
• Emily Kelly (Baxter Meadows resident): Opposed replacing elected representation with mandated neighborhood associations, calling them advisory only. Favored a ward system with at-large seats. Also advocated removing the deputy mayor position and directly electing the mayor.
• Bob Muldowney (Northwest side resident): Supported wards for formal geographic representation, citing distinct issues on the northwest side (traffic, policing). Argued that at-large elections do not ensure representation for all areas.

Discussion Items

Further Edits to Public Engagement Article (Article 7)

• Becky and Barb presented round-two edits for Article 7, now titled “Public Engagement.” Key changes: clarified language on city boards, moved principles of public engagement higher, added neighborhood association recognition criteria, refined INC responsibilities, and replaced “50 percent” with “a substantial portion” in recommendations.
• Commissioner feedback:
  • Carson suggested removing the phrase “not just as an occasional process or activity” from 7.01, and questioned whether INC requirements (7.04 D6–7) were too rigid.
  • Jen proposed adding a “community impact statement” mechanism under INC responsibilities (7.04 D) and under neighborhood association reporting (E2).
  • Deanna raised concerns about vague or ideological language (e.g., “authorities” in 7.02, “shall” in 7.04 D8) and requested a paragraph-by-paragraph review due to insufficient time. She submitted a written document of suggested edits.
  • Dan Clark recommended keeping “citywide concerns” in INC purpose but changing “concerns” to “issues” for consistency. He also noted a section numbering conflict (7.04 vs. 7.05).
• The commission agreed to have Deanna and Barb meet on Friday, May 15 to refine language, with Barb and Becky meeting on Sunday, May 17 to incorporate attorney Sullivan’s legal edits and create a complete draft for the May 20 meeting.

Decisions on Wards and Districts

• Commissioners shared positions:
  • Carson: Leaning toward four wards with at-large elections (commissioners must live in ward but elected citywide) to balance geographic representation and citywide focus. Opposed wards elected by ward due to gerrymandering and parochialism risks.
  • Barb: Supported wards with at-large elections to ensure geographic representation without non-competitive races. Favored expanding commission size if needed.
  • Deanna: Strongly favored traditional wards (elected by ward residents) to improve responsiveness and representation; argued that neighborhood associations cannot replace ward representation. Supported voter determination via sub-option.
  • Becky: Leaning toward maintaining at-large elections; argued that the main barrier to diverse candidates is financial (lack of living wage) rather than geography. Open to a sub-option for wards with at-large voting.
  • Jan: Supported at-large elections with better compensation for commissioners; suggested a sub-option for wards to let voters decide.
• Public comment reflected a split: some favored wards, others at-large or hybrid models.
• Decision: Deanna and Mike will draft ballot language for ward options (to be presented at the next meeting) that may include multiple options for the commission to consider. The commission will revisit this issue on May 20.

Elected Mayor Discussion

• Discussion was deferred to the next meeting, pending the ward decision. Some commissioners argued that a directly elected mayor would complement a ward system (providing a citywide voice), while Deanna argued for a commission-appointed mayor (two-year term) to preserve collaboration in a commission-manager form of government. No vote was taken.

Key Outcomes

• Consent agenda approved unanimously (5-0).
• Deanna and Barb will meet Friday to refine Article 7 language; Barb and Becky will meet Sunday to produce a complete draft incorporating legal edits.
• Deanna and Mike will draft ballot language for ward/district electoral options for the May 20 meeting.
• The decision on an elected mayor was postponed until after the ward discussion.