I'll call to order the Bozeman City Study Commission meeting of May 20th, 2026, and ask all who are capable to please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

It will be followed by a moment of silence, for which you may be seated if you would like.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

To the public for which it stands, one nation.

Indivisible.

Liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is changes to the agenda.

Are there any changes?

I didn't think any.

Next item is public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.

Please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments.

There will be time before each item on unfinished business and new business.

If you want to save your comments to make them more close in time to when we might be discussing them, but if you want to make comments now, you can do it.

You just can't have two bites of the apple.

Okay.

I see someone is ready to give public comment.

The floor is yours, sir.

Yes, hi.

Um my name is Brian Close.

I'm a former study commissioner and my principal residence, and this is what this is about.

My principal residence is at 1140 Cherry Drive.

Um back when we drafted this charter, there was a problem with landlords voting from their rental addresses, even though they did not live in town.

And um it was uh getting to be a problem.

So when we were looking at the word for defining an elector under section 2.02 for who's an elector for voting for the city commission, we put in the phrase principal residence, which is more exclusive exclusive than the constitutional definition that has currently been substituted for that.

I've litigated this issue in the sense I had a I had a couple cases before the commissioner of political practices, and the problem with Montana law, and this included a case that wasn't mine from people who are voting both in Wyoming and Park County.

Um Park County, Montana, is that there really isn't a good definition of residency.

So I would encourage you to go back to the original charter language of principal residents.

If it's unconstitutional, we still have the constitution to fall back on, and it may discourage some fairly bad conduct.

Uh finally, just want to mention as a citizen and as a as a study commissioner, I supported seven study commissioners back in 2006.

That's why you have that hokey vote language that you were deleting from the charter to increase the commission.

I encourage you to increase the commission.

There's just too much discount's too big for five people to represent it.

Uh to increase the commission to seven.

Uh and I can stay a little bit if you have questions, but I do have uh other duties.

Um so those are those are my concerns and recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Are there any questions of Brian in case?

Okay.

Fair enough.

Is there any other public comment at this time?

I saw three people wave, but I assume they didn't want to give public comment.

They were waving goodbye to Brian.

Is there any other public comment at this time?

Thank you.

Hi there, uh Mark Camp and I am a Bogar Park uh resident.

I'm also the president in grep for Bogert Park Neighborhood Association.

I speak for myself though.

I did submit written public comment in response to some comments that came in about allowing the commission to have full discretion as to the creation and uh uh basically striking the neighborhood associations and ink from the uh from the charter.

So uh as you would see in that comment, I'm pretty opposed to that.

Um I just want to remind uh this body that the city commission has all three branches of traditional government powers.

Some of them are limited, but they have executive uh judicial judicial and legislative powers.

And I ask if you have a body with that much power, and you don't put something like the neighborhood associations into the charter, and you leave it up to a body with that much power, um, to decide whether or not they want that.

Um the body, neighborhood associations don't even have that much power, uh, which I think is just amazing that they would want to strike it, but that's kind of a sign of where we're at.

Uh, and again, I would just encourage you to consider that uh with reference to those comments about striking it entirely.

Also, I I did pick out, I think it was 8.02 as probably being kind of superfluous um in the charter.

And if you look at my comments, you'll see that I think you could just move some of that language into other sections to sections shorter.

I think short and sweet is always better.

Um, and I thought I found maybe one contradiction, which said the you know, the city commission may uh have neighborhood associations, and then basically right below you say the city will have neighborhood associations.

So I don't want any ambiguity around that.

So, anyways, thank you again for all your work that you do.

I appreciate you listening.

Thank you, Mark.

Any other public comment at this time?

Any public comment online, Galeb?

Uh we do, yes.

We have Billy Warford.

I am gonna allow you to talk.

Um you should be able to now.

Are you there?

Um there is a deco.

Okay.

Um can you hear me now?

Hear me now.

Try it again.

I don't it might be her.

Yeah, it might be on your end.

Um you do have three minutes if you can hear me.

Um, but I'm gonna give you three minutes.

You can start whenever.

Okay, I'm done.

I'm done.

Well, okay, since I I can't make you go away, I will say I am a poor I am opposed to the what's coming on the agenda about ward.

I think we we have too much division in this country and dividing further into wards of the city will only give us more opportunity for more conflict.

I urge you to keep the city together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, and we did hear your your message.

Thank you.

And that was all.

All right.

We've got a tight agenda, and we have a hard stop at six, so um hopefully we're going to um cruise right through this as efficiently as we can, but as thoroughly as we can.

Um, there's nothing on the consent agenda.

Um next item after that is correspondence or study commission update.

I did see um someone requesting uh couple of us to come speak.

Becky, you responded to them.

Did you find out when?

They did not respond uh about when and what time.

So I just waiting to hear back.

So uh yeah, as soon as we know what yeah, we see a day and time, they can coordinate two of us to to attend.

I think they are asking us to send some dates and that the time would be six to six thirty would be the start time in July or early August.

And I am happy to be one of the people to go as long as it's before I leave for the boundary waters.

Do you want to go ahead and just communicate?

We need one of us to at least communicate with them and then once you have a day and time then reach out to whoever and to have us join us join them.

That sounds great.

Sounds good.

Um Carson, I also want to uh just state that I will be needing to leave at 5 45, and I will certainly um get online and listen to the recording for the 15 minutes that I miss.

Um I might even uh pop in during it, but I need to travel to another place to be at six.

Can I tell them why I congratulate you or do I have to keep my mouth shut?

It's my 60th birthday.

All right, happy birthday.

Shut up, I know, right?

Isn't that crazy?

Don't look a day over 59 and a half.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is unfinished business, proposal for wards as a sub option on the ballot.

Um I've received an email from Mike, and I assume Deanna that it's um something you and he conferred about, yes, we did, and uh the uh proposed language uh should have been included in our packet, and Caleb, you're pulling it up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I guess you want me to go through it?

Yes, please.

Okay, well, uh of course we have the option of um uh uh just making it as simple as possible, which would be the um oh the one at the bottom.

You want to scroll it down, uh Kayla.

Uh this would be right.

This would be the simplest sub-option we could have, and that would be uh choose one system for electing city commissioners, vote for one.

Option A, the citywide at-large systems, commissioners may live anywhere in Bozeman's city limits and uh and are elected by voters across the entire city.

That's what we're currently doing, or option B, the ward system.

The city is divided equally into neighborhood wards.

Commissioners must live within a specific ward and are elected only by the voters who live inside that same ward.

That is the simplest, and I might point out in from our own data as um Gallatin Valley Sentinel uh also pointed out, and they included the graph of the uh responses from uh our own survey where the large majority of people who uh were in favor of wards uh were in favor of uh the voting being uh uh within the ward.

So uh I don't know if you can bring up public comment or not, but um can you bring up public comments?

Can I comment?

Can I just show um just to show the graph?

Go out um a higher level though, please.

Um so just so everybody understands when um when the ballot comes out, the first question is do you want the existing charter charter or the amended charter?

Then we have an opportunity for three sub-options.

It if and so wards or districts could be one of those sub- one of the options, and the sub-options are either we're gonna keep it the same, keep the existing plan, or this is or vote for the new plan.

But if the new chart if the if the amended charter doesn't pass, even if a suboption passes, it doesn't count.

Okay, so it's so this is like an addition to the the um tentative charter.

So I think what you're saying in option A is that you keep the existing plan, right?

Or a ward system where you have to live in neighborhoods, and you can only only the people in the neighborhood vote for that person, right?

Okay, okay.

And that's that now there are other there are other options, but that is the option that is the simplest and would leave us the option to have other sub-options.

If in the course of our deliberations we come across other things that we feel the need for sub-options, uh this way we don't use them all up.

So why is it talk about the other one though, too?

Well isn't the third option?

Pardon?

Yeah, talk about the first one, but there's a third option.

Well, if we okay, there are uh if we did uh uh sub-option one, we would also have to do sub-option two to cover all the bases.

Okay, so in the first uh sub-option one, um option A is what we have uh currently, and then B the ward system uh the city is divided into equal neighborhood wards, and commissioners must live within a specific ward to ensure uh geographic representation across all parts of Bozeman.

Two, if the ward system option B above is approved by voters, how shall those ward commissioners be elected?

A, by ward voters only, or B citywide, and that takes up two suboptions.

Great.

Isn't there a third option which is the same as the option after or except it is either the citywide large system or the city is divided into equal neighborhood boards, commissioners must live within a specific ward and are elected by voters across the entire city?

That's part of the part that's what I just read.

No, but you you've you've got no suboption number one, whatever for want of a better term, and sub option number two, and then you have the alternative, which is choose wards, and people could only vote for the person that lives in the ward if they live in the ward.

Okay, but there's a third possibility, which is you have wards, but they're elected by the citizens at large.

And that's in that's in the that's right here.

That's in the uh first uh or the second suboption.

But you can do it without okay.

Let me uh respond to that.

Okay, okay uh the reason uh for separating this one out is is in response to our very own uh public engagement where we did a survey and we brought people together, and we had a we paid a uh company a fair sum of money to analyze that data, and they came forth with the data, the the uh highest majority of voters um uh uh uh uh who were interested in in wards wanted the wards uh elected by yeah, great, bringing that up.

Uh wanted wards um that uh commissioners live in the district and voters only from that district, and you can see that that was almost twice what um uh the number of people who wanted uh uh districts voted at large or wards voted at large.

So I think in response to our own uh research and public input uh and in the um cause of saving ourselves two other sub-options that the uh the last sub-option on the sheet is the one that I am um uh you know, but I think we should consider very carefully.

I understand that, but there is a third option that's a little bit.

Why would we do it if nobody wants it?

It's right there in the I asked.

Can we um yeah, let's get comment from all the commissioners, maybe?

Okay, so wait, are you gonna run this or do you want me to run?

What do you want me to do?

Um, I want to run this.

Go for it.

But you're right, I'll shut up.

Other comments from the commission.

Well, first I think we need some clarity, um, because I don't hear that we've had agreement on what exactly is before us.

I I had when I read this, and I understand the two sub-options being used up if we go with the first section of the uh at large versus ward.

And I think I understand what you're saying, Carson, is if you could put all three of them in one sub-option, which would include the third one being residents being in a geographic specific area, but everybody can vote for them.

Um that would give us only one sub-option.

Am I clear about that?

Correct.

Thank you.

Um, so therefore, I actually if we could do it that way, I would like to see it that way because I think it has got the um options that are not only indicative of our own varied opinions, even as study commissioners who have spent a great deal of time thinking about it, but also um uh at the same time, I can appreciate the last second grouping of just either or in terms of below or if you if you can see that.

I'm sorry, the language is a little clumsy here.

Um, because I think it is it is a very clear-cut vote.

I would personally respectfully disagree with the interpretation of the survey.

I think that belongs maybe in another section because I've worked with them as well, and they don't necessarily reflect doubling that because you have to add in the third category of voters to make that all work.

But I think we've heard a variety survey, uh public hearings, incredible level of public comments, uh, all of those kinds of things, and I don't think I've heard a unanimous major call to action for any of those three options.

So I think putting it on a sub-option and not coming to a decision as study commissioners would be a very good idea.

I'd like to support that.

And secondly, um I would I would choose the uh the latter of the two options to make it a clearer decision for people.

I think it will be somewhat confusing to have all three sub-options in one, or all three choices in the one suboption.

Thank you.

Barb, do you want to comment now?

I don't have a comment, I have a question, and we may not have the person that can answer the question in the room.

But I I agree that the second version of the ballot question is more clear.

My question is in that more clear option, can we have a third option for people to choose from so that it would read option A, citywide at large, what we have, option B ward system.

You can all you have to live in the ward, and you can only vote for the people in the ward.

Option C ward system, divide the city into wards.

Commissioners have to live in the ward and are elected at large.

So then all three choices would be in a single ballot question.

But I don't know if legally we can have three options.

So that's fair enough.

Becky.

I really want to know.

I know we had a survey.

We did the survey, it was a great survey.

There's 523 people, filled out the survey.

We had a lot of public comment.

Public comment has been more all over the map.

Uh, we just had public comments that don't do or so we get public written public comments says don't do wars, don't do districts, do it at large.

And there's and then we have all this educational information about other cities and and things that says, you know, here's the pros and here's the cons, and so there's just so much, which is why I think last meeting we said, let's take it to the voters.

So I like um what was written in that first option, um, where um and it would use our sub-options, however, because I'm gonna suggest one more.

Um, but I think it might be worth it.

And if so, the first one is do you want to vote at large, keep it existing, or do you want to do wards?

Okay, sub-option one, sub-option two, if a ward system is approved by voters, you have to live in in you have to live in that ward to vote for them, or you vote at large.

Everyone gets to vote for everybody, but you have to live in a certain neighborhood.

And then the third sub option is because here's the big thing like how do we do that?

How many commissioners and therefore wards do we want?

And it could even be just how many commissioners do we want.

Do we want six or do we want four?

Because that would be five with the mayor and seven with the mayor, and so that could be our third sub option, and I'm thinking why not?

Because I don't know that we have other sub options that come to the table right now, and then we could put them all together.

And even if the first two fail, the how many commissioners do you want could still keep it the same, existing because that's that's how it says in the MCA?

It's the existing or the new.

So the second part would be different in terms of it's if the ward system is approved, how should these be elected by ward or by at large?

So I don't know if that's allowed because it says either existing or new.

So I would suggest that the number of wards and number of commissioners is a separate discussion and we should have that, um, and um, but this could stand on its own, whether it's four commissioners or six districts or seven or whatever.

Um, so I'm thinking now is a good time for public comment specifically on this issue, and then we'll come back, and presumably there'll be a motion made, and then we'll discuss that.

Or we can do a motion first and then let the public comment on that.

I think there needs to be some clarification.

Okay.

Um, and I you know, I I think going forward with this uh without Greg uh here uh as the legal uh person is is uh um perhaps uh uh too much of a rush.

But my understanding is that a sub option can only have two choices.

That's right.

Okay, so we can't add a third choice in there.

It's either it's this, either or.

So um, and that's why this was crafted in the way that it was, so that uh to meet those uh uh requirements, right?

But I thought you were gonna come up with all the possible options, so there's a third option that's as simple as the second option, it just changes instead of having to live inside, it says you vote at large.

You have wards, have the commissioner has to live in the ward, but it's an at-large vote.

In fact, I misread this when I first saw it.

I thought it that's what it said, but now I realize it says you have to live.

So um we could propose any of those three, and it wouldn't be too many sub-options, I believe.

But the question is which of those three did we put on the ballot?

And um, and again, I think that's exclusive of the number of wards because we need to decide that also.

Um, which is the need to preserve another sub-option, if we're if we're not going to decide the number of wards, um, but that'd be an extra, to your point that'd be the third sub option.

That's right.

If we just if we wanted that to be an option, or we could just recommend X number of wards that we don't have to give people the option on that.

So are we ready to hear public comment on this before we come back?

Okay, thank you for listening to sausage being made.

Is there um any public comment on this issue at this time?

Don't you need a motion to vote on for public comment?

Okay.

Oh, that was the public comment.

Yeah, can you be sure about that?

Can you identify yourself for the record?

Hi, my name is Beth Boyson.

I'm a resident of Bozeman.

I live at 1140 Cherry Drive.

My public comment is.

I think we need a motion to vote on to contribute public comment.

I think you need to pick one.

Don't they?

I think the three or four possibilities have been out there.

So please comment on any of them.

I feel very this way.

Okay.

Natsuki Nakamura, Bozeman resident, member of the economic vitality board, not speaking that behalf, also a member of the Better Bozeman Coalition, not speaking on that behalf either.

I think just in general, I'm reading this and getting confused.

And I've gone to a lot of these meetings.

So I would I think just put strong preference.

I have my hesitation with that word.

I'm in favor of giving voters a chance to think about it given that there was a lot of public input on it.

So I'm not against putting on the ballot.

But just for the clarity, I think the alternative two, I guess, would be better when there's just one question.

And I would prefer if you guys make a decision about how many wards are going to be and either at large voting or district, I would prefer district, just to actually get the benefit of people being able to vote specifically for the representative if you're trying to go for the ward option.

So of these alternatives, I would say alternative two at least makes the decision clear.

Having kind of conditional sub-options where two suboption two depends on the outcome of sub option one seems confusing for your ballot education.

So of these alternatives, you're presenting strong preference for the second one, only one question, and you guys decide how many wards we're talking about so we know what we're voting on, and that it's going to be voted by the district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask her a question?

Yes.

Can I ask you a question?

I'm wondering if we think that do you want wards of districts versus do you want four wards or districts?

Or do you want six?

Is that too big of a question for the public?

I'm curious to like, yeah, I wanted that, but I didn't want six, so I voted no.

Or I wanted that, but I want it, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

Um, I think in general, choosing one variable would be good for each question.

So if you're proposing, you know, expanding the commission to seven commissioners, having that in the same question embedded by saying six wards, is you're kind of choosing two variables, and that might be too confusing.

So, I would think the most clear thing is that you guys decide how many wards there are put that in the charter if that's what you're saying, and then it's up to the commissioners whether we elect by words or they're just in ready to go in the future, potentially that we have four words, but you might have they might not be relevant for the election, but I think you would have to decide if you're doing four or doing six, and then we're deciding whether the we're voting by words or not.

I think putting the question of four words versus six words in the questions too much.

You're deciding multiple things in one question.

Thank you.

Any other public comment at this time?

Caleb, anyone online?

Uh, not right now.

Okay.

So we're back here.

Um, Mike and uh Deanna were tasked with this.

So do you want to make a motion, Deanna?

Um, I would move that we adopt um the um choose one system for electing city commissioners, uh vote one.

This is the ultimate.

Oh, I'm trying to.

Oh, the bottom one.

Um option A, uh, the citywide at large system.

Commissioners may live anywhere in Bozeman city limits and are elected by voters across the entire city.

Or uh option B, the ward system, the city is divided into equal neighborhood wards.

Commissioners must live within a specific ward and are elected only by the voters who live inside that same ward.

And I think that that is the easiest.

Um, and uh is the most responsive to the um surveys that we did and two sentences.

No, I'm I'm still.

Oh, you don't have a second yet.

Okay.

Is there a second?

I'm gonna second it so we can continue discussion.

Um, but I'm gonna argue for option one as the choice and some other thoughts.

All right, now as the maker of the motion, you get to go first.

I don't know where that rule comes from.

Okay, it's what the city commission has done for years.

So go for it.

Thank you.

Um just repeating again that um voting uh for wards with um the um uh commissioner living inside the ward and voters being um uh uh in the ward.

Answers is the most responsive uh uh option that we can offer, and uh it has many advantages in terms of getting more people into the process of governance because running for an election in a small ward is far more doable than um waging a major campaign across the whole city, which is expensive and difficult, and um therefore I uh am very much in favor of this option.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Um so I'm gonna I'm gonna name them alternative one and alternative two for clarity of communication.

Um and and I when I first read this, I had similar reactions to everybody else in that alternative two is much clearer as a ballot question, which is why I asked my question about could we put an option C on the ballot in alternative two?

And so what I'm hearing is that no, we cannot legally do that.

It has to be a binary choice, which is too bad.

Um, but you can have another sub-option, right?

No, I I I am I am under I understand that um I do believe that we should ask the voters about the number of commissioners and whether we should expand our commission from the current five to seven, because I think that regardless of what people decide on wards, um, that is a thing we might want to do to share the workload, increase the number of commissioners to represent the city and be out meeting with constituents and all of the things.

Um so I do want to protect another suboption for the ballot.

I have dug back through the past reports, and in 1996, the city quite clearly voted down wards, and voted down expanding the commission to seven in 96.

We also voted down expanding the commission in 2010.

So it's it's very possible that we'll still vote those things down.

I do want because of that, and because of my concern that we don't have a way to get geographic representation on our commission.

I do want to have the option to vote on whether we have people in wards and vote for them at large.

I think that is also a fair way to go and a fair question.

So personally, I am inclined as the to recognizing that it is a more complicated ballot question that does, as Nitsuki pointed out, interject several variables.

I feel like it is the more truthful way to have the community decide about this issue with all of the choices before them, and we will need to work with our ballot education consultants to make sure that people understand that first they're voting for whether they want to move to a ward system, second, they're voting for how they want to, if they approve wards, how they want to elect by ward, and then third, we have a vote on the number of commissioners.

Maybe that's punting it, but given that we have a history of voting down, expanding to seven, I'm a little reluctant to just say as a study commission we're voting for seven and putting that in the charter.

So that's kind of where I'm at at the moment, but I am I am really still learning and open to thoughts on this.

Other comments.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm gonna be voting no on this particular uh motion, and the reason why is because I think that the I personally am not, um I I think that this idea that being able to get more people more representation from across our county, I mean, city, I don't believe it's a you live in the wrong neighborhood thing, it's you can't afford to.

I still I think we're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, that even if you know if we don't change the way commissioners are paid, it doesn't matter if you let someone in my neighborhood be a part of the commission, uh I still can't run because I have a J O B.

And so that said, I'm only one person.

I it's I'm hearing strongly that some kind of ward opportunity is a is a good thing.

So I'm like, okay, great, let's do let's do that.

I'm on I'm on board with that.

I can vote for that.

However, I would um I would be more inclined and to say that we're gonna remember number one is to keep the existing method of electing commissioners, and this a second option would be um the commissioners might listen must live in awards, but we vote at large.

I could I could swing with that, and I could get behind that even though it's not my personal preference, but I can understand it.

And then to Barb's point, then the a second sub-option would be um the number of commissioners with existing uh body of five or switch to a body of seven.

So those would be two sub-options that I could get behind.

But this particular one where you have to live in the ward and only the people of wars is just so much evidence to me that that there's too many downsides to that, and we want people thinking about the whole city as a package because we're not that big.

So that's just mine.

Great.

Jen, you want to go or do you want me to go?

Um I can add now.

I want to hear Barb's uh proposal before I had a chance to speak.

Um, I'm very inclined to agree with Becky.

I've been really clear that I believe that at-large voting mainly because of the fact that I want the most people to be voting on our elected officials, the strongest possible representative democracy to be in place in everywhere we can build it into the structure.

I also recognize that we are looking for greater diversity of location of perhaps people's skills, a variety of things that would always benefit, I believe, our commission, and I also uh know that we won't get them strictly from, as I always say, geography is not destiny.

We need other ways to do that, and that's why there's a proposal actually to address some of what Becky has said.

But I do think um I could support uh the same proposal, which would be having the at-large remain the same and having wards um elected at large.

Okay.

Um I think I agree with Becky and Jan.

I think the best next move for the city is to create a ward system.

And um I'm open to four or six wards and then one mayor at large.

And um, that ought to be a question on the ballot, and it's a second that in my mind it's a totally separate sub-option.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, the reason that I don't um I won't vote for this particular motion that's in front of us is based on one, the study that we did, which is what people ask us to do, which talked about the advantage of having wards where people elect from a ward, and they elect a person that lives in the ward generally has to do with a group, whatever minority political group or whatever, not getting any representation, and they live in a definable place, and that's a way to get representation for those people.

Although I have heard many people say, and I I get it, the people on the commission don't represent me.

But I don't think that going to we don't have a um conglomeration of people that might be living in a given ward that feel that way.

So I don't see that as being a solution to the fact that, and I don't know what the numbers are, but I'm gonna guess that 30% of the people, based on how the elections work, um, don't agree with uh the people that are gonna get elected by 60, 65 percent of the voters, and so there's inevitable that there will be that minority and their political groupings, they're not any other kind of groupings, as best as I can tell.

Um the second reason from the study is that what happens often is people that are elected from a ward by the people in the ward tend to feel um loyalty to the ward rather than the city issues at large.

I think generally, with the exception of a few um growth issues, and and they're big, um, I I don't want to minimize them, but generally the issues in front of the city are citywide issues, and I I would like um our um commissioners to be um responsible to all of the voters, um, rather than getting what they call log rolling, which is you you trade um I'll get X in my district and you get Y in yours, and we'll vote together on these things, and that's not paying attention to the general views of the city, but the most important thing to me is right now, um I see no reason to believe that we won't find ourselves in a position um where people are gerrymandering these districts to create really bizarre um um groupings in places, and I don't think that there's a solution, and I think if you look nationally, that's the way it's going.

Whenever you have a smaller subdivision, people are trying to figure out how do you gerrymander it so that you can get more votes on the commission.

Um that may be something we have to face when we're bigger.

I just don't think we're at that size at this point, and the the step that I would like to see taken starts us on the road to having wards, to seeing what it's like to have someone live in different parts of the city, um, but um doesn't put us in a place where we're gonna end up in a in a whole gerrymandering thing where people are trying to figure out where everybody lives so that they can get um more representation than there are.

I look at um states like Louisiana right now, where you have um, well, I'm not gonna go there because uh we don't need to go there.

So that's where I am where I am on this.

Um so Deanna, further discussion.

Well, uh, indeed.

Or do you want to do that the uh uh the the discussion on the number of wards.

When you say we're not big enough to go there, um uh Belgrade is much smaller than we are, and they've determined to have wards.

Um Billings, Missoula, Helena, all have the ward system, and it seems to be working well for them because they didn't choose to have any um uh government study uh on this go-around, and um also when the wards were voted down, the population in Bozeman was um 37,000, and uh we have grown um exponentially beyond that, and the question of whether we are big enough to have wards, I think is uh not a question.

We are definitely big enough to have wards, and it was primarily the reason why this commission was convened, because people felt they were not being represented and that they would be better represented by wards.

We did a survey.

Uh the majority of the people by a long shot uh wanted wards, and they wanted the wards to be um uh voted by the people in the ward.

And I think that if we do anything other than that, uh we are um risking having the whole charter um uh rejected because people are feeling unheard, and I and I myself feel they're right.

If we don't move forward with what they have indicated uh they want through our own outreach and surveys, uh then indeed they are not being heard, and we are um uh super we are um not doing our jobs.

So uh I point out population and growth being the major reason why uh we are certainly within the realm of going into wards, and you know, of course, I would like to see us put it into the charter and um not even go with the the sub-options, but I guess we uh have moved beyond that, but um uh we could put it in the charter, and then the choice in the sub-options would be at large or within uh the the um ward.

So we I think we have a lot to talk about, and um I don't think we should rush through it.

Other comments or discussion before we vote.

Barb.

Yeah, I just I I want to back up on the survey a little bit because I I read the results somewhat differently than you do, Deanna, and and that this was a two-part survey question.

The first part used a liker scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree and asked people if we should prioritize geographic representation rather than citywide elections, and none of the respondents from any quadrant of the city got to four and five, which is in that strongly agreed place.

All of them were in the 3.2 to 3.6 level, which is a little bit of like kind of I don't know.

Um, and then the next question was potential geographic rules.

If we go that route of geographic-based commissioners, what rules make the most sense?

And that that is when a majority of the people said voters should only vote in that district geographically, but I feel like the response to the survey as well as all of the public comment we've gotten on this question is a little more nuanced than a majority of people want us to do wards.

I just don't think it's that black and white.

Um, and so I want to figure out how to make sure that we are putting before the voters a thoughtful choice that creates um a system that can dip our toes into increasing geographic representation on the commission, and not create the the issues that Carson just talked about, because we are going to be redrawing lines pretty frequently at this point because of the way our city is growing.

And that that opens it up to gerrymandering.

And so I also have that concern.

So I think, yeah, we still we still have to think about this one.

Okay.

My only other response is Belgrade is a default city, meaning the default under state law is cities have wards, and that's one of the reasons they have them.

And I know that in the past, I haven't looked in the most recent elections, they've had trouble getting people to run in each of the wards.

And the second part of this, um, that I didn't raise, is uh I assume that if you live in a ward and you get elected and then you move out of the ward, then there has to be a new election, and you have to fill the vacancy.

And that's part of my feeling about um size, particularly if you're talking about renters, because I don't think um you're likely to get a lot of rhetors that are running when they know that their lease is gonna run out, and they may have to find another place in the city to move to um as well.

So anything else before we vote?

Um, Carson, one more thing.

I'm on the same page Barb was quoting from, and um, I wish I could tell you that page number, but um, there's also the third question, which is about commission expansion, and the survey residents also selected whether they thought the commission uh Boseman should expand its city commission beyond five members if we're only looking at the survey results, and we all know there's a whole lot more going on, but basically the vast majority of people said no, um, 41%, 42%.

Uh yes was 33% and unsure, and you always have that unsure group to add in, even if you split the unsure into both groups.

Um, it's not a mandate to go to seven, it is more of a mandate to either stay the same or come up with something else.

So thank you.

Okay.

We ready to vote?

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

I'm sorry, in favor do that again, please.

Sorry, I was reading my survey.

Do you wish to change your vote?

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

Aye.

All those opposed, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Motion fails four to one to four.

Do we want another motion on this?

I think we need to move forward, so yeah.

Yeah, we need to propose a third alternative that's not in our materials.

Yes, okay.

So, because I mean because of what I said about alternative one and understanding that it's confusing now that I know I can propose a third alternative, I have one.

So we can call this alternative three.

Um about just I'd like to make a motion to do this.

Yes, so I'd like to make a motion to propose a third alternative for ballot language that would read choose one system for electing city commissioners, vote for one.

Option A would be citywide at large system, and would read just like alternative two.

Option B would be the ward system and would read the city is divided into equal neighborhood wards.

Commissioners must live within a specific ward, and are elected at large.

That's the motion.

That is my motion.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Barb, do you want to speak to the motion?

Um wait a minute.

Anything more than you've already said, is there any public comment on this motion?

I don't know whether I'm in the realm that I'm not capable of dealing with.

I'll keep it short, yeah.

Um, not Suki Nakamura, Boston resident, economic vitality board member, but not speaking that half.

Um I just want to lift some of it seems like those four skeptics of wards.

I'm also a skeptic of ward and one strong proponent of wards.

And she's made it very clear.

Deanna has made it very clear that her preference is wards voted by wards, and I see that a lot of the benefits of having wards are diluted by having a vote um elected at large.

For example, say we have four wards, and of those four words the Northeast District strongly wins the votes of the district, but then are outvoted by the other three quadrants of the city, then the voice is very diluted, even though those strong preference you can see in the the voting voting for this particular neighborhood advocate that the rest of the city basically outweighs.

So I think if we're gonna have wards, which again I'm skeptical mostly because I'm afraid of uncontested races, which I have concerns if you have separate questions of having six wards or six expanding the commission and then a separate question of wards, you might get a situation that someone doesn't want of they want six at large rather than six wards.

But just want to lift that because Deanna's made it very clear and I agree with her reasons of wanting wards, that I don't see the point of having the question being wards elected at large.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I wasn't gonna speak tonight, but I am now going to shock you all by this won't be a shock.

I am totally against wards.

However, I believe that the way that the uh questions are listed in the first alternative, where you're given the choice for doing at large versus wards, and then the choice of doing wards voting only and citywide, is actually not that complicated.

It is simple, and uh that it does provide the most honest choice to the voters and the most complete choice, and um I would certainly be lobbying for at-large system or uh citywide voting in whichever, but I believe that if this group wants to give the citizens a choice, they need to give them give the citizens the complete choice.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Other public comment.

I really don't want to talk about wards for another six months, but you know, I didn't mean that kind of public comment.

Caleb, anybody online?

Uh no, right now.

Okay.

Discussion.

Well, I think I think Mary is very uh on point that um uh the first alternative uh as written in our uh materials today uh does give the city the broadest um while it doesn't it isn't responsive to um our surveys and other uh input, it does give a full choice, and to um to uh offer wards uh at large, which uh clearly was not indicated in our own surveys, uh, would be um uh not good governance.

So I would say we need um so I would not vote in favor of this, and I think we should be looking at the alternative one that gives a full choice.

Other discussion.

Actually, I should have let you go first, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

I think that I think Mary does make a very good point, and and I am willing to go that route as well.

So I I can change my motion if that is the will of the whole commission.

Um, because that was where I was leaning initially, but initial public comment was it's too confusing, so well, other comments.

I I would be fine with that, um, and just for language, it's not two questions and one suboption, it's two separate suboptions, and let's keep using the language up, keep it that existing, or go to the ward system, and then the second sub-option is if the ward system is approved by voters, how shall it be elected by ward borders only or at large?

So that would be two sub-options, and I would like to just throw down the third sub-option, which is the number of commissioners, because I know we can wait forever, but this meeting does get done in one hour, and we've got a lot to accomplish, and uh in eight days we're gonna be talking about the entire report.

So we're not rushing, we're just time is tick-tock.

So Barb, would you are you interested in um in editing your motion?

Um, and if so, how would you like to do that?

Well, why don't we vote on this motion and then if it doesn't one of those to end it?

Well, then she needs the permission of the second as well.

I didn't second it.

Who seconded it?

No, you didn't.

Yeah, you didn't you seconded my alternative three motion.

I'm so sorry, this is.

You seconded my alternative three motion, so you have to give me permission to bail, or we can just you have permission to do whatever.

Go ahead.

All right, so I'm gonna suggest that we just remake the motion.

It's simpler, unless there is an objection to it.

In other words, we're deeming the question.

I think we've already done I I I'm not sure before we vote this motion down.

Maybe we need to make three.

I think we need to make clear because we can't have three choices in a sub-option.

We're not three sub-options.

There are not three choices in one sub-option.

There's only two choices in each sub-option, all right.

Let's understand.

All the possibilities are covered in alternative one here.

So to confuse it with three sub-options, all talking about.

I think that we now are talking real voter confusion.

We're not talking about that, Deanna.

We're so I made a motion that we entertain alternative three for ballot language.

So we need to resolve that down.

So let's vote on the motion.

It's simpler.

The motion as it stands.

Um unless somebody objects to voting on the motion as it stands.

I'm gonna do that.

All right, all those in favor of the motion as it stands, so indicate by saying aye.

I all those opposed, so indicate by saying aye or no.

Nay, I think we use when we oppose that.

Nay, but did you guys did Deanna vote the way she wants to vote?

So voted aye.

You were voting, so the the motion at hand, Barb do you want to say the motion at hand again, just so we all know what we're voting on?

So much has been said.

Yeah.

So the alternative three for ballot language.

I move that we put alternative three for ballot language on the ballot.

It would read option A, citywide at large system, option B, the ward system, divide into equal neighborhood wards, commissioners live in a specific ward and are elected at large.

Right.

So all those in favor of that motion, so indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed to that motion, so indicate by saying nay.

Nay.

The motion fails on a one to four vote.

Is there any other motion?

I move we put alternative one as presented in the materials on the ballot, which would be two sub-options.

Subs option one would be choose one system for electing city commissioners.

And then if the ward system is approved as suboption two, how shall those ward commissioners be elected?

I understand that, and I'm going to second it.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any public comment on this motion?

Is there any further discussion on this?

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Hi, I'm Tim Marsenko, resident of Bozeman 1216 South Third.

My question to you is kind of numbers when you're talking about number of wards.

Well, the number of wards equal the number of non-mayoral commissioners.

So there, in this case, if you're having five total, this is going to be four wards.

And the mayor is not part of that ward system.

That's the way it stands.

Okay.

As I understand it.

No disagreement on that, is there as to what it says?

Okay, thank you.

Any other public comment?

Caleb.

Not right now.

All right.

Further discussion.

I'm gonna vote for it.

Um, I think it's a little confusing, but we hired people to make it less confusing and they're gonna have to do their job.

Um, and I appreciate the public comment that said this is the best way to get the public's opinion on everything, because you're putting all of the options in favor of them.

Um I voted for the other motion because I think we're at a partway point.

We do need to start looking at what wards might look like in the long run.

Um, but I'm certainly not gonna uh vote against this if it's the will of the rest of the commission.

We ready to vote?

Yes.

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

Aye.

Opposed, say nay.

Motion carries five zero.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is decision on commissioner pay and number of commissioners.

I have a motion on this.

Oh, that's excuse me.

I'll start with A or number.

We're gonna start with whatever the motion is.

Okay.

Caleb, can you bring up that motion for me, please?

Here's a copy of it.

Carson and I are bringing this to you.

And you'll see it, yeah.

There's one change, Carson.

I agreed with you that we'll remove the sentence, and I'll get to it in just a moment.

But I'm uh looking at the section under Article 2 of the City Commission.

It is uh certainly right now called 2.04 compensation expenses.

And this motion, which I'll just read uh basically is a substitute motion to substitute what is currently in the um city charter for this substitute.

The city commission shall appoint a new city board, the city of Bozeman Compensation Board, to determine the annual salaries of the mayor and commissioners.

Said board shall be comprised of two commissioners, the city's chief financial officer, and four residents who are registered voters and live full-time in the city.

Compensation for each position, that is the mayor's and the city commissioners, shall be determined based on an appropriate percentage of the Gallatin County average median income for a family of four.

The approximate percentage of full-time work, 40 hours per week, expected to be performed by the mayor and commissioners in each fiscal year, shall be determined by the compensation board so that a specific annual compensation amount may be calculated.

I had as a city board, it will be subject to the same uh practices, but we can remove that.

In addition, the mayor and commission members shall receive their actual ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of their office.

That is currently in the um section right now.

I so move.

And I'll second that, which means I'm gonna hand you the gavel.

Okay.

So we've got a motion and second on uh proposed amendment section 2.04 and um what was written minus the sentence as the city board, this compensation board will adhere to the standards and practices article 8.05 city boards, and you know that's just yeah, that's inherent.

So I I agree with that.

Um let's go ahead and open it to conversation from the commissioners and then uh open it to public comment.

And uh Jan, since you made the motion, would you please begin?

I'll just briefly speak to it because um we have a lot of a lot of things on our agenda.

This uh Carson and I.

Well, I won't speak for Carson Carson that I believe um came from the uh learning that we had when we invited our city, our county commissioners here.

They have a compensation committee that um does similar kinds of uh work.

And in fact, I see we have a former city commissioner here, a county commissioner here, excuse me, uh, who might be a resource.

But um, but basically they are using um a variety of of uh comparative data.

They're using uh again the um county um average median income, and really this is speaking to the fact that I personally would like to see whatever number of commissioners we do have be full-time commissioners and to really take on the increased responsibilities and duties as they have continued to grow.

I also think it addresses the issue that a number of you have raised as uh commissioners, and that is who can afford to be a commissioner.

How does that help us increase the skill set, the life experience, the expertise that could come to our commission?

And we also in course include the mayor in that full-time uh 40 hours a week as well.

So I think this would address a number of those issues, and I also think it's really important that people get paid for this work and have a livable wage.

I'll turn it on over.

Thank you, Carson.

So, the idea of the compensation committee that the county uses, I thought was a good one, because it takes some of the pressure off the commissioners who are voting themselves a raise, and um the system where you voted and then you waited two um two years to get it, didn't seem to work.

And the end result is commissioners and the mayor are working well beyond um what they're getting paid, and I think that has an effect on who runs, uh, because who can afford to do it.

Um, we set it up so that there are two commissioners on the board so that they can address the issues of what it takes to be a commissioner, um what hours it takes to meet the job description that we're recommending that the uh commission makes.

Um but I I thought four residents um would be a good balance because they ultimately can make that determination.

Um they can vote no.

Um the chief financial officer was added just to fit it into the concept of how the budget would work.

Conceptually, what it's meant to do, and I think the language is right, but it maybe could get cleaned up a little bit is you look at the job before the fiscal year begins, and you say this is what we expect.

We expect um the mayor to work 40 hours a week.

Then you have the number already figured out.

That's what the mayor gets paid.

If the um compensation commission um thinks, no, we're gonna have a mayor that works 20 hours a week.

And it fits, or uh maybe the better example would be commissioners don't have to work a full 40 hour week, they're working 30 hours a week based on what the job description is and what they're doing, then um that's the percentage they get um three quarters of what the AMI is um and um the then the last clause is straight out of the you know if they have expenses uh that seemed to me to take some of the pressure off the commissioners but also be real let's be real about what this these jobs are and what we're paying people for them because it has value so that's why we came up with this thank you Carson Deanna how does this differ from um we talked at great length about our commissioners being uh citizen uh legislators not politicians full paid politicians so how did this come about uh between our meetings that you put this together because uh I don't I don't recall any discussion about putting together a um um uh amend amendment to uh uh 2.04 I think at this point what's important is um what are your thoughts about this um this amendment we have had conversation about should a comp should a commissioner be paid should they not we just talked about it when we talked about wards and at this point that it's out of order because we we did not talk about um creating uh a new section to um pay our commissioners a full-time salary uh we we we did not come to that agreement that the commissioners would be paid full time this is that's this doesn't call for that this is not designed to create an automatic full-time salary 40 hours per week for the commissioners and when we had the discussion I think I made a motion to say that the mayor is a full-time um employee and that failed that failed we decided then that we would talk about compensation for the mayor and commissioners and I believe Jan and I were tasked with coming up with a proposal and so that's it's been on the agenda for quite a long period of time and we finally got to it.

So at this point it's it we've got a motion we've got a second um Deanna would you like to comment on now should I go to Bard no I can come back to comments there are some this is quite unclear there's some things that need for example the very first sentence or in the first paragraph here compensation for each position um the uh uh position is it referring to uh commissioners and um the chief uh the the commissioners or the people that you have put on this board uh that needs to be clarified that these positions are uh which which positions are being um assessed for uh their uh salaries I think it's mayor and commissioners and I think that's pretty clear the city board shall determine the annual salaries of the mayor and commissioners go ahead Deanna I'm sorry well it's further comments board shall be comprised of two commissioners the city's chief financial officer and four residents who are registered voters and live full-time in the city compensate compensation for each position yep I I understand that I see what you're saying what other comments do you have about this particular motion uh and if you want, I can come back to you uh no more comments.

No more comments.

Okay.

Bob.

Um so in thinking about this agenda item, I I believe in having a citizen commission and mayor, and I see that pay is a barrier to lots of different people running.

Um just doing the study commission with a more than full-time job is hard.

Um I like, I really like the idea of a compensation board as a new replacement process for what's currently in the charter.

I am can you explain again the first sentence of the second paragraph and how that works?

Because it reads a little funky to me, and I'm not sure I understand it.

And it's the one that says the appropriate percentage of full-time 40 hours per week expected to be performed in each fiscal year shall also be determined.

Like I'm I'm not sure I understand what that sentence means, and I can see that people would misinterpret it as saying these positions are full-time.

Um, and I don't think the charter should be prescriptive in that way.

If we if we pass this, I think we maybe have to mess with the language a little bit.

But the concept is the compensation board looks at the position of mayor and the and separately the position of commissioner and says in the next fiscal year is expected that the mayor will be a full-time job.

So that's 100%, and maybe they say it is expected that the commissioner job will be a 30-hour a week job or a 20-hour a week job.

20 and 40, it's a 50 percent.

That's the percentage, and so you multiply the percentage times the AMI, and that's what the salary for the commissioners are.

That's the way it's intended to work.

Jan, would you be willing to um it would this would only be if the second would be okay with this?

Would you be willing to uh add to your motion that like everything else you would leave uh Barb and I to Wordsmith within the intended content?

Because like Deanna brought up a good point that you know and and I agree.

I think I tried to insert those words for each position, mayor and city commission, knowing that that wasn't clear, and I think uh that would be helpful.

I just want to add one other benefit.

So, um before we go further.

Is it okay that you that we amend that?

Please.

I need to check with Carson then as this.

Okay, thank you.

So we've amended that motion.

Go ahead, Jane.

Oh, but did you want to add or Barbara?

Were you finished?

Okay, sorry.

Did you want to speak?

You didn't get a chance to.

Yeah, yeah, I will.

Um, I I'll just say that I think that um I think this is a great solution to what we're looking at.

Um, I've said over and over again that I'm not diabolically against districts and wards.

I just don't think it's gonna solve the problem of can we get people from other neighborhoods to run for commissioner when they can't afford to because they're working a full-time job and raising their family and whatnot.

Um, and so uh it was very clear, Carson, when you wanted to put full-time air in the charter, and Mike Moss very clearly helped us understand that we can't say it should be a full-time position.

What if we end up with seven uh commissioners and then we don't need a full-time, or what if we do, or whatever, and this gives the ability to be general enough that the this compensation board can make those decisions about what's best for the city for the next 10 years, and every year it can be a little different if they need to, and it still has the section in there that um that they uh you know you have to wait till the next group comes out.

So you can't vote for a full-time salary and receive those benefits today, you wait until the next um election.

So I'm I'm in favor of that.

Go ahead.

Yeah, the the waiting for the next election isn't in there.

Oh, it is it's just fiscal year.

Oh, fiscal year is a year by fiscal year.

Okay, sorry about that.

And do you want to take public comment on this?

Yeah, I was just gonna add one more thing if I could.

Um, the reason I was really impressed with this model coming out of not only the Galton County Commission, also the city of Missoula as well, has uh a similar program, is that they really utilize um the public hearings uh more engagement with the budget, which some of us have been concerned about, the lack of more public engagement with the city budget.

So this really gives us a structure to make sure that we've got citizen involvement in such an important decision, but that it also reflects the cost of living to be in a place like uh Gallon County, and also will hopefully attract the kinds of diverse and um skilled and experienced people that we deserve.

So thank you.

With that, I'd like to offer uh public comment on the uh compensation uh committee amend uh proposal that is on the table, knowing that it will be wordsmithed, yeah.

Uh Daniel Cardi boson resident.

Uh, I do like the idea of a compensation board.

I'd offer a suggestion for a language change.

I don't think the correct term is average median income, it should be area median income.

The who?

Area media, yeah.

I don't think you can have an average median unless you have multiple media, so anyway.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Further public comment.

Seeing none in the room, Caleb, is there any online?

Not right now.

Thank you so much.

I do have uh DN thinking.

Um if we look at uh your language for section 2.05 prohibitions.

Um no commission or member shall hold any other city office or employment during the term for which the member was elected to the commission.

So in that language, we have made this a full-time position.

Now I was going to bring that up when we talk about this charter, uh, because there are several things such as this.

So to um in this should be the uh first of all, we need to delete that commissioners can't have any other job because that limits the um that limits the uh type of person who can even run for commissioner if they own a business or uh any such thing.

Deanna, that refers to employment by the city.

Well, that isn't what it says in the language.

It should be changed to say that, but that's what it's meant.

You can't be on the city commission and be able to do that.

I understand that, but in your language here, you had or any other uh that's a good edit.

It's not my language.

Well, it's the language that we're we're discussing today.

So that's a good edit.

So here we are talking about compensation and making it um uh a uh what is it the uh compensation committee?

Uh no, the um average um sorry area and median income.

Area median income.

So are we so we're talking about a percentage of the area median income based on the amount of work that the elected officials who all paraded in here and said that it was a full-time job.

So what we're really saying here is that we are making this uh uh a full-time paid position.

I think that it says that the isn't the intent in it when we words, um, I think the intent is that the compensation board will decide the appropriate percentage of full-time work expected to be performed by the mayor and commissioners in each fiscal year, that it doesn't say they will work full-time or that the mayor is full-time.

Is that correct?

What I'm understanding.

And so if that is maybe we need to wordsmith that second paragraph, just that paragraph that I was asking, yeah, yeah.

Yes, that's what I thought.

So it's we're gonna work to make sure it's not saying anybody should be full-time, right?

Okay, and it was partly done because we haven't yet decided the number of commissioners, and that does affect the workload.

Right, okay, I've got that written down.

Further.

Further input before we um take a vote on this, I'm not going to vote on this until I see the final language.

Okay.

All in favor of uh the motion as passed, I mean as as mentioned and seconded by uh Carson.

Uh say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, same sign.

Abstain.

Abstain.

And Deanna's abstained.

Thank you so much.

The second thing on this agenda item is uh the number of commissioners.

And um I don't know if someone has a motion.

We've had uh I brought up an idea where we have a third sub-option with the number of commissioners where we stay with the existing four commissioners or the six commissioners, but since I'm um on this agenda item, I will not make a motion, and maybe someone else has a better agenda item.

I mean, a better motion, so I'll open it to us in terms of what do we want to do with this.

I would move that we make a as a sub-option to the amended charter that we're gonna present, give the voters a choice between six and four um commissioners, and um and then you have to tweak it a little bit because it it's either gonna end up being commissioners at large or commissioners by ward voted for by ward or commissioners by ward voted at large, but I think that the easiest way to do is just six commissioners or four commissioners.

So right now we've got two sub-options already voted for.

One is that we keep the existing uh voting, so it's about voting how how we vote at large versus at wars.

The second suboption is if it's war systems approved, then they have to either live in their ward or you can vote at large.

We only get three by statute, so this would be the third sub-option of either the existing four commissioners or six or six.

Yep.

Okay, is there that was a motion?

Do we have a second?

I'll second a second, okay.

And you we've talked about this at at length, but do you want to add?

I just personally think four is a better number, but I I get six um as uh a way to spread it around and um not get to the position where people are full-time all the time and they don't have time to do anything else.

Um the other hand, the the voters have turned it down several times, uh, the idea of more commissioners, and I I think the magic number that we've talked about um in meetings at work is about seven people, so six would would be the maximum.

I would not suggest that we do more.

Okay.

Who would like to go next, Barb?

I can go next.

I mean, I'll say this is a topic we haven't heard a whole lot about in the public feedback.

Um, and so I definitely don't feel like we have a mandate to just decide and write a different number into the charter.

Um so I support asking again, asking the voters again whether they think it makes sense to expand our commission or not, or keep it at four, and then we can you know adjust the charter after the vote.

Jan.

Dido, I really think uh we've gotten a lot of passionate views in many different directions about the numbers and who pays for it and all of those things.

So I really love the idea that we can make this a sub-option and hear from the people.

Thank you, Deanna.

It's other option.

Sub-ops, okay.

Sounded pretty clear.

Anything uh public comment from the public, Mary Bateson, Bozeman residents.

Um I'm in favor of not changing the number of commissioners, and um I don't mind having it be a question on the ballot to go from four to six or decide between four and six.

But one thing I want to make a point of and to make sure that this point is made to the public when they're deciding, is that it's a big assumption to think that having more people on the commission will make it less work for commissioners.

Because I would expect, and especially if you're going to ward award system, that the commissioners must understand all of the material that they're going to be reviewing and making decisions upon.

And the number of people that they're sitting next to has nothing to do with preparing for that.

If you do have more people in a meeting, the meetings will last longer.

This is going to be painful, not only for the commissioners, but for the people in the room, because the commissioners are not limited to three minutes in their comments.

And so I just want you to think about that.

But I would be very unhappy if that kind of logic is not honestly presented to voters on the ballot.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Further public comment on the number of commissioners or having it on as a ballot option, because that's really what the motion is about.

Should it be brought to the voters?

Go ahead, Tim.

Uh Tim Marsenko, uh, resident of Boseman.

Uh my concern with if you go to the ward system, the problem of having six commissioners, which would mean we'd further divide the town of Bozeman into six wards, and then the need for having a commissioner coming from a specific ward gets much more difficult.

It's it's a huge commitment to go ahead and ask people to come on in as be a commissioner.

So further dividing the town of Bozeman into six wards versus four.

I think you're gonna get a much better representation for a larger group of people with four.

And I also agree with the uh concept of all six are gonna still have to go ahead and prepare for the meetings, although there could be division for uh subcommittees and stuff that they're going to have, but I think bottom line is four it will be better than six.

Thank you so much for the public comment on this issue.

Hello, I'm Jane Jelinski, and I live on North Tracy.

Um about the number of commissioners.

If you include increase the number, you will increase the workload, you will increase the time required.

And I would really I would a priority I feel is important is to adequately compensate the commissioners and the mayor.

I think that they are grossly underpaid, that the their work is undervalued, and um people take they just take it for granted that it's not a real job, and it is.

Um so I think it's really important to compensate properly.

If you're gonna add numbers, you're not gonna make it easier, you're not gonna get it, but you also have to have a fiscal note for any one of these considerations.

You have to have a physical note of adequate compensation for the circ that the existing number of commissioners, but um you know that if you have a fiscal note, which you have to have, if you're gonna uh put uh six commissioner option in there, um, it's gonna be so expensive.

It's gonna be very much more expensive, and uh it'll get voted down.

So that's my opinion.

Thank you so much.

Any more a public comment on this issue?

Seeing none, is there any online, Caleb?

Not right now.

Thank you so much.

With that, there's anything further, we'll uh hear that.

Otherwise, we'll go ahead and vote.

Go ahead, Carson.

The only thing that I can think of that saves time is if you have six commissioners and the and presumably they're all assigned to various advisory boards, then you're lightening that load.

And if the commission in its wisdom should decide that the um new commissioners also are responsible for going to the neighborhood association meetings that are in their district, um that would save some save some time.

Um but I get the other points very loud and clear, and you just hope everybody prepares for all the meetings.

So there you are.

Okay, that's all I got.

All right.

Uh seeing no further uh comment all in favor of this motion to add the third sub option.

Say aye.

I any opposed, same sign.

All right, motion carries, and you know, I think that leads us to one thing that we do need to clarify, and before we jump into the next motion on changes in previous agreements, which uh is important is that one of the things that we've tossed around, I I think is that on section 2.03 under the mayor be mayor elected at large at a regular city election, the voters of the city shall elect a mayor at large for a term of four years.

We've talked about four commissioners, six commissioners, obviously.

Then that would leave the mayor at large.

Are we all solid on that and move right along?

So anybody has a motion they'd like to.

Let me take that.

That's F3 on the agenda.

That's the I I'm just kind of jumping that to the first of F three because we are at this number of commissioners, and so if we're gonna offer four or six, we better clarify that the mayor is.

The point of F3 is if we've done anything so far that people think have changed their mind about anything we voted for or thinks we should reconsider, then now's the time to make the motion before we get into the document.

And that's the complicated language about incongruities that I thought we were gonna change because it was confusing, but it didn't change.

My language, I'm sorry.

But conceptually, we've voted on a whole bunch of things.

We now have something in front of us that we're gonna uh go through and see if there are any changes to, but before that, is there anything that we voted on in the past that um someone wants to reconsider, um, because of those incongruities or otherwise, and the the one that we know we've been talking about has been electing the mayor at large, and um so now's the time if anyone wants to make a motion in that regard to make it, because we approved Article 2 already, correct?

So this would be just a change.

I got it.

Okay, I have several edits that when we discussed um making edits to this document, um, and I met with Barbara, um, uh a lot of the suggestions that I made um uh were not taken.

And of course, you know, we we I didn't expect that would uh, but I would like to bring them before the whole uh commission because there's language here that is um very problematic, and so some of it uh uh I don't know if you're suggesting that we have already approved this language because in my mind we haven't.

No, my what I'm and I'm the reason I'm staring at you is you've talked several times about wanting to rediscuss the idea of the mayor being elected at large and instead having the mayor be elected um by the other commissioners that are amongst the other commissioners that are elected.

Do you want to make that motion now?

Um, because now is the time to make that motion, then then we're gonna in the next section go through the draft.

Well, the problem with uh making that motion is that the only way that we could uh actually do it at this point would be as a sub-option, and we've already and we've used up our sub-options, which is um, you know, so I I'm willing to um uh I'm willing to let that go.

Okay.

Is there anything else that's out there that anybody wants to change?

All right, we've got 20 minutes left.

Um, do we want to start with the um review of that draft charter and get as far as we can with it?

Okay.

I think we need to start with the review of the draft.

Now there were several people in the um uh audience that said they wanted to talk about these changes.

So I think now is the time to take public comment on that.

So we're now on item G1 review of the draft, Boseman Charter.

Is there any public comment on that?

I'm so happy we got this in.

Okay.

Um I'm Ann Vince Aguera.

I'm the founder of the newly established Valley West, the Lakes Neighborhood Association, and I'm an Inc.

rep.

I'm speaking on behalf of myself.

I do not represent my entire neighborhood or Inc.

And Bozeman is going through a challenging time right now, which I liken to a teenager going through puberty.

We're growing rapidly, we're anxious about the future, and we're oftentimes irritable.

I attended several intense UDC meetings, and it's clear that we all care deeply about how Bozeman evolves.

Now, where you live in town or what side of what your politics are, we we're all concerned.

At these meetings, many people mentioned that they do not feel heard by our government.

I believe neighborhood associations and the interneighborhood council provide a practical way for residents to engage.

City commission meetings can feel intimidating to some, so neighborhood associations in Inc.

offer accessible structured starting points for civic engagement.

They help more residents feel comfortable participating in making their opinion known.

Empowering neighborhood associations in Inc.

strengthens the connection between the city government and makes involvement in city politics easier, more meaningful, meaningful, and more inclusive.

I encourage the study commission to main strong language supporting neighborhood associations and inc in the draft city charter.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Is there any other public comment before we get into this topic?

Tim Marzako again.

First of all, thank you, each and every one of you for the amount of time that you've been putting into this.

I I totally understand the commitment that goes behind it in the number of hours.

So again, thank you.

It and we really appreciate it.

Um I know that uh just recently there had been some comments with regard to uh pressure to take out public participation as far as this charter goes.

I want to thank you again for uh supporting public engagement in local government governments, and as is uh indicated in Article 8.

And uh I think that uh we have to recognize that Bozeman has an incredibly large percentage of highly educated people, highly motivated to support this town, and I think that it is a complete mistake to go ahead and take us out of the program because we have so much to offer, and we're willing to go ahead and be by your side uh and by the commissioner's side to go ahead and and research this and go ahead and put our input in too.

So I thank you for supporting the inner neighborhood council as well as the uh neighborhood associations and and we've been part of an over the neighborhood association um and the university district and the presidents of those university districts uh they they work so hard and with a lot of different people within the city uh uh different departments, such as parking and such.

And uh so I know that it works, and I think that it does uh it brings in inclusivity to the neighborhood, and uh it just works.

So again, thank you for for keeping that uh an integral part of the whole charter.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim.

And if people could say their names more clearly, then I could say their names back to them, and I'm sorry if I've if I screwed up.

Hi, I'm Angie Katoak.

I live on 620 North Tracy Avenue.

I am the Inc rep for the Northeast Neighborhood Association, but I'm speaking on behalf of myself.

I've sent to you guys some uh comments even as late as an hour before this meeting, so I trust that you'll get them and you'll review them.

Um I'm really just feeling pulled to um let any of the viewing public know about the amount of public comment that has come in to you since one of our commissioners asked you to strike some language, and so it might not look like it in the room tonight.

Um I think some of us have already shared our opinions and maybe being respectful of time, but I do think it's important for the viewing public to know where they can find the written public comment that has come in, and it's tricky.

So if someone wants to see all the public comment, they could just type Bozeman public comment.

There's a website, you click on uh the hyperlink, and then you go you actually do go to city commission, and then after that, you have to scroll down and then go to study commission meet at meet minutes and reports, and then after that, then you go to 2024-2026 study commission, and then after that you go to public comments, and then after that, then you go to 2026, and then you could scroll down and see oodles and oodles of public comments asking you to please not strike language about the neighborhood associations and ink.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Oh my god.

If you understood how little control we have over that whole thing.

There is that's the only reason why we're laughing with you.

There is a slightly easier way if you go to the hyperlink in the agenda that says c public comment repository.

You still have to go through some subfolders, but it'll at least skip a few beats.

Under C in the agenda.

Nice.

Okay.

Any other public comment?

And if you made us laugh, I again it would be 10 points.

I'm not as funny as Angie.

Uh Dan Cardi Bozin Resident.

Um, I do want to thank thank this commission for keeping uh section eight public engagement in this draft, especially neighborhood associations and the inc.

The move by uh deputy mayor uh Douglas Fisher to ask you to strike this entire article from uh the draft um charter was really a move beyond the pale.

It was arrogant, and we have not seen arrogant behavior like that since the former city manager was forced out and caught on a hot mic video, disparaging public comment, uh our public participation in our government.

So thank you very much for keeping that in.

Thank you, Dan.

Can I add one thing to that public comment?

Sure.

If you pretend it's a question, I I just wanted to recognize that um that that public comment from deputy uh deputy mayor fisher came in um unaware of the rest of us, and we are the ones who wrote in that entire public comment.

I mean, public engagement section into the the amended charter because we've heard so much.

So there was not an article dedicated to public engagement, and now there is.

So just know that we're all A-plus.

I think I can speak on behalf of all of us with A plus.

I'm sorry, I have to prevent you from clapping.

And I when I walk out know that I'll hear all your thoughts, even though I have to go out to my birthday party.

Any more public comment?

Public comment online, Caleb.

Not right now.

All right, so what I thought we would do with this is um just go around one at a time, and you you make one motion for a change if you want to.

Um you get two or three sentences to explain why, so that if it's not self-evident, you get to do it.

And then if there's a second, we have a discussion, we have public comment, and then we continue.

And then we would go around each.

In other words, I'm assuming Barb has none.

And then we go Jan, then Deanna, one, me.

I'm gonna hand the this off to someone.

It's gonna be Barb.

Um, and then we keep going till we're done.

And we're not gonna finish in 12 minutes.

So in when we get to five minutes before the hour, we better talk about what we're gonna do next.

I'm a little concerned that if we do that with line edit typo type stuff, which there is stuff in there's I found some typos, like, that's gonna we're gonna like so.

Can we have it be a higher level than that?

Substantive if you see a typo, and I've seen a few things that I think are typos, tell Barb if it's not a typo, um, then um we'll take it up when we get to this when we finish this topic.

The the thing about authority in our last meeting that Deanna brought up.

Um, I think I don't know if it was a typo or not, but I skimmed right over it.

I was really happy she found it, Deanna.

Um, because it on reflection it didn't make any sense.

So um we'll start with Jan.

And and I would just suggest um anyone that is finding that given the depth of work that our two co-authors have been doing and merging and everything that could we just send you a quick email.

I sent Becky one on something, so we can skip that, but thank you.

I know others have noticed that.

I uh would like to introduce an amendment to the preamble, and this amendment reads because I wrote it out thanks to.

I'm moving the addition of words human rights to follow in the preamble democratic representation, so that that reads in the last sentence.

By this action, do you have that up there?

Perfect.

By this action, we secure the benefits of self-governance and affirm the values of representative democracy, human rights, professional management, strong political leadership, public engagement, and regional cooperation.

Can I address some that real quickly because this is so what is before you as the amended charter?

Some people have already pointed out is slightly different from some of the worksheets.

That is because our lawyer reviewed the worksheets and flagged some stuff that was either vague or not made actionable in the charter.

That those words, human rights, was one of the things he flagged because there's nowhere in the charter that we make it actionable, and our constitution and the state of the laws of the state of Montana protect those.

They are the documents that protect those things in actionable ways.

So he encouraged us to strike that phrase from the worksheet.

So we did.

So I just wanted to be transparent about that.

Um, so there may be some other places where that is the case.

Um great.

So uh if I pass the gavel to you, I'll second that motion.

I appreciate that information.

I heard that this morning from Becky.

We had a long discussion about the fact that these are values in that sentence, and that human rights are the fundamental framework of our Montana constitution and state laws that are the backbone of this document contained in the very first sentence of the preamble, as well as referenced in charter articles two, three, four, and seven, among others, as areas of democratic representation.

And that includes the election of a mayor, city commissioners, and justices of the Supreme of the Supreme Court of the Municipal Court.

These are some of our fundamental political human rights to vote and elect our representatives.

So I can't speak for Becky, but she agreed with my discussion.

The only thing I would add is that I think it's an important thing, particularly in this day and age, and it's a value.

As much as regional cooperation, which is mentioned once or twice, but does it never explain?

And the same with strong political leadership.

So I think if you um if you're gonna have those in human rights is an important one to have in it.

And now I'm gonna take back the gavel.

Um ask if there's any public comment on this motion, and then we're gonna have to suspend the meeting because we've got five minutes left, and um and we're gonna have to figure out how we get through the rest of this because there any public comment on this.

Is there any public comment online?

No.

Okay.

So we have five minutes before we have to vacate.

There's a motion on the table on the floor or whatever it is.

Um I'm gonna suggest that we move forward on this and the rest of what we're doing, and I'm wondering if we can set a time before the 28th to do it, whether it's the 27th, the day before, and we have meetings on Wednesday and Thursday, and that way we can get ourselves, you know, we literally we would have two full hours to um work our way through this.

I know that um I have two or three changes, um, that I think are substantive and important.

Um, and I know Deanna has uh a bunch, um, and um so some right along this line.

So, you know, the next preamble after we get to this, um, we'll and maybe we can make that part of the same discussion, but we're not gonna get done with everything we need to get done with on the 28th.

Um, so we're either gonna um meet then and push the ball, or we're gonna meet extra.

I personally can meet on Wednesday the 27th from 4 to 6.

Um, I don't know about anybody else.

Um, the only thing is I don't have access to the calendar that Mike does, so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not the room is available.

Tough luck, we're taking it.

Um I think we have to set it up tentatively, okay.

And um the notice requirements aren't gonna be complicated, and technically we could avoid the notice.

I don't think we should, just by continuing this meeting to that date.

And and maybe we should do that as well, and then if it's wrong, we will have a meeting at four o'clock on next Wednesday, and if we can't use the room, we can continue the meeting to somewhere else or at some other time.

Um, and I'm pretty sure uh that we can do that.

So is that agreeable to everybody or um what do you think?

I it's agreeable to me, and in fact, I think we definitely need to do that.

Um I think we need to put a great deal more um time into this final draft before it uh goes to the public.

And also I think that we should definitely make sure that uh Greg can be with us.

And um I would like to uh have another lawyer uh if if uh review our final product before it goes to the uh and we did talk about this some time ago and agree that um it could be uh uh reviewed by an outside lawyer as well, and I think we need to to determine uh when that process is going to be, and um start looking for lawyers and I I I have a possibility of two that I could um inquire uh I'm thinking we don't need one, but I'm also you you have the absolute right to propose another lawyer.

We already agreed conceptually or um I don't think we agreed that we would have a second review.

I think we agreed that we would take up the discussion if someone wanted to.

Um so come to the meeting on Wednesday.

Um well we better.

No, I think we should have, I think we should um be uh I I think that we should be making that move before Wednesday.

Well, I could I add something.

I think we have a process that we need, you know, uh RFP, we have other considerations if we want any other professional service to inform our decisions.

I think we have to go through a really um proper system, and I honestly did not agree to that personally.

I know it was stated as a request, but we never came to the remote.

I was asked to I was asked to find someone and I was unable to, and now I have uh actually found someone to um uh advise us.

I think we we said find someone and propose them and we'll see what happens.

Something like that.

I don't think we ever said we agree to a second attorney, we put aside money for it in our budget, and in those discussions, the money set aside was for uh outside legal.

Perhaps we need to bring this up at the beginning of the next meeting so everyone can.

All right, so we're gonna continue this meeting till Wednesday the 27th at 4 a.m.

in 4 a.m.

I am not coming to a meeting at 4 a.m.

4 p.m.

I just want to tell you I have a little heart monitor on me.

It's no big deal, but it has buzzed more times in this meeting.

And it says abnormal high heart rate detected.

Now it's not that high, so don't worry about it.

But um, if you see me looking down here, it's because the damn thing is buzzing.

Um we will take this up at the very beginning of the next meeting, um, which will be at 4 p.m.

And it's not the next meeting, it's a continuation of this meeting, uh, although I think we should also notice it.

And uh if in fact we cannot meet um beyond, you know, an uh two minutes or something like that because the room is taken up, then we should also notice that we're not meeting, except for the purposes of continuing the meeting again.

Carson do we follow that?

Do we need a motion on that?

What do we need a motion on that for the I think we probably do?

Is there a motion to continue this meeting?

I so move that we continue this meeting.

Thank you.

On Wednesday at 4 p.m.

in a second.

Yeah, she seconded it.

It's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor so indicate by saying aye.

Aye, opposed say nay.

The motion carries 4-0.

Could could I ask just one other logistical question?

Um, in other words, will Mike be back to move this forward, find a find out if the room is available, find another room, if not, or yeah, I'll talk to him.

Would you be able to do that?

That would be great, Caleb, but just didn't want it to dangle here.

Thanks.

All right.

If there's no other business, this meeting is adjourned at 6:02.