Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the June sixteenth Boatsman's City Commission meeting.

We're glad you're here with us this evening.

A few pieces of just uh housekeeping as we get started.

Um there will be opportunities to provide public comment associated with every action item as well as uh during the general public comment portion of our meeting this evening.

Um, a few different ways that folks can do that.

First is, of course, if you're in the room, you can get public comment when we call for it.

Um, you can also, if you are um streaming it online, you can participate through our video conferencing features.

Um, and anyone who submitted written public comments prior to noon today, have their comments distributed to the city commission.

Um, for those that are interested in the future following along more passively, you can watch us on Cable Channel one ninety, and you can also dial in via the number on the top of our agendas.

Um, without further ado, please join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.

Um, just in case um I wanted to make sure we highlight this.

If anyone has at any point on any accessibility needs to be able to participate, follow along, to offer public comments, um, please let us know.

Our our city clerk, Mr.

Moss is all set to help you out.

Um, moving on to changes to the agenda.

City manager, are there any changes?

Good evening, Mayor.

There are no changes tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to FYI.

Is there any FYI from the commission this evening?

Yeah, Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

I just wanted to highlight uh tomorrow evening.

The historic preservation advisory board is meeting, and they will be discussing demolition code um updates.

So that's of interest to a lot of people in the community.

Uh tune in or attend here in this room at 6 p.m.

tomorrow night.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bowdy.

Yeah, I just wanted to give a quick update on the sustainability board meeting that we had last week.

Um we had our first kind of sneak peek as a community at the um green power program that our um staff has been working tirelessly to negotiate with Northwestern Energy, and we're anticipating having that come before the commission here in um, I actually don't know the exact date, but in a month or so.

So, yeah, this community will get the opportunity to see it again and potentially comment on it.

But for anybody interested, that um meeting video is recorded and you can find it in our video repository.

Thank you.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, I think it's worth mentioning that this is the first time since I've been on the commission that we all have arrived at City Hall, not driving a car.

So there were four bikes and one walker.

I think that's pretty cool.

Any further FYI from the commission?

Any FYI from staff this evening?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, two things.

We have a survey out for the neighborhood conservation overlay district update.

And if you're interested in helping to shape the development that occurs in our historic areas, please take a moment to share your thoughts by visiting engage.bozemant.gov forward slash mcod update.

Uh, the survey is open until June 30, and we're really hoping that we get a great response.

Also, in the same vein as engagement, the Northwest Bozeman area plan formerly called the Gooch Hill Area Plan.

Now that Gooch Hill Area Plan took everybody in the wrong direction.

But this is the um this is the uh CIP item that is a lift station that would allow city development to continue to occur on the west and south side of Bozeman.

Uh we're getting requests for uh urban development in those areas and uh this project which the commission has seen on CIP uh and asked for a um neighborhood plan, sub-area plan.

Uh so in about two weeks, we'll have the first of a series of community events for Northwest Bozeman area plan project.

Uh the project is looking at creating a development plan for roughly 3,000 acres of land in the northwest corner of the city, uh north of Durston, west of Harper Pocket, and infrastructure comes to the area.

Uh, people will think about developing their property, and we need to ensure that happens in a thoughtful way that aligns with community values and city plans.

So the first open house will be on June 30th from 4 to 6 p.m.

at Gallatin High.

And if you're interested in learning more about this, uh please visit the engagement page on our website.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Manager.

Um moving on from FYI.

Are there any disclosures related to any items in front of us this evening?

Okay, seeing none.

Um, we have some minutes to approve.

Commissioner Sweeney, would you be able to help us out?

First public comment.

Caught at that time.

Is there any public comments in the room this evening on the minutes proposed for approval?

Second request for comment in the room, and final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any requests online?

First up, we have Kristen Newman.

I'm so sorry.

I'm here for the general cop comment.

Okay, we'll come, Kristen, we'll come back to you.

Any further requests?

I'm showing no other request.

Okay.

Now we'll bring it up here.

Commissioner Sweeney.

I move to approve the City Commission meeting minutes from January 13th, 2026.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss, would you poll the commission?

Commissioner Sweeney.

No.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Commissioner.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Minutes are approved four to one.

Um now moving on to our consent agenda.

City Manager, are there any any items from consent you'd like to highlight for the public?

I sure would, Mayor.

I'd like to highlight item G3 and G4.

G3 is the development of the safety action plan for the streets and roads for all.

Grant we received.

We'll put out an RFP in January.

We had some great responses, but the best response is the one that we are recommending you award tonight.

And it is uh the next part of our streets um uh safety program for the city.

Second is G4.

This one's really exciting.

This is uh an enormous amount of work and collaboration between our uh say the city commission and adopting the uh CDBG community, trying not to use acronyms, we're trying to get away from those, but the community development block grant uh program.

And um, as you will as you will recall, there are some um specific uh project at Family Promise of Gallatin Valley to provide them with city services so that they could develop their campus out there and provide transitional housing.

Um it's pretty exciting that area is not in the city limits, and so in order to use these funds, connect with city infrastructure.

Uh our team has been working with uh the property owners out there, and I think we're making really important progress.

So this is the uh contract to design that infrastructure out there, and we're pretty excited to be talking about that tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, city manager.

Um, for bringing it up here for a motion and vote, any public comment in the room this evening on our consent agenda.

Second request for comment in the room, and one final request for public comment in the room on consent.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

I'm showing no requests.

Okay, we'll bring it up here.

Uh Commissioner Magic, if you'll be able to help us out.

Uh I move to approve consent items one through seven.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie?

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Um, okay.

Our first round of consent is approved five to zero.

Uh, moving on to consent two.

Um, any public comment requests in the room on consent two.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any requests online?

I'm showing no requests.

Okay.

Commissioner Magic, would you be able to help us out?

I move to approve consent two, which is item H1.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded, Mr.

Moss.

Commissioner Medicine.

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

No.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Consent two is approved four to one.

Now we are moving on to general public comment on non-agenda items following before the scope and purview of the Bozeman City Commission.

Um, just as you know, some of the the setup for folks to be able to participate here, because I know we've got some folks online as well.

Um, you'll have three minutes to provide your public comment to start with your first and last name, your relationship to the city.

Um, there's a timer right there in front of you.

Um, it'll go to yellow.

The little yet the little lights will become yellow when you've got one minute left and it'll turn red, and there'll be a faint beep um telling you to wrap up your comments that your three minutes have elapsed.

Um, and we will start with public comment in the room this evening and then move to online.

Good evening.

Good evening, Daniel Cardi, Bozeman resident.

I understand there's going to be a work session on the engagement framework update, but I'd like to get ahead of that with this comment.

Last night I watched the community development board, and during the presentation on engagement framework update, the IAP2 spectrum of public participation was referenced.

I like those categories.

I like their descriptions from the IAP2 website.

So I'm hoping those will get referenced more tonight.

What I see missing from these conceptually is where statistically valid uh surveys would fit in.

So that I would ask the commission to uh maybe talk about uh where spending that kind of money would be useful for different kinds of engagement projects.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further comment in the room this evening?

Good evening.

Hello.

My name's Callie Kazakoff and I'm a resident in Bozeman and also a business owner.

Thank you for your time.

I'm the owner of Big Sky Tutoring, and we've been serving the Bozeman community for seven years.

I recently signed a four-year lease in the Beaver Pond Plaza at 1716 West Maine.

After my grand opening on May 1st, I saw a laborer removing the element tattoo window decal.

I asked what was slated to go in there, and she said a dispensary.

My alarms rang immediately.

A sense of dread washed over me.

This could really harm my business.

I thought the proposed cannabis dispensary would share a common entrance with the permanent home of my education business.

I empathize with my clients.

I would not want to bring my child to the marijuana scented building.

There are laws against this type of thing, right?

Wrong.

Bozeman City Ordinance 2084, specifically section 38 360 18A, explicitly states, less specifically exempted, any person or existing or proposed entity intending to sell marijuana must not be located within 500 linear feet of the exterior property line and on the same street as all private schools where students are regularly present, which provide instruction in the class range of kindergarten to 12th grade or any post-secondary school as defined by 25402 of MCA, where students are regularly.

The MCA defines a school as a place or institution for the teaching of individuals, the curriculum of which is composed of the work of any combination of kindergarten through grade 12.

While we are not a traditional school, we provide structured ongoing academic instructions to students across a wide range as wide age range as a supplemental educational institution.

Please help us protect the well-being of our hundreds of students by amending city ordinance two zero eight four to include tutoring centers and daycare centers as a prohibited neighbor of cannabis dispensaries.

This would expose a lot of kids.

Mine is not the only youth-serving organization that would share a common entrance with the proposed dispensary.

Man-made mentors, a therapy practice for teens, has been in the building for eight years.

Roots Family Collaborative, a nonprofit providing support groups for pregnant mothers and parents of babies and children, is another one of the organizations that would share an entrance with the proposed dispensary.

Thank you for considering amending ordinance 2084 to protect a wider range of youth serving organizations from proximity to adult use substances.

Before you sit down, we're not gonna necessarily be able to get into a discussion here, but what's the best way to follow up with you?

Um this has been a conversation we've been having.

Okay, good.

Did you already get the letter I sent that was crappier?

I made a new one, but I I emailed this is the better one.

I have business cards, and I also have letters.

You can give it a few.

I have letters from the other two businesses also.

Sure.

But yes, I will if you can make the time.

I know you guys are so so so busy, but I'm really really worried about this for all the kids.

So if you could take the time, I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room this evening?

Second request for comment in the room.

And one final request for comment in the room.

Mr.

Moss.

Are we seeing any requests online?

First up, we have Kristen Newman.

Kristen, are you there?

I am here.

You have the floor.

All right, good evening, commissioners.

My name is Kristen Newman.

Um, many of you know me.

I'm your former disability community liaison for the blonde and boseman plan, and I'm speaking on the removal of an ADA coordinator and disability liaison from your budget.

During my time in that position, which was only 10 hours per month, it was impossible for me to do the amount of work necessary and that amount of time allotted to me.

That was a position that easily required 20 to 30 hours a week, and that is because not only was I looking into gaps doing community outreach, but I was also a reference for staff.

There was a fine line at times where what was being asked of me could have easily been for an ADA coordinator.

The reason I share this is because there is a misconception that there won't be enough work for full-time ADA coordinator.

Part of my job was to assess the needs of the city administration.

A big need in my in a big need in my meetings with staff was the need for a formal ADA coordinator position.

If the amount of time I needed and didn't have just as a liaison is any form of indicator, then you absolutely do have work for somebody.

This is a situation where you don't know what you do not know until you get that position in place.

I guarantee you that they will find things you didn't know you were missing and they will be good things to learn about and have a staff member help you with.

Something that scares me for your city, a city that I love dearly, is that you have made big strides over the last three years since you implemented the bloggy and boson plan.

And this is exciting, but also scary because you are moving into big time ADA status without the infrastructure in place.

Um it's really painful for me to see that a month before Bozeman celebrates the 36th anniversary of the ADA with the biggest event we have ever seen in the city and the grand opening of a brand new accessible trail.

You are turning your back on the two huge commitments you made to us three years ago, which were the ADA coordinator and the disability liaison.

If you desire to fund more accessibility projects, but you don't first have the foundational staff to do it, you are setting yourself up for failure.

Removing these positions from your budget signals to the disability community that your commitment is a human-centered, it is budget centered.

I encourage you to re-evaluate your budget and invest in these positions, and please do not invest in more ADA projects without investing in your staff infrastructure first.

I'll acknowledge that your partnership with your local Center for Independent Living is outstanding.

You're doing great work together, but I also want to remind you that the city cannot place the burden upon a nonprofit organization to meet your inclusion goals nor to meet your full ADA implementation goals.

If the city wants to truly show commitment to the ADA, you will put these two positions back into your budget.

Mr.

Wynne, you thanked me before for being hard on you, and I'm gonna be hard on you now.

The removal of these two positions from your budget recommendation sends a signal that does not feel good, especially the loss of the disability liaison that never had a chance to be hired.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moss, we're seeing any further requests online.

Next up, we have Cindy Smith.

Cindy, are you there?

Good evening.

Can you hear me?

Yep, can you hear me?

We sure can.

Okay.

Uh good evening, Mayor and City Commissioners.

My name is Cindy Smith.

I am here again because I still have not received a meaningful response to basic public accountability questions about city funds provided to HRDC.

Since my last public comment, I have filed formal ethics complaint and request for independent review regarding this commission's conduct, public funding over site, special interest access, and HMDC accountability.

I have said that repeatedly.

This is a request for public officials to do what public officials are supposed to do when taxpayer money is involved.

Follow the money, explain the oversight, disclose conflicts, and protect the public's trust.

This city should be able to answer basic questions.

How much city funding has HRDC received?

What programs, contracts, grants, or services lended?

What restrictions apply to those funds?

Verifies that the money is used as intended.

Can any city funds given to ARDC be used for employment disbutes, unemployment proceedings, internal investigations, public relations or responses to complain?

And what safeguards prevent public money from being used to avoid accountability, silence complaints, or protecting organizations representation.

These are complicated questions.

They are public money questions.

What is concerning is that the committee has shown a concern act to be five publications and the organized groups raised.

On an ordinary raise concerns about that.

You're breaking in and out.

I don't know if uh there were there were times where you were clearer.

Um, if you want to kind of go back a sentence or two, I think we caught most of it.

But we'll give you some more time if you can kind of repeat the last couple sentences.

Sure.

These are not complicated questions, they are public money questions.

What is concerning is that the commission has shown it can act, speak, and apply public pressure when politically organized groups raise concerns.

But when an ordinary constituent raises concerns about city funds, nonprofit accountability, retaliation complaints, whistleblower concerns, and possible misuse of public or community connected resources.

The response has been silenced.

That creates the appearance of selective accountability.

It also raises serious concerns about unequal access and special entrance interest influence, particularly given the commission's relationship with Bozeman Tenants United and the level of access and responsiveness that group appears to have received.

Public trust requires more than allowing people to speak for three minutes and then ignoring the substance of what they raise.

I am asking for written acknowledgement of my ethics complaint, referral to an independent reviewer if conflicts exist, preservation of relevant records, and a public accounting of all city funds provided to HRDC.

If HRDC used all city funds appropriately, transparency should confirm that.

If city officials acted properly, independent review should confirm that.

Okay.

We will close the general public comment portion of this meeting this evening and move on to our first action item.

Thank you, Mayor.

Our first action item is our only action item is ordinance provisionally adopting a text amendment to revise a division 38.330.

It's the wireless facilities, Section 38.710.160.

Submittal materials for telecommunications in Division 38.800 definitions within chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code Application 2604.

26074.

And I'd like to welcome our assistant city attorney, Jennifer Gutierro.

Closed the scale.

Okay.

Okay.

There we go.

And I don't see a clicker.

That's okay.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor Morrison and members of the commission.

Tonight I'm here to provide a legal summary of the key proposed changes to the Bozeman Municipal Codes Wireless Facility section.

So why are we here today?

The purpose of this project has been to ensure our current local regulations on wireless facilities comply with the ever-evolving and complex federal law governing telecommunications.

Although the city is fairly limited by federal law in the type of telecommunications regulations it can legally implement, we will continue to regulate wireless facilities to the extent that we are permitted to do so.

So this project today is the first comprehensive review of this section of the code in nearly 30 years.

Because telecommunications law is so specialized, the city sought out and entered into an agreement with telecommunications experts in March 2025.

So we've been working with these telecommunications consultants since March 2025 to ensure that our code recommendations before you tonight accurately update uh federal law.

To recap the procedural background of this project, the city is required to publish two public notices.

We publish three on June 2nd, June 9, and June 30th in the chronicle.

Additionally, Montana law requires that staff consider the established criteria set out in Montana Code annotated when adopting an amending zoning regulations.

These criteria are detailed for you in Ms.

Minnick's staff report, which is attached to the memo.

Lastly, prior to your vote tonight on this matter, the planning commission was required to hear the zone text amendment and make a recommendation as to whether this commission should adopt it.

The planning commission met on June 1 and recommended approval of this ordinance, but for one additional change, which I will discuss at the end of my presentation.

Very quickly, this slide provides the criteria under Montana law that uh the city's planning staff believes has been met.

And then again, I would just refer you to the staff report to outline that outlines the details of each of these criteria and why staff believes that it's been met.

And then here, again, it's reflected.

This is straight from the staff report.

Um this slide details um what the staff had determined would be considered neutral.

Um, and generally for these um neutral findings, staff determined that uh these criteria are inapplicable to the current zone text amendment.

Um, so the uh packet for tonight's presentation uh provides you all like the granular details of the changes that we are proposing to recommend.

So tonight I'm going to give you an overview of what I believe are the three key changes in the ordinance.

We have um new section 38330.050, which details a new application review process, which is federally mandated.

We have a new section 38330.060, which details what types of wireless facilities are exempt from the procedures that we are proposing.

And then we've provided revised revisions to 38710160, which are the required submittal materials for applications.

So 3833050 application review processes, federal law dictates what the city's timeline is when receiving and then reviewing these applications.

The term that the industry uses is a shot clock, and that's essentially just a deadline or number of days that are mandated depending on the type of request or facility that is being reviewed by the city.

So under this new proposed section, there are three key subsections.

The first is in regards to what's called an eligible facilities request.

This term is contained in the definitions portion of the code, but to summarize an eligible facilities request essentially is a federally required streamlined application process for when a provider wants to upgrade or somehow modify an existing wireless tower or base station.

So the shock clock for eligible facilities requests is very specific, and it applies only to this very specific type of request.

And if the city fails to act in a timely manner as prescribed by the SHOC clock, then the feds require that the local government that the request is deemed granted.

And then again, there are some requirements as to what steps the applicant can take if a local government does not follow these federally mandated timelines.

So this section details five types of facilities that the feds have determined can be exempt from all other wireless regulations.

So that means that the five uh facilities that you see in this subsection are only required to have a building permit and follow building code requirements.

And then I just gave you some examples of what a few of the categories are, but they're they're listed explicitly in 060.

Next up, 38710160 submittal materials.

So section 38710 governs all submittal materials and requirements for the community development department, including what is required to be submitted for telecommunications and wireless applications.

But there are some special required materials for these types of requests, and so we've made revisions to our existing code to make sure that we've included all of what is required.

Additionally, just to note the city is required to distinguish an eligible facilities request application from other types of applications.

So this is essentially like a new lane that we've created in our charts in our code because it wasn't previously depicted that way.

And then as you are all aware, the planning commission is statutorily required to give you a recommendation, and that that is uh part of the commission's um consideration and contemplation tonight.

So during the Planning Commission's June 1 hearing, it voted to recommend adoption of the zone text amendment, but with the following changes which are double underlined on this slide.

And after that hearing, discussion amongst planning staff was that they do not have any concerns with the recommended language by the planning commission at this time.

Um to recap, from as I stated in my earlier presentation, we provided three public notices on this.

As of tonight, we have not received any public comment.

We didn't have any public comment during the hearing before the planning commission.

And this concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions and then I also um Chris Saunders and Bailey Minick from uh the planning department are available if there are any planning specific questions.

Great.

Thank you for that presentation.

Um, any questions for our presenter?

Commissioner Bodie.

Thanks.

Can you go back just one slide?

I feel like I just kind of needed to read it again.

Yes.

Um, and so you're you're saying that um this is kind of uh a discussion that the planning commission, our community development board had, and after reviewing it, you don't think that it's necessary to make these pages?

No, the the planning staff they did not have any issue with it with it, yeah.

Yeah, okay, gotcha.

Yeah, cool.

So so that's been incorporated into correct motion before us.

Yes, um, and in well it's in in the ordinance, yes, as well.

Yes, let me see what the motion says though.

But that is correct, it's reflected in the motion as well, the motion language.

Okay, great.

Um, there is a section in that same kind of um aesthetics section B, I think it's four for B.

2B about um, it says concealed facilities may be required in historic districts and under other circumstances.

Um, I'm just confused about whether they will or will not be required in our historic districts, um and if there's other circumstances in which they would be required, can you repeat the subsection?

Yeah, sorry.

Um so it's section B, wait, section four B to B on the document with the line item edits.

I'm on page eight, so we're at the very bottom of the page.

Okay, okay.

Is it the f a facility meeting the definition?

Is that what you're reading?

That's a lot of.

If it's okay, I'd like to call up Bailey to answer that question.

Do you need it?

I found it.

Okay.

Good evening, Commission.

It's nice to see your faces in person instead of on the remote.

Um, so that language, um, it's concealed facilities may be required in historic districts and under other circumstances.

That is our existing language, so we aren't proposing to change it.

Other circumstances could be if a large-scale facility came in under site plan review.

Maybe there's public comment, some other situation.

I can't think of one off the top of my head, but uh, you know, some other situation where um we see a need as planning staff or there's community comments about it where that might change might come into play and need more concealed facility features.

Um, but I can't think of one off the top of my head, but it is existing, what's currently in our code at this time.

So that may or there is just sort of giving the staff the discretion to require it um based on the individual circumstances, even though the code as written may not explicitly require it.

Correct.

Yes.

Gotcha.

Did you have other questions?

I'm happy to stand up here and um I think those were my only questions.

Somebody else had questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Magic, any questions?

Yeah.

She might want to come back.

Um, it seems you mentioned large scale facilities, and it seems like we're at least in urban areas trending away from large scale and doing a lot of little ones.

So I at least in my experience and Bozeman, just not seeing those massive cell towers of the past that we had to like decorate, make look like trees.

That's my right there.

So there you are correct.

I I think there is a trend towards more of what it's in the code.

So one of the things we're adding is micro facilities.

That is something that's been in topic of national topic of news as well.

Um, and so there are very specific parameters in the definition of what constitutes a micro facility, um, and and they would follow that path.

Um, but yes, we I mean we're seeing more.

Well, we do require co-location requirements.

If someone builds a new facility, they are required to show that they can handle co-location or fit co-location.

So if a new large-scale tower wants to come in, they have to show that they cannot go on an existing tower in a certain vicinity.

Um, we've had a couple recently that have had to get that documentation that they're basically being denied access onto one in order to be able to proceed with a large scale, but most of them lately have been more co-locations at existing antennas, that kind of thing.

Interesting.

Thanks.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Thank you for that presentation.

Thanks for answering our questions.

Um, before moving on to our um motion discussion and vote, um, open up for public comment.

Um, any public comment in the room this evening on our amendments to our proposed wireless code.

Second request for comments in the room, and one final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, what are we seeing online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

Um, see no further public comment to come before us on this item, bring it up here for a motion discussion and vote.

Commissioner Bode.

Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public comment, recommendation from the community development board, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application two six oh seven four and move to provisionally adopt the ordinance.

Second, it has been moved and seconded.

Uh Commissioner Bodie, would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, yeah, I am as already said in the motion.

I I agree with the staff report and the findings therein, and um, you know, adopt those for for this hearing, and then I'll I'll just also add that I appreciate the staff time it took to update this code and make sure that we were in line with all the federal requirements and also take some time to um put a little bit of Bozeman's special sauce in there and make it um relevant for for our community.

And um one other comment I'd just make is that uh I think in the past, these types of facilities have been an eyesore.

Um, and it seems like they're they're trending to be smaller and less of an issue, but um, when I was prepping for this action item, I felt myself wishing that we had a beautification board to look at it.

Um, and yeah, I don't know that it totally would have made sense to send over to the economic um vitality board, although I guess public art is under their umbrella.

Um so I think more of a pondering of um where is our check here for for the aesthetic and the and the beauty.

Uh, I definitely heard the community development board ponder that as well.

So I don't think it was missed by our advisory boards and uh also just kind of considering if there's a hole in some of our advisory board capacity for you know our conversation about advisory boards coming up.

So, with all of that, I will be in support of the ordinance.

Thank you.

Deputy mayor.

Sure, I don't have much more to add.

I I agree.

I do like the emphasis on the architectural materials, supposed to just material.

So I appreciate that change.

And I'm just expecting and hoping that these will similarly these changes will similarly stand the test of time and last another 30 years.

So thank, but thanks for taking all that effort and making it making it really work.

Commissioner Sweeney.

I have nothing to add.

Commissioner Manchester.

I hope in 30 years we have something other than wireless.

Seems like satellite something else.

Um I'm gonna support the motion.

Uh, appreciate the community development board's input on this.

Great.

Um I hope in 30 years' time we've gone back to big, um, and they're just radiating, like you if you put a bag of popcorn near it, you know, it's gonna pop.

Like that's what that's what I hope for in 30 years' time.

Um, yeah, it was a really uh rich discussion uh the community development board meeting about this, trying to figure out what's the right language to land where it's not saying everything has to be brick, but it has to look like it's brick, and you know, taking trying to take inspiration from uh um the surrounding area and things like that, because as Commission Body had stated, yeah, they don't always uh look particularly aesthetic.

Um, I'm really curious with their AI podcast, if they can pick up sarcasm, or if it's a they sure can.

They absolutely can they're gonna report that mayor more certain would like to.

But I hope we have a diesel powered wireless facilities that are hot to the touch.

Yeah, that's in there, that's in the record now.

Um but yes, with all that considered, I'm happy to support this.

Thanks to the staff for all the the work getting this up to up to snuff.

Any further discussion?

Well, I just think, sarcasm aside, this commission has signaled strong support for the ordinance.

Mr.

Moss, could you put us out of our misery, please?

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

I, Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Um, so that is our one action item of the evening, and we'll move on to our work session.

City manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is an engagement framework update work session.

I'd like to welcome our community or communication engagement program manager to Kami Clark.

I appreciated Mr.

Cardi's comment.

Um, the commissioner will remember that we did have um a budget item in the recommended budget for um evidence-based or statistically valid surveys.

I think it's a good time to have that conversation.

We don't have anything prepared to talk about when or how we would use those.

I think that we're planning on coming, we plan on coming back to the commission for uh a more robust conversation, but we can certainly plan to see tonight, and I know Takami's thought a lot about it.

So welcome to Kami.

Thank you.

Um for the record, my name is Takami Clark.

I'm the communications and engagement manager at the city.

Um did just want to say really quickly, I really appreciated the shout out for the beautification board because that was actually my first interaction with the city.

I sat on that board before I was a staff member.

So it's nice to hear that come up again.

Couple of different questions that I have for you guys to think about as you go through this presentation.

Um we'll be hearing, you'll be hearing from me about the engagement framework that we have at the city, and we're looking at updating it.

And as we are updating it, I want to hear from you guys on what you want to see in that updated draft, as well as thoughts and recommendations on how we can help residents feel more heard, and then general improvements that you feel like need to be made to the communications and engagement processes.

Just a bit of background on engagement at the city.

We've been doing engagement for a long time, but we have not had a dedicated program until recently.

So we hired our community engagement coordinator just a few years ago and had a dedicated program and budget since 2021.

And so that's fairly recent.

The photograph on the right is a picture of a staff member talking about Bozeman 2020, and this was from the year 2000.

So they were talking about what the future would look like with residents.

And we've been doing stuff like that for a number of years.

I really see the birth of our modern day program with the start of the neighborhoods program back in 2007.

And we've been engaging residents really closely through that program since then.

And then also citizens are really engaged with the city through our boards as well.

In 2018, we started our strategic planning process at the city.

And as part of that strategic plan, it called for the creation of a community engagement plan.

And that was not necessarily like a it was more of a broad ask for our city, so more talking about the framework or the structure that we want to do community engagement under, not necessarily like a plan for an individual project.

That led to the creation of engaged boseman and the engaged boseman framework.

That was approved in 2021, and we've been operating since then.

Why am I here in front of you guys tonight?

So in 2023, the Montana State Legislature passed MWOPA, the Montana Land Use and Planning Act.

And this law was really pivotal.

It really overhauled land use, but it also set a ton of minimum requirements for public participation.

And so essentially what it said is we're gonna be doing land use in this way, and it had a bunch of things under that law, and also told cities if you're gonna be doing land use, you have to make sure that you are doing public participation, especially in these big issue plans and big growth growth plans.

We are broadly doing what is called called for under that law, but I still wanted to update our framework to draw the direct line between MLUPA and our engagement framework and essentially say this is how we're in compliance with MWPA.

So we're also taking this time to look at our processes and reflect on the program and see if there's any improvements we can make.

So essentially, I wanted to make updates and incorporate MLUPA and at the same time wanted to open it up to the public for just their general comments and also talk to staff and you all and boards and see if any changes need to be made while we have this open process.

And then I also wanted to take a moment to just raise awareness in the community around both MWPA and our engagement framework and engagement processes.

So we've been working on that as well to just ensure that our residents understand how public participation is changing and and how we do it at the city.

So here on the right, you see an image of the front page of that plan.

Um and the framework itself is basically our overall strategy for our engagement program.

Um it talks about guiding principles that we have as we go about engagement.

It talks about the IAP2 approach, which is the International association of Public Participation.

Um I actually threw together some more information after our public comment, so we'll hear more about that.

Um, we take uh some time during this framework to also define engagement as really that two-way conversation between city staff, decision makers and the public.

And it's not just a one-way information exchange.

We really want to have a conversation with folks.

We also have the decision making timeline, so the different points in which we make decisions, as well as the level of engagement spectrum, which you'll see here in a moment.

In this framework as well, we talk about when we do engagement and when we don't, tools and techniques that we have in our toolbucket, the relationship between engagement and communications, which is a really critical one.

Of course, engagement can occur without communications, but engagement is also not communications.

It is more than that, and it requires that two-way conversation.

We also have information in this framework on the community engagement lifecycle, which is what a project looks like from start to finish, and then next steps for our organization.

So one of the benefits of being in City Hall is I get to work upstairs while you guys are meeting and throw together a slide like this.

So these are just two resources from IAP2.

Here on the left is the decision making spectrum that I referenced earlier.

This actually came up last night during our Comdev board meeting.

And it basically illustrates the different points in which people can make decisions and make policy, and where people can engage in that decision.

So there's a lot of different places where input could be really helpful, whether that's in defining the problem, gathering information, or developing alternatives or making a decision.

And we definitely want to be hearing from residents as well throughout our processes.

And you'll see on the bottom that it says inform and communicate at the very bottom.

And that's intentional, that is basically referencing the fact that we must communicate throughout this process, but it's also not a part of engagement.

And these are super helpful resources that we use on a day-to-day basis.

And then here on the right is our community, like an example of our community engagement plan.

You'll see just these are very text-heavy documents where we outline a lot of how we want to do an individual engagement project.

We started using this template back in 2022 with the Fowler Road project.

That was our first sort of official engagement project that we had under our program.

The general process is that we fill out the template as staff, the communications team and the city manager reviews this template, and then we share it with the commission.

The template itself includes the people who are working on the project, an overview and background on the project, the reason why we're doing community engagement, key terms that we need to define to the public and ensure that they aren't too technical or overly jargony.

Partners that we want to especially hear from as we do engagement, the decision making process timeline that I referenced earlier, key questions that we need to answer before we start engagement, the level of engagement spectrum also that you saw earlier, project timeline, and then engagement wrap-up, which is essentially some questions around how we're measuring success and how we're reporting back.

And everything gets uploaded to our engaged boseman platform, which you see a screenshot of here below.

We upload our engagement plans on this website too, so folks can follow along and get a sense for everything that's planned on a project.

And this website has been super helpful in just getting the word out and getting a lot of people to visit the website and stay up to date on all of our engagement projects.

Now, just a little bit about MLUPA.

This law requires cities to adopt new land use plans and unified development codes.

And importantly, a lot of like the major parts of this law sort of fall into these buckets, which is it tells cities to front load public input.

So cities can't residents, there they don't have as much input on the individual projects that happen in development, but there is a larger push up front in the growth and issue plans.

And there was a list of 14.

If you attended the UDC meetings, you might have remembered, like a big board, where we handed out five star stickers and asked folks to put stars on the ones that they wanted to see implemented.

So we chose five through that UDC process, and those have been updated through the UDC.

Also, have been updating our development review process, and then also updated our or adopted our land use plan, which is our community plan.

You might have remembered a project that we did to ensure that that plan was in compliance with MWPA, and then also we have a planning commission as well.

So under the public participation budget, or not budget, public participation bucket, we have the following sort of main themes that I'm seeing in the wording of the law.

It is definitely a lot more than this, but this is sort of what I've seen.

Most of the law sort of breaks down into, which is a dissemination of draft documents, an opportunity for written and verbal comment, public meetings after effective notice, uh electronic communication regarding the process, an analysis of and response to public comment, documenting all public participation, and that the local governing body must adopt a public participation plan, which is this engaged framework that we're looking at updating and eventually adopting.

Just a little timeline on the project.

In April, we launched our project effort.

In May and June, we've been doing engagement with staff, residents, and boards and commission.

In July, I'll start drafting the update, and we'll post it on our engaged boseman site for review, and then hoping to return in August to review and adopt.

And a little bit more about our engagement process.

Like I said, we've been meeting with staff, boards, and commission, just the folks who have been really involved in the process part to see if there's things that we want to improve there.

We opened a survey up to the public that had a lot of questions around how they want to be engaging with the city and um what improvements we could be making.

We've also had materials up at City Hall in the lobby.

Um so those are those display boards that you guys walked by and have had some sticky notes up there, which is nice, and then have brought those materials to engagement events as well to basically get folks who are already engaging at the city and sort of try not to make this an additional huge lift, but to capture people and ask them how engagement is doing as they're engaging at the city.

We also hosted a webinar to educate on MLUPA, so a little screenshot of that is below.

Um, and I drafted a flyer that I've been sharing out with folks too to help raise awareness about that law.

All right, things that we're thinking about as we are looking at the update.

One of the things I heard from staff pretty clearly was wanting some better direction on tiers of engagement.

And so they want to have a little bit more clarity and have an understanding of when they need to be doing a big push, when they need to be doing sort of a medium medium size push, and when they need to be doing a lower level push, and having some clear definition around what that could look like.

They don't want to go through the same the same big process every single time if it's not really necessary.

So we had some discussion last night that I thought was really interesting around providing like a essentially a summary of what we heard and then our response to that and how it's moving forward.

Kind of it if you guys are familiar with the Forest Service, that was specifically what they referenced last night.

Um also so we're exploring engagement summaries, we're we're exploring how we want to respond to key themes and public comment.

Um and then we're also thinking about how we want to explain um things that are outside of our scope as well.

Um these are the comments that um encourage us to do things that that we can't take action on as a city, whether it's illegal or sort of outside of um what we have authority to to make decisions on.

Um also looking at defining our process for approving engagement plans and ensuring that is really clear to both staff and to you all, and looking at greater training so that staff can have a more consistent um delivery of engagement as well, and and the public too can sort of receive a consistent experience each time they go through an engagement process.

Um, and then finally uh leaning on specific tools and techniques that we know residents really enjoy and respond well to.

All right, so those are those questions again, and I guess before we dive in, I'll take your questions.

Great, thank you.

And you preempted how I wanted to tee it up to have these questions up in front of us, so appreciate that.

Um, for to the deputy mayor.

Deputy mayor, any questions for staff?

Sure, just a few.

Um, so let me just make just the ground though.

So this is driven by MLUPA, but it is but we're we are taking this opportunity to look much larger at our total engagement process for all of items.

And is there is there anything with respect to MLUPA, the new MLUPA requirements that we're not doing with engagement right now?

Are there changes we have to make to like kind of our basic design and our planning process?

Is Chris still around?

Okay.

Chris, do you wanna share anything that you might be aware of?

Good evening, Chris Saunders, community development manager.

Um the short answer is no.

Um we adopted this as a city adopted this plan years before MLUPA was, and you could have almost used it to be the pattern for what they wrote.

Um, but there's always the opportunity to improve, and there are some opportunities where we looked at it and said, okay, you know, with the benefit of five years of implementation experience, we can figure out ways to do it better.

So we are taking care of all the minimum standard requirements in that law, um, but then there's opportunities.

Just to improve.

Thank you.

Would you mind going back one slide?

Sure.

To the kind of I find this this excellent, right?

Um, like, and um we can spend a lot of time in this on this slide, but it strikes me that the kind of defining tiers of engagement would be difficult.

Um, and it's almost like you know when you need a big effort, and um and maybe in and you have this kind of sense.

And maybe that ties into the kind of that training and the more consistent approach.

But I'm just wondering, do you see um I mean, I I worry that you could get tied up, or our department could get tied up in trying to define, well, okay, this is a project that needs a big push, this needs a medium of this.

I'm wondering how do you have a rough idea of how you want to, you know, of this kind of these things you're exploring, which are the ones you're gonna kind of prioritize and which gives you maybe a little bit of pause or or fear or um so just a couple thoughts on specifically tiers of engagement.

I I do feel pretty good about that one, um, in part because I've I've had some good conversation with um Rebecca in our Comdev department.

She came from I think DNRC, and um had like they they have established tiers of engagement.

And so I think there are organizations that I could explore, um, like they're they're ones that I'm planning on researching um to get a sense of how other folks have done it.

And so I don't feel like I'm completely starting and reinventing um the wheel.

I I think there's some models that I can pull from.

Um I don't think that there's necessarily like I think everything that I put on this slide um I feel pretty comfortable about and feel comfortable ironing out.

Um I do feel like it'll like I have to balance some things and looking for your guys' thought, especially on um how we're gonna be responding to public comment um and just some of the bigger changes that we might make in our engagement program, but I I don't have necessarily reservations about how that will go.

That's fantastic.

Thank you.

And that's a good segue to my my final question here is that I am also fascinated by this idea of a summary of kind of what we heard to let people know, you know.

I mean, it's it's just it's just hard personally sitting here when we get public comment to have someone, you know, a business owner say, Oh, you know, I've got this problem with my business, and we just sit here, you know, stonely, and or you know, Ms.

Smith has repeatedly asked us for some accountability for HRTC, and we just move on.

Um so I I would love to dig into that in some ways, or I'm just very curious to see how that may look, and I would encourage you to.

I mean, I know I guess the cut the question I have for you is do you see that us doing that with all of our kind of commission comments, or is it just when we have an engagement plan, we're going to be then summarizing um uh for specific engagement efforts.

I was curious if the city manager has any input that he wants to make on the commission comment side.

We've had several conversations about this, and we looked for a magic solution to all this, and there's not.

I I do know that our staff is very interested in making um folks believe that they're heard, and the this commission does an amazing job of reading public comments, every public comment, and using that in your decision matrix.

We've also had a conversation particularly with Commissioner Bode about how we respond to public comment that we receive at the public comment web, the address, and we're looking to see if there's technology that's available so that we can uh respond to a group of people who submit their email addresses.

So I think it's not one thing, I think it's a whole bunch of things.

We know that we have a technology that's a limiting factor for this.

Um and we know we we need I think we can do better, just how and when is something we're still talking about.

We're going through that edge replacement as well.

There's a component to that.

Um we've had some success and a lot of challenges with granicus.

So I don't know if I answered your question or not, but it is important, it is absolutely important that we are able to respond in a way.

And I mean, public comment it is all over the place, too.

It's just somebody wants to be make a statement, somebody has a question that deserves an answer.

So all of those things go into this engagement conversation.

And if I may add to that, um you guys will see an example of what an engagement summary will look like through this project.

So that's one of the deliverables I I hope to sort of show to you all and staff as to what it could look like.

Yeah, thank you.

I think that's a large discussion, and I will wait for the discussion point, but that's those are the questions I've got.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Any questions for Takami?

Thank you, Takami, for um presenting to Inc.

and community development and all of it.

So I have a lot of comments.

I'm trying to figure out what are my questions.

Um, do you want to pass while you're getting your lots of comments?

You're wine up together.

Okay.

We'll come back.

Um Commissioner Magic, any questions?

Yeah, um, so I'm kind of pondering that second question.

Do you have thoughts or recommendations?

How we can help residents feel more heard similar to the deputy mayor and some of the community development discussion last night.

So if we go to that IAP2 approach, particularly the collaborate and empower.

To me, that is pretty key, but very limited because it takes obviously a lot more time.

We're looking at the Fowler housing process with the collaboration, but that to me really um is meaningful engagement.

It's not the standard, you know, get letters or receive public comment type of engagement.

So I'm just this is more of a statement and a question to myself, but you know, how can we take those two and blow them up a little bit more?

As a planner, um that empowerment part is really important, kind of the belief and bottom-up sort of actions that both empower but vest people in processes tend to have more success.

So, as any thought or any more public comment, or I watched part of the community development board meeting last night, but has anyone else kind of talked about those two areas?

Um, no, uh, but I I think what you've hit on is it's it's definitely a much discussed um part of like our IAP2 conferences.

We've I've been in sessions um where people essentially are like don't be afraid of empower.

And this is a very common thing that um cities deal with this, they live often in the consult and involve section, and it's very rare for them to get into the collaborate and empower space.

Um I will say I think that what I'm hearing so far more from residents is like I think there is a general understanding that the decision may not always be in their hands directly.

Um, but there is a huge interest in um having that conversation and feeling heard and feeling like um decision makers have received their feedback and they were hearing it and they were responding directly to the merits and the things that they are thinking about as that person's giving um their feedback.

So that that was more what I've seen so far in the responses, like on our survey, for example, is like there's a lot of folks who understand that maybe their feedback can always move forward, but they do want to hear directly from decision makers and from staff and ensure that um their feedback is really being considered seriously.

Yeah, um that's a challenge.

I think that's on us.

Big time.

Um I'll pass the, that's kind of the only thing is that I have comments on our questions.

Commissioner Bode, any questions for Takami?

Yeah.

Thanks, Takami for the presentation.

I'm feeling very engaged.

I uh I know the International Association for Public Participation, IAP2, is sort of like a, you know, a leader in this space.

And I am just curious if there are other frameworks that your staff has considered in the past when this framework was initially adopted or that you've been thinking about with this update that we should be aware of.

Um that's a really good question.

I think the only thing that sort of springs to mind are some of not necessarily like frameworks, but just like other ways of doing things like the consensus building model.

Um that's sort of like a unique process that exists outside of necessarily like these specific frameworks and documents, um, but does have a ton of value.

And I think um there are there are other programs like that that are aimed at um like building consensus consensus or um ensuring you're addressing uh the concerns that could snowball and become bigger issues.

Um so I am aware of like programs like that.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, that's helpful.

I'm trying to figure out like where I would slot in consensus among these four bins and um a little bit of head scratcher.

So um my next question is kind of similar.

I am just curious if um your your you or or other staff are doing any um research, like looking into what other communities are doing to identify any like innovative tactics for um public participation and and gaining feedback.

Yeah, yeah, I this came up last night too, actually, and um when I started this project, it was more like let's update this per MLUPA, but also keep it open in case there's feedback.

Um so if that is direction from you all, like I'm happy to um look at cities that are doing this really well and see if there's um things that we can learn from them.

Um, I am planning as as I mentioned too on looking at some other um resources like the Forest Service and DNRC and other federal agencies that do engagement and seeing um what we can pull there.

So there is some of that happening.

I just haven't put cities on my list.

Okay, gotcha.

Um those are my two questions.

I'll pass it on.

Great, Commissioner Sweeney, any questions?

I remembered my one question.

Um you have not summarized survey results and given us that data, correct?

Correct, good.

Cause that was looking and looking at all over the engage page.

Yeah, okay.

That's my own question.

Yeah, that just closed on really awaited.

Yeah.

Um just closed on um Monday, so I was like, maybe I can hustle and get it through, and I I didn't.

So great.

Many of my questions were asked.

I have just one, maybe two.

Um, you know, the number of times we've seen this framework in front of us, each time one, I I appreciate that there are conferences where folks are saying, take the risk, try and empower.

Um, because I mean, even as we're looking at this, like public comment is you know, the lowest impact on the decision that we have on here, which I think is part of what translates to like frustration of not, you know, feeling heard, feeling like their their input mattered, et cetera, and trying to figure out what are more, you know, what are things to move that person's experience farther up in the impact on the decision piece because to to empower, you know, that that just seems, I mean, like if we're thinking about development decisions, right?

That it's like, okay, if we if if we just weigh we're sort of deputizing, you know, adjacent property owners and neighbors to say, hey, you have authority over this decision that we're gonna just trust, whether it puts us in legal jeopardy or or otherwise or or what have you.

And of course, that's like one example.

There's a million other things that I think we can try to be experimenting with higher levels of impact on decision making.

So at those at conferences or other cities or colleagues of yours, what are people starting?

What are cities starting to experiment as those collaborate and empower sections?

Because it's got juries on there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's it.

I would say um that's a good question.

I don't know that I'm aware of um particular techniques that people are um using more often.

Like the techniques kind of stay the same a lot over time.

Um and so they've um what you're sort of seeing listed here.

Um we have like a techniques training, and we go through all of the listed techniques in IAP2, um, and they will sort of correlate that with different parts of the spectrum.

So people have been aware of these techniques for a long time, um, and I don't know necessarily like what people are looking at doing or what people are implementing implementing in these particular spaces, but I will say, um, a lot of, and you didn't really ask this question, but I'm gonna share it anyway.

Um, a lot of what we talk about um in our conferences recently is how do we um engage the full public and um engage especially diverse communities and communities that don't traditionally engage.

Um so that is where a lot of our um like conference are almost all of our conferences have sessions around that.

Yeah, yeah, I appreciate that.

I'm excited to have that part of the discussion up here because I I think often whenever I hear from my peers or colleagues that are elected leaders around the country that's so often a question.

Like, how do you know when you when you have heard enough that you feel like you have a mandate to to do one thing or the other from public comment?

Um is it just by you know, folks that show up and raise their hand in the room, etc.

And so I I think one of the things that I've been an advocate for for a couple years now up here is trying to figure out how do we, you know, deputize more members of the community in really intentional ways around, you know, working groups, you know, ad hoc.

Hey, we need we need really thoughtful, detailed feedback on this proposal, and we want to send it, we want to send folks out to go get that.

Are you is that something like one, what's kind of your reaction to that?

Um and two are you are you seeing those become popular?

Are they they seem you know, there's a mix of burdensome and opportunistic, but I'm kind of here's your reaction to that.

Yeah, is your question getting at like making sure that folks are doing really targeted outreach and trying to get really specific feedback?

More just, you know, when if when we have an issue where we maybe don't have an advisory board, you know, a standing advisory board for, but we need we need experts, we need not just people that are like paid professional experts, but we need affected individuals, we need folks that may benefit, we may, we need folks that may be hurt by that decision and get them in a room and you know, send them on a six-month quest to get us a proposal on something.

Yeah.

Um that reminds me both of like our tenants' right to counsel engagement, where we knew pretty clearly, like, hey, we really want to hear from these particular two groups.

Um also reminds me of our consensus process through Fowler, where we've done a lot of different outreach to ensure we're hearing from neighbors, we're hearing from people who want housing, we're hearing from employers.

We've tried to get a really broad group there.

Um so I I think that that is like we should be being intentional as we go about uh doing engagement, and we should be ensuring that we're trying to get input from different members of the public and ensuring that it is open to everyone.

Um, so that's hopefully that answers some of your question.

And you feel free to dig in if you're like, I don't feel like you're addressing this thing, but I'm not necessarily like I feel like something like that, um, ensuring that we're hearing from different members who are impacted by policy.

Um, like I I'm encouraged by that and not scared by that.

Great.

Thanks.

Um any further questions before public comment.

Commissioner Sweet?

So under empower, it says deliberative polling process.

Could that be our statistically valid survey to deploy that?

Yeah, for sure.

Thanks.

Great.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll move on, we'll open it up for public comment.

Takami, thanks for that presentation.

Answering our questions.

Um, starting with public comment in the room this evening.

Um any public comment requests on our community engagement framework in the room this evening.

Second request for comment in the room, and a final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any comment requests online?

I'm sure no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

Um great.

Uh seeing no further public comment requests to come before us on this item.

We will close the hearing and bring it up here for discussion.

There's no action in front of us, but uh a rich discussion.

Assuredly.

Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, there's I imagine we could all probably have a lot of thoughts on this.

Um, but let me just so let me just briefly then um I think I want to tackle that kind of thoughts recommendations, how we can help residents feel more heard.

I mean, and there, mayor, I I might build right off that final discussion you had with Takami on kind of that proactive working groups ad hoc groups, you know, going out and seeking input from people we've we suspect would be impacted by that policy versus sitting here waiting for someone to show up in front of an advisory board.

And um, I mean the answer, of course, I think is we we need both, but one of the things I would love to see maybe in our updated engagement draft is um and and I don't know what that looks like, but maybe some sort of either you know acknowledgement or or a sense of like look, it's not enough to just sit here and wait for people to come to us.

We um for uh I would argue for most things need to go out and um and listen to the community.

I mean, I'm thinking about the bike fill.

Um I mean, there's any number of presentations, but you know, um, you know, the bike fill will be we'll be having uh ribbon cutting this Thursday, which I forgot my FYI, and um uh, you know, I went to we went uh I think GBLT had a session at the university that to my shock was just completely filled with students and and there was a lot of interesting feedback.

And so I think things like that could be really helpful.

But um, and then I think maybe well I will pass here on on kind of the updated drive, but I think a lot of this, frankly, can can lie on us.

And and this is I mean, I'm really glad to see that this is one of our core goals, which I'm sad to say are not in big font type at the back of our room on the bulletin board yet.

But I trust it's coming.

I know printers are backlogged, it's um but I'm I think a lot lies on us and how we uh, you know, that two-way communication that Takami spoke to, you know, it's not just a one-way conversation, and um but let me let me just pass on that one and and you know we'd appreciate a chance to maybe come back after hearing from my colleagues.

Sure.

Commissioner Smeet.

Thank you.

Um so yeah, I have a lot to say on this.

I'm just gonna kind of download everything.

Um I have some specific edits on the engagement plan template.

Um, so I guess I might start there because it's a little bit technical.

So the um key partners, internal and external.

I wonder if we should add another component to that that clarifies more.

Who do we need to hear from?

Who are the stakeholders?

Because, you know, that's been a big conversation already right now on page 10 of the community engagement initiative from 2021.

It does say, um, do you need to hear from specific groups?

Don't ask them to come to you, go to them.

And I think that's really, really important.

Um, so in the engagement plan template, internal partners, external partners who are super helpful, like GBLT, right?

But also delineating, do we need to hear from a certain age group on this?

Do we need to hear from a certain income level on this?

Do we need to hear from renters, homeowners, business owners, church groups, um queer Bozeman, you know, who are specific target groups that we really want because you know, when we get to the end and we summarize how did we do that is not the moment to say, oh, well, we didn't hear from any renters, right?

Front load that into the plan so that we know what to expect.

Um let's see.

Okay, the second page where we have that really colorful two-part decision making process, public needs at each phase.

Number two says, what decisions need to be made and what decisions have already been made.

Um actually, Takami, you and I were in the small group Fowler conversation, and there was some confusion about, you know, a lot of people had understood that it was going to be a for-sale product, and there was some doubt introduced in that conversation that there might be a rental component also, actually, in order to make it pencil.

So that was you know, not clear to the community up front.

Um, so yeah, just really nailing down, like, what can people really depend on and hang their hat on?

Um, under the project timeline, um, by the way, I do just want to say I love this thing, I love the template.

I'm I like going into looking at these and knowing that we have these kind of similar template to evaluate, I'm sure it helps staff as well.

So, um, thank you for the work to put it together.

So, on the project timeline, there's a bunch of different sections for timelines, and each one has three bullets project phase, actions, tools and techniques.

I wonder if we could add a fourth delivery a fourth bullet that would be a deliverable at each of those timelines.

Maybe it's only the deliverable at this stage is an update to the engagement page, or maybe the deliverable is the summary of the survey, or the deliverable, you know, could be proposed code language or whatever.

Um, and then if there would be on the engage page, maybe at the top, kind of a simplified timeline of like showing the public where we are in the process.

I know, you know, like some people only just heard that we were planning to redo college avenue, and it's like, oh, well, actually, that conversation's been going on for a long time, and here's all the steps, and here's where we are now.

Um, so yeah, sorry if I'm talking really fast through that, but I do love the template, and especially the engagement wrap up, those two questions.

How will you show what you heard from members of the public and how will you go about evaluating the success of the engagement?

I love that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Where to start on this.

I mean, obviously, I believe hugely in our neighborhoods program, and I think if we resource that program well, we can really build it and use it for that two-way communication.

I know it doesn't cover the entire city yet, but we've had momentum in building and bringing on new neighborhood associations and reactivating some defunct ones.

And I just keep wondering about the opportunity.

I had a woman email me this morning.

I want to have an ice cream social for my neighborhood, and I have to get a $350 insurance policy.

So what I'm wondering is if we can help these neighborhoods do some of these kind of fun events, whether it's waiving fees or whatever.

Hey, we have this really important engagement going on right now.

Would you mind if we put some of these flyers at your event so that families with kids or you know people who don't come to City Hall can say, oh, well, this is interesting.

You know, I'll I care about bike fill or whatever.

I care about our trees, or you know, I might fill out that survey.

So you know, if we if we have faith in the neighborhoods program and we resource it and build it up into a really highly functioning thing, I think I think it's a great bit of infrastructure for a community.

Um I have lots more to say, but I will pass it because I'm hogging Mike.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, thanks.

Appreciate the comments from my fellow commissioners so far.

I appreciate the comments from our advisory committee members, and ultimately just appreciate the fact that we're doing this and having a work session on it, taking it seriously, and we have been here for a number of years.

I think that speaks well of our community.

I do think there are things that we can do to improve.

There are things like our advisory boards.

You know, we've talked here for the past couple of years about how to make them more effective.

I think board members have questioned their effectiveness.

I think part of them being ineffective is the separation that we have.

You know, we have separate board meetings, we have separate commission meetings.

It's like we've got to watch the meetings from video or from up far.

And just wondering, is there a way to kind of improve that process?

I was thinking how great it would be.

We have two empty seats here that when we have a work session like this, we have two representatives from key advisory boards that sit in and work with us and kind of come up with ideas and and help relay information from their advisory boards.

I think we could do the same thing with some of our neighborhood groups.

Just that's a way to kind of empower the boards, empower people.

Our boards and the neighborhood groups I feel have their ear on the ground, they're the ones that, you know, we certainly do too, but we've got a pretty big community to cover.

So just kind of fine-tuning some stuff and trying to merge some of our goals and see if there are ways that we can improve processes.

I thought about talked about the under empower the um surveys, it talks about polling, and I love those uh remote control clicker things that an audience can do.

It's kind of another way to get great feedback.

Do you like the deputy mayor's vote on this?

You know, and every that, you know, it could work under the right circumstances, but another way, you know, for us to kind of hear directly from the audience in, you know, a way that kind of summarizes information.

So just trying to find ways to be clever, um, and we're to make more efficient some of the processes we already have in place, Commissioner Bowden.

Um, thank you, Mayor.

And um I'm I'm just like thinking about eye clickers now.

Yeah.

Um I was traumatizing.

Yeah, yeah.

The mayor and I um went through our K-12 during a certain era.

Um child left behind.

Yeah.

Um, and I I do think that there's probably a place where that makes a lot of sense.

I don't know if I would put it on the empower because it would only um be polling the people who are live in that moment watching whatever you know meeting.

It's under the list of how.

Yeah, but I I don't think I I wouldn't put it there because um I don't think that the people watching the meeting in that moment are a representation of the whole public.

Um, while it's definitely an important, like engaged member of the public.

I I don't know that if we defined what our important groups were to reach, would we be reaching those groups in that moment?

Um, I think it would definitely be helpful information that I'd be interested to know what people would say.

But I um yeah, I think that's maybe the the hesitation that a lot of communities have with, and I think I also share with um using the empower column is just um it says the public decides and um we need to define who the public is and how how we make sure that we're yeah, I mean the def the mayor already said this, but um just like a plus one to that.

So um on to the the questions that you wanted me to to tap into here.

In the updated draft, I think we do need more empower and collaborate tools.

Um there are I think seven in that first bucket, the consult and six in the evolve, and then it dwindles down to five and collaborate and only two and empower.

Um honestly under empower, I would also add like ballot question, like a full-on vote is one of the tools that we use, usually associated with levies and bonds as a money tactic, and maybe a required um way in which we empower the community to decide whether or not they want to raise their own taxes.

Um, and I don't think it would always make sense to go to the voters about a um legislative thing, although that is a tool that we have in place that citizens can bring forward their own ballot initiatives, and I I think it belongs to that bucket.

And I just be curious what other tools exist that we could put into the collaborate and empower um boxes so that we might have more options as we consider how to use you know those columns more than just the consult and the evolve ones.

I think I'm not ready to put consensus as a tool in one of these buckets yet.

I'm really excited about our kind of test of the consensus process with the Fowler housing project and we'll be really eager to kind of do a debrief on how we thought it went and if we think it's an effective tool, but I I can imagine kind of placing it in one of these buckets or our massaging this framework to fit it in there in some in some way.

Um I'll just verbally support Commissioner Sweeney's suggestions to add the deliverable um bullet point to the timeline.

I think that's a good idea and helps the public understand um what they may be able to see was achieved in each section and good for transparency.

Um, and I also support Commissioner Swinney's suggestion to identify demographic groups in addition to the recognized organizations and businesses and the kind of stakeholder external partner section.

While I certainly think there are kind of structural things that we can be doing to make residents feel more heard, and all this kind of leads to that.

I'm intrigued by Commissioner Magic's suggestions about incorporating boards more.

And I know we do have a whole meeting set aside for our advisory board structure, which may get to some of that.

But I just want to name that it's also on us as commissioners to synthesize what we hear in public comment and explain why we may be voting differently from what some public commenters said in the room while also recognizing that we heard what they said, and I think I often skip that step and say, just my reasoning for my decision, and don't start by saying, here's what I heard tonight, and here's what I'm I'm going to decide.

And I think that could be a way that we and our ourselves up here could be reflecting back more so that people in the public know that we absorbed their public comments.

Improvements made to the process.

Maybe they have some tools that we can add to our buckets.

And I, you know, don't want to blow up the scope of this too much.

And so that doesn't have to be an exhaustive search.

But certainly if there's some real leaders among our peer cities or even abroad that we can be leaning on and implementing some of those tools, that'd be great.

And I also really support the idea to look at the Forest Service and NRDC's models as well.

I think that's very sharp.

Okay, that's all I got.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney, do you have any further that you wanted to offer up?

Sure.

Okay.

So you know, I'm I'm hearing that you know everybody kind of wants to go towards this empowered column, but I'm also hearing a lot of trepidation about that.

And it brings a thought to my mind that former mayor Jeff Krauss always says, democracy's really messy.

How much democracy do you want?

And I feel like I don't have a lot of trepidation about letting the public decide about like let's just hear what they have to say.

And if we got a ton of people showing up and they're telling us one thing, respect for that.

And you know, I I think a lot of people, you know, they'll participate for a short time, they'll put their heart into it, but then they don't see anything change, and then they just disengage and they go back to biking and hiking and hunting and fishing and skiing and all the things that we live here for.

And I mean, yeah, I would too if I didn't see my input reflected in the outcome, I would just stop participating.

I mean, actually, I just ran for office, but you know what I mean?

Like, we we do have to sometimes do what they ask us to do.

Um, and so you know, as far as the tiers of engagement, I think where we should think about deploying this probably expensive resource of statistically valid polling, is in areas where we get a ton of public comment and we know something is controversial.

What comes to my mind right now is the B3 height of 90 feet.

We have a petition with hundreds of signatures, it is an issue that affects everyone across the city.

And so, you know, the public might tell us something we don't want to hear, but I'm comfortable with that.

I guess.

Staff was always really excellent.

This was actually something I miss.

It's like I could just email a staff person and they would get back to me.

So staff is really, really responsive to the neighborhoods and to residents, and I I really want to thank them so much for that because that builds public trust hugely.

And you know, maybe a way that we can kind of use the neighborhood council if we build this up into a really robust thing, is these ink representatives or the chairs of neighborhood associations, they understand how the city works in a way that the average Joe walking around doesn't really understand, and that's a huge resource for us to use that person to help their neighbors figure out, you know, hey, I have a grievance about this.

Um, who do I talk to?

Or, you know, instead of just complaining about it, like why not reach out, you'll get an answer, and you'll probably be surprised at how wonderful the city's doing about it.

Um, so that person can be a big help for their neighborhoods and their neighbors learning how to navigate the um city, and then I have on here collaborate with the schools to onboard families.

So again, this is more about like the key partners.

You know, if we want to hear from parents and people with families, work with the school system to get some of our engagement efforts out with them.

Um, and I did just want to clarify, we talked about MLUPA a lot.

Okay, so everybody knows, but hopefully, disclosure, I was part of the group that sued the state over MLOPA.

I still believe it's unconstitutional.

Um, but we're living with it.

So part of MLUPA is to, or one mandate for cities is to clarify how much of our geographic area is covered by covenants that restrict development, and the reason for that is that we have to meet our housing needs with other land available to us.

Bozeman is 73% covered by private restrictive covenants that constrain development, and I haven't seen a map, I haven't done the analysis, but I'll bet you a lot of the neighborhoods that are not in those private covenants are represented on ink.

And so when we have zone text amendments, when we have growth policy amendments, when we have land use decisions to make, that is a really important group to reach out to because they're gonna be the ones affected more heavily.

Um let's see what else do I have on here, yeah.

Oh, the the the growth policy.

So when we did in the fall, well, I wasn't on the commission at that time.

When we did the update to the growth policy, it was labeled as a technical update for compliance with MLUPA.

Um, so it was not a very heavily engaged, um, you know, there was probably very little public comment, if any.

Um, um.

But there were some major changes.

The North Seventh design and connectivity plan was retired.

Just surreptitiously in that plan.

And nobody was notified, nobody knew.

So yes, we did a technical update, but I think we do need when we do a true update to our growth policy.

Those areas that are not covered by private covenants, they have a bigger stake.

They just honestly do, because they're gonna be affected.

So that's what I'm gonna end on.

Thanks.

Um thank you.

Uh I'll share a few thoughts, then we can do another round if if there's additional.

Um I similarly am supportive of the um adding demographics.

I mean, I feel like we get into that almost every time we're doing an engagement plan anyway, and trying to strategize on how to hear from folks that don't always um participate.

Um the deliverals deliverables piece of that feels um reasonable and and prudent.

Um yeah, I think I do similarly.

Uh one, I want to clarify uh deliberative polling is not a statistically representative poll that then you make a decision on.

Um I would say the closest thing that we've done in the last couple of years to a deliberative polling process wasn't even run by us, it was run by change.org.

Where they took data in from anyone that wanted to raise their hand and say, I want to give feedback, that feedback was analyzed, and then intentional invitations were made to individuals randomly that was open to virtually anyone that wanted to raise their hand and do it with experts, because it's important in the deliberate polling process that they are informed because it's it's it's unhelpful to get really deep information from folks that like are new to the area, new to the question, new to the whatever.

And so just wanting to kind of clarify, um, because as you move down the line, it's not just impact on decision, it's like it's like authority and responsibility over the end product, and that I think is very comfortable to most of us, if that is something that can be shared.

Like if there is a way to say the we want to give the public authority over how something gets done, and they get to share responsibility for the consequences for that decision.

And I think that is one of the core pieces that differentiates from a poll.

I mean, I participate in polls all the time.

I have no responsibility over the outcome of the poll.

I'm never followed up with.

And so trying to figure out the balance of how are we, you know, it's sort of right size, right fit to the right project, that I think we've done a good job of over the over the years.

But um, I do think there's clear desire to skew more toward um collaborate and empower.

And I think there's a lot of reasons for that.

I think we get really, I think times that I point to in my mind where um a public comment rises to that is when like our friends at Gallaton Watershed Council provide public comment.

That usually forces all of us into like reckoning, and we're like, oh man, we need to really think about that that code language that they're proposing.

And because we see them not just as members of the public, but as sort of co-collaborators on the stewardship of resource, etc.

And so I I think that's you know, kind of in in the soup as well.

Is that I I hope we don't just sit and say, oh, it's really just public comment is, you know, if they're if it's a if it's a hundred to one public comment, then we have to go with what the hundred says, um, even if XYZ reason we may we may not we may disagree.

Um I've been on the receiving, I've been on the other end of a of a hundred to one and watched the commission do something different, and that's the way that it worked in that in in those scenarios, and I don't think they were being corrupt or not listening.

They had different views of that issue.

Um so I I do think trying to move more toward that I think is kind of the thoughts and recommendations on how to residents feel heard and improvements to the communications engagement process that are kind of top of mind to me is trying to figure out you know moments and opportunities for us to give folks both more authority and more responsibility over what gets over the decision that I think we do a good job like our advisory boards parts and record board or urban parts force board um you know makes recommendations on cash and blue park land dollars and we largely just say their recommendations what we go with the community development board you know a couple weeks ago gave us an amendment to the language that we approved tonight because we really trust that they're informed they're taking it seriously they feel the weight of the responsibility of what they're what they're amending and when we give that to to people and residents that want to sink their teeth into it I trust those decisions a ton and I think that's part of what is really interesting of recommendations coming out of processes like the integrated water resource plan update or from ideas for change that we're still trying to figure out exactly like how do we translate that into something actionable um so I think just to say like I I've I've watched this commission for for years and I think when through a variety of different ways that we can get input from the public I I think I've seen the commission be deeply moved over the years while I've been on it and not on it from tools that are not just comment at the 11th hour the final time that there's an opportunity to opine on a decision.

Yeah.

Deputy mayor this has been a helpful discussion.

There's a couple things I'd like to just respond to um I think it's we have to at this dias we have to in these chairs have to make unpopular decisions at times for that run counter as you said mayor to the to the hundred people in the room or the 300 people we hear from um because it is a city of 6000 and so um and if we're going to look if we want to look at you know to pick uh housing policy you know and zoning as an example um and if we want to look at other states for examples of where best policies are doing and what's happening is as we you know if we if we were looking at other states for example we know that states that have given the residents the power to set zoning to limit growth are the ones that are struggling downstream with affordability and with um with housing and so um we you know and I was at um I was at the Azure representative the interneighborhood council at the meeting last month this month excuse me um one of the representatives said that he has the neighbor he and his neighbors should have full control over what goes on in on their street and and you know I mean that's engagement you know do we want to go out there and you know that's one way to look at engagement you know what do you want on your street and that's empowerment right if we want empowerment and and that you know that that would be a very different city for us and I I think it would be a um it would be a it would be a you know it'd be a I think it would be a disaster honestly for our city um to think about how we think about you know we are charged not just with governing this city for today but what does the city look like in the future um and so absolutely engagement is core to our work absolutely I believe we need to make sure that those who are impacted by our policies are are you know their views are reflected in the outcome Commissioner Body I love your idea and I think that's a practice I often fall short on is that here's what I heard tonight and here's why I'm making my decision.

And so um the question I have is for us.

Is um it goes back to kind of honestly we we had four public comments today, right?

And during non-agenda items, and how do we can we improve the way we um respond?

I mean, we can't get into discussions, we can't get into a back and forth.

We'll be here all night if we have 60 people.

Um, but it would be I would I would love for us as a group to find a way to to do something um to give some sort of response.

I think Mayor, your response to Miss Um Kazakoff, was nice, you know, just saying, hey, give us your contact information, we'll have the city manager or somebody will follow up to hear more.

And you know, I mean, uh Cindy Smith has been a smith has been now talking to us a couple times about HRD account accountability.

You know, and she I I don't know, I don't know what it feels like on her end, but you know, I'm imagining it probably feels like she's blowing in the wind.

Um so I love the idea um Takami of kind of that thought that you're gonna be grappling with how do you respond to public comment?

And I think uh maybe we could start with the engagement portions that we're we're focused on, but I would love to find a way.

Um, and maybe there are AI tools that we could find ways to to um to kind of respond to like here's what we're hearing, here's the decision we're making, that kind of thing, as we as we get lots of public comment about some of the more controversial issues.

Um let me just leave it there.

Um, Commissioner Magic?

Yeah, just a correction to something Commissioner Sweeney said um that the North Seventh plan was surreptitio surreptitiously removed.

We had meetings that talked about the expiration of certain neighborhood plans, and that was one of them.

It was seen as an outdated plan.

At the time, so is the hospital plan, and in both cases, we took steps to add money, and in the case of the hospital got a new plan, so I just don't see community development staff working under the cover of darkness as your uh statement imply, Commissioner Bowie.

Thanks.

Um I want to thanks for that, and also I I want to loop back to the deputy mayor's conversation about public um comment and our opportunity to kind of address things real time.

I went to the um IAP2's navigating adaptive challenges and public engagement training this past week, and um they really talked about how problems are either technical, adaptive or mixed, and a technical problem is something that has like a very specific known solution.

There's a pothole on the street, and I need it to be filled.

Um, and then adaptive are are ones where there's issues of values, trust, identity, change kind of involved, and those are the much more complicated ones, and then sometimes it's a little bit of both, and I think if we had a practice um in this commission of um trying to address the sort of technical ones more real time, which I think is what we saw um the mayor do with um Callie Kazakoff's kind of issue.

Well, we don't have a clear solution in this moment, it feels a little bit more like a oh, okay, let's let's talk about a specific little fix here and maybe less likely to be controversial, whereas um the ones that are falling into that adaptive or or mixed category are the ones where um we need to have a larger conversation, and it's it's not I think helpful to get into a back and forth from the from the days.

Um and so yeah, that does take a little bit of a on-the-spot categorizing what what type of comment um we are receiving in that moment, but um I I would be supportive of trying to tackle some of those um technical comments a little bit uh more proactively and then fitting our our adaptive issue conversations into our six-month calendar.

Great, thanks, Commissioner Sweeney.

Do you have any anything else you wanted to add?

Yes, please, thank you.

Um I was gonna say, sometimes when people write in public comments, I just get their email address and reply to them.

Yep, you can do that.

Okay.

Um, and then like I notice when I do, you know, like reach out and engage with a resident, like that really encourages them and they're really appreciative, and then like three more of their neighbors will call me too, which is almost like, oh my gosh, but they're really showing, like, oh my gosh, someone is talking to me, and so you know, I I think we have a responsibility as commissioners, you know, to be doing that, like it's a huge burden for staff to be in our interacting with the public.

But for us, I think literally that is what we're supposed to do.

Um, and so I did just want to elevate the conversation about responding, especially to advisory boards.

So tonight we had the recommendation from the community development board come through a staff presentation, and we had discussion about it.

Um mayor, you expressed comfort in you know, trusting their recommendations because you know that they're informed and that they take their um charge seriously um in evaluating their recommendations and what they're asking, and there has been the Inc.

and the historic preservation advisory board have both made recommendations to us, they did not have the luxury of coming to us through a staff report, um and there's been public comment asking us to issue written responses.

I think that's important, and I think that is maybe why you know this disparity of like HPAB and Inc.

were treated this way, but community development is treated this way, you know.

I hope we can see how that creates sort of this double standard of expectation or like this board doesn't matter because I can tell you everyone on the historic preservation advisory board takes what they do very seriously, they are made up of credentialed professionals who some of them you know work in the private sector consulting for other communities, pay them to do this, so um, yeah, I think it would be great if we could figure out some written response to HPAB and Inc.

about the interim zoning question because tonight community development board could watch us approve and uphold their rec recommendation.

Um I think sometimes we're not giving Bozeman residents enough credit, they are not just anti-growth, sometimes they have really good ideas about how the growth can be different or better managed.

So if we can shift the conversation and say, Well, where do you want a 90-foot building?

Where do you think this density would be better?

Where do you think redevelopment is appropriate?

I think Bozeman residents are really sophisticated and able to have that conversation.

So I think that's it.

Yeah, I completely agree.

And the just a quick kind of response to the community development board versus HPAB.

We will see HPAB's recommendation when we take up the NCOD, and when we take up the associated items that relate to the project that they you know oversee.

Community development board gave us a recommendation based on an item that we had in front of us tonight.

It was incorporated in the staff report because it was on our agenda.

That will be the case when the historic preservation advisory board sees an item or has seen an item that we're then gonna take action on.

Just as I think I don't think there's a double standard there.

Like when we get to the NCOD, we're gonna see their recommendations right there, saying here's what their discussion was, here's what they said we should do, here's proposed amendments that came from them.

Um the interim zoning is not a priority of the commission, it's not on our six month calendar, it's not an item that we're considering.

Um I don't I don't think those necessarily equate to the same, the same part of the process.

Um I understand our city manager has um a comment he would like to share.

Yeah, I just want to thank the commission for this this conversation.

I did want to let you all know that, and Commissioner Bode, I appreciate your calling out the technical issues.

I hope that uh the community and the commission feels that your staff does that all day every day.

So if I hope that we don't end up in a um situation where people have to come and make public comment to get a pothole fixed.

So I I think that's not what your time is best spent.

So we do that all day every day, and you don't know about it.

So if there's some way that you know some concern you have about your staff not being responsive to the public, please let me know about that and we'll work on that.

But that's what we do all day every day is respond to the public.

Public comments, phone calls, texts, emails, everything, and I think we're pretty darn good at it.

Not perfect, but I think we're pretty darn good at it.

So I just wanna leave that here.

I think if people got different responses when they came to the commission directly, that would um reinforce that kind of behavior.

And I I don't want to be a part of a city where in order to get anything done, you have to ask the commission to do it, unless it's commission policy work.

Thank you.

Um I'll I'll just chime in and say I I fully support that and think that's that's true, and um mostly was making that comment to people who walk up to to the podium to give um comment comment live.

Um, in fact, I I call that a constituent back um this past week who um was walking across Main Street with her husband who um is a chair user, and he he actually fell over in the crosswalk across Main Street because of the steepness of the ramp there.

Um, and by the time I had called her back to figure out um what was going on with the situation, she actually already talked to our transportation director.

Um, and so yeah, I I know our staff is on it.

And um, if there are any any ways in which you know, us as commissioners when we hear from the public in um ways in which the staff might not be privy to those conversations, just making sure that we're we're identifying those and passing them on.

Any further discussion?

Um, I guess I just want to add one final piece here.

Um I think we all have different we of course have different experiences as commissioners.

Different people reach out to us, um, we interact with different people, we may run into we live in different parts of town.

Um and I I think, you know, when we hear I think it's just important for us as, you know, so much of this.

I think a lot of this is of course that this discussion tonight is about tools and resources and ways in which we want to, you know, direct staff and money that engages the residents, but also it's a big part of what's our job and how do we um how do we know that we have a mandate to make a decision in a particular way?

Is it based on you know the majority of public comment?

Is it based on you know cultural sentiment that we believe that the community has?

Um, is it a trust of residents or is it a distrust of residents?

And I think for for me personally, I think I've had a number of moments that have shook me from you know smart people in the community after a decision gets made.

Um I'm gonna try to be de-identify this individual and this item, but it but it's something I think about often.

And community members that reached out said, why did that happen?

Like what what happened?

And it was basically like, well, you know, a bunch of people showed up and said they didn't like it.

And this business owner's response was, well, what did we elect you for if 20 people can show up and yell at you and you go with who came and showed up and yelled at you?

And and of course, that's an overly reductive opinion from that business owner.

However, I do think that's an important question that everyone that sits in these chairs interrogates to themselves.

Because when we're here, we feel the pressure to go along with who's yelling at us.

That's it, it's a human desire to do that.

And it doesn't mean that we that the check is to go the opposite way.

Um, but I I just think like as someone who sat in those chairs and was 100 to 1, and I watched the commission vote the other way, and had to kind of scratch my head and say, what's going on here?

Like, it's not nobody's getting money up here.

You know, we're not getting money for our decisions.

Um, and I think that's just an important part of this that I deeply trust this community when we get to hear from the community.

As an example, uh, there was a poll done uh in 24, 25, um, by a housing organization in town that found it was not even close that Boseman I'd say density good, higher good.

The uh results from the ideas for change, you know, this is a snapshot across the community.

This is like this is a lot of uh regulars and a lot of folks that are new to city processes.

90% said density is an acceptable trade-off for addressing our housing shortages.

They said they would 67% would provide prioritize affordability over preservation, and so it when we're saying, any of us are saying the community says this, the community says that, I'm always like there's always an asterisk next to which community you you're we're citing, because it's hard to know, like this is what if we put a hundred people, if we took a you know, a slice of a hundred Bozemanites and made them into one person that sat in this chair, how would they vote?

And that at times feels like what our what our job is, but it's you know pretty hard to to get that um readily, especially for controversial items, because you know they're they arouse a lot of emotion, and there's uh fear and fear and excitement or hope, and and that's sort of a rambling end to that.

But that's just I think it's like one of my favorite things to talk with other elected officials about um whenever I um whether in Montana or elsewhere is you know, how do you know?

How do you know you have to do something?

Like, what's the thing that if in your heart you would absolutely never vote for, but the public compels you to do so?

What moves you over there?

I think that's the messy part of governance.

Yeah, Commissioner Sweeney.

So I think a really huge responsibility of engagement is not giving people false choices.

So I don't know how that poll was presented.

We didn't give it to them.

I know, right?

But so what I'm saying is we have a responsibility to present accurate, honest like the density versus sprawl, that's false.

We're not doing that.

That is not a question.

Um the you know, affordability versus preservation.

How was that framed?

You know, some of the older housing stock is the most affordable, and so, you know, I think a huge ask, is, you know, please have really thought out, well reasoned, data-backed education that you're giving to these people in this public needs at each phase.

Clear understanding of the scope of the decision, clear understanding of what the alternatives will be, you know, objective information about the issues, because you can absolutely engineer the outcome of a survey, even if your polling is statistically valid.

So that's just one final thing I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Bodhi.

I'm feeling interested in hopping in here because I think it's a really valid point that the setup, the lead up to what question is asked, can definitely persuade.

And there's all kinds of polls where they ask, what's your opinion on this?

And then they say, did you know this?

And then they say, now what's your opinion on this?

And they track how people's opinions change.

Um I think our our secretary of state is maybe a model to look towards when it comes to like a ballot question.

They and you know, don't quote me on this, but um, they they say actually we as um a government body um can't make anybody happy with what the objective truth here is.

So we're gonna go to the um respective sides of this argument and get what's the pro opinion, what's the con opinion, and publish that document in a ballot information pamphlet that we all get to read.

And I I wonder if we were to flesh out this statistical polling um process for some of these really sticky issues, like B3 height, for example.

Um, we could find a way to craft a like, hey, here's here's the factual history, what what happened, and here's people who support the this height, say this, and people who don't support the site or want this, you know, like give a little bit of a that context.

Um, because I I think I share some of the concerns of of um some of my my colleagues up here.

I'm like, how do we know someone was informed when they told us what they wanted?

And um also the steep trust that when we're informed, we can make good good decisions.

And um, if I feel that somebody has all the information and is deciding to do something differently than I would, I want to respect that.

Um, it just gets hard when I feel like they maybe didn't have all the context.

And as commissioners, um, I think we often get to see so many pieces of the entire puzzle that we have to make decisions that somebody seeing a narrower portion of the puzzle can't understand.

Um, but in the converse way, that person seeing a narrower portion of the puzzle knows that portion of the puzzle way more intimately than us who are looking at this 20,000 foot view.

Um, and so being able to weigh both both of those is um something I I aspire to.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Are there any clarifying questions from staff?

Seeing no, I appreciate again the conversation.

This is like really important, and it's something we've been working on.

I think we can learn things from other cities and other cities can learn things from us, things from us too, because we are doing pretty amazing work in this area for a city our size, and that's that's due to direction from the commission, but it's also due to self um initiative by staff knowing this is important to our community.

So, again, not perfect.

I think we do a great job.

And I think we can tweak it and do even better in this conversation tonight, was helpful.

Thank you.

Great.

Um, so we'll wrap up our work session there, and now on to our second round of FYI.

Any FYI from the commission?

Commissioner Bodie.

Yeah, I um just want to lift up our third comment that we've received from Cindy Smith and um just see if there is a technical response that we can provide um or maybe that the city manager could send to us commissioners and we could look at that and individually determine how we want to respond.

Yep I will do what I can understand that employment actions are by nature private and we do not enforce employment law in other agencies.

So I'll learn what I can and I'll share what I can with you.

Thank you.

Yeah deputy mayor just to build off that I believe one of her specific requests was how much money has the city spent to send to HRTC and I that's a huge maybe a huge question but maybe if we could put some you know get a little information to maybe in the past three years we've spent we've sent I believe it's just for uh and not to have a discussion here streamline and and helping with shelter operations but if there are other monies it would just be helpful to have maybe a little yeah that's all publicly available I'm happy to provide that that would that would be helpful.

Commissioner Sweet thanks I and to build off that further I did appreciate her yeah I don't want to get involved in the employee dispute thing with a 39 and a half foot poll but uh the oversight of um publicly spent money there is one thing that I have been wanting to know um about HRDC and that is the voucher utilization rate for section eight vouchers um I know a member of the public has submitted a public records request at the state level they had to pay 350 to get that um but I think that's something that should be we could ask for that from a nonprofit that is managing a resource for a community.

And then also I don't know can does the pop shops do we want to I I want to regulate pot shops.

Does anybody else have an interest in having a conversation about that at a future time on an agenda because I feel like I had a check in with um our city manager about this and somehow we were gonna like limit the number that could yeah it's it um I did talk with our city attorney about this it's not as easy as I had hoped it would be um but I'm I still feel this is an important thing I it's we have the most pot shops in Bozeman of any other city in Montana and I think it does impact our community.

So let me work on that with the city attorney find out how we might bring something back to the commission in light of all of the other work if you want to let me know individually how high this is a priority for you I'm happy to take that into account.

Great.

Any further FYI?

Okay any FYI from staff?

Okay seeing no further business to come before this city commission this meeting is adjourned.