Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, July fourteenth commission meeting of the Bozeman City Commission.

We're glad that you're here.

Okay, and moving along.

Do we have any changes to our agenda, City Manager?

Good evening, Mayor.

There are no changes tonight.

Okay.

Any FYI?

Moving on to FYI.

I think FYI from the Commission this evening.

Yeah, Commissioner Sweeney.

Oh, we need to.

I got I'll get you.

Oh, I'm apologi- I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, uh FYI next Wednesday, uh July 22nd.

Thank you.

And the following Monday, July 27th.

Um, I'll be facilitating a walking tour with some area residents to have a discussion about zone edge transitions.

Um the goal is to understand the lived experience of the impacts of zone edge transitions and brainstorm with the community.

Um, you know, things we've learned along the way, no transition measures, some transition measures, and look at our our new transition measures pro um adopted as of February 1st.

So please um join me at 6 p.m.

at Beale Park next Wednesday and the following Monday.

Commissioner Magic has agreed to join on the 27th.

And um we'll take a walk through the neighborhoods.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any further FYI.

I've got a few pieces I want to share.

Um first is uh our next episode, got episode six of the Bozeman Beat, uh dropped last week, I think.

Um it's a conversation with uh executive director of Habitat for Humanity, Jason Sacran.

Um it's very fun.

We're talking about things, the the challenge of trying to take housing tools that work somewhere else and translate them here with our different rules and different culture and um what we would you know try to translate it to the to the the Bozeman environment.

Um it's a good conversation.

I also just want to quickly respond.

Um we we received a number of of calls and public comments uh while uh over the last couple weeks regarding uh ice in the community.

Um I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I at least want to um respond because anytime we get a bunch of public comments, I think it it merits a response.

Um a few things that we that we know, um it's a challenging thing to feel that confident in what we know because they didn't they don't communicate um as effectively as other agencies often do with an expectation of of collaboration and sharing information and even the number of detainees that I think we've seen numbers that they've given that were less, and we've heard you know around a hundred from the community, um and just wanting to recognize um regardless of how someone might feel politically um with immigration, um, knowing that someone without identification running with a weapon drawn in the neighborhood or downtown still evokes terror in a lot of people.

And that's a very real experience that a lot of folks had, whether they were the the target of of ICE or or otherwise.

Um I've been concerned with some of the rhetoric that we've seen from folks trying to diminish that and and label those folks as as agitators or illegitimately concerned.

Um we're wanting to you know work constructively with state and federal agencies, and and I know there's gonna be leadership from our local other local elected to try to figure out what how can we make this process safer, more effective, more transparent for everyone involved.

So we're not in this situation again.

Um but just wanted to kind of offer those those remarks.

Um we didn't uh we didn't really get that, we didn't get a heads up in the way that I think we had believed we would in the past.

Um but onward we go.

City manager, any FYI from staff this evening.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have two.

Um you asked, and our staff delivered the AI minutes.

The summary is available now on the city's website.

Uh we've got a lot of positive comment on that.

Takes very little effort, a little bit of money from our budget, but now there's another way for interested community members and commissioners, uh, anyone to look at a transcription of the meeting in a summary format.

So I hope you uh the public and the commission appreciates uh that means of uh learning what's what's happening with the commission.

Um we appreciate hearing any comments of that.

Also, uh it's pretty cool what happened with our police data dashboard.

It was selected for presentation by the head of ESRI to be presented for an audience of more than 18,000 GIS professionals, executive and government leaders um all across the world at their um 2026 ESRE User Conference.

So two members of our staff, Lauren Wilcox and Lynn Rich, uh, along with members of the police department did an amazing job putting this dashboard together to increase transparency, show effectiveness, and what um our police department is doing and the impact they're having on our community.

So this is an incredible honor, and uh we just I wanted to highlight that uh and the work of Lauren and Litt and Lynn in the asset management division, along with our awesome leadership in the police department.

So good news tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, City Manager.

Um moving on to disclosures.

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

Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to consent.

We've got a big consent agenda this evening.

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

Yeah, I hesitate to pick one because um there's an enormous amount of work and activity on our consent agenda.

I hope that the public understands what goes on behind each one of these items.

There are uh links to the memo, all the agreements and everything is right there in the front on the commission agenda.

But tonight I'd like to talk about uh item F11, and it is to authorize me to sign a professional services agreement with Mediation Help Association for the landlord tenant mediation services.

And I think this is um one of the three legs of our tenants' rights to counsel program, mediation, representation, and education.

This is a mediation part, so hopefully we can uh avoid the legal part of this through uh getting folks in a dispute together with a professional mediator and trying to talk things out in a better way.

So we're excited to have that on the consent agenda and start that part of the program very, very soon.

Thank you, City Manager.

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

Um so this is just on consent items F1 through F22.

Any public comment in the room on these consent items.

Um for anyone that wishes to give public comments, just start with your first and last name.

You'll have three minutes.

Um the light will change to yellow when you've used two minutes, you've got one minute remaining, and then there will be uh a gentle alarm.

Good evening.

Hi there.

Uh my name's Emily Kelly.

I live over in Baxter Meadows.

Um I'm a little prepared for this because I wasn't aware this was on the consent agenda.

Item F3.

Um before we came tonight, my husband's said to me, he goes, Oh, you should see what's on the consent agenda, and he starts to read it to me.

And I'm thinking the punchline it's gonna be some you know, wealthy benefactor is giving money to the city.

Well, it turns out that well, well, the benefactor is me and all you guys because the school's giving the city almost 1.5 million dollars as a donation.

And I I was shocked and like, well, where did where did this money come from?

And I I realize I'm probably before before the wrong forum here.

This isn't the school you know, board or whatever, but ultimately we all pay for this, and I you know, I read those mill levees pretty closely, and each year we get and we get some explanation, and I don't remember ever seeing a set aside, you know, whether it was on a yearly basis or whatever for money to go to the sports park.

So I'm a little sort of miffed here about where again here's like a pot of money sitting there that could have offset some of these other mill levies that they were looking for, whether it was school security or teachers or whatever it was.

This is a lot of money.

So you know, I'm I'm just bringing it to your attention, I'm bringing it to everyone's attention here that just question where is this money come from?

I don't have kids in the school.

I don't have kids at all.

And so maybe I'm just out of the loop on this.

You know, I didn't get the memo from the school board saying we were gonna take money and give it to the city.

So I I maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know about this, but I can tell you from this day forward, I will not be voting on a single mill levy for the school, knowing that somehow money is getting set aside for something that we don't even know is coming up and gonna get paid for.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room on consent?

Second request for comments in the room and a final request in the room.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay, we will close public comment on consent.

Um before uh we bring up here for a motion and vote.

Um I didn't know if the city manager or assistant city manager wanted to respond to that comment.

Yes, I do.

This this is a long-standing agreement that we've had with the school district.

This is a project that they were going to build on school district land for the exclusive use of the school.

We partnered with them.

It's in their budget, it has been.

It's been in our budget and it has been.

This is a part of a um agreement that that we had to build a uh TERF sports field that the school district gets first right of use on city property.

It's a collaboration, it's a partnership that saves both the city and the school district a lot of money for a planned um sports field that they had uh in their budget.

So we are excited to participate with them.

It's right across the street from Gallatin High.

The kids get to use it uh when they need it, and then the rest of the community gets to use it when they aren't using it.

It also includes a parking lot.

It's gonna take part of the pressure off of the local neighborhood for um parking at the school during school hours, and then it's a parking lot that's available for the public to use during sports park activities.

So we've talked with this commission about it, the school boards talked about it.

It's been a uh I think from my opinion, it's a win-win uh to the taxpayers.

It's gonna be built anyways, and it's part of school district serving its students and the city serving its community.

So I hope that helps.

Thank you, City Manager, and thank you, Ms.

Kelly, for even asking the question.

Um it gave us the opportunity to to respond.

And you know, of course, you're you're welcome to to dig in more follow up on anything that was just said.

Um but we appreciate the opportunity to um bring some context to that.

Um bring it up here for motion and vote.

Um Deputy Mayor.

Sure.

And and if I could just add, I mean, as a former school, that was part of the um I believe that was part of the initial uh package or the plan for get Gallatin High when we built it out there.

Um so it's uh I actually have the odd odd thing of voting for Gallatin High and voting to accept this money.

So um, but that was in the that um 125 million dollar bond issue that that the community to build Gallatin High because we thought we needed an extra sports field on the property.

All right.

Uh I it's my honor to to move that we uh motion that we approve consent items F1 through F twenty-two as presented.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Consent is approved five to zero.

Now we're moving on to general public comment before we move on to our some housekeeping on the UDC.

Um, so this is the opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items at all within the scope and purview of the Bozeman City Commission.

Same rules will apply.

You have three minutes.

Please just introduce yourself first and last name relationship to the city, um, and then you'll have your your three minutes.

Um it'll change to yellow when you've got one minute remaining.

Not all at once.

Good evening.

Hi everyone.

Uh Mark Campanelli, uh Bogar Park resident.

Uh I just wanted to announce a couple exciting things.

Um, one coming up pretty quickly is the Big Sky DevCon, um, which is a developers conference for programmers.

Uh it's July 24th and 25th.

There is a fee, they try to keep it very low.

Um, and I think this year they're doing it at MSU, which is really cool.

Um, although the old venue they had out at uh uh near where the YMCA is was cool, but this way I can kind of I don't have to drive this year, so I'm excited about that.

Uh there's a great community of uh tech coding people here.

Um as you guys may know, I kind of split my time from the math programming side doing that work, and also uh with more recently with the building science and HVAC uh stuff, I'm actually trying to transition more into recently the BS in beer, BS stands for building science, so get your mind out of the gutter.

Uh BS and Beer Group, uh Building Science and Beer Group has put together a cold climate conference, which is happening again at MSU uh, I think in Inspiration Hall, uh October 12th through 14th this fall.

Uh so I'm really excited about that.

The price for this one is a little bit higher.

Um, but in terms of housing and trying to get people into not just cheap houses, but like houses that are comfortable and have a low opex, usually traded for a little bit more capex because it's more well insulated or has a heat pump.

Um, there are a lot of people in this group that would love an opportunity to work on houses for modest people, as opposed to always putting the coolest gadgets and the R60 installation insulation in a 20,000 square foot house up in Big Sky.

So I just wanted to call that out.

I'm super excited.

I these these are my people, I think generally, and um they're really good groups.

So as part of all the housing discussions, maybe this could get roped in as well.

I'm happy to put you in contact with the person setting that up.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Any Mr.

Campanelli, sorry, when was the Gold Climate Conference?

What dates in October?

October 12th.

Yes, sorry, uh October 12th through 14th.

I think it's three days, three full days.

And then one, I don't know if it's one of the days, but they are gonna try to go out into the community and visit a few things as well.

So we won't just all be just sitting and listening for the whole time, but happy to send you more information.

So in the room.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Robert Muldowney, Baxter Meadows.

Um my wife and I had dinner downtown Wednesday last week, and I can report the streets were busy, stores were in stores had shoppers, the bars and restaurants had patrons.

Several of the folks looked like they were from out of town.

I suppose that is part of the reason to have a busy downtown district, and there were some who probably were locals.

As we left Main Street driving past the latest Peditaire condo addition on the north side of the street, turning north onto 7th, the contrast couldn't have been more apparent.

The DORD with over 30 years of TIFF funding versus 7th Avenue corridor in need of improvement and reasoning, and the reasoning behind the URD, preferably with guardrails, became apparent.

Although both areas place demands on police and fire, under the governing TIFF arrangement, they do not contribute their fair share towards the general fund.

The TIFF rules in Bozeman remain unchanged even after the state realized in 2017 that TIFFs can stifle the general funding services that growing URDs districts depend on.

The contrast between downtown and 7th Avenue corridor versus the west side of the Bozeman came into focus when I was traveling west on Oak Street past the Gallatin County 100 acre park.

There, memorial signs were placed with flowers, as well as a note to drivers to quote, please slow down.

The contrast hit me.

How is it that we have a 30-year-plus TIFF redirecting its supposed inflation adjusted limited dollars away from the general fund, a downtown neighborhood intermingled with high-end retail condos and premium hotels that long-term residents can't afford, along with a $9.7 million surplus in the uh downtown URD TIFF that uh downtown appears to believe is theirs to spend rather than monies that should be returned to the general fund.

Yet on the west side of Bozeman, there are pedestrian active activate where pedestrian activated uh crosswalks and increased traffic patrols are needed.

It is up to the residents to make a meager attempt at traffic management with cardboard signs of remembrance employing drivers to slow down.

In addition to basic, in addition to basic unfairness, I'm concerned this city is exposing itself to civil liability.

Unstaff, understaffed patrols mean traffic enforcement isn't happening.

That sure just traces back to the structural cause.

TIFFs capture the appreciated growth and property value that the TIFFs help create.

While the growth generates increased demand for police and fire, which falls on the general fund to deliver, the districts get bigger and the demand on police grows with them.

But the funding to meet that demand doesn't grow in proportion.

Left uncorrected, this pattern is self-reinforcing, more growth, more demand, less uh relative capacity to capture it.

This situation will not be cured by residents with cardboard signs, but uh by action taken by the city to correct prior decisions and with more equitably uh and to more equitably distribute the resources generated by the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room.

Good evening.

Uh Daniel Cardi, Bozeman Rosident.

I appreciate appreciate uh Mayor Morrison bringing up ICE.

What I'd like to say is around the country, ICE has been responsible for a number of deaths in the past year.

Not to mention disrupting or disrupting or destroying thousands of innocent lives.

A number of cities around the country have had their city governments establish within their cities ice free voice-free zones entirely or partially.

Bozeman should be the first city of its size to do the same.

So I'm asking this commission to do two things.

Adopt a resolution declaring the city of Bozeman an ice-free zone and making a commitment that the Bozeman Police Department and fire departments will not in any way aid a bet or protect ICE agents operating within the city, but instead protect all those people who live within Bozeman who are either working, living, whether they are residents or not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Jeff Ball Bozeman.

I'm trying to get ahead of your work session tonight on the creek, and I had a few thoughts to try to seed into your minds.

One thing that I've noted in uh alternative two, there's a potential for induced flooding due to plugging, which goes right to the heart of my imploration about cleaning out the woody debris and maybe doing something with the tree and street or tree maintenance district.

We've been over this ground before, but I just want to it was actually in there the discussion about woody debris.

Um there's a lot of discussion about channelization and everything I've read all over the world, channelization really generally ends up causing a different problem somewhere else.

So I I just be mindful of that.

Um section six discussed budgets, and there was no mention of plugging or woody debris or budgets that could maybe be contributed toward that.

And I think that that may be just a timing thing between me coming to you all after this came out.

But think about how your budgets may be adjusted and how you may have a funding mechanism through the tree maintenance thing or the forestry or whatever it is.

Um nature and modeling of flooding, I think with global warming.

It's if if you look at the big big event we had in Red Lodge and in um Gardner Carbella Bridge, that was, as I recall, an atmospheric river from the Pacific Pineapple Express that came and completely did away with our snowpack in three days.

And it's huge.

And it was draining a much bigger area than our quaint little Bozeman Creek um watershed.

But be mindful of that.

Um increased air temps even at higher elevations.

Um I would encourage the consultants or anybody to get over to Gardner and get over to Red Lodge and see what they went through and go up the East Rose but all the way to the for um wilderness boundary in the parking lot.

It's it's breathtaking what happened there.

Um I think that's kind of oh no.

At the headgate that was replaced, there was a headgate removed that ran story mill ditch forever, the historic headgate, and that those were waterworks have been removed.

It was replaced with a pump station and different system.

And um, there's a thought, maybe put back in the headgate waterworks, clean out the old mill ditch, and keep the new one in place and take water up to the top in the cemetery and push it back over into the BSF ski area, and then also still have water coming from the other headgate, which is 30 feet away, um the mill ditch itself, because that would split the flows.

It's just a thought.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room this evening?

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

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

I'm showing first up with Cindy Smith.

Good evening.

Good evening, can you hear me?

Yep.

Good evening, Mayor.

My name is Cindy Smith.

I am here once again because despite repeated written requests, verbal requests, and discussions during previous city commission meetings.

I still have not received the public records I requested regarding city funding provided to the Human Resource Development Council.

At a previous meeting, City Manager Chuck Wynn publicly stated that he would ensure this information was made available.

Several weeks have passed now, and I have provided my contact information multiple times.

No one has contacted me.

No one has provided the record, no one has explained the delay.

This is not one records request anymore.

It is about whether every member of this community receives equal equal access to their government, equal treatment when asking questions, and equal opportunity to hold publicly funded organizations accountable.

Because of these continuing failures, I filed and ultimately had to refile a formal ethics complaint regarding the conduct of city officials and the appearance of unequal access to government.

The records I requested should identify what city funds have been provided, what those funds were authorized to be used for, what oversight exists, and how compliance is monitored.

If those records exist, they should be produced.

If they do not exist, then that raises an even more significant public policy concern.

The public deserves to know how our taxpayers' dollars being tracked, what safeguards ensure city funds are spent only for their authorized purpose, who verifies compliance, when are recipients audited, how does the city determine whether publicly funded organizations are meeting the conditions attached to those funds?

These are not partisan questions.

They're fiduciary questions, they're governance questions, they are accountability questions.

Transparency should never be depend on who is asking.

Tonight I respectfully request four specific actions again.

First, provide the records that have been repeatedly requested without further delay.

Second, provide a written explanation of any requests records do not exist or cannot be produced.

Third, direct staff to publicly explain the city's oversight process for nonprofit organizations receiving taxpayer funds.

And fourth, consider an independent reviewer audit of city funding provided to HRDC so the public can have confidence that taxpayer dollars are being administered with appropriate oversight and accountability.

Government earns public trust through transparency, not silence.

I hope this commission chooses transparency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any further requests online?

I'm showing no additional requests.

Okay.

We will close the general public comment portion of this evening and bring it up here and move into our UDC housekeeping items.

City manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

The first is adoption.

Provisional adoption of the 2026 Unified Development Code Housekeeping Amendments one to amend Section 38.530.040, the unified of the unified unified development code to amend uh parking in the B3 district after October 1st, 2026.

It is application number 26307.

I'd like to welcome our senior planner, Chris Sanders.

Good evening.

As noted Chris Saunders representing the city and also uh the applicant, which is the city, uh, this evening.

So uh as the commission is aware, last year the city commission adopted uh refresh on our unified development code.

And as is not surprising with the document that runs over 500 pages, we have identified some necessary corrections.

There are different ways that we can do that.

Sometimes it's something where the city attorney has authority to issue a codification order, correcting a bad reference or something like that.

But in this case, uh we identified simply an omission that needs to be put in, and only the commission has the authority to do that.

So the section we're talking about as was identified by the city manager, relates to parking.

There are distinct uh parking regulations that apply in the B3 district, so the the core of the downtown.

And the regulations um kick in on October 1st of 2026.

For those who uh don't habitually follow the actions of the state legislature.

For those who don't habitually follow the actions of the state legislature, uh the state legislature passed some laws about parking and what cities can do with parking requirements, and those kick in on October 1st.

So we're coordinating that action uh with the state to make sure that we're we're keeping things square for our public.

And so there are two fundamental things that are happening.

One is uh bringing forward the uh language that was inadvertently omitted relating to group residential uses.

Uh the the other residential uses did properly care carry forward.

And then there also are some standards that are unique for the B3 for the non-residential uses.

Uh so that language is already in place today.

So this is just making sure it carries forward after October 1st.

So the regulations that we use uh to do these kinds of work are set by the state.

Uh here's the code citations uh in state law.

Uh we have done the analysis included in your staff report, and uh was also uh initially reviewed with the development of the UDC as a whole, and then again with um the report before you this evening.

So uh we had authority from the commission on May 12th to carry this forward.

Um it has been advertised, shared uh through the various processes.

At this point, we have not received any public comment that I'm aware of.

Uh the city uh staff is recommending approval.

Community development board conducted their required public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of the text as written.

Uh should you decide to uh provisionally adopt the ordinance tonight?

There would be a follow-up uh final action required on July the 28th.

And uh we have a recommended motion, and uh that concludes my presentation.

I'd be glad to take any questions that you may have.

Great.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Bodie, any questions for staff?

Um I have no questions, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sweeney.

Any questions?

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Magic.

I have no questions either.

Wow, such brevity.

Um before bringing up your here for a motion discussion vote, we'll open this up for public comment.

Um, any public comment in the room related to this item, B3 parking changes.

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

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any comments online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay, bring it up here for motion discussion and vote.

Commissioner Bowdy.

Having reviewed and considered the project report, staff ordinance, public comment, recommendation from the community development board and all information presented.

I hereby adopt the findings presented in the parking amendment project report for application 26307 and move to provisionally adopt the ordinance revising parking, revising parking in the B3 zoning district on or after October 1st, 2026.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded, Commissioner Bowie.

Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, um, I agree with all things in the motion and the staff report and appreciate um staff identifying that this um change needed to be made to keep us in in compliance and making sure that that the parking uh code worked effectively.

Um I I see this as very procedural.

Um certainly the legislation that the legislature passed is um maybe more controversial state statewide and here locally.

Um, but this this code amendment and um these parking requirements are our kind of implementing what the state told us we needed to do.

Um and so I will be in support.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Um I share uh Commissioner Lodi's perspective and sentiment.

Uh staff report was well prepared and explains we are just complying with state law.

So I'm happy to support this.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, thanks.

I have nothing more to add except to thank Chris and thank the community development board.

Deputy Mayor, I I just will we'll express amazement that we can dispatch an issue on dealing with downtown parking with uh no public comment in less than 10 minutes.

So I appreciate staff's work on this and we'll be voting yes.

That may be overblows the changes happening here.

Um yeah, appreciate the I'll add very little.

Um I crazy that this is the first uh M GLUPA application that we've had, right?

Because the we've had appeals that we had things that carried over under the old code where you know we're having to look at uh general compliance or uh substantial compliance of the growth plan versus growth policy A through K and things like that.

This is the first, right?

City attorney is whispering at me when my ears aren't good enough to pick it up.

I think the question is about the first piece of legislation in front of the commission under employ both.

Yeah, right.

Uh that very well may be the case.

I don't can't say that for sure at the moment, but I think it is.

Well, I really I really mucked up the flow of uh that's all I have to say.

Um appreciating my colleagues' findings, and apologies for that.

Mr.

Moss, which you polled the commission.

Commissioner Bode.

Hi.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Hi.

Commissioner Magic.

Hi.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Um, our second piece of housekeeping related to short-term rentals.

Let me see if I can be a little more eloquent on this one.

No, really flubb it.

Okay.

It's not difficult for me.

This is ordinance provisional adoption for the 2026 Unified Development Code housekeeping amendments one to amend chapter 38, uniform development code Bozeman is proposed to address legacy short-term rentals in the RA district.

This is application number 26307.

And tonight is the director of community development, Aaron George.

Thank you, City Manager.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Aaron George, community development director here to speak to this item because a few of you may remember that I uh worked on the short-term rental ordinance three years ago, so I am still unfortunately our resident expert on the topic.

So tonight we're here with actually two ordinance options for your consideration.

And the the reason for this is because uh in adopting the new new UDC and the combin combination of the residential zoning districts, uh specifically creating RA, which combine RS, R1, and R2, uh, affected one particular type of short-term rentals, which is the type twos.

So I'll give you a refresher on those types uh in just a second.

Uh as currently written in the adopted UDC, type two uh used to be allowed in R2, but now would not be allowed in RA.

So previously it was not allowed in RSR1, but was allowed in R2.

So refresher on those types.

Type one short-term rental is short-term rental of one or more bedrooms in a host primary residence while the host is occupying that dwelling unit for the entire short-term rental unit or period.

Type two, short-term rental of a dwelling unit if the host is not occupying the dwelling unit during the entire short-term rental period.

And that includes two subtypes, 2A and 2B.

Uh 2A is the host primary residence, and primary residence means uh the dwelling unit is occupied by a natural person, meaning a real human being, uh, a minimum of 70% of the calendar year.

And a natural person can only have one primary residence.

So before 2023, we regulated by owner-occupied, and in 2023 we shifted to primary residence on the advice of legal that that was um a better way to regulate rather than it being the owner, but it could be the host of the short-term rental.

Uh so it doesn't have to be an owner, it could be a renter.

Um in most cases, though, it is the owner.

2B is short-term rental of an ADU, accessory dwelling unit on the same lot as the host primary residence, or short-term rental of more than no more than one additional dwelling unit in the same building as the host primary residence.

So someone could own a duplex, they could live in one unit and rent out the other unit as a type 2B.

So those are the types we we currently have.

Type 3, uh, as you likely recall, was banned in 2023, but it was allowed to operate as a legacy type three if you were already operating a type three prior to the effective date of that ordinance.

So new type threes are no longer allowed.

So this is a snapshot of the short-term rentals that we have in the city at this time and a breakdown by type.

So we currently have a total of 366 short-term rentals.

Uh as you can see, type two is our largest amount when you combine the purple and red wedges.

We've broken them down by whether they're in RA for tonight's purposes.

So uh type two as a whole, if you combine them, represents 54% of all short-term rentals in Bozeman.

And when you break it down into whether they're in the RA district or not, type 2s that are in RA, there are 62 of them, which is just about 17%.

And those that are not in RA, there's 137 of them or around 37%.

There's a small number of type 1s, 32 of them for 8.7%, and then type 3s, again, which are legacy, allowed to continue operating because they were in existence at the time that ordinance took effect, but no new ones can come in.

Those are we have 135 of those still.

We've had that number reduce a little bit as properties have changed hands because it does not change hands to a new owner.

And on occasion, somebody will mess up and forget to renew their permit, and they do lose their legacy status when that happens.

So the alternatives before you tonight, this is a little bit unusual.

We actually have two ordinances prepared for you to choose from.

And the reason for this is because at the time that we realized the effect of the new UDC adoption in the RA district on type two short-term rentals, we notified those hosts, and then they then notified city commission.

We received 16 public comment letters at that time.

This is back in believe April.

And as a result of that, commission asked staff through the city manager to work on an ordinance.

And the initial direction was we just want to fix this problem and grandfather those type twos that are in RA.

So that was the initial ordinance that was prepared.

It was brought to the community development board on June 15th, and their recommendation was to actually just allow type twos outright.

So we've written a second ordinance to do that.

So alternative one is that first option, and I'll just go through a couple points here for that.

That would be to only allow existing type twos to continue operating.

New type twos would not be allowed in RA.

This is not a code amendment.

It would be simply instructions for administration.

So it's an ordinance.

It has instructions about what qualifies to be a legacy type two if that's the option you choose.

It's similar wording to how we wrote up the legacy type three verbiage in 2023.

It is more difficult for staff to administer.

Tracking grandfathering status and making sure that you uh that these hosts are getting their annual permit renewed in time every year for their unique expiration date is it is a challenge.

Um this option would reduce the area the type twos were previously allowed.

So the R2 district, that area previously allowed type twos.

Under this approach, it would no longer allow type twos in that area.

Under alternative two, this ordinance would allow type two short-term rentals as an accessory use, subject to the short-term rental standards in the code.

Uh it would codify an amendment to the table that I showed a second ago.

So let's go back to that for visual purposes.

We would just simply add an A in the RA column.

And as you can see, it's all A's for short-term rentals because that is an accessory use.

The main use in any of those districts needs to be a residential use.

And then the secondary use is a short-term rental.

Um the A makes it accessory.

Uh this alternative would be easier to administer and easier to explain to applicants.

It would expand where type twos are allowed.

So the areas that were previously zoned RS and R1.

Uh it would allow type one and two in all residential districts.

Because this is the last, as you saw in that column, the last one that doesn't currently allow it.

And here on the screen, just for reference, is uh the purpose of the RA district in the U in the UDC.

It is intended to primarily accommodate a variety of residential housing options, including single unit dwellings, ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, and row houses with up to two units.

Also compatible group residential, cultural park, open space, utility, and daycare uses, supplement the allowed residential uses.

So I think it's notable the RA district doesn't really speak to density, it just speaks to a variety of housing units, which is different from the RS and R1 districts in the past, which were intended to be slightly less uh density.

I didn't put them on a slide because it's a lot of text.

RS was actually uh eliminated, and no new RS land was to be created, so this was before the new EDC, and its purpose was simply to commemorate and preserve existing RS zoning only in areas where environmental constraints limit desirable density.

R1 was intended primarily for single household residential development at urban densities.

So I think RS really was the only one that was reflecting less development potential.

R1 and then R2 were talking about residential development at urban densities.

So all of that is context for your consideration.

And now we'll go to the standard slides.

So as always, we uh in planning staff review the criteria for approval of a zoning amendment, and staff has reviewed those in the staff report that is in your packet, finds no restrictions on approval of either ordinance.

We did provide public notice for these ordinances.

Commission did officially authorize pursuing these amendments.

That was an action taken on May 12th.

We did not receive any public comment during the public comment period for this action.

However, I mentioned earlier city commission did receive 16 public comments back in April when this issue became came to the city's attention from all from type two short-term rental hosts asking to be able to continue operating.

So the recommendation, community development board again, recommends alternative two, allowing short-term type two short-term rentals outright in RA.

Staff concurs with the board recommendation.

Future actions, if approved, either ordinance final adoption would be on July 28th.

And we have a motion here for your consideration.

And just note that there is the ordinance alternative one or alternative two reference at the end.

With that, I'm happy to answer questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweet.

Any questions for staff on this?

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I do have two a couple of questions.

The primary residents requiring that they're there 70% of the time.

How are we currently verifying that?

Great question.

We have host applicants for short-term rental permits fill out a and sign an affidavit.

So it's essentially on our system, but they are signing this affidavit saying that this short-term rental unit is my primary residence, which means the following.

I occupy it for at least 70% of the calendar year, and I have the legal uh right to offer it for rental.

So that piece is key in case if it was a renter, they are stating there that they have the right to rent it.

So this was something that we drafted up with legal's input.

Um they helped us draft it, and that's what people are submitting.

Now are they telling the truth all the time?

That is the tricky part.

Uh we are putting it on them, it's on our system that they're they're certifying that they are doing this, that it's correct.

And then uh if we see in our system, for example, that they already have other short-term rentals in the city, then we will certainly, as part of our review, question them on well, we see that you have other addresses listed under your name, so we need to verify you know which one is your primary residence, and you can't operate all of them.

So that's something we have to talk through with with applicants, and sometimes we end up having to deny their application.

If it comes out that they were, you know, they were lying about it and they have um another residence.

Um there are other circumstances that have come up a couple times where uh a neighbor has complained.

You know, I don't think my res my neighbor lives here uh that much of the year.

And then we have to go back again during our review and ask that applicant to provide documentation.

So we say, you know, we have a complaint that you don't live here uh 70% of the year, so please provide documentation proving that you do.

And um again, we consult legal when that the first time that came up after this ordinance was adopted, and they that's how they recommended that we approach it, and um then that person has to provide whatever evidence they think uh proves that they live there, and we have to evaluate that and if needed, ask legal's advice for if that is sufficient.

Um so the couple times that's come up we have that that person has not been able to adequately prove that they live there.

So we have had a few that we've had to deny.

Okay, thank you.

Um then, yeah.

The is the first time I've really thought about the host doesn't have to be the owner.

The host could be a renter allowed by the owner in some sort of agreement to rent that out as a short-term rental, and I guess it's making me question whether or not we're cracking open the door for corporate housing as investment STRs to come back.

And I guess it's making me question whether or not we're cracking open the door for corporate housing as investment STRs to come back.

I will add if it's helpful that so far I've only been aware of one example of somebody who's they were operating it before, but they had a renter in there.

And so with the the 2023 ordinance taking effect, um, we kind of coached them through, you know, you could have your tenant um be the host, and they had a very cooperative tenant who is happy to do that and sign the paperwork.

Um but that's the only one I can think of.

Doesn't mean there aren't a few others, but that's just off the top of my head.

I don't think it's super common.

Uh, but I do recall in 2023 when we worked on this ordinance that uh the interest of commission at the time was wanting to um create housing unit opportunities.

And this I think at the time felt like a bit of a win-win to allow uh to encourage you know a long-term rental that could also have this flexible short-term rental option.

And we've certainly heard over these couple of years of implementing this and during that ordinance time from commenters that um folks who operate uh type twos in particular.

We've heard a number of people that um appreciate that flexibility to rent it out when they're traveling for work or um to help them pay their mortgage, that sort of thing.

So we definitely heard those kind of um comments, and um they do seem to be popular, but 366 uh in this size of a city is is not really a really big number.

I feel like I should probably disclose that I did um call in a complaint against my neighbor because I know they didn't live there 70% of the time.

So should have thought of that earlier.

Does that pose any problems at this moment?

I think I heard what you said, which is at one point in time you may have filed a complaint by phone about an illegal short-term rental, and you're wondering if that creates an issue for you to participate.

No.

Okay.

Thank you very much for that.

Sorry for putting you on the spot.

Um that is all my questions.

Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, thanks.

Um very much, Erin, for laying that out.

I had some questions that you answered on enforcement, so that was helpful.

Um curious, allowing um basically additional type two throughout our city.

Is there any concern that is gonna result in a big influx of new short-term rentals?

One of the reasons we decided to kind of tighten our short-term rentals as a concern over housing.

Um offering permanent housing to the people who work here, not you know, short-term per visitor.

So do we have any sense of what kind of door those might open up to individuals wanting to do short-term rentals?

Um, yeah, good question.

I I don't think uh if I had to hazard a guess that it would be a huge influx, mainly because it's type twos.

So type twos have to be the primary residence of the host.

So it's you know, looking at of the people that have homes already are the and they aren't currently short-term renting them if they're in those areas that are um pre were previously R1 or R2.

Um, they you know, would they decide upon hearing this to then come in with a short-term rental permit?

Yes, they could, but it's still their primary residence.

So it's I wouldn't see it as taking housing units offline or anything like that, and that's why type threes were a concern and why they were banned by commission in 2023, the new type threes.

So I in doing that, I think that alone uh has addressed the concern over proliferation of empty homes that are not occupied by the hosts and type twos are not the same thing.

So to state it really clearly, if you own and live in a house in the RA district, you could rent that house for four months during the year as a short-term rental, and you can expect your neighbors to kind of do the same.

So for a season that could be operated kind of like a hotel, people coming in and going.

Yeah, so 30% of the calendar year, but it doesn't have to be consecutive.

So it's actually quite common that folks are just putting them up for rent when they happen to be out of town.

So when they're traveling for business or something like that, it's not always in a whole chunk of a season.

I mean, I'm sure there are some of those, but we see a mix.

It would seem that that would be difficult to enforce if you're getting kind of chunks.

Maybe the Christmas season, although all the holidays throughout the year.

How do you do that in enforcement and administrative?

Um, do you get kind of a promise from folks that these are the windows?

So luckily the software that we have makes that evident.

So we are able to see the dates that the unit is available and booked.

So we are able to dig into that when we need to, but it's kind of past tense and it's looking ahead for what they've already marked as available.

If somebody's a new uh a new short-term rental and they haven't started operating yet, which is what they're supposed to do before they get the permit, right?

Um, then we wouldn't have that data just yet.

And so um we're basing it on the affidavit that they're signing, saying, I'm saying that I'm only going to rent it 30% of the year.

And then as we process the yearly renewals, we're looking at that to see if they've been violating the rules, and then certainly in response to complaints if we receive them.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

So I'll let that.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, any questions?

Just one question.

I wasn't quite paying attention to 2023 when this came out in front of the commission.

But do you know why the commission decided no type two in RAs?

Was there can you just recap maybe a nickel summary of that?

Um, it's my recollection that so we had short-term rental um regulations in place before 2023, and that's uh it was 2017 was that prior ordinance, and uh it had created the three types at that time.

And so um my recollection in 2023 is the focus was banning new type threes and otherwise leaving the types the way they were in the districts that they were.

So, in order to ask why we didn't allow them in RS and R1 in the first place, um, I would have to see if Chris happens to remember from 2017.

We don't need to go that far back.

No, okay.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Yep.

I want to add one more thing.

Uh in 2023, and in addition to the component about dealing with type threes, we also were witnessing that local governments and had been putting affirmative obligations on the not only on the host, but on the like Airbnb and those other agencies.

And so the commission adopted significant roles that would give additional tools to community development so they could see exactly what was being read.

So those two things I think have made a significant difference, the affirmative obligations component and the reduction in type three.

Thanks for that, Greg.

Um, and to put a finer point on that, the biggest thing that came out of that was requiring the uh City of Bozeman short-term rental permit number be listed on their listing.

So we actually had to work at that time in 2023 directly with Airbnb VRBO and those groups and booking.com is the other one to actually ensure require and follow up to ensure that they were changing their software to require that listing, and they did, and they implemented that.

So then they're flagging them on their end and not allowing it to be listed if it doesn't have a city of Bozeman permit number.

Great.

Commissioner Bowie, any questions?

Yeah, I guess I'm just curious what um has happened with these uh existing type one and two Airbnb um folks in in RA and the kind of interim, are they just kind of operating in a um gray policy area and hoping that we don't enforce until kind of the decision tonight?

Yeah, so um when this came to our attention in April and um we the the city manager and you all jumped on this very quickly uh and gave us the direction that yes, we want to see an ordinance uh to address this issue.

We went ahead and contacted those same people, which was not type ones but just the type twos in RA to let them know that don't worry, a solution's being worked on, and we're not going to shut you down in the meantime.

So we basically, you know, you can keep operating as you previously um expected that you could before the UDC was adopted, um, knowing that this was in the works.

Great.

Um is there a fee for non-compliance if if we are able to determine somebody does not meet the residency requirement?

Um, but there is an application fee every time somebody submits their short-term rental application and their renewal.

And that fee uh at the time it was created was intended to cover staff time.

And also um part of that fee is covering the the fire inspection that happens every three years for short-term rentals.

Um but that fee will be included in our upcoming planning fee study, which is kicked off.

And uh we'll be looking at the time that goes into administering this program and making sure that that fee is keeping up with our costs.

Yeah, it occurs to me that if somebody didn't meet the requirements and was making profit for you know however long it took until we were able to determine they weren't actually complying that they they potentially made a lot of a lot of money on um on their rental in a non-compliant way.

And I I guess I'm just curious if we have any power to um disincentivize that further by um having some kind of um infraction, you know.

I I know there's maximums to the the amount that we can charge, but curious your thoughts there.

Yeah.

Um so if there's a violation, the first thing that I understand the community development does is work to seek compliance.

So if that means they need to tell somebody to shut down, that's the first thing that happens.

The cost of that enforcement action is clearly borne by the city.

If for some reason we would go as far as issuing a citation and whether a municipal infraction or something else, then the city is limited to the cost of that infraction where we're authorized to charge under state law and then as implemented in the municipal code.

So like gain profits is not part of that.

Okay.

Um then uh just another question that's maybe less relevant to this particular vote, but I'm thinking about now is um why why did your staff um make the decision to not require that documentation of their 70% resident occupancy with their application?

Um Yeah, that was at the advice of legal, and I see Greg ready to answer that one as well.

So part of that is the administrative aspect of it.

And we had discussions about like what are we going to do to allow people to do?

What is the scope of what somebody can give?

What is a utility bill mean, right?

What is a checking count statement mean?

Um all the different types of things that we think we can use to be able to prove that where we live.

What does that say about that place being how long you stay there?

Right?

And so we came up with this idea, and I think it's widely used of an affidavit that somebody would sign.

And I think it's under penalty of perjury, they're signing this affidavit.

And if we later find out, then we do have a remedy to say you falsely signed this affidavit.

So administratively it'd be difficult.

It's also difficult to look at the documentation that they would provide and say that actually proves your 70% of the time there.

So thank you.

Those are my my only questions.

Okay.

I have no further questions.

Commissioner Smee, what do you got?

Sorry, I do have that just jogged.

Yep.

A thought.

Um with the recent tax changes in Montana, people are declaring a primary residence.

Yeah.

Is there a way that we could use that to verify it or enforce?

I have not looked at that.

Certainly something that we could take a look at and maybe just add it to administratively add something like that if we thought that was viable.

I I will note that that's not 70%.

I think it's 60%.

I'm not going to remember exactly off the top of my head, but it would certainly get us a large portion of the way there.

Um and if if they checked yes on their taxes for that, then it would give us some some indications that they were they were close.

So I I like the idea of adding that if that's a viable um piece of document to require.

Nice.

Just one additional question on taxes.

Um short-term rentals have to pay the state debt tax.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

Seeing no further questions, we'll open this up for public comment.

Thank you, Director George.

So any public comment in the room this evening on the short-term rental in RA housekeeping item.

Good evening.

Hi again, Mark Campanelli.

Bogart Park resident, I do live in RA.

One question that came up, and I wasn't really prepping for this topic, but a potential pathway for me as I age is to tear down my garage and rebuild it as an ADU where I would actually live in there.

And then my house is officially a three-bedroom, although if I were to get three college kids in there and they had a fourth in there and I wasn't around, I could see it easily being occupied by four.

And I'm just wondering about the incentives here that are getting created.

So for one, it seemed like I couldn't live in the ADU and then short-term rental the front place.

Is that okay?

Because my the way it was written, it was like the ADU had to be the short-term rental, the what I read.

So, anyways, um something to think about.

Um that could flop as you get older.

Um, so just make sure maybe that's not a constraint.

Um I also live in the NCOD, but not in the historic district.

I mean, what's it gonna cost me $400 a square foot to build an ADU if I'm lucky and I'd probably try to do some of the work myself.

The incentives start to be using the bank of mom and dad and student loans to pay my mortgage, if that makes sense, if I have to go back to New York for my aging parents.

Um and not put any, I keep saying this, and not invest in the property, right?

Not rebuild the ADU to age out in.

Um it is what common people play the game that these capital stacks who get their opportunity zones and all those people play, right?

We play a different game at a lower level to get value out of our property, right?

And I just see like the canopy hotel, the boutique hotel, like people with, you know, I might not I actually really don't like the really short-term rentals, I'm not gonna lie.

Like I'm more of a monthly guy, maybe that's where I would don't go insane, probably.

Um but I get to meet different people every month as I'm retired and engaging in the community, blah, blah, blah.

Where are the common people going who might afford uh you know something I might rent out short term between longer-term stints for students?

Um, they might be they're probably driving somewhere as opposed to being right next to Bogurt Park and enjoying Bozeman, because they can't afford the canopy hotel.

So, anyways, there's always unintended consequences.

Um if you ever watch uh Reason magazine's YouTube videos, they have some great videos on how like creating permits to hike to L Capitan ended up making people go when the weather was bad because that's the only time their permit allowed.

Uh so they end up having more accidents, right?

There's all these things to kind of consider.

So uh also simple rules are always better.

Just align with what the state's doing for residency, is what I say.

So thank you for listening.

Yeah, thank you.

Any further comment requests in the room?

And a second request for comments in the room.

And a final request.

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any comment requests online?

I'm showing no request for comment.

Okay.

Um we'll bring it up here for a motion discussion vote.

Um as a quick reminder, or alternative one is a grandfathering.

Great.

Alternative two is just make them allowed.

Okay.

Um before we go to a motion, can we just um clarify um Mr.

Campanelli's question about whether if you lived in the ADU, if you could rent out the name of the building.

Yeah, this came up at the community development board.

It did.

So we talked about this question at community development board.

Um I believe the way that the code is written, and this is not the actual code language, but it is very close to how it's written.

Uh the ADU is what your short-term renting and the primary residence is your main residence.

So it is not, I think, written in a way that clearly allows you to flip that.

So the community development board toyed with the idea of trying to add an amendment or suggest adding an amendment that would address this.

Um then I think if I remember right, they thought better of it when they started to realize um there could be unintended consequences.

You know, you're assuming that that's something you want to allow, but have we thought through what those what that looks like?

And your ADU is where you live 70% of the year.

That just that that's a little bit different impact on the neighborhood.

So right now is a type two, your main house is your main rental.

You can only rent it 30% of the year if it's your primary residence and ADU you could rent all of the year as a type 2B.

And to clarify too, because I I think there would be some appetite to have that discussion, but that's not what is noticed for this item.

Correct.

Knowing that we would it would be great to do all the cleanup or tweaks to shelter rentals all at the same time.

Is that kind of the guidance that we have is that because of especially MUPA has such specific, we have to say an intent to put it on the agenda, then we put it on that that's not really on the menu for this discussion.

Yes, Greg's nodding.

Okay.

Any further clarification?

Are we ready to get into it?

Okay.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Having reviewed and considered the project report, draft ordinances, public comment, recommendation from the community development board, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the short-term rental project report for application 26307 and move to provisionally adopt alternative two.

Okay.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah.

Um yeah, I came into this like fully thinking 100% support.

Um I am gonna support it, and I do have some concerns that maybe we can address at a future time.

Um I do think allowing aging in place in an ADU is a valuable thing.

So maybe we revisit that at a future time and create some framework for an exception.

But um yeah, I agree with the findings in the staff report and ready to support this.

Okay, Commissioner Magic.

Yeah, thanks.

Um Commissioner Sweeney for choosing alternative two.

Um I uh it makes me a little nervous having gone through the short-term rental um change that we went through of allowing more, potentially, but I think particularly we've heard from staff that alternative two is would be easier to administer.

It's kind of a clear across the board set of rules, and it gives homeowners um an alternative, you know, an option for a season during the year to make a little bit of money off their home, which helps offset some of the property taxes folks are facing um quite frankly, I would find it more appealing to rent long term for a four-month period, as opposed to a lot of people coming and going.

Um, but they have that option as well.

So as this place becomes increasingly expensive, and we all are impacted and can feel the results of that, consequences of that.

And I think little things we can do like this to kind of make our homes um add a value that uh allows folks to continue to live in some of these great neighborhoods and live in their homes.

I think it was a good thing.

So I'm gonna support the motion.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, I would associate myself with these my fellow commissioners' comments.

I'm glad uh to have the community development board bring this idea forward to us.

Um it's helpful to have those advisors, um experts looking at this.

Um I would just I would just add my name to set the suggestion.

I don't know where or how, but at some point we we may, you know, um I would encourage staff to maybe incorporate the state's um is it the homestead um declaration or the you know the primary home ownership criteria that the state has put in.

Seems like that's a public record, and that we could use that as a to um help enforcement this with these type type two rentals.

But I'll be supporting this.

And I'd also accept this the staff report and staff findings as um correct.

Commissioner Bode.

Um yes, I I also agree with the staff report, and um we'll be supporting this option too.

I I want to support it both because of this ease of administration.

I I think um it just creates uh a bit more burden on staff to grandfather in a certain subset and then kind of assess that compliance and it's more confusing to explain to the community.

Um and also because I I don't feel that the um risk of kind of corporate exploitation of housing as a investment is as much of a risk with these type one and type twos.

Um I I think that's you know, both because of that owner occupancy requirement um uh predominantly because of that owner occupancy required requirement.

Um but I also want to take a moment to lift up um the report from the Southwest Montana Realtors Association that they recently released that shows the number of active short-term rentals in Big Sky, Bozeman, West Yellowstone, Livingston, and Belgrade.

And um, you know, we're the only one of those communities that has passed a short-term rental ban on type threes.

And in the meantime, we we did see short-term rentals in Big Sky increase, but then kind of drastically take a downward turn just based on market influences.

Similarly in Livingston and in West Yellowstone.

Um, the only community where we've seen a modest increase over time is in Belgrade.

And I imagine our policy may have something to do with that, that people who wanted to have short-term rental type three and Bozeman maybe opted to buy in Belgrade instead.

So not to say that the market couldn't flip in the future, but I I just think that the um hunger for this particular type of investment um may not be as intense as it was in the moment when we passed this this ban on type threes.

So for those reasons, I um generally in support.

I think this conversation has me thinking about maybe some um kind of adjustments I might make to the policy overall.

And I I am interested in um kind of revisiting how we administer this.

In particular, I like the idea of kind of aligning it with that homestead um requirement from the state and uh requiring the documentation of that as a way to just give us a little bit more robustness.

Um 70% of the year shakes out to 8.4 months, which is just a weird number.

Um I do like that it's rigorous um more than more than 50%.

And so I just think it's worth discussion uh about how we can both um be a little bit more proactive about compliance rather than just waiting for people to report while also still requiring something um fairly rigorous.

So with all of that, I'll I'll be in support and um we'll we'll just second the deputy mayor's interest in maybe having a larger conversation about this in the future.

Sweet.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Uh I'm feeling nostalgic.

Uh three years ago, I was on the other side yelling at four other people, including Kibba Sure Magic, uh, to get rid of type three short-term rentals.

Um so it's uh a funny shift here.

Um and uh just to clarify, like for some that might not know the differences between types one, two, and three, like one and two are really the sort of initial conception of Airbnb, the kind of romantic, you know, renting out your garage, renting out a spare bedroom for travelers, and then type three is the sort of like super investment heavy, like buy up entire blocks and rows of houses.

So we've not really seen quite that.

Other communities have, but you know, turning an entire home into effectively a residential hotel, taking a unit off the market.

And um, there were times we're looking at um inside Airbnb, which is like an Airbnb watch um software, had a thousand in the city limits of Bozeman that we couldn't verify.

Like the city could not even see even remotely close to that because you know, that affirmative commitment from the host sites did not exist yet.

Um so it just all this to say there's been a ton of progress.

Um I I feel like uh the the second alternative for a few reasons, simplicity, but also I think it feels odd to arbitrarily deny and say RB, you have the right to do this, RA that's modestly different in density or type or form or use, you can't.

There's something special about your district, and you can't do the same thing that you're allowed to do in RB, even though you may border each other um and not require buffers or transitions between those.

Um so I'm I'm happy to support um and then sit on the opposite side of the short-term mental debate.

Thanks for recognizing or acknowledging error stop chat because that is um where my PTSD is uh coming from.

So now I know where uh I knew you were at all somehow.

I would sit right there and gloomingly watching the bright-eyed bushy tail deputy director Aaron George, uh not knowing that the teeth kicking in factory that she was going to take as director of community development.

Um Mr.

Moss, would you poll the commission?

Commissioner Sweeney.

Hi.

Commissioner Magic.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdy.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Now we're moving on to some name changes.

City management.

Sir, thank you.

And we will have further um discussion about the homestead uh state.

Um and Mr.

Campanelli's question.

We'll get we'll have conversations and let you know what we decide.

The next item is a resolution changing the name of Thomas Drive to North 27th Street.

And here tonight is our city transportation engineer, Taylor Lonsdale.

Good evening.

Uh Mayor Morrison and Commissioners, I am Taylor Lonsdale.

I serve as your city transportation engineer.

Um, and I am here uh to talk about the change of name for Thomas Drive to North 27th Avenue.

And it is the first of two name changes that we get to talk about together tonight.

So I'd like to give a little context with respect to where uh Thomas Drive is.

Um it's important to note that let's see.

That North 27 oh, that wasn't the right thing to do.

Okay.

That North 27th Avenue uh does exist currently exist um as North 27th Avenue, both north of Cattail Street um and south of uh Baxter Lane.

Um we are in the area uh near North North 19th Avenue.

You can see that um along the east side over here.

Um this is our post office on Baxter Lane, um, and this is the area of Winco.

Um and then further on up, we have Target and Costco.

So a little context for where we are in the city.

Uh the other thing that's important to note is that we do currently have a city capital project um under construction um that is building out this segment of um what may be North 20 after tonight, maybe North 27th Avenue currently uh is Thomas Drive to a minor arterial standard.

So um we are currently in the process of making this a full connection um City Standard Street.

So the street name change process is outlined in resolution 3628, um, and it includes uh the the steps that are outlined here.

Um in this case, the uh city engineering staff requested a resolution to be a petition uh that happened in April of 20 uh of this year.

Um the acknowledgement of that receipt or that request was on your consent agenda on April 20 or on April 7th.

Um we prepared a staff report, uh draft staff report that was included with the resolution of intent, um, which it was approved.

Uh you can see the number there, 2026 44, uh again approved on June 2nd.

We then issued public notice uh through publishing in the Bozman Daily Chronicle on the 13th and the 20th of June of this year, um, and notices were mailed to all impacted property owners in June as well.

Um the resolution of intent uh stated and the public notice identified today in this meeting as the public hearing on this uh item.

So here we are.

Uh resolution 3628 provides uh the following commission action options, deny the petition, approve the petition, approve the petition with conditions, approve an alternate to the action, allow the petition to be withdrawn, or allow any other action that is in the best interest of the public.

So uh gonna put a draft or the staff recommendation up here.

Um staff is recommending adoption of this, uh, but we're gonna talk through the staff report um and some other things first.

So the petition for name change, um, as I mentioned, that was brought forth by transportation and engineering staff.

Um the main reason for this is uh continuity um of street names.

We have North 27th um in existence to the north and to the south.

It will now connect all the way through Thomas Drive.

Um currently sort of ends right at into a driveway on this again.

I did that.

Is there a way I can oh there we go?

Okay.

Um so with this project, it will now be a continuous um through connection.

Um staff brought this forward um primarily because of the importance uh it's a safety consideration uh for emergency response, the continuity of names through that um really helps.

So in addition, the our design and construction standards state that all new streets shall assume the name of the street on which it aligns, unless the street does not and cannot in the future connect to an existing segment along the alignment.

So I think you know, were we bringing this forward?

Thomas Drive didn't exist, this would under our design and construction standards be required to be called North 27th if it were coming through as a development similarly.

So and as I mentioned, we have a capital project to build it out.

All right.

Okay, so part of the uh part of our staff evaluation for this um looks at the potential impacts of of a changing the name.

Um I'm gonna say it again, we've got a capital project.

Um so this is impact on private utility and public utilities.

Um our current capital project um includes the installation of needed water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, um and the name change will not have any impact on public or private utilities existing within the roadway corridor.

Um impact on traffic, both existing and future.

Again, it it will not impact the use of the road for existing or future traffic.

It will, however, positively create continuity of the street name, which will enhance route finding for emergency services, deliveries, and the traveling public.

Um the street name change will have no impact on accessibility.

Um as mentioned previously, the name change will eliminate potential confusion for EMS.

Were this to remain Thomas Drive, it could get very confusing for people trying to respond uh to an emergency.

And then there is no staff has identified no other impact um on other city services from the name change.

So 3628 allows um property owners directly impacted to officially protest.

We have received no official protests with respect to this one.

We did receive one public comment that really preferred the idea that it stays Thomas Drive.

So part of the recommendations of the staff report, um, there are currently 33 addresses that will be directly impacted by the proposed name change.

Notice of this was mailed to all of these addresses.

Um if approved, city staff will take the necessary public steps to implement change of name for the road.

That would be such things as notifying the public postal service.

Um Gallant County.

Oops, sorry, I had a list here of the other things that we make sure we do.

Uh making sure that we get and change any addresses within within the city system.

Um, and then uh the street signs will be ch would be changed as part of the uh capital project.

So um staff identifies no public detriment from the proposed name change.

Do you want to acknowledge that there is obviously an impact to the 34 residents who live along here with respect to the that their address is going to change, so want to acknowledge that, but I think staff feels that the public benefit, uh the safety aspect of this is an important uh aspect for us and and the reason that we're recommending this change.

Okay, with that, um I put up the staff recommendation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Commissioner Patrick, any questions for staff?

Thanks, Mayor.

And thanks, Taylor.

That was very thorough.

Um we know how Thomas feels about this.

Seems like like a slight.

Whoever Thomas might be.

That's all.

A train?

A train, right?

Deputy Mayor, any questions?

Well, I don't know how to layers to that.

There was a public comment concerning East Graph about the kind of the confusion complication of having to go through a street name change.

You mentioned that we're so the city identifies the lets the county know, and I'm assuming, and then we we change it in our system and you let the post office know.

So we deal with the kind of the official kind of deed and those kind of things.

And that the Are there other I mean I I just um I I don't I don't know how to I guess address that public comment or concern.

I'm wondering if there's um I don't know where to put that.

I mean clearly long term there's no question for Thomas Drive for East Graph.

We're we we need to do this.

Sure.

But I just I'm just wondering how to acknowledge that okay, yeah, there's a con there's a cost here, but but uh but the long-term needs of the future of the city are are uh you know uh also a big cost for us to consider yeah you know I mean I think I again want to acknowledge that this is not insignificant if if you live on Thomas Drive, right?

Um and your address is currently Thomas Drive and the city is coming in and saying we're gonna change it to North 27th.

I fully acknowledge that there's an impact to that.

Um in this case we're um 34 addresses.

Um but I do think um you know, in the long term, I I think when we when we talk about East Graph, I can talk about it a little bit more there, but but because of the the discrepancy between the two there, the residents are the ones who brought forward the idea of changing it in order to get to this uniformity and in order to get to the place where everybody knows where we're talking about when we talk about 3300 Graft Street.

It's actually East Graft Street and where that is with real in relation to the to the city.

So um I think there is a time of adjustment between this, and I certainly am not minimizing that, and that we have all probably dealt with changing address and credit cards and banks and all of those things.

Um I think it is a more streamlined process than it has been in the past to change our address.

Um but again, we do take care of making sure that the postal service is notified in all of those sort of official sides of things.

It is obviously up to the residents to make those official changes um with their people that they are receiving mail from the fair enough.

Thank you.

That's my question.

Commissioner Bode.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm having a hard time tracking down that one public comment, that one too.

Um keep the the name.

Do you recall what the was it purely sentimental or in Thomas?

There was some reference to you know, the city's coming in and making this change sort of unilaterally and um enjoyed the quirkiness of the idea of having Thomas Drive in the middle of of North 27th.

So it was okay.

Um great.

That's my only question.

Commissioner Sweeney, any questions?

Yeah, I found myself wondering who assigns the addresses.

Like, for example, there's a 1219 Thomas Drive, but what if there's already a 1219 North 27th somewhere else?

Do we have to how does just the logistics of that work?

Um the person who assigns addresses for all cities.

Her name is Jenny Connolly, um, and she is a remarkable human being.

Um she did this for years at the county level, um, and we are really blessed to have her here.

Um and she uh so we have a grid system that is laid out um around uh Babcock and Tracy Avenue, sort of as our the start of that in east and west and north and south from there, and then we go in 100 blocks from there.

So um when it comes time to to reassign an address for these, Jenny will be the one who's doing that with respect to changing these from Thomas Drive to a North 27th, and we'll ensure that there is not a duplicate address.

Okay, thanks.

I also was curious about the history of Thomas Drive.

It's probably a homestead family or something.

I don't know.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

I I don't have any quite well, I guess I have two sh really short ones.

One that's easy.

What do we do with the signs that say Thomas on them?

Where do they go?

Does Nick Ross take them?

No.

Do we option them or there's an old signs uh Ben where stuff like those if we can't reuse the template?

So but no, they don't go to Nick Ross.

Say it.

It's like you know, if we wanted to keep the quirk, uh, couldn't we like write out 27th?

Like in just that section is written in words in letters instead of the numbers.

I mean the extremely large street signs.

Yeah, they're just generally going against the manual and uniform traffic control devices, but uh okay.

Um any further questions?

Okay.

Thank you for that presentation.

We'll open it up for public comment.

Any public comment in the room on the uh proposed change of Thomas Drive to North 27th.

Good evening.

Hi again, uh Mark Campanelli, Bozeman resident.

Um I I can't help myself.

So um yeah, so the the comment was from me uh enjoying Bozeman's quirks.

Uh when I was a grad student early here, I I took some yoga on a Saturday to try to chill out a bit.

And uh I think it was on Dursten or Peach, and I didn't know they were the same street, and I got really lost.

And despite that trauma, I still gave you guys the public comment.

Um it's a fun read.

I make a little joke about Nazis, that's always fun, right?

So I don't think you guys are Nazis, but there was a program to make everything synchronous, synchronized and perfect in in Nazi Germany.

So I made a little joke about that.

Please don't take it the wrong way.

Um I really dislike Nazis just for the record.

Um okay, so uh yeah, I you might maybe it was a Ms.

Thomas.

Um I've often wondered if there were peach trees along Peach Street at one point.

Um and you know, in modern navigation now, I think the ambulance folks can kind of figure out where to go.

But back in the day, I think they had these weird tables or something to help them get to places from A to B really quick.

It's kind of interesting history there.

Um I will throw out did anybody consider, and I guess this still would go against the standard, but did anybody consider making North 27th called Thomas, like north of Thomas?

Um that would be another way you could kind of minimize the discrepancy, but uh you'd still be impacting those.

There's probably more folks that live on that part of North 27th.

Fun fact uh North 27th was actually Jim Bridger's right-hand man.

That's where the name comes from.

No, it doesn't.

I'm never gonna ask.

Where did the name North 27th come from?

So anyways, those are my two sets.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Any further public comment requests in the room.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Andy Van Orden.

I live on Thomas Drive.

Thomas Drive was named after Tom Seacor, who developed the acreage there.

And the farmhouse that is there is uh from the Madison.

Um to my knowledge, I haven't been asked if I wanted to have the change the North 27th.

I did find a flyer in the newspaper to find out about it.

Not everybody I have talked to really wants it to go to North 27th, due to the fact because all the information that people have attained through their life is stuck on a lot of the addresses there.

Everything from driver's license, personal banking, LLCs, wheels, um, perm permanent plates on vehicles, trusts, social security titles, insurance, your voting registrations, uh credit cards, life insurance, including pets with chips in them for the different places along the Thomas Drive.

Um there has been some changes for different roads.

I believe Catron was actually going to be changed to dead man's, and they refused it.

They come in and told them what the problems of changing all these information for people at their residence.

And they had to let them go on back to Catchron instead of dead man's.

So I'm asking the same thing for Thomas Drive.

Thomas Drive starts at Baxter and it stops at Catchron.

The introductory for the new roads are being done right now.

But uh it's like all cities.

They grow.

So all I can say is I'm asking to leave it at Thomas Drive.

The emergency responding people that he referred to, they all have GPS.

They all know where everything's at.

I mean, it's not that it isn't just you know local addresses, and you can get it on any of your GPS, your phone, Tom Tom's, Garmin, whatever you want to do.

But I'm asking to get the name of Thomas Drive stay and not North 27th.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any further public comment requests in the room this evening?

Second request for comments in the room and a final request.

Mr.

Moss, do we have any public comment requests online?

I'm showing no request for comment there.

Okay.

See no further comment requests, bring it up here for a motion discussion and vote.

Commissioner Magic.

Thanks.

After incorporating the information in the staff report or oral findings made by the commission during the public hearing, information contained in the proposed resolution, and after considering all protests and public comment, I hereby move to adopt the resolution renaming Thomas Drive to North 27th Avenue.

Second.

Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I'm gonna support the motion.

Um very much appreciate the public comment that we heard tonight.

I get that this could be um take uh a bit of work to change uh addresses, kind of a number of documents that you referenced.

Um it seems like perhaps many of your neighbors want this change.

I'm surprised that we have not had more feedback.

If we had more feedback saying that they didn't want it to be changed, I think I'd feel differently.

But I definitely agree with staff's argument about the safety considerations here.

It can be confusing despite GPS and navigation to go from one street to another, you know, kind of in the middle.

So um I agree with staff's assessment on this.

Um, and I'm gonna like I said, approved the motorship.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor.

Um yeah, I want to I just want to speak to I there are costs with this to to the residents who exist who live there now, and I appreciate Mr.

Van Horton your your list of uh names.

I'm just sitting here thinking, oh my gosh, uh if I it's hard enough when I have to when I have to lose a credit card and I have to go through and read that, you know.

I could just imagine doing that for an address.

So I I get that.

And in fact, if I may have a clarifying question for staff, we said we did with the county, the federal post office.

Um do we do anything with the state?

Or is that um for like for driver's license and that stuff?

The the addressing uh Gallant County is the legal addressing authority for us.

Um so when we pass the we pass addresses that we assign within the city on to Gallant County, they pass them from there on up to the state and even the federal level with respect to what the legal address of a specific parcel is with respect to so if someone goes and changes at that DMV changes that, it's an acknowledged legal address.

Um, but we're not gonna the notification would not say 1219 Thomas Drive is now whatever it may be in the future if this passes North 27th.

So we take care of the fact that the legal name of that road street is changed in the process of addressing the range of numbers that will be associated to that also go up there so that if there are future addresses that come in along there, we can we make sure we have room for those and whatever that those that information gets passed on, but specific notification of that one address is changing to another does not, and that part is not part of what must take care of.

Okay.

So yeah, I again I want to acknowledge that these costs are significant.

I want to also acknowledge that the sitting in this chair, we have to make decisions that go 50, 100 years down the road.

You know, if if uh we do have Peach and Durston, which I I agree was endlessly confusing to me when I first arrived as well.

Um and Sourdough and Church, for instance.

That's another another big question for me, right?

Um but um but and and if if North 27th didn't exist north of Thomas Street, you know, maybe we can make the argument that okay, you could have that switch there, but but the f to have a segment of Thomas Street in the middle of a segment of of stretch of 20 North 27th, I think would ultimately end up with a lot of confusion and people wondering who in the world made that decision 50 years from now.

But um so I'm going to support this um w with the appreciation, Mr.

Van Horton, that that these are costs of that you know residents of Thomas and it's soon to be North 27th that we're going to have to have to bear.

Commissioner Bowden.

Yes, thank you.

Um this kind of discussion that's happened has um raised an initial question for me before my remarks.

And I I think I'm recalling uh a previous discussion we had about renaming a street where there were active businesses along the street, and that that would include um a compensation for their um expense of having to change all of their materials, you know, business cards, et cetera.

Um is is uh am I remembering correctly that we do compensate businesses for change of street names.

I don't recall doing that ever.

Um I don't think we've done that.

Okay, I must be misremembering.

Um yeah, I'll I'll I'll carry forward here.

Um yeah, I I just first wanna acknowledge um in addition to what my colleagues have said, the the burden of having to change all of your your documents.

Um I moved in the past two years and and had to do all of that uh because I moved my own address and I I know that it's no um uncommon occurrence for for renters to have to do the same, and it is a significant um amount of of time, and there's always the question of man, did I did I get them all?

Um I I do question if there's sort of like a a mail forwarding opportunity for somebody having a a change of address, even though their residence has remained in the same location.

Um and I I hope that that is um a resource that these residents can can utilize at least for the the first six months that you know um the the postal service will will do mail forwarding.

Um I also am I think generally interested in the ability of our street names to tell our history and um I really am appreciative to to hear the history that this was um named after a homesteader that lived in that area and had had anchorage acreage there.

Um and I would be excited about some kind of effort to document kind of this um history in our city, whether or not we're we're changing a a street name.

I think there's a number of streets that I I have these sorts of questions about, and you don't know the answer unless you have an old timer who's lived there for almost 50 years who who remembers that person and can come in and um tell us about it.

So um yeah, it seems like a an opportunity for a project with extreme history project um or or other kind of history afficionados in our in our town to um document this.

And then I um also am I thinking concerned to hear that it was a surprise to somebody who lived on Thomas Drive that this was happening and they just happened to read it in the paper.

And I I would be um supportive of in the future everybody along the street section that's getting um uh potentially changed receiving a direct mailer.

Uh it seems like 33 addresses would not have been a um massive lift or or expense to the city.

And uh I just think it would be good good courtesy because it is a a big change for for the people living there.

Um but for the the reasons my colleagues have already said, I I am still gonna be in support of this and do believe that it will ultimately um result in better public safety and um orienting for for the public, having our our north-south streets be generally numbers and our east-west streets being generally names.

I I think strikes a good balance between being able to orient and um having some kind of unique place names.

Lastly, I just wonder if um I I was gonna suggest that the the commenter who was opposed received the street sign.

Um but um Mr.

Camillus jogged my memory.

I did read your comment in my email.

Um it was notable for the reasons you described.

Um and I I do just wonder if somebody who actually lives along the street corridor might um want a signer or the signs, and perhaps we can make that offer as a memento of the history that was there.

I'll be in support.

That's yeah, that's all.

Commissioner Sweeney.

I'm also going to be supporting it.

Um as someone who grew up here, you know, I I do appreciate the history and um I would I would love to have a conversation with you, sir, um, about the farmhouse that was relocated from the Madison.

We have a landmark project going on right now which is going to help us expand our designation of a historic structures in Bozeman.

And this is exactly the kind of thing the agricultural heritage that speaking for myself, I want to honor as we grow um and remember and not lose.

So thank you for coming here this evening, and I am sorry that it was a surprise to you.

Um yeah, I've always appreciated the uh numbered and named streets.

I feel like it was easy to navigate, you know, and well it is quirky to maintain you know different blocks as different names.

Many many countries around the world do it.

But um Bozeman, I think you know there's a strong precedent for changing the name, and I'm gonna support it.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Um I don't have much to add.

Yes, uh wanting to um empathize with the challenge that comes with um an address change.

Uh one thing to um to lift up.

Well, one, we didn't even entertain the option of just renaming all of North 27th to Thomas.

That wasn't even on the menu.

Uh I also want to just remind most for EMS getting around, uh, they don't often have the GPS point to go to because if it's a collision and you call 911, you don't say I'm at 812 19th.

You say I just got hit.

This is a sign that I can see or uh you know a thing.

So I I do think there's almost a an uh near 100% certain certainty that that has created a mismatch on this stretch of road in particular.

Um if someone ever got in a car accident on the section of North 27th that's south of Thomas, but EMS went to the north of north of that because you know they're not sending a pin to dispatch.

You know, they're saying, here's where I got hit, this is what's nearby.

Um so just as a reminder for how uh just wanting to clarify like I do think there's a very real demonstrable safety impact on this continuity.

Um further discussion.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Actually, I did just want to draw um my fellow commissioners' attention to this little area called Baxter Square.

It's a really great little uh community land trust, and um makes me think of the Fowler Housing Development.

So maybe go check it out.

It's pretty cool.

Thank you.

Mr.

Moss, would you poll the commission?

Commissioner Magic.

I Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdoin.

I Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion pass five to zero.

We got one more name change.

Yeah, we do.

And um to address Commissioner Bodie's comment, uh, I just heard from the clerk that we did direct mailings to all of the addresses listed in the resolution of intent.

That's a standard practice for us, so I don't know why uh what happened with the particular comment there, but it is not our practice to surprise anybody on a street that we're renaming.

So I'll just uh we'll find out if something happened there.

But um that's standard practices that we do exactly what you just asked.

Next on the agenda is another name change.

It is a resolution changing the name of Graf Street East of Tracy Avenue to East Graf Street.

And again, Mr.

Lonsdale.

Okay.

Uh welcome back again.

My name is Taylor Lonsdale, and I serve as the uh city's transportation engineer.

Um and as I mentioned, um, this is the second of two name changes um tonight.

Uh now we're talking about um the change of name of Graft Street to East Graft Street, most specifically a specific portion of Graft Street.

Uh the map is a little more a little more challenging because we're talking about a bigger area.

Um again, we're um in the southern in the southern part of our community, um South Third Avenue and try really hard to not do what I've done the last couple times.

South Third Avenue, um Sacatuya Middle School.

Uh and did it again.

Not sure what I'm doing, but um is in that area.

The green line at the north here is the extension of Tracy Avenue.

Um, as we'll talk a little bit more specifically about the municipal code section that identifies that as the delineator between east and west, um, but that is important um in this because the section of Graft Street that we are talking about lies east of Tracy Avenue and it is shown in red on the on the drawing up there.

Um so this area, uh Graft Street, um the name Graf Street um was initially established through plotting process and time frame was late 60s, early 70s when the Grafs edition was brought in in this place.

Whatever I do, whatever I'm doing here makes it so I have to restart this whole process, I guess.

Okay, uh we talked about this um previously, but resolution 3628 um outlines the street name change process.

Um in this case, the petition was received from the South Meadows Condominium Association.

Um South Meadows condominiums is this area on the map here.

Why we received that in in October of 2025.

Um we had some uh deliberations um staff um talking about this.

This is a piece of a number of streets in our community where um there isn't an east and west.

Um there is a there are a number of different situations, but so how to address these um was part of this deliberation and part of the reason why we got from October until March before this came to you all for uh for consideration.

Um so um again um the acknowledgement of the request uh was was received through consent on March 24th.

We provided we prepared a draft engineering uh staff report that was included with the resolution of intent.

Um that was passed on consent on June 2nd.

Public notice was issued in the chronicle again, the 13th and the 20th.

Notices were mailed to the address list that we have of the impacted parcels, that the address that we had on record for that parcel.

Um again, I'm very interested to understand how someone who lives on Thomas didn't receive that um because that is our intent is for anybody who is going to be impacted to receive a direct mailer.

Okay, again, 3628 um provides the following action options deny the petition, approve the petition, approve the petition with conditions, approve and alternate to the action, allow the petition to be withdrawn, and allow any other action that is in the best interest of the public.

Draft recommendation again, staff is recommending um renaming of Graft Street east of Tracy Avenue to East Graft Street.

Um the petition was received from the South Meadows Condo Condo Owners Association representing a hundred residential units.

Um there are currently 160 addresses along this section of Graft Street that will be directly impacted by the proposed name change.

The concerns that were stated in the in the petition were related to receipt of deliveries and response of emergency services.

Residents in South Meadows have had difficulty receiving deliveries.

Um a good number of them, their address is East Graft Street.

The street name, the street signs out there are East Graft Street.

The challenge is so uh I'm gonna pause there for a minute.

They have concerns with respect to this because they have had difficult getting deliver difficulty in getting deliveries at their address.

Um and they have had concerns similarly about whether emergency response um is going to be able to find them in a timely fashion.

So again, the request came from the residents.

When uh engineering staff looked at evaluating this, uh, we talked about a couple of different or we looked at a couple of different um items.

Um important context.

So municipal code um 1007060 establishes the numbering system and the baselines that we use for our current addressing within the city of Bozeman.

Um this was brought into our code after the initial platting of East Graft Street.

That's how we ended up with a situation where or sorry, of platting of Graft Street.

Um the intent of this section of the code was to establish a more organized method of addressing with the acknowledgment that there's the potential that the city is going to grow significantly east and west, and we may want to have streets that continue across the city, um, but we need to have an organized way to go about addressing those.

Um as I started to say, one of the challenges is that the legal name of this street in this section is Graft Street.

That's what's on the plat.

Google and other navigation systems are likely pulling that official name.

So if you look on Google, this is listed as Graft Street, even though the street signs say East Graft Street.

So a number of properties in this area are already using East Graft Street for their mailing address.

Some are not, some are.

City billing generally uses East Graft Street.

Our system already acknowledges this as East Graft Street, even though the Plat doesn't acknowledge that.

So that's really the crux of this is we're in this case looking to bring the plat, the official name of this section of street into alignment with what is generally in practice today.

Um again, we'll look at impact on private and public utilities.

The name change is not going to have any impact on the utilities.

Similar to what we've talked about in the in the future, it it's not good the change of the name is not going to impact the use of the road, right?

Bringing this section of Graft Street into compliance with the municipal code will improve the uniformity of addressing that should enhance route finding for emergency services, deliveries, and the traveling public.

Um it will not impact the accessibility, and we talked about the uniformity is going to reduce potential confusion and it will not have an impact on other city services.

Um in this case, the city staff did receive one official protest to the name change prior to tonight's meeting, um, requesting that keep the original name to avoid the need of updating property addresses, the associated fees, the things that we have were brought very well to light um under the previous public comment.

We received no public comment.

Um again, the distinction there is protest is from someone who is directly impacted a resident on Graft Street, um, whereas public comment is anyone who um is interested in commenting on this.

Um again, staff will take all of the public um steps necessary with respect to implementing this name change.

Um the staff identifies no public detriment from the proposed name change.

Um the recommended street name change will implement a correction that will assist in maintaining public health and safety through correct and consistent navigation guidance for emergency services.

Again, we're talking about essentially bringing the official name from Graft Street as it was on the recorded on the plat to what is in many cases common practice of East Graft Street.

Um the staff identity identified alternative is to not change the name.

With that, I have the recommended motion, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Great.

Deputy Mayor.

I have no questions.

Commissioner Bodie, any questions?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Commissioner, um, just I guess one just to clarify the strange, I feel like the the last one we were really trying to center that it's north and south the whole time.

But graph is overwhelmingly east and west.

And why, you know, why not continue this as Tracy or something even completely different?

Is this largely just out of the convenience of everybody that's there?

We're already kind of doing it.

Yes, I think it's you bring up an interesting point, right?

I mean, graph is primarily an east-west street in this location.

It turns very much north-south.

Um it does create an interesting challenge with respect to to addressing, right?

If we were changing this to something else because of how our grid goes, it would be unique in this case.

Address is the only change to the address is going to be the east.

The number will not change, right?

We're adding east to these addresses.

The numbers will not change.

Folks will maintain their their existing address number.

Um, I think the main thing here of of why not go with uh the extension of Tracy.

Tracy doesn't actually connect right here.

Um but I think that would require all of these folks to get a new number as well as a new name.

Um this one is really just bringing again what is in in for for many of these folks, what is in common practice, essentially updating the the legal name of the of the road question.

Thanks for that.

I'm effectively convinced.

Um we will open up for public comment.

Any public comment in the room on graft to east graph name change.

Second request in the room.

Final request for comment in the room.

Mr.

Moss, what do we see in online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mayor.

Okay.

Uh we'll bring it up here for motion discussion vote.

Deputy Mayor.

So after incorporating the information in the staff report, oral findings made by the commission during the public hearing, information contained in the proposed resolution.

And after considering all protests and public comment, I move to adopt the resolution renaming Graph Street east of Tracy Avenue to East Graph Street.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded, Deputy Mayor.

This is one where I gotta say I'm glad to see because I I I remember vividly recall getting an address of like 3300 something graph.

And I got in the car and I headed west.

And uh now that graph goes all the way through, right?

And um got out to where I thought 3300 should be, and I was far from where I needed to be.

So I will um again acknowledging that this will will induce a cost on our residents.

I think this does clear up something and uh clear up make the clear up a confusion and and make sense and um glad the residents brought it forward.

Happy to support it.

Commissioner Bodie.

Yeah, I'll also be in support and just um really want to note the the residents requesting this themselves.

And um yeah, I agree with the the staff's kind of assessment and trust that our our um staff have kind of uh assessed what what may be the unintended consequences of this and it it seems overall uh a positive for our public safety and for these these residents.

So I'll be in support.

Yeah, um the neighborhood organizing and bringing this forward is the main impetus.

Why I will be in support.

I will as well um agree with what my fellow commissioners have said, agree with the staff report.

I would just add, I think kind of a quick review of what it takes to change addresses, drivers license, federal, a trust documents, car registration.

It's all really easy, including the trust document.

She just given it letter no to Rush, you don't have to get her attorney to help.

So it's all easy, but it can be a lot.

So I recognize the burden.

Uh but I suspect some of the folks here on East Graf's graph are already even using that east reference at the city is so it really sounds like this is gonna kind of bring some order to some of the chaos out there.

Um thank you, my colleagues without uh you know consistently banging the drum of the the renter experience, but I just want to remind everyone that basically like 10,000 people every year do this.

It's not it is not that backbreaking.

Um but understanding it is an inconvenience, it feels even more unjust when it's the government doing it to you versus you know you electing to move somewhere else.

Mr.

Moss, would you poll the commission?

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdoin?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Maddy?

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Um okay.

I am willing to entertain a break.

I would, however.

I wouldn't.

We've been taking our time.

We've been dilly dallying, we've been dithering.

We'll do a keep going.

Okay.

Is there a desire to keep going?

Oh, I would like to break.

Yeah, if if if anyone needs to get up and go to the bathroom, you could just get up and do it.

We're not reset.

Jim?

No.

All right, we're still going.

May look like a recess, but it is.

Next is our work session on the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan, engagement summary, and community priorities.

I'd like to welcome our assistant city manager John Henderson, who will introduce the team that will make the presentation tonight.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Commissioners.

Thanks for having us tonight.

I'm John Henderson, one of your assistant city managers, and just really pleased to be here.

This is uh kind of a mid-project check-in on the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan.

Uh, we're gonna be summarizing some really important community input that we've received uh as well as uh a discussion about some of the recommendations that are starting to come forward.

Uh I'm joined tonight by Steve Noble and Jim Madden, uh co-leaders of the C.

Bozeman Creek group, uh uh, and as well as our consultant, uh Port Urbanism.

Uh their names are Chris Marks and Kowski and Brandon Biederman.

Uh and I just got to mention they they've done an amazing job uh making sure that we're getting in touch with the community to uh to move their interest forward here.

So without further ado, I'm gonna bring uh Chris up to provide the presentation, and then all five of us will be available for questions afterwards.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Mayor, uh commissioners, um, thanks so much for uh giving us the time to share with you where we are uh in the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan.

Um I'm gonna talk for about 20 minutes.

Uh there's a lot of slides here.

Um by all means, if there are questions, stop me, I clarify.

But um we've been doing a lot of work over the last uh six months since we got started on this.

Um the agenda for tonight is really kind of where we are in the process.

Uh as I said, um, we're about halfway through uh what was a uh 47-week uh process.

Um the beginning of that process was very much about getting it was a learning session, a listening session, um, really discovering what the kind of situation was on the ground.

Um this piece that we're in now is really about the kind of alternatives, uh the kind of recommended approaches um to the the creek.

Um and as we move into the fall, sort of moving towards a kind of uh framework or vision plan um for the um for the corridor.

Um this has been a process that has included both public uh engagement as well as uh engagement with stakeholders related to the project.

And as you see here, we're here in person about every five weeks with uh check-in meetings uh and kind of every other week uh on the phone with John and Steve and and Jim, uh making sure that we are keeping up to date with the conversation going on in the community uh around this project.

Um I think one thing to point out that is super unique about this project, that it is this partnership between the city of Bozeman and C.

Bozeman Creek, which is a community-based organization.

Um, and I think that partnership is something that is uh an amazing asset to build on for the kind of future of a project that is gonna take some time and is gonna take some determination to get done.

Um you all uh set out a set of uh plan goals for this process.

Um number one is flood mitigation, but that's not the only thing that this planning project is attempting to do.

Um it's looking to improve water quality and ecological health.

It's looking to increase access and connectivity to parks and trails throughout the city of Bozeman.

Uh it's intended to support economic vitality and really create a kind of strengthened community connection to this vital resource.

And I think it's not hyperbole to say that Bozeman Creek is the reason that Bozeman as a city exists, and it hasn't necessarily been treated that way in a the kind of recent history.

Um there are a couple of questions that John asked us that we sort of frame for you all as we go through this process.

Um one of these is specific feedback rebar regarding the proposed recommendations.

Are there policies or projects that we would like to prioritize or that or remove or that we've missed and that you would like us to consider as part of this work?

Um a big piece of this is the flood mitigation.

And so the question of at what level of service should we be planning for?

Um is it the hundred-year flood?

Is it the slightly uh sort of elevated uh um uh capacity that the PER was developed under, taking climate change into account?

Is it the 500-year flood?

Is there some other number there that we want to be shooting for?

And then really at the end of the day, thinking about the kind of uh the trades or the trade-offs as it relates to this project.

What does it mean to make these investments?

What is being gained, what is being lost, thinking about things like parking, thinking about things like access to the creek, improved ecology, um, you know, sort of where do values lie in terms of the recommendations that are being put forward.

Um I need to acknowledge that there's an enormous amount of work that has the city has undertaken prior to hiring port in Rio and developing this project.

Um all of these reports, all of these documents are super, super comprehensive, super technical, uh, and they are the baseline of everything that we've been doing as part of this process.

Um Bozeman Creek Enhancement Plan from 2012 is a major touch point uh for us in terms of the different reaches of the creek and sort of how we understand their role within the the neighborhoods and within the city.

Um, and then the more recent preliminary engineering report that Allied Engineering prepared last year, um, which really gives clear recommendations as alternative strategies for dealing with flood events within uh Bozeman and sort of alternates in terms of approaches that can be taken.

Um these all have a positive cost-benefit ratio from the point of view of the engineering and the cost.

Um, what we think is missing from that study is the kind of potential ecological and urbanistic benefits of uh this kind of investment that the city might make.

And so a lot of what we're thinking about as part of this process is how do you how do you bundle on those other benefits in addition to the flood mitigation?

I think that's reflected in the five criterion that you all set out for our work.

Um that that document indicated sort of the differentiation between what is the current FEMA flood risk uh within Bozeman and the updated Allied model, which is much more extensive in terms of the number of parcels and the number of structures that it touches upon.

Um really that's kind of where the starting point for this work uh has taken off from.

Um I'm gonna note all of our drawings shift north to the right.

Part of that is just the reality of having a landscape slide.

So as you look at this map of Bozeman and you're trying to figure out where you are, north is where that big arrow is on the side.

So everything else will continue to put that to the right.

Um we understand, even though we're looking at this project from the the um uh the Galligator Trail up to Story Mill Park, that this is part of a larger ecosystem, it's part of a larger region in terms of a kind of ecology and an economy, and that that sort of larger uh systemic ecological relationship is super central to how we approach this work.

As I said, I think the creek is very much the reason that this city exists, and there's a sort of ethos and an identity of Bozeman in terms of its connection to the wilderness, the area that surrounds the city, and having this creek running through downtown as an opportunity to bring that connection to nature uh in a tangible way right into the center of the city.

Um, and so you know, really kind of thinking about how we do that within this focus area area, as I said, from the Galligator up to Story Mill.

Um the reality is you can't always see the creek.

Uh, and and most of you know this, um, you know, even when you look at it in a kind of aerial, you sort of have to hunt it down to find it in certain locations.

And yes, this is in downtown, but even as you move into the neighborhoods to the north and the south, it kind of disappears, it kind of goes away.

Um so very much the question at hand is how do we get the community to see Bozeman Creek for all of the assets and the opportunities that it can be for the city.

Um we uh, as we have been sort of working through this process, um, we've been meeting with uh city staff, we've been meeting with stakeholders, we've been meeting with community groups, making sure that we're really just listening.

Uh, and everything that I'm going to show you today really comes out of those listening sessions.

It's not us as a planning practice saying you should do this.

It's us listening to the community and saying this is what the community is asking us to explore and to study and to evaluate.

Um as I said, we're about halfway through this process.

We'll be back uh in August around the Sweet Pea Festival, where I'll have a sort of pavilion or an area at SLAM so that we'll have the kind of next round of uh public engagement as as part of this work.

Um as I said, lots of listening from the beginning.

Um of the things that you know were kind of takeaways of all that is how important thinking about all of these different systems are in relationship to one another.

It is a flood mitigation project, but it's also opportunities to do a whole bunch of other things related to ecology, you know, bringing people together in a kind of social way, um, as well as sort of the kind of economic vitality of the place.

I want to pause here because I think really this is the motivation for the work that's being done.

Um there have been a number of flood events that have been mentioned earlier in the evening, and really thinking about this kind of mentality that when there is a catastrophic event, there's lots of public will to do something.

And as you get more time passes, that kind of public will diminishes, but the risk of the event increases.

What we want to do with this plan is sort of inflect that relationship so that the public will stays high, that there's an active desire for the community to make these changes, to make these investments, and in the process of doing that, lowering the risk to Bozeman, uh, not just people who live along the creek, but to the entire city in terms of the kind of insurance impacts and the cost of a catastrophic event that isn't a matter of if but when in terms of uh a flood event.

And in the process of doing that, lowering the risk to Bozeman, not just people who live along the creek, but to the entire city in terms of the kind of insurance impacts and the costs of a catastrophic event that isn't a matter of if but when in terms of a flood event.

The most recent kind of set of workshops we had were in early April, the downtown business groups, neighborhood groups, see Bozeman Creek Advisory Committee, and we did a lot of this.

We sort of sat over a big map and we listened to people drawing in locations of could we do this here?

What about this over there?

This is an idea I'd love to see.

My neighbor would love this.

And we collected a whole bunch of ideas.

And we translated these kind of scribbles and these notes and the things that we heard into a set of potential projects, a potential set of ideas or recommendations, and then evaluated them and distilled them down into 12 kind of focus things that we presented at a public meeting in early June.

The big takeaway of all of that is that anything that we do with this creek needs to have a vision to it.

All the engineering reports are great, but they don't get people excited about the possibilities, but also sort of recognize the threats.

It needs to be strategic, but it shouldn't necessarily be modest.

It has to have a kind of ambition to it.

And part of that is telling a story about what the creek is to the city of Bozeman and what the creek can become to the city of Bozeman.

So those 12 big ideas, some of you are at the open house.

We had this really, really wonderful event on June 2nd in Seraphimus Park.

Lots of people came out.

And we were really careful to make sure that we weren't just talking about the ideas, but we are sharing the background of the project with the community.

So kind of introductory stations so people could orient themselves, a big map so people could point, kind of doing that sort of stakeholder workshop with the larger public, and then a series of presentation boards that get at these kind of 12 ideas.

And I'll say the 12 ideas were intended to elicit feedback.

They weren't necessarily fully baked.

Some of them were a little bit more provocative than others, but it was really an idea to get people excited about the possibilities of what this project and this kind of planning initiative could become.

The scope of work that we have a contract for asks us to identify both projects and policies, recommendations.

Projects are kind of physical transformation, policies are things related to zoning and other kind of code suggestions.

And so that is really how we organize the 12 big ideas.

I'm not going to go through these in super high-level detail because, in a way, we've moved on from those 12 big ideas into kind of four buckets that I'm going to talk about a little bit more.

But just to give you a sense for those who weren't able to make it to the public meeting, you know, some of these recommendations related to the kind of flood mitigation and using Mill Ditch as a kind of bypass and kind of upgrades to hydraulic structures along the main channel.

Others sort of started to look at kind of reconnecting floodplains where it's possible within public property.

We acknowledge that the hockey sort of pavilion gets sort of removed in this drawing.

As we are advancing the study of this, it stays, it also gets relocated.

So we we've heard the community feedback on that.

But really looking for these opportunities to kind of bring the floodplain back into the city in a meaningful, tangible way around all or around Rouse between Maine and Olive, looking at where public property exists and the possibility of creating a kind of creekside park right in downtown.

Similarly, being able to think about an idea around City Hall, which I'll show you in a minute.

Thinking about water quality, what does it mean to kind of capture stormwater runoff in existing park spaces within the city, creating kind of a sponge park or a flood, a flood area that can really sort of protect the water before it goes into the creek, diminish flooding, and sort of looking at precedents around that kind of an idea.

As I mentioned, sort of thinking about the kind of public lands around City Hall, the possibility of transforming that into a park, starting to think about parking and the kind of trade-offs that one has to think about with some of these transformations and kind of the possibilities of what that could look like.

More modest ideas relate to things like public right-of-way, looking at where public right-of-way exists and is sort of underutilized as a way to trade create trailhead connections and other kinds of access points to the creek or along the creek and what that might start to become, as well as kind of bigger infrastructural transformations where you're dealing with things like the rail line and how to get people over it in a safe and accessible way and kind of a dramatic way as well that sort of celebrates the creek and its presence within the city of Bozeman.

And again, kind of possibilities of what that could be, being able to get to Story Mill without having to take the spur trail and a bypass, but really stay along the creek and experience the creek, thinking about sort of setbacks and kind of access in terms of trail systems and different sort of strategies for how we might sort of recommend changes to current setback requirements, thinking about other kinds of public lands that are adjacent to the creek and sort of possibilities of redeveloping them towards public use, like affordable housing or other kind of community services.

Rio ASC, who's our subconsultant, you know, does this, they rebuild creeks, they think about the woody debris and the kind of ecology that gets created around these things as a as a kind of strategy.

And really, you know, at the center of it was this idea of bringing the public to the creek and making sure that the creek was accessible and experienced while it was also mitigating flood, while it was also enhancing kind of ecological capacity.

So rather than the question of do you see Bozeman Creek, see Bozeman Creek, celebrate the creek as a place within the city?

As I said, you know, there's sort of all of these little studies, all these little ideas that were explored as part of that public meeting.

But really, when you look at them, there's kind of five big buckets that they go into.

There's flood mitigation, there's the downtown creekside parks, which are sort of Bogart, Rouse, and City Hall, there's zoning and planning policy recommendations, and then there's sort of the smaller incremental access and connectivity things, the right-of-ways, the bridges, things like that.

And really, in our sort of work forward from that June 2nd meeting, we're focusing our recommendations within these four buckets and refining some of those ideas, discarding some of them, adding new ones, that this basically becomes the kind of scaffold for how the vision plan gets organized and is ultimately going to be presented to the public in September and then to you all later in December.

In terms of those four buckets, when we look at flood mitigation, as I said, the kind of level of service, is it the hundred year flood?

Is it slightly above the hundred year flood?

Is it the 500 year flood?

What is the kind of thing that we are planning around and designing for?

As we think about that, how do we look at the kind of sequencing of capital projects to make sure that they are most impactful but less least disruptive, and really focusing on those at-risk property owners and at risk residents, not just property owners renters as well, who will benefit from this upgrade.

So this isn't a project that's just about people who live along the creek, but it's a project that's about the entire population of Bozeman, both both existing and future.

When we get to the downtown creekside parks, there's really kind of three separate ones, but I think they really become most powerful when you understand them together as a kind of a necklace of green.

And so looking at the kind of complexities of Bogurt, the kind of Rouse Seroptimus configuration, and then City Hall.

You know, we're starting to look at who are the we focused on public property as the basis of that, but looking at who are the private property owners who would be impacted, beginning to have uh start conversations with them, understanding who the agencies having having jurisdiction are in terms of the kind of transformation that's being proposed, and then really thinking about kind of the flood mitigation role of the creeks as it relates to that idea of using the mill ditch as a kind of bypass for downtown.

Um the zoning and planning recommendations are a little bit longer and sort of a little bit more in process, I would say.

Um, thinking about acquisition, uh a process for limited city acquisition, right of first refusal for properties adjacent to the creek, um, what that would look like, where a potential funding source for that could be as a way to protect the creek and expand the kind of the floodplain and the kind of accessible uh corridor, um, thinking about revising setback requirements for properties abutting the creek, what would those revisions look like, what would they entail, um, incentive recommendations for private property owners to think about easements or floodplain enhancements, why, you know, it this is a really uh a project that's gonna take investment from lots of different directions, not just from the city side, um, and then thinking about public properties adjacent to the creek in terms of what they could be repurposed for to have a kind of uh a more multiple benefit uh in terms of their occupation, and then thinking again about kind of the stormwater sponge park idea as a um uh an enhanced uh policy within the city.

And then finally, um that can think connectivity and access, again, the kind of underused right-aways and thinking about sort of larger capital projects that might come out about that.

Um I want to acknowledge that the commission has understood that this planning work is really in process, right?

And that where we get to at the end of December, the middle of December is going to be very, very well formed, but there's a lot of work that continues to need to be done as the city moves towards implementation.

So I want to thank you all for for recognizing that and funding additional study of the Bozeman Creek project in uh 2027 and sort of the kind of potential places that that um folk can focus are sort of included in this memo here on the slide.

Um I just want to step back to say we we have the fortune and the benefit of getting to work across the country on public work.

And public work requires the shepherding of a vision.

Um, starting with something that can be quite quite large and quite ambitious, like this project in Knoxville, kind of planning work in 2016, working with the city to identify resources to incrementally build out a project at the center of that larger plan, and then building that thing and opening that thing up to become a really celebrated and loved uh public asset.

In this case, this is a quarry uh in South Knoxville that's kind of become the destination to go swimming in the in the city.

Um all that to say is that we recognize that in these recommendations that we're making to you, there's going to be a really diverse capital stack.

It's gonna have to look at grants, it's gonna have to look at private philanthropy, it's gonna have to look at the state and the federal level.

Um, and we have experience doing that in a variety of different places, different communities with different stacks, and every project is distinct, but we're able to draw upon these experiences to assist you all in the community and being able to set out a roadmap to implement the vision that is produced as part of this planning document.

Um part of that relates to the fact that as a practice we continue to engage in in sort of deep research around the public funding of public space.

That's something that's at the ethos of what Port does as a practice.

It's at the center of my academic research.

So it's something that we're we're super sort of uh interested in and excited about helping uh the city of Bozeman navigate this challenge.

Um, this is just a kind of communications uh project that we've been involved with.

So, as I said, we're coming back here uh in August uh for the public event.

Um, right now, tentatively scheduled 10 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

at SLAM, um, we're gonna have basically advancements of the ideas associated in those four buckets for again the public to offer feedback to listening in.

Um I will also say all of those um uh all that content that was present on the June 2nd meeting was also available online.

That will also, after the August 8th meeting, all that information will be online again to make sure that really this is a kind of project that comes from the community, and we're testing it, evaluating it, and reflecting it back in terms of what we've heard, not trying to superimpose something uh onto onto Bozeman Creek.

I will say I think the opportunity here is to create something that is particularly unique to this place.

This shouldn't look like any other city that sort of the transformation of the creek is um is something that wants to really reference and be reflective of what Bozeman is today and what Bozeman wants to be in the future.

Um so this I this ability to have this kind of ongoing conversation with stakeholders, with city staff, with the public to really shape this vision plan has been a really um exciting process.

And as I said, we're really looking forward to moving through the second half of this uh work and look forward to answering any questions that you all have in terms of where we've been and where we're trying to go over the next few months.

Thank you.

Great.

Um thank you for that presentation.

Um we'll bring it up here for any questions.

Commissioner Bodie, do you have any questions for the presenters or staff?

Um I I just have so many thoughts.

I don't have questions right now.

I'm gonna pass it on.

Okay.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, can you please explain to me what is a sponge park or a sponge street?

What are we looking at?

Sure.

So the idea around that is that rather than sort of when water hits a hard surface, uh, impermeable surface and it races off and goes into someplace else and accumulates and creates a flood condition.

The idea of a sponge is that that water sits in that location and is guided into an area that is designed to capture that water.

So whether that is in kind of a planted swale or a sort of a retention basin, um, oftentimes you can actually build larger tanks underneath existing public facilities where you can capture all that water and either reuse it or you can allow it to sort of permeate back into the um the water table.

So it's a way of basically presenting runoff water to go directly into the creek, pick up all the nastiness in the road and sort of dump that into the creek and deteriorate the water quality, the planting material that filters through it, the ground material that allows you to slow the water down, which is really important to reduce flooding, and then also clean the water before it goes into the water table or back into the creek.

Okay, and so um I did attend the thing on June 2nd, but um along with Commissioner Magic, but we had to get here.

Uh so we had to leave early.

Um I think I remember something on the comment board that if we're gonna treat, for example, Beale Park as a sponge park.

You can still use the park.

100%.

Um then if we did have a flood event, would that mean the water is on the surface?

Like where we there are a number of different ways that you can design it, but the the purpose is that the facility continues to be what it is.

The the sort of installation of those kind of soft infrastructures, in fact, oftentimes enhance the experience of that public space in terms of its utility for the community.

Um it doesn't displace that use, it actually enhances the use.

Um it might stay wet for a day uh or two, depending on the kind of scale of the event, but it very quickly goes back to being able to be utilized for public activity.

So it's really in how it's designed.

There, there are a number of different kinds of ways that you can approach it.

But the idea, you know, really I think in all of the recommendations that have kind of come forward are a not an either or but a yes and and sort of getting sort of the public facilities in Bozeman to do multiple things in support of the creek.

Um and so the sponge park is just one idea of sort of building on top of a facility that the city already has to maybe do it, make it work a little bit harder, but also improve it and enhance it for the community.

Okay, so it would behave differently than like some of our stormwater retention ponds.

Yeah.

100%.

So I know someone who calls them like mosquito breeders.

Yeah.

So not sure I'm a fan of turning a public park into a mosquito breeder.

I'll take your word for it that that's not gonna happen.

Thank you.

Um then I also I love this idea of South Rouse, you know, becoming kind of a greenway, but I really want to hear from our transportation engineer because I would hate to give that department a stroke by cutting off South Rouse.

And so we we had a really great conversation with city staff today uh and sort of shared where we were in that process, and there were there was really great feedback in terms of some tweaks and some adjustments to it, but it it does seem like something that is is viable.

Um, you know, obviously we want to go through that process, but I think you know, part of the way that we've approached this plan is to look for um the low-hanging fruit, and the low-hanging fruit there is the fact that south of Maine, Rouse is not a state road, but it's a city road.

And so you all have a little bit more dominion over what you can do in that area.

Um, so we obviously you know we'll we'll accommodate all DOT requirements and all federal requirements when it comes to circulation.

Um, but there is an opportunity there to re think how uh both pedestrian and vehicular movement move along those two those two blocks between Olive and Maine to really open it up to be something more social, public, and ecological in its performance.

Okay, thank you.

Um then I I guess I have a question that might possibly be for the city attorney.

Um can we implement first right of refusal situations, like say a property owner in a parcel that we think might be part of this strategic plan is gonna sell their parcel, could we have the first right of refusal?

Is that a possibility?

It depends on how we would go about doing that.

I'm not sure that the city's zoning authority would be able to exact a right of first refusal through a zoning permit or subdivision under MLOPA.

I certainly think we can always negotiate and purchase that.

Um but I I don't I don't understand the idea.

So I'm just saying that sort of off the cuff in response to your question.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um I know Montana has really strong private property rights, and so maybe it would be the kind of thing where we'd have to enter into an agreement with each single parcel of when if they're gonna sell, they would come to us.

Okay.

Um and then I did see on one of the boards the, and this is probably again for the city attorney.

Um someone wrote uh when it had the could you bring up the slide with the graduated um setbacks from the creek.

I I will say that that particular policy has been jettisoned.

And we now have a different version.

So I I all of the kind of the 12 that were presented have all been sort of advanced and evolved.

Some things have dropped out, new ones have kind of come in.

So that that one has been taken off the table as a as a policy.

Awesome.

Thank you.

That is all my questions.

Commissioner Magic, any questions?

Thanks, Mayor.

Uh, thanks so much for your presentation.

It's um really exciting to hear your words uh talking about ambition, not being modest, kind of thinking big.

Uh and I really thought your illustrations were terrific.

It really kind of brings to light the possibilities here.

My question, and this has been kind of a um out there since we started, but the idea that a number of properties, particularly south of us, sit both in the flood plain and the flood way.

And how do we kind of reconcile uh if our preferred course is to kind of keep the creek following for the most part kind of its original footprint versus saying we should support true public health and safety and move the creek out of the downtown?

Um I think there's a number of different arguments for not displacing the creek entirely out of downtown.

One I think is the kind of historic value of it in terms of its alignment and the way that the city grew around it.

Um I think moving it out of town potentially moves it out of the public imagination and diminishes the capacity for stewardship of the creek because people don't care about it as much because they don't see it, they don't engage with it.

Um I think the opportunity in creating public space around a reimagined or daylighted creek is that people start to value it more because they get to experience it, they get to engage with it.

Um, we've heard stories of people, you know, long time Bozemanites who remember fishing in the creek, remember, you know, sort of playing in the creek, doing all sorts of things that maybe if you said today, I want to go do that, they someone will be like, really?

Does that but um so I I think I think part of the balance, and this is the trade-off, I think that that kind of question um uh these questions get at is you know the creek, its original alignment is through downtown.

The city has sort of hemmed it in.

Is there what are the ways to open it back up that are least disruptive to the existing fabric and pattern of the city, but most sort of transformative in terms of what they create as an asset and as a kind of uh identity really for Bozeman.

Um and you know, I think I think that's just part of the kind of negotiated balance that this process of planning tries to get through through the kind of community conversations that we're having.

And so what we're trying to do is keep it in its uh historical alignment, but perhaps making it safer by giving it other places to go.

Yep.

Because right now the places for it to go are pretty limited.

Right.

It's kind of um a coincidence, I think too, that tonight we're under a flood advisory.

It's kind of hard to imagine after record heat, but for the next 24 hours or so we're under a flood advice.

Yeah.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Because I I kind of I hedged your question, but I if I could just add one additional thing to it.

I mean, I think the other part of this is that if the city is going to make this scale of investment and however it manages to do that through grants and other sort of resources, um, making sure that that investment and that investment is tangible and visible to the public, um, that it isn't hidden away and people don't recognize the the value of what that investment is.

And I think that's also part of an argument for not just sort of sending the water outside of the city and bypassing it, but making sure again that it's tangible to the community in terms of what it brings, the value that it brings, but also the kind of infrastructural requirements that managing for climate change and potential flood events uh begin to look like.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

So I I want to echo the appreciation for the ambition in the plan here and the work you've presented.

It's really exciting to see a vision to see, you know, it's funny how it's it really is exciting to see some some you know change.

Um, even if I also see dollar science behind all that with us.

Um let me back up a little bit and say, what is what is the what do you hope to emerge from this work session with?

Are you hoping to get perspective or perspective and so maybe some answers to these uh leading questions?

Or are these leading questions what you hope to kind of come back to us with answers to or some insight on in the December report?

Yeah, and thank you for the question.

I I think tonight uh it would be very helpful at this stage in the project to get some input on the questions that are presented.

Uh that's gonna help in shape and inform uh what the final recommendations are gonna be when we get to December.

We just want to make sure we're on the right track.

There's obviously a lot of there's a pretty wide margin in scale that we can operate within.

But if you're able to kind of give us some input on how to focus and narrow that that effort, I think that would be pretty helpful and then result in a better outcome once we're back for you in the end of the year.

Thanks.

Fair enough.

That's helpful.

And maybe okay, then looking if I could look at the flood um component of this.

Yeah.

How do you how would you suggest we kind of answer that?

You know, where where we would put the 100-year flood versus a five year.

I mean, how would you suggest we maybe the five of us kind of start to answer that?

Yeah.

So I mean, I I think understanding that getting into a deep technical discussion around that is not something that we want to do tonight.

Um I I think the question really is FEMA has defined uh uh um a CFS that is the hundred-year flood that is a little over a thousand.

It's like a thousand fifty-six.

Um the Allied report bumps that up to about twelve hundred give or take.

Um and they did that in the anticipation that you know there are increasing storm events, there are increasing sort of climate disruptions, those sorts of things, uh, and sort of anticipating that that hundred-year number is probably gonna change relatively in the near future.

Um the capacity to design for a 500-year flood is probably more than the city wants to undertake.

Um, but we did think it was important to put that on the table for you all to consider.

Um there the sort of infrastructural requirements of that are um quite significantly different than what the hundred year or the slightly adjusted hundred year would look like.

Um but you know, I do think it's important to understand that right now, you know, sort of at least the way that Allied modeled it, um, there's uh potentially a lot more disruption from a catastrophic event than even the city or even FEMA currently identifies as potential impact.

And then just for perspective, do you have a CF cubic feet per second for what a 500-year flood might be?

Do you remember what it was?

It's like high fourteen was it?

Very quick.

Yeah, sure.

We can pull it up.

I'd off the top of it.

It would just be helpful because you know, we got 1056 for 100 allied suggesting 1200.

It's well over 1500.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

It's like 15, 1600, I believe.

Um, you know, one of the great things that the Allied report has done and that we've tried to kind of unpack a little bit is understanding the implications of that to you know all of the hydraulic structures along the existing channel as well as the existing hydraulic structures on the mill ditch, you know, where are you upgrading?

If you are going to upgrade it, it doesn't, you know, the cost differential differential of upgrading it to the FEMA versus the slightly increased is not that significant if you're already going to have to upgrade it.

And so I think that's where it's like if you're going to spend the money, spend the money to make sure that it provides the level of service that you need versus saying we're just going to do what the current number says, but you know, it down the line that may prove to be um something that has to be revisited.

Thank you.

And then I was maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here given given the size of these leading questions in front of us.

Um but you know, I was very glad to put money in next year's budget um for work on this and but it was a bit of an act of faith, right?

Um buttressed of course by the results so far, which have been impressive.

I I'm just wondering kind of absence of large large sums of of money to um you know transform land.

Kind of what happens after after you deliver this report in December?

Like what's what would be kind of where where what would be the next steps that would be logical and feasible with the kind of the I the and I don't know if the memo was circular.

So the there's a memo that we produced that sort of outlined uh a set of things that could be focused on in 2027.

Um that list is more extensive than the sort of the number that was put aside, but it allows us to say these are probably the things that the city is going to want to look at after this plan document is is produced.

Um so you know, those can be anything from additional modeling of the kind of the flood mitigation efforts, um, beginning to think through kind of uh a sort of conceptual planning process of the creekside parks.

Um it can be looking at um beginning to develop the policy language that would get incorporated in a you know in terms of a legal evaluation.

Um so there's all there's a whole range that are there.

I do think to your point uh in terms of the the, you know, when we say ambition, we don't mean sort of willful wasteful spending.

We mean ambition in terms of if you're gonna spend the money, make sure that you get everything out of those dollars and cents that you can that will benefit the city.

Um and so um the strategic part of that ambition, I think is the the key to that that phrase.

But I will say that projects like this in our experience, um, you know, there is usually a public partner uh that comes along that starts to work with the city um on behalf of of building uh support um uh for a project like this.

And that allows for philanthropic money and that sort of other private money to come in that can um you know sort of um be bundled up with the city's capacity to invest in a project like this.

Um there's different models of that.

I would say actually, you know, we we remove this, but the fifth bucket is administration.

How does the city go about administrating a project like this?

Um and that's something that we've been working with John and Jim and Steve on for recommendations of what that could look like, what those kind of partnerships um can uh become.

And we're we're fortunate we we we have sort of you know sort of national networks that we can draw on that allow us to sort of have examples of what that sort of agreement or those sort of partnerships can begin to look like for a city.

Yeah, thank you.

I remember I did read that and those next steps.

And it seems like we have a lot of options again, based on how we here.

Yeah.

All right, thank those are my questions.

Thank you.

Um similarly, uh yeah, just the presentation, it's it's exciting, it's fun, it's energizing, um, it's a cool potentially, you know.

I think I've spoken to this before, you know, a generational project for this for this community.

Um but uh my questions were asked them ready to get into discussion.

Commissioner Bode, any more questions emerged.

Okay.

Thank you for um both balancing brevity, expeditiousness, but also a ton of detailed information in that.

Um really appreciate that.

Thanks.

Um before moving on to bringing it up here for commission discussion on these three questions, we'll open up for public comment.

Um any public comment in the room this evening on the Bozeman Creek vision plan so far.

Good evening.

Hello again, uh Mark Campanelli, Boger Park resident.

Um also uh Bogar Park Neighborhood Association president, having some conversations with neighbors um who missed the engagement, especially uh and sending out my emails reporting on all this.

Um I also I'm toying with this nonprofit called the East Skeleton Watershed Trust, which just for full disclosure is not uh it's not there's no money here yet.

But it is very much looking at trying to mitigate um conflicts between neighbors and the skeleton watershed.

So thank you to the commission for not dropping the ball on this.

See Bozeman Creek uh likewise and the consultants who um I've really enjoyed interacting with.

Um a couple thoughts.

Um I do have a neighbor, I believe, whose son uh grew up playing hockey in the hockey rink.

Of course, when I look at the hockey, I I like the hockey ring, but when I look at where it was placed, I'm like the New Yorker in me is like, what idiot did they like and the fisherman in me, right?

Is kind of like, yeah, that's not the best place.

So had a tough conversation because there's a lot of sentimental value in that.

And I frame that particular asset, right?

We're talking about sort of moving around assets on the chessboard largely here, including the trees along the creek, which kind of are in the wrong spot, but they're still beautiful trees.

Um, you know, if a flood were to happen to come through and wipe out the footers on the west side, right, of the hockey, it's gotta be replaced.

So then we can sort of have this sort of like triaged approach where like, okay, we've now just elevated like it's time to reorganize uh Bogar Park and get rid of the pickleball courts.

Um just I actually played pickleball on the pickleball courts.

I can't lie, I enjoyed it.

So uh anyways, um we yeah, so setting expectations around reorganizing reorganizing assets.

I I will request again that maybe at the booth at the next meeting we could have some 3D models that don't have to be too big, but just so show like the current channelized with trees kind of some riprap and areas, kind of channelized creek with like what this looks like when everything's kind of been reorganized, because it's really upsetting when you have to watch those things be redone.

Um a serious conversation, and I'm gonna put hardscaping in quotes between Babcock and Mendenhall.

If we make the creek more accessible, and I saw this in Golden Colorado, um, how do we do this with the most permeability possible?

Um again, we'll fully encourage again.

Some lawyers gonna tell me you can't do this with TIFF.

But when TIFF, I'm told TIFF helped nine people with the boutique hotel, you know, you know, new sewer.

I'm like, nine property owners?

I'm like, if you use TIFF to prevent flooding, you're affecting thousands of property owners with a level that's way bigger in amount of time.

Um a couple other big things, ice management.

I didn't hear discussions about how we pump water into the creek for ice management during the winter.

Um and then my whole block sits at the intersection of the 100 and 500 year flood.

So lots of uncertainty as to where we're gonna fall and whether those numbers are even accurate.

So would love to talk to Rio ASE and um allied about this in a neighborhood meeting.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any further comment requests in the room this evening?

Second request for comment in the room.

Final request for comment in the room.

Mr.

Moss, what's going on online?

I'm showing no request for comment, Mark.

All right, we will close the public comment portion and bring it up here for commission discussion on these three questions.

Um for the sake of brevity, perhaps, could we try just to each of us go through answer these three and see if there's some consistency that comes out?

Does that feel doable?

Sweet.

Commissioner Bowdy, you've got the floor.

Great.

Um I'm shocked there's not more comment.

I feel like this is a really exciting thing, and um there's a lot of uh considerations here, but I'm sure as we move along in the process, we'll we'll have more um participants in that particular opportunity.

Um so first I just kind of walk, want to walk through the um kind of 12 big ideas.

I understand nine has been NICS and perhaps some other ones.

So um if if that's the case, then disregard.

But the the first big idea about utilizing mill ditch to kind of um redirect some of the flows, I I think is a really smart idea.

Um I strongly support further exploration into this opportunity.

And um, I know that there's some complications about you know, kind of choosing winners and losers here of if we're gonna flood one area or or the other, and um certainly a lot to consider around what changes may need to be done for private property alongside that ditch.

But I I think that we will all be kicking ourselves if we have a you know hundred or five hundred year flood and we don't have this ditch as a um opportunity to kind of divert from the downtown, which will we know cost over a billion dollars in in damages.

So um, yeah, strong support for that.

The um second big idea where we kind of get rid of the Bogart Park Pavilion and playground um to create a more braided section.

I uh I feel the heartburn about that um hockey space in the winter, and we got a number of public comments about maybe that it's underutilized in the summer and and could be a place for kind of roller hockey.

And I I tend to agree with that.

Um I I appreciated our commenter tonight um saying, well, what if we use it until it's damaged and then kind of replace somewhere else?

Um I'd be interested to have our folks look into the cost of relocating, or if we even could pick up that structure in pieces and move it somewhere else before it's damaged.

Um avoid the cost of having to re rebuild a damage structure.

So I guess like kind of a I'm a yellow light on that one.

Um the number three, getting rid of rouse between all of and Maine.

I I support this idea.

Um I do think some residences and businesses may not have any way to enter or egress, particularly um Les Chatelin is one that uh you know jumped out to me.

And I I just wonder how we address that.

And and maybe it's not um uh an implementation to the full scale shown in the graphic, but maybe uh a part way where we make sure that those folks can still access their properties and um maintain their businesses.

But I I think that this is um yeah, a really cool way to get this right in the center of town where a lot of people would have access to the creek and also slow down some of the um flow and mitigate some of the flood risk.

The park says rain gardens, number four.

Um I don't think it hurts, and I feel a little bit skeptical um about how much that would actually impact the flood mitigation.

Like, you know, cost per benefit are are we really getting our money's worth with that particular effort?

And I don't think it contributes as much to the goal of increasing people's connection to the park or connection to the creek because it's separate.

And that said, I think coupled with the incentivizing neighbors alongside the creek to also do some kind of infiltration and mitigation, maybe the impacts overall could be beneficial.

So I think I'm I'm also kind of a yellow light on that.

Getting rid of the city hall parking lot and replacing with a parking garage on the other side.

I think this is a great way to put our money and our inconvenience where where our mouth is here and say we at City Hall are willing to take this this step and be leaders in it.

And so I strongly support that.

I question whether we can actually get a parking garage built and the optics of building a parking garage over an existing community garden are bad.

But I know that that community garden is not as utilized as it could be, given kind of the shading impact of the building to the side of it.

So I think that that needs a little bit more discussion, but in concept, I'd be really excited about really really leading the effort there with the land that we own.

Okay, unused right of way.

I think this is great low-hanging fruit, and I would love to kind of start there if there are places where we have right away that we can turn into parks or otherwise mitigate flood damage.

I think that's awesome.

So yeah, green light there.

I think I'm generally in support of a creekside trail going through the whole the whole length.

And I just knowing how difficult it has been to get a silent crossing and any kind of conversations we have with our rail authority, it's just been really lengthy and costly, and I I question whether that would be the best use of our money.

It feels like a um later in the implementation question mark, and I wouldn't put that first on our list of things to do.

Um there was a recommendation of taking city properties and converting them into kind of complementary public goods.

I think what we saw was the place where the existing shops complex is and turning that into housing.

I think that ship has sailed.

Um we feel I think that the city um this commission just kind of approved a rate increase in order to turn that shop's complex into a more efficient complex out anyway.

I I think that that should be next to the hasn't already.

Um I already mentioned incentivizing private properties to make flood mitigation improvements.

I I like this, and I think we have a really great model of how to do this through our water conservation efforts.

And um I I think that there would be community support for that.

The last section of public ideas, I just want to lift up the lot of the written public comments are about decreasing trash and pollution in the creek.

And um I think that that would mostly have to be an education campaign beyond what our streets department is already doing of all of these capture devices to kind of remove um trash and sediment from um street runoff.

So uh yeah, I question how we how we do that, but I think we've got a lot of good education um programs already that we could touch on.

Um I have another big idea, which is less less about um actual changes to the creek and more about um connection to the creek and also potentially funding.

I was in Crest Butte, Colorado a couple weeks ago, and um they're in the process of selling rubber duckies for their annual rubber ducky race, and they go for $10 a pop.

They sell 5,000 of them and they uh is their the rotary club puts on this effort.

And um all 5,000 ducks go down their creek that goes through the center of their town, and the first you know, 10 to 40 ducks are our winners of prizes like a free season ski pass or other kind of community benefits.

They raise 50,000 and all of that goes back to local charities, and I would be really excited about an effort in um our town to do a similar effort and direct all of the proceeds to the C Bozeman Creek um project.

And I know that there's other communities that sell a lot more ducks.

We're a lot bigger than Cresty Butte, so I think we could sell a lot more.

Anyway, I'm excited about this idea.

I bought a poster if anyone wants to see it.

Okay, so that's the first question.

I'm sorry I'm being long-winded here.

I sorry, when okay, the target level of service.

I think the 500-year objective is going to be out of scope.

And the cost of that will take away from a lot of other community needs that we also identify as really urgent.

So I think orienting towards more of that 100-year-plus trajectory makes sense.

And I'd also appreciate having a little bit more resources to make that determination more affirmatively.

Parking is a is a real challenge, certainly.

And I think that we have a number of efforts underway to build out a parking garage in downtown as well as efforts to improve our public transit system.

And I think both of those will take pressure parking pressure off of the quarter right around Bozeman Creek.

And so I don't see this as a um insurmountable challenge, certainly.

And so I I would just encourage us to make sure that we can access the creek and create you know permeable hardscaping in those places to mitigate the um impacts of the riparian zones and then set aside areas that are truly not for walking, um, but just for looking at and appreciating.

That was a lot passed on.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

Um I guess I I like your approach.

I'll um give you a brief opinion on the um 12 big ideas.

Uh Mill ditch, absolutely.

Um I appreciated Mr.

Ball's comment earlier about you know, maybe some lower tech um options than this you know, hydraulic everywhere, you know, having where the mill ditch currently breaks off of Bozeman Creek.

There used to be a headgate that was a manual operated thing.

And and so maybe we could you know implement some lower tech options as well.

Um but yes, definitely utilize Mill Creek.

Um Bogart Park.

I I the hockey comments really resonated with me.

So um I I would like to see if we could address some of the impacts further upstream or plan to move the pavilion.

Um because I really appreciated one public commenter who talked about we're having a hard time keeping our outdoor ice rinks in the winter time, and that's something I've noticed over my lifetime.

When I was a kid, we skated in every single park every single winter.

It was never, you know, oh, is there gonna be ice this year?

And that's becoming a real real challenge.

So um for me personally, I would be you know add capacity to absorb flood water further upstream or move the pavilion.

Um I already expressed my concern and willingness to defer to the engineering department about South Rouse.

Love the idea, but uh there's probably some circulation issues there for traffic and um and Commissioner Bodie pointing out business access.

Um I mean, Beale Park seems a little far away from the creek, maybe, but but I the idea I'm willing to explore that.

Um I actually love the idea of the parking garage there because the high density has knocked out the productivity of the community garden right here.

It's people are experiencing that all over town.

So yes, let's utilize that and have a lovely park.

Umused public right away, yes, low-hanging fruit.

Um the footbridge, yeah, that seems like down the road, low priority for me.

Um because if there is anything that I want us to not be modest about, it is the flood mitigation issues.

For me, those are power paramount, those are take precedence above everything else.

Um, that one's gone.

I I like the concept of city-owned um creekside property, but yeah, the shops complex is off the table.

Um then our targeted level of service for a flood, yeah.

I'm I mean, I know everybody is saying that it's beyond our financial capacity to go for the 500-year flood, but there are people in those areas that would be hugely affected, and you know, go big or go home, I guess.

I don't know, it's something to shoot for.

Um, and then trade-offs between ecological health and community needs, definitely remove parking.

We have to sort that out in other areas, and we have lots of partners to do that.

Um, increasing access to the creek.

The one thing I would say is keep the dogs out of the creek.

Keep the dogs out of the creek.

It's not good for the creek.

Other than that, you know, human interaction.

Balance.

Commissioner Patrick.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um, thanks to my hello commissioners.

Um I look at number one and all the big ideas.

I like all the big ideas.

I want to see them all work out.

I'd love to involve the community and kind of prioritizing and then looking at you know what we might be able to afford, what's the most feasible, but if we could do it all somehow, I think that would be terrific.

One thought I had um specific to Bogar Park.

Just curious if hockey could happen on the lawn, similar to our open air or ice skating rings throughout town.

But I hear you the south side um skate ring.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, I think it opened for a week this year, and every year it's just pure and pure um number of days that it's open.

So yeah, the the bigger we can think.

Um I am completely supportive.

Um looking at the historical floods on Bozeman Creek, just being kind of realistic of what's happened here.

There has not been a hundred-year flood, according to records and record keeping.

There have been um historical floods, 1927, 48, 81, 9011, most recently.

So it is very responsible for us to give the creek a place to go as it runs through town, and the more ways that we can do that.

I think the better for public health and safety, the better for the creek.

Um, allow the creek to be a creek.

And I think over time we have disallowed kind of the normal creek.

Um we've constrained it over the history of Bozeman.

So um I'm gonna be quick.

Uh three.

It looked like a little caterpillar, surrounded by trees, but surrounded by parking lot.

And that to me was such an inefficient use of land.

Just surface parking.

Little tiny piece of creek showing.

I think we have so much opportunity to consolidate current parking that exists in our downtown.

And pushing it up and pushing it down.

So anything we can do to make land use more efficient and allow the trade-off to be this vision of allowing our Greek once again to serve our community in other ways.

I think you know, people uh can cities throughout our country, there's been a trend to return to creeks and rivers and open them up.

You see this happening uh the past couple of decades, particularly on the east coast.

I think um I just want to thank some of the champions out there.

Uh Jim Matton, Steve Noble, you've sat through a number of meetings.

Um Nick, um, I know you've got a vision in all of this and appreciate um some of the comments that I've heard from you over time, John Henderson.

You put a tremendous amount of work, and I know it's you're not just doing this because it's your job.

You feel as passionate about this as the rest of us.

So really appreciate that and all the other members of the community have participated today.

Sure.

I uh appreciate this comments, this perspective.

I maybe uh I want to just reiterate what the mayor said about this is a generational opportunity to reshape our town.

We live in a dynamic and and changing city.

And so I would urge you to be bold as you go through this and to you know to to not look at what's here now as we have to, you know, that's the standard, right?

So for me, I would get rid of the hockey rink, get rid of Ralphs, get rid of the parking, give us a vision, uh give us a creekside trail that connects this.

Um be bold, and don't be fearful.

Um that would be my priority.

Um the hundred-year flood, the flood question, that's that's kind of I would flip it a little bit.

I would say let's let's not, you know, I I agree.

If we're building something, maybe the 1200 CFS makes a lot more sense.

I don't see, you know, even though it feels like we have 500-year floods every 25 years in, you know, in these days, uh we're we would bankrupt ourselves aiming for that higher number.

Let's let's be reasonable there.

Um and and again, but and I think back to three, you know, the trade-offs is ecological health is community health as I see it.

And so um we can deal with parking, we can deal with access, we can deal with you know business access, we can we can deal with all that.

In fact, we could there's there's un I think every place that has put in a facility like this, you guys know better than me.

Every place that has seen you know, whole unintended consequences, new crowds, new traffic, you know, new opportunities.

And so that's what I would be aiming for as you look at a trade-off.

Thank you to my colleagues.

I I also I really on the projects, uh I'd say there's really only one specific is something with City Hall.

Whether it's you know, the parking lot, what have you, something that makes this part of the creek.

I mean, it goes right by us, and folks come by to pay bills and fees every day, and they have no idea they're walking right over it.

I mean, you can see it, but it's not celebrated in in in a big way.

Um the I think similarly the hundred-year flood, hundred year plus climate change uh um you know, kind of white girth there is makes sense to me.

Um if the 500 year, I mean again, it's like it's five five times as many years, but if it's only X percent more effort for us to get it there, I think we should at least be able to entertain that.

But I do think something happening versus the gold standard happening, I think is more the priority to me.

And three is where I really think um I actually am so excited that everybody seemed to agree that parking is not a priority here.

Um I would sooner give up half the parking spaces downtown than uh restrict this project based on the need for parking.

Um I think to me the top priorities of of all the projects, whether of any of the 12 big ideas is really flood mitigation and the health of Bozeman Creek.

That it is about making which is what will make the namesake creek feel like our namesake creek if we're taking care of it, if we let it meander, if we let it uh bring in the birds and the the roots and all those things, like that is what will make it feel like this community is centered around this body of water.

Um so I think that is what I would those are kind of how I like those those things.

Any further discussion, or do you guys feel like you got what you're looking for?

We got a thumbs.

Commissioner Sweeney.

I do have just a note for us.

Um I want to elevate Mark Campanelli's comment about using TIFF funding for flood infrastructure.

Um infrastructure is a allowed use according to Montana Code.

I think you know, yes, we need a parking garage, but flood mitigation is good use as well.

Yep.

Okay.

A lot of buildup, and we flew through.

Really appreciate um the presentation, all of the materials, and just uh yeah, a Herculean amount of effort with engaging with the community from staff from um Steve and Jim as well as the consultants coming through.

Um really exciting um momentum we've got.

I think I think you mean that we flowed right through.

No, I said what I said.

Um before sorry to vote with that comment.

Oh my god.

We ain't done yet.

We got appointments to make I can't make an appointment here, but uh could someone assist us with it.

It'll be Danica Comey if you could help us out to the Board of Health.

Sure.

So I oh here we are.

Uh I move to appoint Danica Comen to the City County Board of Health for term ending June 2029.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss.

Or do we take we take public comment on appointments?

Yes, we do.

Any public comment in the room on the Board of Health appointment?

Mr.

Moss, are we seeing any public comment requests online?

No, we are not.

Okay.

Uh it's been moved and seconded.

Mr.

Moss, would you poll the commission on that appointment?

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Uh Commissioner Bowdy?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Magic?

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Motion passes five to zero.

Um, on to is the next one historic preservation.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I move to appoint Gary Limison to as one member to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board in the at-large position with a term expiring June 30th, 2028.

And Alison Breckey and Lisa Weilbacher to the two terms or um to the two positions with professional designation and terms expiring June 30th, 2028.

And I move to appoint Michael Wiseman as the chair and Ashley Harville as the vice chair of the historic preservation advisory board.

Second.

Okay, before we vote on that, we'll open that for public comment as well.

Any public comment in the room?

Mr.

Moss, anything online?

No, Mayor.

Okay.

It's been moved and seconded.

Would you poll the commission?

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie?

Aye.

Mayor Morrison?

Aye.

Approved five to zero.

Now on to downtown urban renewal.

So I move to appoint Mike Waterman as the Bozeman School District 7 representative to the downtown Urban Renewal Board.

Second.

Okay.

Any public comment in the room on that appointment?

Mr.

Moss, anything online?

I'm showing no request, Mayor.

Okay.

It has been moved and seconded.

You poll the commission.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdoin?

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney?

Aye.

Commissioner Matt?

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

All of our appointments are approved five to zero.

Moving on to any FYI.

Any further FYI from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Bowdy.

I just wanted to check in with the city manager to see if we're making progress on Cindy Smith's record requests that she commented on earlier.

Yes, um, thanks for that question.

I just sent you all an email.

Uh she made that request on July 5th.

It is a uh rather large, complicated request with the information.

The scope is huge.

So we will be uh uh it is in the process of public records request along with all of the other public records requests, and we will get to it as soon as we can.

I asked the clerk to reach out to her specifically when we have some specific information for her, but it was received July 5th and it is in progress.

Could we just give her like a heads up that we are compiling it and it is gonna take a while?

That's what I asked the clerk to do.

Oh, I see.

Okay, I understand.

Any further FYI?

I was just thinking about the rubber duckies.

Maybe we can look into biodegradable rubber duckies.

Yeah, the um the comment right before the rubber ducky was about how we should stop getting trash in the creek, and I was gonna make that connection, but did not.

Um so yeah, it's I I have a number of ideas.

We can talk about it later.

Okay, any further FYI?

Okay, any FYI from staff?

I just wanted to provide a little bit of a perspective to this commission.

Um you guys are pretty amazing when you talk about things and the vision that you have for this community, and from my seat, that is what makes this really special place, and we have our challenges, but we all come together uh when it's needed.

And I just want to thank you for serving this community the way you do, and the uh the honor of working for you and for Bozeman.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no further business to come before this commission.

This meeting is adjourned.

Goodbye.