One minute left.

Oops.

Caleb, are we ready to roll?

Ready to roll.

You're ready to roll.

Excellent.

That's a leader at all.

All right.

Uh welcome to the study commission uh meeting July twenty-third, twenty twenty-six.

Uh with this I call the meeting to order.

If you are able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence.

Pledge of the flag of the United States of America, and then to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible.

Liberty and justice for all that four.

Okay, moving right along.

We have a consent agenda, which is um minutes from July fifteenth, twenty twenty second.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Public comment comes before.

Public comment on anything within the jurisdiction of this study commission.

Thank you, Barb.

I don't see anybody in the room today.

Is there anybody online, Caleb?

Uh there's not right now.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So then we're gonna move on to the consent agenda.

And Barb, did you say you want to make a motion?

I I can make a motion that we uh approve the consent agenda.

Second.

We've got a motion.

We have a second from Jan.

Any further discussion?

All in favor of approving the consent agenda, say aye.

Aye.

Any uh opposed, same sign.

Motion carries four to zero.

And I do want to um make one motion to uh uh because uh Carcy Taylor is not here.

And what's the word I'm looking for?

Excuse his absolute.

Excuse his absence.

Thank you very much, Jan.

I really appreciate that.

I want to make a motion to excuse the absence of Carson Taylor, who is uh not available this evening and was um pre organized ahead of time.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Thank you very much.

All right, that moves us on to the correspondence or study commission update.

And I just want to kind of walk through each of us.

If you have anything, Barb, can I want to give you an opportunity?

Nothing.

Okay.

Deanna.

No, okay.

Jan.

Briefly, uh Carson and I met with the uh ballot education uh team, and they had a request that you received from me and Carson by email, which is basically two parts.

One is a list of groups that uh Becky consolidated with work we had done earlier.

I know there's later versions.

I apologize they didn't include those, but if you could be so kind to fill in any additions or changes to that um attachment about the groups themselves, groups to reach out to, and if you can add the email address or if you can add your own name to groups that you are willing to reach out to and engage and find out ways that they would be interested in learning about our ballot education.

That's part one.

Part two is a starter list of engagement events that I compiled, and there's certainly a lot more that are in progress, but those are um engagement requests that we can then approach for possible tabling announcements, anything along those lines.

Barb has already done this and has added a request that we um put in events, certainly all of the meetings with um neighborhood associations between now and mid-late October, and then also um any other events that we may know from the city, we'd like to ask the city support on that perhaps the department of um public engagement is it called?

Sorry.

Community community engagement here, community engagement.

So if you wouldn't mind meeting that deadline by the end of day tomorrow, if you haven't had a chance to reply, I'd appreciate that.

So would Carson thanks.

Um I'm I'm able to meet that deadline, Deanna.

Uh no, I I have something else.

Okay, hang on a second.

Um, Barbara Deanna, are you able to meet that deadline for to end up day tomorrow?

Do you need an extension?

I already did.

You already did, great.

Yeah.

Deanna, how about you?

Yeah.

Okay, so that that works out.

And Mike, and this was a document we received some time ago, right?

From from us.

Yes.

I can you talk into the microphone when you talk?

Sorry, of course.

Uh the document was provided originally by Becky back in December.

It was attached to the email that I sent to all of you.

And that was just two days ago, right?

It was two days ago.

Yeah.

And um it went out to the study commission email list.

So I also put in everybody's individual emails because I know not everybody goes to that list first.

So I'd be happy to resend it if that would be helpful.

I don't I don't recall getting anything from you.

I was looking for something.

Sure.

I will be happy to resend.

Okay, thank you so much.

Deanna, you have something to add?

I I've not got to be able to do that.

Can you get closer to the mic?

I'm I'm not sure that this is the place.

Uh Becky, you can you can tell me if you want to bring this up later, but uh in regard to um these public outreaches and our contact with the public, uh, I really uh would like us to discuss and agree upon and direct uh Dangeld to create a common presentation that we all give and that they maybe create a video or some kind of um you know sparkling um maybe seven-minute presentation summarizing uh our key points.

And Jane was I don't think we should be.

I don't think we should look Janet.

I would just say if you could send me email suggestions so I can make sure I'm getting a copy of the outline of the draft plan by tonight for Carson and I to look over to see that those elements are as inclusive as we want them to be, and then secondly, the um plan will be coming to Carson and I on end of day Sunday.

We're he and I are meeting Monday to look over the plan because it'll go out in the agenda on uh either Monday or Tuesday, however that those dates, the agenda for July 30th, and that will be a big portion of our meeting discussion.

But getting anything of those suggestions by email that we can then forward um to Carson and I would always be most helpful in this process.

Did you forward my email to them by chance?

Yes, I wrote back to you and said I did that as well, so I'm not sure why that's not happening in doing it.

So I'm not sure why that's not happening in doing it.

But no, I sent it as soon as I got it from Mike.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I'm doing that.

That's that's what we saw as our role is to really be a facilitator, not a creator.

And then because Becky and I have this presentation on Monday, and I asked, they have created an initial draft of exactly what you just asked for for us to basically test out on Monday.

Excellent.

So and that will be without a uh a PowerPoint capacity because it's in a park, but we'll be able to use it visually between us as we present.

Great, and we also asked them to incorporate that in the plan.

Your feet you two are really the test, uh the testers of this, and we appreciate that.

But I also asked that both of those components, the slideshow and the um talking points will be in that draft plan.

So everybody will have a chance to look at it and in depth.

So again, trying to coordinate all the moving parts, which are considerable already.

Thank you, everybody.

All right, anything else on the correspondence or study commission update.

Mike, anything from you?

Uh I reach out to Commissioner of Political Practices, got all the info to get our um reporting and incidental committee set up.

So Greg and I are meeting tomorrow morning to talk through setting some of that up and some ballot language, looking at some of the ballot language as well.

Uh but yeah, just getting the uh COPP stuff lined out for us.

Great, great, thank you so much.

All right, moving on.

Um this meeting is only two hours in length, and our goal at the end of this meeting is to have a fairly finished product of both the charter and the report for the July 30 meeting, and then we'll have a final um approval on August 6.

Okay.

So just to kind of set our expectations up for today, that's kind of what we're looking at in terms of what our task is for today.

Um, so we're gonna we're gonna begin with that section 7.04.

Barb had made a worksheet on that.

Um Caleb, if you wouldn't mind putting that up on the on the screen, that would be wonderful.

And Barb, I'll let you.

This is on edits to wards and adjustments to wards of the in the proposed amended charter.

Yeah, and so what I wanted to do to start is just um walk you through walk you through kind of what I did and where I got the various pieces from some of the back and forth comments from Becky, um, and then we can open it up for discussion and decide if this is what we want to include.

Um, and it would be the last section of Article 7 about elections in the charter.

Um so first thing, you know, back in June at our public hearing, we heard um some good feedback from the public, both here at the meeting and then in written comments on the sections of Article 7 dealing with moving to a wards system and particularly the language around how wards would be created.

Um there was concern in that draft about um having the city commission draw the boundaries of the wards.

Um there was pretty permissive language in that initial draft about when you might read we might redraw the boundaries, it was very broad.

Um, and there was confusion about that um sort of subsection B that appeared twice in the ballot question around who would vote um if we move to a ward system.

So taking all of that and um kind of looking at all the written comment, it seemed to make sense to move to a separate section 7.04 that would um address how we would draw wards and adjust wards over time, and so that is what I put together here.

Um, in order to put it together for consideration, I drew from some some helpful comments that the Gallatin Valley Sentinel had provided about how you might do this using an independent committee.

Um I also drew from the National Civic League's model charter, um, and then I did some research along with Mike into how Missoula has done it over time to create the proposed language that's before that's in front of you right now.

The track changes language reflects edits I made after Becky got in there and made some comments about some police places that were unclear and some questions that she flagged.

And so this was a first attempt, not a huge amount of pride of authorship.

So I look forward to hearing from everybody.

First lays out the number of wards, depending on what the voters choose, it'll be four or six.

That was a piece I took from the model charter.

And then it lays out what the ward advisory board needs to do.

Compact, contiguous, those kinds of words.

And then the language that you can't draw a ward in a way that kicks somebody off of the commission if they've been elected, that kind of stuff.

And then subsection D deals with timeline and process, both for the initial ward advisory board that happens if everything gets approved on on this end, as well as in the future when we might need to adjust ward boundaries because the city is growing and lays out some public process and timeline around that.

So hopefully, I I mean, I guess maybe start with questions and then just discuss.

Thank you so much, Barb for all the work that you you did on this.

It was not easy, and I know it took a lot of research, so thank you so much.

Let's begin with discussion was good on the line, and then we'll take public comment, and then when you provide public um your your input, please be clear on if you're looking for edits, what are those edits?

So that's we're beyond conceptualization here, and we're really moving into specifics.

Um so I'm gonna ask everybody to do that, please.

Um, and then from there we can make a motion to uh take the next steps.

So um, Deanna, I'll start with you.

Please share your comments and potential edits.

I would request that we take each one in order, like let's talk about B and then C and then D rather than all of them at one time.

That's fine.

Okay.

Go ahead and see.

So in the case of B, um, I think that the language about um political parties uh since the commission runs in a nonpartisan election.

I don't know how uh how you would determine I I don't think that we can even ask advisory board members what political party they belong to.

So you're recommending to take that sentence out?

I'm recommending striking that.

Okay.

And then the other thing is um the idea of um the commission only appointing four members and then the four members appointing a fifth member.

Uh I don't see the value in that, and I do see problems in terms of open to public discussion and um uh transparency.

Uh I believe that the commission should appoint all five members, and then they can among themselves determine uh who is the chairperson.

And that would be more in keeping with an open and transparent process.

And then again, can I pause you just for a second?

Uh-huh.

Barb, can you share why that was put in that way?

Because I wondered a little bit the same thing.

Yeah, it's the way it's the way the state does it when they're drawing legislative boundaries.

And so it was it was the intent was to have this neutral chair person.

Um again, not there's no pride in authorship.

That's just where it came from in terms of the logic.

Um, and somebody there was a it may have even been the original sentinel public comment.

I can't remember exactly, but there was some public comment that was like model it after how the state does it.

Um that's the only that's the explanation.

Okay, thank you.

And I I was hoping that I could cite it right here because I did some pretty good math.

The Sentinel had a public comment about this 5% figure being too low because it could it could trigger just one new subdivision could trigger a uh having to redraw the boundaries.

And so I would suggest that we um uh move that up to 10%, and that would allow for big subdivisions and it would allow for um you know not being triggered too easily.

Too easily.

Okay.

And Barb, can you comment on that too?

Yeah, and again, I'm not wedded to that number by any stretch.

Um I I did not do quite the same level of math that the Sentinel shared earlier this morning.

Um so I looked at Missoula's stuff, they use a three percent number, which I thought was definitely too low because Missoula is a bigger city.

Um and they also re-evaluate, they review their boundaries every two years, or at least that's what they have been doing.

So I didn't I rejected that without doing extensive math, um, I felt like 10% might be a little too high, um, especially if we only have four wards.

So I split the difference.

Okay, okay.

Um, and I see that it's one of the um one of the options, either it's after each decennial census or if it if it moves by five percent right now, it's five percent, we could choose eight, we could choose ten, right?

And it reads exceeds five percent, so it would have to be more than five percent.

Okay, got it.

Anything else in that section, Deanna?

Excuse me.

Anything else in that section?

Uh no, that is uh off for that section.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Jan.

Yeah, and again, Barb, thank you so much for all of this incredible work.

Um, a couple of things.

I would like to agree that all five members would be appointed by the city commission from the beginning.

I believe, and I understand very well after going through lots of the state um redistricting process a couple of years ago, how this reflects the state, and it also assumes political parties, and that's where the appointment comes from for people, making that compromise with the political parties.

I would be um remiss if I didn't ask if there is a reason uh at a local level that is nonpartisan to raise that issue though of political party affiliation.

My own inclination is to keep it as nonpartisan as per is possible because I think that's been a strength of our uh locality and our democracy in our locality.

And then I would also uh raise the question, um, and then again, those five members select the chair.

I also would like to, of course, be a little bit outside of the box here.

I would like to not see any triggers of five, ten, or any percent that take place between um redistricting every 10 years.

I would like the wards to have a sense of establishing themselves.

Um I can't imagine perhaps uh some huge impact of population.

I see it being then if we're if we're having to react to 5%, 10%, somewhere in between, we're going to be reacting all the time.

We're going to have elections all the time, we're going to spend money on those elections all of the time, and we're not going to be governing and make that the focus.

And I don't know what the research is, and I wish that we had time or thought to be visionaries here when we all had our city studies that we went around Montana and talked to the cities that have these um wards already, not because we don't know what they are, we did we did that research, but what has been the learnings from that?

What has been the learnings over the last uh two to five to ten years that have even had wards to say, you know, is it been helpful to keep triggering and he and be able to have uh adjustments quite often or or not?

So I'm at this point not inclined to find a percentage uh either way, um, unless I really understand that it's been um crucial to the effectiveness of wards that would need to be changing these in in uh in in all of the fast growing communities.

We are but one.

I think that is all I want to say on number B.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Jan.

And Mike, can I ask for your comments?

And then also, can you share in the last um what's the average um number of increase that our city usually takes every five to ten years?

Is it I I know we've increased a lot since 2020.

Um can you give any sense of how much how much of an increase do we normally kind of to Jan's point?

Like, does it increase that by 10% all the time?

Is that a big number?

Is that a small number?

Is it increased by 3% every year?

What's so I know for our uh a while, our total growth rate was exceeding 4% annually.

Annually that's slowed in the last year or two.

What those numbers exactly are, I I couldn't tell you for certain.

Um, even the the census data that we get is estimates along with the community, like what is it?

The community survey, the American community survey that the census does in between the the full census.

Um my thoughts on on this portion is I think there's um I think there's too much detail for a charter in here.

Um the percentage, I don't think is something you want in a charter.

Umozzo is moving away from the every two-year review and going back to it to just adjusting it based on the census because of the amount of staff work required to do that adjustment five times.

Between a between a census.

Um if we set a number at 5% in the charter and we determine that that's too low, we have to go to the voters to amend the charter.

So those type of criteria, I don't believe should be in the charter.

Um something Becky that you've said before is the charter dictates the what and the who.

So the city commission should create, shall establish a ward advisory board.

Period.

That's where I think B should end.

One sentence.

Leave it to the city commission to determine the number, the composition, the criteria, the I mean, we can say the timeline for when that needs to happen, the you know, putting the uh the avoidance of candidate filing period, that to me would be the type of thing that would make sense in the charter.

But beyond that, the nuts and bolts of how and when and where they draw them and respect to neighborhood boundaries versus other political divisions.

Do you cross a neighborhood boundary if that changes elementary school district?

There's so many different lines that are in there.

I just don't think that those criteria should be determined by the charter.

Okay.

So those are my thoughts.

Okay, thank you.

And I think um, given the level of conversation we're having about this, if it's okay that um we can consider ourselves giving input for Barb to go back and make edits, is that oh or in as opposed to and they come back with that last draft on the 30th for us to be able to then adopt okay.

Okay, that's but I'll I'll insert it in the charter so we can look at it in its context.

Yes.

As a next one, well, 7.04 would be put it in the actual.

Right now it's a worksheet charter, a standalone document, and then we'd add it into the charter.

Before we have further conversation with uh the study commissioners, I'd like to offer um public comment.

And Dan, you're the only one in the neighborhood in the audience right now.

Do you have public comment on this that you'd like to add or no?

Thank you.

And please, for the record, state your name, of course.

Dan Cardi Bozeman resident.

The only um suggestion I would have would be to remove political parties from the ward advisory board composition.

Thanks.

Thank you so much, Dan.

And is there any public comment online?

Uh we do now actually have public comment online.

Um it's from the Gallatin Valley Sentinel, so you'll have to introduce yourself when you begin.

Uh, and I will allow you to talk now.

So you can begin whatever.

Hi there, everybody.

Good afternoon.

This is Katie Adams.

Um calling in both as a Bozeman resident and um uh volunteer with the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

Um just wanted to highlight some things from our public comment that we submitted.

Agreeing with the comments that have already been made by the study commissioners and Mr.

Cardi, just agreeing to remove the partisan political party language since Bozeman's elections are nonpartisan.

The other concern that we thought was that is with how people apply to board advisory boards now.

That disclosure would end up becoming a matter of public record and just considering the overall political climate of the world these days.

Some people might be discouraged from applying if they know that they have to specifically answer that question.

And also then without the partisan uh affiliation in that part, then we could also recommend uh that the city commission would appoint five all five members to the board or however that ends up looking, however, many that people that ends up being.

Also just wanted to speak into our recommendation on the 10% threshold.

Um definitely understand uh what Mike has shared about not putting too much in the charter.

Um it's definitely a fine line between putting too much, but also letting people know as much as you can what they're going to be getting, and I think with as big of a shift um as wards would be, the more the more that you can include without going too far into it is helpful for people to understand and know that it's not going to be left up to whoever is in office to determine certain fundamental um qualities of what this board would be doing.

Um so that 10% threshold.

Um considering the growth rate, considering um you know some of the denser development that could swing um population.

Um we found a letter actually from the Missoula um city attorney.

It was dated from 2022, and uh their city attorney had cited some um previous law cases that said just read briefly a sentence from it, um, that it says with respect to as nearly as equal as possible.

The US Supreme Court held that a redistricting plan that deviates more than 10% in population among the districts is prima facie unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

So not a constitutional attorney, I can certainly uh admit that, but just thought that that increasing the threshold to 10% might lessen the the likelihood that there would be a trigger.

Um I'll just go quickly as I can.

Um the last sentence of section 7.04C says that changes to the boundary of award may not be made between the date that is six months prior to a city commissioner primary election and the date of the corresponding general election.

So a way to simplify that might just be to say, since there's not always a primary election, um, just depending on how many people actually choose to run, especially if we're breaking out into wards.

Um, but changes to the boundaries of award may not be made between the date that is six months prior to the opening of the candidate filing period and the date of the corresponding general election.

That way it would give people time if they were considering running for office to know definitively what ward they reside in and eliminate any confusion once that candidate filing period opens.

Um in section 7.04 D, um you already have that self-conducted.

Katie, I'm gonna ask you just to hold off for a second because we want to make sure to give everyone opportunity to think about these things and to come back in for D if you're still wanting to make comment.

So thank you so much.

Any further public comment online?

Uh not right now.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um BOI ward advisory board before and then Barb, is there do you have other questions that you have a question for the whole commission about B and particular um so I'm I'm hearing I will uh and I agree with this, eliminate the political party sentence.

Um I guess my question is, you know, how what else should we keep in section B or should we follow Mike's guidance and just say the city commission shall appoint a ward advisory board?

Um that that I'm not clear what the sense of the committee is.

I think you know the piece that I would potentially keep in here is that um no member of the advisory board can be employed by the city or hold any elected or appointed position, just for that clarity.

Um but anyway, I would love to hear thoughts on whether we should really simplify it and just establish the board and leave it at that, or what other elements should be kept.

I would support leaving some of those elements that you were just mentioned.

For what Jan had said in terms of taking out the percent altogether and then simplifying in between and because I think there's some simplification that we can make in there.

So not throw the entire thing out for me, but um really using some of the comments that have already come in to uh pare it all down.

So that's clear non-clarity for you there, Barb.

Deanna.

I I think we should be careful about parrying it uh down so much that it um strips it of uh meaning and effect, because I believe we should uh have a percentage in there in order to guide the advisory board as to when uh they uh are uh need to convene and do their work.

And I do um I am much in favor of a 10% limit based on the uh rapid growth uh in the community and the fact that one small or one not one small one subdivision of substance um could uh easily um pop it over five percent.

And so I don't think five percent is enough.

I think ten percent is better, and I do think the advisory board should have guidance through the charter.

Yeah, I I can agree with that too, and also given that um the average is like four percent per year.

We're talking they're gonna be working every two years if it's 10 percent.

Um so I I don't know where where to go with that.

And maybe I just leave that up to Barbara's our comments to say that um, and maybe every two years is a good idea to your point, Deanna, because that you know, big neighborhoods are being built, and maybe we do need to be able to redraw to make sure those neighborhoods get in and in the right place, and that we just leave it up to the advisory board to figure that out.

Yeah, I mean, I did I I actually even listened to the I think the last Missoula City Commission meeting where they did it again, and and I there is a pretty significant staff burden to do this every two years.

So I would be more in favor of a providing some kind of threshold for redrawing between censuses because we are, I mean, we've added 10,000 people just since the last census.

Um that that can get wards out of whack pretty quickly, where you would end up with somebody representing a ward that has a lot of people and out of proportion to other wards.

So I'll I'll shift it to 10% and I'll simplify it and bring it back.

Um thank you so much.

Jen.

I would suggest as a compromise that we include if people are going to actually just I'd like to support Mike first of all.

I don't think we need to micromanage all of this as well.

I think that by the time if this passes, it will only pass not only if we have wards, but those wards are only elected by the districts that they represent.

Anything else at large election of the wards will not have this.

I understand.

Am I correct about that?

This would only be for people voting within a ward, not people across the city electing boards.

That's not correct.

So it would actually apply no matter how they're elected.

Right, because they have to live there house.

This is ward boundaries, it has not voting boundaries.

No determination based on voting for so my compromise would be I think we could put in um a five-year and have a half half of the um 10-year census look at things.

We had an extraordinarily unusual surge of population thanks to COVID, thanks to so many other things.

And even the developments that are happening are not being filled.

There's a variety of ways that I don't think we ought to base this on such a very specific way of thinking.

If we do have this become what our voters want, then I think we can use that midterm mid-census check as something that balances the resources of the city, the resources of the wards, the candidates, the voters, the cost of elections in that way.

If it is not working, there is another chance to change it within the 10-year mark.

So I would so that's another option.

Okay, thank you so much.

Final comment, yeah.

The problem with that, Jen that I see is that there are so many annexations going on that we could end up with a large uh population that uh is not uh is not in a ward for two years or five years if we waited five years.

And and I I you know I I think we need to make sure that that doesn't happen.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Let's move on to can I respond to that point real quick?

Please in my time as city clerk, the only annexation that has already had developments has been riverside annexation.

Prior to that, every other annexation has been prior to development.

So the to Jan's point, the timeline of when those residents actually live in Bozeman for some of these annexations is going to be 10 to 20 years for the.

I mean, we've annexed hundreds of acres in the southwest portion that are just now starting to do the build-outs.

So just as a so there's a forecasting that happens to be a good idea.

Yeah, the idea the idea of annexing already developed areas.

We're not doing that in large scales on a regular basis.

I just want to make sure that's known.

Thank you so much.

Let's move on to C.

Are there any um comments or edits?

I I I would agree with Katie who spoke on that last sentence.

It's confusing to me.

I can't quite follow the bouncing ball, so I'm wondering if some clarity can be written on that last sentence.

Um that's the only comment I have.

Mike, would you like to start off on our comments?

Yes.

So that that sentence um tracks with the candidate filing deadline.

So the language in statute on how they calculate the filing deadline uh is um based on the uh primary election because it's it's going to move.

So general election in November is the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.

And then the primary has to happen X number of days in advance of that, and candidate filing is open 105 days to 90 days in advance of the primary election.

So this language here, the six months prior to the city commissioner primary election, whether or not there's enough candidates for a primary, that's the date that the elections office uses to trigger the uh candidate filing.

Okay.

So that that date's gonna be typically six months prior to that's gonna be typically March, just generally speaking, and candidate filing is gonna be in April.

If you go to six months prior to candidate filing, you're moving into the previous calendar year.

So you're you're looking at like October, which I can tell you October on an even number year is not a time that Gallon County elections wants to be messing with with ward boundaries.

Okay.

Um any other edits you would suggest for C for C, I mean the compact contiguous, um, those type of languages are very common all throughout boundaries.

So I think, and then also as practicable just keep in mind that the uh deviation has a percentage in here too.

So whatever the uh determination for that percentage threshold, make sure that in C that we're not setting a different threshold than B.

Okay.

Sounds good.

So the thresholds should match.

Um Deanna.

Uh well, I think that um uh the language and shall preserve existing neighborhood association boundaries to the maximum extent feasible to the second adding that to the second uh sentence uh would uh also uh ensure continuity with our desire to respect uh the um integrity of neighborhoods and wards.

So it should be added in bar.

I I do, and I I thought about it in writing this, and the reason I went more broad um was sort of to Mike's earlier point of there are lots of different jurisdictional boundaries um school districts.

And so I could I I think that's why I left it more general at respect political and census boundaries where possible, because I I think it I could imagine that it could be hard in some cases to always avoid splitting neighborhood associations adding where possible.

Does leave uh does leave flexibility there.

So you'll take that and and neighborhoods as we discussed in other meetings.

Neighborhoods do have a um uh uh uh uh a basis for being a neighborhood and their interest in their uh elected representative would be common.

And uh I think it would be important that they be in the same ward, if at all possible.

All right, thank you for that input, Deanna.

Jan.

I uh agree with Barb.

I think that um there's a variety of things that make up a ward, and that includes neighborhoods, but it is not going to ever be a perfect fit, and I think we'd be hamstringing uh either the commission itself or the um ward advisory board to to even reference that.

I was also going to suggest we do two things uh with C as well to take out, as I've said earlier, the no deviation exceeding five percent, because I do want to make a motion at some point about a five-year uh evaluation, and then they also have under the sentence that begins with each ward shall be compact, contiguous, etc.

Uh, with natural physical geographic boundaries and respect political and census boundaries.

I would remove um respect or remove political and uh yeah, yeah, since we removed it in B.

Yeah.

But that doesn't refer to partisan political, that refers to school district boundaries, uh you know, legislative district boundaries, like those of boundaries.

I would I would offer uh certainly um precinct boundaries maybe something that we want to look at.

Gallant county has precincts for the elections specific within Bozeman, so those boundary lines um we can talk to Jasmine over there and see if we have those to look at for an idea of perhaps that you know with respect to precinct.

Okay.

Okay.

That sounds good.

Um any uh public comment on this?

No, any other further public comment online?

No, no.

Thank you so much.

We've heard some input on C.

I am gonna keep moving us along because it's already a quarter to five.

So um any further uh comments on C one more.

Uh, and that is dealing with newly annexed um territories.

Uh I think that the uh suggestion that um adding language that uh they by default become part of the ward which shares the longest contiguous boundary uh so that they are immediately included within a ward uh in which they can vote.

I wonder if that crosses into the line of being too prescriptive.

Well, you need to make allowances for um annexed territories that um may be annexed and populated before a redrawing.

So this would ensure that uh all annexed territories would have voting rights.

I think before we put anything in the charter, we should ask the question of Chris Saunders, our community development manager on how annexation could through the annexation process include that in their ordinance or resolution as opposed to prescribing it here.

There may be uh there may be an instance where we don't want to use the longest contiguous boundary, but I I would want to defer to our expert on that before we put any specific language in.

So, Mike, um given that we're I can reach out to it.

Yeah, given that we're doing this on the the are we meeting again on the 30th with our um very um succinct uh draft that's like almost done on the 30th.

We need to get that to uh Caleb no later than the this Friday, which no Monday.

So could you please get that answered back to Barb no later than uh end of business tomorrow?

I'll do my best.

Okay, thank you.

All right, let's move on to D timeline and process.

Uh are there any potential um edits that are requested um in D.

Jan, I'll ask you to go first on this one.

I'm just thinking about the fact that if this passes, um the if first of all, if the amended charter passes and this then passes within within it, um it is effective uh as of June, I believe the end of June 2027.

And I wondered how that impacted this timeline and process.

Would that mean nothing would start to happen before is it the end of June?

Please forgive me for not having that totally memorized.

But let's say end of June 2027, um, how does that impact this D section?

Yeah, so the fiscal year ends June 30.

So if the charter doesn't take effect until that day, we would already be squarely in the prohibited timeline to draw ward boundaries.

So when we look at the effective date, when we look at the transition planning, any of those things, this type of timeline and process would have to consider that.

So I know we received some public comment today, also requesting that that that timeline, this timeline would be in effect for that um 2027.

Uh I I don't know that that's practical to have ward boundaries drawn in a full redistricting process between November of this year and the end of March of next year.

And okay, and just to then thank you for helping me with my point, and that is I would not um support this happening until the next election of 2029.

Is that if that is to be put in prescriptive, if that is not too prescriptive.

So uh Mike, what you're saying is sentence number two would change to the first board shall complete and file its initial recommended ward boundaries with the city commission for adoption by ordinance within um by March of 2029.

I don't I I don't think you need it.

Honestly.

Um if you have an effective date of the charter, the charter says when this has to happen.

So you don't need to put a when the first board will do it.

Okay.

Barb, does that make sense to you as you are making edits?

Because I mean, based on this date, the the board wouldn't be created until the city commission takes action to actually create the board.

So I mean looking at just the timing on how this worked out, I don't I don't think that the um its initial recommended within a time frame is necessary in in this process.

So to take all the time things.

Well, not I don't think we should take out the ward boundaries shall be reviewed within 12 months following the publication of the census.

I mean like the the the initial trigger one I don't think you can hear because the transition dates at the end of everything that we're writing will have whatever this has this process has to start.

Okay.

Barb, does that make sense to you then?

Okay, great.

Deanna.

Um this um uh this uh last sentence here, the the ward advice the advisory board's term shall end upon adoption.

Um the sentinel pointed out a problem with that.

Um ending it.

Uh let's see.

So you're speaking on behalf of the sentinel now?

No, no, I just I'm just sure in public comment.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Okay.

Uh no, I can't find uh now I can't find it in there in their comment, but it seemed that there would if we end it uh immediately upon uh the establishment of the of the uh ward boundaries, then who would be responsible for reviewing uh disparities in the future?

Uh I see what you're saying.

Okay, yeah, and so yeah, did you correct that?

I didn't.

It's a it's a great question that has occurred to me through this.

My my vision, my understanding and and sort of what I was thinking when I wrote that is that each time we needed to redo um the boundaries for any of the reasons listed earlier, a new advisory board would be created.

So this would not be a board that exists forever because otherwise they wouldn't have anything to do for long periods of time.

But each time one of the triggers in section B was hit, the commission would appoint a ward advisory board to redraw the lines.

It would be a stat, I mean the staff, the one I mean, the city committee know when a census is coming out.

So if you if you have a percentage, the if you have a percentage trigger in here, an advisory board's not going to be doing that monitoring anyway.

So again, uh the I I think that the um the term of each appointed board should be encapsulated to the presentation of their boundaries.

As soon as that's adopted, next time you need to, you have to, you know, the commission would have to appoint it.

Point again again more nuts and bolts details that an ordinance would when it creates the board would be able to refine.

Right.

And it is the city's responsibility to be monitoring the disparity in between and to know or not if they need to be redone between censuses.

Okay.

Uh let's go ahead and take public comment on D.

No, none in the audience.

How about online?

Not right now.

Not right now.

Okay.

Any further input for Barb on D.

I wonder if I could ask, yeah, I could ask Barb if she would mind summarizing each of these areas that will actually come back to us for the June July 30th meeting.

What will actually be current, or do we need motions to change things before?

I don't think we're gonna do motions today.

Okay, Barb, do you have that or do you want time to think and just bring us another version on the 30th?

I think I can reflect back what I've heard.

Okay.

In section B, I will delete the sentence about political party.

I will change the next the following sentences so that the commission is appointing everybody and the members will choose their chair and I will change um the population trigger.

Um and we can decide at the next meeting if we want to take that trigger out altogether or not.

Okay.

Um in section C, I will um simplify some of this language so that it's a little bit more um succinct, um, and we'll make sure the population percentages stuff is consistent with the above.

Um and I'll I'll change the respect political and census boundaries in a to be determined way.

Um we'll wait to hear back from Mike about anything with regard to annexations and whether or not we should deal with that or leave it to future ordinance.

Um then in D, in terms of the timeline and the process, I'll delete the sentence about the first board and I will make sure the thresholds are um consistent.

That sounds great.

Any further comments on this document.

All right, we have um one hour left.

Um we I would like to take a half an hour for um edits to the tentative charter and um and then connect on those.

So um Barb, is there anything you'd like to share?

I I see that you under section 2.02, you've made very clear blue shaded boxes for the destructions of of to help people understand it.

Um I really appreciate that.

Any further comments before I we open up to input on the charter?

Yeah, so I only in terms of this, I only touched the stuff that we discussed the last time.

And and one of the things we discussed was playing with that explanatory language and making it clear and making it readily identifiable as explanatory language.

So I did that.

I also made um the changes that we discussed to section 2.04 around the compensation board.

And then the rest of the track changes are what I hope to be able to walk through and resolve.

Okay.

In the half hour that we have left.

Right.

So hope so hopefully the explanatory text was helpful and clarified stuff.

The other thing I did was make sure, because as we learned last time, the current condition, the current status has to be the first option in the suboptions.

So I made sure it was set up that way.

Okay.

And because I know some people wanted them in different orders, but the current status has to be first.

So the current status is first.

So let's start with 2.02.

You've clarified the language.

You put it in a blue box so that we could all understand it.

Any edits to that area 2.02.

I don't have those with me.

No, Jan says no.

I have I don't have anything.

I think it's it's very clear and uh makes sense to me.

Deanna, any comment on 2.02 from you.

Barb, did you um can you speak into your microphone?

Did you did you review the document that I sent you on everything from the preamble to 2.2 through all of those?

I I didn't make anything except I didn't make any changes except what we discussed at the last um at the last meeting because I I felt like I we have we hadn't had the chance to discuss the other edits for some reason I don't that had been included.

I don't have that document with me with my thoughts on those.

Which document I have it was one that I sent to everyone.

Maybe rather maybe rather than review what we did last week.

This was what we didn't get to so what I'm gonna suggest is maybe rather than go back over what we talked about last week, we just dive into what we didn't get to.

Okay, so let's do that so that next week we can just look at a clean copy of an amended charter.

Yeah, and that was my gonna be my suggestion too.

That starting in on June 30, we're gonna be looking at clean copies.

So Barb, do you want to walk through the areas that you um feel are important for us to discuss this evening?

Okay, so then the most significant edits that I made um before last week after Article 7 are in Article Eight.

Eight.

Yes, okay.

So we can all turn to Article 8 and there's other stuff, but hopefully we can get through Article 8 and go back to the other littler stuff.

Um so this is all reflected in track changes, and much of it came from the feedback we received from City Manager Wynne and from our attorney, our advisor and the city's attorney Greg Sullivan.

Um so you can see these track changes.

Um I will particularly call your attention to section 8.03, the principles of public engagement.

Um Greg in particular had some concern that some of the shells in our principles um could create a cause for action against the city by setting vague and impossibly high standards to meet.

So I tried to remove that issue, but keep the essence of these principles so that as a community we can all hold ourselves accountable to them.

So took out some of the shells but still kept the gist because it's a good point.

We don't want to inadvertently create um more headaches than we're intended.

That's right.

So that's that one.

Um excuse me, just a process question.

If if we have some um recommendations, for example, to this larger article, do you want to do that um section by section in the eight oh eight oh fours, eight oh threes?

What I would like to do is explain what I did first, perfect, and then go back and see what questions for sectioning what okay things for.

Great.

Thank you.

So 8.03 warrant needed some explanation.

Um I think the stuff you see in track changes in 8.04 probably doesn't need a whole lot of explanation.

It's mainly trying to clarify and make it a little less wordy.

Um in uh subsection D where we talk about the inner neighborhood council.

Um there's a couple of places I wanted to just highlight some of what I I did.

Um in number one, purpose and role.

We were talking about the purpose and role of the inner neighborhood council, and then there's this sort of weird sentence about neighborhood associations may make a recommendation directly to the commission or the manager that um I took it out because of um city manager Wynne's comments that that really that should follow whatever processes in place for any other advisory board or participation in it.

Seemed a little weird to put it in the purpose of Inc.

anyway, because it's not about ink.

So um, so I took that out.

Um then um in item two, and this is where I'm gonna need your help, Becky.

You had added the inner neighborhood council shall follow the code of ethics as developed by the city of Bozeman.

But there was a comment, I think in Greg's comments.

Um that actually was not what we should do because it makes Inc.

more of a part ink has been intended to sort of be an independent advisor to the city, not a part of the city, and um that kind of muddied that, and let me try to find his comment.

That could be a uh an either or so, in terms of you know, when it says it should follow the code of ethics as developed by the city of Bozo, and that means they uh should file you know have to attend the the ethics training every year.

Um, and their um their meetings are public, but um but it could also be read that it's it's now a part of the city, so we could do either with that.

That's a little bit looser versus number eight or the yeah, number eight, wherein it says there should be an opportunity to present recommendations to the city commission.

That means it's actually uh a part of the city and and then that for the reason that you stated uh should be removed.

So it's right.

It's either one.

I I'm easy either way.

Okay, well, we'll we'll leave we'll leave number two in for now and and confirm that um with the egg between now and then.

But yes, then going down to item number eight.

We deleted the section that says when ink develops recommendations, there shall be an opportunity to present to the city commission because it did put inc in a decision-making role that would then require them to follow much more enhanced um meeting protocols record requests, liability that liability stuff that comes with being a part of the city.

Um let's see, coming down now to 8.05 city boards under powers.

Um we had some stuff that um the city manager um again reflected that was probably too prescriptive for the charter and is also duplicative of what's um reflected in the ordinances that create advisory boards.

Um that those kinds of processes should be responsive and more dynamic to community needs than would be provided by putting that language in the charter.

So I proposed taking that out.

Um and then I did not take out C, but felt I should flag that the city manager's comments um did identify this entire section as being overly prescriptive and more appropriate for a resolution or a policy.

Um, but I left it in and so the edits I made um reflected um Greg Sullivan's edits to make sure we were being consistent with um state law.

And so the edits I made reflected Greg Sullivan's edits to make sure we were being consistent with state law.

So that's what I had in terms of explanation of the changes that I made in Article 8.

Article 8.

Okay.

So now why don't we go back to the top and see if folks have anything as far as each 8.01?

And hopefully we can move through this efficiently.

All right.

So comments on Article 8.

Go ahead, Jane.

And can we go section by section?

Section by section, okay.

8.01.

Any comments on 8.01.

Any comments on 8.02.

We'll get to public comment in a second.

Any comments on 8.03.

Okay.

Any comments on 8.04?

JN.

Thank you.

Um I'm also Carson and also we had discussed these, and he had asked if I would bring them to the meeting.

So we would like to see under 8.04 Bree, the sentence where it states a majority of a neighborhood's uh leadership as defined by a neighborhood's association bylaws shall be residents, not should be.

We feel it's really important that the leaders actually are residents of the neighborhood.

Okay.

Anything else in that section, Jan.

Yes, under 804.

Under 804, yes.

Neighborhood associations.

I'll take it back to that um area that we just discussed under 804.

Sorry, D.

D like dog.

D like dog inner neighborhood council number two of the same uh issue of the ethic code of ethics.

Um we wondered if we could add the inner neighborhood council shall be trained to follow the code of ethics as developed by the city of Boston.

We feel that we need to recognize the training is really crucial to the ability to follow them.

So can I ask for clarification there?

Yeah.

In that wording, if it was trained to follow, is your intent that they would be beholden to the code of ethics?

Or just trained as to what the city's code of ethics is.

We're really wanting to keep the beholden part, but somewhere we need the language if they're not seen as a city board or any of the other categories that fall under the code of ethics, uh Board of Ethics training.

Um, or maybe we need to add that to the Board of Ethics training group would be a better way to do it.

So Jan, uh the code of ethics says you have to be trained.

So if they're following the code of ethics, that means they will be trained, then let's take it out.

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay very much.

I only know that because I was on the board of health.

And that was good news.

I bet you do.

Um so thank you.

I'm done with the 804 section.

Okay, thank you.

Deanna, do you have comments on 8.04?

I don't have anything further for 804 now.

Okay, thank you.

I don't either.

How about 8.05 under city boards?

Yes.

Um again, Carson and I would very much like to have the section B powers items one and two put back in.

Reinstated.

Reinstated for several reasons.

We think that even though we could say almost the same thing about any number of areas that both the city manager and the um uh the attorney has said that they may be overly prescriptive, that there's a flow, all of those kind of things.

Um we think that it's really essential to have because these are established by resolution and not ordinance, for example, which I have checked sometime early on, that we really need to have these boards have their purpose and the number skills description in the charter.

So we would like to see them reinstated uh and also that the recommendations to the Kent City Commission shall reflect the majority position.

But also to state very openly that the minority perspectives may be submitted as well because that's been a concern.

So we would very much like to see one and two reinstated, please.

I would agree.

I would agree too.

Okay.

Why was it taken out?

So you can read in that comment.

Why it was taken out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Mike, do you think that's a good idea?

Yeah, just Tuesday night, the city commission had a work session on how advisory boards are structured and what they'd like to see out of them.

So we spent close to four hours just on Tuesday talking about these particular topics.

Should not be a charter requirement.

I think the uh the appointment terms, qualifications should not be a charter requirement.

There's too much need for responsiveness to put that level of formality into those type of requirements.

So I I think that should be more at the determination of the city commission.

These boards are advisory.

They're advisory to the city commission.

So the city commission should have more input on what they are to be advised on and how that process works.

And I think my what I'm reading it as is that that first sentence says city board shall be established by resolution, which means yes, they are so that would prohibit the city commission from putting an ordinance and crafting a board by code.

Which is currently in our code.

So for instance, we have the historic preservation board that is in our municipal code.

Our community development board is in our municipal code.

Our library board is in our municipal code.

If we had to respond to new legislation from the state that says you're going to have a board this way, we can't put that into by ordinance into municipal code.

If you have it shall be established by resolution.

I understand what you're saying.

So I just want that clear.

What if we have the city boards shall include the purpose of each board and number desired skills, necessary experience?

We just take out the re established by resolution.

Or we could say the should be we could just say the city shall establish the purpose of each board and the number of desired.

There you go.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

So it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mechanism, ordinance or state.

Definitely that that was not our concern.

It was really that they be established and they're very um specifically established.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else under 8.05.

Well, I guess I guess going back to Mike's point, if we put some modified version of those powers back in what about the subsection C, which is also seen by the city as overly prescriptive.

Um what is your thought, Barb, and then we'll go down the line.

Do you still want to see them in there?

I guess.

I guess I'm not as sure that they need to be in there because you know what it means to represent the city and encouraging participation, that is going to change over time.

Subcommittees they can already be created.

There are other mechanisms to do that.

I don't know that that needs to be in the charter.

So I do, I mean, I do hear the point that some of this is both redundant and fairly prescriptive in a detailed way that may not be necessary in the charter.

So you're thinking takeout all of C.

Yeah.

That's what you're recommending.

Deanna, what are your thoughts?

Should C be removed or should C stay?

I believe they should stay.

Okay.

Jan, what are your thoughts?

I also do.

I think again, trying to think 10, 12 years ahead.

We don't know what kind of a government we're going to have.

We barely know what kind of a constitution we have left.

I really think these are very important to, you know, we we have many of us would say very good people in place managing our city, but I'm trying to imagine if we don't unfortunately have that.

I hope I'm dead.

But anyway, um, that that really I think we've got to be somewhat prescriptive in these areas.

And I really I see this document and our process is defending democracy.

And I want it to be as clear as possible.

I I'm gonna agree with that as well.

Do you know do you have further comments?

I was just gonna say that I think that uh section eight um as it developed was responsive to a lot of public comment.

Absolutely.

And I I think that um we should retain as much of it as possible.

Okay, thank you so much for uh reinforcing that as well, Deanna.

Public comment from the no and how about online?

Any public comment on section eight.

Yes, we do.

Okay.

Uh please state your name and provide public comment on section eight of the charter.

And I'll allow you to talk so you can begin whenever again.

Hi there, this is Katie Adams again from the Gallatin Valley Sentinel.

Um just really quickly without knowing if you will get to the rest of the charter in today's meeting.

We do want to encourage you to take a close look at the full list of recommendations that we made for both the charter and the final report, but specific to Article 8.

Uh we do agree with um Mr.

Wynns and also the comments from uh Miss Patty Steinmuller about the prescriptive nature of all of the shall in the Article 8, um, overall specifically in sections 8.03 and 8.04.

One solution to that that we wanted to offer would be to consider where it's the shall replace with should, because then it's a strong recommendation and not something that might legally bind the city to something that uh they cannot carry through.

We thought that might be a nice middle ground.

It seemed as though you put a lot of effort into the original verbiage that you put out uh into this Article 8 in response to all the public comment, feedback from Inc., advisory board members, et cetera, that you received and maintaining that original language as much as possible.

Uh you seem to have a lot of support for that.

So we thought this might be a solution to that issue that had been brought up in section eight point zero four.

We were just offer some language that rather than requiring a staff liaison to expand the neighborhood program, just have that person working with the inner neighborhood council to recommend strategies for growing the neighborhood program.

That way they're not requiring something that isn't also mandated elsewhere in the charter.

Also wanted to lift up pertaining to section 8.04, the comment that was submitted on June 26th by Mary Francis McHugh regarding adopting language into incorporating this language into the inter-neighborhood council.

We've heard from a lot of people who are members of HOAs that they have tried to become or have looked into becoming officially recognized by the city of the neighborhood association.

But there's a lot of conflicts with their HOA bylaws and the ink um requirements.

And so finding a way to maybe bring those together, you might also see uh some increased performance on the stated goal of increasing representation citywide.

I also agree in section 8.04 D7.

We thought to Kami Clark concern on that item uh shared in her public comment from July 13th, and would just offer again perhaps replacing the work shall with should so that it's not a requirement but a strong suggestion again um in section eight point zero five A, if there is going to be language that Inc.

should have to abide by or at least be trained on the code of ethics.

We recommend inserting that in that section as well, and also limiting the public education component to within the board's purview.

Uh section 8.05 C1.

We didn't think that I'll just wrap up really quick.

I only have two quick things to say, if I could uh that the wording for section 8.05 P1, that the wording for a minimum of 30 days prior to the vacancy being filled met the intent that we heard in your previous discussion.

Just wanted to offer the language that says the city shall conduct public solicitation for board membership at least twice annually, and whenever a vacancy arises, our board member terms uh expires.

And that was it for that section.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, we've got um the next one edits.

I'm looking at Article 11 and 11 uh.04 under schedule.

We've got C with the sub options.

And uh Barb has put in some information here in terms of that remember this is about the schedule and how we transition if um should this uh amended charter get uh approved by the public.

Any input or comments on C under sub options?

Barb, you're still happy with it.

I'm trying to catch it.

Okay, Mike, do you have any edits on C Not off the top of my head looking at it right now?

Okay, okay.

I know Barbie did it took a lot of time to do the math because it was not easy to try to write this out.

Jan, do you have input?

I want to agree with all of it except the section B, um, which had in parentheses the 2027 question mark.

Okay.

I thought that should be removed.

Okay, so you agree that it's 2029.

Exactly.

Okay, when I asked that question earlier, okay, helps clarify it.

Thank you, Mike.

Good call.

I I think I will share the the reason that is in there, and I think I actually got this from Greg is if voters approve expanding our commission to six, then in 2027 there could potentially be two people added and it would make sense to have words ready by then if that were the case.

Then could we add um so another bullet that says hang on a minute, Becky?

So reflecting that right.

That was the initial concern, but the way that you've worded A, those two additional wouldn't take effect until the 2029 election, also.

So we the as opposed to having we're going to expand to six for the 2027 election and then wards in effect for 2029.

This moves both things to 2029.

Okay.

And tell me again why why we couldn't do it uh for 2027.

The you you mentioned March, but the election isn't until November.

But you have to run the the requirements as written in the charter for ward boundary drawing would be six months prior to the date of the um primary election.

The primary election is in September.

So the ward boundaries would have to be completed and adopted and effective by the ordinance prior to March, which means the commission would have to approve them in February.

She's asking about the four to six for forget wards.

What if what if it just wished commissioners?

So if you say six, and you go to wards.

That's where the conflict lies because you would be adding two people that then you would have to fit into the ward system two years later.

But what if we just say we want six and no words?

Then the the way I understand it is that we would have to rewrite the timeline to have a if then triggering if this one's adopted but not that one, then it has this timeline.

If this one's adopted and that one, then it has a different timeline.

That's what I'm asking.

So just simply so the simplest solution is to make them both in 2029.

What's the wishes of the of the study commissioners?

We could add another bullet that says if it only exceeds or it increases the number of commissioners, we could do that in 2027, or but if it also includes wars, then we can't do it until 2029, or should we just leave it until 2029?

2029, I think the process itself is going to be complex in all kinds of ways that we don't want to rush it, and we want to be able to create the kinds of participation that I think people are expecting.

Okay.

Deanna.

I would like to see it in effect as quickly as possible.

So 2027.

Okay, Barb.

I hear that, and now I am remembering the brain situation that I had in trying to talk this through with Mike and Greg, and I don't think it is practical if voters choose wards to have that in place in time for the 2027 municipal election.

I just I just don't think it's physically practical.

I think um I think it will get confusing about when things take effect if we try to create another um bullet point speculative bullet point for the situation where we just vote to expand the commission to six, but do not move towards okay.

Um so so uh that's where we ended up with these two.

Um so we should delete the 2027.

Okay.

I'm fine with it.

You know, I I can totally hear you, Deanna, in terms of like, okay, we want sex, let's get this party going, and the complexity of everything else.

I would I I'm I'm okay with waiting till 2029 as well.

So um that takes us to the end of the chart.

Barb, is there something we're saying?

No, there are some other edits and comments that earlier that we need to that I just need to walk you through.

Okay.

Starting with the preamble, um, you know, we we got comments from the city and some public comment about human rights in that second sentence.

I did nothing with that.

I did not change it because I know that we've had discussion before.

But I I want to honor that we got comments both from the city manager and the city attorney and the public on that.

Um so why didn't we do anything?

We have discussed it a lot, and we included it, so I didn't feel like I had the authority to take it out at this point.

If you guys want to give me different direction, I'm happy to do that.

But that's the that's the only thing that was suggested in the preamble.

Could I comment?

Sure.

I as with Carson and I who proposed the addition of this.

I don't believe this the city attorney or the uh city manager, I don't believe the city manager made that comment.

I think it was confused in the Galton Belly Sentinel um comments.

But anyway, if it even if it was both of them, um they did not read the piece that Carson and I brought to you on May 22nd, which was adopted unanimously by this group.

So I'm not sure why we're revisiting it, um, because it all take a moment to reread what it is.

Uh so if it didn't get in the record correctly, it'll be there now.

So basically, to look at amending the preamble to read in the last sentence, by this action, we affirm the values of self-governance, representative democracy, human rights, professional management, strong political leadership, public engagement and regional cooperation, that human rights, this is our justification, are the fundamental framework of our Montana Constitution and state laws, the backbone of the city of Bozeman's charter document.

Wait a minute, Jan.

That that language is not in the preamble.

Sorry.

That language.

No, no, no.

No, that was as I said, that was our justification.

But here's the fundamental sentence, if I could, please.

And that is that Montana's human rights are referenced in the charter articles two, three, four, and eight, among others, as rights to representative democracy, strong political leadership, and public participation through the election of a mayor, city commissioners, and justices of the municipal court.

These are some of our fundamental political human rights to vote and directly elect the positions of mayor, city commissioners, and judges of the municipal court, and to hold them accountable.

So we voted on that prior.

We voted on that prior.

I had remembered that too.

So I feel like we're that's why I didn't take it out.

Okay.

We had discussed it.

We had voted on it.

Great.

Okay, so let's move on.

Move on to things that are editable.

Yeah, it is poor parallel construction.

Pardon me?

I said it is poor parallel construction in the sentence.

Human rights is um is um is a noun, and the rest of these are adjective phrases.

Okay.

Can we can I walk through the rest of the case that I did make?

Yeah, yeah, let's let's stick with the what we're making.

Okay, but it doesn't fit there.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Bob.

Um, so if you go to section point two eleven action requiring ordinance, um I deleted number six, which says regulate land use and development because state law um controls that.

So got rid of that.

And if everybody's okay with that, I'm just gonna accept that change.

Um now if you go to Article 5, section 5.04.

Um these edits and changes.

5.04.

Yep.

The edits reflected here in track changes were recommended by the city to ensure that we remain consistent with all of the changes that were made in the Montana Land Use and Planning Act.

So of 2023.

So I thought that that would be a good thing to do.

And it's really just language change.

Um about under budget message.

Yeah, so Article 6 around financial management.

Um the city suggested taking out the references to government finance officers association and other specific named entities because this charter needs to endure beyond any current specific organization.

Um, so I did that throughout Article 6.

And then same, yeah, all the way through Article 6.

Those are the changes that I made.

Um, which brings us to Article 7 and 8.

And I think a second, can you go back to 6.09?

Yes.

Uh, the last sentence, no accountant or firm may provide any other services in the city during the time is retained provided.

Thank you.

And however, you I think with that sentence got added back in.

It got added back in per, and now I'm not gonna remember whether we actually discussed this or not, but I know Carson wants to add it back in, and the city the city recommended adding it back in.

Um because of the rural nature of our state, there are times.

I mean, we are still a relatively small town, so they wanted to add it back in to create the option.

Um you can probably explain that better than I can, but so I added it back in for consideration.

Thank you.

I'm not comfortable with that, to be honest with you.

Um, I worked for a nonprofit, and we had um that it had to be an independent audit.

Um, and if a small nonprofit can figure it out, I'm thinking maybe the city of Bozeman might be able to figure it out.

Um there's a number of um financial auditing or uh companies in even in Bozeman and in this day and age we could find them anywhere.

So I I I don't know that we are that small anymore.

I I understand why it was in 2006, but I don't understand why it's in the 2026 charter personally.

Can I read the comment?

I think it's important information.

Um the comment from Greg was the city's finance director requests putting this back in.

It provides important flexibility for the city.

I recognize controls can be put in place to protect the integrity of the audit.

The type of firms the city relies on for audit and other financial services typically have an entirely different division doing the work unrelated to the audit work.

This is also similar to how the city handles law firms doing legal work.

Okay.

What does anyone think about that?

Diane I I actually was having trouble understanding what that last uh sentence reinserted is modifying.

Is it the no that they wouldn't have to provide independent audits or they can choose to opt out?

That's that was the problem I would have with you, Becky.

Or is it no accountant or firm may provide other services?

So if it's the first part of the sentence, it ought to modify that and not at the end of the sentence.

Because I could support that of the city commission, but not waiving an independent audit.

So the this language is not waiving an independent audit.

No, it's just making the permissive ability for the city commission to determine that a firm that is also doing other financial services may provide the audit if necessary.

So the idea is that you have got your CPA and your financial firm running your books, and then the audit checks your books.

So the idea is if you're in the same firm, then it's like I'm gonna scratch your back, you're gonna scratch mine.

We're sitting next to each other, you're doing the the finances, I'm doing the audit, and uh we kind of go off and have dinner together, you know, versus hiring Barb's firm to do the audit.

I just the idea of I totally get this.

I've been on million dollar organization boards, but what I am trying to understand is does that last set portion of the sentence modify the ability to forsake the independent audit, or should it not be a good idea?

No, no, no, I know, or should it be uh attached to the firm cannot provide service that may provide other services to the city?

That's what it is attached to.

But that's what it is attached to the offer.

That's the way I would want to interpret it.

I didn't know if it would create a problem for other interpretation.

That's all I was trying to find out.

Okay.

The first sentence is the one that requires the city to provide for an independent annual audit.

So we're required by state apply to that.

Also, to do an independent audit.

So even if you didn't have that first sentence, we would still be required to do an audit.

Got it.

So the state requires that you have to have independent audit, and yet we're writing in here that they don't have to be independent.

I don't know that the state the state requires an annual audit for cities of our size.

That that's like I don't know the specifics on their requirements for that audit.

Okay.

The purpose for this is if we put out a procurement for audit services and we get one response, and that person also happens to do economic modeling for us, something completely unrelated.

Doesn't matter.

But that would be a financial service.

What's what's the option under without this?

What's the option for the city to meet their requirements to do an audit if the only firm that is willing to do so provides other services to the city?

Okay.

Deanna, what are your what's your input?

I I think uh in in the same paragraph where we're we use the term um uh uh general uh accordance in accordance with current industry standards, and I am quite sure that uh having the same firm do your audit that is also working for you is not um current industry standard industry standard, and there are many firms, and as I believe it was Becky just pointed out, they don't have to be in Montana.

Uh, this day and age.

They have to be authorized by the state of Montana.

Well, that probab there are probably many, and um and that's not a good reason to deviate so far from industry standards.

Not being like I'm not I don't have the expertise, but I don't believe our finance director would ask for this provision to be available if there isn't a way to make it happen within given government industry standards.

That's one finance that's an employee of the city in the finance department, and I and that's Melissa, and I value her input.

But uh this goes beyond the um just making it easy.

Uh there are there are um standards that we need to be sure we are are meeting.

And um having the same firm work for you and do your audit is just simply not a good practice.

Mike, would you do us a favor?

You said that it has to be an audit company that's approved by the state, is what you just said, right?

Correct.

Will you um find out how many audit companies are approved by the state in Montana?

Because to your point, if there's only one, well then we do have a we may have a problem.

But if there's you know a handful of them, then we may not have a problem.

And so if you could confirm that and get it to us, you know, when you provide that other information by the end of tomorrow, that would be helpful.

I I I do think it's important to remember though that there are other cities in addition to Bozeman that have to meet this requirement.

There's 56 counties and 127 municipalities in the state of Montana that are all picking from the same list.

Yeah, and and like I I mean I have been on multiple nonprofit boards where it is not that easy to find firms that are willing to respond to your RFP to provide any kind of financial services, let alone an audit.

So I do think that there could be a problem.

As a compromise, I would offer a higher threshold for the waiver.

Perhaps a supermajority is required.

Perhaps unanimous is required.

But there need like there needs to be a outlet given the the situation where if you only have one firm and they have a separate division that does something completely unrelated to auditing for the city that they would automatically be disqualified.

And do you have any sense of how many times in the last 10 years we've used an audit company that also does other financial things for the city of Ozman?

In the last 10 to 15 years, we've used two companies.

And have they done other financial business with the city of Bozeman during that same time?

Not that I'm aware of, but one of them no longer provides audits in the state of Montana.

Okay.

I could compromise with the unanimous.

I like that compromise option.

For the record, I would agree.

Okay.

Um more substantive change.

Okay.

Um if you go to Article 9, General Provisions.

Yep.

In section 9.01, which is the Board of Ethics.

Okay.

Umsection B.

The old charter, the current charter, um, includes candidates for political office in the uh annual training requirement.

Um, and both the city attorney and the city manager flagged this and as something to delete for several reasons.

Um, first, candidates are subject to state regulation.

Um but as they are not yet elected, even state ethics code doesn't apply to candidates.

Um the charter and the code of ethics only address the organization of city government, so we can't really bind a candidate that hasn't been elected yet to take a training that's part of the city.

Um, and as written, it includes all candidates for public office, including state office, and providing that kind of training just is beyond the scope of the city.

So I suggested taking it out because that all made good sense to me.

That makes sense to me too.

Any objections to that?

Okay.

Okay, let me make sure that that is in fact.

We talked about the okay.

That is in fact it.

Amazing.

Amazing.

Um Barb, you and I will you'll make those edits.

I'll play with all the formatting.

I've seen a few number of things.

I I've already changed some things, but uh I'll keep working on the formatting, and then we will provide a clean copy on the 30th, and that will be after Mike provides the information.

Um that you were going to provide that we all remember what that was.

Um information on uh annexations and approved.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Okay.

And if I could remind you, please also send us a clean word version.

I'll do that.

Yeah, I purposely did this last time because I knew that we were as a tentative situation.

Yes, Deanna.

Uh could we uh is there a way to look up in the minutes um our discussion on the preamble because I don't recall that we actually had a vote on this.

What was the date of that, Jan?

I I did sorry.

I think you said the date.

I said the date of the memo that Carson and I um had made.

Let me just see.

I'll find that.

You'll find it great.

Yeah, you send out the I'll find it with the other stuff.

Okay, thank you.

That would be helpful, Mike.

I I know I'm right.

Okay.

Um so you'll get that, and we'll we'll send a clean copy for the 30th.

Um we are clearly not gonna have time for edits for the the report.

So here's what I would recommend and um for that.

We do have like uh someone raising their hand for public comment on I think the stuff about the charter.

Okay.

Okay.

A new person, yes.

Okay.

Okay, so it's uh Emily Talago, so I'm gonna let allow you to talk, and you can begin.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Emily.

Hi there.

Uh hello, thanks for letting me join you and wait till I go both in resident.

Um I just wanted to um just name when we're talking about like a it doesn't seem like it's super substantive, but the discussion about amending to comply with MLUPA.

Um lupa is relatively new.

I mean, obviously our state legislature meets every two years, and so who knows what they'll come up with.

But I got the impression from the end of May presentation about it to the local inter and local government committee that they may be already working on some edits to that based on the feedback that the different cities had heard and everything.

So I just wanted to name that, and then it also just if we could be really clear.

I think what I heard was that if Inc.

is able to if Inc is put into the charter and that they shall be able to make a presentation in front of the city commission, or just be really clear.

Is that we are calling that actually decision making authority or presentation authority?

So thanks for letting me uh comment on that.

Thank you.

All right.

So for the um Are there any more opportunities?

I'm one uh as I look at this preamble.

It comes to me.

Why did we remove our commitment in the uh to the uh constitution of the United States, which is in the current uh charter?

In the preamble of our current charter, which I don't have here with me, but we uh it states that the city will um uh be uh will um uh uh operates under the constitution and laws of the state of Montana and the Constitution of the United States.

And I'm uh I would like to see that uh retained in our preamble.

So we need to go back and look at the 2006.

Yeah.

Okay, that should be easy enough.

Do you want to let us know or send us that?

Yeah, just I can send uh a general sorry, we can all look it up too.

Yeah, good.

I don't have it with me.

Are we done with the charter for today?

Sorry, okay.

So with the draft report, I would recommend that everybody send me your edits in writing uh through our um our should they send it to you first and then send it to us.

As long as Caleb and I are CC'd on it, we can just compile them all when we have them.

Okay.

Um I will not respond to it.

Okay, send it to all of us, including Mike and Caleb.

Um, and if you could do that no later than Saturday, end of day.

Saturday end of day, send all those edits to me.

I will not respond because we cannot have dialogue on email, but I will make those edits and bring a clean copy to the June 30 meeting as well.

And in fact, I'm gonna put the clean charter into the clean report so everything will be in one place.

So that's the next document we'll see is just the one, right, Barb?

Says um, yeah, okay.

Becky, just to double check.

We're sending them only to you.

We're not sending it to the whole group.

So we use the group email.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Yep, sent to the whole thing, because then it's transparent.

But I just will not respond to any.

I will see it.

I will not respond, okay?

And and we will compile everybody's versions for the June July 30 meeting.

So they'll all be in the case.

That public comment is there.

Great.

Yeah.

And tomorrow we're going to get you what again?

Pardon?

We and tomorrow we are we committed to something to get to you tomorrow and I didn't note it.

Oh, sorry, Jack.

This is this.

I'm gonna resend it as soon as we finish the meeting.

This was the outreach list and the email that you're receiving has two parts.

One is the outreach groups, broadly defined, which I'm asking for your name if you have a group you'd like to group or more that you'd like to reach out to.

And then the engagement events are lists of things right now.

They're small and can grow rapidly, but any of any events that we know of or event kind of opportunities between now and I would say the end of October that you can add to that list.

We'll figure out who might do them.

For example, Ollie's on there.

We don't know who's going to do Ollie.

There's maybe Pajaka Jali.

We haven't talked about that yet.

Um, but never figure that out.

But getting them on the list, that will then go in the draft report of the detailed plan from the ballot education consultant.

And that's why it has a tight deadline on it.

And I'm sorry you didn't get it the first time.

Right.

And and they will also be scheduling some events, uh, outreach events to the public, like at the library and absolutely.

But if you have areas that are really important to you, which we all do, just make sure they're on that list.

They're looking at Chamber of Commerce, Koanans, all of those kinds of sentinel.

Yep.

Um, and then finally there's a newspaper, they're not a group.

It's not a newspaper.

Um media.

And then finally, I um uh Barb and I are going to be pilot testing the the final report, which includes the charter.

Um the goal of that is just uh to ask people who have no clue what we're doing who live here, do you understand it?

Are there any words that don't make any sense?

There will be no questions about content, no questions about whether the mayor should do this, that, or the other thing.

Just simply does it, do you understand it?

Is there some readability thing that we have missed because we've got our nose so far into it?

So the question will the the questions we will ask them is how clear and readable is the document?

What words, if any, are confusing, and what sections seem unclear and why?

That's it.

And so um we'll be sending it out to a few folks.

We've already received a lot of really good input from the folks who have been coming to our meetings, but I just want to throw it out to a few people who have never read it before.

I did this with grants all the time, and just if there's something that we can fix ahead of time, that'd be great.

So anything else before we uh adjourn?

Just want to thank you and Barb again, Becky and Barb for this tremendous job you've done.

Really appreciate it.

Just put your whole lives on that line.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any further public comment from anybody present?

Any further public comment from those online?

Nope.

All right, with that, we adjourn.

Thank you.

Jen, this is yours.

This is yours.

Okay.

Goodbye.