All Activity

There are a lot of important decisions to make as you fill out your ballots over the coming days and weeks, but perhaps none affect things closer to home than the five candidates you will select to serve on the City of Bozeman Study Commission and the seven candidates you will select for the Gallatin County Study Commission. We've heard a lot of feedback from residents in both the city and county that many of them don't fully understand what the local government study is, but they just know that we need to take advantage of the once-in-a-decade opportunity to review the way our local governments operate and represent us. That is why we at the Gallatin Valley Sentinel decided to host a Town Hall and Candidate Forum for the Gallatin County and City of Bozeman Local Government Study Commission Candidates this past September. All 22 county and 15 city candidates were invited to participate in the event and complete our candidate questionnaire, and most recently have been invited to record a one-on-one Zoom interview with one of our volunteers to be shared on our website. We asked Dan Clark, Director of MSU's Local Government Center, to give a presentation at the town hall to help explain what the government study is and what it can and cannot accomplish. We've also dedicated a section of our website to the Local Government Study that we will be updating regularly with more information on the city and county studies and will keep it up-to-date once the actual studies begin after the November election. You can follow along with that information here. Before casting your votes for the study commission candidates, we encourage you to take the time to watch the recording of our town hall and to learn more about each candidate at their individual links provided below. We encourage you to vote this November 5th. The consequences both locally and nationally are too grave not to. You can check your voter registration status here and learn more about Gallatin County Elections here. We strongly encourage you to either vote in person or hand-deliver your ballots considering the plague of issues with the Bozeman Post Office. Town Hall Time Stamps 0:00 – GVS Introduction 4:00 – Dan Clark presentation on what the study commission can and cannot do 1:16:38 – City candidates introduce themselves 1:44:10 – City candidates answer a question about whose voice is not being represented in Bozeman right now 1:57:15 – County candidates introduce themselves City of Bozeman Candidates Roger Blank - GVS Interview coming soon Deanna Campbell - GVS Candidate Questionnaire; GVS Interview coming soon Barb Cestero - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Emily Daniels - GVS Interview coming soon Becky Franks - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Harrison Howarth - GVS Interview coming soon Barrett McQuesten - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Wylie Phillips - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Connor Pollock - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire McCullough Roach - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Rio Roland - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Stephanie Spencer - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Janis (Jan) Strout - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Carson Taylor - GVS Candidate Questionnaire Michael Veselik - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Gallatin County Candidates Ted Barkley - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Mitchell Blaszczyk - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Anne Donovan - Link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview; did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Andrew Epple - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Robert Fish - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire or interview with Bozeman Daily Chronicle Rene Flynn - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire or interview with Bozeman Daily Chronicle Christopher Gray - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Janae Hagen - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Jacqueline Haines - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Amber Jupka - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Jamie Just McCray - Did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire or interview with Bozeman Daily Chronicle Jeff Krauss - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Elijah Mathias - Link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview; did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Billy McWilliams - Link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview; did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Teri Patterson - Link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview; did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire EJ Porth - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Josh Sadaj - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Donald Seifert - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Joshua Tuininga - Link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview; did not complete GVS Candidate Questionnaire Klaas Tuininga - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Robert Webster - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview Steve White - GVS Candidate Questionnaire and link to Bozeman Daily Chronicle interview

This past week was a big one for Bozeman, with the City Commission determining the future of urban camping on the public right-of-way (ROW) and assigning the number of mills that will be charged on property tax bills. In addition to the nearly six-hour commission meeting, four other advisory boards met, including the Community Development Board, Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, Sustainability Board, and Inter-Neighborhood Council. Below are the highlights from each meeting, and if you would like to read through the detailed, transcribed notes from this week’s meetings, please click on the links at the end of this post. Community Development Board Staff from the Gallatin County Planning Office gave a special presentation to the Community Development Board on the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Housing Strategy, which are in the process of being updated. The FLUM is a visual representation of Gallatin County’s Growth Policy and helps to inform zoning, and the Housing Strategy is intended to address housing affordability issues. The draft materials are posted on the Envision Gallatin website that can be accessed here. The FLUM and Housing Strategy will be presented to the Planning Board soon, and public hearings with the County Commission will start in November. They hope to have final adoption sometime in December. The county’s housing strategy includes a “voluntary inclusionary housing ordinance,” which is similar to Bozeman’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, in that they will offer reduced standards such as additional height, different design standards, or procedural changes that make it easier for developers in exchange for a certain number of affordable housing units. City Commission Back in August, the commission gave staff direction to revise Ordinance 2147, which is the current urban camping ordinance, asking them to explore the options of outright prohibiting or increasing camping restrictions on the ROW, misdemeanor penalties, a permit system, and safe parking. As recently as September, there were 139 vehicles / structures in the ROW. Staff reported that since July 1, 2024, the Solid Waste Division has collected 23.5 tons of waste related to urban camping (excluding garbage totes) and hauled it away to the Logan Landfill. The Stormwater Division has responded to eight separate reports of illicit discharge related to urban campers, including sewage discharged into waterways and streets. The Neighborhood Services Division has collected 15 full pickup loads of trash (outside of routine monthly clean-ups), 36 five-gallon buckets of human feces, five bottles of urine, and 24 needles and other types of drug paraphernalia. In the past two months, approximately 7.5% of all calls for service in the city were to areas of urban camping (1,102 calls for service), and over 100 calls have resulted in probable cause to investigate a misdemeanor or felony offense, which is 9.6% of the total cases opened by Bozeman Police Department. Other concerns are engineering-related, knowing that the ROW was not designed for camping, and the decreased sense of safety. In the city's survey conducted in August, 86.83% of the 2,000 survey respondents said that camping in the ROW should NOT be permitted on city streets. The commission did have the option to completely prohibit urban camping. Ultimately, the new Ordinance 2172 passed with some amendments. It prohibits camping on public property and rights-of-way unless a person meets the criteria for and has obtained a permit. Permits cost $25 and will be good for 30 days, at which time they will need to be renewed. If a person is found camping with no permit, the consequence is a misdemeanor with up to a $500 fine and / or up to 10 days in jail. If a person has a permit but commits a violation, it is punishable with up to a $100 penalty. The consequence for a person or company facilitating camping on the right-of-way is a misdemeanor with up to a $500 fine and / or up to 10 days in jail. Commissioner Bode initiated and obtained enough support to allow the city to waive the $25 permit fee if a person is able to prove that they cannot afford it. Staff originally proposed a sunset date on the ordinance of October 1, 2025, which would mean that urban camping would no longer be allowed under any circumstances after that date. All commissioners expressed concern about this date, thinking that it is too soon, so Commissioner Madgic initiated an amendment and received enough support to keep the sunset date in place but give the commission an opportunity to reassess and change it next summer. Cunningham, Fischer, and Madgic voted to pass the ordinance; Morrison and Bode voted against it, but for reasons having to do with their belief that they are “criminalizing homelessness,” not because they wanted an outright ban. In other commission business, they approved affixing 158.23 mills to be charged against taxable property for FY 2025. Because the city adopted new sewer rates recently (after putting it off for several years), they were able to reduce the expected sewer assessment by 6%, which will offset what would have been an increase to property taxes. What this means is that for the median single-family household in Bozeman, their property taxes should go down by about $19 per year. As a reminder, the decision on the number of mills to affix for property taxes was supposed to be made on August 27, but the city (and surrounding municipalities and county) discovered an error in the Department of Revenue’s calculation of newly taxable values. Since that time, the Department of Revenue spent a month in Bozeman and the surrounding areas trying to capture and assess the newly taxable growth, and while they were able to capture some, they did not capture it all. What this means is that property taxes are being overly-assessed to current property owners because of the failure to capture newly taxable properties. The commission has directed staff to conduct an audit into the past few years of newly assessed properties because they do not believe that new construction has been accounted for properly in any recent years. Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) – Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC) David Holien, the Transportation Alternatives Program Manager from the Montana Department of Transportation gives a presentation to TTAC on the Transportation Alternatives Program, which is one of the biggest sources of multi-modal funding. There is $1,399,044 in Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding available to the Gallatin Valley MPO in FY 2025. There is a total of $16 million in TA funding available statewide. To view MDT’s Transportation Alternatives website, click here. See the attachment at the end of this post for a description of MDT’s Transportation Alternatives Program, eligible entities, and eligible projects. The MPO’s TA funding can only be used in the Bozeman urban area. Because the Gallatin Valley MPO is new, over the next two months, they will be developing their application process and scoring criteria to be able to allow eligible entities to apply for some of the available funding as early as January 2025. The MPO is getting funding from MDT to install two continuous count stations to gather traffic data. There are currently only 18 of these stations across the entire state. The MPO TTAC selected the locations for these, and they will be installed at the intersections of Jackrabbit and East Valley Center Road and Baxter and Love Lanes. The MPO has funding to add two more continuous count stations, and they plan to decide their locations at the next meeting. Sustainability Board There are two at-large positions on the Sustainability Board becoming available at the end of the year. Those interested can apply online at https://www.bozeman.net/departments/city-commission/city-boards/apply-for-an-city-board/. Sam Hall, an energy resource professional with the Montana DEQ gives a presentation to the board on the rebates available through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA was signed into law in 2022, and city staff calls this the single largest investment in climate and energy in American history. There are several rebates available through the IRA, which promotes the “electrification” of homes. Many of the rebates are not available in Montana yet, but Bozeman is one of two cities (the other is Missoula) that have been given funding from the DEQ to run pilot rebate programs. The hope is that the funds will be available statewide by mid-2025. The state has been given $71 million of IRA funds, and they plan to spend at least half of this money in low-income communities. IRA funding can also be used for workforce development to train industry professionals and apprentices on how to design and install heat pumps and other electrification technology. Montana’s energy rebates website can be found here. Mayor Cunningham committed the city's Economic Development Department to work with local banks and credit unions to see if they can create a special lending program for helping people fund the electrification of their homes. The city will be offering a few educational events the week of October 1st. More details can be found on the city’s Sustainability site here. Inter-Neighborhood Council Police Chief Veltkamp and Bozeman Fire Training Captain Thime give a presentation on the Safety First: First Responder Mill Levy and Fire Station 4 Bond. A copy of all of the slides can be found in the detailed notes linked at the end of this post. If approved, the Fire Station 4 Bond would allow the city to build a new fire station on the southwest side of town off of Fallon. This would help them to reduce their response times and provide greater coverage in this area of town. If approved, the First Responder Mill Levy would allow the city to hire six police officers each year for five years, to hire 22 firefighters, and add 11 non-sworn staff. Chief Veltkamp says that it’s not uncommon for there to be only 3-4 patrol officers on duty at a time. The police department’s last staffing plan said that by 2021, they should have 79 officers. They were just authorized 76 officers in July of this year. About half of the 30 officers needed are to get them caught up to their current staffing needs, and the others should be what they need to keep up with staffing demands for at least the next five years, but could keep them covered longer depending on how much the city grows. The police department is so short-staffed, it’s not unusual for them to have one officer responding to extremely dangerous calls that would normally require a response from multiple officers. The financial impacts of the bond and mill levy, if approved, are a total of about $35 per month for the median single-family homeowner, $4 of which is to finance the new fire station, and $31 of which will fund additional public safety staff. The Community Development Department is going to resume creating links to planning documents on the Community Development Viewer map, which can be found here. Those interested in signing up for e-notification on a variety of topics, including new project applications submitted to Community Development can sign up here. The city also has a website called Engage Bozeman, which they are supposed to use for the purpose of getting the word out about various projects and seeking input from the community. The website can be found here, and you must remember to go to each project page and “subscribe” to receive related updates. Community Development Board Notes from 10/7/24 City Commission Notes from 10/8/24 Gallatin Valley MPO - Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Notes from 10/9/24 Sustainability Board Notes from 10/9/24 Inter-Neighborhood Council Notes from 10/10/24

Submitted by: Anna Shchemelinin Montanans who believe that CI-128 is necessary to protect women's reproductive rights have to do their homework and learn the facts; pro-CI-128 agitators must stop spreading fear-mongering lies to low-informed, easy-to-manipulate voters. They want people to believe that Republicans want to criminalize all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, when the mother's life is at risk, and even miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. They don't want people to know that Republicans already enacted laws that prove that pro-CI-128 propaganda is deceptive misinformation. Not only is abortion before fetal viability legal in Montana, but MCA-50-20 is one of the best common-sense abortion laws in the nation, and, unlike CI-128, Montana law clearly defines "fetal viability." CI-128's definition of "fetal viability" is so vague that it puts born-alive premature babies in the category of "non-viable." The other two critical differences between MCA-50-20, which was enacted by the Republican-controlled legislature, and CI-128, which is promoted by Democrats, is that, unlike CI-128, MCA-50-20 protects women's rights to informed consent and parental rights to make healthcare decisions for their minor daughters. If CI-128 activists really wanted to prevent the government from intervening in our healthcare decisions, they would not mess with the existing abortion laws. Instead, they would work together with conservatives on enacting a law that guarantees our rights to informed consent on all medical treatments, including vaccines, prescription drugs, and elective surgeries, and establishes the age when an individual is considered to be mature enough to make informed decisions over their lives and make this age no younger than an age when an individual can legally buy a firearm. Until this happens, Montana's best choice is to get educated, learn the facts, and vote NO on CI-128. Link to the full text of the proposed CI-128: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e1e5876055a3a2cdb51864b/t/66f563f86f6f5610d6db95f5/1727357946198/2024+Montana+Voter+Information+Pamphlet.pdf Link to MCA-50-20: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0500/chapters_index.html

This past week was a “light” week for the number of city meetings, with only the City Commission having met. That being said, in the four-hour long meeting, much was discussed, including the finalized public engagement plan for the Unified Development Code (UDC), approval of over $2 million in TIF funding to the development of a project called Wallace Works, and a discussion of the city’s Fire / EMS impact fees. Below are the highlights from each topic, and if you would like to read through the detailed notes from this week's meeting, click on the link at the end of this post. Finalized UDC Public Engagement Plan Click here to access a copy of the finalized UDC Public Engagement Plan. Phase 1 of public engagement will occur from October to December 2024 and will include a survey on the Engage Bozeman website (https://engage.bozeman.net/), open houses across the city, and in-person presentations. During this phase, they want to figure out what areas of the UDC the community wants to focus on. Phase 2 of public engagement will occur between January and February 2025 and will include neighborhood workshops, a webinar, another survey on Engage Bozeman, more presentations, and a “Host Your Own UDC Chat,” where neighbors and organizations will be able to reserve a “toolkit” developed by the city to host their own discussions and provide feedback to the city. The goal for this phase of engagement is to look at the specifics within the focus areas identified in Phase 1. Phase 3 will occur from March 2025 and on and will include the development and a review of the new draft of the UDC and two public presentations on the draft. The city is planning to hire a professional facilitator to make sure the workshops and webinars run smoothly. The city will need to extend its contract with the consultant they hired from Texas, Code Studio (https://www.code-studio.com/). This also means there will be an added expense for the consultant. City staff will develop the “toolkits” for the “Host Your Own UDC Chats,” and then they are going to seek out feedback from groups they select to get their feedback on the kit before sharing it with the public. $2 Million in TIF Funds Approved for the Wallace Works Project Wallace Works is located on the corner of Tamarack Street and Wallace Avenue, which is in the Northeast Urban Renewal District. (Planning documents can be found here: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=262033&cr=1) The Wallace Works project is mostly residential with some commercial spaces mixed in. It has one “co-housing cluster” where four apartments will share “certain infrastructure like a kitchen,” but will have their own living space and bathroom. There will also be 21 studio apartments, 21 one-bedroom apartments, and three two-bedroom apartments for rent. There will also be 11 row homes and five “live / work” units for sale, which are three stories tall, with the ground level being a small shop / retail space. They have reserved 2,000 square feet of the 6,402 square feet of commercial space for a neighborhood market, that they call a “bodega.” However, there are no guarantees that the market will actually go in this space. Seven of the 49 apartments that will be available for rent will be considered “workforce housing,” which is a term the city is using specifically to make the units eligible for TIF funding. These seven units will be offered at 80% AMI. The actual amount of TIF funds being received totals $2,055,563, which the city will repay to the developer over the course of seven years. Commissioner Bode made an effort to see if the city could give the developer even more money to try to get the rents of the seven affordable units down to 70% AMI. Staff said they are not able to do this and says the city needs to build up a balance of TIF funds to be able to use toward the unfinished infrastructure in the Northeast Urban Renewal District before the district “sunsets” (expires) in 2042. Public comments focused on the impacts of this development to the surrounding neighborhoods, both with parking and increased traffic, and also with how it does not blend in with the existing character of the neighborhood. One of the developers of Wallace Works, Erik Nelson from Ness Partners, also sits on the city’s Downtown Business Improvement District Advisory Board. Fire / EMS Impact Fees Impact fees are defined in Montana Code Annotated as “any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected.” Impact fees can only be used for capacity-expanding capital projects and cannot be used for fixing existing deficiencies, operating costs, staffing, or repairs of any kind. Impact fees are paid at the time of the building permit. The city currently only charges impact fees for Fire / EMS, Transportation, Water, and Sewer. The city could be charging impact fees for Police, Stormwater, and any other city facilities with a 2/3 majority vote of the commission. The city hired a consultant from Idaho, TischlerBise (https://tischlerbise.com/), to help them with the impact fee study. TischlerBise’s study estimates that at its peak, which includes students and tourists, Bozeman’s population is actually 68,729, shown in the slide below. Building permit data is also used to calculate impact fees. As can be seen below, in 2023, the city approved only 193 building permits for single-family homes, compared to 1,075 permits for multi-family units. Since 2018, building permits issued for multi-family units have outpaced single-family residences more than 3:1. In 2023 alone, multi-family unit growth outpaced single-family homes more than 5:1. The city is also using the growth projections shown below in the calculation of impact fees. They are assuming that the population will grow by 32.5% by 2033, and are anticipating the multi-family units will continue to outpace single-family homes by more than 3:1. The commission adopted the new Fire / EMS impact fee schedule, charging the maximum allowable fee, so the average single-family home (2,201-2,400 square feet) will pay $1,408 in new fees, which is a $986 increase compared to the current fee. The average multi-family dwelling unit (1,401-1,600 square feet) will pay $1,091 per unit, an increase of $812. The new impact fees will go into effect on November 1, 2024. The Transportation Impact Fees are scheduled to go in front of the Community Development Board in November and then to the commission in December. Water and Sewer Impact Fees will be reviewed in early 2025. Transportation Impact Fees can now be used for expanding bike and pedestrian facilities. Other Miscellaneous Items Commissioner Emma Bode, who formerly sat on the city’s Sustainability Board, was disappointed by the findings of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and rallied for staff to complete a five-year review of the city’s Climate Plan to identify which parts of the plan have not been implemented yet. She would like to engage with the public to see how much they are willing to invest in making sure the city commission meets their Climate Plan goals. She gets support from Mayor Cunningham and Deputy Mayor Morrison, so the city manager will start looking into this. As the city neared the completion of over $5 million of renovations to the Bozeman Swim Center, they “discovered” that they are not able to install the bulkhead, which is a structure that separates a swimming pool into different areas for various activities. This means that they will be limited to the 50-meter pool and will not be able to have a 25-yard pool unless residents would be willing to pass a bond to rebuild (the newly re-built) pool, or wait another 10 years until the pool needs replastered. This oversight has major ramifications to residents, including to students and families from Gallatin, Bozeman, and Belgrade high schools who will not be able to host at-home swim meets. The city received a $4.4 million grant from FEMA to pay for the salaries and benefits of 12 new firefighters over the course of the next three years. This money will be used to offset the tax burden to residents, should they approve the Public Safety Mill Levy this November. The city is hiring an engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study on installing solar at the Water Reclamation Facility. Stay tuned for next week's edition, which will include a run-down of the commission's decisions on the future of urban camping in Bozeman. City Commission Notes from 10/1/24

Thanks GVS for this informative blog. It is so important to keep up with how the city is spending our money and what projects they are prioritizing. Keep it up!

The Gallatin Valley Sentinel sat down with recently-retired DEA Special Agent, Stacy Zinn, on September 30, 2024, for a candid conversation about the open border, growing Hispanic population and drug cartels in the Gallatin Valley, why Bozeman and the surrounding area is such an easy target for them, how they are using our local resources to establish roots here, and what local government should be doing to stop the problem.

Welcome to the first edition of our weekly offering titled the “City of Bozeman Week in Review.” We at the Gallatin Valley Sentinel realize that the vast majority of you do not have the time to watch or attend each of the city’s advisory board and commission meetings held each week. Many times, total meeting hours can average 10 hours or more per week. This section of our website will summarize the key takeaways you need to be aware of and provide you with access to opinion-free notes transcribed by our volunteers who take the time to listen to every publicly-recorded meeting each week. For detailed notes on each of the meetings summarized below, please click on the links at the end of this blog to download. In the attachments, you will find a link to each recorded meeting, detailed notes with time stamps, and images of the Powerpoint slides presented during each of the meetings. City Commission · We learn in this week’s meeting that Jon Henderson is the new Assistant City Manager. Prior to this new role, Henderson worked as the Strategic Services Director in the city’s GIS (Geographic Information System) Division. · At this week’s meeting, the commission hears a presentation on the “Disability Community Chats,” which are meetings the city held with individuals with disabilities to learn more about their unique challenges and how the city can make its operations, engagement, resources, and infrastructure more accessible. · The disability community is just one of three groups the city targeted for special representation in its “Belonging in Bozeman Plan.” The other two groups given special attention are the LGBT community and the Spanish-speaking community. In 2023, the city adopted the Belonging in Bozeman Plan, which was the region’s first equity and inclusion plan. Takami Clark, Communications and Engagement Manager for the city, says that this plan was intended to remove barriers for some members of the community in eight key areas: housing, transportation, health and well-being, education, childcare and youth programming, economic stability, community resiliency, and community safety and civic health. They hired three community liaisons who are members of “key, underserved members of our community.” During the development of the Belonging in Bozeman Plan, the city hired an LGBT liaison, a Spanish-speaking liaison, and a disability community liaison to facilitate these discussions with members of each “marginalized” part of the community. · City staff also gave a presentation on the 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report. The results of this study are detailed in the slides shared in the attached notes, but a quick summary is to say that the city has not moved any closer to its climate goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. · Natalie Meyers, the city’s Sustainability Program Manager, gives several staff recommendations on how individuals can reduce their impact on the climate, citing examples such as carpooling, walking or biking, lobbying at the state-level for clean energy, thinking carefully about air travel, eating a plant-based diet, and joining a climate change group. · The commission approved a zone map amendment to change the zoning on a 10-acre parcel of land near North 19th and Springhill (known as the “Rest Stop”). The zoning changed from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to B-2 (Community Business District). There are currently plans for two commercial developments at this location, one of which is planned to be a fast-food restaurant. The planning documents for this application can be found here: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=290402&cr=1. · The commission also approved the Annual Lighting District Assessments, which are assessments for Special Lighting Districts that will be placed on the tax bills of individuals and businesses who own property in each district. These assessments mostly pay for the cost of electricity within the district (street lights, etc.), but also cover expenses for maintenance and/or replacement. · The commission approved the assessment of delinquent water, sewer, stormwater, garbage, and recycling charges, which is an effort to collect on the outstanding bills for these services, which total just over $23,000 amongst 51 accounts. · Lastly, the commission passed the annual assessment of snow removal charges. City municipal code requires property owners to clear their sidewalks from snow and ice. Non-compliant owners are identified through the public complaint process, and they’re delivered a notice asking them to clear their sidewalk. If, after a few days, they still have not cleared the sidewalks, the city can contract for snow removal on the homeowner’s behalf. Owners are given time to pay this “bill,” but for those who have not paid, the delinquent amount will be assessed on their property tax bill. There are 12 bills outstanding, totaling just under $2,700. · If someone is not physically able to clear the snow in front of their property, they can call the city to participate in the “Snow Angels Program,” where the city will send a volunteer to clear their sidewalks free of charge. · They appointed two new members to the Board of Health, and one new member to the Board of Ethics. Gallatin Valley MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) – Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee · A little background: The Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO, for short), was recently formed because of Bozeman’s population exceeding 50,000 in the 2020 Census. The MPO has two committees, the Transportation Policy Coordinating (TPCC) and the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TPCC), and committee members include officials from the cities of Bozeman and Belgrade, Gallatin County, and MDT, among others. The city also recently hired the new MPO Manager, Jeff Butts. · Because the MPO is new, there are a lot of foundational documents that need to be written and submitted. The document discussed at this meeting is the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Transportation Board · Mark Egge, who sits on the city’s Community Development Board, Gallatin Valley MPO Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee, and the Governor’s Housing Task Force and whose employer is a paid city consultant, presents to the Transportation Board from his other role as Chair of the Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District, which will soon operate the Streamline bus service. · All of the transit services, including Streamline and Gallavan (the county’s van service for seniors and disabled riders) are currently operated by HRDC, but operations will soon be assumed by the newly formed Urban Transportation District (UTD). · The City of Bozeman currently contributes $400,000 out of the general fund to help support operations of the Streamline service. · The UTD has authority to levy mills, which can be used as an additional funding source to keep the bus rides free to all. · The UTD will soon be hiring a director. · When asked if the UTD has considered charging for bus fares, Egge says that it is a part of their agreement with HRDC to keep the fares free to all. · The Transportation Board also held a work session to provide input to the City Commission on creating a parking district around Gallatin High School, which is being proposed by residents living near the school. · The issue with parking in this residential area has arisen from the fact that the school, because they are allowed to exempt themselves from certain local zoning ordinances, planned 750 on-site parking spaces for 1,500 students plus teachers and staff, and from the student population, only juniors and seniors are allowed to park on-site. Sophomore students must park off-site. The deliberate lack of parking is creating safety and convenience issues for nearby property owners. Urban Parks & Forestry · As a part of the discussion on the creation of the Park Land Trust Community Grant Program, city staff explains how cash-in-lieu of parkland works. This concept means that instead of a developer creating a park in the neighborhood / development, they can give the city cash, in lieu of providing parkland. It is much cheaper for a developer to pay the city cash-in-lieu rather than to provide actual land for a park, making this a huge incentive for developers to be able to create affordable housing (yet this is never a part of the Affordable Housing Ordinance conversation). State law currently caps cash-in-lieu of parkland at $2.65 per square foot, compared to the cost of land, which city staff says is closer to $22 per square foot. · Staff and board members discuss how to make sure the grant program is equitable, with one board member suggesting that they should assign criteria weight to marginalized groups to provide them with a “competitive advantage” over established groups like the land trusts. · This board also discusses the engagement plan for the Cattail Creek Corridor Park and Anchor Route Master Plan. · While there are about 11,000 residents in the area of this park, city staff has set a goal of reaching about 75 of them with their engagement plan. Stay tuned next week for the summary of the upcoming City Commission meeting, where they will be finalizing the details on the community engagement plan for the re-write of the city’s UDC (Unified Development Code) and will be deciding on the allocation of TIF funds to a new development called Wallace Works. Let us know in the comments below if you have any questions on this week’s notes or suggestions on city-related topics that you would like to learn more about. City Commission Notes from 9/24/24 Gallatin Valley MPO - Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee Notes from 9/25/24 Transportation Board Notes from 9/25/24 Urban Parks & Forestry Board Notes 9/26/24

Submitted by: Anna Shchemelinin Despite promising to publish opinions from all sides of the political spectrum, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle hasn't yet posted my letter to the editor (LTE), which I submitted after attending the Affordable Housing presentation by Bozeman Mayor, Terry Cunningham, on September 23. Regardless of whether BDC decides to post my LTE, their 300-word maximum format is not enough to adequately describe the event. So, here are my notes: Very few people attended the presentation. Most attendees were Democratic Socialists, members of Bozeman Tenants United, and proponents of social housing. No verbal communication was allowed with the Mayor during the presentation. To ask questions, attendees had to write them on note cards and give the cards to the assistant. The Mayor's assistant read all the questions but didn't turn all of them in to the Mayor to answer. The justification for not answering all the questions was the lack of time; there was no explanation of how the assistant selected the questions she deemed worth answering. Terry correctly explained to the public that supply and demand are major driving factors for the increase in housing prices, pointed out that objective (or kind-of objective) factors, including the limited water supply, restrict the supply of housing, and that the demand was affected by Covid, people working remotely, and people buying second homes as vacation property. He failed to mention the impact of illegal immigrants on the demand. Quite the opposite, he claimed that we shouldn’t think that newly-built apartments are occupied by someone "out of here;" he assured us that when talking about affordable housing, he is speaking about local working families and MSU students. According to the Mayor's words, unaffordable housing is the primary reason for homelessness and urban camping in Bozeman. I submitted a question asking how it is possible that while American working families struggle to find affordable housing, illegal immigrants, including members of two drug cartels that operate in Bozeman, don't have these problems and have enough money to afford sending money transfers back to the countries they came from. The assistant left out my question and did not give it to the Mayor to answer. Mayor Cunningham briefly mentioned that building multi-story buildings next to single-family, one-story homes is not a good idea. However, he rejected Alison Sweeney's idée fixe of "naturally occurring affordable housing" as unrealistic due to Bozeman's lack of such housing. (https://www.betterbozemancoalition.org/resources) When discussing the "tools" for more affordable housing, the Mayor explained that the city could not enforce rent control because it's currently "not legal" in Montana – not because governmental price control of anything is proven to hurt both buyers/renters and sellers/landlords. Completely 'coincidentally,' the first question given to him was about how to change the legislature to make price control legal. He also blamed legality problems when he answered the question about why the city "allows building luxury condos." Reducing the number of required parking spaces, meaning the number of cars per household, was named as one of the solutions to improve affordability. The Mayor didn't say how people with no cars are expected to get to work, buy food, or enjoy the outdoor activities that made Bozeman famously attractive to Americans. Neither did he explain who he expected to live in third-world architectural design buildings such as a 155-unit building behind Kenyon Noble in which a one-bedroom apartment costs ~ $1,400/month. The Mayor didn't mention social housing by its exact name. However, he noted a possibility of the future in which developers replace profits with "community benefits," and people voluntarily pay rent according to their income. After the official part of the meeting, I requested the Mayor to explain the data from Frontier Institute's analysis of local budgets for FY 2025, which shows that "Since FY 2015, the City of Bozeman's budget has grown 95.03% faster than the growth of the economy, as measured by population growth plus inflation." (https://frontierinstitute.org/reports/fy-2025-real-local-budgets/) He justified the budget growth by saying that Bozeman voters approve all levies. He didn't reply to my question about why the city wants voters to approve levies to fund services that should be covered by the increased number of housing units and the increased prices for each unit. Instead, his assistant asked me to leave. I have no comments on the Mayor's call to "grace and compassion to all, regardless of their source of income." I have zero "grace and compassion" to drug cartels, human traffickers, and limousine liberals who think that an uninterrupted supply of house slaves is an essential service the City of Bozeman must provide for them.

Submitted by: Andrew Thomas [1] The problem The current push for densification, expensive public works projects that seemingly have little real purpose, and overall craziness exhibited by public officials and some of their constituents is clearly evident in Bozeman. As manifested in the endless desire to install yet another large, multi-story apartment building or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying bike lanes while a substantial portion of the population cannot afford housing, it is obvious that those in control of local government have strayed down the path of self-serving delusion. However, when we step back and look at the greater agenda behind these local issues, we can see that such agendas are not isolated, home-grown lunacy, but are part of a greater, elite-driven effort to control people’s lives against their self-interest. Before we analyze why densification, the war on cars, or any other policy does not make sense, we must understand who ultimately gains from advancing this dystopian agenda, how people should understand these issues, and how people can effectively respond to them. The Illusion of partisanship A common misconception about the push for densification along with its associated policies is that it is a partisan issue. For example, densification efforts are often labeled by conservatives as being “leftist” or “socialist” in nature since they evoke images of Soviet-style block housing. Alternately, liberal observers of the issue often are critical of the rent-seeking and financialized nature of pushes to gentrify and densify communities. Although there certainly is merit to both claims, the reality is that ideology is little more than window dressing for an elite-backed agenda that hurts conservatives as much as it does liberals. Regardless of the “blue” or “red” label placed on certain ideas, they are done at the expense of the majority of people. For example, although traditionally “liberal” ideas such as environmental concerns, preventing sprawl, or preserving open space are often invoked when advocating for density, any cursory analysis quickly concludes that a desire to constrain most of the masses to a limited space while profiting off of them is a primary motivation behind these policies. Along those lines, the conservative rhetoric of providing affordable housing by “letting the free market work” through abolishing zoning is something that favors well-off investors at the public’s expense. In many senses, using ideology as window dressing for what in reality is an ideology-free agenda is a masterpiece of propagandistic strategy. One, by framing the agenda in terms of this or that ideology, you can recruit supporters to get behind an issue they otherwise would not. Two, you can create unnecessary conflict among potential opponents by playing one group against the other. In an almost surreal fashion, these narratives can be promoted and consumed by the public in a largely uncritical way. However, regardless of the superficial rhetoric, the core agenda remains the same: Those in control get what they want at the expense of everyone else. The real agenda. . . The push for densification is not ideological but is in fact the product of a minority of elites deciding that they can direct society in a fashion that serves their interests while disregarding everyone else’s. As noted above, ideology is a superficial justification to conceal this fact. Once it is understood that the real issue is a matter of the elites versus the non-elites, we can then engage in a constructive discussion about what type of response is needed to address these policies. What past populist movements have taught us This type of elitism or anti-populism is nothing new. Those with a little bit of power have always sought to consolidate and increase their power to the detriment of the majority of the population. Throughout the course of history, we have found that there has always been a tendency for those with a little bit of power to increase and consolidate that power. For example, English Nobles spent a good amount of time driving rural people off of their land through the Enclosure Acts during the 17th century. Or, in more recent history, a certain colonial power decided to tax goods, including tea, in its colonies. Regardless of the instance, there is always the tendency of those in power to want to expand their reach. The current situation is no different. However, as much as the elite want to revert to the absolute monarchs they once were, the rest of society has decided it’s a good idea to spread the power around and ensure everyone has a say in how things get done. We recognize that society has progressed through entrenching the notion of individual rights as well as a common good that serves all individuals, and, that elite-centered societies are something that is generally considered undesirable. For example, we recognize today that the democratic form of government is superior to that of monarchies and aristocracies. We also recognize that individuals have inalienable rights regardless of their power or status in society. Along those lines, we broadly recognize the need for collective action to ensure both individual rights, such as freedom of speech or due process, as well as things that universally serve the common good such as roads, basic education, and public health. Regardless of this progress, there is always a tendency for the elites to want to retrench themselves and to rein in the masses from the pursuit of their self-interest. If we look at the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century, we see a similar dynamic to what we are witnessing today. Increasing amounts of economic and social inequality along with a disregard for fundamental civil rights pervaded during the era of the Robber Barons. From almost any perspective, this inequality and anti-populist mentality in American Society wreaked havoc on both the economic welfare as well as the social existence of the majority of the population. As a response to this anti-populist dominance, various mass movements arose from both ends of the political spectrum to promote a social and economic agenda that better served the interests of the majority of people. For example, religious and rural communities organized groups such as the Grange Movement and Knights of Columbus to form cooperative associations to bring about self-governance and economic autonomy. Also, during this period, various labor and political movements arose which were rooted in the idea that society must be governed by the will of the majority of its members. From this, we see an eventual political response that was directed at reigning in the anti-populist sentiment that ruled the Gilded Era. The policies advanced by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, as well as FDR all embody this populism in one form or another. Although often viewed through a partisan lens, from the perspective of contemporary America, we now take many of these reforms whether they be regulatory economic or relating to civil rights as being universally accepted. Remembering our history so that we can move forward. As the cliché adage goes: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Given the current circumstances that people find themselves in, we are quickly reverting to the era of anti-populism and mass discontent. From understanding our history as well as the fundamental tension between populism and anti-populism, we can draw broad lessons about how to address the current challenges we face. Despite much of the partisan discourse and blame-shifting from one faction or another, to address the current dysfunction that most people are feeling, it is necessary for us to contemplate a broad coalition of people willing to put their differences aside to advance the common good. Drawing from our populist forbearers, it is obvious that if the majority of people remain in their partisan camps and never form a broad coalition, the elite agenda will be able to divide and overwhelm any type of opposition. This is not to say that people are not entitled to their beliefs or their perspectives. People are always going to have disagreements on fundamental issues. However, to be able to confront the agenda that we are now facing, people must work to find commonalities rather than exacerbate their differences. Although this is a difficult thing given how politically-charged things are, everyone must try to clearly understand their position and also the position of people they might disagree with. In doing this, people can start to work to find common ground. For example, opposition to density and many of the restrictive planning schemes is often perceived as being conservative in nature. However, most liberals are sincerely concerned with the welfare of working in middle-income people. Regardless of how they may be different or misinformed in their views, an effort can be made to reach out to them and share the legitimate perspective of how densification is not an answer to the problem of housing affordability. Rather than maintaining an opponent on an issue, an effort to reach out and communicate may result in creating an ally moving forward. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to give up all of their beliefs. However, if you sit down and talk with your friends and neighbors and start discussing what your problems are, it's very likely you will discover that even if you disagree on many issues, you also have many in common. Whether most people acknowledge it or not, the issues faced by the majority of people in American Society are not partisan in nature. They are things that affect conservatives as much as they do liberals. Most people are uneasy and fearful of the direction that this country is going. They might articulate it differently, but the concern and sense of dismay is universal. If everyone stays in their lane and only talks with people they agree with, we will remain divided and unable to counteract the increasingly out-of-touch and oligarchic nature of our society. However, if we get out of our comfort zone and start realizing most people have more in common than they have different, the current challenges can be overcome. Or as another cliché states: "United we stand, divided we fall". [1] Andrew Thomas is an academic/practitioner with an extensive background in a variety of legal, accounting, policy and behavioral science-related topics. My research training and experience spans almost two decades, and I have substantial experience teaching at all levels of higher education in addition to substantial practice-related experience in law, public policy, and accounting. Contact: Businesslawpolicyanalysis@gmail.com.

The Gallatin Voice is a special section of our blog reserved for public commentary and opinion. This could be content contributed by subject experts, professionals, contrarians, registered users of the site, or the general public. If you would like to submit your own public commentary or opinion piece, please send it to info@thegvsentinel.com, and we will post it with your permission. In your submission, please include either your real name or GVS Community username.

This area of the GVS public forum is a "catch-all" to mirror the Facebook group, "The Real Ask Bozeman," but without all the censorship and political motives. Want to recommend a good salon experience? Post it! Want to know which pizza is the best? Ask! Want to have a discussion on the urban campers, growing crime / illegal aliens, wrong-way drivers, and more? Have at it! Free speech is all speech, less spam, personal threats, and attempts to dox or intend harm.