Local City And County Board Openings

ECB Staff on December 13, 2017

There are a couple of local government boards with fast approaching application deadlines readers should be aware of (and might be interested in applying for) – The Great Falls Ethics Committee and the Cascade County Zoning Board of Adjustments.

The newly created City Ethics Committee is seeking three members to serve three, two and one year terms. For more information contact Krista Artis at 455-8450.

The five member County Zoning Board has two openings for two year terms. This is the board that will decide whether or not the proposed Madison Food Park will receive the required special use permit. You can fill out and return a board application here and call  (406) 454-6810 with any questions.

Both boards meet on an as-needed basis and both have application deadlines of Friday, December 15 at 5:00 PM.

Principles Or Politics

Philip M. Faccenda on December 11, 2017

A couple of months ago during the Great Falls City Commission campaign, I posted a Facebook request for then candidate Mary Moe calling for her to provide voters with a definitive position on historic monuments and references to local figures. The Columbus Day post was recently reposted to E-City Beat.

I think it is safe to say that most notable memorialized individuals from our collective history were not without flaws, especially when taken out of historical contexts and judged by today’s standards. Now historic statues are being vandalized, or removed from public property, and streets are being renamed to progressively purge any reference to notable individuals and causes not to our liking.

History is a continuum and our references to individuals should be viewed as celebrations of their accomplishments, not necessarily their personal faults, or commonly held views and practices of the times in which they lived.

In Great Falls, we have only a few statues and monuments to those who have influenced and contributed to the development of our region, but we also have schools named after national figures as do almost every part of our country. Local monuments and references include Lewis and Clark, Charles Russell, Paris Gibson, and Captain John Mullan. We know that both Lewis and Clark were slave owners and that Clark was particularly brutal to his human property.

Captain John Mullan’s statue is located at the southern end of Gibson Park and honors his work in constructing the Mullan Road which In 1978 was named a National Historic Engineering Landmark. 

John Mullan, Jr. (July 31, 1830 – December 28, 1909) was an American soldier, explorer, civil servant, and road builder. After graduating from the United States Military Academy in 1852, he joined the Northern Pacific Railroad Survey, led by Isaac Stevens. He extensively explored western Montana and portions of southeastern Idaho, discovered Mullan Pass, participated in the Coeur d’Alene War waged against the area’s native inhabitants, of whom 17 were hung, and led the construction crew which built the Mullan Road in Montana, Idaho, and Washington state between the spring of 1859 and summer of 1860.

Keith Petersen’s book, John Mullan: The Tumultuous Life of a Western Road Builder, asserts that John Mullan was a racist. He was upset that the Civil War was being waged on behalf of African Americans and slavery rather than maintaining the union, yet also felt that secession was a “fraud” and that war would only lead to devastation. He believed that government was “a white man’s government” and that laws should be written “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” He believed “negro suffrage was forced upon the people”, opposed Asian immigration (except for commercial purposes, such as coolie labor), and opposed naturalization of Asian immigrants. “There is no way to whitewash Mullan’s racism,” historian Keith Petersen has written. “Even for his time and that place, his opinions were vile”

(Petersen, Keith (2014). John Mullan: The Tumultuous Life of a Western Road Builder. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University Press. ISBN 9780874223217.)

Will a city commissioner Mary Moe offer a motion to haul off Captain Mullan into the sunset and rename the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center, simply the Corps of Discovery Interpretive Center?

The following by now commissioner elect Mary Moe appeared in her Facebook campaign site: https://www.moe4citycommission.com/refined-processes/

“We recently saw several examples of cities tearing down monuments in the heat of the reaction to the events in Charlotte, NC. Having written policies for establishing and/or discontinuing such memorials forces a community and its governing body to take a step back from the emotion of the moment and apply the standards created for such a situation in the cool voice of reason. Does the City of Great Falls have a naming policy for monuments and memorials on city property? We should – and the policy should provide guidance for how that honor might be rescinded.”

Should the citizens of Great Falls expect Mary Moe to pursue and advance such a policy to selectively rewrite history and act as judge and jury for naming rights and the rescission of existing historic acknowledgements?

We recently witnessed the gravity of the issue with the resignation of a school district trustee over the naming of the New Roosevelt School. Quite frankly, Mansfield Elementary sounds pretty good to me, or maybe it could have just been named Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary.

Be it Principle, or Politics, I think you owe us an answer, Commissioner-elect Moe.

Columbus Day: Will The REAL Mary Moe Please Stand Up?

Philip M. Faccenda on December 7, 2017

Editors note: the following comments originally appeared on Facebook and in the Great Falls Tribune in early October, 2017 – prior to the Great Falls municipal election. Subsequently Ms. Moe has been elected to the City Commission. We are publishing the letter here as a prelude to a follow-up piece coming soon. Stay tuned.

Like many Italian Americans I will be recognizing Columbus Day as a way to take pride in my Italian heritage. Great Falls far left City Commission candidate Moe seeks to eliminate the celebration of Christopher Columbus the Italian explorer, who was first honored in America in 1792.

In her Montana Cowgirl blog piece of Feb 15, 2017 she referred to Columbus as “not a hero, but a brutal maniac”.
(http://mtcowgirl.com/2017/02/15/whitewash/)

Candidate Moe, who supported MT HB 322 which would have eliminated Columbus day in Montana, should be singing the Sam Cooke song “Don’t know much about History”.

The more relevant issue than Moe’s knowledge of history is whether she can represent the people of Great Falls with her far left views.

We know how she feels about Columbus, but how does she feel about the fact that Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame, held slaves, or St Patrick who mistreated the Druids. Will she vote to eliminate the statues of Lewis and Clark and the celebration of St Patrick’s Day in Great Falls? After all fair is fair.

We should take off Moe’s mask hiding her liberal record after Halloween by voting for the candidates who can represent Great Falls values.

Philip Faccenda – Proud First Generation Italian American

How Are We To Select A Great Falls Ethics Committee?

Rick Tryon on December 5, 2017

Let’s say you needed to find a watchdog because your henhouse was recently raided by some foxes.  Would you go to the local fox den and ask the occupants therein, some with feathers still clinging to their little chins, to select the best watchdog to keep an eye on your cluckers? 

The Great Falls City Commission is accepting applications for a newly created Great Falls Ethics Committee. The deadline is December 15 for applicants to the three-member advisory board. 

So an ethics committee will be appointed by a City Commission which has one member, Tracy Houck, who was found guilty of and fined for violating Montana campaign finance practices. And who later in a separate incident required a hand delivered reprimand and warning from the city attorney for her blatant conflicts of interest surrounding the allocation of taxpayer funds, $29,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds which have been subsequently revoked by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development due to her self-serving conflicts. 

The very same Houck who also repeatedly lied to the public and press about sending reports to the State’s Commissioner of Political Practices, backdated official documents to avoid accountability for cheating, and attempted to deposit leftover campaign contributions in the bank account of the organization by which she is employed, Paris Gibson Square. 

An ethics committee to be appointed by a City Commission which has another member, Bill Bronson, who has repeatedly voted to allocate taxpayer funds to two separate local organizations, Paris Gibson Square and NeighborWorks Great Falls, organizations which employed his immediate family members. Conduct which has triggered HUD to require an investigation and audit going back three years for which our tax dollars are now paying. 

An ethics committee to be appointed by a City Commission which has another member, Mayor Bob Kelly, who not only has said and done nothing about the misconduct of the commissioners mentioned above but who also served on both the Great Falls Development Authority and NeighborWorks Great Falls boards and then voted to allocate CDBG money to those organizations shortly after resigning from those boards and against explicit HUD policy. 

These are the foxes – oops, I mean folks – who will be selecting our local watchdog ethics committee? A committee which is supposed to serve as an extra layer of transparency and help resolve ethics issues for not only city staff and other appointed boards but for the City Commission and its members. 

In my opinion a better way to select the three members of the Great Falls Ethics Committee would be to either elect the members at large during regular city-wide elections or to have the nine Neighborhood Councils each nominate a candidate from their respective areas and then have the Council of Councils elect the final three. 

Personally I prefer the Neighborhood Council selection method because it emulates a district or ward system of representation (a system I would like to see us adopt for electing our City Commission) and because it gives the Neighborhood Councils some extra heft and responsibility. 

Unfortunately, as I understand it, either of the two alternative systems for selecting an ethics panel I mention above would require a provision to be inserted into the City Charter, which in turn would require a vote of the people during the next municipal election. And to even get such a provision on the ballot would require the City Commission (yes, the same Commission which is about to select an ethics committee) to pass an ordinance or adopt a resolution – or by a referendum petition requiring signatures from at least 20% of the city electorate. Not much hope this City Commissions will choose to do so.  

For now it appears that we’re stuck with the current City Commission making the decision as to who their own watchdog will be. A City Commission with members who have been pelted with numerous conflicts of interest and ethical issues both in appearance and in reality. Again unfortunately, because of this lack of credibility, any Ethics Committee appointed by this City Commission will lack the vital confidence and trust of many local citizens. Including me. 

GREAT FALLS CITY STAFF, ZONING BOARD AT ODDS OVER FOX FARM DEVELOPMENT

Jeni Dodd on December 4, 2017

An interesting new wrinkle in a Fox Farm area planned unit development (PUD) for a hotel complex has city staff at odds with the city planning advisory board/ zoning commission. The proposed ordinance covering the change, Ordinance 3182, comes to the city commission with a negative recommendation from city staff and a positive recommendation from the planning advisory board/zoning commission.

The city commission will consider whether or not to allow a major change to a previously approved Tietjen Triangle Addition PUD at their December 5 meeting. The commission approved the PUD for the dual-branded Mainstay Suites and Sleep Inn hotel building at their May 2 meeting. This will be the last opportunity for public comment on Ordinance 3182, which would eliminate a condition of approval in the PUD.

That particular condition of approval required the applicant, Billings Holdings LLC, to legally secure access from the proposed hotel development site onto Alder Drive. The city incorporated the following language into the PUD document:

“The applicant is required to obtain an access easement through the property legally described as Country Club Addition, Section 14, Township 20 North, Range 3 East, Block 003, Mark 6. This will allow motorists accessing properties in the PUD to legally utilize an already established vehicle circulation point from Alder Drive. Proof of easement, future design of this access, and associated directional signage on Alder Drive and Fox Farm Road must all be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit for the 2.6 acre tract in the PUD.” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

On October 24, 2017, the planning advisory board/zoning commission recommended the city commission approve the request from the applicant to remove the access easement condition of approval from the PUD. Billings Holdings LLC requested the major change to the PUD because it failed to secure the access easement.

However, Great Falls planning and community development staff recommended that the applicant’s request be denied.

“Staff finds that the applicant has not provided complete or compelling information sufficient to remove a previously approved condition of approval,” (Great Falls City Commission Agenda, December 5, 2017).

The planning advisory board/zoning commission disagreed and by a vote of 8-1, the board supported the applicant’s request and brought it to the city commission. The proposed ordinance seeks to amend a previous ordinance approving the PUD, Ordinance 3152.
It is important to note that the city refers to the applicant’s request to drop the access easement requirement as a MAJOR CHANGE. What does this mean according to the Official Code of the City of Great Falls?

In the OCCGF 17.16.29.100 , Changes in Planned Unit Development, it states that:

“Major changes in the plan of development or supporting data similarly approved shall be considered the same as a new petition, and reapplication shall be made in accordance with the procedures for a new application.”

From my reading of the city code, it would then appear that the applicant must reapply/re-petition for the PUD, since the city has categorized the removal of a condition of approval as a major change. Can the city simply use an ordinance to amend the original ordinance in this case?

It would be helpful if the city included in their documentation why a reapplication/ re-petition is not required or requested. I tried to clarify that with the city commission at the first reading of the ordinance but didn’t get an answer from them.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, either for or against this project, but I do feel that the city commission should follow city zoning codes with all applicants and in all instances, hence my concerns. I’d like to hear from other folks—Do you feel the city commission is following the code on this zoning change?

The December 6 city commission meeting agenda, containing documents pertaining to Ordinance 3179, can be found at:

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_commission/meeting/packets/126981/agenda_2017_12_5_commission_entire_meeting_packet.pdf

Madison Food Park Questions

Jeni Dodd on December 1, 2017

I’m not taking a side; I just have some questions. I repeat, I’M NOT TAKING A SIDE–yet! I want more information to form an informed opinion.

First off, a complaint–Why did Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens plan an informational meeting about this important county-wide issue on Tuesday December 5 at 6:45 pm when there’s a regularly scheduled Great Falls City Commission meeting the same day at 7 pm? Didn’t they think to check whether there were other important meetings going on? Commission meetings are posted months in advance. Or did they know and just not care that some people might want to attend both? Now those people have to make a choice. City commission only meets twice a month. You’d think this group would try to avoid those times. Just another example of the poor planning which has become Great Falls modus operandi.

Mr. Nikolakakos, you’ve stated it’s opportunity for Friesen to “ship Canadian animals to the US and obtain USDA certification while avoiding more stringent labor and environmental rules.” An “opportunity” does not equal a done deal. Do you know the livestock laws well enough to make that statement? What about the local ag producers? Have we heard from them? What’s their level of interest and involvement in this project? Will they utilize this facility?

You also stated, “The submitted application calls for over a billion gallons of water usage a year from the Madison aquifer, putting area wells and water quality at risk.” That sounds like a heck of a lot of water, I grant you that and it sounds potentially harmful. But where is the data that it would be harmful? If you want to fight this, you’re going to need more than speculation. It also seems that the MT DNRC would look at this regarding the potential of affecting water rights of others in the basin. Any word from them?

You also wrote, “Prior to 2017, this plant could not have been approved under agricultural zoning regulations. This was until CEO Edward Friesen recently visited county offices. After the meeting the county, coincidentally, began amending our regulations to match virtually word for word what Friesen needed.”

Okay then, I want to hear more about the meeting between Friesen and county. Did he meet with the county commissioners? Did he meet with county staff? At which meeting did the commissioner vote to change the zoning regulations to match what Friesen needed? If it happened the way you claim, it is perhaps the biggest part of this story.

Isn’t this facility now an allowable use under county zoning? Therefore, wouldn’t some part of their application need to be deficient in some way for the county to refuse to approve it? Deficient in that it doesn’t follow county codes, zoning regulations or is likely to break a law? I don’t believe an unpopularity contest amongst county residents can legally stop it. But then again, I’m not an attorney.

For someone who is an intelligence analyst in the military and therefore should be well versed in critical thinking skills and the use of logical arguments, I’m a bit disappointed in the argument as you’ve presented it. It appears based more in the emotional, rather than the analytical.

Point Counterpoint

Philip M. Faccenda on November 30, 2017

This morning, we published a post by George Nikolakakos, leader of the Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens group opposing the slaughterhouse.

In the interests of balance, several days ago we also reached out to Todd Hanson of Norseman Consulting Group, who has been working with project developer Friesen Foods. We hope Hanson will take us up on our offer to write.

Since this is a such an important community issue with many layers to it, I would also invite anyone else who has some degree of knowledge and who can write to please do so.

We want your IDEAS!

Nikolakakos: Growth At What Cost?

George Nikolakakos on November 30, 2017

The proposed slaughterhouse is the talk of the town, as well it should be. If constructed, the facility will clearly define Great Falls for generations to come. This industrial complex, with a footprint larger than Malmstrom, would be the largest in the North West and sit just four picturesque miles from city limits. The submitted application calls for over a billion gallons of water usage a year from the Madison aquifer, putting area wells and water quality at risk. For context, this is about as much water as the residents of Butte use each and every year. The application also calls for 300 million pounds of animal solids waste production annually as well as a rendering plant which Friesen Foods’ consultant refers to as a “value add further processing center.” Rendering plant, you see, is a bad word widely associated with horrendous travelling stench and countless municipal lawsuits. The health and environmental risks associated with these kinds of facilities are well documented and accessible via a quick internet search. The massive feedlots sure to spring up in this plants wake are their own monster entirely.

Friesen Foods is pitching 3,000 jobs as “opportunity.” It is definitely an opportunity for them to ship Canadian animals to the US and obtain USDA certification while avoiding more stringent labor and environmental rules.  Their sales pitch, however, is the same one other communities around the nation have heard before. They make big promises of jobs and new technology that will finally put an end to smells and health issues. Each time, however, the results prove the same for those duped. Towns like Tonganoxie, Kansas and Mason City, Iowa recently ran away similar plants for good reason. Midwesterners know the cost benefit analysis of these nightmares all too well. Will we learn in time?

Despite Friesen’s wage claims (that they can never be held to) the Bureau of Labor Statistics has median hourly wages for meat processors at $12.78. We have countless employers who can’t fill positions at those wages right now. The truth is the same non-straight shooting guy who speaks of “value add further processing centers” also knows that these jobs won’t be going to people in Great Falls, or even Montana. This industry has a proven foreign labor recruiting system nation-wide. They know these vulnerable people can be taken advantage of and are less likely to complain and unionize. The reality is Americans just don’t take these jobs.

“Growth” some say. Well, tumors grow. The right question is “growth at what cost?” A Michigan University study focused on the pain experienced by towns accepting slaughterhouses. Decimated property values, overcrowded schools, burdened medical services, surges in crime, exhausted welfare services/infrastructure, and a general collapse in quality of life are major themes.  This proposal represents toxic growth. In fact, it is a sure way to chase out young families, professionals, and military retirees who fuel real, sustainable, and long term positive growth.

Even those who support this plan should be troubled by the way it came about on the grounds of honest and transparent government. Prior to 2017, this plant could not have been approved under agricultural zoning regulations. This was until CEO Edward Friesen recently visited county offices. After the meeting the county, coincidentally, began amending our regulations to match virtually word for word what Friesen needed. That, however, is a long story for another day.

The bottom line is, this proposal is a bad deal for our community and our families. There is a clear answer: Bad deal, no way. If you agree, visit us at www.protectthefalls.com.

On Tax Abatements: Billings Says “Yes” Where Great Falls Says “No”

Rick Tryon on November 29, 2017

Back in the day, oh, forty or fifty years ago, there was an ongoing friendly competition between Great Falls and Billings as to which was the best and biggest city. The two Montana big dogs battling for bragging rights. I remember because I was a young sprout at the time, delivering the Great Falls Leader, going to the Liberty Theater for Saturday matinees and ice skating at the indoor Civic Center rink.

Well, Great Falls has been left in the dust by our one-time rival Billings. According to the US Census Bureau, Billings’ population as of 2016 is 110,323, and Great Falls is 59,178.

According to a presentation by Great Falls Development Authority President Brett Doney at a recent neighborhood council meeting, Billings has an industrial tax base of around 19% while Great Falls is at about 3%.

Why? There are several reasons, like the closing of the Anaconda Mining Company, a reduced BN railroad presence, no major college, we’re off the east-west interstate highway etc., but with each passing year the various “reasons” begin to sound more and more like excuses.

A good example of why Billings won the dogfight and continues to win can be found in a recent article from the Billings Gazette.

Two weeks ago, Yellowstone County approved a tax break for the Phillips 66 oil refinery in Billings for a $298 million project:

“The project added 18 full-time positions, bringing total workforce to 320 full-time and two-part time positions. Average wage of new employees is $71.30 per hour, including benefits.”

In contrast, in December of 2016 the Great Falls City Commission voted to deny a $6.3 million tax abatement spread out over 10 years for Calumet Montana Refining Co., which had just completed a $450 million expansion here in Great Falls. Approval of the abatement could have meant more jobs and more economic activity for local business. From the city staff report:

“Staff Comment: The expansion of the refinery has had a very positive impact on employment opportunities within the City. According to data provided by Calumet, the total cumulative effect of adding 40 full-time refinery jobs is anticipated to produce 276 jobs in the industry. It is not known how many of the 276 jobs will be located within the City of Great Falls or Cascade County.”

But no.

To be fair, I was conflicted about the approval of the Calumet tax abatement at the time and reluctantly opposed it after having read the city staff’s reasoning in their recommendation to oppose. Hindsight is always 20-20. I was wrong.

My reasoning at the time was basically that homeowners, especially those living on a fixed income, were going to end up paying more of the cost of local government and infrastructure if we didn’t spread those costs out more to our industrial tax base.

Boy, was I wrong. In the intervening year and a half we have seen our local homeowner taxes continue to go up, up and away with no end in sight. The relief and breathing room for working class citizens and small business I had anticipated has not materialized.

We’re not really in a friendly competition with Billings anymore. They’ve left Great Falls in the dust when it comes to growth and opportunity. But we can get back on track if we’re willing to look at what other state and regional communities are doing to prosper and expand and if we’re willing to adapt and adopt their winning policies and strategies here.

Poll: Slaughter City?

ECB Staff on November 27, 2017

At this point, most everyone knows: Canadian company Friesen Foods wants to bring the largest meat processing plant to Montana — just outside of Great Falls.

Are you in favor of this project or not?

Better yet, tell us why in the comments!

[poll id=”7″]