Author: Jeni Dodd

_______________________________________________________________________

The developments with the potential city/Maclean Animal Center are quite disturbing to me. Yes, legally two commissioner can apparently meet with members of groups, including the Maclean. They claim these meetings are not secret because Commission Robinson mentioned investigating a city partnership with the Maclean as a commission initiative back in February. Mayor Kelly even stated that Commission Moe and Robinson’s efforts were exploratory at best.

However, documents I secured in a FOIA revealed that the effort of the commissioners are much more than exploratory, as revealed in a previous article in E-City Beat.

I want everyone to read Commissioner Moe’s comments at the May 7 commission meeting where the cattery project was finally allowed to proceed. Then I have followed with some questions I want everyone to think about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_AD0My5DA8&feature=youtu.be

Commissioner Moe speaking on the potential Maclean partnership and the Cattery decision Transcribed from City Commission meeting on May 7, 2019. Moe’s comments start at approximately 1:53:47.

“I hinted at our last meeting what I considered to be the problems with the proposal that is in front of us and I think Commissioner Bronson has alluded to the larger issue which is of greater concern to me than the one in front of us tonight.

And the larger issue is that it doesn’t make sense for a community that is as tax sensitive as this community is, to turn its back on the fact that we are duplicating services; that there are ways that we can work with the foundation to meet the missions of both and that the potential for cost savings is extraordinary.

As an example, Commissioner Robinson and I recently visited Heart of the Valley Animal Shelter in the Gallatin Valley and for a fraction of what we are paying annually, they contract with the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, at

least one other community, Belgrade, and Madison County, I believe, and if we contracted with them under the same circumstances, we would save five hundred thousand dollars a year—half a million dollars a year.

And I’m not saying that these discussions will lead us to anything close to that number but I am saying that if we can save money and provide an equal or better product, we have to let the grievances of the past go. We have to find a way to make it work. We owe that to all the other departments in this city that are struggling to perform their missions.

So I have been focused on that bigger picture at the same time that I would not want anyone in this room or beyond it to conclude that I have anything but the highest respect for the shelter staff, particularly its director who I admire greatly, or that I care less for the animals that are there which is not the case at all.

And in fact, I really wrestled with this decision because I think it takes us one more step in the wrong direction. But, and I would point out to you that when we turned down the bid a year ago, the bid at that time was for seven hundred and five thousand dollars I believe, to do the cattery. And it’s come down two hundred and fifty grand. So let’s re-examine the idea that oh, if we put this off we’ll never get that good a bid again. That may not be true.

But what seems to me is true is that more cats will be sick and probably some of them will die, and they will be in conditions that we should not say as a city that we can tolerate, so that’s animals first.

And the second one is a whole bunch of people gave a lot of money to make this happen. And it’s amazing what they’ve accomplished. And I don’t want to undermine that philanthropy in any way. I think it’s truly extraordinary and as a practical matter, as many of my CPA friends have told me—you can’t give it back. I mean, it’s not like you can just say, we’re going to do that—it’s very problematic in terms of giving it back.

So those two things have been dispositive for me. But I want you to know that I still think that these discussions are important to have, that my vote tonight does not indicate any kind of commitment to anything future with regard to the master plan at all. And that I am fully cognizant that the facility, although I’ve been assured that it will not require additional FTEs, that ultimately I believe that it will. I’ve dealt with expanded facilities and it is an increased liability on its face. So, but that said we have raised the money, we have cats that are in dire

need and so, I’m going to support this. But I want you to give me and Owen a chance to see if we can’t save this community money and the needs of these animals, just as well. And if we can’t, we can’t. But I just have to try.”

So there you have it, Moe on record, and I have several concerns regarding what Commission Moe has said in the above statement. These are but a few of the questions I would have for her:

First, Moe claims she is concerned that the cattery will add additional full time employees to the city budget. But Moe has already authored a proposal for the Maclean/City of Great Falls partnership entitled “Joining Hands” (see here). In that proposal, the city takes over responsibility for all costs for its “mission.”

What is the city’s mission you may wonder— well the city will be responsible for the feeding, housing and medical care for the animals at both the Maclean and the Animal Shelter. That certainly will cost the city additional FTEs, along with other costs they don’t have now.

How can Moe be concerned about additional employees for the cattery and not be concerned about additional employees to run the Maclean?

Secondly, is Moe merely ill informed when she stated the potential saving could be half a million dollars a year? Is she correct? No, on both counts. We know she’s not ill informed because she authored the partnership document which states the fiduciary responsibilities of both parties. She knows the city will take on the lion’s share of costs, including increased staff at city wages. She also knows that the majority of the budget now for the Animal Shelter is “personal services” which is city employee costs—more than half a million a year according to their budget.

So how can she rationalize that the increased staff needed to run both facilities and the increased cost of caring for animals at both facilities would save the city money?

The emails I secured also mention a lease. I’m guessing that means the Maclean will charge the city rent for use of their facility, which the Maclean clearly retains ownership of in the partnership. So, even more costs to the city. Where’s the savings in that?

Moe also mentioned in recent commission meetings that duplication of costs that are currently taking place and alludes to a cost savings once those duplication are eliminated. But it appears to me that the only savings will be for the Maclean, as their duplicated costs of caring for animals and running the facility appeared to be eliminated in the partnership.

Who will ultimately pay for these costs? You the taxpayer will foot the bill when additional costs are passed along to the city.

I believe that, even though these “talks” between Commissioners Moe and Robinson (who is former president of the Animal Foundation/Maclean) are apparently legal, they are not truly in the best interests of the city.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Last year, we had the City of Great Falls’ Department of Housing and Urban Development/Community Development Block Grant funding conflict of interest debacle. Before that, we had the Electric City Power fiasco.

I think you get my drift. It’s important to be ever vigilant about the workings of our government, a government by and for the people. The Founding Fathers knew this and encouraged citizens to hold government accountable to the people. I just wish there were more people out there willing to be vigilant. It’s lonely at these city commission meetings.

The city commission voted at their November 7 meeting to suspend the Design Review Board for six months. City staff recommended the action because of current staff workload. The city planning staff is short on people. Apparently, working with the DRB with a planning staff shortage is more onerous than doing without the DRB for the time being.

I’ve interacted with a lot of people in Great Falls and through the years, I’ve heard nothing but complaints and grumblings about the DRB. Some people have told me it’s an unnecessary hurdle to development in Great Falls, particularly since we already have city building codes and zoning regulations. There were other comments too, including a business entity that told me they couldn’t use a supplier they wanted to use for a project.

I always take what I hear with some degree of skepticism. However, being both curious and concerned, I presented what I had heard from the public at the commission meeting and posited that there may be issues with the DRB. Additionally, I suggested that perhaps the DRB wasn’t necessary.

Commissioner Bronson (serving that night as Mayor Pro Tem) was verbose in expressing support for the DRB. To sum it up, he made it clear that he would agree to suspend the DRB for six months, but only to give the city staff “breathing room.” Bronson said he valued the DRB process and added:

“Quite frankly, the suggestion that this impedes development—I’ve always regarded as a myth,” he said.

Commissioner Houck insinuated that my comments were character assassination. Following the meeting when I approached her to assert that I was merely bringing up concerns and had no other motive, she doubled down on her vilification. She claimed my concerned citizen comments were “unfounded accusations meant to cause harm” and stated that I was “doing this for attention.” I told her in no uncertain terms that was not true. She then told me that I had no right to bring these concerns up during a public meeting.

Well, so much for transparency and government by and for the people of Great Falls!

Indeed isn’t this exactly what leftists/progressives in the resistance movement do to suppress free speech? Whenever someone says something that doesn’t fit into their world view, they re-characterize or re-frame the communication and ascribe a motive that attempts to shame, imply immorality or vilify the speaker in some way. In case anyone thinks that wouldn’t happen in Montana, I’m here to tell you that it has happened to me right here in Great Falls.

Further, Houck’s comment that I was “doing it for attention” couldn’t be further from the truth. I feel compelled to speak out but not for attention. In fact, in speaking out—I’ve lost what I thought were friends and I’ve lost work opportunities. It seems quite a few people in Great Falls can’t tolerate those who express a difference of political opinion or point out what they feel is an injustice. Though they claim to, they don’t really believe in civil discourse when the views stray too far from their views. It’s been a painful lesson but I’ve learned just who are the truly intolerant ones.

By the way, Commissioner Houck should know that privately meeting and discussing issues with citizens is the antithesis to transparency in government. She should instead be telling constituents to come to commission meetings to express their comments in a public forum. She should welcome it.

So it was something about the dichotomy between the Commission’s support of the DRB and what I’d heard around town that reminded me of the emperor-wearing-no-clothing parable. That and Houck’s nastiness to me about voicing my concerns compelled me to do some research.

A cursory search of meeting minutes from just one DRB meeting (by happenstance, the first one I looked at) led me to an example reminiscent of the city’s recent HUD-CDBG debacle.

At the May 22, 2017 meeting, DRB Vice Chair Tyson Kraft, also an employee of Nelson Architects, represented that firm by presenting on his firm’s Benefis Emergency Department Expansion project.

The Official Code of the City of Great Falls, 2.21.050 (G) states: No officer or employee, or any business organization in which he or she has an interest, shall represent any other person or party except the City in connection with any cause, proceeding, application, or other matter pending before any agency of the City of Great Falls; except in the process of collective bargaining for public employees or where any officer or employee or members of his or her immediate family shall represent himself, herself or themselves, in negotiations or proceedings concerning his, her, or their own interests; (emphasis added).

In addition, Montana Code Annotated, 2-2-12. (5) states: A public officer or public employee may not participate in a proceeding when an organization, other than an organization or association of local government officials, of which the public officer or public employee is an officer or director is:

(a) involved in a proceeding before the employing agency that is within the scope of the public officer’s or public employee’s job duties; or

(b) attempting to influence a local, state, or federal proceeding in which the public officer or public employee represents the state or local government (emphasis added).

The Official Code of the City of Great Falls 2.21.040 (G) defines advisory board members as officers. Granted, Kraft recused himself from voting on the project. So there is that.

But isn’t it still a conflict of interest to present your employer’s project at a meeting where you also sit on the advisory board that would vote to approve or deny that project? Even if you do recuse yourself? Should a board member discuss a project with which he/she is involved at a board meeting? Should a board member even attend a meeting where his/her employer is subject to a board decision?

I’ve already heard the excuse some folks will give. They say that this is a small town and it is inevitable that conflicts of interest exist on advisory boards. I would challenge that assertion. There are others qualified to serve on advisory boards that have been turned down in the past—folks without perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

So are there more examples of this with the DRB? It’s disheartening for me to see yet another instance of a city advisory board with perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

________________________________________________________________________

Golf is a valued recreational activity in Great Falls, however, some are now voicing concerns regarding the long term sustainability of two municipal golf courses in Great Falls and the Park and Recreation Department’s ability to continue to operate them.

The City of Great Falls is responsible for Anaconda Hills and Eagle Falls golf courses. Unfortunately, the golf course fund is $1,199,882 in the red as of December 2017 and according to Finance Director Melissa Kinzler, the debt gets worse every year.

From the February 6, 2018, city commission work session:

“Director Kinzler reported that the golf course ending fund balance is negative $1,199,882 as of December 31, 2017. She explained that the revenues are less, which may be due to weather; however, it still has the full time expenses of staff. The cash balance gets worse every year, as well as an increase with the intercap interest.”

Apparently, city golf course operations were shored up by the city’s general fund for a number of years, as noted in the city commission’s work session notes, dated February 2, 2016:

“Director Kinzler reported that the last debt service payment was made in September for the golf courses. Manager Doyon commented that the consultant will touch on whether or not the City should have two golf courses in the Park & Recreation Master Plan. Just because the debt service is relieved, the golf courses still owe the general fund a significant amount of money.”

Despite the debt service retirement in 2016, it seems the city still has a financial situation on its hands with the golf fund’s negative balance of over a million dollars. At least one city official would like to see the city take a different approach in running the municipal golf courses.

“City Manager Greg Doyon expressed concern with regard to resolving the golf course debt. He commented that the golf course fund needs to be operated like a business. If it can’t be sustained, other areas in Park and Recreation, as well as the flexibility of the General Fund that could address other priorities, would be affected.”  February 6, 2018, city commission work session.”

Yes, it appears we have a problem with the city-run golf courses’ financials. But Great Falls is far from alone in its municipal golf woes. A quick search online shows many communities across the country are dealing with the dilemma. For example, Duluth, Minnesota is one community facing financial difficulties with its courses:

Duluth Looking for Solutions to Public Golf Troubles

Participation in golf has been in decline for almost a decade. The Great Falls Parks and Recreation Master Plan, October 2016 (Master Plan), includes statistics from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2016, which notes that golf participation nationally has decreased  7.7% from 2010-2015.

An online search of golf statistics will back up that truth—golf as a leisure activity is declining in popularity. Factors leading to the decline have been noted in a variety of online news articles and golf industry research and include millennials lack of interest in golf, time constraints with current golfers and cost of play.

Great Falls is above the national average for the number of municipal golf courses per population, according to the Master Plan. The Master Plan used recreational industry service standards to compare to current Great Falls park amenities. The standards recommend one municipal golf course per 50,000 population. Great Falls has one course per 29,491 population.

“Great Falls is above the national average for the number of municipal golf courses per population, according to the Master Plan. The Master Plan used recreational industry service standards to compare to current Great Falls park amenities. The standards recommend one municipal golf course per 50,000 population. Great Falls has one course per 29,491 population.”

According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Great Falls needs to answer the question of whether or not the golf courses should be subsidized. The Master Plan also raises some doubts about the city’s ability to sustain two courses:

“Golf is highly valued in the community, however, questions arose regarding the long term sustainability of the department’s ability to operate two, eighteen-hole golf courses.”

Highly valued might be a bit of an overstatement. The Great Falls parks survey showed that only 16% of the respondents listed golf as one of their top four recreational choices in Great Falls. The top valued recreational choice for Great Falls was trails, at 48%.

Great Falls needs a solution to its golf dilemma. Continued “mulligans” from the general fund aren’t the answer. I would tend to agree with Doyon, the courses should be run more like a business. What does a business sometimes do when it can no longer operate all of its facilities? It makes the tough decision to shut some of them down.

So then, should the city consider doing the same?

The City Commission’s response to HUD findings of conflicts of interest in Jenn Rowell’s February 21 article on The Electric are a bit perplexing.

https://theelectricgf.com/2018/02/21/mayor-issues-apology-on-cdbg-process-staff-addresses-recent-hud-letter/

Here’s a quote from Rowell’s story: “The city is not fighting the HUD findings related to the CDBG process, but is following up in regards to HUD’s interpretation of City Attorney Sara Sexe’s comments during a June meeting.”

I found the following in HUD’s letter to the city, which contains the HUD interpretation that the city apparently took issue with:

“Finally, we are concerned with an exchange between the City Commission and the City Attorney as it relates to the 2017 allocation. The minutes for Great Falls’ June 20, 2017  Regular City commission Meeting, contain a statement by City Attorney Sara Sexe that “a representative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development had reported that there was not a conflict of interest.” That statement is false. While we do not need a response to this issue, we do want to make it clear that this office did not previously review and excuse the city of any Conflicts of Interest. We are currently engaged in that process.”  (emphasis added)

The city and Sexe assert that Sexe’s comment from the meeting minutes (bolded above) is a summary and taken out of context. It is suggested that one should reference the video/audio of her comments at the meeting for the full picture.

I remember I had watched that video last year but ever curious, I just watched again. The video of the June 20, 2017 commission meeting is here:

https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=1a503083-ed7d-414a-82f3-1c761b960794&prefilter=146%2C563 

First some background on that meeting’s CDBG funding vote. On June 6, the city commission passed the CDBG funding for public facilities projects. However, it was later determined that was an invalid vote because it passed with a simple majority of 2-1-1 (Commissioner Burow dissenting, Commissioner Houck abstaining, Commissioner Bronson was absent).

So on Jun 20, the CDBG funding for public facilities had to be put to a revote before the commission.

At that meeting, Commissioner Bronson was present. He spoke of a May 25 memo in which he detailed his family members’ involvement with organizations requesting CDBG funding and his assessment that there is no conflict of interest.

Bronson begins this discussion at @ 2:07:05. He further states @ 2:08:02 that the memo is on the city’s website. At @ 2:11:00, Bronson claims that the memo along with City Attorney Sexe’s concurrence letter, was provided to HUD. Sexe agrees with that in the meeting.

At @ 2:11:2, Sexe states, “Your letter and mine, indicating agreement to there being no conflict under the regulation that we evaluated as to your son (Commissioner Bronson’s son) were provided to the representative of Housing and Urban Development who spoke to our CDBG administrator and verbally indicated agreement that there was no conflict.”

I’m left scratching my head over why the city and Sexe feel it necessary to dispute HUD’s “interpretation” of Sexe’s statement. I don’t see a major difference in meaning between the meeting minutes summary of what Sexe said versus her verbatim statement. The semantics in this case seem negligible.

So to paraphrase, according to Sexe, the agreement that there was no conflict of interest (regarding Bronson family members) came from a HUD representative to the city’s CDBG administrator before the commission vote in June. HUD claims that their agency did not review and offered no such report to city staff regarding any conflicts of interest—until now. The term “any” in HUD’s response would include the Bronson matter.

Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUD requires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).

‘Seems to me this isn’t a matter of “interpretation”—either HUD verbally advised the CDBG administrator that there was no conflict of interest or they didn’t. However, it doesn’t seem likely that HUD would do that; it’s just not their standard procedure. HUD requires a written request for a conflict of interest exception; that regulation is found in the Code of Federal Regulations 24 CFR 570.611(d).’

I don’t think HUD would state there’s no conflict without that written request. I believe the agency would keep things legitimate and legal by responding in writing and not verbally (to be more precise, orally). Further, if the city provided HUD with Bronson’s memo and Sexe’s concurrence back in May, let’s see the proof that someone with the city mailed or emailed those documents.

Ultimately the city is responsible for knowing the rules and playing by them. It’s troubling that we now find a history of the city commission ignoring federal regulations. Instead of making HUD the enemy for taking away money from the self-described deserving organizations, perhaps we should consider all the organizations that sought funding through the years, but didn’t stand a chance because the skewed process and actions of the city commission.

By the way, an extensive search of the city’s website did not produce Bronson’s memo even though he claimed it was posted there. Normal city procedure would put it in the meeting agenda packet for the date CDBG funds are voted on, but it’s not there.

The city did provide Commissioner Bronson’s memo upon request and it is available here.

Below are links to CDBG items in the agenda packets for June 6 and June 20.

https://greatfallsmt.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=449&MeetingID=34

https://greatfallsmt.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=495&MeetingID=36

This spring, voters will decide whether to support or defeat another tax burden for the already strapped taxpayers of Great Falls.

The park district resolution passed at the February 6 commission meeting. Voters will be asked on May 8 whether they’re willing to create and fund a Great Falls park district. The discussion at the commission meeting took an interesting turn when Commissioner Bronson chose to comment on park lands.

Speaking about the parks, Commissioner Bronson mentioned our city’s founder Paris Gibson was a strong proponent of park lands. “Gibson realized that when you construct a city you have to have those open spaces…I would certainly hope that anybody who has concerns about the fees that are being requested keeps Mr. Gibson’s vision in mind when they go forward…”

To that I would reply that open spaces are quite a bit different from highly developed and maintained parks. The city of Great Falls has 57 parks. Some are merely open spaces but most have some degree of development requiring maintenance. Seems like the commissioner is comparing apples to oranges. Not as much maintenance cost with the open spaces Gibson envisioned versus developed parks.

Also, times have changed and some parks are underutilized. Video games, organized sports and the internet seem to rule the youth of our society. Whereas I spent most of my childhood outdoors nearly every waking hour that I wasn’t in school, I really don’t see that happening as much now with our youth.

Next, Bronson spent a little time blasting the state legislature for forcing municipalities to put questions like park district creation on the same ballot as school district elections. The way he spoke about the legislature, he made it sound like their whole purpose was to put a monkey wrench into everything Montana municipalities try to do.

“This is another example of how the legislature, for reasons totally unknown, always manages to make it difficult for us, in the cities and towns, to govern our own affairs, even to the point of whether we can ask the question or put the question before our voters; do you want to do something like this?”

Commissioner Bronson added, “It’s unfortunate we have to be put in a position of competition with our friends in the public school system.”

“Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.”

Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.

Bronson went on to bring up a recent letter to the editor that questioned why the city can’t just sell unused park lands. He went on to explain why that wasn’t feasible.

“Trust me, if our staff, which supervises our resources, honestly believed that was a workable option, they would have come to us and made that suggestion,” he said. “The reason they have not is that they know, as the commission does, that it will not work…

Nothing probably brings out more opposition from the neighborhood councils, the neighbors in those areas, the parents of school children, than to even have a discussion about that concept….

They know as well as we do, sure you could put a piece of parkland on the market, but we have to have it appraised, the buyer has to pay at least the appraised value, and then what are they going to put…what use are they going to put it to. It’s in a residential area, if the suggestion is that it’s going to become commercial or something else, imagine the war whoops from the neighbors, again that you’re taking a piece of open space and converting it to some kind of commercial or business use in their backyard….

Staff has already considered that in the past and it’s been rejected because it’s not a viable option….”

So then why did the city commission just sell off a small portion of Lions Park recently to an adjacent landowner for business purposes?

The city commission voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 3184, which rezoned a 12 feet wide by 132.5 feet long strip of Lions Park from POS Parks and Open Space to C-2 General Commercial, and sell that land to PBA Properties, LLC.

Okay, so it’s a seemingly inconsequential little piece of land—but it’s still parkland, isn’t it? It appears the line in the sand that Bronson claims the commission and city staff won’t cross to sell parkland isn’t a line after all. It’s also not the first time parklands have been considered for sale.

Previous park master plans have identified certain parklands as surplus and the city subsequently sold some of them. For example, the city commission voted to sell a little over two acres to Meadowlark Country Club back in June 1999. In 2003, city staff recommended sale of the park land Block 1 and 2, Park Place Addition to Plains Grains Limited Partnership and the city commission approved the sale in May 2003.

There weren’t any “war whoops” on those properties, so indeed some parklands are sold without protest from the public.

In 2013, the city commission, including Commission Bronson looked at possible sales of city parkland during a presentation about the Great Falls park system at the commission work session on February 19, 2013.

From the meeting minutes:

“Park and Recreation Director Marty Basta provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Great Falls park system. He noted that many parks were acquired as an obligation by a developer to provide park land as part of the development….

Commissioner Jones would like to pursue the possible sale of the Clara property and Boston Heights Park, and either enforcement of encroachments or the possible sale of the West Hill property….

In addition to the recommendations made by Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Bronson believes the possible sale of the Skyline Addition property should also be pursued…” (emphasis added)

https://greatfallsmt.net/sites/default/files/archives/records/minutes/yr2010/m02022010.php

As is obvious from all of the above, the city has entertained selling underutilized parks and surplus park land in the past—so why not in conjunction with the latest park master plan? I haven’t even seen any parkland identified as surplus or underutilized in the latest plan. Why not?

For many of us squeezed by an ever-increasing tax burden, it comes down to this—would we rather see another tax increase or the sale of underutilized/surplus parkland?

The city of Great Falls has also leased out parkland to other entities, including the pasta plant and Great Falls Public Schools. Perhaps the park director and his staff should take a look at those leases to determine whether they are really at market value.