A Slippery Slope?

Jeni Dodd on February 6, 2018

On February 6, the Great Falls City Commission will vote on Ordinance 3170, a piece of municipal law that I feel could interfere with our Constitutional right to peaceful assembly within city limits.

The ordinance seems innocuous until one delves further into it and finds a whole new section entitled: “Chapter 14.5 PARADES, PROCESSIONS, FUN RUNS AND STREET CLOSURES”

In this chapter, city plans to redefine virtually all events on city streets and sidewalks as “processions” and place further restrictions on those events.

For simplicity of explanation, I’ve only included the text from the ordinance which show the changes I feel could have grave consequences for residents of and visitors to Great Falls. Text in quotations is taken from the ordinance—the strike-through text is eliminated by the ordinance and the bolded text is added. The full text of the ordinance can be found here.

Here is the city’s new, very inclusive definition of “procession.” Note that the city includes “assembly to support a cause” in their definition of a “procession.” Remember that for later.

Here is the city’s new, very inclusive definition of “procession.” Note that the city includes “assembly to support a cause” in their definition of a “procession.” Remember that for later.

“12.145.010 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them.:

A. ”Parade” “Procession” means any march, parade, motorcade, fun run, assembly to support a cause, or procession other event consisting of people, animals, or vehicles, or combination thereof, except funeral processions, upon any public street, sidewalk or alley, which does not comply with normal and usual traffic regulations and controls and is expressly designed for the enjoyment safety and involvement of the public as well as the participants, which is approved by the City under the provisions of this chapter.

The following section of the ordinance sets forth the application process for the all inclusive “procession.”

“12.145.050 Application – contents.

A. Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity desiring who wants to conduct a parade, procession, band practice, or fun run, as defined in OCCGF 12.5.010, shall apply to the Park and Recreation Department for a permit at least one (1) month forty-five (45) calendar days in advance of the event date.and comply with the provisions set forth in such permit….”

What exactly is “an assembly to support a cause?” Could it be a spur-of-the-moment peaceful protest, folks with signs and such? That sounds plausible.

So under this ordinance, would such protests become illegal unless the group applied for the permit 45 days in advance and received city approval? It certainly seems to take away the people’s ability take quick action to peacefully assemble and speak in public for or against an issue. It just feels wrong for the city to do this.

Perhaps more troubling is what follows the above paragraph in the ordinance:

“B. Park and Recreation Department may approve, revise, or deny the application in consideration of the following factors:

  1. Promotion of the community as a whole;
  2. Provision of positive civic and economic benefit;
  3. Impact on neighboring business and properties;
  4. Impact on public uses, safety, and services;
  5. Consideration of frequency of closures;
  6. Consideration of the event’s financial impact; and
  7. The applicant’s performance under prior issued permits.”

With “promotion of the community as a whole” and “provision of positive civic and economic benefit” the city is making itself judge and jury on whether your cause, your protest, your event is appropriate and consequently, whether it will be allowed.

This is a slippery slope that the city shouldn’t be trying to scale.

More On Madison Food Park — Jobs And Water

Jeni Dodd on January 24, 2018

Mr. Nikolakakos, I think you’re better off opposing this on the water/Madision Aquifer issue. That may be the strongest argument.

You called Weissman’s assessment regarding jobs “silly.” However, I found much of your information to be misleading.

First, you mentioned you posted the One Montana Feasibility Study. I found no such study posted on the Protect the Falls website. So I looked on your Facebook page about the slaughterhouse and found only a photo of a portion of a jobs table posted, with an allusion that it comes from the One Montana Study.

You didn’t include a link to the study itself, which made me suspicious. Why not include a link to the whole document?

So I found the document here.

When I accessed that document, I discovered that the photo you posted of the partial jobs table is but a small portion of the information found in the document, “One Montana Meat Processing Facility Feasibility Study”.

You posted only ONE of the FOUR jobs tables found in the study, and you cherry-picked the one showing the LOWEST WAGES. There are other slaughterhouse operations jobs in the study at higher wages, and they aren’t all executive positions. The jobs tables, for those interested, are on pages 82-85 of the study.

Second, your assertions that no one in this town would be interested in jobs at a slaughterhouse that would pay $10-$14 an hour is based on what? Where’s your LOCAL research that no Great Falls job seekers would be interested? Have you asked the folks at Job Service, who work with job seekers every day? Where’s you data?

Also, about a $10 an hour wage, you wrote, “…as any employer here will tell you, myself included, those wages will get you nothing but a chuckle around here….”

Really? Then why does the Great Falls School District advertise and regularly fill jobs such as a current opening for Teacher’s Aide at North Middle School for $8.83-$10.49 an hour? Cascade County also has a current opening for a receptionist and another for clerk at a $12 an hour and the people hired need to join the Teamsters Union at their own cost. After paying union dues, they certainly won’t be making a whole lot more than $10 an hour. Another county job, Respite/Homemaker Provider, pays a whooping $10.50-$11.25 an hour.

Yet, despite what you call “fast food” wages, there’s no shortage of applicants for those positions. So maybe some local folks would indeed be interested in a job at the slaughterhouse.

The US Bureau of Labor & Statistics lists Great Falls median hourly wage as $14.72 (2016). So how do you figure the slaughterhouse wages are so far out of line, considering the full range of wages in four tables of the One Montana report?

I find that your argument about wages lacks credibility at this point. If you argument was strong, you wouldn’t feel it necessary to cherry-pick what you present on your website.

Some of the material presented on Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens and Protect the Falls, appears to use generalizations as arguments against this project. You can cite examples from across the country regarding slaughterhouses and the impact on communities, but each situation is different.

Using examples of what other companies have done that negatively impact communities in some way as proof that Friesen Foods will conduct business the same way is unfair to Friesen Foods. This is how we as a society get into trouble—all X is bad because some X is bad is a bad assumption.

I think the opposition would be better served in focusing on the real issue—water.

According to Madison Food Park’s operational checklist, the facility proposes to sink 3-4 vertical deep wells into the Madison Aquifer and utilize 3,554,209 gallons of water per day.

Yes, folks that a lot of water.

I’ve heard speculations about the water usage, whether a permit is need, etc., so l decided to contact the Montana Department of National Resources regional office in Lewistown. This office covers Cascade County water rights, both surface (spring, creek, river, etc) and ground water (well) appropriations. In speaking with hydrologist Doug Mann, I learned some information pertinent to the Friesen Foods’ proposed water use.

Although the agency has heard about Friesen Foods plans through the media, they have yet to receive an application from Friesen Foods for groundwater appropriation.

The company is required to file Form 600 GW Groundwater Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit and its associated addendums for appropriations of groundwater of more than 35 gallons per minute or 10 acre-feet per year with the MT DNRC. The company could use data from a well or wells of similar depth in the area to support their application.

The company could also drill into the aquifer for testing purposes before approval of the permit. However, they could not put that water to use before permit approval.

The area in question is not part of a controlled groundwater area, as regulated by the MT DNRC. But it is in the Upper Missouri River Basin closure for surface water appropriation. According to Mann, groundwater appropriations that affect the water rights of surface water permit holders in a closed basin could be an issue. So if Friesen Foods’ appropriation of groundwater would affect, for example, a nearby surface water rights holder use of his/her rightful appropriation, that could be an issue for Friesen Foods’ permit approval.

If the MT Department of Natural Resources proposes to grant the groundwater appropriation permit, there would be public notice with in the media (Great Falls Tribune), and the public would have 45 days to comment on the approval

Great Falls Public Schools Alternative Procurement Through A Different Set Of Eyes

Jeni Dodd on January 19, 2018

Phil Faccenda’s articles about Great Falls Public Schools building procurement procedures made me want to take a closer look. State law (Montana Code Annotated or MCA) dictates requirements for the use of alternative delivery project contracts. So I visited Great Falls Public Schools website and perused the documents I could find that are related to the district’s alternative delivery project contracts. Here’s my take on what I found.

The Great Falls Public Schools are required by state law to justify their use of alternative delivery project contracts. The following paragraphs are found in the district’s documents about alternate delivery project contracts for Giant Springs Elementary School and CMR. The “Code Provision” is referenced from the MCA and the italicized text is the district’s response:

“Code Provision (3) The state agency or governing body shall make a detailed written finding that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not: Encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition…”

“The procurement methodology employed by the District is specifically designed to encourage the broadest competition possible, and encourage aggressive pricing competition throughout this process. The Selection Committee will be further instructed to carefully evaluate all submittals against stated selection criteria and award contracts based on the best overall value to the District.”

Brian Patrick, Business Director, Great Falls Public Schools is listed as the author of the document1     document2

It appears to me that the rationale the district employed in these documents explaining the district’s use of alternative delivery project contracts merely assumes the conclusion. It’s a circulus in demonstrando—in other words, an illogical argument.

In these documents, the district is making the argument: “A is true because A is true.”

The reason I came to that conclusion is as follows: I found no “procurement methodology employed by the District” specifically for the use of alternative delivery project contracts, as mentioned in the above paragraphs. Since the district uses that as justification for using an alternative procurement process, how can the district refer to something that doesn’t exist as justification for its actions?

Where is the district’s detailed written findings that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition? The two documents provided offer no “detailed written findings” on which to base the district’s justification for using alternative delivery project contracts for these two projects.

Those making a cursory examination of these documents might dismiss the district’s explanation as valid but I see it as a way to hide the lack of rationale for using the alternative delivery project contracts.

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.

Shots Fired In City Parks Gun Debate

Jeni Dodd on November 25, 2017

The national gun debate has nothing on what is poised to be a hotly contested local
Second Amendment battle.

Yes, concealed weapon permit holders are currently allowed to carry their weapons
in city parks, including the River’s Edge Trail, according to our City Attorney Sara
Sexe. Sexe reported at the November 17 city commission meeting that she had
researched Montana Code Annotated references and looked at the history and
intent of the 1997 city commission, before determining that permit holders are
allowed to carry concealed in city parks. She put that opinion on the record at that
meeting and again at the November 21 city commission meeting.

I concluded as much from my research of the Official Code of the City of Great
Falls and the Montana Code Annotated more than two years ago. When I expressed
my finding that it was legal to acquaintances who kept telling me it wasn’t legal,
they vehemently disagreed with me. So I was vindicated when Sexe confirmed
what I had already determined to be true.

I’ll admit that at first glance the city code appears to ban concealed weapons in city
parks. Even the Great Falls Tribune got it wrong on their website. In articles dated
April 7 and November 17, the Tribune featured a video which further perpetuates
the myth that it is illegal to carry firearms, whether open or concealed carry, in city
parks in Great Falls.

Now that the city commissioners are aware of the “loophole” in the city code, it
seems at least two of them would likely push the opposite agenda, which would
make it illegal for permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.

The matter was made public at the October 17 city commission meeting, when a
group of local residents asked the commissioners for clarification of city laws
regarding concealed carry for weapons permit holders in city parks, including the
River’s Edge Trail. Some of the commenters were from the Missouri River Women
Shooters, a local organization that educates and supports women in the proper use
of firearms. Many had heard a variety of interpretations of local law and thought it
best to hear from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

Commissioner Burow mentioned that he had heard from some folks recently, who
wanted clarification about the code. Mayor Kelly wanted to have City Attorney
Sara Sexe to do further research on the matter before more discussion took place.

The city code currently reads:

9.8.020 – Prohibiting and suppressing the possession of weapons.

A. The carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons (MCA 45-2-101 (76), and as
such statute may hereafter be amended) to, on, or at a public assembly, publicly
owned building, park under City jurisdiction, or school is hereby prohibited.

B. Exceptions are as otherwise provided by MCA 45-8-351(2)(b) which allows for
display of firearms at shows or other public occasions by collectors and others,
and MCA 45-8-317 which states what persons are allowed to carry weapons, and
as such statutes may hereafter be amended.
(Ord. 3158, 2017; Ord. 2732, 1997).

The exception refers back to the Montana Code Annotated 45-8-317 which
provides for concealed carry for permit holders, except where prohibited under
state law.

What further muddies the water is MCA 45-8-351. It contains contradictory
language that leads off with a subsection restricting local governments from
enacting more restrictive weapons laws, except as provided in a later subsection
which allows them to do so for public safety reasons.

In November 1997, the Great Falls City Commission passed Ordinance 2732. The
commission meeting minutes state:

“The purpose of Ordinance 2732 is to exercise the power given in MCA 45-8-351
by establishing an ordinance prohibiting the carrying of concealed or
unconcealed weapons into a public building or to a public assembly.”

Note that the city commission back in 1997 didn’t include concealed carry in city
parks in their statement of purpose. By also inserting the reference to MCA
45-8-317, it seems their intent was to allow permit holders to carry in city parks.

At the November 7 commission meeting, even more Great Falls residents came
forward to show support for concealed weapons carry in the parks and to get an
official clarification. The fact that folks want to see this more clearly defined and
codified, speaks volumes about the public’s perception and mistrust of the city
commission and city government. A city attorney’s interpretation of the law isn’t
enough for them.

Commissioner Bronson made it clear that he wanted to hear from the opposition.
“It’s true that while we have rights of ownership I was always taught that having
a firearm is also a privilege. It’s a privilege from the standpoint of listening to
what my neighbors and friends have to say about it…

“We have to have a community conversation about this because, quite frankly,
after the presentation three weeks ago, I was approached by some people and
what they told me is they were scared of what they heard here that night. I said,
“Why are you scared. I know a lot of these people, they’re wonderful folks.
They’re no threat to you.” Well, they think you are. They’re afraid of people who
carry guns. And while I don’t share their fear, I understand where they’re
coming from….”

Mayor Kelly also made it clear that he wanted to postpone any action on the issue
until after the newly elected commissioners were seated.

“This conversation is appropriate and it’s timely and is driven by concern and
fear, which is warranted. There’s an opportunity to continue this discussion and
I hope to do that in the new year….

“Anytime you talk about increased gun availability, gun usage, gun issues, it’s an
emotional side. As I said three weeks ago, we’ve heard from one side and we
haven’t heard from the other. There’s time to do that and we will do that. My
goal here is to have a community dialogue about this, perhaps not even in these
chambers, but as a community forum, so that the sides, the different sides of this
issue can look at each other and talk about their fears and their concerns,
because there’s warranted discussion on both sides….I’d also like to give an
opportunity to the two new commissioners who are going to be sitting up here an
opportunity to be in that discussion and to listen to the community and go
forward from there.”

One must wonder if the current commissioners, minus Commission Burow, are
postponing any action until the new year in order to get unanimous support for a
government-knows-best political agenda of further restricting firearms within the
city. Commissioner Burow, who came forward in support of clarifying the current
code, rather than opening it up to more debate, would be gone. By all appearances
the two newly elected commissioners, Mary Moe and Owen Robinson, would
support more local governmental restrictions on gun rights in Great Falls.
Moe’s support of a more liberal agenda leads me to believe that she would vote to
ban concealed carry in our parks. I may be generalizing here but it seems to me
that anyone who wants to remove historic statues in the name of political
correctness is probably miles away from the right-to-bear-arms camp.

Owen Robinson would likely oppose it as well. At the October 17 city commission
meeting, Tammy Evans, organizer of the Missouri River Women Shooters, asked
for a show of hands supporting permit holders to concealed carry in city parks.
Most hands in the room went up. Robinson was at that meeting but his hand stayed
down. A pretty solid indication of the way he’d vote.

I hope they both prove me wrong.

At the November 21 city commission meeting, we heard from some opposition to
concealed carry in parks. The gun paranoia was obvious.

BJ Angermeyer stated she was, “Speaking on behalf of many of my fellow citizens
appalled that the guns may possibly be in our beloved parks and trails.”
In response, Mayor Kelly said, “We’ll have an opportunity to hear from you in
greater length etc. at a meeting we’ll have in the new year.”

Sharon Patton Griffin opined that, “We have a past practice of not allowing
concealed carry in parks.” She went on to claim that should have carry some
weight in the matter.

She stated she had a letter from her husband and then explained why he didn’t
come.

“I tell you quite frankly that he was afraid to come tonight because he said you
know, there’s gonna be some gun nut there that will shoot all of us there that don’t
believe in…ah…”

Someone interrupted and said, “That’s ridiculous.”

I’d have to agree. If you don’t feel safe in a room with members of the Great Falls
Police Department in attendance, guns at the ready, where would you feel safe?
Also, permit holders aren’t allowed to bring weapons into public buildings and
know it. The person more likely to enter a public building or public assembly with
guns blazing will not be a concealed carry permit holder—I think that can be
shown by looking at past incidents.

These scared-of-firearms folks should be more worried about criminals who carry
guns and aren’t going to follow the law, than about law-abiding citizens who
follow the law and exercise their God-given and Second Amendment affirmed
right to carry.

A potential rapist on River’s Edge Trail won’t choose to follow the law and not
carry a weapon, just to break another law—that’s ludicrous. The gun paranoia
folks, by banning concealed carry in city parks and trails, will just create more soft
targets. The Great Falls police can’t accompany ever citizen who wants to walk the
River’s Edge Trail. What’s it going to take for these folks to realize we are better
off with an armed citizenry, instead of a disarmed citizenry unable to defend
against armed thugs?

The debate is on and it looks like it’s not going away as some had hoped.
Interestingly, weapons include more than firearms under Great Falls and Montana
law. For example, knives having a blade 4 inches long or longer are among the
objects defined as weapons by the MCA.

Consider this: if you brought a 4 inch, or longer blade knife to Gibson Park to cut your picnic watermelon this Summer, and you are not a concealed carry permit holder, did you break the law?