Let The Sunshine In

Rick Tryon on March 19, 2018

Every week should be ‘Sunshine Week’ when it comes to informing citizens about what their local public officials are up to.

E-City Beat has asked me to do some research and writing concerning the recent Community Development Block Grant conflicts of interest issues involving Department of Housing and Urban Development funds and the Great Falls City Commission and Community Development Council.

You can read my piece about Mayor Kelly and his ‘apology’ concerning HUD rescinding CDBG funding here.

Since the local media has chosen to mostly ignore or minimize this embarrassing chapter in our City Commissions handling of taxpayer funds I, and possibly others, will be doing a full expose in the coming days and weeks. A good place to start will be the February letter from HUD to the City of Great Falls detailing the matter.

Below is the full text of that letter. Every citizen should read it a couple of times in order to understand the continuing problems for all of us arising from this fiasco which was totally preventable and one hundred percent intentional.

February 1, 2018

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Community Planning and Development Region VIII, Denver

Gregory T. Doyon, City Manager

City of Great Falls

Subject: Conflict of Interest Finding

Dear Mr. Doyon:

We appreciate the thorough review of the City of Great Falls’ 2012-2017 CDBG funding decisions. Your letter dated December 20, 2017 concluded that the City did not violate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Conflict of Interest rules at 24 CFR $ 570.611. The City’s opinion appears to be based on a narrow interpretation and application of the regulations.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Region VIII Office of Community Planning and Development must take a broader approach to the enforcement of those regulations to preserve the integrity of the program. The Department’s opinion on this matter is detailed within this letter, which includes a Finding constituting a regulatory violation of the CDBG Conflict of Interest rules at 24 CFR $ 570.611.

Review of Great Falls Funding History

The CDBG conflict of interest regulations at 24 CFR $ 570.611 are necessarily broad. No person in a position to either exercise decision-making authority or to gain inside information may obtain a financial benefit. The regulations cover any “employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any designated public agencies, or of subrecipients that are receiving funds.” 24 CFR $ 570.611(c).

We emphasize the broad scope, interpretation, and application of the conflicts of interest rules; the purpose is to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the CDBG funding process. Note that a subrecipient organization must also abide by the conflict regulations. While a subrecipient organization may receive funding from multiple sources, the aggregate funding allows the organization to function as a whole. HUD will not trace specific budget allocations in determining whether a conflict exists. If an individual with access to the CDBG funding decision making process works with a subrecipient, there is a conflict. A benefit is available to both the individual and the subrecipient organization.

The broad nature of the conflict regulations does not necessarily preclude those with an apparent conflict from participating in a CDBG activity. Requests for exceptions are available under 24 CFR $ 570.611(d).

With regard to the City of Great Falls, we consider any member of the City’s Commission or Community Development Council to be in a decision-making position and able to gain “inside information” on the CDBG funding process. The City’s letter dated December 20, 2017 identified 14 individuals who participated in the Commission or Council between 2012 and 2017, and who would also be identified as persons covered by Section 570.611(c). In total, $522,252.00 was awarded by the Commission and Council between 2012 and 2017 to entities from which the 14 members noted above, or those with whom they have business or immediate family ties, obtained a financial interest or benefit.

Further, it is the opinion of this office that the Anderson Zurmuehlen & Co., P.C. audit is unnecessary. The introduction of CDBG funding into a subrecipient organization, whether intended or not, supplants other resources and otherwise contributes to the total capacity and growth of an organization as to create a net benefit for all individuals associated with the entity. Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization. That her responsibilities and wages are not associated with CDBG activities will be significant and useful information to consider in a request for a conflict of interest exception.  

The City of Great Falls must take action to resolve both past violations of HUD’s Conflict of Interest rules and develop protocols to avoid the appearance of future conflicts. The Finding below summarizes the conditions leading to the violation, HUD’s criteria for compliance, the cause of the conflict, its effect on the City’s funding, and the required corrective action to close this Finding.

Finding – Conflict of Interest

Condition: Between 2012 and 2017, both the City of Great Fall’s Commission and Community Development Council included members who had existing business or personal relationships with organization seeking CDBG funding.

Criteria: 24 CFR $ 570.611 prohibits those in a position to participate in the decision-making process for CDBG awards or gain information about such funding decisions from receiving a financial interest or benefit from organizations seeking CDBG funding, either for themselves, family members, or business relations.

Cause: Between 2012 and 2017, the City of Great Fall’s CDBG decision making process included a Community Development Council made up of employees and board members of agencies receiving regular allocations of CDBG funds. The City Commission membership, the final approving authority for the City’s CDBG funding, also included members with business or personal relationships with employees of CDBG subrecipients or subrecipients themselves.

Effect: At a minimum, these actions create the appearance of impropriety in the CDBG funding process, as well as actual conflicts of interest I some cases. As a result, it is likely that the City of Great Falls CDBG funding did not reach the full spectrum of agencies within the community that would have otherwise been eligible.

Corrective Actions:

  1. The City must develop new Project Selection, Citizen Participation and Conflict of Interest policies and procedures that prevent CDBG funding from benefiting a person in a decision-making position at the City or a person with a business or personal relationship with those in a decision-making position at the City. These policies and procedures must be submitted to HUD in advance of the formal adoption for a review of consistency and compliance with applicable policies and regulations.
  2. The City of Great Falls must submit an Exception request pursuant to 24 CFR $ 570.611(d) for its 2017 funding decisions.
  3. Corrective actions must be completed ninety (90) days from the date of this communication. Failure to comply will require the repayment of funds identified as subject to conflicts of interest from 2012 to the present.

Remaining 2017 Allocation

It is our understanding that the 2017 CDBG funding awards for Habitat for Humanity, Rural Dynamics, and NeighborWorks Great Falls have been suspended as a result of the associated conflicts of interest. As noted in the City’s letter, and referenced throughout the Commission and Council meeting notes, there was a procedural error in the initial scoring of the 2017 applications. We need a more precise description of these procedures and the error before our office can provide guidance to help the City move forward with its outstanding CDBG awards. What procedures were violated; when and how were they violated; how was the violation identified; and how did the City respond?

The City may also submit requests for conflict of interest exceptions in order to proceed with the 2017 CDBG awards to Habitat for Humanity, Rural Dynamics, and NeighborWorks Great Falls.

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.” This 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 Conflict of Interests. We are currently engaged in that process.

If you have any questions about this letter, or need assistance in preparing the corrective action, do not hesitate to contact Don Morris, Senior CPD Representative, at (303) 672-5418 or don.r.morris@hud.gov.

Sincerely,

Aaron B. Gagne

Regional Director

Great Falls Mayor Kelly Dancing Around The Issues

Rick Tryon on March 7, 2018

Kudos are in order for Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly. Well, sort of at least.

At the 2/20/18 City Commission meeting, the Mayor apologized to citizens and to the organizations that won’t be receiving almost $200,000 in CDBG grants. Well, kind of apologized anyway.

The reason that some local non-profit organizations will not be receiving the grant money they rely on from last year’s CDBG distribution is because the US Department of Housing and Urban Development revoked the funding due to conflicts of interest occurring within the local Community Development Council and from within the City Commission itself.

I truly appreciate Mayor Kelly’s attempt to take some responsibility here. I think it’s a refreshing and somewhat surprising departure from what has been a disturbing lack of honesty, transparency and accountability within the City Commission for a while now.

You can find the Mayor’s comments and apology here, starting at 42:17 and going until 45:34 on the video. It does seem, however, that the Mayor is still in a little bit of denial about the nature of the conflicts of interest that are at the heart of this entire fiasco.

Kelly: “So I think the best thing to do and something I feel very strongly about is to take full responsibility for the confusion and for the apparent conflict of interest…” (emphasis added)

Confusion?

Well, yes the public has been confused by the contradictory words and behavior exhibited by Kelly and other commissioners as it pertains to their votes to distribute taxpayer funds. But it’s pretty clear that there was no confusion on the part of the commissioners themselves. They knew exactly what they were doing and in some cases they clearly knew it was wrong.

Commissioner Kelly didn’t seem ‘confused’ when on July 21, 2015 at a city commission meeting on the controversial Thaniel Addition, after he had just resigned as a member of the board of NeighborWorks Great Falls, and when a potential conflict of interest loomed large in the public eye, he said: “I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.”

And from the minutes of that meeting:  “He (Bob Kelly) explained that he did resign from the NeigborWorks Board after the last Commission meeting. It became apparent that in order for him to do this job, he had to give up the areas of what he perceived to be a conflict. He has every legal right to vote on this item tonight because he was removed from his responsibilities as a Board of Director, but chooses not to.”  

Nor did he appear to be confused at a March 21, 2017 city commission meeting when he abstained from voting to give Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Timeliness funds to the Great Falls Development Authority (GFDA), while he was a member of the GFDA Board. One could conclude from this that Kelly knew the clear, unambiguous HUD definition of conflict of interest:

“1. Know the Requirements – In general, conflicts of interest occur when one’s private interest and public duties overlap, resulting in a real or perceived lack of independence or impartiality. Common situations include: Elected officials voting on awarding of funds to organizations where a family member is on the staff or where the elected official is on the subrecipient’s board;…” (emphasis added)

However, at the April 18, 2017 meeting of the commission, Mayor Kelly did not abstain from voting to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The Mayor stated he had just resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.

‘However, at the April 18, 2017 meeting of the commission, Mayor Kelly did not abstain from voting to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The Mayor stated he had just resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.’

In addition to the HUD rules (see above), common sense should dictate that if you serve on the board of an organization, like GFDA, you can’t as a City Commissioner vote to allocate funds to that organization. Even if Kelly resigned immediately prior to his affirmative vote in this case, the appearance of impropriety should be obvious, not confusing.

Twice Kelly abstains because of his position on the boards of organizations receiving funding, knowing that “sometimes things are right”, but then he goes ahead and votes on approval of funds for GFDA even though he had recently resigned from that board. What was different?

I would feel a lot better about the sincerity and genuineness of Kelly’s apology had he taken a minute to explain to the ‘confused’ public and clear up the contradictions in his own actions and words as a commissioner and mayor.

By the way, the amount of funding that HUD rescinded from GFDA was the same amount, $40,000, that Kelly felt “free and clear” to vote for. The HUD CDBG requirements are crystal clear and easily accessible and if Kelly didn’t know them, he should have.

In his apology statement the Mayor also referenced “…apparent conflicts of interest”.

Apparent?

According to the HUD letter, which can be read in full here, there were actual conflicts of interest: “At a minimum, these actions create an appearance of impropriety in the CDBG funding process, as well as actual conflicts of interest in some cases.”

Also from the letter, “Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.” (emphasis added)

And finally, from the letter, “The City Commission membership, the final approving authority for the City’s CDBG funding, also included members with business or personal relationships with employees of CDBG subrecipients or subrecipients themselves.”

Is Bob Kelly reading the same HUD letter the rest of us are reading? How in the world can he possibly interpret the HUD conclusions as anything other than findings of not just the appearance of conflicts, but actual conflicts of interest? Including from currently sitting City Commissioners.

So while I sincerely appreciate the Mayor’s attempt to apologize, unfortunately the effort falls short. What is he apologizing for if it’s all just “confusion” and only an “appearance” of impropriety? What it boils down to is a slick way of giving the illusion of remorse while at the same time saying you have nothing to be remorseful about.

“So while I sincerely appreciate the Mayor’s attempt to apologize, unfortunately the effort falls short. What is he apologizing for if it’s all just “confusion” and only an “appearance” of impropriety? What it boils down to is a slick way of giving the illusion of remorse while at the same time saying you have nothing to be remorseful about.”

What if you told your kids that they could go outside to play but that they better not play in the mud. Then after a little while they come in the house all muddy.

You: “I thought I told you not to play in the mud, but you did anyway, so you need to apologize for not doing what you were told.”

Oldest kid: “Okay. I’d like to apologize for the confusion here and the appearance that we were playing in the mud.”

You: “You’re all muddy. Are you telling me that you weren’t playing in the mud?”

Oldest kid: “Well, that certainly wasn’t our intention so please accept our sincere apology.”

Would you as a parent just say “Okay, let’s move on then.”? I doubt it. Yet, what message are we sending to the citizens of Great Falls, including our youth, if we pretend that this CDBG fiasco and the HUD findings is all just a well-intentioned misunderstanding?

So far the only ones being held accountable are the organizations that won’t be getting their funding. It appears that no one, not one person who is actually to blame for this debacle, is being held accountable or taking responsibility in any meaningful manner. That includes Mayor Kelly and his kind-of-but-not-really apology.

And finally, it should be pointed out that Kelly’s apology cannot be taken as a blanket butt-covering for the other city commissioners who are directly culpable – Bill Bronson and Tracy Houck, who sat in stony silence when the Mayor twice gave them the opportunity to comment on this issue, a chance to offer their own apologies.

I wonder why Mayor Kelly is willing to tolerate and excuse their conflicts of interest? And how much money will it cost us taxpayers and our local nonprofits because of his excuses and failure to address these issues head on, as a real leader?

Stay tuned for upcoming episodes in this series covering a full explication of the recent HUD letter, the details and history of the other City Commissioners roles in the recent Great Falls CDBG funding circus, its implications, and how we are going to move forward.

Treasured Presidents Day Memories

Rick Tryon on February 18, 2018

This is a special time of year for me and my family. Presidents Day holds so much meaning and so many great memories for me even now as an adult.

When I was a kid, every year my brothers and I, with barely contained excitement and anticipation, would count down the days until that magical, magical day – Presidents Day! And now that I have children and even grandchildren of my own, the wonder and excitement is still there.

Of course almost as great as Presidents Day was Presidents Day Eve for my brothers and me.

It was a treasured tradition in my family that every Presidents Day Eve my dad would dress up like Lincoln and my mom would put on her George Washington nose and wig and we would fill a thermos with sugared hot tea and drive through town looking for all the streets named after presidents so we could gaze at the street signs all lit up by the street lights.

“Then, after we came home, us kids would get ready for bed. But we could barely sleep. Because the next day was Presidents Day and we knew that while we slept the current President, LBJ or Nixon at the time, would come to our house and hide one and five dollar bills for all good children.”

And oh what a glorious morning every Presidents Day morning was! We’d get up at 5:00 AM and search for the bills with Washington and Lincoln pictures on them.

Yeah, we knew we were just lower middle class kids and that some rich kids were probably finding Jeffersons and even Franklins (even though he was never a President). But it didn’t matter, we were just thrilled that another Presidents Day was finally here!

We’d spend the day enjoying our ones and fives while mom and dad lounged around in their pajamas drinking more sugared tea and preparing the big Presidents Day dinner, usually followed up with a dessert consisting of a chocolate cake shaped like the Whitehouse.

To cap off the evening dad would read the Gettysburg Address or Washington’s Second Inaugural. Then to bed we’d go and start the countdown for next year.

On this Presidents Day Eve, as I think back on those happy days, I can’t help but be a little sad. Presidents Day has become so commercial and shallow. It’s just a paid government holiday and excuse to have a Presidents Day Sale at mattress stores.

So I guess my biggest wish this Presidents Day is that we all take a moment to reflect and try to keep the ‘Millard Fillmore’ in Presidents Day.

Oh, and I’m sure that many folks are relieved, and many disappointed as well knowing that it’s Biden, not Trump,  who will be sneaking into your house and hiding Lincolns and Washingtons for the next four years…maybe.

Cronyism And Great Falls’ No-Growth Policy

Rick Tryon on January 30, 2018

Is Great Falls business friendly? Does the City encourage growth? Why are these never-ending questions? Perhaps the answers are obvious after all.

The Great Falls City Commission recently voted unanimously to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to locally owned and operated M&D Construction. City staff, the City Zoning Commission and Neighborhood Council 7 all voted unanimously IN FAVOR of the CUP. M&D Construction employs about 30 people here in Great Falls. The CUP would allow them to continue operations at their current level.

It’s getting harder and harder for me to believe that Great Falls is pro-jobs and that it isn’t controlled by a Good Ol’ Boys (and Gals) Club after watching our city commissioners at “work” at the January 2nd, 2018 Great Falls City Commission meeting. (Click here for full audio/video and documents referenced in this article.)

And while, yes, I have been critical of the City over the years for this very reason, I nevertheless feel that Greg Doyon and Craig Raymond in particular do generally try to adopt a flexible, pro-growth tenor at the staff level. It’s the politicians who can’t get it right!

The commission was considering whether or not to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Contractor Yard Type II for the local construction company, M&D Construction. The company is located at 611 8th Avenue North and 817 7th Street North.

Here’s some background as explained by City of Great Falls Planning and Community Development Director Craig Raymond:

“M&D Construction has been operating at the property for several years. Over the years, however, the use of the property has changed and expanded. Earlier this year, the City received a complaint about the activity from a resident located in the neighborhood to the south. Although the property had traditionally been used for the construction businesses for many years, it is the expansion of that use that requires a formal review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.”

The CUP would have been conditioned on several improvements being made to the property – fencing, a berm etc., which the owner, Rhett Hulett, was happy to comply with.

According to Craig Raymond, here’s what would happen if the CUP was denied by our five-member City Commission:

“The use as it exists today…if the Conditional Use Permit is denied, could not stay there. They would either have to move to another location or it would have to be scaled back to a point where it would be more in keeping with the prior use which has been there for many years, because prior to them, I believe it was Lord’s Construction and some others, and it was legally established as a legal nonconforming use after the zone change in 2005. So either they need to move or they need to considerably scale it back to be in keeping with the prior legal nonconforming use.”

Local Neighborhood Council 7 voted unanimously in favor of the CUP for M&D at their November 2017 meeting.

The City Planning Department staff recommended the CUP be granted and had been working closely with M&D owners and management to help them with improvements, such as fencing and a berm to mitigate some aesthetic problems related to a construction yard.

The Great Falls Planning Advisory Board/Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CUP after hearing public comment.

Each of these staff/citizen groups worked hard and made studied, well thought out, expert-consulted recommendations to approve the CUP and possibly prevent up to 30 jobs from being forced from the core of our city.

So you would think that our City Commission would approve the permit based on those recommendations and the common sense notion that we should be encouraging and trying to retain businesses that pay the taxes which provide city services, hire folks, contribute to the local economy, and work to be good neighbors. Right?

WRONG!

The Great Falls City Commission – Bob Kelly, Bill Bronson, Tracy Houck, Owen Robinson and Mary Moe – voted unanimously to DENY the Conditional Use Permit which will probably cause M&D Construction to have to move or scale back their business significantly.

Why?

In case you’re not familiar with how the commission has typically operated in situations pertaining to land use and zoning etc. here’s a brief explanation: the City Commission almost always follows the recommendations of city staff, especially when those recommendations are backed up by a citizens advisory board and the local Neighborhood Council, as was the case here. They have very, very, very rarely ever deviated from that MO.

So what’s so different in the M&D Construction case? Let’s just be real honest here – this isn’t about traffic concerns, conforming with a growth policy, ingresses or egresses, blah blah blah.

Of the five citizens who attended and spoke in opposition to the approval of the CUP for M&D Construction at the January 2nd City Commission meeting, three were members of the wealthy and very influential Blewett family: Zander Blewett, Andy Blewett and Anders Blewett, all residents of the lower northside neighborhood in the vicinity of M&D Construction.

Zander Blewett: “…this is a massive change. I’m in great opposition to this.”

Anders Blewett: “As someone who lives in that area, I would rather see it be that regardless of whether there’s a berm. This is part of the core of the city…I would prefer that there not be heavy machinery in the core of our city… I think the policy of the City and I think the trend of urban areas in general is to move industrial areas out of the core of the city, push them out…”

Andy Blewett: “I can’t imagine just a berm is going to suffice for blocking out all the trucks and vehicles…I think anytime you have something that brings down a neighborhood rather than brings it up, especially the historic Great Falls deal…”

This is very simple in my opinion – the Blewetts said “jump” and the Commissioners asked “how high?” on the way up.

But let me be very clear, this isn’t about the Blewett family. They have been and continue to be outstanding members of our community who have very generously contributed both time and money to many wonderful and worthy causes in this city and state. As citizens, they have every right to use whatever wealth or influence they have to try to affect the kind of outcomes they deem appropriate or beneficial.

No, this is about whether our city commissioners are going to kowtow to the agenda of their pals from the wealthy, old money Great Falls elite or do what’s best for business and every-day workers who plug away trying to make ends meet in the struggling-to-remain-stagnant Great Falls economy.

So let’s look at the money donated to the political campaigns of the city commissioners who elected to side with the Blewetts’ position to deny the CUP rather than take the expert advice of city staff and the Zoning Commission, as well as the citizens of Neighborhood Council 7, to accommodate a local business so it can stay in business.

Blewett contributions to Mary Moe, 2017

Blewett , Alexander III Attorney HOYT & BLEWETT Primary $330.00

Blewett , Alexander IV Attorney HOYT & BLEWETT Primary  $330.00

Blewett, Andrea Primary $330.00

Blewett, Andrew Attorney HOYT & BLEWETT Primary $330.00

Total = $1320.00

 

Blewett contributions to Bob Kelly, 2015

Blewett, Alexander Attorney Hoyt & Blewett Primary $170.00

Blewett, Andrew Attorney HOYT & BLEWETT Primary $170.00

Blewett III, Alexander Attorney Hoyt & Blewett General $170.00

Total = $510.00

 

Blewett contributions to Bill Bronson, 2015

Blewett, Alexander (Anders) $50.00

Total = $50.00

Total Blewett campaign contributions to current city commissioners = $1,880.00

Total Rhett Hulett (owner of M&D Constructiton) contributions to current city commissioners = $0.00

All of these contribution figures can be found on the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices campaign report search page.

The ‘Not In My Back Yard’ argument is also obviously in play in this decision and seems especially potent given that the ‘backyard’ in question belongs to a lot of wealthy, influential local movers and shakers, including Mayor Kelly himself.

I don’t know if there may also be other considerations in the mix, like some other interests wanting M&D Construction to be forced to move and make that property available to someone else for some other purpose, but that’s a legitimate possibility. Either way, ask yourself who benefitted from the Commission’s decision. Were our city commissioners representing the interests of a select few, or were they representing all of us?

Given the circumstances, background, and the rare instance of the Commission going against staff, the Zoning Commission and citizens council, I find the reasons for denying the CUP given by our City Commissioners weak and unconvincing, more like excuses than reasons:

Bronson – (“And not to disagree with my good friend Mr. Blewett…”)

“I don’t believe that granting this Conditional Use Permit is really consistent with the City’s growth policy.”

But that’s not what the experts who do this kind of analysis for a living say. Our city staff, who looked very closely at the issue over a period of time came to the exact opposite conclusion in their basis of decision for approval of the Conditional Use Permit:

“The zoning and conditional use is consistent with the City’s Growth Policy and applicable neighborhood plans, if any.”

In fact, each and every one of Mr. Bronson’s points in his basis for denial of the permit are all directly and pointedly contradicted by city staffs findings in its basis of decision. Bronson’s conclusions are long on historical anecdote and his own opinion and very, very short on substantive reasoning.

Moe

“I watched the hearing of the Zoning and Planning Commission. I read the record of the Neighborhood Council. I have some frustration that this proposal advanced through both of those bodies with I believe a unanimous endorsement and that it is at this level that we find these concerns.  And I apologize to the people that have worked so hard to move it forward. I share the concerns that Commissioner Bronson has outlined, though…”

“…So had I made the motion, I would have wanted to ask that you go back to the Zoning and Planning Commission and find a more palatable solution. But I’m not sure that there is one, and that the same thing wouldn’t happen.”

I’m not sure what point Ms. Moe is making regarding her “frustration” with NHC7 and the Planning/Zoning Commission. Is it that she thinks they should have made her job easier and less controversial by voting to not recommend the CUP?

And for Moe, is this what leadership looks like? Isn’t leadership collecting facts, and then rendering a decision impartially based upon evidence? Or is leadership publicly throwing an unpaid board of volunteers under the bus because you didn’t want to deal with the inconvenience of taking a public position?

Sometimes politically “palatable solutions” just aren’t available and you have to suck it up and do the right thing regardless of how much you want to send it “back to the Zoning and Planning Commission”.

Robinson – (“…just to talk back at my friend Zander Blewett”)

“Saying all that, I’m afraid with the growth that’s going to go on in Great Falls and the success of your company, Mr. Hulett, you’re going to outgrow that anyway. I really believe that.

And I also believe that there’s a better use for that area. I would really like one day to see somebody look at seeing putting a round-about there to take care of that traffic problem, which could not be done if we approve the variation to the zoning now.”

So Robinson’s vote to deny a permit for M&D is partially based on “the growth that’s going to go on in Great Falls”? Where is all this growth going to come from if the City Commission makes the kind of decisions Robinson made here, decisions which are antithetical to growth?

Furthermore Robinson’s remark, “…Mr. Hulett, you’re going to outgrow that anyway,” is not only presumptuous and cavalier, it completely disregards Mr. Hulett’s unambiguous statement during the commission meeting: “And the growth – we’re at our max, like I said at the Zoning meeting, it’s about all my hair and heart can handle with the 30 employees we have now.”

I wonder how Robinson would have responded if, after he had been handed responsibility for his family business, some politician on the City Commission told him he should just move the Lumber Yard Supply operations current location because they were just going to “outgrow that anyway”?

Houck

“So how long would they have a chance to move? What happens if they just up and pull out of there?

We’re still as a community left with a façade basically to our parks and to our residential area that we’re not perhaps appreciative. And yet there is a proposal on the table that says if you allow us to do this, we will clean up your community façade. So I just want to hear a little bit more about what those other affects are…

… one more goofy question. Is there a way to send it back so there’s an opportunity to reach a compromise or are we too late in the game for that?”

What? One is left wondering if Houck understands anything about what’s going on here or what’s at stake. “We’re still as a community left with a façade basically to our parks and to our residential area that we’re not perhaps appreciative…” What does that even mean?

It sounds like Houck is more concerned about how to “clean up your community façade” (???) once that pesky construction thingy with 30 jobs is pushed out of there. I could be wrong though, because her comments are incomprehensible nonsense, so who knows what in the world she’s talking about.

Kelly – (…as Mr. Blewett had said earlier here)

“As everybody else has said here, this is not a statement on business or owners, etc. It is about best and highest uses, as Mr. Blewett had said earlier here. In a sense, we can be shooting ourself in the foot. We have an opportunity to put lipstick on this thing. If we don’t allow that to happen then there’d be no need for the owner to make any changes there and you can just have an incredibly unappealing lot there which is what it is.

I share the concerns about traffic. I live in that neighborhood, and the amount of heavy traffic that is coming down to go into those smaller access points is not only in my opinion dangerous, but it is also incredibly unappealing for people who come down to the park to enjoy it there as well.”

“This is not a statement on business or owners…”? How absurd. Of course it is. It’s a crystal clear statement, Mr. Mayor, and I’m quite sure it has been and is being heard loudly and clearly by the local business community and others who may want to locate or expand in Great Falls.

I’m sorry that a business employing 30 people is so “incredibly unappealing” to you and your close neighbors the Blewetts, Bob. God forbid that you should have to look at something that needs “lipstick” and is “dangerous” in the neighborhood YOU live in.

Moreover, does anyone actually buy Kelly’s ludicrous argument about “dangerous” traffic? Really? Do you think Kelly even believes it?

In Conclusion

I don’t know what Rhett Hulett, owner of M&D Construction, is going to do now. I spoke to Rhett briefly the other day and he’s weighing his options. He could appeal the Commission’s decision to a local court if he wanted to, but given the array of lawyers lined up against him, I’m not sure that’s going to work. If I were him, I would seriously consider moving my company elsewhere.

The best solution here would be for the City Commission to come to its senses, reconsider the matter, and grant the Conditional Use Permit so M&D can continue providing paychecks, paying taxes and contributing to the local economy. But I doubt that will happen. Rather, I know it won’t.

Kelly, Bronson, Houck, Moe and Robinson have shown their true colors here. Despite all the campaign lip service about wanting to see our town grow, being “positive” and wanting millennials to stay here, our City Commission has demonstrated that cronyism, NIMBYism and an ongoing NO-GROWTH POLICY is alive and well in Great Falls.

No Brainer?

Rick Tryon on January 23, 2018

Kudos to Craig Raymond and his staff in the City of Great Falls Planning and Community Development Department for working to find solutions to help keep a local private sector employer, M&D Construction, in the heart of Great Falls. This is the attitude we need from our city employees across the board; not “You can’t do that.” but rather “How can we help you do that.”

M&D employs 30 folks here so not only does the owner pay significant property tax but  those employees spend money downtown for lunch, coffee breaks and stopping for items or having a cold one after work.

After working together, M&D and city planning staff came up with a solution which would mitigate the zoning problems associated with the property. You can find the detailed staff recommendations and other pertinent information here, starting on page 111 of the packet document.

I’ve also included the Basis of Decision to recommend approval by the Planning and Community Development Department below, I bolded and italicized the points which stood out to me.

So it’s a no-brainer right? Especially since the citizens Neighborhood Council #7 and the city planning/zoning board both also unanimously recommended approval.

What do you suppose our City Commission did in light of the unanimous recommendations by citizens and experts alike? And why?

Oh, and take a look at the very short clip below of our own Mayor Kelly – “Since there’s a lot of questions about what this will actually result in…” Since this was the one and only public hearing before the City Commission on this matter shouldn’t the Mayor reveal to us what “questions about what this will actually result in” he’s referring to and from whom?

Stay tuned, stay tuned.

—————————————————————————————————-

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BASIS OF DECISION The applicant is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Contractor Yard, Type II in the M-2 district.

1. The zoning and conditional use is consistent with the City’s Growth Policy and applicable neighborhood plans, if any. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the 2013 City Growth Policy Update. Allowing for the relocation of a local business in an area of the City designated for a mix of uses will help stabilize the neighborhood and fulfill the following objectives from the City’s Growth Policy: Phy 4.1 – Encourage a balanced mix of land uses through-out the City. Phy 4.1.5 –Encourage and incentivize the redevelopment or adaptive reuse of vacant or underutilized properties so as to maximize the City’s existing infrastructure. Phy 4.3 – Optimize the efficiency and use of the City’s Public facilities and utilities. Eco 3.5 – Continue efforts to support and develop small businesses in Great Falls.

2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the zoning and conditional use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The CUP would have no detrimental impact upon the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. Specifically, the safety of the area will be improved by reconstruction of the sidewalk along 8th Avenue North.

3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the adjacent properties due to the fact that it is an existing facility, and is currently working cohesively with the surrounding properties. The land use designation of Mixed-Use Transitional supports the transition over time from a once-thriving industrial, railroad corridor with large tracts of land and large warehouse type structures to a blend of light-industrial businesses, professional services, and other compatible uses. Site improvements, which include decorative fencing along the southern property line and landscaping including a berm, behind the fencing, will help beautify the streetscape and support property values in the neighborhood. Furthermore, this conditional use would not adversely impact the use, enjoyment or property value of any property in the immediate vicinity.

4. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The proposed project will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. Adjacent property owners have been notified regarding the project. City Staff did receive a call from a citizen regarding displeasure about how the development might affect additional improvements to nearby properties.

5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The facility is existing and currently has services and infrastructure that meet all City standards.

6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The current facilities have existing functioning ingress and egress. Existing driveway accesses are located on 8th Avenue North and 7th Street North. Service vehicles and trailers will be coming and going from 8th Avenue North, primarily.

7. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the City Commission. The proposed project will conform to all the applicable regulations of the Land Development Code

“I Want To Be A Good Neighbor”

Rick Tryon on January 19, 2018

Watch the short video below.

It’s Rhett Hulett, owner of M&D Construction which employs 30 folks here in Great Falls, making his case for a Conditional Use Permit at the January 2, 2018 Great Falls City Commission meeting.

“I want to be a good neighbor”

“We want to be a positive part of that part of town.”

“We look forward to staying there.”

So, sounds like granting the CUP should be a common sense decision, right? Especially since the city planning staff, NHC #7, and the planning/zoning board ALL recommended approval.

Thank you, Mr. Hulett for employing Great Falls folks, paying taxes and working hard to be a good neighbor. We appreciate your efforts.

So what do y’all think our illustrious City Commission did here?

I’ll have all the gritty details for you next week. Stay tuned.

Little Free Library Is A Whole Lot Of Cool

Rick Tryon on January 11, 2018

Have you seen the little wooden houses on posts in front yards around town? They look kind of like bird houses with a glass door on the front.

Those are Little Free Library boxes most likely. What is a Little Free Library?

“Little Free Library is a nonprofit organization that

inspires a love of reading, builds community, and

sparks creativity by fostering neighborhood book

exchanges around the world.”

I’ve got one in my neighborhood which my wife and I have used a few times to exchange books as we go on our daily walk. The other day I stopped by the house where the Little Free Library box sits to tell the folks who live there just how awesome it is that they installed a box.

It’s at the home of a local couple who for a long time have been deeply involved in the Great Falls community, Brad Talcott and Linda Caricaburu. I asked if I could take a picture and as you can see, that little library is as cool as the other side of pillow.

Ms. Caricaburu told me that she hopes the library box will encourage more children’s and young teen books to be exchanged on a regular basis.

I agree. I think we could probably all benefit from a lot more reading and a little less TV and video games. So keep your eyes peeled for the Little Free Library boxes in Great Falls.

And check out their website which includes plans to build your own box, and a whole lot more. https://littlefreelibrary.org/

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. 

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.

Even More CDBG Mania

Rick Tryon on May 15, 2017

Have you noticed that when it comes to Community Block Grant funding and voting, the Great Falls City Commission abounds with apparent conflicts of interest, or with situations with the appearance of conflicts?

We’ve already seen an article in E-City Beat about Commissioner Houck and the appearance of a huge conflict of interest involving Paris Gibson Square, the entity from which Houck draws a paycheck. There are other disturbing real or apparent conflicts involving other City Commissioners.

Let’s start with Commissioner Bill Bronson.

Last year at the January 19, 2016 City Commission meeting, Bronson affirmatively voted to hand NeighborWorks Great Falls (NWGF) management of the city’s CDBG rehab revolving loan program (worth over $2 million in funds already loaned) under a contract which was to pay NWGF $50,000 a year. Commissioner Bronson has an immediate family member who works in a significant position at NWGF. Perhaps sensing that this would become an issue, Bronson pre-empted his critics and declared at the meeting that he would not recuse himself:

Commissioner Bronson noted that his wife is an employee at NeighborWorks. He explained that his wife is not involved with this particular program. She operates a totally separate and independently financed program. After consulting with City Attorney Sara Sexe and concluding that there is not a conflict of interest he will be participating in this matter.

Then-Deputy City Manager Jennifer Reichelt led the staff presentation explaining that, as reported in the minutes, “NeighborWorks was identified as an ideal partner, and staff began discussions regarding the future of the program.” (Reichelt also sat on the NWGF Board at the time.)

A number of citizens objected to NWGF taking over the fund, including Terry Thompson, CEO of the Great Falls Association of Realtors:

Ms. Thompson urged the Commission to table this matter until such time as sufficient research has been completed by City staff to identify other non-profits, such as a local credit union, if interested and/or capable of being certified by HUD, to administer this program.

The Commission, including Bronson, did not want to consider other organizations, and voted to hand over the keys to NWGF.

Bronson’s participation on the matter does not seem to jive with HUD rules (Conflicts of Interest CDBG and HOME Programs):

  • Generally, the regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 84 and 85 prohibit an employee, officer or agent of the grantee/subgrantee or recipient/subrecipient from participating in the selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by Federal  funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
  • Such a conflict would arise when:
  • (i) The employee, officer or agent,
  • (ii) Any member of his immediate family,
  • (iii) His or her partner, or
  • (iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award….

And I note:

  • There are no exceptions for real or apparent procurement conflicts of interest.

So, a few questions here…

Does Commissioner Bronson have a member of his immediate family employed by NeighborWorks? Yes! Does that mean that Bronson’s family member, by receiving a paycheck, has both a financial and other interest in the firm selected for an award? Moreover, even if Bronson can legally justify his participation, does that make it right for him to do so? Or, put another way, does Bronson’s “just trust me” attitude strengthen or weaken the public’s trust in him, and in the City Commission?

Bronson pontificated that his involvement did not constitute a conflict of interest because the member of his family employed at NWGF worked in a different department than the one actually receiving the funds. While HUD rules do not seem to define separate departments of a firm as reasons to exempt one from a conflict of interest, again, is Bronson’s entrenched defiance the kind of conduct we want in our elected officials? At a minimum, this looks bad. Why not step aside?

More recently, at the March 21, 2017 meeting of the City Commission, commissioners voted to accept CDBG allocations on Timeliness Projects. NWGF and Habitat for Humanity combined on a project and received $116,000 for purchasing lots. Unsurprisingly, Commissioner Bronson participated here, too, and again voted to give money to NeighborWorks Great Falls.

Then, at the April 18, 2017 City Commission meeting, the commission voted to accept the proposed CDBG funding allocations for 2017-18 and to set a public hearing for May 16. Bronson voted affirmatively to authorize $40,000 to the City’s revolving block grand loan fund. In other words, the vote authorizes the City to receive the money, but that money, again, ultimately flows to NWGF, who now administers this fund.

On top of all this, Commissioner Bronson may be poised not only to vote on June 6 on CDBG funds to the City (and by extension, to NWGF), but also to weigh in and vote on CDBG funds to Public Facilities, of which Paris Gibson Square is now a recipient — and an entity which employs another immediate family member of Bronson’s. (The public hearing on this matter is Tuesday, May 16.)

Commissioner Bronson’s family members are good, upstanding, hard working community members.  This is not about them in any way, shape or form. This is about Commissioner Bronson refusing to recuse himself from voting when there appears to be, as HUD states, either real or apparent conflicts of interest. In Bronson’s case, this includes both NWGF and Paris Gibson Square.

Frustratingly, the murkiness on CDBG funding extends beyond both Commissioners Bronson and Houck. At the same March 21, 2017 city commission meeting, both Mayor Bob Kelly and Commissioner Bronson abstained from voting on CDBG Timeliness funds to the Great Falls Development Authority (GFDA), since both were, at the time, members of the GFDA Board.

However, at the April 18 meeting of the commission, we see two members of the City Commission in virtually identical situations doing two very different things: Mayor Kelly voting and Commissioner Bronson abstaining from a vote to give the GFDA an additional $40,000 in CDBG allocations for economic development. The mayor stated he had resigned from that board, and that he would now participate and vote on the matter. “I feel free and clear of that obligation as a matter of fact,” he said.  Still a conflict? At one meeting he recuses himself and at the next he votes. Why does Bronson (of all people) feel compelled to sit this one out, yet Kelly doesn’t?

Look at how much has changed since July 21, 2015: recall Kelly’s comment on the controversial Thaniel Addition, where he had just resigned as a member of the board of NWGF and when a potential conflict of interest loomed large in the public eye (and just as he was running for the position of Mayor):

‘I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.’

‘I have every legal right to vote…but I’m going to choose to abstain. It wouldn’t be appropriate to resign on one issue so I could come back and vote again…Sometimes there’s things that are legal, sometimes there’s things that are right.’

As much as I appreciated Kelly’s sentiments at the time — it really seemed like he “got it” — I can’t help but wonder: What was different about this situation? On Thaniel, Kelly didn’t think it was appropriate to resign on the issue so he could come back and vote, but he does here? What’s the difference?

And finally, have you noticed that Mayor Kelly and Commissioner Bronson at times appear to pass the voting baton back and forth? When one abstains or is recused from voting, the other votes, even though the apparent conflict of interest (or lack thereof, to be fair) is exactly the same for both. This happened in 2016 with the NWGF contract for rehab loans, and it happened at the April 18, 2017 commission meeting with GFDA on the docket for CDBG funds.

Such behavior gives the appearance that when votes are needed to pass an item before the commission, commissioners agree ahead of time on who will abstain and who will vote. While this is probably not the case, it’s the appearance of such that incurs public distrust – and that is exactly the reason for HUD rules regarding “a real or apparent” conflict of interest on CDBG funding. Public trust.

There is a relatively simple fix to all of this, however: participating members, both on the Community Development Council (CDC) and the City Commission should be required to submit conflict of interest forms. People who represent organizations applying for CDBG funding should not be permitted to serve on the CDC. And City Commissioners who serve on advisory boards whose organizations do businesses with the city commission should, once they are elected, resign from those boards. Working as a city commissioner is a tough job, and I applaud all those who step up to do it, but once they are elected, it’s time to drop the other stuff and focus on us, we the people.

The citizens of this great city deserve that much.