Comment Of The Day

Gregg Smith on May 22, 2017

The Tribune finally caught up to the Tracy Houck, CDBG funding story, but the reporter didn’t have nuthin’ on this commenter:

Robert Tyler

Great Falls, Montana

How can Houck claim to be personally handling this issue because of concern about the privacy protections of a male employee while in tandem exposing the sexual harassment complaint and negative performance evaluations of her former employee Wolfe?

This action by Houck has a retaliatory smell to it, I would guess whoever handles PGS or GFPS legal defenses wishes Houck would have delegated and the delegate brought it to light with a little less public vetting of the details.

How does Sexe saying that the re-evaluation by the CDC was required until the PGS allocation was not zero make the process fair? Correcting an alleged anti-PGS bias by removing Wolfe yet leaving in place other CDC board members who were contacted on the behalf of a sitting commissioner to complain about the results does nothing but create a pro-PGS bias. The whole process stinks of suspicion due to Houck’s mishandling of all of her positions and the city attorney’s pro-PGS allocation statement. I see no reason why Sexe thinks the city would be at risk of PGS litigation due to the improper behavior of the PGS director. It seems the best result would be for the CDC results to be tossed as spoiled and either a new board established or the remaining commissioners come to their own conclusions.

Burrow’s sentiment of not wanting anything to do with the “backroom deals” is the proper and adult way out. Eliminating the PGS allocation for this year because of the improper actions of their director revolving around an ex-PGS employee is proper. Houck should have vetted Wolfe during the Jan 17, 2017 commission meeting when Houck voted on new appointments, had opportunity to see Wolfe’s name and was given the public opportunity to comment. Instead Houck remained quiet and voted to confirm committee members who would later vote to allocate her employer money.

Former Mayor Michael Winters Goes On The Record

Philip M. Faccenda on May 21, 2017

On Tuesday, May 16, Gregg Smith wrote a post about the City’s CDBG allocation process, our fifth and most recent article on the topic. Since the publication of our first CDBG content on April 27, this blog has received nearly 8,000 page views. Suffice it to say, then, that this has swelled into an issue of significant community interest.

Things picked up over the past week. The blog (and I, personally) received a number of emails and calls from members of the public.

I can report with confidence two things: 1) people are starting to pay attention to local government, and 2) most of these folks are really, really unhappy with the CDBG shenanigans. One of the dozen or so folks who wrote to us recently was our former Mayor, Michael Winters. He said he wanted to chat, and graciously agreed to be interviewed about CDBG, the City Commission, and the state of Great Falls.

Below is the transcript of my interview with Mayor Winters…

Enjoy!

You reached out to us, and said you wanted to chat. What’s been on your mind these days, Mayor Mike?

I think what’s been on my mind as we go into the summer months (and I don’t pay much attention to the City Commission meetings for the most part), but I’ve seen some different things that I’d question. The business with the one commissioner.

I just have to say, is it youthful ignorance? Is that commissioner not aware of what appears to be a conflict, or does this commission just not give a rat’s tail about conflicts or not? A good example of that is all the political activity going on Paris Gibson Square. I remember they had Governor Bullock there and the whole lineup of Democrats for some rally before the election, but only on the one side. Then they use it to get people to the women’s march. I don’t believe an organization that is sponsored by the people’s funds should be doing such. I don’t think our tax dollars should be supporting a place that encourages political activism, no matter who it would be. In this case, it’s totally for the one party. It’s a museum, and I don’t believe that’s the workings of what a museum ought to be. They should be neutral. People have their own feelings and agendas and should be able to express them, but not through the properties that are commonly held.

The prior commission showed integrity, and they showed the wherewithal to do the right thing, all the time. I don’t see that we have a great deal of leadership right now. We need accountability. This issue with the conflict is, this is the right opportunity for the mayor to offer a public statement about this, yet the mayor has said nothing. Is that leadership?

It appears to the people who have talked to me (and people will stop me in the stores), and they question the integrity of what’s happening in the city. What is integrity? It’s doing the right thing while nobody’s watching. Some can’t do the right thing when the people are watching! And if you can’t do that, then you can’t possibly represent all the people.

The idea of conflicts of interest, there should never be a conflict of interest. You’re not there to serve your own interests or ideas, you’re there to represent the people in the people’s house, and that’s the Civic Center. You have to put your own ideas in your back pocket and listen to what the people have to say.

I wasn’t what you would call the typical mayor. What we had was a huge influx of money from upper-echelon people to replace me. The election was financed on different skillsets, however, the community knew my skillsets. But who is being represented now? Are we representing the elites in town, or are we representing the average, hard-working community supporters?

I think the important part of being a commissioner or mayor is knowing how to get along with people. It doesn’t mean you always capitulate, but you must be able to read people, understand people, and you’ve got to listen to people. When my phone rings, it didn’t matter what time it was, I would always answer it. When they would call, they weren’t practicing dialing the telephone, they wanted to talk to the mayor. Our commission addressed everyone’s concerns equally. The prior commission also worked to the point where the department heads addressed people’s concerns and people over time were able to put trust back in city government, and that is just a fact.

If you were still mayor, and these conflicts presented themselves on your commission, how would you handle the situation?

The mayor is only one representative, but you really are the number one citizen in a lot of ways, and I think within the parameters of what he can do, I would have put a stop to all conflicts of interest, and I would have no problem whatsoever letting all the commissioners know that I would do that. I would say so publicly, and I would put a stop to it on the spot. Now unfortunately, that hasn’t happened here.

The last commission brought back a higher level of understanding, of integrity, of trust, that the working class person could call a commissioner and get a straight answer. We did the same working with the city manager and the departments, that the people are the ruling clan, and that we need to represent them correctly, and strongly.

Employees of the city government are employees of the general public, and the general public are the customers – you have to listen to them, respect where they are coming from, and if they have problems that can be negotiated or comprised, that’s what you have to be doing. You have to be representing the entire community, not just certain special interest groups – and that’s what seems to be happening currently.

What do you attribute to the relative lack of growth in Great Falls, and what would you like to see happen?

It’s our attitude. Community attitude. “Not in my backyard.” It’s OK to have the small community atmosphere and attitudes, but that impedes growth. And rather than accepting what’s given to us, let’s reach out to other potential businesses. When I was mayor, I reached out to a number of businesses and asked them to come here, businesses that would have added to our potential growth. One had considered us seriously, one major company in particular was interested in coming here. They sent their real estate person here to look us over. But we had a snowstorm in December when he came, and the attraction unfortunately wore off in a hurry.

I also don’t view Great Falls as just Great Falls. It stretches out to Simms, Augusta, and beyond the physical borders of Great Falls. At the Veteran’s memorial, and I did this for the memorial and our community, now we have 250 Blackfeet warriors’ names on our memorial. We did that by reaching out. You have to reach out.

We have the potential of serving and being an example of all the communities within our reach, we could absolutely be the shining star on the prairie. It’s what we the people want and if we the people want our community to grow, then it’s about reaching out to the people we want and who need us. That’s growth.

One of the largest and major concerns I have is the “not in my backyard” philosophy. We want growth and we want to stimulate the economy, we want jobs and industries, as long as it doesn’t impede the flow of traffic, or their views, and I don’t mean their political views. For the most part, the community wants to come to the commission meetings and air their views when there is a conflict, when they feel like they’re being stepped on, and when they feel like their personal standard of level is being compromised, and a good example of that was the conflict in the Fox Farm interchange.

There are other things we can do, though.

What has the community done to reach out to the universities? We have a private university that graduates people, but what have we done as a City to encourage them? What kind of programs have we offered as a community to help those folks out? Have the city offices made it easier for people who want to come here? Have we made it more appealing for people who want to come here? Have we as a community said, “Hey, this is an enticing place”? Yeah, we have a river, 50-some miles of a trail, but most of it is never touched. There could be a rowing club, there could be more festivities and events on the river. The community needs to pick up and work in unison with city government. City government cannot and should not do it alone. You need the cooperation of everyone in the community.

People say, we need this industry to come here or that industry to come here, but wouldn’t it be nice of some of those folks actually invested their money to bring those industries there themselves? That’s the only way it’s gonna get done.

If you don’t like something, how can you help correct it? How can you make our community more pleasantly appealing to other folks? We’re a very friendly, accepting community, we’re a generous community. At the same time, if you want to attract other people, there must be something more fundamental and on the ground to make people come here.

You served three terms as mayor. Of all the commissioners, who did you most enjoy serving with and why?

I enjoyed all five of us working together, and we relied on each other for different guidance. The one commissioner that I felt the most in tune with was Bob Jones. He and I both have the sound basic structure that we both understand the public. And I like Fred Burow because of his common sense approach to things. I like Bronson because he has a legal background, though he sometimes over pushed that. We came together and worked together as a team. I liked Mary Jolley a great deal. She was a very good commissioner, and I’m sure she’s an excellent judge. She spoke her mind, and she understood exactly where she was in life as it pertains to being a commissioner, and she was a very, very good representative.

Rick Tryon and Gregg Smith wrote about this before. How do you assess the state of Great Falls as it stands today?

I think we are poised for continual slow and gradual growth, a potential that we can realize if we work together. We have the potential of working more with Malmstrom, having Malmstrom more involved with our community and the City, the potential of having both the universities working with us more and us with them more. I think we’re poised for a great potential jumpoff point. We have to want to reach out and understand that while some things are a given, we have to reach sometimes a little harder and a little further. We don’t have to accept the minimum.

I was very critical of the City Commission for denying Calumet a tax abatement after Calumet invested an additional $450 million into our community. What did you think of the City’s decision?

I’m not sure that it was the right decision. I think the total number [of the requested abatement] was maybe too high. But I thought the City and Calumet could have negotiated that down to a smaller number and over a longer period of time so it didn’t hit taxpayers as hard. All it did was put up a red flag to other businesses that said, “Yeah, they want us to come there, but they don’t want to help us out.” It was too high, but I thought it was a mistake to let it go entirely.

What are your thoughts on the City’s proposed parks maintenance district?

When you look at that perspective, we just had water and sewer rate increases, each time the increases happen, the people paying for them by and large don’t have the extra spendable income to kick into our local businesses, and I think that’s something that isn’t being considered. I don’t want to see the parks district. It’s too large and too much. Park and rec is my favorite department, but what we have to do is put in place some analysis into the process, to see that each arm of government is operating more efficiently. So let’s start with efficiency of departments. Then let’s adjust how efficiently they’re functioning.

I think we should consider selling some park land that isn’t being utilized. The land up by Gore Hill, the City should consider selling it. The people who have the adjoining property, they’re parking there anyway, so sell it to them. There’s a park with an active railroad on the West side, where no mother would let her child play, the City should consider selling that also.

I think we should make our parks more gorgeous, and the community can help do that too. Community interaction is just so important.

For a community that’s been losing people for the past few years, and with all the fixed incomes we have, we keep raising taxes and fees. At some point we have to hold the line.

A lot was made about the City’s cell phone ordinance down in Helena, specifically with Rep. Jeremy Trebas’ bill. Your commission instituted the ban. What say you?

I cant imagine for a moment that a legislator representing the people of Great Falls would go to the Legislature and try to enact limits on how we govern ourselves. I would have gone to the Legislature like Kelly and Bronson did. Legislators should focus on state business, and we as city commissioners should focus on city and local business.

What are you most proud of accomplishing in your tenure as mayor?

I think I’m more proud of working with the city commissioners, together as a team, working toward a common goal, and that was always to help out the community. We ended the fiasco with the ECP business, we were on the hook for $60 million flat out cash. We got out for 3.5 [million], and then were some blunders that the city already owned in debts, water credit debts, and that was included. We negotiated that $60 million down to $3.5 million.

One might argue you saved the city.

We did save the city! There’s no doubt about it. We were sitting head long into bankruptcy. We were on the course of disaster, but we got out, and it was our commission that did it – collectively. We had James Santoro, who was the City Attorney at the time and excellent counsel, and they gave us choices, but our commission made the right choices and we did it.

If you were given the opportunity to do it all over, would you do anything differently? and/or would you run again for any office?

Yes, I would have. I would have acted more professionally. I have maintained my principles and I never compromised my integrity, but I could have acted more professionally in conducting our meetings. I wouldn’t have changed a vote, and I feel like I did the job right. I could have used 50 cent words instead of 5 cent words, but I’m a straight talker and I talked how I talked.

Would I run again? I have been considering running for a spot on the city commission. I’d like to stay involved. The strongest thing any elected person should be able to say without tongue in cheek is, “I don’t know what kind of mayor or commissioner I was.” That’s up the for the public to decide and to tell me. People will ask me, “Mike, were you a good mayor?” and I’d have to say, “Well, I don’t know, you tell me, and you’d have to ask the people. That’s for everyone else to decide.”

Challenger Emerges For City Commission Seat

ECB Staff on May 17, 2017

On April 20, the filing period opened for Great Falls Mayoral and City Commission candidates. Despite an otherwise quiet municipal electoral landscape, we were recently alerted to the online presence of one Commission candidate, Tyson Habein. You can follow his campaign on Facebook here.

While he doesn’t seem to possess particularly high name ID, Habein’s could make for an interesting candidacy. He’s young, and has worked as Regional Field Organizer for the Montana Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. If Habein proves himself to be a savvy campaigner who is willing to work hard — by utilizing Democratic lists and data to send up a friendly flag to voting liberals — he could be competitive.

Though City elections are officially non-partisan, the left-leaning triumvirate of Bob Kelly, Bill Bronson, and Tracy Houck swept the 2015 contests.

Mayor Kelly, Commissioner Bob Jones, and Commissioner Fred Burow are all up for re-election this year.

The last day to file for office is June 19. For the requirements to seek and hold public office, read the City’s election brochure.

Of Smoke…And Fire

Gregg Smith on May 16, 2017

On May 15, 2017, I had the opportunity to sit down with City Manager, Greg Doyon, City Attorney, Sara Sexe, and City Planning Director, Craig Raymond, to discuss City Commissioner Tracy Houck’s involvement in the allocation of CDBG funds to the Paris Gibson Square where she serves as the Executive Director. Some takeaways:

The March 20, 2017, letter from the City Attorney to Commissioner Houck warning her away from conflicts of interest was hand delivered to Houck after the March 20, 2017, Work Session where Houck was clearly involved in the CDBG funding discussion, but before that day’s City Commission meeting.

There was a meeting between Mayor Kelly, Houck, and others to discuss the conflicts, and she has deferred from involvement since then.

The information that was provided to Houck regarding the Community Development Council’s deliberations and scoring of competing applications is public record and was requested by at least one other agency representative besides Houck. I have requested this information from the City, and will post it when received.

The City Attorney is working on a disclosure form and process for outside interests.

First, there should have been a tight, well-designed process in place already given the number of potential conflicts of interest in a small town. However, if closing the barn door after the cows leave was an uncommon phenomenon, there wouldn’t be a handy phrase to describe it.

Second, while Houck has apparently stopped participation after her conflict was noted by staff, this is not an exoneration. She has an independent responsibility to understand the rules that govern her service, and to follow them. I would be very surprised to learn that she was not given some sort of orientation about City rules and requirements; I remember a detailed orientation and I was only a Neighborhood Council member.

This is the second time, then, that Commissioner Houck finds herself in a position where the best thing that can be said about her conduct is that she was very careless. I have a hard time believing that there is someone who would not understand that it is inappropriate and unethical to communicate with the administrator of CDBG funds on behalf of an applicant agency while wearing her City Commission hat. In addition, I found her gossiping on Facebook about a local business person in a matter involving the City Commission. Commissioner Houck should recognize that she needs to dial it back, know the rules, follow the rules and, as one of my friends always said, just stick to the knittin’.

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.

City Staff Deserves Credit For Sorting Out CDBG Mess

ECB Staff on May 9, 2017

As more details emerge about conflicts of interest surrounding the City and CDBG funds, the more it has become increasingly clear that staff, and City Attorney Sara Sexe in particular, have done an admirable job of sorting out a messy situation. As Gregg Smith noted, Paris Gibson Square, as an organization, has every right to raise questions about an alleged conflict on the CDC in that way that it did (via Executive Director Tracy Houck, and on PGS letterhead). Meanwhile, it is also clear that Houck, both through City emails and at the March 20 work session meeting, and in her capacity as a City Commissioner, participated in discussions concerning CDBG funding.

City Attorney Sexe even-handedly addressed both of these issues when she hand delivered a letter to Houck on March 20.

One commenter on the E-City Beat Facebook page took a personal swipe at Sexe (while also praising City Commissioner Fred Burow). Such attacks are unfair. Sexe acted thoughtfully, fairly, and in the best interests of the City. The efforts of Sexe and Burow were not leveled in opposition to the other. Both Sexe and Burow proactively addressed conflicts of interest; they both deserve praise.

Moreover, the totality of a recent records request (thanks, Ron Gessaman) reveals dozens of emails zipping back and forth between staffers in the Planning and Community Development department — all working considerable hours to meticulously and dispassionately administer CDBG monies. P&CD Director Craig Raymond and the City’s CDBG Coordinator, Maria Porter, are honest, hard-working professionals who are simply trying their best to comply with the substantial CDBG guidelines enumerated by HUD, not pick and choose winners and losers.

It is easy for the public to be frustrated by this process, but no one should find fault with City staff. They’re the ones ensuring that everyone plays by the rules.

City Attorney Weighs In On Conflicts of Interest

Gregg Smith on May 3, 2017

I have to admit that when I read Phil’s piece about City Commissioner, Tracy Houck and CDBG funding, I was a little lost. I struggled through it a few times, and really never knew what happened other than the Community Development Council (“CDC”), which allocates CDBG funding, originally voted to recommend to the City Commission that the Paris Gibson Square’s grant request not be funded. Then, apparently there was some sort of inquiry by Commissioner Houck, the vote was changed, and now the CDC has recommended that PGS receive about $27,0000.00 in CDBG funds.

A March 14, 2017, letter from Commissioner Houck to Craig Raymond (the last two pages of this linked .pdf file), the City Planning and Community Development Director, sheds some light on this. In the letter, Houck says that the CDC Chairperson, Harmony Wolfe, was somehow affiliated with PGS (it’s hard to be sure because Houck says in her letter that Wolfe was both an employee and an independent contractor), but left that affiliation under less than amicable circumstances. Apparently Wolfe alleges sexual harassment against an unnamed PGS employee and intends to pursue it in litigation. Houck suggests that PGS and Great Falls Public School staff investigated these allegations, and determined them to be false. I do not believe they have been adjudicated by any independent finder of fact. Houck alleges a “vendetta” by Wolfe, and asserts she should recuse herself for such conflicts of interest.

This letter was on PGS letterhead and was written by Houck as the Executive Director of PGS.

A day earlier, though, Commissioner Houck had emailed Raymond, City Commissioner Bill Bronson, City Manager Greg Doyon, and another member of planning staff (This email can be found in Phil’s post). In this email, Houck complained of conflicts of interest by Mayor Bob Kelly and a NeighborWorks staff person. She makes only a vague reference to Wolfe, despite the fact that the following day she accuses her of a “vendetta.” This email was clearly written as a City Commissioner.

Then, apparently, based on Houck’s complaints of conflicts of interest, on March 16, Greg Doyon emailed Houck and said, in essence, she and Wolfe would have to recuse themselves, and there would be a re-vote to see if PGS would get its funding. It did. (GFDA was also funded, NeighborWorks apparently was not. See p. 68, here).

What helped to figure this out is City Attorney, Sara Sexe’s letter to Commissioner Houck from March 20, 2017 (pages 1 and 2), instructing Houck that she should “not vote or participate in any Commission action or discussion” related to the CDBG grant process.

So, roughly here is what I think we know: Wolfe apparently voted on grant allocations and according to Houck, down voted the PGS application. According to Houck, Wolfe had a conflict of interest in so voting. So Houck contacted the City, to complain about Wolfe’s participation, but was Houck doing so a conflict of interest?

As a result of Houck’s allegations, there was a revote with Wolfe not participating, and under the revote, the CDC awarded PGS its grant money. I can’t suggest that the PGS as an entity should have been unable to complain of a potential conflict simply because its Executive Director is a City Commissioner. Maybe a different PGS employee should have made the Complaint. But this whole thing leaves a number of questions.

First, in her March 13 email to City staff, Houck complains of a conflict of interest on the part of Mayor Kelly. Why was this question not raised earlier, or did she only care when PGS wasn’t funded? And then PGS gets its funding, and we don’t hear another word about that conflict. Does it seem as though Commissioner Houck had more interest in making sure her employer got funding than she did in protecting the public from a conflict of interest that she alleged? (I am certainly not alleging a conflict on the Mayor’s part–I don’t know the details of his relationship with GFDA.)

Second, Houck definitely participated in the discussions related to CDBG contrary to Sexe’s admonitions at the March 20, 2017, work session. Sexe’s letter was dated March 20 and was noted to have been hand delivered. Can we assume it was hand delivered before the meeting? If so, it seems Houck ignored the conflict of interest. I don’t know when she received the letter.

Third, the March 13, 2017, email is concerning. She wrote to City staff about her employer’s business as a City Commissioner. Who was she representing, the voters or Paris Gibson Square?

Here is the City’s Ethical Code. I guess you can be the judge.

Last Question: Where is the local media on this questions?

Crickets..

Conundrum

Philip M. Faccenda on April 29, 2017

noun co·nun·drum

Our City Commission seems to be faced with a difficult decision, or as Commissioner Bill Bronson says, “it’s a conundrum.”

Here’s the issue; to vote for a zone change which would allow a four story motel, approximately 50 feet high, close to the 10th Ave S/Fox Farm intersection, or to vote against it in order to stem the proliferation of casinos — although none are immediately proposed — in the same area. The proposed change from a C-1 zone to C-2 zone would only be necessary to increase the allowable height restriction from 35 feet to 65 feet.

Re: Great Falls, Montana Code, Land Development Chapter 20, 17.20.4.020, Exhibit 20-4.

Some say that we don’t need anymore motels and those new jobs aren’t really economic development, or that the potential property tax generated by the project would not decrease our existing residential property taxes. Both of these arguments are false and here’s why. Any project built in Great Falls that provides jobs, both construction jobs and permanent jobs, is economic development, something we sorely need, even if at the very least it replaces jobs we have lost for the past several years. Simple enough to understand.

Also, any project that grows the City tax base lessens the burden on residential tax payers because the cost of government, if it remains somewhat constant, requires smaller contributions from each taxpayer.

Bronson’s “conundrum” that is keeping him awake at night is not a musical instrument, but it can be beaten. If the City Commission is too afraid of casinos, the solution that everyone can live with is a no-brainer and it does not require a zone change, only a project specific height variance for the potential four story motel property. The variance allowed under Chapter 20, 17.16.32.040 would not adversely affect the area since the motel site is a stone’s throw from the tallest building in Great Falls, the Country Club Tower, which itself is eleven stories high.

The existing C-1 zoning would remain intact, require substantially more landscaping and setbacks than a C-2 zone, and not allow additional casino development in the area.

So what’s actually going to happen? According to the Great Falls Tribune, it’s likely Commissioner Bronson will personally intervene to complicate what should otherwise be a simple process:

Bronson recommended that time be used by city planners to develop an alternate “Planned Unit Development” proposal that would give the City of Great Falls greater control over the scope and nature of development in the area.

The problem with this misguided approach lies within the City’s Municipal Code, which states:

“17.16.29.010 – Generally.

A Planned Unit Development may be proposed as a subdivision or as a single development project with multiple buildings involving a homeowners or property owners association.”

The creation of a PUD for a single building with a single owner does not satisfy the intent of the code. In this case, you would have a property owners association for governance of the PUD with one member. If you included all the properties in the existing C-1 zone, it could not be defined as a single development since those properties have already been developed.

By not finding a solution that makes sense and adheres to governing codes, the attitude of the City Commission, particularly Bronson, appears short-sighted and antithetical to City’s adopted 2013 Growth Policy;

Eco3.4.2 Promote a “business friendly” attitude and support the use of an ombudsman role in all facets of business development.

Sure, a PUD district will allow Bronson to position himself as a “compromiser” on a thorny issue, but if government refuses to get out of the way, as Gregg Smith calls for, the obvious compromise here is much simpler: it’s to grant a height variance, not create a single-property PUD.

Fred Burow On City’s CDBG Funding: “I Think It’s A Black Eye On Us”

Philip M. Faccenda on April 27, 2017

If you skipped last week’s City Commission meeting (like the Great Falls Tribune did), then you missed a real doozy.

Unreported by local media, City Commissioner Fred Burow unloaded on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding process at the April 18 meeting:

“I have a lot of heartburn with this… I think the whole process should be called into question and reevaluated, personally, because of a conflict of interest complaint, apparently… there are other members on the CDC that are recipients of funds out of this deal… It does give a very bad appearance from the word go when you have people that are receiving the funds making decisions on who gets the funds.”

Commissioners accepted the proposed CDBG funding for 2017/2018 and set a public hearing on the matter for May 16. Within the Public Facilities portion of the agenda, Paris Gibson Square (PGS) is set to receive $27,927. However, on February 23, the Community Development Council, which recommends the allocations, agreed to deny any funding to PGS. The February 23 CDC meeting was supposedly the final meeting on these allocations.

Then, on April 3, the CDC met again and the allocations for Public Facilities changed. Now PGS is on the docket to receive the $27,927. What changed and why?

This question was partially answered at the April 18 City Commission meeting. During Commission discussion, City Attorney Sara Sexe explained there had been a complaint from an applicant for Public Facilities funding about a potential conflict with a CDC member. Sexe said she determined there could be an appearance of such a conflict along with a procedural issue and decided it would be best to reconvene the CDC to again review the presentations on those projects.

So who filed the complaint, when was it filed, and what was the nature of the complaint?

The following exchange between Commissioner Fred Burow and City Attorney Sara Sexe at the April 18 Commission meeting offered some glimpse of what had happened:

Burow: “You had a complaint. Who filed the complaint, may I ask?”

Sexe: “It was one of the applicants.”

Burow: “I asked who?”

Sexe: “Paris Gibson Square.”

Burow: “And they originally were turned down for a grant… for $38,000… I did hear some of that, probably not all of the discussion on it, but I did hear some of it, and it didn’t seem that anyone on that committee had anything against Paris Gibson or anything of that nature; it was just more of, they didn’t think that project was a viable project at the time. They just didn’t recommend it.

“So now to find out we have a whole new thing here, and what really is hard for me to go along with this it that when we have a City Commissioner that works for Paris Gibson and it’s not in a janitorial position — if I remember right, it’s CEO or something of that nature, who says hey, we’ve got to file a complaint here because something wasn’t done right and we didn’t get our allotment here or our grant.

“Not to say that that happened but that’s the perception that I see coming out of this from the public. And that’s what I’m concerned about is the perception of it. But then to see that, oh, we went back and rediscussed that and um, hmmm, we did decide to give them $27,927. I can’t quite get over that from the perception point of it.

“I think it’s a black eye on us; I do not intend to support it. I just, like I said, it just looks like a black eye. I’m sure in the public’s mind, we’ll see quite a lot of comments in the paper in the coming days about backroom deals and things of that nature, and I just refuse to have any part of that.”

Sexe went on to say that no matter who had made such a complaint, the same action would have been taken to try to remove the alleged conflict.

While Sexe is simply doing her job as City Attorney, the public heard nothing else about this (was there an actual conflict or was it hearsay?), about specifically who submitted the complaint, as well as the substantive nature of the complaint. Where’s the transparency?

But according to a records request passed on to me by a citizen, Commissioner Houck did some substantial whining in a March 13 email to City Manager Greg Doyon, accusing myriad others of having their own conflicts. In “two wrongs make a right” fashion, Houck, the PGS Director, leads her email:

“I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue since the organization I work applied.” [sic]

She also takes aim at Kelly and Neil Fortier of NeighborWorks:

“The other issue I feel insulting is that NeighborWorks, the City and GFDA were proposed to have large surplus grants. The Mayor sits as a board member to GFDA. Neil Fornier [sic], a member of the CDC is a staff person at NeighborWorks.”

But the real problem in Houck’s eyes is CDC member Harmony Wolfe:

“Lastly, I would like more than Harmony present for an update. My last communication from Harmony indicated that she was considering a potential lawsuit to the Square and the GFPS.”

Here’s her entire email:

Twenty six minutes later, Doyon emailed Sexe, telling her, “I’ll visit with you on these concerns.”

At the Commission meeting, the public was told that the conflict of interest exists on the CDC and involves an unpaid community volunteer (Wolfe). So, is Houck’s email the complaint Sexe and Burow are referring to? It sure looks like it. And if so, it warrants mentioning that Houck protested only after PGS was denied funding.

To be fair, maybe Wolfe’s presence on the CDC did pose a conflict. Still, what about the conflict of interest involving a City Commissioner working behind the scenes to advocate for the organization that cuts her checks? Does it not matter because no one bothered to complain about it? Houck can have a fiduciary responsibility to the Square, or to the City, but not to both.

I have no doubt that Sara Sexe, along with the rest of City staff, handled this matter with integrity and did the best they could with this self-dealing. Unfortunately, Houck’s behavior here is nothing new. According to the Great Falls Tribune, she unsuccessfully attempted to donate remaining contributions from her 2015 campaign to the Square — again, the (partially taxpayer-funded) organization that pays her salary. A look at her City Commission Facebook page reveals countless shares and promotions of PGS events and business. Add it all up and one wonders: What does Houck really care about… representing all of us, or leveraging her City office for personal and professional gain?

Commissioner Burow deserves a Rhetorical Pulitzer Prize for publically exposing a pervasive issue that City government entities would like to hide under the bed: conflicts of interest.

Too Many Casinos

Gregg Smith on April 27, 2017

Many people say the City must do something about too many casinos in this town.

The first thing I ask an anti-casino person who drinks alcohol is this: have you ever protested a new bar?

No?

Oh, so it’s the other guy’s vice you aren’t comfortable with. Because I can make an argument that alcohol causes and has caused at least as many problems as the anti-casino folks say gambling causes, but so many people are fine with alcohol, as opposed to gambling, because they like to drink.

If you listen to people in this town, or read comments at the Tribune website or on Facebook, you would think that Great Falls, alone in Montana, is simply overrun with gambling. The facts do not bear that out.

Look at the Montana Gambling Control Division’s 2015-2016 Biannual Report, and you will find statistics for what are apparently the 19 largest cities in Montana. Turn to the appendix, and you can see how much gambling there is available in Great Falls compared to the rest of the state.

The average of the 19 largest communities shows that there are 23.99 gaming machines per 1000 residents. In Great Falls, the number is 23.978 gaming machines per 1000 residents. In other words, we are slightly less than average. Billings, the largest city in the state has 23.53 machines per 1000 residents, slightly lower than us. Helena is at 22.37 per 1000, while Kalispell is 29.16 and Whitefish is 25.59.

Bozeman and Missoula both have fewer machines per 1000 residents than we do, a fact that might be explained by the additional fact that a significant portion of their population is made up of young college students who lack the money to gamble. (Of course, if you import 13,000 to 16,000 college age kids into Great Falls every year, we probably wouldn’t be having an economic development discussion either.) Or, maybe those towns are growing past their license quota, and Great Falls never did?

The point, though, is not that Great Falls has too many machines or too few, but merely that arguments you read suggesting that we are some kind of outlier gambling mecca are simply false.

Those same arguments also often point to 10th Avenue South, “Holy cow, you drive down tenth and it’s just casino after casino.” Again, this is not fair argument; put another way, this is by design. You might recall back in the early Oughts that the City spent $80,000.00 on a new zoning code. Well, this code so restricted the available locations for licenses, 10th Avenue South became one of the few places in town where one could even open a bar or casino. So, don’t be surprised that the casinos cluster on 10th. Instead, blame your then-City Commission.

One more point: If the City Commission limits zoning due to the possibility of casinos, and if that’s because the Commissioners just don’t like gambling, the City Commission is not doing its job. You see, gambling is legal. The mere fact that someone is engaging in a legal activity that you do not prefer should not even be considered in this discussion. What if your occupation is next? I would suggest that the majority of casinos are operated by local people, including me and my partners. I was born and raised here, and invested with family members in an industry that our family has been involved in for several generations.

The City has limited the locations of casinos. The City has limited the signage of casinos. The City cannot simply overrule state law.

If you don’t like gaming, your issue is with the legislature, not the City Commission. Otherwise, I think you should stop demonizing your fellow citizens who have invested their money in a legal industry.