City Commission

Nativism Alive And Well On The Great Falls City Commission

ECB Staff on April 1, 2017

Great Falls City Commissioner Tracy Houck, a partisan Democrat from Pennyslvania, wrote an amusing letter-to-the-editor, slamming Republican Greg Gianforte for allegedly not representing “Montanan” values.

Supporting Rob Quist, Houck writes in today’s Tribune:

We have seen him understand our values, our needs and our experiences and turn them into song.

While one’s ability to fashion values into song is undoubtedly an important qualification for any member of Congress, we — along with the nearly dozen readers who emailed us about this — couldn’t help but chuckle at Houck’s rampant nativism:

Support Montanan values, support a Montanan [emphasis added], support Rob Quist.

Like Gianforte, Houck (a Pennsylvanian) is from the East Coast. Mayor Bob Kelly is also an out-of-stater. City Commissioner Bill Bronson is from Havre. All of the above, however, have lived in Montana (and in the case of the latter three, Great Falls) for decades. Why should one’s birthplace matter? Are politicians like Houck, Kelly, and Bronson any less qualified to serve the public because, despite moving and settling here, they weren’t born here?

We thought a recent letter in the Tribune from Robert Reynolds, seen below, demonstrated a measured, more thoughtful line of opposition to Gianforte.

Stop “othering” Gianforte

Fellow Democrats,

Stop attacking Republican Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte for being from New Jersey. Our party advocates for a broad definition of “us” and a more welcoming, less insular Montana and America. “Othering” Mr. Gianforte is hypocritical.

Based on his policy positions, I believe electing Mr. Gianforte would be a substantial step backwards for our home. However, he is as much a Montanan as you and me.

—Robert Reynolds

Miles City

Please stop “othering” Mr. Gianforte for not being from Montana, Commissioner Houck. It’s not just illiberal and intolerant; it’s hypocritical.

Tryon: Wages, Population Stagnant; City Taxes And Utilities Up

Rick Tryon on March 28, 2017

With the City of Great Falls moving past the financial fiasco of the $5,553,054 bailout (decrease in unassigned General Fund balance) in 2013 to cover the electric power business (see City 2014 CAFR Financial section, p. 14), the City’s financial position has improved, but the needs of the City are still great.

The façade of the Civic Center needs fixing. It’s a big ticket item and the money has to come from somewhere. City staff reports that costs to repair the Civic Center are estimated in the $6 – 8 million dollar range.

City officials are also discussing a “need” to increase legal staff and increase staff workspace. And then there is the recently passed Park and Recreation Master Plan, which cost the City $89,970 to produce, as reported in October of 2015.

As E-City Beat reported on February 17, from the City Manager’s packet: “After discussion about implementation of the Park Master Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission to pursue a Park Maintenance District, but agreed that the fees imposed should be reasonable and not include golf or the Natatorium. Manager Doyon suggested that a more robust maintenance fee may result in more money in the general fund to support public safety and ultimately less cost to the public versus a public safety levy. The Commission concurred.”

Manager Doyon gets it: how far can we stretch our property tax dollars? How many more increases, beyond the ever-seeking public school administration and the Great Falls Development Authority, can fixed income and lower income families bear?

The City routinely raises annual property taxes under the inflationary percentage allowed by State law, which is one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years. For the 2016-17 budget year, that rate was .67 percent. Here is a brief description of the 198.24 mill levy passed by the City Commission for the budget year 2016-17, as taken from Resolution 10152:

Section 1. – Determination of Mill Levy Limit

Appendix A shows the determination of the total mill levy limit of 167.26 mills.
An additional 26.14 “Permissive Medical Levy” is allowed under 15-10-420(9)(a)(vi) for increased health insurance premiums not included in the Appendix A calculation.
An additional 1.90 mills is allowed under 15-10-420(2) for additional voter supported mills. On November 4, 2003, a $2.5 million general obligation bond was approved by voters for construction of a soccer park. It has been determined that 1.90 mills for soccer park debt service payments is needed for Fiscal Year 2017.
Lastly, an additional 2.94 mills is allowed under 15-10-420(2) for additional voter supported mills. On November 7, 2006, a $2.27 million general obligation bond was approved by voters for repair and improvement of city pool facilities. It has been determined that 2.94 mills for swimming pool debt service payments is needed for Fiscal Year 2017.

The 20-year soccer park bonds were issued in June 2004. The 10-year pools facilities bonds were issued in May 2007, expiring after this year.

To provide a snapshot of yearly property tax levies, here is a rundown for Great Falls over the past 7 years (information from annual property tax increase and mill levy requests to City Commission):

Year	Base Mill Levy	Permissive Med Levy	Soccer Park	Pools Facilities	TOTAL	Base Inflationary % increase taken	Perm Med Infl %
2010-11	152.94	15.54	2.45	3.83	173.10	0	1.06
2011-12	164.27	15.44	2.56	3.72	183.24	0	0?
2012-13	169.13	17.93	2.58	3.93	193.57	1.2	1.4
2013-14	172.19	20.06	2.57	3.92	198.74	1.03	1.3
2014-15	175.77	22.87	2.82	3.62	205.08	1.03	1.25
2015-16	162.17	23.03	1.97	3.12	190.29	.67	2.17
2016-17	167.26	26.14	1.90	2.94	198.24	.5	2.48

The base mill levy is a formula regulated by the State under MCA 15-10-420. A portion of that code reads:

“The maximum number of mills that a governmental entity may impose is established by calculating the number of mills required to generate the amount of property tax actually assessed in the governmental unit in the prior year based on the current year taxable value, less the current year’s newly taxable value, plus one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years.

(b) A governmental entity that does not impose the maximum number of mills authorized under subsection (1)(a) may carry forward the authority to impose the number of mills equal to the difference between the actual number of mills imposed and the maximum number of mills authorized to be imposed. The mill authority carried forward may be imposed in a subsequent tax year.”

The result of the mill levy increase over the years results in a continual increase by the City in property taxes with the exception of 2015-16. And while the base mill levy for this year, 2016-17, is just under the rate of 2013-14, property taxes have increased with increases in streets, lighting districts, the boulevard district and the permissive medical levy. It is evident by the statistics on the permissive medical levy that government regulation of the health care industry has done nothing to stop the rising costs of medical care and insurance, an issue both the public school system and the county are also dealing with.

Additionally to property taxes, city utility rates have increased each year. While these increases may be necessary to maintain critical infrastructure, many citizens in this town do not get cost of living increases or annual raises, and often work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Increases in taxes and services for them means a decrease in other household spending.

To provide a snapshot of just one area of yearly increases, here are the basic utility service increases for Great Falls over the past 7 years and this year’s proposed increases (information taken from annual utility rate increase requests to City Commission):

2010: water 5%; sewer 7.5%

2011: water 5%; sewer 7.5%

2012: water nearly 5%; sewer nearly 10%

2013: water 5%; sewer 10%

2014: water 5%

2015: water 7%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%.

2016: water 10%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%

2017 (proposed) water 10%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%

You get the picture. Are utility increases now a standard and a FOREVER thing? And when did these annual rate increases actually begin? Are we trying to outclass other cities in Montana with our rates? The conundrum is that infrastructure in communities across America is aging, is costly to repair and update, and is becoming more costly with federal regulations.

The City Commission set a public hearing date of May 2, 2017 to address the proposed utility increases for this year to be effective in June. There would be public outcry if the same annual increases were applied to gas and electric rates.

Take a drive around areas of town in the summer and you see more and more dried up lawns. Seniors and low income families water their lawns less as the cost of water services increase.

The answer to the tax dilemma is complicated. Taxes and utility fees are a necessary component of suburban living. In comparing the tax climate of Great Falls to other major Montana cities, Great Falls appears to be reasonable in how much taxes are levied on the average homeowner.

What Great Falls really needs is an expanding tax base to ease the burden on individual property owners. That means more and better paying jobs. The more property owners and business owners there are to spread the wealth of tax burden, the less impact tax increases have on each individual. The more TIFs and tax breaks given to select projects, the more the average Joe tax payer has to provide for every aspect of the community, city, schools and county included.

Small Town, Big Government?

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

After a lively couple of weeks, the City has decided — in advance of its previously scheduled March 6 meeting — that the Children’s Museum will not have to pack up and move, at least for now. The fiasco surrounding the CMOM highlighted a larger issue, though: the City’s desire to grow our government.

Let’s take a look at some recent statements made by City officials. Here’s Mayor Kelly, on February 17 in the Tribune:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said, ‘It would be silly to start a big construction project if the museum comes to us when the lease expires in ’18 and says they’ve outgrown the space.’

Here’s Kelly again, 10 days later, via KRTV:

‘We have a couple things that are happening. One right now is we have additional personnel that we need to hire for Marcy’s Law. Our legal department is getting squeezed out right now, ideally we would like to have them all together. The other thing we have added some personnel to our Planning and Community Development group. We have also hired a human resources person and we are looking to group those folks together, as well as out risk managers,’ Kelly explained.

From the January 3, 2017 City Commission work session:

City Attorney Sara Sexe commented that it is dysfunctional trying to supervise the prosecutor’s office since it is separated from the civil department. She further commented that it would be helpful to have a well functioning department all under one roof. City Attorney Sexe reported that once Marsy’s law becomes effective it will enhance the level of involvement between the two departments. She noted that the Assistant City Attorney is currently utilizing the Human Resource Director’s office space.

Also, and from the same meeting:

City Manager Greg Doyon reported that the impact of Marsy’s Law will fundamentally change the operation of the legal department.

That’s a lot of generalized talk about Marsy’s Law, so one naturally wonders how many new employees the City will hire to cope with its requirements. Well, if the City hires the same amount of staff as Billings, a community twice the size of Great Falls, the number of new employees would be exactly… one.

From the Billings Gazette:

Brooks said he plans to ask the city council for one new employee, at $66,000 per year plus an additional $2,000 for a computer and equipment, to comply with the law. For 10 years, his office has received no additional staff, and other Montana communities, including Bozeman, Great Falls, Gallatin County and Missoula County, are requesting new employees ranging from one half-time employee (Bozeman) to two employees (Missoula County).

Honestly, how responsible would it be, then, for the City to invest in “a big construction project,” or to take over a facility as large as the Children’s Museum? And why does there seem to be such fervor within City Hall to grow government? Does anyone think that Great Falls is experiencing population growth at a rate commensurate with this proposed growth in bureaucracy? How many additional HR staffers does the City intend to hire, and moreover, do they really need to hire any at all? We certainly don’t hear this type of “big government” rhetoric from the Cascade County Commissioners.

It is possible that one day the City of Great Falls will find itself in a position that necessitates a larger municipal campus. Our region’s economic outlook, however, is not especially rosy. Great Falls is an ag community, and is bolstered by oil patch activity. Agricultural commodity prices have tanked, and so have oil prices. By and large, and over the course of decades, Great Falls’ population has grown very little. It would be laughable to forecast a significant population surge anytime soon.

Maybe, then, the City should focus on improving the government it has now, rather than on the larger government it wishes to have. Last we checked, the golf courses are bleeding money, the swimming pools don’t sustain themselves, the parking program is a loser, and taxes and fees keep going up, up, up…

Maybe more government isn’t the answer.

A Good Letter To The Editor In The Tribune

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

A thoughtful letter-to-the-editor recently ran in the Tribune, one that made us wonder: What if the Trump administration did this? What would be the resultant backlash then?

Here’s the letter in its entirety:

City ordinance goes too far

Great Falls Ordinance 3148 allows the city to ban anyone from city property for one year for any violation of any part of the city code, the Montana Code Annotated or if the city manager or his designee decides you’re disorderly or abusive.

The “or” clause is particularly troubling, giving city personnel carte blanche to determine what is disorderly or abusive.

My research found no other major Montana community with a similar law—why Great Falls? There’s no sensible argument for this ordinance. It’s vague and over-reaching. They’ve given themselves the potential to abuse our civil liberties. It’s a bit suspicious.

A parking ticket could earn you a year-long ban, for example. City officials stated they don’t intend to use it that way but that’s only their words, which aren’t binding.

The city cited a library incident as reason for the ordinance. Public nuisance, disorderly conduct and assault laws already cover such incidents. The city claimed that without this ordinance, police can’t eject people from city property. Not true—I’ve witnessed police eject people from city property.

Why include the entire city code and MCA for a supposed “trespass” ordinance? There’s no reason to be this imprecise when defining law.

These recently passed ordinances give the city fiefdom-like power—sans moat and drawbridge.

—Jeni Dodd

Great Falls

City Staff Can Use PowerPoint At Commission Meetings, City Residents Cannot

ECB Staff on March 12, 2017

A number of folks don’t think that’s fair, and none more so than the Ol’ Colonel, Richard Liebert. It’s something Liebert has wanted to see changed for years, to no avail. On Friday, Liebert submitted the following written petition to Great Falls City Commissioners, urging them to grant residents the same multimedia privileges as City staff.

Liebert’s “ticket,” which can be found here, reads:

“Dear Mr. Mayor and commission,

I applaud your decision to deny the Calumet tax abatement and also promoting the message we do not stand for intolerance. I ask for your help collectively and or individually to make some modest amendments to Resolution 10072 so citizens can utilize multi-media (only at hearings, for five minutes only and slides submitted to city clerk prior to the meeting) to effectively articulate a postion – pro or con – that SAVES time, promotes greater understanding, reduces paper handling and costs to citizens and builds up public trust in government when citizens know you’re helping them participate more effectively.

Zoning issues like Thaniel, Fox Farm, and other projects are examples of where images, charts, slides and maps presented to the entire chamber lead to greater understanding of the issue in the limited amount of time allowed.

I am available to help work with the commission to meet this goal that will benefit us all. The Cascade County Commission, Great Falls School Board and every other major city in Montana allows citizens to utilize multi-media and powerpoint to promote better and more open government.

Sincerely,

Lt. Colonel (Retired, USA) Richard Liebert”

Liebert’s suggestion is a good one. It adheres to existing time constraints and would empower citizens brave enough to step up to the podium. Why does “every other major city in Montana” allow this, but not the City of Great Falls?

The Politics Of Pretending: Crime On The Rise In Great Falls

Rick Tryon on March 8, 2017

Three young men beat someone up and stole his shoes and coat on February 26 right in front of the friendly IGA store off 25th Street North and 6th Avenue North here in Great Falls. Passersby watched it happen. Someone in the store called 911, but no passersby moved to stop the thugs, no doubt out of fear for their own safety.

A week later a young female clerk at a local store in Great Falls told me she doesn’t like to “go out” because she worried about “getting beat up, especially downtown at night.” Not long ago, she was on a GF transit bus and a man on the bus was passed out. She informed the driver of this passenger, and when the bus stopped, the drooling man arose from his stupor and started screaming at her. It was a scary scenario. This same young female said she was also recently surrounded and intimidated by a group of panhandlers on the lower south side. She suggested that it’s time we start doing something about the growing crime and poverty problems in our community.

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear about another vehicle being stolen or burglary or child abuse or assault or a meth or heroin bust or a drunken rampage. More and more indigents, transients, homeless, addicts and out-of-work are wandering our streets and public places.

Here are three questions for all Great Falls citizens:

What’s happening to our town?

What are we going to do about it?

Why do some of those in positions of leadership and influence seem so blissfully unaware?

Great Falls is still, for the most part, a good place to live, raise and educate a family, work and recreate. But the not so hidden secret is that we are experiencing an increase in poverty, crime and family and drug abuse without a commensurate increase in population and tax base to deal with those problems.

Indeed, our local CASA-Can Facebook page points out that in 2016, there were 700 children in the foster care system in Cascade County alone. By February 16, 2017, 70 more children were added to the ranks.

The Great Falls Police Department has their hands full. In a report to the community on January 30, 2017, Chief Bowen reported that the GFPD “ended 2016 with a total of 42,140 calls for service. Our teams were busy with this massive increase of 4,066 more calls for service in 2016 than in 2015. As we prepare our year-end reports we found there may be several factors playing into the increase.

“In May we implemented the Data Driven Approach to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) patrol model and designated almost 200 square blocks in the heart of our community as the DDACTS Zone. Officers assigned to this area are dedicated to being highly visible with frequent traffic enforcement.

“We also experienced a surge in stolen autos,” Bowen stated in the report.

It is not immediately clear whether one can interpret the implementation of the DDACTS model as a reason for the massive increase in calls for service, or whether Chief Bowen is simply noting the GFPD response to the problem. But the question remains: what do we do about the increase in calls for service?

First, let’s not pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. The mural of Charlie Russell with a flying saucer hovering over his head painted on the North parking garage looks cool and upscale modern, but doesn’t fix what’s going on inside the parking garage. It doesn’t take much “ear to the ground” to hear citizens’ concerns about downtown parking garage safety or the serious issues surrounding increasing problems of vagrancy and drug abuse associated with both parking garages. It isn’t a new problem, but it is a worsening problem.

Real solutions are not obvious or simple. There will be no real solutions, however, without solid public discourse, acknowledgement by the powers that be, and more options than glossing over the existing problem with a pretty paint job. We have to stop playing the politics of pretending that everything is great in Great Falls.

It’s commendable that the GFPD implemented DDACTS and offers a Citizen’s Academy to provide interested citizens an education in how the police department operates and the policing challenges our community faces. Still, there needs to be more viable solutions to the rise in crime.

Let’s clearly define and prioritize the most pressing safety issues in our city. The mayor and city commission have made so much ado over cell phone use by licensed drivers and so little ado has been made about the increasing overall crime rate, as well as the increase in serious crimes, in Great Falls.

So what are we going to do about it? For starters, we need to clearly define and prioritize the set of crime and safety issues so apparent in our city. The continuing word from local city commissioners and the Great Falls Tribune is that the overall outlook for Great Falls is great and getting greater. It’s so great in fact, that the City Commission has addressed increased fines for drivers using cell phones because, well, cell phone use by drivers must be one of the single most pressing issues in our fair city.

Our mayor even goes so far as to take credit for instituting the driver cell phone ban when in fact he was not even an elected commissioner at the time the ordinance was initially passed. In a January 13, 2017 article in the Great Falls Tribune, the mayor is quoted:

‘My goal in putting it in place (driver cell phone ban) was to alert the community and others who visit Great Falls that we insist on safe driving habits.’

The ban on using a cell phone while driving was passed by the city commission in July, 2012. Kelly was not appointed to the city commission until December, 2012 and was not sworn in until January, 2013.

The point here is that the mayor and city commission have made so much ado over cell phone use by licensed drivers and so little ado has been made about the increasing overall crime rate, as well as the increase in serious crimes, in Great Falls.

While the mayor pushes for murals on the parking garage, takes credit for a cell phone ban while driving, and discusses options for more office space for a growing city government, perhaps there should be public discussion from the city commission about safety issues and how to bolster support for the GFPD.

Perhaps the surest way to deal with the increasing crime problems in Great Falls is to target more resources to law enforcement. Is it a stretch to consider that one of the main challenges for our GFPD is that we simply don’t have enough police on the beat? Or do we? Would increases in our PD force help reduce crime, or are there other models we can draw from? Is it time to review our GFPD policies and our city ordinances on how we deal with some of these issues?

No solutions will be easy because implementation will mean prioritizing our city budget to lean more towards safety and local law enforcement. It shouldn’t require yet higher local taxes, fees or additional levies. However, the city is already discussing increased staffing needs and a resulting increase in office space. While the Children’s Museum as a possible space for future development of city offices has been the topic of heated public discussion and discussion among the city commission, there has currently been no clear information to the public about exactly what the commission may propose. Clearly there has been discussion about new construction.

From a Feb. 17 article in the Great Falls Tribune:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said, ‘It would be silly to start a big construction project if the museum comes to us when the lease expires in ’18 and says they’ve outgrown the space.’

Actually, it would be silly given the current increase in crime in Great Falls to prioritize expanded office space over additional law enforcement resources.

While tax hikes and special elections for mill levies is business as usual, citizens of Great Falls may be feeling a bit pinched. The school system just passed a $100 million levy last fall and is prepping the public to request two additional million dollar levies this spring. County commissioners just announced a possible $450,000 request for a mill levy to help fund the Great Falls Development Authority. City taxes and utilities increase annually on homeowners’ property taxes. There seems to be no government agency that isn’t holding a hand out for more, yet wages and job prospects in Great Falls remain fairly stagnant.

Which brings us back to a need for open and honest public discussion and the need to prioritize the most pressing issues facing the good governing of our city.

In conclusion, Great Falls is still a marvelous place to live, work and raise a family but we have to be honest and vigilant. We should be optimistic about our potential but realistic about our current situation. Our community is not well served by those who gloss over or try to spin reality into a cheerful but fake assessment of what actually is. We can do better.

Ever Been Criticized? It Was Probably By A Conspiracy Theorist

Kelly Parks on February 21, 2017

At least that seems to be the pathology of City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who lambasted citizens critical of her involvement in the City’s dealings with the Children’s Museum of Montana.

Specifically, Houck took aim at a post published on this blog:

After a wonderful weekend of down time and very little social media exposure, I realized there is quite a bit of scuttle going on in regards to the Children’s Museum, my involvement and a few other things. Quite honestly, I don’t have much to report other than that the truth that is out there is quite distorted, but then again, consider your sources.

She continued:

The accusations is [sic] a recent online article are ridiculous, speculative and supported by our community’s biggest conspiracy theorists.

Here is the full and complete extent to which Houck was mentioned in the article:

So, what triggered the alarm bells? If both Kelly and Bronson oppose utilizing the Children’s Museum, then which elected official thinks it’s actually a good idea to gut the museum for office space for City staff? This doesn’t sound like the machinations of Bob Jones or Fred Burow. According to Edwards, that official is City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who is also the Executive Director of the Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art. Now why would a fellow museum director want to drive out the CMOM?

Edwards met with Houck and City Manager Greg Doyon on Jan. 12. ‘[Doyon] told me this was Tracy’s idea. He has been wonderful to work with and is super positive about the future of the museum,’ Edwards said.

Houck did not respond to emails sent to both her City and personal email accounts seeking comment.

That’s it.

Commissioner Houck, when you invited your supporters to “consider your sources” (presumably to discredit them), who were you referring to? Me, more than likely? Or was it Sandie Edwards, the only “source” who was actually quoted in the article? You would have been quoted, too, of course, but you did not respond to my emails. I even sent emails to two separate accounts.

In my interactions with Sandie Edwards, I found her to be forthright, competent, and someone who cares deeply about children and the work she does. Most of all, though, I found her to be credible. She told me that Houck wanted the City to use the CMOM facility for staff offices, and I reported it. Period.

Houck did not respond to a request for comment, and I reported that, too. Period.

How is it “speculative” to quote Edwards as saying that Doyon told her it was Houck’s idea to take over the CMOM? What else does Houck want her supporters to “consider” about the “sources?” I ask, because she doesn’t say. She just throws out a cheap, blanket smear… “consider your sources,” as though anyone who has the temerity to question her should, by default, not be taken seriously.

It’s disappointing that a City Commissioner would stoop to taking potshots at the public she was elected to represent, and particularly at those of us who sincerely want to elevate discussion about an important community issue. This was not a “Tracy Houck” article; it was an article about the City and the Children’s Museum.

In an attempt to soften her position, Houck painted herself as a solutions-oriented “collaborator” who is looking out for the Children’s Museum:

The good that has come out of these conversations is the discussions and brainstorming. What if the Children’s Museum could be relocated to their own location? What if it was a donated space that could be used as an asset to leverage matching grants? What if a new space came with outdoor space that was not right next to railroad tracks? What if the Children’s Museum was closer to a bus route or other amenities? That option would benefit families and the museum. It would also diminish the city’s financial impact to the general fund over expensive renovations or long term leases.

According to Edwards, though, “A better building was never discussed.” And remember, the Children’s Museum staff doesn’t want to leave their current space. They like where they are. Houck’s alternative “solutions” also do not align with Mayor Kelly’s unambiguous statement in the Tribune, one that wholeheartedly supports the Children’s Museum:

‘We have no intention whatsoever to remove them from the space,’ Kelly said.

I stand by my words 100%.

There’s More To The Story About The City And The Children’s Museum…

Kelly Parks on February 18, 2017

Move along. Nothing to see here…

What else is one supposed to glean from the Tribune’s coverage of the City’s relationship with the Children’s Museum of Montana? The City isn’t evicting the museum, they would never do that, and angsty, misinformed residents are spewing “alternative facts” on social media, etc.

But doesn’t it seem like there’s more to this story? Here’s the lede from the Trib:

The Children’s Museum of Montana and the city of Great Falls are in discussion about the museum’s plans for the future, and the city is considering converting the site into an office building if the move makes sense for both parties.

From this, one presumes that the Children’s Museum might inexplicably abandon its well-furnished home of 18 years, and not attempt to renew its very generous lease of $1/year, which expires in 2018. (How, then, would moving make sense for both parties?) Or, one could surmise that the City plans to raise the rent, and effectively serve the museum — not now, but next year — a de facto eviction notice. So, which is it?

Highlighting to readers what the museum wants out of the deal seems to be such a fundamental element to the story, yet this information is nowhere to be found in the Tribune. Instead, it is teased and suggested that, actually, maybe the museum wants out of its (also unreported) $1/year lease with the City. Children’s Museum of Montana Executive Director Sandie Edwards told E-City Beat, emphatically, “We want to stay.”

In the Trib’s article, Mayor Bob Kelly said the City was just wondering if the museum had gotten too big to operate in its existing home.

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said, ‘It would be silly to start a big construction project if the museum comes to us when the lease expires in ’18 and says they’ve outgrown the space. We’re merely having the conversation to see if they want to go somewhere else.’

Fair enough. They don’t want to go somewhere else, though, and according to Edwards, “We do not need more space (as reported by KFBB). We rock the space we have and constantly change out the exhibits to bring new life down there for the visitors.”

(First, who told KFBB the Children’s Museum needs more space? Not the museum’s Executive Director. Second, it’s reasonable that the City wants to “[have] a conversation” about the museum’s intentions. But doesn’t it sound like this should make for an extremely brief discussion? They want to stay. Third, just how big is this “big construction project” Kelly mentions? The Children’s Museum is huge. How many new employees does the City plan on hiring? Enough to fill the museum? To what extent does the City intend to grow local government?)

To his credit, Kelly pledged to stand with the Children’s Museum.

Kelly’s wife, Sheila, was one of the Children’s Museum of Montana’s founding board members and served as president for several years.

‘We have no intention whatsoever to remove them from the space,’ Kelly said. ‘I wouldn’t be able to go home if those lines were crossed.’

So if the City has “no intention whatsoever” of displacing the Children’s Museum, and if the museum isn’t currently facing eviction (as the Trib’s headline screams), then why was there so much outcry and “misinformation” on Facebook in the first place? Are these museum-backers just a bunch of cranks? Not exactly. The City has been openly, albeit quietly, eyeing the museum, at a minimum, since the Jan. 3, 2017 work session, although it’s not an idea City Commissioner Bill Bronson supports:

With regard to space utilization, Commissioner Bronson commented that he would like more information and data. He expressed opposition with regard to doing additions to the Civic Centers, and utilizing the Children’s Museum. He expressed support with regard to maintaining a campus environment. Commissioner Bronson commented that all alternatives need to be looked at by the Mansfield Center for utilizing other aspects of the Civic Center. He requested more information before making a final decision.

So, what triggered the alarm bells? If both Kelly and Bronson oppose utilizing the Children’s Museum, then which elected official thinks it’s actually a good idea to gut the museum for office space for City staff? This doesn’t sound like the machinations of Bob Jones or Fred Burow. According to Edwards, that official is City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who is also the Executive Director of the Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art. Now why would a fellow museum director want to drive out the CMOM?

Edwards met with Houck and City Manager Greg Doyon on Jan. 12. “[Doyon] told me this was Tracy’s idea. He has been wonderful to work with and is super positive about the future of the museum,” Edwards said.

Houck did not respond to emails sent to both her City and personal email accounts seeking comment.

Edwards will meet with Kelly and Doyon on March 6 to further discuss the issue. “The City has always supported the museum. We look forward to working with them in the future. Bob Kelly has also been hugely supportive of the museum over the years. I’m looking forward to meeting with him in March, as well,” Edwards said.

What is the purpose of this subsequent meeting? The positions from both sides are clear. The folks who run the Children’s Museum want the organization to stay where it is, and it should stay where it is. It is a Great Falls treasure, one which proudly served over 70,000 people in 2016, including many low-income families. The museum has used over $2 million donated dollars to elevate itself to what, and where, it is today. The mayor’s words, while encouraging, now require action. Kelly says he won’t cross “those lines,” so why not put it in writing? At this point, the only reason the City should meet with Edwards and her board is to show them, not tell them, how important their organization is, and to extend the lease for the Children’s Museum of Montana, just as it is now.

The City Manager’s Weekly Packet

ECB Staff on February 17, 2017

Have you seen the City of Great Falls’ new website? It’s very well done, and is for the most part a user-friendly hub of relevant information. In addition to the City directory and meeting minutes, there is also the City Manager’s Weekly Packet. While not strictly released on a weekly basis, the latest installment contains some awfully interesting items, most of which were from the City Commission’s retreat/strategic planning mission:

Remember the idea of a City-wide Parks Maintenance District we wrote about not too long ago? The City Commission likes it:

After discussion about implementation of the Park Master Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission to pursue a Park Maintenance District, but agreed that the fees imposed should be reasonable and not include golf or the Natatorium. Manager Doyon suggested that a more robust maintenance fee may result in more money in the general fund to support public safety and ultimately less cost to the public versus a public safety levy. The Commission concurred. [emphasis added]

The real question here is, What does the Commission consider to be a “reasonable” fee amount?

On another item, costs to repair the Civic Center are estimated in the $6 – 8 million dollar range. With the golf fund $1 million in debt to the general fund (and continuing to operate in the red), one option the City is mulling to offset these losses is closing Anaconda Hills Golf Course:

Manager Doyon reported that Director Raymond is putting together an RFP for the Civic Center facade project. Staff estimates the project will be $6 – 8 million dollars. Funding the project will be a challenge with the golf fund deficit. The golf course owes the general fund $1 million dollars. With the operating losses, the likelihood is low that the golf course will be able to pay back the general fund. The Commission was receptive to entertaining the idea of writing off the debt and closing the Anaconda Hills golf course. The P&R Master Plan has shown that the City of Great Falls doesn’t need two golf courses. [emphasis added] Golf funds could be used towards other needs instead of paying back the debt. The Commission requested cost figures of closing the golf course, and any land requirements when the property was deeded to the City. Manager Doyon discussed projected revenue increases and options to partially fund the facade project with debt and cash.

While a tax assessment for parks and the closure of a public golf course do not appear to be imminent (as far as we can tell), they are ideas generally supported, and being entertained, respectively, by the City Commission.

ICYMI

Gregg Smith on February 9, 2017

I thought the following comment on the City Commission post, below, was worth elevating:

Don I would agree with you. I was there last night, I’ve been researching this and I think the city’s got something up their sleeves. Ordinance 4138 is far too inclusive. So is Ordinance 3149. There’s more to come too, with City Attorney Cik on his “quest.”

A quest that I believe exists to re-write the Muni Code to give the commissioners more power. There’s more to come at the next commission meeting, with Ordinance 3154. My understanding is that one will change the public notice of competitive bidding process to eliminate publication in a newspaper. It appears to give them the opportunity to posts in any manner they see fit.

Back to Ordinance 3148 which passed last night. The way it reads, someone could be banned from city property for ONE YEAR for ANY violation of the ANY part of the municipal code, the Montana Code Annotated OR IF THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE DECIDES YOU’VE BEEN DISORDERLY OR ABUSIVE.

The poster claims the city gave mostly sensible arguments for Ordinance 3148. There’s no sensible argument for an ordinance that gives this extreme amount of power. It’s bad enough that the city included the whole Municipal Code and the MCA in this ordinance. The way it reads now, you could be banned from city property if you, for example, are caught of driving with a cell phone, although city officials will tell you they don’t intend to use it that way. I just can’t trust their word.

The “or” clause in this ordinance is particularly troubling.

I don’t think it takes a genius to see the many ways the city could abuse your constitutional rights with this one. It’s especially scary that the City Manager or his designee has carte blanche to determine the definition of disorderly or abusive. City officials claimed they’ll use the disorderly conduct definition of the Montana Code Annotated as a “guideline.” Their claims are only words; there’s no requirement in the ordinance that they keep their word.

According to the Great Falls Tribune, January 17, 2017, the ordinance came about because of an incident at the library.
The proposed amendment was prompted by an incident that occurred in October, when a library employee was struck in the arm by an unruly patron.

From the Tribune: ““There was a man in the library who appeared to be sleeping,” library manager Kathy Mora said Tuesday. “Our written policies state you can’t be sleeping in the library. One of our staff members approached him. We do not touch any patrons and we do not get too close to them. She attempted to wake him, and it took her a couple of attempts by speaking to him. When he awoke he jumped out of his chair and hit her on the arm.”

Mora said library staff immediately called the police, but the man had left the area before officers arrived.

“We did not know his name at that time, and they could not located him,” Mora said. “She (the library employee) declined to press charges.”
Mora said the man was banned from the library premises after he returned two weeks later. While the proposed city trespass ordinance would not have measurably altered the outcome of the incident in October, Mora described it as “another tool that we can use on city property when these types of occasions arise.””

In both the first reading of the ordinance in January and again last night, much was made about this library incident. Yet, as the Tribune article suggests, the ordinance wouldn’t have made much difference. So then, why is the city using this incident as their proverbial last straw? Doesn’t Great Falls already have public nuisance and loitering laws that would have applied in this case? If it was really about the library incident, why wasn’t the ordinance limited to problems on city property? Why does it include all of Great Falls ordinances and all of the MCA? There’s really no reason to be this imprecise when it comes to the law.

I’ve seen some city commission meetings get a bit disorderly. Are they going to ban people from city commission meetings when they feel they’re disorderly (i.e. saying something they don’t like)? Oh wait, the city already tried that. Remember the Mayor Stebbins-Susan Overfield fiasco? The city paid a cool half-million for violating Overfield’s rights. You would think that since the city already bought the t-shirt on that one, they’d be a bit more careful about an ordinance that could chill free speech and public assembly. Except now, with the passing of Ordinance 3148, they can throw you out for a whole year. Things could get interesting.

City officials further postulated that ordinance is required because unlike private property where law enforcement can ask trespassers to leave, police can’t ask someone to leave city property.

This idea was again echoed by City Commissioner Tracy Houck, who claimed the ordinance was necessary for public safety for people using city property. She told the room that her son is involved in many activities at the Rec Center and if there’s trouble there, the police currently can’t force anyone to leave.

Really Commissioner Houck? Really City of Great Falls? That isn’t my experience. I’ve witnessed police force people to leave several city properties—including the parks hosting Alive at Five, Elk’s Riverside Park and the skatepark, so that argument is invalid.

There was some talk at the meeting about an appeal process for someone who feels they’ve been unjustly banned from city property. It didn’t appear as part of the ordinance language and in my quick perusal of the Municipal Code, I haven’t found anything remotely related. If there’s someone out there that knows where I would find the appeal process for being banned from city property, please respond as soon as possible. I’m probably going to need it 😉