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 😉

Interesting New Rules In Play After Last Night’s City Commission Meeting

ECB Staff on February 8, 2017

The City of Great Falls delivered a hat trick of ordinances last night, with the passage of Ordinances 3148, 3149, and 3153 — all of which were opposed by Commission-goers but adopted unanimously by the Commissioners. This before Assistant City Attorney Joe Cik at one point amusingly referred to himself as “some sort of medieval person on an epic quest” to clean up “[City] code.”

Ordinance 3153 clarified existing language pertaining to the election of officers for Neighborhood Councils, while Ordinance 3148 “[amended] OCCGF §1.4.070 to allow for violators to be banned from entering or remaining upon City property for a period not to exceed one year.” It added an additional provision to municipal code granting the City Manager authority to ban citizens from City property for up to a year:

C. Any person convicted of a violation of this Code, the Montana Code Annotated, or is determined by the City Manager, or his designee, to be behaving in a disorderly or abusive manner, on the property of the City of Great Falls may be banned from entering, or remaining upon, said property for a period not to exceed one year.

While City staff and Commissioners made mostly sensible arguments in favor of these two ordinances, we were troubled by the passage of Ordinance 3149, as presented, which granted the Commission broad powers to remove members of City advisory boards and Neighborhood Councils. It reads:

A member of any board, commission, or council, including Neighborhood Council, may be removed from office, by majority vote of the City Commission, if:

1. The member misses more than one-third (1/3) of the regular meetings in a calendar year without a health or medical excuse;

2. The member is unable to fulfill the duties of the office as a result of physical illness or mental disorder. A determination of whether the incumbent has a mental disorder shall be made pursuant to MCA Title 53, Chapter 21;

3. The member neglects or refuses to discharge the member’s duties;

4. The member ceases to be a resident of the City, or in the case of a neighborhood council member, the member ceases to be a resident of the council member’s district;

5. The member is convicted of a felony, or of any offense involving moral turpitude, or a violation of official duties or the City Code of Ethics, Title 2, Chapter 52, while serving on a board, council, or commission; or

6. Any other reason which City Commission deems to be in the best interests of the City, and in such case, only by a four-fifths vote. [emphasis added]

First, really? Who, and what, defines “the best interests of the City”? Second, the City Attorney’s office clearly spent a significant amount of time researching and drafting this ordinance. (Time well spent?) Now, it makes sense that if a Neighborhood Council member moves outside of the City limits, then he or she should no longer be able to serve on one of the City’s Neighborhood Councils. Still, Section #6 seems just a little heavy-handed. What, really, is the point of this ordinance? And why is the City spending time and resources imposing this kind of authoritarian control over its unpaid volunteers?

Brett Doney Said What?!

ECB Staff on January 27, 2017

Phil Faccenda made reference to it in his very good piece yesterday, and we have received a number of tips about it recently… but we’re still grappling with some of the comments made by Great Falls’ economic development chief, Brett Doney, at the Jan. 3 City Commission meeting. Most glaringly, Doney said that Great Falls lost “707 net jobs” in 2016.

He also said:
And frankly, these numbers scare the hell out of me.
The jobs drain has been comparatively worse in Great Falls than nationally, even in darker times:

We’ve lost the equivalent in the last couple of years in the City more than the nation lost in the Great Recession.

Doney is clearly alarmed:

I don’t have any prescriptions for you, I just want to say that I have never in my 32 years in economic development seen numbers as scary as these, and we need to continue to work together to address them.

To be fair, Doney also cited strong growth in manufacturing (despite the City’s “F you” to Calumet), among other positive happenings. Speaking under the Public Hearing portion of the Commission agenda, a discussion on CDBG funds, he billed himself as otherwise a “cheerleader” for Great Falls, which is true. Doney and the GFDA do excellent work in this regard. (You can read the latest GFDA newsletter and sign up to receive it here.)

Two days before Doney’s appearance before the Commission, on New Year’s Day, the Tribune ran glowing, above-the-fold coverage about a resurgent development sector in Great Falls. The reader is left with the distinct impression of a soaring Great Falls economy.

So, what gives? Construction is one thing, and an area in which Great Falls is strong, but aren’t jobs also an important metric when evaluating the economic health of a community? How well are we really doing, and more importantly, how should our community address this issue?

We appreciate Doney’s candor. After all, the first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is one.

On Calumet: Red Lobster Or Red Herring?

Philip M. Faccenda on January 26, 2017

Ask your average person on the street what they would like to see relative to economic development in Great Falls and there is a good chance they would say, “Red Lobster.” Then ask them if they would rather see a Red Lobster, or an expansion of the Calumet Refinery, and again they would probably answer, “Red Lobster.”

Evidently, the citizens and the Great Falls City Commissioners are in sync. The City Commission’s unanimous decision to deny Calumet’s application for a graduated tax abatement was shortsighted and unfair to the company, which recently made a $454 million dollar commitment to the future of the only true manufacturing company left in Great Falls. By that, I mean a manufacturing facility that takes a raw material and makes something out of it.

Since 1922, the refinery has processed crude oil, first the Shelby fields, and more recently from the Bakken fields and Eastern Montana, and produced fuels and asphalt we use every day. The refinery is the remaining operation of what was once a booming Great Falls manufacturing backbone that supported many local families by providing good paying jobs. Of course, agricultural processing is also as old as Great Falls itself, but gone is the potato chip company, the corn nut company, the foundry, the brick plant, and of course, the Anaconda Company. These companies provided great paying jobs that supported families, educated young people and donated to our community in many ways – in addition to paying taxes.

The City’s staff report confirmed that Calumet’s application met all statutory eligibility criteria, that the expansion had a significant positive effect on the overall tax base of the City, that it had a positive impact on employment, that it will likely result in additional industrial development, that it contributes to the goals of the City’s Growth Policy, and that, overall, it is in the best interest of the City. The Calumet expansion is responsible for the creation of 40 new refinery jobs, and should spin off 276 new jobs worth a total earning impact of $14 million annually. Calumet paid $3.9 million in County property taxes in 2015 and with the abatement schedule it still would have paid a total of $46.5 million through 2026.

So what’s the rub? Well, with the tax abatement on the new investment of $454 million, Calumet would contribute $6 million less to the City and $6 million less to the School District over 10 years, but that would not have reduced its existing tax liability, only the future tax liability of its $454 million expansion. In other words, Calumet is being penalized for making a huge investment in our community, while other companies making much smaller investments have received tax abatements.

Recently, Brett Doney of the Great Falls Development Authority reported to the City Commission that the City lost 707 jobs in 2016 and that he has never seen numbers so scary in his 32 years working in economic development. But aren’t these exactly the types of jobs the City should be doing everything in its power to attract and retain?

You can have your personal opinions about tax abatement incentives on a whole, but the City’s denial of Calumet’s application was wrong, shortsighted, and not in the best interest of Great Falls.

On one hand, we don’t have a Red Lobster because we are half the size of Billings and not growing at the same rate as the other major cities in Montana.

The City’s decision to dismiss Calumet, by far our largest manufacturer and one of our community’s leading charitable donors, sends an ominous message to businesses: “You, and all of those you would employ, would be better off someplace else.”

And that is the real reason why Great Falls does not have a Red Lobster.

Gregg Smith And Rick Tryon Discuss The State Of Great Falls

ECB Staff on January 24, 2017

Recently, the Tribune’s Peter Johnson wrote about Great Falls’ building boom; 2016 was the City’s strongest year for development since 2008. A lot of folks agree with the notion that Great Falls is on the uptick, while others point to a lack of good-paying jobs, low population growth, and drug abuse as significant community problems.

We thought we’d ask Gregg Smith and Rick Tryon to participate in an email back-and-forth to tell us what’s really going on in town…

ECB STAFF: In your most recent Tribune column, Gregg, you concluded that, on a number of issues (including opinions of Great Falls), “maybe all sides are right.” Rick wrote in the comments section:

“I mostly agree with my friend Gregg here but take a little exception with the implication that someone has to get a bank loan and open ANOTHER casino or gas station before they can credibly comment on the state of the GF economy. I think that anyone who busts their butt everyday at the 2 or 3 jobs it sometimes takes to make a living here is fully qualified to comment any time they please …”

Gregg, does Rick have a point here, and moreover, how do you generally assess the state of Great Falls moving into 2017?

SMITH:

This answer to this question can be addressed on so many levels, economic, cultural, social, it is hard to answer without writing a ‘book.’ First, though, yes, of course Rick has a point. All is not daisies in Great Falls, and any citizen is entitled to comment on it. Most of us have real lives where people depend on us, so we cannot go to the City and County Commission meetings every week to keep up with what these folks are doing. (Which, as an aside, is one of the reasons for this blog.)

I was a little taken aback by his response to my suggestion, though, that some of the naysayers complaining about the lack of economic activity make some of their own. As someone who has borrowed money (lots of it) to stir up some economic activity with the hope that there will be some left for me every month, I am a little bit resentful of the people who complain about the lack of good restaurants, etc. If you want a different restaurant, no one is stopping you from opening one. If  you think there are too many casinos or gas stations, then open something else!

But my column that started this discussion, though, was not intended to poke at Rick Tryon, a fellow I like. Instead, it addressed, and this response will address, the general attitude of inferiority in this town.

You stated that some “point to a lack of high-paying jobs, low population growth, and drug abuse as significant community problems.” I agree that these are community problems, but I also think that my fellow Great Fallsians(!) tend to focus on these things more than people in other communities.

I remember a few years ago I was at a planning session for a local charity board I was serving on at the time. We had a facilitator come in from Missoula. When we were asked to brainstorm about how Great Falls is perceived, someone shouted out, “Meth Capitol of Montana!”

The facilitator stopped, cocked her head, and said, “Really? I would have that that was Kalispell and the Flathead Valley.”

My point is this: Yes, Great Falls has problems. Yes, other communities grow faster, or have a Costco or a Chic-Fil-A.

But I think that Great Falls is different from other Montana communities in that we have a really high percentage of our population, including at the more active levels of business and government, who often walk around like Eyore, complaining that we’re not Missoula. This matters, because other people from other places who interact with us absorb this as the face or character of our community. When you meet a Missoula family whose kids are here playing in a basketball tournament with your kids, and you put down your own town, that fuels their perception of our town too.

I can’t explain it. But it has been this way almost as long as I can remember, and that dates at least into the 80’s.

I like it here. Yes, there are problems. But there are a lot of good people in this community, and not everyone who makes a buck is a “crony” or a part of the “old boy network.” Putting people down does not make them more inclined to work with you.

I think if we can improve our residents’ perception of this town, this is an important first step in improving the town itself.

TRYON:

Gregg, just to reiterate my earlier point – anyone and everyone who works hard and pays the taxes that pay the bills in this town has every right to voice their concerns about our economic and jobs situation. And they should be able to do so in any forum they choose without fear of being labeled a ‘naysayer’ or a ‘negative nanny’. It’s not just the folks who take risks to open casinos and restaurants who create economic activity; it’s also the people who spend their hard earned money around town and who pay the taxes for the streets and utilities and the jobs for city employees, who create economic activity. So, yeah, those folks should be listened to and their opinions respected, not brushed aside as Eeyore clones.

When I hear local Great Fallsians (Great Fallsites?, Great Fallsters?) say they wish that “they would open a Red Lobster here,” I think what they’re really saying is, “I wish our local economy was such that we could support a Red Lobster or Olive Garden.”

We both know that opening an Olive Garden or Chic-Fil-A is not the answer to economic development in Great Falls. Chain and franchise operations like that are the result, not the cause, of true economic development. And I love me some Chic-Fil-A spicy samich and curly fries!

We also both know that a casino/motel/gas station economy is a dead end. Only so much local money can be traded around. Right now it looks a little like a game of whack-a-mole around here – one restaurant closes and leaves an empty hole, another opens somewhere else. One casino goes belly up and another opens on the other side of town. By the way, just anecdotally and judging by the number of empty commercial buildings and office space I see around town, it looks like there’s more whack than mole lately.

Now having said all of that, believe it or not, I am extremely positive and upbeat about the future of Great Falls. We have enormous human and geographic potential here, being the center of the state, and having a hardworking, well-educated populace, for the most part. I remember that we were once a thriving, bustling, busy community with lots of stuff going on and we will be again, I’m certain. But to get there we have to be honest about where we are now and we have to have a common vision and goals.

I love this piece of God’s good dirt called Great Falls. I was raised here, raised my kids here and now my grandkids are being raised here. Four generations of my family live here right now, so I am staked inexorably to this community.

Let’s never mistake honest evaluation for negativity or the desire to see us live up to our potential as being “down on Great Falls”. I know you want the best for this town also, Gregg, so let’s agree to find the common ground and make it happen, my friend.

ECB: Most everyone agrees that Great Falls is a great place, but there always seem to be questions about the role of local government in economic development. Recently, the City Commission denied Calumet a large tax abatement request. Were they right to do so?

TRYON:

I admit I’m a little conflicted on this issue, but in the final analysis I have to agree with the City Planning and Community Development Department’s recommendation and the City Commission’s decision to deny Calumet’s request for a tax abatement in the wake of its expansion in Great Falls. Government, whether city, state or federal, doesn’t create jobs. The role of government in economic development is to create a jobs-friendly tax and regulatory environment, but to do so within the means of everyday taxpayers while still providing public infrastructure and services.

Calumet requested this tax benefit from the City at a time when we are still in fiscal recovery mode brought on by the disastrous Electric City Power boondoggle and a major national recession. The loss of revenue to the City of Great Falls, had Calumet been given the tax abatement, would have been unfair to local homeowners, small business and other taxpayers, who are already being hit repeatedly with tax increases and raised City service charges and fees.

The estimated cost to the City in lost tax revenue over 10 years would have been $6,345,185. For the school district the figure is an additional $6,222,143, and for the county it’s $4,930,365.

Tax benefits for companies providing good paying jobs is a good idea and the tax abatement tool is a powerful one. Certainly the Calumet expansion is a positive thing for Great Falls, providing 40 new full time, good paying refinery jobs. This is why, as I mentioned, I am conflicted about this issue.

In my opinion, the tax abatement tool should be reserved for bringing in new development and jobs rather than rewarding an expansion of an existing enterprise. Even then we should be very careful in making sure we’re not “giving away the store” and passing on the cost of additional city infrastructure and services to local taxpayers. Quite frankly, I’m hearing from friends and family that they are starting to feel like their homes and small businesses are being treated like ATM machines to fund local government.

One of the many factors to be considered when assessing this issue is well-stated on page 6 in the staff recommendations submitted to the City Commission for consideration:

However, Calumet’s expansion has an impact on public safety, planning, training, and response that cannot be specifically quantified, but cannot be ignored. 

There will also be operational impact to the City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant and discharge regulation in terms of compliance monitoring, permitting and treatment as Calumet’s processing capacity increases as a result of the expansion.”

I think we should be very cautious in using our taxing tools for job creation here. We should be focusing on growing our population and raising income levels by examining and re-doing our city/county regulatory environment and policies first. A subject for further discussion I hope. That and the topic of TIF’s going to local good ol’ boys to develop more huckleberry syrup shops, casinos, and motels which pay minimum wages to part-time employees.

SMITH:

I am going to have to confess ignorance here, because like many issues in this community it was not well-publicized in advance (hopefully E-City Beat can change that!), and then when the Tribune did cover it after the fact, the coverage was so bad that I couldn’t make heads nor tails of what actually happened. Therefore, I am going to have to default to some general principles here.

First, in a free market economy, the government has no role in subsidizing any private enterprise. Government should be doing what government does, i.e., streets, police, armies, and keep its nose out of the marketplace. Of course, that model has been irretrievably altered in the United States as virtually every municipality, county, state, etc., offers tax and other incentives to businesses to locate there. Thus, we have to play the game if we want development.

Second, I think Rick raises a good point that, perhaps, the City’s budget is still tight because of the Electric City Power fiasco. If that is true, it sure isn’t being reported. And if that is true, it’s a damn shame. It’s an example of city government hindering, rather than helping, development.

Because you can be sure this decision will hinder development decisions, at least from Calumet, and quite possibly from other large companies who are thinking of expanding into the Great Falls market. ‘Word on the street’ is that Calumet feels betrayed, and that Calumet’s management had every reason to believe this abatement was going to be granted. (I’ve also heard rumor that all charitable contributions in Great Falls by Calumet stop now.)

Rick points out that some people get breaks and some people don’t. Welcome to Great Falls (or, should I say, small town America?).

I think the City was wrong to deny the tax abatement, while admitting I do not know all the details that could change my mind. The best way I have to look at it is prospectively. If a company in Great Falls, any company, came to the City Commission and said, “We are going to invest nearly half a billion dollars in your community, and create at least 40 permanent jobs paying $30,000.00 a year, if you will give us a $600,000.00 a year break on our taxes for just 10 years,” would we take that? Or, as many in the business community suspect, does the City just view a new or expanding business as a revenue source? What can you do for me?

COMING NEXT WEEK: PART II…

Tribune, Bronson To Legislature: Just Trust Us

ECB Staff on January 22, 2017

The Great Falls Tribune got its smarm on today in dissing Rep. Jeremy Trebas:

Somebody might want to pick up the phone and remind Jeremy Trebas that as a Republican, he’s supposed to be for small government and local control.

This type of rhetoric is always rich. The Trib’s editors are not Republicans. They’re just happy to give advice to elected Republicans on what Republicans believe.

The Trib is referring to Trebas’ idea, which he’s written about here, to pass a state law that would forbid local governments from playing nanny to Montanans who use cell phones while driving.  

“Just as Montana lawmakers would cry foul if a ban on cellphone bans came from the feds, so, too, should city officials decry attempts by the state to overstep its bounds on this issue.”

So under this logic, what is the Trib’s limiting principle? What shouldn’t cities and counties be able to regulate?

Teacher accreditation? (That’s currently a matter of state policy, not local school boards.)

How about hunting tags? (That’s a state FWP thing, not local conservation districts or county commissions.)

How about whether a city gets to set up an electric utility? Well, that used to be a city power, admittedly. Maybe City Commissioner Bill Bronson would offer the same defense about the City of Great Falls’ history in that business as he offered in the Trib today about the cell phone ordinance:

“We spent a great deal of time studying this.”

The state took away the keys from city governments on that issue, because they simply could not be trusted to make that decision.

Cities don’t get to make their own special laws with respect to DUIs. They don’t get to make their own special laws regarding reckless driving. The state has decided that a uniform code that is generally applicable to drivers throughout the state is the better way to go. Why? Presumably because drivers — like teachers, like wildlife — are mobile.

They are less a part of a given city or a school district or a county, than they are part of a state. It makes sense to have a standard, to promote the concept that, unless there is a very good reason to the contrary, Montanans who drive from one city to another can live under the same set of rules everywhere in our state and not risk getting home-town’ed.

Zoning of property might be one thing. But is there really any argument that the streets of the City of Great Falls, and the people driving on them, are so different from the City of Kalispell that it should have a different set of driving laws?

We don’t think so.

Will Patrella’s Successor Embrace The Park And Rec Master Plan?

ECB Staff on January 12, 2017

In November, 2016, the City Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Park and Rec Master Plan. Less than two months later (and not because of this), Director Joe Patrella resigned his position for a job in Arizona.

With the search to succeed Patrella still ongoing, important questions persist for the City, and for its taxpayers.

The Master Plan, conceived by Indiana-based PROS Consulting, recommends much in its 176 pages. Primarily, it identifies $12,614,160 in “critical” capital improvement programs — “Maintaining What We Have.” Among the expenditures are $102,575 for the Americans Little League Complex, $114,010 for Boston Heights Park, $1,020,000 for “Charles Russel [sic] Park,” and $2,935,000 for Gibson Park, among many others (p. 140).

PROS Consulting also details $1.15 million in “sustainable” capital improvements — “Improving What We Have.” The consultants suggested the City spend $100,000 to convert six tennis courts to pickle ball courts (pickle ball?), $500,000 to add five large picnic shelters at Gibson, Grande Vista, Jaycee, and Meadowlark Parks, $150,000 for two more dog parks, and $400,000 for additional master plans (p. 141).

The plan also solves the long-standing community riddle of the City’s failing indoor aquatics program: build a 50,000 square foot “Multi-Generational Center that replaces the existing Recreation Center and Moronoy [sic] Natatorium” (for over $20 million). As for golf, the second and final line-item under the plan’s “Visionary Recommendations” (p. 142) reads: “Re-Master Plan Anaconda Hill [sic] Golf Course and convert Campground/Adventure Area through private public partnership.” In other words, shut down Anaconda and convert it into a zip-line/ropes course/BMX course/campground. The cost of this “re-mastering?” “Only” a quarter of a million dollars.

And how might the City pay for all of this, you might ask? By implementing a City-wide Parks Maintenance District. In other words, by raising taxes.

Mike Svetz of the aforementioned consulting firm pointed to Billings, which implemented a parks district a few years ago. Under its model, Billings households chip in about $6/month. With Great Falls’ comparatively smaller population but higher expenses, residents could see $15-20/month assessments per household… just for the parks district. In addition to this extra assessment, and to construct a multi-purpose structure to replace the Nat and the Community Rec Center, Svetz & Co. recommended a tax levy bond that could last for up to 15 years. The numbers start to add up quickly.

master plan

Master Plan: $34 Million To Upgrade Great Falls’ Parks

Now, to be fair, the Master Plan is “not a work order,” as the Tribune pointed out. It’s a guide to direct City priorities moving forward. But it does raise some important questions: Will Patrella’s replacement embrace the Master Plan, and will the Commission enact its central recommendations? And if not, then why? The City spent $89,970 on this document.

What do you think? Did the consultants get it right?

(The featured image is attributable to Xnatedawgx under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Image was slightly cropped.)