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.

Showboatin’

ECB Staff on January 29, 2017

Showboating.

Grandstanding.

Those are the only words that readily come to mind to describe Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey’s tirade against the recently elected, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen. According to the Tribune, Lacey “asked the superintendent whether she had plans to publicly fund preschool for the less fortunate children in the state, unlike Arntzen’s own granddaughter who is lucky to ‘have a full tummy every day.'” Aside from the gratuitous cheap shot against Arntzen’s family–discussed below–the bigger issue here is whether this is a legitimate complaint. (Wait, what? Did she just use the word “tummy” in a professional meeting? Or, maybe, she was just being condescending…)

Did you know that the Great Falls Public Schools operates a preschool? We do not doubt that somewhere in our State and Local District’s significant budgets there is money for early childhood care, probably from the federal government. But if you review the statutes governing the Office of Public Instruction, you will, we think, agree that the primary duties relate to schools and students. Likewise, the duties granted district superintendents focus on “pupils,” which are defined as “enrolled in school.” Under such circumstances, we should be able to agree first that there might be different priorities, and second that our newly elected State Superintendent is not deserving of a public shaming simply because the focus of her efforts might be, oh, on the students in the schools, rather than students in preschool who, by definition are not in school yet. Perhaps Lacey and her administrators might focus first on scholastic success and, when every student that graduates from GFPS marks a 36 on his or her ACT, then they can save the world with our money. Or, better yet, how about when every student graduates?

Oh, we know, we know. If students are hungry, they can’t learn. If kids are hungry before they are even school aged, they’ll be set back. OK, that’s Lacey’s priority. But it might not be everyone’s priority. And, by that logic, maybe the GFPS should get a levy for some programs dealing with prenatal care? Because you know, without prenatal care, kids are less likely to be born healthy. If not born healthy, they won’t develop as well, and won’t be ready to learn when they hit kindergarten. You know, maybe there’s an even better idea. Maybe GFPS can fund family planning services so potential moms who are likely to have bad prenatal care won’t get pregnant in the first place?

Or, maybe, like Arntzen suggests, we can make the actual students in the schools a higher priority? Seriously, have these highly-educated educators never studied the concept of scarcity? Because they’re supposed to be teaching our kids about it in high school.

Look, we get it. There are needy families in Great Falls. They need help and there is some help available. We have a whole state department, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, whose job it is to feed the hungry. Why isn’t Lacey drilling the head of that Department about needy families? Frankly, one could make a reasonable argument that all food programs for needy families should be shifted under the umbrella of the Office of Public Instruction. Schools already have contact with the vast majority of these families, and already have a bureaucracy in place. If Lacey was really looking for an outside the box solution, that might be one.

But Lacey’s theatrics weren’t about solutions. This little ‘show’ was all about virtue signaling.

To take a cheap, personal shot in a public forum was simply unprofessional pandering to the audience. (2-1 Lacey runs for OPI superintendent.) Did Arntzen deserve the cheap shot because her family must be able to feed its children? Is Lacey starving? Should the rest of us who pay our taxes and, therefore, Lacey’s salary, be publicly shamed because our families aren’t starving and we disagree with her? Maybe Lacey should remember that these same taxpayers elected Arntzen.

We’ve seen some pretty unprofessional displays in our time–Mayor Stebbins comes to mind–but Lacey’s stunt demonstrates misplaced priorities. Feeding non-student, preschool kids is just one possible goal out of many, many goals for our OPI. Maybe it’s Lacey’s priority, but that does not mean anyone who has different priorities within the universe of choices is evil, or deserves a public flogging. Lacey should be figuring out ways to work with Arntzen to achieve her ends, not trying to undermine her in search of cheap political points with her audience of administrators.

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.