Category: GFPS

At Monday night’s Great Falls Public School District School Board meeting the administration announced that they had moved forward with a plan to purchase the Campfire Girls building and property located at 1925 2nd Avenue South for $100K. The District administration will now demolish the historic building, excavate and remove the basement foundation and bring in backfill in order to build a small surface parking lot to help alleviate the parking shortage that has been a problem for over 50 years.

The property is a standard residential lot with dimensions of 50’ x 150’. The resulting parking layout would probably be a center drive lane north and south with 45 degree parking on both sides. This layout would require an east-west total dimension of 49 feet and would provide a maximum of 20 parking spaces.

“Given the purchase price of $100K, demolition and backfill at $50K and the construction of the finished parking lot complete with lighting, curbs and landscaping at another $50K, it would bring the project to roughly $200K. That’s $10,000 per parking spot and doesn’t include maintenance! Is this expenditure of taxpayer dollars a wise investment?”

Given the purchase price of $100K, demolition and backfill at $50K and the construction of the finished parking lot complete with lighting, curbs and landscaping at another $50K, it would bring the project to roughly $200K. That’s $10,000 per parking spot and doesn’t include maintenance! Is this expenditure of taxpayer dollars a wise investment?

Keep in mind that 20 additional parking stalls will not even put a dent in the hundreds of stalls needed. There is a common sense solution to the problem, a solution used by many urban high schools across the country – structured parking – but the District chose to ignore it early on in the planning process and continues to ignore it now.

The Campfire Girls property is currently a non-conforming use on a lot which is zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. Under the District’s plan the property would have to be rezoned and the immediate neighbors might not be too pleased. But given the makeup of the City Commission, the District may be able to get the property rezoned and proceed with their plan to destroy an important part of Great Falls High School history without batting an eye.

The building now recognized as the Council headquarters of the Campfire Girls has a long and storied past. Constructed in 1929, at the same time that GFHS was built, the building began life as a gas station and immediately became the gathering place for GFHS students and was known as the Hi School Store.

By 1939 it was a hopping place, almost exclusively catering to the students.

In 1942 it even had its own designated student entrance.

Many alumni will remember it as “Dug Out Lunches” in the early seventies, just a few years after the District’s major screw up to replace the windows at the high school with inoperable fiberglass panels and take the fresh air ventilating system out of service.

 

Given its significant ties to Great Falls High, the Hi School Store would be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, just like the original four-block campus, and could see a new life serving students as it was originally intended. Wouldn’t that be great?

Of course the District has more lame plans for the GFHS campus, like tearing up the whole northeast corner to pursue another misguided attempt to solve the 50 year old parking problem. Something that the State Historic Preservation Office will certainly view with displeasure along with the inappropriate addition to connect the North and South Campuses and turn the area behind Memorial Stadium’s south scoreboard into a storage area for a new CTE facility.

Hey, but what does the District administration and the Board of Trustees care about the historic integrity of GFHS? Six out of the seven board members voted to oppose the school’s listing on the National Register. The lone supporting vote was from Chairman Jan Cahill.

Great Falls High was recently judged the “Most Beautiful High School in Montana” by Architectural Digest. Let’s keep it that way!

 

Would it be a smart idea to increase the CMR track improvements from a 6-lane track to an 8-lane track? The obvious answer is YES, and here is why.

It is widely known that competitive track meets can not be hosted on 6-lane tracks. Most competition cracks now being built are 8-lane, or 9-lane tracks.

(Please take our poll on this question at the end of this article.)

Recently a group of citizens promoting the addition of two more lanes to the GFPS six-lane design for CMR High School advanced their idea to a member of the GFPS Board of Trustees citing the follow reasons:

• The proposal would not cost the taxpayers, or the District since the group has been successful in soliciting donations to cover the cost.
• Having an 8-lane track means that practice and competitive meets could be     held at CMR.
• It would take the burden from Memorial Stadium to hold all meets at GFHS which is scheduled for 27 events this spring.
• It would provide additional opportunities for community members to use the facility.
• It would address an eventual need at a time when the improvements are being made.
• Concession sales at track meets would create a revenue stream benefiting CMR athletics.

Ok, so this idea makes a lot of sense.

But what is the School District’s view? (emphasis added)

Here’s how Superintendent Lacey responded to the promoters in an email dated 10-19-17: “I concur with the GFPS staff in that the 8-lane track is not advisable, feasible, or affordable.”

She further justifies her decision by saying: “The project’s architects, engineers, construction team and the District’s representatives, Hulteng, Inc, are not in support of this change.”

Well, is that true? The supporters asked the architects, CTA, if it was doable and they are reported to have said it would not be a problem to add two more lanes.

Lacey’s stated problems concerning the track can be easily resolved, and again, paid for through donations.

This link will show Superintendent Lacey’s email letter with names redacted.

Lacey concludes by saying: “While I know you probably don’t agree with my position, at the end of the day, I am ultimately responsible for the fulfillment of our facility plans.”

And we thought the elected Board of Trustees were responsible for the completion of the bond projects?

In Lacey’s preface to her reasons for rejecting the proposal for the added track lanes she states: “I received a phone call from Trustee Vukasin on Saturday during which she indicated that (a representative of the proposing group) had called her to express your concerns about the rejection of the 8-lane possibility. As a follow-up to your call to a Board member, I have reviewed the available information and …”.

Does that sound like Lacey was in any way pleased that someone would dare call an elected School Board Trustee? It reminds me of an earlier Great Falls City Manager, who organized a retreat for the newly elected City commissioners at which he said that commissioners should keep one thing in mind, that he was in charge of the City and that the appropriate role of the City Commission was only to back him up.

When someone, or some group, brings a great proposal to the District it should be addressed not in a condescending manner, but with an attitude of “How can we help bring your proposal to fruition”.

We need cooperation, not confrontation. In this case, if a job, or project, is worth doing, isn’t it worth doing right?

And if concerned citizens are willing to foot the bill through their donations we should “Never look a gift horse in the mouth”.

The District should be thinking about what is good for our city and CMR students, past, present and future by bringing the matter to the elected Board of Trustees for a fair hearing.

Take the E-City Beat poll now.

[poll id=”9″]

 

 

In the first two installments in this trilogy I provided some missing pieces of the puzzling GFPS action concerning the award of the General Construction contracts for Giant Springs Elementary School and the CM Russell Additions. Some of you appreciated the information presented and some of you viewed the pieces as “sour grapes”. In any event, please keep in mind that YOU own and pay for the Great Falls public schools, not the Superintendent and not the school board of trustees. They work for you and when they get it wrong it is up to you to speak out.

When you do speak out, what do you say? The recent E-City Beat reader’s poll below provides some insight as to how the taxpayers of Great Falls feel about the District’s nonconventional process of non-competitive General Construction contract awards.

Do you believe that public and school district construction contracts should be awarded by a process of dollar amount Competitive Bidding?

• Yes (77%, 44 Votes)
• No (23%, 13 Votes)

Total Voters: 57

I have also explained, in my opinion, the deficiencies in the District’s process for selection of architects for the bond projects. Having a selection committee comprised of only District employees with no professional knowledge of architectural evaluation and using a grading system that does not attribute each committee member to their scoring sheet makes the process susceptible to bias, favoritism and conflicts of interest. Given that concern, why wouldn’t the District want to use a process that was based upon a blind design competition juried by licensed and experienced unbiased design professionals from out of state who have at least a cursory knowledge of the projects? One E-City Beat reader might have the answer.

Dean January 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM

“If the GFPS were to do this, how would you ever reward your friends or those who helped get you into that power position”?

I had the opportunity to discuss Montana’s conflict of interest laws with a staff member of the Montana Attorney General’s office. My inquiry was prompted by what could be perceived to be a conflict of interest issue when a sitting president of a local bank also serving as a school district board member made the motion and voted for the award of the Great Falls High School Master Plan project to an architectural firm’s principal who served as a board member of her bank.

At the conclusion of our conversation the staffer asked me if I knew from which city in Montana their office receives the most corruption complaints. My answer was incorrect – her answer was Great Falls! Not something to be proud of.

The truth is, Great Falls may be conflict of interest challenged and we need to do something about it. Currently the City is doing something about potential conflicts of interest and the school district should follow suit.

Forensic Strategic Solutions, a national financial investigation firm serving law firms, insurance companies, banks and governmental agencies wrote an  article, “Why Corruption always requires a Conflict of Interest”,10-28-16, which states “When it comes to corruption, there is almost always a common denominator: a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists when an individual or corporation has the opportunity – real or perceived – to exploit their position for personal or corporate benefit…To prevent conflicts of interest from morphing into corruption…management should be intentional in creating an environment where staff is comfortable declaring annually in writing any potential, perceived or actual conflicts.”

The current school district administration was given sample annual conflict of interest forms which most certainly found their way to the circular file.

Transparency is essential in the avoidance of conflicts of interest because without it there can be no accountability and little or no oversight by the public. The term is heavily talked about by the school district, but do they walk the walk?

School district policies relative to transparency, accountability and the avoidance of conflicts of interest, bias either for or against potential district vendors should be initiated by the school board, not by district administrators. If board members abdicate their roles as representatives of the taxpayers maybe it’s something to consider for the next election.

Phil Faccenda’s articles about Great Falls Public Schools building procurement procedures made me want to take a closer look. State law (Montana Code Annotated or MCA) dictates requirements for the use of alternative delivery project contracts. So I visited Great Falls Public Schools website and perused the documents I could find that are related to the district’s alternative delivery project contracts. Here’s my take on what I found.

The Great Falls Public Schools are required by state law to justify their use of alternative delivery project contracts. The following paragraphs are found in the district’s documents about alternate delivery project contracts for Giant Springs Elementary School and CMR. The “Code Provision” is referenced from the MCA and the italicized text is the district’s response:

“Code Provision (3) The state agency or governing body shall make a detailed written finding that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not: Encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition…”

“The procurement methodology employed by the District is specifically designed to encourage the broadest competition possible, and encourage aggressive pricing competition throughout this process. The Selection Committee will be further instructed to carefully evaluate all submittals against stated selection criteria and award contracts based on the best overall value to the District.”

Brian Patrick, Business Director, Great Falls Public Schools is listed as the author of the document1     document2

It appears to me that the rationale the district employed in these documents explaining the district’s use of alternative delivery project contracts merely assumes the conclusion. It’s a circulus in demonstrando—in other words, an illogical argument.

In these documents, the district is making the argument: “A is true because A is true.”

The reason I came to that conclusion is as follows: I found no “procurement methodology employed by the District” specifically for the use of alternative delivery project contracts, as mentioned in the above paragraphs. Since the district uses that as justification for using an alternative procurement process, how can the district refer to something that doesn’t exist as justification for its actions?

Where is the district’s detailed written findings that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition? The two documents provided offer no “detailed written findings” on which to base the district’s justification for using alternative delivery project contracts for these two projects.

Those making a cursory examination of these documents might dismiss the district’s explanation as valid but I see it as a way to hide the lack of rationale for using the alternative delivery project contracts.

In the previous piece of this three-part series, Missing a Few Pieces of the Puzzle, we have shown that most of the $3M in architectural fees for the Great Falls High project will in fact be leaving Great Falls and Montana. We also shed some light on the unconventional selection of general contractors for the school district’s multimillion-dollar new construction projects using the Alternative project delivery contract, a process that doesn’t award the general construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder.

The process affords the opportunity to hire the general contractor before the architectural and engineering drawings have been completed, but requires the school district to “make a detailed written finding” that several conditions are met, including that “demonstrable public benefits” will result from its use. The less than detailed written finding appears on the school district’s website. http://gfps.k12.mt.us/sites/default/files/2877_001.pdf..

Most state laws including those of California and Minnesota require state and other governmental units to use a competitive bidding process for contracts exceeding a dollar threshold, usually 80 to 100 thousand dollars. The purpose of the competitive bidding laws explained by the League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo “Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cities, 6-7-17, imc.org-media-document, is three-fold. First, it is intended to ensure that taxpayers receive the benefit of the lowest obtainable price from a responsible contractor. Second, competitive bidding provides contractors a level playing field on which to compete for contracts and third, it limits the discretion of decision-making officials in situations that are susceptible to fraud, favoritism, or other similar abuses.

Locally, serious attention should be paid to the issues of potential

fraud, favoritism and similar abuses such as conflicts of interest and

bias given the recent admonishment by the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development of the City’s CDBG program.

The selection of architectural and engineering firms for major projects

has always been highly subjective. In the case of the GFPS District’s

selection of design firms, this is especially true, but why should there

be cause for concern?

For the Great Falls High $37M project, a seven-member selection committee reviewed submittals by six architectural firms, four local firms and two out-of-town firms. Four firms were shortlisted and chosen for interviews by the selection committee comprised of five District employees and two Board of Trustees members. It is obvious that the seven committee members have some knowledge of school buildings, but none have any professional or experiential knowledge of architecture.

You might say we cannot reasonably expect teachers turned administrators to have training and experience in architecture, engineering or planning, but we can, and should expect them to acknowledge that fact. They are not qualified to judge design concepts, or the firms presenting them.

Is this why the selection committee member’s individual grading sheets are not identified with the name of the grader? Are they admitting to the subjective and quantitative nature of the process? So much for transparency.

Mr. Cahill uses only facile quantitative evidence in his defense of the committee’s selected firms for interviews; how many offices they have, how many schools they have designed, how long they have been in business and how many states are they licensed in.

Is there a better way to select design professionals? Yes.

In “A guide Including Model Local Government Policy and Procedures for Selecting Architects, Engineers and land Surveyors” by the Illinois Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the American Council of Engineering Companies of Illinois and the Illinois Society of Professional Engineers, they state in section 3.3, Putting together a qualified selection committee, “Frequently, the owner does not have staff with expertise for the project. In such cases, it is helpful to enlist the aid of known experts from design professional associations to serve as members of the Selection Committee”.

The University of Washington uses a selection committee of design professionals who are impartial and cannot benefit from a particular architectural commission to judge and recommend firms for university projects. This process has been repeatedly suggested to the GFPS administration, and repeatedly rejected.

The final installment in this series will discuss a Competition of Ideas and Innovation. Stay tuned.

Mr. Cahill’s recent piece, “Promises Made and Promises Kept” in response to a November 26, 2017 post, “Why is Great Falls Tax Money Leaving Great Falls?” accurate? Mr. Cahill’s explanation of the results of the Great Falls School District’s use of taxpayer’s dollars appears on the surface to be factual, but a few pieces of the puzzle are missing.

The explanation that $37 million for the Great Falls High School project did not leave Great Falls is true for now, but did not include the fact that the architectural fee calculated at 8%, or close to $3M will leave Great Falls and go to Bozeman and Seattle architectural firms except for a minor amount for some local engineering subcontracts. Is this $3M of taxpayer’s money “a small portion of the project budget” as Mr. Cahill reports, just chump change?

Mr. Cahill reports that it is impossible to know if the general construction/construction manager contract will be awarded to a local company since that decision will be made in mid-February and that “The (School District) Board of Trustees are required by state statute to award the bid (contract) to the lowest most responsible bidder without regard (to) where the bidder is headquartered”. This statement is not true because the general construction/construction management contracts awarded for the Giant Springs Elementary School and the CM Russell Facility Additions were awarded using an “Alternate project delivery contract”. This is a method used to eliminate the conventional construction bidding process and is authorized by MCA 18-2-502. One of the determining requirements for use of this statute is that “the project has significant schedule ramifications and using the alternative project delivery contract is necessary to meet critical deadlines by shortening the duration of construction”.

The School District is now concurrently trying to complete four major projects within the bonding requirements that call for bond proceeds to be spent within 5 years. Is it possible that the District has bitten off more than they can chew and the resulting completion schedule’s “ramifications” are self-imposed?

This massive project could have and probably should have been done

in phases allowing more time for comprehensive design and

competitive bidding rather non-competitive financial construction

contract awards. Competitive bidding has always produced more bang

for the buck for taxpayers.

By using the “Alternative project delivery contract” the selection process used by the District changes from an objective process to a subjective process that is no longer based on a numerical bid amount, but on the selection committee’s subjective assessment of a responding construction company’s dog and pony show. This opens up the possibility of favoritism or bias, which the enabling statute clearly warns against. Would the selection committee favor a particular construction company, or the principal of one, who made a donation to the group that worked to get the bond levy passed?

Here you can find the June 23, 2016 C-6 financial report detailing contributions to the ‘Yes for Great Falls Kids’ political action committee advocating for the $98 million school bond issue. Click the link to see if there are any local contractors on the list of donors.

https://ecitybeat1.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/321Z18Q_01Y1DYK5N0024TF.pdf

At this point, one might reasonably ask where the school district’s decision to use the “Alternative project delivery contract” originated since they confess that the District hasn’t built a new project in over 50 years and how does this non-competitive bidding process benefit the citizens of Great Falls. Mr. Cahill is right when he concludes by saying, “Taxpayers expect wise use of their hard earned tax dollars”. Is the adopted process a shortcut, or are the taxpayers being short-changed?

Take the E-City Beat poll now.

[poll id=”8″]

In the next installment, we will provide more pieces to the $98M puzzle. Stay tuned.

 

 

Phil Faccenda recently invited me to respond to a recent blog post on E-City Beat and subsequent comments regarding the selection of an architectural firm for the design of the Great Falls High School addition and renovation and a claim that because of that decision $37 million in taxpayer money left Great Falls.  I am happy to provide facts related not only to the Great Falls High School addition and renovation project but on other projects funded by the $98.8 million bond levy and the “promise made” to try to keep construction dollars at the local level as much as possible.

It is important to briefly discuss the bond issue.  Following several years of multiple public meetings regarding school facilities, the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to ask the community to support a $98.8 million bond issue.  On October 4, 2016, 65% of registered voters turned out for the bond levy.  According to the Cascade Elections Office the percentage of voter turnout was the highest in the history of the Great Falls Public Schools.  It is interesting to note the percent of voter turnout for the November 7 general election was just slightly higher at 67%.  I mention this as some people prior to the October bond vote voiced concerns the district (school board) was attempting to slip the bond issue by the electorate as those individuals assumed far fewer voters would vote if the bond election was held in October.  Obviously that turned out not to be the case.  The elementary bond levy passed with 61% and the high school bond levy passing with 57% voting in favor.  The district was able to sell $64 million of bonds at a significantly lower interest rate than was estimated prior to the October vote.  (The District estimated a 4.25% interest rate.)  The final interest rate was 3.17% for the high school and 3.18% for the elementary bond. This means Great Falls tax payers will pay $7.7 million less in taxes over the next 20 years as the bonds are paid off.   About 100 local residents purchased some of the bonds.  $34 million in bonds remain to be sold.

A month ago a blog (Why Is Great Falls Tax Money Leaving Great Falls?) questioned the Board’s decision to hire NE45 Architects (headquartered in Bozeman) for the Great Falls High addition and renovation project.  The blogger also objected to NE45 partnering with a Seattle based firm, Bassetti Architects.  Following that blog several individuals commented that $37 million had left Great Falls.  The question to be answered is did $37 million actually leave Great Falls and go to Bozeman and Seattle?  Unless a person believes that NE45 and Bassetti Architects received all $37 million budgeted to do the entire GFHS addition and renovation project (including construction) the answer is no.  All $37 million did not leave Great Falls.  It is true that a small portion of the project budget will go to Bassetti Architects.  In relationship to NE45 Architects, it should be noted they expanded their business by recently opening an office in Great Falls.  This is a welcomed addition to the local business community.  Local firms, TD & H Engineering and GPD Engineering, have been engaged by NE45 to work on the project and, as a result, those dollars will also remain in Great Falls.  Since selection of the general contractor for the GFHS addition and renovation project will not occur until sometime in mid-February, it is impossible to know who the general contractor will be much less where they may be headquartered.  The Board of Trustees are required by state statute to award the bid to the lowest most responsible bidder without regard where the bidder is headquartered.

It is often necessary for architects to go outside their home base of operations to remain competitive and stay in business.  A prime example is CTA Architects.  CTA is headquartered in Billings but maintain offices in Great Falls, Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell, Helena, and Livingston with offices also in Seattle (Washington), Austin (Texas), Jackson (Wyoming), Minneapolis (Minnesota), New Orleans (Louisiana), Boise (Idaho), Denver (Colorado), Vancouver (British Columbia) and Regina (Saskatchewan).  CTA was recently selected to design the new second Bozeman high school and have designed many schools in Montana and elsewhere during the 80 plus years they have been in business. CTA designed the various projects currently under construction at CMR High School.

L’Heureux Page Werner Architecture (LPW) is headquartered in Great Falls and recently celebrated 64 years in business.  LPW has designed many schools throughout Montana with recent school projects in Missoula and Kalispell in addition to the new Giant Springs Elementary School here in Great Falls.

Dale Nelson Architects, headquartered in Great Falls, is licensed in Washington, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Oklahoma. Dale Nelson Architects recently designed a beautiful renovation of Miller Hall on the campus of Montana State University-Bozeman.  Dale Nelson Architects designed the new GFPS Building and Grounds Building on the Little Russell School campus.

I believe local architects would also agree that collaboration between architectural firms is not an unusual business practice.  For example, during the selection process for the GFHS addition and renovation project, one local architect proposed partnering with an architectural firm located in Albuquerque, NM; another local firm proposed using a person with expertise working on historical buildings who would be on loan from an architectural firm in Missoula; and, NE45 proposed partnering with Bassetti Architects located in Seattle.

Please review the following information regarding bond expenditures:

ARCHITECTS SELECTED

LPW Architects (Great Falls) Roosevelt School replacement (Giant Springs Elementary School)

Dale Nelson Architects (Great Falls) Little Russell School (Buildings and Grounds Department)

CTA Architects (Great Falls) CMR High School multipurpose building, STEM addition

NE45 & Bassetti Architects (Great Falls & Seattle) GFHS remodel and major addition

 

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Sletten Construction (Great Falls) Roosevelt School replacement (Giant Springs Elementary School)

Detailed Construction (Stockett) Whittier Elementary elevator

James Talcott Construction (Great Falls) CMR High School multipurpose building, STEM addition

Liberty Electric (Great Falls) CMR fire alarm system upgrade

Summit Roofing (Missoula) North Middle School reroof

Central Plumbing & Heating (Great Falls) Sunnyside Elementary boiler replacement

Liberty Electric (Great Falls) East Middle School fire alarm system upgrade

Detailed Construction (Stockett) Mountain View Elementary remodel

Montana School Equipment (Great Falls) CMR bleachers

David Kuglin Construction (Great Falls) CMR sidewalk replacement

Great Falls Sand and Gravel (Great Falls) Meadow Lark Elementary parking lot

Great Falls Sand and Gravel (Great Falls) Loy Elementary parking lot

FieldTurf (Georgia) Memorial Stadium football field and track upgrade

Enterprise Electric (Great Falls) Sunnyside Elementary Electrical upgrade

Central Plumbing & Heating (Great Falls) North Middle School Boiler

TJs Construction (Great Falls) West Elementary outside staircase

Geranios Enterprises (Great Falls) Morningside Elementary water service

Sletten Construction (Great Falls) Little Russell School (Building and Grounds Department)

Central Technology (Great Falls) North Middle School fire alarm system upgrade

Tri-County Mechanical & Engineering (Great Falls) Great Falls High School boiler replacement

T C Glass (Great Falls) East Middle School window replacement

United Electric (Great Falls) Loy Elementary electrical upgrade

Detailed Construction (Stockett) Paris Gibson Education Center elevator/window replacement

Metal Works of Montana (Missoula) Paris Gibson Education Center roof project

 

OTHER SUPPLIERS/CONTRACTERS FOR BOND ISSUE PROJECTS

Sherwin Williams (Great Falls)

Hulteng CCM, Inc. (Billings)

Ace Hardware (Great Falls)

Energy West Resources (Great Falls)

Scott Fitzpatrick Asbestos (Helena)

JETech, LLC (Great Falls)

Kelly’s Signs (Great Falls)

AAAA Water Well Drilling (Clancy)

Morrison-Maierle (Great Falls)

William Ribich Drywall (Great Falls)

Water Net, Inc. (Cascade)

Boettcher Paint Co. (Great Falls)

Combustion Service Company (Great Falls)

Sherwin Williams (Great Falls)

Crescent Electrical Supply (Great Falls)

Gerbers of Montana (Great Falls)

Scott Fitzpatrick Asbestos (Helena)

Glacier State Electric (Great Falls)

MDS Supply Inc. (Great Falls)

Pierce Leasing (Great Falls)

Northwest Equipment MFG (Kalispell)

Platt Electric Supply (Great Falls)

Tractor & Equipment Co. (Great Falls)

Ferguson Enterprises (Great Falls)

United Electric (Great Falls)

Charter Business Planning (Billings)

Pioneer Sand & Gravel (Great Falls)

Johnson Madison Lumber Co. (Great Falls)

The school board has a responsibility to make sure the lowest most responsible bid is awarded.  As the reader can see from the list above, in most cases the lowest most responsible bidder is located in Great Falls or the surrounding area.  There are a few instances when the District either did not receive a local bid or a company outside Great Falls was the lowest most responsible bidder.  Taxpayers expect wise use of their hard earned tax dollars and the Great Falls Public Schools continue to fulfill that responsibility.  Promises made…………promises kept.

 

I’m a long-time resident of Great Falls and a developer. Like a lot of folks, I’ve invested a lot of time and money into seeing our community thrive — in particular, downtown Great Falls. As a commercial developer, I pay my share of taxes, and so I tend to pay attention to where our money goes.