Category: GFPS

  

________________________________________________________________________

Lacey says sidewalks are too expensive.

During Monday’s public hearing by the City’s Board of Zoning Adjustments, Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey explained that the school district would like to eliminate the required sidewalk along 14th Street Northwest at CMR High School because she would “rather spend bond money on educational spaces”, and presumably not on safety features like sidewalks.

At the meeting, Lacey said “it wouldn’t be useful to add a sidewalk along 14th Avenue Northwest.” Not so, said a neighboring property owner who spoke as an opponent to the exemption. With a view of the required sidewalk’s route, she reported that a number of pedestrians presently have to walk in the street which puts them at risk from the vehicular traffic on 14th Street.

Lacey’s power point presentation indicated that the required sidewalk would cost $100,000. Research of construction cost estimating sites list concrete sidewalk construction cost to be a high of $10.00 per square foot, yielding a much lower estimate of $60,000 for 1,200 lineal feet of a five-foot wide sidewalk.

“The way I see it, the school district committed a colossal mistake by first cutting down a boatload of mature trees without a permit, or prior approval, at Great Falls High School and now wants to disregard the City’s Development Standards, which exist to protect people’s safety.”

Required maintenance costs, such as snow removal, was one of the reasons Lacey gave for the District’s request for exemption from City Development Standards requiring sidewalks. To which the neighboring property owner responded by saying “you own the property and therefore have a responsibly to maintain it”.

Further making the case against the construction of the sidewalk, Lacey said that the existing trees would make it difficult, if not impossible, to construct the sidewalk. The above drawing clearly indicates that the trees would not present a problem.

The way I see it, the school district committed a colossal mistake by first cutting down a boatload of mature trees without a permit, or prior approval, at Great Falls High School and now wants to disregard the City’s Development Standards, which exist to protect people’s safety.

________________________________________________________________________

   

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of all Ages, welcome to the greatest show on earth!

So bring on the haute ecole horses and on with the show!

Monday the Great Falls Board of Zoning Adjustments held a public hearing to listen to the Great Falls Public School District explain their request to exempt their four major bond projects from City zoning laws. The District’s request invoked Montana MCA statute 76-2-402, which allows agencies to “use land contrary to local zoning regulations”.

76-2-402. Local zoning regulations — application to agencies. Whenever an agency proposes to use public land contrary to local zoning regulations, a public hearing, as defined below, shall be held.

(1) The local board of adjustments, as provided in this chapter, shall hold a hearing within 30 days of the date the agency gives notice to the board of its intent to develop land contrary to local zoning regulations.

(2) The board shall have no power to deny the proposed use but shall act only to allow a public forum for comment on the proposed use.

The City lead off the meeting with their interpretation of the statute given by the District with their own citation of MCA 76-2-301, which states:

76-2-301. Municipal zoning authorized. For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city or town council or other legislative body of cities and incorporated towns is hereby empowered to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.

To further explain the City’s position, “Staff finds a clear distinction between Zoning as it is defined in MCA 76-2-301, and the development standard variances that GFPS seems to be asserting through the hearing procedure here today.” And went on to say, “Staff reserves the right to require review and approval of all GFPS projects, both previously permitted and those under current review for conformance to all titles contained in the official City code of the City of Great Falls.”

In other words, and to reference a previous E-City Beat post, the school district will have to follow the same “stinking rules” that any other developer who builds in Great Falls has to follow. I agree with the City’s conclusion, and interpretation of Montana Statutes.

So why does GFPS want to be exempt from following City codes like the requirement of sidewalks, landscaping (removal of City trees without a permit), parking, buffer zones, and setbacks?

As Superintendent Tammy Lacey explained, “I would prefer to spend bond money on educational spaces”. Does that mean that the District’s projects are over budget, or that pre-bond construction estimates were low, or that the District’s representatives didn’t accept the City’s numerous invitations to discuss the projects before the construction process began?

It is important to note that the superintendent is but the face and the voice of the District and has no real experiential knowledge of architecture or construction and can be likened to the circus ringmaster. There are many “cirkys” working for the “gaffer” (circus manager) behind the scenes. In the case of the GFPS district, a Billings construction company was hired to be the gaffer. The Billings construction company staff are not licensed architects, professional engineers, historic architectural advisers, or professional planners. The gaffers were hired by the District and were charged with developing strategies, estimating construction costs, soliciting design professionals, scheduling, and instituting the alternative project delivery contracts for District. They were also responsible for general construction contracts that do not require conventional general contractor competitive bidding as authorized by MCA 18-2-502.

18-2-502. Alternative project delivery contract — authority — criteria. (1) Subject to the provisions of this part, a state agency or a governing body may use an alternative project delivery contract.

I believe that it is also possible that the previously mentioned Billings company suggested using MCA 76-2-402 as a means to avoid certain City “development standards” that are typically enforced in Great Falls. I think all taxpayers and citizens should thank City staff for saying, “Oh no you don’t” to GFPS and the horse they rode in on.

“I believe that it is also possible that the previously mentioned Billings company suggested using MCA 76-2-402 as a means to avoid certain City “development standards” that are typically enforced in Great Falls. I think all taxpayers and citizens should thank City staff for saying, “Oh no you don’t” to GFPS and the horse they rode in on.”

A similar issue exists with the District’s purchase of the Campfire property where the District plans to demolish the historic structure, which is an integral part of the Great Falls High School history, and develop a small parking lot, that if City regulations are applied, would only yield a total of 9 parking spaces at what I estimate could cost up to $22,000 per space.

In my opinion, the purchase could have very well been an illegal if the property was not specifically identified in the bond ballot language and is not contiguous to the GFHS property under Montana Statute MCA 20-6-621, which reads as follows:

20-6-621. Selection of school sites — approval election. (1) (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b), the trustees of a district may select the sites for school buildings or for other school purposes, but the selection must first be approved by the qualified electors of the district before a contract for the purchase of a site is entered into by the trustees. (Emphasis added.)

(b) The trustees may purchase or otherwise acquire property contiguous to an existing site that is in use for school purposes without a site approval election. The trustees may take an option on a site prior to the site approval election. (2) The election for the approval of a site must be called under the provisions of 20-20-201 and must be conducted in the manner prescribed by this title for school elections. An elector who may vote at a school site election is qualified to vote under the provisions of 20-20-301. If a majority of those voting at the election approve the site selection, the trustees may purchase the site. A site approval election is not required when the site was specifically identified in an election at which an additional levy or the issuance of bonds was approved for the purchase of the site. (Emphasis added.)

(3) Any site for a school building or other building of the district that is selected or purchased by the trustees must:

(a) be in a place that is convenient, accessible, and suitable;

(b) comply with the minimum size and other requirements prescribed by the department of public health and human services; and

(c) comply with the statewide building regulations, if any, promulgated by the department of labor and industry.

Further reference:

20-6-603. Trustees’ authority to acquire or dispose of sites and buildings — when election required. (1) The trustees of a district may purchase, build, exchange, or otherwise acquire, sell, or dispose of sites and buildings of the district. Action may not be taken by the trustees without the approval of the qualified electors of the district at an election called for the purpose of approval unless: (Emphasis added.)

(a) a bond issue has been authorized for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building; (b) an additional levy under the provisions of 20-9-353 has been approved for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building;

(c) the cost of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building is financed without exceeding the maximum general fund budget amount for the district and, in the case of a site purchase, the site has been approved under the provisions of 20-6-621; or

(d) money is otherwise available under the provisions of this title and the ballot for the site approval for the building incorporated a description of the building to be located on the site.

(2) Except for land that is granted to or held by the state in trust or land acquired by conditional deed under the provisions of 20-6-605, the trustees may, upon approval by the electorate, accept as partial or total consideration for the exchange of the land a binding written agreement by a public or private entity seeking the exchange to use the property to provide a service that benefits the school district. The deed for the exchange of land must contain reversionary clauses that allow for the return of the land to school district ownership if the binding written agreement is not complied with.

(3) When an election is conducted under the provisions of this section, it must be called under the provisions of 20-20-201 and must be conducted in the manner prescribed by this title for school elections. An elector qualified to vote under the provisions of 20-20-301 may vote in the election. If a majority of those electors voting at the election approve the proposed action, the trustees may take the proposed action.

The Campfire property was not “specifically identified” in the 2016 bond ballot language. Therefore, the purchase would not have been permitted unless the property is “contiguous” to the school district’s currently held property. By commonly accepted definition, I believe the Campfire property is not contiguous to the District’s GFHS property based upon the following:

42.13.111 : DEFINITIONS – Administrative Rules of the State of Montana 42.13.111 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply to this chapter:

(3) “Contiguous” means touching or sharing a common border.

Further, from a real estate attorney:

“If there is a dedicated street between the two lots, they are not contiguous because they do not touch each other at a common boundary line. If the “street” is actually just an easement over one or both parcels, then the two lots are contiguous.

Richard A. Rodgers, Esq. …”

The sale was effected on March 19, 2018 and was based on a Buy-Sell agreement dated January 17, 2018 and the parties to the agreement were the seller Campfire USA, and the buyer Blum Holdings, LLC. GFPS was not a party to the Buy-Sell Agreement.

While “straw man” purchases are not illegal, one would ask why all the secrecy? Here is the District’s Email response to the question dated May 30, 2018.

“The payment for the Campfire property was made out to Stewart Title as they were the company that handled the closing on the property. Blum Holdings LLC initially purchased the property, then assigned the contract over to the district, with the district closing on the property as the Buyer. $1,000 earnest money was provided to Blum Holdings for reimbursement for earnest moneys paid per the initial contract. Blum Holdings LLC never owned the property. This allowed the district to get the best possible deal on the purchase of the property.

Brian Patrick”

According to the seller of the Campfire property it wouldn’t have mattered had they known the true purchaser, or not. They also commented that they would like to see the historic building saved and re-purposed as a refreshment and gathering place for GFHS students.

Ultimately, and in order to save this important part of GFH history, the validity of the purchase may have to be decided by a court of law. If you would like to aid in the effort, please go to our Go Fund Me page and consider a donation to cover legal costs. 

Is The School District Monkeying Around With Zoning?

On Monday, June 18, 2018, the Great Falls Board of Adjustment/Appeals will hold a Special meeting at the Civic Center Commission chambers at 3:00 PM. The purpose of a public hearing is to consider a request from the Great Falls Public School District to exempt them from the City’s zoning rules and regulations relative to the District’s current building projects.

Does that sound like monkey business to you?

The GFPS Board of Trustees agenda Action Item of May 14, 2018, states: “In the interest of providing efficiency to the Board, (GF Board of Adjustments / Appeals), as well as the District, GFPS feels it would be most expedient to broadly cover the District’s intent to use land contrary to local zoning regulations on a bond-wide basis”. (Emphasis added.)

The District is citing Montana Statutory application found in MCA 76-2-402 as follows:

76-2-402. Local zoning regulations — application to agencies. Whenever an agency proposes to use public land contrary to local zoning regulations, a public hearing, as defined below, shall be held. (1) The local board of adjustments, as provided in this chapter, shall hold a hearing within 30 days of the date the agency gives notice to the board of its intent to develop land contrary to local zoning regulations. (2) The board shall have no power to deny the proposed use but shall act only to allow a public forum for comment on the proposed use.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 397, L. 1981.

“On Monday we will learn what the City of Great Falls thinks about the School District’s interpretation of the Statute. E-City Beat will report the results of the meeting and have something to say about the District’s shady purchase of the Campfire building.”

So while it appears that: “That the Board shall have no power to deny the proposed use, but shall act only to allow a public forum for comment on the proposed use…”, a few questions remain.

Does the Statute mean that an “agency”, in this case the school district, can use property that they own, and isn’t zoned PLI, Public Lands and Institutions, to build a school? That’s what it sounds like to me.

Does the Statute exempt the agency from following requirements, setbacks, buffers, height restrictions, landscaping, storm water drainage, and so on, for the now PLI zone? I don’t think so. I believe the Statute means exactly what it says, the agency can change the zoning for the proposed use, but would still have to follow conditions set to protect the public from any effects caused by the development of the property.

Here is a very similar Illinois State Supreme Court decision which upholds two lower court decisions on the subject.

(http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2015/118332.pdf) – CONCLUSION ¶ 25 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the city of Crystal Lake and decreeing that the Board of Education of Community High School District No. 155 is subject to the City’s zoning and storm water ordinances.

On Monday we will learn what the City of Great Falls thinks about the School District’s interpretation of the Statute. E-City Beat will report the results of the meeting and have something to say about the District’s shady purchase of the Campfire building.

GFPS Superintendent Tammy Lacey and her band of merry fools are at it again. The photo shows the dead corpses of more than twenty 70 to 80 year old trees at the historic Great Falls High School Campus. According to Lacey, 73 mature trees, 50 more, will be cut down for fire wood. That should warm the cockles of your hearts, right?

Check out the YouTube video from KTVH Helena here.

At 2:00 PM, Friday June 15th, the Good Wood Guys will be cutting them up in their shop, or you might say, performing an autopsy. The public is invited to witness the carnage.

“A major share of the destroyed trees are City boulevard trees, which means they belong to us and not the school district. Without City review, approval, or a permit, the District has boldly gone where no fool has gone before in the destruction of public property.”

A major share of the destroyed trees are City boulevard trees, which means they belong to us and not the school district. Without City review, approval, or a permit, the District has boldly gone where no fool has gone before in the destruction of public property. At the time of this writing, Assistant Community Development Director and Senior City Planner Tom Micuda said the City has issued a stop order, but it’s too late for the beautiful trees that make GFH a revered icon in our community.

The School District should be charged with felony destruction of property and forced to pay $20,000 per tree, $400,000, along with the cost to replant every tree they have destroyed. Of course, if that happened it would be our money used to pay the fine.

We might also like to ask:

Is the District’s slash and burn ideology a reaction to the recent operational levy failure? Is it, “you voted down our levy so we’re going to cut down your trees?” Is it time for the Superintendent to step down, and maybe the Board of Trustees too?

“Is the District’s slash and burn ideology a reaction to the recent operational levy failure? Is it, “you voted down our levy so we’re going to cut down your trees?” Is it time for the Superintendent to step down, and maybe the Board of Trustees too?”

GFHS students, alumni, those who value history and old trees, and indeed all citizens should be outraged at the school districts bull-in-a-china-shop approach to bulldozing through the historic and beautiful campus.

We urge our readers to call Tammy Lacey 406-268-6001, or email her at tammy_lacey@gfps.k12.mt.us and let her know that this is unacceptable.

Please vote in our poll:

[poll id=”12″]

Editor’s note: this is for Serena Chrystie Roberson to brighten your day.

Note to Readers: This is a satirical story and any reference to characters, living, or dead is purely coincidental.

The story begins in the early years,1347, in the Duchy of Grand Fallwick, a small monarchy located close to the border shared by France and Switzerland. As far as the Duchy’s society goes, it is replete with the usual class structure of the time, nobility, warriors, high priests, merchants and peasants.

As a rule, the Duchy’s day-to-day operation is quite peaceful, only interrupted by an occasional peasant squabble over livestock and farming issues. Keep in mind that the peasants, or serfs, worked to the support of the monarchy and the noble court, held no title to the land they labored on, and were generally at the mercy and dictates of the Monarchy.

One day, the Monarchy, upon the advice of their out-of-Duchy consultants, decides to construct a new Jousting field, related Infirmary, and Banquet hall. In addition to a site for the improvements, which wasn’t a problem since the monarchy owned all of the land in the Duchy, the Monarchy also needed some shekels. The Royal treasury was operating at a deficit, and to make matters worse, it had recently been discovered that the crown jewels were mere costume jewelry. So, a call was sent throughout the land that the serfs would have to buck up and work harder to fund the project. Now, the serfs were already just scraping by and barely able to feed their families, but that didn’t matter to the Monarchy. At this point, the Monarchy put on a full court PR media blitz, including the Festival of the Bulls, or what was commonly referred to as, “The Line of Bull”, in order to convince the peasants that the project was in their best interests.

The merchants got on board when the Monarchy explained that they would have a greater number of spectators to sell their famous bologna kabobs and spam fritters to with the new facilities. Of course, the Court of Jesters, the main advisory board to the Monarchy, firmly, and without exception, endorsed the project. One of the ranking knights of the Square Table reported to the Monarchy that he knew something about construction costs because he had a relative in a neighboring kingdom who was a contractor. So, off the Monarchy went, hell bent for leather.

Besides the requirement that the serfs would have to work harder to raise the necessary capital, the land that the Monarchy and their consultants wanted to use, was land farmed by the peasants, and would now be taken out of production, without CRP payments, for the new facilities.

To facilitate the new Jousting Field, the out-of-Duchy consultants convinced the Monarchy that the elaborate historic manor house gardens would be better served as a steed stable

and the existing horticultural engineers could be charged with shoveling something else besides top soil. Oh, and the reflecting pool was to become a giant horse trough and the carved stone fountains could serve as relief stations for the jousting tournament crowds.

Needless to say, what occurred next was a mild insurrection complete with pitch forks and torches, which confirms what Sophocles once said – “No enemy is worse than Bad Advice”.

Needless to say, what occurred next was a mild insurrection complete with pitch forks and torches, which confirms what Sophocles once said – “No enemy is worse than Bad Advice”.

Check your local movie theater for the premier of the film, or for a live performance near you.

Are Great Falls zoning rules for everyone developing property in Great Falls except for the Great Falls Public Schools District?

Recently, the GFPS District passed an agenda action item at the Board of Trustees meeting on May 14, 2018, that asks the City of Great Falls to grant a blanket exemption to our local zoning laws for District projects, and requested a public hearing on the issue by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Of course, the Great Falls City Commissioners should have the final word on the request, and would, if it wasn’t for what I believe to be a misapplication of Montana 2017 MCA 76-2-402 by the school district, which reads as follows:

76-2-402. Local zoning regulations — application to agencies. Whenever an agency proposes to use public land contrary to local zoning regulations, a public hearing, as defined below, shall be held. (1) The local board of adjustments, as provided in this chapter, shall hold a hearing within 30 days of the date the agency gives notice to the board of its intent to develop land contrary to local zoning regulations. (2) The board shall have no power to deny the proposed use but shall act only to allow a public forum for comment on the proposed use.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 397, L. 1981.

In my opinion, the intent of the statute is to allow government agencies the opportunity to develop property not zoned for public uses. An example would be in a residentially zoned area that did not have property set aside for the construction of a school. That broad application would not negate the setback, landscaping, or parking conditions required by the resulting zone change.

The District’s request for exemptions are “Projects that will be developed contrary to local zoning regulations”, including the following:

Great Falls High School Addition and Renovation – Landscaping and parking requirements……. Examples include location and numbers of trees as part of the project as well as other landscaping components, and buffer zone and setback requirements for parking on future lot developments including the newly acquired property at 1925 2nd Avenue South.

CM Russell High School Multipurpose Facility and Addition – Landscaping and parking requirements.

Giant Springs Elementary School – Landscaping requirements.

Longfellow Elementary School – Landscaping and parking requirements.

You’ve probably noticed that landscaping is not held in high esteem by the GFPS District. But why? Don’t we want beautifully sited schools with oxygen producing and shading trees? The District Agenda package included letters form the Great Falls Chief of Police citing safety concerns and the Supervisor of the District’s Building and Grounds Department citing maintenance costs.

“You’ve probably noticed that landscaping is not held in high esteem by the GFPS District. But why? Don’t we want beautifully sited schools with oxygen producing and shading trees? The District Agenda package included letters form the Great Falls Chief of Police citing safety concerns and the Supervisor of the District’s Building and Grounds Department citing maintenance costs.”

Numerous studies have shown the benefits of well planned landscaping and its role in controlling entrances to school buildings. Yes, the plantings have to be maintained, but isn’t that the price you have to pay when you don’t want school grounds to resemble World War I battlefields? Even the new model Sandy Hook School has trees and other landscaping.

Turning our attention to the inclusion of the historic Campfire property in the aforementioned list of requested exemptions, it should be noted that if a landscaped buffer is placed between the proposed asphalt parking lot and the single-family residence next door to the west and typical setbacks are provided, the District will only achieve parking for 9, or 10 cars on the 50’ x 150’ residential lot, which may cost $20,000 – $22,000 per parking space. So, are they asking us to eliminate the rules in order to justify a poorly planned purchase with the taxpayer’s dollars?

So, are they asking us to eliminate the rules in order to justify a poorly planned purchase with the taxpayer’s dollars?

“So, are they asking us to eliminate the rules in order to justify a poorly planned purchase with the taxpayer’s dollars?”

To add insult to injury, you probably noted that the exemption included landscape components, and buffer zone and setback requirements for parking on future lot developments in residential areas. That would mean scattered residential property acquisitions that haven’t even taken place yet.

I can only say that I am glad that I no longer live in the vicinity of Great Falls High School given the District’s panache for the “stinking rules”.

Yes folks the Great Falls Public School District is a lot like slapstick, only it’s real.

For those of you too young to remember, Laurel and Hardy were a comedy double act who appeared in 107 films together during the 1920s and 30s. Their first official film together was “Putting Pants on Philip”, which I find particularly fitting, pardon the pun, since I often wear a kilt proudly. It was about a young Scotsman clad in a traditional kilt who had newly arrived in the United States.

The catchphrase, “Well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!”, first used in “Murder Case”, 1930, is probably recognizable to most people and it is particularly appropriate for this article. Why?

Because the Great Falls Public School District has really done it now. In order to provide more parking for Great Falls High they have, in my opinion, possibly violated the law by recently purchasing the Campfire property at 1925 2nd Avenue South without the required vote of the electorate to construct a relatively small parking lot that if developed to City standards would only accommodate 9 to 10 parking spaces.

The purchase price was, according to the Buy-Sell agreement, $100,000. Add to that the cost of demolishing the existing historic structure and the cost of constructing the parking lot and site development, in my opinion could be close to $20,000 per parking space.

“The purchase price was, according to the Buy-Sell agreement, $100,000. Add to that the cost of demolishing the existing historic structure and the cost of constructing the parking lot and site development, in my opinion could be close to $20,000 per parking space.”

Here’s the fine mess.

Montana law dictates how school districts can acquire properties, and the process that must be followed. The MCA Statutes cited here directs that process.

20-6-603. Trustees’ authority to acquire or dispose of sites and buildings — when election required.

(1) The trustees of a district may purchase, build, exchange, or otherwise acquire, sell, or dispose of sites and buildings of the district. Action may not be taken by the trustees without the approval of the qualified electors of the district at an election called for the purpose of approval unless:

(a) a bond issue has been authorized for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building; (b) an additional levy under the provisions of 20-9-353 has been approved for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building;

(c) the cost of constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the site or building is financed without exceeding the maximum general fund budget amount for the district and, in the case of a site purchase, the site has been approved under the provisions of 20-6-621; or

(d) money is otherwise available under the provisions of this title and the ballot for the site approval for the building incorporated a description of the building to be located on the site.

(2) Except for land that is granted to or held by the state in trust or land acquired by conditional deed under the provisions of 20-6-605, the trustees may, upon approval by the electorate, accept as partial or total consideration for the exchange of the land a binding written agreement by a public or private entity seeking the exchange to use the property to provide a service that benefits the school district. The deed for the exchange of land must contain reversionary clauses that allow for the return of the land to school district ownership if the binding written agreement is not complied with.

(3) When an election is conducted under the provisions of this section, it must be called under the provisions of 20-20-201 and must be conducted in the manner prescribed by this title for school elections. An elector qualified to vote under the provisions of 20-20-301 may vote in the election. If a majority of those electors voting at the election approve the proposed action, the trustees may take the proposed action.

First, a Bond issue was passed in 2016, $98M, and authorized, in which the ballot language included expenditures for “acquiring property contiguous to or in the vicinity of the Great Falls High School Campus for additional parking”

Does that satisfy the above referenced Montana Statute? In my opinion, NO, and here is why.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (7th edition, 1999), which defines “Contiguous” as “touching at a point or along a boundary; adjoining”. Following that definition which is commonly held in zoning and planning issues, the Campfire property is not contiguous because it is separated by a public right-of-way, a street, 2nd Avenue South.

Is the Campfire property then, as the ballot language states, “in the vicinity of the Great Falls High…”? The answer to that is YES, in a very general sense.

But here’s the problem. Montana Statute 20-6-621(2) states:

“A site approval election is not required when the site was specifically identified in an election at which an additional levy or the issuance of bonds was approved for the purchase of the site.”

Further,

Selection Of School Sites — Approval Election

20-6-621. Selection of school sites — approval election. (1) (a) Except as provided in subsection (1)(b), the trustees of a district may select the sites for school buildings or for other school purposes, but the selection must first be approved by the qualified electors of the district before a contract for the purchase of a site is entered into by the trustees.

(b) The trustees may purchase or otherwise acquire property contiguous to an existing site that is in use for school purposes without a site approval election. The trustees may take an option on a site prior to the site approval election. (2) The election for the approval of a site must be called under the provisions of 20-20-201 and must be conducted in the manner prescribed by this title for school elections. An elector who may vote at a school site election is qualified to vote under the provisions of 20-20-301. If a majority of those voting at the

election approve the site selection, the trustees may purchase the site. A site approval election is not required when the site was specifically identified in an election at which an additional levy or the issuance of bonds was approved for the purchase of the site.

(3) Any site for a school building or other building of the district that is selected or purchased by the trustees must:

(a) be in a place that is convenient, accessible, and suitable;

(b) comply with the minimum size and other requirements prescribed by the department of public health and human services; and

(c) comply with the statewide building regulations, if any, promulgated by the department of labor and industry.

The key words are : specifically identified. Was the Campfire property specifically identified in the 2016 Bond Election ballot? The answer is NO.

Is the Campfire property contiguous to the Great Falls High School property? The answer is again, by definition is, NO.

And finally, did the Warranty Deed recorded in the Cascade County Clerk and Recorders office on March 19, 2018, and further amended due to a correction of the Seller’s name, recorded on March 25, 2018 constitute a purchase? The answer is YES.

And was that purchase carried out in accordance with Montana law? It appears that in the absence of a prescribed election, the answer is NO.

The legality of the school districts purchase is a question that will ultimately be decided in a court of law. However, I don’t think there’s any question that up to $20,000 per parking space is not a wise use of taxpayer funds by the school district. Perhaps when looking for reasons why the recent school levy failed the public officials and employees at the District should start with this kind of decision making rather than blaming this blog and the people who read it.

Soon after the Great Falls Public School Districts operational levy failed School Board Trustee Ann Janikula took to her Facebook page to criticize and lambast E-City Beat Publisher and Editor, and longtime taxpaying citizen, Phil Faccenda for daring to have a dissenting view about the GFPS District, the school board, the levy, and Superintendent Lacey.

Janikula’s long and winding screed was filled with sanctimonious pearl clutching and faux proclamations of disbelief as if to say, “How dare anyone criticize or question our Dear Superintendent? It is forbidden!”. You can read Janikula’s scolding diatribe here, if she hasn’t taken it down by the time you read this.

We’re perfectly A-OK with Janikula’s, or anyone else’s, opinions even when they differ from those of writers on this blog. The thing we found interesting here is that Janikula took a screenshot of someone’s comment on our blog and used that as her strawman to indict and lash out at Faccenda and anyone else who disagrees with her and the District’s agenda. How disingenuous and dishonest of her.

We deleted the offensive comment in question within 24 hours of it being posted, which was when we became aware of it and were able to get a volunteer with administrative privileges to access and delete, because it did not meet our standards of public discourse.

But what we find most amusing is the comments on Janikula’s own post. Here is a little sampling which we found to be rather entertaining and informative:

Above you’ll see the very first comment on the page is from Rosenleaf who talks about being ‘civil’ to one another in the very same paragraph she implies that commenters on E-City Beat and apparently Faccenda are ‘scum’ and ‘Nazi sympathizers’ encouraged by President Trump. We’re not sure how else to read Rosenleaf’s kooky comment given the subject of Janikula’s post.

But notice the names of the first and last ‘Likes’ who associated themselves with Rosenleaf’s hateful comment – two GFPS school board Trustees, Jan Cahill and Ann Janikula. Is this the kind of sentiment we should tolerate from our elected public officials?

Here’s another:

So, in a post lecturing us about inappropriate, hateful personal attacks Ann Janikula ‘Likes’ a comment calling Phil Faccenda an ‘ignorant pig’ etc. Again, is this the kind of thinking a school board Trustee should be affirming and ‘Liking’?

“So, in a post lecturing us about inappropriate, hateful personal attacks Ann Janikula ‘Likes’ a comment calling Faccenda an ‘ignorant pig’ etc. Again, is this the kind of thinking a school board Trustee should be affirming and ‘Liking’?”

The other name that sticks out here is former Great Falls mayor Dona Stebbins, who many believe cost our city hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars due to her arrogance and incompetence in “leading” us into the Electric City Power fiasco and a half-million dollar lawsuit related to her having a citizen forcibly removed from a meeting.

And finally this gem:

“I am disgusted by the lack of integrity that man has when blogging…” says Tracy Houck, who has repeatedly lied to everyone in Great Falls, the media and the Commissioner of Political Practices. Tracy Houck, who was found guilty of and punished for violating the Montana Campaign Practices Act. Tracy Houck, who deliberately backdated official campaign finance documents in an effort to deceive the COPP and the public. Tracy Houck who has cheated, lied and behaved unethically repeatedly as a candidate and commissioner. Tracy Houck who had to have a letter of admonishment and warning from the City Attorney hand delivered to prevent her from further damaging our city in the shameful CDBG funding scam she was involved in.

She’s disgusted by someone else’s “lack of integrity”? Houck wins the Gold Medal in projecting her own lack of integrity on others.

Janikula’s post and the corresponding comments are a prime example of what’s wrong with the current crop of “leaders” in Great Falls – extreme hypocrisy, arrogance, incompetence, lack of judgement, political tribalism and unfortunately, plain old stupidity.

Did they really think we wouldn’t notice?

At the suggestion that Great Falls High School is under attack by our school district administration, some E-City Beat commenters have asked if the Great Falls School District’s actions are believed to be intentional. Whether by intent, or simple ignorance I believe Great Falls High School is threatened and here is why.

• In 2012 the Historic school’s North Campus was placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service as a Historic District. The Historic District includes only the original structure and the original four block campus. The State Historic Preservation Office and the Montana Historic Advisory Commission which approved the National Register listing were very clear that the campus site was as important as the building and Memorial Stadium to the historic context development of Great Falls High. The District’s ill-advised plan to remove a considerable portion of the beautiful Northeast corner of the original campus for a blacktop parking lot is a direct affront to the historic integrity of the Original Campus and surrounding neighborhood. I suppose Trustee Brantley, who lives directly across 20th Street from the planned parking lot won’t mind the garbage carried by the prevailing wind and deposited in his front yard. Since he supports the District’s misguided plan, I guess that would be poetic justice?
• To further add insult to injury, the District’s plan is to pave a roadway between the original Great Falls High structure and Memorial Stadium to facilitate firetruck access to the West side of the school. More asphalt paving. Fire protection is important, but given that, why doesn’t the District’s plan include a fire sprinkler system for the original building? Something proven to save lives. The uninspired design of the HUB and ancillary uses will include a fire sprinkler system as mandated by code, and so that the old and new buildings can be classified as two separate structures, there will have to be a fire-rated separation between the two, fire doors and removal of existing windows on the South side of the historic structure.
• In order to scrounge a few more parking spaces, the District’s destructive plan is to remove the almost 90 year old brick and wrought iron Stadium fence behind the South scoreboard.
• Then comes the decision to close 4th Avenue North to pedestrian traffic. So if you live, or if you park east of Great Falls High for a football game, you will either have to walk up to 2nd Avenue South, or down to 5th Avenue South to navigate your way to Memorial Stadium. Even the less that ideal design created by the original Master Plan made the connect between the North and South Campuses via an overhead sky bridge. An even better connection, considering the 34 feet of grade drop along 4th Avenue South between 20th and 18th Streets, would be beneath a pedestrian plaza. Wow, and we wouldn’t have to spend $3M on a Bozeman and a Seattle architectural firm.
• Finally, the correct design solution to provide additional parking at Great Falls High is to use the entire one block Practice Field that now only exists to accommodate the Track and Field events, discus, javelin, hammer throw and shot put. Those events could take place at Kranz Park on a softball field that could serve multiple uses. A place for the Great Falls High softball team and a summer baseball field for the neighborhood kids.

Buying small neighborhood single family zoned lots, like the Campfire property and spending about $22,000 per parking stall, if zoning laws are followed is a poor use of taxpayer funds.

“Buying small neighborhood single family zoned lots, like the Campfire property and spending about $22,000 per parking stall, if zoning laws are followed is a poor use of taxpayer funds.”

It’s not too late to rethink these issues and allow community input. We can come up with a better plan.