Location, Location, Location: Haste Makes Waste

Philip M. Faccenda on January 26, 2021

As they say, location is hugely important in real estate.

Process is equally important in a fair and competitive selection of an architectural firm to design a $20.2 municipal project financed by the taxpayers. In the case of the Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility both the location and the process have been fatally flawed.

In an expedited process to secure a $10M grant from the Department of Defense, the City listed a location for the grant pre-application that was too small and presented seriously poor soils conditions. As is true with most endeavors, haste makes waste, both in time and money.

Then the City hired an architectural firm to seemingly embellish the application without notifying all local firms who would have appreciated a fair opportunity to compete for the commission.

The City was warned that the proposed site for the project and the design selection process were huge mistakes, and yet they moved forward. The second site selected, and recently purchased with public assets was equally as bad as the first. But the City moved forward and threw caution to the wind.

The City made that same decision in 1967 when they built a new Morony Natatorium on the same soils-challenged site as the original 1916 structure which suffered severe structural damage. The new Nat which suffered from the same poor soils conditions was designed by the original Page, Werner and Partners architectural firm.

In that Request For Proposal the City included renderings by the architectural firm who was chosen to develop the grant application. Now think about what the other nine responding architectural firms thought about that.

It gave the obvious appearance that the process would be a done deal. And yes, the original firm was given the huge commission for the project. Bad optics at the very least.

Spark Architecture spent upwards of $20K to complete their proposal and expressed their disappointment in the process.

In October, the winning firm announced that building on the second site would cost an additional $2.6M because of the lousy soils conditions.

In their infinite wisdom, the City officials said we need to find another site because we don’t want to compromise the programmed functions for the new facility, or pay more than the previously projected cost estimates.

Next, the City pursued North Kiwanis Park. That was shot down by MAFB officials. The access was far less than ideal and something the City should have known.

Then we move on to Lions Park. The residents adjacent to the park might have something to say about looking at a huge asphalt parking lot located very close to 30th Street.

Last spring, our architectural firm suggested a location for the recreation/pool facility at the undeveloped portion of Warden Park 12 minutes from MAFB, minutes away from the Montana National Guard, centrally located for all Great Falls residents, excellent soils conditions, and convenient to hotels and restaurants. Being highly visible to incoming visitors, it would make a positive statement about our City.

As I said at the beginning of this article, haste makes waste. So far, we have spent a good deal of time and $150,000 in assets in a trade we didn’t need, the Kranz Park land swap.

I have some beautiful swamp land if you are a sucker.

Why should we care about process? Because a fair and honest process provides a fertile environment that can retain and attract professional young talent to Great Falls. Amenities such as the often-mentioned River’s Edge Trail, parks, nice neighborhoods, great schools and an abundance of close-by recreational opportunities are nice, but offer little toward advancement of a creative professional career.

When public projects like the recreation/pool facility are handled like what appears to be an inside job, do little to encourage new ideas and creative exploration. When it looks like women-owed firms are not fully supported by a selection process we lose an important opportunity to represent how we feel about equality and diversity.

Talent seeks an environment for expression. That does not exist in Great Falls.

GF City Commission Swaps Kranz Park Land, Tryon Lone ‘No’ Vote

ECB Staff on January 22, 2021

Editors note: E-City Beat has requested and received permission to copy and paste Great Falls City Commissioner Rick Tryon’s reports from his public commissioner’s Facebook page, ‘Rick Tryon for a Greater Great Falls’.

“At Tuesday’s (1/19/21) City Commission meeting the commission voted 4 – 1 to approve a land swap between the City of Great Falls and the Great Falls Public School District.

I was the lone dissenting vote.

The land swap is briefly described in the agenda packet as follows:

“The District will exchange a 10 acre parcel of land adjacent to the Seibel Soccer Park, referred to as the Loy land, for City property that includes the 6 most easterly lots of Kranz Park. Both properties have been valued to be like kind with equal or greater value of approximately $150,000. The City and the School District accept such valuation and consideration.”

You can find further the details of the proposed swap in the agenda packet here.

The reasons for City staff recommendation to proceed with the exchange are listed in the packet as follow:

1. The GFPS commenced the land swap process with the City in good faith. Staff believes the City should honor the District’s efforts and complete the exchange.

2. There are concerns by residents about parking around Great Falls High School. The swap demonstrates a willingness of the City to assist the school district with addressing the problem, which from time to time, requires City intervention.

3. Even though the City will not immediately use the exchanged property, or even has specific plans for it at this time, staff encourages the Commission to consider future options for the site that are complementary to long range park plans.

a) As the City grows eastwardly, the area is underserved by park and green space.

b) Utilization of the existing soccer complex is considerable. It is easy to recognize need in the future for additional recreation space, practice and/or play fields.

4. The School District has been previously approached by other private parties interested in purchasing this property adjacent to the Great Falls Soccer Complex. If the property was sold and eventually developed, it is unlikely that the City would be able acquire the parcel at a later date for expanded recreational opportunities as described above.

5. As indicated by the District, it does not have discretionary funds, other than the value of the property being swapped, to pay the City directly for the Kranz Park lots and commence parking area improvements.

I didn’t vote against the trade because I oppose 10 additional acres of City park or a parking lot for GFHS. My reasons for opposition to the land swap were these:

1. The commission was not provided with any analysis or estimates as to the cost of maintaining and developing 10 more acres of City park land, which will have to be mowed, weeded, watered, kept clean etc. or where the money would come from to maintain or develop the property.

I think we owe the taxpayers a better explanation as to how and why we’re spending their money.

2. The commission was not proved with a complete, professional appraisal of the taxpayer’s Kranz Park property before the swap was voted on, only a Cadastral card which is not good enough in my enough in my opinion. A professional appraisal was provided to the commission for the District’s property.

3. Neighborhood Council #9, the neighborhood surrounding Kranz Park, did not vote on the land swap as presented at Tuesday’s public hearing. While the NHC vote is not required, we should have heard from the folks in that neighborhood through their NHC before approving the swap.

I didn’t hear any compelling reasons as to why the land swap was an urgent matter. I argued that we should wait and hold the public hearing and vote after we had more time to gather information, 4 – 6 weeks at the most.

I think your City Commission owes you a more deliberative process than was delivered in this case.

You can watch the video of the public hearing and vote here.”

Timber

Philip M. Faccenda on January 18, 2021

If it wasn’t enough for the Great Falls Public School District to deforest the Great Falls High School original campus by cutting down 80 mature and environmentally beneficial city trees without a permit, now they want to do the same thing to a neighborhood icon, Kranz Park.

Donated to the City of Great Falls by the Kranz family in the first part of the last century, Kranz Park offers a shady respite for the residents of an older part of town. That apparently doesn’t mean a damn thing to the Great Falls Park and Recreation Department and its newly imported director, Steve Herrig.

You should be aware that asphalt parking lots act like heat sinks and can easily raise temperatures in the surrounding area, which just might add to your air conditioning bill.

Tomorrow’s city commission meeting will hold a public hearing on the trade of nearly one half of Kranz Park for 10 acres of school district owned swamp land on 57th Street.

At this point, the city doesn’t remotely need the swamp land since they have abandoned the lame idea of developing an indoor recreation and aquatics facility on the property adjacent to MAFB. And obtaining the swamp land would mean that the city would have to maintain the property at least to a minimum degree.

But heck, the taxpayers wont mind spending more of their hard-earned dollars for Herrig’s Folly to help the cash strapped school district because they couldn’t solve the parking problem at Great Falls High after spending $37M of taxpayer’s dollars.

The trade will require a 4/5’s vote of the city commission because vacating a city park is a big deal.

Dale Kranz, recently deceased, reported to the author just a few years ago when the issue first presented, that he was steadfastly opposed to turning any part of his family’s namesake park into a parking lot.

As I mentioned in a previous article, Great Falls has 57 parks, while Billings at twice our size has 47. We don’t need another 10-acre swamp park, unless there is some interpretive value in describing the geological history of Lake Great Falls.

Contact your city commissioners via email – commission@greatfallsmt.net – or phone and provide them with a little guidance on this matter. If you don’t, you will be the ones ultimately paying for this ill-advised trade.

Rubber Stamp

Philip M. Faccenda on January 15, 2021

What is the purpose of an elected city commission? As representatives of the citizens how should commissioners direct the affairs of government? Should they simply be an affirmative “rubber stamp” for staff policy and actions, or should they play a larger role in the decision-making process?

Some would say that we hire professionals to run our city because elected city commissioners can’t possibly know what it takes to run a city of our size. Take that at face value and it might typically be true, but in order to represent the people they serve, city commissioners and paid professional staff should operate at some degree of healthy equilibrium.

City commissioners are typically folks who have resided in Great Falls for some time and are familiar with our history. They deserve the opportunity to play a more active role in decision making and policy management when important issues arise.

A case in point is the $20M, now $20.2M, Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility process. Learning in May of 2020 that a Defense Department grant might be available for a long sought-after indoor pool facility, the Great Falls Park and Recreation Director, Steve Herrig, took the reins in his own hands to complete a pre-application with little more than a month before it was due.

Realizing that the City needed help to develop the application, Herrig called a couple of architectural firms and asked if they would be interested in the grant project. Four firms were solicited to provide a fee and qualifications.

This solicitation was not, I repeat, not, formally, or informally advertised so that all interested architectural firms could respond.

Later, the City Attorney, Sarah Sexe, advised that under Montana law it was not required to publicly advertise for services since the projected professional fee did not exceed $50K. In other words, the City could have called anyone of their choosing and awarded the contract.

The problem with that argument is that three other firms were asked to submit qualifications and fee proposals, but all firms in Great Falls were not. The City reported that fee proposals ran between $18.5K and $30K and the services project was awarded to the low bidder who touted their extensive experience with the soils conditions at the originally listed site and later announced that they would donate their services for free.

The elected city commission did not provide oversight and review of the method for securing the grant development services.

If the city commissioners had been consulted, they surely would have required that all local firms were notified, and afforded the opportunity to respond.

At the October 13, 2020 city commission meeting, Park and Recreation Director Steve Herrig responded to claims that the process was unfair by saying that the city was not required to hold a competitive request for proposals, “By state statute, we didn’t have to go after bids for proposals, we could have just appointed it. We felt this was the best way”.

Director Herrig was wrong and the subsequent RFP published in August proved his lack of experience by including a rendering of the facility by the firm that was awarded the pre-application contract, something that is never done in an RFP. It is no wonder that concerns were raised that the “playing field was not level”.

Great Falls Aquatic Center Exceeds Speed Limit

Philip M. Faccenda on January 13, 2021

It doesn’t matter how big a hurry you are in, it pays to obey traffic signals. As we all know, not following traffic laws can negatively impact your safety and your wallet.

Most traffic laws are based upon good old common sense. Speeding, distracted driving and observing the conditions of the road are some primary examples.

Other endeavors also require some rules of the road, such as the development of a $20M Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility. First, it is important not to put the cart before the horse. In most cases reasonable planning principles should dictate that a site which has been thoroughly examined for suitable conditions should be chosen before the design work begins.

Click here for my article on Aquatics Center cronyism, ‘Foot In The Door’.

If you discount the obvious and the technical planning issues of a particular site, problems will most likely appear as the design process and cost analysis moves forward. And they have.

In a rush to produce the most attractive pre-application for the Department of Defense $10M grant it seems as though corners were cut and caution was thrown to the wind.

First, the City chose a site directly adjacent to the main entrance to MAFB because they felt that would enhance their chance of securing the $10M grant. The site was too small to accommodate a facility of this size. The initial site for the pre-application was known to have undesirable soils conditions which would require an atypical foundation design which would cost more. The architectural program was not fully delineated.

The preeminent error was believing that a site as close to MAFB as possible should be weighted more heavily than other considerations like soils conditions and construction costs. Every part of Great Falls is convenient to the base.

Additionally, 50% of base personnel don’t even live on-base. They live all over town and only one half of one percent do not have a car. It takes about 12 minutes to drive from the main gate at the base to fourth street and tenth avenue south.

The second site chosen was the school district property adjacent to the soccer fields. It would certainly seem like a win-win proposition for the city to make a trade with the school district for a portion of Kranz Park realizing that after spending $37M on Great Falls High School they still were not able to solve their parking problem.

After the city found out that the soils conditions on the west side of 57th street were pretty much the same as on the east side of 57th street and it would cost an extra $2.6M to provide for poor soils conditions. The city manager nixed that plan because we only have $20M to spend and it wouldn’t a good idea to compromise the program.

The City Park and Recreation Director, as previously reported, thought it was still a good idea to make the trade with the school district to help them out and provide a 10 acre park for the east end of town.

Great vision you say; we only have 57 parks in Great Falls. Billings, with twice the population has 47.

The third property looked at for the new facility was North Kiwanis Park. The base apparently said no to that site.

Now, the city is proposing Lions Park, but the residents around the park have not been consulted and several are openly opposed to the idea.

We know that the base doesn’t want us to build a facility that will have structural concerns, no matter where we build it.

The next article in the series about the Recreation and Aquatics Facility will explore Warden Park as a possible site.

Lions Park Indoor Recreation & Aquatics Facility

Philip M. Faccenda on January 4, 2021

As I suggested in a previous article, by all measure the new Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility should be developed at Lions Park.

Lions Park is centrally located, has suitable soils conditions, affords access to hotels and restaurants, is a six-minute drive from MAFB and is of sufficient size while still leaving ample buffers for the adjacent neighboring single-family homes.

The two sites previously considered, the much too small site at 10th Avenue North and 57th Street and the Siebel Soccer Field, had more cons than pros, as I pointed out in Forget The Carrot, Keep Your Eye On The Ball.

In my opinion, the site selection process has been flawed from the beginning and the only way to move forward on the project is to reevaluate the program and seek a more creative design approach that responds to a particular appropriate site.

Lions Park is located in a transitional zone between residential and commercial land uses and the architectural design for the facility should reflect, and reinforce that transitional zone.

A project at Lions Park should respect and enhance the existing environment of the park and not simply be of a transportable design that was developed in haste for a different site, or sites.

It is time to strongly consider the previous consultant selection process and solicit contextual design solutions that can benefit our community. And yes, community members should be represented in a new selection process, not just city employees.

Forget The Carrot, Keep Your Eye On The Ball

Philip M. Faccenda on December 30, 2020

If you are asking why the site selection for the new proposed Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility looks like a train wreck waiting to happen, you are not alone.

If you have been a resident of Great Falls for even a few years, you probably are aware of the soils issues on the east end of town. With their eye on the carrot, the $10M grant from the Department of Defense, the City took its collective eye off of the ball and salivated at the prospect of a big federal grant which would pay one half of the cost to develop a long- acknowledged need in our community.

The City failed to do even a modest amount of due diligence when they attempted to submit a successful pre application for the potential grant, thinking that siting their proposal very close to Malmstrom AFB would enhance their chances of consideration in a field of many applicants.

The first site selected was recognized as soils challenged and too small. That didn’t matter, and they proceeded.

After the City’s application made the short list, they learned that a 10 acre parcel located on the west side of 57th Street and adjacent to the Siebel Soccer Fields and owned by the school district could be available by trading a portion of Kranz Park.

After spending $37M dollars at Great Falls High School, the school district wasn’t able to solve the 60 year old problem of a parking shortage. They even bought the Campfire Girls property for $100K, only to learn that parking for 11 cars wouldn’t solve the problem.

They cut down 80 mature trees and destroyed the historic campus by tearing up lawns for more parking.

At this point, you might ask how our community leaders can be so stupid and wasteful with taxpayer dollars. It’s simple, it’s not their money, it’s yours. That, and a lack of real planning.

Of course, the City learned that the soils on the west side of 57th Street was pretty much the same as on the east side of 57th Street and later learned it would cost an additional $2.6M in construction costs.

During the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP) from architectural firms in September, Faccenda Architects, recognizing the problematic soils on the 10 acre referenced site, requested the City’s contact at the OEA for the Federal grant in order to provide some clarification on the siting issue. The following is the Park and Recreation director’s response:

Sept 17, 2020 email.

“Mr. Faccenda:

Thank you for your inquiry during our conversation last week. In summary, it is my understanding that you want to talk to the City’s Office of Economic Adjustment liaison regarding the City’s preferred location for the new Recreation/Aquatics Facility. The purpose of the call, presumably, is to argue against locating the facility on Great Falls School District property south of the City’s Siebel Soccer Complex.”

I would hope Mr. Herrig would agree that “Advise” would have been a better choice of words than “Argue”.

After this exchange, our firm decided that an RFP proposal would be disingenuous when we concluded that the adherence to the City’s site choice would only result in scaling back the program in order to work within the established budget.

Lions Park

We have since advocated for the Lions Park site which is a mere 6 to 7 minute drive from MAFB.

Faced with an unwise trade with the school district, at the December 15th City Commission meeting as reported by The Electric news blog, Mr. Herrig said “that regardless of the DOD grant, he’d like to pursue that property and talked with Neighborhood Council 4 last year about a park in that area that “would enhance that quality of life for the folks out in that area.”

Another 10 acre park to be maintained by the taxpayers?

It could be time to start a new consultant selection process with a new site and program that meets the needs of our community.

Tell us what you think.

And let your Great Falls City Commission know what you think by emailing them at commission@greatfallsmt.net

Tryon’s GF City Commisison Update: Animal Shelter, Voyagers, COVID-19

Rick Tryon on December 17, 2020

Here are a few Great Falls City Commission updates and answers to questions and comments I’ve received from folks recently.

COVID-19

City County Health Officer Trisha Gardiner provided an update at Tuesday’s city commission meeting and there’s some good news: the numbers in Cascade County are heading in the right direction over the past week or so with fewer positive tests, hospitalizations and COVID-19 deaths.

Add that to the news that Cascade County/Great Falls received our first shipment of vaccines this week and it looks like we’re finally seeing the beginning of the end of the pandemic.

I asked Gardiner about citizen concerns over the CCHD anonymous tip line for reporting local business non-compliance with mask and other mandates.

Her response was that both the State and County have tip lines but that the County asks for, but does not require, names and contact info for those reporting non-compliance issues.

She further added that the County contacts any business that has been reported for non-compliance to get their side of story and that so far the County has not levied any fines for non-compliance.

You can find City Commission meeting details and info here.

Animal Shelter

At the City Commission work session we heard from Deputy City Manager Chuck Anderson concerning the Animal Shelter Request for Proposal (RFP) response from the Maclean-Cameron Animal Adoption Center and City staff’s final analysis and recommendations as well as response from MCACC Board members.

You can view all of the presented materials here.

Great Falls Voyagers

The Commission voted 4-1 to deny a request from Great Falls Baseball Club, Inc. for 2020 rent forgiveness in the amount of $10,648 for Centene Stadium, home of the Great Falls Voyagers. I voted with Mayor Kelly and Commissioners Moe and Houck to deny the request. Commissioner Robinson voted in favor of the rent forgiveness.

Mayor Kelly proposed deferring the payments over ten years with no interest charge, so the GFBC Inc. will pay about extra $1000 per year for rent on the stadium for the next ten years. I will support that proposal if it comes to the Commission.

For me the issue wasn’t about getting money in the City’s general fund. It was about the message that we would be sending to the many local businesses and their employees who also had to shut down and lose incomes because of COVID-19 without a subsidy from the City or ‘forgiveness’ of their City utility bills or other expenses.

To my mind those employees and businesses are no less valuable to the community than the Great Falls Voyagers.

In fact many of our suffering local businesses don’t come anywhere near to the luxury of having a business relationship with a billion dollar industry like Major League Baseball.

I love baseball and I love our local farm club but for me this was a simple issue of fairness and equity. The Voyagers will be fine.

Stay tuned for more regular City Commission updates.

Pulling The Plug

Philip M. Faccenda on December 11, 2020

It may be time to pull the plug on the new Great Falls aquatics and recreation center.

At the December 1 Great Falls City Commission meeting, City Manager Greg Doyon gave an update on the design progress of the proposed facility. Mr. Doyon emphasized that fiscal sustainability and addressing the well-known soils deficiencies of the chosen site were top priorities.

He went on to report that architectural and engineering work is moving at a breakneck pace because of the accelerated timeline to complete the work.

According to Mr. Doyon, the selected design team of architects and geotechnical engineers advised that construction costs for the structure’s foundation on the highly undesirable soils at the proposed site would be $2.6M, or, about $95 per square foot.

The depth to suitable bearing is 60 feet. It is helpful to understand the magnitude of the contributing loads for an aquatic facility. A 50 meter swimming pool 25 meters wide with a minimum depth of 2 meters holds 660,430 gallons of water at 8.3lbs per gallon.

That means the pool water alone weighs almost 5.5 million lbs. Not something you want to construct on poor soils.

The City Manager went on to say that newly estimated higher cost of $2.6M could reduce the programmed spaces in the proposed facility that the community is expecting and the projected revenues needed to make the center sustainable.

At this point, the only two ways forward would be:

  1. An alternate site with more desirable soils conditions for the facility, or securing more funding from the DOD in addition to the original grant for $10M.
  2. Securing additional funding.

It is important to note that the $10M from the City Park Fund, and the $10M from the DOD grant are both taxpayer dollars.

I believe the best strategy moving forward would be to choose another city-owned site for the project and let the DOD chips fall where they may.

A cursory examination of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1965, “Depth-to-Bedrock Map”, indicates two city-owned properties of sufficient size and soils conditions that should be considered.

One is the unimproved portion of Warden Park west of the school district administration building, and the other is Lion’s Park with frontage on 10th avenue south.

Both sites have convenient access to hotels, restaurants, a major arterial to and from the base, and yes, financial partnership opportunities.

Studies of similar facilities list regional swim meets as the top on-going revenue generator. Swim meets also brings money into the city and that benefits a number of local businesses.

That’s why we should keep a 50 meter pool in the program. We should not forget the Four Seasons vs the Metra competition that has held Great Falls back for years.

Most people who have followed the Indoor Recreation and Aquatics Facility process are left scratching their heads and saying, “How did this thing get so screwed up?”

Well, here are some possible answers:

  • When the original site, 10th Avenue North and 57th Street was deemed too small to accommodate the program, the City traded a portion of Kranz Park to the school district for 10 acres adjacent to the soccer fields.
  • Before effecting the trade, a soils investigation was not done.
  • The A&E firm selected for the $20M project is the same firm that completed the DOD grant pre-application.
  • The selection committee did not include any members from the public.

It would seem that the City now owns a 10 acre site suited for mud puppies and tadpoles.

If we can’t do this project right, then it might be time to call a mulligan and pull the plug before it ends up like the Electric City Power fiasco.

I’d like to know what our readers think.

Great Falls City Commission Hypocrisy

Philip M. Faccenda on November 24, 2020

While hypocrisy isn’t exclusive to politicians, it certainly is more disappointing when we see it in our elected officials.

Case in point. At last week’s Great Falls City Commission work session, Commissioner Mary Moe presented a draft resolution addressing nondiscrimination, which she authored. Her cover letter includes the following:

“I am attaching a draft resolution that would accomplish something really substantive in addressing the concerns we heard last night. I think we could do something that really moves the needle in terms of public understanding, tolerance, and commitment to eliminating bias, and I am excited about that possibility.”

Based on this draft resolution and her previous comments on inclusivity and nondiscrimination it appears that Commissioner Moe feels very strongly about women’s advancement in society and the workplace. She talks the talk, but does she walk the walk?

During the recent selection of an architectural firm to help coordinate the construction of the City’s new indoor recreation and aquatics facility, Moe voted to hire the City-appointed selection committee’s recommendation without reviewing the committee’s scoring sheets or the proposals/designs of the 10 submitting firms.

It was known that one of the firms was a woman owned firm. In the selection committee’s ranking, Spark Architecture came in a very close second.

Not once did Commissioner Moe publicly recognize that the City’s own procurement policy is committed to inclusivity and the advancement of women and other Section 3 applicants for public contracts.

The City’s policy states; “Affirmative steps must be taken to assure that minority and women-owned businesses are used, when possible, as sources of supplies, equipment, construction and services. Grantees need to comply with Section 3 reporting requirements and should be pro-active in utilizing firms with a majority of Section 3 employees.”

It is important to note that Section 3 businesses are not entitled to receive contracts simply by being listed in HUD’s Section 3 Business Registry database.

Eligible businesses may need to demonstrate that they are responsible and have the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of proposed contracts. Section 3 requirements at federal statute 24 CFR 135, then provides preference for contracts and subcontracts to these firms – but not a guarantee.

Keep in mind that this project includes $10M of Federal funds.

Spark Architecture’s combined score was only behind the City’s selection committee’s recommended firm by 4%. Typical affirmative action practices award a section 3 applicant a 5% add-on.

Note: The above architectural rendering was part of Spark Architecture’s submission.

Spark Architecture’s principal has been directly involved in several similar aquatics facility projects during her practice in Arizona.

As a side note, I am reminded of President of the Great Falls Development Authority, Brett Doney’s comment that in order to promote economic development in our city, “We must work to recruit and retain young talent”.

We should all ask if in this case, whether the infamous Good Ol’ Boys Club in Great Falls trumped our elected official’s hollow words of inclusivity and nondiscrimination.