E-City Beat✓

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.

With three of the four major building projects from the $98M bond levy currently under way, it is important to ask, “How did we get here”? Have the projects produced good results? And has the process of the selection of design consultants been carried out honestly, transparently, and with accountability? I, of course have my opinion on the matter and after reading this expose you can form your own.

The story begins 2009 when then GFPS Superintendent Cheryl Crawley established what was first called the Facilities Long Range Task Force and for brevity what I will call the Facilities Task Force, FTF. After officially appointing a hand-picked group of local people without soliciting for anyone who was interested in serving on the committee, the new committee members were loaded on a big yellow school bus for a tour of all the schools in the District. Principals of two local architectural firms, (LPW, CTA) were chosen to serve on the FTF at the exclusion of other local architectural firms. One representative from the local engineering firm, (TDH) was also chosen to serve on FTF, at the exclusion of other local engineering firms.

After several meetings, the committee produced recommendations for improvements and repairs to the schools and recommended that Great Falls High School be dealt with individually since it needed more extensive work. And do you think a bigger budget and a bigger architectural fee may have been part of that recommendation?

“After several meetings, the committee produced recommendations for improvements and repairs to the schools and recommended that Great Falls High School be dealt with individually since it needed more extensive work. And do you think a bigger budget and a bigger architectural fee may have been part of that recommendation?”

The FTF Committee’s work also resulted in the District awarding an $8.3M Energy Savings (ESCO) contact for retrofitting all District schools with energy saving features, (non-competitively awarded), to the McKinstry Company, a company that one of the FTF members worked for. (Note: Three ESCO companies were invited to interview for the proposed contract. The other two firms did not have employees who were appointed to serve on the FTF.)

McKinstry, the firm awarded the ESCO contract, subcontracted much of the architectural and engineering work to local firms and guess who benefited from those subcontracts?
On February 22, 2010 Superintendent Crawley presented a Board Agenda Action Item to accept the FTF Committee’s recommendation to allocate $150,000 from the District Maintenance Deferred Schedule for a Great Falls High Master Planning project.

At this point, the District decided to advertise through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), but having no experience writing the advertisement; remember the District’s pronouncement that the District hadn’t built a new school, or solicited professional planning services in over 50 years, they hired the TFT member’s firm (TDH) to write it and paid them handsomely.

Editor’s Note: A Groundbreaking ceremony for construction for Great Falls High is scheduled for Monday, May 21 at 3:30 PM. Conveniently when most folks have to be at work. If you can be there I’m sure protestors are welcome!