Sadly, we have to report that the Great Falls Public School District, with a vote of 7 to 0, effectively decided to demolish the historic Hi School Store (Campfire building) at 1925 2nd Avenue South to make room for a small surface parking lot. With unanimous support of your elected school board trustees, the district’s administration can execute the buy-sell agreement dated 1-17-18 for $100,000 and move forward with their ill-advised attempt to solve the parking problem at Great Falls High School. (see my article, “Solutions Anyone”)
According to Superintendent Lacey, “Given the parking issues at GFHS, GFPS will continue to look for other properties to purchase” Tammy’s Top Ten on Tuesday Feb 20, 2018. I guess you had better hope your neighbor doesn’t sell his property to the District if you don’t want a parking lot next door.
“According to Superintendent Lacey, “Given the parking issues at GFHS, GFPS will continue to look for other properties to purchase” Tammy’s Top Ten on Tuesday Feb 20, 2018. I guess you had better hope your neighbor doesn’t sell his property to the District if you don’t want a parking lot next door.”
Since the property is zoned R-3 Single Family Residential it will have to be rezoned to allow a parking lot, as would all future residential properties purchased by the District. This would certainly seem to follow the accepted definition of ‘spot zoning’, which has been held to be illegal in most places. Would this be something the City Commission would be likely to do? Admittedly, the process to rezone the property is just starting and it has many hurdles to clear.
How will this, and other off-campus mini parking lots be paid for? Again, Lacey says; “Bond proceeds will be used for this purchase as well as any related improvements to it”; Tammy’s Top Ten on Tuesday Feb 20, 2018.
Does the District have a plan “B”?
On March 6th, 5:30PM, Lacey will make a presentation to the City Commission Work Session detailing why the school district would like to acquire approximately 1/3 of Kranz Park; almost 1 acre of park land, for a significantly larger surface parking lot. Maybe time for a little Joni Mitchell; “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. Again, a zoning issue, an environmental issue and an economic issue.
Judging from past discussions led by previous Park and Recreation Director Joe Petrella, Kranz Park is not, and never will be, on the auction block. So it would seem there will be an uphill slog for the school district’s desired acquisition of Kranz Park. So much for plan “B”.
Unfortunately, the school district is steadfast in its rejection of structured parking as a solution to the parking problem at Great Falls High School.
Please let the GFPS School Board trustees know how you feel by sending them an email. Your single email will reach all seven board members.
And please weigh in on the E-City Beat Poll right now:
At the School Board meeting on February 2, 2018, on the agenda item concerning the sale of more bonds from the nearly $100 million dollar bond levy, the audience was asked to provide public comment. According to citizen Cyndi Baker, this is what happened next:
“I raised my hand and asked if there was a way the public could see information regarding the construction account — how much was in there, what checks were being written out of it. Brian Patrick said, ‘I never thought of that. I guess we could do that.’
Tammy Lacey said, ‘You can always make a records request for that information.’ I replied, ‘But you charge for that, sometimes hundreds of dollars. You guys are always talking about transparency and we are talking tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Why can’t that be on the website?’ No one replied after that comment.”
Baker has a point. The District IS always touting its commitment to “transparency.” Publishing an accounting of nearly one tenth of a billion dollars worth of expenditures would be a great way to shed some sunlight.
What do you think?
Is Baker right, and should the District post this information on its website?
Or do you agree with Superintendent Lacey, and should we citizens have to jump through the hoops and PAY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MONEY for the privilege of viewing OUR public records?
Perpetually Angry Reader Dennis Granlie is at it again. This morning, the former GFPS music teacher unleashed another broadside against E-City Beat, even attacking our readers.
While there is little doubt that Granlie derives self-edification from spewing the same personal attacks time and again, it is disappointing that he cannot move beyond the staid “losers” schtick. Even invective deserves originality.
For those who know Granlie, his preference for ad hominem attacks over substantive engagement on issues comes as little surprise — this itself, an admission of Granlie’s lack of any real ideas. While we would welcome a sincere, policy-centered discussion with Granlie, he (again) seems incapable of submitting anything but incoherent rage.
Commissioner Mary Moe, who had asked that the pool fee proposal be pushed from the originally planned Feb. 6 meeting, said she opposed the 50 cent increase.
She said that if families made one trip to the pool, 50 cents wouldn’t be an issue, but if they go more often, the additional cost adds up.
She said she was having trouble getting used to the idea of an enterprise fund, which is how pools is currently set up. Parking, water, sewer, golf and other city funds are also enterprise funds.
Moe said she wanted to see more effort to increase usage at city pools and collaborate with other community groups to promote physical activity for all ages, but especially children.
“I’m unwilling to go down this road of hiking a free [sic] for a pool that nobody is using,” Moe said.
This is well stated. Perhaps Moe grasps the concept of inelastic demand and that, if you continue to raise fees, a great number of folks will feel priced out and will stop utilizing the City’s pools. I hope she considers this the next time the City inevitably moves to raise golf fees.
Even more consequentially, Moe took a righteous stand at the previous City Commission meeting on the City’s shameless foray into the opioid litigation “let’s hope something sticks” money-grab attempt. As the lone “nay” vote, Moe sensibly argued that pursuing litigation against the opioid manufacturers would unnecessary divert staff time and resources. It was a principled dissent, and I was impressed by her independence.
While Moe and I will have to agree to disagree on Columbus Day (and probably more than just Columbus Day), since I have been critical of her, I only thought it would be fair to give her kudos where it’s deserved, because while we may criticize our elected officials, that doesn’t mean it’s personal.
Do you subscribe to Superintendent Tammy Lacey’s newsletter? It’s called Tammy’s Top 10 on Tuesday. If you’re interested in public education in Great Falls, you should.
Not only does it have an alliterative title, it also contains a lot of useful, interesting information. One item that got my attention in yesterday’s letter was the third heading under point #4 about the Facility Project Update:
“The Board will also take final action at the Board meeting on Thursday to purchase property contiguous to GFHS on the corner of 20th Street and 2nd Ave. S. Bond proceeds will be used for this purchase as well as any related improvements to it. The bond language, approved by a majority vote, outlined approved expenditures to include, “…acquiring property contiguous to or in the vicinity of the Great Falls High School campus for additional parking.” Given the parking issues at GFHS, GFPS will continue to look for other properties to purchase.”
That’s the School District’s plan to solve the parking problem at GFHS. The District wants to buy up homes with bond money, raze them, and then convert the land into surface parking lots. According to the District, they are short 300-400 parking spaces for GFHS. Assuming a single lot can supply 20 parking spaces, that’s potentially 15-20 individual lots, not an insignificant number. This raises an issue I wrote about previously with the Campfire building:
“[The] property is currently a non-conforming use on a lot which is zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. Under the District’s plan the property would have to be rezoned and the immediate neighbors might not be too pleased.”
Look at this zoning map. Everything surrounding GFHS is zoned either R-3 or R-5. Can parking lots be built within R-3 or R-5 zoning? Not according to the City’s land use code (see p. 5).
So….. what about the zoning?
What if the residents who live in the area decide they would rather live next to the single family properties that they always have? What if these same residents object to the idea of high school kids zooming in and out of parking lots right next to their homes? What if they organize and mobilize against rezoning requests at the Neighborhood Council and Planning Board levels? What if the City considers all of this, and then determines that it simply is not in the best interests of the neighborhood to dice it up with a smattering of parking lots? What if the City decides that the land use code was implemented for a reason, and that it should be adhered to and followed? What if Craig Raymond and Tom Micuda and City staff DON’T rejoice at the prospect of littering the City grid with spot-zoned parking lots, one after another….. after another….. after another?
In other words, what if the City tells the School District, “No”?
Then what?
It’s amazing to me that this is the District’s stated approach. Let’s say you wanted to buy a property, and you wanted to buy it with X purpose in mind, only the property is zoned for Y. Would you expend your time, money, and resources to purchase the property with the hope that the City will bend its rules for you? (Now, assume you also have to repeat this process 15-20 additional times.) Or, would you search for alternative solutions?
To be fair, the School District has mitigated its (and our) financial risk by negotiating a rezoning contingency into the Buy/Sell. But what if the City approves the Campfire rezone, only to deny subsequent applications? The District would have spent probably close to $200,000 for one spec-sized parking lot that won’t come close to solving the actual problem.
This spring, voters will decide whether to support or defeat another tax burden for the already strapped taxpayers of Great Falls.
The park district resolution passed at the February 6 commission meeting. Voters will be asked on May 8 whether they’re willing to create and fund a Great Falls park district. The discussion at the commission meeting took an interesting turn when Commissioner Bronson chose to comment on park lands.
Speaking about the parks, Commissioner Bronson mentioned our city’s founder Paris Gibson was a strong proponent of park lands. “Gibson realized that when you construct a city you have to have those open spaces…I would certainly hope that anybody who has concerns about the fees that are being requested keeps Mr. Gibson’s vision in mind when they go forward…”
To that I would reply that open spaces are quite a bit different from highly developed and maintained parks. The city of Great Falls has 57 parks. Some are merely open spaces but most have some degree of development requiring maintenance. Seems like the commissioner is comparing apples to oranges. Not as much maintenance cost with the open spaces Gibson envisioned versus developed parks.
Also, times have changed and some parks are underutilized. Video games, organized sports and the internet seem to rule the youth of our society. Whereas I spent most of my childhood outdoors nearly every waking hour that I wasn’t in school, I really don’t see that happening as much now with our youth.
Next, Bronson spent a little time blasting the state legislature for forcing municipalities to put questions like park district creation on the same ballot as school district elections. The way he spoke about the legislature, he made it sound like their whole purpose was to put a monkey wrench into everything Montana municipalities try to do.
“This is another example of how the legislature, for reasons totally unknown, always manages to make it difficult for us, in the cities and towns, to govern our own affairs, even to the point of whether we can ask the question or put the question before our voters; do you want to do something like this?”
Commissioner Bronson added, “It’s unfortunate we have to be put in a position of competition with our friends in the public school system.”
“Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.”
Yes, I guess since the Great Falls Public School District is considering asking for money this May for operating expenses, people are less likely to want to vote for two tax increases on the May ballot.
Bronson went on to bring up a recent letter to the editor that questioned why the city can’t just sell unused park lands. He went on to explain why that wasn’t feasible.
“Trust me, if our staff, which supervises our resources, honestly believed that was a workable option, they would have come to us and made that suggestion,” he said. “The reason they have not is that they know, as the commission does, that it will not work…
Nothing probably brings out more opposition from the neighborhood councils, the neighbors in those areas, the parents of school children, than to even have a discussion about that concept….
They know as well as we do, sure you could put a piece of parkland on the market, but we have to have it appraised, the buyer has to pay at least the appraised value, and then what are they going to put…what use are they going to put it to. It’s in a residential area, if the suggestion is that it’s going to become commercial or something else, imagine the war whoops from the neighbors, again that you’re taking a piece of open space and converting it to some kind of commercial or business use in their backyard….
Staff has already considered that in the past and it’s been rejected because it’s not a viable option….”
So then why did the city commission just sell off a small portion of Lions Park recently to an adjacent landowner for business purposes?
The city commission voted unanimously to pass Ordinance 3184, which rezoned a 12 feet wide by 132.5 feet long strip of Lions Park from POS Parks and Open Space to C-2 General Commercial, and sell that land to PBA Properties, LLC.
Okay, so it’s a seemingly inconsequential little piece of land—but it’s still parkland, isn’t it? It appears the line in the sand that Bronson claims the commission and city staff won’t cross to sell parkland isn’t a line after all. It’s also not the first time parklands have been considered for sale.
Previous park master plans have identified certain parklands as surplus and the city subsequently sold some of them. For example, the city commission voted to sell a little over two acres to Meadowlark Country Club back in June 1999. In 2003, city staff recommended sale of the park land Block 1 and 2, Park Place Addition to Plains Grains Limited Partnership and the city commission approved the sale in May 2003.
There weren’t any “war whoops” on those properties, so indeed some parklands are sold without protest from the public.
In 2013, the city commission, including Commission Bronson looked at possible sales of city parkland during a presentation about the Great Falls park system at the commission work session on February 19, 2013.
From the meeting minutes:
“Park and Recreation Director Marty Basta provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Great Falls park system. He noted that many parks were acquired as an obligation by a developer to provide park land as part of the development….
Commissioner Jones would like to pursue the possible sale of the Clara property and Boston Heights Park, and either enforcement of encroachments or the possible sale of the West Hill property….
In addition to the recommendations made by Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Bronson believes the possible sale of the Skyline Addition property should also be pursued…” (emphasis added)
As is obvious from all of the above, the city has entertained selling underutilized parks and surplus park land in the past—so why not in conjunction with the latest park master plan? I haven’t even seen any parkland identified as surplus or underutilized in the latest plan. Why not?
For many of us squeezed by an ever-increasing tax burden, it comes down to this—would we rather see another tax increase or the sale of underutilized/surplus parkland?
The city of Great Falls has also leased out parkland to other entities, including the pasta plant and Great Falls Public Schools. Perhaps the park director and his staff should take a look at those leases to determine whether they are really at market value.
You know who deserves some credit? Jenn Rowell, that’s who!
Rowell is a former Tribune reporter who now runs The Electric, a local news site. Unfortunately, she seems a little upset with us today. This morning we ran a story about HUD coming down on various conflicts of interest within the city’s CDBG program. We pointed to information (including the letter from HUD, a public document) that was posted on Rowell’s website. Within minutes, Rowell took issue with us on our Facebook page:
It’s true! Rowell posted it before we did. She published yesterday and we ran our piece today. However, as stated above, we DID include a link from our post to her’s. Isn’t that what bloggers do? You link back to other sources. We even identified her publication, The Electric, by name in that very link. If Rowell’s complaint is that we did not specifically state that the public document itself was published by her first, then I will concede that she has a point. Our original post has been updated to reflect this. I will happily admit that she ran the document before anyone else, including us. It was never the intention of ECity Beat to suggest otherwise.
And that’s OK by me. Frankly, we’re not consumed with breaking news so much as we are with providing commentary. If someone else gets a story out there, great! We just want to talk about it. I’m much more interested in providing a platform for real DIALOGUE about local issues.
That said, we do want to get it right. We won’t piggyback on someone else’s reporting without at least linking back to their story. In this instance, we provided a link, but it could and should have been attributed better….. ie., in the form of a second link that exists now.
Rowell is right when she says that giving credit where it’s due is how things are done in the journalism business. I appreciate her for reminding us of that fact.
I can’t help but note, however, what a few of our readers took the time to remind me of earlier today: that WE were the ones who broke the CDBG story in the first place. As I read through The Electric’s archived content about the city and CDBG….. and I looked and looked….. I noticed that while a lot of the established facts were the same as what we had initially written, I didn’t see one iota of credit to ECity Beat for OUR original reporting anywhere, which as Rowell intones is “customary in the news business.” (In contrast, Trib reporter David Murray credited ECity Beat in his first article on the subject. Thanks David!)
Amusing ironies aside, I did want to address this issue, since a sincere effort was made to provide attribution. Could it have been executed better, and more precisely? Absolutely! Next time, we will.
Finally, I do want to say that Rowell (truly) breaks more news than anyone in Great Falls and on the whole she does good work. Her site is more newsy, ours is more of a blog. I think that, collectively, The Electric and ECity Beat provide a nice complement to the gaping hole that exists in traditional local media. And I sincerely hope everyone reads her site! The more sources out there, like her’s, to get our local government’s dealings out to the public, the better served we all are.
In a brutal rebuke to the City of Great Falls, and to Commissioner Bill Bronson in particular, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suspended funding related to the City’s CDBG program. In a letter addressed to the City (originally published by The Electric), HUD declared the following with respect to Bronson:
“Carol Bronson’s relationship to Bill Bronson and her position with NeighborWorks Great Falls creates a conflict of interest, because of the exposure to “inside information” and potential for financial benefit for herself and the organization.”
For years, loathsome “naysayers” who had the audacity to ask questions citizens have crowed that Bronson should step aside from these matters, and not participate in Commission business that awarded money to NWGF, where his wife, Carol, is employed.
Now that HUD has heard the “case,” it turns out that Bronson, always “the smartest guy in the room,” probably should have listened to his hoi polloi constituents.
This is a special time of year for me and my family. Presidents Day holds so much meaning and so many great memories for me even now as an adult.
When I was a kid, every year my brothers and I, with barely contained excitement and anticipation, would count down the days until that magical, magical day – Presidents Day! And now that I have children and even grandchildren of my own, the wonder and excitement is still there.
Of course almost as great as Presidents Day was Presidents Day Eve for my brothers and me.
It was a treasured tradition in my family that every Presidents Day Eve my dad would dress up like Lincoln and my mom would put on her George Washington nose and wig and we would fill a thermos with sugared hot tea and drive through town looking for all the streets named after presidents so we could gaze at the street signs all lit up by the street lights.
“Then, after we came home, us kids would get ready for bed. But we could barely sleep. Because the next day was Presidents Day and we knew that while we slept the current President, LBJ or Nixon at the time, would come to our house and hide one and five dollar bills for all good children.”
And oh what a glorious morning every Presidents Day morning was! We’d get up at 5:00 AM and search for the bills with Washington and Lincoln pictures on them.
Yeah, we knew we were just lower middle class kids and that some rich kids were probably finding Jeffersons and even Franklins (even though he was never a President). But it didn’t matter, we were just thrilled that another Presidents Day was finally here!
We’d spend the day enjoying our ones and fives while mom and dad lounged around in their pajamas drinking more sugared tea and preparing the big Presidents Day dinner, usually followed up with a dessert consisting of a chocolate cake shaped like the Whitehouse.
To cap off the evening dad would read the Gettysburg Address or Washington’s Second Inaugural. Then to bed we’d go and start the countdown for next year.
On this Presidents Day Eve, as I think back on those happy days, I can’t help but be a little sad. Presidents Day has become so commercial and shallow. It’s just a paid government holiday and excuse to have a Presidents Day Sale at mattress stores.
So I guess my biggest wish this Presidents Day is that we all take a moment to reflect and try to keep the ‘Millard Fillmore’ in Presidents Day.
Oh, and I’m sure that many folks are relieved, and many disappointed as well knowing that it’s Biden, not Trump, who will be sneaking into your house and hiding Lincolns and Washingtons for the next four years…maybe.
In yesterday’s piece, “Another Bad Decision”, we questioned whether it would be wise for the GFPS District to purchase the existing historic Campfire Girls’ property at 1925 2nd Avenue South adjacent to Great Falls High School, demolish the building and construct a small parking lot for approximately 20 cars at an estimated cost of $10K per stall.
Most people commenting were outraged that the school district would be so foolish as to spend $100K of taxpayer’s money to buy the property and then tear down the historic structure and build a parking lot, another $100K, so small that it “would hardly make a dent” in the parking shortage at Great Falls High. Others were concerned about losing a valuable part of the school’s history. A couple of angry readers even commented, “don’t bring us problems, bring us solutions”, and “Put up, or Shut up”.
“To recap, Great Falls High has had a parking problem for at least 50 years, I know because I attended GFHS. This condition has caused homeowners in the area a good deal of angst for a long time.”
To recap, Great Falls High has had a parking problem for at least 50 years, I know because I attended GFHS. This condition has caused homeowners in the area a good deal of angst for a long time.
During the GFHS Master Planning process, the District floated several half-baked ideas which they felt could be solutions to the parking dilemma. One was to purchase a residential property on the northeast corner of 20th Street and 4th Avenue South, tear the existing home down and construct a surface parking lot. Another idea, and one that is now planned for execution, is to tear up a substantial portion of the northeast corner of the original campus to build a significantly larger surface lot.
Keep in mind that the entire 4-block original campus is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and not just the historic building itself. It’s a bad plan to make it look like Walmart.
Asphalt parking lots by their very nature are not environmentally friendly. They act as “heat sinks” which can cause increased loads on building cooling systems and they increase water run-off because they do not allow the ground to absorb water. Additionally, surface lots create stress to landscape materials, something that gives a unique character to the GFHS campus. Another bad idea.
Another “brilliant” district solution was to create parking behind the south scoreboard at Memorial Stadium which would necessitate the removal of a good portion of the wrought iron fence and brick columns with lichen covered capitals. Another bad idea.
OK, it’s time to “put up, or shut up”! Here’s the only solution short of buying a half, or a full block of houses adjacent to GFHS and tearing them down to create an “asphalt jungle”. It’s called structured parking, or what’s commonly called a parking structure.
Some will no doubt say: Where do we put a parking structure, how much will it cost, how will we control student shenanigans that could take place out of view?
As for the location. With the installation of the artificial surface already installed in Memorial Stadium, football players can practice on the playing field which frees up the practice field, one whole city block of flat property. The District retorts, but we have to have the track field events there. Not necessarily. Why not construct a softball field in Kranz Park for the school teams and neighborhood children? Given that the layout of a softball field is very close to the layout of field events, a portion of Kranz Park could serve multiple uses.
Of course costs could be lower in Great Falls, especially it the project was competitively bid. The cost of structured parking at last estimate by Carl Walker, Inc, a leading structured parking construction firm was $16,411 per stall in Denver, CO. For a 300 space parking structure that would total approximately $5M.
In 2007, Stadium High School in Tacoma, WA constructed a 200 space two level parking structure. According to Megan Lopez, administrator at SHS with whom I had a recent telephone conversation, their new facility uses video monitoring and routine patrolling and has experienced a minimal number of security issues. Students using the parking structure pay $50 for the entire school year which provides an ongoing revenue stream for the school. And on the roof deck there are 4 tournament tennis courts. Wow! In a city with a climate that deteriorates ground level tennis courts faster than we can repair them, Great Falls could certainly benefit from this innovative design. The court deck could even be covered with an air supported enclosure. Wow again!
Now, do you think the District could find $5M to solve the long-standing parking problem at GFHS. Maybe part of the $22M they plan to spend to upgrade all the classrooms in the historic building exclusive of mechanical, electrical and plumbing line items?
In conclusion, I have presented criticisms of the District’s plans, and solutions to most of the neighborhood councils for the past several years.
