City Attorney Weighs In On Conflicts of Interest

Gregg Smith on May 3, 2017

I have to admit that when I read Phil’s piece about City Commissioner, Tracy Houck and CDBG funding, I was a little lost. I struggled through it a few times, and really never knew what happened other than the Community Development Council (“CDC”), which allocates CDBG funding, originally voted to recommend to the City Commission that the Paris Gibson Square’s grant request not be funded. Then, apparently there was some sort of inquiry by Commissioner Houck, the vote was changed, and now the CDC has recommended that PGS receive about $27,0000.00 in CDBG funds.

A March 14, 2017, letter from Commissioner Houck to Craig Raymond (the last two pages of this linked .pdf file), the City Planning and Community Development Director, sheds some light on this. In the letter, Houck says that the CDC Chairperson, Harmony Wolfe, was somehow affiliated with PGS (it’s hard to be sure because Houck says in her letter that Wolfe was both an employee and an independent contractor), but left that affiliation under less than amicable circumstances. Apparently Wolfe alleges sexual harassment against an unnamed PGS employee and intends to pursue it in litigation. Houck suggests that PGS and Great Falls Public School staff investigated these allegations, and determined them to be false. I do not believe they have been adjudicated by any independent finder of fact. Houck alleges a “vendetta” by Wolfe, and asserts she should recuse herself for such conflicts of interest.

This letter was on PGS letterhead and was written by Houck as the Executive Director of PGS.

A day earlier, though, Commissioner Houck had emailed Raymond, City Commissioner Bill Bronson, City Manager Greg Doyon, and another member of planning staff (This email can be found in Phil’s post). In this email, Houck complained of conflicts of interest by Mayor Bob Kelly and a NeighborWorks staff person. She makes only a vague reference to Wolfe, despite the fact that the following day she accuses her of a “vendetta.” This email was clearly written as a City Commissioner.

Then, apparently, based on Houck’s complaints of conflicts of interest, on March 16, Greg Doyon emailed Houck and said, in essence, she and Wolfe would have to recuse themselves, and there would be a re-vote to see if PGS would get its funding. It did. (GFDA was also funded, NeighborWorks apparently was not. See p. 68, here).

What helped to figure this out is City Attorney, Sara Sexe’s letter to Commissioner Houck from March 20, 2017 (pages 1 and 2), instructing Houck that she should “not vote or participate in any Commission action or discussion” related to the CDBG grant process.

So, roughly here is what I think we know: Wolfe apparently voted on grant allocations and according to Houck, down voted the PGS application. According to Houck, Wolfe had a conflict of interest in so voting. So Houck contacted the City, to complain about Wolfe’s participation, but was Houck doing so a conflict of interest?

As a result of Houck’s allegations, there was a revote with Wolfe not participating, and under the revote, the CDC awarded PGS its grant money. I can’t suggest that the PGS as an entity should have been unable to complain of a potential conflict simply because its Executive Director is a City Commissioner. Maybe a different PGS employee should have made the Complaint. But this whole thing leaves a number of questions.

First, in her March 13 email to City staff, Houck complains of a conflict of interest on the part of Mayor Kelly. Why was this question not raised earlier, or did she only care when PGS wasn’t funded? And then PGS gets its funding, and we don’t hear another word about that conflict. Does it seem as though Commissioner Houck had more interest in making sure her employer got funding than she did in protecting the public from a conflict of interest that she alleged? (I am certainly not alleging a conflict on the Mayor’s part–I don’t know the details of his relationship with GFDA.)

Second, Houck definitely participated in the discussions related to CDBG contrary to Sexe’s admonitions at the March 20, 2017, work session. Sexe’s letter was dated March 20 and was noted to have been hand delivered. Can we assume it was hand delivered before the meeting? If so, it seems Houck ignored the conflict of interest. I don’t know when she received the letter.

Third, the March 13, 2017, email is concerning. She wrote to City staff about her employer’s business as a City Commissioner. Who was she representing, the voters or Paris Gibson Square?

Here is the City’s Ethical Code. I guess you can be the judge.

Last Question: Where is the local media on this questions?

Crickets..

On Breitbart: Quist Urges Climate Change Deniers To Kill Themselves

ECB Staff on May 2, 2017

Montana’s special election to replace Ryan Zinke has made national headlines, including this amusing piece from Breitbart yesterday.

Enjoy the juxtaposition; on one hand, the analytical, nuts-and-bolts Greg Gianforte, and on the other, well, Rob Quist:

The Republican nominee answered a question about climate change and the Clean Power Plan saying, “Everyone believes that the climate is changing.” However, he added, “Using EPA’s data calculated by the Cato Institute; they said if we shut down every coal-fired plant in North America our environment would be two-hundredths of a degree cooler a hundred years from now…for that we are willing to give up 7,000 jobs in Montana and $1.5 billion in annual revenue? That’s not a smart business decision.”

Quist responded to Gianforte. Rather than refuting the Republican nominee’s argument, he encouraged climate skeptics to consider ending their lives. He said, “To me this a cumulative thing, you cannot just say closing one plant or not is going to make a difference. This is something that the entire world needs to address and you know what, if any of you that feel like this is not a problem, I challenge you to go into your car in your garage, start your car and see what happens there.”

Say what you will about Gianforte (and we have), but the idea of Quist making laws for our nation does not exactly inspire confidence.

Mercifully, there is only twenty-three more days until Election Day.

Conundrum

Philip M. Faccenda on April 29, 2017

noun co·nun·drum

Our City Commission seems to be faced with a difficult decision, or as Commissioner Bill Bronson says, “it’s a conundrum.”

Here’s the issue; to vote for a zone change which would allow a four story motel, approximately 50 feet high, close to the 10th Ave S/Fox Farm intersection, or to vote against it in order to stem the proliferation of casinos — although none are immediately proposed — in the same area. The proposed change from a C-1 zone to C-2 zone would only be necessary to increase the allowable height restriction from 35 feet to 65 feet.

Re: Great Falls, Montana Code, Land Development Chapter 20, 17.20.4.020, Exhibit 20-4.

Some say that we don’t need anymore motels and those new jobs aren’t really economic development, or that the potential property tax generated by the project would not decrease our existing residential property taxes. Both of these arguments are false and here’s why. Any project built in Great Falls that provides jobs, both construction jobs and permanent jobs, is economic development, something we sorely need, even if at the very least it replaces jobs we have lost for the past several years. Simple enough to understand.

Also, any project that grows the City tax base lessens the burden on residential tax payers because the cost of government, if it remains somewhat constant, requires smaller contributions from each taxpayer.

Bronson’s “conundrum” that is keeping him awake at night is not a musical instrument, but it can be beaten. If the City Commission is too afraid of casinos, the solution that everyone can live with is a no-brainer and it does not require a zone change, only a project specific height variance for the potential four story motel property. The variance allowed under Chapter 20, 17.16.32.040 would not adversely affect the area since the motel site is a stone’s throw from the tallest building in Great Falls, the Country Club Tower, which itself is eleven stories high.

The existing C-1 zoning would remain intact, require substantially more landscaping and setbacks than a C-2 zone, and not allow additional casino development in the area.

So what’s actually going to happen? According to the Great Falls Tribune, it’s likely Commissioner Bronson will personally intervene to complicate what should otherwise be a simple process:

Bronson recommended that time be used by city planners to develop an alternate “Planned Unit Development” proposal that would give the City of Great Falls greater control over the scope and nature of development in the area.

The problem with this misguided approach lies within the City’s Municipal Code, which states:

“17.16.29.010 – Generally.

A Planned Unit Development may be proposed as a subdivision or as a single development project with multiple buildings involving a homeowners or property owners association.”

The creation of a PUD for a single building with a single owner does not satisfy the intent of the code. In this case, you would have a property owners association for governance of the PUD with one member. If you included all the properties in the existing C-1 zone, it could not be defined as a single development since those properties have already been developed.

By not finding a solution that makes sense and adheres to governing codes, the attitude of the City Commission, particularly Bronson, appears short-sighted and antithetical to City’s adopted 2013 Growth Policy;

Eco3.4.2 Promote a “business friendly” attitude and support the use of an ombudsman role in all facets of business development.

Sure, a PUD district will allow Bronson to position himself as a “compromiser” on a thorny issue, but if government refuses to get out of the way, as Gregg Smith calls for, the obvious compromise here is much simpler: it’s to grant a height variance, not create a single-property PUD.

Fred Burow On City’s CDBG Funding: “I Think It’s A Black Eye On Us”

Philip M. Faccenda on April 27, 2017

If you skipped last week’s City Commission meeting (like the Great Falls Tribune did), then you missed a real doozy.

Unreported by local media, City Commissioner Fred Burow unloaded on the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding process at the April 18 meeting:

“I have a lot of heartburn with this… I think the whole process should be called into question and reevaluated, personally, because of a conflict of interest complaint, apparently… there are other members on the CDC that are recipients of funds out of this deal… It does give a very bad appearance from the word go when you have people that are receiving the funds making decisions on who gets the funds.”

Commissioners accepted the proposed CDBG funding for 2017/2018 and set a public hearing on the matter for May 16. Within the Public Facilities portion of the agenda, Paris Gibson Square (PGS) is set to receive $27,927. However, on February 23, the Community Development Council, which recommends the allocations, agreed to deny any funding to PGS. The February 23 CDC meeting was supposedly the final meeting on these allocations.

Then, on April 3, the CDC met again and the allocations for Public Facilities changed. Now PGS is on the docket to receive the $27,927. What changed and why?

This question was partially answered at the April 18 City Commission meeting. During Commission discussion, City Attorney Sara Sexe explained there had been a complaint from an applicant for Public Facilities funding about a potential conflict with a CDC member. Sexe said she determined there could be an appearance of such a conflict along with a procedural issue and decided it would be best to reconvene the CDC to again review the presentations on those projects.

So who filed the complaint, when was it filed, and what was the nature of the complaint?

The following exchange between Commissioner Fred Burow and City Attorney Sara Sexe at the April 18 Commission meeting offered some glimpse of what had happened:

Burow: “You had a complaint. Who filed the complaint, may I ask?”

Sexe: “It was one of the applicants.”

Burow: “I asked who?”

Sexe: “Paris Gibson Square.”

Burow: “And they originally were turned down for a grant… for $38,000… I did hear some of that, probably not all of the discussion on it, but I did hear some of it, and it didn’t seem that anyone on that committee had anything against Paris Gibson or anything of that nature; it was just more of, they didn’t think that project was a viable project at the time. They just didn’t recommend it.

“So now to find out we have a whole new thing here, and what really is hard for me to go along with this it that when we have a City Commissioner that works for Paris Gibson and it’s not in a janitorial position — if I remember right, it’s CEO or something of that nature, who says hey, we’ve got to file a complaint here because something wasn’t done right and we didn’t get our allotment here or our grant.

“Not to say that that happened but that’s the perception that I see coming out of this from the public. And that’s what I’m concerned about is the perception of it. But then to see that, oh, we went back and rediscussed that and um, hmmm, we did decide to give them $27,927. I can’t quite get over that from the perception point of it.

“I think it’s a black eye on us; I do not intend to support it. I just, like I said, it just looks like a black eye. I’m sure in the public’s mind, we’ll see quite a lot of comments in the paper in the coming days about backroom deals and things of that nature, and I just refuse to have any part of that.”

Sexe went on to say that no matter who had made such a complaint, the same action would have been taken to try to remove the alleged conflict.

While Sexe is simply doing her job as City Attorney, the public heard nothing else about this (was there an actual conflict or was it hearsay?), about specifically who submitted the complaint, as well as the substantive nature of the complaint. Where’s the transparency?

But according to a records request passed on to me by a citizen, Commissioner Houck did some substantial whining in a March 13 email to City Manager Greg Doyon, accusing myriad others of having their own conflicts. In “two wrongs make a right” fashion, Houck, the PGS Director, leads her email:

“I have been hesitant to weigh in on this issue since the organization I work applied.” [sic]

She also takes aim at Kelly and Neil Fortier of NeighborWorks:

“The other issue I feel insulting is that NeighborWorks, the City and GFDA were proposed to have large surplus grants. The Mayor sits as a board member to GFDA. Neil Fornier [sic], a member of the CDC is a staff person at NeighborWorks.”

But the real problem in Houck’s eyes is CDC member Harmony Wolfe:

“Lastly, I would like more than Harmony present for an update. My last communication from Harmony indicated that she was considering a potential lawsuit to the Square and the GFPS.”

Here’s her entire email:

Twenty six minutes later, Doyon emailed Sexe, telling her, “I’ll visit with you on these concerns.”

At the Commission meeting, the public was told that the conflict of interest exists on the CDC and involves an unpaid community volunteer (Wolfe). So, is Houck’s email the complaint Sexe and Burow are referring to? It sure looks like it. And if so, it warrants mentioning that Houck protested only after PGS was denied funding.

To be fair, maybe Wolfe’s presence on the CDC did pose a conflict. Still, what about the conflict of interest involving a City Commissioner working behind the scenes to advocate for the organization that cuts her checks? Does it not matter because no one bothered to complain about it? Houck can have a fiduciary responsibility to the Square, or to the City, but not to both.

I have no doubt that Sara Sexe, along with the rest of City staff, handled this matter with integrity and did the best they could with this self-dealing. Unfortunately, Houck’s behavior here is nothing new. According to the Great Falls Tribune, she unsuccessfully attempted to donate remaining contributions from her 2015 campaign to the Square — again, the (partially taxpayer-funded) organization that pays her salary. A look at her City Commission Facebook page reveals countless shares and promotions of PGS events and business. Add it all up and one wonders: What does Houck really care about… representing all of us, or leveraging her City office for personal and professional gain?

Commissioner Burow deserves a Rhetorical Pulitzer Prize for publically exposing a pervasive issue that City government entities would like to hide under the bed: conflicts of interest.

Too Many Casinos

Gregg Smith on April 27, 2017

Many people say the City must do something about too many casinos in this town.

The first thing I ask an anti-casino person who drinks alcohol is this: have you ever protested a new bar?

No?

Oh, so it’s the other guy’s vice you aren’t comfortable with. Because I can make an argument that alcohol causes and has caused at least as many problems as the anti-casino folks say gambling causes, but so many people are fine with alcohol, as opposed to gambling, because they like to drink.

If you listen to people in this town, or read comments at the Tribune website or on Facebook, you would think that Great Falls, alone in Montana, is simply overrun with gambling. The facts do not bear that out.

Look at the Montana Gambling Control Division’s 2015-2016 Biannual Report, and you will find statistics for what are apparently the 19 largest cities in Montana. Turn to the appendix, and you can see how much gambling there is available in Great Falls compared to the rest of the state.

The average of the 19 largest communities shows that there are 23.99 gaming machines per 1000 residents. In Great Falls, the number is 23.978 gaming machines per 1000 residents. In other words, we are slightly less than average. Billings, the largest city in the state has 23.53 machines per 1000 residents, slightly lower than us. Helena is at 22.37 per 1000, while Kalispell is 29.16 and Whitefish is 25.59.

Bozeman and Missoula both have fewer machines per 1000 residents than we do, a fact that might be explained by the additional fact that a significant portion of their population is made up of young college students who lack the money to gamble. (Of course, if you import 13,000 to 16,000 college age kids into Great Falls every year, we probably wouldn’t be having an economic development discussion either.) Or, maybe those towns are growing past their license quota, and Great Falls never did?

The point, though, is not that Great Falls has too many machines or too few, but merely that arguments you read suggesting that we are some kind of outlier gambling mecca are simply false.

Those same arguments also often point to 10th Avenue South, “Holy cow, you drive down tenth and it’s just casino after casino.” Again, this is not fair argument; put another way, this is by design. You might recall back in the early Oughts that the City spent $80,000.00 on a new zoning code. Well, this code so restricted the available locations for licenses, 10th Avenue South became one of the few places in town where one could even open a bar or casino. So, don’t be surprised that the casinos cluster on 10th. Instead, blame your then-City Commission.

One more point: If the City Commission limits zoning due to the possibility of casinos, and if that’s because the Commissioners just don’t like gambling, the City Commission is not doing its job. You see, gambling is legal. The mere fact that someone is engaging in a legal activity that you do not prefer should not even be considered in this discussion. What if your occupation is next? I would suggest that the majority of casinos are operated by local people, including me and my partners. I was born and raised here, and invested with family members in an industry that our family has been involved in for several generations.

The City has limited the locations of casinos. The City has limited the signage of casinos. The City cannot simply overrule state law.

If you don’t like gaming, your issue is with the legislature, not the City Commission. Otherwise, I think you should stop demonizing your fellow citizens who have invested their money in a legal industry.

Changing Of The Guard

ECB Staff on April 25, 2017

We know you haven’t heard from us in some time. Some of you wondered (hoped?) if we were simply going to go away. The truth is, we have been in transition. Effective today, founding Editor Kelly Parks has resigned, and Phil Faccenda will be taking her place.

“Kelly deserves tremendous credit for getting this project off the ground, and it’s important to keep up the momentum now. With so many issues here in Great Falls and with City elections upon us, this is an exciting time for local news,” Faccenda said.

Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.

Responding To An Angry Reader

ECB Staff on April 5, 2017

On a Facebook post sharing Phil Faccenda’s excellent piece from yesterday, Angry Reader Dennis Granlie really let us have it.

He writes, “You really need to change the name of this blog to “Sore Losers’ Page.” You simply must accept that Rick lost the election and stop trying to litigate it time and time again! When you’re in a hole, the smart thing to do is quit digging.”

As further — actually, any — research on Granlie’s part would indicate, Faccenda’s column did not “litigate” the Rick Tryon/Tracy Houck/campaign finance fiasco or Tryon’s election loss. In fact, we have not written a single word about it in any of our other posts, nor will we. Granlie’s right; Houck won, Tryon lost, and that’s that.

But because Granlie’s post was so mean-spirited (not to mention inaccurate), we will indulge him this: for the next day, E-City Beat will be renamed, “Sore Losers’ Page.”

Maybe Granlie will be a little less angry.

Cracking The River City Echo Chamber

Philip M. Faccenda on April 4, 2017

“We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” – Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, in the New York Times Magazine.

While a surprisingly candid admission by Rhodes, the Obama administration’s tactics in selling the Iran deal were not in and of themselves revolutionary. It’s called spin, and self-interested government officials are regular practitioners of it. In fact, we have an “echo chamber” right here in Great Falls.

If you consume the Tribune, TV news, or if you follow the City Commissioners at work, chances are you often hear about how “Great Falls is on the move,” that our community is teeming with “momentum,” or any number of other platitudinous forms of cheerleading. It’s been that way here for as long as I can remember. Despite the rhetoric from politicians and a complicit, pro-incumbent media, the “momentum” has never materialized into something truly tangible or measurable. Over the course of decades, Great Falls, in almost every way possible, has either declined or more or less stayed the same.

This “happy talk” reached a nadir in 2015, when Bob Kelly, Bill Bronson, and Tracy Houck won the City elections. Almost overnight, media swooned about a resurgent Great Falls. If you thought Great Falls was going places before, it was really going to be something now. A November 27, 2015 guest editorial from Mike Dalton pointed to a spate of “progressive” politicians newly in power:

Obviously, a new era, an era of solid, dedicated change and growth has arrived with the appointment, hiring and electing of a new generation of leaders to guide our city’s evolution.

To name a few, we have Bob Kelly, mayor; Bill Bronson and Tracy Houck, commissioners; Jane Weber, Cascade County commissioner; Superintendent Tammy Lacey of Great Falls Public Schools; Susan Wolff, dean of Great Falls College Montana State University; Craig Raymond, city Planning & Community Development director; Jolene Wetterau, CDBG grant administrator, and Joe Petrella, city Park and Recreation director.

A January 11, 2016 Tribune headline gushed, “Kelly: Great Falls is on the rise.” Over time, the echo chamber calcified behind a rah-rah narrative built and regurgitated so many times it is now repeated without audit and has finally been accepted as “fact.” The editorial board of the Great Falls Tribune has evidently bought into the notion that it better serves the public by acting as community cheerleaders first and journalists second. When the Tribune endorsed the school bond last year, the editors pointed to our “growing” community:

We don’t buy the old arguments that Great Falls is stagnant and shouldn’t spend any more money on its schools. Great Falls has about 60,000 people and it’s growing [emphasis added]; the city has positive leadership with fine hired professionals such as Lacey and City Manager Greg Doyon, and new, energetic leadership exhibited by Mayor Bob Kelly and others. The future of Great Falls is bright.

A town of “60,00 people and it’s growing”? Amazingly, the Trib shot down its own dishonest talking point just last week, when one of its newest reporters, Seaborn Larson, published Census data showing a population decline over the past four years. (It’s not often that a media outlet busts itself for running “fake news.” Ha ha.)

That all brings us to the present, where Brett Doney wants a pile of cash for the GFDA. Over the course of lobbying the public (demonstrating a “need” for an economic development levy), Doney, in an apparent break from protocol, has actually told the truth about the state of Great Falls. According to Doney, jobs are being sucked out of Great Falls and there is a bit of a problem here — so much so that he has never been this “scared” in his 32 years of working in economic development. Meanwhile, the politicians are as clueless as ever. In the Trib’s Census story:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said the number decline doesn’t scare him. In fact, he laughed out loud when asked for comment on the decline.

With Kelly now up for re-election, and after his touting for over a year the “momentum” in Great Falls — you know, since he’s been in charge — it will be interesting to see if he is capable of graduating from amusement to substantively addressing the issue. The old adage comes to mind: The first step to solving any problem is first admitting that you have one. (Just a guess: Kelly didn’t actually find the population decline funny.)

He did offer more than laughs in the Trib article, though:

‘I think what’s important when looking at any kind of statistic like that is whether it’s the beginning of a trend or the end of one,’ Kelly said. ‘I think that away from the economic aspects, which are driven by the private entities in town, our obligation as a city is to make this town as attractive and safe here as possible.’

Well, first, we know we’re not at the beginning of a trend. The population has been declining since 2013. Last year’s drop was the largest of the four years. Second, what does Kelly mean by “attractive?” Does he mean aesthetically? I’m an architect and planner, and even I wouldn’t suggest that it is feasible or good policy to legislate aesthetics. If Kelly means attractive to private enterprise, then he and his colleagues have failed miserably. Just look at Calumet. When have you ever heard of anyone willing to invest $450 MILLION DOLLARS into our community? Doney and Jolene Schalper of the GFDA are right. We have to retain as well as attract talent. Denying Calumet a tax abatement tells you all you need to know about this City Commission. When a wealthy developer like Brad Talcott wants a TIF for retail and service jobs, the City can’t wait to throw money his way. But if the high-paying manufacturing sector comes calling — the jobs everyone claims to want here — too bad, they’re out of luck. (By the way, I have no problem with the City granting Talcott or anyone else TIF’s. It’s simply worth noting who the City has picked as the winners and losers in business.)

Think about the chill the Calumet decision sent throughout the private sector. If you’re in business and thinking of relocating or expanding here, why would you? It’s better to look elsewhere, to a community that doesn’t produce these types of headlines, one that is unapologetically “open” for business. There are plenty to choose from. And while denying the abatement absolutely devastated Calumet (this year, no employees received raises or bonuses — they didn’t even have a Christmas party), it also affects the companies that do business with Calumet, big vendors like Northwest Pipe Fittings and Loenbro. But the City just had to have that money — $6-7 million spread over 10 years, which of the City’s roughly $100 million annual budget, results in less than 1%. And remember, even if the City had granted the abatement, the amount of tax collected would have still exceeded Calumet’s pre-expansion tax rate. How much is ever enough for the City?

I wish I could tell you that at least one of the City Commissioners took a principled stand on behalf of the business community, but none did. The motion carried 5-0. Put bluntly, what this means is that there is virtually no real vision on the City Commission. For our City leadership, short-term thinking carries the day, and in their minds, nothing they do is ever wrong. Don’t believe it? In January, the City Commissioners went on a retreat at MSU-Great Falls. The minutes are posted here:

“2. COMMISSION INITIATIVES

City Manager Greg Doyon and the Commission began discussion of a look back on past year accomplishments that included:

 Parking survey
 Arco water rights
 Sale of Med Tech lots
 Sign Code revision
 Library Board Updates
 HPAC
 Cell phone ban/fines
 Holman property
 West Bank Landing TIF
 Wild fire response
 Fireworks town hall discussions
 Paris Gibson mural
 Final ECP audit
 Park Master Plan
 August flooding/look at infrastructure
 Hired three cops/GFPD good use social media
Purchased fire trucks

The parties discussed the emphasis on making public safety a priority. The City Commission stayed focused and made progress. Discussion continued that, even though emphasis has been on public safety, each department is valued. The parties discussed the positive feedback they have been hearing from the community, and that the attitude of Great Falls has changed. No one has heard anything negative except at City Commission meetings. Great Falls has good momentum in the right direction.” [emphasis added]

If there was ever any question as to whether or not our City Commissioners exist in an echo chamber, your doubts can be put to rest. Great Falls has “momentum in the right direction?” Really? We’re losing jobs, population has declined for four straight years, and crime is on the rise. Meanwhile, the folks who run City Hall seem completely addicted to raising taxes and fees. They also want to grow government, never mind the declining population. How’s that for positive momentum?

Now, lest you think I’m some sky-is-falling alarmist, I can assure you that I am not. I’ve lived here continuously for the past 36 years, and in that time, Great Falls has remained largely the same community it is today. But when we constantly hear about “momentum” in the face of negatively trending big picture statistics (like jobs, population, and crime), at what point does somebody call, “Bullsh*t”?

Politicians like the mayor perpetuate this echo chamber for two reasons. First, they do so in self-congratulatory fashion to bolster their re-election chances, and second, they gin up faux-growth sentiments to convince us it’s OK to expand government and habitually raise our taxes. Bob Kelly campaigned as a “change” candidate who would “hold public meetings and commission meetings at venues that deserve attention, such as the Natatorium, on a public bus if possible, in the welding classrooms of Montana State University-Great Falls College.” I haven’t been on the public transit lately, but it doesn’t feel like the City has made any effort to come to the people. If anything, government is more insular than ever.

I don’t want elected officials whose default is to produce just positive (or negative) rhetoric. Good, bad, or indifferent, I’d just like to hear the truth. If Great Falls is to really move forward, we need to hear the truth.

We can handle it, and moreover, we deserve it.

Nativism Alive And Well On The Great Falls City Commission

ECB Staff on April 1, 2017

Great Falls City Commissioner Tracy Houck, a partisan Democrat from Pennyslvania, wrote an amusing letter-to-the-editor, slamming Republican Greg Gianforte for allegedly not representing “Montanan” values.

Supporting Rob Quist, Houck writes in today’s Tribune:

We have seen him understand our values, our needs and our experiences and turn them into song.

While one’s ability to fashion values into song is undoubtedly an important qualification for any member of Congress, we — along with the nearly dozen readers who emailed us about this — couldn’t help but chuckle at Houck’s rampant nativism:

Support Montanan values, support a Montanan [emphasis added], support Rob Quist.

Like Gianforte, Houck (a Pennsylvanian) is from the East Coast. Mayor Bob Kelly is also an out-of-stater. City Commissioner Bill Bronson is from Havre. All of the above, however, have lived in Montana (and in the case of the latter three, Great Falls) for decades. Why should one’s birthplace matter? Are politicians like Houck, Kelly, and Bronson any less qualified to serve the public because, despite moving and settling here, they weren’t born here?

We thought a recent letter in the Tribune from Robert Reynolds, seen below, demonstrated a measured, more thoughtful line of opposition to Gianforte.

Stop “othering” Gianforte

Fellow Democrats,

Stop attacking Republican Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte for being from New Jersey. Our party advocates for a broad definition of “us” and a more welcoming, less insular Montana and America. “Othering” Mr. Gianforte is hypocritical.

Based on his policy positions, I believe electing Mr. Gianforte would be a substantial step backwards for our home. However, he is as much a Montanan as you and me.

—Robert Reynolds

Miles City

Please stop “othering” Mr. Gianforte for not being from Montana, Commissioner Houck. It’s not just illiberal and intolerant; it’s hypocritical.

Tryon: Wages, Population Stagnant; City Taxes And Utilities Up

Rick Tryon on March 28, 2017

With the City of Great Falls moving past the financial fiasco of the $5,553,054 bailout (decrease in unassigned General Fund balance) in 2013 to cover the electric power business (see City 2014 CAFR Financial section, p. 14), the City’s financial position has improved, but the needs of the City are still great.

The façade of the Civic Center needs fixing. It’s a big ticket item and the money has to come from somewhere. City staff reports that costs to repair the Civic Center are estimated in the $6 – 8 million dollar range.

City officials are also discussing a “need” to increase legal staff and increase staff workspace. And then there is the recently passed Park and Recreation Master Plan, which cost the City $89,970 to produce, as reported in October of 2015.

As E-City Beat reported on February 17, from the City Manager’s packet: “After discussion about implementation of the Park Master Plan, it was the consensus of the Commission to pursue a Park Maintenance District, but agreed that the fees imposed should be reasonable and not include golf or the Natatorium. Manager Doyon suggested that a more robust maintenance fee may result in more money in the general fund to support public safety and ultimately less cost to the public versus a public safety levy. The Commission concurred.”

Manager Doyon gets it: how far can we stretch our property tax dollars? How many more increases, beyond the ever-seeking public school administration and the Great Falls Development Authority, can fixed income and lower income families bear?

The City routinely raises annual property taxes under the inflationary percentage allowed by State law, which is one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years. For the 2016-17 budget year, that rate was .67 percent. Here is a brief description of the 198.24 mill levy passed by the City Commission for the budget year 2016-17, as taken from Resolution 10152:

Section 1. – Determination of Mill Levy Limit

Appendix A shows the determination of the total mill levy limit of 167.26 mills.
An additional 26.14 “Permissive Medical Levy” is allowed under 15-10-420(9)(a)(vi) for increased health insurance premiums not included in the Appendix A calculation.
An additional 1.90 mills is allowed under 15-10-420(2) for additional voter supported mills. On November 4, 2003, a $2.5 million general obligation bond was approved by voters for construction of a soccer park. It has been determined that 1.90 mills for soccer park debt service payments is needed for Fiscal Year 2017.
Lastly, an additional 2.94 mills is allowed under 15-10-420(2) for additional voter supported mills. On November 7, 2006, a $2.27 million general obligation bond was approved by voters for repair and improvement of city pool facilities. It has been determined that 2.94 mills for swimming pool debt service payments is needed for Fiscal Year 2017.

The 20-year soccer park bonds were issued in June 2004. The 10-year pools facilities bonds were issued in May 2007, expiring after this year.

To provide a snapshot of yearly property tax levies, here is a rundown for Great Falls over the past 7 years (information from annual property tax increase and mill levy requests to City Commission):

Year	Base Mill Levy	Permissive Med Levy	Soccer Park	Pools Facilities	TOTAL	Base Inflationary % increase taken	Perm Med Infl %
2010-11	152.94	15.54	2.45	3.83	173.10	0	1.06
2011-12	164.27	15.44	2.56	3.72	183.24	0	0?
2012-13	169.13	17.93	2.58	3.93	193.57	1.2	1.4
2013-14	172.19	20.06	2.57	3.92	198.74	1.03	1.3
2014-15	175.77	22.87	2.82	3.62	205.08	1.03	1.25
2015-16	162.17	23.03	1.97	3.12	190.29	.67	2.17
2016-17	167.26	26.14	1.90	2.94	198.24	.5	2.48

The base mill levy is a formula regulated by the State under MCA 15-10-420. A portion of that code reads:

“The maximum number of mills that a governmental entity may impose is established by calculating the number of mills required to generate the amount of property tax actually assessed in the governmental unit in the prior year based on the current year taxable value, less the current year’s newly taxable value, plus one-half of the average rate of inflation for the prior 3 years.

(b) A governmental entity that does not impose the maximum number of mills authorized under subsection (1)(a) may carry forward the authority to impose the number of mills equal to the difference between the actual number of mills imposed and the maximum number of mills authorized to be imposed. The mill authority carried forward may be imposed in a subsequent tax year.”

The result of the mill levy increase over the years results in a continual increase by the City in property taxes with the exception of 2015-16. And while the base mill levy for this year, 2016-17, is just under the rate of 2013-14, property taxes have increased with increases in streets, lighting districts, the boulevard district and the permissive medical levy. It is evident by the statistics on the permissive medical levy that government regulation of the health care industry has done nothing to stop the rising costs of medical care and insurance, an issue both the public school system and the county are also dealing with.

Additionally to property taxes, city utility rates have increased each year. While these increases may be necessary to maintain critical infrastructure, many citizens in this town do not get cost of living increases or annual raises, and often work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Increases in taxes and services for them means a decrease in other household spending.

To provide a snapshot of just one area of yearly increases, here are the basic utility service increases for Great Falls over the past 7 years and this year’s proposed increases (information taken from annual utility rate increase requests to City Commission):

2010: water 5%; sewer 7.5%

2011: water 5%; sewer 7.5%

2012: water nearly 5%; sewer nearly 10%

2013: water 5%; sewer 10%

2014: water 5%

2015: water 7%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%.

2016: water 10%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%

2017 (proposed) water 10%; sewer 3%; storm drain 10%

You get the picture. Are utility increases now a standard and a FOREVER thing? And when did these annual rate increases actually begin? Are we trying to outclass other cities in Montana with our rates? The conundrum is that infrastructure in communities across America is aging, is costly to repair and update, and is becoming more costly with federal regulations.

The City Commission set a public hearing date of May 2, 2017 to address the proposed utility increases for this year to be effective in June. There would be public outcry if the same annual increases were applied to gas and electric rates.

Take a drive around areas of town in the summer and you see more and more dried up lawns. Seniors and low income families water their lawns less as the cost of water services increase.

The answer to the tax dilemma is complicated. Taxes and utility fees are a necessary component of suburban living. In comparing the tax climate of Great Falls to other major Montana cities, Great Falls appears to be reasonable in how much taxes are levied on the average homeowner.

What Great Falls really needs is an expanding tax base to ease the burden on individual property owners. That means more and better paying jobs. The more property owners and business owners there are to spread the wealth of tax burden, the less impact tax increases have on each individual. The more TIFs and tax breaks given to select projects, the more the average Joe tax payer has to provide for every aspect of the community, city, schools and county included.