E-City Beat✓

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.

Way To Go, GFPS

ECB Staff on March 28, 2017

Say what you will about the School Trustees, but a majority of them seem to be very tuned in to public sentiment.

Last night, the School Board rejected a $1.2 million elementary levy by a 4-2 vote, with only Bob Moretti and big government liberal Don Ryan dissenting. Ryan is currently up for re-election.

As the tide seemed to turn against a $1 million technology levy, Cyndi Baker (you read that right) urged the Board to still float a tech levy, but to halve the amount. That’s exactly what happened, and the motion passed unanimously.

From KRTV:

Baker said, ‘I think a million dollar ask was going to be a lot, but I think half a million people could relate to. I think people understand the need for technology, and feel lost without it, so we need to have our students prepared properly and we need to give them the tools.’

It’s heartening to see Baker and the trustees work together on a comprise, one that invests in our kids’ future while at the same time respects taxpayers. This technology levy would “increase the taxation on a $150,000 home in Great Falls by $13.97 a year – or about $1.16 a month,” according to the Tribune.

This levy is an easy one to support.

Hats off to Baker and the School Board!

Anonymous Packet Hits The Westside, Rips GFPS

ECB Staff on March 24, 2017

A number of Westside residents received a surprise in their mailboxes this week, in the form of the following 12-page packet. In it, the author takes issue with Tammy Lacey and GFPS for the School District’s construction plans at the Little Russell School site. The District’s operations facility does not conform with county zoning requirements.

One Westsider (who was kind enough to share the material with us) remarked that s/he was “appalled” because, “Jane Weber doesn’t give a damn about what any of us have to say. We all signed a petition saying we didn’t want this in our neighborhood, but all Jane cares about is giving Tammy the good news. I guess we’re not as important as Tammy.”

(You are Weber’s constituents, though.)

You can view the entire packet below…

Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

Page 6:

Page 7:

Page 8:

Page 9:

Page 10:

Page 11:

Page 12:

BREAKING: GFPS Budget Committee Recommends $1.2 Million Elementary Levy, $1 Million Tech Levy

ECB Staff on March 21, 2017

At the GFPS budget meeting (which is still underway), the budget committee recommended a $1.2 million levy for elementary schools, as well as a $1 million technology levy. That’s two levies, for $2.2 million, proposed not even six months after voters approved a nearly $100 million school bond.

The full Board of Trustees will vote on whether or not to send both levies to taxpayers next Monday.

Wow.

Benefis FNP: Patient Care Should Trump Union Constraints

ECB Staff on March 18, 2017

On March 9, the Tribune reported that a majority of Benefis RNs signed interest cards to vote on whether or not to form a union. Since then, opposition to unionizing has grown.

Julia Fitzpatrick, FNP, has a good letter-to-the-editor in the Tribune today. It comes after a recent KRTV story detailing her efforts to prevent Benefis nurses from unionizing. Fitzpatrick has organized a “majority of advanced practice registered nurses at the hospital to sign a petition in opposition.”

How has the Montana Nurses Association union been working to drum up support for its efforts? According to Fitzpatrick, by bashing the very people it wishes to unionize. “The union has been insulting us at Benefis, saying that we provide poor and unsafe care. We know that that’s not true, and the union really has nothing to offer us,” Fitzpatrick told KRTV.

You can read her letter below, or at the Tribune online:

No union at Benefis

The Tribune published an article regarding the Montana Nurses Association’s efforts to unionize Nurses and Advance Practice Registered Nurses at Benefis.

A union is not necessary at Benefis. As an APRN, my primary concern is for the safety and health of my patients. Throughout this organizing process, the MNA has repeatedly attacked the nurses at Benefis by claiming falsely that Benefis patients receive poor quality care.

I am deeply concerned a union will hurt patient care. We work in a complicated, rapidly evolving environment. It is imperative that we work quickly to solve emergencies and diagnose problems. There isn’t time during an emergency to worry about work rules, seniority, and the other types of encumbrances unions place on a workplace. [emphasis added]

Benefis nurses have little to gain from joining the MNA. The MNA is an ineffective policy advocate. For years, they have tried to pass legislation to prohibit assault on nurses and have been unable to do so.

Only the union will benefit if this passes. The dues charged by the union are excessive and will be close to $750 a year. Many of my colleagues are single moms and this would create an extreme hardship.

Finally, the union cannot promise to improve staffing ratios or increase the number of nurses at Benefis. In fact, the MNA has stood in the way of recruiting efforts across Montana by opposing nursing compacts in the last two legislative sessions.

Please support the nurses who are taking a stand against the union.

—Julia Fitzpatrick FNP

Great Falls

Small Town, Big Government?

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

After a lively couple of weeks, the City has decided — in advance of its previously scheduled March 6 meeting — that the Children’s Museum will not have to pack up and move, at least for now. The fiasco surrounding the CMOM highlighted a larger issue, though: the City’s desire to grow our government.

Let’s take a look at some recent statements made by City officials. Here’s Mayor Kelly, on February 17 in the Tribune:

Great Falls Mayor Bob Kelly said, ‘It would be silly to start a big construction project if the museum comes to us when the lease expires in ’18 and says they’ve outgrown the space.’

Here’s Kelly again, 10 days later, via KRTV:

‘We have a couple things that are happening. One right now is we have additional personnel that we need to hire for Marcy’s Law. Our legal department is getting squeezed out right now, ideally we would like to have them all together. The other thing we have added some personnel to our Planning and Community Development group. We have also hired a human resources person and we are looking to group those folks together, as well as out risk managers,’ Kelly explained.

From the January 3, 2017 City Commission work session:

City Attorney Sara Sexe commented that it is dysfunctional trying to supervise the prosecutor’s office since it is separated from the civil department. She further commented that it would be helpful to have a well functioning department all under one roof. City Attorney Sexe reported that once Marsy’s law becomes effective it will enhance the level of involvement between the two departments. She noted that the Assistant City Attorney is currently utilizing the Human Resource Director’s office space.

Also, and from the same meeting:

City Manager Greg Doyon reported that the impact of Marsy’s Law will fundamentally change the operation of the legal department.

That’s a lot of generalized talk about Marsy’s Law, so one naturally wonders how many new employees the City will hire to cope with its requirements. Well, if the City hires the same amount of staff as Billings, a community twice the size of Great Falls, the number of new employees would be exactly… one.

From the Billings Gazette:

Brooks said he plans to ask the city council for one new employee, at $66,000 per year plus an additional $2,000 for a computer and equipment, to comply with the law. For 10 years, his office has received no additional staff, and other Montana communities, including Bozeman, Great Falls, Gallatin County and Missoula County, are requesting new employees ranging from one half-time employee (Bozeman) to two employees (Missoula County).

Honestly, how responsible would it be, then, for the City to invest in “a big construction project,” or to take over a facility as large as the Children’s Museum? And why does there seem to be such fervor within City Hall to grow government? Does anyone think that Great Falls is experiencing population growth at a rate commensurate with this proposed growth in bureaucracy? How many additional HR staffers does the City intend to hire, and moreover, do they really need to hire any at all? We certainly don’t hear this type of “big government” rhetoric from the Cascade County Commissioners.

It is possible that one day the City of Great Falls will find itself in a position that necessitates a larger municipal campus. Our region’s economic outlook, however, is not especially rosy. Great Falls is an ag community, and is bolstered by oil patch activity. Agricultural commodity prices have tanked, and so have oil prices. By and large, and over the course of decades, Great Falls’ population has grown very little. It would be laughable to forecast a significant population surge anytime soon.

Maybe, then, the City should focus on improving the government it has now, rather than on the larger government it wishes to have. Last we checked, the golf courses are bleeding money, the swimming pools don’t sustain themselves, the parking program is a loser, and taxes and fees keep going up, up, up…

Maybe more government isn’t the answer.

A Good Letter To The Editor In The Tribune

ECB Staff on March 14, 2017

A thoughtful letter-to-the-editor recently ran in the Tribune, one that made us wonder: What if the Trump administration did this? What would be the resultant backlash then?

Here’s the letter in its entirety:

City ordinance goes too far

Great Falls Ordinance 3148 allows the city to ban anyone from city property for one year for any violation of any part of the city code, the Montana Code Annotated or if the city manager or his designee decides you’re disorderly or abusive.

The “or” clause is particularly troubling, giving city personnel carte blanche to determine what is disorderly or abusive.

My research found no other major Montana community with a similar law—why Great Falls? There’s no sensible argument for this ordinance. It’s vague and over-reaching. They’ve given themselves the potential to abuse our civil liberties. It’s a bit suspicious.

A parking ticket could earn you a year-long ban, for example. City officials stated they don’t intend to use it that way but that’s only their words, which aren’t binding.

The city cited a library incident as reason for the ordinance. Public nuisance, disorderly conduct and assault laws already cover such incidents. The city claimed that without this ordinance, police can’t eject people from city property. Not true—I’ve witnessed police eject people from city property.

Why include the entire city code and MCA for a supposed “trespass” ordinance? There’s no reason to be this imprecise when defining law.

These recently passed ordinances give the city fiefdom-like power—sans moat and drawbridge.

—Jeni Dodd

Great Falls

City Staff Can Use PowerPoint At Commission Meetings, City Residents Cannot

ECB Staff on March 12, 2017

A number of folks don’t think that’s fair, and none more so than the Ol’ Colonel, Richard Liebert. It’s something Liebert has wanted to see changed for years, to no avail. On Friday, Liebert submitted the following written petition to Great Falls City Commissioners, urging them to grant residents the same multimedia privileges as City staff.

Liebert’s “ticket,” which can be found here, reads:

“Dear Mr. Mayor and commission,

I applaud your decision to deny the Calumet tax abatement and also promoting the message we do not stand for intolerance. I ask for your help collectively and or individually to make some modest amendments to Resolution 10072 so citizens can utilize multi-media (only at hearings, for five minutes only and slides submitted to city clerk prior to the meeting) to effectively articulate a postion – pro or con – that SAVES time, promotes greater understanding, reduces paper handling and costs to citizens and builds up public trust in government when citizens know you’re helping them participate more effectively.

Zoning issues like Thaniel, Fox Farm, and other projects are examples of where images, charts, slides and maps presented to the entire chamber lead to greater understanding of the issue in the limited amount of time allowed.

I am available to help work with the commission to meet this goal that will benefit us all. The Cascade County Commission, Great Falls School Board and every other major city in Montana allows citizens to utilize multi-media and powerpoint to promote better and more open government.

Sincerely,

Lt. Colonel (Retired, USA) Richard Liebert”

Liebert’s suggestion is a good one. It adheres to existing time constraints and would empower citizens brave enough to step up to the podium. Why does “every other major city in Montana” allow this, but not the City of Great Falls?

Colstrip: What Do The Owners Of A Massive Power Plant Owe The Society That’s Been Built Around It?

Travis Kavulla on March 9, 2017

If you want to visit Ground Zero in the intra-GOP debate about what private businesses owe the society that has been built around them, look no further than Montana’s Senate Bill 338.

It specifies that when a coal plant above a certain size in Montana closes, as two units of the Colstrip Generating Station in southeastern Montana are expected to do no later than July 2022, the plant owner has to pay for decommissioning costs. Ordinary enough, right? Well, sort of—we expect heavy industry to clean up after itself. But those “decommissioning costs,” as the legislation defines them, do not just include demolishing the facility.

When the Colstrip station closes, barring a miracle, the community is going to become a shell of its former self. The power plant’s place in that community makes Malmstrom Air Force Base’s place in Great Falls look small. A plant closure means an instant reduction in property values, a cost shift to the remaining taxpayers in the county, and a lot of stranded assets in the form of local government projects that still have outstanding balances on their bond arrangements. The cost of all of these consequences of the plant closure are things the legislation includes within its definition of “decommissioning costs.” In other words, if the legislation becomes law, the power plant owners will have, among other things, the obligation to pay out howeowners and small businesses who find themselves underwater in their mortgages.

If those coal plants stay open longer, then they get a break from paying this bill, on the theory that their continued employment of locals and continued tax payments reduce the burden that the plant closure will transfer to others.

The Great Falls Tribune reported out a specific price tag to this legislation. But the actual numbers are not specified anywhere in the legislation, and would be subject to a process where people could submit their claims to a state agency, the Department of Environmental Quality, that’d adjudicate the total amount of “decommissioning costs.”

There are good arguments on both sides of the legislation.

On the one hand, this bill is a big intervention in the affairs of “private” business. Don’t power plant owners have enough regulatory burden without further legislation requiring “exit fee” payments? Didn’t the workers at Colstrip understand that they were working in and living in an economy with one big fish, and that their property values, their livelihoods, and their schools would all be worse off when that employer decided to pick up and go? Maybe. Laissez-faire.

On the other hand, this is a power plant that isn’t really closing because of the “free market.” It is much more like the decision the government makes with respect to a big employer like… Malmstrom. The proximate cause of the plant closure is environmentalist pressure in Washington (both of them – D.C. and State).

Up until just a year ago, one of the Colstrip plant owners, Puget Sound Energy, which is the electric utility for the metro Seattle area, was singing its praises, suggesting it was one of its cheapest resources. That ended the day when the Sierra Club and Puget, and also Talen Energy, signed an agreement to close Units 1 and 2 of the facility by mid-2022 instead of facing further litigation over ash ponds near the property. For companies like Puget Sound Energy, that’s all fine. They stand to get all the money they need to close and all the money the need to build a new power plant, likely a gas plant and a wind farm in Washington State, to replace the power supply. That’s because they’re a regulated utility. (Talen, meanwhile, is a so-called merchant utility. It doesn’t have a captive set of ratepayers to charge its expenses; its revenues are subject to the open market’s prices for energy, although these prices themselves are the function of a glut of oversupply that has resulted from other government policies.)

So here’s the question: When a regulated utility gets co-opted to do something that is not economic, all with the assurance that the utility is going to be made whole by the same politicians who pressured them to close it, then what is the “free market” response from Montana legislators? To do nothing? That might just make you a quiet partner of Washington politics.

There’s peril in this for the Montana left too. It was the Montana Environmental Information Center (the Sierra Club’s local branch) that filed the litigation that is resulting in the closure of Units 1 & 2 of Colstrip. Does the Sierra Club want to give the workers there a fair shake – or not? If they don’t give a fair deal to those workers, “MEIC” and “Sierra Club” are going to be remembered forever as the names that, in the eyes of those workers, ruined their lives.

This bill could be a loser or a winner. The politics aren’t clear on it. Labor Democrats probably will love it, some of the environmentalist D’s might hate it. For Republicans, SB 338 might be a litmus test for who in the Montana GOP is a “Trump Republican” and who is not. Trump, of course, has been fully willing to intervene in these situations, using the powers of the state, or at least his suggestion of them, to save jobs and promote local economies. Will Montana’s legislative Republicans do the same?

You can track SB 338 here. It’s up for a hearing next week, on March 16.