‘Great Falls City Government’ Articles
Written by Gregg Smith on 27 August 2010
Adam and Eve are coming to town.
No, not this Adam and Eve:
This one. You know, the “anal sex toys” and “kinky bondage” people. Not only are they coming to town, they’re opening up right on Central Avenue in good old downtown Great Falls.
I must preface this whole piece by pointing out that I am not opposed to Adam & Eve, the store, and I don’t really care where they open. If they own the land, or the rights to occupy the land, and their business is legal, they should be able to ply their trade anywhere they damned well please.
In fact, those of you who know me, know that I oppose any but the most broad and general zoning or land use restrictions for otherwise legal enterprises. I oppose the very notion of zoning. To me, complex “land use codes” are nothing more than one group of people deciding to use political power to impose their will on another group of people. These types of situations invariably result in bureaucrat, administrator-types developing and maintaining their own power base in a community by picking winners and losers based on their personal, subjective desires. The opening of the Adam and Eve store downtown provides a perfect example.
Let’s start with the definitions contained in the City of Great Falls Land Use Code:
“Adult book store/adult video store” means a commercial establishment which, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration any one or more of the following:
1. books, magazines, periodicals, or other printed matter, or photographs, films, motion pictures, video cassettes or video reproductions which are characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or descriptions of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas;
2. instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities.
Does the Adam & Eve store fit the bill? You tell me:
I would submit that, any portion of one’s product line that is significant enough to advertise publicly can reasonably considered a “principal business purpose.” The Land Use Code, though, does not define a “principal business purpose,” it defines a principal land use. According to the Code, that is: “the dominant land use of a parcel of land.”
Here’s our first problem. The pointy-headed types who drafted the Code goofed. A “principal land use” is defined in the singular, yet the definition of an adult video store clearly contemplates more than one principal business purpose. Hmmm. I guess that leaves us with an interpretation question. We therefore must conclude that a “principal land use,” which the Code defines singularly, is something different from a “principal business purpose,” of which a business can have more than one. As noted above, though, a “principal busines purpose,” is apparently not defined by the Code. (An interesting aside: The Code was adopted in 2003, apparently having been lifted verbatim from a different city’s code. A simple bit of legal research would have pointed out that at least one Court had already found the problematic ambiguity in the code. Nice drafting guys…)
I guess we’ll need to do some interpretation, won’t we? Let’s turn to the introductory language: “The establishment of sexually-oriented businesses in business districts which are immediately adjacent to and which serve residential neighborhoods has a deleterious effect on both the business and residential segments of the neighborhood, causing or contributing to blight and a downgrading of property values.” Oh my gosh, we wouldn’t want that to happen! Based on the foregoing fear of blight and downgrading, the City Commission legislated that these businesses can only operate in I-1 or I-2 districts, Light or Heavy Industrial.
You can review the Zoning Map to see that the downtown area is most definitely not Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial. Nevertheless, the Adam & Eve store is allowed to sell the Katie Morgan Cyberskin Ass on Central Avenue. (But it’s not a “sexually oriented business.”)
How?
Let’s thank our Planning Director, Michael Haynes, who solved the problem. “The request they made was for a lingerie store with novelties, and that’s what our zoning determination was based on. We would have to look at adult movies, etcetera, to see if that fits in with what’s permitted downtown.” Oh. We would “have to look” at it? When would that be? Would that be when they advertise DVDs and adult toys in their window? Or would it be…say…never?
Further, while Mr. Haynes is not directly quoted, the KRTV piece cited above implies that the City has adopted this test: “If the majority of sales came from adult movies and sexual novelties, zoning restrictions would apply.” If, in fact, the City has adopted such a test, that is simply absurd.
Think about it. We know from the City’s own definition that an adult bookstore can have more than one “principal business purpose,” becuase it uses the plural “purposes.” If we are going to consider, though, a majority of sales, that would mean a business could have only one principal purpose since two different items cannot both be a majority of sales; there’s only one majority. Thus, the test apparently applied by the City violates the City’s own Code. You tell me if this is interpretation or legislation.
Anyway, here we are. The City adopts a restrictive ordinance and then turns around and ignores its own ordinance to allow a business to open in clear violation of its own Code. I can already smell the blight wafting toward my office.
“But wait Smith!” you exclaim, “you said you’re against land use restrictions. This should be a good thing.”
Sure, I am against land use restrictions. On the other hand, they exist and are presently the law in our town. What I am really opposed to is what we have here. A poorly drafted law that is now interpreted in a discretionary fashion to pick a winner and a loser. Adam & Eve wins. Michael Haynes has decided that this company, for whatever reason, and no matter how much he tries to rationalize his decision by resort to seemingly objective criteria, gets to win.
What about the next guy (or gal), though? What if Michael Haynes doesn’t like the next business to come along?
Well, then he can resort to seemingly objective criteria and decide that the next one loses. But no one person, Michael Haynes or otherwise, is supposed to pick the mercantile winners in our capitalist society. We, the consumers and citizens, are supposed to pick the winners. When did we, as the citizens of this community, agree that the City can hire one person who can tell us how to use our land?
We abolished the monarchy over 200 years ago.
Or did we?
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Policy | 14 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 19 August 2010
Strange news: A settlement is reached between landowners/MEIC and SME even after the court of final jurisdiction has ruled on the matter.
This means we’ll not be seeing landowners, I gather, oppose the special-use permit SME is applying for. In exchange, SME stipulates that: no coal-fired power plant will ever be built on the site, utility line agreements will be voluntarily negotiated, and lawyers fees (reportedly $140,000 in this case) will be picked up by SME, a.k.a. us and the rural co-ops. And there are probably some other things I am missing.
I’d say SME’s chances to get that special-use permit just tripled or quadrupled. I’ll have more comments on this later, but for now, I’m off to Winnett.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, New | 20 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 02 August 2010
Busy meeting tonight at the ECP Board, with important votes that, together, are nothing short of a shot across the bow of the recklessly managed ECP and Southern Montana Electric Co-op.
First, I’m glad to see the city commissioners, acting as the ECP Board, revised their budget in line with sanity. Under the original budget, a 13.9% rate increase was to be asked of customers, who are on fixed-rate contracts and under no obligation to accept increased rates. I’m thankful to say the business plan of “pretty, pretty please accept a rate increase” has not been cemented in the city budget. The budget will instead reflect a 2% increase, which means ECP will be projected to lose money this fiscal year. The motion passed 4-1, Bronson opposed.
Next, Fred Burow moved, and Mary Jolley seconded, a motion to ask another energy supplier to assume the City’s power-supply contracts. Not exactly sure how that would square with the law and the City’s pre-existing obligations to Southern. Still, interesting motion, and it appeared to be supported by the City admin. The motion passed 5-0.
Finally, here’s a riddle: Tim Gregori, John Lawton, Coleen Balzarini, Randy Boysun, George Golie, Bill Ryan, Randy Gray, Lee Ebeling — what do they all have in common?
Answer: They will all no longer be receiving their electric power from Electric City Power. The ECP Board of Directors has just voted, 5-0 (is Bronson seeing the light?!), to cancel the pilot program, again with the seeming support of the City Attorney, who elaborated on several “justifications” that would justify the cancellation. This move frees up $100,000 which had been in a restricted fund and will take effect after a 60-day notice period.
Granted, this is only a small fraction of the power ECP sells, but in terms of symbolism, it’s chock full of it. The pilot program’s customer base is a who’s who of the kool-aid crowd who supported and conceived of ECP, not really based on any business plan other than frothing-at-the-mouth dogma, which is of course no business plan at all.
Mayor Winters’ final comment on where we’re heading: “Even though the water runs slow, it runs deep. And things are happening here.”
Posted in Great Falls City Government, New | 7 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 24 July 2010
The Trib makes the reasonable point today that it is insane that Tim Gregori is still spending taxpayers’ and co-op members’ money on the HGS site. Good for them.
Unfortunately, they meander to that point only after several florid paragraphs about “embark[ing] upon the rocky road to energy independence” and how the city and co-ops “set out upon that road with good intentions and big plans…” Well, perhaps the editorialists are being sublimely understated.
Let’s be clear on a bit of history since, at this moment when certain City staffers are talking about renegotiating ECP contracts, we so often seem bound to repeat past mistakes: Electric City Power had a disaster of a business plan from the get-go. No utility or co-op in Montana would set fixed rates for their customers even while, on the other end, they’ve contracted for power delivered (as by Southern) on a shifting-cost basis. This obvious flaw with the ECP business plan has had its consequences: $4 million on paper by the end of this fiscal year, and with the huge unknown of the debt which, if Southern defaults on its Prudential loan, could pass down to the city and co-ops whose wholesale power contracts are listed as securities. I remain stunned that the city staff, two mayors and a gaggle of commissioners, several Great Falls businesses, the Tribune, would not have seen a flaw which, in fact, opened the City up to far greater risk than it would have faced had it stayed with the utility.
It’s what one energy lawyer in Montana recently described to me as a “competence gap” between our municipal electric company and others in the business. Quite simply, it’s hard to run an energy company.
Readers are aware that I’m not head-over-heels for the regulatory state. That said, a lot of the decisions that put ECP and Southern in jeopardy–fixed rates, disobedience of the filed-rate doctrine, unassigned base-load generation from the original coal plant–would certainly have been disallowed by the PSC if NorthWestern tried to pull such a thing.
And that’s not even touching on issues like subsidizing big businesses’ electricity through water credits to make it seem like the customer was getting a good deal, even while the taxpayer would be (and now is) being made to eat it on the back end of things.
Certain people need to realize they got caught up in a “monorail” moment when hope and speculation overcame reason and facts. Quite honestly, every Great Falls citizen who was mad about how NorthWestern handled itself in the early 2000s, should be twice as furious at how ECP has been run.
Posted in Great Falls City Government, New | 23 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 July 2010
Craig Moore asked me below if there was a ‘back story’ to my prickliness on some of the comments. There is. I’m tired.
I’m tired of blogging. Someone could raise the completely fair point that, as little as I actually write any more, it would be hard to imagine that I could be tired of it. I am though. It’s a cyclical thing and right now I’m in a trough.
I’m tired of bad news. My dad died in May. My mom is in the transitional care unit. I’m going to a funeral today for a man that I considered a pretty good friend, who died while I was enjoying a nice day with his son, and whose son was informed of his father’s passing in my presence. A very close friend and associate is recovering from a serious illness, and hers is a daily struggle.
I’m tired of worrying about money. Several years ago I lived on a reasonably comfortable margin. Now that margin is reduced in part by the fact that others felt it necessary to impose themselves on the way I operate my businesses. It’s reduced further by general business conditions, and have already taken a look at what the coming end of the Bush tax cuts and wider net of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do. Let’s just say it isn’t going to help. In order to pay my bills I have to be more productive and work longer hours.
I’m tired of this weird idiopathic cough I have. I didn’t think much of it when I had several coughing fits in the middle of a jury trial a few weeks ago, and my client was sweet enough to bring me cough drops. Then, when I was playing a videotaped deposition from back in February in that trial, and I heard myself have another coughing fit then, I went back to the doctors again. I cough all night, which keeps me awake, which means…I’m tired.
I’m tired of the City’s stupid farce known as ECP. This thing is bleeding money at the rate of thousands of dollars a day, and has cost taxpayers millions. Yet the City Commission takes their time as though we’re making money on the thing. Rate increases? We’re working on that. Evaluate extrication? See us in the fall. Just remember that every morning when you wake up, the City has lost a couple thousand more dollars. And tomorrow. And the day after that. And…
I’m tired of SME. It’s truly disgusting to think about the amount of public money that has been sunk into this enterprise, while so much of its business has been conducted in secret. The secrecy is aggravated by the fact that people who work for the City, people you pay, were ‘in on it.’ Wouldn’t you just love, just once, to ask some of these City officials just what statute or rule allowed them to act as puppet masters, slinking into closed SME meetings, plotting the expenditure of millions of our dollars, all the while refusing to tell you the truth… or anything at all? Oh, and guess what? Some of them still work for you.
Which brings me to Craig’s question. I’m tired of some of you. I’m tired of anonymous smart asses coming to our home, so to speak, and flipping me sh*t.
I’m tired of MarkT insulting us all the time.
I’m tired of people who are so sure that their point of view equates them to the angels that they have no compunction about smearing those they disagree with on a particular point. What, are we becoming the Tribune Forums?
Seriously, we had a local public official, County Commissioner, Joe Briggs, show up here to engage us on a very controversial topic in which he was directly involved. He spent a great deal of time explaining his point of view.
Well, first we get a commenter suggesting that the zoning issue should have been put on the ballot. When asked for legal authority for that proposition, we received a vague and inapplicable reference to a different local vote, and then a suggestion about a public vote in Berkely, California. Oh, that’s helpful. They voted on medical marijuana in California, so let’s slam the County Commission for not letting us vote on a zone change. Gosh, they have a coal plant in San Juan. Guess that means we should have one here, huh?
Another commenter suggests that the Commission should have disregarded what its lawyers told it, and considered SME’s financial viability in considering the zone change. Another one calls Commissioner Briggs “shady” based on supposition and assumption. This one is “pretty sure” of something, but he or she cannot be bothered to actually do some research to support the accusation that s/he so quickly leveled.
Get a grip, folks.
You don’t want the Highwood Generating Station to be built.
I get it. We all get it. But let’s keep our eye on the ball. Maybe before making accusations, you might want to actually read the goddamned law you’re spouting about?
How many people claim that SME’s moving dirt around is illegal? Maybe you would like to look at the County Planning Department’s revocation letter? Maybe you wish to consider that no conformance permit is required for “leveling terrain, …landscaping, …and impervious surface coverage?”
No, it’s much easier to claim that “I do find it a bit shady to say earth moving is ok,” or “NO activity should be permitted,” or that it “[s]ounds to me as though that means a valid permit is need [sic].”
This isn’t the Tribune Forums. I’m tired of baseless, yes, baseless personal attacks based on unthinking bullsh*t spewed from one’s backside. Put up or shut up.
Nah, it’s much easier to sit and call people names based on what “sounds to me” or what “I’m pretty sure” about.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll go off my rant. Assume that you want people to agree with you. Assume that you want to persuade them. If you’re turning me against you when I agree with you, what do you think you’re doing for your cause with the rest of the people who aren’t paying all that much attention?
Think about that.
So, to end on a positive note, I’m going to a funeral today. On the other hand, tomorrow’s Friday, it’s supposed to be a nice weekend, and I’m working on a more in depth piece about the Animal Foundation/Shelter issue. Maybe that will wake me up!
UPDATE: Based on the comments below, as well as some personal emails that I have received, I should clarify that the foregoing was not intended as some sort of whiny, ‘wah wah’ type post. I’m fine. Really. Life’s got ups and downs, and I’ve seen a lot of both.
I was hoping to a) explain why my posting is decreased and b) get some of the bitchier people to re-think their bitchiness a little bit. That’s all.
Have a great Thursday.
Posted in Cascade County Government, Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Environmentalism, Great Falls City Government, Law, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 65 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 18 July 2010
I’ve been out on the hustings for a few days–first to the “far east” and then to the Blaine County Fair in Chinook–but that’s given me plenty of drive time to reflect on SME’s current position.
The bottom line of the High Court’s decision, if you’ve been in a cave the last couple days, is to revert SME’s 668 acres to its status quo ante zoning designation: A-2 Agricultural. That means no power plant unless SME finagles a special-use permit for the A-2 area from the Board of Adjustments, as county commissioner Joe Briggs notes in comments. (Gregori — let me tell you from personal experience — is a bit cagey these days and may well go tilting that windmill, which involves public hearings and the whole works but, just a hunch, I’d think it unlikely for a permit to be approved and, if it were, I’m sure another round of litigation would follow.)
For now, Gregori has announced that he will ask the Supremes to “reconsider” their 4-3 decision, presumably by arguing that the material investment to the HGS site on Salem Road makes reversion to a bona fide agricultural zoning designation impossible. This is going to be hard for even the silver tongues of Messrs Gregori & Doak, because despite obtaining financing (and there must be a provision in those documents meant for just this occasion) HGS really has not been started in a physicial manner. And, of course, the court has already ruled against SME, and I doubt a justice would swing a vote on the basis of the few concrete barriers, earthworks, and gas piping that’s on-site at HGS. Perhaps I’ll cruise out to Salem Road personally to get another look first-hand.
This ruling is a dramatic turn of events — at least for those people who thought HGS would ever be built. (And, you know, I was almost believing in the last couple months that it might be built, what with financing and all; I’ll have to give myself a few hard pinches next time.)
With huge debt outstanding as the result of a power plant that will not be built, SME will be saddling its customers for decades to come with rates that reflect this never-to-be-seen white elephant. This, of course, is what most co-ops in Montana feared would happen from the get-go of this somewhat far-fetched and risky project, which was — quite ironically — undertaken to provide added security to the electric-power market. Most co-ops wisely stayed put with larger suppliers like Basin Electric. But for certain “kool-aid drinkers” in the City of Great Falls and elsewhere (that term comes from a co-op manager elsewhere in Montana), it was full-speed ahead at any cost.
Now we are yet again in a seminal moment, the latest opportunity to exhibit leadership since it became clear the coal-fired HGS was doomed. At that point, reasonable individuals within the distribution co-ops and the City should have drawn a line and said, “Well, we gave it a try but it just didn’t work,” and folded up the fantasy. (A minority, like Yellowstone, did exactly this — and is best positioned for the exit door, which would leave the City and four other co-ops holding the bag.) But Gregori and the kool-aid crew went gallivanting off with hastily concocted plans for the most uneconomic power plant in the state–a facility anyone with a basic knowledge of electric-power generation will tell you simply does not make sense.
We now face another decision moment. We can either continue to live in Bizarro World where–”monorail, monorail, monorail!”–Gregori will devise some switcheroo which, however unlikely and uneconomical, will be sold to the public as what’s going to happen whether you like it or not. Let’s be clear: any change in HGS’s location would take additional YEARS of permitting, even as the interest accumulates on SME’s (which is to say our) loan. And in light of the court’s ruling, right or wrong, it is surely time to acknowledge that construction on the intended site is just not going to happen.
Let’s just hope someone on SME’s board of directors other than Yellowstone’s man finally pipes up and says “This is nuts. This has got to end.” SME is no longer a credible power-plant developer, if it ever was one. So let’s stop our little dance with dishonesty, moving targets, and hemmoraghing budgets, and pursue the only course which makes any sense–which is to deem SME to be the wreck that it is, and extricate its members as best possible from the wreckage.
I can’t imagine survival-mode Tim Gregori would be up to offering that appraisal, now matter how much clearer that same truth becomes. That means it’ll be up to his employers, the SME Board of Directors, to finally call a halt to this scheme.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 5 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 16 July 2010
Sorry I didn’t get this up earlier, but I was dealing with a personal tragedy.
Posted in Cascade County Government, Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Law, Local & State Government, New | 47 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 22 June 2010
Reading Dave Kelsey’s letter, which Gregg blogged about below, about Southern refusing to turn over documentation to one of their own trustees, I was left with the thought — “What now?”
As near as I can tell, the issue concerns Southern Montana’s transmission difficulties: one of myriad problems Tim Gregori’s outfit has faced as it gallivants around the state attempting to convince people that all his agreements which were contingent on a coal-fired plant should still be valid now that his targets have moved so dramatically (natural-gas fired plant for “peaking” power, etc.)
You can see NorthWestern Energy’s interconnection queue here — it shows the order in which various companies signed up for space on the transmission grid. Southern has signed up for two spaces — the coal-fired HGS (a 268 MW thermal generator) is #32 and the natural-gas fired plant is #94. Apparently it was Southern’s intention to use the coal-fired space for the natural-gas plant. But NWE pointedly notes in a recent feasibility study that these are “separate and distinct requests.” I sense a storm brewing, possibly before FERC.
Among other questions which Dave Kelsey has and which the City should have about this issue, I also have a few, including: What’s Southern paying for all this? And is it paying for more space than it needs by maintaining the first Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for a coal plant? If Southern is, in fact, that far down on the queue, will they be able to get transmission services in time for the natural-gas-fired HGS’s coming online?
This situation still needs a lot more clarity. Let’s hope someone will come up with some answer. To quote Kelsey’s letter: “Maybe Enron would still be in business if its Board had questioned the decisions of the geniuses who are now in prison, instead of rubber-stamping their decisions.” Would be nice if the City had a bullish trustee who followed Kelsey’s lead and was willing to ask the tough questions on some of these issues.
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, New | 13 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 June 2010
According to this June 16, 2010, letter from Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative to SME, SME has apparently cut some sort of deal with Northwestern Energy and, as seems to be the usual case, does not want anyone to know just what deal was cut.
Since we don’t know what the contract says or doesn’t say, so there is no way to gauge the accuracy of the writer’s suggestion of upwards of $50,000,000.00 in liability.
Open point to our Mayor and Commissioners: How would you feel if the City found itself on the wrong end of a portion of $50 million in liability on a contract that was kept from you?
This is no way to run a railroad. While I understand the Mayor’s call for patience on resolution of this issue, the clock has been ticking for a while now. The Executive Director has bailed; why can’t we?
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 2 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 20 June 2010
It seems as though SME’s counsel, Jon Doak, has a tough time keeping track of just who his client is…or isn’t.
First, we have Travis’ very cogent inquiry as to just why SME”s attorney is sending legal demands to bloggers on behalf of Tim Gregori, an individual Is SME money being used to pay him to do that? (By the way, it seems we have heard the last of it from Doak and Gregori)
Then it turns out he was representing SME in the lawsuit filed by Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative at the same time he was representing SME in its general business affairs (p.4). Litigating against one’s own clients is generally frowned upon.
Hopefully other details are handled more carefully, although who one represents is generally considered a fairly basic point.
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Law, New | 1 Comment »
Written by Gregg Smith on 15 June 2010
Eulogistic comments (“excellent job”) aside, I think it is interesting that City Fiscal Services Director and former head of Electric City Power, Coleen Balzarini, can’t quite be straight with the citizens even during her exit:
Rates need to be raised to mitigate the losses, she said. The city is in the process of speaking with its 38 customers about rate increases, she said.
The city actually has made a $58,000 profit in selling electricity for the year. It collected $8,134,000 million in revenue and paid supplier Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperation $8,076,000.
“Our problem is we have other expenses besides energy supply,” she said.
No, the city actually didn’t make a profit. One cannot simply choose to exclude business expenses and claim a profit. That’s sophistry.
Fake profits, too, cannot fund ordinary City expenses:
Rezentes linked the losses at ECP to the city’s troubles funding more downtown cops and keeping recreational facilities open but Balzarini denied the charge, saying, “I know that’s what Mr. Rezentes wants to believe.”
No, it’s what we all want to believe. The City’s budget is a zero-sum game. Despite all of the ‘fancy accounting’ we have seen over the years, a dollar cannot be in two accounts at the same time. A million bucks lost here cannot be spent there.
Now, though, Ms. Balzarini purports to ‘get it,’ echoing many of the same comments and criticisms made elsewhere:
The city decided to begin selling power in 2003, after NorthWestern Energy canceled existing power contracts. At the time, it was a good idea, Balzarini said. But developments that came afterward hurt the city, she said.
One change came in 2007 when the Montana Legislature froze the city’s current customer base, preventing the city from signing up new customers, she said.
The city also lost a portion of its investment in coal-fired power plant that SME had once proposed to construct outside of Great Falls. That project fell apart when SME lost its financing through the federal government.
Today, Balzarini said, a “great deal of opposition” exists toward ECP.
“And the City Commission has to take that into consideration,” she said.
In fairness to Ms. Balzarini, it was the City Commission and former City Manager, John Lawton, who cooked up the absolutely brilliant plan to create a bazillion dollar public utility and staff it with someone who had another full-time job. Claiming she spent just 16 hours a week on ECP business, Coleen Balzarini provided a perfect explanation of just why this enterprise has been such a boondoggle.
“I know, we’ll start a public utility. And for the head of it, we’ll choose a part-time person, preferably one with another job.”
“Great idea! How about a volunteer board to go with it?”
“Only if board members don’t have any experience in the power business…”
“Deal!”
Once in the director’s position, though, Ms. Balzarini’s loyalties should have rested with the citizens, not Tim Gregori and the SME board. She’s a sharp enough individual to have seen the problems inherent in the situation and, rather than holding on by her fingernails to defend a losing proposition, she should have been touting the City’s escape from the utility’s chains.
So, I am not going to eulogize her and talk about how ’she’s done a great job’ or ‘it wasn’t her fault.’ She is a very nice person, and I think she is a pretty smart one. If I thought she was too stupid to understand what was going on, I’d probably give her a pass. She’s not stupid, though, and the fact is that she was and is a major proponent of an activity that has cost the City millions of dollars. No more, no less.
Posted in Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 7 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 14 June 2010
Coleen Balzarini has just announced her resignation as Executive Director of Electric City Power.
Apparently she said she needs to spend more time in Fiscal Services. Considering the City’s apparent difficulty in funding basic services, I would tend to agree with her.
Posted in Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 10 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 04 June 2010
I got another email related to the allegedly fake Tim Gregori (or is it Tim Gregory?) comments:
Dear Gregg:
Responding first to your email, Gregg, at about 3:04 p.m. Thursday, June 3:
Mr. Gregori contacted you via email as the host (and party responsible for) a web blog on which there were included two comments, allegedly made on May 27 at 6:13 a.m. and on May 27 at 11:44 a.m. by someone calling him (or her) self “Tim Gregori.”
The actual Tim Gregori advised you via email that such comments were not posted by him, and requested that you provide the return email address of the person who posted such comments.
Your 3:04 p.m. email, copied to me, completely evaded response to such request for the commenter’s return email address; and for some reason included Mr. Kavulla.
Please provide such return email address to me, as counsel for Southern Montana Electric. To avoid potential attorney-client privilege issues down the road, we would prefer that you not communicate directly with Mr. Gregori regarding matters concerning Southern Montana Electric, the Highwood Generating Station, or Electric City Power.
With regard to the email I received about 3:46 p.m. from Mr. Kavulla, I am somewhat interested in knowing (a) why you copied him with Mr. Gregori’s email and your email in response to Mr. Gregori’s and (b) whether he had anything to do with the comments posted May 27 on your blog under Mr. Gregori’s name, but without Mr. Gregori’s knowledge or consent. Please advise.
And with regard to Mr. Kavulla’s email, while we are aware that he is campaigning for public office, does he currently hold a position of responsibility or authority with the City of Great Falls and/or Electric City Power ? Please advise, as Southern is currently engaged in communications with other previously identified City representatives regarding power supply and other matters addressed in Mr. Kavulla’s email, and we seek to avoid miscommunications and/or misunderstandings on such important matters.
Mr. Kavulla should address questions or issues regarding the City’s contracts with Southern to the City, and to the extent he is dissatisfied with information provided by ECP or the City, Mr. Kavulla should henceforth address questions or issues with regard to Southern Montana’s ongoing contracts, records, meetings and the like to the undersigned or Mary Jaraczeski as Southern Montana’s counsel.
Sincerely,
Jon Doak
These people are so bossy. I’m really not sure why they think they can just demand this and request that and “please advise” me and be all like undersigned up in my face.
How do I know who is the real Tim Gregory and who is the fake Tim Gregori? How do I know that the real Tim Gregori didn’t post the original comments? Just because someone sends me an email claiming to be the real Tim Gregory and says that he didn’t post the other comments? It’s all just so darn confusing.
By the way, he sure is a presumptous guy, isn’t he? How does he know who owns the site and who is “responsible” for what. Don’t you love lawyers…trying to slip in all these sort of innuendos and little veiled threats.
I wonder how it will all work out for them.
Update: If you would like to see Mr. Doak, he comes in behind Tim Gregori at about 5:37 of this video.
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 5 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 03 June 2010
In what can only be described as wonderful timing given my post this morning about attacks on bloggers, I received the following email today from Tim Gregori (yes, the real Tim Gregori) of SME fame:
From: Tim Gregori <gregori@mcn.net>
Subject: Posts on your Blog
To: fallsblog@yahoo.com
Cc: “‘Jon Doak’” <doaklaw@wtp.net>, mkj@uazh.com
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 2:01 PM
Mr. Smith:
It has been brought to my attention that you are posting comments on your blog and using my name as the author. Consistent with yours and Mr. Kavulla’s positions on the right of the public to have access to information – please furnish me with a listing of the original posting complete with the return email addresses for the “posts” attributed to me on your blog entitled “SME Complaint” dated 26 May 2010 . Based on the information on your website you require the email address of anyone wishing to post a comment as condition of posting that comment. Surely, to maintain the integrity of your efforts you make certain comments are not fabricated to prove a particular point. As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan would say in response to those who would use falsehoods to support a position – “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts”.
Please mail a printed copy of the original postings complete with the return email address to the following address:
Tim Gregori
Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative
3521 Gabel Road
Billings, Montana 59102
Thanks,
Tim Gregori
I responded as follows:
Dear Jon and Mary:
I received the enclosed from Mr. Gregori. Even though Mr. Gregori has not contacted me in my professional capacity, since I am an attorney I will exercise an abundance of caution and communicate with you in order to avoid the appearance that I might be violating Rule 4.2, Montana Rules of Professional Conduct. If you both would prefer that I communicate directly with Mr. Gregori, please advise in writing and I will do so from that point forward. I trust you will pass my response along to him as you believe necessary.
Contrary to Mr. Gregori’s assertions, I have never posted a comment on my blog that I have attributed to Mr. Gregori. I disagree with his suggestion that records, electronic or otherwise, related to my weblog are public record.
Thank you.
Gregg Smith
Travis Kavulla, being ever so much more articulate than I, offered this:
Dear All:
Let me tell you how appreciative I am of Mr Gregori’s capacity for irony, of which this is the finest example to pass through my email inbox of late.
Mr Gregori surely must understand the difference between his G&T co-op and Mr Smith’s rather less lavishly financed weblog. In the first case, you have a co-op which receives not only federal subsidies and tax breaks, but also revenue from the City of Great Falls. I hope that Mr Gregori is aware, in light of Jim Santoro’s opinion on the matter, that our argument for Southern’s greater openness has always been premised on the fact that Southern receives public funds and is therefore subject to additional provisions of Montana’s open-meeting law. Electric City Weblog is not subject to these same provisions.
In any case — and I am unwisely proffering a deal without Mr Smith’s approval here — if Mr Gregori would like to do a kind of ‘information trade,’ I am sure ECW would gladly hand over whatever information it has about mysterious commenters would that Mr Gregori reciprocate with, say, some of the information supporting his most recent projected supply-cost estimate of ~$63 per MWh or perhaps his organization’s contract with PPL which Mr Gregori has indicated would result in “stranded costs” to taxpayers in Great Falls were they to withdraw before 2019. These documents are clearly within the vale of the public interest, and yet we have never seen them.
Anyways, as long as Mr Gregori is quoting the most cliched phrases which Bartleby’s has to offer, let me return him one, this by Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”
yours,
Travis Kavulla
I think Travis is on to something. If SME will hand over the PPL contract (and let Aart Dolman into the meeting while you’re at it!), I will give him whatever information I have about the faux-Tim Gregori commenter.
Posted in Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 23 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 02 June 2010
On a 3-2 vote, the city commission passed an ordinance whose pertinent part reads: “No use of land shall be permitted by right or conditionally permitted within the City of Great Falls that is in violation of federal, state or local law.”
Effectively, this bans the sale/distribution and growing of marijuana. Mere possession is not a “use of land,” I suspect, which would mean this “ban” does not actually prevent the possession of the substance by people who are card-holders. In other words, here’s a law which defers to a federal law which the feds are explicitly not enforcing; which does nothing to regulate demand, but pretends to the suppression of supply. What can one say, other than that this is a recipe for further criminality?
I would go on, but instead I think I’ll just quote Fred Burow, who had the best line of the evening: “History has always shown us that prohibition has always done the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do.”
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Medical Marijuana, New | 31 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 26 May 2010
This was sent to the City Attorney by Aart Dolman:
To: James Santoro, City Attorney
Great Falls, MT.
From: Aart Dolman
Date: May 24, 2010
Re: Filing of Complaint
Dear Mr. Santoro,
The following is a letter of complaint. I, a citizen of Great Falls in good standing, was prevented from entering the building where SME Trustees were holding a meeting at 9:00am on Thursday, May 20, 2010. The uniformed Billings City Police had responded to a request by the owner of the building not to allow me to park my vehicle on his property and prevent me from entering the building. The Police Officers also told me that the monthly SME Trustee meeting was a “private meeting” and that I was not allowed to attend.
I had received a copy of the SME Trustee Agenda meeting which was to be scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 20, 2010. The Southern Montana Electric Cooperative Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (SME, or also known as Southern Montana Electric) have monthly meetings and since no City of Great Falls public official or employee could attend I decided as a Great Falls citizen to observe that particular meeting.
On the previous day, Wednesday, May 19, I had received from the City of Great Falls Administration a copy of this SME Trustee Board Agenda. I had requested this document from the Mayor of Great Falls during the regular scheduled City Commission Meeting.
In early January 2010, I had requested that the City of Great Falls Commission provide me with a copy of the 2008 IRS Form 990, line #14, p.6, which stated that this non-profit SME Cooperative had a policy on the Retention and Destruction of Documents. The IRS tax filing of a non-profit organization is a public document, and I felt that I had every right to request from SME copies of its policies.
When a month later Judge Phillips’ ruling allowed citizens to examine SME documents, I thought that it was unusual for me to wait several months without a response from the City of Great Falls and SME. When I requested again during the April City Commission meeting that I had not heard about my request, the Mayor requested that the City Clerk sent Mr. Gregori a letter requesting a response. A few days later, I received a copy of a letter signed by Mr. Gregori that my request would be honored by SME in a “timely manner.”
After receiving the SME Trustee Agenda for May 20, 2010, Agenda, I was thrilled that under item VIII the trusties would discuss the document issue during their meeting. Thus I traveled to Billings to attend that monthly SME Board of Trustees meeting. Since Judge Phillips had ruled that SME documents were open for public examination, I had no reason to doubt that I would not be allowed to hear and witness the discussion by SME Trustees.
Shortly after 8:00am, on May 20th, 2010,I arrived at the building where the offices of SME are located on 3521 Gable Road, Billings, MT., and parked my vehicle in the south side parking area next to the side walk. I waited there for Beartooth Electric Cooperative members who were also interested in attending the SME Board of Trustee meeting. About fifteen minutes later Arleen Boyd and Larry Luhoff, and three others came and parked their vehicles in the same area. There was a continued flow of people in and out of the building. Because it was a multipurpose business building, the SME Trustee meeting was scheduled to be in the building’s ECI Conference Room.
About 8:25a.m, a Billings Police car arrived in the parking area and continued to the main entrance of the building. A uniformed Police Officer went into the building and a few minutes later he left the main entrance and walked directly to our group. He introduced himself as Officer Peterson and I introduced myself as a citizen from Great Falls. After the introductions, he informed the group, without asking our reason or purpose of the visit, that the owner of the property wanted us to leave the parking area and go to the nearby sidewalk and to continue our conversation with him. He also maintained that the meeting inside the building was a “private meeting” and that we could not enter the building.
After Arlene Boyd explained and informed the Billings Police Officer Peterson that we were here to attend the SME Trustee meeting, she showed him a packet of information which included a copy of the SME Trustee Agenda and the “Open Meeting” statement by City of Great Falls Attorney Mr. Santoro. To no avail the Police Officer stated repeatedly that this was a “private meeting” and that the owner of the building would not allow us to be in the parking area and the building for it was his private property. After a few minutes of conversation, I requested from the Police Officer where I could obtain a copy of this incident report and he told me that since this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, that there would be no police report. In the meantime, I had been informed that Police Officer Peterson was off-duty and had been hired by the owner of the building for the specific purpose of keeping our group of this property. This was puzzling and troublesome for me because the owner of a multi-use building prevented me from entering a building while others were free to enter and leave. So I requested from Police Officer Peterson that I meet with his shift commander. After a short discussion, the Police Officer walked a few paces away from us and when he returned he told me that SGT. Berry was on his way to meet with us.
In about 15 minutes, Billings Police SGT Berry arrived and joined us in the parking area next to the side walk. He also stated that we could not enter the parking lot or the building. This was at the request from the owner of the building and that the SME Trustee meeting was “private.” The public was not allowed. During our discussion with the police SGT, he read a copy of the Great Falls City Attorney ruling on “Open Meetings.” After a lengthy discussion, I asked for a copy of the police report and was told that this was a civil issue and not a criminal one; therefore there would not be a report. A police report would only be filed if there was a criminal incident. Again this conversation was troublesome and puzzling for me, and I wanted to ask if there was a Police Report of an earlier incident in the same building. Some of the members of our group had been trying to observe a SME Trustee meeting last February. I had seen the video where they had been ill-treated by SME Trustee members and the owner of the building in the hall way and were insulted by negative language including in offensive gestures while they were waiting for the Billings Police to arrive. I did not want the same pattern to occur. Therefore, I asked SGT Berry that, as a law abiding citizens, how I could enter the building and observe a meeting for which I had every right to attend? Certainly, a law obeying citizen would respect the order given by the Police but yet it seemed strange that the Billings Police would allow an illegal meeting. This was the reason for my request of a Police Report. Sergeant Berry informed me that there was already a record because someone with a video camera was present. After some more amicable and civilized discussion, SGT Berry promised me that he would write a report of this event. He then requested that we give him our names, addresses, and social security numbers. The group provided him with our names, etc.
In the meantime, Arleen Boyd had made four telephone calls to the Billings City Attorney Mr. Brooks on my private cell-phone and on the last call she discovered that he had a meeting with the Billings Police Chief and another official discussing our case. They requested that we give them a copy of the SME Trustee Agenda. Since we had given our copies to others so we had none to give to SGT Berry. Arleen Boyd then suggested that the SGT ask Mr. Gregori inside of the building for a copy of the Trustee Agenda. After about twenty minutes the SGT returned and stated that he could not get a copy of the SME Trustee Agenda from Mr. Gregori. Our group promised him to email a copy to the Billings Chief of Police and City Attorney.
After shaking hands with the Police Officers, I left the parking lot at approximately 10:15am after I received a card from Police Officer Peterson which stated the number, 10-21746, for a police report.
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 11 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 May 2010
In this letter, former City Manager, John Lawton, outlines what he believes would be fair treatment of the City in its ongoing relationship.
How much of this has occurred?
Also, this letter confirms what many of us thought all along about who was really running the City of Great Falls: “I intend to establish an official City position on all of this before I leave in the next couple of months.”
Posted in Coal Plant, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 11 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 22 May 2010
Travis pointed out that the ECP board (City Commission) is apparently contemplating sending Coleen Balzarini forth into the world to negotiate new power contracts with ECP’s customers, presumably to increase their rates. He suggested that the contracts might contain a ‘cap’ mechanism whereby the customer and/or ECP might be able to opt out in the event the prices exceed a certain level. MarkJ appropriately pointed out that the devil is in the details.
I would remind readers that the last time Ms. Balzarini was out trying to get customer contracts signed, the City maintained the position that, until those contracts were fully-executed (read: enforceable) they were confidential and not subject to the review by the public. Others might recall, too, when our then-City Manager knew that SME wouldn’t get cheap, government financing, but didn’t say anything to the public as the City signed a 40 year, cost-based contract.
The point is this. For whatever reason, Ms. Balzarini has decided that ECP must go on. She is an advocate for ECP on every level. If the City Commission elects to send her out on a confidential mission to negotiate and sign new contracts, do not be surprised of such contracts lean more toward protecting SME and ensuring the continuation of ECP than they do toward protecting the City or providing an exit point from the power business.
Posted in Coal Plant, Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Open Government | 4 Comments »
Written by Travis Kavulla on 20 May 2010
Talk about a legal victory no one wanted.
The City and Benefis have won their lawsuit against the Public Service Commission. Basically, the PSC/NWE attempted to define a customer as a meter. The City and Benefis argued that a meter was not a customer, that a customer could be an entity with many meters.
I suppose there are pros and cons to each side, and on the merits of the argument itself, I’m perhaps a little more partial to what seems the plain logic of the City’s argument.
That said, this will mean more business — which, ironically, may mean a greater deficit — for ECP.
You can download the ruling, out of Lewis & Clark County District Court, here.
Posted in Energy & Natural Resources, Great Falls City Government, New | 13 Comments »
Written by Gregg Smith on 18 May 2010
The Tribune ran a piece today suggesting the City will likely back out of talks for a new animal shelter. In addition to public statements, the piece is apparently based in part on this memo from City Manager Doyon. The piece also points out that, after the City swooped in and booted the Humane Society out of the shelter, its costs for shelter and animal control services have exploded:
City government in July 2007 took over animal control and shelter operations after complaints about the way the Humane Society of Cascade County ran the shelter and animal control. At the time, the city paid the society $115,000 per year and let the society keep adoption and license fees.
Under city Police Department tutelage, the animal control and shelter budget roughly doubled to more than $570,000 this year.
Not to sound like a broken record, but wouldn’t the millions of dollars we have wasted on the power venture have come in handy here?
By the way, can anyone confirm for me either way the rumor that suggests that the new, $6 million dollar shelter, would only have 4 more kennels than the existing shelter?
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 8 Comments »
