The City Commission has decided to send the Safety Levy to the ballot. Commissioners previously sought a property tax increase of 191% to fund the levy, essentially doubling the city’s budget to support this single levy. Outspoken supporters of the levy, like Commissioner Rick Tryon, quickly changed their tune when met with negative feedback from citizens. Although they’re still out of touch with what homeowners in Great Falls can afford, the safety levy is headed to the ballot, asking homeowners to approve a 65% increase to their property taxes.
How Much Would the Levy Cost You?
The city has noted that a 65% increase would come out to about $156.00 for a $100,000 house and around $300 for a $200,000 house. . A quick look at Realtor.com shows that the average home price in Great Falls is far nearer to $300,000. Using a house valued at 100,000 is a useless example of how the levy would affect most homeowners. So why is the city intentionally downplaying the expected cost to homeowners? Put simply, they know we can’t afford a 65% increase any more than we could afford their initial 191% increase.
Now the city is also looking to spend $150,000 on a private firm to advocate for the levy. That’s right, they’re spending over $150,000 of OUR tax money in an attempt to ALSO raise our property taxes by 65% Combine the hefty PR price tag with the arguably misleading housing market numbers being provided, and it seems the Commission is well aware that their ask is not practicable, affordable, or popular.
What’s the Return on Investment?
With the city seeking such a major tax increase, it’s important voters know what exactly this levy will fund. Of particular note, the levy would add two School Resource Officers (SROs) to the budget, with a total cost of $230,000 to the taxpayers. However, multiple studies have shown that SROs in no way increase the safety of schools. Rather, their presence has been shown to be harmful to the student population, particularly students of color. The National Education Association reports, “Yet research shows that SROs do little to reduce on-campus violence or mass shootings, and their presence is often damaging to students of color and students with disabilities. Having SROs in schools can actually create higher rates of behavioral incidents and spikes in suspensions, expulsions, and arrests.”
Studies also show that more police does not necessarily increase community safety. There is no indication that increasing law enforcement’s budget will result in a reduction of serious crime in our city. While police respond to crime, preventing crime is done by increasing community resources, like access to treatment programs for substance use and mental health. Do we want to focus on punishing criminals, or preventing crime from happening in the first place?
Can Great Falls Afford Higher Taxes?
In addition to concerns with the allocation of levy funds, the fact remains that Great Falls citizens are simply overtaxed and underpaid. An emerging housing crisis has already exacerbated the Great Falls housing market, and a 65% tax increase could be the final nail in the coffin for homeowners on a fixed income. Voters already approved a county safety levy last fall. Schools and other vital services also routinely rely on levies to support the increased costs of meeting community needs. If this massive safety levy were to pass, it would likely mean disaster for future levy attempts for other entities, like our schools. If education and public services deteriorate due to lack of funding, we could create an endless loop of increased crime and increased police budgets with a city that isn’t any safer.
Put simply, Great Falls citizens don’t have extra cash to support a 65% property tax increase.
Which begs the question, why is the Commission pushing dramatic property tax increases on homeowners while simultaneously giving massive tax breaks to companies like Calumet? How did the city decide our budget could forego $2.77 MILLION DOLLARS from the refinery, and then turn around and ask homeowners to pay an extra 65% on their houses? Read about the city’s massive tax-gift to Calumet here: https://wtf406.com/2022/09/county-approves-another-tax-break-for-refinery/
So which is it Great Falls? Do homeowners need to pay 65% more to fund a levy? Or are we so well-funded that we can give big-businesses massive tax breaks? Perhaps Great Falls will have fewer safety needs when none of us can afford to live here? Vote for the safety levy, and we’ll soon find out.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV), also known as instant-runoff voting, is a nonpartisan voting system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting a single candidate. In a ranked-choice voting system, voters mark their ballot by ranking the candidates in order of preference, such as first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on.
In the first round of vote counting, only the first-choice votes are counted. If one candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate wins the election. However, if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and then the second-choice votes on those ballots are counted instead. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.
In our current plurality system, a candidate could win with a mere 33% of the vote. This leaves nearly 70% of voters not choosing the winner, sometimes feeling unrepresented, and caught in a game of splitting and wasting their vote. The purpose of RCV is to ensure that the winning candidate has broad support among voters. By allowing voters to rank candidates, RCV can reduce the impact of candidates splitting the vote, promote positive campaigning, and it has been shown to reduce the amount of wasted votes by three times.
A noisy minority, who don’t trust the intelligence of voters, testified at the hearing for HB 598 that RCV is complicated and claimed that voters are unhappy with RCV. However, a vast majority of those surveyed have found it very easy to use and want to use it again–between 75% and 94% (depending on the location surveyed).
RCV is used in several countries around the world, including Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. In the United States, several cities have adopted RCV for local elections, including San Francisco, Oakland, Austin, New York City, Minneapolis and twenty-three cities in Utah. Some states have also adopted RCV for statewide elections, including Maine and Alaska, and seven states use RCV for military and overseas voting.
However, in Montana, even though no jurisdiction uses RCV (and some would argue that our constitution does not currently allow it to be used), HB 598 seeks to preemptively ban RCV from being used or even considered in Montana.
When HB 598 reached the floor, State Administration Committee member, Rep. Paul Green, changed his vote. When he realized that this ban would expressly limit local communities from choosing RCV for their local elections, he went from supporting the ban to opposing the ban. Had he considered this before, this bill would have died in committee. Despite this important consideration, the ban passed the House on March 3rd, with fourteen Republicans and all Democrats opposing the ban. You will be happy to know that Great Falls representatives George Nikolakakos (HD26) and Scott Kerns (HD23) were among those opposing this ban.
Eric Buhler is the Executive Director of RCV Montana, a grassroots nonpartisan nonprofit that seeks to educate Montana about alternative voting methods such as Ranked-choice Voting.
Nursing homes, particularly in rural communities, are closing across the state. The residents in these facilities are often forced to move away from family and friends to find a place that will accept them. The problem is Medicaid payments from the state for these facilities are far below what is needed to cover costs. Everyone knows about this problem, and Gianforte proposed a paltry increase while trying to save the rest of the budget surplus to give tax breaks to his rich friends. Problem is it’s too little, too late. Here’s an explanation from Big Sky 55+
First, A Little Math (Don’t Worry, This is Simple)
The current reimbursement rate for Medicaid patients is $208 per patient per day. The current cost of operation for nursing homes is estimated to be at least $279 per patient per day. Bottom line is that the current reimbursement rate is at least $71 a day short of covering expenses. But wait, there’s more! For every $1.00 the state spends for Medicaid expenses, the federal government pays $2.37. Simply put, for every dollar the state “saves” by not funding Medicaid services, it leaves $2.37 on the table. This only makes sense to Republicans.
Gianforte is Supposed to be a Good Businessman!?!?
The last legislature commissioned a study to determine what it would cost to stop the crashing of long term care facilities in Montana. Though the full cost is probably higher depending on the facility, the legislative study recommended a “benchmark” of $279 per day to cover costs. Gianforte’s budget proposed paying 88% of that amount. Last time we checked, any business has to meet expenses to keep its doors open. Doesn’t matter if you cover 88% percent or 95% of your costs, you still go out of business if you can’t cover 100%. But, as we have said before, Republicans don’t understand Economics 101.
Democratic Proposal Passed the House
In response to the obviously inadequate proposal in Gianforte’s budget, Representative Mary Caferro (D-Helena) introduced HB 649, which increased funding for long term care to the benchmark amount. Surprisingly, the bill passed on the House floor and is now on its way to the Senate.
Great Falls Republicans Split on Supporting Full Funding
There are two distinct factions in the Great Falls Republican Party which have been at war with each other for years. One camp is the local Central Committee which is composed of less extreme, corporatist members. The other camp is the tinfoil hat conspiracy crowd which is centered around the local Pachyderm Club. The dominant faction is the Pachyderm Club.
Corporatist Lackey Republicans for HB 649
Conspiracy Crazy Republicans against HB 649
Fred Anderson
Steven Galloway
Ed Buttrey
Scot Kerns
Steve Gist
Lola Sheldon-Galloway,
George Nikolakakos
If the above chart makes you think that the crazy crowd doesn’t run the local Republican Party in Cascade County, we remind you that the crazy Republican office holders in Cascade County include our Sheriff Jesse Slaughter, Clerk and Recorder Sandra Merchant, County Commissioner Rae Grulkowski, and perhaps the weirdest elected official in the state, Randy Pinocci. There has been a lot of news coverage about this split in Cascade County. Here’s just one example.
Hopefully the bill will be well received in the Senate. Montana has a huge budget surplus, and the people in nursing homes are among the most vulnerable in the state. Pushing them out the door is unnecessary and inhumane. Question is, does the Republican Party care?
