The problem is that the size estimate of the cement slab provided by Whistler and set forth in Resolution 3599 is a "no larger than" number that has been exceeded by over 250% and there is no documentation of "regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting" or of any "green lights" being given beyond the building permit which was issued without knowledge by the building inspector of the existence of Resolution 3599.
An example of publicly available and transparent documentation that isn't mentioned in any of this reporting so far: The published minutes of Feb 1, 23 Parks Board meeting include both details on the 16x24 planned structure in addition to the existing 10x12' pad as well as the unanimous vote to recommending to Council executing the MOU with Hero's STEAM Center.
As I was able to find that on the City website fairly readily, I don't find the statement that there is "no documentation" particularly compelling.
Below is the entire entry for Theresa Whistler's Citizen's Comments from the minutes of the Feb 1, 23 Parks Board meeting. In it Whistler informs the Board that the 10x12 pad is in place (no indication that she received approval for a larger pad or that anything other than another 10x12 pad will be installed next to it for a 20x24 total pad) and informs them that the observatory will be 16x24. She does not ask for permission or indicate she has received it from elsewhere.
Citizen Comment on Matters within Board Jurisdiction (3-minute maximum)
Teresa Whistler- Whistler Observatory at Van Dyke Park update: 10x12 viewing pad is in place. Backyard Observatories is going to manufacture the observatory which will be 16X24. Location is outside of the airport RPZ. Will be meeting with contractors soon to determine funding needs and timeline. Teresa discussed MOU, and addressed that maintenance of the observatory will be the responsibility of Hero’s STEAM center. Courtney said that likely because the observatory will be under an existing MOU, they won’t need to go through the same event process with the city.
recommend to city council that they execute the MOU with Hero’s STEAM center.
If memory serves, the "comment" also included a visual aid and diagram of the planned structure and pad.
Regardless, in that same meeting, as recorded in the minutes, after hearing from Theresa the Parks Board voted unanimously to recommend to Council executing the MOU with Hero's STEAM Center.
"Graham motions to recommend that the city council executes the MOU with Hero’s STEAM Center for the observatory. Motion passes 7-0, Doug abstains."
No specific rule was broken nor was any codified process ignored- at least, no such rule or process has been cited in any public meeting I've attended, which is most of the meetings dealing with this project. The "whereas" statement in the resolution of support a year and a half ago that included an estimate of dimensions was followed up by regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting, which all gave green lights.
I'd be happy to hear otherwise, but so far this issue seems to have been an exercise in searching for violations of rules and processes that don't exist.
Our Council committees will likely be addressing processes and procedures, including the roles of Council, Parks Board, Planning Board, and third parties, in approving projects like this, which is great. But I don't see that this project has violated any established rule or procedure.
The problem is that the size estimate of the cement slab provided by Whistler and set forth in Resolution 3599 is a "no larger than" number that has been exceeded by over 250% and there is no documentation of "regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting" or of any "green lights" being given beyond the building permit which was issued without knowledge by the building inspector of the existence of Resolution 3599.
The author may ask whether the resolution itself is or was required by any rule or procedure, whether a "whereas" statement is binding in any resolution or ordinance, and whether other projects such as a shed at Coalminer's or any other buildings or structures within a City Park require council approval via resolution. If that's the "problem" as defined, then it's a wider conversation than this particular project.
For those who believe such projects should require a more structured process that's codified, to include Council approval, then I believe those opinions will be gladly heard by either or both Land Use and Planning and Public Works committees.
I don't believe more structure or codification is necessary, just a transparent process that keeps the public informed and welcomes participation while producing decisions that are based on factors and considerations that can be clearly articulated and that apply to all.
The author here verified the timeline and is accurate. This project either felt entitled to do as they pleased, or was mismanaged. Once there is an agreement, details and specifications just can't be made up as it goes along. Location aside, this project is a wonderful benefit for the community, but no amount of haranguing by defenders will change the intentional or unintentional, missteps involved.
If one assumes that Parks Board is the proper authority through which Parks projects flow -not an unreasonable assumption in my view- then the public minutes support a Board kept well appraised of design changes and which enthusiastically supported the project. And all proper permits were filed and approved by city staff.
I don't believe claims of mismanagement are grounded in any established procedure.
Nepotism and narcissism on full display from a couple of one term wonders. Montanans should be so grateful that New Jersey showed up to tell us how to appreciate our gorgeous dark night skies. PS to the New Jerseyites - re the Resolution: please accept that you are part of an additional demographic, not a changing demographic. The rest of us are still here. Thank you.
The approved specifications that appear to have been exceeded, and the lack of response from the principal, are both examples of how certain entities are so determined to get their way, that the rules don't apply to them.
The problem is that the size estimate of the cement slab provided by Whistler and set forth in Resolution 3599 is a "no larger than" number that has been exceeded by over 250% and there is no documentation of "regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting" or of any "green lights" being given beyond the building permit which was issued without knowledge by the building inspector of the existence of Resolution 3599.
An example of publicly available and transparent documentation that isn't mentioned in any of this reporting so far: The published minutes of Feb 1, 23 Parks Board meeting include both details on the 16x24 planned structure in addition to the existing 10x12' pad as well as the unanimous vote to recommending to Council executing the MOU with Hero's STEAM Center.
As I was able to find that on the City website fairly readily, I don't find the statement that there is "no documentation" particularly compelling.
Below is the entire entry for Theresa Whistler's Citizen's Comments from the minutes of the Feb 1, 23 Parks Board meeting. In it Whistler informs the Board that the 10x12 pad is in place (no indication that she received approval for a larger pad or that anything other than another 10x12 pad will be installed next to it for a 20x24 total pad) and informs them that the observatory will be 16x24. She does not ask for permission or indicate she has received it from elsewhere.
Citizen Comment on Matters within Board Jurisdiction (3-minute maximum)
Teresa Whistler- Whistler Observatory at Van Dyke Park update: 10x12 viewing pad is in place. Backyard Observatories is going to manufacture the observatory which will be 16X24. Location is outside of the airport RPZ. Will be meeting with contractors soon to determine funding needs and timeline. Teresa discussed MOU, and addressed that maintenance of the observatory will be the responsibility of Hero’s STEAM center. Courtney said that likely because the observatory will be under an existing MOU, they won’t need to go through the same event process with the city.
recommend to city council that they execute the MOU with Hero’s STEAM center.
If memory serves, the "comment" also included a visual aid and diagram of the planned structure and pad.
Regardless, in that same meeting, as recorded in the minutes, after hearing from Theresa the Parks Board voted unanimously to recommend to Council executing the MOU with Hero's STEAM Center.
"Graham motions to recommend that the city council executes the MOU with Hero’s STEAM Center for the observatory. Motion passes 7-0, Doug abstains."
I suggest instead of superfluous debating, redirect that energy to become part of the solution.
The ones reiterated, in the council meeting, of September 12, 2023, as part of the discussion during the last agenda item at approximately 7:30 p.m.
No specific rule was broken nor was any codified process ignored- at least, no such rule or process has been cited in any public meeting I've attended, which is most of the meetings dealing with this project. The "whereas" statement in the resolution of support a year and a half ago that included an estimate of dimensions was followed up by regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting, which all gave green lights.
I'd be happy to hear otherwise, but so far this issue seems to have been an exercise in searching for violations of rules and processes that don't exist.
Our Council committees will likely be addressing processes and procedures, including the roles of Council, Parks Board, Planning Board, and third parties, in approving projects like this, which is great. But I don't see that this project has violated any established rule or procedure.
The problem is that the size estimate of the cement slab provided by Whistler and set forth in Resolution 3599 is a "no larger than" number that has been exceeded by over 250% and there is no documentation of "regular communication with Parks Board and City staff permitting" or of any "green lights" being given beyond the building permit which was issued without knowledge by the building inspector of the existence of Resolution 3599.
The author may ask whether the resolution itself is or was required by any rule or procedure, whether a "whereas" statement is binding in any resolution or ordinance, and whether other projects such as a shed at Coalminer's or any other buildings or structures within a City Park require council approval via resolution. If that's the "problem" as defined, then it's a wider conversation than this particular project.
For those who believe such projects should require a more structured process that's codified, to include Council approval, then I believe those opinions will be gladly heard by either or both Land Use and Planning and Public Works committees.
I don't believe more structure or codification is necessary, just a transparent process that keeps the public informed and welcomes participation while producing decisions that are based on factors and considerations that can be clearly articulated and that apply to all.
The author here verified the timeline and is accurate. This project either felt entitled to do as they pleased, or was mismanaged. Once there is an agreement, details and specifications just can't be made up as it goes along. Location aside, this project is a wonderful benefit for the community, but no amount of haranguing by defenders will change the intentional or unintentional, missteps involved.
If one assumes that Parks Board is the proper authority through which Parks projects flow -not an unreasonable assumption in my view- then the public minutes support a Board kept well appraised of design changes and which enthusiastically supported the project. And all proper permits were filed and approved by city staff.
I don't believe claims of mismanagement are grounded in any established procedure.
Nepotism and narcissism on full display from a couple of one term wonders. Montanans should be so grateful that New Jersey showed up to tell us how to appreciate our gorgeous dark night skies. PS to the New Jerseyites - re the Resolution: please accept that you are part of an additional demographic, not a changing demographic. The rest of us are still here. Thank you.
The approved specifications that appear to have been exceeded, and the lack of response from the principal, are both examples of how certain entities are so determined to get their way, that the rules don't apply to them.
Which rules, exactly, weren't followed? The article doesn't cite any.