Parkline Partners TIF Application Public Comment from Brad WrightFrom:Brad Wright
To:Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject:EXTERNAL Urgent Pre-Agenda Public Comment: Parkline Partners TIF Application
Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 9:07:13 AM
Attachments:Urban Renewal Agency Board Meeting May 21 2026.pdf
[NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you know the content is safe.]
Please see the attached PDF file regarding the Parkline Partners TIF Application
discussed at the Urban Renewal Agency Board Meeting on May 21.
The attached document details highly unethical behavior by city staff
and others, which is actively enabling a corrupt approval process for
this application.
City Council intervention is required before this is forwarded to your agenda.
Thank you,
Brad Wright
SUBJECT: Intervention: Parkline Partners TIF Application
City Councilpersons:
The Parkline Partners TIF application is currently before the URA Board. While it is not yet on
your formal agenda, immediate Council intervention is required. City staff handling is
shielding critical project details through a rushed timeline and confidential site plans.
Critical Questions for Staff:
1. Administrative Secrecy: Why is a major taxpayer-funded development relying on
restricted, confidential plans to limit public scrutiny?
2. Ignored Liabilities: Why is staff ignoring conflicting property agreements and shared
parking liabilities to force this through?
3. Premature Commitments: What oversight is Council exercising to ensure public
resources aren’t being committed behind closed doors?
The Bottom Line: Do not wait for URA board approval. Use your oversight
authority to question the URA administration and pause this process immediately.
The attached pages contain the complete, itemized timeline and evidence previously submitted
to the URA Board.
Urban Renewal Agency Board Meeting
Public Comment
Agenda Topic - Parkline Partners TIF Application
May 21, 2026
URA Board Members,
While official information regarding the Parkline Partners (SHOP Development) TIF Application
is only trickling in, a preliminary review reveals immediate, deep concerns. Despite limited
transparency and a compressed timeline to adequately analyze these documents, the red flags
currently on the public record are too massive to ignore.
A Documented Pattern of Secrecy
According to emails provided by Flathead County’s Library Director Teri Dugan, on March 26,
2025, after a meeting with the “Library Team”, library architect David Koel of Cushing Terrell
contacted the owners of the Kalispell Mall and was referred to Brad Terry, who Koel wrote
“represents SHOP, the developer group”. Koel wrote that Terry -
● “responded with a conceptual site plan for the overall layout ideas for the Mall.”
● “For the moment he asked that we keep the drawing confidential, so I’ll need to figure
out how/when we can use it for our purposes.”
● “SHOP is planning to provide some shared parking counts for the development.”
● “NW corner on the north side of the trail easement: Need confirmation on whether this
would be library property or not.”
This email had, as recipients, Library Director Dugan, Library Trustees Jane Wheeler and
Carmen Cuthbertson, as well as some Cushing Terrell staff.
A few days later, on March 31, Wheeler wrote to Koel stating - “It is understandable that SHOP
is keeping a close hold on their plans and perhaps in lieu of any details from them, you could
use what you have to sketch out where we are placed in the overall plan.”
Two days later, On April 2, David Ingram, chairman of the library board, and Daniel Fuller,
partner in Parkline Partners, signed the Letter of Intent specifying roughly 2 acres and
non-shared parking, as well as other conditions.
On April 18, Koel wrote - “I wanted to ask - I don’t recall if you sent us whatever site information
you have for the corner of the mall property? Do you have detailed property line information,
etc? As I work on renderings of the site and the building, it would be good to have some details
to work within. Please send over whatever you have.”
On April 30, Dugan sent an email to Tara Fugina and David Randall of the County Attorney’s
Office, County Administrator Pete Melnick, and Trustee Chairman Ingram. Dugan wrote - “The
library board is working with Cushing Terrell on some preliminary concept drawings to be used
for fundraising for the new library. Would you please review the attached agreement?”
The agreement between the library and the architect is dated May 15, apparently by Ingram
through Docusign. A note on the agreement states that there have been “revisions” in the
document that “should be reviewed.” I don’t have a copy of the original agreement.
The only correspondence and documents I’ve seen have never mentioned Brad Terry who
supposedly “represents SHOP, the developer group” according to Koel. The TIF application
formally lists Buck Wheeler serving as the Member and Authorized Signatory. The other
documents I have include Daniel Fuller and John Doubleday. This raises the question - Why
didn’t Wheeler, Fuller or Doubleday provide the “conceptual site plan” to the architect
that was dramatically different from the signed LOI?
In Fall 2025, Cushing Terrell published drawings indicating a library in the northwest corner of
the mall property that included much less acreage and the unbuildable easement.
At the March 19, 2026, URA Board meeting, Parkline Partners submitted a TIF Application,
certified by Fuller, indicating a library with nearly the exact same acreage in the same location
with a slight modification to the boundary lines.
The Smoke Screen: Intentional Ambiguity
● Strategic Vagueness: The TIF application doesn't overtly eliminate the library site, and
that is by design. Keeping the boundaries and parking vague allows Parkline Partners to
project "good faith" to the Trustees while locking in public funds.
● The Real Plan: While keeping the library on the hook, the developer's actual application
details a fully commercial program for Phase 1 (hotel, venue, and retail pads). It’s a
classic bait-and-switch designed to shrink the library’s buildable footprint down to 1.2
acres once the public subsidies are approved.
The Legal Reality: The LOI Has Teeth
● Good Faith is Enforceable: The Trustees are under the impression the April 2025 LOI
is completely non-binding. That is a legal misconception. The signed LOI contains an
explicit, binding covenant requiring both parties to negotiate in good faith toward a final
agreement based on the original terms. Neither party negotiated in good faith and the
taxpayers suffer.
● Clear Breach: The original terms mandated a roughly 2 acre buildable footprint and
independent library parking. Using the library as a public relations shield to secure public
tax dollars while planning a commercial layout is a direct breach of that good-faith
obligation.
Taxpayer Exposure & Red Flags
● Holding the Bag: Relying on the signed LOI, the Library has already incurred significant
architectural and consultant fees with architects and consultants over the past year.
● The Bait-and-Switch: The developer knew this; the LOI specifically mandates
obligations. Letting them walk away quietly forfeits this protection and hands over an
estimated $2 million in public asset value obligation to an out-of-state developer for
nothing.
● Hidden Commissions: The rush to abandon the LOI ignores a highly irregular clause
stating the developer would pay a 2% commission to the Library’s exclusive buyer ’s
agent under a hidden "separate agreement."
Probable Unethical Behavior
The refusal to release the updated LOI from the May 15 Facilities Committee meeting speaks
volumes. The meeting included an updated “Working Draft” that states in bold letters - a
minimum of two acres” is a suitable site. To visualize what two acres are, it would include
nearly the entire area that includes the two buildings shown on the west end of the current
Parkline TIF Application. Presently, it includes the entire parking lot west of the Herberger's
building excluding the unbuildable ROW easement in the northwest corner.
The URA board and multiple official entities have been repeatedly warned about these
discrepancies, yet the response has been total silence. This persistent refusal to investigate
raises serious questions about whose interests are actually being protected. We cannot allow
strategic ambiguity to substitute for legally binding commitments when millions of taxpayer
dollars are on the line. Accepting a vague placeholder puts city and county taxpayers at severe
financial risk and abdicates this board's fiduciary duty to protect public assets.
The URA Board must pause all TIF approvals immediately. The board has an independent
obligation to protect public funds. No further taxpayer subsidies should be authorized until the
developer provides an explicit, legally binding commitment that honors the original 2 acre
baseline and parking promised to the library.
Since I ran out of time, I will continue to investigate this and find other documented irregularities.
Thank you,
Brad Wright