Conners to Webb/Glacier Investment Properties TIF FundsHAMMER, HEWITT,J L LL
ATTORNEYS: 100 FINANCIAL DRIVE, SUITE 1 00 PARALEGALS:
P.O. Box 7310
TODD A. HAMMER' KPOOKIE TULLY
ALISPELL, MT 59904
LINDA HEWITT CONNERS PAM WARBURTON
TELEPHONE (406) 755 2225
ANGELA K. JACOBS MARIAN AS!-ILEY
BRYCE R. FLOCH FAx: (406) 755-51 55
WEBSITE: WWW.ATTORNEYSMONTANA.COM
April 10, 2009
Myrt Webb, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana 59903
Re: Old School Station TIF Funds`
Glacier Investment Properties
Dear Mr. Webb:
This letter is a follow up ;to Glacier Investment 'Properties ("GIP") claim for TIF
funds as requested in the letter previously sent to Ms. Robertson on May 1, 2008. [copy
attached]. Prior to writing the letter to Ms. Robertson I had been I advised that the City
had not developed any form for applying for the TIF funds. My letter requested that if
additionalinformation' was needed to contact me.' Neither I, or my client received any
request for additional information from the City after the letter or any indication that
these funds would not be available and paid to GIP.
Following the City's receipt of my letter I was contacted by Charlie Harball, who
advised that the City was working on determining exactly how TIF
.11r,.,,: w.4... ...r......n'.t ...i t..r•.J._ 1.,! b k le ' �.J'w..r-ted " Glacier in rru.
uea o fiui ci lUui o�! l ici �!ui lua vi%0iiilU ur✓ paid. i'�c iiluii.aL�u ciiai 1! lvc3t� � l- L
Properties' would be able to be part of meetings that would discuss the allocation and
payment of TIF funds. To the best of my knowledge my client was never invited to any
meetings on the subject. My clients had been told by former city manager, Jim Patrick,
that funds would be paid in the order application for them was received. The concept
being that early' development would benefit first from the TIF funds as they took the risk
of a new technology park.
It is my understanding that your initial response to my client in a recent meeting
with them, is that a "claim" was never made by them. I hope that in ;light of better
understanding of the history on this topic you will reconsider the response and accept
the May 1 2008 letter as a'' "claim". Also if you have developed any form for making a
"claim" I would like to receive a copy so that 1 can have it for future use,
At the time of; my May 1, 2008 letter GIP did not know the City's portion of the
taxes that could be used for tax increment financing. As Mr. Harball advised the end of
May, 2008, the City was workingon the benefit/reimbursement program. The 2008 City
taxes on GIP's property, Lot 7 of Old School Station that my client believes would
qualify as TIF funds appears to be $12,800 based on information they have now
received. It is anticipated that the taxes will go up over the 15 year life of the
Technology Tax Increment District therefore my client is claiming a minimum of $12,800
to be increased each year as qualifying tax dollars from our project increase to a
maximum of $25,000 per year.
Breakdown of Reimbursement Items for GIP are:
Land Cost:
Purchase Price- $258;093
Less Developer Reimbursement $14,000 $244,093
Infrastructure Cost:
Site Work/Asphalt $100,354
Landscaping $ 22,480
Layout and Sleeving $ 8,000
Curbs and Sidewalks $ 15,780
FEC Connection Fee ` $ 3,734
City of Kalispell Tap $ 543
NW Energy Connection Fee $ 661
New Concrete Approach $ 4,047
$155, 599
Technology Cost:
Data & Phone Upgrade $21,376 $21,376
TOTAL REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT $421,068
My client's relied upon TIF benefits being available to it, based upon meetings
they had with Mr. Patrick, the City Attorney and the developers in selecting their location
to build. It is my understanding that the City still acknowledges that GIP is eligible for
TIF funds.'
GIP's experience with the Old School Station Development has not been good.
As you may or may not be fully aware, they were assessed by the City with substantial
fees from a Latecomers Agreement that was not in effect when the GIP lot was
contracted' for and closed and yet they paid such fee to reimburse for infrastructure. It°
was contended that some of the members of the entity were aware that such a fee was
being considered and that even though the agreement for the fee was not of record, had
not been executed and had not been fully determined as to amount they should be
covered by the latecomers agreement.
Now they feel that the City is attempting to take a position that since all of the terms of
the TIF benefit/reimbursement program had not been determined at the time GIP
bought and developed its property that it is not necessarily eligible for TIF funds. Before
purchasing and developing the property, they received verbal confirmation from the City
Manager that their project was eligible for TIF Funds and relied on that information. At
the time they had me submit a request for TIF money, the City had no process for
formally applying for or approving projects. It is not reasonable that the City now take a
position that GIP did not properly make a claim or that they might not be eligible as the
benefit/reimbursement program had not been fully developed. The resolution for the
TIF had been passed by the City and GIP took reasonable actions in reliance on their
participating in any TIF program.`
Again, if you need additional information to process this claim for TIF funds or,
have any questions, please, advil- - me
Very truly yours,
U da Hewitt Conners
Cc client