Conners to Harball/Latecomer Fees Follow UpHAMMER, JACOBS
0
ATTORNEYS:
100 FINANCIAL DRIVE, SUITE 100
PARALEGALS:
P.O. Box 7310
TODD A. HAMMER
KALISPELL; MT 59904
POOKIE TULLY
LINDA HEWITT CONNERS
TELEPHONE (406) 755 2225
PAM WARBURTON
ANGELA K. JACOBS
FAx: (406) 755-5155
MARIAN GEE
BRYCE R. FLOCH
WEBSITE: WWW.ATTORNEYSMONTANA.COM
September 5, 2008
Charles Harball, City Attorney
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box'1997
Kalispell,Montana 59903-1997
Re: Old School Station — Water and Sewer Latecomer Fees
Dear Charlie:
Thank you for providing me with the emails that you did last week. I passed
them along to the managing members of Glacier Investment Properties ("GIP") and a
member of the limited liability company.
My clients met this week, and also with their tenant Morrison Mairle, to discuss
issues relating to the building and the Latecomers Fee for possible water demand. As
you and I have discussed had GIP managing members and the architect been aware of
the position of the developers now taken that its property would be subject to the
Latecomers Fee, the owner might have opted to sprinkler the property to reduce the
water demand for the building rather than being charged for water demand necessary
for fire protection of an unsprinklered building.
GIP is determining the cost to retrofit the building with a sprinkler system that
would reduce the water demand allocated to the building giving the'Developer/City the
ability to sell that water capacity to others and recoup the cost of infrastructure. John
Peterson, one of the managing members of GIP and architect for the building, is on
vacation until September 15, 2008. On his return and after a meeting with the other
members of the limited liability company, we would like to have a meeting with all
parties present, GIP, the City, the Developer, and the Listing Broker to attempt to
resolve the issue of the latecomer fee. A meeting was previously attempted with Andy
Miller, but did not occur. As you are aware an offer was made to Mr. Miller to try and
settle the current dispute as to the enforceability of the fee against my client, but was
rejected.
I recognize the position that you seem to take, from the Developer's perspective,
is that all information' discussed with Bill Buxton prior to or after the formation of GIP is
deemed to be actual knowledge of the limited liability company. I have not yet
researched the issue' to have formed an opinion. After reviewing the 2008 email relating
to the language of the Latecomers Agreement, I wonder why the Agreement was
executed in the form it was if it intended to cover the two properties` already attached.
You and I have discussed the assessment of the Latecomers Fee Agreement to other
owners along Hwy 93, my question would be did they attach before or after the
Agreement and how were they treated in terms of sprinklered versus non'sprinklered
buildings.
By the time the limited liability company was formed and member initially
identified on May 11, 2007 1 believe that John Peterson was under a firm contract to
purchase the property and riid not know of the application of the Latecomers Fee as
think we all agree there was nothing of record that disclosed it and it was not disclosed
in the brokerage and selling materials.'
I do not see this as a good situation for anyone if it cannot be resolved by
negotiation and accommodation. I would hope that a face to face meeting of the parties
involved might bring some resolution to this matter.
I appreciate what I consider to be the "open" sharing of information to try and fully
understand the facts of this situation before we try to apply the law. I will call you as
soon as John returns from his vacation, the week of the 15tn
Very truly yours,
dxl—�
Linda Hewitt Conners
Cc John Peterson
Brian Solan