Whitefish should respect its residents

Rebecca Norton, a member of the Whitefish City Council, wrote an op-ed on Jan. 19 in the Daily Inter Lake expressing displeasure with Impact Fee Legislation, SB 142, and its sponsor, Sen Keith Regier, calling it ill-advised. I am a co-author of this legislation and have first-hand knowledge of what is in this bill and how it was created.

She claims that Whitefish was not contacted during the drafting of this bill. At the suggestion of Regier, I wrote to the League of Cities and Towns seeking input last fall and received no response. However, at the Senate hearing on Jan. 16, the League did speak along with a group of opposition cities organized by the League, including Whitefish. Communications work both ways and criticizing Regier for this is hypocritical.

Although Norton did recognize the main purpose of this bill was granting the Department of Commerce oversight authority over impact fees, she lacked understanding of virtually all of the other components of this bill. I can vouch with certainty that Norton either did not read this bill or comprehend it. Instead of criticizing Sen. Regier, perhaps Norton should, as an elected official, look at Whitefish. She knows why SB 142 was written and should understand that the problems this bill will fix are close to home.

The legislation was written for the most part to provide protections for residents and builders in Montana. And in no other city do the residents need this protection more than in Whitefish. I testified before the Jan. 16 Senate committee as a proponent of this legislation and also because I live in Whitefish. My testimony highlighted just one of many abuses of current law by Whitefish.

I’m not even going to try to write about all of the misinformation Norton published in her letter. Anyone who reads SB 142, can see Norton’s attempt to mislead. I am going to dispel two of her false claims.

Norton claims that the bill adds refunds. False. Refunds are already in the current legislation. What was added was that a city cannot add conditions to a refund.

That’s pretty common sense, right? Apparently not in Whitefish. City officials recently admitted that Whitefish broke the law and overcharged over 200 Whitefish residents and builders. It sent a letter demanding that these residents either allow city employees free access to inspect their homes or waive any right to a refund. This letter was sent to intimidate residents and there is no legal basis for this demand.

Astonishingly, Norton thinks this is perfectly OK. The overcharge was a Whitefish problem and the residents were victims of either Whitefish negligence or perhaps even fraud. No apology letter was sent to these victims, only a demand letter.

In 2021, we found this problem along with other impact fee errors. At a Council meeting we presented our findings in writing. Even after the city admitted it overcharged residents at this meeting, Norton spent her allotted time praising the city official responsible for these errors. She spent no time recognizing or apologizing to the victims.

Norton totally mischaracterized the legal fee issue introduced in this legislation. It’s pretty simple. If an impact fee lawsuit is initiated against a city, the winner of the suit (either the city or the claimant) can recover legal expenses from the loser.

Again, common sense. This protection was added because currently the cost of litigation for impact fee abuse is so high, it is a deterrent for citizens or builders to make claims against a city. I beleive some cities like Whitefish know this and are emboldened to break the law, knowing there is little recourse for victims.

Co-author William Halama described this in detail at the Jan. 16 Senate hearing. Yet Norton, who claims to have listened in by conference call, didn’t hear or comprehend it. Norton is adamantly objecting to this clause because Whitefish is currently involved in class action litigation and this might encourage others to seek remedies for other claims.

There are numerous other false claims in Norton’s letter that leads me to believe she never read the legislation. Perhaps Norton needs to look into the actions and behavior of Whitefish officials rather than criticize politicians such as Sen. Keith Regier who is doing his job and looking out for rights of ordinary citizens. Having worked with Regier, I can attest to this man’s character and sincere desire to do what’s best for his constituents and the community.

Finally, after the Jan. 16 Senate hearing, we had the opportunity to speak with several of the cities that testified in opposition to SB 142. And we get it. They told us privately they understand the need for oversight because of cities like Whitefish, but don’t think it’s fair that those cities that follow the laws need more restrictions.

It’s time for Whitefish to respect its citizens and respect the laws.

Paul Gillman is co-author of Senate Bill 142. He lives in Whitefish.