What Was Brian Gallik's Letter This Week All About?

We failed to copy the lawyer representing Simkins Holdings, LLC on our letter to the editor this week, but curiously he received a copy in time from at least one of those editors to dash off a response before the deadline.  Clearly he was in a hurry because there are a number of factual misstatements that require correction.

Most importantly, we are not the "Incorporation Committee." That is his personal nickname for the Big Sky Community & Infrastructure Solution Group. If we had to make up a nickname for our official title, we might settle on the "Pro-democracy Committee."  We are all about giving the people who live here the opportunity to vote on whether to become a self-governing town.

He goes on to state that "Some aspects of [our] letter are incomplete and potentially misleading." The remainder of his letter concerns the resort tax questions that are awaiting submittal to the Montana Attorney General.

First, he makes several statements that our letter implies or suggests that these questions have been submitted and a determination has been made. That's pretty silly as the last paragraph of our letter clearly states the fact that the questions have been submitted to Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney and currently reside on his desk.

More substantively, he then presents his legal interpretation of state and local resort tax statutes and ordinances. To understand where he is going with this you need to understand the requests that have been sent to Marty Lambert for submittal to the Attorney General.

As explained by Al Malinowski at our May meeting, the Big Sky Resort Area District Board request poses two questions. The first question is, what's the impact on the existing district if a smaller interior portion of the District votes to become a self-governing town? The Board request makes the legal case that the unincorporated portion of the District would continue to operate as it does currently without disruption. The second part of the request concerns the relationship of the remaining District with the new  municipality and makes the legal case that the two entities could work together to assure funding for mutually beneficial activities, as provided by statutes designed to encourage inter-governmental cooperation.

As you can see, when you ask the Attorney General a question, you also provide the legal answer you expect based on your interpretation of the appropriate law.  Brian Gallik, legal counsel to Simkins Holdings, LLC, disagrees, apparently wholeheartedly, with the interpretation made by legal counsel for both the BSRAD and our group.

And there you have it.