Town attorney says individual owner can't unilaterally end Wheatland Hills lighting assessment; council weighs options

Culbertson — Property owner Paul Finnicum raised concerns about an assessment for streetlights at Wheatland Hills; the town attorney's detailed legal analysis concluded that an individual owner cannot unilaterally terminate a lighting district that covers the entire town.

At a December meeting Finnicum asked the council to address the streetlighting tax assessment applied to Wheatland Hills. Town Attorney Laura Christoffersen provided a December 5 letter explaining the legal framework and options available under Montana law. The letter says Wheatland Hills is part of the town's single lighting district and that only a petition signed by owners representing three-fourths of the district's property value or a council majority vote could discontinue the district.

Christoffersen wrote that "we can't terminate the lighting district as the lights at Wheatland Hills are in the same district as the entirety of town," and outlined three options: (1) abolish the lighting district (subject to contract and Public Service Commission procedures), (2) create a new Special Lighting District No. 2 with narrowly defined boundaries and a separate tariff or assessment, or (3) amend Special Lighting District No. 1 to include the full city limits and change assessment methods so every property pays some share.

She cited Montana Code Annotated provisions governing discontinuance and modification of special lighting districts (including MCA 7-12-4311, 7-12-4351, 7-12-4302, 7-12-4321, 7-12-4323, 7-12-4324) and explained statutory notice, protest and assessment rules that the council would have to follow. Christoffersen said creating a separate district could require new contracts for electricity service and might not reduce the owner's assessment without detailed cost and contract analysis.

Council members discussed options at subsequent meetings and asked staff to provide additional analysis. Paul Finnicum had earlier received a notice about a violation and was asked to submit a full sketch plan as part of development-review and variance procedures; the council later conditionally approved a variance for the property with a one-year timeline to meet code requirements.