Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Board of County Commissioners
2016 MT 256
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Citizens appeals the district court’s denial of its challenge to Flathead County’s 2012 Revised Growth Policy.
- Planning Board conducted ~20 public workshops and two hearings from 2011–2012 to revise the policy.
- First final draft discussed at a Feb 15, 2012 public hearing; second final draft discussed in June 2012.
- Commission adopted the revised policy on Oct. 12, 2012 after a 30-day public comment period; meetings were recorded on DVD; no written findings of fact were issued.
- Citizens moved to strike an expert report (McMahon) and asserted statutory, constitutional, and procedural violations; district court granted strike.
- Court addresses whether revisions were “updates” vs. “amendments,” whether public participation was meaningful, and whether a final clause of Part 6 withstands constitutional scrutiny.
- Court ultimately holds that the process complied with law and that the growth policy is not regulatory and cannot violate constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in striking expert report | Citizens argues report aids understanding of proceedings. | McMahon offered legal conclusions; inadmissible under Rule 702. | No abuse; report improperly offered legal conclusions. |
| Whether the Commission complied with growth policy procedures for revisions | Planning Board exceeded scope; revisions were amendments requiring findings. | Revisions were updates; no findings required; Board acted within flexible work plan. | Yes, substantially complied; revisions treated as updates. |
| Whether meaningful public participation was ensured in revision process | Public participation rights violated by limited locations and records. | Multiple workshops/hearings; ample notice; public access via recordings. | Yes, meaningful participation afforded; constitutional rights satisfied. |
| Whether public comments were adequately incorporated into decision-making | Public comments were not adequately summarized or reflected in decisions. | Board/Commission considered comments and discussed/published how they influenced decisions. | Yes, comments considered and incorporated into process. |
| Whether final Part 6 clause survives constitutional scrutiny | Clause is vague and improperly Trumps constitutional rights. | Growth policy not regulatory; clause lacks force of law; cannot trump rights. | Clause not unconstitutional; lacks regulatory force. |
Key Cases Cited
- North 93 Neighbors, Inc. v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Flathead Cnty, 332 Mont. 327, 137 P.3d 557 (2006 MT 132) (abuse of discretion standard for growth policy amendments)
- Bitterroot River Protective Ass’n v. Bitterroot Conservation Dist., 346 Mont. 507, 198 P.3d 219 (2008 MT 377) (public participation requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 360 Mont. 207, 255 P.3d 80 (2011 MT 91) (growth policy not regulatory; substantial compliance standard)
- Allen v. Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Comm., 371 Mont. 310, 308 P.3d 956 (2013 MT 237) (planning board non-agency status; legislative nature of recommendations)
- Wicklund v. Sundheim, 383 Mont. 1, 367 P.3d 403 (2016 MT 62) (legal conclusions by experts inadmissible; role of expert testimony)
- Bryan v. Yellowstone County Elementary School Dist. No. 2, 312 Mont. 257, 60 P.3d 381 (2002 MT 264) (public participation rights require more than mere notice to be heard)