Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 17 In so holding, the court explained that under the Montana Constitution (Mont. Const. art. III, § 5(1)), as well as Montana statutory law (MCA § 7-5-131), Montana citizens had the power of referendum and initiative over legislative acts only, not executive and administrative actions. Thus, whether the Referendum was valid depended on whether Resolution 10-46 was an administrative or legislative act. In determining that issue, the court looked to the following guidelines it had adopted in distinguish- ing legislative and administrative acts of government: "1. An ordinance that makes new law is legislative, while an ordinance that executes an existing law is administrative. Permanency and generality are key features of a legislative ordinance. 2. Acts that declare public purpose and provide ways and means to ac- complish that purpose generally may be classified as legislative. Acts that deal with a small segment of an overall policy question generally are administrative. 3. Decisions which require specialized training and experience in municipal government and intimate knowledge of the fiscal and other affairs of a city in order to make a rational choice may properly be characterized as administra- tive, even though they may also be said to involve the establishment of a policy. 4. No one act of a governing body is likely to be solely administrative or legislative, and the operation of the initiative and referendum statute is restricted to measures which are quite clearly and fully legislative and not principally executive or administrative." Applying those guidelines, here, the court found that: (1) the 2010 IA was an amendment to the previous interlocal agreement between the City and the County, which provided a limited duration and (2) was driven by a desire to settle the litigation, which (3) required specialized knowledge and experience of the City's fiscal and other affairs. The court found that those factors weighed in favor of Resolution 10-46 being considered an administrative action. Looking at the fourth guideline, the court acknowl- edged that the 2010 IA and Resolution 10-46 also held legislative implica- tions, including with regard to the City's authority. However, the court also found no zoning was enacted or affected by the action, and the City's zoning authority was initially retained. Balanced together, the court concluded that the City's action in passing Resolution 10-46 had "signifi- cant administrative characteristics that made it principally administrative in nature, and.that the legislative function did not predominate." Accordingly, the court affirmed the District Court's detennination that Resolution 10-46 was not subject to the power of referendum and therefore the Referendum did not validly rescind the City's authority to enter into the 2010 IA. See also: Town of Whitehall v. Preece, 1998 MT 53, 288 Mont. 55, 956 P.2d 743 (1998). 2014 Thomson Reuters 11