Stevens v. City of Missoula, 83-63

• Citation: 667 P.2d 440,40 St.Rep. 1267,205 Mont. 274
• Decision Date: 04 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-63,83-63
• Parties: Jeffrey STEVENS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF MISSOULA, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

Page 440

667 P.2d 440

205 Mont. 274

Jeffrey STEVENS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF MISSOULA, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 83-63.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted June 10, 1983.

Decided Aug. 4, 1983.

[205 Mont. 275] Deirdre Boggs, Missoula (argued), for plaintiffs and appellants.

Mae Nan Ellingson, Deputy City Atty. (argued), Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, for defendants and respondents.

MORRISON, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Montana, wherein injunctive and declaratory relief was denied to plaintiffs who challenged the validity of Special Improvement District No. 470 (SID 470).

SID 470 was created by the City of Missoula, acting through its City Council, to On February 2, 1981 the Missoula Parking Commission presented a proposed parking plan to the Missoula City Council during its regular meeting. The plan included two proposals for downtown, off-street parking improvements. The first proposal, sometimes referred to as alternative or phase one, called for the addition of 223 parking spaces on three separate surface lots. Alternative or phase two provided for 113 parking spaces on two surface lots and a 400-space parking garage on a third site. Both proposals entailed acquisition of the same parcels of land. Financing for the improvements included special assessment levies within a special improvement district, the suggested area for which was smaller than, and completely enveloped by, a 500-acre Urban Renewal District created in 1978. Financing also included revenues from parking facilities, a pledge of tax increment money from the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, which administers the Urban Renewal District, and possibly a "matching funds" grant from the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA). Alternative two was presented as being contingent on a grant of monies from the EDA. It was also the alternative preferred by various city officials in later discussions and meetings with property owners, including some of the instant plaintiffs.

expand off-street parking in downtown Missoula. SID 470 evolved from parking studies and plans developed by the Missoula Parking Commission and evaluated by the Missoula Redevelopment Agency. Plaintiffs own properties which lie within the boundaries of SID 470 and are subject to special assessment levies for the parking facilities to be constructed.

At that same meeting, the Missoula City Council passed Resolution No. 4107, entitled "A Resolution of Intention to Create Special Improvement District Number 470 for the Purpose of Providing Off-Street Parking Improvements." The resolution essentially adopted the proposals offered by the Parking Commission.

Pursuant to section 7-12-4104, MCA, the resolution contained a legal description of the area to be included in the special improvement district (Section II) and an explanation of the general character of the improvements, stated in the alternative (Section III).

Sections IV and V provided as follows:

SECTION IV

"Approximate Estimated Cost of Improvement. That the approximate estimated cost to be assessed against property within District Number 470 for making the off-street parking improvements described in Section III is as follows:

1. $1,386,000.00, such amount to pay for all improvements enumerated in alternative number 1; or

2. $1,900,000.00 for alternative number 2, of this amount $1,300,000.00 shall be used for the acquisition of two surface lots and installation of 113 parking spaces and $600,000.00 shall be used as matching funds for an EDA Grant of $1,300,000.00 to construct the parking garage.

SECTION V

"Determination of Alternative to be Adopted and Cost to be Assessed. In no event shall the costs to be assessed within Special Improvement District Number 470 exceed $1,900,000.00. In the event the City of Missoula's EDA Grant application to partially fund the construction of a parking garage is denied, the City will pursue alternative Number 1 at a cost of $1,386,000.00 to be assessed pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution."

Additionally, section VII included a finding by the City Council that the parking improvements are "of more than local ordinary benefit" as they would specially benefit each lot or parcel located within the contemplated boundaries of SID 470.

All but two of the instant plaintiffs filed written protests against the proposed district. Many spoke in opposition at the March 2, 1981 public hearing. Nevertheless, on March 16, 1981 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4123, creating SID 470. Again, the general character of the improvements to be made was framed in the alternative.

On August 23, 1982 plaintiffs filed suit against the above-named defendants, respondents herein, alleging, inter alia: (1) they were denied proper notice of the proposal and its cost because the resolution of intent for SID 470 was misleading in that it set forth the number of proposed parking spaces and the costs in the alternative; (2) benefits, if any, to be derived from provision of additional metered parking spaces were of a general government nature, rather than any special benefit to property within the boundaries of SID 470 and (3) the defendants arbitrarily and mistakenly included various properties within the proposed SID boundaries that cannot be specially benefited thereby and arbitrarily and mistakenly excluded other properties that may be specially benefited thereby.

The parties stipulated that a preliminary injunction would not be necessary and that the proceeding should be expedited. The matter went to trial on September 20, 1982. Several plaintiffs and various persons involved with the development or implementation of SID 470, testified.

Final judgment, together with an opinion and order denying plaintiffs all relief, was entered October 12, 1982. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or new trial by opinion and amended order, and this appeal followed.

We affirm.

Three issues are presented for review:

1. Whether Resolutions No. 4107 and No. 4123 provided adequate notice of the...