No. 12924
I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A
F H F OTN
MISSOULA RURAL FIRE DISTRICT,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-VS -
CITY O MISSOULA, e t a l . ,
F
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
V i c t o r V a l g e n t i and Fred C. Root, Missoula, Montana
V i c t o r V a l g e n t i argued, Missoula, Montana
Respondent:
Robert L. Deschamps 111, County Attorney, Missoula,
Montana
Harold V. Dye, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Missoula,
Montana
Robert N. Helding argued, Missoula, Montana
Submitted: June 23, 1975
Decided: YEpz
Filed: , '
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion
of the Court.
Defendant City appeals from adverse judgments entered
in the district court, Missoula County, enjoining it from
annexing certain properties to the City.
From the record it appears that on July 22, 1974, the
City of Missoula (City) adopted a resolution expressing its
intention to annex certain lands wholly surrounded by the City's
present corporate limits, known as the "Wapikiya area". This
area is within the boundaries of the Missoula Rural Fire Dis-
trict (Fire District) which had been in existence for more than
ten years prior to the attempted annexation.
On August 26, 1974, the Fire District obtained an order
in Missoula district court prohibiting the City from attempting
to annex the Wapikiya area.
On September 9, 1974, the City adopted four resolutions
to annex four separately described tracts adjacent to the City
which form an irregularly shaped block of land known as the
"Carline area". This area is also within the Fire District.
The Carline area property owners (property owners) and
the Fire District brought separate actions to prevent the annex-
ation of both areas.
On October 10, 1974, the Missoula district court held
a hearing, consolidated the cases and entered judgment enjoin-
ing the City from annexing either the Wapikiya or the Carline
areas and permanently enjoined the City from attempting to annex
any lands within the boundaries of the Fire District.
The City separately appealed the district court's order
of August 26, 1974, and judgment of October 10, 1974. This Court
consolidated the separate appeals for hearing.
This Court is requested to determine (1) whether annex-
ation by a city must follow the procedures set forth in "The
Planned Community Development Act of 1973", sections 11-514
through 11-525, R.C.M. 1947, or may prior annexation procedures
be followed; (2) whether a city may annex areas, surrounded by
the city or adjacent thereto, which are part of a rural fire
district.
The stated purpose of The Planned Community Development
Act of 1973 is to "develop a just and equitable system of
adding to and increasing cities boundaries" in the state, sec-
tion 11-515. The legislature "declared as a matter of state
policy that current annexation laws and planned methods incor-
porated in the Montana system are in many cases discriminatory
and are causing in many of the Montana cities indiscriminate
growth patterns", section 11-515. In this manner the legisla-
ture questioned the continuing usefulness of the annexation laws
which were in effect at the time of the enactment of the 1973
Act, but did not repeal the prior annexation acts. The legis-
lature did provide a measure of assistance in construction of
the 1973 Act in connection with prior annexation laws by provid-
ing in section 11-525, in pertinent part:
"In so far as the provisions of this act are in-
consistent with the provisions of any other law,
the provisions of this act shall be controlling.
The method of annexation authorized by this act
shall be construed as supplemental to and inde-
pendent from other methods of annexation author-
ized by state law."
The City asserts the final sentence of section 11-525,
allows a Montana municipality to annex areas pursuant to the
earlier annexation law contained in section 11-403, R.C.M. 1947.
Section 11-403(1) provides a specific summary annexation pro-
cedure for the annexation of land that is wholly surrounded by
a city. The 1973 Act does not contain such a specific special
procedure or make specific reference to wholly surrounded areas.
The City argues the annexation of wholly surrounded areas is
a unique problem, requiring different procedures than those
used to annex adjacent areas. The City points to this Court's
language in Brodie v. City of Missoula, 155 Mont. 185, 468 P.2d
778, stating the purpose of the summary procedure in section
11-403(1), as permitting orderly development of city boundaries
and preventing islands of land wholly surrounded by the city
which might create myriad problems.
Brodie was decided in 1970 so we assume the legislature
had full knowledge of the Court's concern with the unique sit-
uation of annexation of wholly surrounded land.
In Helena Valley Irrigation Dist. v. State Highway Comm'n,
150 Mont. 192, 199, 433 P.2d 791, this Court cited with approval
the general rule of statutory construction stated in 82 C.J.S.
Statutes S316, p. 541:
"It is also presumed that the legislature had,
and acted with respect to, full knowledge and
information as to the subject matter of the
statute and the existing conditions and relevant
facts relating thereto, as to prior and existing
law and legislation on the subject of the statute
and the existing condition thereof, as to judicial
decisions with respect to such prior and existing
law and legislation * * *."
By drawing no distinction between the annexation of
wholly surrounded and adjacent areas, the legislature is presumed
to have intended the 1973 Act should pertain to all types of
annexation covered by the existing statutes.
The City argues that when the legislature stated the
purpose
of the 1973 Act was to develop a system for "adding
to and increasing cities boundaries", section 11-515, the
annexation of surrounded areas was excluded thereby. Section
19-102, R.C.M. 1947, states in part:
"Words and phrases used in the codes and other
statutes of Montana are construed according to
the context and the approved usage of the language
* * * -1'
The word "add" is defined in Webster's Unabridged New
International Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1934:
"1. To join or unite, as one thing to another,
or as several particulars, so as to increase the
number, augment the quantity, enlarge the magni-
tude, or so as to form into-one aggregate * * *."
(Emphasis added)
Thus the approved usage of the word "add", in the context of
the 1973 Act, would indicate the legislature intended to include
any and all forms of annexation in the application of the 1973
Act.
The City argues the 1973 Act did not repeal the existing
annexation laws. The 1973 Act does state in section 11-525, that
the provisions of existing laws which are inconsistent with the
1973 Act are controlled by the 1973 Act and the annexation pro-
cedure in the 1973 Act is supplemental and independent of the
existing annexation laws.
The City further argues the wording of section 11-525
permits a city to use the annexation procedures of the existing
laws unless those procedures are clearly inconsistent with the
provisions of the 1973 Act. This does not follow as a matter of
law, since the City's interpretation would permit a city to
choose the annexation procedure most convenient to the city, ignor-
ing, if it so chose, the provisions of the 1973 Act, thereby render-
ing these provisions useless. This Court stated in Helena Valley
Irrigation District:
"The court will presume that the legislature would
not pass useless or meaningless legislation. 82
C.J.S. Statutes, 5316, pp. 546-547."
Reaffirming this presumption in Kish v. Montana State Prison,
161 Mont. 297, 301, 505 P.2d 891, the Court stated:
"The legislature does not perform useless acts."
If a city can annex an area using existing annexation
procedures which are not inconsistent with the 1973 Act, it may
continue to do so. But the city must follow the procedures of
the 1973 Act in all other instances, or the 1973 Act will be
meaningless and .a useless action of the legislature.
In the instant case, annexations of areas included in a
rural fire district are governed by the provisions of the 1973
Act, which state as a standard for annexation in section 11-519:
"(d) no part of the area shall be included within
the boundary, as existing at the inception of such
attempted annexation, of any fire district organized
under any of the provisions of chapter 20, Title
11, R.C.M. 1947, provided that such fire district
was originally organized at least ten (10) years
prior to the inception of such attempted annexation."
Any annexation of rural fire district land would be governed by
the 1973 Act. Any annexation procedure involving rural fire
district land undertaken pursuant to any other Montana annexation
law would be inconsistent with the prohibition contained in sec-
tion 11-519 (d) .
The City contends the district court judgment of October
10, 1974, enjoining the City from attempting any annexation pro-
cedure of whatever kind or character of any land within the bound-
aries of the Missoula Fire District, prevents the annexation of
such rural fire district land even when the property owners in
that area desire such annexation. This is true only as long as
the land remains in the rural fire district. Section 11-2008,
R.C.M. 1947, sets forth a procedure for withdrawing land from a
rural fire district. Once the land is withdrawn annexation may
proceed if the statutory annexation requirements are met. In
the spring of 1975, Missoula Fire District land was removed from
the rural fire district and annexed to the City.
The City argues that the procedure for withdrawal of
rural fire district land is, for practical purposes, unavailable
to property owners desiring annexation, unless they are developers
with sufficient financial backing. This argument is based on the
provision in section 11-2008(c) requiring the county comrnis-
sioners, upon receipt of a petition for withdrawal from the requis-
ite number of property owners, to give notice of the hearing on
the petition by first class mail to each freeholder in the rural
fire district. The City implies that the statute requires the
petitioners to assume the costs of such mailings, thereby making
the costs prohibitive. A reading of the statutory language puts
the duty of mailing on the county commissioners, but that ques-
tion is not before us on this appeal.
The judgments of the district court are affirmed.
....................................
Chief Justice
J "
---- - d$p$&&Qb
-\Pi ------
i
1 ,-
;ahah- - - C ? d & k - -
~74"-
Justices 4