No. 85-478 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

MAURICE A. WARNER, JR., 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

THE COUNTY COYU'4ISSIONEFS OF GALLATIN 

COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants and Respondents. 

APPEAL FR.OM: District Court of the Eiahteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Frank Davis, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Michael P. Sand, Rozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

A. Michael Salvagni, County Attorney, Bozenan, Montana 

Thomas Anacker, Deputy County Atty., l3ozema.n 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 30, 1986 

Decided: March 20, 1986 

MAR 2 0 1986 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Maurice Warner, Jr. brought an action in the District 

Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County to 

enjoin the defendants from assessing any costs for 

improvements under Rural Improvement District No. 337 and to 

declare the resolution creating the district null and void. 

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of 

defendants. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. 

There is one issue in this case: in fixing boundaries 

of a rural improvement district, can a board of county 

commissioners include less than the entire lot within the 

district so as to equalize costs borne by each lot? 

In May 1984, a petition to create a rural improvement 

district relating to roads and entrance lighting was 

circulated for signatures in Middle Creek Meadow Subdivisions 

Nos. 1 and 3. The petition provided, " . . . each lot in the 

District shall pay an equal share for the costs and expenses 

of such District, regardless of size." 

The resolution of intention to create a rural 

improvement district passed by the Gallatin County Commission 

included 2,000 square feet of each lot closest to the roadway 

in the boundaries of the district, although the lots varied 

in size from approximately 38,000 square feet to 

approximately 312,000 square feet. The boundaries were drawn 

in this manner so that the assessment against each lot would 

be equal. 

Appellant argues this method of assessment is contrary 

to 9 7-12-2151., MCA (1983) which provides in pertinent part: 
The board shall assess the entire cost of such 

improvements against the entire district. Each lot 

or parcel of land assessed in such district shall 

be assessed with that part of the whole cost which 

its area bears to the area of the entire district, 

exclusive of streets, avenues, alleys, and public 

places. 

Appellant contends that this statute means the entire area of 

all lots must be included within the rural improvement 

district boundaries. 

However, in Ricker v. City of Helena (1923), 68 Mont. 

350, 218 P. 1049 this Court upheld a rural improvement 

district which included only the front twenty-five feet of 

the lots in its boundaries. We held the city council has the 

power to fix the boundaries of the district regardless of the 

size of lots owned. "Having the power to fix the boundaries 

of the district, the council must have the right to fix the 

same, independently of the ownership of the particular tracts 

or parcels abutting upon the improvement, otherwise, . . . it 

might be obliged to fix the boundaries in such a manner that 

gross inequality of costs and benefit would result." - Id. at 

Although R.icker involved a special improvement district 

created by a city council, we hold the ca.se is equally 

applicable to rural improvement districts created by county 

commissions. Under S 7-12-2103(2), MCA (1983) the county 

commission must describe the boundaries of a proposed rural 

improvement district and that power is not affected by the 

size of existing lots. 

The summary judgment for defendants granted by the 

District Court is affirmed. 
We Concur: