Opinion ID: 874391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The district court's augmentation of the record was in error, and was prejudicial to Kootenai County.

Text: Kootenai County argues that the district court erred in granting Respondents' motion to augment the record because the evidence was not material or relevant to a review of the Board's decision, and the evidence did not constitute proof of irregularities in procedure before the Board. We agree and further find that the augmentation was prejudicial to the County.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for augmentation of the record on appeal is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 144 Idaho 72, 75-76, 156 P.3d 573, 576-77 (2007). A decision within the discretion of the district court will not be disturbed on appeal if the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Id. at 76, 156 P.3d at 577. Judicial review of a county board of commissioners' decision is generally confined to the board record unless the party requesting the additional evidence can demonstrate that the evidence falls within the statutory exceptions provided for in I.C. § 67-5276. Id. Idaho Code § 67-5276 states: (1) If, before the date set for hearing, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the agency action, and that: (a) there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency, the court may remand the matter to the agency with directions that the agency receive additional evidence and conduct additional factfinding. (b) there were alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, the court may take proof on the matter. (2) The agency may modify its action by reason of the additional evidence and shall file any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court. In Crown Point, this Court found that the record failed to show that the request for augmentation of the record was accompanied by either good reasons for failure to present the evidence at the agency hearing or a showing of irregularities in the procedure before the agency. 144 Idaho at 76, 156 P.3d at 577. Similarly, in Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (2000), this Court found that no good reasons for the failure to present evidence or procedural irregularities were established that would authorize the district court to augment the record. This Court also stated that even if good reasons had been established, the district court should have remanded the matter to the county board of commissioners for additional fact finding pursuant to I.C. § 67-5276(1)(a). Urrutia, 134 Idaho at 361, 2 P.3d at 746. Procedural irregularities were found in an Idaho Court of Appeals case in which an application was voided without a hearing or any findings of fact or conclusions of law entered with respect to the application. Soloaga v. Bannock County, 119 Idaho 678, 683, 809 P.2d 1157, 1162 (Ct.App.1990). The Court of Appeals determined that the suspension of the application was a procedural irregularity and the district court had properly remanded the case to the agency for a final determination on the merits. Id. First, in the case presently before us, Respondents did not show that the additional evidence was material. Idaho Code § 67-6516 focuses on the characteristics of the site and the statute's consideration of conflict with the public interest and undue hardship is inherently restricted to a case-by-case analysis. Therefore, evidence regarding the Board's granting of a variance permit in another case is not material to the Board's decision based upon the unique characteristics of Respondents' properties. In addition, Respondents did not present any evidence that the other application should be admitted because of irregularities in procedure before the Board pursuant to I.C. § 67-5276(1)(b). A final decision was entered following a public hearing on the matter, unlike in Soloaga. Similarly to Crown Point and Urrutia, Respondents here presented no evidence in support of their motion to augment the record that would support a finding that there were irregularities in procedure before the agency. Instead, counsel's affidavit in support of the motion simply stated that [t]he attached documents support the Petitioners' claims that the decision by Kootenai County to deny their variance application was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Similarly, no proof of irregularities in procedure was provided at the hearing on the motion to augment the record that occurred on November 29, 2006. The district court recognized that it is only allowed to consider the record pursuant to Idaho case law. However, the court then based its decision to allow the evidence on not know[ing] of any other way to prove at least arbitrary behavior than by close comparison with different outcomes, indicating that the record was augmented to factually support Respondents' appeal. This is not an exception that is provided for by I.C. § 67-5276. Furthermore, even if not having any other way to prove at least arbitrary behavior constituted good reason within the meaning of I.C. § 67-5276(1)(a), the district court was required to remand the matter to the agency with directions that the agency receive additional evidence and conduct additional factfinding. I.C. § 67-5276(1)(a). Therefore, the district court did not act consistently with the applicable legal standards, nor did it reach its decision by an exercise of reason.
Even if the district court abused its discretion in allowing the additional evidence, it must also be shown that the court's error in including the additional evidence is prejudicial. Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 144 Idaho 72, 77, 156 P.3d 573, 578 (2007). An error is prejudicial only if it could have affected or did affect the outcome of a proceeding. Id. (emphasis added). In Crown Point, this Court found that since the district court had relied on improperly admitted evidence in reaching its decision, the erroneous inclusion of additional evidence was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion. Id. In contrast, in Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (2000), this Court found that the appellant was not prejudiced as a result of the district court's inclusion of additional evidence. The district court's final opinion in Urrutia did not mention the additional evidence and instead focused on the appellant county board of commissioners' misinterpretation of law. 134 Idaho at 361, 2 P.3d at 746. Therefore, the inclusion of the additional evidence constituted harmless error. Id. Here, it is difficult to determine the basis for the district court's decision given the short written finding by the court that the denial of the variance requests was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The district court did not directly mention the additional evidence in its final opinion. Instead, in its oral decision, the district court focused on the showing of undue hardship and the lack of evidence that the variance was in conflict with the public interest. However, given the district court's reasoning for allowing the other application in the first placeI don't know of any other way to prove at least arbitrary behavior than by close comparison with different outcomes it is highly likely that the district court considered the application in determining that the Board's decision had been arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. When granting the motion to augment the record the court also stated: [T]he commissioners can still be wrong, and so I don't know how much relevance this is going to bring to the situation, but on the other hand, I don't know how else any petitioner could really prove at least the arbitrary nature of someone's action without proof such as this, so I realize what the case law has restricted me to on my review. Thus, while the court acknowledged that it was restricted in its consideration of the additional evidence, it also recognized that it would have difficulty finding the Board's decision to be arbitrary without considering the other application. Given the district court's final finding that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, we find that the district court's inclusion of the evidence was prejudicial because it affected the outcome of the proceeding.