Court Opinion

ID: 9508263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:29:46.790886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:30.190219
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE MORRISON,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion.
Justice Hunt’s opinion in this case is well written. If I could find the statutory language ambiguous, I would sign the opinion.
Section 15-70-101, MCA, provides in relevant part as follows:
“(4) All funds hereby allocated to counties, cities, and towns shall be disbursed to the lowest responsible bidder according to applicable bidding procedures followed in all cases where the contract for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, or repair is in excess of $4,000.” [Emphasis supplied.]
In my opinion, this statute is clear on its face. Perhaps, as the majority opinion indicates, the legislature intended for the statute to have application to those situations where counties, cities and towns chose to put a job out for bids and not to apply to those situations where the governmental entities involved decided to perform the work themselves. Certainly, the legislature is aware of the fact that these governmental entities have equipment and customarily perform this kind of work. However, the rules of statutory construction provide that the intent of the legislature is not looked to where the statute is clear on its face. This statute seems very clear and subject to no interpretation except the one advanced by appellant.
I would reverse and remand with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Montana Contractors’ Association determining that the statute is clear in its face and that all funds allocated under the statute must be disbursed to the lowest responsible bidder.