The question concerns the statutory authority of a county in Montana to impose a special improvement district for the purpose of funding the construction of a new community recreation center, which would benefit a specific, defined area within the county. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 12 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the creation and operation of special improvement districts by local governments. Under MCA 7-12-4101, counties have the power to create special improvement districts for various public works and improvements that benefit specific areas. The construction of a community recreation center, if designed to serve a particular segment of the county and funded through assessments on properties within that designated benefit area, falls within the general scope of improvements that counties are authorized to undertake via special improvement districts. The key is that the improvement must provide a discernible benefit to the properties within the district, justifying the imposition of special assessments. The statute allows for a broad range of improvements, and a recreation center, when appropriately planned and designated as a benefit, can be included. The process typically involves a resolution of intent, a public hearing, and the adoption of an ordinance creating the district, with the costs financed through assessments levied against the benefited properties. The authority is broad enough to encompass such a project, provided the procedural requirements and the benefit assessment are properly established according to state law.

In Montana, the process of annexing unincorporated territory into an existing municipality is governed by specific statutes, primarily found in the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). The MCA outlines several methods for annexation, each with distinct procedural requirements. One common method involves a petition signed by a certain percentage of landowners or registered voters within the territory to be annexed, coupled with a resolution by the municipal governing body. Another method, often referred to as “by ordinance,” can be initiated by the municipality itself, typically requiring a finding that the annexation is in the public interest and adherence to specific notice and hearing procedures. The Montana Supreme Court has consistently interpreted these statutes to ensure due process for affected property owners and residents. For instance, MCA Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, details the procedures for annexation by resolution or petition. This section requires that the petition be signed by at least 50% of the freeholders within the territory or by a majority of the registered voters. The municipality must then adopt a resolution of intent, followed by a public hearing, and finally, an ordinance of annexation. The question revolves around a scenario where a municipality bypasses the typical petition process and relies solely on an ordinance, asserting public interest without direct landowner consent. This approach is generally permissible under Montana law if the municipality follows the statutory procedures for annexation by ordinance, which often includes public hearings and specific notice requirements to inform all affected parties. The critical element is the adherence to the procedural safeguards established by MCA, ensuring that the annexation is legally sound and respects the rights of those within the annexed territory. Without a valid petition, the municipality must demonstrate compliance with the ordinance-based annexation provisions, which typically involve a more direct legislative action by the city council after due process.

The scenario presented involves a city council in Montana considering a zoning amendment that would permit mixed-use development in an area previously zoned exclusively for single-family residences. This type of action falls under the purview of a municipality’s inherent police power, which is the authority to enact laws and regulations to protect the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. In Montana, this power is constitutionally recognized and further defined by statutes such as the Montana Zoning Enabling Act (Title 76, Chapter 2, MCA). When a municipality exercises its zoning authority, it must adhere to established procedures, which typically include public notice, hearings before the planning board and the city council, and a formal vote. The key legal principle at play is that zoning ordinances, including amendments, must be adopted in accordance with statutory requirements and must serve a legitimate governmental purpose. The Montana Supreme Court has consistently upheld the authority of local governments to zone, provided these actions are reasonable, non-arbitrary, and bear a rational relationship to the public welfare. The process of amending a zoning ordinance, as described, aligns with these procedural and substantive requirements. Therefore, the council’s action is a legitimate exercise of its zoning power.

The question revolves around the authority of Montana counties to enact ordinances that might conflict with state law, specifically concerning environmental regulations. Montana law, under Title 7, Chapter 1, Part 2 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), generally grants broad powers to counties to adopt and enforce ordinances for the general welfare, health, and safety of the public. However, these powers are not absolute and are subject to limitations, particularly when state law preempts local authority or when local ordinances directly contradict state statutes. The principle of preemption dictates that if the state has occupied a field of regulation, local governments may not enact conflicting or additional regulations in that area. In Montana, the state has established comprehensive environmental protection statutes, such as those administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. Therefore, a county ordinance that attempts to impose stricter or different environmental standards than those set by state law, in a manner that frustrates the state’s regulatory scheme, would likely be deemed invalid due to state preemption. While counties can enact ordinances for local concerns, they cannot legislate in a manner that undermines or conflicts with statewide policies and statutes, especially in areas where the state has demonstrated a clear intent to regulate comprehensively. The key is whether the state law is intended to be the exclusive means of regulation in that particular area.

The question pertains to the process of annexing territory by a city in Montana. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs municipal annexation. For a city to annex unincorporated territory, a petition signed by a certain percentage of the landowners or electors within the territory is typically required, or a resolution by the city council followed by a vote of the residents in the annexed area. The specific threshold for the petition method is generally a majority of the freeholders or a majority of the electors, depending on the circumstances and the type of territory. However, the question presents a scenario where a city council wishes to annex land without a direct petition from the landowners. In such cases, the statutory process often involves a resolution by the city council, followed by a public hearing, and then a vote by the electors residing within the territory proposed for annexation. The statute requires that the area to be annexed must be contiguous to the existing city limits and must be reasonably capable of being served by municipal services. The council’s resolution must describe the territory and the reasons for annexation. Following the resolution, notice must be given, and a public hearing held. If the council proceeds, an election is called. The annexation is effective if approved by a majority of the votes cast in the election within the territory to be annexed. Therefore, the crucial first step when a petition is not forthcoming, and the city initiates the process, is the adoption of a resolution by the city council.

The question pertains to the authority of Montana county commissioners to levy special assessments for local improvements. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 13, Part 42 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the creation and operation of special improvement districts (SIDs) by counties. Section 7-13-4205 MCA outlines the general powers of county commissioners in establishing SIDs, including the power to construct, reconstruct, repair, or improve any public improvement within the district. Crucially, the financing of these improvements is typically through special assessments levied against the properties within the district that are specially benefited. The authority to levy these assessments is derived from the principle of special benefit, meaning the property owner receives a direct advantage from the improvement beyond the general benefit to the public. While counties can issue bonds to finance these projects, the repayment of these bonds, or direct payment for the improvements, comes from these assessments. The question asks about the primary legal basis for levying these assessments. The core principle underpinning special assessments is the concept of special benefit conferred upon the properties within the district. This distinguishes them from general taxes, which are levied for the common good and spread across the tax base. Therefore, the legal authority to levy special assessments is intrinsically tied to the demonstration and quantification of this special benefit. The Montana Constitution and statutes empower local governments to undertake such projects and fund them through assessments that reflect the enhanced value or utility of the property. The explanation focuses on the foundational legal principle that grants the authority to levy special assessments, which is the special benefit derived by the property owners.

Montana law, specifically concerning the powers of county commissioners, outlines the authority to levy taxes for specific purposes. The ability of a county to levy a tax for the construction of a public building, such as a courthouse, is generally authorized under statutes that grant broad powers for public works and improvements. In Montana, counties are empowered to levy taxes for the purpose of erecting, furnishing, and repairing public buildings. The question hinges on the specific statutory authority granted to county commissioners to fund such projects. While general fund revenues are available, specific levies are often permissible for capital improvements. The relevant statutes, such as those found in Title 7 of the Montana Code Annotated, grant counties the power to tax for various county purposes, including the erection and maintenance of county buildings. The levy for a new courthouse, a significant capital expenditure, would fall under these general powers, often requiring voter approval for bond issuance or a specific mill levy authorization, depending on the scale and method of financing. The question asks about the *authority* to levy, which is rooted in the statutory grant of power to counties to fund essential public infrastructure. The levy itself is a mechanism to raise funds for this authorized purpose. The authority to levy a tax for the construction of a courthouse is a fundamental power of county government in Montana, enabling them to provide necessary public facilities.

The scenario describes a county in Montana that has adopted a resolution to impose a special assessment for a new road improvement project. The key legal question is whether this resolution, enacted by the county commissioners, is considered an ordinance or a resolution under Montana law, and what implications this distinction has for its legal standing and potential challenges. Montana law distinguishes between ordinances and resolutions. Ordinances are generally legislative acts that establish permanent rules of conduct or policy, often requiring publication and a more formal enactment process. Resolutions, on the other hand, typically express the will or opinion of the governing body on a specific matter or authorize a particular action. In the context of imposing a special assessment for a public improvement project, such as road construction, this action is legislative in nature because it creates a new financial obligation for property owners and establishes a specific method for funding public infrastructure. Therefore, it falls under the definition of an ordinance. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7, Chapter 5, Part 21, specifically MCA § 7-5-2101, outlines the general powers of county commissioners, including the power to pass ordinances. While resolutions can authorize specific actions, a measure that levies a new charge or establishes a broad policy for a public improvement project is typically classified as an ordinance, requiring adherence to the formal procedures for adopting ordinances, which may include public hearings and publication, to ensure its validity and prevent challenges. The procedural requirements for ordinances are generally more stringent than for resolutions, and failing to adhere to these can render the measure invalid. Given that the county commissioners enacted a resolution to impose a special assessment, which is a legislative act, the correct legal classification for this action, if it is to be legally sound and withstand potential challenges regarding its enactment process, is an ordinance.

The question concerns the statutory authority of a county in Montana to impose a local option tax. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 4 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs county powers. While counties possess broad powers to levy taxes for general revenue and specific purposes, the imposition of a local option tax, which is a tax levied in addition to state-imposed taxes and often applied to specific goods or services, is generally not a power that can be unilaterally exercised by a county without explicit legislative authorization. The Montana Legislature retains the primary authority to grant such taxing powers. Reviewing MCA provisions related to county taxation reveals that while counties can levy property taxes, sales taxes, and other fees, the authority for a broad “local option tax” as typically understood in other states (e.g., a local sales tax on retail goods) is not explicitly granted to counties in Montana. Such powers, if they exist, would typically be established through specific legislative acts that delegate such authority, often with limitations and procedural requirements. Therefore, without a specific grant of authority from the Montana Legislature, a county cannot independently establish a local option sales tax on general retail goods.

The scenario involves a county in Montana considering the establishment of a special improvement district to fund infrastructure upgrades for a new commercial development. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 12 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the creation and operation of such districts. Key provisions include the requirement for a petition by a majority of landowners or by resolution of the governing body, public notice and hearings, and the determination of the benefit to the properties within the district. The assessment of costs is typically based on the benefit received by each parcel of land, which can be determined through various methods, including front footage, area, or a combination thereof. For a new commercial development where the primary benefit is to the development itself and its accessibility, the governing body would need to establish a clear methodology for apportioning costs that reflects this benefit. The county commissioners, acting as the governing body, must follow the procedural steps outlined in MCA Title 7, Chapter 12, ensuring due process for affected landowners and adherence to statutory requirements for establishing the district and levying assessments. The process involves adopting a resolution of intention, publishing notice, holding a public hearing, and finally adopting a resolution creating the district and authorizing the improvements. The selection of the assessment method must be rational and demonstrably tied to the benefits conferred upon each property.

Montana law, specifically the Montana Local Government Act, outlines the powers and limitations of municipalities. When a municipality proposes to annex unincorporated territory, it must follow a defined process. This process often involves demonstrating a need for the annexation and ensuring that the services provided by the municipality will be extended to the annexed area in a reasonable timeframe. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 7-2-4701 et seq. details the procedures for municipal annexation, including the requirement for a resolution of intent and a public hearing. The determination of whether an annexation is in the best interest of the municipality and the residents of the area to be annexed is a key consideration. This involves assessing factors such as the provision of essential services like water, sewer, and police protection, as well as the potential for economic development and the impact on property values. The law aims to balance the growth needs of municipalities with the rights and interests of residents in unincorporated areas. A municipality cannot simply annex territory for the sole purpose of increasing its tax base without a demonstrable plan for service provision and a clear public benefit.

The scenario involves a county in Montana considering a zoning amendment that would allow for a new type of commercial development previously prohibited. The question probes the procedural requirements for such an amendment under Montana law. Specifically, Montana law, as codified in Title 76, Chapter 2 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), outlines the process for zoning amendments. Key provisions include the requirement for a public hearing before the county planning board or commission, followed by a public hearing before the county governing body (the county commissioners). Notice of these hearings must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, typically for a specified number of weeks prior to the hearing. Furthermore, the governing body must consider the planning board’s recommendation, though it is not bound by it. The adoption of the amendment requires a formal resolution or ordinance. While informal consultation with state agencies might occur, it is not a mandatory statutory prerequisite for the amendment’s passage, unlike the public hearing and notice requirements. The absence of a specific statutory mandate for an environmental impact statement for a routine zoning amendment, unless triggered by specific thresholds or concerns, makes it less critical than the procedural due process elements. Therefore, the most crucial and universally required steps are public notice and public hearings at both the planning and governing body levels.

The scenario involves a county in Montana seeking to establish a special improvement district for a new road project. The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) provides specific procedures for the creation and operation of such districts. Specifically, MCA Title 7, Chapter 12, Part 42, governs county special improvement districts. For a district to be validly created, the county commissioners must adopt a resolution of intention, followed by a hearing where property owners can protest. If protests are not sufficient to halt the project, the commissioners can then adopt a resolution creating the district. A key aspect of these districts is the method of financing, which often involves levying assessments against the benefited properties. The question hinges on understanding the legal basis for the county’s authority and the procedural requirements for creating such a district under Montana law. The authority for a county to create a special improvement district stems from the state legislature, as codified in the Montana Code Annotated. This enabling legislation grants local governments the power to undertake public improvements and finance them through special assessments on properties that directly benefit from the improvement. The process typically involves a formal resolution of intention, public notice, a hearing for property owner objections, and a final resolution of creation if sufficient objections are not raised. The subsequent steps would involve the design, construction, and assessment of costs. Therefore, the foundational legal authority is derived from the state’s legislative grants of power to local governments.

The question pertains to the statutory authority of Montana counties to impose certain fees. Specifically, it addresses the power of a county to charge fees for services related to property subdivision and platting. Montana law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 22 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), grants counties the authority to regulate land subdivision. MCA § 7-22-2101 allows counties to adopt regulations for the subdivision of land and to establish a planning and subdivision department. Crucially, MCA § 7-22-2103 explicitly permits counties to establish and collect fees for services rendered in connection with the administration of subdivision regulations. These fees are intended to offset the costs incurred by the county in reviewing subdivision proposals, conducting necessary studies, and administering the platting process. Therefore, a county in Montana can legally charge a fee for reviewing a proposed subdivision plat. The specific amount of the fee is typically determined by the county commissioners through a resolution or ordinance, often based on the complexity of the subdivision, the services provided, and the administrative costs involved, as authorized by MCA § 7-22-2103.

The question concerns the process by which a county in Montana can adopt an ordinance to regulate land use within its unincorporated areas. Montana law, specifically the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA) and the Montana Zoning Act (Title 76, Chapter 2, MCA), grants counties the authority to enact zoning and subdivision regulations. The adoption of an ordinance typically involves several procedural steps. These include preparation of the proposed ordinance, public notice of a hearing, conducting a public hearing where interested parties can present testimony, and finally, a vote by the county governing body (the board of county commissioners) to adopt or reject the ordinance. The Montana Administrative Procedure Act (Title 2, Chapter 4, MCA) also outlines general rulemaking procedures that may apply to local government ordinances, particularly concerning public notice and hearings. The requirement for a supermajority vote for adoption is not a standard procedural requirement for general ordinance adoption under Montana law; a simple majority of the commissioners present and voting is typically sufficient, assuming a quorum is present. The concept of an emergency ordinance, while existing, usually has specific criteria and shorter notice periods, and this scenario does not suggest an emergency. Therefore, the most accurate description of the process involves public notice, a public hearing, and a majority vote for adoption.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Montana is considering adopting a new zoning ordinance. Montana law, specifically the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (Title 76, Chapter 3 of the Montana Code Annotated) and the Montana Zoning Enabling Act (Title 76, Chapter 2 of the Montana Code Annotated), governs the process for local governments to adopt and amend zoning regulations. The question probes the procedural requirements for enacting such an ordinance. The process generally involves public hearings, notice requirements, and adoption by the local governing body. Specifically, the Montana Zoning Enabling Act mandates that zoning ordinances must be adopted by resolution or ordinance, and typically requires a public hearing after proper notice to the public. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. The county commissioners are the legislative body responsible for adopting county-wide zoning ordinances. Therefore, the correct procedure involves public notice and a public hearing before adoption by the county commissioners. The other options present procedures that are either incomplete, incorrect, or not mandated by Montana law for the initial adoption of a zoning ordinance. For instance, an environmental impact statement is not a universal prerequisite for all zoning ordinances under Montana law, although it may be required for specific types of development or under federal law. Direct voter approval is generally not the mechanism for adopting zoning ordinances at the county level in Montana; rather, it is an action of the elected county commissioners. A simple resolution without public engagement or formal adoption would not meet the statutory requirements.

The question concerns the authority of a Montana county to annex unincorporated territory for the purpose of providing essential services, specifically focusing on the legal framework governing such actions. Montana law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 47 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), outlines the procedures and conditions under which a county may annex unincorporated areas. This process is generally initiated by a petition from residents or by a resolution of the county commissioners. Key considerations include the feasibility of providing services, the impact on existing residents, and adherence to statutory notice and hearing requirements. The scenario describes a county seeking to annex land to extend water and sewer services, which falls directly within the purview of county powers for service provision. The relevant legal basis for such an action is the statutory authority granted to counties to establish and extend services to unincorporated areas, often through the creation of special improvement districts or by direct county provision. The county must demonstrate that the annexation is necessary and beneficial for the provision of these services and that all procedural steps, including public hearings and proper notification as mandated by MCA, have been followed. The question tests the understanding of the county’s inherent powers and the statutory limitations or procedures that must be observed when exercising those powers for service expansion into unincorporated territories within Montana.

The question pertains to the process of annexing territory by a city in Montana, specifically focusing on the procedural requirements and the role of resident consent. Montana law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs municipal annexation. For a city to annex unincorporated territory, it must follow specific steps. One critical element is the requirement for a petition signed by a majority of the resident freeholders in the territory to be annexed, or if there are no resident freeholders, then by the owners of a majority in value of the property within the territory. Alternatively, if the territory is adjacent to the city and the city council determines that the annexation is in the best interest of the city and the territory, annexation can occur if a majority of the voters residing in the territory approve it through an election. However, the scenario describes a situation where the city council wishes to annex a parcel of land primarily used for agricultural purposes, owned by a single entity, and with no resident freeholders. In such a case, the law requires the consent of the owner of the land. Montana Code Annotated \(7-2-4602\) outlines that if the territory to be annexed is owned by a single person or entity and has no resident freeholders, the written consent of the owner is sufficient. Therefore, the city council’s action of passing a resolution to annex, without the owner’s consent, would be procedurally flawed. The owner’s consent is the legally mandated substitute for a petition from resident freeholders or a voter election when the territory meets these specific criteria. The explanation of the legal framework emphasizes that statutory compliance is paramount for valid annexation.

The scenario involves a county in Montana considering the creation of a special district for enhanced public safety services, specifically focusing on a new type of emergency response unit. Montana law, particularly Title 7, Chapter 11 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the creation and operation of special districts. The process for establishing a new special district typically requires a petition signed by a certain percentage of eligible electors within the proposed district, followed by a public hearing and an affirmative vote in an election. Furthermore, the district’s powers and scope are defined by the enabling statute and the specific resolution or ordinance creating it. In this case, the county commissioners are acting as the initiating body. The critical legal question is whether the county can directly impose the special district without the formal petition and election process, or if they must follow the established statutory procedures for formation. Montana law generally requires voter consent for the creation of taxing districts, which a special district for public safety would undoubtedly be. Therefore, bypassing the petition and election process would likely be an unlawful circumvention of established local government formation procedures. The authority to create special districts is not absolute and is subject to procedural safeguards designed to ensure local democratic participation and consent.

The scenario describes a county in Montana attempting to implement a new zoning ordinance that affects agricultural land. Montana law, specifically the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA) and related county zoning enabling statutes (Title 76, Chapter 2, MCA), grants counties the authority to adopt and enforce zoning regulations. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations and procedural requirements. When a county proposes a zoning ordinance, especially one impacting agricultural uses, it must adhere to the statutory mandates for public notice and hearings. These procedures are crucial for ensuring due process and allowing affected parties, such as landowners, to voice their concerns and provide input. Failure to provide adequate public notice and conduct proper hearings can render the ordinance invalid. The question probes the understanding of the procedural safeguards that must be followed before a county can legally enact a zoning ordinance. The correct answer reflects the legal necessity of these procedural steps to ensure the ordinance’s validity and enforceability under Montana law. The other options represent scenarios that either bypass or inadequately address these fundamental legal requirements, thus leading to potential legal challenges and invalidation of the ordinance.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Montana is considering annexing unincorporated territory. Montana law, specifically the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7, Chapter 2, governs the process of annexation by counties. For a county to annex territory, it must follow specific statutory procedures. These procedures often involve a petition from residents of the territory to be annexed, a resolution from the county governing body (the county commission), and potentially an election. The key principle is that annexation is a formal legal process requiring adherence to statutory requirements to ensure legitimacy and proper governance. The MCA outlines the thresholds for resident support, the content of resolutions, and the notice requirements. Without these statutory steps being met, any attempt at annexation would be legally invalid. The question probes the understanding of the fundamental legal basis for county annexation in Montana, which is rooted in state statutory authority and the prescribed procedures within those statutes. The correct option reflects the necessity of following these established legal pathways.

The scenario involves a county in Montana seeking to finance a new public library through a general obligation bond. Montana law, specifically under Title 7, Chapter 5, Part 23 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the issuance of such bonds by counties. Section 7-5-2301 MCA outlines the authority of counties to issue bonds for public improvements. The crucial aspect here is the requirement for voter approval for general obligation bonds, as stipulated in Section 7-7-2201 MCA, which addresses the submission of bond proposals to electors. The process typically involves a resolution by the county commissioners, a public notice of the election, and a majority vote of the qualified electors voting on the proposition. Without this voter assent, the county cannot legally proceed with the bond issuance for this purpose. Therefore, the fundamental legal prerequisite for the county to issue the general obligation bond for the library is obtaining the approval of its electorate.

The scenario involves a county in Montana seeking to annex a portion of its unincorporated territory into an existing city within the same county. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs the process of annexation by a city or town from its county. The key statute here is MCA § 7-2-4601, which outlines the conditions under which a city or town may annex adjacent territory. For a city to annex unincorporated territory, the territory must be adjacent to the city’s existing boundaries. The process typically requires a petition signed by a certain percentage of the landowners or registered voters within the territory to be annexed, or it can be initiated by the city council. A crucial aspect is the demonstration that the annexation is for the benefit of the territory and the city, often involving considerations of providing municipal services. The question asks about the primary legal basis for such an action. Reviewing the relevant statutes, MCA § 7-2-4601 provides the fundamental authority for a city to annex adjacent territory. Other options are less directly applicable or represent different legal processes. MCA § 7-33-2201 deals with the formation of fire districts, which is unrelated to annexation. MCA § 7-11-102 concerns the consolidation of local governments, a broader and different procedure. MCA § 69-5-101 relates to the establishment of public utility districts, which is also a distinct legal mechanism. Therefore, the most direct and primary legal authority for a city to annex adjacent unincorporated territory in Montana is found within the statutes governing municipal annexation, specifically MCA § 7-2-4601.

The question probes the authority of Montana county commissioners to adopt ordinances that regulate land use within unincorporated areas. Montana law, specifically the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7, Chapter 2, grants counties broad powers to plan and regulate land use. The enabling legislation for county zoning and subdivision regulation is found in MCA Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 21 (County Zoning) and Part 22 (County Subdivision and Platting). These statutes empower counties to adopt zoning ordinances, including regulations on the use of land, building setbacks, and density, to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. The authority to adopt these ordinances is generally vested in the board of county commissioners. While there are procedural requirements for adoption, such as public hearings and notice, the fundamental power to enact land use regulations in unincorporated areas is a core county function. Therefore, county commissioners possess the authority to adopt ordinances that regulate land use in unincorporated county territory, provided they follow statutory procedures.

The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) addresses the powers and limitations of local governments, particularly in relation to zoning and land use. Specifically, MCA Title 7, Chapter 15, Part 43, outlines the authority of cities and towns to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances. When a municipality exercises its zoning authority, it must do so in a manner that is reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. This principle is rooted in due process and the need for ordinances to serve a legitimate public purpose, such as promoting public health, safety, and general welfare. A zoning ordinance that imposes an undue burden on a property owner without a rational basis, or that is enacted for discriminatory purposes rather than for public good, may be challenged as invalid. In Montana, courts will generally defer to the legislative judgment of local governments in zoning matters unless the ordinance is clearly unreasonable or conflicts with state law. The concept of “spot zoning,” where a small parcel of land is rezoned in a manner inconsistent with the surrounding zoning and the comprehensive plan, is often viewed with skepticism by courts because it can indicate favoritism or an improper exercise of zoning power. The question requires identifying the primary legal basis for challenging a zoning decision that appears to benefit a specific property owner at the expense of the broader community’s planning goals. The arbitrary and capricious standard, coupled with the requirement that zoning serve a public purpose, forms the bedrock of such challenges.

The Montana Local Government Act, specifically concerning the creation of new municipalities, outlines a rigorous process governed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7, Chapter 2. For a new municipality to be incorporated, a petition signed by a requisite number of qualified electors within the proposed boundaries is essential. Montana law, as detailed in MCA § 7-2-4101, specifies that the petition must be signed by at least 20% of the resident taxpayers within the proposed area. Furthermore, the petition must include a clear description of the proposed municipal boundaries, a proposed name, and a statement of the form of government desired. Following the submission of the petition, a public hearing is mandated, allowing for objections and considerations from affected residents and existing local governments. The county superintendent of schools plays a role in reviewing the petition for compliance with statutory requirements. If the petition meets all legal prerequisites, the county superintendent then calls for an election within the proposed municipality. The election requires a majority of votes cast in favor of incorporation for the municipality to be legally established. This process emphasizes both resident support and procedural adherence to ensure the legitimacy of municipal formation.

The question pertains to the process by which a county in Montana can annex territory from an adjacent county. This process is governed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 22, specifically concerning the detachment of territory from one county and its attachment to another. For a county to initiate such a detachment, a petition must be filed with the board of county commissioners. This petition requires signatures from a certain percentage of the resident taxpayers within the territory proposed for detachment. The statute specifies that this percentage is at least 30% of the resident taxpayers in the territory. Upon receiving a valid petition, the board of county commissioners must then conduct a hearing. Following the hearing, if the board finds that the detachment is in the public interest and meets statutory requirements, they can approve the detachment. However, the ultimate decision for annexation by the receiving county and the formal transfer of territory involves further steps, including potential approval by the state, but the initial trigger and legal basis for initiating the process from the perspective of the detached territory is the petition signed by a significant portion of its taxpayers. Therefore, the threshold for initiating this county boundary adjustment process is the petition signed by at least 30% of the resident taxpayers in the territory.

The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) governs the process for the detachment of territory from a city. Specifically, MCA Title 7, Chapter 32, Part 10 outlines these procedures. For a detachment to be approved, a petition must be signed by the owners of at least 50% of the assessed value of the land within the proposed detachment area. This petition must then be filed with the city clerk. Following the filing, the city council must hold a public hearing on the matter. A crucial element for approval, as stipulated by MCA § 7-32-1004, is that the detachment must not be detrimental to the public interest or the welfare of the city or the territory to be detached. Furthermore, the detachment must not unreasonably impair the city’s ability to provide essential services to the remaining territory. If these conditions are met, the city council may adopt an ordinance approving the detachment. The concept of “detrimental to the public interest” is a broad standard that courts have interpreted to include considerations such as financial impact on the city, the provision of services, and the overall planning and zoning integrity of the municipality. A detachment that would leave the city with insufficient revenue to maintain essential services or would create an irregular or unserviceable boundary for the remaining city territory would likely be deemed detrimental. The question focuses on the specific threshold for petition signers, which is a quantifiable requirement for initiating the detachment process under Montana law.

In Montana, the process for a county to annex territory from an adjacent, unincorporated area is governed by specific statutes that balance the needs of expanding municipalities with the rights of residents in unincorporated areas. The Montana Code Annotated (MCA) outlines the procedures for such annexations. Specifically, MCA Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, addresses the annexation of territory by cities and towns. While the question pertains to a county annexing unincorporated territory, which is a less common scenario than a city annexing, the underlying principles of statutory authority and due process are similar. However, the direct mechanism for a county to “annex” in the same way a city does is not a primary function of county government. Counties are primarily responsible for unincorporated areas. If a county were to expand its administrative or service boundaries into a newly designated area, it would likely involve a reclassification or a special district formation under different statutory provisions, rather than a direct annexation of territory that is already within its general jurisdiction. The question, as phrased, presents a conceptual challenge as counties in Montana do not “annex” unincorporated territory in the same manner that cities annex adjacent lands. Instead, counties govern all unincorporated areas within their boundaries. If the intent is to discuss the expansion of services or a change in the legal status of a portion of an unincorporated area, it would fall under different MCA provisions, such as those related to the creation of special improvement districts or changes in county boundaries, which are complex and often initiated by resident petitions or specific legislative action. Given the phrasing, the most accurate understanding is that counties already encompass all unincorporated territory. Therefore, the concept of a county annexing territory it already governs is not applicable in the typical sense. The question tests the understanding of the fundamental roles of county versus municipal government in Montana. Counties are the default governing bodies for all unincorporated lands within their borders. The scenario described implies a city or town annexing unincorporated land, or perhaps a reorganization of county services, but not a county annexing land it already governs. Thus, the premise of the question as stated does not align with the statutory framework for county governance in Montana.

The question concerns the process by which a county in Montana can annex territory from an adjacent county. Montana law, specifically Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 22 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), governs county boundary changes. For a county to annex territory from an adjacent county, a petition must be filed with the board of county commissioners of the county from which the territory is to be detached. This petition must be signed by a specified percentage of the resident freeholders within the territory proposed for annexation. Montana Code Annotated \(7-2-2211\) outlines the requirements for this petition, including the percentage of freeholder signatures needed. The board of county commissioners then must conduct a hearing, and if the petition meets all statutory requirements, it is presented to the electorate of the affected territory for approval. The threshold for approval is typically a majority vote of the qualified electors within the territory proposed for annexation. This process ensures that both the property owners and the residents of the affected area have a voice in the boundary change. The key legal principle here is the requirement for a petition signed by a majority of the resident freeholders within the territory to initiate the annexation process, as detailed in Montana law.