Hearing delayed on mall

It's going to be a while longer before there's finally a resolution of the Wolford/Glacier Mall lawsuit.

The case, which has been active for almost three years, was supposed to go to a District Court hearing in Kalispell on Monday to address the last remaining issue.

However, the hearing was postponed because of uncertainty about exactly what the Montana Supreme Court intended. A date for the next hearing hasn't been set.

The lawsuit was filed in December 2003 by North 93 Neighbors, a group that wants to block developer Bucky Wolford's plans to build a large retail center near the intersection of U.S. 93 and West Reserve Drive. The action challenged the validity of a master plan amendment and zone change that the Flathead County commissioners approved for the mall.

The higher court ruled in favor of Wolford and the county on almost every point earlier this year, but sent one item back to District Court for additional work.

Four of the five Supreme Court justices who reviewed the case want the county to demonstrate that all of the issues raised through public comment were adequately addressed in some manner.

Attorneys for the various parties, though, have differing views on how the county is supposed to comply with this directive.

The county wanted to present witnesses and verbal testimony at Monday's hearing. Without the ability to do that, "counsel is left with handing the court a box of 4,400 public comment letters and asking the court to take our word for it that the commissioners complied with their obligations," said Missoula attorney Alan McCormick, who represents Flathead County.

On the other hand, Helena attorney David Wilson, representing North 93 Neighbors, said the commissioners have to demonstrate - based on the existing record - whether any issues were raised and not addressed.

Wilson recently filed a motion seeking to exclude any verbal testimony from current or past Flathead County commissioners, fearing they would try to provide an after-the-fact explanation for why they voted the way they did.

The District Court hearing "isn't an invitation for the commissioners to present new evidence," Wilson wrote. "Rather, it's a request that they show whether they can satisfy [their statutory obligation to consider public comment] based on the existing record."

To resolve this dispute, District Court Judge Kitty Curtis postponed Monday's hearing. She wants the two sides to present oral arguments on Wilson's motion to exclude testimony. When she rules on that question, the hearing on the public comment question will be rescheduled.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com