Lolo neighbors deny settlement in gravel pit case
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Missoula County is claiming that it reached a settlement with neighbors regarding the expansion of a Lolo area gravel pit, but that’s news to the neighbors.
Last week, in Missoula County district court, a coalition of neighbors dubbed the Carlton Protection Trust filed a response to Missoula County’s claim that a settlement had been reached regarding Western Materials’ expansion of gravel pit south of Lolo. The Trust said it did not agree with or sign any settlement, so the case is not closed and negotiations should continue.
In the response, Carlton Protection Trust attorney Graham Coppes wrote that the Carlton Protection Trust had left mediation talks on Feb. 26 disappointed that a resolution had not been reached. But later, they were shocked to learn from a news story that “the County Commission unilaterally accepted and approved an offer that was never made.”
“As more details emerged, it became clear that the Missoula County Attorney’s office had developed a post-hoc settlement theory that it now relies on to end this case. Through vague allegations of an oral agreement made through a mediator, the County now asserts that this case is closed, cutting off CPT’s ongoing negotiations with Western and depriving CPT of any adjudication on the merits of its claims,” Coppes wrote in the response.
Coppes said “it remains undisputed that CPT and Western never came to terms” on Feb. 26, and mediator Greg Pinski filed a report attesting to that fact.
But then, on March 2, county attorney Brian West sent a draft settlement to all parties, saying the County Commission would be approving the settlement during their meeting on March 5, so “let me know if you agree with the language.” Coppes didn’t respond, but the county attorney still presented the settlement to the commission as final.
The county’s settlement would require the county conduct inspections of the pit - although the county would have no obligation to do anything - and to send a letter to Montana Department of Transportation regarding safety concerns for increased traffic on U.S. Highway 93 near the gravel pit.
That might not go far enough for the Trust, which sued Missoula County and the County Board of Commissioners in September 2024 over the Commissioners' decision to allow the Hendrickson gravel pit to expand into an adjacent 80-acre property. The Trust’s argument was the county repeatedly allowed the expansion of a gravel pit in an area zoned by citizen initiative for no industry. The gravel pit was much smaller when the initiative passed, but in spite of the zoning, the county didn’t subsequently monitor the pit’s growth.
Missoula County moved to add Western Materials as a defendant in the case. But there was no agreement reached with Western Materials during mediation on Feb. 26, and the settlement mentioned nothing about Western Materials having to reach an agreement with the Trust.
A week after the county commission meeting, Pinski told all involved that the county had convinced him that his report saying no agreement had been reached was wrong so he would correct it. However, the Trust disagreed.
When asked for comment, the county pointed to the documents it already filed in the case, including motions to finalize the settlement and to remove Pinski’s original report.
The county said that Pinski agreed the matter was settled between the county and the Trust. The county also contends that Pinski’s report should be withdrawn because it was filed publicly but it should have remained confidential.
The county says an oral agreement was reached. But Montana law rejects oral agreements and requires that all agreements be in writing and signed in order to avoid such misunderstandings, Coppes wrote. In this case, the Carlton Protection Trust signed nothing.
Coppes wrote that the county’s claims had harmed the Carlton Protection Trust because it led to confusion and misunderstanding. When the neighbors and supporters read the news story that a settlement was reached, they immediately began asking why the Trust had dropped its case.
“At best, the County’s argument reflects a misunderstanding or mistake that defeats the existence of an enforceable contract. At worst, it represents a frivolous and sanctionable effort to deny Carlton Protective Trust its day in court by way of ruse,” Coppes wrote.
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.