REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Tuesday October 6, 2026
ALL PRESENT: Commissioner Morse, Chair; Commissioners Waters and White; Board Clerk Teri Reitz; Clerk and Recorder Jeff Martin.
PLEDGE: MOMENT OF SILENCE, Held.
9:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution 26-116 to Annex Property into the Blue Creek Fire Service Area. Mr. Derek Yeager, DES Director stated that this public hearing is required by Montana Code Annotated in the event that a fire service area wishes to expand its boundaries. Several months ago, the Blue Creek Fire Service Area Board of Trustees reviewed a request from a single landowner representing 2 properties who are immediately adjacent to that boundary line but not within it. The property owner would like to get his property into the fire service area. Commissioner Morse opened the Public Hearing. Hearing no comments Commissioner Morse closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Waters made a MOTION to approve Resolution 26-116, Commissioner White seconded. Passed Unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON REGULAR, CONSENT AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS Hearing no comments Commissioner Morse continued the meeting.
COMMISSIONERS A.) Resolution 26-110 Changing the Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting from Tuesday November 3rd, 2026, to Monday November 2nd, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Waters made a MOTION to approve Resolution 26-110, Commissioner White seconded. Passed Unanimous. B.) Resolution 26-111 to Change the Commissioner Thursday Discussion from Thursday November 26th, 2026, to Tuesday November 24th, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Commissioner Waters made a MOTION to approve Resolution 26-111, Commissioner White seconded. Passed Unanimous.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY Petition Validity of Initiative. Mr.
Scott Twito, County Attorney is going to go through how we got here and why I'm
in front of you today, I just want to run down sort of how we got here so you
understand what I'm asking for. So last summer, there was a proposed
initiative that the county attorney's office, as part of its function, approved
to form. After that process, I approached you and said, well, in light of
recent Supreme Court case law, we need to get a validity determination made by
the district court. Specifically, I approached you, and I do today, with a
specific statute that only allows that unit of local government to bring this
type of validity lawsuit and to try to expedite it. Because since all of that
happened this summer, we never got a resolution to the validity issue that
we've raised in light of that Supreme Court decision. And so, what I can tell
you is that on September 4th just a few weeks ago, Ms. Solberg
submitted to our election administrator another proposed initiative. It's very
similar to the one that we discussed this summer and led to all of the issues
that we've been dealing with for months now. We reviewed the initiative to
form, and my civil division worked with council for the folks seeking the initiative.
There was some back and forth, but they communicated, and we approved it to
form on September 23rd. The lawsuit that I'm asking you to bring and to get
expedited needs to be done within 14 days of that. And that is by tomorrow, it
needs to be brought. We have worked on this lawsuit. We are prepared to file
it if you give us the authority today. That is simply to determine whether
this type of initiative is valid. And that means that can a voter seek this
type of initiative to regulate, in this particular case, a data center, but
more importantly, that type of industry. There was a few changes to this
proposal, as opposed to the one that we dealt with this summer. They have
asked for some other things, and I hope that folks, again, with complete
transparency, I hope that the residents of our community look at this proposed
initiative. We'll have it up on the county website if it's not already up on
there. But in addition to the validity issue that has been the county's issue,
they also are seeking interim zoning, which became a discussion as part of this
sort of process. Then also a restriction or memorialization on any
communication that any county employee would have with anybody related to the
data center industry and mandate that that be disclosed by the county. So, we
want those issues to be determined by a court. That's all. That's all we
want. I know when we had our discussions this summer, we wanted that to be
decided quickly. The good news is, I'm hoping, I don't control the courts, but
the statute tells us that this needs to be expedited and the court that we had
it in front of this summer already for that validity determination is prepared
to keep it open. So, all we're going to do is file it in front of that court.
And our hope is, and we're going to press for an expedited resolution to this
because we want that, if the initiative is valid, fine. I mean, that's what you
have maintained to me as commissioners when I've spoken to you each
individually. That's the same with me. We just want a court to say it's valid
in light of that Supreme Court case that is concerning that I've told you
about. We just want to know if it's valid. And that's fine, because they have
a process of gathering signatures. And obviously, that's what led the court to
sort of punt on the validity issue, right? Because the signature gathering
issue became an issue because of the new statute. That issue now is being
litigated in another county. That can be resolved up there. This is specific
to the validity determination. So, I want to make sure that you understand
what I'm asking. All that we're asking is to go in and challenge the
validity. We're not challenging signatures. That was a complete issue last
time that was raised by these folks. The county never took a position on
signature gathering. We never wanted to challenge that. The interested
parties on the other side, which is their right to challenge signatures, we
never did that. We don't, none of you have ever said to me, nor would I allow
that because I have a duty to follow the law. We dont want to sort of monkey
with that process to sort of prevent the initiative from something as simple as
signature gathering. And so, I want to be very clear there. We never
challenged that. That was a, I don't know if that was misreported by the media
or misspoken. Maybe I said something incorrectly, I don't know, but we never
challenged that. We never took a position on that. We wanted to move
forward. That's all we want. So, we are going to press if you decide to file
the suit, which only you can do, by the way. You're the only ones that can do
this as a unit of local government. We can file the suit, and we can get it
expedited. So, these people can get an answer. They deserve an answer. We
want to give them an answer to see if this is valid or not. So, we want to
file the suit. It is prepared. Mr. Williams, Mr. English, and Ms. Williams
have worked very diligently on this. It's prepared. We want to put it in
front of the court, get a decision, and move forward. That's all we're asking
for today. So, I hope that explains it. I'm happy to answer any questions that
you would have. But that's kind of it in a nutshell. It's all the other
stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is sort of separate issues. Those are
political issues. Those are maybe some different legal questions. Those can
be answered later. This is just simply to determine the validity issue based
on the proposed initiative that has been filed, and we have already approved a
form. Questions? Just to clarify, so if we didn't seek a validity decision and
it went forward as it is written, there could be constitutional questions and
then the party that is bringing forth the initiative would go through all the
signature gathering, all the all of that, and then it could be determined
afterwards that it was unconstitutional. Is that correct? It could be
determined invalid. Yes. Yes, it absolutely could. That's why we want a court
determination. We don't want it to let it go forward and let it sit out there.
And again, say whatever you want.
I don't want these folks to go out and do the hard work of doing these
signature gatherings and push this issue forward and then they lose it. That's
the whole purpose of the statute. If you look at the statute, it gives you the
authority to bring this validity termination. Let's find out. Once we get this
issue resolved, then the next issue's out. We can talk more about interim
zoning if we want or whatever, but we need to get this issue determined and we
need to do it right. if not just for us, for the rest of the state of Montana.
I mean, we're kind of the ones that are leading the way here. And again, I take
no position on it. And I'm not going to comment on pending litigation because
that's really what it is. But all I want is a ruling by the court so I can
better and tell you guys what's going on. And if they say good, let's let them
gather signatures and see how the process unfolds. And if it's an initiative,
it's an initiative. And just to clarify, this is not, this lawsuit is not to
impede the democratic process. It's just the validity on whether or not the
initiative of what the, you know, the language of the ballot language is. So,
my argument would be this, with regard to that specific issue, Commissioner
Waters, if I didn't advise you to do this in light of that Supreme Court
decision, I would be violating my oath of office that we need this
determination before we move. All issues aside, we have to protect that
process. I know that sounds crazy. But that is really the position that we are
in. That's it, Mister White. No questions. All right, gentlemen, so we'll
take a vote on the validity of initiative to authorize the county attorney's
office to move forward with court action. All those in favor say aye.
CLAIMS Batches 27-029, 27-030, 27-031, 27-032, 27-033, 27-034, 27-035, 27-036, 27-037, 27-038. Commissioner White made a MOTION to approve the Claims, Commissioner Waters seconded. Passed Unanimous.
CONSENT AGENDA 1. COMMISSIONERS A.) Board Openings Lockwood Urban Transportation District/Fuego FSA/Worden Fire District #4/Laurel Fire District #7/Consolidated Zoning Commission/Custer Cemetery Board/Tax Appeal Board. B.) Board Reappointment Hanna Wagner to Tax Appeal Board. C.) Lockwood TEDD MOU and Kristen Rosa Consulting. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY Amendment to A&E PSA for YCDF Master Plan. 3. FINANCE A.) Yellowstone County Final FY27 Budget State Filing. B.) Lockwood PED Sidewalk Repairs Askin Construction Pay App #1. C.) RTE Plasma Torch with Lead. D.) Administration Building Renovation - Dick Anderson Pay App #22. E.) Administration Building Renovation Dick Anderson Construction Pay App #21. F.) Bond for Lost Warrant. G.) Knife River Agreement MetraPark Bench Boulevard Project. H.) DEQ Grant for the Yellowstone County Junk Vehicle Department. 4. METRAPARK Change Order #1 Access Limited Construction Metra Arena Bluff Stabilization. 5. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Billings MPO 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program. 6. SHERIFF A.) 2026 JAG Purchase Requests. B.) City-County Interlocal Agreement for IT Services FY27. 7. HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL ACTION REPORT District Court 1 Appointment
FILED ITEMS 1. COMMISSIONERS A.) Board Minutes County Water District of Billings Heights August 2026. B.) Public Comment Election Office Location Change. C.) Public Comment Data Centers. 2. PUBLIC WORKS Contract with Wharton Asphalt, LLC. Commissioner Waters made a MOTION to approve the Consent Agenda and place the File Items to file, Commissioner White seconded. Passed Unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON COUNTY BUSINESS - Five citizens gave comments on the proposed data center in Broadview. One citizen commented on the termination of the cleaning company at the Ostlund Building. Once citizen was asking for a traffic study around schools. Hearing no other comments Commissioner Morse adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
APPROVE ATTEST
DATE