Madison County commissioners and road department staff reviewed a consolidated draft of county road standards during a work session, focusing on permit types, recording practices, fees, seasonal closures and cattle‑guard policy. The commission asked staff to make edits, prepare a resolution of intent for public review and then move the document through the county’s ordinance process.

The draft, presented by county staff and road department personnel, combines material from other Montana counties (including Gallatin County) and incorporates subdivision road standards, gravel specifications and four permit types—an encroachment permit, a utility right‑of‑way work permit, a variance permit and an overweight permit. Staff said the document includes highlighted questions for commissioners and a proposed appendix of permit application forms.

Commissioners and staff emphasized the need to record more road‑related permits and approvals. One commissioner noted that records are currently inconsistent and that “we probably just should be recording pretty much anything that we’re signing,” so future reviewers can find a durable record. Road staff and the commission agreed that utility permits, in particular, should be recorded going forward to document locations and to protect the county in future disputes.

On fees, commissioners discussed modest application charges to cover staff time and inspection drive time. After hearing examples from other counties, commissioners agreed on an initial permit fee of $75 “across the board” for driveway/encroachment reviews (plus any filing fees), with a plan to revisit fees after implementation.

The draft likewise preserves a municipal approach to seasonal load restrictions and closures by recommending ordinance language to establish enforceable seasonal closure periods, rather than a nonbinding resolution. Commissioners agreed that seasonal closures should be implemented by ordinance so they can be enforced and so the county can reopen or close roads on a scheduled basis without separate hearings for every instance.

On cattle guards, the draft drew discussion about whether landowners or the county should install and maintain them. Staff recommended making any new cattle‑guard installation and maintenance policy forward‑looking (not retroactive) and suggested the county install and maintain a new cattle guard only after agreement with the landowner that the landowner will cover the cost. Commissioners and staff noted the county already has a large number of existing cattle guards—staff remarked on roughly “200” existing installations—and agreed it would be impractical to retroactively review each prior agreement.

Other details discussed for inclusion in the standards: reference to Montana Code Annotated where relevant, incorporation of Montana Department of Transportation line‑of‑sight or mailbox guidance for signage and mailbox placement, criteria for when an engineer’s stamped plans would be required (left as a staff discretion for complex sites), and minimum standards for cattle‑guard width and adjacent gate provisions. Staff also said they would add a road‑department or generic county road email address on permit forms so the road foreman is not the single point of contact.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the edits discussed, post the draft for public review and bring a resolution of intent and ordinance language before the commission so the standards can be adopted and used as the county’s single reference for road permitting and construction.