Billings Mayor William Cole and the City Council pressed Meadowlark Mobile Home Park’s representative on whether the city should provide water service without requiring annexation, and the applicant ultimately withdrew the request after council members raised concerns about precedent, long‑term costs and legal review.

City staff described a DEQ grant for emerging contaminants that would pay roughly $2 million for construction of a water main and associated work if the council agreed to allow the property to connect to city water while waiving immediate annexation. City Administrators said the change could improve water quality, add fire flow capacity and create a loop in the water system that also benefits the city’s landfill connection.

Meadowlark representative Matt Tassel told the council his operation has invested in a greensand filtration system in recent years that filtered high manganese from the wells, but said the system requires ongoing maintenance and that a city connection would provide a more durable solution. Tassel said the DEQ approached Meadowlark with the grant opportunity and Meadowlark viewed it as a ‘‘win‑win’’ to accept city administration of the funds and the resulting infrastructure.

Council members pushed back, citing several objections. Several members — including Councilmembers Kennedy, Boyette and others — said allowing service without annexation would set an undesirable precedent, could shift public‑safety and maintenance costs to city residents, and asked for detailed written estimates of non‑utility costs (police, fire, parks and road maintenance) before any final action. Staff reported roughly 370 combined public‑safety calls to the Meadowlark area so far in 2025 and estimated potential property‑tax revenue if annexed, but acknowledged they did not have precise per‑call or total cost figures for non‑utility services.

Councilmember Boyette moved to deny the request to expand city water service without annexation; the motion was seconded and garnered support from multiple members who cited past annexations that produced long‑term costs to the city. City Attorney Gina and other council members debated whether a formal written application had been filed and whether a denial would trigger a one‑year prohibition on reapplying under city code (sections 26‑203/204/205/207 were discussed). Gina said the record was “murky” because staff could not locate a formal written application on the specific form required by code, and advised caution when interpreting the one‑year bar.

After extensive discussion and a request from the mayor to avoid a rushed decision, Meadowlark’s representative said he would withdraw the request so the parties could work through the issues with staff and legal counsel. Mayor Cole accepted the withdrawal and ruled the earlier motion moot; staff said they would continue negotiations and return to council later with more complete analyses if necessary.

The council’s exchange also exposed internal process problems: staff and the mayor acknowledged that legal review of proposed agreements had not been completed before the item was placed on the public agenda, and the city attorney said she would seek procedural changes to ensure draft agreements routed through the agenda system are automatically flagged for legal review.

Next steps: the applicant formally withdrew the item; city staff will prepare more detailed financial and public‑safety cost estimates and work with legal to draft agreements and annexation options if the parties choose to revisit the request.