Billings council holds orientation with MSU trainer on charter limits, quasi‑judicial duties and public process

Dan Clark, director with Montana State University’s Local Government Center, led an orientation for the Billings City Council that reviewed municipal powers, charter limits, and best practices for public hearings.

Clark told council members the state distinguishes between general governing powers and self‑governing powers. ‘‘With self‑governing powers,’’ he said, ‘‘you can exercise any power or authority that’s not prohibited by the law or the constitution,’’ then contrasted municipalities that have used self‑governing authority to run utilities or create impact fees. Clark named Saco and Troy as examples of jurisdictions exercising broader local powers and pointed to Bozeman as an example of a city that adopted impact fees to make development pay for associated infrastructure.

Council members asked about the city’s inability to use permissive levies—a question Clark tied to Billings’s charter. He said some charter provisions were negotiated with the public when self‑governing powers were adopted and that parts of the charter have since been struck out or limited by subsequent state action. Clark outlined non‑exclusive options for addressing those constraints: ask the attorney general for guidance, pursue litigation, place a charter amendment on the ballot (either via ordinance or petition), or appoint a local study commission to develop recommendations for voters. He stressed that ‘‘any changes you wanna do to your charter … has to be approved by the voters.’’

Clark spent substantial time on the council’s dual roles and on quasi‑judicial hearings. He told members courts generally defer to legislative discretion on outcomes but will scrutinize the process and findings. He warned against ex parte contacts—private site visits, informal meetings or public social‑media declarations that show a member’s mind is closed—because those can lead to disqualification and to reversals on procedural grounds. ‘‘What they’ll look at is not the decision, but the process you use leading to the decision,’’ he said.

Using a civic example, Clark described a multi‑year urban‑chicken debate in Belgrade in which the council twice rejected an ordinance, proponents successfully petitioned the issue to the ballot, and voters ultimately adopted the ordinance. He used that and other examples to emphasize the interplay between council action, petitions, and direct citizen initiatives.

City Administrator Kukulski introduced Clark and said the training is part of a series of ethics and governance sessions provided to council and appointed boards. During public comment, resident Thomas Stachoff said turnout does not obligate members to adopt a proposal: ‘‘You can still say no.’’ The mayor closed the meeting after the public‑comment period.

Clark recommended that council members use structured criteria—financial viability, public acceptability, political willingness, scientific evidence, environmental soundness and intergenerational equity—when evaluating proposals and that they consider stakeholder engagement, commissions, or policy revisions when issues recur. He also encouraged clarity in findings when denying applications: members should state why a proposal does not meet established criteria to reduce risk of successful legal challenges.

No formal votes or motions on policy changes took place at the orientation. The training will continue in subsequent sessions with additional staff and appointed board members, and the city administrator noted the internal budget process is beginning.