Yellowstone County commissioners hear opposition to Elk River Road traffic restriction; no action taken

The Yellowstone County Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing Feb. 24 on Resolution 23‑14, a proposed ordinance to limit Elk River Road to local traffic, but took no action and scheduled a second hearing for March 7.

Justin Harkins, an attorney with Crowley Fleck representing the Kirschenmans, told commissioners the ordinance appears to exceed the board’s statutory authority. "There is no law authorizing this board to just ban the public from a public road indefinitely," Harkins said, arguing the statute cited in the resolution applies to controlled‑access highways and does not cover an open rural county road lined with driveways. Harkins also cited the county’s prior litigation loss in Yellowstone County v. Kershko and read portions of Judge Harris’ findings that, he said, confirm businesses on Elk River Road have lawful use of the road.

Residents and business owners opposed the ordinance at the hearing. "I'm opposed to limiting the traffic — we needed to have two accesses," said resident and property owner Bryce Kirschman, adding that long loads cannot safely use the alternate paved route and that he and neighbors maintained the road until 2022. Resident Brett Bell said he would be willing to be "easemented in" or added to a special improvement district to help cover maintenance costs.

Business owner Jerry Lynn Nelson, who said he lives and works on a frontage road that uses Elk River Road, told the board commercial activity has long been part of the area and that he relies on the road to reach clients. On the question of paving, Nelson warned that a steep entrance to South Frontage Road can be slippery in ice and snow: "Gravel is better in ice and snow than being paved," he said; the chair responded that graders and engineers would need to weigh design choices.

County staff and the chair outlined two practical alternatives to adopting a local‑traffic ordinance: expand the existing Elk River RSID (special improvement district) to include other neighboring benefited properties so costs are shared, or create a construction RSID to pave the section with a county loan (the board noted the project is too small to finance by bond) and then consolidate the RSIDs so assessments cover maintenance. Tim Mann, identified in the hearing as the county’s public works director, said there are about 17 parcels in Elk River Subdivision and that assessments "are barely enough to keep the road in drivable condition." Staff said property owners could opt to pay assessed costs up front.

The meeting record shows the board received one letter in favor of the ordinance and ten letters opposing it. Commissioners invited residents to meet with public works before the March 7 hearing and asked for volunteers to help convene a neighborhood discussion and return with a recommendation.

Earlier in the meeting commissioners approved several routine items by voice vote, including minutes for Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Jan. 31, Feb. 7 and Feb. 14 and a batch of claims (items 23, 116–120). The transcript does not record roll‑call vote tallies for those approvals.

No ordinance vote occurred on Feb. 24; the board left the matter open for further public comment and additional review ahead of the March 7 hearing.