Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges county to scrutinize proposed expansion of city's South Village TIF district

Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners · October 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Billings resident told commissioners Oct. 14 he believes a proposed expansion of the city's South Village tax increment financing district would improperly divert county tax dollars to city infrastructure and recreation projects and called the move 'an extreme abuse of power.'

Kevin Nelson of 4235 Rees Avenue spoke during public comment at the Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners meeting on Oct. 14, urging the county and residents to scrutinize a proposed expansion of the city's South Village tax increment financing (TIF) district.

Nelson said the expansion would include the South Triangle and areas around 207 Seventh Street and, in his view, would allow the city to capture tax increment revenue that otherwise would be available to other taxing jurisdictions. He cited items listed in the city's application including street reconstruction, sidewalks, traffic control, multi-use trails, landscaping, water and sewer and stormwater, and said those are county-level needs that could be left unfunded if tax increment proceeds are used to pay for city infrastructure.

Nelson also said the city's application mentions park and recreation projects and criticized what he described as the use of county taxpayer dollars to fund a city swimming pool and other amenities, calling the proposal "an extreme abuse of power." He told commissioners a Yellowstone County Board of Planning meeting later that day would review a letter from the county planning board to the city and urged public awareness of the funding shift.

The board did not take action in response to the comment during the Oct. 14 meeting; the remarks were recorded as public comment.