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

Billings council splits over how to use HB 231�mills; ordinance request fails

November 04, 2025 | Billings, Yellowstone, Montana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Billings council splits over how to use HB 231�mills; ordinance request fails
The Billings City Council debated how the one‑time mill change created by House Bill 231 should be implemented locally, and on a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance formalizing proportional allocation of those mills the motion failed. Council members divided over whether the legislative change should be captured in code or handled annually through the budget.

At issue is roughly 34.71 mills that staff said resulted from HB 231. Supporters of an ordinance argued it would preserve the relative allocations voters approved in prior levies (library, transit, public safety) and provide clarity for future councils. Opponents said the bill's language is ambiguous, that locking allocations in an ordinance could reduce the city's flexibility to respond to future needs, and that transparency comes from the annual budget process rather than an ordinance.

"This ordinance would tie our hands unnecessarily," said Council member Owens, arguing the council should preserve discretion to respond to future public safety needs. Council member Repsis offered the motion to have staff prepare an ordinance; staff and other councilors debated whether the measure would be permissive or mandatory and whether it was premature given continuing uncertainty at the state level.

Council proceeded to a voice vote on the motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance. For the record, council members Repsis, Cole, Gulick and Shaw voted in favor; the motion failed.

Staff clarified during discussion that the language in HB 231 contains permissive provisions and an optional transition formula; council members disagreed on how those provisions would apply to future levies and how closely they would need to track voter‑approved categories. Councilors asked staff to return with a clearer legal and budgetary analysis so a subsequent council could consider ordinance language or other directions during the regular budget process.

The debate did not adopt a policy change; the council left the question unresolved and directed staff to provide more information in upcoming budget and committee meetings.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Montana articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI