Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yellowstone County approves tax benefits for Ranch House Meats expansion
Summary
The Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved Resolution 24‑157, granting partial tax abatement to Ranch House Meats for a multimillion‑dollar expansion that the company says will grow its workforce from about 25 to roughly 75 and increase daily production to about 50–55,000 pounds across facilities.
The Yellowstone County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 26 approved Resolution 24‑157 to grant tax benefits to Ranch House Meats for an expansion the owners say represents roughly a $3.5 million investment.
Shane Flowers, who identified himself as a co‑owner of Ranch House Meats, told the board the project will expand capacity and jobs. "We've invested about $3,500,000 into this expansion," Flowers said, adding that the company currently employs about 25 people and expects to reach about 75 when the project is complete. He said the new facility should produce about 40,000 pounds a day, and combined with the existing site the operation could run about 50,000–55,000 pounds per day.
The public hearing included comments from Brandon Stevens, fire chief for the Lockwood Fire District, who expressed support for the new business while urging the board to consider local emergency‑response impacts. "We have seen an increased call volume over the last 30 days," Stevens said, and the district "project[s] that we'll continue to see that." He requested that any service arrangement or responsibilities be clarified with the Lockwood Fire District.
A county staff member explained how the abatement is calculated: the existing taxable base remains unchanged and the tax benefit applies to half of the new taxes generated by the construction or expansion (i.e., half of the increase in taxable value). Following the hearing, an unidentified commissioner moved to approve Resolution 24‑157 and a second was recorded; the board voted by voice with all commissioners saying "aye."
The county did not specify the exact term length of the abatement or whether local special‑district compensations (for example, to fire districts) will be required; the Lockwood Fire District testimony suggested response costs may rise but the transcript contains no staff estimate of fiscal impacts to special districts. The record also does not show whether the county attached specific conditions to the abatement related to emergency services, hiring benchmarks, or local sourcing.
Next steps: Resolution 24‑157 was adopted by the board on Nov. 26. Implementation details such as the abatement term, any intergovernmental cost‑sharing, and permits required for the expanded facility were not specified in the transcript and remain to be finalized by county staff and the company.
