Commissioners hear public hearing on proposed Janicki Industries campus and tax-abatement request

Cascade County commissioners held a public hearing on Resolution 26‑619 on May 5 to consider a tax‑benefit application from Janicki Industries for a proposed advanced‑manufacturing campus near Great Falls.

Staff (speaker 2) told the board the applicant’s phased campus would total roughly 1,500,000 square feet and estimated a total capital investment of about $830,000,000. Staff said the packet projects substantial job creation — various projections in the materials describe both "more than 1,000 jobs" and later "2,000 positions," numbers staff said come from the applicant’s submission. "The applicant estimates that approximately 830,000,000 in total investment will be required," staff said during the presentation.

Staff explained the company proposes a phased buildout and that any abatement would phase in per occupied certificate of occupancy for each phase: the abatement percentage would apply for the first five years after a phase is placed in service and then decline in 20% increments until full taxable value is reached in year 10. Staff also said the applicant requested an 80% equipment abatement for the equipment/class‑8 portion of the project and that statute gives the county the authority to set an abatement at 100%, 90% or 80% for qualifying projects.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about timing and triggers. The chair (speaker 1) asked whether abatement year‑one begins at occupancy; staff confirmed the abatement for each phase begins when the applicable certificate of occupancy for that phase is issued. "As soon as they buy the land, do we—It starts out at once, occupancy," the chair said while seeking clarity on the schedule. Staff said the earliest construction could begin, if the site is selected, is later this year with phased completions into 2027–2031 depending on the phase schedule.

Staff noted the city of Great Falls would decide on the city’s parallel application the evening of May 12 and recommended the county place the resolution on its agenda for consideration. Staff also included in the packet an evaluation required by county rules; that evaluation addressed questions such as whether the project would create adverse impacts on public services, whether the county’s financial condition would preclude the abatement, whether the applicant was in violation of ordinances or rules, and whether off‑site infrastructure costs are anticipated.

No vote or final decision on the abatement was recorded during the May 5 work session. The hearing was a county statutory requirement to evaluate the application and gather commissioner questions; staff recommended the county commissioners consider adopting a resolution to approve a tax benefit, and staff emphasized that if the county adopts a resolution and the applicant later chooses an alternate site, the county would need to adopt a new resolution to rescind or change that action.

What happens next: city and county actions are separate but related. The city of Great Falls was scheduled to review its application on May 12; the county must separately adopt a resolution if it chooses to allow an abatement and must select the abatement percentage allowed under statute.

Sources: county staff presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, May 5 work session (public hearing on Resolution 26‑619 and Resolution 26‑20).