Billings council signals plan to cut urban renewal administrative budgets after heated public comment

Billings City Council members moved on April 6 to push staff toward trimming administrative spending tied to the city’s three urban renewal (TIF) districts, after an evening of public comment in which downtown leaders and neighborhood advocates clashed over whether consolidation would erode local expertise.

The council did not adopt a formal ordinance or take a roll-call vote, but multiple members said they favored Option C — a staff-directed plan to reduce the three URD entities’ annual operating budgets, require sharper budget proposals from each nonprofit manager, and explore adding a city staff position to centralize routine administrative work.

The issue dominated the meeting. Dozens of residents, property owners and nonprofit leaders told the council they rely on the district managers to recruit businesses, shepherd redevelopment projects and run programs such as the Downtown Billings Partnership’s "Battle of the Plans." "We have three different ... organizations where nuance matters," said Bob Struckman, a downtown advocate who argued the separate bodies enable long-term investment. "That's really valuable." Kay Foster, a downtown resident, urged the council "to retain the current separate management programs for the three buildings/urban renewal districts," citing a history of building rehabilitations.

Opposing testimony pointed to fiscal concerns. Jeff Kettlesson told the council the downtown district had failed to file audited returns for two years and raised questions about oversight and the value of current administrative spending. Staff and the finance director explained that TIF revenues and allocations are included in the city's audited financial statements but that the nonprofit managing ledgers are separate entities with their own reporting practices.

Council members stressed two parallel aims: protecting the districts’ track records of generating private investment while improving transparency and reducing overhead. Several members, including Council Member Boyette, said they wanted a practical, near-term solution rather than immediate consolidation under a single contractor. "My goal was to try to save money for the TIFs to be used in the TIFs themselves," Boyette said in his remarks introducing options.

Staff was asked to return with: (1) preliminary revised operating budgets and suggested line-item reductions from each URD entity, (2) options for a modest city-supported administrative FTE to handle routine processing now done by higher-paid planning and finance staff, and (3) a timeline that gives council enough time to review proposed agreement changes before the contracts expire June 30.

The council’s direction split the difference between advocates who wanted the district model preserved and members who said the city must be able to justify administrative costs to state lawmakers who have previously targeted TIF programs. The work session concluded with council members asking the districts to "sharpen their pencils" and to appear at budget-and-finance review meetings with concrete, audited proposals.

Next steps: staff will draft and circulate instructions for the districts to return preliminary budgets and efficiency proposals for council review in the coming weeks; council members said they want the city finance director to include a breakout showing centrally assessed properties’ impacts on downtown tax revenue so the incremental performance can be seen more clearly.