Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park County planning board hears staff briefing on land-use tools, LUPA and citizen-initiated zoning
Summary
Planning staff outlined tools the county can use to manage growth, from citizen-initiated zoning menus to rural improvement districts and the Montana Land Use Planning Act (LUPA); board members and the public discussed funding, enforcement and how LUPA opt-in would change local control.
Zachary Park, chair of the Park County Planning Board, opened the board's May 21 meeting and invited Mike, a county planning staff member, to brief the board on land-use tools the county has used and might consider.
Mike told the board that many of the county's land-use questions recur on a roughly 10-year cycle. "If you go back and look at the records, you'll see, like, every 10 years, the same kind of issues will come up," he said, and added that state changes — the Montana Land Use Planning Act (referred to in discussion as LUPA and cited during the meeting as "MCA 76 25") — create a new framework for planning that could replace the county's current nonregulatory growth policy.
The staff presentation walked board members through options that range from targeted local tools to a comprehensive statutory regime. Mike described a citizen-initiated zoning process retooled as an "a la carte" menu to reduce legal costs and encourage early public engagement, while also reviewing rural improvement districts and impact fees as financing mechanisms. On financing, he noted county constraints: "I think our reserves right now are at 3%, and we you typically wanna keep them at 17," leaving little budgetary room for enforcement or new staff without new revenue.
Board members asked about the practical and legal hurdles of each option. Mike said the Montana Land Use Planning Act would require a multi-year, multi-stakeholder planning effort and then countywide zoning; he cautioned that opt-in poses political risks and an initial expense but could make future development more administrative and predictable. "Once you've done all that, you then zone the county in accordance with your plans," he said, describing how LUPA shifts many development decisions into an earlier planning phase.
On targeted funding, the presentation said county officials have explored resort-district taxes and fee analyses to better align charges with service costs. Staff described rural improvement districts as a tool for road and infrastructure funding but said the citizen-petition route requires 100% buy-in in some cases and has faltered in the past when informal cost estimates later ballooned after engineering review.
The board also discussed new development types such as data centers. Mike said state permitting and incentives can limit local authority and that data centers raise distinct concerns about water use and infrastructure demand.
Public comment came from Leslie Bridal of the Livingston Area Chamber of Commerce, who emphasized enforcement capacity and available revenue tools. "There already is a tourism tax... there's bed taxes," Bridal said, and urged the board to account for enforcement staffing as it considers any new ordinance or program. She also raised housing and senior-citizen concerns tied to tax proposals and offered webinars and other information on data centers.
Procedurally, the board approved the April meeting minutes after a motion and second, and later moved to adjourn. No formal county-level changes were adopted at the meeting; staff and board members agreed to gather additional information, including presentations from jurisdictions with LUPA experience, and to route any draft policy through the county commissioners and a public engagement process.
What happens next: staff said they can arrange presentations and compile statutory references and fiscal estimates for the board and commissioners. The board did not vote to opt into any new statutory regime at this meeting.
