Missoula County cites impact fees, zoning and buy‑back water deals as tools to spur housing and jobs

Missoula County Commissioner Josh Slotnik told the City Club forum that the county is using a mix of neighborhood planning, impact fees and public–private partnerships to create the infrastructure needed for housing and economic development.

Slotnik said the county and local partners developed a vision for the Highway 200 corridor with neighbors and a metropolitan planning organization but later lost a "$20 million, 20 plus million" federal grant for the project; he described that loss as an example of how federal volatility can affect local plans.

On the Swan and Holland Lake Lodge, Slotnik described local organizing that stopped a proposed commercial resort and produced a neighborhood plan that will serve as the basis for zoning "that reflects the values of the people who live there."

He outlined Lolo's water constraint and the county’s decision to create impact fees — a charge at building permit intended to generate one‑time funds for growth‑related infrastructure. "According to statute, we had to pull together a board of community members," Slotnik said, describing a process that included a fiscal and engineering study and community deliberation before adopting fees to expand water capacity.

Slotnik also described the Y‑area public‑private water project: two industrial builders (named in his remarks as Matt Malot and Josh Smith) covered upfront construction of a water system that cost "really expensive, more than $6 million," which the public bought back. He said the public purchase price will be about $5.3 million while the two builders covered roughly $800,000 in private on‑site water costs, with repayment tied to the area’s targeted economic development financing.

Slotnik framed these efforts as examples of slow, patient civic work requiring technical expertise and resident engagement; he urged residents who want to shape neighborhoods to participate in planning processes.

The commissioner’s presentation did not announce formal votes or regulatory changes at the forum; specific schedules for paid‑back promises, bond issuance or permitting steps were not provided and will be handled through normal county processes.