Committee hears bill to clarify municipal authority to regulate camping on public property

A Montana House committee opened a hearing on House Bill 208, which would explicitly allow a municipality to prohibit or otherwise regulate the unauthorized occupancy of or camping on public property or facilities owned by or under the control of the municipality, the bill’s sponsor said.

The measure’s sponsor described the proposal as narrow and permissive, saying the bill “is a very simple little bill” and that “it merely states ... that a municipality may prohibit or otherwise regulate the unauthorized occupancy of or camping on or in public property or facilities owned by or under the control of the municipality.” The sponsor said the bill is intended to clarify authority rather than require municipalities to act.

Supporters told the committee the bill is intended to remove uncertainty after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision this past summer and to reduce legal costs for smaller towns that would otherwise need to research or litigate the question of authority. Thomas Jodin, legal services director for the Montana League of Cities and Towns, told the committee the bill “brings clarity to the authority of general power, cities, and towns to manage camping on city property,” and asked lawmakers for a due pass.

Committee members asked whether the bill was necessary given that some Montana cities — including Bozeman and Missoula, which were cited in questions — already regulate camping on municipal property. Vice Chair Staffman said he did not want to add code clutter if no legal uncertainty existed. The sponsor responded that he did not know of litigation overturning municipal authority but that the bill would “make it crystal clear” and could save small municipalities money on legal research or potential litigation; he cited Stevensville and Phillipsburg as examples of small towns that could benefit.

Committee members also asked about the potential for differing municipal standards across cities. The sponsor said the bill would preserve local control and that municipalities could adopt different approaches based on local circumstances; he emphasized the bill “allows municipalities to decide whether they want to do this, [and] does not require them to do so.”

Thomas Jodin and the sponsor both urged the committee to advance the bill. No formal action on House Bill 208 was recorded during the hearing portion captured in the transcript.

The hearing included public rules about sign-in and testimony and concluded after proponents’ remarks and committee questions; the sponsor urged a due pass at the close of the hearing.