Committee backs bill to eliminate minimum parking mandates statewide

Senate File 1268, a bill to prohibit minimum parking mandates in Minnesota, was recommended to pass and re‑referred to the Committee on State and Local Government after a public hearing that included business, environmental, labor and municipal voices.

Sen. Nick Fatae, the bill’s author, said minimum parking mandates inflate housing costs, consume land and prevent walkable neighborhoods. “By imposing parking minimums, cities also hugely increase the cost of housing,” Fatae said, adding that the average parking stall in Minneapolis can cost about $40,000 to build and that renters can save $200 to $300 per month if parking is unbundled.

Supporters included planners, environmental groups and representatives of labor and housing advocates. Sean Hayford O’Leary, a Richfield city council member and former planning commissioner, told the committee that different parking quotas across adjacent jurisdictions create large disparities for identical buildings; he contrasted a 50‑unit building in Minneapolis with 0 required parking to the same building in Richfield (60 required spaces) or Bloomington (100 required spaces), arguing the result is uneven affordability.

Environmental testimony from Peter Wagenius of the Sierra Club emphasized the land‑use and runoff impacts of surface parking and the fiscal burden bundled into housing costs. Daniel Harriguez of the Parking Reform Network urged state action, saying local codes persist by inertia rather than evidence and noting a national trend of localities removing minimums.

Cities and local officials raised practical concerns for Greater Minnesota. Craig Clark, City Administrator in Austin, said many small cities are more car dependent, cited winter snow‑removal challenges and called the bill a potential unfunded mandate that could create parking burdens for taxpayers if developers under‑park and leave on‑street problems to cities. Jill Hutmacher, representing Metro Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities, said Eagan survey data show 78% of workers use private vehicles and argued that on‑site parking can be necessary where on‑street parking is unavailable.

Committee members asked questions about tailoring the bill to smaller communities. Several senators said they supported the bill’s goals but wanted further work to address rural and suburban realities; the author said she is continuing discussions with members and stakeholders.

Sen. Abler moved the recommendation to pass (and indicated he would abstain when he made the motion); the motion carried and the chair announced that SF 1268 moves to State and Local Government.

Ending note: proponents said eliminating parking minimums would reduce housing costs, free land for other uses and support small businesses; municipal officials requested more tailored language and protections for communities with limited transit and winter‑maintenance needs.