Committee hears bill to let resort-tax communities use optional 1% for workforce and community housing

Representative Ken Walsh opened House Bill 162 by describing a limited but growing tool for Montana resort communities: the optional 1% local allocation on top of the 3% resort tax that voters may authorize for specified infrastructure. "House bill 162 adds workforce and community housing projects to the definition of infrastructure in the definitional section of the resort tax statutes," Walsh said, which would permit voters in resort-tax areas to approve the 1% for housing projects.

Multiple proponents, including Jackie Haines (director of economic and strategic development, Big Sky Resort Area District) and John Zirkle (Big Sky teacher and resort tax board director), described how tourism-driven demand has priced many workers—teachers, firefighters, hospitality staff—out of living near their jobs. Haines said the change is not a new tax and still requires voter approval. Zirkle gave local cost context: he said the median single-family home price in Big Sky in 2024 exceeded $2,000,000 and the median non-luxury condo was about $950,000, noting that many workers commute from outside the community.

David O'Connor, executive director of the Big Sky Community Housing Trust, detailed past resort-tax investments the trust has supported—"52 permanently affordable purchase homes, 25 low income apartments, 17 purchase deed restrictions"—and said HB 162 would allow the optional 1% infrastructure allocation to be used for larger-scale housing solutions without asking for state or county funds.

Committee members asked how "workforce and community housing" would be defined and held. Proponents said the bill intentionally avoids a narrow statutory definition to preserve local flexibility, that projects would be subject to voter approval, and that communities commonly use community-housing trusts or interlocal agreements to hold land and protections. Jackie Haines explained that communities would determine ownership and protections locally and that the Community Housing Trust model is often used to hold land and maintain affordability.

Proponents and local leaders from multiple resort-tax areas (Big Sky, West Yellowstone, Virginia City, Gardiner, Whitefish and others) said the bill simply provides another tool for communities that face tourism-driven housing shortages and said it is optional—the 1% allocation still requires local voter approval before funds may be committed to a project.

The committee discussion included examples of financing approaches proponents expect to use if a locality opts in: bonding, ballot authorization for the 1% allocation, and annual cash installments to acquire land and finance infrastructure for multi‑hundred‑unit projects. The hearing record shows broad local support from resort-area district officials and housing advocates; no opponents appeared on the HB 162 hearing record. Representative Walsh closed and asked for a due pass vote.