Montana hearing spotlights split over bill limiting local parking minimums to lower housing costs

Representative Katie Zolnicoff, the sponsor of House Bill 492, told the Senate Local Government Committee that the bill narrows local authority to impose residential parking minimums and is intended to make housing less expensive by removing a costly regulatory requirement.

"Parking spaces are incredibly expensive and they can cost anywhere from $9,000 per space to, in some places with higher land costs, $50,000 per spot," Representative Katie Zolnicoff said in her opening remarks. She told the committee the bill leaves ADA-required accessible parking intact but removes many local minimums for residential units, with carve-outs for licensed childcare facilities, certain small units (under 1,200 square feet), deed-restricted affordable housing and assisted-living facilities.

Proponents told the committee the change would free land for housing and reduce rents. Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish said removing excessive parking mandates can reduce development costs — "one parking space per unit increase increases costs approximately 12 and a half percent and two parking spaces can increase costs up to 25%" — and urged the committee to pass the bill. Tanner Avery of the Frontier Institute and representatives of the building and business communities echoed that view, saying developer choice will produce a market of lower-cost options.

Opponents focused on local control, neighborhood impacts and disability access. Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said cities tailor parking rules to local transit and job contexts and warned that a state preemption removes that flexibility. Grace Berener of the Hospitality and Development Association of Montana and city officials from Billings and Bozeman said downtown congestion and customer parking for hotels and businesses could worsen.

Several witnesses, including Kristen Newman (ADA technical assistance consultant) and Travis Hoffman (policy director, Summit Independent Living), raised a specific legal concern: under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related practice, accessible parking is required only where regular parking is provided. Newman testified that if a municipality cannot require a minimum amount of parking, "there is no accessible parking required under the ADA at that particular site," and she urged the committee not to pass the bill without fixing that gap.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether a narrow amendment — for example a small minimum to trigger ADA requirements or an exception when a municipality’s parking study shows local need — could address the concern. Representative Zolnicoff said she had not heard this legal argument in the House and would consider amendments, and she noted the bill’s effective date was changed in the House to Oct. 1, 2026 to give localities more time to adjust and coordinate with other implementation work.

The committee closed the hearing without taking a vote and moved on to other business. Representative Zolnicoff asked the committee for a due pass and said she would work with members on targeted amendments to ensure ADA protections while preserving the bill’s affordability goals.

Ending

The committee took no final action during the hearing. Sponsors, supporters and opponents agreed on the policy stakes — housing costs, downtown access and disability rights — but not on the solution; the sponsor signaled willingness to consider narrowly tailored amendments to preserve ADA access while limiting parking mandates.