Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears hours of debate on bill to cap local parking mandates
Summary
Lawmakers and witnesses debated HB492, which would limit local parking requirements (generally one space per residential unit and one per 5,000 sq ft for larger commercial uses) and require localities to reimburse developers if they mandate more; proponents said it will reduce housing costs, opponents warned it preempts local planning and could impose costs on cities.
Representative Katie Zolokov introduced House Bill 492 to impose statewide caps on local parking mandates, saying excessive parking requirements drive up development costs and reduce housing supply.
Zolokov told the House Local Government Committee the bill would generally cap required parking at one space per residential dwelling unit and one space per 5,000 square feet for larger commercial developments, while preserving Americans with Disabilities Act-required accessible parking. The bill also includes a provision that would require a local government to compensate a developer for the real cost of any additional parking the local government mandates above the bill’s caps.
Proponents from around the state urged the committee to support HB492. Jake Brown of Shelter Whitefish said the bill addresses one of the largest contributors to housing costs and noted construction costs for a single parking space can vary widely; he told the committee that limiting required parking can lower per-unit development costs and expand the supply of housing. Tanner Avery of the Montana Frontier Institute and Dan Brooks of the Billings Chamber echoed that testimony, arguing that giving developers flexibility would let markets determine parking needs and free up land for housing and small businesses.
Opponents said they favor parking reform in principle but opposed this bill’s approach. Kelly Lynch of the Montana League of Cities and Towns said HB492 would disrupt local compliance with the Montana Land Use and Planning Act (known in testimony as Malupa), which requires local public participation and impact analysis for zoning reforms; Lynch warned the bill could force municipalities midstream to redo planning work. Laura Collins of the Montana Environmental Information Center said the bill’s reimbursement requirement could be punitive to cities and urged exemptions or a more incremental approach.
Committee members pressed witnesses on several technical points. Representative Cochran asked whether the formulas in statute refer to base salary or total compensation in an unrelated bill’s discussion; in HB492 questioning, members raised concerns about rural vs. urban differences, the basis for the 1-per-unit and 1-per-5,000-square-foot caps, and the practical result in neighborhoods with tight on-street parking. Sponsor Zolokov suggested she could consider amendment options, including a later effective date to allow Malupa compliance to run its course.
Supporters cited examples from other cities where reduced parking mandates corresponded with increased housing production; opponents contrasted those metro examples with Montana’s small towns and variable local infrastructure, and said parking needs can differ dramatically by place and use. No final vote occurred on HB492 during the hearing; the bill was closed for public comment and will move to executive action later in the process.
The committee recessed after the hearing to conduct executive action on other bills; HB492 generated the longest public comment period of the day and remains under consideration.
