Committee approves bill limiting local housing exactions after debate with Teton County officials

The Appropriations Committee advanced HB141, titled by the sponsor as a "Fifth Amendment Protection Act," after an extended hearing that included testimony from county and municipal officials who said the bill would impair local workforce-housing strategies.

Sponsor's explanation Chairman Bair said the bill implements statutory protections for private property owners, citing the takings clause of the U.S. Fifth Amendment and the state constitution's provision that "property shall not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation." The draft creates two new statutes prohibiting a governing body from imposing "a monetary fee, nonmonetary condition, or other concession related to the provision of workforce housing, unmet housing needs, or affordable housing" on residential or commercial development after July 1, 2026.

Local government opposition and concerns Jeremiah Reiman of the County Commissioners Association and representatives from Teton County and Jackson urged caution. Teton County witnesses said the county uses nexus studies and individualized determinations to set exactions that are proportionate to development impacts. Andy Schwartz, representing the town of Jackson, described the county's use of impact studies and local programs as legally defensible and integral to producing deed-restricted workforce units.

"This bill...works against workforce housing," said Nick Agopian, a Teton County representative, and county officials noted that the proposed language appeared targeted at their county, which has active workforce-exaction programs. The county said litigation on these issues is pending and that the county believes its programs meet the legal tests of nexus and rough proportionality.

Amendment and committee action Representative Pendergraft proposed an amendment to exclude life-safety building codes from the definition of prohibited nonmonetary conditions; the amendment passed and the sponsor agreed staff could draft a clearer statutory definition. After discussion and the amendment, the committee voted HB141 do pass as amended (6 ayes, 1 no).

What to watch The counties signaled they will defend their mitigation and nexus frameworks in court if necessary; committee members asked staff to craft a concise definition of life-safety codes to avoid unintentionally precluding building- and safety-related requirements. The bill is now reported from committee for further consideration by the full House.