2026 Summer Forum
July 12-15, 2026
• • •
Montana Miracle – Housing Reform
Montana’s Housing Initiative: Building Bipartisan Support and Increasing Supply
In 2022, Montana’s governor, Greg Gianforte, appointed Mr. Dorrington, then the Department of Environmental Quality director, to lead a statewide Housing Task Force. The goal was to develop a strategy to address the shortage of affordable, attainable workforce housing through collaboration, measurable outcomes, and bipartisan action.
The goal was to develop a strategy to address the shortage of affordable, attainable workforce housing through collaboration, measurable outcomes, and bipartisan action.
The Housing Challenge
Montana’s housing crisis accelerated during COVID as remote workers moved to the state, increasing demand while supply remained limited. Key trends included:
-
Average home prices rose from $239,000 to $428,000 between 2018 and 2023.
-
Montana’s population grew about 9% from 2010–2020, outpacing housing growth.
-
Home values increased 66% between 2020 and 2024.
-
Rental vacancy rates declined from 5.7% to 4.4%, contributing to affordability pressures and homelessness.
-
Regulatory costs were also a major factor, with studies estimating regulations contributed significantly to rising construction costs.
Strategy: Incremental Reform, Not a Perfect Solution
The 27-member Housing Task Force was a broad coalition that included developers and builders, banks and business groups, legislators from both parties, representatives from cities, counties, and state agencies, and policy experts. The process emphasized shared ownership rather than individual agendas, public transparency and input, early identification of disagreements, and the inclusion of dissenting opinions in the final recommendations. The task force leader stressed that disagreements should occur early and openly so legislators understood the challenges before housing bills reached the legislative floor.
The task force focused on increasing housing supply by encouraging higher-density development rather than continued suburban sprawl, improving state and local approval processes, reducing regulatory barriers, and expanding workforce housing opportunities. Its objective was not to solve every housing challenge, but to make meaningful, measurable improvements that would increase the availability of housing across the state. The task force focused on improving market conditions rather than creating government-funded housing programs alone.
Its objective was not to solve every housing challenge, but to make meaningful, measurable improvements that would increase the availability of housing across the state.
The task force's recommendations became the foundation for major housing reforms enacted in 2023. The legislation allowed duplexes in single-family residential zones, legalized accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right, and permitted more multifamily and mixed-use housing in commercial areas. It also required communities to develop long-term growth plans rather than debating individual housing projects one at a time. This planning-based approach helped reduce delays and prevent individual developments from being repeatedly stalled or defeated through local opposition.
The coalition continued its work after the initial legislation and developed additional reforms that were enacted in 2025. These included reducing parking mandates to lower construction costs, modernizing building codes to allow greater density through taller buildings and single-stair designs, limiting excessive development fees, and investing in water and sewer infrastructure to make higher-density housing projects more financially feasible.
Key Lesson
The central lesson was that successful housing reform requires:
-
A focused goal.
-
A broad coalition.
-
Strong executive leadership.
-
Transparency and early engagement.
-
Incremental improvements rather than waiting for a perfect solution.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Comments are paraphrased for brevity.
Senator Bill Ferguson (President of the Senate, Maryland)
On the infrastructure question, how did you prioritize and choose which projects were selected to receive public dollars?
Mr. Dorrington
Communities that planned ahead, identified growth needs, and had developers and builders ready to move forward were prioritized for funding. This approach recognized that development timelines are sensitive—projects can collapse if financing deadlines are missed or approvals are delayed. With limited resources available, the state focused on communities with strong plans and used a first-come, first-served approach to allocate funds.
Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Senate Majority Leader, Vermont)
Previously, I chaired the Housing and Economic Development Committee, and we passed three landmark bills addressing many of the same issues: municipal zoning, state planning and zoning, and infrastructure investment. We were trying to address all of those pieces together.
What I want to emphasize to my colleagues is that your governor’s decision to appoint someone with experience in both environmental regulation and transportation to lead the housing effort was a major advantage. That alignment may be one of our biggest challenges. We have had situations where we had FEMA trailers available but nowhere to place them because of conflicting requirements. We have environmental regulators and housing advocates working at cross purposes.
How did you bring state government agencies into alignment through this process? In our case, the challenge doesn’t seem to be the legislature as much as coordinating state agencies. We are also a rural state, where transportation is a critical part of the housing conversation, but it often isn’t included.
Mr. Dorrington
Transportation remains one of the most expensive parts of development. Communities must consider access to highways, infrastructure needs, and the broader impacts of transportation investments.
A major factor in Montana’s success was the Gianforte administration’s focus on improving state agencies rather than maintaining the status quo. The administration brought in leaders focused on organizational improvement, efficiency, and effectiveness while maintaining important protections, especially environmental safeguards.
Because agency leaders shared a common goal of improving government operations, they were able to collaborate across departments. Instead of agencies working in isolation, directors could work together to resolve conflicts and align priorities.
The effort also succeeded because it was a partnership between the executive and legislative branches. Although the governor appointed the task force leader, legislators were included from the beginning. The four legislative members worked with their parties, committees, and colleagues to build support and help ensure the final package had legislative backing when introduced.
The effort also succeeded because it was a partnership between the executive and legislative branches.
Stakeholder engagement was also intentional. Rather than allowing interest groups to fight over legislation after it was drafted, key stakeholders were brought into the process early. While not everyone could sit on the 27-member task force, outside groups were encouraged to participate through members they already knew and trusted.
Most legislation took effect in July, while the growth planning requirements under Senate Bill 382 gave local governments until May 2026 to complete their planning process. Some provisions faced legal challenges, resulting in temporary injunctions while courts reviewed the legislation.
Senator Cathy Kipp (Senate President Pro Tempore, Colorado)
We attempted a large omnibus housing bill, but it failed largely because it was driven by the governor’s team without enough stakeholder and legislative input early in the process. Since then, we’ve been able to move forward with several individual pieces. How did you approach limiting development impact fees, and how did you structure the investment in water and sewer infrastructure? I would think local impact fees would be extremely contentious among your local jurisdictions.
Mr. Dorrington
Large omnibus bills are often not the best approach. Even if they contain many strong ideas, opposition to one part can cause the entire package to fail. In 2023 and 2025, Montana instead separated the proposals into multiple bills. That allowed individual reforms to move forward even if one or two faced challenges.
For infrastructure investments, the state prioritized communities that had already done the planning work. Many had completed studies, zoning decisions, community engagement, and even design work but lacked the funding to move forward.
Those communities could apply through a grant program. Funding was awarded on a first-come, first-served basis to projects that had:
• A clear growth plan.
• Appropriate zoning in place.
• Developer and builder readiness.
• Community support.
• Completed designs.
• Reliable cost estimates.
The goal was to invest in projects that were ready to succeed and could quickly expand housing capacity.
The goal was to invest in projects that were ready to succeed and could quickly expand housing capacity.
We saw communities struggling to approve subdivisions quickly and efficiently. They asked for solutions, but often rejected specific reforms. The message became: you can’t ask the state to help solve the problem while refusing every tool needed to address it.
Impact fees were extremely contentious with local governments, and they still are. But the state stepped in because communities were asking for help building more housing while existing processes were slowing development. Costs for infrastructure like water, wastewater, roads, sidewalks, and ADA improvements were making projects financially unviable. Developers were reaching the point where they would rather invest in another state.
Montana also has limited revenue sources for infrastructure because it lacks a sales tax. Local governments relied heavily on impact fees, but those fees became so high they began preventing new housing development. The goal was to create a more balanced approach that allowed communities to fund infrastructure without making housing impossible to build.
Sean Conner (Senior Manager, Government Affairs, Lowe's Home Improvement)
Can you describe the public meeting process? It seemed like opponents of development often used those meetings as a strategy to delay projects, and it sounds like your approach addressed that effectively.
Mr. Dorrington
We reduced unnecessary multi-agency reviews by allowing local approvals to count as state approvals for certain projects below a defined threshold. That streamlined the process while maintaining standards. Technology can help further by automating routine reviews, such as water and wastewater design, lot layouts, and transportation access.
Through public meetings, we built input into every stage. The overall task force held public meetings, and each subgroup included opportunities for public comment.
There were certainly opponents who raised concerns, but the expectation was that criticism had to come with a solution. If someone objected to a proposal, I asked, “What would you do instead?” That shifted the discussion from simply opposing development to finding ways to meet the shared goal of increasing housing supply. It didn’t reduce public participation—it made it more productive.
Senator Rod Bray (Senate President Pro Tempore, Indiana)
We worked on a housing bill last session and made two mistakes you warned against: we combined too many ideas into one omnibus bill, and we introduced it too late—essentially in December for a January session instead of building support months in advance. Two things seem critical for passing complex legislation: early engagement and breaking issues into manageable pieces.
Two things seem critical for passing complex legislation: early engagement and breaking issues into manageable pieces.
One major debate was over parking requirements. Many argued that reducing mandates would create problems. You suggested the market would determine the right amount of parking. Has there been enough time to evaluate the impact of that change? Have you seen any issues, or has it worked as expected?
Mr. Dorrington
There will always be some developers who push things too far—building a large project with no parking, for example, is unlikely to work. But the opposite extreme, where excessive parking requirements make housing unaffordable, also doesn’t work.
The goal is finding the right balance. Local governments should still have a role in reviewing proposals and stepping in when a project’s design is clearly impractical, while avoiding rigid requirements that unnecessarily increase housing costs.
Senator Stuart Adams (President of the Senate, Utah)
Can you explain more about your pre-zoning approach? Is the idea that communities approve certain areas for development in advance, so individual projects don’t face the same opposition each time they come forward? Is this essentially a form of blanket zoning or pre-approved development areas?
Mr. Dorrington
Some areas still have no zoning, but for municipalities we required a 10-year growth plan, updated every five years.
The public’s opportunity to weigh in came during the planning process, when communities identified growth areas and planned zoning types. Once that plan was approved, a development proposal that followed the established plan would not reopen the same debate project by project. The goal was to move public input earlier in the process and provide more certainty for development.