Missoula County Zoning Regulations Billboard Amendment

As a resident of Missoula County, I am against passing this amendment. Billboards are an affordable advertising tool and should continue to be an option for our local businesses. Thank you for allowing the public to comment. Please vote no.

I am a Missoula County resident who cares deeply about the character of our community and the vitality of our local economy.

I’m writing to respectfully urge you to vote against the proposed amendments to the sign code that would prohibit billboards in industrial zones and restrict modernization of existing signage.

Missoula has always been a place that values small businesses, entrepreneurship, and local connection. For many of our locally owned businesses and nonprofits, especially those operating in industrial areas, billboards are not just advertising tools; they are one of the few affordable and effective ways to reach both residents and travelers. Limiting this option disproportionately impacts small, local businesses who don’t have the same access to large-scale marketing channels.
The proposed changes feel overly restrictive for areas already zoned as industrial. These zones are, by design, intended for higher-intensity uses. Thoughtfully placed billboards in these areas do not detract from Missoula’s natural beauty in the same way they might in residential or scenic corridors. In fact, they often provide helpful information, promote local services, and support economic activity without encroaching on the spaces we most want to preserve.

I am also concerned about the prohibition on transitioning to digital billboards. Modern digital signage can be more efficient, reduce material waste, and allow multiple local businesses to share space on a single structure. Preventing this evolution may unintentionally limit innovation and economic opportunity while locking existing infrastructure into older, less flexible formats.

Missoula County has long balanced growth with preservation. This proposal, as written, tips too far toward restriction.

I encourage you to consider a more balanced approach, one that allows for reasonable regulation of size, placement, and lighting, while still supporting local businesses and economic vitality.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration of community voices.

Although I appreciate the debate, I do not support the proposed amendment.

Billboard technology should continue to evolve in the Missoula area to provide effective access to resources and information throughout the city.

As a local business owner here in Missoula, I believe billboards play an important role in helping small businesses grow, stay visible, and compete. Not every local company has a massive advertising budget or a statewide marketing machine behind them. Billboards give small, homegrown businesses a real chance to be seen, remembered, and supported by the communities they serve. That matters in a place like Missoula, where local business is part of the fabric of the town.

They also add a little character. Let’s be honest, some of them are just plain fun. Whitefish Credit Union’s “Ryan just looking for a friend” is a perfect example. It made people smile, it got attention, and it reminded us that advertising does not always have to be sterile and corporate. Sometimes it can actually feel human, local, and memorable.

I strongly oppose the proposal to remove billboards. Protecting local businesses means protecting the grassroots ways they reach people. And if someone needs a break from advertising, this is Montana. We have mountains, rivers, trails, and more wide-open space than most people know what to do with. We are not exactly trapped in Times Square out here. Missoula has always had a strong local spirit, and supporting practical, affordable ways for small businesses to stay visible is part of protecting that.

Please, vote NO on this amendment.

As a resident of Missoula and a person who utilizes billboard advertising for my Montana business, I’m highly opposed to this amendment. I urge you to vote no on this amendment.

As a member of the Missoula community,  I strongly oppose this amendment. Billboards help me to stay aware of where I can go to find local goods and services, as well as being informed on changes within my local  economy/community. Billboards help spread community messages for missing persons, voter information, events, local non-profits and causes. I do not believe that this is a fair and balanced approach to navigating this industry within our community.

Billboards are an affordable way for local businesses to advertise their services directly to their customers, who rely on those services in their community. 
They improve the economy by increasing local business sales.
Billboards are strategically placed so that drivers do not need to look down or at their phones, and for this reason, do not impose an increased safety risk.
Existing billboards already follow all lighting, height, distance, and other regulations that are in place in Missoula. 
This amendment prevents future maintenance or rebuilding of existing billboards if they are damaged by weather, age, vandalism, road construction, etc. which has a direct effect on the investment of long term local advertisers.
Digital billboards can already only be placed in industrial areas, so they do not make any more of a negative visual impact. 
Billboards do not lower home values. More often is the case that a home value is lower if it’s near a billboard because the home is next to the highway.   
Digital billboards help the environment by saving on fuel and material production. 
The majority of advertisers on billboards in Missoula, by far, are local advertisers and demand is high
Billboards also are a great way to broadcast messages for public good such as missing persons, local non-profits, community initiatives, and more. 
There are already regulations against adding new billboard locations in Missoula, so the perception that a big corporation is trying to come in and put in a bunch of new billboard locations is vastly incorrect. The only changes that can be made are conversions to existing structures, and oftentimes that means taking even more structures down as a trade off, which means more advertisers can be accommodated on LESS space.
Billboards are an economic benefit to the landowners of the locations where they are placed, and removing them (now or in the future) is removing that income for our community members. 
Investing in local media keeps advertising dollars from going to Big Tech corporations outside of our communities.
Thank you.

I fully recognize that billboards are not universally loved. Many residents value scenic beauty and thoughtful land use planning, and those perspectives deserve respect. But public policy must consider not only aesthetic preference, but also broader democratic values such as freedom of expression, equitable access to communication, and the ability of diverse voices to be heard in shared public spaces and what is best for the community.

Billboards are one of the few remaining communication platforms equally accessible to small businesses, local nonprofits, grassroots organizations, and advocacy groups. Across the country, billboards are used to promote messages supporting LGBTQ+ inclusion, anti-bullying campaigns, racial equality initiatives, mental health awareness, veterans services, domestic violence resources, and public health information. These messages contribute to a more compassionate, informed, and connected community. This proposed amendment does not create a pathway toward fewer billboards and silences our voice.

Free speech is strongest when communities maintain a diversity of platforms where ideas, causes, and identities can be represented openly. Policies that restrict communication infrastructure risk unintentionally limiting opportunities for historically underrepresented groups to share messages of inclusion, acceptance, equality, and belonging in the physical spaces where people live, work, and travel. Billboards are visible to all regardless of income level, political affiliation, or social media participation.

The current policy allows for a net reduction in billboards. Why wouldn’t we keep policies that accomplish that goal or improve aesthetics of what we already have to reduce clutter and better align with community character.

Billboards also provide important public service messaging, including crisis lifeline information, missing persons, health campaigns, and nonprofit outreach. Their communications often benefit the most vulnerable members of our community and ensure critical information reaches people regardless of digital access or socioeconomic status.

We can acknowledge differences while still recognizing that inclusive communities benefit from maintaining open channels of communication on billboards. Over regulatory policies such as this reflect poorly shared progressive values of sustainability, accessibility, fairness, and representation. Policy should not unintentionally silence voices or limit access to public communication tools that support diversity, inclusion, and community connection.

I think it’s preposterous to go against advancements like the one this amendment proposes. From a marketing perspective, billboards have long been a major part of how businesses advertise and grow, and Montana has been known to support and encourage local and small businesses in their growth journey, yet are set to limitations like these which would do so. Additionally, to my understanding, the hazard mentioned in this amendment can be addressed in a way that it does NOT have to be completely banned. Additionally, isn’t it worse to prohibit reconstruction of damaged billboards, which with time can cause a major accident due to natural decay, than fixing those?

My name is David DeLaurier, and I am a local business owner in Missoula. I am submitting this comment to express my strong opposition to the proposed amendments to the Missoula County Zoning Regulations that would prohibit billboards in Industrial Center zones and ban the conversion of static billboards to electronic message displays. After careful review of the ordinance and the relevant research, I believe this amendment is misguided, unsupported by evidence, and harmful to our local economy and community.

The primary argument advanced in support of billboard bans is that billboards pose a traffic safety hazard. However, this claim does not withstand scrutiny. Multiple major studies have specifically examined the relationship between billboards and traffic safety, and they have consistently failed to establish a statistically significant correlation between billboard presence and increased crash rates. The Federal Highway Administration conducted research in 2013 and found no evidence that electronic billboards posed a safety risk to motorists. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute reached a similar conclusion in 2003, finding no measurable evidence that billboards cause changes in driver behavior in terms of visual behavior, speed maintenance, or lane keeping. Additionally, multiple state departments of transportation have reviewed accident data and found that the number or rate of vehicular accidents did not increase after the installation of billboards.

Eye-tracking research shows that drivers naturally limit their glances at billboards to approximately half a second to one second, which is well below the two-second threshold established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the danger zone for crash risk. This is because billboards are designed to be read at a glance, unlike cell phones which require sustained interaction and typically draw driver attention for four to five seconds or more. Billboards are actually a safer alternative to the advertising methods they compete with. When people learn about local businesses through billboards, they are not looking down at their phones. Unlike television, radio, or digital advertising, billboards allow me to reach local customers at the point of decision-making, when they are out in the community, not sitting at home. This is when most purchasing decisions are made.

The economic impact of this amendment would be severe. Local businesses would lose an affordable advertising option that competes with Big Tech platforms. The vast majority of billboard advertisers in Missoula are local businesses and organizations, not national corporations. Property owners who lease land for billboard placement would lose a source of passive income. This is particularly important in industrial zones where such arrangements help property owners maintain and improve their facilities. The fifty percent reconstruction threshold effectively creates a death sentence for existing billboards damaged by weather, vandalism, or road construction. This undermines the investment of businesses that have contracted for long-term advertising and threatens to eliminate billboards through attrition rather than direct prohibition. Furthermore, local advertising dollars would flow to out-of-state technology corporations rather than staying in our community. When we eliminate local media options, Google and Meta become the only game in town.

Billboards serve important community functions beyond commercial advertising. They provide public safety messaging including AMBER Alerts for missing children, weather emergency notifications, and public health information. They promote community events such as local festivals, farmers markets, charity events, and cultural activities. Many local non-profits and community organizations rely on donated or discounted billboard space to reach residents. They also provide voter information through election reminders and civic engagement messaging. They help with local business awareness by helping residents discover goods and services available in their own community. These community benefits are provided at no cost to taxpayers. If billboards are eliminated, the county would need to invest in alternative infrastructure to broadcast emergency messages and community information.

The proposed prohibition on converting static billboards to electronic message displays would prevent our community from realizing several important benefits. Digital billboards eliminate the need for vinyl production, printing chemicals, fuel for service trucks, and landfill disposal of old advertisements. One digital billboard can replace multiple static faces. They also provide space efficiency, as a single digital billboard can accommodate multiple advertisers in rotation, reducing the total number of structures needed. Conversions often include agreements to remove additional static structures as a trade-off. They provide emergency messaging capability, as digital billboards can be instantly updated with AMBER Alerts, weather warnings, and other urgent public safety messages. Static billboards cannot provide this rapid-response capability. They also allow for flexible scheduling, as digital billboards allow small businesses to purchase shorter, more affordable advertising time slots rather than committing to long-term static placements they may not be able to afford.

Current regulations already limit digital billboards to industrial zones where their visual impact is minimal. The Federal Highway Administration study found that even digital billboards do not pose a safety risk. This blanket prohibition ignores both the research and the practical benefits of digital technology.

It is important to recognize that Missoula County already has substantial regulations governing billboards. Current rules address size, which is limited to three hundred square feet, location, which is restricted to industrial zones, lighting, height, and setback requirements. The perception that there is an uncontrolled proliferation of billboards, or that big corporations are trying to come in and put in a bunch of new billboard locations, is incorrect. The current regulatory framework is working as intended. What this amendment proposes is not reasonable regulation but an effective ban through attrition.

Regarding property values, billboards do not lower adjacent property values. Studies have shown that when property values are lower near billboards, it is because the property is located near a highway, not because of the billboard itself. Correlation is not causation. As for visual blight, digital billboards are already restricted to industrial zones where visual aesthetics are not the primary concern. The amendment would not affect billboards in residential or commercial areas because they are already prohibited there. Regarding corporate invasion, the majority of billboard advertisers in Missoula are local businesses, non-profits, and community organizations. This is not a case of outside corporations overwhelming our community. It is local people reaching local people through local media.

For all the reasons stated above, I urge the Missoula County Commissioners to reject the proposed amendments to the Missoula County Zoning Regulations. The safety justification is not supported by research. The economic harm to local businesses and property owners is substantial. The community benefits of billboards are significant. Existing regulations already provide appropriate oversight.

This is not a fair and balanced approach to regulating the outdoor advertising industry in our community. It is a prohibition by attrition that ignores both the evidence and the needs of local businesses and residents. I respectfully request that the Commissioners vote against this amendment and instead work with stakeholders to develop regulations that address legitimate concerns while preserving this important resource for our local economy and community. Thank you for your consideration of this comment.


FHWA Study: https://highways.fhwa.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-09-018.pdf

VTTI Study: https://oaaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VTTI-Billboard-Safety-Study-2003.pdf

Edquist Study (6-9% source): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4411179/

NHTSA Distracted Driving: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

This proposed change feels arbitrary and designed to target a specific industry. I don’t see any reason for these changes. Please vote against the proposal.

As a local member of the Missoula community, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I believe the representation of this amendment is misleading to the community. Billboards are an affordable way for local businesses to advertise their services directly to their customers, who rely on those services in their community. They improve the economy by increasing local business sales. Billboards are strategically placed so that drivers do not need to look down or at their phones, and for this reason, do not impose an increased safety risk more than any other sign. Existing billboards already follow all lighting, height, distance, and other regulations that are in place in Missoula. The billboard companies in Montana are locally run and staffed by Montanans, and this amendment threatens their livelihood and economic growth in this city as a whole. This amendment prevents future maintenance of existing billboards if they are damaged by weather, age, road construction, or any number of events, which has a direct effect on the investment of long term local advertisers. Digital billboards, specifically, are already restricted to be placed in industrial areas only, so they do not make any more of a negative visual impact. This is not necessarily a known fact to the public, so it should be taken under consideration when reviewing public comment. Digital billboards help the environment by saving on fuel, emissions, and material production. The majority of advertisers on billboards in Missoula, by far, are local advertisers. Billboards also are a great way to broadcast messages for public good such as missing persons, local non-profits, community initiatives, and more. Another lesser known fact is that there are already regulations against adding new billboard locations in Missoula. The only changes that can be made are digital conversions to existing structures, in industrial areas only, and oftentimes this means taking other structures down as a result, which means more advertisers can be accommodated on LESS space. Billboards are a form of income for our local landowners, and this amendment threatens that income stream. It is vital to fully research this subject before making sweeping, extraneous, and permanent decisions that affect your local community members and businesses for years to come.

Billboards should not be allowed and should be phased out, to help stop crashes and keep people alive. A billboard is designed to catch attention and be read and that takes driver eyes off the street, road or highway. In studies, 'external distractions' have been shown to be a significant factor in 6% to 9% of crashes. We need to address crashes- too many people are being severly injured or killed in our community.

I am generally against this amendment to prohibit all new billboards. Although I can understand why some may favor limiting the use of billboards, I am concerned that it will hurt local businesses who are trying to attract people into their businesses. This regulation would be taking a resource away from small business. Prohibiting re-construction of billboards that are damaged based on cost seems unreasonable. If the amendment allows existing billboards to remain in place, then owners of those billboards should be able to re-construct them without a County regulation determining how much cost is too much to repair or re-construct them.

As a resident of Missoula County, I strongly support this initiative. Reducing the amount of power consumed in Missoula, specifically, power consumed from NorthWestern energy's 55% stake in the Colstrip powerplant, is an important step to reducing emissions of not just carbon, but other toxic chemicals. Unit 4 of the Colstrip plant is the largest emitter of lead and arsenic in the nation, and Unit 3 is the third largest. Reducing the amount of these toxic chemicals in our beautiful state is much more important than any benefits that electronic advertising could bring.

This article highlights just how polluting the Colstrip plant is:
https://meic.org/montanans-dont-deserve-highest-coal-plant-pollution-rate-in-the-nation/

As a resident of the city of Missoula, I support this amendment. Because much of Missoula's power comes from the Northwestern energy 55% stake in the Colstrip power plant, I believe that reducing the amount of power consumed within the city is an important step in reducing the amount of pollution created by the Colstrip plant. The Colstrip power plant is unique for how outdated and dirty its power generation is. Specifically, the unit 4 of the power plant has the highest degree of arsenic and lead output in the entire country. Reducing the amount of these toxic emissions is much more important than any electronically-lit billboard advertisement.

This article highlights the outrageous levels of pollution created by the Colstrip plant.
https://meic.org/montanans-dont-deserve-highest-coal-plant-pollution-rate-in-the-nation/

I agree with and support this initiative. I have considered both sides and while there may be some lost revenue for those who work in advertising, the pros far outweigh the cons. I am quite certain that no one would truly miss billboards even if they completely went away. The world is full of too much advertising and electronic stimuli. Wouldn't it be great if the human population could pull their noses out of their phones a bit more, myself included. The distraction, accidents, light pollution, and general disturbance to all the areas that have them will not be missed. Going forward with a more peaceful vision for Montana is never a bad thing, as most initiatives and "progress" do the exact opposite. It enhances Montana without them, and too often we think we need more and then come to figure out less was best and that is likely why most of us live here in the first place. Let's work on preserving the greatness that is our bountiful scenery. It needs no distraction. Thank you kindly.

I support the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations. Missoula’s beautiful landscape does not need digital billboards or even more regular billboards. Frankly, a digital billboard is a potentially more dangerous distraction to drivers who should be paying attention to the road.

Missoula is in a unique natural location. Its beauty, easy access to the outdoors and relaxed lifestyle should be highlighted. Keeping our skies as dark as possible, our landscape is natural as possible speaks clearly as to what we value as a communitty.

Digital billboards? A big blinking and flashing NO NO NO in multiple blinding blue light colors.

I endorse the Billboard Amendment to the Missoula County Zoning Regulations. The main traffic corridors through Missoula have a glut of Billboard. Some appear to be old and grimy. Others are too bright and because of this it becomes a safety issue. The overuse of billboards makes our beautiful town look cheap and dingy. Amending this regulation will move us toward improved visual grace, improved safety, and help Missoula expand its splendid nature.

Thanks,
Arthur Daniel Adcock
6918 Alisha Drive
Missoula 59803

I thank the Missoula leadership for proposing this action to protect our beautiful views from more billboard eyesores. Those beautiful views are part of our quality of life, and I have never met anyone who indicated that billboards added to their enjoyment of our area. The thoughtful restrictions prevent new billboards and the conversion of existing billboards to digital billboards that use a lot of electricity, increasingly distract drivers and confuse migrating birds. Please do vote 'yes' for this amendment to zoning regulations.