Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates amendments to housing grant bill; retroactive match and caps put on hold
Summary
Lawmakers reviewed multiple amendments to Senate Bill 22‑25 (housing/community project grants), discussed adding tribal entities and matching language, and deferred a retroactive purchase/acquisition provision for sponsor clarification; some technical edits were approved and other items were held for follow‑up.
A committee considered multiple proposed edits to a housing and community‑development grant bill and deferred several substantive questions for sponsor clarification.
Senate Bill 22‑25 contains a grant program administered by the Department of Commerce. Committee members reviewed an amendment from the Department of Commerce that clarifies matching language, adds tribal entities to eligible recipients, and changes the matching calculation language to a one‑third state contribution for eligible projects. Representatives and the Commerce commissioner exchanged drafting questions about whether the bill should use “and,” “or,” or both when describing eligible applicants; Legislative Council assistance was requested for precise drafting.
Lawmakers also discussed a separate amendment from Senator Beckendall that would permit grants for the purchase or acquisition of land with infrastructure developed on it after Dec. 31, 2014. Several members questioned the retroactive scope of that provision and asked to hold the item while staff contacted Senator Beckendall for intent and clarification. Committee leadership agreed to defer that subsection pending sponsor input.
Members discussed whether to cap maximum grant amounts for different population tiers (for example, a $1.5 million cap for communities over 20,000) and whether caps should also be placed on smaller tiers; commissioners and members debated fairness and the risk that a single community could exhaust program funds. The committee discussed that applicants must present matching funds and that only one funding “bucket” may be used per project rather than drawing from multiple population buckets; staff and the commissioner said unused funds from one category could be pooled later.
Several technical and wording edits were agreed: adding tribal corporations/tribal governments as eligible, clarifying the state match language to “up to one‑third of project costs” in a subsection and removing ambiguous 'and/or' phrasing pending Legislative Council drafting. The committee voted to adopt the Commerce office edits and another suggested wording amendment; the motion to put Beckendall’s retroactive acquisition language was put aside pending clarification. Members asked staff to print final draft language for the committee and to circulate secretary‑of‑state drafting on park board inclusion.
Ending: The committee paused on the retroactive acquisition amendment and instructed staff to obtain clarification from the senator and to print the revised drafts before reconvening.
