Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Housing Development Assistance grant language; $2 million proposed and criteria require permanent affordability components
Summary
Committee discussed a session‑law housing capital grant program administered by ACCD with $2 million in cash proposed, competitive criteria emphasizing readiness, local support, and permanently affordable units, and lingering questions about overlap with a proposed housing infrastructure revolving loan fund.
The Corrections and Institutions Committee considered a draft session‑law program to create a Housing Development Assistance Grant Program administered by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD). The draft in committee would appropriate $2,000,000 in cash for competitive capital grants and sets out detailed criteria for applications.
John Grama, Legislative Council, said the $2,000,000 figure in the draft is a reduction from an earlier $3.1 million proposal. The session‑law approach means the program would be time limited rather than a permanent codified program unless the legislature later decides to codify it.
Under the draft, ACCD would establish a competitive application process that must demonstrate clear readiness for immediate implementation (for example, secured permits and completed design), alignment with community and regional planning goals, evidence of local support such as resolutions, partnerships with local organizations, and confirmation of additional funding sources and realistic construction timelines. The draft also requires that projects “provide for permanently affordable housing units to ensure long‑term affordability within the community,” though it does not specify a particular percentage of units that must be affordable.
Committee members asked for ACCD testimony before adopting the language and suggested that, if strong testimony is not available, the committee could soften the bill by requiring ACCD to “take into consideration” listed factors rather than making each a mandatory criterion. Members also discussed the relationship between the grant program and an infrastructure revolving loan fund that is expected to support last‑mile water, sewer and road hook‑ups; some said they worried the two programs could overlap and that the committee might prefer to coordinate rather than duplicate funding.
The committee directed staff to invite ACCD representatives (including the commissioner of housing) to testify so members can hear how the agency would administer the program and how it would interact with other housing infrastructure proposals. Members also discussed a possible short sunset or other mechanism that would allow the committee to reassess the program once the revolving loan fund is operational.
Ending: The committee agreed to invite ACCD (housing commissioner or acting secretary) and interested stakeholders to the next meeting to provide testimony on program design and administrative capacity before finalizing statutory language or funding levels.
