Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appropriations committee trims Housing Opportunity Mobility Empowerment grant, allows existing lots to qualify
Summary
The Appropriations Committee on Wednesday amended Senate Bill 2225, cutting the Housing Opportunity Mobility Empowerment Grant Program's requested funding and adding new eligibility language for existing lots.
Get email alerts on the Housing Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Appropriations Committee on Wednesday amended Senate Bill 2225, cutting the Housing Opportunity Mobility Empowerment Grant Program's requested funding and adding new eligibility language for existing lots.
The amendment reduces the bill's original $50,000,000 request by $20,000,000 and lowers the maximum grant available to a community from 1.5 to 1 (units not specified in the transcript). It also clarifies that infrastructure funds can be used on existing lots and makes communities provide a $2 local match for each $1 of state funding in the categories discussed. Representative Murphy moved the committee to give the bill a do-pass recommendation as amended; the amendment and the do-pass recommendation carried on roll calls reported as 22 yes, 0 no and 1 absent.
Why it matters: the program targets infrastructure and property-readiness work to make lots cheaper for homebuyers and to spur construction in smaller communities. Committee members said the change aims to prevent developers from receiving infrastructure subsidies without the savings being passed on to homebuyers.
Committee discussion and changes Committee members discussed distribution categories by community population and whether the revised appropriation should change the breakdown between communities under 5,000 and those between 5,000 and 20,000. Representative Nelson and others raised concerns that the number of smaller communities may make access to grants uneven and suggested further discussion of the category allocations.
Representative Richter proposed the language allowing funds to be used after a house is built and sold so the subsidy reduces the ultimate price paid by the homeowner rather than being captured upfront by developers. Richter said, "It's after you build it and sell it. Trying to put a guarantee in that they're not gonna take the infrastructure money and still charge the same price for the house. So the objective is to make sure that the price of the dwelling is reduced by the amount that's put in." Committee members, including Representative Kempenick and Representative Murphy, expressed support for that approach as a way to make lots cheaper and to target benefits to homebuyers.
Administration and scoring Members asked which agency would administer and score grants. The committee heard that the Department of Commerce will oversee the program and develop a competitive scoring process. Commerce Commissioner Chris Shilkin said the department plans to tailor scoring to state needs and "it's going to be so the lots will be cheaper," adding that applications failing to demonstrate reduced lot cost or local protections would not score well under the program.
Formal actions - Motion to amend SB 2225 to (a) reduce the total appropriation by $20,000,000, (b) lower the maximum community grant from 1.5 to 1, (c) permit existing lots to qualify after certificate of occupancy/sale and (d) retain a $2 local : $1 state match: moved by Representative Murphy; second recorded; the amendment carried 22 yes, 0 no, 1 absent (vote announced as "Motion to amend carries 22 with 1 absent"). - Motion to give SB 2225 a do-pass recommendation as amended: moved by Representative Murphy; second by Representative Nathie; reported 22 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. Representative Murphy was designated to carry the bill to the floor.
What the record does and does not show The transcript records the dollar amounts requested, the $20,000,000 reduction, the change in maximum grant per community and the $2 local : $1 state match. The transcript does not specify the units for the per-community maximum (participants referred to the numeric reduction from 1.5 to 1 but did not specify millions in that phrase); the article reports the numeric change while noting units were not specified in the transcript. The transcript also does not include the final statutory text of scoring criteria, only committee discussion that Department of Commerce will design a competitive scoring process.
Next steps Representative Murphy will carry SB 2225 to the floor with the committee's do-pass recommendation.
