Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Community Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates restoring building‑community grant totals; roadside markers receive small proposed boost
Summary
Members discussed restoring aggregate funding for Building Community Grants to prior levels and agreed to propose modest funding for roadside/historic markers; committee emphasized the 1:1 match requirement and the grants’ focus on nonprofit and municipal capital projects.
The Senate Institutions Committee spent an extended portion of its March 11 session on Section 5, the Building Community Grants program. Members reviewed program purposes (small capital grants for nonprofits and municipalities for projects such as roofs, ADA work, boilers and HVAC) and debated restoring aggregate funding levels that the governor’s proposal had reduced.
Several members urged restoring the total to $2.1 million for the competitive grant pools in each year of the forthcoming biennium, arguing the grants are heavily oversubscribed and that reductions would harm small organizations without grant‑writing capacity. Committee members noted the program structure includes boards or review committees for each grant stream and that most grants carry a statutory one‑to‑one match requirement. The committee discussed specific subprograms (historic preservation, barns, recreation, human services, education, regional economic development and agricultural fairs) and members expressed a preference to make funding levels reliable and predictable.
On roadside historical markers, members described a backlog of applications and recurring replacement needs. The committee discussed an option to add $20,000–$25,000 per year targeted at roadside markers; several members supported adding $25,000 per year to address applications and occasional replacements. Members also discussed program administration and oversubscription — for example, testimony referenced 28 applications overall with differing per‑applicant needs.
Why it matters: building‑community grants support small capital projects that serve local communities and nonprofits; small funding changes have outsized effects on groups that lack access to larger grant programs. Committee members framed the grants as deliberately simple to avoid requiring applicants to hire grant writers and reiterated statutory matching requirements that shape applicants’ capacity to receive awards.
Next steps: committee staff will incorporate members’ directions about restoring aggregate funding levels into draft bill language for the capital bill and will return with recommended line items; no formal appropriation was adopted on March 11.
