Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hearing spotlights Greater Minnesota housing infrastructure grants; committee recommends bond bill
Summary
Lawmakers and Greater Minnesota officials urged more funding for the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure Grant Program, which provides grants for public infrastructure that makes housing projects buildable. The committee recommended a $20 million bond authorization and laid other infrastructure bills over for omnibus negotiation.
Get email alerts on the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Testimony at a Minnesota Senate Housing Committee hearing Tuesday urged expanded state funding for the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure Grant Program, a grant program that pays a portion of public infrastructure costs needed to make housing developments buildable in small and rural cities.
The program, created in the 2023 housing omnibus bill, provides grants to cities and counties to cover public infrastructure such as sewer, water, streets and stormwater needed to open lots to development. Supporters at the hearing said high infrastructure costs are blocking projects across Greater Minnesota and that additional state dollars would allow communities and local partners to build workforce and affordable housing.
“Over the last 3 years we have had over 35 candidates reject jobs solely because they were unable to find a home in the Twin Ports,” said Dante Tomassoni, director of corporate affairs for Cirrus Aircraft, who testified in support of more funding. Tomassoni said Cirrus employs about 1,700 people in the Twin Ports and that housing scarcity has cost the company candidates and forced executives to commute long distances.
Nate Keller, community development director for the city of Saint Joseph, described infrastructure as a direct constraint. “Areas that would be primed for growth require lift stations with seven‑figure price tags,” Keller said, adding that programs such as the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure Grant Program “will significantly reduce costs and allow projects to move forward.”
Local officials and nonprofit housing organizations described similar barriers. Ted Bridal, public works director for International Falls, said the cost to develop a single 300‑foot block of infrastructure can be roughly $870,000 in his community because of geography and other local factors, making it “an impossible task” for private developers to build affordable housing without assistance. Bob Hawley, executive director of Goodhue County Habitat for Humanity, described a planned 26‑home Hope Heights development in Red Wing that depends on infrastructure grant funding to move forward.
Kristen Encity, CEO and president of Habitat for Humanity of Minnesota, and Darielle Dannen, executive director of the Greater Minnesota Partnership, echoed calls for more sustained investment and explained program mechanics: grants go to cities and counties and are capped per lot (for example, $40,000 per lot for 1–4 unit homes and a $500,000 cap per grantee/project under the program as described by Dannen).
Senator Lindsey Port, the bill author, and Senator Chris Putnam and others described the program as a long‑term state responsibility to keep families and businesses in Greater Minnesota communities. Senator Jenise Hochschild brought forward Senate File 13‑39, a proposal to provide $20 million in general‑obligation bond capital for the Greater Minnesota Housing Infrastructure Grant Program. The committee recommended Senate File 13‑39 to pass and referred it to the Committee on Capital Investment.
Several related bills and standalone appropriations were discussed and laid over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill, including a $5 million appropriations bill (Senate File 906) that would add funding to the program. Legislators and advocates repeatedly asked for more funding and for program design that is accessible to cities with populations under 5,000, noting application complexity and staff capacity as obstacles for small cities.
Why it matters: supporters said infrastructure grants reduce the up‑front public costs that prevent private builders and nonprofits from moving projects forward, expand local job opportunities, and help employers retain workers. Opponents or concerns were not recorded in opposition; members asked technical questions about program rollout and prioritization.
The committee laid several infrastructure bills over for possible inclusion in the omnibus and advanced the $20 million bond authorization for consideration by the capital investment committee.

