New Hampshire Housing details use of state gap financing and lead-hazard fund to clear units and leverage federal credits

Executive director Rob Dappas told the Finance – Division I committee that New Hampshire Housing acts like other state housing finance agencies nationwide: it is created by state law but operates as a separate corporate entity and its debt is not the state——s debt.

The distinction matters because New Hampshire Housing typically finances multifamily affordable rental projects using a mix of federal resources (like tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits) and state gap financing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. "We finance multifamily affordable rental housing projects through a number of means, and that includes both sort of federal and state resources," Dappas said. He described the federal tax credits as paying for a substantial but partial portion of project costs and the state fund as filling the remaining gap so projects "pencil out."

Why it matters: state gap dollars are small relative to total project costs but have an outsized effect by unlocking federal and private financing. Dappas said the fund has recently been the beneficiary of historic appropriations: "The $30,000,000 in the past 2 biennial budgets in addition to the creation of the annual set aside of $5,000,000 from the real estate transfer tax" have changed the fund——s scale, he said.

Lead-hazard program

Dappas also described the program that uses state and federal money to remediate lead hazards in owner-occupied homes and rentals where children have been exposed. He said the legislature has provided roughly $6,000,000 to the state-administered lead hazard remediation fund since the first appropriation in 2019, and that the program has cleared over 500 units. Dappas said federal HUD grants are also a component but are awarded irregularly: "They will sort of periodically and somewhat unpredictably issue an RFP and then states can apply. And so we just kind of hope that those come around before we run out of money."

Dappas explained how the state and federal dollars are paired: HUD grants have maximums (he said the federal maximum is $17,000 per unit in some programs) and the state program can provide additional loans—sometimes up to $100,000 per unit—to fully remediate occupied homes. Committee members asked about preventative remediation (not just cases where a child is already poisoned); Dappas said those projects are eligible and prioritized lower than active poisoning cases but that the fund would like to do more of the preventative work.

Organizational and financial context

Dappas told members New Hampshire Housing employs roughly 130 to 135 people (down from a recent high of about 145) and is not a state agency: "We're not state employees at New Hampshire Housing." He said the agency generally uses loans rather than grants from the state fund, usually 0% interest and deferred principal, both as a financing tool and to preserve enforcement remedies if owners fail to meet affordability commitments.

On administrative fees, Dappas said the agency draws little from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for operating costs: federal program fees and limited spreads on loans provide most operating revenue; the state fund allows up to 5% for administration but the agency has not added positions tied to the recent appropriations.

Ending

Dappas left committee members with two practical takeaways: the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is designed to fill financing gaps and has recent, larger appropriations that increase the number of projects that can move forward; and the lead-hazard remediation program mixes irregular federal grants with state dollars to address expensive, labor-intensive remediation in older housing stock.

(Committee record: presentation by Rob Dappas, executive director, New Hampshire Housing.)