Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Development Fund topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate Finance puts proposed housing development funding on hold after extended debate

3384873 · May 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Finance members debated whether to add more funding to a housing development program and ultimately placed the item on hold after members raised budget and priority questions.

The Senate Finance Committee debated whether to add additional funding for a housing development program and decided to place the item on hold after extended discussion over budget trade-offs and program design.

Committee members spent more than 20 minutes debating an item tied to the state development finance authority and a proposal to increase housing funding that was described by supporters as an efficient lever to create housing near hospitals and other workforce centers. Senator Rosna said her community has an apartment building developed with these funds that is “80% affordable housing,” and urged the committee to “move forward with this.”

Senator Waters pressed for a larger allotment, saying the program has demonstrated success and arguing the committee should at least “take a bid at least? A million.” Opponents focused on the budgetary impact: Senator Lang noted that “for every $5,000,000 a year we allot to this it’s a $3,750,000 hit to the general fund,” and said he would support the proposal only if an offset of roughly $7.5 million for the biennium could be identified.

Other members proposed compromises, including selecting a smaller increase or delaying implementation to the second year of the biennium. Senator Rothman suggested a middle-ground increase or a delayed start; Senator Berthel said the legislature has already advanced other housing bills and cautioned that the budget was still not final.

After discussion the committee chair agreed to place the item on hold so members could gather additional information, including the location of unspent ARPA funds previously discussed during the hearing. The committee recessed for 15 minutes to review hold items and returned to vote on other agenda items.

The decision is procedural — the committee did not adopt a funding change or final budget amendment. The item remains on the committee’s hold list for later consideration.