Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate bill would create grant program for permanent supportive housing amid rising homelessness
Summary
SB 504 would create a permanent supportive housing development grant program to fund acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of housing with on‑site voluntary services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Sponsors and many nonprofits argued it reduces emergency service costs and helps recovery; committee asked for per‑project caps and operational funding details.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Cora Newman opened testimony for Senate Bill 504, which would establish a grant program to fund development of permanent supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and earning 60% or less of area median income.
"Stable housing itself is a form of health care," Newman said, explaining the housing‑first model pairs long‑term housing with on‑site voluntary services such as mental health and addiction treatment, job training and medical care. Witnesses from municipal leagues, the Montana Coalition to Solve Homelessness, Homeward and local developers described strong outcomes at Montana pilot projects (BATS Block Apartments in Great Falls, Blue Heron Place in Missoula and local tiny‑home villages), including large reductions in emergency department use, jail bookings and crisis‑system costs.
Speakers contrasted upfront capital needs with downstream savings. Newman and proponents cited studies and local project data estimating a benefit‑to‑cost ratio and per‑person annual savings in other jurisdictions; multiple witnesses asked the committee to consider how the state grant could be designed to leverage federal programs (Community Development Block Grants, HOME, National Housing Trust Fund) and to require sustainability plans, per‑project caps and evidence of local service partnerships. Committee members pressed for clarity on per‑project caps, operating funds and eligible projects; sponsor said she was open to amendments and suggested federal funding streams could support operations.
No opponents testified; the sponsor requested a due pass recommendation.
