Committee hears bill to let ADA finance workforce housing projects of five units or more
Loading...
Summary
At a first hearing on HB 184, sponsor staff said the bill would amend ADA's statutory purpose to allow financing of workforce housing developments with five or more units; invited testimony from economic‑development groups and builders supported the measure as a financing tool to close capital gaps, while ADA described a neutral stance and noted regulatory limits on construction financing. The committee set the bill aside for further consideration.
The Senate Finance Committee on April 15 took up House Bill 184, which would amend the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (ADA) statutory purpose to explicitly authorize financing of workforce housing projects containing five or more dwelling units. Sherry Bowman, staff to Rep. Story, said the change is intended to bridge financing gaps that often prevent multi‑unit workforce housing from getting built in Alaska’s high‑cost environment.
"This bill puts in a statute that the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, also known as ADA, can finance workforce housing development projects of 5 dwelling units or more," Bowman told the committee.
Supporters described acute local housing shortages and practical financing gaps. Brian Holst, director of the Juneau Economic Development Council, cited regional trends — about 35,000 working‑age residents lost statewide since 2013 and low rental vacancy rates — and said ADA’s loan participation tools and long amortizations can make otherwise viable projects bankable. "HB 184 is a practical tool to connect our statewide development finance authority to our state's housing challenges," Holst said.
Builders and developers said construction costs, limited land and constrained construction financing are major hurdles. Victor Banaszak, a Southeast Alaska builder, called ADA a potential "gap insurance" that could partner with banks to de‑risk projects. Anchorage developer Sean Debenham testified remotely that construction financing is particularly hard to secure and that HB 184 would add a useful tool.
ADA officials participated online and described a neutral stance. Deputy director Brandon Brzezinski said ADA believes it currently has broad statutory authority to finance multi‑unit projects and typically would provide financing rather than owning developments. He noted the loan participation program currently provides post‑construction permanent financing and that ADA is exploring whether regulatory changes could allow construction financing or blended approaches.
Committee members asked whether HB 184 would duplicate Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) programs and whether additional financing might be inflationary. ADA officials said AHFC focuses on 1–4 unit lending while ADA’s tools are aimed at larger projects and infrastructure; ADA also said land and related infrastructure costs could be included in financing packages in theory.
The fiscal note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADA) records a $0 fiscal impact. After invited and public testimony the committee set HB 184 aside for further consideration.
