Informational hearing on 'Starter Home Act' draws broad support and local concerns over mandates and infrastructure

Lawmakers held an informational hearing Feb. 25 on the Minnesota Starter Home Act (House File 3895), a wide‑ranging bill authors say will expand housing choices by reducing barriers such as minimum lot sizes, allowing multifamily in commercial districts and offering a menu of by‑right options for cities to implement.

Sponsors framed the bill as bipartisan and local‑choice oriented. Representative Kraft, one of the bill authors, said the legislation tries to avoid a “one‑size‑fits‑all” approach by giving cities a toolbox of options and crediting municipalities that have already taken action. “What we have here is a bill that’s extremely focused on city choice versus being prescriptive,” Kraft said, adding the package reflects months of stakeholder work.

Supporters from research organizations, builders and advocacy groups urged passage to increase supply. Debra Kravitz of the Housing Policy Initiative cited research that Minnesota’s median housing costs rose roughly 70% over the past decade and said policies that reduce minimum lot sizes and allow mixed‑use development have produced new starter homes elsewhere. “These are practical bipartisan ideas that expand access,” she told the committee.

Builders and developer groups said zoning reforms are necessary to revive construction: central Minnesota builders argued that new rules are needed to unblock a backlog of projects and that fewer regulatory costs could help close the gap between demand and permits.

Several city officials and municipal coalitions warned that the bill still contains provisions they view as preemptive and potentially costly to implement. Daniel Lightfoot of the League of Minnesota Cities said the League opposes direct preemption of city authority, although he acknowledged that the delete‑all amendment reflects extensive negotiation and may be implementable. Mayor Jim Hovland and representatives of Greater Minnesota cities cautioned that local infrastructure, environmental constraints and staffing capacity could make statewide targets or fixed percentages (for instance, a proposed 33% mixed‑housing target for Greenfield areas) difficult to meet and could amount to unfunded mandates.

Authors and many supporters said the bill includes safeguards intended to protect sensitive areas and infrastructure, pointing to subdivision 11 (environmental and infrastructure carveouts) and the menu approach that allows cities to select appropriate actions. Members debated tradeoffs in committee discussion: parking minimums, accessory dwelling unit rules, water and wastewater planning, and the timing of implementation emerged as central concerns.

The hearing did not produce a committee vote on final passage; authors urged continued stakeholder conversations as the bill is refined. Lawmakers said they intend to keep working with cities, builders and advocacy coalitions to balance urgency for new homes with local implementation realities.

The committee will continue considering the Starter Home Act as the Legislature moves through the session.