Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/19/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Housing Programs | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date."
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HOUSING
PROGRAMS
4:20:56 PM
BRYAN BUTCHER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA HOUSING
FINANCE CORPORATION, introduced himself and the PowerPoint
presentation "Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Presentation to House Finance" dated April 19, 2023 (copy
on file). He advanced to slide 2 and indicated that the
mission of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
was to provide access to safe, quality, and affordable
housing to Alaskans.
Mr. Butcher continued on slide 3 which depicted a map of
AHFC locations around the state. The locations were
primarily public housing, but the office worked to
administer federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
projects, low rent programs, and voucher programs. He
reminded the committee that the dividend the corporation
planned to pay for FY 23 totaled $23.4 million. He advanced
to slide 4 and explained there were 11 capital project
requests from AHFC in the capital budget and four requests
in the mental health budget.
4:22:44 PM
JAMES WIEDLE, BUDGET DIRECTOR, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE
CORPORATION, continued the presentation on slide 5. The
first capital project request was for the Affordable
Housing Development Program (AHDP). The program was
requesting $10,500 in federal receipts and $500,000 in
statutory designated program receipts. He read the slide:
This program allows AHFC's subsidiary, Alaska
Corporation for Affordable Housing (ACAH) to develop
affordable housing units throughout the state,
leveraging a variety of available funding sources,
including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program,
HUD Public Housing Funds (including the Capital Fund
Program and Moving to Work Funding), loan financing,
and other private resources.
Projected Outcomes: This request will help provide
financial leveraging for approximately 50-75 units of
newly constructed affordable housing units depending
on the building locations within the state.
Representative Galvin asked where the 50 to 75 units would
be located, what the size of the units would be, and
whether the units would be intended for families or for
single individuals.
Mr. Butcher responded that the ACAH program was developed
about 12 years prior and it had more flexibility to develop
housing than AHFC itself. The initial model looked at for-
profit developers, regional housing authorities, and other
resources outside of AHFC and the corporation decided to
begin by constructing the housing in Anchorage. He thought
that if the program could not work in Anchorage, it could
not work anywhere in the state. The corporation developed
88 affordable housing units in Anchorage: 70 units called
the Ridgeline Terrace complex and 18 units near the Costco
in east Anchorage. After the project was determined to be a
success, AHFC decided to develop housing in the Fairbanks
area. The corporation was currently developing 50 units of
senior housing and family housing in Fairbanks, which would
open during the summer of 2023, and the remainder of the
units would open in 2024. The current priority of AHFC was
to begin planning housing projects in more rural areas of
the state.
Representative Galvin asked how large the units were and if
the units were standalone houses, apartments, or another
type of building.
Mr. Butcher responded that the units tended to be larger
buildings. He thought that the smallest development was 18
units. The size of the units varied, but senior housing
tended to consist of one bedroom apartments. The family
units often had two bedrooms and sometimes three bedrooms.
The trend he had seen across the state was that fewer and
fewer families needed larger units and the units were often
on the smaller side.
4:26:29 PM
Representative Hannan understood that a unit of housing
could potentially refer to a development with four
buildings if the units were fourplexes. She noted that
sometimes an individual apartment was considered one unit.
She asked if the request would build 75 apartments or 75
developments.
Mr. Butcher responded that the term unit was used to refer
to a single apartment. For example, an 18-unit development
would consist of 18 separate apartments.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that the $10.5
million request would only develop 75 apartments.
Mr. Butcher responded that it was a broad number. The per-
door costs of apartments were surging in all areas of the
state, but the problem was particularly severe in rural
areas.
Representative Hannan understood Mr. Butcher's answer to
mean that the request would develop 75 apartments.
Mr. Butcher responded in the affirmative and noted that the
cost was an estimate.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the modeling for the project
assumed the units would be first time venture housing.
Mr. Butcher responded in the affirmative and noted that
AHFC had to start the modeling for the project from
scratch.
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 6, which was a request for
rental assistance for persons displaced due to domestic
violence, also known as the Empowering Choice Housing
Program (ECHP). The budget request was for $1.5 million in
unrestricted general funds (UGF). He read the slide:
Program provides transitional housing assistance (up
to 36 months) for individuals and families
experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, dating
violence, and stalking. AHFC administers this program
in the same way it manages its Housing Choice Voucher
Program.
Program is administered in collaboration with The
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
and the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, who refer eligible households to the program.
Projected Outcomes: Rental assistance for up to 214
households statewide, displaced from permanent housing
or otherwise at risk of displacement because of a
recent or reoccurring instance of domestic violence.
Representative Ortiz understood that the requested monies
would not necessarily be allocated to current shelters. The
funding was not intended to further develop existing
facilities, but to provide new housing options. He asked if
his understanding was correct.
Mr. Butcher responded in the affirmative and added that one
of the biggest reasons a person would not leave an abusive
situation or would return to an abusive situation was
because of a lack of housing. He explained that AHFC would
have a voucher to find an apartment for an individual or
family in need and a shelter would choose the housing. The
individual or family could live in the housing unit for up
to three years.
Representative Coulombe asked what the paperwork would be
like for the applicants. She wondered how intrusive the
process would be and if there was a burden of proof
requirement.
Mr. Butcher replied the shelters were more involved in the
application process than AHFC. He deferred to his colleague
online to provide more detailed information.
4:32:03 PM
AT EASE
4:32:30 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Edgmon relayed that the individual was not online
and he would return to the question once the individual was
available.
4:32:44 PM
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 7 and reported that the
request for the Rural Professional Housing Program (RPHP)
was $1.75 million in AHFC corporate dividends, $3.25
million in UGF, and $500,000 in statutory designated
program receipts. He read the slide:
This program helps recruit and retain essential
professionals in Alaska's small communities by
providing gap funding to increase rental units.
Funding awarded through a competitive process.
Eligible projects include acquisition, new
construction, and rehabilitation. Local governments,
tribal councils, nonprofits, school districts, health
corporations, native corporations, regional housing
authorities, and non-profits are eligible for this
program.
Projected Outcomes: Program expected to fund the
development, rehabilitation, or acquisition of up to
22 units of housing in 10-15 of Alaska's small
communities.
Representative Galvin asked for the definition of a small
community.
Mr. Butcher responded that AHFC's definition of rural was
the same as the state's definition of rural. He could not
remember the exact definition, but it referred to a smaller
community on the road system. He relayed that there had not
been any development through RPHP in the larger communities
in the state such as Anchorage, Juneau, or Fairbanks. The
program had existed for about 15 years and had built over
500 apartments in over 80 communities, and most of which
were small communities. He would provide the committee with
a map of the developments.
Representative Galvin appreciated the explanation and added
that if the program fit into the map on slide 3, there was
no need for Mr. Butcher to follow up with her. She was
grateful to know that the program was developing housing in
smaller communities with deep needs.
Representative Stapp asked if the corporation was providing
block grants to various housing authorities and school
districts in rural Alaska to assist in the development of
new housing units.
Mr. Butcher responded that there would be a competitive
process once more was known about the funding availability.
He explained that AHFC almost always provided a loan for
rural housing projects and it was then determined what
portion of the money could be paid directly and what amount
needed to be supplemented with gap financing. In rural
Alaska, the combination of debt and gap financing was
typically not sufficient to complete a project.
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 8, which detailed a request
for $500,000 in AHFC corporate dividends for energy
efficiency research. He read the slide:
Funding for research, monitoring and testing of energy
efficiency designs, products, and construction
technology in Alaska's homes and public facilities.
Projected Outcomes: Program will generate and
disseminate empirically based evidence on energy-
efficient design of homes in Alaska to the building
industry and the public.
4:36:31 PM
Representative Galvin asked whether AHFC collaborated with
the Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) in
Fairbanks. She wondered if the corporation assisted in
funding projects.
Mr. Butcher responded that CCHRC was AHFC's most
significant partner in Fairbanks. The two entities worked
together to determine the focus of energy efficiency
projects in the area. He relayed that due to the variety in
climates in Alaska, there were more logistical challenges
than in other states.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted there were testifiers available
online to answer Representative Coulombe's earlier
question.
Representative Coulombe would follow up with the testifiers
offline.
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 9, which detailed a $1.75
million request in AHFC corporate dividend for the Senior
Citizen Housing Development Program (SCHDP). He read the
slide:
Funding for development of senior citizen housing
units and accessibility modifications to seniors'
residences.
Program provides competitive grant funds to
municipalities, public or private non-profit
corporations, and regional housing authorities for
housing acquisition, new construction, and
rehabilitation of senior households with low-to-
moderate income.
Projected Outcomes:
• Development of up to 80 units of senior housing
• Accessibility modifications on up to 27 units of
senior housing
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 10 and the request for
federal HUD HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
grants. He relayed that the funding request was for
$750,000 in AHFC corporate dividends and $4 million in
federal receipts. The funding was provided by HUD itself.
He read the slide:
Expand supply of affordable, low- and moderate- income
housing and strengthen the ability of the state to
design and implement strategies to achieve adequate
safe, energy efficient, and affordable housing.
Projected Outcomes:
• Fund up to fifty-four units of rental housing;
• Finance 15 single family units through the
Homeownership Development program;
• Assist up to 11 lower-income homebuyers by
providing down payment and closing cost
assistance
Representative Coulombe asked how the projected outcome
numbers were derived.
Mr. Butcher responded that the AHFC used the data from past
years to make projections for future years. The HOME
program allowed for flexibility and the projections were
broad because the actual numbers had not yet been released.
Representative Coulombe asked if the money was going to
municipalities. She thought that the Anchorage Health
Department (AHD) received monies from the HOME grant and
distributed the funds accordingly.
Mr. Butcher responded that the municipality of Anchorage
was the only community in Alaska that was large enough to
qualify for HOME funds. The funds in Anchorage were used
specifically for Anchorage itself.
4:41:21 PM
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 11 and detailed the $3.2
million request in federal receipts for the HUD Capital
Fund Finance Program (CFFP). He read the slide:
This federal grant provides AHFC with funds to help
build, operate, maintain, renovate or modernize public
housing.
Projected Outcomes: Program will provide funding for
the repair, maintenance, and upgrade of housing units
in AHFC's Low Rent Program.
Mr. Wiedle advanced to slide 12 and detailed the requests
for federal and other competitive grants. The corporation
was requesting $1.5 million in AHFC corporate dividends and
$6 million in federal receipts. He read the slide:
This authorization allows AHFC to apply for HUD other
federal agency and private foundation grants that
target housing and supportive service needs of low-
income and special needs Alaskans such as senior
citizens, survivors of human trafficking, persons with
mental, physical, or developmental disabilities, or
the homeless.
Projected Outcomes: Funds will allow AHFC to apply
for, and potentially receive, funding from private and
federal grant programs, including HUD Continuum of
Care, HUD 811 Program for Persons with Disabilities,
HUD Housing Assistance for Persons with HIV/AIDS
(HOPWA), and Department of Justice Housing for Human
Trafficking Survivors.
Mr. Wiedle moved to slide 13 and the request for
competitive grants for public housing. The request was for
$350,000 in AHFC corporate dividends and $1 million in
federal receipts. He read the slide:
Funding for AHFC to leverage federal agency (HUD) and
private foundation grants that target housing needs of
low-income and special needs groups who live in public
and/or assisted housing.
Projected Outcomes: Authorization will enable AHFC to
apply for, and meet match requirements of federal and
private foundation grant programs including HUD Family
Self-Sufficiency Coordinator; HUD Elderly/Disabled
Service Coordinator Program, HUD Youth Demonstration
Program; and, Jobs-Plus Initiative Program.
Representative Galvin understood that the competitive
grants funding would help pay for housing costs but would
not build new housing. She asked if her understanding was
correct.
Mr. Butcher responded that the request was specifically for
programs that would benefit public housing tenants. For
example, AHFC had developed a jumpstart program to help
transition public housing residents into independent
apartments and potentially transition into buying a home.
The residents needed help with job training and financial
literacy and the request would help fund the resources
required to provide the individuals with assistance.
Representative Galvin understood that the funding would
help pay for programs that would offer skills and education
and possibly assistance with the paperwork required to
apply for independent housing. She asked if she was
correct.
Mr. Butcher responded in the affirmative and added that
another grant example was funding to help children in
public housing to obtain a part-time job providing
landscaping services for the housing units.
4:45:48 PM
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 14, which was a request for
$3 million in AHFC corporate dividends for a supplemental
housing development program. He read the slide:
Program facilitates the construction of decent, safe
and sanitary housing through regional housing
authorities by providing capital for infrastructure
costs not typically paid for by federal (HUD) funds.
Eligible use of funds include: Onsite water and sewer
facilities; roads to project sites; electrical
distribution systems; and, energy-efficient design
features in homes.
Projected Outcomes: funds would enable Alaska's
Housing Authorities to construct affordable homes in
urban and rural communities, fund on-site water and
sewer facilities, provide roads to housing project
sites, develop electrical distribution systems and
support other critical residential housing
infrastructure.
Representative Coulombe asked for confirmation that the
request was for $3 million. She asked if there was a match
requirement because the request seemed low.
Mr. Butcher responded that the use of the funding was
limited to construction or renovation on units. He thought
the reason for the specificity was because on a national
level, there were few areas that needed infrastructure. In
rural Alaska, there would be no place to build the units if
infrastructure was not prioritized. The program was
developed many years prior to supplement the lack of
infrastructure in rural areas of the state. He explained
that AHFC funds would offer the flexibility to build a road
and provide utilities in order to allow rural communities
to use the federal funds for the building of new units
rather than renovation of old units. In rural Alaska,
almost all of the new units in development were being built
by the regional housing authorities.
Representative Hannan agreed with Representative Coulombe
that $3 million did not seem sufficient for the project.
She asked if one chosen regional housing authority would
receive the entirety of the funds every year, or whether
every housing authority would receive a portion of the
annual funds. She indicated that $3 million would not pay
for the extension of the water and sewer line for
affordable housing projects in Juneau.
Mr. Butcher responded that the funds were distributed to
all eligible regional housing authorities. He thought the
projects were smaller in scale and most of the communities
only needed one or two units.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that in rural Alaska, building a
house entailed many other elements such as road system
accessibility and the electrical and sewer systems of the
community. In some respects, logistical difficulties could
eclipse the value and effort of building the house itself.
He went to a seminar on tiny homes in Anchorage and relayed
that there was a prototype tiny home that had an associated
cost that was "not so tiny." He thought that the seminar
was useful in that it helped determine what the logistical
costs would be for similar houses. He recalled that a four
by eight piece of plywood cost nearly $100 in Dillingham
the prior summer. He appreciated the work of AHFC because
it was an expensive time to build houses.
4:51:08 PM
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 15 detailing AHFC's
weatherization program. The request was for $2 million in
AHFC corporate dividends and $3 million in federal
receipts. He read the slide:
Program allowed AHFC to receive Federal U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) funding for weatherization
and rehabilitation of housing units occupied by low-
to-moderate income housings. AHFC corporate receipts
augment services provided under this program,
particularly in rural areas, where federal rules often
limit the total amount of federal dollars that can be
expended on a housing unit.
Projected Outcomes: In FY 24, the program expected to
weatherize up to 300 households. The program expected
to weatherize up to 300 households.
Co-Chair Edgmon suggested that Co-Chair Foster explain the
ways in which the program was not simply rural in nature.
Co-Chair Foster appreciated the program and thought
building new units was important, but also expensive. He
thought the return on investment for the project was
encouraging. He referred to page 1 of the Weatherization
Program Impacts Report (copy on file) which reported that
from 2008 through 2018, a total of $579 million was
invested into the program yet on page 3, the report
indicated that state funding for the same time period was
$386 million. He asked which number was correct. He noted
that of the state funding, the majority of the monies were
provided upfront in 2008. He asked what state spending had
been in more recent years. He suggested that AHFC follow up
with the committee with the information. He hoped that
state spending could grow in the future and he saw
significant benefits to growing the program.
Mr. Butcher responded that the difference was that the $579
million figure included the energy rebate funds and the
$386 million did not. The majority of the initial $386
million funding was intended for weatherization. The
weatherization costs were completely funded by the program
if a household had an income below a certain level. An
energy rater would determine what would need to be done to
a home to properly weatherize it and the occupants of the
home would have 18 months to complete the improvements.
Once complete, the energy rater would confirm that the work
had been done and the occupants would receive a rebate from
AHFC.
Mr. Butcher added that AHFC programs typically received
more funding when the price of oil was high. One of the
challenges was that federal dollars involved significant
limitations; for example, projects had to average a spend
of $8,000 or less on a home build. He relayed that $8,000
per home was an extremely low number for home build
projects in rural Alaska and it would be almost impossible
to accomplish.
Mr. Butcher continued that due to the limitations, AHFC had
used state dollars to supplement federal dollars. The state
received $18 million from the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) from the federal government, but the funds
came with the same $8,000 per home restriction. It would be
difficult to administer the dollars in rural Alaska, which
was a higher-need area than urban Alaska. He indicated that
it was a challenge to determine the best way to distribute
the funds to benefit the entire state.
4:56:51 PM
Co-Chair Foster appreciated the review of the rebate
program and noted that he liked the program. He understood
that the $18 million in federal funding was spread over
five years. He hoped that the amount of state funding could
be increased and that spreading the funds out over time
would make for a more manageable process. It was the prime
time for weatherization projects in rural Alaska due to the
particularly high costs of oil.
Representative Coulombe asked if a person would have to own
a home to participate in the program. She was aware of a
weatherization program in Anchorage for mobile homes and
although the program had helped some people, many
individuals did not own their mobile homes and were not
eligible for the program. She wondered if renters could
participate.
Mr. Butcher responded that a person had to own a home when
the program first began, but AHFC expanded the program to
include apartment buildings and newly constructed homes.
However, as the funding shrunk the eligibility requirements
became narrower. He deferred to a colleague to provide more
specific details.
4:58:49 PM
JIMMY ORD, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), relayed that both renters and
homeowners could take advantage of the program.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked how many homes had been weatherized.
Mr. Butcher responded that when the program began and the
price of oil was high, the idea was to provide an
additional energy dividend to Alaskans. The question was
whether there was a more long-term solution. The average
home reduced its energy use by over 30 percent when the
program was fully funded. There was a long-term benefit to
Alaskans, particularly in consideration of the high price
of oil. He appreciated that past governors and legislatures
had supported the program and had acknowledged the benefits
and results of the program. He asked if Mr. Ord knew the
answer to Co-Chair Edgmon's question regarding the number
of homes that had been weatherized as part of the program.
Mr. Ord replied that he did not have the numbers but he
thought the [provided Weatherization Program Impacts]
report included the requested information.
Mr. Butcher would follow up with the details.
Co-Chair Edgmon appreciated the program and noted some of
the homes that had been built in his district in the 1960s,
1970s, and before did not have basic insulation or properly
sealed windows and doors. He had been told that many of the
homes had the potential to incur energy cost savings of 30
to 40 percent under the program. He was interested in what
could be done going forward to maximize federal loans and
provide assistance to rural Alaska.
Representative Galvin asked if there was an ideal number of
houses the corporation would like to weatherize every year.
She thought the program was a short-term investment that
would pay dividends to Alaskans for a long time.
Mr. Butcher responded that he would supply the requested
information to the committee. Every five years, AHFC
conducted a housing needs assessment across the state which
determined how many homes needed to be renovated and
weatherized. It was difficult to obtain additional funding
due to federal restrictions. He added that there were many
homes in the state with overcrowding issues which caused
mental health problems in addition to physical health
problems. He relayed that AHFC did not employ home
builders, but instead contracted out the responsibilities
and worked with regional housing authorities on the
development of the projects.
Representative Galvin would appreciate seeing the
assessment. She met with the Homeless Assistance Program
(HAP) earlier in the day and was told that there was a need
for over 127,000 housing units in the state, which would be
challenging to accommodate. It would be helpful to know the
corporation's goal.
5:06:38 PM
Representative Hannan commented that she was a homeowner
who took advantage of the weatherization program nearly a
decade prior. She had recently completed a renovation on
her house and was stunned to learn that components like
electrical plugs and recessed lights used unnecessary
amounts of energy if not weatherized properly. She asked if
simple weatherization techniques were required in the
construction of new buildings in order to prevent future
issues. She wanted to ensure that new housing units were
built with energy efficiency in mind.
Mr. Butcher responded in the affirmative and confirmed that
all of the programs he had discussed during the
presentation required that the units be highly energy
efficient. He indicated that the houses would receive at
least five stars in a six star energy efficiency system. By
state law, AHFC was only permitted to purchase mortgages
for energy efficient homes; therefore, homebuilders were
constructing higher efficiency houses in order to ensure
the homes could be purchased by a wide variety of
individuals.
Co-Chair Foster commented that weatherization could involve
small changes like stopping drafts with shrink wrap or
replacing windows. He had lived in his grandmother's home
and discovered that there was newspaper in the walls in
lieu of proper insulation, which was common in the
villages. Other issues such as the floors separating from
the walls due to permafrost could be fixed in a matter of
hours with the proper equipment, but cost was a significant
barrier for many village residents. The issue was not
exclusive to villages and he had seen deteriorating homes
in urban areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks as well.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that it was interesting that
statewide energy codes did not go into effect until the
late 1980s. Many of the houses built during the housing
boom of the late 1980s were not energy efficient. He
thought that many homes in Anchorage that were built during
that time could benefit from weatherization.
5:11:09 PM
Representative Coulombe thought that there were leftover
HUD funds in Anchorage due to a lack of public information
and awareness of the housing grants. She understood that
the unawarded grants and funding continued to roll over
from year to year. She asked what happened to the leftover
funds.
Mr. Butcher responded that if there were leftover funds,
AHFC would alert the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and the Legislative Finance Division (LFD), and the funds
would potentially be reappropriated. He did not think any
of the housing programs under AHFC had ever experienced the
problem of having leftover funds. He explained that the
housing needs in the state were so severe that it was
unlikely that the corporation would ever have the funds to
accomplish its goals.
Mr. Butcher thought the program providing housing to
teachers in rural areas of the state stood as a good
example of an underfunded program. The corporation worked
with the communities to fill out applications and increase
funding opportunities. Most communities that did not
receive funding after one round of grant applications would
receive funding after the second round of applications. He
emphasized that the corporation worked to help the
communities that needed the most assistance in any way it
could.
Representative Coulombe asked if AHFC was helping fill out
paperwork and grant applications.
Mr. Butcher responded that the corporation was not involved
to the level of helping with the paperwork, but it held
many informational meetings as the funding was announced
and provided opportunities for individuals to ask
questions. He explained that staff members had one-on-one
conversations with community members and helped them with
"big picture" elements of the application process.
Mr. Butcher continued on slide 16 which began the portion
of the presentation that included the requests for mental
health budget items.
Mr. Wiedle moved to slide 17 and detailed the requests for
HAP. The corporation was requesting $6.35 million in AHFC
corporate dividends, $950,000 in Mental Health Trust Fund
Dividends (MHTAAR), and $850,000 in state general funds. He
read the slide:
The Homeless Assistance Program provides grants to
assist nonprofit organizations, local governments, and
regional housing authorities in addressing the
emergency needs of homeless and near homeless.
Projected Outcomes: In FY2024, program will support
the operations of 35 homeless and supportive housing
service providers in 13 different communities.
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 18 and relayed the request
for the Beneficiary and Special Needs Housing Grant Program
(SNHG), which was for $1.75 million in AHFC corporate
dividends, $1 million in state general funds, and $200,000
in MHTAAR. He read the slide:
Funds for nonprofit service providers and housing
developers to increase housing opportunities to Alaska
Mental Health Trust beneficiaries and special needs
populations.
Projected Outcomes:
• Ongoing operational support for 17 congregate
housing properties for victims of domestic
violence, people with mental illness or
developmental disabilities and chronically
homeless Alaskans;
• Reduction in recidivism among clients spending
time in institutions
5:15:28 PM
Mr. Wiedle advanced to slide 19, which was a new request of
$135,000 in MHTAAR for a rural housing coordinator in the
Northwest Arctic Borough. He read the slide:
The project would fund a Rural Housing Coordinator
position to support state operating infrastructure in
the Northwest Arctic Borough.
Projected Outcomes: A Rural Housing Coordinator
position, funded in the Northwest Arctic Borough that
will engage community partners, document best
practices and lessons learned of a grassroots effort
to build local capacity and a coalition to address
homelessness and to strategize on addressing
overcrowding, substandard housing and increasing
affordable housing.
Representative Galvin thought the position seemed
beneficial. She asked what brought about the creation of
the new position and why the Northwest Arctic Borough was
chosen over other rural areas.
Mr. Butcher responded that the impetus was that there were
homeless coordinators being funded through various fund
sources in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, but rural
coordinators were not being funded. There was still
important work occurring in rural areas, but it was not
being funded in the same way as it was in urban areas. He
relayed that Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
felt strongly that AHFC needed to employ coordinators in
rural areas and asked if the corporation would collaborate
with the trust on the program. The corporation had already
seen numerous successes due to the funding of the program,
such as the opening of a homeless shelter in Kotzebue. The
coordinators were able to accomplish necessary projects in
communities that would have otherwise not been undertaken.
He would not be surprised if there was some flexibility in
moving coordinators from area to area depending on the need
of the communities.
Representative Galvin appreciated the consideration of the
needs in rural communities. She added that the Bethel
region had deep needs and she hoped to see more inclusivity
of other regions and that the unique elements of each
community were considered. She thought it was important to
give a voice to an individual from a given region because
the locals were most aware of the particular issues in
their area.
Mr. Butcher responded that Representative Galvin was
speaking to the next slide, which was a coordinator
position that was yet to be designated to a particular
area. The reason the first coordinator was assigned to
Kotzebue was because the regional housing authorities had
determined that the capacity was highest in Kotzebue.
5:20:01 PM
Representative Cronk commented that he represented 91
communities and thought it would be valuable to have a
coordinator position due to the vast number of communities.
Mr. Butcher added that the regional housing authorities
with which AHFC worked assisted in the coordination
efforts. Representatives from the housing authorities were
located in all communities. There might not be a
coordinator position listed for a community, but it did not
mean that funds were not dedicated to housing efforts in
the communities.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that rural areas were beginning
to implement more modern systems such as widespread
broadband and modern heating systems, water systems, and
sewer systems. The systems could be monitored from afar
using video calling software because maintenance workers
would have the ability to view the systems in real time
over video. He was looking forward to building new and
modern homes in the villages.
Mr. Wiedle continued on slide 20 and detailed a request for
a rural housing coordinator position in a new area of the
state. He read the slide:
This project funds a Rural Housing Coordinator
position to support state operating infrastructure in
a region that does not yet have this position.
Projected Outcomes: A Rural Housing Coordinator
position that will engage community partners, document
best practices and lessons learned of a grass-roots
effort to build local capacity and a coalition to
address homelessness and to strategize on addressing
overcrowding, substandard housing and increasing
affordable housing.
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if Mr. Butcher or Mr. Wiedle had any
closing comments.
Mr. Butcher appreciated the committee's time and interest
in the programs.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the agenda for the following day's
meeting.
HB 40 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 40 2019_Weatherization_Program_Impacts_Report 041923.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB 40 AHFC Cap Bud HFIN 4.19.23.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB 40 AHFC Response Q 042423.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 40 |