Concerning the adjustment of requirements for governments to receive funding from the statewide affordable housing fund.
Summary
HB26-1313 revises the eligibility rules for local governments and tribal governments seeking money from Colorado’s statewide affordable housing fund. Under current law, a participating jurisdiction must commit to increasing its affordable housing stock by 3% each year over a baseline number of units during a three-year cycle. The bill keeps that framework for the current cycle but changes the standard beginning with the 2027 cycle: instead of a fixed 3% annual increase, a government must meet a new “target increase number” tied to recent local housing permitting activity and adjusted by county job-growth conditions. The Division of Housing is directed to set numerical job-growth thresholds for determining whether a county is significantly lower than, close to, or significantly higher than the statewide median.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 29-32-105 governing affordable housing commitments, waivers, and funding eligibility under Article 32. It changes how compliance is measured, adds new counting rules for certain affordable units, and creates two waiver pathways: a good-faith-effort waiver for the 2024 cycle and an adjustment waiver for the 2027 cycle and later. It also expands what can count toward a jurisdiction’s housing commitment, including deed-restricted units, for-sale units, deeply affordable units, units on donated land, and certain collaborative or multi-jurisdiction projects, while adding a special credit mechanism for counties that lose property tax revenue because of affordable housing property-tax exemptions. Local and tribal governments that do not meet the requirements, and developers in those jurisdictions, can become ineligible for future funding, though existing awards are not clawed back.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of affordable housing production and local flexibility, with a policy emphasis on rewarding jurisdictions that are actively enabling housing development rather than applying a one-size-fits-all percentage target. Its structure suggests an effort to make the statewide fund more responsive to local market conditions, job growth, and actual permitting trends. The absence of recorded votes or committee transcripts limits the ability to identify detailed debate, but the bill’s enactment indicates it advanced successfully through the legislature and was signed by the governor.
Contention
Likely points of contention involve whether the revised target formula is more workable or more complex than the existing 3% annual benchmark, and whether tying eligibility to local permitting and job-growth metrics could advantage some jurisdictions over others. Another potential issue is the discretion given to the Division of Housing in granting waivers and setting job-growth thresholds, which may raise concerns about administrative flexibility versus predictability. Counties may also be sensitive to the provision allowing extra credit for units that reduce property tax revenue, while local governments may debate the fairness of eligibility penalties for failing to meet commitments despite broader housing constraints.