A conference committee considering House Bill 1524 heard lawmakers weigh a plan to give eight regional councils more stable funding by authorizing the Department of Commerce to allocate a portion of certain state grant programs to the councils.

The committee discussed whether the bill’s language — which currently says the department “may” award grants or set aside funds — should be changed to require a specific carve-out for the councils. Supporters said the councils help small towns by writing and implementing grants; skeptics said the current bill does not guarantee funding and that state budget constraints limit new spending.

The committee’s discussion centered on three questions: whether Commerce should have explicit statutory authority to set aside portions of grant programs; how large any carve-outs should be; and whether state funding would be used to create local, full‑time positions to support the councils.

A presenter for the bill described the problem as a lack of local capacity to apply for and administer many Department of Commerce grant programs, noting that “most of the grants go to the big cities because they have grant writers and they have people to implement them.” The presenter listed several grant programs discussed during the meeting as examples of potential sources for carve-outs: the RWIP program, a $50,000,000 housing incentive program, a development fund, a lift fund and a new program referenced in the transcript as the “bridal catalyst” program. The presenter said the bill would allow the commerce director to contract with regional councils to help implement individual grant programs at the local level.

Other committee members raised concerns that the bill’s current wording — using “may” rather than “shall” — leaves regional councils’ funding uncertain. Several members said the House version aimed to provide more direct funding and stable support for the councils rather than leaving them to “cobble together” grants, local contributions and private donations. Members noted earlier versions of the House proposal had included larger per-council amounts (the transcript references a previous figure of $1,000,000 per regional council) and that the conference version has smaller sums referenced (one exchange mentions $300,000 and another mentions $800,000), and that the bill as passed to the conference would have authorized 16 full-time equivalent positions statewide — a proposal some members said they did not support.

Lawmakers also discussed how the carve-outs might vary by program and region. One member observed that the percentage taken from a large program such as the $50,000,000 housing incentive fund would likely differ from the percentage taken from a smaller program such as the RWIP program (referenced at $5,000,000 in the transcript). Members suggested a nonuniform approach in which the commerce director and regional councils negotiate slices tailored to each grant and each region’s needs.

Several committee members asked for additional detail and safeguards, including reporting back on what the state received for its investment and ways to limit administrative overhead so funds go to program delivery. Members suggested inviting the commerce commissioner to a future conference committee meeting to discuss implementation and potential compromises.

No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript. The committee concluded that members broadly want to help regional councils but need more work to reach a compromise on mandatory language, funding levels and oversight. The committee adjourned after agreeing to continue discussions and to consult further with Commerce and among members.