HOME Expansion Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill broadens the application of HOME funds to include infrastructure in rural areas and adjusts homeownership rules to enhance accessibility for military families and ensure long-term affordability of subsidized housing.
What it actually does
This bill expands the permissible uses of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds by allowing certain nonentitlement jurisdictions to use them for infrastructure improvements directly related to HOME or Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) assisted housing. It also modifies affordable homeownership qualifications by increasing the maximum purchase price limit, mandating long-term affordability mechanisms, and creating specific income qualification exceptions for military members and heirs of deceased owners.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that this bill addresses critical housing and infrastructure needs in underserved nonentitlement areas, particularly by allowing HOME funds to support essential infrastructure like water and sewer lines, which are often prerequisites for housing development. They would also emphasize the importance of making affordable homeownership more accessible and stable for military members who face unique challenges due to deployments and reassignments, and ensuring housing continuity for heirs of deceased owners, while also preserving the affordability of publicly subsidized housing for future generations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding HOME funds for infrastructure could dilute the program's primary focus on direct housing assistance, potentially diverting resources from core affordable housing development in areas with greater housing needs. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for increased administrative complexity for jurisdictions managing infrastructure projects, and whether the income qualification waivers could lead to less needy beneficiaries or reduce the overall number of families served by the program.
The bill is very short and clearly written, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
Authorization for Infrastructure Improvements in Nonentitlement Areas
This provision amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to allow participating jurisdictions that do not receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance to use HOME funds for infrastructure improvements. These improvements, such as water and sewer lines, sidewalks, roads, and utility connections, must be directly related to and located within or immediately adjacent to housing assisted by HOME or Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). It also mandates the application of CDBG labor standards to these infrastructure projects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision addresses a critical gap in funding for infrastructure in nonentitlement areas, where housing development often stalls due to a lack of basic services. By linking infrastructure directly to affordable housing projects, it ensures that new or rehabilitated homes are truly livable and sustainable, especially in rural communities that may not qualify for other federal infrastructure grants.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this expands the scope of the HOME program beyond its core mission of housing development, potentially diluting its impact. They might argue that infrastructure funding should come from dedicated infrastructure programs, not housing programs, to maintain focus and avoid spreading resources too thin.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between maintaining the HOME program's focus on direct housing assistance versus addressing broader community development needs (infrastructure) that directly impact housing viability, especially in areas with limited alternative funding sources.
Section 3(1)(A) and (2)
Increased Affordable Homeownership Purchase Price Limit
This provision increases the maximum purchase price for affordable homeownership housing assisted under the HOME program from 95 percent to 110 percent of the median purchase price for the area. This adjustment applies to both the initial qualification criteria for a home and the resale restrictions designed to maintain affordability.
Section 3(1)(A)(ii)(III)
Mandating Long-Term Affordability Mechanisms for Homeownership
This provision requires that affordable homeownership housing assisted under the HOME program must maintain long-term affordability through specific mechanisms. These include shared equity ownership models, community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, community development corporations, or other methods approved by the Secretary of HUD. The goal is to preserve affordability for future eligible homebuyers, often through the use of purchase options, rights of first refusal, or other preemptive rights to purchase housing.
Section 3(1)(B)
Homeownership Qualification Exception for Military Members
This provision allows participating jurisdictions, in accordance with terms established by the Secretary of HUD, to suspend or waive the income qualifications for military members who own HOME-assisted housing. This exception applies if the member is deployed for at least 90 days to a location not within a reasonable distance from the housing, or receives orders for a permanent change of station.
Section 3(1)(B)
Homeownership Qualification Exception for Heirs and Beneficiaries
This provision ensures that housing previously qualified as affordable under the HOME program continues to qualify if the principal residence is inherited by an heir or beneficiary of the deceased owner. This continuation is contingent upon the heir or beneficiary assuming the deceased owner's duties and obligations related to the HOME funds, in accordance with terms established by the Secretary of HUD.
Requires that the labor standards and requirements set forth in section 110 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5310) shall apply to any infrastructure improvement conducted using funds provided under this subtitle.
Section 2(a)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for incorporating existing legal frameworks by reference rather than reprinting them, to maintain consistency and avoid redundancy.
Case for: Proponents argue that applying established labor standards ensures fair wages and working conditions for construction workers on publicly funded projects, preventing a race to the bottom in labor costs and supporting local economies.
Case against: Critics might argue that such requirements can increase project costs and administrative burdens, potentially reducing the number of infrastructure projects that can be undertaken with available funds, especially in smaller, rural communities with limited resources.
Estimated impact: Ensures that workers on HOME-funded infrastructure projects receive prevailing wages, impacting labor costs and worker compensation across eligible projects.