Portland Housing Bureau outlines housing production lessons, financing gaps as bond funds near exhaustion

Portland Housing Bureau leadership told the Homelessness and Housing Committee on July 8 that the city has met many production targets called for under the first Homelessness Response Action Plan (HRAP) but faces a funding cliff as housing‑bond dollars are spent and new revenue sources remain unidentified.

Portland Housing Bureau staff said the 2016 Portland housing bond and the 2018 Metro housing bond together helped finance about 4,000 affordable units in recent years, including nearly 800 units of permanent supportive housing. The bureau said it leveraged local investments with state and federal resources—especially the Low Income Housing Tax Credit—and that production has outpaced original goals. But officials warned those bond funds are being fully expended and forecast a sharp drop in production to roughly 75 new affordable units per year by 2027 unless new capital is secured.

Director Helmi Hisurek (Portland Housing Bureau) listed four priorities for HRAP goal 6 going forward: identify new local funding sources to replace expiring bond capacity; reduce per‑unit development costs; align shelter exits to housing placement; and pilot or adopt new housing models, including social housing and targeted acquisition funds.

Hisurek said the city completed most original action items tied to zoning, land‑use incentives, public investment and TIF districts; one remaining item is identifying a long‑term local funding source to replace bond capacity. Officials reported that the city’s TIF districts established under HRAP will, with the current 45% set‑aside policy, produce roughly $1.1 billion over 30 years—but those funds will not start flowing materially until about 2030.

County HRS director Jillian Shoney and Portland staff also discussed tactical approaches to boost shelter‑to‑housing flows: the mayor has asked the Portland Housing Bureau to lead a shelter‑to‑housing “strike team,” the county and city are exploring the Built for Zero model for targeted exits, and staff are examining acquisition funds that rely on private patient equity and philanthropic capital to secure existing buildings for future placement of people exiting shelters.

Officials described lessons learned: tax‑credit financed projects provided high leverage but often target rents at 60% of area median income, which is higher than the deepest needs; acquisition can be 30–50% less costly than new construction in some cases; and preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing is increasingly important as market pressure grows.

Staff asked the committee for continued policy engagement and for help on a communications strategy to convey to voters how housing investments translate into outcomes. No formal committee action was taken; staff said they will return with an updated HRAP 2 action list and additional data.