Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bend staff proposes 12‑month housing funding committee to vet local revenue tools
Summary
City staff outlined a menu of housing finance tools — from Measure 102–enabled bonds to credit enhancement and deed‑restriction programs — and asked council to authorize a 9‑member advisory panel to study options and return recommendations within a year.
City of Bend staff on Tuesday laid out a range of local financing options for affordable and middle‑income housing and asked council to back a new “HOME” committee — Housing Options Made — to evaluate the tools over the next 12 months.
The presentation opened with Matt Stewart, the city’s real estate and facilities director, and Rachel Baker, housing division manager, summarizing production and affordability gaps identified in the Oregon Housing Needs Analysis and recent HUD area median income figures. Stewart said Bend has produced about 1,260 affordable housing units since 2007 and noted the city’s 10‑year average of about 1,100 housing units per year falls short of the region’s near‑term need.
Bond counsel Chris Reynolds and public finance adviser Mike Schrader described legal and tax‑code constraints and the financing instruments commonly used to lower project costs. “The city is not allowed under the state constitution to use its financial backing to support or guarantee loans for private individuals, companies, or organizations unless there is a specific exception,” Reynolds said, referencing Measure 102 and the Oregon Constitution’s limitation on the lending of public credit. He and Schrader described how Measure 102 permits voter‑approved general obligation (GO) bonds for affordable housing and how tax‑exempt private activity bonds and nonprofit (501(c)(3)) financing can lower long‑term interest costs.
Why a committee? Staff said state and federal funding uncertainties and high interest rates mean local revenue options may be needed to accelerate construction of very low, low and moderate income housing. The HOME committee staff proposed would be a city‑manager appointment, not to exceed nine voting members, and include subject‑matter experts such as affordable and market‑rate developers, lenders, a local economist, regional organization representatives and an employer representative. Staff proposed the committee meet five or six times beginning this fall and return recommendations next spring on a prioritized slate of revenue or incentive tools to implement.
Council members generally signaled support for creating the advisory body and asked staff to return with a resolution and the proposed membership list. Council discussion focused on the committee’s scope — whether to start with a narrower set of tools or the broader “funnel” that staff proposed — and on sequencing so the group could identify short‑term, less‑staff‑intensive opportunities the city could pursue sooner. Staff emphasized that some options would require new staff or contracted facilitation and that many financing structures may require legal review or validation proceedings.
What’s next: Staff will draft a resolution for council consideration to establish the HOME committee, return with a suggested appointments timeline, and bring interim check‑ins to council during the committee’s first meetings. The committee will not have authority to adopt policy; staff said it would deliver prioritized recommendations for council action.
Ending: Council and staff framed the committee as a mechanism to weigh tradeoffs — affordability targets, how much staff time each option requires, and when voter approval or state action would be necessary — without committing the city to any program until the committee’s work is complete.
