Bend advisory committee hears updates on shelter spending, housing funds and UGB expansions; elects leadership

The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee received staff briefings on several housing programs and tools — including the city’s recent shelter investments, the newly awarded Pro Housing Fund, the local Affordable Housing Fund and development fees, commercial/industrial construction excise tax uses, one‑time urban growth boundary (UGB) expansions, and surplus‑land offerings — and held internal elections for committee leadership.

Shelter and houselessness spending: Amy Fraley, senior program manager for houselessness solutions, told the committee that the city used American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars and legislative funds to assemble and operate a local shelter system. Staff and council have used more than $16 million to acquire and renovate properties and fund operations, Fraley said. City purchases include the Second Street Navigation Center, the Stepping Stone Shelter (the former Bend Value Inn on Division), and the Rainbow Motel, which now operates as the Franklin Avenue Shelter. Fraley said the city also supported the Central Oregon Villages tiny‑home village and has funded case management and other services through a houseless services grant program and safe‑parking initiatives. Staff said ARPA and state funds will cover operating gaps only through Dec. 31, 2026; the city continues to seek sustainable funding streams and is tracking a state shelter framework in the legislature that could provide ongoing support.

Pro Housing Fund and Affordable Housing Fund: Staff reported that Bend was awarded $5 million from the state Pro Housing Fund; the city requested $10 million and will place $4 million into a revolving loan fund to be used for construction activities and repayable loans targeted at households earning 80% of area median income and below. Carrie Bell, Middle Income Housing Coordinator, reviewed the Affordable Housing Fund’s history, noting the local fee (one‑third of 1% of permit valuation) was created in 2006 to generate funds for affordable housing projects. Staff said the city has awarded more than $18 million from that fund across more than 100 projects and that the fee is applied per permit valuation as verified by building safety staff.

One‑time UGB expansions and surplus land: Staff reviewed the legislative history of several one‑time UGB expansion bills (House Bill 4079, House Bill 3318, and Senate Bill 1537) and explained those statutory paths are exceptions to the traditional statewide land‑use planning process; staff said those expansions are intended to test whether altering UGB rules can accelerate housing production. Committee members asked why housing resulting from those expansions has not yet been built; staff answered that extensive master planning, infrastructure needs (water/sewer), land ownership transfers and financing have extended timelines for development. Staff also described the city’s surplus land practice and noted recent surplus parcels and past projects delivered through surplus offerings, including Canal Commons, Putnam Point and Bear Creek site recommendations.

Other funding tools: Staff covered the commercial and industrial construction excise tax (CICT) established in 2020 (assessed at one‑third of 1% of permit valuation) and described the local policy that at least 50% of CICT revenues must be used for programs related to housing and that the other half is directed to households at or below 30% AMI for shelter, transitional, or supportive housing.

Leadership elections: The committee held nominations and confirmed its chair and vice chair by unanimous vote. A committee member volunteered to serve as chair and was confirmed; Heather (last name not specified in transcript) was nominated and confirmed as vice chair.

What committee members asked: Members pressed staff on the data used to identify concentrations of race/ethnicity and poverty, the timeline and obstacles for housing created through one‑time UGB expansions, the timing and terms for the Pro Housing Fund loans, and how surplus land offerings are prioritized. Staff repeatedly emphasized that much of the delay in developing newly‑designated expansion land arises from master‑planning, infrastructure costs and financing rather than the UGB statutes alone.

Next steps: Staff said city staff will return with program details and loan policy language for the Pro Housing Fund before issuing a first round of applications, will track the state shelter framework and budget outcomes, and will bring targeted infrastructure areas back to committee and council for vetting before committing CDBG or other funds for construction work.