Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ugbd Expansion Sb1537 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cities use one‑time UGB expansion tool but data and rule issues limit uptake, witnesses say
Summary
Presenters and city representatives told the committee that the expedited UGB expansion under SB 1537 has been used by Bend, Eagle Point and Bay City but that HUD-based cost‑burden metrics and DLCD rulemaking are blocking many eligible cities from qualifying; builders said Bend’s process produced hundreds of units quickly with long-term affordability commitments.
Witnesses told the House Interim Committee on Housing and Homelessness on Sept. 29 that Oregon’s one‑time expedited urban growth boundary expansion tool has produced projects but that implementation challenges are limiting wider use.
Alexis Hammer of the Department of Land Conservation and Development summarized the statute’s mechanics: expedited UGB expansions allow a 10‑year window, cap expansions at 100 acres for cities over 25,000 and 50 acres for smaller cities, restrict expansion to non‑resource land, and require a demonstration of need (for example, no UGB expansion in the previous 20 years or 75% consumption of prior expansions). She said concept plans are required for expansions larger than 15 acres. Hammer listed Eagle Point, Bay City and Bend as applicants that have used the expedited pathway.
Alexander Ring of the League of Oregon Cities urged changing the data used to determine eligibility. “The HUD data that's being used ... is a poor metric for the housing need that we have in our state,” Ring said, and he recommended using the acknowledged housing needs analysis instead. He told the committee the acreage caps (50–100 acres) are small relative to the scale of need and cited Bend’s expansion as producing roughly 700 new units across about 91.4 acres.
Deborah Flagan of Hayden Homes described Bend’s process as “truly expedited,” saying the local procedure took less than six months from application to selection. She said Bend’s application delivered about 716 units with 36% required to be long‑term affordable for at least 60 years and that “the city of Bend is not paying a dollar for any infrastructure for this site.”
Multiple members pressed staff and witnesses on whether rulemaking at DLCD contradicts legislative intent and on whether eligibility triggers should be adjusted to rely on locally generated need metrics rather than HUD metrics. Witnesses said they will share technical feedback on draft rules and suggested legislative fixes to align rule language with the law’s goals.
The committee did not take action on the UGB items but members signaled interest in pursuing follow-up work and potential statutory change to reduce procedural barriers and better reflect local need assessments.
