Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madras housing action plan update sets five‑year goal of 280 units; commissioners debate incentives and funding
Summary
Echo Northwest presented updates to Madras’ Housing Action Plan, recommending a five‑year production goal of 280 units and actions to support manufactured housing, community land trusts and preservation; commissioners pressed consultants on fiscal impacts, SDCs, HEARD funding and program safeguards.
Echo Northwest presented an update to Madras’ Housing Action Plan (HAP), outlining market context, a five‑year production target of 280 housing units and a menu of regulatory and financial actions the city could use to encourage housing production and preserve affordability.
Consultant Scott Goodman reviewed the HAP history and market data: Madras saw a jump in housing production after earlier policy levers but experienced a sharp drop in 2024–2025 amid broader market shifts. He cited a median home sales price of $358,000 in 2022 (about double the 2018 figure) and an average asking rent of $1,250, which the presentation said 59% of Madras households cannot currently afford. The plan highlights that roughly 40% of households in Madras are housing cost‑burdened (paying 30% or more of take‑home income on housing).
The consultants recommended a five‑year production goal of 280 units broken down by affordability: 179 units affordable at or below 80% of area median income (AMI); 40 units between 80% and 120% AMI; and 61 units above 120% AMI. By housing type the plan targets 154 single detached units (including manufactured and cottage housing), 20 attached units (townhomes), 56 duplex/tri/quadplex units and 50 multifamily units.
Policy recommendations included updating master‑plan development mix requirements and the planned residential development zone to enable a wider range of lot sizes and housing types; clarifying how manufactured housing communities fit within system development charge (SDC) reduction schemes and allowing phased payment as units are installed; pursuing state grants and aligning SDC and urban renewal (HEARD) incentives with where subsidies are most effective; and exploring community land trust (CLT) support and targeted rehabilitation incentives to preserve lower‑cost housing without causing displacement.
During discussion commissioners asked for examples of rental maintenance codes used elsewhere and cautioned about potential unintended consequences of incentives. Commissioner Reynolds shared anecdotal concerns about rehabilitation subsidies and asked whether incentives (such as SDC reductions or tax exemptions) might reduce revenue available for other municipal services. Consultants and staff replied that the HEARD (housing urban‑renewal) incentives draw from tax increment generated by new development (new revenue) and recommended fiscal analyses to estimate foregone revenue and long‑term impacts. Staff also noted a state grant deadline (May 31) for reimbursing consultant work if the city adopts the plan within the grant timeline.
The presentation urged follow‑up work — targeted fiscal analysis, further outreach to developers and managers, and code edits for manufactured housing and multifamily development — as next steps before City Council consideration. The planning commission treated the HAP update as informational and provided feedback to staff and consultants for council deliberation.
