Newberg commission considers new NOFA after finding about $72,000 in trust fund

Leanne, a city staff member, told the Newberg Affordable Housing Commission that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund currently holds "just a little over $72,000" and asked whether the commission wanted to post a new notice of funding availability or change how awards are allocated.

The request kicked off a discussion about the fund's structure, historical resolutions that set program pathways, and whether the committee should prioritize grants or loans. "If we did a NOFA for the full and gave away the full amount that is currently in the trust fund, there would be no more money," a commissioner said, asking what that would mean for the commission's future role.

Why it matters: commissioners said clarity is needed before the commission takes action. Leanne told the group she has found historical documents showing the fund's pathways and scoring rubric were established through council resolutions from about 2015–2019, and that any change would require a new resolution to city council. "We would need to take another resolution to council," Leanne said, and she agreed to research which revenue sources currently replenish the fund and at what rate.

Key details: staff and commissioners reviewed the five pathways used in prior NOFAs — competitive loan, rehabilitation loan, time-sensitive loan, time-sensitive grant and a manufactured-home rehab/repair program — and discussed the relative popularity and administrative burden of each. Leanne told commissioners the time-sensitive grant previously posted at about $28,580, while other program pots were typically in the ~$14,000 range. She also said rehabilitation loans historically ranged from about $2,000–$15,000 and could be authorized up to $25,000 in some cases.

Commissioners debated changes to the scoring rubric designed to balance two goals: encouraging new applicants and rewarding accountable past grantees. One proposal discussed would add modest bonus points (for example, 3–5 points) for applicants who have not received recent city funding and a smaller bonus (for example, 2–3 points) for applicants demonstrating prior success and accountability. Commissioners also suggested offering bonus points for applicants who attend a commission meeting to present or answer questions, while keeping participation optional so applicants without availability are not penalized.

Council process and next steps: Rachel, who addressed council procedures, told commissioners that the commission's role is to make a recommendation, and city council makes the final decision; council action generally cannot be revisited for at least three months after approval. Commissioners agreed to engage the council liaison early to get feedback and to frame proposed language in a way council will find acceptable.

What staff will do: Leanne and colleagues will continue researching historical resolutions and the fund's revenue sources, draft proposed rubric revisions and redlines for the NOFA language, and prepare a draft council resolution that clarifies whether the scoring rubric is binding and how award amounts or pot consolidation might work. Leanne told the commission she will return with a packet of documents and tracked changes for review.

Other items: staff briefly reported the city was awarded state funding for a housing-capacity analysis and has selected Cascadia Partners as the private partner; the intergovernmental agreement is pending. The commission set its next meeting for July 23.

The commission did not take any final votes on NOFA language at this meeting; the group tasked staff with research and drafting to bring back for a future meeting and eventual recommendation to council.