Developer pitches state-backed plan for 108 moderate‑income homes; commissioners ask for fiscal detail

A developer seeking Crook County sponsorship asked commissioners on March 11 to consider adopting a state program that would use a zero‑interest state loan to fund infrastructure for 108 homes selling to households at 120% of area median income or less.

The presentation, led by Eric Quan and Jason Carr, described a program created by the state in 2004 that places funding into a revolving account to pay for horizontal infrastructure — water, sewer, power and streets — so developers can sell homes at a lower price to middle‑income buyers. Quan said the state’s model repays the loan from the property taxes that begin to accrue once homes are built; those taxes would be allocated to the loan repayment for about 10 years rather than directly to county general funds.

Commissioners pressed for specifics. Finance Director Christina Herren and other commissioners asked for an estimate of the total taxes the county would forgo while the loan is repaid, and for clarity on how much administrative revenue the county would receive to manage the program. Quan and Carr estimated infrastructure costs in the low millions and suggested a $3 million to $5 million range as a working number; they also described sample preference points the county could use to prioritize local public employees, long‑term residents or first responders.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the program could help teachers, deputies and other local workers buy their first homes in a high‑cost market, but they also voiced concern that the county — not the developer or state — would carry the administrative burden and temporarily forgo tax revenues that support schools, roads and public safety.

Key details and questions commissioners asked include: whether state rules would allow the county to assign preference points to local employees without triggering discrimination claims; the build‑out timeline (developers estimated roughly three to four years depending on absorption); who bears risk if homes are not sold quickly (developers said liens against the property secure the loan); and whether the city could independently sponsor the project and what role the county would then play in tax collection and administration.

Next steps: Commissioners asked staff and the developers to provide a written package with: (1) an estimate of the county’s foregone tax revenues for the 108‑home example; (2) clarified administrative cost percentages (the presentation mentioned 1% to the assessor and 5% to the county for management, but staff said those numbers needed confirmation); (3) a list of other Oregon communities pursuing the same program so commissioners can review local experiences; and (4) a public‑engagement plan. Staff said the item will return for further briefings before any ordinance or application is accepted.