Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Housing Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland Housing Authority outlines Congress Street social‑housing pilot; task force raises large financing shortfall
Summary
Portland Housing Authority presented a 54‑unit Congress Street proposal and a range of financing scenarios; the Social Housing Task Force emphasized unit mix, AMI targeting and asked PHA to return with updated due diligence and clearer gap‑funding options ahead of a May 13 meeting.
Jay Waterman, director of real estate development at the Portland Housing Authority, told the Social Housing Task Force that PHA is under option on a downtown infill site on Congress Street and has designed a seven‑story building for 54 one‑bedroom units with a planning‑board submittal planned for June.
Waterman said PHA ran a pro forma to model a social‑housing scenario without low‑income‑housing‑tax‑credit equity. For that exercise the authority removed city soft costs from operating assumptions, treated debt as interest‑only at roughly 4 percent and reduced replacement reserves; those assumptions, he said, produce a sizable funding shortfall. "We do end up with about a $107,000 per unit of a funding gap on this project," Waterman said, and he cited an interest‑only loan figure in the neighborhood of $15.7 million and modest positive cash flow in the pro forma.
Task Force members pressed PHA on targeting and unit mix. Several members said the task force prefers avoiding deep targeting below 60 percent AMI; members suggested mixing bedroom sizes and AMI bands so the project better serves families as well as workers. "If you're doing one‑bedrooms you come out at … $2,200," one member said, questioning whether that product met social‑housing goals for affordability and family suitability. PHA replied that 80 percent AMI was used in the memo for simplicity and to align with state QAP cost caps, but that alternative mixes could be modeled.
Members also discussed financing mechanisms that could lower the subsidy gap: partial condoization (allocating a small number of market or higher‑income condo units alongside social‑housing units), bonds in which the city provides low‑interest construction financing, leveraging Federal Home Loan Bank programs and layered subsidies such as housing‑trust funds, TIF or brownfields remediation grants. Waterman noted investor appetite for simpler deals and that mixed‑income complexity can be a barrier for LIHTC syndicators.
The task force did not take formal action on the project. Members directed staff and subcommittees to update environmental and geotechnical due diligence, refine pro forma assumptions (unit sizes, rents, operating costs) and return with a clearer financing plan and a draft memorandum of understanding describing city goals and parameters. The group scheduled its next regular meeting for May 13 to review updated materials.
The meeting transcript shows PHA stating specific dollar figures and assumptions; members repeatedly asked PHA to provide updated, documented pro formas and site reports before the task force or City Council considers formal commitments.
