Describe your image
Describe your image
Describe your image
Describe your image
SOLVING THE HOUSING EQUATION
At Partners for Affordable Housing, we’re committed to educating Oregonians about the factors that drive up housing costs and solutions to the puzzle that bring costs down.
Think of housing as a math problem. A string of variables that currently add up to high costs that are out of reach for most Oregonians.
But tinker with one variable here, one variable there and all of a sudden the end result becomes prices that pencil out.
The variables that add cost are things like land prices, labor and supplies, and fees. The variables that bring costs down are things like increased densities, removal of design standards and shorter approval times that reduce interest fees.
We have the power to change the equation on housing–we just need leaders ready to do the homework and put their name on bold solutions that transform the outcomes.
LEARN THE MATH
View our primer on the math problem adding up to runaway housing costs in Central Oregon, and learn how elected leaders can change the equation!
PAH 2026 Policy Toolkit
In 2026, Partners for Affordable Housing is educating community members on broadly supported policy solutions that will lower housing costs and increase supply. We're calling it our PAH 2026 Policy Toolkit, and we encourage elected leaders and community members to learn more about how these key strategies can change the housing cost equation.
The policies in our 2026 Toolkit focus on the variables that elected leaders have the greatest opportunity to influence: government fees and process, land availability, workforce, and the cost of capital.
To develop our 2026 Toolkit, coalition members met in small groups to learn about and discuss shared priority policies. These small groups contained representatives from labor, affordable housing builders, market rate builders, nonprofit leaders and service providers, as well as people representing impacted populations.
Recommendations from the small groups were brought to subject matter experts for additional context and development. From there, the PAH Steering Committee helped refine the language and focus of the priorities. Finally, the coalition voted to approve the final recommendations.
Our 2026 Policy Recommendations
Government fees and process
Government fees and processes are the most costly factors in Central Oregon housing prices that elected leaders can control. System development charges, permitting fees, and the insecurity and length of the planning process all lead to high costs for housing in our region. We need more strategies for reducing or spreading out costs assessed by government.
1. Implement system development charge waivers for low income homes (<80% AMI) and deferrals for workforce housing (80 to 120% AMI).
System development charges are fees that housing builders pay to address the costs associated with growth impacts to systems such as roads, sewer and water. SDCs are important revenue sources but these fees are often a major factor in projects not penciling out, especially for affordable housing and workforce housing projects. Waivers of these fees should be expanded for housing serving people up to 80 percent of area median income with deed restrictions, and deferred for housing affordable to people earning from 80 to 120 percent of area media income with deed restrictions. Specifically PAH recommends:
-
In Bend, offer SDC waivers up to 120% AMI with deed restriction for homeownership. If waivers cannot be offered, deferrals should be whether deed restrictions are applied or not
-
In La Pine, Redmond, Sisters and Deschutes County waivers should be offered up to 80% AMI with deed restriction.
-
In La Pine, Redmond, Sisters and Deschutes County, deferrals should be offered up to 120% AMI for homeownership with deed restriction.
2. Require a standardized, site-specific, and binding pre-application process that gives applicants reliable information they can use to keep pro formas on track.
City pre-application meetings are intended to give builders clear direction before they invest in their projects. Instead, staff often give guidance that is later changed during the development process. Shifting, subjective, or preference-based feedback forces rework, delays projects, increases carrying costs, and raises housing prices. We need elected leaders to demand better from planning departments.
3. Cities should publish a public Shot-Clock Transparency Dashboard that documents how quickly final engineering plans are moving through the planning department from submission through completeness. This dashboard will help ensure compliance with Oregon's new 120-day shot clock adopted by the Oregon Legislature in SB 974 (2025).
Under SB 974 (2025) a 120-day shot clock speeds review of final engineering plans for housing, but cities can delay the clock by repeatedly deeming applications “incomplete.” Without visible data, communities and applicants can’t tell whether the shot clock is being honored, undermining the law’s intent.
4. Create expedited-review pathways for residential projects that commit a defined share of units to long-term affordability. Eligible projects receive accelerated timelines, reduced discretionary review, fee incentives, and prioritized staff processing in exchange for binding affordability commitments.
Affordable housing projects can face long review timelines that increase costs and threaten feasibility. Small and rural jurisdictions such La Pine, Redmond, Sisters, and Deschutes County need clear, fast pathways to produce affordable units quickly.
Land availability
In Central Oregon, land available for residential development inside urban growth boundaries is often priced at a premium, making it difficult for developers to build homes that are affordable to low- and middle-income families. We need more land inside the UGB to increase supply and bring costs down.
1. Reduce street widths in all cities.
Over time, street widths have increased in all cities in Deschutes County. On infill lots street width standards can often mean losing a unit or two. With larger subdivisions, entire blocks of potential housing can be lost. Narrower streets also calm traffic, creating safer, more walkable and bikeable routes through cities. Elected leaders should call for common sense reductions in the width of streets.
2. Remove juniper trees from the City of Bend's list of protected tree types.
Tree codes help protect an urban canopy that creates shade for cooling and a greater sense of livability. But tree codes also strongly impact housing production and cost because they discourage building homes where trees grow by requiring mitigation payments and buffer zones. We recommend aligning the City of Bend's tree code with state defensible space protection guidelines, which encourage the removal of junipers around homes because they are highly flammable. This change should be paired with the city’s broader canopy and landscape strategies (e.g., incentivized planting of native, low‑water trees on public land and mitigation-bank credits focused on high‑value species) so mature, water-wise trees remain protected while preventing juniper protections from blocking affordable housing production.
3. Prioritize development of infrastructure that opens up lands for housing.
Significant parcels suitable for housing remain effectively locked up inside city limits in Deschutes County--such as in Southeast Bend--because necessary infrastructure such as sewer lines, water lines, or roads have not yet been built. The absence of infrastructure means that even if builders are ready to get to work, they must either pay for major infrastructure costs up front without support from local government, or attempt to rally a complex network of other property owners to tackle the problem together. These options add housing costs. Local governments should prioritize infrastructure funding to lands where homes are likely to be built quickly once projects are complete.
4. Every city in Deschutes County should adopt and maintain an urban reserve plan that identifies and preliminarily evaluates lands suitable to accommodate 50 years of residential growth.
Urban reserves streamline UGB expansions, reduce speculation, and provide a predictable, pre-vetted supply for land for housing development. Without designated urban reserves, cities in Deschutes County must repeatedly re-evaluate and redesignate expansion lands whenever they pursue UGB amendments. This reinvention increases uncertainty, fuels land speculation, lengthens timelines, and raises costs — delaying the conversion of land into residential development and constraining housing supply.
Workforce
A nationwide shortage of skilled construction labor is getting worse as retirees leave the trades. This shortage leads to increased overall costs, reduced efficiency, and, in some cases, delayed or canceled projects—all of which hinder the delivery of affordable homes. We need to invest in building the construction workforce to help lower housing costs.
1. Funding and support for construction workforce development programs should be prioritized by elected leaders to expand the labor pipeline, reduce per-unit labor costs, and accelerate housing delivery.
A persistent shortage of trained construction workers in Deschutes County and across Oregon raises labor costs, delays projects, and reduces housing output. Insufficient funding for apprenticeship programs, trade training, recruitment, and retention initiatives limits the pipeline of carpenters, laborers, electricians, plumbers, and prefab technicians—forcing projects to compete for scarce labor, increasing wages and scheduling volatility that are passed through to homebuyers and renters.
2. Fund targeted homeownership programs for construction-trade workers to improve worker retention, local stability, and the region’s long-term building capacity.
Many construction-trade workers in Deschutes County and across Oregon cannot afford to buy homes where they work. High housing costs, limited affordable ownership options, and workforce churn force workers to commute long distances or leave the region. This increases turnover, raises hiring/training costs for employers, and weakens local capacity to deliver and maintain housing. Elected leaders should advocate for programs that support this workforce to afford housing of their own.
3. Expand eligibility for the Childcare for Construction Program to include a broader swath of construction trades workers—not just apprentices and early-career journey workers.
Oregon’s Child Care for Construction (CCC) Program helps apprentices and early-career journeyworkers by capping child care costs at or below 7% of household income, but its current eligibility limits exclude many mid-career and longer‑term tradespeople. As a result, experienced workers still face unaffordable child care that drives turnover, reduces regional retention, and undermines workforce stability and productivity in the construction sector.
4. Broaden affordable access to BOLI‑approved construction curricula and fund more apprenticeship and training programs statewide.
Oregon lacks sufficient statewide access to standardized, BOLI‑approved construction training curricula. Many training programs, community colleges, and employer-run apprenticeships face inconsistent course content, high curriculum licensing costs, and limited availability of approved materials—resulting in uneven worker skills, duplication of effort, and barriers to scaling workforce pipelines across regions.
Cost of Capital
Securing financing for housing projects is increasingly challenging. Interest rates, lender risk assessments, and equity requirements all impact the cost of building homes. Higher borrowing costs makes housing more expensive. We need government leaders to help make it easier and cheaper for builders to access capital for homebuilding.
1. Cities in Deschutes County should pass general obligation bonds for housing.
Across the West, general obligation bonds for housing have been game changers for communities. GO Bonds can support land acquisition for housing, construction of units, and funding of infrastructure that leads directly to the building of new homes. Portland, Seattle, San Francisco have all successfully passed GO bonds that have dramatically increased housing production–and lowered costs. In Central Oregon, we experience some of the highest housing costs in the state, but public investments often go to Portland because their GO bond funding can match state investments, leaving Central Oregonians out in the cold, literally.
2. Deschutes County, Bend, Redmond, La Pine and Sisters should adopting vacancy fees to discourage long-term residential vacancies, increase housing availability, and generate revenue for affordable housing programs.
Long-term vacant residential properties reduce available housing supply, encourage speculation, and depress neighborhood vitality. Persistent vacancies tie up housing stock that could serve renters or homeowners, slow neighborhood turnover needed for workforce housing, and exacerbate affordability pressures
3. Cities in Deschutes County should adopt city-administered credit enhancement programs that lower interest costs for builders while capping municipal risk through clear underwriting, limited exposure, and repayment protections.
High financing costs and limited access to affordable capital increase development costs and reduce the feasibility of housing projects, especially affordable and infill developments. Private lenders charge higher rates for marginal projects or small builders with limited balance sheets, constraining supply.
4. Cities in Deschutes County should adopt small‑scale, flexible tax‑increment financing (TIF) and related local financing tools targeted specifically at enabling affordable homeownership and small infill projects.
Small, shovel‑ready housing and homeownership projects, especially affordable for-sale homes, small infill developments, and community land trust projects, struggle to compete for capital because upfront infrastructure and site costs raise per‑unit prices. Traditional large-scale tax increment financing tools are often too big, slow, or politically contentious for these smaller projects, leaving viable homeownership options unfunded and limiting pathways to permanently affordable ownership.