Housing & Economic Development Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-05-19
Time: 17:30

Housing & Economic MEMBERS
Development Committee Meeting Councilor Pious Ali, Chair
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 5:30 PM Councilor Regina Phillips
 Councilor Kate Sykes
 Councilor Sarah Michniewicz



To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email edd@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Housing & Economic Development meeting to guarantee their
inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help
ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION

The Housing & Economic Development Committee will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to
the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the Portland City Council. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom
app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend, a recording will be available in the Agenda
Center following the meeting.

For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the
telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/83329598115?pwd=QnfQQHnN8dDEDPPXS55htOhMV8zKPz.1

1. Review and vote to approve meeting Minutes from the April 21, 2026, meeting.

 a. See attached draft Minutes for review and approval
 Discussion: Community Feedback re: Preferred Use(s) for Midtown properties - Dena
2.
 Libner
 At the request of the City Council, staff launched a community engagement process to
 solicit feedback on the community’s preferred uses for the Midtown properties. At this
 meeting, findings from that process will be presented, after which the Committee may
 provide guidance to The Boulos Company regarding the development of marketing
 materials for the parcels.
 a. See attached Memo to the HEDC Committee
 Review and vote on a recommendation to the City Council for Amendment to Hearts
3.
 of Pine Lease Agreement at Fitzpatrick Stadium - Ethan Hipple
 The Committee will consider a recommendation to amend the City’s agreement with the
 Portland Hearts of Pine, allowing a new women’s team additional access to Fitzpatrick
 Stadium for future seasons.
 a. See attached Memo to the HEDC Committee
 b. Hearts of Pine Amended Agreement
4. Communication:


 1
 The Committee will be presented with findings from a recently completed study analyzing
 the impact of the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
 a. Communication from the Planning and Urban Development Department regarding the final
 Inclusionary Zoning Study Report - Kevin Kraft and Charles Buki, CZB, LLC


 i. See attached Memo to HEDC Committee
 ii. Inclusionary Zoning Study
 iii. 2026 City Council Goals
 iv. 2026 HEDC Workplan
 b. Discussion: Proposed amendment(s) to Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance - Chair Ali
 i. See attached Memo to HEDC Committee
 ii. Article 3 Inclusionary Zoning Grant Amendment
 iii. Article 17 Inclusionary Zoning Grant Amendment
 Communication: Portland Housing Authority Overview and Development Pipeline -
5.
 Jay Waterman, PHA Director of Real Estate Development
 The Portland Housing Authority (PHA) will present an organizational overview, details on
 current and recently finished projects, and the hurdles faced in expanding the supply of
 affordable housing. No action is requested of the Committee.
 a. See attached Presentation
6. Communication: Update from the Social Housing Task Force - Councilor Sykes
 The Committee will receive an update on the progress of the Social Housing Task Force
 from Councilor Sykes, Task Force Co-Chair.
 a. See attached Interim Report of the Social Housing Task Force



Next Meeting Date: June 16, 2026




 2

Housing & Economic MEMBERS
Development Committee Meeting Councilor Pious Ali, Chair
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 5:30 PM Councilor Regina Phillips
 Councilor Kate Sykes
 Councilor Sarah Michniewicz



To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email edd@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Housing & Economic Development meeting to guarantee their
inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help
ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).

REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION

The Housing & Economic Development Committee will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to
the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the Portland City Council. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom
app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend, a recording will be available in the Agenda
Center following the meeting.

For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the
telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment.

https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/83329598115?pwd=QnfQQHnN8dDEDPPXS55htOhMV8zKPz.1

1. Review and vote to approve meeting Minutes from the April 21, 2026, meeting.

 a. See attached draft Minutes for review and approval
 Discussion: Community Feedback re: Preferred Use(s) for Midtown properties - Dena
2.
 Libner
 At the request of the City Council, staff launched a community engagement process to
 solicit feedback on the community’s preferred uses for the Midtown properties. At this
 meeting, findings from that process will be presented, after which the Committee may
 provide guidance to The Boulos Company regarding the development of marketing
 materials for the parcels.
 a. See attached Memo to the HEDC Committee
 Review and vote on a recommendation to the City Council for Amendment to Hearts
3.
 of Pine Lease Agreement at Fitzpatrick Stadium - Ethan Hipple
 The Committee will consider a recommendation to amend the City’s agreement with the
 Portland Hearts of Pine, allowing a new women’s team additional access to Fitzpatrick
 Stadium for future seasons.
 a. See attached Memo to the HEDC Committee
 b. Hearts of Pine Amended Agreement
4. Communication:


 1

 Page 1
 The Committee will be presented with findings from a recently completed study analyzing
 the impact of the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
 a. Communication from the Planning and Urban Development Department regarding the final
 Inclusionary Zoning Study Report - Kevin Kraft and Charles Buki, CZB, LLC


 i. See attached Memo to HEDC Committee
 ii. Inclusionary Zoning Study
 iii. 2026 City Council Goals
 iv. 2026 HEDC Workplan
 b. Discussion: Proposed amendment(s) to Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance - Chair Ali
 i. See attached Memo to HEDC Committee
 ii. Article 3 Inclusionary Zoning Grant Amendment
 iii. Article 17 Inclusionary Zoning Grant Amendment
 Communication: Portland Housing Authority Overview and Development Pipeline -
5.
 Jay Waterman, PHA Director of Real Estate Development
 The Portland Housing Authority (PHA) will present an organizational overview, details on
 current and recently finished projects, and the hurdles faced in expanding the supply of
 affordable housing. No action is requested of the Committee.
 a. See attached Presentation
6. Communication: Update from the Social Housing Task Force - Councilor Sykes
 The Committee will receive an update on the progress of the Social Housing Task Force
 from Councilor Sykes, Task Force Co-Chair.
 a. See attached Interim Report of the Social Housing Task Force



Next Meeting Date: June 16, 2026




 2

 Page 2
 MINUTES
 HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
 Date: April 21, 2026 at 5:30 pm


NOTE: This meeting was held via Zoom and can be viewed at this link:
https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/8212/files/agenda/19761
These minutes provide a record of those in attendance, general discussions that took
place and motions made.

Attendance:

Council and Committee Members: Councilor Pious Ali, Chair, and members Councilors
Regina Phillips, Sarah Michniewicz, Kate Sykes and Mayor Mark Dion.

Staff: Dena Libner, Assistant City Manager, Greg Jordan, Assistant City Manager,
Michael Goldman, Corporation Counsel, Jessica Quattropani, Permitting & Inspections
Director, Kevin Kraft, Planning Director, Ethan Hipple, Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Director, Mary Davis, Housing and Community Development Division Director, Heidi
McCarthy, Housing Program Manager, Lori Paulette, Principal Administrative Officer,
Zach Powell, Senior Planner, Rob Kierstead, Director of Public Buildings


  1. Review and vote to approve meeting Minutes from the March 31, 2026,
 meeting.

 Motion to approve: Councilor Sykes
 Second: Councilor Phillips
 Approved 4-0

  2. Communication: Quarter 1 (1/1/2026-3/31/2026) Rent Control Report -
 Jessica Quattropani

 Director Quattropani gave a presentation on the Rent Control Quarter 1
 Report.

 Councilor Sykes expressed appreciation for the report and asked how the
 tenant postcards were funded. Dir. Quattropani noted that it is in the budget
 and paid through long-term rental fees. Councilor Sykes also asked about
 the number of registered units as it relates to short-term rentals. There are
 currently 291 short-term rentals allowed based on the number of long-term
 rentals registered.

  3. Discussion: Staff Presentation of the 2025 Annual Housing Report - Kevin
 Kraft


 1


 Page 3
 Director Kraft provided an introduction and Zach Powell provided a brief
 presentation on the Planning section of the Housing Report. Heidi
 McCarthy provided a brief presentation on the Housing section of the
 Housing Report.

 Councilor Sykes asked for more detail on the number of units approved,
 completed, and monitored with a specific breakout of the number of
 Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Units.

 Councilor Michniewicz asked about tracking for IZ units related to 89 Elm
 and the Reveler Master Development Plan (MDP). Dir. Kraft explained that
 staff detailed the expectations for the developer during the MDP approval
 process.

4. Discussion: Submitting Census Tract 6 for Potential Opportunity Zone
 Nomination by Governor Mills - Dena Libner

 Ms. Libner introduced the item noting that staff recommended to the Mayor
 that Census Tract 6 be shared with the Maine Department of Economic and
 Community Development (MDECD) to help inform the Governor to use that
 as a nominee to the Federal Government for the benefits described in her
 Memo included in the Agenda packet. For clarification, the City Council does
 not have a decision-making role. The Governor ultimately makes the
 decision on nominations to the Federal Government.

 After discussion and clarifying questions from the Committee, there was
 consensus not to recommend this to the Governor as there may be
 impacts/displacement to low-income communities and businesses. It was
 noted that reporting on these census tracts is not robust and tracked well.
 They needed more of an understanding how it may or may not benefit the
 neighborhood.

 The Committee discussed process for this, and Mayor Dion offered to call the
 State and let them know that the City is not interested in pursuing this at this
 time. He noted that all four Committee members feel this way as does he –
 so five members of the City Council agree on this. It was agreed that the call
 by the Mayor would be sufficient to let the State know, and perhaps a future
 Resolution could be on a Council Agenda.

5. Discussion: Concept Proposal -East End Beach Bath House Public-Private
 Partnership - Dena Libner/Ethan Hipple

 Assistant City Manager Libner introduced the topic and Ethan Hipple gave a
 presentation on the concept.


 2


 Page 4
 Councilor Michniewicz appreciates the improvement and asked about matrix
 for RFP. Dir. Hipple stated that food and beverage, fitness, and recreation
 activities could be categories. Councilor Michniewicz also asked about site
 specific issues related to parking and traffic.

 Councilor Phillips asked for more specific information about location. Dir.
 Hipple clarified that it is near the lowermost parking lot near East End Beach.
 Assistant City Manager Libner stated that the next step would be to bring
 back the drafted RFP for committee feedback.

 Councilor Ali asked whether this model could work for the Deering Oaks
 castle. Dir. Hipple stated that some restaurants have activated that space in
 the past.

 Councilor Sykes is concerned about public access but excited to explore it.

6. Discussion: Review of draft Request for Proposals for James A. Banks, Sr.,
 Exposition Building - Dena Libner/Ethan Hipple

 Assistant City Manager Libner gave an overview of the RFP process and public
 engagement, and requested committee feedback. Dir. Hipple introduced Rob
 Kierstead to answer any questions and provided additional context.

 Councilor Ali added that emails were received regarding this RFP.

 Councilor Phillips asked whether this building could be on the Historic
 registry. Dir. Hipple stated that it has not been designated yet, but it is an
 historic building. Councilor Phillips asked about keeping the building versus
 creating a new building but did not think the RFP clearly outlined both
 possibilities. Assistant City Manager Libner stated that it would take about
 $30 million to improve the building.

 Mayor Dion stated information from Portland Landmarks which makes a
 case for historic preservation.

 Councilor Sykes stated that cost sharing with tenants in the building should
 be considered.

 Councilor Michniewicz reiterated consideration of cost sharing and
 preservation if possible. It may be helpful to look at it in the context of city
 assets more broadly.
 Assistant City Manager Libner stated that staff would plan to pursue cost
 sharing depending on the path forward, and that adaptive reuse would be


 3


 Page 5
 more clearly stated in the RFP. Parks, Recreation and Facilities is about to
 take on an assessment of city assets. An RFP has closed and applicants are
 being considered for that work. Dir. Hipple gave an overview of the work of
 Rob Kierstead’s department and staff.

 Councilor Phillips requested additional public input about the building in
 addition to what is already in the RFP. Councilor Phillips also questioned
 whether the evaluation committee could include more than City staff, and
 also noted that the RFP did not specifically call for preserving any of the
 history of the building and would like to know how this would happen.

 Councilor Michniewicz noted that the RFP is heavily focused on replacement
 and asked for more detailed information with various tiers of repair.

 Asst. City Manager Libner stated that the $30 million assessment received is
 the baseline repairs estimate and clarified that additional design work would
 be undertaken later. The public process would collect additional information
 to inform an RFP for design. At the end of the current RFP process, the
 council will be presented with the options and potential costs for each.

 Councilor Ali shared an idea for a space for senior citizens.

7. Public Comment: Review and Recommendations to the City Council for the
 FY 2027 Agreement and Development Plan for the Portland Tourism
 Development District- Mary Davis

 Ms. Libner introduced the item noting that this would renew the Portland
 Tourism Development District for FY2027. The District includes hotels with
 40 or more rooms and associated assessments on each based on hotel
 class. The assessments are received and administered by the City with 90%
 of the funds going to Visit Portland, and 10% of the funds to the City for
 administering the program. The terms of the Agreement and Development
 Plan have not changed, and staff is recommending that the Committee vote
 to recommend to the City Council approval for FY2027. Ms. Libner noted that
 Lynn Tillotson, Executive Director of Visit Portland, is here today for a brief
 presentation and to answer any questions.

 Ms. Tillotson thanked all and noted that a full Annual Report for FY2026 will
 be coming out soon. She noted that all Board meeting Minutes are on the
 website and then shared a marketing video, followed by highlights of their
 work. This work included an expanded leisure campaign, sports and
 weddings outreach, winter destination outreach, and marketing at the Jetport.
 This work will continue, as well as workforce development work with other
 community organization, including Portland Adult Ed.


 4


 Page 6
 Councilor Sykes appreciated the presentation, as well as workforce
 development issues and inquired about having on VP’s website public facing
 worksites to give links to services the workforce could use as the tourism
 industry uses those frontline workers.

 Ms. Tillotson appreciated that concern for this workforce and VP is in the
 process of buildout of the website for that, partnering the Maine Tourism
 Association, Hospitality Maine, and the Portland Chamber so as not to
 duplicate efforts.

 Councilor Phillips also thanked Ms. Tillotson for the presentation and
 highlights, and questioned if she worked with the City’s Office of Economic
 Opportunity, and Ms. Tillotson said that she has not but will contact Melissa
 Hue.

 Councilor Michniewicz thanked VP and looked forward with VP working with
 organizations, including Portland Adult Ed, for workforce development.

 Seeing no further comments/discussion, Chair Councilor Ali opened the
 meeting for public comment and there was none.

 On motion made by Councilor Sykes, seconded by Councilor Michniewicz,
 the Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the
 PTDD for FY2027.

8. Adjournment.

 Councilor Michniewicz motioned to adjourn.
 Councilor Sykes seconded the motion.
 Passed 4-0 at 7:45 pm




 5


 Page 7
City of Portland | Housing and Economic Development
Dena Libner, Assistant City Manager


To: Housing and Economic Development Committee
 Councilor Pious Ali, Chair
From: Dena Libner, Assistant City Manager
Date: May 14, 2026
Re: Community feedback on redevelopment priorities for the
 Midtown properties



MEETING DATE
May 19, 2026

AGENDA ITEM
Community feedback on redevelopment priorities for the Midtown properties

PURPOSE
To inform the development of marketing materials based on community-preferred uses of the
Midtown properties, as identified through a community engagement process.

COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT
This item is related to several Council goals, including Accelerate Housing Production, Reduce
Chronic Homelessness, Strengthen Economic Vitality, and Support Affordability for All Residents.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In 2016, the City of Portland sold four Bayside lots, totalling 3.45 acres, to the Federated
Companies and related entities. When Federated’s project stalled, the company and the City
became involved in several lawsuits. They later reached a settlement in which all claims were
dropped, the property was returned to the City, and the City paid Federated $15 million.

In response to guidance provided by the City Council in an executive session in November 2025,
staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional brokerage services aimed at achieving
the highest and best use of each site. As a result of that competitive process, the Boulos Company
was selected to assist the City in marketing the properties.

At the request of the City Council, staff launched a community engagement process to solicit
feedback on the uses most preferred by community members. This exercise included 1) a digital
survey available in seven languages and 2) two in-person community feedback sessions. These
opportunities were promoted through the City of Portland’s social media platforms and “Weekly
Roundup” digital newsletter, as well as through flyers distributed at Council meetings, at a
community meal hosted by the Equality Community Center, and by community partners
including Avesta Housing, Portland Housing Authority, and Cultivating Community.




 1

 Page 8
Over 1,100 unique individuals completed the digital survey, and a total of 30 unique individuals
attended the community feedback sessions.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: RESULTS ​
See: Attachment A
​
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: FINDINGS
Results from the digital survey and feedback sessions indicate a clear priority among respondents
for housing-oriented development on the Midtown properties. Specifically, mixed-use
development that balanced living, working, and recreation was most often identified by
respondents as their “vision” for the Midtown properties, outranking “an area focused primarily
on multi-family housing.”

While multi-unit housing emerged as the dominant top priority, the broader rankings suggest
respondents also value complementary public amenities and community spaces. Recreation and
open space consistently received strong support across second- and third-choice rankings,
indicating broad interest in incorporating outdoor and community-oriented uses into future
redevelopment plans.

“Retail & dining” and “cultural spaces” generally appeared as mid-tier preferences, often
receiving fourth- and fifth-choice rankings. Office space and parking were consistently ranked
lowest overall, with parking receiving the highest number of seventh-choice rankings and office
space receiving the highest number of sixth-choice rankings.

Overall, the findings suggest respondents strongly prioritize increasing housing opportunities in
Midtown, while also supporting recreational and open-space elements as part of a balanced
redevelopment approach.

FISCAL IMPACT​
There is no anticipated fiscal impact associated with this item.

CONCLUSION(S)
The community engagement process for the Midtown properties identified a clear vision
centered on mixed-used development. Residents consistently prioritized multi-unit housing as
the preferred primary land use across the parcels, reflecting a strong interest in additional
residential development. This preference was accompanied by significant support for integrated
open space and recreational areas that complement the existing trail network. Overall, the
findings indicate broad support for a balanced approach to redevelopment that incorporates a
diverse mix of residential, commercial, and community uses while maintaining housing
affordability and sustainable design as key priorities.

PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW​
City Council Executive Session - February 9, 2026




 2

 Page 9
PREPARED BY

Dena Libner Kaela Gonzalez
Assistant City Manager Program Coordinator
Executive Department Housing and Economic Development Department


ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Community Engagement Results
​




 3

 Page 10
City of Portland | Housing and Economic Development
Dena Libner, Interim Director


 ATTACHMENT A

 Digital Survey Results
This survey was conducted from March 26 to May 7, 2026 to collect community feedback on preferred
uses for the Midtown properties. Over 1,100 unique individuals responded to the survey.




 Page 11
Attachment A | Midtown Survey Results​
May 14, 2026




Q2. Please prioritize how you would like the Midtown area to be utilized.




 Page 12
Attachment A | Midtown Survey Results​
May 14, 2026




 Q2. Which of these descriptions best matches your vision for Midtown?




 Page 13
Attachment A | Midtown Survey Results​
May 14, 2026


 Results from Community Feedback Sessions
 Staff hosted two community feedback sessions in April 2026. In total, 30 unique individuals attended these sessions, where they
 discussed the project with staff and indicated their preferences and feedback on maps.




 ​
 Participants indicated their preference for specific uses on each of the vacant Midtown lots using colored dots, and left additional
 comments on sticky notes. Participants were not limited in the number of dots or notes they could use.

 Housing (black dots) was the preferred use selected most often during this exercise, accounting for 57% of the dots placed on maps.
 Participants selected lots 2 and 3 most often for housing development.

 Open space (light green dots) accounted for 18% of the dots placed on the maps, and recreation (orange dots) accounted for 10%.




 Page 14
Attachment A | Midtown Survey Results​
May 14, 2026




 Participants were also invited to leave additional comments in
 writing. Staff analysis showed that “housing” was the most
 frequent theme mentioned here, with the second theme
 (“space”) being mentioned approximately half as often.

 This trend was observed in the digital survey as well: “housing”
 was mentioned in 283 individuals’ qualitative feedback,
 followed by “space” (123 individuals’ feedback) and “affordable”
 (110 individuals’ feedback).


 ​




 Page 15
​City of Portland | Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department​
 ​Ethan Hipple, Director​

​To:​​Housing and Economic Development Committee​
 ​Councilor Pious Ali, Chair​
​CC:​​Danielle P. West, City Manager​
 ​Dena Libner, Assistant City Manager​
 ​From:​​Ethan Hipple, Director, Parks, Recreation, and​​Facilities​
  ​Department​
​Date:​​May 19, 2026​
​Re:​ ​Amendment to Agreement for Hearts of Pine Women’s​
 ​Team​




​MEETING DATE​
 ​5/19/2026​

​AGENDA ITEM​
 ​Amendment to Hearts of Pine Agreement​

​PURPOSE​
 ​The Hearts of Pine have proposed adding a women’s team to their organization, with women’s games​
  ​played at Fitzpatrick Stadium. This proposed amendment outlines business terms for the addition of​
 ​the women’s team.​

​COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT​
 ​N/A​

​BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS​
 ​The Hearts of Pine has proposed to add a women’s team that would start playing at Fitzpatrick​
  ​Stadium in the 2027 season.​

​Under the current agreement, the Hearts of Pine organization is offered 40 dates, from which they can​
 ​choose 25 dates for the men’s team games. Under the amended agreement, the organization would​
  ​still be offered 40 dates, but they would choose 33 dates that would include games for both the men’s​
 ​and women's teams. The organization would pay market rate for these eight additional games, as well​
 ​as for any additional field time required for practices.​

​The addition of eight additional dates for a Women's team can be accommodated in the stadium​
 ​schedule without adversely affecting other customers.​

​The amendment also clarifies that practice times for the men’s team are provided without cost, in​
 ​recognition of the $3M in capital improvements that the team invested into the stadium. This​

 ​1​

 Page 16
​provision was included in the business terms that informed the original agreement, but the agreement​
 ​itself was silent on this topic, so this is simply clarifying language.​

​FISCAL IMPACT​
 ​N/A​

​CONCLUSION(S)​
 ​Overall, the presence of the Hearts of Pine at Fitzpatrick Stadium has been very positive for the City​
  ​and has resulted in close to $3M of capital improvements in the stadium, including new artificial turf​
 ​field, new lights, press box improvements, new locker rooms, seating improvements, and a new sound​
 ​system. The team has been a good faith partner in solving issues that have arisen.​

​Based on the above, staff recommend the approval of this amendment that would allow for a women’s​
 ​soccer team at Fitzpatrick Stadium.​



​PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW​
 ​N/A​

​PREPARED BY​


​Ethan Hipple​
 ​Director​
  ​Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department​




​ATTACHMENTS​
 ​1.​ ​Amended agreement​




 ​2​

 Page 17
 SECOND AMENDMENT
 TO
 STADIUM USE AGREEMENT
 FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF
 JAMES J. FITZPATRICK STADIUM

 This Second Amendment to Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J.
Fitzpatrick Stadium (this “Amendment”) is made as of [DATE], 2026 (the “Amendment Date”), by and
between Hearts of Pine LLC, a Maine limited liability company (the "Club") and The City of Portland,
Maine, a body politic and corporate (the "City"). The Club and the City are each a “Party” and collectively
the “Parties.”. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in the Existing Agreement (as defined below).

 WHEREAS, Portland United, LLC, a Maine limited liability company (“PU”) and the City entered
into that certain Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, dated as
of December 18, 2023, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Stadium Use Agreement for Use
and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, dated as of October 30, 2024, in each case a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A (collectively, the “Existing Agreement”);

 WHEREAS, PU assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Existing Agreement to the Club
under that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, by and between PU and the Club, and
acknowledge and agreed to by the City, dated as of February 21, 2024, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B (the “Assignment Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Amendment to amend the Existing Agreement as
set forth herein.

 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

 1. Amendments.

 a) Recitals.

 i. Recital B of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
 with the following:

 “B. The Club owns the rights to: (i) a men’s professional soccer franchise (the
 “Men’s Team”) in that certain professional soccer league known as “USL League
 One” within the professional soccer organization known as the United Soccer
 League (the “USL”), and (ii) a women’s elite amateur soccer franchise (the
 “Women’s Team”) in that certain league known as “USL W League” within the
 USL (together, with all other leagues and affiliate entities within the USL,
 collectively, and as applicable, the “League”). As of the Amendment Date, the
 Men’s Team competes in USL League One, and the Club anticipates that the
 Women’s Team will begin hosting USL W League soccer games during the 2027
 USL W League season.”

 b) In section 1 of the Existing Agreement (“Definitions”):




 1 of 53

 Page 18
 i. The defined term “Club” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
 following:

 ““Club” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in the preamble hereof; for
 the avoidance of doubt “Club” shall mean the Men’s Team and/or the Women’s
 Team when used hereunder as applicable given the context.”

 ii. The defined term “Post-Season Game” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
 with the following:

 ““Post-Season Game” shall mean any game played by the Club at the
 Stadium following the completion of the scheduled Regular Season as part of any
 Playoff competition format organized by the League, culminating with a League
 championship game.”

c) Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Existing Agreement are each hereby deleted in their entirety
 and replaced with the following:

 “(a) Soccer Games and Other Club Events. Subject to the provisions
 of subsection 5(b) below, the Club shall have the exclusive right to play
 professional and pre-professional soccer games (and conduct pregame, half-time
 and post-game activities) at the Stadium Premises on each Club Scheduled Date
 on which a Home Game is to be played during the period commencing with the
 Pre-Season and including the Regular Season and, if Post-Season games are to be
 played as Home Games, the Club shall have the right to do so during the Post-
 Season, during each year of the Term covered by this Agreement. The Club shall
 exercise this exclusive right only on the dates (day or night) regularly scheduled
 for professional or pre-professional soccer games in accordance with the official
 League schedule pertaining to professional or pre-professional soccer games to be
 played and hosted within the Stadium Premises by the Club (as applicable). For all
 Club Events, the Club will have access to the Stadium and Stadium Premises in
 accordance with the terms hereof at least six (6) hours prior the scheduled start of
 time of the event. The City will work with the Club in good faith to provide the
 Club additional access to the Stadium (beyond the dates set forth above) for Club
 practices and other training for each of the Men’s Team and Women’s Team, in
 each case as reasonably requested by the Club but subject to other Stadium users’
 events that are already scheduled. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
 Agreement, the Club acknowledges and agrees that it may not be able to schedule
 a Post Season game at the Stadium if another Stadium user is already scheduled to
 use the Stadium on a given day during the Post Season. In the event of a schedule
 conflict, the Parties will work together in good faith to achieve a reasonable
 solution, but under no circumstances will the City be obligated to cancel another
 Stadium user’s scheduled event at the Stadium in order to accommodate the
 League’s Post Season schedule.

 (b) Exercise of Club’s Selection of Dates. On or before the 1st day of
 September of each calendar year during the Term, the City shall provide the Club
 with a list in writing of no less than forty (40) dates, including at least 30 weekend
 dates (with a preference, as available, for at least 16 Saturdays and 12 Sundays)
 and 10 weekday dates (with a preference, as available, for Wednesdays and
 Fridays) within the reasonably anticipated timeframes of the Regular Season



 2 of 53

 Page 19
 schedules for each of the Men’s Team and the Women’s Team in the following
 calendar year for the Club to choose from for scheduling of Club Events (the
 “Offered Dates”). The City will make reasonable efforts to include in the Offered
 Dates, as available, 6 dates in each of May, June, and July, and at least 4 dates in
 each of April, August, September, and October). Upon the earlier of (x) the
 League’s release of the Women’s Team Regular Season schedule for the following
 calendar year, or (y) February 15th of the following calendar year, the Club will
 notify the City in writing of its selection of thirty-three (33) of the Offered Dates,
 including anticipated Post Season Game dates, and the City will reserve those dates
 for the Club’s use (the “Club Reserved Dates”). Such final selection of Club
 Reserved Dates shall be binding and not subject to change, except as set forth
 below or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties. After Club Reserved
 Dates have been selected, and after the City reasonably determines that other
 potential Stadium users have had a reasonable opportunity to schedule dates for
 use of the Stadium, the Club may request additional dates for Club Events by
 following the City’s ordinary scheduling process utilized by other Stadium users.
 Once the League has confirmed the final schedule for the then-upcoming Regular
 Season for each of the Men’s Team and the Women’s Team, the Club will provide
 the City with a copy thereof and, to the extent that the Club determines in its sole
 discretion that any Club Reserved Dates are not needed for Home Games or
 scheduled Club Events, those Club Reserved Dates will be “released” back to the
 City for use through its ordinary scheduling process. All Club Reserved Dates that
 are not released back to the City and other dates scheduled by the City for the Club
 after the Club selects the Club Reserved Dates are referred to herein as “Club
 Scheduled Dates.” In the event that the Club does not advance to the League
 playoffs, the Club will release any Post Season Game Club Scheduled Dates to the
 City.”

 d) Section 7(b) of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
 the following:

 “(b) Payments to the City. For each Home Game played during the
 Term of this Agreement (as applicable depending on the Club’s exercise of the
 Club Extension Option), the Club shall pay the following, as consideration to the
 City for and on account of the Club's use and occupancy of the Stadium and
 Stadium Premises hereunder:

 (i) In consideration of the Improvements and the Club’s contribution
 to the New Playing Field, for each of the first ten (10) calendar
 years during the Term of this Agreement, the Club shall pay no
 rental fees for the Stadium for the first twenty-five (25) Club-
 Scheduled Dates in each such year or for Men’s Team practices,
 but Club shall be responsible for the fees and costs associated with
 permitted events at the Stadium, including fees and costs for
 public safety personnel, at the then-current rates. The Parties
 acknowledge that, as of the Amendment Date, the Improvements
 have been completed;

During each year of the Term, if the Club utilizes the Stadium at any time other than the twenty-
five (25) Club-Scheduled Dates referenced above in Section 7(b)(i) or for Men’s Team practices,




 3 of 53

 Page 20
the Club shall pay to the City \ all then-current applicable use and rental fees and other fees and
charges charged by the City to other Stadium occupants/licensees.
 (ii) In the event that the Club exercises the second Club Extension
 Option, then, commencing upon the beginning of the second
 extension and thereafter throughout the Term of this Agreement,
 the Club shall pay the City all then-current applicable use and
 rental fees and other fees and charges charged by the City to other
 Stadium occupants/licensees for all of the Club’s use of the
 Stadium and Stadium Premises.”

 e) Section 9(b) of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
 the following:

 “(b) Not less than three months prior to the start of the 2027 Pre-
 Season, the Club shall submit a traffic management plan to the City that
 includes a comprehensive strategy for managing vehicle traffic, parking,
 and pedestrian flow before, during, and after games. The plan will outline
 strategies and practices to mitigate transportation impacts of large
 gatherings, ensuring safety and minimizing delays. The traffic
 management plan is subject to review and approval by the City, and must
 be in form and substance satisfactory to the City prior any 2027 Club
 Events.

 f) Section 24 of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
 following:

 “24. Notices.

 Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval and any other communications
 (any of the foregoing, a "Notice") required, permitted, or desired, to be given hereunder
 shall be in writing sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
 requested or delivered by hand or reputable overnight courier addressed to the Party to be
 so notified at its address hereinafter set forth or to such other address as such party may
 hereafter specify in a Notice delivered in accordance with the provisions of this Section 30.
 Any such Notice shall be deemed to have been received three (3) Business Days after the
 date such Notice is mailed or on the date of delivery by hand or courier addressed to the
 parties as follows (provided that neither the City nor the Club shall be deemed to have
 received any Notice not actually received):

 If to the City: City of Portland
 Attn: City Manager
 389 Congress Street
 Portland, Maine 04101
 With a copy to: Office of the Corporation Counsel at the same address

 If to the Club: Hearts of Pine LLC
 Attn: Kevin Schohl
 1 Union Wharf, 3rd Floor
 Portland, Maine 04101
 kevin@heartsofpine.com




 4 of 53

 Page 21
 With a copy to: Caleb E. Ginsberg, Esq.
 ginsberg.caleb@gmail.com”

 g) Section 31 of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
 following:

 “31. League Rules. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
 Agreement, the City acknowledges that the Club, in its operation of a professional
 and pre-professional soccer franchise in the applicable League, is obligated to
 comply with applicable League rules and restrictions (“League Rules”). In the
 event that any such League Rules require alterations or improvements to the
 Stadium or the Stadium Premises, the Club may request that the City make such
 alterations or improvements at the Club’s expense or allow the Club to do so at the
 Club’s expense. In such event, the City will engage in good faith discussions with
 the Club in order to identify a commercially reasonable solution, satisfactory to the
 City, that permits the Club, at its own expense, to continue to host Club Events in
 the Stadium through the remainder of the Term. In the event that the Club is unable
 to comply with the League Rules due to the condition of the Stadium or Stadium
 Premises, the Club may terminate this Agreement upon prior written notice to the
 City. In no event will the City be responsible for incurring any obligation or
 expense as a result of the League Rules except as specifically set forth in this
 Agreement.”

2. Other Provisions Remain in Full Force and Effect. This Amendment shall modify and amend the
 Existing Agreement to the extent, and only to the extent, expressly set forth herein and all of the
 terms and provisions of the Existing Agreement that are not expressly amended, modified, waived,
 or replaced hereunder shall be unaltered and shall remain in full force and effect. From and after
 the Amendment Date, all references in the Existing Agreement to this “Agreement”, “herein”,
 “hereunder”, and words of like import shall mean and refer to the Existing Agreement as amended
 by this Amendment. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used in this
 Amendment have the same meaning that those terms have in the Existing Agreement.

3. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance
 with the laws of the State of Maine, without regard to or application of conflict of laws, rules or
 principles.

4. Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
 be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. A
 signed copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, e-mail, or other means of electronic
 transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy
 of this Amendment.

 [Signature page to follow.]




 5 of 53

 Page 22
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Stadium
Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, to be effective as of the
Amendment Date.


 THE CITY OF PORTLAND

 By:_________________________
 Name: Danielle P. West
 Title: City Manager


 HEARTS OF PINE LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company

 By: Portland United, LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company,
 It’s Sole Member

 By:_________________________________
 Name: Gabe Hoffman-Johnson
 Title: Manager

Approved as to form:

_________________________________
City Corporation Counsel

Approved as to funds:

_________________________________
City Finance Director




 Signature Page to
 Second Amendment to Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium
 6 of 53

 Page 23
 EXHIBIT A

Existing Agreement

 [Attached]




 7 of 53

 Page 24
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 FIRST AMENDMENT
 TO
 STADIUM USE AGREEMENT
 FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF
 JAMES J. FITZPATRICK STADIUM

 This First Amendment to Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick
 Stadium (this “Amendment”) is made as of October ___,30th 2024 (the “Amendment Date”), by and between
 Hearts of Pine LLC, a Maine limited liability company (the "Club") and The City of Portland, Maine, a
 body politic and corporate (the "City"). The Club and the City are each a “Party” and collectively the
 “Parties.”. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in
 the Existing Agreement (as defined below).

 WHEREAS, Portland United, LLC, a Maine limited liability company (“PU”) and the City entered
 into that certain Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, dated as
 of December 18, 2023, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Existing Agreement”);

 WHEREAS, PU assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Existing Agreement to the Club
 under that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, by and between PU and the Club, and
 acknowledged and agreed to by the City, dated as of February 21, 2024, a copy of which is attached hereto
 as Exhibit B (the “Assignment Agreement”); and

 WHEREAS, in the time since the Existing Agreement was signed, the Club discovered that the
 turf field at the Stadium does not comply with applicable League Rules; and

 WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Amendment to amend the Existing Agreement to
 allow for the Club to install a new turf field at the Stadium as set forth herein.

 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
 is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

 1. Amendments.

 a) Section 1 (Definitions) of the Existing Agreement shall be amended as follows:

 The term “Club Line Painting” is added to Section 1 and defined as follows:

 ““Club Line Painting” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section
 8(b) of the Agreement.”

 The term “Line Modification” is added to Section 1 and defined as follows:

 ““Line Modification” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section
 8(b) of the Agreement.”

 The term “Standard Line Modification Cap” is added to Section 1 and defined as
 follows:

 ““Standard Line Modification Cap” shall have the meaning assigned
 thereto in Section 8(b) of the Agreement.”




 8 of 53

 Page 25
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 The term “New Playing Surface” is hereby modified to “New Playing Field”.

 The term “New Stadium Turf” is added to Section 1 and defined as follows:

 ““New Stadium Turf” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section
 3(f) of the Agreement.”

 The term “Standard Line Painting” is added to Section 1 and defined as follows:

 ““Standard Line Painting” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in
 Section 8(b) of the Agreement.”

 b) The following is added to the Agreement as Section 3(f):

 (f) New Stadium Turf. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
 Section 3, the parties acknowledge and agree that between December 1, 2024 and
 December 31, 2024, weather permitting, the Club shall, at its own expense, install a new
 plain green artificial turf surface at the stadium (the “New Stadium Turf”). The Club
 acknowledges and agrees that the New Stadium Turf will be in the same location as the
 existing turf and that under no circumstances will the Club remove any of the red
 rubberized surface at the Stadium that comprises the track and the areas between the track
 and the turf end zones. For the avoidance of doubt, the New Stadium Turf will be
 considered an Improvement as contemplated hereunder, and as generally described in
 Exhibit A. Upon request by the Club, the dates for such installation may be changed by the
 City Manager or their designee, provided that the parties acknowledge and agree that the
 installation shall be completed reasonably far in advance of the Club’s 2025 League season.
 The New Stadium Turf shall be installed in accordance with all applicable laws, rules,
 regulations, industry and professional standards, and the League Rules. The New Stadium
 Turf shall be painted in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(b) below. Because the
 New Stadium Turf will not include a painted “Bulldog” logo, the Club agrees to (i)
 maintain the existing Bulldog signage on the Stadium pressbox and scoreboard, and (ii)
 work together in good faith with the Superintendent of the Portland Public Schools (“PPS”)
 or their delegate to identify additional ways for the Club to ensure that the Bulldog logo,
 or other reasonably requested PPS imagery, is visibly displayed on the Stadium Premises.

 c) Section 8(b) of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
 replaced with the following:

 “(b) Field Painting and Removal; Escrow.
 .
 (1) The Club and City anticipate that all lines for soccer, football, lacrosse,
 and field hockey will need to be painted on the New Stadium Turf at least twice
 per applicable season (collectively, “Standard Line Painting”). During the Term
 of this Agreement, the City will be responsible for performing the Standard Line
 Painting. Solely during the Initial Term, the Club will be responsible for the cost
 of the Standard Line Painting, which shall be paid by the Club in accordance with
 subsection (4) below.

 (2) In connection with the Club’s use of the Stadium as permitted
 hereunder, in its reasonable discretion, the Club may, at the Club’s own expense,



 9 of 53

 Page 26
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 add and/or remove any painted lines or other markings (including Standard Line
 Painting) on the playing field at the Stadium in order to comply with League Rules
 (defined below) or to otherwise conform to the League’s or the US Soccer
 Federation’s guidelines (collectively, “Club Line Painting”) (Standard Line
 Painting and Club Line Painting are referred to herein collectively as “Line
 Modifications”). The Club acknowledges and agrees that it will not allow Club
 Line Painting to interfere with previously scheduled use of the field by other
 Stadium users. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that Club Line Painting
 includes removal of lines needed by other Stadium users, the Club shall repaint
 those lines in a timely manner such that the repainting will not interfere with
 previously scheduled use of the field by others.

 (3) If, during the Initial Term, the City reasonably determines that
 Standard Line Painting is reasonably necessary for the use of the field by Stadium
 users other than the Club, the City will provide reasonable advance notice to the
 Club (by email or text message designated by the Club’s President) of the need for
 such Standard Line Painting and the date and time by which such painting must be
 complete and the field ready for use. For the avoidance of doubt, the City will be
 responsible for coordinating all Standard Line Painting. If, during the Term, the
 Club reasonably determines that Club Line Painting is reasonably necessary for
 the use of the field by the Club, the Club will provide reasonable advance notice
 to the City (by email or text message designated by the City’s Director of Parks,
 Recreation, and Facilities) of the need for such Club Line Painting, and which
 notice will include either (i) a statement by the Club that it will coordinate such
 Line Modification itself; or (ii) a request by the Club for the City to coordinate
 such Club Line Painting at the Club’s expense. If the Club elects to coordinate the
 Club Line Painting itself, it agrees to complete, or cause its contractor to complete,
 such painting by the date and time reasonably requested by the City, and, in any
 event, in accordance with subsection (2) above. If the Club requests that the City
 coordinate the Club Line Painting, such painting will be subject to the payment
 provisions in subsection (4) below. In any event, all line painting and removal
 (including Club Line Painting) on the New Stadium Turf, whether performed by
 the City, the Club, or their contractors, will be done in a good and workmanlike
 manner in accordance with industry standards. For the avoidance of doubt, the
 provisions of this Section 8(b) are not intended to, and shall not, interfere in any
 way with the parties’ other rights and obligations under this Agreement, including
 the Club’s right to use and enjoyment of the Stadium as contemplated hereunder,
 or with the rights of other Stadium users who have previously scheduled use of the
 field.

 (4) For Standard Line Painting made during the Initial Term, the City will
 submit an invoice to the Club. Subject to the Standard Line Painting Cap (as
 defined below), during the Initial Term, the Club will pay the City for all
 undisputed amounts due on the applicable invoice, up to a maximum amount of (i)
 $25,000 per calendar year, and (ii) $125,000 in the aggregate (the “Standard Line
 Painting Cap”). Each year of the Initial Term, the Parties will evaluate the
 commercially reasonable quoted pricing for the Standard Line Painting and discuss
 in good faith whether it is reasonably necessary and equitable to increase the
 Standard Line Painting Cap; provided, however, that in the event that the Parties
 agree on such an increase, the Standard Line Painting Cap shall not exceed $30,000
 in any calendar year and $150,000 in the aggregate during the Initial Term. The



 10 of 53

 Page 27
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 Club will pay each invoice submitted to it by the City for applicable Line
 Modification as set forth hereunder within 30 days after the date of the invoice.
 Any disputed amounts in any such invoice will be subject to the dispute resolution
 process set forth in Section 37 of this Agreement. For Club Line Painting made
 by the City during the Term, the City will submit an invoice to the Club. The Club
 will pay each invoice within 30 days after the date of the invoice. Any disputed
 amounts in any such invoice will be subject to the dispute resolution process set
 forth in Section 37 of this Agreement.

 (5) In order to ensure that there is sufficient funding (up to the Standard
 Line Painting Cap) available for the Standard Line Painting described in this
 subsection (b), the Club, prior to the first Line Modification, will deposit the sum
 of $25,000.00 into a City-held, non-interest bearing escrow account pursuant to an
 escrow agreement in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to both parties
 (the “Line Painting Escrow Agreement”). The Line Painting Escrow Agreement
 will provide that the City may draw upon the escrow account if the Club fails to
 pay the painting invoices submitted by the City in a timely manner, subject to a
 reasonable cure period not to exceed ten (10) days. If and to the extent applicable,
 on or about January 1 of each subsequent year during the Initial Term, the Club
 shall deposit such additional amounts into the escrow account as are needed to
 bring the balance of the account to $25,000.00. At the end of the Initial Term, and
 after all amounts due and payable to the City under this subsection (b) have been
 paid, the City will return the remaining balance of the escrow account to the Club.

 (6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this subsection (b), but
 otherwise subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, if the term of the
 Agreement is extended beyond the Initial Term, the City will be responsible for all
 Standard Line Painting during such extension at the City’s cost and at times that
 the City reasonably determines such painting is reasonably necessary.

 (7) Paint removal. At any time during the Term, if paint removal is
 included in any Club Line Painting, the Club will be responsible for the cost of any
 such paint removal, and such paint removal will be subject to the procedures and
 payment provisions set forth in subsections 3 and 4 above.

 (8) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City
 retains the right, but not the obligation, to temporarily paint and remove, at its own
 expense, the Portland Public School Department’s Bulldog logo or other markings
 on the New Stadium Turf from time to time.

 d) Exhibit A to the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
 the following:

 EXHIBIT A
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
 Total expected capital expense: $2,500,000 - $3,000,000

 New Artificial Turf Surface At The Stadium
 ● Install new plain green artificial turf surface (~10 year expected life)



 11 of 53

 Page 28
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 ● Repair subsurface and install safety pad underneath (20+ year expected life)
 ● Projected expense range: $650,000 - $700,000
 Site Lighting
 ● Install and upgrade current MUSCO lighting to meet USL specifications
 ● Projected expense range: $325,000 - $600,000
 Press Box
 ● Make cosmetic and operational improvements to Press Box
 ● Likely to include infrastructure to improve broadcast and streaming operations
 ● City will have ability to use on non-gameday
 ● Projected expense range: $140,000 - $170,000
 Team Locker Rooms
 ● Other Stadium users will have ability to use Visitor locker room on non-
 gamedays if not in use by the Club.
 ● Projected expense range, including site work and utilities to enable: $1,150,000 -
 $1,300,000
 Club Storage Area
 ● Club to add storage containers
 ● City to have use of space in containers if available.
 ● Projected expense range: $10,000 - $20,000

 Ticketing Entrance
 ● Club to improve ticketing entrance and Stadium access points, if needed
 ● City will have ability to use on non-gameday
 ● Projected expense range, if needed: $10,000 - $20,000
 Audio System
 ● Club to improve Speaker and Audio system, if needed
 ● City will have ability to use on non-gameday
 ● Projected expense range, if needed: $40,000 - $50,000
 Miscellaneous
 ● New Field Goal Posts
 ● Other Electronics Allowance
 ● Seating upgrades
 ● Site Accessories and Landscaping
 ● Associated design, engineering, utility connection costs
 ● Additional Operational and Fan Experience Elements
 ● City will have ability to use on non-gameday
 ● Projected expense range: $150,000 - $300,000.”

 2. Other Provisions Remain in Full Force and Effect. This Amendment shall modify and amend the
 Existing Agreement to the extent, and only to the extent, expressly set forth herein and all of the
 terms and provisions of the Existing Agreement that are not expressly amended, modified, waived,
 or replaced hereunder shall be unaltered and shall remain in full force and effect. From and after
 the Amendment Date, all references in the Existing Agreement to this “Agreement”, “herein”,
 “hereunder”, and words of like import shall mean and refer to the Existing Agreement as amended
 by this Amendment. Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, capitalized terms used in this
 Amendment have the same meaning that those terms have in the Existing Agreement.




 12 of 53

 Page 29
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 3. Miscellaneous. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
 be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. A
 signed copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, e-mail, or other means of electronic
 transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy
 of this Amendment.




 [Signature page to follow.]




 13 of 53

 Page 30
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment to Stadium
 Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, to be effective as of the
 Amendment Date.


 THE CITY OF PORTLAND

 By:_________________________
 Name: Danielle P. West
 Title: City Manager


 HEARTS OF PINE LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company

 By: Portland United, LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company,
 It’s Sole Member

 By:_________________________________
 Name: Gabe Hoffman-Johnson
 Title: Manager

 Approved as to form:

 _________________________________
 City Corporation Counsel

 Approved as to funds:

 _________________________________
 City Finance Director




 Signature Page to
 First Amendment to Stadium Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium
 14 of 53

 Page 31
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 EXHIBIT A

 Existing Agreement

 [Attached]




 15 of 53

 Page 32
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 16 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 33
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 17 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 34
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 18 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 35
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 19 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 36
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 20 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 37
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 21 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 38
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 22 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 39
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 23 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 40
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 24 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 41
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 25 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 42
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 26 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 43
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 27 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 44
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 28 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 45
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 29 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 46
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 30 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 47
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 31 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 48
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 32 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 49
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 33 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 50
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 34 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 51
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 35 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 52
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 36 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 53
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 37 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 54
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 38 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 55
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 39 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 56
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 40 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 57
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 41 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 58
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 42 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 59
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 43 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 60
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 44 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 61
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 45 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 62
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 46 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 63
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 47 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 64
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 48 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 65
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 49 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru Page 66
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 50 of 53
BlueInk Bundle ID: oF6spXrkru
 Page 67
Docusign Envelope ID: EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 EXHIBIT B

 Assignment Agreement

 [Attached]




 51 of 53

 Page 68
DocuSign Envelope
Docusign Envelope ID:
 ID: 53864528-0B2D-4141-8309-EA5E48C47A94
 EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

 This Assignment and Assumption Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made as of February
 21, 2024, by and among Portland United, LLC, a Maine limited liability company with a mailing
 address of 7 Stratton Place, Portland, Maine 04101 (“Assignor”), and Hearts of Pine LLC, a Maine
 limited liability company with a mailing address of 50 Romasco Lane, Portland, Maine 04101
 (“Assignee”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement will have the meanings
 given to them in the Stadium Use Agreement (as defined below).

 Recitals

 A. Assignor and the City of Portland (the “City”) are parties to that certain Stadium
 Use Agreement for Use and Occupancy of James J. Fitzpatrick Stadium, dated as of December 18,
 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Stadium Use Agreement”).

 B. Pursuant to Section 35 of the Stadium Use Agreement, Assignor is required to
 obtain the City’s written approval in order to assign its interest in the Stadium Use Agreement.

 C. Assignor wishes to transfer, assign, and deliver to Assignee all of Assignor’s right,
 title, and interest in the Stadium Use Agreement, and Assignee wishes to assume all of Assignor’s
 obligations under the Stadium Use Agreement.

 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
 which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 1. Assignor hereby sells, transfers, assigns and delivers to Assignee all of Assignor’s
 right, title, and interest in and to the Stadium Use Agreement.

 2. Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to discharge all of the obligations of Assignor
 under the Stadium Use Agreement from and after the date of this Agreement.

 3. Except for all liabilities and obligations set forth in the Stadium Use Agreement,
 Assignee is not assuming any liability or obligation of Assignor hereunder.

 4. Neither the representations and warranties of Assignor, nor the rights, remedies and
 obligations of any party, under the Stadium Use Agreement shall be deemed to be enlarged,
 limited, modified or altered in any way by this Agreement.

 5. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and
 their respective successors and assigns.

 6. Commencing June 1, 2024, Assignee’s mailing address for any notices provided
 under the Stadium Use Agreement will be 1 Union Wharf, Portland, Maine 04101.

 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
 an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. A signature in
 a pdf or electronic document shall be considered the equivalent of an original signature.

 1
 52 of 53

 Page 69
DocuSign Envelope
Docusign Envelope ID:
 ID: 53864528-0B2D-4141-8309-EA5E48C47A94
 EE65869D-AF5F-420E-9227-DBD000EDFEB5




 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Assignment and Assumption
 Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 ASSIGNOR:

 Portland United, LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company


 By:____________________
 Name: Gabe Hoffman-Johnson
 Title: Manager



 ASSIGNEE:

 Hearts of Pine LLC,
 a Maine limited liability company


 By:____________________
 Name: Gabe Hoffman-Johnson
 Title: Authorized Officer



 Acknowledge and Agreed:

 The City of Portland

 By:___________________
 Name: Danielle P. West
 Title: City Manager

 Approved as to form:

 _____________________
 City Corporation Counsel




 Signature page to Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Stadium Use Agreement – Fitzpatrick Stadium)
 53 of 53

 Page 70
City of Portland | Planning & Urban Development Department
Kevin D. Kraft, AICP Director



Staff Memo To:
Housing & Economic Development Committee
Councilor Pious Ali, Chair




MEETING DATE
May 19, 2026

AGENDA ITEM
Inclusionary Zoning Study Communication

PURPOSE
The purpose of this communication is to share the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Study (Attachment
A), completed by CZB, LLC. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the City’s
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance since its implementation a decade ago. The full report is attached,
with background information and key highlights summarized below.

COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT
This study directly supports the City Council’s 2026 goal (Attachment B) to accelerate housing
production and strengthen affordability protections. As part of this goal, the Council identified
potential updates to the IZ ordinance as a key action, which is also included in the Housing &
Economic Development Committee’s (HEDC) 2026 Work Plan (Attachment C).

Additionally, in its 2025 priorities, the Council highlighted “working to implement solutions to
the housing crisis, including building more working-class housing.” Furthermore, increasing
housing production and promoting housing affordability are central objectives of the City’s
comprehensive plan, Portland’s Plan 2030.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In 2025, the Planning & Urban Development Department received a grant through the State of
Maine’s Housing Opportunity Program to evaluate the City’s Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) ordinance.
The City commissioned an independent study to assess the policy’s effectiveness, including the
number of affordable units produced, its performance over time, and its impact under varying
market conditions.

The City of Portland adopted its IZ ordinance in 2015 (Order 82-15/16), requiring residential
projects with 10 or more dwelling units to either include affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee to
the Jill C. Duson Housing Trust Fund. This policy aimed to leverage the private market to support
affordable housing creation. In 2020, a citizen referendum changed the policy by increasing the
required percentage of affordable units from 10% to 25% and lowering income eligibility
thresholds from 100% to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) for rental units and from 120% to



 1

 Page 71
80% AMI for ownership units. Furthermore, the fee-in-lieu was increased from $100,000 per
unit (adjusted annually) to $150,000 per unit (adjusted annually). The 2026 fee-in-lieu is
$186,087.86 per unit.

Inclusionary Zoning Study
The IZ Study was completed by CZB, LLC. It is based on quantitative analysis of Planning Board
approval records, building permit data, and economic indicators such as land costs, construction
costs, and interest rates, as well as qualitative input from interviews with developers and housing
and policy stakeholders familiar with Portland’s housing framework.

Key Findings
Major findings from the report include:

 ●​ Over the 2015–2025 study period, the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance applied to 58
 projects, resulting in the creation of 161 IZ designated affordable housing units and $3.47
 million in contributions deposited into the Jill C. Duson Housing Trust Fund.

 ●​ During the 2015 – 2020 period (IZ 1.0), 40 projects triggered compliance with IZ.
 o​ 2,065 total units approved | 1,436 total units constructed
 ▪​ 164 IZ units approved | 118 IZ units constructed
 ▪​ $6.07M fee-in-lieu earmarked for Trust Fund | $3.47M fee-in-lieu collected
 for Trust Fund

 ●​ During the (2020- 2025 period (IZ 2.0), 18 projects triggered compliance with IZ
 o​ 1,453 total units approved | 167 total units constructed
 ▪​ 326 IZ units approved | 43 IZ units constructed
 ▪​ $8.40M fee-in-lieu earmarked for Trust Fund | $0 fee-in-lieu collected for
 Trust Fund

 ●​ Overall housing approvals increased over the past five years under IZ 2.0 compared to
 both the prior IZ 1.0 period and the preceding five years. However, the number of projects
 triggering IZ requirements declined by 55%, from 40 projects under IZ 1.0 to 18 under IZ
 2.0.

 ●​ Prevailing market conditions can influence the effectiveness of a policy. IZ 2.0 has
 coincided with challenging development conditions being experienced nationwide,
 including higher borrowing costs, rising interest rates, and increasing costs for
 construction, land, labor, and materials. Together, these pressures impact project
 feasibility and constrain a project’s ability to absorb additional costs, often pushing
 developments toward infeasibility.

 ●​ Projects have increasingly relied on external subsidies or complex, interdependent
 agreements in an effort to make projects financially feasible.




 2

 Page 72
Options for Consideration
The study presents several options for policymakers to consider.

 ●​ Option 1: Maintain Current Requirements. This approach relies on changes in external
 market conditions, such as a drop in interest rates or construction costs, that are beyond
 the municipality’s control. It assumes that the 25% requirement at the 80% AMI threshold
 would eventually become feasible as the broader economy stabilizes, effectively waiting
 for the market to catch up or relying on external subsidies to support projects.

 ●​ Option 2: Recalibrate the Requirement. Rather than relying on market shifts, the City
 could modify the requirement to align with current economic conditions. This would
 involve analyzing what percentage and AMI thresholds may be more likely to generate
 more housing projects.

 ●​ Option 3: Leverage City Assets. The City already leverages opportunities to create
 housing on publicly owned land. Of the 18 affordable housing projects exempt from IZ
 during the IZ 2.0 period, six are associated with the disposition of City-owned land.
 Leveraging publicly owned land allows for greater control over project outcomes and
 affordability levels, and this tool should be utilized whenever practicable. Another
 opportunity is to leverage City funding resources to support the creation of IZ units within
 projects, helping to close funding gaps and provide the subsidy needed to incorporate
 affordable units into market-rate developments.

 ●​ Option 4: Community-Provided Capital. Explore alternative approaches that shift the
 burden from individual projects to the broader community by leveraging opportunities
 created through rising property values and land-value increases.

NEXT STEPS:
No action from the Committee is needed. Any changes to the IZ ordinance would need to be
reviewed and recommended by the Planning Board, with the City Council retaining final
authority to approve and implement any amendments.

FISCAL IMPACT
On April 14, 2025, the City Council unanimously approved the acceptance and appropriation of a
$50,000 grant (8–0; Councilor Fournier absent) from the State of Maine’s Housing Opportunity
Program to support a housing policy evaluation (Order 150-24/25). This grant funding was
supplemented with $15,000 from the Planning & Urban Development Department’s FY26
operating budget for contractual services.

CONCLUSION(S)
This item is for discussion only.

PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW
February 17, 2026 - Housing & Economic Development Committee




 3

 Page 73
PREPARED BY

Kevin Kraft, AICP Nell Donaldson
Director Director of Special Projects
Planning & Urban Development Planning & Urban Development


ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Inclusionary Zoning Study
Attachment B - 2026 City Council Goals
Attachment C - 2026 HEDC Workplan




 4

 Page 74
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 inclusionary
 zoning analysis
 For the City of Portland, Maine




 1
Page 75
FORWARD




 Forward: From the City

 This study was commissioned by the City of Portland, Maine to
 better understand the efficacy of its inclusionary zoning policy.
 It was intended to answer basic questions about the policy – how
 many affordable housing units it has produced, how it has worked
 over time, and how effective it might be under market conditions.
 This type of analysis is essential to good policy-making. It is a
 practice suggested not only as a fundamental goal of the city’s
 comprehensive plan, which encourages the City to identify metrics,
 collect data, and adapt policies, but also during the original inclu-
 sionary zoning adoption process in 2015.


 The inclusionary zoning policy is frequently cited as the primary
 barrier to housing construction in Portland and is commonly raised
 as a locally controlled obstacle. However, it is important to note
 that this study is not the result of preconceived notions about the
 inclusionary zoning policy itself, or of the value of one form of the
 policy over another. The City of Portland has made a fundamental
 commitment to affordable housing going back decades, one that
 is embedded in the City’s long-range planning, land use code,
 and core programs. It is codified in policies like affordable hous-
 ing density and height bonuses, expedited review, and housing
 replacement requirements. The goal of the inclusionary zoning
 study is to provide analytical findings that can help policy-makers
 determine how inclusionary zoning best fits into the City’s array of
 affordable housing policies and programs moving forward.




2
 Page 76
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 2 FORWARD

 PART 1


 5
 What is Inclusionary Zoning?
 Policy Specifics
 Metrics and Methodology
 What Must Be True for Inclusionary Zoning to Work?


 PART 2


11
 Production
 Prevailing Conditions With Which The Current Policy Has Interacted
 Development Activity 2011-2025
 Underlying Mechanics
 It Wasn’t Always This Way


 PART 3
 IZ 2.0


23
 Apples to Apples
 How Market Strength Dictates Everything
 Fixed Weight of IZ
 Large Projects Can Have Outsize Impacts
 Complex Projects Can Tell Multiple Stories at Once




39 PART 4
 Going Forward




 3
 Page 77
PART 1 | This is the subhead typeface at 18pt




4
 Page 78
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Part 1




 5
 Page 79
PART 1 | What is Inclusionary Zoning?




 What is Inclusionary Zoning? Policy Specifics

 The current policy (referred to in this study as IZ 2.0), has been in place since
 Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is a policy tool that conditions market-rate
 passage by referendum in late 2020. It requires that either 25% of all housing
 development permissions on affordable housing contributions. It has
 units built in projects with ten or more units be affordable to households at 80%
 two primary aims and two working assumptions. The goals of an
 of the area median income (AMI), or, in lieu of meeting that requirement on site,
 inclusionary policy are:
 a fee of $182,000 ($150,000 in 2020, adjusted annually) per inclusionary unit be
 paid into the city’s housing trust fund.1 This is a change from the city’s original
 policy, adopted in 2015 (IZ 1.0), which required that 10% of all housing units built
 in projects with ten or more units be affordable to households at 100% AMI for




 1 2
 rentals or 120% for ownership units, or, in lieu of meeting that requirement on
 To obtain either To ensure future site, a base fee of $100,000 per inclusionary unit (adjusted annually) be paid into
 affordable housing development is the city’s housing trust fund.2
 units or a cash integrated
 equivalency

 Portland’s IZ 1.0 Portland’s IZ 2.0
 ADOPTED IN 2015 ADOPTED IN 2020
 IZ policies are built on the expectation that the cost of compliance
 - that is, the cost of delivering affordable housing that by definition DEVELOPMENT INCOME DEVELOPMENT INCOME
 cannot be paid for by the rents (or sales prices) received for those THRESHOLD TARGET THRESHOLD TARGET


 10 10 80%
 units - can and will be internally subsidized, and (but) that if such
 internal ‘cross subsidy’ can’t be feasibly generated, third-party gap 100%/120%
 UNITS AREA MEDIAN INCOME UNITS AREA MEDIAN INCOME
 financing will have to be found, or else the project will collapse.


 PROPORTIONAL PAYMENT PROPORTIONAL PAYMENT
 REQUIREMENT IN-LIEU REQUIREMENT IN-LIEU

 $100,000 $150,000
 10% PER UNIT 25% PER UNIT




6
 Page 80
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Snapshot Comparison, IZ 1.0 vs IZ 2.0 Policies


 2016-2020 Policy (IZ 1.0) 2021-2025 Policy (IZ 2.0)

 Total Project Size (Illustration) Units 100 Total Project Size (Illustration) Units 100


 Inclusionary Requirement 10% 10 Inclusionary Requirement 25% 25


 $100,000 (base) $150,000 (base)
 Fee in Lieu/IZ Unit Fee in Lieu/IZ Unit
 $108,786 (2020 adjusted $182,830 (2025 adjusted)


 Fee in Lieu/IZ Project $1,000,000 Fee in Lieu/IZ Project $4,550,000


 Effective Regulatory Cost/All Units $10,000 Effective Regulatory Cost/All Units $45,500


 Effective Regulatory Cost/Market Units $11,111 Effective Regulatory Cost/Market Units $60,667


 Income for IZ Units (AMI) Rental ≥ 100% Income for IZ Units (AMI) Rental ≥ 80%


 Income for IZ Units (AMI) Ownership ≥ 120% Income for IZ Units (AMI) Ownership ≥ 80%




 EFFECTIVE COST ON ALL UNITS EFFECTIVE COST ON ALL UNITS
 IN COMPLIANT DEVELOPMENTS IN COMPLIANT DEVELOPMENTS




 $10,000 $45,500

1
 Historically, off-site units were permitted, and flexibility has been granted for master planned and phased developments. This flexibility has allowed a multi-phased project comprised of multiple addresses to
‘send’ its affordable inclusionary zoning units from one address within the development to another ‘receiving’ address, thereby satisfying the policy to the letter of percentages, but not the spirit of inclusion.

2
 There are times when it will make more financial sense for a non-exempt, market rate housing development to comply with the requirement on site than to pay the fee in lieu of doing so. This will be the
case when to comply inclusively, that is, to deliver and then responsibly own and manage deed-restricted, affordable units on site, within the same project, is less costly than to pay the in-lieu fee, and vice
versa. The minimum cost of complying with the current requirement therefore, is $182,000 per inclusionary unit. This works out to approximately $45,500 in additional costs on a per-unit basis.




 7
 Page 81
PART 1 | Metrics and Methodology




 This study is the result of a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods
 used to arrive at conclusions regarding the effects of the city’s inclusionary zoning

 Metrics and Methodology policy. Qualitative methods included interviews with stakeholders familiar with the
 development framework in Portland

 There are two main benchmarks for determining if an Inclusionary
 Zoning (IZ) policy is working: outputs and elasticity. 1. Inventory: Analyzed 188 projects3 that received site plan approval from
 2010–2025, categorizing projects as exempt (i.e. otherwise deed-restricted
 affordable housing projects or market rate projects <10 units) or non-
 exempt




 1 Outputs


 Raw: The count of affordable
 2 Elasticity


 The policy’s impact on total
 2. Project Lifecycle: Tracked each project from approval to final disposition
 (Under Construction, Completed, or Expired) to determine the typical
 duration from entitlement to delivery.

 3. Modeling: Established a year-by-year baseline (2010–2025) of the
 units or fee-in-lieu revenue housing volume. Because the
 economic conditions shaping development.
 produced by the inclusionary current IZ policy relies on
 zoning requirement. For market-rate development to • Supply: Land prices, density configurations, construction methods,
 some, any number above zero cross-subsidize affordable labor/material costs, soft costs (planning and design, marketing) and
 means success. For others, units, policy success depends infrastructure expenses (per acre, per unit).
 this output lacks meaning on market rate production.
 • Constraints: Interest rates, inflation, tax credit pricing, Loan-to-Value
 until weighed against the
 (LTV) ratios, and required Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
 costs of unit or fee generation
 and the opportunity costs of • Demand: Household incomes and corresponding affordability
 creating them. thresholds.


 Qualitative: The subset of 4. Policy Context: Reverse-engineered models to understand development
 metrics defining the “how” margins across three distinct eras: the Post-2008 Recovery, Pre-COVID
 and “where” of IZ units Stability, and the Post-COVID period, as situated in three also distinct
 and fees including physical inclusionary zoning policy periods: 2010-2015 (pre-IZ), 2016-2020 (IZ
 on-site integration, unit size/ 1.0), and 2021-2025 (IZ 2.0)
 configuration, and the efficacy
 3
 This includes all projects that received minor (administrative) or major (Planning Board) site plan ap-
 of Housing Trust Fund expen- proval with three or more units between 2010 and 2025. Projects only subject to subdivision review are not
 ditures. included in this analysis.




8
 Page 82
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




What Must Be True for Inclusionary Zoning to Work?

When inclusionary policies work well - that is, when
the policy is causing the delivery of an otherwise
unattainable volume of affordable housing units,
and causing those units to be delivered in an inclu-
sive manner - the expense of doing so (complying)
 1 For an inclusionary policy to work, the
 requirement cannot be so significant
 that it exceeds a project’s capacity to
is either paid for by the revenue the project gener- offset policy impacts - costs - through
ates, a process known as cross-subsidizing, or by adjustments to project density, unit
external subsidy, or by a marriage of the two. size, quality, location, timing, project
 design, and other variables
The gap between the cost to deliver and responsibly manage housing
and the ability of a project to cover those costs is driven by dozens of




 2
variables—some within a developer’s control, such as unit size, and
others not, like interest rates. Because these factors are dynamically When these adjustments prove
linked, “effective or ineffective” categorizations of inclusionary insufficient, there must be a third-
zoning rarely paint a complete or accurate picture. party subsidy that is sufficient enough
 to balance the books. When these
The true measure of inclusionary zoning starts with a clear under- conditions are not met, development
standing of a community’s goals, identification of the specific condi-
 tends not to proceed.
tions required for success, a determination of when those conditions
have or have not been present, and, most importantly, the resulting
rate at which approved projects actually get built.




 9
 Page 83
PART 1 | This is the subhead typeface at 18pt




10
 Page 84
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Part 2




 11
  Page 85
 PART 2 | What Has IZ Produced In Terms of Affordable Units?




 What Has IZ Produced In Terms of Affordable Units?
 Over the course of its ten-year history (2015-2025), the City of Portland’s
 inclusionary zoning ordinance has applied to 58 “inclusionary zoning In terms of pipeline, there are 250 IZ units approved but not yet under
 projects,” thus far producing 161 affordable housing units. In addition, construction, and $6.5 million in fee-in-lieu contributions in the approved
 $3.47 million has been contributed to the Jill C. Duson Housing Trust but not yet under-construction category. A total of 71 IZ units and $3.9 million
 Fund through in-lieu fee contributions. At the current time, another eight in contributions are in projects that have either expired or been cancelled.
 affordable units are under construction, to go along with an additional
 $577,067 in pending fee-in-lieu payments.


 Looking just at these IZ units and fees, there are clear trends in terms APPROVED IZ 1.0 PROJECTS
 of how and where units are built. The vast majority of constructed and
 in-construction IZ units (88%) are integrated within mixed-income build- 2015-2020 40 PROJECTS
 ings.
 2,065 TOTAL UNITS

 These units are generally clustered in downtown, the West End, Bayside, 1,901 MARKET RATE UNITS

 India Street, and Munjoy Hill. Most of the constructed and in-construction Over the IZ 1.0 period, 40 projects
 164 IZ UNITS
 triggered compliance with the IZ policy,
 IZ units are rental units (95%), and these units come in a range of sizes,
 resulting in 2,065 total approved units, 29 • OFF-SITE
 though they generally trend small (85% one-bedroom or studio). of which 164 were designated as IZ units
 135 • ON-SITE
 to meet the requirement. Of the projects
 On the fee side, since IZ contributions aren’t technically “earmarked,” that triggered compliance, 19 opted to $6,068,995 FEE-IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS

 pay the fee-in-lieu, while 21 elected to
 there is no way to definitively say which City-subsidized affordable
 construct the required IZ units either
 projects they have, in turn, helped come to fruition, but over the life of the COMPLETED IZ 1.0 PROJECTS
 on-site or off-site.
 policy the City has supported numerous affordable projects through trust
 fund contributions, including $2.5 million to Lambert Woods North and 26 PROJECTS

 South, for example, in 2025 alone. 1,436 TOTAL UNITS

 1,306 MARKET RATE UNITS

 118 IZ UNITS

 16 • OFF-SITE

 102 • ON-SITE

 $3,467,237 FEE-IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS


12
 Page 86
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 2021-2025 APPROVED IZ 2.0 PROJECTS

 18 PROJECTS

 1,453 TOTAL UNITS

Over the IZ 2.0 period, 18 projects triggered compliance with 1,155 MARKET RATE UNITS
the IZ policy, resulting in 1,453 total units, of which 326
 326 IZ UNITS
were designated as IZ units to meet the requirement. Of the
projects that triggered compliance, 5 opted to pay the fee- 67 • OFF-SITE

in-lieu, while 13 elected to construct the required IZ units 259 • ON-SITE

either on-site or off-site. $8,398,276 FEE-IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS



 COMPLETED IZ 2.0 PROJECTS

 3 PROJECTS

 167 TOTAL UNITS

 124 MARKET RATE UNITS There was a 55% percent
 43 IZ UNITS reduction in projects that
 triggered compliance with
 0 • OFF-SITE
 IZ between IZ 1.0 and IZ 2.0.
 43 • ON-SITE

 $0 FEE-IN-LIEU CONTRIBUTIONS




 13
 Page 87
 PART 2 | Prevailing Conditions With Which The Current Policy Has Interacted




 Prevailing Conditions With Which The Current Policy Has Interacted

 2016-2020
 Mortgage rates for the five year period from 2016-2020 averaged $100,000 over 30 years starting in 2021 was to incur a monthly Borrowing Costs
 3.85% down from an five year average of 4.02% the previous five obligation of $419. To borrow the same amount at 2025 rates is to
 years. Notably, borrowing costs fell by 31% from 2018 to 2020, so have a monthly payment of $612.
 by the end of the five year period, two important factors were con-
 2016- 3.85%
 verging: demand to live in Portland was steadily increasing, creating Since development is realized by borrowing the money to buy and
 2020
 a bankable market to build for and borrowing costs were falling, hold land, to design a project, and construct units, increases of this
 making development costs/unit more workable. magnitude have the downstream effect of raising the cost of devel-
 2020- 3.03%
 opment considerably.
 2021
 During this period land prices per acre averaged nearly $800,000,
 fully twice the average the previous five years. All else being equal, Meanwhile, construction costs per square foot rose from $248/SF
 a project in this period had to be twice as dense to keep land costs/ in 2021 to $392/SF in 2025. To have constructed 1,000 SF in 2021 2022-2025
 unit constant. would cost $248,000. That same $248,000 in 2025 was enough to
 purchase just 632 SF.
 6.22%
 Meanwhile construction costs in this five year period were 33%
 higher than in the previous five years. Buying and holding land has become more costly over the last five
 years as well, and now averages nearly $2M/acre. Cost of Land

 2021-Present
 The average mortgage rate during the two year period 2020-2021
 2020 $502,040
 was 3.03 percent. By contrast, the average rate during the period
 2022-2025 was 6.22 percent. As the era under the previous policy 2021 $712,202
 (IZ 1.0) was concluding and the era under the new policy (IZ 2.0)
 was beginning, the cost of borrowing was about to increase sig- 2022 $858,651
 nificantly. To have borrowed $100,000 in 2021 was to have had
 45% more borrowing power than today. In other words, to repay
 2022-2025
 $981,488 / acre
14
 Page 88
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 400,000

 Development Conditions / Environment PRE IZ 1.0 TO 2.0


 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-
 300,000

 Required Inclusionary Units NA 10% 25%
 $
 Required Affordability for Inclusionary Units NA 100% AMI 80% AMI
 Max Affordability for
 100% Median Income HH
 In Lieu Fee Option/Inclusionary Unit NA $100,000 $182,000
 200,000
 IZ EXACTION
 Net Effective Not-Less-Than Cost of Compliance with Inclusionary Policy NA $10,000 $45,500
 AVG FINANCING
 Average Interest Rates 4.02% 3.85% 5.57% 44.7%
 Average Construction Costs/SqFt $159 $213 $322 51.2%
 AVG CONSTRUCTION 100,000
 Average Land Price/Acre $393,317
 COSTS $783,055 $981,488 25.3%
 Est. Total Break Even Development Cost/500 SqFt Unit @ 30 dwelling units per acre (excl. IZ) $135,560 $188,637 $293,975 55.8%
 Est. Break-Even Rent/500 SqFt Unit @ 30 dwelling units per acre (excl IZ) $1,040 $1,410 $2,753 95.2%
 AVE LAND PRICE
 0
 Est. Break-Even Rent/500 SqFt Unit @ 30 dwelling units per acre (including IZ requirement) $1,040 $1,498 $3,113 107.8%
 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2019/2020 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 2024/2025
 Monthly Rent Increase Needed Break-Even to Cross Subsidize Inclusionary Units NA $88 $360 309.1%
 Est. IZ Household Income Matched to 500 SqFt Unit Living Space (5 year avg.) NA $61,840 $77,950 26.1%
 Maximum Affordable Rent for Households/IZ Unit NA $1,701 $2,144
 Est. 5-year Average Margin/Mo Per Unit NA $203 -$969




 Pre IZ (2011-2015) IZ 1.0 (2016-2020) IZ 2.0 (2021-2025)



$1,000,000 $340 6.0% $300,000



 MAX SUPPORTABLE TDC/IZ INCOME




 $750,000 $255 4.5% $225,000


 $981,488 MAX SUPPORTABLE TDC/IZ INCOME $293,975
 5.57%
 $500,000 $170 $322 3.0% $150,000

 $783,055 $188,637

 $213 3.85%
 $250,000 $85 1.5% $75,000
 $393,317 $159 4.02% $135,560



 $0 $0 0.0% $0


 Land Sales Price AVG/Acre Construction Costs/SqFt AVG Interest Rate AVG Estimated average break-even total development cost for
 a 500-square-foot residential unit (excluding common areas),
 based on a density of 30 dwelling units per acre.

 15
 Page 89
PART 2 | Development Activity 2011-2025




 Development Activity 2011-2025
 This analysis is partly based on a reconstruction of 15 years of Port-
 land’s housing development activity.
 When an approved project is completed and receives
 a certificate of occupancy, it has converted from an
 Tracking the life of 7,610 units across three distinct regulatory eras
 approved project to a completed project placed into
 shows robust housing approvals overall. In the five-year Pre-IZ
 service. The rate of conversion is the number of projects
 period, 51 projects totaling 1,873 units were approved. 82 projects
 completed and placed into service, divided by the number
 totaling 2,820 units were approved during IZ 1.0 and 55 projects
 of approved projects for a given period. For example, if
 totaling 2,917 units were approved during IZ 2.0.4
 two projects were completed of five approved during a
 given period, the conversation rate equal two divided by
 However, over this same period, there is evidence of falling conver-
 five, or 2/5, or 40%
 sion rates of projects moving from approval to completion. Approval
 volume has remained robust, but the delivery of actual housing has
 dropped from an average of greater than 80% from 2011-2020 to
 under 10% over the last five years.


 City data shows that Portland’s housing pipeline has bottlenecked.
 While projects continue to receive approval, they are taking longer to
 break ground, longer to reach completion, and are expiring at higher
 rates than in years past.


 There is also a trend towards fewer, larger projects with smaller
 units, a growing need for external subsidy, and off-site, often
 complex and costly arrangements being made to satisfy inclusionary
 zoning requirements. In addition, there was a 55% decline in proj-
 ects triggering compliance with inclusionary zoning from the first
 policy (1.0) to the current policy (2.0).


 4
 This number includes some approvals that were subject to 10% IZ or in the case of Thompson’s
 Point, no IZ requirement).




16
 Page 90
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 Year Over Year Conversion Rate and Feasibility Margin Conversion Rate
 Gap Between Break Even Rent/Mo and
 Max Affordable Rent/Mo for Households
 at 80% Area Median Income



 100.000% $1,800


 $1,350




Completions/Approvals
 75.000%




 Monthly Cost Gap EST
 $900
 50.000%
 $450


 25.000%
 $0




 0.000% $-450




 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025




 Based on CZB reviews of City of Portland Project Data 2009-2026




 B/E = Estimated break/even rent needed for project viability. In this chart, the difference between each year’s estimated break even rent/mo and the rent affordable to a 2 person household at
 80% AMI (area median income). See Y2 axis. Concurrently, the rate at which projects were converting from approved to complete is shown on the Y1 axis.




 17
 Page 91
PART 2 | Underlying Mechanics




 Underlying Mechanics
 The underlying mechanics of feasibility explain what has been hap- • As Portland’s desirability has grown, land costs have risen. While
 pening. Development is not a linear process. It is a margin-driven increased density can mitigate these costs, it is often insufficient
 system in which small shifts in cost or revenue determine whether in cities where land costs, while high, are, paradoxically, not high
 a project moves forward as planned, moves forward though more enough, thus creating further upward pressure on market-rate
 slowly, stalls for a period then restarts, or fails altogether. rents.

 • Costs are compounded by building codes (HVAC, fire safety,
 When feasibility margins are positive - that is when the rents or
 efficiency standards), administrative delays, and regulatory
 sales prices obtained are greater than the rents or sales prices that
 requirements.
 need to be charged - developers have room to absorb regulatory
 burdens, market fluctuations, and financing uncertainties. When • For example, during the period 2011-2021, local incomes rose
 margins turn negative, even temporarily, projects become fragile, 30.6%, but development costs increased 3.52 times that amount.
 delays become costly, and the likelihood of completion diminishes. Income growth throughout the last 20 years, regardless of the
 When negative margins become sizable and persistent, the rate at period chosen within the last two decades to analyze, has not
 which approvals convert to construction and completion declines. kept pace with the cost of building.
 Increasingly negative margins in Portland have been driven by four
 converging factors: inflation, land appreciation, regulatory costs, While the current falloff in actual production (approvals converted
 and income gaps. to units) coincides with worsening market conditions that cities
 nationwide have contended with over the last five years - specifi-
 • Rising costs for labor, materials, and interest rates increase per- cally interest rates and construction costs - analysis shows that the
 unit expenses. While developers typically offset these through current inclusionary requirement has functioned as a marginal cost
 smaller units or higher rents, inclusionary zoning restricts rent that works to push projects from narrowly feasible to more than
 revenue, forcing unit sizes down and quality lower. If the market narrowly infeasible.
 cannot absorb the necessary rent hikes to cover the gap, projects
 stall.




18
 Page 92
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Break Even Rent and Maximum Affordable Rent at 80% AMI Break Even Rent/Mo (500+ Common)
(2011-2025) with Interest Rate Fluctuations 80% Area Median Income Max Affordable Rent
 Mortgage Rate




7.00% 4,000



5.25% 3,000



3.50% 2,000



1.75% 1,000



0.00% 0
 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

 Based on CZB estimates of break even development costs (sources MLS, RS Means, CoStar)




 19
 Page 93
PART 2 | It Wasn’t Always This Way




 It Wasn’t Always This Way
 In the Pre-IZ era analyzed for this project (2010-2015), the market Today, IZ 2.0’s $45,500/unit burden ($182,000/IZ unit in-lieu
 operated in relative balance. Only three projects approved during spread across all units at a 25% requirement) has reduced whatever
 this period expired and 94% of projects were eventually completed. slack remains.


 Under the 10% requirement of IZ 1.0 (2016-2020), the conversion The average break-even rent that needed to be charged over the last
 rate remained resilient, ultimately delivering 2,102 units. This was five years to cover the costs of putting a 500 square foot apartment
 because the not-less-than $10,000 compliance cost/unit ($100,000/ into service had risen to an estimated $2,753/mo exclusive of the
 IZ unit in- lieu spread across all units at a 10% requirement) still costs of complying with the current inclusionary policy. Portland
 left enough “slack” in the project to absorb the combination of not being a market that will bear this cost - $5.50/SF - the only
 market shifts (interest rate changes, rising construction costs, way to absorb the cost of the inclusionary requirement is to shrink
 rising land costs) in relation to purchasing power (incomes). The units to the 250-350 square foot range. It is worth reiterating here
 lost revenue and diminished long-term market value of every one that all models for this report were calculated on a break-even only
 deed-restricted unit affordable to a household at 100% AMI needed basis. That is all numbers referenced are based on a zero-profit/fee
 to be offset by the revenue and long-term value of nine other assumption.
 non-deed-restricted units.


 In IZ 2.0, three market-rate units have to subsidize one inclusionary
 unit, and the inclusionary unit needs to be affordable to a household
 at 80% AMI. Further, projects need to meet these terms both when
 market conditions are not favorable and when incomes, while rising,
 are not rising fast enough.




20
 Page 94
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 Non Exempt (10+) Units Year Over Year and Cumulative Approval/Completion Accumulated Backlog
 Units Approved (Market Rate 10+)
 Units Completed (Market Rate 10+)


 1,100 2,500




INCREASES HOUSING PIPELINE SIZE
 825 1,875



 550 1,250



 275 625



 0 0
 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026



 Exempt (Affordable, Not IZ) Units Year Over Year and Cumulative Approval/Completion Accumulated Backlog
 Units Approved (Affordable Non IZ)
 Units Completed (Affordable Non IZ)




REDUCES HOUSING PIPELINE SIZE
 1,100 2,500



 825 1,875



 550 1,250



 275 625



 0 0
 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026




 21
 Page 95
PART 1 | This is the subhead typeface at 18pt




22
 Page 96
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Part 3




 23
  Page 97
PART 3 | IZ 2.0




 IZ 2.0
 More housing has been approved in the last five years (under IZ 2.0)
 than either the five years prior under the first policy (IZ 1.0) or the
 five years before that. However, there was a 55% decline in projects
 triggering IZ compliance, decreasing from 40 projects under IZ 1.0 to
 18 projects under IZ 2.0.


 Emphasizing the volume of approvals but not the rate at which those
 approvals are turned into constructed housing implies a flow of
 production that is not actually occurring, however. This is notewor-
 thy first because an approval is a statement of potential and not a
 guarantee of production.


 Second and conversely, just because an approval has not progressed
 to completion does not mean it won’t. Moreover, and deserving
 special note, because developers with access to flexible equity and
 strong balance sheets have the ability to wait things out, it is not
 impossible that some projects that have not progressed may have,
 or now be “stalled” not because of prohibitive market conditions,
 or because of the city’s inclusionary policy, but because of developer
 decisions to pause and wait.




24
 Page 98
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




2,820 units approved during IZ 1.0




2,917 units approved during IZ 2.0




 25
 Page 99
 PART 3 | Apples to Apples




 Apples to Apples
 This report evaluated data through the end of February 2026. Any
 activity since has not been taken into consideration. There are many
 ways to approach a large data set such as the lifespans of 188 proj-
 ects approved since 2009.


 The primary window used for this analysis was to break the span
 into three equal five year blocks of time, as noted throughout -
 2011-2015, 2016-2020, and 2021-2025. Each block is a period in
 which new approvals are granted and season, and entitlements JAN 1, 2016-FEB 28, 2021 JAN 1, 2021-FEB 28, 2026
 from previous years mature. But by reviewing project activity only




 62
 through these convenient 60 month windows, activities occurring
 in January and February 2026 would be missed. For those reasons
 after months
 analysis also looked at mirroring 62 month periods - IZ 1.0 spanning
 January 1, 2016-February 28, 2021, and IZ 2.0 spanning January 1,
 BETTER MARKET WORSE MARKET
 2021-February 28, 2026. CONDITIONS CONDITIONS


 At the same 62 month mark, both the IZ 1.0 and current IZ 2.0
 periods have similar rates of units in projects not yet started, 73.1%
 and 69.2% respectively. But, also at the 62 month mark, the current
 17.8% 8.6%
 CONVERSION RATE CONVERSION RATE
 25% IZ policy has co-mingled with worse market conditions to
 deliver a conversion rate of 8.6% (251/2,917), whereas the previous
 10% policy mixed with better market conditions to deliver a conver-
 sation rate of 17.8% (501/2,820).




26
 Page 100
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Where the two periods most dramatically diverge is the sheer volume
of ‘Not Yet Started’ inventory. Under IZ 1.0, 77.6% of units pending at
month 62 eventually reached the finish line. For IZ 2.0 to achieve that
same ultimate rate of production, 95.2% of the currently stalled 2,020
units would have to convert—and they would have to do so under far
more restrictive financing and regulatory conditions than existed during
the previous decade.


In other words, under far more favorable conditions, and a far less
costly inclusionary policy than exists today, the previous era converted
77.6% of its not-yet-started-by-month-62 units. To reach the same
production rate, 95.2% of today’s not-yet-started IZ 2.0 units would JAN 1, 2016-FEB 28, 2021 JAN 1, 2021-FEB 28, 2026

have to convert and do so under far worse conditions.


 after
 62 months




 77.6%
 95.2%
 OF NOT YET STARTED PROJECTS

 CONVERSION RATE WILL NEED TO CONVERT UNDER
 WORSE MARKET CONDITIONS




 27
 Page 101
PART 3 | Apples to Apples Detailed Comparison




 Apples to Apples Detailed Comparison
 IZ 1.0 MARKET RATE, AFFORDABLE, CONSTRUCTED, AND EXPIRED



 MARKET RATE (76%) TOTAL APPROVALS AFFORDABLE (24%)


 2,137 2,820 683

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS IZ 1.0 PROJECTS
 2,065 $6,068,995 164


 82 PROJECTS

 MARKET RATE (72%) TOTAL COMPLETIONS AFFORDABLE (28%) 40 IZ PROJECTS

 1,510 2,102 592 29 < 10 UNIT OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT PROJECTS

 13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDIZED PROJECTS

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS

 1,436 $3,467,237 118




 MARKET RATE (89%) PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AFFORDABLE (11%) MARKET RATE (82%) CANCELED/EXPIRED AFFORDABLE (18%)


 74 83 9 119 174 55
 217

 TOTAL UNITS IN TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS IZ PROJECTS

 75 $0 8 93 $571,835 4




 MARKET RATE (94%) NOT YET STARTED AFFORDABLE (6%)


 434 461 27

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS

 461 $2,029,923 34




28
 Page 102
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




 IZ 2.0 MARKET RATE, AFFORDABLE, CONSTRUCTED, AND EXPIRED




MARKET RATE (53%) TOTAL APPROVALS AFFORDABLE (47%)


 1,549 2,917 1,368

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS IZ 2.0 PROJECTS
 1,453 $8,398,276 326


 55 PROJECTS

MARKET RATE (58%) TOTAL COMPLETIONS AFFORDABLE (42%) 18 IZ PROJECTS

 145 251 106 19 < 10 UNIT OR OTHERWISE EXEMPT PROJECTS

 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDIZED PROJECTS

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS

 167 $0 43




MARKET RATE (35%) PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AFFORDABLE (65%) MARKET RATE (81%) CANCELED/EXPIRED AFFORDABLE (19%)


 296 840 544 291 358 67

 TOTAL UNITS IN TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS IZ PROJECTS

 13 $577,067 0 324 $3,365,995 67




MARKET RATE (56%) NOT YET STARTED AFFORDABLE (44%)


 817 1,468 651

 TOTAL UNITS IN
 IN LIEU FEES IZ UNITS
 IZ PROJECTS

 949 $4,455,214 216




 29
 Page 103
 PART 3 | How Market Strength Dictates Everything




 How Market Strength Dictates Everything
 While there may be a tendency to compare local policy solutions This is crucial because Portland and Boston have similar construc-
 to those in markets like Boston or San Francisco, this approach tion labor and material cost variables (Boston’s is about 21% higher),
 overlooks a fundamental economic reality. While Portland is itself but Boston has market strength to absorb those costs that Portland
 a strong market, it lacks the sheer volume of high-income house- lacks.
 holds found in larger metropolitan areas. In those cities, a vast
 pool of renters and buyers can absorb the premium rents or sales Portland’s lower land costs cannot bridge the gap created by high
 prices necessary to generate the internal subsidy required to carry regional construction and financing expenses. In high-cost markets,
 a 25% inclusionary load. Portland’s market does not have the same land typically represents only 15% of a budget; the remaining 85% is
 height. Without that specific density of high-earning households dictated by labor and material costs. While Portland’s land is cheaper
 to cross-subsidize the cost of deed-restricted units, the financial than Boston’s, its revenue potential is 40% lower, making it impos-
 burden of the requirement quickly outpaces the revenue potential sible to cross-subsidize high regulatory exactions.
 of the market-rate units.
 Density provides economies of scale, but it cannot fix a market
 In Boston, more than 18,000 units renting above $4,000/mo, and where construction costs ($350–$400/SF) consistently exceed the
 an estimated more than 8,400 units renting above the estimated IZ capitalized value of the resulting rents.
 break-even rate of $4,400/mo reflects the fact that Boston has a far
 higher number and percentage of households than does Portland
 with the incomes needed to pay rents high enough to cross subsidize
 rent losses from inclusionary units.


 More specifically, whereas an estimated 1.1% of Portland’s mul-
 tifamily inventory obtains rents at the level needed to be feasible
 under the combination of current market conditions and the present
 requirement, in Boston’s case it’s 8.65%, or 7.8 times as large.




 As of late 2024 and through 2026, the City of Boston’s Inclusionary Development Policy (IDP), now codified as Article 79 of the Zoning Code, has moved beyond previous 13% baseline.
 The precise requirements depend on the project’s size and whether it is rental or homeownership. The policy now applies to all residential projects of 7 or more units (down from the previous 10-unit threshold). For rental developments, the re-
 quirement is a tiered percentage based on project size: Small Projects (7–25 units): 17% of units/square footage must be income-restricted at an average of 60% AMI. Large Projects (26+ units): 20% total. This is typically structured as: 17% at an
 average of 60% AMI. 3% set aside specifically for households with mobile housing vouchers. Alternative for Large Projects: Developers can opt for 18% total if they deepen the affordability to an average of 50% AMI (plus the 3% voucher set-aside).
 For condo/ownership developments, the requirement is also scaled: Small Projects (7–25 units): 17% of units/square footage at an average of 90% AMI (units split between 80% and 100% AMI). Large Projects (26+ units): 20% of units/square
 footage at an average of 90% AMI. If not building on-site, the “cash-out” formula is now tied to geographic zones: Zone A (High value): $380,000 per unit or $675/sq ft. Zone B (Medium value): $300,000 per unit or $460/sq ft. Zone C (Low value):
 $200,000 per unit or $365/sq ft.


30
 Page 104
 Inclusionary Zoning
 Inclusionary
 Analysis
 Zoning
 for the
 Analysis
 City of
 for the
 Portland,
 City of
 Maine | czb
 Portland, LLC
 Maine




Portland Lacks the Revenue “Slack” to Cross-Subsidize Inclusionary Zoning Portland
 Boston


 8,250
 8,000
 7,750
 7,500
 7,250
 7,000
 6,750
 6,500
 6,250
 6,000
 5,750
 5,500
 5,250
 5,000
 4,750

 Rent/Mo
 4,500
 4,250
 4,000
 3,750
 3,500
 3,250
 3,000
 2,750
 2,500
 2,250
 2,000
 1,750
 1,500
 1,250
 1,000
 750
 500
 250
 0.00% 7.50% 15.00% 22.50% 30.0%

 Distribution of Households Paying How Much/Mo for Rent in Portland (Blue) and Boston (Green)




 31
 Page 105
 PART 3 | Fixed Weight of IZ




 Fixed Weight of IZ
 Housing production relies on mobile private equity that requires significantly less pressure on rental units from high earners priced
 a competitive internal rate of return. This return depends on two out of homeownership.
 inputs—cash flow and future sale value—both of which are reduced
 by regulatory requirements such as inclusionary zoning.5 When this
 investment capital disappears, bank debt cannot be secured, and the Large Projects Can Have Outsize Impacts
 project simply does not happen. Fewer projects ultimately lead to a
 smaller overall pool of housing, which paradoxically results in fewer
 Because Portland is a relatively small market, its data
 affordable units being built. The current inclusionary zoning re-
 can also be easily distorted; a single outlier project
 quirement imposes an additional $300 to $500 per month in rent on
 succeeding or failing can mask the broader reality facing
 market-rate units just to reach a break-even point. While a city like
 most developments.
 Boston might have a rent ceiling of $5,000 to absorb such a burden,
 Portland’s market effectively collapses at $3,000. With a correlation
 between the policy and rising costs at 0.913, the requirement acts
 as an immovable weight that closes the narrow window of project During IZ 1.0, the 2,820 units that were approved were spread across
 feasibility. 82 projects, with the gross average project size being 34 units.
 During IZ 2.0, 2,917 approved units are contained in 55 projects,
 A comparison with Boston further illustrates why Portland cannot with an average size of 53 units. While a valuable metric is a
 easily absorb these costs. In Boston, households earning over housing “unit”, units do not stall or get into the end zone as units,
 $150,000 face a high home-price-to-income ratio of 8:1, with less “projects” do.
 than 2% of for-sale inventory being affordable to them. This creates
 sustained demand for luxury rentals even at rates above $4,000. In The statistical narrative of Portland’s development landscape is
 contrast, Portland households earning $100,000—the benchmark often skewed by individual, high-impact projects that do not reflect
 needed to support impacted rents—find nearly 19% of the city’s broader market realities. A single sizable development swinging in
 for-sale inventory within their price range. This means Portland has either direction can fundamentally alter the data, creating a “story”




 5
 It is beyond the scope of this project to evaluate the impacts of Portland’s rent control policy. But any policy that curtails future value/unit will invariably impact internal rate of return, and
 since the city’s IZ policy will interact not only with market conditions but other regulatory requirements, the city is encouraged to evaluate the relationship between IZ and rent control.




32
 Page 106
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




for a given period that is defined more by atypical developments all incurred costs eventually be settled. Ultimately, subsidized de-
than by systemic trends. These outliers are frequently characterized velopments fail to represent the scalable, market-driven production
by unique metrics or complex financial structures that differentiate necessary for inclusionary zoning policies to be effective, as their
them from the standard local pipeline. success is based on external variables with no predictive quality for
 the wider industry.
The Bayside Master Development Plan serves as a prime example,
relying as it does on a patchwork quilt of external subsidies ranging
from one-off ARPA funds to highly competitive Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). While these projects are vital to the
city’s housing goals, they are poor indicators of the private market’s
functional health. Because their viability is tethered to contingent,
application-dependent equity, their success provides no evidence
that non-subsidized projects can operate under the existing regu-
latory conditions. In fact, such projects, and the inclusion of such
subsidies in non-exempt projects is a de facto admission that they
would be financially infeasible without enhancement.


To this point, the presence of tax credit projects reveals little about
the market beyond the obvious gap between construction costs and
what low-to-moderate-income households can afford. To the extent
the projects may be said to “work”, they do precisely because they
are insulated from market pressures by public capital. Their internal
financing and development cost structures are unique, sharing only
one commonality with market-rate projects: the requirement that




 33
 Page 107
 PART 3 | Complex Projects Can Tell Multiple Stories at Once




 Complex Projects Can Tell Multiple Stories at Once
 The Bayside Master Development Plan illustrates the inherent on Preble, Oxford, and Lancaster Streets, those market-rate units
 volatility of projects with deeply interdependent parts, where are not financially carrying the burden. Instead, 89 Elm functions
 the true statistical impact remains unclear until every phase is through a heavy reliance on external public capital. Its feasibility
 complete. Based on Portland’s Planning Board approvals, the project is bridged by tax credit equity, $54 million in MaineHousing
 encompasses 804 total units spread across seven buildings. The plan construction financing, and an additional $23.72 million in various
 utilizes a complex “sender-receiver” model where the 201 affordable MaineHousing subsidies—much of which consists of one-time-
 units consolidated at 89 Elm Street satisfy the 25% inclusionary only allocations. If completed, this project will prove a vital point
 zoning requirement for the entire multi-phase master plan. This regarding the current regulatory climate: For the project to meet the
 consolidation creates a domino effect where the viability of the requirement, significant external subsidy was needed, illustrating
 market-rate phases is inextricably linked to the successful delivery that for IZ to work when conditions are unfavorable, tandem exter-
 of the subsidized component at 89 Elm Street, itself dependent on nal funding must exist.
 unreliable sources of funding.
 Beyond the Bayside Master Development Plan (a partnership
 This complexity serves as a cautionary tale. Because the project between Reveler and Avesta), phased site plans, such as 197 Oxford
 could not deliver these affordable units without external subsidies— Street, also highlight the inherent complexity of these policies. The
 including $35.5 million in LIHTC equity and MaineHousing loans— countless permutations that occur when multiple sites, variables,
 the entire development had to be reimagined to qualify for specific and construction phases interact to create a dataset that is as sug-
 public funding streams. This triggered a cyclical escalation: the gestive as one wants it to be while being (and because it is) struc-
 pursuit of subsidy required an intricate design for 89 Elm Street to turally opaque. Because the public record highlights the eventual
 maximize tax credit efficiency, which in turn increased complexity. delivery of units while concealing underlying financial pressures, it
 functions as a statistical Rorschach test: proponents can view the
 Importantly, none of the 603 market-rate units within the Bayside outputs as a narrative of success, while critics can use the exact
 Master Development Plan provide a cross-subsidy to support the same data to document a fundamental policy failure.
 deed-restricted units at 89 Elm Street. While the construction of 89
 Elm Street is a legal necessity to unlock the later market-rate phases




34
 Page 108
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine



Bayside Master Development Plan




 ?
 804 Open Space
 UNITS (Residential)



 7
 BUILDINGS
 Major Publicly
 Accessible Open Space


 603
 MARKET RATE
 UNITS 89 Elm


 201
 “AFFORDABLE” IZ
 COMPLIANT UNITS



 $54M
 MAINEHOUSING 75 Preble 235 Oxford St.
 CONSTRUCTION FINANCING (Existing)




 $23.72M Open Space
 Open Space
 (Residential)
 OTHER MAINEHOUSING
 (Residential)
 SUBSIDIES 61 Preble St.

 If completed, this project will prove a vital point

  The viability of the market-rate regarding the current regulatory climate: For the
 phases is inextricably linked to the project to meet the requirement, significant external
 successful delivery of the subsidized subsidy was needed, illustrating that for IZ to work
 component at 89 Elm Street, itself
 when conditions are unfavorable, tandem external
 dependent on unreliable sources of
 funding. funding must exist.



 June 2, 2023
 Revised September 10, 35
 2025

 Page 109
PART 1 | This is the subhead typeface at 18pt




36
 Page 110
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




Part 4




 37
 Page 111
 PART 3 | Going Forward




 Going Forward
 There are a few paths forward the city may
 Current market drivers—specifically construction costs and interest wish to consider, among them one that holds
 rates—are entirely external to municipal influence and currently steady with current policy, a second that
 operate at levels that push project viability to a critical threshold. recalibrates the requirements, and a third
 When a city layers locally controlled policy requirements at the that bridge gaps using public resources.
 far upper limit of market capacity on top of prohibitive external
 conditions, the result is a structural misalignment. The data sug-
 gests that the current slowdown in conversion is not a temporary
 anomaly, but a predictable result of this misalignment. Developers



 1
 have increasingly turned to specific coping mechanisms—including
 off-site “send and receive” transfers, historic preservation tax
 Maintain Current
 credits, and reduced unit sizes—to bridge the widening gap. While Requirements
 these strategies show that developers are doing everything possible
 to keep projects moving, they also highlight a hard truth: under
 current market conditions, the city’s affordability rules have reached This approach relies on a shift in
 a breaking point where only high-end, market-rate housing is external market conditions—such as
 financially possible to build. At its core, the issue is that the current a significant drop in interest rates or
 policy requires a level of cross-subsidy that the Portland market is construction costs—to restore project
 presently unable to generate. This creates a high risk of prolonged margins. It assumes the current 25%
 stagnation in the development pipeline, as projects remain in an requirement at the 80% AMI thresh-
 approved but unfinanceable state. old will eventually become feasible
 as the broader economy stabilizes,
 effectively waiting for the market to
 catch up to the program specifics.




38
 Page 112
 Inclusionary Zoning Analysis for the City of Portland, Maine




2 Recalibrate the
 Requirement Itself 3 Bridge Gaps Using Publicly-Owned Assets and by Providing
 Community-Generated Capital



Rather than waiting for market shifts, Leverage City Assets Community-Generated Capital
the city could proactively modify the
requirement to align with current The City already leverages opportunities to This path shifts the burden from the
economic realities. This would involve create housing on publicly owned land. Of individual project to the community at
additional analysis of the margins the 18 affordable housing projects exempt large. If an economically integrated city is a
recorded over the last fifteen years, from IZ during the IZ 2.0 period, six are Portland community priority, this approach
specifically contrasting the higher associated with the disposition of City- distributes the cost across the wider public
production of 2016–2020 with the owned land, including Dougherty Commons, rather than extracting it solely from the
stagnation of the post-2021 era. By Lambert Woods, and 1125 Brighton Avenue. housing production sector. It challenges the
acknowledging the vastly different Together, these projects account for 337 city to tap into the rising property values
conversion rates between these approved affordable units, of which 197 have and land-value increments enjoyed by all
periods, the city could scale its re- been constructed or are currently under property owners - those who benefit from
quirements to a level the market can construction. Leveraging publicly owned Portland’s desirability but currently bear
actually deliver. land allows for greater control over project none of the financial burden for achieving
 outcomes and affordability levels, and this its inclusionary goals. It challenges elected
 tool should be utilized whenever practicable. representatives to duly acknowledge constit-
 uent calls for more affordable housing with a
 Another opportunity is to leverage City
 response that properly locates the source of
 funding resources to support the creation
 the problem and the means of addressing it
 of IZ units within projects, helping to
 with the community at large.
 close funding gaps and provide the subsidy
 needed to incorporate affordable units into
 market-rate developments. Exploring the
 City’s existing resources to provide financial
 support for IZ projects is encouraged.




 39
 Page 113
PART 1 | This is the subhead typeface at 18pt




40
 Page 114
City of Portland I Executive Department
Danielle West, City Manager




Portland Common Council
Coals 2026 to Committee
Workplans
Through the 2026 goal-setting process, the Portland City Council has identified six Common
Council Goals that will guide the Council's collective work this year. These goals represent areas
where councilors expressed shared commitment to advancing meaningful change. During the
goal-setting workshops, councilors also identified concrete actions the Council could consider to
translate these high-level goals into tangible policy work.

The attached chart demonstrates how these priority themes, specific goals, and proposed actions
connect to create an integrated approach to Portland's most pressing challenges. As committees
develop their detailed 2026 workplans, this framework provides a roadmap for ensuring
individual committee work contributes to Council-wide progress. The specific actions identified
by councilors serve as starting points for committee deliberations, with the understanding that
committees may refine, prioritize, or sequence these actions based on capacity, timing, and
emerging opportunities.

The 2026 Common Council Goals represent an ambitious agenda that seeks to make progress on
Portland's most critical needs while building toward long-term community resilience. The
connection between these goals and proposed committee actions provides a clear pathway from
aspiration to implementation, ensuring that the Council's collective vision translates into
meaningful policy change for Portland residents




 389 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101 I 207-874-8300 I info@portlandmaine.gov
 1

 Page 115
 2026 Common Council Goals Mapped to Council Committees with Potential Actions for Consideration in Committee Workplans


 Consider adjustments to inclusionary zoning ordinance to promote housing production.
 Address Portland's housing challenges by Consider policy amendments to streamline building permit application review and approval.
Accelerate Housing Housing &
 encouraging the development of more
Production and Economic Review Social Housing Task Force recommendations and consider council action on next steps.
 homes and protecting affordability, so
Strengthen Affordability Development
 current and future residents can live and Consider amendment to Duson Trust Fund ordinance to support housing assistance for residents
Protections Committee
 thrive in our community. (e.g., eviction prevention, security deposit assistance).
 Consider amendment to the rent control ordinance to strengthen enforcement.
 Consider council action to support reduction in chronic homelessness by 50% (currently 120
 Decrease the number of people
 Health & people experiencing chronic homelessness) by end of 2026 (e.g., consideration on day shelter,
 experiencing chronic homelessness by
 Human adjustments to charitable food distribution license, regional and state partnerships).
Reduce Chronic advancing policy to enhance support
 Services &
Homelessness systems and address the underlying causes Review missions of city shelter facilities (i.e., Family Shelter, Warming Center).
 Public Safety
 that lead to housing instability in our
 Committee Consider amending the rate of exchange for the needle exchange program with a public health
 community.
 perspective.
 Support Vision Zero plan roll-out with council leadership.

 Create safer streets for all users by Express public support for Franklin Street Arterial plan and implementation.
 Sustainability &
Reduce Pedestrian and advancing policy to prevent traffic deaths
 Transportation Consider development of Vision Zero ordinance, focused on complete streets, pedestrian safety,
Bicyclist Fatalities and injuries while improving accessibility for walkability, and community engagement.
 Committee
 pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
 Develop legislative proposal for intersection camera pilot to improve safety to be introduced in the
 2027 State Legislature session.

Support Affordability for Ease the tax burden for Portland residents Consider a policy amendment to expand tax affordability programs such as Portland Senior Tax
All Residents Through by finding new ways to fund city services Finance Equity Program (P-STEP).
New Revenue Policies and providing direct tax relief to households Committee Consider a policy amendment to div ersify city revenue streams to offset taxpayer burden (e.g,
and Targeted Tax Relief who need it most. fiscal impact of cruise ships, Payment in Lieu of Taxes).

 Address climate change by cutting carbon
 emissions, expanding clean energy and Sustainability &
Advance the Goals of Consider policy to further advance One Cl imate Future goals are met (e.g., environmental impacts
 energy-efficient buildings, supporting Transportation
One Climate Future of cruise ships, viability of solar on municipal buildings).
 sustainable transportation, and preparing Committee
 Portland for a resilient, low-carbon future.
 Foster a thriving local economy by Housing & Explore ordinance regulating parking lot advertising and pricing disclosure requirements.
Strengthen Economic
 increasing support for businesses and Economic
Vitality and Support Local Close out council action on Live Nation venue proposal.
 strengthening conditions that help Portland's Development
Businesses
 business community grow. Committee Consider policy to enhance public support for the arts.




 2

 Page 116
​City of Portland | City Council​
 ​Mark Dion,​​Mayor​




​The Portland City Council established its 2026 Common Goals (included below) on February 2,​
 ​2026, formally communicating its policy priorities for the coming year and setting a foundation​
  ​for the development of Council committee work plans.​

​The 2026 Council schedule currently includes approximately 10 meetings for each committee. For​
 ​planning purposes, the development of a single, original policy initiative typically requires two​
  ​committee meetings. This process generally includes initial conceptual discussion, review of a​
 ​draft ordinance or other policy document, and a public hearing at which the committee votes on​
 ​whether to recommend adoption by the full City Council.​

​In addition to developing and considering original policy initiatives, committee work will also​
 ​include items referred by the Council, matters brought forward by staff, and panels or​
  ​presentations, as needed.​
 ​2026 City Council Common Goals​

​Accelerate Housing Production and Strengthen Affordability Protections - Address Portland’s​
 ​housing challenges by encouraging the development of more homes and protecting affordability,​
  ​so current and future residents can live and thrive in our community.​

​Reduce Chronic Homelessness - Decrease the number of people experiencing chronic​
 ​homelessness by advancing policy to enhance support systems and address the underlying​
  ​causes that lead to housing instability in our community.​

​Reduce Pedestrian and Bicyclist Fatalities - Create safer streets for all users by advancing policy​
 ​to prevent traffic deaths and injuries while improving accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, and​
  ​transit users.​

​Support Affordability for All Residents Through New Revenue Policies and Targeted Tax Relief -​
 ​E ase the tax burden for Portland residents by finding new ways to fund city services and​
  ​providing direct tax relief to households who need it most.​

​Advance the Goals of One Climate Future - Address climate change by cutting carbon emissions,​
 ​expanding clean energy and energy-efficient buildings, supporting sustainable transportation,​
  ​and preparing Portland for a resilient, low-carbon future.​




 ​1​

 Page 117
​Strengthen Economic Vitality and Support Local Businesses - Foster a thriving local economy by​
 ​increasing support for businesses and strengthening conditions that help Portland’s business​
  ​community grow.​

 ​Housing and Economic Development Committee​
 ​2026 Work Plan​


 ​Policy Initiative​ ​Related Council Goal​ ​Priority Ranking​

 ​Consider adjustments to the​ ​Accelerate housing​
  ​inclusionary zoning​ ​production and strengthen​
 ​ordinance to promote​ ​affordability protections.​
 ​housing production.​

 ​Consider policy amendments​ ​Accelerate housing​
  ​to streamline building permit​ ​production and strengthen​
 ​application review and​ ​affordability protections.​
 ​approval.​

 ​Review Social Housing Task​ ​Accelerate housing​
  ​Force recommendations and​ ​production and strengthen​
 ​consider Council action on​ ​affordability protections.​
 ​next steps.​

 ​Consider amendment to​ ​Accelerate housing​
  ​Duson Trust Fund ordinance​ ​production and strengthen​
 ​to support housing assistance​ ​affordability protections.​
 ​for residents (e.g., eviction​
 ​prevention, security deposit​
 ​assistance).​

 ​Consider amendment to the​ ​Accelerate housing​
  ​Rent Control Ordinance to​ ​production and strengthen​
 ​strengthen enforcement.​ ​affordability protections.​


 ​Explore Ordinance regulating​ ​Strengthen economic vitality​
  ​parking lot advertising and​ ​and support local businesses.​
 ​pricing disclosure​
 ​requirements.​

 ​Close out Council action on​ ​Strengthen economic vitality​
  ​Live Nation venue proposal.​ ​and support local businesses.​

 ​Consider policy to enhance​ ​Strengthen economic vitality​
  ​public support for the arts.​ ​and support local businesses.​




 ​2​

 Page 118
City Council Office
Benjamin Grant
City Councilor-At-Large




 MEMORANDUM


TO: Chair and Members of the Housing and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Councilor Ben Grant

DATE: May 15, 2026

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance


I am pleased to present to you a starting point for the discussion around revising the Inclusionary
Zoning ordinance.

After 5+ years in effect, I think it has become clear that the policy must be reformed. The recent
consultant report, in addition to the evidence presented by staff and the anecdotal evidence
conveyed to us by interested parties, have pushed us to begin this work. To my eye, the most
sensible place to begin the discussion is a simple reversion back to the IZ requirement
immediately pre-dating the referendum: what we call 10/100.

I want to stress in this Memo that I am not wedded to a specific outcome at this time - I am
merely committed to ensuring that this discussion begins in earnest now. I am sure that
discussion will involve a range of proposals, and I would be interested in the Committee and the
Planning Board also discussing a mix of 5/125.

Lastly, I want to remind everyone that this debate is not happening in isolation. The Social
Housing Task Force is due to report back soon, and early indications are that they will seek
Council consideration of a more aggressive approach to direct housing supply. I believe it is our
charge from our constituents to accelerate housing production, and the combination of the work
on IZ with the Task Force is the best way to think about answering that call.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to contributing in any way I can to a
positive result.

Attachments – Proposed Amendments Redlined




 389 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04101 – www.portlandmaine.gov – (207) 874-8683


 Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Portland Housing Authority Overview
And Development Pipeline
May 19 , 2026



 Page 123
 About the
 Portland Housing
 Authority (PHA)
 • Serving more than 5,200
 residents across Portland and
 the region
 • Operates over 1,300 affordable
 housing units
 • Administers more than 2,100
 Housing Choice Vouchers
 • Supports seniors, families,
 veterans, and residents with
 disabilities
 • Nearly 30% of Portland Public
 School students live in
 households receiving PHA
 assistance
 • PHA is one of Maine’s largest
 affordable housing providers




Page 124
 7 Member Board – Overseeing 4 primary
 entities


 107 Full time, 7 Part time positions


PHA Staffing
 Structure 2 Unions (ASCME & Teamsters)



 Undergoing Asset Repositioning for all Public
 Housing sites (767 units 15 Properties
 converted/368 units 4 properties remaining)



 Page 125
Our Primary Entities




 Page 126
 Area of Coverage

The PHA's jurisdiction • New Gloucester • And the following
covers the following cities • North Yarmouth Islands:
and towns: • Old Orchard Beach – Chebeague island
• Buxton • Portland – Frye Island
• Cape Elizabeth • Pownal – Long Island
• Cumberland • Raymond – Peaks Island
• Dayton • Scarborough
• Falmouth • South Portland
• Freeport • Standish
• Hollis • Westbrook
• Gorham • Windham
• Gray • Yarmouth




 Page 127
 Total Families: 21,506

 Waiting for Income Levels:

 Affordable • Extremely Low Income: 18,547 (86.24%)
 • Very Low Income: 2,471 (11.49%)

 Housing • Low Income: 395 (1.84%)
 • Over Income: 93 (0.43%)
 Choice Family Type:
  Vouchers: • Families with Children: 7,041 (32.74%)
 • Elderly Families: 3,425 (15.93%)
Statewide • Families with Disabilities: 9,764 (45.40%)
 • One Household Member: 11,901 (55.34%)
  Summary Race/Ethnicity:
 • White: 17,002 (79.06%)
 • Black or African American: 3,541 (16.47%)
 • Asian: 364 (1.69%)
 • Alaska Native or American Indian: 729 (3.39%)
 • Pacific Islander: 116 (0.54%)
 • Hispanic or Latino: 1,743 (8.10%)

 Locality:
 • Live Local: 2,614 (12.15%)
 • Work Local: 1,339 (6.23%)

 Page 128
 • More than 3,200 Portland
Waiting for households are waiting for rental
  Housing assistance
 Choice • Approximately 75% of applicants
 Vouchers: are extremely low income
Portland • Roughly 40% of applicants report
 disabilities
Applicants
 • Nearly 30% are families with
 children
 • Rising rents and limited housing
 supply continue to increase
 demand


 Page 129
Waiting for Public Housing




 Page 130
Waiting
for PHA
Non-PH




 Page 131
 Portland Housing Development Corporation
 (PHDC) At a Glance 501(c)4 non-profit development entity for
 PHA
 Development Activity
 2014 -2026
300 new construction units
338 renovated affd. units
334 current public housing units
169 Section 8 Program housing
226 Non-LIHTC/Non-PH units
1,367 TOTAL Owned/Managed
units

New units in Pipeline: 319
Renovation Units in Pipeline: 569
Units under construction: 437
 Front Street Ph 1
 Sagamore Village




 Page 132
 Sample “Capital Stack”


 2025
 2015 9 Boyd St. (COMB Block Ph 1)
 Bayside Anchor – 45 family apartments 55 family apartments
Sources: Sources:
MaineHousing subsidy - $ 645,725 MaineHousing subsidy - $ 1,000,000
MaineHousing debt - $1,550,788 MaineHousing debt - $11,252,428
City Fed HOME - $ 500,000 City HTF - $ 650,000
LIHTC equity - $5,061,538 FHLB AHP subsidy - $2,000,000
Solar ITC equity - $ 42,642 LIHTC equity - $11,341,682
 TOTAL - $7,800,694 Deferred Dev. Fee - $ 500,000
 DECD Loan - $ 250,000
 TOTAL - $26,958,459

Construction Cost / SF: $156 Construction Cost / SF: $324

Total Dev. Cost / unit: $173,348 Total Dev. Cost / unit: $490,802

City subsidy (non-TIF)/unit: $11,110 City subsidy / unit: $11,818


 Sagamore Village




 Page 133
 Recently Completed
 Highlights of Work:

 • New airtight insulated exterior panels and
 windows
 • New energy-efficient, all-in-one
 heating/cooling/ventilation system in each
 Harbor Terrace apartment
 120 renovated • Improve accessibility
 homes for seniors • Refinished unit interiors
 • Indoor bike storage, a craft room, and exercise
 completed room
 September 2025 • New pedestrian plaza in front of the building
 • New smoker shelter, bus shelter, and electric
 vehicle (EV) chargers
120 Project Based Vouchers • Improved landscaping and exterior lighting
1 person max. income = 58,440
0BR rent - $1,056
1BR rent - $1,110
Residents pay max. 30% of income

 Page 134
 Under Construction




 COMB Block
 Riverton
 Park 174 new homes,
 Sagamore Village many dedicated to
 118 under renovation seniors and families
 and where 40 public
 64 new homes under Historic renovations
 to improve 200 housing units stood
 construction
 for families homes for families
 0BR – 3BR apartments
0BR – 6BR apartments 1BR - 4BR duplexes Rents from $491 - $1,945
Rents from $1,280 - $2,522 Rents from $1,653 - $2,913 PBVs 25 Ph1 / 40 Ph2 / 6 Ph3
140 Project Based Vouchers 200 Project Based Vouchers Utilities not included
Most paying 30% of income Most paying 30% of income
All utilities included All utilities Included

 4-person max. income at 60% AMI – $69,550
 Page 135
  Projects in Pre-Construction Planning


100 State Street – 169 units of senior housing planning
moderate renovation

14 Baxter Blvd (former PHA offices) – Potential for 60-90
new apartment homes

Congress Street (optioned parcel) – Potential for 54 1BR
apartment homes

47-49 Boyd Street Block – Potential for replacing 24 public
housing units with up to 120 apartment homes


 Page 136
 Collaboration Supports the Entire City
• PHA housing supports Portland’s workforce and local economy
• Stable housing reduces pressure on shelters, healthcare, and emergency
  services
• PHA developments generate construction activity and neighborhood
  investment
• PHA partners with nonprofits, schools, healthcare providers, and
  community organizations
• Programs include Housing First, senior housing, foster youth housing, and
  supportive housing
• Opportunities for PHA and the City to collaborate on housing,
  homelessness, and neighborhood revitalization
• Local support helps leverage millions in state and federal investment
• Coordination improves infrastructure planning and project delivery
• Affordable housing production requires sustained public partnerships



 Page 137
 Funding Challenges and Structural Barriers

• Affordable housing funding remains highly competitive
  statewide
• Federal housing resources continue to shrink
• Federal requirements for product sourcing driving up costs
• Construction costs have risen dramatically over the last
  decade
• Local fees, infrastructure costs, and environmental review
  requirements impact feasibility
• Strong partnerships are essential to move projects forward



 Page 138
 Looking Ahead

• Preserve existing affordable housing
• Expand opportunities for working families and
  seniors
• Continue modernization and neighborhood
  reinvestment
• Strengthen resident services and housing stability
• Position Portland for long-term housing resilience
• Affordable housing is essential infrastructure for
  Portland’s future



 Page 139
Questions?




 Page 140
 City of Portland, Maine
 Social Housing Task Force

 Interim Report

 Presented to the Housing and Economic Development
 Committee
 May 19th, 2026


1. Executive Summary
Over the first several months of its charge, the Portland Social Housing Task Force conducted
technical modeling, comparative research, and expert interviews to determine how the public
sector can most effectively intervene in the local housing market. The Task Force also converged
on a definition of social housing: a model where the public sector maintains an active financial
and ownership stake, ensuring that investments are preserved and reinvested over time rather
than serving as one-time subsidies.
Financial research has confirmed that the economics of production, specifically the rising costs
of financing and construction, represent the primary barriers to new development in Portland.
While the use of public land is a valuable tool, modeling demonstrates that land alone is
insufficient to drive production without significant financial intervention. This finding
establishes the cost of capital as a key domain where the City possesses the capacity to yield a
meaningful impact on social housing production.
The emerging strategic direction positions the City as a financing partner rather than a direct
developer, allowing the municipality to provide favorable capital terms while leveraging the
expertise of existing organizations. Bond financing is currently under evaluation as the primary
mechanism to scale this effort and support the recapitalization of public funds. A central
component of this strategy is a partnership with the Portland Housing Authority, which offers a
unique opportunity to combine municipal investment with established development and
management capacity.

 1

 Page 141
In the final phase of its work, the Task Force will focus on defining specific bond structures,
establishing governance protocols for institutional partnerships, and identifying sites for initial
pilot projects. These efforts aim to create a durable system that addresses critical housing gaps
for workforce and middle-income households. The ultimate goal is an implementable roadmap
and detailed pilot project proposal that balances programmatic ambition with technical and fiscal
responsibility.




 2

 Page 142
2. Charge of the Task Force
The Portland Social Housing Task Force was established by order of the City Council in March
2025 to study and develop a framework for government-led social housing in Portland.

The Council’s intent in forming the Task Force was to respond to a widening gap between
housing demand and housing production, and to explore the role that public entities might play in
directly shaping the housing market to achieve long-term affordability and stability. As
articulated in the resolution, the Task Force was charged with developing “a strategic framework
for a social housing program… prioritizing permanent affordability, environmental sustainability,
and inclusivity.”

At its core, the Task Force’s work is guided by three interrelated goals:

 ●​ Affordability: advancing models that ensure housing remains accessible to a broad range
 of Portland residents over the long term;
 ●​ Sustainability: designing systems that are financially and operationally durable over
 time;
 ●​ Mixed-Income Communities: promoting development patterns that integrate a range of
 income levels and avoid concentrations of poverty.

The Council further directed the Task Force to undertake a comprehensive scope of work,
including identifying key leverage points in housing production, evaluating public financing
strategies such as bonding, coordinating existing funding programs, assessing local barriers such
as land and permitting constraints, and exploring models of public development and ownership,
including partnerships with entities such as the Portland Housing Authority.

The Task Force was convened for a one-year period, beginning in August 2025, with a final
report and recommendations due to the City Council within that timeframe.

Structurally, the Task Force consists of appointed members representing municipal leadership,
housing practitioners, finance and development professionals, nonprofit leaders, and community
members with lived experience navigating Portland’s housing system. The group elected two
co-chairs to guide its work and coordinate agendas. City staff from the Housing and Economic
Development Department and the Housing and Community Development Division provide
ongoing support, alongside facilitation and technical assistance from the Greater Portland
Council of Governments (GPCOG).

To carry out its charge, the Task Force adopted a dual-track meeting structure. Regular business
meetings are held to deliberate and advance the work plan, while separate educational sessions



 3

 Page 143
are used to deepen the group’s understanding of housing finance, development models, and
policy tools.

Task Force Members

The Task Force brings together a multidisciplinary group with expertise spanning housing
development, municipal finance, public policy, nonprofit management, and lived experience in
Portland’s housing market. Members include:

 ●​ Catherine Buxton: Policy professional and housing advocate with experience in
 cooperative development and legislative engagement.
 ●​ Wendy Cherubini: Affordable housing policy and program management professional
 with extensive experience in community development and evaluation.
 ●​ Jonathan Culley: Local developer with experience in housing production, including
 mixed-use and multifamily development in Portland.
 ●​ Jon Fetherston (Co-Chair): Veterans Housing Services Liaison at Preble Street, with
 extensive experience in public sector leadership and housing systems.
 ●​ Kristin Leffler: Public school educator and Portland resident bringing lived experience
 navigating housing affordability challenges.
 ●​ Councilor Sarah Michniewicz: Portland City Councilor with experience in municipal
 governance and housing policy.
 ●​ Matt Peters: Housing development and finance professional with experience in real
 estate investment and project feasibility analysis.
 ●​ Cullen Ryan: Executive Director of Community Housing of Maine, with deep
 experience in supportive housing development and operations.
 ●​ Jason Spector: Strategic planning and public sector consultant with experience in
 program evaluation and cross-sector systems design.
 ●​ Bill Stauffer: Property owner and business operator with experience in real estate
 management and local economic conditions.
 ●​ Paul Styslinger: Natural Hazards Planner at the State of Maine with experience in
 infrastructure design, residential codes, and public program sustainability.
 ●​ Councilor Kate Sykes (Co-Chair): Portland City Councilor with a focus on housing
 policy and public investment strategies.
 ●​ Tim Wells: Real estate and development professional with experience in construction,
 finance, and land use.

As reflected in the membership, the Task Force was intentionally constituted to combine
technical expertise with on-the-ground experience, ensuring that its recommendations are both
analytically rigorous and grounded in the lived realities of Portland residents.




 4

 Page 144
3. Approach and Methodology
The Task Force structured its work to move from broad exploration to focused analysis, pairing
foundational learning with applied evaluation of how social housing could function within
Portland’s specific economic and institutional context.
From the outset, the group recognized that social housing is not a single model, but a set of tools
and strategies that must be adapted to local conditions. As a result, the Task Force adopted an
approach that combined comparative research, technical analysis, and iterative discussion with
an emphasis on testing ideas against real-world constraints.

3.1 Meeting Structure and Work Plan
To support this approach, the Task Force established a dual-track meeting structure consisting of
regular business meetings and supplemental educational sessions. Business meetings were used
to deliberate on findings, review materials, and identify priorities and next steps. Educational
sessions were designed to build a shared understanding of complex topics, such as housing
finance, development economics, and public policy tools.
To date, the Task Force:
 ●​ Engaged external expertise and case studies from other jurisdictions, including
 mixed-income public production models in localities such as Chattanooga, Atlanta,
 Seattle, and Montgomery County, MD to understand how social housing models have
 been implemented elsewhere.
 ●​ Developed and tested financial models. Leveraging technical modeling from GPCOG to
 evaluate how variables such as financing costs, income mix, land value, and subsidy
 levels affect project feasibility.
 ●​ Reviewed local data and project conditions, including city-owned land inventories and
 the status of approved but unbuilt or stalled housing developments.
 ●​ Refined areas of focus, moving from a broad survey of possible approaches toward a
 more targeted examination of the most viable pathways for Portland.


As the work has progressed, the Task Force has begun to organize itself into more defined areas
of inquiry with the intention of forming working groups to deepen analysis during the second
half of its charge.


3.2 Areas of Study
The Task Force’s work to date has focused on several core areas of study, each of which
corresponds to a key dimension of the Council’s charge.


 5

 Page 145
 ●​ Social Housing Models (Comparative): The Task Force reviewed a range of national
 and international social housing approaches from other municipalities, including publicly
 owned, mixed-income developments, as well as hybrid models involving public financing
 and private or nonprofit delivery. Early discussions focused on defining what “social
 housing” should mean in Portland’s context and how it could complement, rather than
 compete with, existing programs.
 ●​ Financial Modeling and Feasibility: A central component of the work has been the
 analysis of financial models to understand the feasibility of different housing scenarios.
 These models tested the impact of variables including interest rates, hard and soft
 construction costs, and income targeting. This revealed the significant challenges
 associated with bringing new projects to viability under current market conditions,
 specifically where construction and financing cost escalation has outpaced traditional
 subsidy models.
 ●​ Public Land Analysis: The Task Force reviewed inventories of City-owned land to
 assess potential development opportunities, while also examining site-specific constraints
 such as environmental limitations, existing uses, and regulatory considerations. This
 analysis helped clarify both the opportunities and limitations of relying on public land as
 a primary strategy for housing production.
 ●​ Existing Project Pipeline (Stalled Projects): Recognizing that a number of approved
 developments have not moved forward, the Task Force examined the local project
 pipeline. Particular attention was paid to projects that may be delayed or infeasible under
 current financing conditions, raising the possibility that targeted public intervention
 acting as gap financing could unlock projects otherwise stalled by recent shifts in the
 private lending market.
 ●​ Partnership Pathways (Including Portland Housing Authority): The Task Force
 explored potential partnerships with existing housing institutions, most notably the
 Portland Housing Authority (PHA). Discussions focused on how the City might leverage
 PHA’s development experience, operational capacity, and existing project pipeline while
 contributing financing to enable mixed-income, publicly influenced housing
 development.


Taken together, these areas of study reflect an approach that is exploratory but also grounded in
Portland’s financial, regulatory, and institutional landscape.




 6

 Page 146
4. Defining Social Housing
One of the earliest and most important areas of discussion for the Task Force was the question of
definition: what should “social housing” look like in the context of Portland?

While the Council’s resolution provides a general framework, describing social housing as a
model in which public entities take an active role in the development and ownership of housing,
it does not prescribe a single structure or implementation strategy.

As a result, Task Force members began their work with differing perspectives on what social
housing should entail in practice. These differences were surfaced and explored through early
discussions and a structured survey of members, which sought to clarify assumptions about
public ownership, financial participation, and the role of the City.

4.1 Areas of Convergence and Clarification
Early in its work, the Task Force sought to clarify how members understood the concept of social
housing, including the role of public ownership, financing, and long-term stewardship. This was
explored through group discussion and a structured survey designed to test assumptions and
surface areas of agreement.

While there were differences in emphasis, the survey results indicated a strong underlying
alignment among members on several core principles. Across the Task Force, there was broad
agreement that social housing should:

 ●​ Involve a meaningful public role in shaping housing outcomes, rather than relying solely
 on private market delivery
 ●​ Prioritize long-term and perpetual affordability, rather than time-limited restrictions
 ●​ Support mixed-income communities, rather than narrowly targeted or isolated
 developments; and
 ●​ Be structured in a way that is financially sustainable over time, rather than dependent on
 one-time interventions.

Where differences emerged, they were less about whether the public should play a role, and more
about how that role should be structured and operationalized. In particular, members explored the
extent to which the City should:

 ●​ Retain an ongoing ownership or equity stake in projects
 ●​ Act as a financial partner versus a direct developer
 ●​ Intervene in existing projects versus initiate new development




 7

 Page 147
These discussions helped clarify that the Task Force was not divided on purpose or direction, but
interested in working through the practical design of a model that could balance ambition with
feasibility.

4.2 Public Investment as a Lasting Public Asset
As the Task Force worked through these questions, a key point of alignment emerged around the
nature of public investment in housing: if the City is to deploy public resources at scale, those
investments should be structured to create lasting public value, rather than functioning solely as
one-time subsidies.

This principle distinguishes social housing, as understood by the Task Force, from more
traditional approaches in which public funds are used to close financing gaps without retaining
an ongoing public stake in the resulting asset.

Instead, the Task Force has increasingly coalesced around a model in which public investment is
designed to:

 ●​ Retain an ownership or equity position, even if partial;
 ●​ Support repayment and recapitalization, particularly in the context of bond financing; and
 ●​ Enable reinvestment into future housing production, creating a cycle of sustained public
 impact.

In this framework, the City’s role is not to fully assume the responsibilities of a developer or
property manager, but to act as a long-term financial and strategic partner, ensuring that public
contributions continue to generate public benefit over time.

This approach reflects a practical synthesis of the Task Force’s discussions: it avoids both the
limitations of one-time subsidy models and the complexity of building a fully municipal
development apparatus, while preserving the central principle that public investment should
result in ongoing public ownership, influence, and return.

4.3 Emerging Definition
Based on these discussions, the Task Force has begun to converge around a working definition of
social housing for Portland:

Social housing is housing in which the public sector plays an active financial and ownership
role, ensuring long-term affordability and allowing public investment to be preserved and
reinvested over time.

This definition reflects several key principles:




 8

 Page 148
 ●​ Public Investment with Retained Value:​
 Public dollars are not treated solely as subsidy, but as investment structured in a way that
 allows the City to retain equity, repay capital (such as through bond financing), and
 redeploy resources into future projects.
 ●​ Shared Ownership, Not Full Municipalization:​
 Social housing does not require the City to fully stand up and operate a comprehensive
 development and property management entity. Instead, it may involve partial ownership
 or equity stakes, often in partnership with experienced developers or public housing
 authorities.
 ●​ Flexibility in Delivery:​
 The model allows for multiple pathways, including new construction, acquisition and
 rehabilitation, or participation in existing projects, so long as the core principle of
 ongoing public benefit and ownership is maintained.
 ●​ Distinction from Traditional Subsidy Models:​
 Unlike conventional approaches that rely on one-time subsidies or tax incentives without
 long-term public return, this model emphasizes recapture, recapitalization, and
 continuity.

4.4 Implications for the Task Force’s Work
This emerging definition has shaped the Task Force’s subsequent analysis in several important
ways:

 ●​ It has focused attention on financing structures, particularly those that allow the City to
 act as an investor rather than a grant-maker;
 ●​ It has elevated the importance of equity participation and long-term stewardship in
 project design; and
 ●​ It has informed ongoing discussions about partnership models, especially with
 institutions such as the Portland Housing Authority, where ownership and operational
 responsibilities can be shared.

At the same time, the Task Force recognizes that this definition is still being refined. The second
phase of its work will further test how these principles can be translated into specific,
implementable models within Portland’s legal, financial, and institutional constraints.




 9

 Page 149
5. What We Have Learned So Far
Through its first several months of work, the Task Force has moved from broad exploration to a
more grounded understanding of how housing is produced in Portland, and where meaningful
intervention may be possible. The findings below reflect recurring themes across financial
modeling, case study review, and local analysis.

5.1 The Economics of Housing Production Are the Primary Constraint

The most consistent and consequential finding of the Task Force’s work to date is that the
economics of housing production, in particular the costs of financing and construction, represent
the central barriers to new development.

Through financial modeling exercises, the Task Force examined how variables such as
construction costs, income targeting, land value, and financing terms interact to determine
project feasibility. These exercises demonstrated that even under highly favorable conditions,
including scenarios with reduced or no land cost, limited or no property tax burden, and
additional subsidy, projects often fail to “pencil out.”

5.2 Public Land Alone Is Not Sufficient to Drive Housing Production

The Task Force examined the potential role of City-owned land as a catalyst for housing
development. While public land can reduce project costs and create opportunities for strategic
intervention, the analysis made clear that land is only one component of a much larger financial
equation.

In many modeled scenarios, even the provision of free land was not sufficient to make a project
viable without additional financial intervention. Furthermore, site-specific constraints, including
environmental limitations, existing uses, and regulatory considerations, reduce the number of
parcels that are realistically available for development.

As a result, while public land remains an important tool, the Task Force finds that it cannot, on
its own, address the scale of Portland’s housing challenges.

5.3 Financing Represents the Most Effective Municipal Lever

Given the constraints identified above, the Task Force has increasingly focused on financing as
the most powerful and scalable lever available to the City. Unlike land use alone, financing tools
have the potential to directly influence project feasibility by lowering the cost of capital,
reducing risk, or enabling projects that would otherwise not proceed. Mechanisms such as bond



 10

 Page 150
financing, low-interest loans, or other forms of public investment can materially shift the
financial structure of a project.

This insight has shaped the Task Force’s emerging direction: that the City’s most effective role
may be as a financial partner, rather than solely as a regulator or land provider. In this framing,
the City is positioned to unlock housing production at scale, while structuring its participation in
a way that preserves long-term public value.

5.4 The Current Housing System Leaves Critical Gaps

The Task Force’s work has also reinforced that Portland’s existing housing development system,
while producing important outcomes, does not fully meet the needs of the community.

In particular, there is a persistent gap in housing options for middle-income and workforce
households, who often earn too much to qualify for traditional affordable housing programs, but
not enough to access market-rate housing comfortably.

Existing financing tools, including federal and state programs, tend to be structured around
specific income thresholds, leaving limited flexibility to address this “missing middle.” As a
result, the Task Force finds that new models are needed to complement, rather than compete
with, existing programs.

5.5 Mixed-Income Development Is Preferred for Long-Term Sustainability

Across its discussions, the Task Force has consistently expressed a preference for mixed-income
housing models. From both a social and financial perspective, mixed-income developments offer
several advantages:

 ●​ They avoid the concentration of poverty associated with single-income developments;
 ●​ They create more stable and resilient communities; and
 ●​ They can support more sustainable financial structures by balancing different rent levels
 within a single project.

While deeper affordability remains an important long-term goal, the Task Force has recognized
that mixed-income models may represent the most viable and scalable approach for initial
implementation, particularly in a high-cost environment.

5.6 Multiple Intervention Pathways Are Viable




 11

 Page 151
Finally, the Task Force has identified that there is no single pathway for public involvement in
housing development. Instead, several potential entry points exist, each with distinct
opportunities and challenges. These include:

 ●​ Ground-up development, where the City participates in the creation of new housing on
 vacant or underutilized land;
 ●​ Acquisition and rehabilitation, including the purchase and improvement of existing
 buildings;
 ●​ Intervention in stalled or delayed projects, where targeted financial support could
 enable projects that are otherwise unlikely to proceed; and
 ●​ Acquisition of existing housing assets, potentially removing units from speculative
 markets and stabilizing them over time.

This range of options suggests that a successful social housing strategy will likely require
flexibility in approach, allowing the City to respond to different opportunities as they arise.

Taken together, these findings point toward a consistent conclusion: the City’s most effective role
in addressing the housing crisis may lie in strategically deployed financial intervention,
structured to produce both immediate housing outcomes and long-term public value.




 12

 Page 152
6. Emerging Strategic Direction
Building on the findings outlined above, the Task Force has begun to coalesce around a strategic
direction for how the City of Portland might most effectively participate in the development of
social housing.

This direction is not yet a final recommendation. Rather, it reflects a set of interrelated concepts
that have emerged consistently through the Task Force’s analysis and discussions, and which will
be further tested and refined during its remaining work.

6.1 Role of the City: Financer vs. Developer
A central question for the Task Force has been the appropriate role of the City in housing
development and operations. While some models of social housing involve the creation of a fully
public development entity (responsible for land acquisition, construction, and long-term property
management), the Task Force has recognized that establishing such an apparatus in Portland
would present significant challenges in terms of capacity, cost, and time.

At the same time, the Task Force’s analysis suggests that the City already possesses a powerful,
and currently underutilized, tool: its ability to finance and structure capital for housing projects.
As a result, the Task Force is increasingly exploring a model in which the City acts primarily as a
financial partner, rather than a direct developer. In this role, the City could:

 ●​ Provide capital at more favorable terms than private markets;
 ●​ Influence project design, including income mix and long-term affordability; and
 ●​ Retain an ownership or equity position that preserves public value over time.

This approach allows the City to intervene at the point of greatest constraint - project financing -
while leveraging the expertise of existing development and management entities.

6.2 Bonding as a Primary Tool (Under Evaluation)
Within this emerging framework, bond financing has surfaced as a potentially central mechanism
for enabling City participation at scale.

Bonding offers several potential advantages:

 ●​ It allows the City to raise significant capital upfront, enabling multiple projects to move
 forward within a relatively short timeframe;
 ●​ It can provide lower-cost financing than is typically available through private lending
 markets; and
 ●​ It aligns with a model in which public investment is repaid over time, supporting
 recapitalization and reinvestment.



 13

 Page 153
At the same time, the use of bonds introduces important questions related to risk, repayment
structures, and long-term fiscal impact. The Task Force has begun exploring these issues, but
additional analysis will be required to determine:

 ●​ Appropriate bond structures and terms;
 ●​ Risk mitigation strategies; and
 ●​ The relationship between bond financing and existing City funding mechanisms.

As such, bonding should be understood at this stage as a promising but still evolving tool, central
to the Task Force’s inquiry but not yet fully defined.

6.3 Partnership with the Portland Housing Authority (PHA)
The Task Force has identified a significant opportunity to advance social housing through
partnership with the Portland Housing Authority (PHA).

Unlike many housing authorities nationally, PHA has demonstrated a willingness to explore
collaborative models with the City. This presents a unique opportunity to combine PHA’s
strengths (including development experience, access to federal programs, and long-term property
management capacity) and the City’s potential role as a source of flexible capital, strategic
direction, and public investment.

Through this partnership, it may be possible to:

 ●​ Expand or adapt existing PHA projects to include mixed-income components;
 ●​ Accelerate redevelopment efforts, including those associated with RAD conversions and
 other capital improvements; and
 ●​ Pilot new models of shared ownership and financing that align with the Task Force’s
 emerging definition of social housing.

The Task Force also recognizes that such a partnership will require careful attention to
governance and accountability, particularly where City capital is involved. As a result, further
work will be needed to define appropriate structures that ensure alignment between the City and
PHA while respecting their distinct roles and authorities.

6.4 Pilot Project Approach
Consistent with guidance from peer jurisdictions and practitioners, the Task Force is increasingly
oriented toward a pilot project approach that would:

 ●​ Focus on a limited number of initial projects;
 ●​ Test key elements of the model, including financing, partnership structures, and income
 mix; and
 ●​ Generate practical experience that can inform future expansion.


 14

 Page 154
This strategy reflects an understanding that social housing is not a single policy decision, but a
system that must be built iteratively. Early projects can demonstrate feasibility, build institutional
knowledge, and establish public confidence.

At the same time, the Task Force recognizes that even pilot projects must be designed with
long-term scalability in mind, ensuring that lessons learned can be translated into a broader,
sustainable program.

Taken together, these elements point toward a strategic direction in which the City leverages its
financial capacity, partners with existing institutions, and proceeds through targeted
implementation, building a model of social housing that is both ambitious and grounded in
Portland’s realities.




 15

 Page 155
7. Work Remaining
While the Task Force has developed a clearer understanding of the challenges and opportunities
associated with social housing in Portland, significant work remains to translate these insights
into a fully defined and implementable framework.

The second part of the Task Force’s work will focus on deepening analysis in several key areas,
with the goal of producing actionable recommendations that are financially sound, legally viable,
and operationally feasible.

7.1 Financing and Capital Strategy

Further work is needed to define the structure and implications of potential financing tools,
particularly bond financing.

This will include:

 ●​ Evaluating different bond structures, including general obligation and revenue bonds;
 ●​ Assessing risk exposure and mitigation strategies, including how projects perform under
 varying market conditions;
 ●​ Exploring mechanisms for repayment and recapitalization, ensuring that public
 investment can be sustained and redeployed over time; and
 ●​ Clarifying how new financing tools would interact with existing resources, including the
 Jill C. Duson Housing Trust Fund and other local or federal programs.

This analysis will be central to determining the scale at which the City can responsibly
participate in housing development.

7.2 Development Pathways

The Task Force has identified multiple potential pathways for public involvement in housing
production. The next phase of work will further evaluate these options to determine where
intervention is most effective. This will include:

 ●​ Comparing the feasibility and impact of new construction, acquisition and rehabilitation,
 and intervention in stalled projects;
 ●​ Identifying the conditions under which each pathway is most appropriate; and
 ●​ Developing criteria for prioritizing opportunities as they arise.

The goal is to establish a flexible but disciplined framework for how the City engages with
different types of projects.

7.3 Partnership Models




 16

 Page 156
Building on early discussions, the Task Force will further define how partnerships - particularly
with the Portland Housing Authority - can be structured to support social housing.

This work will include:

 ●​ Clarifying roles and responsibilities across partner organizations;
 ●​ Identifying opportunities for regional collaboration with other public or quasi-public
 entities; and
 ●​ Developing models for shared ownership and financial participation that align with the
 Task Force’s principles.

Particular attention will be given to ensuring that partnership structures preserve both operational
effectiveness and long-term public value.

7.4 Land and Site Strategy

Although land alone is not sufficient to drive housing production, it remains an important
component of a broader strategy. The Task Force will:

 ●​ Refine the list of viable City-owned parcels, taking into account physical, regulatory, and
 financial constraints;
 ●​ Develop criteria for site selection, including alignment with transit, services, and
 neighborhood context; and
 ●​ Evaluate opportunities for strategic acquisition or repurposing of additional sites, where
 appropriate.

This work will help ensure that land resources are deployed strategically in support of broader
financing and development goals.

7.5 Legal and Institutional Capacity

The implementation of a social housing strategy will require careful evaluation of the City’s legal
authority and institutional structure.

Key areas of focus include:

 ●​ Confirming the City’s authority to finance and participate in development, including any
 constraints under state law or municipal charter;
 ●​ Clarifying the role of existing entities, such as the Portland Housing Authority and other
 quasi-public organizations; and
 ●​ Developing a governance and partnership structure (“bridge”) to support joint City–PHA
 projects.

In particular, the Task Force will examine how to establish a formal mechanism—such as board
representation, intergovernmental agreements, or other governance tools—that ensures:



 17

 Page 157
 ●​ Appropriate oversight of public investment;
 ●​ Alignment of project goals and outcomes; and
 ●​ Clear decision-making authority and accountability across institutions.

This work is essential to ensuring that any future program is both effective and publicly
accountable.

7.6 Community Engagement

Finally, the Task Force will continue to engage with the community to better understand housing
needs, priorities, and concerns. This will include:

 ●​ Communicating clearly about the concept of social housing and how it differs from
 existing models;
 ●​ Gathering input from residents, stakeholders, and community organizations; and
 ●​ Assessing the political and social viability of proposed approaches.

A successful social housing strategy will require not only technical feasibility, but also broad
public understanding and support.




 18

 Page 158