Social Housing Task Force — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-06-10
Time: 18:00

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS
 City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair
FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz
 Paul Styslinger
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 6:00 PM Bill Stauffer
 Jason Spector
City Hall Basement Room 24 Kippy Catherine Buxton
Richardson Room Wendy Cherubini
 Cullen Ryan
 Matthew Peters
 Kristin Leffler
 Jon Fetherston, Co-Chair
 Jonathan Culley
 Tim Wells




The Social Housing Task Force will conduct this meeting in person. If you are not able to attend in person, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email SocialHousingTaskForce@portlandmaine.gov.
Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Social Housing Task Force 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).


AGENDA:

1. Review and Approve Minutes from the May 13, 2026 Meeting

 i. SHTF Draft Minutes of Meeting 05.13.2026
2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed

 Review of Interim Report Presented to the Housing and Economic Development
3.
 Committee on June 2, 2026

 i. Social Housing Task Force Interim Report
4. Discussion of Next Steps




 1

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS
 City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair
FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz
 Paul Styslinger
Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 6:00 PM Bill Stauffer
 Jason Spector
City Hall Basement Room 24 Kippy Catherine Buxton
Richardson Room Wendy Cherubini
 Cullen Ryan
 Matthew Peters
 Kristin Leffler
 Jon Fetherston, Co-Chair
 Jonathan Culley
 Tim Wells




The Social Housing Task Force will conduct this meeting in person. If you are not able to attend in person, a
recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email SocialHousingTaskForce@portlandmaine.gov.
Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Social Housing Task Force 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).


AGENDA:

1. Review and Approve Minutes from the May 13, 2026 Meeting

 i. SHTF Draft Minutes of Meeting 05.13.2026
2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed

 Review of Interim Report Presented to the Housing and Economic Development
3.
 Committee on June 2, 2026

 i. Social Housing Task Force Interim Report
4. Discussion of Next Steps




 1

 Page 1
Social Housing Task Force Minutes of Business Meeting held May 13, 2026 at 6:00 pm.

A recording of the meeting is posted here. These minutes provide a record of those in attendance, the general
discussion taking place, and motions made. Please refer to the recording for discussion details.


In attendance:
Jon Fetherston – Co-Chair
Bill Stauffer
Wendy Cherubini
Jonathan Culley
Jason Spector
City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz
Paul Styslinger
Cullen Ryan
Tim Wells
Matt Peters

Mary Davis, Division Director, City’s Housing and Community Development Division
Christian Roadman, GPCOG, Senior Planner


The meeting started at approximately 6:07 PM.

The meeting began with administrative updates, wherein Christian Roadman made a last call for task force members to
provide W-9s if they would like a stipend for their participation.

The meeting continued with approval of the minutes from April 22, 2026 (moved by Cullen Ryan, seconded by Bill
Stauffer, with unanimous approval).

Matt Peters led the group through a review of the Portland Housing Authority’s (PHA) pro forma for a project on
Congress Street, which they had prepared and presented at the last meeting. This was followed by questions, answers,
and discussion. Discussion included an emphasis on “additive” impact from social housing, political palatability of
concepts and projects, and simplicity of explanations to taxpayers regarding pros and cons of a more simple project.

Jonathan Culley and Matt Peters spoke further about the 0 Cornell Street site, presenting a potential typology (four
three-story buildings, each with a single stair and 10 units apiece as well as a draft pro forma. They posited that such an
approach is the lowest-cost way to provide housing at a variety of bedroom mixes. While there could be a mix of units,
all of them would be relatively small (i.e., 800 square feet for a two-bedroom apartment).

Jonathan Culley raised the potential for additional costs, like bond counsel, requirements of Portland’s Green New Deal,
and wage rates. Mary Davis clarified that who owns the project and who is party to the contract dictates whether the
wage and benefit rate requirement are applicable. For instance, a loan from the Jill Duson Housing Trust Fund may not
trigger prevailing wage compliance but the receipt of a credit enhancement agreement through tax increment financing
would trigger compliance because the City’s local TIF policy requires compliance. .

Discussion regarding financial assumptions, such as debt coverage, area mean income, and cash flow occurred. The
model developed by Jonathan Culley and Matt Peters assumed a debt coverage of 1.1 – which they noted as low, but
perhaps sensible in this context. The model also assumed 80% and 100% AMI-targeted units (or 90% AMI units). By year
10, cash flow from the hypothetical project is $200,000 year (in year one it is about $66,000).




 Page 2
Discussion followed regarding political feasibility, paths forward, and alternative options (i.e., a project on the peninsula,
rehabilitation of existing building, working with PHA, etc.). The group also discussed the potential for and importance of
replicability for any project.

The meeting ended at approximately 7:50pm (moved by Paul Syslinger, seconded by Jonathan Culley, with unanimous
approval).




 Page 3
 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 4
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 5
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 6
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 7
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 8
 ●​ 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 9
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 10
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 11
 ●​ 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 12
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 13
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 14
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 15
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 16
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 17
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 18
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 19
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 20
 ●​ 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 21