Social Housing Task Force

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz Paul Styslinger Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 6:00 Bill Stauffer Jason Spector PM Catherine Buxton Portland City Hall Basement, Room 24 Wendy Cherubini Kippy Richardson Room 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 January 14, 2026 Meeting i. Draft Minutes from the January 14, 2026 Meeting 2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed 3. Discussion regarding Calibration Survey and Path Forward i. Calibration Survey Summary Debrief and Discussion regarding educational sessions from January 28th (Portland 4. Housing Authority) and February 4th (Bonds) i. PHA Slide Deck (January 28th Education Session) ii. Bond Discussion Follow Up (February 4th meeting) 5. Staff Update on City-Owned Property i. Staff Memo ii. City Owned Property List 1 Page 1 iii. Tax Records and Maps iv. Information re 1928 and 1956 Congress v. Information re 21 Randall Street vi. Ch 14 Sec 6 Permitted and Conditional Uses in RN Zones vii. Ch 14 Sec 6.6.2 Accessory Dwelling Units viii. Ch 14 Sec 7 Dimensional Standards ix. Ch 14 Sec 7.4.1 Conservation Residential Development x. Ch 14 Sec 17.2 Affordable Housing Density Bonuses 2 Page 2 Social Housing Task Force Minutes of Business Meeting held January 14, 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: City Councilor Kate Sykes – Co-Chair Jon Fetherston – Co-Chair Bill Stauffer Wendy Cherubini Matt Peters Tim Wells Jonathan Culley Jason Spector Cullen Ryan City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz Greg Watson, Director of City’s Housing and Economic Development Department Mary Davis, Division Director, City’s Housing and Community Development Division Christian Roadman, GPCOG, Senior Planner The meeting started at approximately 6:07 PM. It opened with approval of the minutes from December 10, 2025 (moved by Wendy Cherubini, seconded by Jonathan Culley, with unanimous approval). Christian Roadman and Mary Davis informed the group that the educational session on bonding intended for January needs to be pushed to February 4th, and that discussion from today’s meeting could inform a potential topic and scheduling for a new January session. Mary Davis provided background on the list of City-owned properties provided for this meeting (drawn from a list completed this summer by the Assessing Department), as well as the list of projects that have not moved forward (drawn from data that informs the City's housing data dashboard). Discussion followed about the list of City-owned properties, why certain properties were excluded, requests for additional information, and the role and charge of the City’s land bank. Discussion moved to the list of potentially stalled projects. Mary Davis clarified that the list includes several categories: affordable projects that are likely moving forward, those associated with Master Development Plans (so they have extended approval times and may or may not move forward), recent approvals which may just need more time, and those which have exceeded the average time to get from planning board approval to building permit issuance. That last group, specifically projects in the 2022/2023 timeframe, may be those the task force wishes to focus on. Discussion followed about the list of stalled projects and potential follow up. Matt Peters noted that checking in with some of these projects may be worthwhile: Montgomery County's approach seemed to be finding projects that the developer essentially would have walked away and lost sunk costs. The Montgomery County program gave those projects an option they didn't have before. That's also a little less risky for any Portland social housing entity because it's an already advanced process/plan/vision, instead of beginning from scratch. Councilor Sykes noted the potential for taking over an existing building as well. Jonathan Culley wondered if the City might be able to take advantage of Historic Tax Credits to facilitate development, though there might need to be an additional middle party to do so. He noted that there are several well-known buildings in town, such as the Trelawney Building, where something needs to happen, but a project could probably only work with Historic Preservation Tax Credits. Page 3 Discussion followed regarding potential paths forward, and potential topics for further education. Jonathan Culley noted that the Portland Housing Authority has developable land and wondered if there might be an opportunity to partner with them to find a parcel. Chair Sykes noted that it might be worth bringing in the Portland Housing Authority to talk about it. Wendy Cherubini noted the possibility of converting City land we don’t think of as available for housing – parking lots around the Reiche School, for instance. Chair Sykes acknowledged that there seem to be three potential paths forward: developing vacant land, purchasing a building in need of renovation, and getting involved in a project that is already stalled. Matt Peters noted the additional option of purchasing a well-maintained apartment building, getting it out of the speculative market. The group moved the calibration survey agenda item, and Chair Sykes noted that it may be best to discuss it at the next business meeting. The group confirmed interest in a late-January educational session with the PHA, focused on what a City social housing program might help solve, what projects could get built if they weren’t waiting on historic tax credits, and what level of flexibility the organization has across its board and charter to pursue broader projects and broader mixes of incomes. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:19 pm (moved by Bill Stauffer, seconded by Councilor Michniewicz, with unanimous approval). Page 4 How important, to you, are the potential outcomes listed below in the context of the Social Housing Task Force? Not a priority Somewhat a priority Absolutely a priority Creation of a new, City-run development entity City influence over residential development (towards greater affordability) Restarting stalled private market housing projects Facilitating private market projects with low-interest loans Establishing City equity in residential real estate Making a return on City investment Perpetually facilitating creation of new housing Creating new housing below 80% AMI Creating new housing at approximately 100% AMI Creation of any new housing at all Protecting residential apartments from rent increases and condo conversion Influencing market rent prices Page 5 How important, to you, are the potential outcomes listed below in the context of the Social Housing Task Force? Not a priority Somewhat a priority Absolutely a priority 5 4 2 Creation of a new, City-run development entity 1 2 8 City influence over residential development (towards greater affordability) 3 4 4 Restarting stalled private market housing projects 5 1 5 Facilitating private market projects with low-interest loans 2 2 7 Establishing City equity in residential real estate 8 2 Making a return on City investment 4 7 Perpetually facilitating creation of new housing 2 2 7 Creating new housing below 80% AMI 5 6 Creating new housing at approximately 100% AMI 1 2 8 Creation of any new housing at all 6 1 4 Protecting residential apartments from rent increases and condo conversion 3 5 3 Influencing market rent prices Page 6 What is the minimum number of dwelling units created, the maximum level of City investment merited, and the maximum timeline for delivery of meaningful results for a social housing effort to be “worth doing”? # of units 10 8,700 Max. investment $5 million $100 million Max. timeline 1 year 30 years Page 7 Does the value of a social housing program rest in the short term (creation of units) or the long term (owning dwelling units outright, reinvesting returns, influencing market prices)? Long term 4 votes Short term 0 votes Both 7 votes Page 8 Scenario A: The City spends $20 million to construct a new 40-unit apartment building, which is owned by the City. The City makes all the interest payments using rent payments for the apartments, which are all targeted at 100% AMI. In 20 years, the City owns the building outright. It then targets the rental apartments at 70% AMI, to cover the building’s maintenance and operations costs in perpetuity. Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social Housing Task Force’s work? Yes: 9 No: 2 Page 9 Scenario B: The City spends $15 million to restart 3 stalled multifamily housing projects via below-market-rate loans (say, 5%). Together, the projects yield 300 new apartments. Most are market rate and out of reach of many Portlanders. However, under the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance, 75 of the units are deed restricted to 80% AMI in perpetuity. The City does not have an equity stake in any of the apartments. The loans must all be paid back. Within 20 years, the City has been paid in full and has achieved / earned a return on its investment. Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social Housing Task Force’s work? Yes: 5 No: 6 Page 10 Scenario C: The City spends $15 million to purchase and refurbish a 50-unit apartment building. It fully owns the apartments, which are targeted at 90% AMI. Rents cover slightly more than operations and maintenance, so that the City can contribute $10,000 to the Jill Duson Housing Trust Fund every year. Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social Housing Task Force’s work? Yes: 9 No: 2 Page 11 Scenario D: A developer works with the City to create a 150-unit apartment building, where those apartments are targeted equally across a range of 80% AMI to 120% AMI. In order to make the project work, the City contributes a $10 million investment, provides the land, and offers property tax relief. The City maintains an equity stake in the project, ensuring a percentage of returns from rent, for reinvestment in other housing projects down the line. Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social Housing Task Force’s work? Yes: 9 No: 2 Page 12 Scenario E: The City hires five new staff and forms the Portland Social Housing Department. Those staff pursue creation, purchase, seizure, and/ or rehabilitation of properties as able, targeting rent for the Department’s units from 80 - 100% AMI. The units are spread among single-family homes, duplexes, four-unit buildings, and one 20-unit building. Most (but not all) of program costs, including staff salaries, are recouped via rents, and the City owns each dwelling unit outright. Are you comfortable with this scenario as the outcome of the Social Housing Task Force’s work? Yes: 6 No: 5 Page 13 What AMI (if any) must be targeted for a project to merit subsidy in the form of City land donations and property tax relief? AMI 60 “any, assuming City equity” Page 14 Portland Housing Authority: Overview Data as of October 9, 2025 Page 15  About the Portland Housing Authority (PHA) Mission Statement: PHA partners with the community to provide and expand affordable housing and services that improve quality of life, enhance safety, and promote personal success for the people we serve and the neighborhoods in which they reside. Services & Community Alignment: PHA offers long-term affordable housing and rental assistance to over 3,000 low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals, serving nearly 10% of Portland’s population and 30% of the Public School population. Page 16  7 Member Board – Overseeing 4 primary entities 107 FTE, 7 PTE positions PHA Staffing Structure 2 Unions (ASCME & Teamsters) Undergoing Asset Repositioning for all Public Housing sites (767 units 15 Properties converted/568 units 5 properties remaining) Page 17 Our Primary Entities Page 18  PHA Federal • Legal Basis: The Portland Housing Authority (PHA) operates under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, overseen and funded by HUD. Authority • HUD assigns PHAs (Code ME003) to manage public housing and Section 8 in specific areas. • PHA has federal authority to develop and manage affordable housing and rental assistance in Portland, Maine. Page 19  Enabling Legislation: Under Maine law, municipalities can establish local housing authorities via a city resolution. • In 1943, the Portland City Council created the PHA State Portland Housing Authority as an autonomous public organization. Authority • While operating independently, the housing (Maine authority addresses the public housing needs of the city and adjoining jurisdiction. Law) State Relationship: PHA functions separately from MaineHousing. • MaineHousing oversees housing finance and policy at the state level. • PHA is responsible for managing local HUD programs and housing services within Portland. • Although they collaborate on funding, each maintains distinct responsibilities and governing boards. • Maine has 23 local housing Authorities + 1 State Housing Authority Page 20  • Formation and Governance: The Portland Housing Authority (PHA) was created by the Portland City PHA Council to carry out federal and local housing Municipal initiatives. Though it functions independently, it serves as the City's designated public housing Authority agent, with its board members appointed by the City Council to ensure proper oversight. (City of Portland) • Collaboration at the Local Level: PHA works in partnership with various City departments such as Housing and Economic Development, Planning, and Community Development to coordinate policies and advance the City’s objectives related to housing and homelessness. Page 21  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 22  Units Overview The total PHA population is 5,270 For comparison – Avesta Housing serves 4704 residents across units. PHA Public Housing and RAD/LIHTC For comparison Lewiston Housing Authority has properties = 1,335 units. 466, Westbrook Housing @ 500, SPHA @600 Voucher Programs (Housing Choice, For Comparison LHA 914 Leased, WHA 953, SPHA Project-Based, EHV, etc.) 2,136 Leased. 739 About 80% of the PHA community receive assistance via voucher programs. Page 23  “Project-Based” Vouchers Assisting Our Partners in Portland • Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs) provide rental subsidies linked to specific housing units, not tenants. The housing authority pays part of the rent directly to landlords, and tenants must live in the assigned unit to receive assistance. PBVs often help vulnerable groups and providers who seek to assist them in financing housing developments. Page 24  Some of our 35 PBV Partners 155 Danforth PHDC Branigan House (Shalom) Croquet Lane (Shalom) Equinox, Holly St, St. John St., Winding Way, Winter Landing (CHOM) Florence House, Huston Commons & Logan Place (Avesta/Preble) Iris Park (Iris Network) Yale Court Wessex Woods Strive Porter Station Page 25 Supporting Units for Specialty Populations POPULATION TYPE PROJECTS SERVING NOTES Includes “55+” project Elderly 18 Projects preference Some overlap with Disabled 23 Projects Elderly/Families Includes refugee families and Families 14 Projects special needs families Units vary per project (range 2– Homeless Set-aside 14 Projects 30 units) Homeless Set-Aside Total Units Total Homeless / Supportive Housing PBV Units: 114 Page 26 Demographics: Gender, Race, <20 RAD LIPH VO Portland Maine (2021 ACS) Female 51 54 55 34817 Male 49 46 45 33246 Female Headed 181 (50%) 308 (59%) 1313 (61%) 2964 (10%) Total Residents 629 1315 4216 68063 Residents <20 yo 192 (31%) 330 (64%) 1412 (33%) @11,625 (17%) White 325 (51%) 640 (49%) 2687 (64%) 54500 (80%) Black/AA 207 (33%) 527 (40%) 1298 (31%) 6050 (9%) Asian 93 (15%) 142 (11%) 202 (5%) 2170 (3%) Other (American Indian, 1% 1% 1% .4% Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander) Page 27 Demographics: Disabled, Household Size RAD LIPH VO Portland Maine (2021 ACS) Disabled 36% 31% 37% 13% Non-Disabled 64% 69% 63% 87% Elderly (65+) 30% 17% 20% 15% Household size (number of people in the Household) 1 249 (69%) 233 (43%) 1321 (61%) 13627 (40%) 2 43 (12%) 107 (21%) 322 (15%) 9164 (27%) 3 23 (6%) 59 (11%) 211 (11%) 5651 (17%) 4 20 (6%) 55 (11%) 146 (7%) 4127 (12%) 5 15 (4%) 29 (6%) 72 (3%) 1602 (5%) 6 5 (1%) 15 (3%) 47 (2%) 477 (1%) 7+ 5 (1%) 28 (5%) 44 (2%) 102 (.3%) Page 28  Demographics: Income and Poverty Levels RAD LIPH VO Portland Maine (2021 ACS) Average HH NA $24,308 $20,072 $83,399 Gross Income % of HH below NA 55% 62% 9% 2024 Federal Poverty Guideline Page 29  Summary and Insights PHA serves 5,270 residents; majority via voucher programs. LIPH residents have lowest incomes and highest racial and citizenship diversity and highest percentage of people <20 yo. Voucher participants have higher earnings and smaller households. Disability and elderly representation consistent (≈20–37%). PHA serves more single parent households, disabled households, and households experiencing poverty than the city population as a whole. Page 30  Total Families: 21,506 Waiting for Income Levels: • Extremely Low Income: 18,547 (86.24%) Affordable • Very Low Income: 2,471 (11.49%) • Low Income: 395 (1.84%) Housing • 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 31  Total Families: 3,297 Income Levels: • Extremely Low Income: 2,462 (74.67%) Waiting for • Very Low Income: 672 (20.38% • Low Income: 139 (4.22%) Housing • Over Income: 24 (0.73%) Choice Family Type: Vouchers: • Families with Children: 978 (29.66%) • Elderly Families: 556 (16.86%) Portland • Families with Disabilities: 1,317 (39.95%) • One Household Member: 1,972 (59.81%) Applicants Race/Ethnicity: • White: 2,405 (72.95%) • Black or African American: 651 (19.75%) • Asian: 104 (3.15%) • Alaska Native or American Indian: 70 (2.12%) • Pacific Islander: 13 (0.39%) • Hispanic or Latino: 197 (5.98%) Locality: • Live Local: 2,614 (79.28%) • Work Local: 1,339 (40.61%) Page 32 State Local Total Families: 21,506 Total Families: 3,297 Income Levels: Income Levels: • Extremely Low Income: 18,547 (86.24%) • Extremely Low Income: 2,462 (74.67%) (- • Very Low Income: 2,471 (11.49%) 11.57) • Low Income: 395 (1.84%) • Very Low Income: 672 (20.38%) (+8.89) • Over Income: 93 (0.43%) • Low Income: 139 (4.22%) (+2.38) • Over Income: 24 (0.73%) (+.30%) Family Type: • Families with Children: 7,041 (32.74%) Family Type: • Elderly Families: 3,425 (15.93%) • Families with Children: 978 (29.66%) (-3.08) • Families with Disabilities: 9,764 (45.40%) • Elderly Families: 556 (16.86%) (+.93) • One Household Member: 11,901 (55.34%) • Families with Disabilities: 1,317 (39.95%) (- 5.45) Race/Ethnicity: • One Household Member: 1,972 (59.81%) • White: 17,002 (79.06%) (+4.47) • Black or African American: 3,541 (16.47%) • Asian: 364 (1.69%) Race/Ethnicity: • Alaska Native or American Indian: 729 (3.39%) • White: 2,405 (72.95%) (-6.11) • Pacific Islander: 116 (0.54%) • Black or African American: 651 (19.75%) • Hispanic or Latino: 1,743 (8.10%) (+3.28) • Asian: 104 (3.15%) (+1.46) • Alaska Native or American Indian: 70 (2.12%) (- 1.27) • Pacific Islander: 13 (0.39%) (-.15) • Hispanic or Latino: 197 (5.98%) (-2.12) Page 33 Waiting for Public Housing Page 34 Waiting for PHA Non-PH Page 35  Portland Housing Development Corporation (PHDC) At a Glance 501(c)4 non-profit development entity for PHA Development Activity 2014 -2025 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: 330 Front Street Ph 1 Sagamore Village Page 36  Sample “Capital Stack” 2015 2025 Bayside Anchor – 45 family apartments 9 Boyd St. (COMB Block) – 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 37  PHA/PHDC Land Status • Before conversions: Declaration of Trust by HUD restricts use to public housing – no mortgages / financing (80% AMI restriction) • Re-Positioning: Under HUD’s Disposition Program PHDC owns land with a Restrictive Use Covenant. All properties permanently affordable, even after tax credit use restrictions expire (80% AMI in perpetuity; LIHTC 60% AMI for 45 years (in perpetuity)) • Last conversions: – Franklin Towers – September 2026 (200 units to be renovated with a lot split for future development) – East Bayside – 5-10 years (134 units with potential for hundreds more under RE-CODE) – Other scattered sites with underutilized land • Other opportunities: – Local “preservation” deals (saving existing “affordable” housing) – New construction projects in the works Page 38 Recent Projects & Next Steps Riverton Harbor Terrace Sagamore Village COMB Block Park & Franklin 118 under 120 renovated 174 new homes, Towers renovation and homes for seniors Historic renovations many dedicated to 64 new homes completed to improve 400 seniors and families under September 2025 homes where 40 units construction stand Page 39  Funding Challenges • Limits of Federal Funding (Losing public housing program; HOME funds flat funded; LIHTC very limited; Buy America restrictions added) • Maine funding oversubscribed 5:1 (4-5 LIHTC projects yearly statewide; Loan product good at Interest only; No State Subsidy for 4% walk-in program, rural or homeownership) • AHTIF fills operating cost gaps and helps PHA access additional funding sources. Operating costs are rising quickly.(Sagamore (no TIF) goes from $0 taxes to $435,000/yr. and City will not pick up trash - $75,000 project cost) Page 40  Other Challenges City Fees Substantial fees reduce City support and limit feasibility (planning board; building permit; impact fees, legal and underwriting; ROW infrastructure) Green Building Ordinance Complexity and misalignment with MSHA and PHDC energy standards slows construction of green buildings (PHDC has built largest number of Passive House units in Maine) Environmental Issues Improved coordination of Environmental Reviews is needed to address environmental/brownfield remediation. (City does their assessment and MaineHousing will not use City’s, they must do their own costing time and money) Franklin Towers Towers Page 41 Questions? Page 42 City of Portland | Finance Department Brendan O’Connell, Director To: Members of the Social Housing Task Force From: Brendan T. O’Connell, Finance Director​ Mary Davis, Housing & Community Development Division Director Date: February 4, 2026 Re: Bond Discussion Follow Up SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to respond to questions that were raised during the November 19, 2025 meeting of the Social Housing Task Force. The answers within this memo have been compiled by City staff (Finance Director Brendan T. O’Connell, Housing & Community Development Director Mary Davis, Housing and Economic Development Director Greg Watson) and, where noted, also by the City’s external Bond Advisory firm (Moors & Cabot) and external legal counsel. Task Force Question 1: Do revenue bonds impact the City’s credit ratings? ​ ​ Response from the City’s external Bond Advisor - Moors & Cabot: Paying for a project with the proceeds from a Revenue Bond financing is legally a non-recourse obligation supported only by cash flows to pay associated debt service. The security for a municipal revenue bond is typically defined in a bond resolution or a trust indenture, which acts as a contract between the issuer and its bondholders. The resolution or indenture most often identifies the bond’s security as a lien on the net revenues of the system after the payment of regular operating and maintenance expenses. It may also be enhanced by posting collateral, albeit burdensome to bondholders who would have to liquidate such.​ The closer the City is to the incorporation and/or governance of an organization that would construct, manage, or share in typical operating involvement of a project, the more difficult it is to deny involvement or responsibility. This is not a legal responsibility of the City per se, but investors will look to and even expect implicit support by the City in times of financial or operational difficulty. The larger the project, the more vulnerable the City becomes in a “too big to fail” concept.​ Also, while there is no “moral obligation” for the City to be involved it is not unreasonable to expect that parties affected by misfortunes of the project would seek, and maybe even obtain, a more active participation of the City than the City had anticipated. The rating analysts are aware of this circumstance and look to the history of bailouts or lifeboats in their analysis of these probabilities … and rate accordingly. ​ Finally, the rating analysts look first at “is it necessary” and then “is it desired”? Having passed that level of due diligence, the next hurdle is “is this consistent with essential uses that the City is to provide”. Finally, they question the origination capacity, skill sets and depth of experience and talent available to make the project work. This is a major component of “Management”, one of the four major rating Page 43 criteria … that could have an impact on the City’s rating.​ This comes to a discussion of “Notching”. This is the qualitative process of adjusting a specific debt issue’s rating to reflect credit-specific risks relative to the issuer’s overall creditworthiness. While top-tier, tax-backed debt may align with the issuer’s rating, other debt instruments (revenue bonds, special tax bonds) may be notched up or down based on security, legal pledges, and structural features. This also has the reverse effect. If the subordinate obligor experiences difficulty than this could easily have an affect on the City’s direct operations (e.g., if the school budget is out of wack, the City’s general fund is expected for the cure; similarly, it is not uncommon that a TIF financed enterprise fails in its expectations thus leading to reduced expected TIF revenue or, worse, a draw on City reserves). ​ Task Force Question 2: Is the principal repayment (structure) requirements a condition of the bond or is it set by the City’s Debt Management Policy? If set by the policy, are there guidelines or requirements in the policy for principal repayment?​ Response from staff: The City’s Debt Management Policy notes that debt service “Payments will be structured with level principal and declining interest over the life of the debt, except in instances where level debt service payments offer economic benefit, such as for rate stabilization.”​ ​ Once a specific debt issuance proposal is under consideration by the Social Housing Task Force, the specific projected cash flows / debt service payments could be projected by the Director of Finance and outside Bond Counsel. ​ Task Force Question 3: Is there a higher interest rate associated with either a general obligation bond or a revenue bond?​ ​ Response from the City’s external Bond Advisor - Moors & Cabot: The methodology that covers debt backed by a general obligation (“GO”) bond pledge to pay debt service is an unlimited tax, contractual “full faith and credit pledge,” including, either explicitly or implicitly, the issuer’s obligation to levy an unlimited ad valorem property tax to pay debt service. The unconditional and open-ended nature of the GO pledge typically means an issuer legally commits all of its revenue-generating capacity to meet debt service obligations.​ ​ A revenue bond is a category of municipal bond supported by the revenue from a specific project Investors in revenue bonds focus heavily on the project's ability to generate cash flow. A key metric is the debt-service coverage ratio, which measures if the project generates enough income to cover interest and principal payments and if the project is desired and if the project is needed. ​ General obligation (GO) bonds are traditionally considered to have lower credit risk than revenue bonds because their payments are backed by a broader range of potential income streams. This bodes for lower ratings for revenue obligations, as they are generally considered slightly higher risk than GO bonds and, consequently, even in the same rating range, investors demand higher yields (interest rates) for revenue bonds. Page 44  ​ (1) General obligation bonds maturing in 20 years are used in compiling these indexes. The 20-bond index has an average rating equivalent to Moody's Aa2 and S&P's AA. (2) Revenue bonds maturing in 30 years are used in compiling this index. It has an average rating equivalent to Moody's A1 and S&P's A-plus. ​ Task Force Question #4: Is city ownership needed to stay under the 10% threshold for tax exempt bond issuance? The general response below was provided by the City’s external Bond Counsel - Pierce Atwood. It is worth noting that this particular question gets complex / nuanced fairly quickly, and that an engagement letter or contract may be required to research any specific proposal. We have rates from a variety of local firms which can be shared as needed. ​ *****​ ​ For a workforce housing project (e.g., a project that does not meet applicable low-income, affordable housing limits) to qualify for tax-exempt financing, the project must be owned by the City and either operated by the City directly, or operated by a third-party manager under a qualified management contract. The project could be owned by the City directly, or by an entity formed by the City that qualifies under §115 of the Code. ​ ​ Task Force Question #5: What other cities are using bond financing for housing development? What kind of bond financing is being used in these communities? How do we make sure that there is a revenue stream to repay the bond and create a revolving loan fund?​ ​ Page 45 Response from City staff: Instances of municipalities directly issuing bonds to construct housing are somewhat limited. Examples of debt being issued by local or State redevelopment/housing authorities, such as the Providence, RI example shared during the December 10, 2025 Social Housing Task Force meeting, are more prevalent. A few examples of where municipalities were the direct issuer of social housing debt intended to build new housing include the following cities/towns: ​ New York City has sold over $2B in taxable general obligation bonds to finance low income housing projects. ​ In 2023, San Francisco approved $170,780,000 IN TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (SOCIAL BONDS – AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2019) SERIES 2023C which were intended to: - create new affordable homes, especially for the City’s growing senior population; - accelerate the rebuilding of distressed public housing sites for some of the City’s most vulnerable residents;​ - expand rental and homeownership opportunities for the City’s middle-income residents and workforce, including educators, first responders, non-profit workers, and service industry employees; - allocate one third of Proposition A (2019)’s bond funds to serve extremely Low-Income households (30% AMI or less). In 2024, Chicago issued $1.25B in General Obligation and Sales Tax Securitization Corporation bonds, of which $625 million over 5-years will be used to create affordable housing. The bonds will be primarily tax-exempt, however up to 35% will be taxable in order to use the funds as revolving loans and other non-capital expenses. The City will also leverage other resources such as tax increment financing and LIHTC to augment the bond funds. Elsewhere in the State of Maine, the Town of Rockland is hoping to use a recently approved $10M in bonding authority to assist homeowners and developers in building affordable and workforce housing by leveraging funding available through MaineHousing. However, the funds will not be used directly by the City to construct housing. The City hired a planning consultant and is facilitating a task force that will advise the City Council on ways to address housing needs and options for using the funding available though the housing bond. In addition to the housing bond, the City will also leverage tax increment financing and credit enhancement agreements. ​ ​ Task Force Question 6: Would we need to stand up a separate entity, like the Jetport Enterprise Fund, to issue bonds for housing development? If so, would that require a charter amendment? Response from City staff: Corporation Counsel’s Office is conducting research regarding the Portland Renewal Authority to determine if the entity legally exists today and what authorities the Renewal Authority has, including the ability to bond. ​ ​ Response from the City’s external Bond Counsel: Just to be clear, the Jetport Enterprise Fund is not a separate legal entity. Rather, it is a “department” or “unit” of the City. The City could pursue a workforce housing project as the City proper, as a separate enterprise fund of the City (like the Jetport, which is not a separate legal entity), or through the establishment of an actual separate legal entity that qualifies under §115 of the Code. Page 46 Task Force Question 7: Didn’t the state pass legislation recently that identified housing as public infrastructure? Response from City staff: LD 1681, approved in 2025, added to the definition of public infrastructure “...municipal shelter facilities and housing projects managed and operated by a municipality or a municipal housing authority, as defined in section 4702, subsection 10-A,...”. See text excerpt noted here. Page 47 City of Portland | Housing and Economic Development Department | Housing and Community Development Division Mary P. Davis, Division Director To: Social Housing Task Force MEETING DATE February 11, 2026 AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item 5 Staff Update on City-Owned Property BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS City-Owned Property At the January 14, 2026 meeting of the Task Force, staff reviewed a list of 35 city-owned properties that were determined to have a high “developability score” based on factors such as utilities intersections, topography, land cover, neighborhood land values, and zoning-based housing capacity. The list includes development concerns identified as: ●​ Land Cover refers to parcels that contain wetlands, shoreland zoning, or are significantly forested. ●​ Topography refers to parcels with significant differences in maximal elevation changes or steep slopes. ●​ Water/Sewer Line refers to parcels through which an existing water or sewer line runs. Jonathan Culley, Task Force member, reviewed the list and created a sublist of eight parcels that may be appropriate for multi-family development, eliminating lots of less than 10,000 square feet and lots that had no street access. He met with Councilor Sykes to review the list. Councilor Sykes asked Staff to review the list and provide preliminary analysis on Zoning (dimensional standards, allowable density, etc.) and also access to infrastructure (utilities, sidewalks, transit, etc.). Staff have begun the review process and are sharing preliminary information at this time. The City’s Land Use Code is in Chapter 14. There are several sections to refer to that impact the number of units that can be built on any particular lot. Chapter 14, Section 6 includes Permitted and Conditional Uses in each zone (see Table 6-A attached) as well as the Accessory dwelling unit provision in Sec. 6.6.2, attached, which allows up to 2 additional ADU units on any lot zoned for residential use. 1 Page 48 Chapter 14, Section 7 contains the allowable Dimensional Standards (see Table 7-A attached) as well as alternative residential development forms called a conservation residential development (CRD) - Sec. 7.4.1, attached, which allows a developer to reduce lot size, setbacks, lot coverage and street frontage requirements in exchange for conserving a portion of the site as conservation land. Chapter 14, Section 17 is the Housing section. Section 17.2.2 (attached) includes affordable housing density incentives. Allowable density and height bonuses can be found in Section 17.2.2.D permits a developer to develop 2.5x the base density allowance on each developable lot when they provide 50% or more of the units as affordable. PREPARED BY Mary Davis Housing and Community Development Division D ATTACHMENTS City Owned Property List Tax Record and Map for each of the 8 identified properties Information re: 1928 and 1956 Congress Street Information re: 21 Randall Street Chapter 14 Permitted and Conditional Uses in RN Zones Sec 6. Chapter 14 Accessory Dwelling Units Sec. 6.6.2 Chapter 14 Dimensional Standards Sec. 7 Chapter 14 Conservation Residential Development Sec. 7.4.1 Chapter 14 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Sec. 17.2 ​ 2 Page 49  CBL Street Address Zoning Acres Sq. ft. Assessed Val Notes 211 B003001 1928 CONGRESS ST RN1 8.5934 374,328 $1,500,000 Topography, Not Reviewed by COTAPC, proximity to Jetport, Conservation Easement & Wetlands 151A A013001 0 CORNELL ST RN3 3.1044 135,227 $871,400 Access from Cambridge St, needs further staff evaluation re availability 209A A014001 1956 CONGRESS ST RN1 18.6147 810,856 $2,229,900 Topography, Not Reviewed by COTAPC, proximity to Jetport, Conservation Easement & Wetlands 345 B005001 157 PLYMOUTH ST RN1 0.3916 17,056 $92,700 "Pork chop" lot, Not reviewed by COTAPC 352 D018001 284 PALMER AVE RN1 3.1697 138,074 $123,600 Topography, Not reviewed by COTAPC 166 B014001 21 RANDALL ST RN3 0.3204 13,956 $25,000 Water/Sewer Line easement, Reviewed by COTAPC, Adjacent to PHA Front St, in discussions with PHA re sale 126 G003001 56 CLIFTON ST RN3 0.2434 10,601 $265,100 Water/Sewer Line, Reviewed by COTAPC to retain for visibility and traffice reconfiguration 385 B027001 200 LAMBERT ST RN1 0.6721 29,275 $98,200 Topography, Reviewed by COTAPC, available for sale Page 50  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ !"#$$ÿ$% & ÿ '(ÿ& ÿ 8)ÿ&*ÿ) +,ÿ-ÿ!.#" /# %0 ÿ 123456ÿ829:8ÿ;<2ÿ=4>?ÿ>?2ÿ@AB4B9ÿCD4E2 8)ÿ098ÿF898(G H+I * -- ÿ  !"#$$ÿ$%ÿ-+ ÿ JI$K ÿ ÿ &* ÿ-ÿ0ÿ7& ÿ - ÿ - LMN53O P9 %QÿKÿ7"%0  ÿ ÿ 0))9** ÿ !"#$$ÿ$% Rÿ$8RÿS 7"%0 ÿ/#ÿI  )ÿ8  T ÿ 78( ÿ UOO5OO5VÿX26Y5O 8) ZR++R+ [)( Z %8 ZR++R+ \] *8)ÿ^ÿ.98*ÿ#_] Z `9ÿ#_]* ZR++R+ Z a265OÿbcOde3f 8 79 !98 !989 T 78( ^^ Z %QÿKÿ7"%0  UOO5OOg5NdÿbcOde3f Q89 8) [)( %8 $8)89) `9 %8_8h #_] #_] .8[ + ZR++R+ Z ZR++R+ Z ZR++R+ Z I ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z  ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z  ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z  ZRR Z ZRR Z ZRR Z  Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z  Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z  Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z J Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z , Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Z+R, Z Page 51 1928 Congress Page 52  ÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ ÿ!" # ÿ $%ÿ# ÿ 8&ÿ#'ÿ& (ÿ)ÿ*+, " ÿ -./012ÿ4.564ÿ78.ÿ90:;ÿ:;.ÿ<=>0>5ÿ?@0A. 8&ÿ98ÿB898%C DEE ' )) ÿ ÿ,ÿ!" ÿ ÿ ÿ FFGÿ!H #' ÿ)ÿÿ7#I ÿ ) ÿ ) JKL53M N9 "OÿHÿ7" ÿ ÿ &&9'' PQÿ* !!ÿ!" Rÿ!8RÿS 7"ÿ, ÿE  &ÿ8 ETTF IU HO 78% ÿ VMM5MM5WÿY26Z5M 8& [PGRE I\&% [ "8 [PGRE ]^ '8&ÿTÿ+98'ÿ_^ [ `9ÿ_^' [PGRE [ a265MÿbcMde3f 8 79 *98 *989 IU 78% ETTF [ "OÿHÿ7"  Hÿ,ÿgÿO,ÿ]ÿ Hÿ"#!" ! HO T(TQPP [  Hÿ,ÿ!ÿgÿO,ÿ]ÿ Hÿ"#!" ! PFGQ P GTTQP [  HRÿ, (PF( F( VMM5MMh5LdÿbcMde3f O89 8& I\&% "8 !8&89& `9 "8_8i _^ _^ +8\ FF [PGRE [ [PGRE [ [PGRE [ FFE [((R [ [((R [ [((R [ FF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [ FFF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [ FF [((R [ [((R [ [((R [ FF [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ FQ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ FP [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ FG [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ F( [GGR( [ [GGR( [ [GGR( [ Page 53 0 Cornell Page 54  ÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ !"#$%%ÿ%& ' ÿ ()ÿ' ÿ 8*ÿ'+ÿ* ÿ,ÿ" -$#!.$!& ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0 8*ÿ98ÿD898)E FGH !+ ,,ÿ,, ÿ  !"#$%%ÿ%&ÿ, ÿ !&$#!&!ÿ7#IJK ÿ FFÿ%L '+ ÿ,ÿÿ7'M ÿ , ÿ , NOP53Q R9 &KÿLÿ7 #&! ÿ ÿ **9++ SFÿ !"#$%%ÿ%& Tÿ%8TÿU 7 #&!ÿ.$ÿ  *ÿ8  MV ÿ 78) ÿ WQQ5QQ5XÿZ26[5Q 8* \TT M]*) \ &8 \TT ^_ +8*ÿ̀ÿ-98+ÿ$a_ \ b9ÿ$a_+ \TT \ c265QÿdeQfg3h 8 79 "98 "989 MV 78) ``F \ &KÿLÿ7 #&! WQQ5QQi5PfÿdeQfg3h K89 8* M]*) &8 %8*89* b9 &8a8j $a_ $a_ -8]  \TT \ \TT \ \TT \  \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ S \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \  \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \  \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \ \THHSTF \  \TST \ \TST \ \TST \  \TST \ \TST \ \TST \ F \TST \ \TST \ \TST \ H \TST \ \TST \ \TST \  \TST \ \TST \ \TST \ Page 55 1956 Congress Page 56  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ7 !"#ÿ$" ! ÿ %&ÿ! ÿ 8'ÿ!(ÿ)' *ÿ+ÿ, -./0.0"1 ÿ 234567ÿ93:;9ÿ<=3ÿ>5?@ÿ?@3ÿABC5C:ÿDE5F3 8'ÿ198ÿG898&H IJ* 0( +++K+J+ ÿ 7 !"#ÿ$"ÿ+ ÿ -1ÿ1-.ÿ/ $0ÿ$" ÿ *$L !( Mÿ+ÿ7!)ÿN1"./ ÿ + ÿ + OPQ53R S9 )"ÿLÿ7 /"10 ÿ ÿ 1''9(( KJÿ) 0,/.$$ÿ$" )Tÿ$8TÿU 7 /"10ÿ.ÿ  'ÿ8  V ÿ 78& ÿ WRR5RR5XÿZ26[5R 8' \JMT ]'& \ "8 \JMT #^ (8'ÿ_ÿ-98(ÿ.`^ \ a9ÿ.`^( \JMT \ b265RÿcdRef3g 8 79 ,98 ,989 V 78& __K \ )"ÿLÿ7 /"10 WRR5RRh5QeÿcdRef3g 89 8' ]'& "8 $8'89' a9 "8`8i .`^ .`^ -8] MM \JMT \ \JMT \ \JMT \ MM \T \ \T \ \T \ MM \T \ \T \ \T \ MMM \T \ \T \ \T \ MM \T \ \T \ \T \ MM \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \ MJ \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \ MK \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \ M \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \ M* \KTK \ \KTK \ \KTK \ Page 57 157 Plymouth Page 58  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ7 !ÿ" # ÿ $%ÿ# ÿ 8&ÿ#'ÿ(& )ÿ*ÿ+,"!- -. ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0 8&ÿ98ÿD898%E F)GH -' **ÿ** ÿ ** ÿ 7 !ÿ"ÿ* ÿ HÿIJ #' ÿ*ÿ7#K(ÿL. ! ÿ ÿ*ÿ7#K(ÿI L ! ÿ * MNO53P ,Q9 (.Rÿ,Jÿ7,!.- ÿ ÿ &&9'' Gÿ(,-+! IIÿI. (SÿI8SÿT 7,!.-ÿ ÿ  &ÿ8 G KU H 78% ) VPP5PP5WÿY26Z5P 8& [S) K\&% [ .8 [S) ]^ '8&ÿ_ÿ"98'ÿ`^ [ ,a9ÿ`^' [S) [ b265PÿcdPef3g 8 79 +98 +989 KU 78% __G [ (.Rÿ,Jÿ7,!.- H ) VPP5PPh5OeÿcdPef3g R89 8& K\&% .8 I8&89& ,a9 .8`8i `^ `^ "8\  [S) [ [S) [ [S) [  [S [ [S [ [S [  [S [ [S [ [S [  [S [ [S [ [S [  [S [ [S [ [S [  [SH [ [SH [ [SH [ G [SH [ [SH [ [SH [  [SH [ [SH [ [SH [ H [SH [ [SH [ [SH [ ) [SH [ [SH [ [SH [ Page 59 284 Palmer Page 60  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿÿ! " ÿ #$ÿ" ÿ 8%ÿ"&ÿ'% (ÿ)ÿ*+,-.-! ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0 8%ÿ98ÿD898$E FG & )))() ÿ ÿ!ÿ)G ÿ -Hÿ!ÿG)G ÿ GI(J "& ÿ)ÿ7"'ÿK!- ÿ Gÿ)ÿ7"'ÿ-K- ÿ ) LMN53O +P9 '!Hÿ+Jÿ7+! ÿ ÿ %%9&& GQIÿ'+*- ÿ! 'Rÿ8RÿS 7+!ÿ.-ÿ  %ÿ8  T ÿ 78$ ÿ UOO5OO5VÿX26Y5O 8% Z(R [%$ Z !8 Z(R \] &8%ÿ^ÿ,98&ÿ-_] Z +`9ÿ-_]& Z(R Z a265OÿbcOde3f 8 79 *98 *989 T 78$ ^^Q Z '!Hÿ+Jÿ7+! UOO5OOg5NdÿbcOde3f H89 8% [%$ !8 8%89% +`9 !8_8h -_] -_] ,8[ ( Z(R Z Z(R Z Z(R Z  ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z G ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z  ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z  ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z  ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z I ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z Q ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z i ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z  ZRI Z ZRI Z ZRI Z Page 61 21 Randall Page 62  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ!"ÿ# $ ÿ %&ÿ$ ÿ 8'ÿ$(ÿ' ÿ)ÿ!*+,"-+" . ÿ /01234ÿ60786ÿ9:0ÿ;2<=ÿ<=0ÿ>?@2@7ÿAB2C0 8'ÿ.98ÿD898&E FGG "( )) ÿ !"ÿ# ÿ )ÿÿ#Hÿ ÿ ÿ $( ÿ)ÿ7$IÿJ.+, ÿ ÿ)ÿ7$Iÿ#+J+, ÿ ) KLM53N !O9 Pÿ!ÿ7!, ." ÿ ÿ .''9(( QRÿ!",+##ÿ# Sÿ#8SÿT 7!, ."ÿ-+ÿG  'ÿ8  IU ÿ 78& ÿ VNN5NN5WÿY26Z5N 8' [S I\'& [ 8 [S ]^ (8'ÿ_ÿ*98(ÿ+`^ [ !a9ÿ+`^( [S [ b265NÿcdNef3g 8 79 98 989 IU 78& __Q [ Pÿ!ÿ7!, ." VNN5NNh5MeÿcdNef3g P89 8' I\'& 8 #8'89' !a9 8`8i +`^ +`^ *8\  [S [ [S [ [S [ G [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [  [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [  [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [  [GjS [ [GjS [ [GjS [  [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [ R [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [ Q [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [ j [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [  [GSG [ [GSG [ [GSG [ Page 63 56 Clifton Page 64  ÿÿ ÿ 123456 789 ÿ ÿ 799ÿ8 ÿ !"#ÿ$# % ÿ &'ÿ% ÿ 8(ÿ%)ÿ*( +ÿ,ÿ-./!"0 !0# ÿ 123456ÿ829:8ÿ;<2ÿ=4>?ÿ>?2ÿ@AB4B9ÿCD4E2 8(ÿ98ÿF898'G H+ 0) ,, ÿ  !"#ÿ$#ÿ,I ÿ J$K0-#.0ÿ/!ÿ, ÿ ÿLÿ$M %) ÿ,ÿ7%*ÿJ#!" ÿ ÿ,ÿ7%*ÿ$!J!" ÿ , NOP53Q .R9 *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0 ÿ ÿ ((9)) Lÿ*.0-"!$$ÿ$# *Tÿ$8TÿU 7."#0ÿ!ÿI  (ÿ8 VVL W I 78' L XQQ5QQ5Yÿ[26\5Q 8( ]LT ^(' ] #8 ]LT K_ )8(ÿVÿ/98)ÿ!`_ ] .a9ÿ!`_) ]LT ] b265QÿcdQef3g 8 79 -98 -989 W 78' VVL ] *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0 *#Sÿ.Mÿ7."#0 I L XQQ5QQh5PeÿcdQef3g S89 8( ^(' #8 $8(89( .a9 #8`8i !`_ !`_ /8^  ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ] I ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]  ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]  ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]  ]LT ] ]LT ] ]LT ]  ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ] L ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]  ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ]  ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ] + ]ITL ] ]ITL ] ]ITL ] Page 65 200 Lambert Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76  ! ( 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE ! ( 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE Attachment C 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 166-C-13 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 166-B-1 FRONT ST 37-59 - & 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE - & - & 166-C-2 WASHINGTON AVE 40 foot wide sewer right of way 166-C-12 166-C-6 31 ! ( abandone d? sewer (ty ! ( ! ( pical) - & 166-C-11 166-B-9 166-B-10 - & ! ( 166-C-9-10 166-C-7-8 166-B-11 166-B-12 166-B-13 166-B-14-15-16 11 ! ( 33 ! ( 29 ! ( 166-C-17 - & RANDALL ST & - & - 166-E-2 166-E-3 166-E-4 166-E-15 166-E-5 166-E-6 166-E-7 166-F-1-2 166-F-3-4 GIS SKETCH OF 21 RANDALL ST ! ( ! ( 0 15 30 60 90 120 CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE ! ( DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ! ( AUGUST 8, 2019 1"=30' Feet ± ! ( Page 77 212 Canco Rd Suite B PORTLAND, MAINE 04101 PHONE (207) 874-8846 FAX (207) 874-8852  Attachment D Page 78  USE STANDARDS TABLE 6-A: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES Use RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6 Standards Single-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Two-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Three-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Four-family dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Multi-family dwellings Կ ౢ Կ ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.12 Residential Townhouse dwellings ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.13 Group homes Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.17 Lodging houses Կ Կ ౢ ౢ 6.4.21 Child care centers + small child care facilities Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.9 Elementary, middle, and secondary schools Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Governmental uses ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Places of assembly Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.30 Institutional Post-secondary schools Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.31 Residential care facilities (small) Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.35 Residential care facilities (large) Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Bed and breakfasts ౢԿ ౢԿ ౢԿ 6.4.7 Hostels ౢԿ ౢԿ ౢԿ 6.4.18 Comm. Market gardens Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.25 Neighborhood nonresidential reuse Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.26 Cemeteries ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Parks and open spaces ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ Other Solar energy systems (minor) ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ ౢ 6.4.38 Utility substations Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ Կ 6.4.39 Key: ౢ = permitted | ᶊ = conditional | Blank = not permitted | ౢ/ᶊ = permitted or conditional per use standards CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 6-3 Page 79 USE STANDARDS standard shall apply separately to each leased 6. ADUs shall be exempt from maximum lot portion of the principal building. coverage and minimum lot area per C. No accessory use or uses not within a building dwelling unit requirements. shall occupy more than a combined total of 7. Detached ADUs shall be limited to a 25% of the unbuilt lot area, with the exception maximum height of 18 feet, unless of off-street parking or as otherwise provided constructed above a garage, in which case in Subsection 6.6.2. the height of the structure shall be limited to 25 feet. 6.6.2 Standards for specific accessory uses 8. In residential zones, detached ADUs, A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) regardless of size, shall be subject to side 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall be and rear setbacks for detached accessory permitted on all lawfully conforming and structures less than 250 square feet, as nonconforming lots with legal residential established in Article 7. uses. 9. Detached ADUs shall not be permitted 2. ADUs shall be permitted as new detached between a principal structure and a front accessory structures, building additions, or lot line. within existing lawfully conforming or B. Antennas, discs, transmitting and receiving nonconforming structures. However, the equipment. Building-mounted antennas, discs, addition of an ADU may in no way increase and other transmitting and receiving the degree of nonconformity of any equipment shall be: structure unless otherwise permitted 1. No taller than 15 feet above the highest under this subsection. structural steel of the building roof. 3. Up to two ADUs shall be permitted per 2. Setback no less than 15 feet from the qualifying property. building perimeter. 4. Under circumstances where an existing 3. Integrated into the architecture of the nonconforming structure is converted to building in placement, form, color, and an ADU, the design of the ADU shall take material so as to screen or camouflage into consideration to the extent such equipment from public view. practicable the privacy of adjacent C. Drive-throughs properties. 1. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as an 5. An ADU shall be limited to a gross floor accessory use in the B-4 zone. area of 2/3 of the gross floor area of the 2. Drive-throughs shall be permitted as largest principal unit on the lot. The conditional accessory uses in the B-2 zone aggregate square footage of detached only if a drive-through was located on the ADUs on a lot shall not exceed the gross site as of the effective date of this Code. floor area of the principal structure. 3. In all other zones, drive-throughs shall be prohibited. 6-28 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 80  DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE 7-A: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6 Single-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- -- Two-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- -- Three-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- -- Four-family 6,500 SF 6,000 5,000 SF 2,000 SF -- -- Lot area Townhouse -- 1,500 SF/unit -- 1,500 SF/unit -- 1,200 SF/unit (min.) 1,200 SF/unit, Multi-family 1,200SF/unit 725 SF/unit minimum of 435 SF/unit 40,000 SF Nonresidential 6,500 SF 6,000 SF 5,000 SF 2,000 SF 40,000 SF 2,000 SF 40 ft., except 15 20 ft., except 15 20 ft., except 15 Street frontage (min.) 40 ft. ft./unit for 40 ft. ft./unit for 50 ft. ft./unit for townhouse townhouse townhouse Average of Average of Average of Average of Front setback adjacent front adjacent front adjacent front adjacent front 25 ft. -- (min.) yards minus 5 yards minus 5 ft. yards minus 5 ft. yards minus 5 ft. ft. Principal structures and detached accessory 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. Rear structures setback (>250 SF footprint) (min.) Detached accessory structures 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. (<250 SF footprint) 8 ft., except that 7 ft., except that 5 ft., except that a a side setback a side setback 5 ft., except that a side setback may Principal structures may be reduced may be reduced side setback may be be reduced to not and detached to not less than to not less than reduced to not less less than 0 ft. Side accessory 8 ft. 5 ft. provided 4 ft. provided 16 ft. than 0 ft. provided provided that the setback, structures that the that the that the cumulative cumulative side interior (>250 SF footprint) cumulative side cumulative side side yards are not yards are not less (min.) yards are not yards are not less than 10 ft. than 10 ft. less than 16 ft. less than 14 ft. Detached accessory structures 5 ft. 5 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft. 3 ft. (<250 SF footprint) 15 ft., or the 10 ft, or the 10 ft, or the depth of an depth of an depth of an adjacent front adjacent front adjacent front yard directly yard directly Side setback, corner yard directly abutting the abutting the -- 25 ft. -- (min.) abutting the corner side corner side corner side yard yard of the lot, yard of the lot, of the lot, whichever is whichever is whichever is less less less CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 7-7 Page 81  DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE 7-A (CONT.): RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS RN-1 RN-2 RN-3 RN-4 RN-5 RN-6 35 ft., except 45 ft. for buildings with 3 or more dwelling 65 ft., except Structure height (max.) units. In all cases, 45 ft. within 15 (Unless otherwise governed by the height shall be ft. of an RN-1, 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 55 ft. City of Portland Height Map or the limited to 35 ft. RN-2, RN-3, Fort Sumner Park Height Overlay) within 15 ft. of a RN-4, OS-R, or rear lot line when OS-P zone abutting an RN-1, RN-2, or RN-3 zone Detached accessory structure 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. height (max.) Building length (max.) (Multi-family + Nonresidential -- -- -- 70 ft. 180 ft. -- uses) Residential 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 100% Lot coverage uses (max.) Nonresidential 35% 50% 50% 60% 50% 100% uses Landscaped Residential 30% 30% 30% 20% 30% -- open space uses ratio Nonresidential 50% 30% 30% 20% 30% -- (min.) uses 9 ft. or 30% of 9 ft. or 30% of the the front front façade, façade, Width of garage opening on whichever is whichever is -- -- -- front façade (max.) greater, however greater, in no case more however in no than 20 ft. case more than 20 ft. 7-8 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 82 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 7.4 ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL frontage on a street, private way, or DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS common open space within the The following alternative residential development development. options are available within certain zones as b. The maximum number of lots indicated. These alternative residential development permitted within a conservation options are intended to provide creative development shall be determined by opportunities for residential development by the total acreage of the site divided by modifying standards within certain zones to allow the applicable minimum residential lot for a variety of densities and site designs. Alternative area requirement of the underlying residential development options may not be zone. combined. c. All lots within the conservation residential development shall meet 7.4.1 Conservation residential development the dimensional requirements of the A. A conservation residential development underlying zone with the exception of permits a reduction in minimum lot area in the following: exchange for provision of common open space, i. Minimum lot area and street allowing for the efficient use of land and frontage may be reduced by no preservation of Portland’s natural resources. more than 50%. B. Conservation residential development is ii. Maximum lot coverage and permitted in the RN-1, IR-1, and IR-2 zones. minimum landscaped open space C. A conservation residential development shall be ratio requirements do not apply to a minimum of two acres in area. lots of 5,000 square feet or less in D. A conservation residential development shall be lot area. designed to prioritize the preservation of iii. A minimum side setback of five important natural features such as streams, feet applies to all lots within a wetlands, stands of mature trees, and critical conservation residential wildlife habitats. Development shall minimize development unless otherwise impacts on the natural environment by specified below. carefully laying out structures, streets, and iv. A minimum corner side setback of other infrastructure, including buffer zones to ten feet applies to all corner lots protect and connect existing natural areas on within a conservation residential site. development unless otherwise E. Development standards specified below. 1. Site layout v. Front and rear setbacks may be a. All lots within a conservation reduced by 50% for all lots within residential development shall have the conservation residential 7-14 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 83  DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS development, unless otherwise iii. No more than 50% of the required specified below. common open space shall be vi. Where a lot within the covered by water. conservation residential iv. Structures located within any development abuts adjacent common open space shall be property, minimum side and rear accessory to any recreational use setbacks are required in of the space. accordance with the standards of b. Common open space may be the underlying zone. conveyed as follows: vii. Where a lot within the i. To the City of Portland. conservation residential ii. To a nonprofit corporation or development abuts a street at the charitable trust, the purposes or perimeter of the development, powers of which include retaining minimum front setback and or protecting the natural, scenic, minimum street frontage is or open space values of real required in accordance with the property; assuring the availability standards of the underlying zone. of real property for agricultural, 2. Common open space forest, recreational, or open space a. In addition to any open space use; protecting natural resources; otherwise required by this code, 30% or maintaining or enhancing air or of the total site area of a conservation water quality of real property. residential development shall iii. To one or more homeowner’s comprise common open space. associations. Common open space shall be c. Common open space associated with designed as follows: a conservation residential i. Required common open space development shall not be sold, and has shall maintain a minimum width of no future development rights. at least 30 feet in any direction. ii. Common open space may be 7.4.2 Cottage court residential development improved for recreational use, or A. A cottage court residential development allows left in a natural state. If improved for small lot residential development in a for recreational use, no more than manner that coordinates dwelling types and 10% of the common open space common open space into a cohesive whole, shall comprise impervious maintained in shared stewardship by residents. surfaces. B. Cottage court residential development is allowed in the RN-1, RN-2, RN-3, and IR-2 zones. CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 7-15 Page 84 HOUSING B. The Zoning Board of Appeals must make inclusion of affordable housing units in positive findings on each of the four criteria development projects in certain contexts. In so above in order for any such adjustment to be doing, this section will assist the city in meeting its valid. An applicant aggrieved of a decision of comprehensive goals for affordable housing, in the Zoning Board of Appeals may appeal a preventing the overcrowding and deterioration of decision under this subsection pursuant to the the limited supply of affordable housing, and provisions of Article 2. promote the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 17.1.11 Effect of other City ordinances A. Nothing in this section shall permit the 17.2.2 Affordable housing incentives demolition or conversion to nonresidential use A. Eligible projects. Under this subsection, of dwelling units in residential property eligible projects shall include any development protected by Article 16, except as permitted by project: that ordinance. 1. That is permissible under the provisions of B. A conditional zone may not be used to this Land Use Code in the zone in which it circumvent the application of this section. The is proposed. terms of this section shall apply to any 2. That creates new dwelling units, among conditional zone which involves dwelling units which is at least one low-income or affected by this section. Notwithstanding the workforce housing unit for rent or sale, foregoing, nothing herein shall be deemed to through new construction, substantial prevent the City and the applicant from alteration of existing structures, adaptive agreeing to terms which exceed those imposed reuse or conversion of a nonresidential use by this section by means of a conditional zone. to residential use, or any combination of these elements. Affordable housing units 17.1.12 Appeals for sale or rent may not differ in exterior Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the design from other units within an eligible Planning Authority under this section may appeal to project. the Zoning Board of Appeals within 30 days of that B. Reduction of fees. Notwithstanding any other decision. provision of this Land Use Code or Chapter 6 to the contrary, development fees, including 17.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING site plan review and inspection fees, subdivision 17.2.1 Purpose review and inspection fees, impact fees, It is in the public interest to promote an adequate administrative fees, and construction and supply of housing that is affordable to a range of permit fees as described in Chapter 6 of the households at different income levels. Therefore, City of Portland Code of Ordinances, shall be the purpose of this section is to offer incentives to reduced by the City for an eligible project in the developers to include units of affordable housing manner described in Table 17-A. Development within development projects and to require the 17-4 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 85  HOUSING of its review. At the conclusion of these public TABLE 17-A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE REDUCTIONS meetings, the Planning Board shall promptly % of New Units That are Low- Cost of Work issue a decision on all such plans and Income or Development (Building Permit) applications before it for consideration. Workforce Fee Discount Fees D. Density and height bonuses. 10% up to but not 10% reduction $9.90 per $1,000 Notwithstanding any other provision of this including 15% Land Use Code to the contrary, in order to 15% up to but not 15% reduction $9.35 per $1,000 encourage low-income and workforce units in including 20% 20% up to but not 20% areas prioritized for growth, eligible projects as $8.80 per $1,000 including 25% reduction defined under Subsection 17.2.2 may avail 25% or more 25% reduction $8.25 per $1,000 themselves of the following options: 1. Density bonuses. The maximum number of units that would otherwise be allowed TABLE 17-B: BONUSES FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS % Low-income or under this Land Use Code shall be Workforce Units Density Permitted1 increased for an eligible project in the 10-19% 1.1 x base manner described in Table 17-B, applicable 20-29% 1.25 x base where residential is allowed as a permitted 30-49% 1.3 x base or conditional use in mainland zones. 50-74% 2.5 x base 2. Height bonuses. In mixed-use zones, the >75% 2.5 x base TOD zones, and the RN-6, for eligible 1 “Base” is the number of units allowed under the zoning without projects over ten units in size in which over this bonus but with any other bonuses applied. 75% of units are low-income or workforce units, maximum heights as permitted fees do not include any fees charged for review under Article 7 shall be increased by 10 conducted by any party other than the City. feet. C. Expedited review. The Planning Authority shall 3. Unit size. In order to be eligible for this perform its review of an eligible project in as subsection, the low-income and workforce expedited a manner as is practical, without housing units must meet Subsections impairing the scope or thoroughness of the 17.2.3(C)(2), (3), and (4). review. The Planning Authority may adopt 4. Term of affordability. Affordable units administrative procedures to prioritize review under this subsection shall be deed- of eligible projects and facilitate this expedited restricted to remain affordable for 30 review. The Planning Board shall make its best years or the longest term permitted under efforts to give priority in scheduling workshops federal, state, and local laws, whichever is and public hearings related to any plans or longer. Such deed restrictions shall be applications required for an eligible project that recorded in the Cumberland County are within the Planning Board’s jurisdiction, Registry of Deeds. without impairing the scope or thoroughness CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 17-5 Page 86 HOUSING 17.2.3 Ensuring workforce housing TABLE 17-C: MINIMUM TERM OF AFFORDABILITY FOR A. Purpose. Based on the City’s Comprehensive REQUIRED WORKFORCE UNITS Plan and the City’s 2015 housing study, it is in % of Workforce the public interest to promote an adequate Units Provided Minimum Term of Affordability supply of housing that is affordable to a range 25% 30 years of households at different income levels. The 50% 20 years purpose of this subsection is to ensure that 100% 10 years housing developments over a certain size provide a portion of workforce housing units provide no indication from the exterior or and, by doing so, promote the health, safety, from areas inside the respective buildings and welfare of Portland citizens. that these units are workforce housing B. Applicability. This subsection shall apply to units, and must demonstrate general parity site plan applications that create ten or more in unit design, finishes, and amenities new dwelling units for rent or for sale through between market and workforce units in the new construction, substantial alteration of development. Applications shall include a existing structures, adaptive reuse or narrative that addresses parity of conversion of a nonresidential use to workforce and market rate units, a residential use, or any combination of these description of workforce and market rate elements. This subsection shall not apply to unit attributes and amenities, phasing if projects that otherwise meet or exceed the applicable, and integration into the standards of 17.2.3(C). respective building and site design. C. Standards. Development projects subject to 4. Workforce units need not be the same size this subsection shall meet to the following as other units in the development but the requirements: cumulative number of bedrooms in such 1. At least 25% of the units in the project shall units shall be no less than 25% of the total meet the definition of workforce housing number of bedrooms in the development. unit for sale or for rent as defined in 5. As an alternative to providing workforce Article 3. The project shall have the option housing units, projects may pay a fee-in- of paying a partial fee-in-lieu as per (5) lieu of some or all of the units. In-lieu fees below or providing an additional unit on- shall be paid into the Housing Trust Fund. site for any fractional value. The fee for affordable units not provided 2. Projects shall not be segmented to avoid shall be $150,000 per unit, adjusted compliance with these provisions. annually in the same way as the fee under 3. Workforce units must be integrated with Subsection 17.1.8. the rest of the development, must use a 6. Workforce housing units for sale, if common entrance in the case of mixed converted to workforce housing units for market rate and workforce buildings, must 17-6 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 87  HOUSING rent, shall become subject to the income the result of the fact that hospitality limits and other requirements of such units. developments necessarily create a number of 7. The term of affordability for the required jobs that do not pay employees at a rate 25% workforce units provided shall be sufficient to allow those employees to afford defined as shown in Table 17-C. market-rate housing in the City of Portland. 8. Projects shall be subject to an affordable B. Hotel projects. For the purposes of this housing agreement with the City of subsection, hotel projects shall include any Portland, unless a project is otherwise hotel as defined in Article 3 consisting of 10 or subject to such an agreement requiring an more guest rooms for rent to transient guests equal or greater percentage of affordable or to extended stay guests of up to six months. units at an equal or lower income target Any expansion of an existing hotel by 10 or level than required by this section. more rooms within any five-year period will D. Density and height bonuses. Projects that are also be considered a hotel project. subject to this subsection shall be eligible for C. Low-income housing minimum. All hotel density and height bonuses under Subsection projects shall provide one unit of low-income 17.2.2(D). housing for rent in the City of Portland for E. Implementation guidance. The Housing & every 28 rooms in the hotel project, which shall Economic Development Department shall meet the standards outlined in Subsections provide guidance on income verification 17.2.3(C)(2), (3), and (4) and in the methods, affordable housing agreements, and implementing regulations governing low- subsequent monitoring requirements. income units. Such units shall contain two F. Reporting to City Council. In conjunction bedrooms and be a minimum of 900 SF in floor with the annual report on the Housing Trust area. This amount shall be rounded up to the Fund, the Planning Authority shall annually nearest increment of 28 rooms. These units report on developments subject to this shall be deed restricted for the longest period subsection, the number of units produced, the permitted by law, shall not be used for short- amount of fee-in-lieu collected, and the overall term rentals of less than 30 days, and must be effectiveness of this subsection in achieving its provided with distinct entrances from the stated purpose. street to delineate them from the hotel itself. D. Fee-in-lieu alternative. As an alternative to 17.2.4 Inclusionary zoning for hotel projects providing low-income housing units under A. Purpose. This subsection is based on City Subsection 17.2.4(C) above, a hotel project may analysis, most specifically the analysis pay a fee-in-lieu of $3,806 per hotel guest documented in the Greater Portland Council of room. This amount shall be paid into the City’s Government study Proposed Hotel Linkage Fee: Housing Trust Fund and used for the purposes Supportable Range dated August 29, 2018, that set forth in the ordinance and regulations finds that new hospitality developments create applicable to that trust. a need for new affordable housing. This need is CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE | 17-7 Page 88 HOUSING E. Annual adjustments. The amounts in E. Any federal, state, or private grant or loan Subsection 17.2.4(D) above shall be adjusted funds provided to the fund. annually in the same way as the fee under F. Interest from fund deposits and investments. Section 17.1.8. G. Repayments of loans made from the fund. F. Implementation guidance. The Housing & Economic Development Department shall 17.3.3 Management of the trust fund provide guidance on income verification The City Manager, or their designee, shall serve as methods, affordable housing agreements, and the manager of the Housing Trust Fund. The subsequent monitoring requirements. responsibilities of the manager, subject to the orders of the City Council, shall include: 17.3 JILL C. DUSON HOUSING TRUST FUND A. Maintaining the financial and other records of 17.3.1 Purpose the Housing Trust Fund. The purpose of enacting this section is: B. Disbursing and collecting Housing Trust Fund A. To establish a City of Portland Housing Trust monies in accordance with the Housing Trust Fund for the promotion, retention, and Fund annual plan. creation of an adequate supply of housing, C. Monitoring the use of monies distributed to particularly affordable housing, for all economic successful applicants for Housing Trust Fund groups and to limit the net loss of housing units support to assure on-going compliance with in the city. the purposes of the fund and the conditions B. To serve as a vehicle for addressing very low, under which these monies were granted or low, and moderate income housing needs loaned. through a combination of funds as set out in this article. 17.3.4 Housing Trust Fund annual plan A. Each fiscal year, the City Council shall adopt a 17.3.2 Establishment of the Jill C. Duson Housing Trust Fund annual plan. The City Housing Trust Fund Manager shall submit to the City Council a The City Council shall establish a special revenue recommended Housing Trust Fund annual plan, account under the name “City of Portland Jill C. utilizing the revenues of the Housing Trust Duson Housing Trust Fund” (Housing Trust Fund). Fund as well as any other funds the manager Deposits into the fund shall include: may propose as appropriate. The housing A. Contributions from the City’s housing committee of the City Council or such other replacement ordinance under Subsection 17.1.8. committee as the council shall designate shall B. In-lieu fees under Subsections 17.2.3 and 17.2.5. conduct public hearings on the recommended C. Funds appropriated to be deposited into the plan and refer the matter to the council for fund by vote of the City Council. action. D. Voluntary contributions of money or other B. The Housing Trust Fund annual plan shall liquid assets to the fund. include: 17-8 | CITY OF PORTLAND LAND USE CODE Page 89