Bend City Council Work Session on Housing and Employment Needs - October 28, 2026

The Bend City Council held a Bend Made work session on October 28, 2026, to review the contextualized housing needs analysis and the economic opportunities analysis. Staff from growth management, economic development, housing, legal, and consulting presented data and safe-harbor options and asked the Council for planning direction. Councilor Mike Riley was excused. Public comment was not taken and no formal votes were cast; direction was given by consensus. The agenda listed the meeting as a 4:00 p.m. work session.

Housing Needs: Process and Data

• The work is part of the Bend Made growth management process. Staff recapped the timeline: September workshops launched visioning; large visioning workshops were moved to January through April and will occur about every two weeks; targeted engagement with service providers, affordable housing providers, residents, and high school students continues; joint committee working group appointments are expected in November; and the next Council touchpoint is January 20.
• The September workshop summary was not posted in the packet; staff said it will be provided to the Council and reviewed on January 20.
• The contextualized housing needs analysis will identify need by housing type, housing characteristics, and location, with emphasis on communities of color, low-income households, people with disabilities, and tribal communities. A community survey closed October 19; staff conducted about two dozen one-on-one conversations; tribes were notified.
• Staff described the state housing allocation in three horizons: a 20-year allocation, an eight-year target of about 16,000 units, and a front-loaded one-year target of about 2,000 units. About 46% of the eight-year target is for households below 80% of area median income.
• About 43% of Bend households have income above 120% of area median income. Staff said the analysis focuses on households below 120% of AMI and especially below 80% of AMI.
• At 80% of AMI, a four-person household earns $96,000 and can afford about $2,400 per month in housing costs without being cost burdened. The typical home value of $738,000 becomes affordable around 85% of AMI; average two-bedroom rent is affordable just below 80% of AMI, while three-bedroom rent becomes affordable above 80% of AMI.
• About 28% of Bend workers work from home, tending to be white-collar workers. Preliminary findings include housing costs outpacing local wages, a need for a broader mix of housing types and sizes, more middle housing, and fair housing issues such as discriminatory screening and weak enforcement.

Housing Safe Harbors and Council Direction

• Housing type: Staff recommended the state safe harbor of 40% multi-unit, 20% middle housing, and 40% single-unit detached, with the multi-unit and middle housing shares as floors. Councilors accepted the mix, while noting middle housing production would need to be roughly double recent trends and that some developers favor smaller detached units. Councilors agreed the how is a housing production strategy question, not a needs question.
• Homeownership: The state safe harbor would apply a 66.7% ownership share and produce about 4,957 ownership units below 80% of AMI and about 5,700 above 80% of AMI. Existing ownership rates are about 46% below 80% of AMI and 69% above 80% of AMI. Staff recommended an alternative approach using AMI bands: substantial need from 60 to 120 percent of AMI, more limited need from 30 to 60 percent, and a below-30 percent band focused primarily on stable rental and supportive housing. Councilors supported the alternative, cited a Habitat for Humanity letter showing about 40 buyers under 60% of AMI over five years, emphasized homeownership as a path to generational wealth, and noted the subsidy trade-off: about $77,000 per ownership unit versus about $9,000 per rental unit.
• Accessible housing: Staff recommended the safe harbor, which uses the ambulatory disability rate multiplied by 1.2 and translates to about 1,150 new accessible units over eight years, or about 145 per year compared with about 34 per year currently. Council agreed.
• Adaptable housing: Staff recommended not using the safe harbor because it would require about 4,358 adaptable units. Instead, staff will use local data, count adaptable units already required in new multi-unit housing, and address retrofitting and aging in place. Council agreed.
• Larger units: Staff recommended not using the safe harbor, which relies on family-household share and would classify about 61% of units as needing three or more bedrooms. Instead, staff will use household size, target about 16.9% of new rental units as three or more bedrooms, and plan for smaller ownership units and middle housing. Council agreed.

Employment Needs Analysis and Growth Rate

• The economic opportunities analysis is part of Goal 9 planning. Bend is a regional employment center with about 63,000 covered jobs in 2024; the six largest sectors account for about 70% of employment, with health care largest. The average wage is about $69,000, with health care, professional services, government, and construction above average and retail, accommodation, and food services below average.
• From 2007 to 2024, Bend added nearly 18,000 jobs, about 2% annual growth. Health care accounted for about one-third of the growth. Jobs grew about 40% while population grew about 35%.
• The EOA builds on Bend's target sectors: recreation and tourism, health systems, build for growth, and technology and innovation.
• Staff presented three planning assumptions: the Oregon Employment Department regional rate of 0.68%, the Portland State University population forecast of 1.37%, and Bend's historical employment growth rate of 2%. The first two are state-recognized safe harbors; the 2% rate would require additional justification. Staff recommended the 1.37% PSU rate as a balanced, defensible assumption.
• Council discussion noted Bend has roughly 50% of the county's population but about 65% of county jobs. Councilors supported the 1.37% middle path, noting it is a safe harbor and that the buildable lands inventory will help compare future employment land supply with projected needs. Staff also acknowledged that the prior UGB expansion oversupplied employment land and that some sites, such as Juniper Ridge, developed slowly due to infrastructure timing.

Key Outcomes

• Council directed staff to use the safe harbor for housing type and for accessible housing.
• Council directed staff to develop alternative approaches for homeownership, adaptable housing, and larger units, with more detailed proposals to return on January 20.
• Council indicated support for using the PSU 1.37% employment growth forecast as the planning assumption.
• Next steps include finalizing joint committee appointments in November, holding visioning workshops from January through April, and returning to Council on January 20.