Partners for Affordable Housing – Q&A

Bernadette’s ResponseLet’s start with some the facts. The city already exempts all the city SDC fees for qualified affordable housing developments. It has adopted five other financial tools and at least 11 development code changes designed to make home ownership more accessible.

Before raising the existing criteria to include those who are earning between $91,440 and $123,500, we need to gather the data and do the math. Are there no affordable homes for workers with this income range such as veterinarians, nurses, engineers and hygienists? We need to do the homework. We cannot just apply a bandaid solution that actually shifts more financial burden on the existing community.

Bernadette’s ResponseWe hear applicants express frustration about costly delays, while city officials claim progress is being made. It is my desire to use transparency and collaboration with all parties to get to the truth. All sides shall work together to make any common sense changes to the permitting process that holds both the applicant and the reviewers accountable in their roles.

Let’s minimize any unnecessary additional cost which ultimately trickles down to a homebuyer or renter. Plus, include an effective monitoring system to hold all participants accountable.

Bernadette’s ResponseIt is absolutely the responsibility of the Mayor and the City Council to fix the pre-application process. They need to bring both sides together in a process very similar to the permit timeline issue remedy previously mentioned.

Bernadette’s ResponseLet’s start with the facts. What is the missing infrastructure locking up 7,500 homes in the SE? In 2018, the city council directed staff to prepare the “Bend Urban Growth Boundary Implementation” study to “assist the Council in making informed and strategic decisions about where to focus staff time, political will, planning energy, and infrastructure investments.” The report suggested the focus be first on the “elbow” (SE Bend). The 2018 council moved quickly to extend Murphy Road and a major sewer project.

More recently, the Caldera Ranch project requested the city to annex their project into the city limits. Annexations come with a development agreement to map out what is required by the developer, including the necessary infrastructure. A vocal group in the audience claimed the project didn’t have a plan for important infrastructure needs, addressing traffic congestion and the lack of fire escape routes.

SDCs are collected to fund missing infrastructure. A quick look at the five-year Construction Improvement Plan shines light on a major problem. Transportation SDC fees are being prioritized on biking and sidewalk projects the council “wants” instead of urgently needed infrastructure the community requires. If elected, I want to listen to the community on what matters to the majority of Bend residents, instead of what a few individuals want.

New public debt should be the last resort instead of the first option.

Bernadette’s ResponseThe city has made attempts to encourage infill with development code changes to accommodate smaller building types referred to as “middle housing.” Infill can reduce or eliminate a “land cost,” a large portion of a project’s proforma. These code changes need to be utilized to deliver more supply of smaller, more affordable units – the construction of “middle housing” units to provide more “entry level” homeownership.

Development code allows for higher density, but additional code requirements are needed in “new neighborhoods” to provide for a blend of housing types that include middle housing, instead of neighborhoods with a one-size-fits-all traditional single-family home.

We need to be building the right quantity of units. The city needs to examine how it already has a five-year supply of apartments, with another 1,400 apartment units in construction.

Finally, state planners want to dictate how much of Bend should be developed with tall mixed-use structures where walking and biking is a convenient way to commute. So why is the Jack Straw project leasing up so slowly, with vacancy increasing in the other six tall apartment buildings? What is the market telling us that the planners don’t understand? The city and builders can’t tell people where to live – this is a chicken and egg problem. The answer is that jobs need to come first in these “climate friendly areas.”

City council needs a reality check on how to be successful in targeting development.

Bernadette’s ResponseLet’s look at the actual numbers from the recent 2025-2026 reporting cycle. The data shows that 95% of the 1,344 development applications processed were completely exempt from the tree preservation standards. The code only brought in about $63,000 in fee-in-lieu revenue – which our own city forester noted is a low bar that won’t reverse the decades-long decline of our urban forest.

The current tree code represents the worst kind of policy: it creates a layer of regulatory friction and added costs for housing projects, yet the data proves it isn’t actually protecting Bend’s canopy. The development code should be monitored for effectiveness.

Bernadette’s ResponseYes, I support establishing the biggest urban reserve as possible in partnership with Deschutes County. This month, the city has kicked off its state-mandated urban growth boundary expansion study. Get involved in the process.

Bernadette’s ResponseAs mentioned earlier, the city has aggressively adopted funding tools and development code to prioritize assisting individuals who earn less than $91,400 per year to achieve homeownership. State and federal funding assist individuals making less than $68,500 per year to secure housing. I support providing support to those with the largest economic need, but without adding an additional ethnicity criteria. All individuals should be treated equally.

The city should help advocate for the removal of racist language. A legal action strategy should be investigated.

Bernadette’s ResponseThis is a huge regional problem. The city’s role shouldn’t be to create a new government program, but to actively champion and partner with the entities that traditionally educate and train future workers.

Bernadette’s ResponseFirst, let’s start with the facts. State planners say Bend needs 34,116 new homes in 20 years. Using 2 people per home, the state’s forecast means the population increase would be about 68,000 people. This increase would be about 5% per year, which is over twice the growth rate that Bend has experienced in the last ten years. The state’s target makes no sense. I believe Bend should conduct its own housing need analysis.

Second, Bend needs to have a development code that requires all new neighborhoods to create a mix of housing types that includes homes for each level of “AMI,” to provide housing opportunities for all workers instead of leaving it up to non-profits to fill that gap.

Third, before we place more financial burden on a community buried in municipal debt, we need to look at how we spend the revenue we have. Here is one example: the city just opened a new public works campus for $130 million, which was 100% more than the original estimate. For some perspective, this facility cost about $880 per square foot of building, which is about 3x the cost to build class A offices in Bend.

What was the declared “benefit?” The city claimed this remote facility would be more “efficient,” even though workers need to travel about twice the distance to perform their tasks. A fiscally responsible leadership would have made small remodels over time to the two centrally located existing facilities without adding debt. Imagine how much good could have been accomplished with the facility’s $9 million annual debt service ($270 million over 30 years) – look at the city council meeting minutes to hear the council celebrating that they met their goals (sustainability & energy efficiency, education tool, and DEI & Art goals).

Do the math. The government doesn’t always need more revenue as a solution to every problem.