Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) has reportedly exceeded its benchmark for affordable-housing hard construction costs in each of the three years after meeting it in 2022. The Oregon Journalism Project reports that the latest-year average reached $318 per square foot—131% of the RS Means national average, or 31% above it. That comparison raises a legitimate oversight question, but it does not by itself show that a project is wasteful: hard construction cost is only one part of development, and projects differ in location, design and required features.
What the benchmark measures—and what it does not
According to the Oregon Journalism Project’s October 7, 2026 report, OHCS uses the RS Means national average for affordable-housing hard construction costs as a benchmark. The report says the agency met the benchmark in 2022 and exceeded it in each of the following three years. Its latest reported average was $318 per square foot, equivalent to 131% of the benchmark.
![Construction Project Management & Estimating for Beginners: [2 in 1] From Estimates to Execution - Mastering Project Bids, Estimating Techniques and Management Essentials for New Professionals](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511FzD120CL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This is a comparison of hard construction costs, not a finding that every project’s total development cost should match one national figure. Land, financing, design, approvals and other development expenses are distinct from the hard-cost measure. The report’s figures and trend are attributed to the Oregon Journalism Project; the underlying OHCS annual performance records were not independently checked for this account.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhy project costs can differ
A national benchmark can flag a variance, but it cannot explain that variance on its own. Location, building form, unit mix, parking, elevators, support-service space, durability requirements, local codes and zoning can all affect what a project costs to build. Comparisons also depend on whether the figures cover similar project phases and use the same cost basis.
#1 Best Overall
McMinnville: a more complex building, according to its developer
The Oregon Journalism Project reports that a 72-unit McMinnville project approved in September 2026 budgeted hard construction costs at $413.12 per square foot. Its developer, Bienestar, pointed to a concrete podium, two elevators, interior corridors and parking below the living space. Housing development manager Erica Calderon said, “We went back and value-engineered the project several times.”
Corvallis: a different project and delivery approach
The same report gives a budgeted hard construction cost of $172.80 per square foot for a 168-unit Corvallis project approved in September 2026. The Annex Group described using in-house designers and general contractors and avoiding conflicts with local code and zoning requirements. Its representative, David Wesner, said, “We have several strategies to deliver affordable housing as cost-effectively as possible.”
These two budgets are not a controlled comparison. The report does not establish that the projects have comparable design, location, unit mix or delivery conditions. The figures therefore cannot show, by themselves, that one developer is more efficient or that the higher-cost project is wasteful. Cost per square foot and cost per unit each illuminate only part of a project; neither replaces like-for-like analysis.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Should OHCS reject projects above the benchmark?
The dispute is whether the benchmark should operate as a hard funding cap or as a warning that prompts explanation and scrutiny. Ed McNamara, a new Oregon Housing Stability Council member and retired affordable-housing developer, objected to the cost of two proposed developments, saying, “I don’t understand why they cost so much.” State Sen. Dick Anderson argued that projects above the benchmark should explain their variances before approval. He said, “OHCS showed in 2022 that projects can hit the national benchmark. Projects like this get too little scrutiny, and the agency should force projects to explain variances so high above the benchmark before they approve it.”
OHCS spokesperson Jessie Schirrick argued against treating the benchmark as a strict cap. She said a cap could exclude projects with higher costs because of family-sized units, rural locations, supportive-services space or durable construction—features aligned with the agency’s statutory direction—and noted that many costs are outside a developer’s control.
A practical middle ground is to use the benchmark to trigger transparent, project-specific review rather than automatic rejection. An explanation should identify the cost basis and project phase, describe major design and site conditions, and show why proposed features or local requirements add cost. That makes an above-benchmark figure useful for oversight without treating unlike projects as interchangeable.
Rank #4
Why the question matters to OHCS
The Oregon Journalism Project reports that OHCS has a $3.7 billion biennial budget, more than 450 employees, and expects to produce or renovate nearly 8,000 affordable units during the current two-year budget period. It also quotes the agency’s draft proposed budget as saying, “The need for affordable rental housing units is significantly greater than the resources available through OHCS.” Those figures and the quotation are reported by the publication, not independently verified here.
When resources are limited, cost scrutiny matters. But the available figures do not quantify how much the reported above-benchmark costs reduce the number of homes OHCS can support. Establishing that effect would require comparable project-level data and a clear account of what each cost measure includes.
Best Value
What a fair comparison should include
- Use the same cost measure. Separate hard construction costs from total development costs, and confirm that projects use the same definitions and phase.
- Compare like with like. Account for geography, building type and height, unit sizes, parking, elevators and support-service space.
- Make required features visible. Include materials, durability, code obligations and zoning conditions when explaining a variance.
- Ask for reasons, not just a ratio. A benchmark exceedance is a prompt to document costs and trade-offs; it is not, by itself, proof of poor management.
The reporting and project examples in this article are from the Oregon Journalism Project. Its published trend and budgets should be read as reported figures rather than independently verified OHCS project records.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
