Baker County Shifts Hughes Lane Plan From Event Center to Workforce Housing
Baker County commissioners discussed on Feb. 24 moving the county-owned parcel south of Hughes Lane from an event-center concept to potential workforce housing; site plans and a floodplain study are underway.

Baker County commissioners on Feb. 24, 2026 discussed shifting the county-owned parcel just south of Hughes Lane and west of the Powder River away from a long-discussed multipurpose event-center concept toward potential workforce housing, leaving the proposal at an early planning stage. The property borders the Baker Sports Complex to the west and sits adjacent to Hughes Lane on the north; officials continue to report conflicting acreage figures for the tract.
Commissioner Shane Alderson described the housing concept as “This is strictly affordable housing for working families—not low-income or subsidized—and will include deed restrictions to prevent short-term rentals like Airbnb, ensuring the homes are owner-occupied and build local equity.” County staff are preparing a preliminary site plan and a flood plain assessment, and a presentation was tentatively scheduled for February 4, although the chronology of that date relative to the Feb. 24 discussion remains unclear.
The parcel’s acquisition history underpins the shift. In June 2022 commissioners approved a lease-purchase using $1.45 million from lodging tax revenues to secure the Ward family property after the county’s Economic Development Council recommended pursuing the agreement. At the time, county leaders discussed multiple possible public uses including relocating the Baker County Fairgrounds, building an indoor sports facility, and adding parking; those options have now given way in public discussion to housing.
Conflicting public records list the tract as either 70 acres or 62.5 acres. County mapping and meeting materials describe the smaller figure as bordering part of the College Street right-of-way and stretching south of Hughes Lane, while other documents use 70 acres. The county assessor’s parcel records will need to be checked to reconcile whether differences reflect measurement methods, exclusion of right-of-way, or boundary adjustments.
Surveying and street-access questions already prompted debate last December. At a Dec. 3, 2025 meeting Commissioner Michelle Kaseberg urged postponing hiring a surveyor until the Dec. 17 meeting so the county could determine precise boundaries. City official Murphy said the city “has not weighed in” on extending College Street between H Street and Hughes Lane, and Lindsey McDowell, communications coordinator for Baker 5J School District, reported Superintendent Casey Hallgarth and the school board had not discussed a street extension. Commissioners Tweit and Harvey argued a College Street extension would create a safer route to Baker High School and improve access to the Baker Sports Complex, while Alderson said, “Right now I think it’s inappropriate” to spend money on a survey.
Financial context remains unsettled. The 2022 purchase used lodging tax dollars after a multi-year climb in collections that peaked above half a million dollars in fiscal reporting at the time, but county commissioners have not specified whether lodging taxes, the general fund, grants, or private partners would fund site surveys, infrastructure or housing construction for the new proposal.
On a separate front, the board is preparing a letter to the Oregon Geographic Names Board in response to the state’s HB 3532 process and a compiled list of place names the county says included local features such as Papoose Creek and Cracker Creek. Commissioners framed their action to “support and defend local culture and history,” and Alderson said the names list was compiled without consulting local governments or tribal entities.
No final appropriation, developer agreement, or construction start has been reported. Key outstanding items county staff must provide publicly are assessor parcel details to settle the acreage question, the preliminary site plan and flood plain assessment documents, and the draft letter to the Oregon Geographic Names Board. The Feb. 24 discussion left the Hughes Lane parcel in a planning phase where deed-restriction language, enforcement of owner-occupancy, and concrete funding sources remain to be determined.
Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?
Submit a Tip

