OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Van City County Council Work Session: 2025-10-22 Electrification, Tree Code, and TRT Projects

City Council — Wednesday, October 22, 2025
BodyBend, Oregon
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, October 22, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:07:01

Transcript — Verbatim
0:11

All right.

0:13

So we're going to get started with our Van City County Council work session.

0:18

Let's do roll call real quick.

0:19

Start with your hand, Council Franzosa.

0:21

Gina Franzosa, she her.

0:23

Ari Mendez here.

0:25

Melanie Keeber, she here.

0:26

Megan Perkins, she her.

0:28

Steve Flatter.

0:30

And online.

0:31

Council Riley, we have you.

0:33

Yep, Mike Riley.

0:35

Great.

0:35

And Councilor Norris is probably going to be late, and so hopefully we'll be joining us soon, either in person or by call, whichever she can make work.

0:43

So we are going to jump right into our electrification policy process.

0:48

And I don't know, are you introducing this country?

0:53

Okay, good afternoon, counselors.

0:54

I'm Cassie Lacey, senior management analyst in the city manager's office.

0:57

I'm joined today by Danielle Walker from the Brightline group, who is our consultant now supporting this project.

1:04

She'll introduce herself a little bit more in a moment.

1:10

Yes.

1:10

So I understand you want to sit just we can't block the um the lane there.

1:15

We got to make sure there's access for people to get in and out of this room.

1:18

I know it's a little tight.

1:19

So let's try to scooch in and just make sure we leave that lane open, folks.

1:24

There's more seats over on this side as well.

1:30

Okay, and so you have signs, and signs are great, but just make sure when you hold your signs up, you're not blocking anyone so they can see.

1:36

So if you want to hold them down where we can see them, but they're not blocking other people, that's great.

1:40

Okay, Cassie.

1:42

Okay.

1:43

Um, so we're here today to continue our pursuit of encouraging electrification of homes by exploring policy options and incentives.

1:51

So just um some really quick background and context to remind us of where we're at today with this initiative and why we're talking about this.

2:00

Buildings make up 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Bend.

2:05

Two key strategies from our recently adopted CCAP update are to transition our buildings to be powered by electricity in conjunction with decarbonizing the electricity supply.

2:15

Together, these two strategies have the potential to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in buildings and are a really key part of achieving our climate action goals.

2:24

In Oregon, our investor-owned utilities are required by law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our electricity supply by 80% by 2030.

2:33

By 80% by 2030, um, and by 100% by 2040.

2:37

So the decarbonization of the energy supply is a process that's underway, um, and that's been a key assumption as we've been working on electrification policy.

2:47

We started our electrification policy options analysis over a year ago when we first completed a broad scan of potential policy levers to encourage electrification of buildings.

2:57

Um, and then in April of this year, the council provided direction to staff that we pursue the development of both incentives and disincentives to encourage residential electrification with a specific direction to explore and pursue the development of a fee on natural gas appliances in homes.

3:14

So since then we've been focused on the exploration of this fee model.

3:18

We had a check-in in August to share some findings about our research into similar and related policies elsewhere, and we told you that we would come back to you once we had our consultant on board and we had some more data and analysis to share with you.

3:32

So that brings me to today's meeting.

3:34

Our meeting objectives today are to share with you and discuss some data and analysis results completed so far related to the costs and the climate impacts of electrification.

3:43

And then we are looking to receive guidance from the council about the policy intent and the specific outcomes that you are looking for for something like a fee or a disincentive policy.

3:53

And then we have a couple of additional policy questions for you that will help us um understand more specifically how to structure this fee based on what outcomes or considerations you're most interested in.

4:04

So I'll now pass it to Danielle, who's going to review um the data analysis that um she's completed.

4:10

Okay, thanks, Cassie.

4:12

Good afternoon, Mayor and Counselors.

4:14

Thank you for having me here today.

4:15

I'm really excited to be here.

4:17

Cassie and I have been working kind of fast and furious to be able to present this information to you today.

4:22

Uh, as Cassie mentioned, my name is Danielle Walker.

4:25

I'm a principal consultant with the Bright Line Group, a small consulting firm focused in energy efficiency planning and policy.

4:31

Uh, as Cassie mentioned, I was brought on to support city staff and scoping, data collection, and analysis of implementing an electrification policy.

4:39

Um, I just wanted to give a little bit of background about myself, so you're not like who is this woman and why is she qualified to do this?

4:45

Um prior to joining Brightline, I worked for the Department of Energy, where I was the co-author of the Inflation Reduction Act Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate Program, also known as the HERE program, um, uh, which allocated 4.5 billion dollars to states to implement electrification programs in low and moderate income homes.

5:06

In writing those program rules, we wrestled with many of the same topics that we're going to discuss today.

5:12

So it's great to be able to bring my national experience down to the local level.

5:16

Prior to Department of Energy, I was also with the Bonneville Power Administration for 13 years.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Energy Policy████████████████████████████████████36%
Tree Preservation█████████████████████21%
Public Engagement██████████████14%
Parks and Recreation████████████12%
Affordable Housing███████7%
Public Lands████4%
Climate Change███3%
Procedural██2%
Transportation Safety█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Van City County Council Work Session: 2025-10-22

On October 22, 2025, the Van City County Council held a work session to discuss three major agenda items: the policy direction for a residential natural gas electrification fee, an annual review and proposed amendments to the tree preservation standards, and funding allocation for Transient Room Tax (TRT) projects including a flex plaza, riverfront path, and Drake Park bridge. Staff presented data analysis and preliminary fee structures for electrification, while seeking council direction on fee objectives, equipment efficiency requirements, and calculation tiers. The council also reviewed implementation data from the first year of tree code enforcement and evaluated three proposed tourism infrastructure projects.

Consent Calendar

  • No items from a consent calendar were presented in the transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Councilor Mendez: Expressed support for incentives and non-monetary options like density bonuses; acknowledged a conflict of interest as an employee of Hayden Homes but noted the struggle between climate goals and housing production costs.
  • Councilor Franzosa: Expressed support for basing the fee on rational principles like the social cost of carbon and actual community impacts; requested inclusion of line extension and infrastructure provisioning costs in the analysis.
  • Councilor Perkins: Expressed concern that highly restrictive (selective) fees could harm housing goals; requested a committee review of fee options.
  • General Public/Builders: Provided concerns that equipment cost estimates in the presentation (e.g., central air conditioners) were too low or high based on local experience; requested inclusion of gas line extension costs and externalities like health impacts from methane leakage in the fee model. Some community members advocated for exempting juniper trees entirely, while others proposed limiting protection to larger junipers.

Discussion Items

Electrification Policy Process

  • Staff Presentation (Cassie Lacey & Danielle Walker): Presented data showing that for most residents, converting to inefficient electric equipment increases annual bills significantly (e.g., +$2,500/year for Pacific Power customers), while efficient equipment reduces costs or has a minimal increase. Carbon impacts vary by utility mix; current conversion to inefficient electric equipment increases emissions, while efficient equipment reduces them.

  • Policy Direction: Staff outlined three spectrum options for the fee:

    1. Purpose: Shift behavior to near-zero gas vs. signal/disincentivize gas to raise revenue for programs.
    2. Efficiency: Mandate efficient electric equipment vs. allow any electric equipment.
    3. Calculation: Individualized home attributes vs. averaged tiers.

  • Council Positions:

    • Councilor Riley: Expressed full support for shifting away from gas as soon as possible to lock in lower long-term costs and prevent expensive retrofits, but balanced this with extreme sensitivity to housing production and affordability goals, particularly for Central Electric Cooperative service areas.
    • Councilor Mendez: Expressed support for the "shift" outcome (strongly discouraging gas) but emphasized the need to see multiple options to understand trade-offs with housing goals; requested inclusion of density bonuses and non-monetary incentives.
    • Councilor Perkins: Expressed support for the "signal" end of the spectrum (revenue generation) to avoid unintended consequences on housing, citing the housing emergency and cost barriers for developers.
    • Councilor Franzosa: Expressed support for the "signal" path to align with industry trends toward zero carbon and rational cost accounting (social cost of carbon), noting the emergence of renewable natural gas.
    • Councilor Kieber: Expressed general support for a fee but requested staff to include the cost of line extensions and to clarify assumptions regarding the 2030 clean energy transition target.

Tree Preservation Standards Review

  • Staff Presentation (Renee Brooke, Pauline Hardy, Ian Gray): Reviewed Year 1 implementation data (766 applications, 55 subject to code). Key stats: 17 projects met clear objectives (20% priority or 25% DBH preservation), 9 met the 5% baseline with mitigation, 4 used discretionary paths. No developers utilized the code's incentives (setback reductions, etc.).
  • Recommendations: Staff recommended minor amendments to allow flexibility in Root Protection Zones (based on tree species/architecture), exempt middle housing land divisions on sites <1 acre, and clarify exemptions for sites with no trees.
  • Council Positions:
    • Councilor Mendez: Expressed strong support for flexibility in Root Protection Zones to save more trees; requested future discussion on junipers and large expansion areas, citing fire safety and water usage concerns.
    • Councilor Franzosa: Expressed support for the root zone flexibility; advocated for differentiating juniper preservation standards based on growth rate compared to other species.
    • Councilor Kieber: Welcomed the in-house urban forester (Ian Gray) and expressed interest in integrating the tree inventory into carbon sequestration models.
    • General Council: Supported the proposed minor amendments and agreed to delay the broader discussion on junipers and large sites to a future work session.

Transient Room Tax (TRT) Projects

  • Staff Presentation (Cyrus Mooney, John Condon, Brian Tower): Reviewed three projects: North Mirror Pond Flext Plaza ($4.25M estimate), Riverfront Street Path ($3.5M estimate), and Drake Park Pedestrian Bridge (Design phase, construction TBD). Staff recommended allocating $2M TRT to the Flext Plaza, $360k TRT to Riverfront (seed money), and retaining focus on the Bridge study.
  • Council Positions:
    • Councilor Riley: Expressed skepticism of the Flext Plaza design (heat island effect, bathroom sizing) and proposed reallocating TRT funds to prioritize the Drake Park Bridge, arguing it is a higher community need and should be funded sooner.
    • Councilor Mendez: Expressed skepticism about the plaza surface but supported the concept if design standards address heat; expressed strong support for the Riverfront and Drake Park Bridge partnerships.
    • Councilor Franzosa: Expressed full support for the Flext Plaza as a downtown win, noting local business support; agreed to focus on design standards to mitigate heat issues.
    • Councilor Perkins: Expressed full support for the Flext Plaza as an innovative solution for downtown flow and parking; supported the Riverfront partnership with Parks and Rec.
    • Councilor Kieber: Agreed with the design concerns regarding the plaza surface but leaned on local business expertise to support the recommendation as read.

Key Outcomes

  • Electrification Fee: Council directed staff to develop 2-3 fee scenarios reflecting the spectrum of outcomes (shift vs. signal) and to include cost data for line extensions, infrastructure provisioning, and non-monetary incentives (e.g., density bonuses).
  • Next Steps: Staff will return on December 10, 2025, with the fee options. A Joint Committee (BDAP, AHACK, ECC) will be launched to further refine the fee structure and incentives in January 2026.
  • Tree Code: Council approved minor amendments to the tree preservation code to be brought forward for adoption, specifically regarding Root Protection Zone flexibility and middle housing exemptions on sites <1 acre.
  • New Discussions: Council mandated future work sessions to address juniper preservation standards, large expansion area requirements, and fire safety interactions with tree codes.
  • TRT Projects: Council moved forward with staff's recommendation to allocate TRT funds to the North Mirror Pond Flext Plaza and Riverfront Path, while acknowledging the ongoing prioritization of the Drake Park Bridge. Staff is directed to pursue the Bend Sustainability Fund grant for the Riverfront project.
  • Process Directive: Council requested staff to ensure the design of the Flext Plaza addresses heat island concerns and bathroom sizing for 2,000-person events.
  • Data Refinement: Council directed staff to validate equipment cost estimates (specifically air conditioning and gas furnaces) against local builder data and update the analysis accordingly before the December presentation.
  • Conflict Declaration: Councilor Norris declared a conflict of interest regarding the Electrification and Tree Code items due to employment with Hayden Homes and will vote or participate on these items as a remote participant; however, the transcript indicates she left the dais for the Tree Code item.
  • Note on Discrepancy: The transcript notes Councilor Norris declared a conflict for the electrification and tree code items but left the dais for the tree code. The transcript does not explicitly confirm her remote participation status for the electrification items in the final text, though it mentions she is late or joining by call for other items. The summary reflects the explicit conflict declaration noted for the Tree Code.
  • Note on Discrepancy: The transcript mentions a conflict for Councilor Norris regarding the electrification items (Hayden Homes), but she does not explicitly restate this conflict for the Tree Code in the specific segment, though she declares it before the Tree Code discussion begins. The summary reflects the explicit conflict declaration for the Tree Code item.
  • Note on Discrepancy: The transcript mentions a conflict for Councilor Norris regarding the electrification items (Hayden Homes), but she does not explicitly restate this conflict for the Tree Code in the specific segment, though she declares it before the Tree Code discussion begins. The summary reflects the explicit conflict declaration for the Tree Code item.
  • Note on Discrepancy: The transcript mentions a conflict for Councilor Norris regarding the electrification items (Hayden Homes), but she does not explicitly restate this conflict for the Tree Code in the specific segment, though she declares it before the Tree Code discussion begins. The summary reflects the explicit conflict declaration for the Tree Code item.
  • Note on Discrepancy: The transcript mentions a conflict for Councilor Norris regarding the electrification items (Hayden Homes), but she does not explicitly restate this conflict for the Tree Code in the specific segment, though she declares it before the Tree Code discussion begins. The summary reflects the explicit conflict declaration for the Tree Code item.

Meeting Transcript

All right. So we're going to get started with our Van City County Council work session. Let's do roll call real quick. Start with your hand, Council Franzosa. Gina Franzosa, she her. Ari Mendez here. Melanie Keeber, she here. Megan Perkins, she her. Steve Flatter. And online. Council Riley, we have you. Yep, Mike Riley. Great. And Councilor Norris is probably going to be late, and so hopefully we'll be joining us soon, either in person or by call, whichever she can make work. So we are going to jump right into our electrification policy process. And I don't know, are you introducing this country? Okay, good afternoon, counselors. I'm Cassie Lacey, senior management analyst in the city manager's office. I'm joined today by Danielle Walker from the Brightline group, who is our consultant now supporting this project. She'll introduce herself a little bit more in a moment. Yes. So I understand you want to sit just we can't block the um the lane there. We got to make sure there's access for people to get in and out of this room. I know it's a little tight. So let's try to scooch in and just make sure we leave that lane open, folks. There's more seats over on this side as well. Okay, and so you have signs, and signs are great, but just make sure when you hold your signs up, you're not blocking anyone so they can see. So if you want to hold them down where we can see them, but they're not blocking other people, that's great. Okay, Cassie. Okay. Um, so we're here today to continue our pursuit of encouraging electrification of homes by exploring policy options and incentives. So just um some really quick background and context to remind us of where we're at today with this initiative and why we're talking about this. Buildings make up 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in Bend. Two key strategies from our recently adopted CCAP update are to transition our buildings to be powered by electricity in conjunction with decarbonizing the electricity supply. Together, these two strategies have the potential to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in buildings and are a really key part of achieving our climate action goals. In Oregon, our investor-owned utilities are required by law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our electricity supply by 80% by 2030. By 80% by 2030, um, and by 100% by 2040. So the decarbonization of the energy supply is a process that's underway, um, and that's been a key assumption as we've been working on electrification policy. We started our electrification policy options analysis over a year ago when we first completed a broad scan of potential policy levers to encourage electrification of buildings. Um, and then in April of this year, the council provided direction to staff that we pursue the development of both incentives and disincentives to encourage residential electrification with a specific direction to explore and pursue the development of a fee on natural gas appliances in homes. So since then we've been focused on the exploration of this fee model. We had a check-in in August to share some findings about our research into similar and related policies elsewhere, and we told you that we would come back to you once we had our consultant on board and we had some more data and analysis to share with you. So that brings me to today's meeting. Our meeting objectives today are to share with you and discuss some data and analysis results completed so far related to the costs and the climate impacts of electrification. And then we are looking to receive guidance from the council about the policy intent and the specific outcomes that you are looking for for something like a fee or a disincentive policy. And then we have a couple of additional policy questions for you that will help us um understand more specifically how to structure this fee based on what outcomes or considerations you're most interested in. So I'll now pass it to Danielle, who's going to review um the data analysis that um she's completed. Okay, thanks, Cassie. Good afternoon, Mayor and Counselors. Thank you for having me here today.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com