All right.

The Benn City Council will now meet in executive session in pursuance to ORS one nine two six six six six six six six zero two H to consult with legal counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed.

Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session.

No decision.

Oh wait, representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session, except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced.

No decision may be made in executive session at the end of the executive session.

We will return to open session at 6 p.m.

Thanks, I think.

Okay.

All right.

So we will go ahead and call to order.

Whoa.

There's an echo from someone.

Who's echoing?

Oh good.

Uh, we'll go ahead and call the order of the Ben City Council business meeting for tonight and um start with a roll call.

Start on your ends, uh, Councilor Platt.

Steve Platt, he him.

Megan Norris, she her.

Melanie Keebler, she, her.

Mike Riley, he him.

Ariel Mendez, he him.

Gina Franzosa, she, her.

And Councilor Perkins' excuse tonight.

So we are going to go right into good of the order.

And tonight we're going to start by just some um information and then ask for counsel.

Um, so I'm going to invite um Molly Heiss from Neighbor Impact to come on up to the table.

And this is just going to be an item receiving some information about the SNAP benefits issue that's going on right now with the delay of SNAP benefit money to people in our community.

A couple quick stats, and Molly might cover these too, but um 34% of Central Oregonians are struggling to cover their basic expenses, and twenty-seven thousand Central Oregonians rely on SNAP to keep food on their tables.

That includes nine thousand children and forty-five hundred seniors who face food insecurity.

So thought this was a very timely topic that we wanted to make sure we're hearing about for our community.

Um and Molly's gonna talk with us a little bit and then I'll have an ask for counsel.

Indeed.

Good evening, Mayor Keebler and esteemed counselors.

Thank you again for the invitation to invite Neighbor Impact here to speak about the SNAP disruption and how neighbor impacts responding.

I'm Molly Heis.

I'm the deputy executive director of community services, which includes uh oversight of the regional food bank.

Neighbor Impact is the community action agency serving Crook Deschutes Jefferson Counties and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

And we are also the regional food bank in partnership with Feeding America and Oregon Food Bank.

So here to just create more information around the need and talk about what we're doing.

My stats are slightly different in that I have 23,000 405 Central Oregon households without food assistance as of November 1.

That includes 9,01 as reported by the Oregon Department of Human Services local branch office that are in Bendalone.

We supply as the regional food bank food across Central Oregon to 57 partner agencies.

We also maintain and operate 15 mobile pantry sites, taking food out to communities and regions across Central Oregon that don't have access to food resources.

So we're going out to food deserts with our mobile food pantry to help deploy.

So we lost a 28% of our food volume that we're normally used to.

The thing that's of significant note about this disruption and government shutdown is the last government shutdown, we were flooded with food commodities.

So we had a significant amount of food to move, almost more than we could handle, including our partner agencies.

This time is extremely different.

We had a shortage that we started, we were informed of in March, started feeling by May, and that's disrupted food flow across Central Oregon and to our partner agencies and our mobile distributions.

One of the things that's really interesting is that every meal provided by for every meal provided by food banks, SNAP serves nine.

So it's a problem that no food bank system can respond to and meet the need.

SNAP also fuels our local economies.

$1.50 to $1.80 in grocery spending is SNAP dollars, and that creates a one-month benefit loss.

We'll pull about $7 million out of Central Oregon grocery stores.

Grocery stores are the appropriate response mechanism to help support with SNAP purchases.

They have staff, they have regional locations.

Food banking is just not built to deploy these kinds of resources because we we function and our partner agencies function with volunteers.

So even if we did replace that $7 million deficiency, we couldn't respond in the same way.

What we are doing though is we are raising emergency funds, which is part of why I am here today, and purchasing extra food to fill those gaps.

So we can help to the best of our ability make those partner agencies whole so that our neighbors across Central Oregon are fed.

We're not able to fully meet every need.

We got reports from partner agencies today in their volumes, and that's in the last week and a half.

We are also drawing down our reserves to help contribute and purchase more food to flow into the system.

The other piece that we're doing is we're supporting our employees.

We're a hugger organization, and we're not going to let our employees that are impacted by this SNAP disruption go without.

No single effort can solve this crisis, but every contribution helps someone eat today, this week, or this month.

One of the one of the interesting and relevant pieces around contributions to Neighbor Impact is that because of our food purchasing power, we're able to stretch every dollar threefold.

So we can turn one dollar into three dollars worth of food.

The impact of that is that when you're giving cash to families or when you're giving supports to families to use in a retail outlet, we can actually pump more volume with an investment into the food system as a whole.

Shelves will run low and lines will grow long, but we'll face this together is our attitude, and that's why we're here and again appreciate the invitation.

Um and every dollar feeds someone.

Um we've had some recently, the community has stepped up in in folds.

We've got gotten contributions from private donors.

Uh we had a contribution from Deschutes County, we have a contribution from Pacific Source.

Uh the money that's flowing out of the governor's office, the five million that she released for the month, um, is in flux.

Um, we're in Central Oregon will get about 250,000 of that to neighbor impact, uh, and that's still in the contracting process.

So bureaucracy will delay some of that, uh, some of that deployment, um, but we're working as if that money is with us and moving forward, covering any balances with our reserves and then refueling those coffers.

Um we have uh an online food drive that's been a really innovative way for people to contribute to the system.

Um you can go through and select kind of bulk purchases, whether they be potatoes, apples, um, onions, things like that, rice and beans.

But that's been something that the community has been really engaged in.

We've gotten a lot of people just writing checks and saying they want to be a part of the solution.

So volunteering is also a key uh a key factor of this with the additional people that are coming into the system.

Every food pantry, every hot meal site, every um every agency needs extra support.

So whether it's true to your heart to volunteer close to home or come volunteer at at a regional food bank, um, our warehouse up in Redmond, please engage in any way that you are able to, or your constituents might be able to.

Um, some of the most needed items if people are dropping off at a local food pantry or at our food bank warehouse or our regional offices.

Um, tuna, canned chicken, soups, peanut butter, canned vegetables and fruits, ready to eat meals such as ravioli stew, baked beans, and pasta.

Um lastly, neighbor impact is nonpartisan and doesn't take political positions.

But that said, the situation was created by some political inaction.

It didn't need to happen, and we urge leaders to resolve their differences and restore the safety nets that support millions of Americans.

Denying food to people is cruel and a failure of government to meet its basic obligations.

And we so appreciate the city of Bend leaning into an opportunity to support Central Oregon.

Thank you very much, Molly.

I appreciate the statement and all the information about everything that you're doing.

I appreciate hearing that our community is stepping up.

I you know want to encourage in this moment anyone who is able to give or to help to think about doing that.

Um, and I also wanted to see what we could do as a city.

So I'll turn to Eric on what some options are for us to also help.

Yeah, well, first off, we want to help, and uh we are instituting a food drive at all of our campuses.

Uh, we're gonna be partnering with our fire department who is has an externally facing campaign as well.

So uh we're gonna have uh some drop-off um bins uh at our locations, and so we're gonna do some active things, but I also want to um entertain the idea of council contributing some financial resources.

Um as you know, we just got some good news from our county assessor, and our property tax revenue came in a little higher than we projected.

So, what I'd like to do is uh in the range of a 10 to 20,000 dollar contribution.

Um I think you can all tell me, give me some direction.

Uh in you know, that's just a starting point to uh to sort of start the discussion to see what you're comfortable with.

Yeah, and I and I want to be clear this is not something that is ongoing every month we're doing that.

This needs to be fixed, and you're absolutely right.

This is a failure of government that we are letting people go hungry.

So we want to step in to help, but I just want that to be clear that this is not a permanent solution in any way, shape, or form.

Any thoughts from counselors?

I'm fully supportive of a contribution.

I think that we really need to step in and help, and we appreciate neighbor impact really taking the lead and helping our community.

Sorry, that we have this so far.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, um I think we should I think we should entertain $20,000.

And um I just want to echo the statement that you made about the government failure.

I mean, I you know, this is in many ways.

Um, I can be more political perhaps than you can.

Um failure of uh the current administration, I think to just you know, and it's the implications of many decisions that are being made in Washington, DC and the administration and those in power in Congress, and it's very frustrating that they're being cruel to people in our community and people across the country.

So yeah, any other thoughts?

Yeah.

I think just to emphasize uh that if if people do want to help, uh you mentioned donating, uh buying food, volunteering, but it sounds like there's a really big disproportionate effect of donating.

Um, this is not the kind of problem that we're gonna be able to fix through individual people setting up stepping up.

It's we can try to lessen the impact of it, but there's no substitution for this, and our federal government needs to step up and fix this.

Yeah.

I'm fully supportive, and I agree with Councilor Riley, the 2920.

Yeah, is it everyone okay with that?

I am the the one thing I wanted to add was the complicating factor that I can I can't get over, Molly, that you were talking about.

You said the last time the government was closed, you were flooded with commodities, and this time it's the absolute opposite, just making this even harder for you.

Oh, absolutely, yes.

We um we found out last March or actually this March, excuse my time.

Yes, it has indeed that commodities were gonna be turned off.

We weren't sure if it was temporary or not.

Um we started to feel the effects at the food bank with our food volumes in May of 25, and the partner agencies reported really feeling it about July.

Um and I in speaking with our food program director who's been here for 10 years now.

Um, this is just unprecedented.

We've not had a SNAP disruption since the 60s.

Uh, and then again with the government shutdown the last time we were just flooded hand over foot with with hand over fist with commodities, and so yes, uh the community did they they are the the community's central organ at large is interested in supporting their neighbors.

They stepped up and they filled the 28% gap um with food donations and brought us into the 12 to 13 percent range, but still it's a gap, and then heading into this disruption with that gap and shortage of food is just it's an incredible blow to the system and also to people that are hungry.

We thank you, and I think we have unanimous direction to do a $20,000 contribution and to do our part as an organization.

So we will I think continue and also maybe think about advocating upwards to get this problem fixed as soon as possible so people can get out of this situation.

But we appreciate everything that you and your organization do.

That's amazing.

Thank you for your gratitude and thank you just for the support and engagement and the opportunity to speak tonight.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Thanks.

Appreciate you.

Okay.

Um so that will move us into council action and reports.

And um, speaking of advocacy, there was um a letter on uh the public lands rule for BLM that there was an advocacy organization that had a sign-on request um to a letter that would be opposing the rescission of this pretty important rule that protects our public lands.

This is in line with our proclamation that we've done and everything else.

I just want to make sure council was okay with me signing that on all of our behalf, and I'll let them know that it's for the full council.

That's due by next week.

So I just wanted to bring that up.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, and then we have um some appointments.

I don't know, one of our MPO folks, do you want to explain why we're looking at some appointments of staff as alternates?

Yeah, so uh the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization is a federally designated and required agency that coordinates transportation planning uh for our area.

The thing that is unique about the Bend MPO is that it is comprised of mostly the city of Bend plus a couple of outlying areas, and in our case, we have a unique makeup where we have the city, uh Oregon Department of Transportation and uh Deschutes County are the three primary members.

And the we've been in the process of updating our bylaws uh to change the the makeup of the uh the parties in the MPO uh to basically give the city uh two full representatives, uh ODOT would get one, Deschutes County would get one, and then we've also been trying to find a way to get Cascades East Transit to be a full voting member.

The the reason that we're asking for uh staff alternates here is currently the bylaws require at least two of us, uh in this case council O'Reilly and myself, to to be present.

Uh and if two two members of the city are not present, the MPO cannot conduct business, no matter how many other people are present, unless we have staff alternates.

Um so, in order to, if if council O'Reilly or or I cannot make it, we would like to have the ability to ask for a City of Bend staff person to serve in our place.

Um in order to do that, we need we've identified three people, um, Brian Rankin, David Abbas, and Janet Ruby.

Uh, three individuals that are familiar with the work of the MPO, uh, and I think would be able to step in and uh represent the city in order to conduct business in the case that one of us is absent.

Okay.

Anyone have any issues with that?

Just trying to make sure MPO can meet and do their business.

Okay, so I think we'll approve or I do we need a motion to approve those appointments in MPO.

Okay.

Someone make a motion.

I move the appointment of Brian Rank and David Abbas and Janet Ruby as alternates to the Ben Metropolitan Planning Organization policy board.

Second.

All right.

Council Riley with the motion, second by Council Franzoza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Great.

Okay, so we are gonna move into council action and reports, and we have a couple of schedule requests.

Is this the first meeting of the month?

So we're gonna go into those and can start with yours, Councilor Riley, that you had on the agenda.

Sure.

Um so I'm asking the council to take back up a question about um whether or not uh let's see, it's just not quite a year ago, it was a year, it'll be a year ago in December.

Um, that we had a discussion about whether or not we should apply the concentration limits for short-term rentals um that apply to the underlying residential zone to the CN zone, the neighborhood commercial zone.

It's a grandfathered zone that is still kind of on the books for three properties in the old town part of the community.

Um it's a zone that was done away with in 2006.

If I understood it, I rewatched the recording today of that meeting.

Um it came to us as part of a code update package with a recommendation from the planning commission to amend the code that way so that the underlying um concentration limits would apply under the current zoning, the current rules, those concentration limits do not apply to these three properties.

So my pitch to all of you is just that you know, a year ago, what what happened is that was the night that we were dealing with uh the one-time expansion of the UGB and Caldera Ranch and the south end of the community, and we were making this decision after 11 o'clock at night.

We were all pretty exhausted and tired, and I I don't think we're you know thinking particularly clearly, and we basically said let's table it.

So there was a motion to table it.

So my pitch is that I I do think it's something that we should finish.

It's a piece of unfinished business.

We said we were gonna come back to it a year ago, um, and I'd like us to come back and finish the discussion.

I'm not advocating tonight, of course, for any particular um resolution.

We're just trying to get this back on the agenda so we can have a discussion about it and actually make a formal decision about what was to present it to us um by the planning commission.

I think we owe it to the neighborhood, and I think we owe it to the property owners themselves to to finish the conversation.

Thoughts, council?

Yeah, I I just have a question.

Um I was just curious why uh I understand it was a legacy zone in this in this one neighborhood, um, but I think the idea was to retain neighborhood commercial.

Um and there are other commercial zones, uh commercial convenience um and commercial general, which uh encourage the same type of mixed-use development that is on these properties.

Um and so I'm I'm I'm curious why we're just focusing on these and this zone and not taking a look at all the commercial zones that allow residential uses because it is happening in in other zones where um uh developers are using the middle housing code to build housing units and then converting them to short-term rentals.

So we're so we're seeing sort of the loss of this, like you know, sort of neighborhood character and neighborhood intention that that we couldn't set up at that zone.

So I was curious, anyway.

I don't know, I know this is not a time for discussion or deliberation, and so I don't mean to cite the derail uh you know the request, but I just want to make sure that we're not making a I don't know, a a one-off, you know um action uh and that we're we're looking at this kind of from a policy perspective.

Well, I hear councilor Riley asking about neighborhood commercial in relation to short-term rentals, and I hear councilor Franzosa asking maybe we want to look at short-term rentals more broadly.

So is it is the request specific to neighborhood commercial, or is the request about short-term rentals?

My request is my my intention tonight was for these three pol these three properties and this piece of business that we didn't finish.

I get the point about um looking at it more broadly.

I mean there's an example from over on MK where there's some properties that fly understand it, right?

I'm talking to Councilor Françoza that they came in under the middle, middle housing and in a commercial zone, and they're all um you know, as housing, and now they're all being rented as short-term rentals, it's not contributing to helping meet our housing need in the community.

So I think that is a larger policy question.

Um, this is a little bit different issue here with people wanting to have the same set of rules for their zone applied.

Um so it's not exactly the same the same issue, but I think this is a piece of unfinished business.

My main concern is if if we mix these two things together, that is that you know, what does that do in terms of delay of discussion?

I'd like to at least get this resolved relatively quickly because we said we were gonna resolve it 11 months ago and we still haven't.

Thank you for uh so do is the would the process be that we would basically be starting from zero on these three properties, notice planning commission, that whole time.

So and I I mean what I'm sort of hearing council discussion is what's the scope of a work session.

Um that as well.

Yeah, and it just to go back to the your question.

I think our intention would be to just couple this with the next housing package, which should be in the spring.

So because we have to notice for all sorts of other things that we would do related to housing, and we would just tack this on, so it would be sort of efficient to have that.

I think if you wanted to have a broader policy conversation about the scope of that, we would need to do that sooner rather than later to then decide if we're gonna include that in the package or not to use references for those.

And the the um proposal for the neighborhood commercial zone, these three properties is that the short-term rental rules as they are written today would just apply to those three properties as they're gonna be able to do that.

They're currently residential from those rules.

So there's no concentration limits.

Entire property could be short-term rentals a portion.

There's there's no guidance other than can do whatever they want.

And the discussion that we had last year was around is that the right way to do that.

I I wanna also be really transparent here that we received a neighborhood petition from neighbors who are looking at a specific development that they um are looking to not allow to do short-term rentals in IEXpress last year, and I express again worry about legislating from a one property that people are opposing development on.

Um I'm supportive of the first thing Eric said, which is adding this to our housing code package in the spring.

That's fine.

And I'm not saying which way we're gonna vote on it, but I think it's fair to put it back in there and to finish the discussion, as you said, and decide what we want to do.

Right.

And that's fine.

That's that's how we would do this, right?

It's probably part of that because we have to do the notice and we have to go back through the planning commission.

So if you want to re-cause that's already if that work's already done, we would just sort of put it.

But if you want to like change the scope, we would just need another so a work session to do that.

Yeah, and I guess I'm not interested right now in scheduling a larger work session around this.

I think there's a point of like this is sort of hanging out there, let's finish this discussion, and then maybe that can be a jumping point to the next next discussion.

And I guess maybe to clarify, I'm I'm not interested in um redesigning the short-term rental policy that we have.

I'm just interested in it applying to all zones that allow residential uses.

I think that's a larger conversation though, than that actually we would need to have some some more research and some more ideas on the impact of that for our property owners.

Yeah, and I'm hearing sort of two questions.

Do does can does a majority of council want that one legislative change for that limited number of CN properties to come back because it was already teed up.

Right.

And then maybe all also is there interest in a work session on the broader policy question.

So can we answer that first question first?

How many people?

Yeah.

That just to put this in the code package in the spring.

Yes, this narrow thing.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

I wouldn't support it because I don't I don't see it as a bigger policy discussion.

It's it's residential allowed in commercial zones.

It's yes or no.

Why are we picking the commercial zone first over commercial convenience or commercial defense?

Sounds like we have a majority to forward.

And then to the second question.

You know, uh Councilor Francis, maybe it's not big or broad, but it's it's different.

Yes, so that was that was the point.

It's an additional question.

Does it need to come back as a separate agenda request?

I think that topic, that topic, big or not, it is work session worthy because it involves policy questions.

So I think we would need a work session on that, and then some direction from council.

Yeah, we we didn't have a request to make that work session request today, but it sort of is jumping off of mics.

I'm I would prefer to move forward with this item, and then after we're done with that code, I'd be willing to do a work session on the other uh other topic, but um I wasn't prepared to really talk about that further today, I guess, because I didn't know that was gonna be asked for.

So maybe future work session requests.

Yeah, yes, I think that's all right.

That was the first one.

Okay, the second one is Councilor Francis interpretation of state housing policies.

Yes, thank you.

Um so last year, city council adopted uh development code revisions to incorporate state housing laws.

Um, and we're now seeing that these code revisions are having um unintended the an unintended consequence, and that is the loss of land for neighborhood commercial space, um, which is resulting in residential only development.

Um and so I want to be clear, uh, we were just talking about the neighborhood commercial zone, C and zone.

This is I'm little little and little C neighborhood commercial space.

It's a variety of commercial zones that allow for mixed use.

Um but now we're seeing some residential only development in those lands, and that would be in Wildflower, Easton and Petrosa are some examples.

So this loss of neighborhood commercial space will make it challenging, if not impossible to achieve our goal for complete communities and even climate-friendly areas.

Um so my request tonight is that council um has a work session scheduled to discuss and grapple with these competing factors of um complete communities and affordable housing.

And so I envision this discussion.

Um what does that mean to me?

I mean uh it could include options for council to take action such as further tweaks to the code language or um advocacy for policy change at the state level.

Um basically I would be asking that staff um present some ideas that they may have with the ultimate goal of affording every resident in Benn regardless of their income, both housing as well as the convenience of basic services within a reasonable walk, bike, or ride of their home.

Um so I hope the issue can be scheduled at the earliest possible date due to uh the urgency of our housing crisis as well as the loss of neighborhood commercial land that we've already seen.

So that's that's my request.

So, council president, I have a follow-up question.

That's a broader conversation than I think the the narrow interpretation of a couple of statutes that you sent.

And I was looking for the statute in the Ben development code, and I never quite got the site.

But so what is are you asking us to zero in on how staff interpreted state law into code, or are you asking for a bigger discussion?

Because we have a goal and a work plan, and I'd love to see how that works with what we're already going to be doing.

What would how narrow are you gonna be?

Because your request was very narrow, but I'm hearing a bit more tonight.

So I don't know that my request was that narrow.

It was I I think I used exactly these words about um losing uh commercial to um affordable housing and there being sort of unintended consequences and competing interests there, and so you know, our two goals sort of being pitted against each other.

Um so, you know, I am not an attorney and I don't know.

I I think I can read the words though of the state statute, and I can read the words of our code, and they're not the same.

Um would an attorney agree or disagree?

I don't know.

So I guess that's why I'm saying I'd like staff to sort of present um those options, including uh including the code language matter, um, but maybe some other options, so that we don't lose more um more neighborhood commercial because really that is I think that is the concern that um and that which we've also sort of heard about by email from our community.

Yeah, no, I share that concern, and I think that's a bigger conversation.

So I guess Eric, can you tell us how that bigger conversation fits into what we're already doing with our work plan for their goals?

Yeah, there is a um uh strategy and action around complete communities, and I think what one of the things that we've been talking about is a feasibility study through our borough um our urban renewal agency to look at how we can support the how the market can support neighborhood commercial.

I think we also want to talk about our comp plan as part of our growth plan to really look at that code and look to see if there's barriers, if there's other things that we can do from a code perspective.

Those are kind of big picture things.

Um I think kind of more of a nuance of state, the intersection of state law and our code.

That's something probably a little I mean that that's a little more nuanced, and maybe that's where we can start and and we're gonna be able to do that.

But it can it can it can grow into those other items that are council goal related.

Yeah, and I just am fine with that if we just are focused on the difference in between the statute and the code.

No, I think we need to talk about that, and I actually have a follow-up on what you have brought up tonight that I wanted to also ask about that is not a work session request, but I have a meeting with our state delegation on Friday.

And I would love if council would authorize me to start talking about this with them as far as SB8.

And what I really would like to do is just say, hey, here's what's happening on the ground, and they've sort of already heard about this and start to think about this state law and our ability to plan and how is that gonna work going forward if if we are gonna have lots that are passed that override commercial zoning or override other kinds of zoning.

So if council's okay with me just starting that conversation with our delegation because there could even be an opportunity upcoming to, and I want to get moving quickly on that.

I'm not gonna take a position on anything, and we can talk more about and they may have some ideas around solutions for that.

Um, but if that's okay, just in connection with this, I'd like to do that Friday too, to get the ball rolling on that advocacy side.

Sure.

Yeah, I support that for sure for sure.

Okay.

I think that you know, from my perspective, I do think the com we've been hearing about this now for a while.

Um different parts of the community in the north and the south, and and um I'm not sure I agree that the wildflower is exactly the same issue going on.

Um, but um what I mean, we made the decision to reduce the commercial there.

It was pretty straightforward on that one.

Um, but in approving that master plan, um, unless there's something else that's going on there that I don't know about.

Yep.

Um, but the uh you know, there's a valid concern about we have these nice plans on the books, but if some of this land is going to get eaten up in the in the short to medium term while we're waiting over the medium to long term to have enough households in the area to support the neighborhood commercial we want to have complete communities, and then when we get to that place where the market's ready, we can no longer provide it because there's not space to do it, then we can't actually deliver on the complete complete community promise.

I think that tension is a really important tension that the council should explore.

And that's I so for that reason I support what councillor Francosa's asking for, but I think it's that policy question that I'm most interested in.

And I think part of it is well, is there a fix to the state law?

Did we, you know, do we need to think about tweaking our code slightly?

Is there something we have authority to do in the interim, you know, short of state law being changed?

So I guess my question is I'm not sure I heard when we might get to that.

Yeah, that discussion.

I think a policy discussion is really valid, and even if the answers are maybe not as what everybody wants to hear or what I want to hear, we need to be able to explore it and communicate it effectively to the community.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and I might ask Ian too, just in terms of framing that work session to look at the our development code state law and see if there's any room for any type of changes there and see how possible that is, because I know he's done a much deeper dive.

Yeah, I mean, I I will say my perspective is that the changes that council adopted late last year, I think November, December of last year, to implement um SB8 from 2021 and House Bill 3395 from 2023.

Though the language from those bills is incorporated pretty directly in our code.

Um the SB8 says land zone for commercial uses can be can qualify for affordable housing.

We had to wrestle with what that means.

And we have some new terms like I think income qualified housing of the code, but I I think we have incorporated the requirements of those two bills pretty directly and squarely within our code.

If council is asking, can we hear more about that?

And can we see if there is any room to make any changes to sort of um make sure that we're not deprioritizing this complete community's goal and then other things that maybe we could advocate for?

I I think there's something to talk about.

I just want to sort of set expectations because uh SB 8 is pretty straightforward.

HB3, I think HB 3395 presents a different path for development of affordable housing.

It's also I think fairly straightforward, and the requirements are taken almost whole cloth into the code.

Um but if council wants to review that and make sure that there's um we're not bypassing opportunities for creativity or flexibility, we can certainly gear up and come back and talk to you about it.

I mean, that my sense is that's where we stood when we passed those.

I recall those conversations.

I recall why we had to call it income qualified because we already have a definition of affordable housing in our code and this legislature chooses different definitions of affordable housing every time they pass a bill.

I am less interested in that conversation than I am in the bigger policy conversation on how are we supposed to plan for neighborhood commercial given state law and then given how things are playing out in Bend right now.

Um so I think is as long as we're have the space to talk about that and the community can understand that.

If we get into sort of esoteric code stuff, I don't want to get too deep into that without losing the bigger picture, I think, in this conversation at the work session.

Yeah, I didn't, I I mean I watched the session, um the council session from 2024 where where the code was adopted and and there was not any deliberation on there was deliberation and income qualified, but that's actually not what I think are you know the different word choices from the um state statute and the and the local code.

Um yeah, and I'm yeah, I'm concerned that you know we're sort of leaving leaving an issue unaddressed that um is is obviously having an impact on the community today.

So well, I think there's support here to have a conversation.

I think it's just sort of we're trying to frame the scope right now, right?

Yeah, I mean, I would say it is are there some opportunities that we should be looking at that we should, you know, it's not I'm not challenging questioning whether what we did is aligned with state law.

It seemed pretty clear to me at the time that it was.

But does to can we retain the alignment with state law, but maybe consider some other options that that support us moving to and ensuring that we can continue to move in a complete communities direction.

Um, you know, or reveal we need to ask for um state law change.

But is there other tweaks that we can do?

There are there other ways that we can get that outcome.

And I'm wondering wondering if this work session idea or the scoping thereof is maybe informed by the discussion that the mayor might be having.

I so I'm I want to make sure that it's a good point.

I wonder if we could um because I think there's support for a conversation here, either at our work session next week, maybe finish up this conversation after maybe Eric, you could take a look at the work plan and what's up coming to decide like when this might fit in with something we're already doing, or do we need to add something on to the schedule?

And then I can also bring the information from our delegation.

If they say, hey, don't this law is not going to be touched, forget it, or if they say, Oh, there's an opportunity to amend, then that might be part of the conversation as well.

If that sounds okay, does that fit what you're talking about?

Well, I think there's support for this work session.

I think it's just figuring out when and and how to have that conversation.

And we can probably be a way to fit this in because we already have items related to the council goals, and so maybe we can just be efficient and group this together.

So I think there's a way to do that.

I just don't have that.

Let me let me by the EC.

Could you bring that to us at the work session next week?

Okay.

Okay, is that work?

Okay, okay, okay.

Is that okay?

Okay.

Sorry.

Okay.

All right.

That was the last of our schedule requests.

Thanks for the conversation, everybody.

Um, Council Friends, why don't you kick us off with your report?

Okay.

Um, I have a lot to report.

It's been three weeks, um, so I'm not gonna give a lot of color to uh highlights, whatever works.

Yeah.

I uh did a ride-along with CODA's officer uh Jason Galt to see and learn sort of about the issues that he is dealing with um and trying to keep our um the folks who are living homeless on our streets safe as well as the folks who need to use our streets and our right-of-way safe.

Um I attended uh the old Bend neighborhood party.

Uh they put the block trailer to great use and it was really well attended and very fun.

Um I attended Central Oregon's caucus' business summit in Redmond.

Um, heard some rather concerning numbers of job losses, and it just underscored to me the importance of um the economic development work that um we as a city uh undertake.

Um public contract subcommittee met um had a really great discussion about how we keep uh competition open in our um uh and the methods that we choose for our public major public contracts coming up.

Um community building subcommittee awarded um or decided on projects to receive uh funding for septic to sewer.

Um attended the building a better bend lecture on community microgrids.

Uh, thanks to all those community members um who put those lectures on.

Um the city is a sponsor of those, so that's really awesome.

Um today I met with Ben Duncan um who is a consultant who's helping the city to assess our equity goals and align our goals with the work that the city actually does.

It was a wonderful discussion.

I'm really excited to see what what he recommends for us.

Um and finally, I attended Barrie Washington, the Barrie Washington Memorial Umveiling.

Um, and that was there was really incredible community outpouring of support for Barry's family.

And um it seemed that it meant a lot to them for all of us to show up.

So if any of you were there, thank you for also being there.

Um great is it?

Thanks.

Yeah, we did have a long break.

We had an extra week that month.

Okay, um, Ariel.

Um yeah, the Bend uh Metropolitan Planning Organization met on October 17th.

Uh one of the things that we discussed is we did have some challenges relating to an agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation about whether or not a new IGA is necessary, a new intergovernmental agreement is necessary for us to implement the bylaw changes that we passed now over half a year ago.

So, what we decided to do is to move forward with the bylaw updates to the greatest extent that we can without an update to the intergovernmental agreement.

So this essentially means that the recommendation will be to have a four-member policy board, two members from the city, one member from Deschutes County, one member from Oregon Department of Transportation, and we will accommodate Cascade East Transit in an ex officio capacity.

Um the City of Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee met on October 23rd.

Uh, one of the things that we heard was an extensive account of uh one community member's uh experience navigating our city while blind.

Um it was it was pretty eye-opening to hear about some of the challenges, especially around um navigating things like roundabouts and the importance of of making our city accessible to people with different abilities.

Um that was it was uh it was moving to hear about and uh I hope that we'll have opportunity to take take action on on some of these items as we move forward.

On Friday, the Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization consortium met.

And the one thing that I wanted to highlight from this conversation is uh to my knowledge, the governor has not yet signed the transportation package that the legislature passed.

And one of the things that people have said she may be waiting on is uh that as soon as she signs that the signature gathering effort to potentially uh pass a referendum on that package begins.

Um, and one thing that I wanted to make sure people are aware of is depending on what is in that that referendum, if it is just the uh new the depending on what focus on the revenue gathering in that is it may be that um all the new funding for things like transit or safety initiatives or uh maintenance, depending on what is in that referendum, all of that gets put on pause until November 2026.

So, right now we would be expecting, for example, to get new transit funding as early as June.

If the signature gathering effort is successful, none of that happens, everything gets put on pause.

So, for anyone who is approached or thinking about signing, oh, let's just put this on the ballot.

The real consequence of it is all of this funding, which in the case of transit is only two years of additional funding anyway, gets put on pause.

Um there were a couple of other items.

Uh, Reed Market overcrossing had a really big turnout on Monday night.

That was October 27.

Is that no?

It was last last Monday.

Thank you.

Uh the third, the uh lots of interest in Reed Market overcrossing, and uh really great to see that turn out.

And there was lots of city staff there from multiple departments, uh, and it was great to see everyone there.

Thank you.

All right, Councilor Riley.

So um, I was mostly out of town for the last couple of weeks, so I don't have a whole lot to report, but um, I did before I left attended the open house for the new safe parking program with counselor Platt that Mountain View Community Development is um just bringing online um up on the north end of town, and I just it was great to see um one more place where we can have I believe there's five or there's six five five units there that that can house some people that need that and to help them transition into um more permanent housing in our community, and just really appreciate their work that they're doing to make those sites available in our community.

That's it.

Okay.

Um council Norris.

Um, yeah, I we have family visiting from out of town.

So I have I attended the um Parkside Place uh legislative tour.

We had the governor come and visit along with other state legislators, and it was a great um event.

Uh it was uh this is a really good example of um a project um public-private that has uh a good amount of affordable housing, and it's great to see um you know the buildings out there going vertical, and um and it was really well attended.

And I know that there was a tour after that I couldn't participate in, but I know that they toured a bunch of other projects.

I think they knew around that.

Yeah, um, but yeah, that's it.

All right, Council Platt.

Thanks for carpooling with me to the safe parking uh counselor riley.

Of course, and in an electric car, and an electric vehicle.

That was great.

It's it just but what what they're doing there is you're you're right.

Is is really really impressive.

Uh and I and I'm just so thankful for what they're doing.

Um, interestingly, given the uh the state of our um our flying uh right now, uh Eric King and I had a chance to go do an uh familiarization ride uh in our local uh airspace here from our from our airport.

Tracy Williams set that up for us.

Um and it's just it's you know, somebody who's done a little of this in my background.

I was really impressed with the way that they've done some innovative things like uh deconflicting the helicopter and the fixed wing patterns, uh, which is sort of innovative here.

They've got them on opposite sides of the airport, and that it turns out that's the kind of thing that matters uh when uh aircraft are flying in the same piece of sky.

Um we used to say it's a big sky out there, but when everybody's coming to to to the same place to land, it gets small really quickly.

And so I was impressed with the safety measures that they have in place there, along with you.

Also, got to look at some of the pinch points between where our aircraft are flying and how they impinge on where the Redmond approach corridors are, and it just brings me back to thinking about DC uh and some of those those crashes.

So I'm I'm I'm thankful that they're mindful of those kind of um conflict points.

Um, and then often also with the Barry Washington Memorial uh dedication that was great.

And then one other thing that I really enjoyed being a part of was with the Ben Pline schools and the Oregon Department of Education, I got a chance to go uh call families uh uh and and cop and compliment them for their students uh really improving their attendance to school.

And so we wrote we wrote postcards to them, we called families, and uh it's just really neat to to have families say, oh my goodness, why are you calling?

And then to say it's a good thing.

Um and and thank you for what you're doing to get your student and your learner uh to the classroom every day because it really does matter.

So uh that was another great thing to be a part of.

That's all I've got.

Thanks.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Um, yes, I was on the tour with um the governor who came and tour in Parkside Place and a couple other places that we have been working on as council to provide more housing for the community and some good conversations with legislators on the bus.

We also visited sisters and saw some affordable housing projects there, which was great, and talked about their UGB expansion, which they are in the thick of right now, and how they're trying to provide more housing.

So we're really grateful for the governor and for the legislators that came to visit us here in Bend and all um are looking to bend as a leader in this area and hoping to um continue the good work across the state to help us with our housing crisis.

Um I also attended and spoke briefly at the Barry Washington memorial dedication.

Um it was great to have the family here and a good moment for them to see the realization of this permanent memorial.

There has been an informal and memorial there ever since um Barry was killed, and it was a very important for the community and for the family.

And I'm very proud that this was a process led by um the family with the help of community advocates and some of our staff that were very um involved, including um our our mobility department staff and getting this installed in the right of way.

So I'm also gonna take um time to thank Kathy as well at the city for all of her work with the family in helping to make this happen.

It was really meaningful for them, and it was meaningful how many people showed up to that event.

Um, I also went on a ride along with um Jason Galt of Code Enforcement.

Um, I recommend everyone do that.

It is really eye-opening on how our code is working and what kind of resources are needed to enforce it and how people um are experiencing homelessness on our streets, unfortunately, still in Bend.

Um, and I think um I have been continuing to meet weekly on the district mapping advisory um committee for the county.

Um, we had a meeting today.

I advise people to please please pay attention to that.

We are approaching referring a map to the commissioners by the end of this month.

Um, and we are meeting weekly, but we meet in the middle of the day, and we are not seeing a lot of folks showing up to comment or give input just because I think of the meeting time primarily.

So if folks have input, um please email and let us know.

Um, and then finally, I'll highlight that um Mayor Pro Tem Perkins and I got to visit um Metolia's T, which is a local small business um born and grown here in Bend.

Um, and it was really great to talk with the business owner and the employees about their business, about how they've received assistance through things like grants from Business Oregon for equipment, how they're trying to grow, but also provide a really robust living wage for their employees.

Um, and we talk with the employees about you know cost of living and transportation and all the issues that um that our workforce is seeing here.

So that was a great opportunity, and thanks to Cyrus from the economic development department for setting that up.

And I will stop there, I think.

Okay.

All right, thanks for your reports, everybody.

We're gonna move into the visitors section.

This is the time for members of the public to offer public comment to the city.

Um we have in-person commenters.

I think we have one person online and a couple more here.

If you are here to talk about item number five, which is a public hearing, I'm gonna set your um note aside and we're gonna call you then.

Um that includes folks online if you're signed up for item number five.

So you will not be called right now.

When we get to item number five, I will call on you to testify at the appropriate time.

And um, we are gonna have folks come up to in person, come up to the table, state your name and whether you live in the city of Bend, you'll have two minutes to speak.

Ashley's getting our super cool timer up.

And on the little light, make sure you glance over it.

The little light will turn yellow when you have about 30 seconds left, and then after your time is up, I will um ask you to wrap up so we can give everyone time to speak tonight.

Please address us as a body, um, no uh not as individuals.

Um, please, uh no derogatory or disruptive language that will disrupt our meeting.

Um, if you are breaking our rules for for public comment, I'll let you know and ask you to stop.

Um, and if you can't stop, I may take away your time or ask you to leave.

Um, all right.

So let's start with um Jim Elliott.

Come on up.

Annie's here, we're doing this together.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, why don't you and also Annie Goldner, come on up together.

That's fine.

Um, I I can speak first.

Okay.

Hello, counselors.

Uh, Annie Goldner.

I've lived in Bend for 23 years.

I was here two years ago.

I'm sure you remembered because I brought this photo of my son.

Now come on.

I'm not gonna do that again.

Um Adam Muster, who was killed on his bike in Brooklyn in May 1st of 2023.

It was two years ago when I appeared before you because I came here to ask you if you keep the him in mind and other bikers and pedestrians as you use the transportation bond money.

I'm here today to thank you because wow, there's been changes made to the positive, and I know it's not easy because motor vehicle drivers are, I'm sure are saying, What are you doing out there with these new bike lanes and the changes in the intersections?

But it's so important.

The other reason I'm here is what Jim is going to speak to, which is the World Day of Remembrance, in which we think about our loved ones and citizens who have been killed on our streets.

Uh so uh Jim, go ahead.

Thank you.

You can have your own two minutes, Jim.

We'll be in go ahead.

Jim Ellen, I'm a resident of Bend, Mayor Keyboard and Counselors.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak about the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims.

On November 16th, people in cities around the globe will pause to remember the nearly 1.2 million people who lost their lives and the nearly 30 million people who were injured due to trap road traffic crashes in the past year.

These people include drivers and passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.

This terrible toll of death and injury affects the families and friends of the victims and those who provide the emergency services and care to them.

We cannot ignore this unnecessary violence any longer.

Bend is not immune.

We've had over 600 traffic crashes in the first 10 months of this year.

There was one fatality and over 421 injuries.

In addition to the crashes in Bend, people in our community are mourning the loss of loved ones in other cities.

Bend invites the city council and the community to join us at the gathering of the Peace Corner on at 11 a.m.

on Sunday, November 16th.

Community members will be speaking about the loved ones they have lost.

The moment of silence will be held in memory of those killed and injured this past year, followed by an informal ride through downtown Bend and Drake Park.

Please join us on this day as we remember those who have been affected by traffic road traffic violence and pledge to continue our efforts to make our streets safer for all members of our community.

And with that, Ben sent the council a short letter outlining street standard revisions that make these life-saving designs that the default, not the exception.

We're asking you to modernize the standards so that safe choice is the easy choice on every block.

Let us continue to build a city where your ability to drive does not determine your ability to live.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you, Annie.

And I forgot to say that I'm here with Families for Safe Streets, which was founded uh 12 years ago in New York City, but it's going nationwide, and we do have a chapter here.

There's another citizen, Sarah Witt, who couldn't be here tonight, but she lost her brother in July in New York.

Thank you for sharing.

Thank you.

All right, uh Michael Baker.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Michael Baker, and I am uh resident of Bend for eight days.

Um I am the uh brand new and I have the honor of being the new CEO for the boys and girls clubs here in Bend.

Very excited to be here.

And we're looking forward to uh getting to know each and every one of you and and increasing the services at the boys and girls clubs.

We're very excited.

I I'm thrilled with the with the board of directors that we have in place uh and honored to be representing the children that come to our facilities.

I will tell you, um, and you'll hear me talk about this on a regular basis, and I will be here on a regular basis.

Um we know from national studies that the magic number is 105 days.

If we can get a child to attend the boys and girls couple 105 days in the same calendar year, they're twice as likely to graduate high school in time and twice as likely to lead a health lifestyle.

So we celebrate that and embrace that, and we will be doing that here in Bend as well, and hopefully be able to do that here and recognize the children that this year will have attended 105 days, and I can I'm happy to report that pulling the most recent report.

Um, again, only being here eight days, pulling the most recent report.

We have uh nearly 50 children that have qualified for that honor, and we'd love to present them with their gold cards, uh gold membership cards here with the mayor and council.

Uh so looking forward to doing that.

Uh again, want to thank each and every one of you for your continued support over the years, and we encourage each and every one of you to come down and take a tour.

Uh we are the best kept secret here in Bend.

So appreciate all your support.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here and saying hi.

Yes.

All right, Adriana Cohn.

Hello.

Um, yeah, thank you, Mayor and uh members of council for letting me speak today.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and members of council for letting me speak today.

I am a hairstylist at the salon off of Colorado Avenue.

And with the new jackstraw development, it seems that parking has become very limited.

And I guess a lot of our customers are having a really hard time parking there.

It seems that I keep hearing he said she's dead.

So I guess I just really want to get to the bottom of what's if there's a plan.

If there's going to be a parking structure or whatnot, because we're all really affected by it.

I don't know if I can make this last for two minutes.

And I'm just gonna offer David.

Do you mind maybe just we can chat with you about kind of the plan to establish a parking district?

We can kind of grab you out of the way.

Yeah, because there's a private parking lot at the box factory.

Yeah, that private owner controls, but then there's also the public seat streets, and we've talked about a uh publicly managed parking district for those streets.

So if you would connect with David, he can give you some more information.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, that would be great.

Okay, he's right here with the glasses.

Okay, there we go.

Yeah, thanks for your time.

Yeah.

All right, Mike Fanny.

Good evening, Mayor Keebler and Council members.

My name's Mike Fanning.

I'm a resident of Bend, and I'm here to alert you to a real problem that we have in Northeast Bend with the Petrosa Commercial Development called the Markets of Petrosa that you approved as part of your master plan in February of 2020.

Right now, thousands of Northeast Bend families do not have a true neighborhood center where our community can gather, shop for groceries, pick up prescriptions, dine at restaurants.

I could go on and on.

In 2020, you approved the Petrosa Master Plan presented by Polish with a specific grocery store anchored commercial center designed to solve this problem.

You moved the urban growth boundary for this plan.

You codified it in the development code as a binding obligation.

Access to commercial goods and services was number one on the list.

And we purchased our homes trusting that the applicants would develop the plan that you approved.

Unfortunately, things have radically changed.

After using the markets of Petrosa to sell hundreds of homes and obtain approval from you for this development, the applicant sold the land.

The new owner has indicated that his vision is completely different than what you approved.

In fact, the new owner was wanting to now divide up the 18-acre site that was supposed to be the markets of Petrosa into 17 separate plots that can be sold off separately.

Needless to say, this scenario is not anywhere close to the master plan that you approved.

Since thousands of people in Northeast Bend desperately need this commercial center, the Patrosa Community Alliance, as well as other homeowner associations are asking you to exercise your authority to pause all activity on this piece of property, which includes pausing all permits, pausing any further subdivision of the land, and pausing any parcel sales until the master plan compliance is adhered to.

All Northeast Bend residents deserve this walkable community.

And the loss of community-centered commercial spaces will rid Bend of its character and further distance the city from its goal of walkable bikeable communities.

Note part of the property is being uh allocated towards low-income housing, and you already talked about this earlier in your meeting.

The master plan you approve can still become a reality, but only if we all act now.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mike.

All right, uh, David Green.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors.

I'm David Green, a resident of Bend, and I'm representing Bend Bikes tonight.

Uh, we're asking the city of Bend and the Bend Parks and Recreation District to increase their coordination about paths through Bend.

Uh park and rec paths have become a really important part of the city's low stress network for people walking, biking, and rolling.

These trails are really important transportation routes, including some that will be part of the Bend Bikeway.

There's some of the most pleasant ways and safest ways to get across town.

There's already some really fine coordination between the park district and the city.

Um the shared responsibility for the riverfront street is is one of those examples.

Um, the existing agreements for maintenance of some of the paths that is joint park and rec and city is another.

But there's some really real big problems also.

Umly e-bikes without a throttle are allowed on park district trails.

Differing rules between city and park district facilities reduce the value of the entire system.

For example, the BO bike share bikes are all throttle-based, and so they're not allowed on any of the park district trails.

Some of these trails also end at sidewalks, which creates big questions about how e-bikes can use those trails.

Wayfinding needs to be coordinated.

Routes that use a combination of city and park district facilities need to be marked consistently so people can easily travel those routes across town.

People shouldn't have to recognize the difference between jurisdictions when they're when they're writing on these trails that are part of our low city low stress network.

So we think this coordination is needed, but it's also within sight.

We have made a similar request to BPRD, and we'll be sending you a letter in the next few days asking for this.

This coordination could be a real intergovernmental success story and building on the effort you've already started.

So thanks, and please let us know if we can help.

Thank you, David.

And last in person is Craig Sheets.

Hi, Craig.

Been pushing a Geiger counter simulation cover.

You guys all got copies.

I've gone to every port in California.

I finished up Portland.

I finished up Vancouver.

I've got two left, and then I'm going to the Great Lakes.

You can see what we're speaking about here.

An attack on oil.

That would be to the oceans, and then devastation to the Great Lakes.

Everybody back here can see that.

The containers come into our country from other countries.

They're checking 3% of 30 million a month coming into our country.

Here's where Ben comes into order.

These trains load up right off the ships, as you can see.

I've shown you how they load them up.

Endless trains.

LA's got so many, it's not even funny.

And you see, it's going through the forest along the rivers.

I know because I rode freight trains for seven years.

Everybody goes, why'd you get away with it so long?

And I guess this is the reason why here tonight.

As I said, the Great Lakes.

I haven't been covering those, but I will be on my way to the Great Lakes.

United States has the most deceased children from narcotics.

We are the highest rate of killing our kids in this country from availability of narcotics.

And milk labs that rotate through in the hills.

You got some fancy red lights around yours, Eugene.

You never know where it's coming from.

They rotate, they take turns.

Another good place to hide them would be out on the ocean, and uh they'll helicopter it back in and bring in our boats through cruise.

And uh appreciate you letting me speak.

Thank you, Craig.

We've got your uh uh documents up here.

Yep, I got them.

Thanks.

Okay, and I think we have one online commenter.

Okay, and they're not for the item number five.

Oh, yeah, okay.

So the one that we'll do now is the one that's not for item number five.

Yeah, anything that's foster foul.

Let me know when, or let them know when it has a tiger up.

Yeah, getting the timer up.

Okay, Foster, you should be able to unmute now.

Foster, if you can hear us, you can go ahead.

Hello?

Yep, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, just uh um a quick note.

Um, as one who was mentioned in the um resignation letter of uh Mr.

Andres Portella, uh, and as an individual, I would just like to support the City of Bend's um intent to conduct an independent review of the circumstances um uh leading to uh Mr.

Potella's um resignation, and uh you say we remain committed to a uh fair and objective process uh without um undue speculation or rumor.

However, I'm seeing in reporting comments from City Hall that seems to be undermining the spirit of this commitment.

So um, just very quickly uh in uh reporting on OPB.

Uh Mr.

Portella is um um thanked by Eric King for his long list of accomplishments for over two years.

Um his supervisor, Ms.

uh Betterich says Andre's has made us a better organization and will be missed.

The uh chair of um the human rights and equity commission uh has called Portella's resignation a big disappointment.

Um she described him as such an integral part of the life of DEI here in our city, and I was very surprised.

Uh councillor Princeosa said, I'm really concerned that Andre's departure uh will be leaving us uh will not be leaving us well positioned to meet the council's goals on equity.

And then um surprisingly enough, on in other reporting, we're hearing uh comments from city hall, such as uh um Andres can demonstrates inconsistent statements.

Um just uh just to sum up, I do hope this review process goes through, giving everyone a chance to speak freely without retaliation and to address facts.

Thank you and not speculation.

Uh you know, get uh give the young man a chance.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Foster.

Okay.

That's it for the public commenters on the visitor section.

So that will move us to item number four of the consent agenda.

Did you want to pull something?

Yes, I wanted to pull on item B.

Okay, so B is the 15th and Ferguson Roundabout Project.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda without item B?

I move to approve the consent agenda without item B.

Second.

All right, move by Councillor Francis, second by Councillor Mendez.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right, item B, Council Riley.

So I just had a um was just basically a question.

I'm hoping somebody can answer.

I think I kind of know the answer, but I think it's important the community hears it because we've had some questions about the um Ferguson and 15th roundabout.

Um, and I just wanted to make the point that I believe there is going to be an opportunity for public engagement in the uh 30% design.

Is that right?

So if you can just speak to that quickly.

Just wanted to make sure it's out there and people know how they can do that and roughly when, Ryan.

All right, there we go.

So uh thank you for the question.

Ryan Oester, I'm the director of our engineering department, Christian Williams, who's our project manager is here tonight as well.

Uh so the amendment tonight is to progress beyond the 30% design, the final design.

And so, no, it's actually a full design.

We haven't even started yet.

I haven't even started yet.

So, full design.

Um, and so yeah, we'll stand follow our standard outreach process.

We'll come out around the 30% with some design alternatives, um, and then we'll probably have some more follow-up, especially with the Nottingham neighborhood, because this is going to be very impactful to the Nottingham neighborhood.

So we're talking to their HOA board already now, but there'll be plenty of comment period times.

And it'll be an open house, standard open house standard open house process for the community, all that okay.

And I bring it up just because I know it's been a big concern for the two neighborhood districts down there that I'm gonna play liaison to the Southeast and the old farm.

And we got a question of you know, and some input essentially on the design recently and kind of the implication that I read into it is that you know we gotta do this, it's too late.

And so I just want people to know in that part of town.

I haven't even started having started, there will be a chance.

It is really important to them for all the reasons mentioned in the issue summary associated with this, and I'm glad we're moving forward with it more quickly than originally.

So thanks, Ryan.

So with that, um, I move that we authorize a contract with Consort North America Incorporated for the design of the 15th and Ferguson Roundabout Project, one GRMC and a contract amount of 661,990, and an additional anticipated or anticipated additional phase of 137,745 for a total amount of 799 and 700.

Wait, 799,735.

There it is.

Thank you.

Second.

Move by councillor Riley, second by counselor Platt.

All those in favor?

I alright.

Thank you.

Okay, that will move us now to item number five, which is a public hearing.

Oh, yes.

Oh, these are my item number five people.

Yes, okay, great.

So I'm gonna open the public hearing, and we will start with County Norris.

Yes, I need to declare a potential conflict out of an abundance of caution because my employer is in homes and this could have a financial impact, but is uncertain at this time.

I am permitted to participate in a deliberation and vote on this item.

Great.

And we will start with our staff presentation when they're ready.

Good evening, council.

Um, calling Hardy with the planning department, and tonight with me is Amy Barry, principal planner with the planning department.

Um we are both here together to give you an update on the proposed amendments and can answer any questions you have following our presentation.

So over the past couple years, staff has been working on identifying areas for improvements to the Bend Development Code to update various standards and processes to align with city practices and also with state law.

The amendments include several just simple ones for clarification and consistency.

Going through the code, um, you probably saw a lot of um corrections to general ambiguity, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and as well as conflicts.

Uh, there is code updates that address modernization, which includes looking at the rear setbacks for our low density residential district, and I'll go into a little detail about that, as well as new bar bicycle parking options and various design standards throughout the code.

Process improvements include updates to procedures for legal lots of record determinations, uh Deschutes River design review, noticing requirements, duration of approvals and extensions, and modifications of approval.

And I'll go into a little detail about the durations of approvals and extensions.

And for the modifications of approval, um, one of the amendments includes creating a new process for determining modification of approval.

Oh, similar use or uh change of condition of approval, and we've used that throughout the years, and now we have a process that we can use.

Um, an example would be back in the day when we required parking for accessory dwelling units, and then the state changed the law if they could go through this process now and amend a condition of approval to use the new code requirements.

We did receive a phone call today also about legal lot of record determinations.

We codified our process, and there might be an additional process that we want to look into.

We didn't have time today, but we can bring that back if necessary.

Uh, we are creating a new minor replat process is a very simple type one process that will help a lot of projects.

We are proposing to clearly identify an existing quasi-judicial process.

It's going to be called the type 3cc, CC for city council, where the final decisions made by the council after a public hearing.

An example of this, which we already do, is our major master plan process.

So they go through the planning commission.

Planning commission holds a public hearing, makes a recommendation to the city council, and the city council is the final decision maker.

Uh, we're just simply codifying the process now in the code as the type 3cc.

We are replacing our declaratory ruling chapter with a new chapter 4.10 interpretations and determinations.

Uh, three of the interpretations and determinations are remaining the same.

We are adding a new one for a determination of similar land use, which in the development code above every use table says please see uh 4.11400 if you want to do a determination of similar land use.

There was never a process in the code, so we are creating that process, and we're also identifying the different processes depending on the request.

If they're site-specific, they would be a quasi-judicial process, and if they affect city code or citywide regulations, then if we create a legislative process.

So a lot of cleanup for chapter 4.10 interpretations and determination.

And then, as with a lot of our code updates lately, we just always make sure we're consistent with the ordinal revised statutes and administrative rules.

The proposed amendments do implement two of city council's 2527 goals.

The first goal being the housing goal, which states to develop and implement strategies to meet community housing needs, reduce homelessness, and create complete walkable neighborhoods through data-driven policies, reliable funding, and innovative development codes.

And the action is to adopt development code and entitlement processes, improvements that remove barriers and speed up missing middle housing, affordable housing, and infill development.

And to implement this action, the proposed standards update several processes to speed up entitlement.

The first one is providing additional time extensions to site plan review and land division applications.

Today, uh site plan review applications are good for two years.

This will add an extension to a single phase site plan review application and also an extension to the first and last phase of site plan review applications.

This proposed amendment also adds extensions to phased land division applications.

And the benefit of adding these extensions gives larger projects like subdivisions or large apartment complex building extra year to two years to get their developments completed within the time frame allowed.

The amendments also streamline review processes by better organizing standards and procedures.

So when an applicant has to, as part of their application, submit a narrative, they're not going through all these different chapters where several requirements live.

It'll be better organized and more timely for the applicant as well as staff when we're reviewing projects.

The amendments also streamline a review process for an expansion of existing multifamily developments.

Today, an existing multifamily development, which is four or more units, has to go through full site plan review application.

And we've had pre-apps in the past where all they want to do is add one to one to two, maybe three units, and instead of having to go through a full process, the recommendation would be that they would just go through the type one process.

The updates also reduce the rear setback in the low density residential district.

Today it's 20 feet, which is quite a bit of space on these large lots down to 10 feet.

And this will allow more room, especially now that these RL lots are low density residential lots, can be developed with single family homes, they can have ADUs all the way up to quadplexes.

So this just allows more usable space.

The amendments also implemented transportation and infrastructure goal with the action to update transportation design standards and specification for all users aiming for zero fatalities.

The proposed amendments, after looking at a lot of other codes, realizing that our bicycle parking chapter was pretty outdated.

We updated it to include adequate, secure, and convenient bicycle parking with short-term and long-term bicycle parking requirements.

So we didn't go through and increase bicycle parking numbers or spots required.

We just identified requirements for short term, which means that they're going to be providing parking for like customers or people that are going to be there for two hours or less.

And then we identified parking requirements for long term, and those are more for the residents or employees which plan to stay at a place for over two hours.

And in addition to identifying requirements for short-term and long-term bicycle parking requirements, we added additional options to meet the parking requirements.

We already allowed URACs, but the proposed code amendments also would allow vertical wall-mounted racks, bicycle lockers, and it also addresses bicycle parking requirements for oversized bicycle bicycle parking like cargo bikes or cargo bikes.

So the next amendment is the planning commission recommendations.

We have two commissioners here with us tonight, Commissioner Winters and Johansson.

And they held their public hearing and voted seven zero unanimous to recommend approval of the amendments.

At staff's request, they added an amendment for us for just an easy reference in our tables.

We allow conversion of commercial to residential uses, and just want to make sure that the public knows that if they go to the commercial tables, that there is this option to convert to residential uses.

Simplify the process, and there was definitely support from the planning commission as well as the core area advisory board, but there was interest in making sure that if they were to redo the front facades, that there was still some windows or transparency or glazings maintained on the front facades because we still want a walkable environment.

And so the planning commission's recommendation is included in your packet that if they're going to go through the simple process that they don't lose more than 50% of their ground floor transparency or at least meet the minimum requirements of the central bend district.

During the public comment period as well as at the planning commission public hearing, we did hear from the Bend Park and Recreation District about a request to streamline the review process to what we call the upland areas of special interest overlay zone, also called ASI.

The request is to simplify simplify the process for fuel reduction and forest health in this area.

Their request is similar to the proposed amendments in your packets.

That is to the Deschutes River Design Review Procedures for the waterway overlay district for tree removal.

That particular request we heard also from Bend Park and Recreation District, Central Oregon Irrigation District, as well as a homeowners association.

And so the Benn Park and Recreation District is simply asking that we have the same simplified type one review process in the ASI as we are in the waterway overlay zone.

Through this process, I've learned different definitions, one being fuel break versus fire break.

And so staff is recommending the adding a type one amendment for the ASI as well as a definition for fuel break.

A fire break is, and I worked with Fire Marshal Melissa Steele on this.

A fire break really just cuts everything down, whereas a fuel break thins things out and still helps prevent fires from spreading.

And this is the process, the fuel break, what COID has been using AMP and Park and Recreation District is using.

So they recommend that we have a definition for fuel break and also amend the code in the WAS area instead of using the term fire break, use fuel break.

And then the additional amendments would be to the ASI, the areas of special interest in Section 2.7700.

I don't need, I don't like well, I guess I'll go through them real fast.

It would just basically saying if there's noxious weeds, those are exempt, they can remove these in the ASI areas.

If they do want to remove trees, creating that type one review process similar to what we have for the WAS area, and then pre prohibit removal of vegetation that is protected.

We did receive a comment as well as council that was in our public record from the Central Oregon Irrigation District.

And they were requesting that we take it a step further in the WAS and not have a review process.

Staff is recommending that we still move forward with a type one review process.

In my work program, I am going to be coming back with a major cleanup to the waterway overlay district.

And at that time, we can look at looking at different processes.

But for this code amendment, just proposing the type one review process for the WAS as well as the ASI.

As City Council Price saw, you've received a lot of public comments regarding open space.

I want to highlight a couple things and give a little background on the proposed amendments for council.

One is the definition of open space in the Bend Development Code.

Reads that it is any property or area of land or water set aside designed to reserve for public or private use specifically for the purpose of providing places for recreation conservation or other open spaces.

So our definition for open space does address public and allow public or private use.

And then the Bend Development Code Chapter 4.5 master plans, which was adopted in 2017, has a requirement since then that all community master plans provide a minimum of 10% of gross area as public or private open space.

And it gives examples such as parks, pavilions, squares, or plazas, multi-use paths, they do have to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, areas of special interest, tree preservation areas, and it also is included since 2017 public or private recreational facilities.

And just to give you an idea on the master plan since 2017, we've had 14 master plans that have been under development.

And looking at those master plans, we've gotten a variety of parks.

We've gotten a variety of homeowner association, community centers, pools, and splash play parks and pads, lots of open space tracks, lots of recreational trails, protected areas of special interest, as well as a urban plaza.

In 2022, I did a site visit to a master plan area, and you can see in the picture on the right, it's a fenced-in drainage basin.

And I wanted to make sure that when we say that you have to provide 10% open space, public or private, that it couldn't just be a fenced in drainage basin.

It really concerned me.

So I proposed an amendment to the planning commission and city council in 2022, trying to get across that that does not count.

A fenced in drainage basin that is not accessible by people, doesn't count towards the open space requirement.

And I went back and listened to the minutes for the planning commission work session back in 2022.

And from the minutes, it does ask does state that Commissioner Payne asked about master plan open spaces, and then I clarified that the open space can be public or private, but it must be useful.

And the whole intent of this usable open space usable by the people that either live there or the community or both.

And then in 2022, when the planning commission held their um public hearing, I again clarified that the open space needs to be public and usable or open to the residents of the master plan area, like a community pool.

And then in 2023, the city council had their um public hearing, and again, I wanted to make it clear that it was open to the public, and that the reason behind this is we did not want to see a fenced off drainage basin that is not usable to anybody.

In this particular master plan, they have plenty of open space tracked areas that is usable by the public with easements on it, as well as um several um multi-use trails.

So they were fine.

I just when I saw it, I wanted to make sure that this is not counted as open space.

Um the public was intended to mean it is usable by people.

Um and so the proposed amendments are not to change the status quo of what we've been doing since 2017.

It's just to clarify we don't want fenced and drainage basins.

Um if there is interest in providing even more clarity about the fenced in areas, the mayor suggested a potential amendment for the council to consider up on the um screen to clarify that any public or private open space must not be fenced off unless it's related to a park or approved public or private recreational facility, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming pools, driving rains, and ball fields.

So again, we've always allowed these private facilities.

This would just clarify that they just cannot be fenced off, like drainage basins.

The public process so far has included a planning commission work session on September 8th.

Uh Planning Commission held a public hearing again.

We have two commissioners here on September 22nd.

Tonight is the public hearing before the city council with the first reading, and if um if we move forward, then the second reading would be November 19th with an effective date of December, um, December 19th.

So Amy and I are here to answer any questions that you may have.

Um I didn't really forget anything.

Yes, thank you, Pauline.

Very thorough.

Um, do you also have since there were some amendments that came in from the comments that happened at planning commissioners shortly after?

Do you have an amended motion for us when yes that will include all the things that you've put on the screen here?

I do make sure that we cover that.

Okay.

Questions for Pauline on the substance of this code change package.

Council Mendes.

Narrow question about bicycle parking short term and long term of the difference between the minimum required for the inverted U-shape racks.

The inver inverted U-shape racks are kind of the gold standard for bike parking, they're easy to use, and you just walk, you know, wheel right up to it and lock up and you're done.

Uh, for for long term, we require a minimum of 25%, and for short-term parking, we require a minimum of 50%.

That that's not is that is that different in this code change?

I guess I'm wondering why not 50% for both.

Let's make it to that page.

It's uh page 68.

Okay, so long term they have a requirement of 25%, so minimum that is 25%.

But then it also provides additional options.

I think when we went through, I'm trying to think of the table.

Um we tried not to require more than we require today, I believe, and then because they're minimums, they can provide more.

What we see a lot in the applications, and this is where we added the flexibility is um lockable areas.

Um, a lot of apartment complexes want they just have indoor um lockable areas for bicycle parking.

They also have the um the boxes and the vertical racks, so they can provide minimums.

Um, I'm not sure if that's getting to your question about the 25 versus 50.

Well, I mean, my main concern is that I hear from people who we have more people using e-bikes and they're heavier, and especially for some people who maybe not quite as able-bodied to you know, lift one up onto the wall.

Um it seems like an opportunity to make sure that we have ample accessible parking and and not rely on the you know, maybe easier to provide from a developer perspective, but less usable for residents, I guess.

Um I think yeah, it seems like Pauline's looking, it sounds like we're trying to be consistent with what we required before, but maybe you can say more about that.

Um trying to think, I don't have it in front of me what we require.

Um trying to think, I don't have it in front of me what we oh wait, maybe I do because we'll look at there.

Yeah, let's get there.

I kind of think that the old code only allowed it cargo or um so the current code.

We have some options for long-term parking, getting there.

Bicycle storage.

Bicycle parking requirements can be provided in a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, racks, or other secure storage inside or outside of building.

Bicycle parking must be provided at ground level, unless a ramp no less than two feet in width or an elevator, minimum depth of six and depth and width of six feet, easily accessible to an approved bicycle parking area.

Space within dwelling units or on balconies or porches are not counted towards satisfying the bicycle parking requirements.

But the storage, there's something else in here about are you thinking 25% should be increased to 50 just to have more ground level or URACs versus the wall?

I mean, if we imagine in the you know the universe of people riding bicycles, it seems strange that we would have a different standard for short-term versus long term since they're people are gonna be using both at some point, but in the spirit of you know, I recognize these amendments are intended to be policy neutral with some minor changes here and there.

Um I it was just something that that caught my attention, and uh and I wanted to see if there was any explanation behind the different sorts.

I found the rest of it.

So our current code says except for residential uses.

So that's where we get those storage rooms more often.

A minimum of 75% of the required bicycle parking must be U-style racks located outside of a building.

So setting aside an apartment complex, 75% of the minimum requirement has to be outside on a URAC, easily accessible to everybody.

That's not there's no proposal to change that.

That is, I think gone down to 50.

So that's where 75 I bet came from.

It's the 50% short term plus 25% long term still gets you 75% URACs.

It's just breaking it out for short-term and long-term bicycle racks.

Because again, what we another example we were seeing is like a hotel would want to put all the bicycle parking inside and none outside, and we had nothing in the code to say you still need to provide some URACs outside available to the public because maybe there's a restaurant or maybe a guest are coming and they're just friends are gonna stop by for less than two hours.

So I think we did the 50% and then the 25%.

Um what we also did is um if they're located, because it's an OR, so the long term can be 25% um URACs or located in lockable area with racks complying with the spacing standards, and they can also include the wall racks, and then five percent of those if there's more than 20 have to be for over size bicycle parking.

Those are also URACs.

So do we end up with fewer minimum required inverted U-shape?

No, because the short term I believe is 50%.

But we can bump up the um the long term as well, and that's an easy amendment.

Yeah, remember we're talking about minimums too.

So yeah, okay.

Other questions, substantive questions on any of the code changes.

Yeah, I have some I wanted to ask um some questions about the fuel reduction.

Um, okay.

Switching gears to a different um I'm glad to see um the change from fire break to fuel break.

That makes a lot of sense.

Um, so I I do want to talk have a little discussion here about the um appropriateness of having fuel reduction as a land use process of of any type.

Um it's it's not a new land development or a land use, right?

It's uh I'm gonna ask Colin or Renee to help a friend.

Yeah, so it's it's not a it's not a new development, right?

Or uh a new land use.

It's um it's a wildfire risk mitigation kind of activity, right?

Correct.

Is that right?

Okay.

Um so can be I guess I should say yes.

So what how did it end up in the development code?

How does it end up going before the planning department anyway?

Why why isn't it uh seems like it's like a fire department?

Uh well, tree preservation is it's been decided that that go that resides within the development code.

We have the the staffing, the infrastructure, the ability to to regulate through our our development code, trees, whether it's associated with development or not.

So I mean, with all of the true act work that we did and the adoption of the new um tree preservation code is a good example.

There are still preservation requirements for existing properties over one acre or larger, whether or not they have uh a development proposal or not, they still have to preserve the trees.

They can't cut them down.

So this is where the laws would come into play.

So if you have a tree regulation, if there are regulations to protect trees, we need to have a permitting system.

If we didn't allow, if we didn't require some form of review, there wouldn't be the ability to um uh decide whether or not they were doing either uh fire mitigation or clear cutting.

I mean, we would just say, well, uh it we would have to excuse a property from all tree regulations because we would have to do some form of review to see if they were just doing fire mitigation or doing something beyond fire mitigation, and so we would have to have standards that apply to it, do some form of review to understand whether or not people complying with those, and that's that's a permit.

Um yeah, it's a permit, right?

It's um but the the application is probably accompanied by like a letter from uh probably the fire department, right?

Uh we could involve the fire um marshals office is that so the creation of fuel breaks in association with appropriate fire prevention authorities, then the other one is where necessary to mitigate potential fire hazards as determined by the fire code official, and then last is um a qualified professional if it's diseased or hazardous.

Yeah, and and I will also um just remind everybody that we now have an urban forester on staff, uh which um has been very helpful.

We will involve our our urban forester in any review of any of these types of permits.

Yeah, I guess I think I really see a tension there because we we also have code that requires people to remove excess fuel from their property, but then they have to come in and get a permit.

That how long does it take to get through a type one land use process for and this is only in the waterway overlay zone?

I don't know why I'm having a hard time with that one tonight.

And in the areas of special interest protected, which is uh that's the only highly protected areas.

Okay, and what and how long does the process take?

It's uh a type one is uh typically 30 days.

The uh decision is issued in 30 days.

Okay, I mean that wasn't the I didn't think that was the intent of the urban forester was to be reviewing uh wildfire mitigation projects by landowners trying to do redo the responsible thing, but right.

But but as Pauline said, this is along in the river corridor in areas of special interest.

These are these are areas um that have been uh deliberately set aside as something that needs a little a higher level of review review so so just clarifying if someone is inviting Melissa Steel out to their house, they're talking about own your zone.

That's not gonna trigger this process because they're not in a unless they live in a waterway overlay zone, it's not gonna trigger this process.

Correct, right?

Okay, thanks, Colin.

Thank you.

Thanks for the questions.

Okay, any other questions from council before we do some public testimony.

I I have one or two, so um I'm curious about the the overhead.

I this is like a super picky, but see there's some of the things that come up for me when I read this stuff, it's just understanding.

I'm curious about the why behind the why all other overhead doors must be less than eight feet wide, except when they're like garages and what's the point of that.

So um I should have had a slide in here, but uh we have received applications where it looks and acts like a garage, but they don't have a driveway, they can't have a second access, and they say it's not a garage, but it's got garage doors that fit vehicles, it's a garage.

So we're trying to use it's like a restaurant or something that there's no this is a residential house.

Oh so they're building, let's say, an accessory drawing unit, and on the first floor is got two roll-up garage doors, but it's they're saying it's not a garage.

And we have nothing in the code to say, yeah, that is a garage.

And so we're um providing a definition or a clarity on the roll-up doors if they're eight feet or wider, you can get a car in there, it's a garage, and then um that helps us too when they are only allowed one access, and we're knowing that there'll probably be an illegal access possibly put in because they're putting in a garage.

So um if they put in a garage, they won't be able to have the access, we can address it then.

We can address it then.

And then there's a lot of those roll-up doors you see where they are just um in entrances into your living space, and they're less than eight feet wide.

Those can't front the street because we know those are not going to be parking vehicles.

So we just needed something in the code to clarify what is a garage door and what is not a garage door.

And I had a great picture, it's just on this PowerPoint.

No, okay.

And then another one about um 2.3.500 architectural standards.

I read most of this today, so it's gone a little foggy again now.

I have to admit.

Um I'm just curious about the why behind that one again.

Like what is the point of this?

What's driving this?

It's on page two of the summaries where it's talked about.

And I'm searching for the code.

Don't have the establishing design standards.

That's is that the ground cars design standards for triplexes, quads, and then architectural review standards for multi-unit residential.

So this one is more about this.

So the architectural review standards really are um it's ground floor level windows, so easy to do on commercial buildings, but somehow all of our middle housing got lumped in to the commercial design standards.

So we're just clarifying we have these window design standards for commercial type buildings and mixed use in the mixed use districts, and then if you're going to do, which is allowed a duplex triplex quad in some of these districts, then you would go to the design standards for duplex triplexes and quads.

It's just a better way to read it.

These design standards and this location in the code apply to these types of developments.

Yep, it doesn't change anything.

Okay.

We were just definitely don't want commercial design standards to apply to middle health.

Right, right, right.

Anything else might as all the things you wanted to?

Yeah, go ahead.

I have one more.

Um, just regarding open space.

I'm I'm not necessarily inclined to you know disagree with the recommendations that you have tonight, but I am kind of curious because as I read it, um, it seems as though it's sort of up to the developer if they want to make meet the open space requirement with public open space or private open space.

And so I guess what are the safeguards that the community has because we're not really allowing gated communities anymore, right?

Like we're not those are not allowed, they're not allowed, right?

And private roads are not allowed, and so what are the requirements?

Um like how is um how is park space designated, for example, in a master plan?

How is uh connectivity through um trails or easements so that we you know have connectivity?

So there's two parts of that.

Um one of the code amendments is actually I think it's three, four, five hundred, um, where it's the park search areas.

So anything that's over 10 acres would go to this particular section, and um if they have a park that's identified on the Ben Park and Recreation Districts Park Search Area map, um, they are required to enter into discussions with the park district.

Um, if there is not an identified need for a park in that area, then they don't have to enter into those negotiations or um discussions, and then um the second one is we have this open space area in 4.5 for master plans.

There's a whole nother section for connectivity that requires uh connectivity throughout the master plan area, so you're guaranteed to get the connectivity.

Um, and then if there is a park search area, then they will be required to meet with the park district.

But if there isn't, then they can propose, and like we've seen, like in this one in particular, it's open space um tracks and lots of um trails.

Okay, and the and the connectivity requirement is not just within the master plan but from the master plan out to the rest of the neighborhood adjacent.

Yep, okay.

Thanks.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we will move to public testimony.

I think everyone's here on the open space, so I hope you were paying attention and could hear it.

Um, but we welcome you to comment.

Let's start with our online commenter this time.

Um, I think I saw them raise their hand and they're ready to go.

So we will start with them.

It's the same rules as I announced for public comment, two minutes.

Um, all the same rules apply, and uh, you need to speak to the um item in this public hearing, which I think everyone's going to do, no problem.

So okay, Carrie, you can unmute now.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Carrie Quada, and we speak today as residents of Bend who care deeply about protecting what makes this unique.

The Canopy Trail is more than just a path through the forest, it is a living symbol of Ben's connection to nature, recreation, and community.

The surrounding Southern Crossing area, which links directly to the trail, provides vital open space for families, hikers, and cyclists.

Turning this land over to commercial development would compromise the integrity of the Canopy Trail and erase part of Ben's identity.

It would replace something that belongs to everyone with something that benefits only a few.

We ask council body to clarify how such development aligns with Ben's commitment to sustainability, transparency, and livability.

Commitments that residents expect to be honored in practice, not just in words.

Once this land is developed, the canopy trail and its surrounding open space will be lost forever.

We urge the council to protect this area to choose legacy over short-term gain and to save the trail.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we didn't have any other online signed up for this item, right?

Ashley.

Okay, so we'll go to in person.

We can start with Mark Gentle.

Hello, Mayor, Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm a resident of Bend.

So when they added in 2023 that open space must be open to the public.

What Ms.

Hardy said is perfectly plausible.

I mean, I it's it's good to hear that that was the intent, but it raises a bigger and broader policy question.

So I would recommend that because this wasn't really taken up at the planning commission, there wasn't a discussion about it.

This is the first time we've heard that this was the rationale for putting those words in, and now the rationale for taking those same words out two years later.

I recommend that you table this particular portion of this ordinance, send it back to the planning commission, let there be a more robust dialogue, particularly on the broader policy question of how do you how do you connect?

How do you avoid disputes among neighbors when they see an open space or a trail, and it turns out that it's private?

Is it going to be marked as no trespassing?

Is that is that the direction that the council really wants to go in allowing this kind of broad, non-specific authority for developers to make their own ad hoc decision about whether there's going to be you know anybody or just nobody but us to access this property?

I think it's a broader discussion.

Um, and I appreciate your time and attention.

All right, um, let's have Karen Johnson.

Um I'm Carol Johnson.

Now I just threw up my hearing aid.

Oh, careful.

Sorry.

I'm the land use chair for the old farm district, and I'm speaking on behalf of the board.

Then development code 4.5.200.e.4 concerning green space and master plans.

The general rule is 10% of the land must be green space.

It can either be private or public.

But if it's private, section B requires a dedication either to the parks department or the city or to a private corporation such as the homeowners association.

And you look at section sub-2.

If so, the private open space must be located in a tract and include an open space easement.

What does that mean?

Uh open space and easement, uh, easement is a property right and it urges a particular individuals.

Presumably, this open space easement means the public because you go down to section D and it says that the use, let's see, the it must be open to the public.

Presumably the public is getting this easement.

What this proposal does is eliminate being open to the public.

So it allows the developer to create an open space as part of a master plan and exclude the public from every square inch of it.

Uh that would include trails.

Bend Parks and Rick is try to do a trail system that includes the entire city.

As written, as proposed written, it would eliminate the right of people to take a trail through a master plan.

Uh I agree with the prior comments.

I think this needs to go back to the planning commission to define exactly what they mean.

To say that an area is fenced off and can be private.

Fenced does not mean that people are excluded from it.

As written right now, you could have a tennis court, but the public would be able to use that tennis court if that is that the way that the city wants, then it needs to say so.

But I think that this is a very bad policy, and it should go back to the planning commission for further study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, and that's Roberta Silverman.

See that some hand house.

Roberta Silverman, resident of Ben.

Um, the requirement of 10% open space, public or private in master plan developments is a good thing.

It is one of the most powerful levers the city has in balancing growth and providing the open recreational and green space is essential to keeping Ben a healthy, welcoming and livable city.

Removing the must-be open to the public requirement in the code creates a dangerous loophole in which developers can fulfill the 10% requirement with private open space that is closed and off limits to the general public, like this that already exists in town.

Um eliminating the must-be open to the public requirement is not a small change that cleans up code language.

It amounts to the loss of a public benefit, taxpayers and neighbors reasonably expect from entitlements granted at the scale.

While the code requires negotiation with parks, uh Ben Park and REC for acquisition, it doesn't guarantee success.

Removing the public access requirement shifts bargaining power away from Ben Parks and makes it easier for open space to become private.

This is a matter of equity as well.

Public access is ensures precious open space is available to everyone, including renters, seniors, kids, and workers, rather than only to HOA members.

Please continue to safeguard Ben's shared open space and retain the existing public access clause.

And Ben Development Code 4.52.0E for D.

And thank you for listening.

And yes, if this needs to go back to Planning Commission, they did not even look at this matter during their work session.

Thanks, Roberta.

And we have a couple of our members of the planning commission here that I neglected to call up earlier, but I want to give each of you a chance if there's anything you want to um expand upon that.

Pauline shared about your deliberations and anything that you added, either Scott or Suzanne, either of you want to speak to so yeah, you talked earlier about esoteric code language.

This package was uh steeped in it.

Um so yeah, if there's any, I mean, I guess was there any other questions that you had for well the discussion about the open space was that there's the park district does an assessment of where parks are needed, and the requirement is that if there's a development that's going in an area where parks and rec has it has identified there's a need for a park, they have to put a park.

They can also put private open space in there, but they have to put a park, and they have to work with parks and rec to do that.

Plus, all the trails are open.

The connectivity is a requirement separate from the open space.

So we did have a discussion.

It wasn't a robust discussion because Pauline explained about the map and the parks and recessment that they do for where they need new parks in the communities.

Uh I guess the question is do we trust the parks and rec to tell us where we need parks?

I'm a former board member of Parks and Rec, so I'll say I would trust Parks and Rec to tell us where we need parks.

That was our greatest.

And those parks are open to the public.

And they're all open to the public, correct.

They're public parks.

The developer could not meet the need for a public park through a private open.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Anything else to add?

Um thanks on this.

I see that you both have big sacks of highlights and tabs, so we know that you really took a look at it.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, each one of those items.

I mean, talking about the windows on the in the vent central district for remodels.

I mean, there's yeah, there's a lot of conversation because it the the devils in the details, especially as you're seeing now with just a little word change.

Yeah, yes.

But it was not our intent, nor was it uh is my believe the result of what we were doing, reducing the amount of parks that we were gonna have in the city.

Yeah, yeah, and there are things like um with the with the laws, fire mitigation.

You know, there's a lot of times when we have these somewhat piecemeal, also talking about those three properties that are kind of unique, and we're like it needs to be part of a bigger discussion, um, you know, fire mitigation plan.

You shouldn't do it piecemeal through this and that.

Um pretty much every planning commission meeting we bring up fire.

Uh well, no, the diversity of neighborhoods and trying to get neighborhood commercial.

So if that's something the city council wants the planning commission to look into.

Um there's a huge concern about our commercial areas going away and having homogenous neighborhoods.

Yeah, and not intermixing.

Yeah.

Is it to independently initiate that look?

I mean, we're not allowed to because we're required to follow the city's uh working.

I think that's an outcome of the work session that we have, isn't it?

It could be because you can tell us to do it, we can't tell you to do it, I guess.

Yeah, yeah.

We can ask you to tell us that what you're going is asking us to tell you.

We're all good at public hearing.

Yeah, we're outside.

So thank you for bringing that up and thanks for being here and speaking with us tonight.

Appreciate that.

All right, so can um Pauline and Amy, is there anything you want to clarify um from the public comments here before we deliberate?

I was just gonna uh I'll just stand.

To say you're by the mic, yeah.

I just wanted to share what the master plan requirement is for connectivity since I didn't have it in the packet.

Um it just reads that multimodal connections must be provided on site in compliance with the city of Ben the transportation system plan and the PM parks and recreation districts, parks, recreation, and green space comprehensive plan, latest editions, and the existing and planned straight trail systems adjacent to the community master plan must be continued through the entire community master plan.

So separate even from the um the open space requirement, they still have to meet the connectivity through um aligning with our TSP, the MEM Park and Trail Plan, and providing that connectivity.

So blocking a path like that would not none of these no our transportation system plan is public, right?

Okay, that is okay.

All right, we can uh move into deliberation on the package.

Oh, Pauline, we do need to see the amended motion, I think.

So any further um discussion for council.

I'll say I think I want to clarify our code right now, since 2017, had the ability for master plan neighborhoods to have either private public private open space, public open space, or a combination of both.

And what we've seen since 2017 is usually a combination of both.

Um and when there is a park area, we are seeing parks come into our master planned areas.

So this change we're making tonight is not changing what has been happening since 2017.

It is not creating um a it is not creating some different because that D was not in the code until 2023, and it was specifically to deal with that um fenced off ditch that Pauline was worried someone might claim was an open space when that is not what our intent was.

We want people to be able to access the open spaces, either neighborhood residents or public numbers, depending on the ownership of the open space.

That said, so I'm comfortable moving forward with this tonight.

I think there is a bigger conversation to have about our master plan code and about this public-private open space thing.

I don't I don't think we can resolve that tonight.

I think this is a truly is a cleanup that that Pauline is trying to make clear that removes inconsistency, and I'm willing to have that bigger conversation in the context of the master plan code itself as we look towards our growth plan and our comp plan and moving towards a forum-based code potentially.

I think that fits very well in there, and then we can take a look at the policy ramifications of how open space is defined currently.

But um, I think what we've got tonight is um a cleanup of an inconsistent part of a statute that was added two years ago.

Um, that I'm okay with with cleaning that up.

And I like the I think the rest of the package makes sense to me as well.

But I just wanted to acknowledge that you know, yes, when people saw that and in kind of a truncated form in the package, it would be alarming to think, wow, does this mean we're not gonna have any public open space?

That's not what this means tonight.

So, yeah.

Any other thoughts?

And I and I I would be interested in having that larger conversation some at some point in the future because I do think that there is a uh in some cases there have been incidents where a developer has provided a private uh open space that they have been turned to the park district and and beseech them to take over because they can't afford to maintain it, or they've already used you know cheap playground materials.

Um so I I favor I would like to have that conversation about keeping our neighborhoods open, um, but also recognizing that there are certain amenities that are probably better kept private things like private pools.

Um that so there's more to this conversation that we have tonight.

Yeah, I think we also have uh, you know, I do want to see us have as the best connected neighborhoods that we can, and I think that you characterize this accurately.

This is not a big aberration or change.

This is pretty policy neutral.

So let's have that conversation another night.

Yeah.

Any other comments?

No, no.

I'm sorry, that that's it for your public testimony.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

I I I'd like to make a um a proposal on the um on the ASI and the WAS uh zones fuel reduction.

Um it I did notice in um the public testimony from the parks district and in conversation with COID that uh exempting public agencies from having to go through this land use process for fuel reduction on the public land that they are chartered to um maintain on behalf of the public interest, um, seems uh seems like excessive um sort of jurisdictional oversight.

Um, and so in sort of out of respect for those agencies uh responsibility to all the constituents were all responsible to, um, I would favor exempting public agencies from um fuel reduction process in those ASI and WAS zones.

I feel like it's a lot of it's a lot of acronyms and things, but um the idea is exempting our public agencies when they're doing land management on land their charter to maintain.

And was that something that we didn't hear from we didn't have that question asked to our planning commission commissioners, but was that something that the planning commission discussed around exemption versus requiring them to go through a type one process?

Um I want to say it was briefly discussed, but it was also mentioned that the that the city also um goes through a process, so we don't exempt ourselves, and so we it that didn't did not go much further than that.

I do think that the park and recreation district had made offered that input at the planning commission state.

Yep, and probably in their public letter that they submitted as well as COID.

They raised that request, I believe, yes.

In planning commission did not recommend that.

Uh I do not believe planning commission made their recommendation.

Okay.

Okay.

I mean seeing nods from our planning commission.

Would either of you want to explain why you didn't make that recommendation up here at the podium?

Sure.

Uh we had had a recent interaction with Parks and Rec about uh development that where they were removing a lot of trees.

We felt it was excessive during the planning commission because it was along the river, it was in the WAS, so we had the oversight of it.

It required a lot of work to get the trees retained.

And so our feeling was that there is a value in having a public process to look at the resources in our community that once they're gone, they're gone for our lifetimes.

So when the Pauline explained that the city is required to go through the same process, uh, I we didn't feel that it was appropriate to um allow the others to have a different process than what the city itself held itself to.

Okay, thank you for that information.

Other discussion on this topic from council.

So we were we hold the city to the same process requirements that we hold these other special districts.

I mean, I would favor exempting the city as well from the process.

I I mean I I trust I trust our uh I trust the city staff and I trust these other public agencies um that they're consulting uh professionals, including the fire department, um county forester, um, and other wildfire uh experts in determining um what fuels to reduce.

I mean, the more fuels they remove the more expensive the project is.

So um it's not necessarily like the private developer where it's advantageous to remove more trees.

All right, is there other support for that idea?

All right.

I feel like it's a lot to consider right now because I'm working through also having been a former parts board director, thinking about the kinds of projects, you know, tree removal in Drake Park, for example, where yes, the city is a partner and involved in that.

And I feel like it's I I'm not gonna be able to resolve that question right now.

Sure.

The Drake Park removal that was related to a development, actually, not uh fuel reduction.

This is just fuel reduction that we're talking about here.

Yeah.

Okay, so it sounds like there's not support to add that to the motion at this time.

Is there someone who wants to go ahead and make the motion that's that Pauline has put on the screen?

The first reading of the ordinance amending the Ben Development Code BDC Title One Introduction, Title II, Land Use Districts Title III Design Standards, Title Four, Applications and Review Procedures and Title Five Exceptions to Code Standards to make Various Changes to Standards and Processes and Amending BDC Chapter 1.2 Definitions and BDC Sections 4.1.600 Deschutes River Design Review Procedures 2.7.70 Upland Areas of Special Interest Overlay Zone and 4.5.200 Community Master Plan as Presented All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Move by Councillor Mendez and second by Councilor Platt.

Any further discussion before we vote?

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Unanimously pass.

Identified some other issues to maybe work on in the future.

But thank you for all your work on this.

Thank you to the planning commission.

Thank you to everybody who wrote in with comments.

If you have further questions or inputs, please still send those to us.

And we do, I think have an indication that we want to uh have that bigger discussion about open space continuing.

So we thank you for being here.

Okay.

Um we are on to item number six.

Councilor Platt, go ahead before Ashley reads that.

As a Ben Pine School District uh employee, I'm gonna refuse.

All right, so council Platt's gonna step off.

Item number six, Ashley.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to amend the comprehensive map plan and zoning map to redesignate and rezone 1.93 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to Pacific Crest Middle School for Urban Area Reserve from Urban Area Reserve UAR 10 to residential urban C and B C R M.

All right, so we'll need a motion in a second.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of an ordinance amending the Ben Comprehensive Plan Map and Ben zoning map to redesignate and rezon respectively approximately 1.93 acres of land in the northeast portion of the tax law 171135 D0030 from urban area reserve UAR-10 to residential urban medium density RM second okay move by counselor Norris, second by counselor Mendez.

It's a roll call vote.

Councillor Francesa?

Yes, Councillor Mendez.

Aye, Councillor Riley, yes, Councillor Norris.

All right, Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

All right.

That we'll get um Council Platt back out here, and then we'll do our city manager's report.

Yeah, just a few items before I turn it over to Rob.

Um one I just wanted to highlight a performance metric that is uh we walked through the council goals of the last meeting and the new dashboard that we've put in place, and just to remind council we have a very aggressive goals uh for our housing units, uh permitting 3,942 over the biennium, which on average about a 35% increase over what we have been doing over the last couple of years.

I just check the numbers and they load up every night from our system.

We've permitted 901 housing units since the start of the fiscal year.

So we're actually on track, if not a little bit above when we look at where we are in the beginning of the fiscal year.

Wow.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty no, where they I do want to sort of qualify to say it's like there's there's it's it's so I you know we want to watch the closer.

900, yeah, 901.

Yeah, house for for housing units.

For units units, yeah.

Um so that's I think really good news I wanted to share there.

Um on some construction project updates.

Uh Franklin, we switched the traffic today.

So we did the one one lane.

Now we're eastbound traffic.

Uh project is on track to be finished by the end of the year.

Uh Bear Creek and Petigrew opened that roundabout open.

There's a couple of legs though that are still private development related that'll open by the end of the week.

Um so uh that is going well.

There might be some additional closures just related to paving and some work of the private development, but for the most part, that is that is uh going well, and we're still holding on the only project BNS F still planning on coming out and doing their work in November.

So things as we've been saying are still on track with that, and I'll let you know if something changes.

Um I wanted to hand out the budget in brief.

So this is an effort by a number of staff.

Want to thank our communication staff, uh our um city manager's office, uh, Roger uh Saraton, our policy analyst, and then uh our finance staff in particular, really taking a deeper dive.

So this is that 600 page document that you all approved in June, distilled into a couple of pages.

It also includes our accomplishments from the last biennium, the goals for this year, it includes a little bit of like how the process works, uh, the budget process works, uh, includes uh a new FAQ frequently asked questions section to really hit at some of the top line questions that our community has about our resources.

It really is an effort to live up to that value of transparency, fiscal stewardship, all the things.

So this is hot off the press.

It's also on our website, kind of in our front banner too.

They're fairly expensive documents to print, and so we the more that people can access this information online the better.

Um but we do have a couple of printouts.

So if you are ever speaking in front of groups and want uh want to be able to hand this out to you, that's just let us know.

It's missing all good.

Yeah, what's that?

It's easy.

All the fine printing.

Yeah, you can still get that online too if you really want to dive deep.

I see some of the new brand showing up in here too.

We are this is a test run of some of the what that looks like.

So yeah.

Thank you.

And I will turn the rest of my report for Rob.

Yeah, let's have Rob come up, and Rob is going to talk with us about the proposed review process for the city manager.

All right.

Thank you, Mayor Keebler.

Uh good evening, Mayor Keeber, City Council.

Um purpose for my visit tonight is to propose and kick off the 2025 city manager review process.

Um I sent a packet out to council yesterday afternoon.

If you did not receive them, I have paper copy here for you.

Okay.

The last review was done in May of 2024.

They occur every 12 to 24 months just on an ongoing basis, at least since I've been here for approximately 15 years.

Um the purpose of the review is to correlate the city manager's performance with council priorities and prerogatives.

There's two parts to it, part A and part B.

Part A is the city manager review form.

It's it's um housed in the appendix in the document I sent you.

The second part is the performance measures that are allowed with that are aligned with council goals.

That's the accomplishments uh tied to the goals.

Um, this is council's process.

I am merely here to help administer it and support council.

And I've proposed um kind of some steps and timelines.

These steps and timelines are substantially similar to the process that's occurred for over over a decade as I've been with the city.

So if you want to look at the timeline, tonight's November 5th, it's the kickoff of the process.

Um council takes a look at it and says, yes, Rob, but proceed forward.

Um, between the 6th and the 18th of November is time that's allowed for council to solicit feedback from staff and stakeholders.

Attachment B in your packet includes a listing of all direct and indirect reports of the city manager, and then on November 19th, I will email out an additional resource document to council, which will contain the city manager's self-assessment documents.

That's two parts the goal status report, and then additional supplemental information, as well as the um the review form.

And the review form is an attachment A.

That review form, um, how it works is each counselor completes their um quantitative assessment on that review review form, um, sends them back to me, I compile um the results into a single document that's the council's voice of um the city manager's assessment, and then that I'll talk about here in a second at the last date.

And the last date is currently scheduled for proposed for December 3rd.

It's a three-step process.

Um, step number one is council convenes an exec session and takes a look at the results of those assessments on attachment A.

I will come compile those into a composite rating.

Council can review that and then have discussion, and then council also drafts drafts a public statement during that executive session.

Step two, then um the city manager enters into executive session for discussion of work performance directly with council.

And then finally, step three is council presents the public statement that was previously drafted in exec session and the composite ratings, and then authorizes and discusses discusses any modifications to the employment agreement, and that all happens in one council meeting between the exec session and the regular business session.

As I mentioned, three attachments, the proposed review form, um, the direct and indirect report contacts, and then finally some sample questions just kind of spur conversation or thinking around what to ask folks.

With that, um open to any questions or feedback from council.

A quick quick note before questions.

Um, I'll just offer that um I've spoken to some of you and answered some questions related to concerns raised by a departing employee.

Uh the city is conducting, as all of you know, a third-party review.

Um, our um goal, and I think we'll be able to meet it is to get that done in November.

So to the extent that involves information that's relevant to the process Rob's describing, council will have that as part of this process.

And prior to that December 3rd executive session.

Correct.

Correct.

Great.

All right, thanks, Rob, for the overview.

Um, anyone have questions about this?

And I'll just say if it wasn't clear typically how we've done this in the past few times that I've done it, is we um you know, divide up uh the direct report contacts, and we each schedule among our time to talk with those folks using those questions, Rob used, but you're not limited to those, and sort of bring notes back to the um to the meeting where we're gonna discuss our ratings of Eric's performance as well as what we've heard from the folks that we talked to.

Um so I think that's worked well in the past to sort of divide and conquer on on speaking to the direct reports from uh from our perspective.

But yeah, any other questions?

Yeah, I just can you elaborate a little bit more.

Um this is your email yesterday was the first that I heard of the timing of this process or even what it would entail.

So can you just explain maybe why the timing was chosen?

Um I take direction from uh the mayor and the mayor and sub manager discuss this would be a good time to conduct it.

So this is within that normal 12 to 24 months and so scheduled.

And I think um I know we had done one in May the previous year, but since we had two new counselors this year, I thought it would be good to have at least you know 10 months or so experience working with Eric so that um you could use that as part of your evaluation of him when you're evaluating him.

That's not uncommon from previous experience too.

Okay.

Um I am not familiar.

I see here in our December meeting uh we'll be talking about uh the city manager's employment agreement, um but that hasn't been shared with us yet.

So can that be shared with us so that we can be familiar with that?

Absolutely.

Um and lastly, I I would probably ask for a little bit extended timeline to receive this third-party investigation report before moving forward with that December 3rd meeting.

Um I I would ask that we schedule the actual meeting once we have the report in hand and we determine if there's any further um conversations we want to have with staff or stakeholders or um or any further investigation if there is anything in that investigation report.

Yeah, I I think it would be wise to hold that executive session on the third, and if that is the discussion and decision we make at that point to say, okay, we're not gonna um follow through with this today, or we're not gonna finish finish this today, and we need more time, we can absolutely do that.

But I don't want to lose that opportunity um to to move forward in December before the end of the year.

So I'm fine with that if every if the rest of council is.

Yeah, I think I think that's that's we need to be open.

It's part of our project.

It's part of the process if that's another piece of information that's gonna inform any of the discussions, and I think we would essentially extend the discussion either to the following week's work session or the following business meeting, whatever makes sense timing wise.

Yeah, we we always have the option to do that.

So I think that would be an outcome of the executive session, that seems okay.

Any other questions?

All right, I will um pull some names out of a hat and send um divide up the direct reports to send to everybody to for who to talk to.

Again, if you would just take it upon yourself to reach out to those folks and um just schedule a time.

I don't know, I usually 20-30 minutes has worked for me in the past um to talk with folks.

Um, and I think that would be great to get that ball rolling in the next couple of weeks to get ready for that executive session.

How many meetings per counselor do you anticipate?

Does anyone remember how many we did last?

It's usually around two, two or three department heads.

Yeah, I don't know.

Also, yeah.

And there's some standardized questions or things like that.

Yeah, Rob has put some example questions, which your your conversations aren't limited to those, but they're they're pretty good prompts on how to get the information that we need.

And I would advise folks to look at the rubric, how we're gonna be scoring, Eric, and then maybe think of questions that will help you to fill that out.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks, Rob.

All right, thank you, Rob.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Rob.

Um, that's it for the meeting tonight.

So um thanks everyone for being here.

We are adjourned.