Good afternoon, everybody.

We will go ahead and start our Bend City Council work session for today.

Um let's start with roll call.

You're in uh councillor Plack.

Steve Platter, he here.

Megan Morris, she here.

Megan Perkins, she her.

Helene Kibo, she her.

Mike Riley, he him.

Ariel Mendez, he him.

Tina Franz is that she here.

All right, we're gonna start off with um update informational about our bridges.

So we'll kick it over to you guys.

All right, thank you.

So in about a half an hour here, we're gonna quickly go through an update for the Hawthorne Overcrossing Bridge, and then right after that, Alex is gonna join me up here, and we're gonna talk about the read market bridge.

So, quick introduction, Ryan Oster, uh director of our engineering department.

John Bresciers, architectural applications, we are the bridge architects.

And Craig talking, KPF structural engineers.

And as the mayor said, this is really truly just more informational.

We're not asking for any specific decisions tonight.

At the end of this presentation, I have a schedule slide where we'll give you a sneak peek of some of the things that we will be bringing back to council after a future open house meeting.

So to kick us off, I'll hand it over to John.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Just very briefly, I wanted to try and take you through what's what we're aspiring to and what is inspiring us to develop this project.

Every place has its own unique sense of identity.

Uh I think we all know that and we all feel it, whether we're aware of it or not.

This place has a particularly strong one, and so much of that is governed by the cascade peaks.

Uh they're just really prominent.

And I think all of us, I'm talking about as an entire species, are very much drawn to mountains.

They make us think of permanence, they make us think about time in ways we don't normally think about it on a geologic scale.

And they're very, very powerful.

Uh they also tend to change all the time.

These kind of ephemeral atmospheric effects, the light, the mist, the clouds is continually changing, and they they present these sort of layered vistas that have some perspective and some depth and draw us in.

So we're trying to embrace all of that and come up together with you with a bridge that is really anchored in the identity of this place and grounds it without slavishly trying to imitate the mountains or the history of bend, but give something that is really endemic to this place.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna let Craig talk about where we are with that effort.

So this is as an idea of the mountain peak idea.

Um if you think about like a gable and an attic gable.

It's a it lends itself a truss system with the if you kind of invoke that mountain thought.

It's a it's a trust is a very efficient structural system.

That's why you see an older structures especially.

Uh but that triangular shape is a stiff and efficient structural way to make a span.

So what we did is we take we took that mountain theme with that triangular uh concept with a truss that we created two different layers of trusses trusses.

If you see there on one side, there's the typical, as you would think, a gable trust that you would see in an attic, uh so to speak.

On the other side, we've uh what we've done is we've taken that that concept and extended it out over the supports.

So structurally, the the depth of the the truss is is where the all of its stiffness comes from on with that continuous span, the two mountain theme there we have on one side over the support, is where the depth is to again give us that efficiency.

So it really provides a very efficient structural system to make a span, and that's why you see them through the ages in terms of trusses and how they've been developed.

What we're using are typical uh say off the shelf, but the very common structural steel shapes that are available.

They can maybe may do a mill roll here, or they may be available just because these are fairly common shapes.

And joining them in a way that um uh minimizes field erection and field fabrication time.

These will be bolted together to again from an efficiency point of view to keep most of the work in the fabrication shop on the field work to a minimum.

Um the railing here, this is just a conceptual railing.

We're we're still we've spent all of our time working on the truss, getting that as efficient as possible.

And the look we're gonna come back to you later with the various railing concepts we're looking at, so please don't focus too much on that.

This is just to let you know there is a railing.

There is gonna be a railing, we're required a certain height over the railroad on over the highway.

Uh, but what that's gonna look like as we're gonna work on the development of that.

Do you want to show that are you?

There, is that the last one?

Yes.

Okay, I will show you a quick sneak peek here of a fun rendering.

This is starting on the east side, walking to the west.

So this is in the central business district, and this just kind of gives you the look and feel of the amount of elevation we need to gain to get up and over the clearance of the BNSF tracks.

You'll notice there's some pop-outs under consideration where people could stop and get out of the travel way uh to consider looking and just observing the views from up there, and then you get up to the flat portion of the deck on top that spans the rail and portions of the parkway, and then this is the approach as you start landing back down on the west side.

And you'll notice there are some some contours along the bridge.

It's not a completely flat approach.

We have to put in for ADA purposes, uh, some different grades with some flat areas and then another grade.

So that'll get refined.

That's one of the things we're gonna be taking to the public for an open house and that the team will refine as we go.

Uh, but then this is you land on the west side near Hill Street.

So that is the concept that we've landed on, and just wanted to make sure we have good council buy-off on this because we need to start moving on the actual structural design of this and and then really taking the concepts and expanding them out to the east and west from a connection point standpoint.

And so what you can expect from the team moving forward is here we are in in late 2025.

We're obviously doing the design.

Um, I I failed to introduce Abby Driscoll, she's here with us from the Oregon Department of Transportation.

As this is being delivered by ODOT, because we're not federally certified, Abby's absolutely instrumental and helping us navigate a lot of this coordination work with BNSF with ODOT on the parkway with the federal funding requirements.

So uh thank you, Abby, for coming this evening.

And so uh she's a part of the team that I'm describing here that we have uh some community touch points.

The next public open house we have is that second dark triangle that's on December Remind me, second, third, second.

Second, yep, it's December 2nd at the Dogwood uh on the east side, right at the base of near where the bridge is gonna land, not too far there.

Um, and at that open house meeting, we're gonna be talking about landings and kind of how to integrate these approaches into the surrounding environments.

We'll come back to council in January of next year, and that's when we'll go over some of the things that Craig had described, whether it be railing styles, lighting concepts, and some of these other things, as well as feedback we received from the public on the interaction with the surrounding community, and then another open house sometime in mid-26, and then probably a final council check-in in in mid to late 26.

And uh concurrently, as council directed, we're gonna be working on extending these connection points and how to get from second in Hawthorne further to the east across Third Street, Oliver to Juniper, as well as on the the west side, how to get this all the way over to Harriman and the north and south up Harriman.

So that's that bottom line you're gonna see right there, and we will come back to council for that as well to check in on what those could look like.

Ultimately leading to a finalizing the design of this and in mid to late 2027, which is required from the funding federally standpoint.

We have to have this thing put out to bid and ready to go into construction, and we're hoping to start construction in 2028.

Great.

So how are people feeling about this?

I will comment that after the last sort of concept was out there.

I did get feedback, it looked pretty busy.

And this is a little more simple, and I think looks really great.

But any other questions or comments on this info from council at this point.

I love the 3D kind of on both sides.

Yeah, and glad we're having an open house.

Yeah, all right.

Uh two questions.

I I think it looks great.

I like the look of it a lot.

Um, two questions are one is uh I I think that personal etiquette when it comes to using space like this goes a long way.

We also try to have rules and make sure that people are courteous with each other.

I don't want to see people you know blasting down here at 25 miles an hour, yeah, having people you know jump out of the way and stuff like that.

But I also want it to be convenient and safe.

Um so this is something that comes up on our park district trails a lot.

Can will there be I just want to flag, you know, make sure that we're thinking of ways to you know encourage people to be courteous when they're going down here while also not putting like a whole bunch of barriers in the way so that you're like whoa, whoa, whoa.

Uh so that that's one more of a comment, I guess.

And then the other one is it looks like we have some space on the east side.

And I was just wondering underneath there, is there any discussion of how we might use that space?

You know, maybe I mean people ask about stuff like skate parks or you know, I don't know what would be a good fit under there, but as long as we have the opportunity to think of something other than just sort of dead space.

I like that.

Yeah, yeah.

Great.

Yeah.

Please so your your first point is is well taken, and we're having a lot of discussions right now about how we manage pedestrians and bicycles on the bridge.

Do we mix them and commingle or do we separate them?

And there are pros and cons to both.

Uh we're looking at different examples, drawing on experience, and we're also thinking of a number of other ways to help people slow down and be aware and pay attention, changing the texture of the surface at the landings, uh doing other things, changing the colors in the pavement.

There are a lot of things that we've done in different bridge design projects before.

We don't know what the answer is yet, but we're on it.

Great.

Uh secondly, uh, if you can go back to that Ryan, that one.

What we're considering right now is you see these two piers, lower right, are on um essentially on private property.

We need we need to acquire a little bit.

But then beyond that, when you're in um Hawthorn Street on the east side, we're thinking that there will be a certain number of diagonal parking spaces under the bridge.

And I I believe the number is 12.

It might not be quite that many.

And then the ramp is low enough that it transitions to on retaining walls.

So there's no space, open space under the bridge.

So on that side, that's how we're handling it.

On the west side, we're there's still some discussions about what exactly we're gonna do with that space.

And we'll be sharing a lot of these.

The teams already develop some different concepts, and that's what we'll be starting to share with the public at the open house meeting in December.

So there might be some options to consider there.

Okay.

Yeah, great.

Yeah, we're we're having good coordination with fire and EMS on how they're gonna access areas that are that are gonna be kind of inaccessible to them that they can access now with the closure uh of the access off of the parkway on Hawthorne.

How are they gonna fight fires in a future four or five-story building on either side of this?

And then generally the concept on the east side is maintaining one-way traffic from second to first going westbound.

And so, as John pointed out, if you're headed westbound, kind of towards Oregon Spirit Distillers, maybe you could pull off under the bridge for some angled parking where you can get out and then walk around from there.

So, yeah, lots of good good ideas under consideration right now.

Thank you.

I really like the 3D part.

I mean, I think especially like if you look at it from uh the north there, the middle sister is sort of set back a little bit.

So depending, you know, it sort of mirrors the actual geography.

I think it's pretty cool.

And it would change as you've been right, yeah.

Right.

Um and if there was a skate park, there is the truck stop is um getting reinvigorated in this part of town.

I think it might be on the north side of Greenwood though, but yeah, uh that's indoor, but they might be interested in some kind of partnership on two questions.

Yeah, just one question about um I I think it looks great too.

Um are you are you update like kind of continuously updating sort of budget estimates as the design is evolving?

Are we on track with budget?

We've been tracking the previous budget to make sure we're still in that side.

We have that that concept.

We've been looking at constructibility.

We haven't done a detailed estimate that's actually coming up in January, January, February.

Okay.

Yeah, as you recall, this this option was the best alternative in terms of cost from a uh maintenance from a constructibility from an overall cost standpoint.

This was definitely the best of the four options that had been presented.

Cool.

All right, on to remarket.

Okay, great.

Thanks again, thank you.

Great work.

Yeah, looks almost as good as the first one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Hi everyone.

I'm Alex Doza with the engineering department, and here to provide an update on the Reed Market Bridge project.

There are no mountains in this presentation except for the ones in the background.

Beautiful Band Oregon.

So a little project background.

As you all know, Reed Market Road is critical to the road network here in Bend.

It's the only major east-west arterial in Southeast Bend, all the way from 27th west to 3rd Street, and then it transitions to minor arterial and keeps going to the west.

So in between American Lane and 9th Street, there's a rail crossing, and six to eight trains cross that per day, sometimes stopping longer than 20 minutes.

So that causes a lot of congestion, aggravation.

They're unpredictable in timing.

It causes emergency services to want to take alternate routes and potential safety issues with folks trying to beat the train or make illegal U-turns, try and find a different way and kind of rat race around the city.

So this important project was identified in the 2020 transportation system plan to improve connectivity and capacity.

And it's also identified on the voter-approved 2020 general obligation bond project list.

So we received a federal railroad administration or FRA grant for preliminary engineering and environmental review, or NEPA, which is the National Environmental Policy Act.

Excuse me.

That is under the railroad crossing elimination grant program.

We are currently in that phase, and council had approved that contract with Dowell for the above work on August 7th of last year.

The city was also awarded under the same grant program a $32 million grant for the rest of design, they call it final design, the rest of design and through construction, and we anticipate signing a grant agreement and being able to obligate that early next year.

So here's where we're at today.

So the option was basically to tie 9th Street back in or to dead end into a cul-de-sac.

And the preferred alternative that we submitted to BNSF is to have a 108-foot span, which still allows us to tie in 9th Street to Reed Market.

And they have approved that concept so far.

So we are moving towards our 30% preliminary engineering deliverable and NEPA, and that preliminary engineering package is to be completed around the end of the year.

So in parallel, we are drafting solicitation documents to kind of gear up for the next phase.

And for those that may not know what that is, it's a contract mechanism where the engineer and contractor and all the subconsultants and the subcontractors are under a single contract, and everybody works together from the start of the project, which is can be very efficient and cost savings in a job like this.

And we will be back next week to talk about the findings for the progressive design build alternate delivery method.

And those findings are currently advertised right now.

And we'll get into this in more detail as well next week as they kind of dovetail into why progressive design build, but there is a bridge over the railroad.

There is a 9th Street connection where 9th Street is planned to ramp ramp up and meet Reed Market at the elevated grade of the road after the bridge is constructed.

Um there will be permitting and agency coordination.

Lots of utilities in this congested area.

So we'll be working closely with them to kind of relocate and reposition their utilities while keeping all the customers in service.

And we're also building a ninth a pedestrian underpass to go north-south under the bridge and connect into the shared use path on the west side of 9th Street, which is we're partially constructing that, and then uh the key road bikeways project is constructing the remainder of that up to ninth, up 9th Street.

The first open house December of 24, that was during the alternatives analysis phase.

Um that was there was some good feedback from the community on that, um, primarily about the 9th Street connection, what was important um was that 9th Street connection, also intersection safety and safety in general for pedestrians and bikes.

Um the open house on August 21st of this year was specifically for the 15th and read market roundabout, but being that it's in close proximity, um, we had a station there, and so we had some really good outreach and feedback at that one as well.

Um, and then recently we had one on the third of this month, um, again, also very well attended and generally supported.

Um, and then Ryan and I will be at Larksburg Neighborhood Association next week to um present kind of the corridor and what's going on with with the read market and adjacent projects.

So this is just a snapshot of the project funding in the left column.

Um, there's two phases preliminary and design in NEPA, and then the final design and construction.

We are in the first phase right now.

Um, it is a 6040 split um of that 1.75 million dollar um tag, and the the FRA has the just over one million dollar contribution, and then the rest is funded through the bond.

Um, and then the next phase, which we have the grant awarded but not obligated.

Um, the full grant amount is about 32 million dollars.

That's a 7030 split, so the 30% local match of the total cost, and so right now it's um about you know just under 14 million dollars.

Um that could vary based on the actual cost of construction.

Um, and then BNSF has contributed a hundred thousand dollars.

So the estimated project timeline um next week is mentioned.

We'll be back here talking about um exemption to competitive bidding.

Um we'll start the solicitation process hopefully um just after the new year, um, and that'll take us through um May when we'll come back to hopefully award the contract.

Um and then in between them, I'm estimating April we'll we'll be able to execute that grant agreement ahead of the contract with the design builder.

Uh, and then we hope to start construction um middle of 2027, which will be um after the construction of the 15th street and read market roundabout and the Ferguson and 15th Street roundabout construction is completed.

That's a good question on that, Alex.

Yeah, is the um 15th and read first and then the Ferguson?

Or do we know what order those two roundabouts are going?

Depends which consultant can design it quicker for me.

Okay, so yeah, okay.

They both need to be done, but I I don't have a preference.

We can't do both at the same time.

We're gonna have to go one and the other.

Yeah, so it seems like maybe we want to do 15th first, if possible, then Ferguson.

I don't know.

Just was curious if there was a timeline on that.

No, it hasn't been.

Yeah, they're both under design at the moment.

Okay, so gotcha.

Sums it up.

All right.

Yeah, Steve and then it's just the pitch of the ninth street ramp there.

How we look on that.

That was my only concern on this.

Yeah, I think so we're only at 30%, so there's room for refinement.

Currently, it's a little bit it's between six and seven, um, which is slightly over city standard, but it's a little steeper, right?

Yeah, a little steeper, yeah, but to give up the connection.

Um, there was a decision point there.

And that's not far off from Murphy, the Murphy Bridge to the south, and it's definitely less than climbing up Aubrey.

In 9th Street.

Yeah, right.

I was just thinking about a ramp with a curb and an icy road, and I was just kind of sure about that a little bit.

So yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, we'll minimize that grade as much as we can.

Any other questions?

Oh, yeah, Mike, go ahead.

How much do we have in the bond?

What's the maximum we have?

How you know assigned for this project in the bond funds?

Right now, there's there, I want to say 35, 36 million total just straight from the geobond.

So we have lots of flexibility for our portion assembly.

As long as the grant comes through.

Right.

As long as the grant comes through.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

So yeah, if the grant doesn't come through, then we're gonna have a whole different discussion on how to get this thing funded from just strictly from the geobond standpoint.

But we have it.

Do we have any indications how that's looking?

It's positive right now, and I'd be happy to let Elizabeth jump in here and give you a quick update.

Sure.

Elizabeth O'Shelw with the city attorney's office.

So um, we haven't heard any indications from the FRA that the grant is at issue.

Um other agencies have canceled obligated grants.

I don't think we've seen that from the FRA.

Um, I also wanted to give an update.

There's a litigation update.

Um, the state of Oregon is in uh filed uh joined a bunch of different states suing the Department of Transportation in the District of Rhode Island, so in the first circuit, and last week they got a positive uh permanent ruling from the district court.

So they had sued over one of the same conditions that we had sued over with a coalition of other cities.

And that is over the Department of Transportation's imposing a requirement on all grant recipients that they cooperate with federal civil immigration enforcement.

So of course that would be a problem for us because and the state of Oregon because of the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act, which does not allow use of state and local resources for civil enforcement of immigration laws.

So the state uh sued uh with a coalition of other states, and last week the district court granted summary judgment in that case, which means there were no facts in dispute, and as a matter of law, the states were entitled to uh an order from the court that that immigration condition is unlawful to be imposed on all department of transportation funding.

So that means that the requirement to cooperate with immigration enforcement in the civil context is not able to be imposed on the city or the state of Oregon for these Department of Transportation grants.

And I have more detail about what the court said.

It was unlawful for statutory reasons, it was on against the Constitution as well.

All right, so that's out there.

Yeah.

There may still be other threats to the funding, but we're in a pretty good place.

Right.

So once we come to obligation, um, this term is included in the Department of Transportation and the Railway Administration's general terms and conditions.

Um, but the court said it's unlawful to impose this condition on anyone.

Um, and so we will either strike it from our grant uh agreement or it will be already have been deleted by the FRA.

Um and I think because of the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act, that was the condition from a legal perspective we were most concerned about.

Um I'll just say, you know, one of the arguments that Department of Transportation made to the court was well, this condition just requires everybody to follow existing law.

Um the court actually said that was quote nakedly misleading.

Um federal courts have already found that Oregon law complies with federal law, and that this condition is trying to do something more than what federal law requires and what is prohibited by our state law.

So it was it was a good analysis by the courts.

Um both the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, which Rhode Island is in, um, previously looked at immigration cooperation conditions that were imposed in the prior Trump administration, both the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit found that was unlawful at that time.

So while this order from last week has not yet been appealed, they would appeal to a circuit that last time around also found similar conditions were unlawful.

Got it.

And can you just while we're on this distinguish between the civil component versus the criminal component of cooperation?

Yeah, so what circumstances sort of examples of the sure.

So I'm not an immigration attorney, so I don't have all the specifics for you, but um I would say most of the immigration enforcement that I think has been in the news recently is actually civil enforcement.

Um so if someone comes into the country without lawful basis, and then they there's a deportation order, they go through an adjudication process.

That's all a civil process.

So deportation orders, that kind of thing is civil.

There are occasions when federal immigration criminal laws have been, or there's a the criminal aspect.

We do cooperate and are not prohibited by from cooperating with criminal enforcement of federal immigration uh rules, but most of what you're seeing is civil, and that is what we're prohibited by state law and city policy from using our local resources to support.

And so an example of what's an example or two of the civil federal criminal.

Yeah, I'm not actually um most of what you see though is civil.

Yeah, so so whether somebody is deportable or not or has lawful basis to work, that's all gonna be on the civil side, and that's what we're not allowed to.

But when there are criminal components, there could be federal crimes at issue that are apart from immigration but relate to someone who has a status issue as well.

All of that criminal enforcement that absolutely goes on.

All right.

Um did any did anyone get a chance to go to the open house?

I did not.

No, yeah, a couple people, and I heard it was well intended, which is great.

Well attended.

Yeah, and I think Alice, you had said sort of there was a decision made around Ninth Street.

I just want to be clear there was a lot of community input around keeping 9th Street open as part of this project.

So I'm glad to see that we're gonna do our best to do that for the community.

Um, because that was gonna be a pretty major cutoff if that closed.

So and also really excited to see the tunnel underneath, which I've I've had positive feedback around that as well.

Those were the two biggest feedbacks we got is oh good, that's great to see.

Good.

So I guess just to clarify this is going to be so I mean, we should recognize ahead of time and try to prepare people's expectations.

This is going to we're looking at two years of closure.

Yeah, I would say that's a safe estimate is two year closure of remarket at the rail.

And that was part of the reason why we had taken as many steps as possible to provide alternate routes in preparation for this.

People asked why didn't you do this first?

And we're trying to give people as many mobility options as possible and and trying to get this done as quickly as we can.

We know from other projects working with the railroad is pretty complicated and difficult.

And uh I don't anticipate this one to be any different, but um, we're gonna minimize that disruption and uh as much as we can, I guess.

If do you want to add anything else on that?

Yeah, that's a fair statement.

And and the other complexity in this is there is a lot of utilities up and down this corridor.

There's 20 to 30 foot deep avian water lines running through there.

So we got to figure out where these bridge abutments are gonna land, and we gotta make sure that if that water line breaks in the future, it doesn't erode away and cause a risk to the bridge in any way.

So yeah, Alex has got a lot of work ahead of her uh to get all this coordinated out.

So once we start construction, yeah, it's it's gonna be we're we're probably gonna have a good year's worth of just surface and underground work before we even start seeing a bridge structure go up.

And I guess too, I'll just add that a fee.

Another point of feedback was um compress the schedule as much as possible, and a full closure is the only is really the way to do that.

Um the safest way, I think.

In the safest way, yeah, absolutely.

Those trains are gonna keep running that whole time, or it's gonna be worth it.

It's gonna be worth it.

All right, well, thank you so much for the presentation.

Thanks, Elizabeth, for the extra explanation as well.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, that moves us into item number three city hall P3 analysis and update.

We have a couple people in person, a couple people online.

All right, we're ready when you are all right, great slide.

Uh good evening, Mary Cancel.

Matt Stewart with the real estate facilities and housing division.

I'm here tonight with Tom East with Accenture, Chris Livingston with Cone Resnick and online as Igne Ignacio Montoy with HRA.

We're here to discuss the look forward for the city hall, kind of around a potential public-private partnership discussion around the future development.

Just a reminder, this is part of our economic prosperity call that you guys put forward this year.

So looking to leverage public private partnerships that catalyze investment, not only in the BCD, but also around a future city hall development.

So this evening we would like to discuss some development scenarios and what those financial impacts are, as well as some next steps for city staff and this consultant team to pursue around how we achieve our goal.

So I'll run through a quick history and background of how we got to where we are today with our existing facilities.

I'll highlight some long-term space needs.

So looking over the next 30 to 40 years, what are some critical date or points where we need to invest in our facility and space needs?

Uh Tom here will then kind of walk through what a P3 is at a high level, and then I'll hand it over to Chris to walk through the full build-out scenario, which is a reflection of what we would need over the next 30 years.

And because of those financial impacts that was shown with that development scenario, we've also gonna provide an alternative build, sort of phase sort of development scenario that Chris will walk through as well.

We'll hand it over to Ignacio who'll kind of dive into what that means in terms of opportunities for real estate development partnerships around that kind of model.

I'll then highlight just some near-term needs that we may need over the next five to ten years that we can look into and further discuss, and then we'll present some next steps recommendations that we would like to pursue for this team in front of you tonight.

So a little background in the building you're in today.

We constructed this in 1990.

The population was just under 30,000 people.

We're about 110,000 today.

So we've significant change.

At the time this building, or when we built this building among two stories, we're about 25,000 square feet.

Over the years, we've acquired another 18,000 feet in the additional buildings here around us on this block.

Pretty much everything except the dry cleaners on the corner of Franklin and Bond is now owned by the city.

In 2014, we began leasing the building across the street, which we call the Wall Street Annex.

Over the years, we've kind of shuffled around full occupancy or partial occupancy.

Today we lease the entire building, which is about 15,600 feet.

So overall, among all the space we have downtown, it's just under 60,000 feet.

We use some of that for storage and other uses.

So usable where we use for offices and our ministry staff is around 50,000 square feet today.

In 2015, 2016, we did a uh we initiated a city hall program for it.

The goal of this was to look over the next 30 years and anticipate the downtown needs with that growing population.

At the time, we had 185 employees working in our central administration.

That looked at a build-out till 2050 and recommended somewhere around an 85,000 square foot building need.

At the same time, in 2016, uh Oregon legislation sort of revised some of the language in our statutes, which sort of allowed a public-private partnership, and what we're going to talk about today, to be extended beyond just transportation.

Tom can kind of walk through some examples if you like, but we have the Clackmas County Courthouse, it's kind of the big one that just went online this year, which sort of utilized this methodology.

In 2021, with directional council, we initiated a city hall site search process.

That was in and around that 2015-2016 program report.

We went out and did an RFP for real estate advisory services.

We went with Cushman Wakefield at the time.

They evaluated future city hall sites, and we're really looking at the core and the BCD as where we would look to our next location for a future city hall.

At the time, they identified 28 sites through a process with council.

We had we narrowed that down to about four sites, and ultimately decided that we would focus on properties in or around the Rainbow Motel and along the west side of First Street between Hawthorne and Franklin.

At the same time, we also started looking at what is a joint venture in a P3 look like and kind of introducing that topic as part of that as a possibility for our development performance.

In 24-25, we completed acquisition of property, so about 3.2 acres.

We have two continuous acres in and around the Rainbow Motel, and they have 1.2 acres there on the west side of First Street on Hawthorne.

We did updated that program report and did one for 2024.

At the time, we had 251 employees downtown with the relocation of our engineering staff to public works campus.

We're about 235 today.

We looked at a build-out beyond 2060, and that recommendation came back and said we needed about 134,000 square feet to meet the staffing needs 2060 and beyond.

As we look at kind of the long-term needs, I've sort of highlighted the purple line there shows our employee growth, and that is about just under two and a half employees per thousand population for our central services staff, and with a growth of just over 2% a year.

The green line represents where our existing spaces are.

We try to average around uh 200 square feet per employee.

That is relatively higher than normal office, but that's because we have more meeting space with council chambers and other things.

So on the per employee basis, we tend to be a bit higher.

When it crosses, that typically means we've reached about 180 to 175 feet per square square feet for employee, which signifies a need for additional space.

So as you can see, there's a need for additional space when we get to around 2040, and then we have another need for additional space when you get around 2055 in order for us to achieve that long-term 2060 to 2070 gain of that 134,000 square feet.

With that, so a quick overview.

Um, I think you've all heard of P3s.

ClackMiss is the first one in the state of Oregon.

Um, I was the technical advisor on that project uh with a different firm.

So if you've got any specific questions, I could answer those.

But it's essentially a P3 is a different way uh to deliver a project.

As you a lot of your projects, even the last presentation design build, and you know, you're familiar with those terms.

A P3 is essentially design, build, finance, operate, and maintain, and that is to get one integrated team, a design builder together to build the facility, and that's part of that process.

An operator and maintenance provider is part of that consortium as well.

Um, and then there's the private finance piece of it.

They are a way to get the project done typically in an expedited fashion, but you have that integration of all the parties and the in the funding stream up front to to do the project.

It doesn't work for every project, but some it does.

Um, I I want to be clear that it is um again, it's just one way, it's not a funding approach, uh, it's a financing approach, and they have to be paid back.

Um, essentially, you know, over you'll hear the term from Chris and maybe throughout the conversation availability payment.

All of the costs are handled by them up front, and you're paying them back over time, typically 30 years on a regular basis, monthly, quarterly, whatever it might be, for them to recoup their investment, make their profit and provide operating and maintenance service services, including lifecycle maintenance for that entirety.

So what you get, one of the benefits, similar to the clackness uh structure, uh faster speed to market, but also your building is going to function at a very high level without deferred maintenance for a long time.

So it's going to maintain that um uh newness, if you will, over time.

And as part of that, which is kind of unique, is in your payments back to them, uh, you can make deductions to the extent things aren't available.

That's that availability payment thing.

And it simply means if the elevator's out of service, we would have in the contractual documents um deductions that can be made to entice them to get it done much quicker, right?

So there are so they're held to a very high standard based on the technical specifications we'd write with you know the city support, but it's very um is very detailed, and these are you know complicated agreements and long-term agreements, but again, a pretty unique way um to deliver a project.

And I've been involved in P3s for about 20 years, and um, and it's uh uh again, it's and the other thing I'm gonna say it's not privatization.

I want to be very clear on that.

You own the facility and um have step-in rights and all the other contractual things that you'd want to see in that.

It's just somebody else is uh kind of building it for you and financing it for you.

Maybe just pause and make sure there's not any questions from council on the concept of P3.

Is there any interest associated with those payments?

Uh that that's all built into the financial model.

Um, obviously it's private finance, it's a little higher than you know, issuing your own debt, and then there's the equity return.

Chris can talk about more.

Yeah, I I'm the technical advisor, he's a he's a money guy, but um, but yeah, of course, that's built into that.

But that's all transparent and known up front.

But you did you do as part of that availability payment, you have budget certainty at the same time for 30 years.

You're gonna always pay the same amount of money and you can plan it for it, right?

That's where the funding part comes in, and that's part of our conversation today is looking for ways to offset these costs for you if should you decide to to easily P3.

Um, so looking at other examples of design build uh finance, operate and maintain, a lot of them seem like it's they focus on infrastructure or road projects, and the it seems to me like the kind of pitfalls or worries that we might have where things go wrong, you know, uh volume is lower than expected or something like that, don't really apply here.

What are some of the areas of concern or pitfalls that we should be taking steps to try to address preemptively for this kind of arrangement?

I believe strongly that it's the planning and preparation of the procurement documents of the contract and the kind of risk adjustment and risk transfer that occurs during the transaction process, really getting your specifications.

We don't want to be overly prescriptive of z exactly how to build it because we want them to innovate, and that's part of like just like design build, right?

Um, but I think it um it can come in the contract documents.

I think ensuring that all of your stakeholders and all your players as part of the procurement development, everybody has a voice in that because what you don't want to do is make with any delivery really is make a lot of changes once they start, right?

That can be very expensive.

So really doing your due diligence to um cover your bases and your transaction documents is key.

Okay.

And can you incorporate things like energy efficiency into the that's all open for as part of this next year?

Yeah, like Clackness, we had to lead gold plus uh and and uh there was uh under the old triple CIF that they get for courthouses, there was some requirements at the state level as well, and they're they're all baked into that.

Um so we don't rely on um bond and bonding or debt, right?

I mean, it's a depth is that that's what's fine, it's about financing, right?

So we're not um leaning on our capacity there.

We can depth for other things.

Yeah, so I'm Chris Livingstone.

So I'm with the financial advisory team, Kern Resnick.

And uh so yeah, I mean, you can actually put together a financing structure, or it's possible to put any sort of financial structure together you like in terms of it can incorporate municipal debt, it can have no muni debt in it, it can have you know private, you know, private placement debt, it can have equity generally it's got an equity component, which is actually an important component for the entire project because the equity, although generally the most expensive piece of of financing, also really is intended to drive outcomes for you.

So if you think about it, there's an investor team that's investing into the project, and they're the ones who will be paid or not paid based on the performance that Tom's talking about.

And it's really that balance.

A lot of the early planning we do, because you can't get cheaper money than the municipal debt market.

So the question is always well, why would you go out and put a weighted average cost of capital together that's higher than the municipal debt market?

Well, it's for these other reasons.

It's to mitigate risks, is to drive performances to bring innovation, and if on balance, you know, you can quantify these and one of them appears better, then you sort of pick that one.

At the end of this period of time, we're we're left with a building, right?

Yeah, we that is that is again, it would be well maintained over the course, but then there's kind of that main maintenance should fall on us, right?

Then at the end of the year.

When you take it over, right?

Yeah.

But the and when I say operations for a city hall, it's it's kind of more janitoral in nature.

There's not a lot going on on a day-to-day basis.

But um, all of the lifecycle maintenance, all of the cleaning, all of that.

Um, but what you'll get is it's called handover, but we would uh prescribe within the contract documents how you want the building to be when you get it back.

And we would you know structure and evaluate that to what we don't want is you take it back in 30 years and everything breaks into one, right?

But at the same time, and that's the nuance, and that's where the stakeholder involvement comes in.

If you want a Cadillac, you know, bad example maybe, but at the end of 30 years, a pristine building, you're gonna have to pay for it, right?

So it's striking that right balance.

Um but that's all of that would be clearly prescribed in the documents, and you'd be um clear of any kind of maintenance headaches for a long time.

Right.

So is there one other example in Oregon or the Northwest that's more of a building type thing like the Clackamas County Clack?

Yeah, the uh Washington doesn't quite allow it yet, or they haven't done it yet, but in Oregon there's only been one, and it was Machamas.

Um but in California there's been many.

Um California, Long Beach Civic Center was one.

Um City of Garden Grove, that uh City of Garden Grove was one as well.

Um successful projects.

Uh I wasn't I was a little bit involved towards the end on the Long Beach Civic Center, but um, those are successful examples of design build finance operating maintain.

We're following Thousand Oaks is under a very similar process right now.

We're following that very closely.

There's a few in flight in Florida as well.

Courthouses um have made their mark uh in uh um Miami Deed County, um Maryland has one and uh obviously Clackamas, but to your earlier report, uh Mr.

Menows, like typically you see these in a lot of like revenue risk deals like for highways and things like that, but it is uh proven model um in um uh social infrastructure as well.

And I I did hear the other day that they're even already you know digging the guys on the courthouse project a little bit, you know, for certain things.

So they work, you know, and that's performing quite well.

Great.

You say performing, you mean like is running smoothly and yes, it's running.

I think of a building.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But you know, obviously if the elevator breaks or whatever, it they're they're jumping on it.

To Chris's point, you have there are a lot of eyes on these people in particular the investors, and they know they don't want to lose money.

So you have a lot of uh supervision on their side to ensure that the building uh is maintained and operated to the contractual standards.

I think one thing to oh, sorry, yeah, let's see if that's the question here.

Regarding this this P3 option versus a municipal bond type construction, um, and you referred to design changes being expensive as we as we go forward.

If we build this using this, and it's a 30-year structure, a future council that comes in and has and it has a new good idea about what they want to do with the building.

Are we locking them into a much more expensive change to building structure to build in usage, building refinements by doing this kind of is what?

Yes, I know.

I mean, we you want to have flexibility for growth, and I think we could all agree that even we were talking about this earlier, even like how a city hall functions the next 40 years might be totally.

Right, you know, dynamic and well that's uploading plan sets to a computer and it tells you if they you know whatever, you know.

But there should be enough flexibility in there, and these are partnerships too, and that's extremely important, you know, in long-term partnerships.

And I think changes and modifications can be made, but we would prescribe in the contract arguments what that process looks like.

What I was more referring to is like you don't I want to make sure that, or I would want to make sure that we do our due diligence and get everybody to kind of weigh in before we go out because ideally we would ask for a fixed price bid, right?

That locks locks in.

You could do it like you did your um budget of a ridge as a progressive design builder, progressive P3, they're not as common, but um, but you are your question, sir.

It's a long-term agreement, so you um thinking long term, yeah, you just gotta think like I think it's important to know that next step is a significant investment by the city as well.

You know, the cost of that, some firms may look for some reimbursement because they're spending upwards of a million dollars putting a package together.

So we have to be able to come forward like we're ready and we're ready to invest that too.

So you almost want to set aside one to three percent of that total projected cost to kind of go to that next step.

So I think for us tonight, we're going before we talk about going to that next step, we want to make sure we're all our ducks in our row that we know exactly what we're gonna produce, go for it because it is a significant investment for the city.

Just to mention one more local example, so the OSU Cascades and their innovation district, they are also a little bit ahead and have gone out for an RFP for a P3 at that moment as well as we're watching course.

Yeah, me too.

Yeah, great.

All right, let's get into some details here for what our needs can be.

Okay.

All right, so just to quickly cover what process we went through.

This is I think been going on for about six months now that we've been working on this collectively.

So if you think about it, obviously the first thing we have to do in the process is create the cost profile so we know what we're dealing with, right?

So uh Tom's team helped put the construction estimates together uh based on the original scoping, uh the O and M costs, lifecycle costs.

So lifecycle is basically that longer term capital refurbishment cost, like replacing the roof or you know, year 15 or year 25 or something like that.

And then we collectively work together to understand what revenue streams the cities got available.

So we'll get into a bit more detail.

But we showed we we basically built a profile of the city's revenue, available revenue streams for this project for the next 30 years, and then on the back of that, we we were really trying to get into what I would call the sort of envelope of affordability, right?

So when we think about the projects at these fairly conceptual phases, you know, there's a lot of potential movement in in cost and revenue and all the rest of it.

So we're trying to find the ballpark, right?

That this can work in.

That's probably the best way to say what it is.

And so we put together some very indicative financing terms based on a very sort of vanilla structure, which is simply to say some debt and equity.

And when you're talking about a P3 project, then if there's no rev, we won't get into the the complexities of it, but if there's no revenue like demand component of it, you can basically get a terms of about 90% debt, 10% equity.

All right, so that's the ballpark of what we're looking at because we assumed an availability payment, and again, the availability payment structure is is kind of akin to like a lease payment, right?

You're paying and in return, you're getting a building that's actually paid for and has got a long-term financing, and that concessionaire who you've got the contract with is also doing the maintenance and all the rest of it.

Okay, so on the original uh project um scoping, we had 134,000 square feet of uh city hall.

We're assuming to move in by 2032.

That translated into an overall total capital expenditure of 196.9 million dollars.

That's in year of expenditure dollars, right?

So including inflation.

Next.

And then as we put the city revenue profile together, you know, there was a whole bunch of different types of revenue types in here.

So we've got some land sales, some essentially uh where we've got existing cost uh forecasts, but then they stop, and we can take advantage of them, utilize them for this, sort of non-tax revenue reserves.

But what you can see is that you know, in the first few years, it's quite low, it builds up to a steady state with these big peaks for essentially land sales, and then in uh in the final few years when we've got um a further freeing up of revenues, basically we we lead to about six years of of in enhanced revenue at that point.

And just that indication is where the public works campus debt right matures, so that's why that spikes there at the bank.

That basically frees that money up, yeah.

Okay, next.

So we ran the essentially what we're doing is we're running our financial model to say, okay, how much is it going to cost the city on an annualized basis, right?

So the availability payment, if you think about it, the can it has a component of both of debt and equity, right?

Which is not it doesn't have a revenue, uh, an inflation component and operational and maintenance costs, which do.

So basically, our availability payment goes up over time to acknowledge the fact that there's a bit of inflation impact there too.

What happens is that the on the original uh size project, our project uh payment starts, our availability payment starts in the first year post-substantial completion of just under 22 million dollars per per year and goes up to 34.4 million dollars.

And what you can see there is the dark blue is essentially the revenue profile, and then the sort of cream color is the cost profile.

So obviously, in that particular situation, costs far outside far far exceed revenues.

Okay, so that was generally speaking uh unaffordable.

Okay, so that was and so what this uh finding uh it was useful because it it it sort of forced us to recalibrate our thinking a little bit, uh a lot actually through this process and think, okay, now how do we reiterate through this process to come up with something that essentially is affordable?

So we developed these um alternative analyses, and and basically the way we got to this was that we we slowly iterated everything down, all right.

So we iterated down to to make um our total costs essentially fall under that under the umbrella of of our available revenues.

What that means is that we basically found that our total capital cost needs to be somewhere in the range of 78 million dollars uh compared to that 196, right?

So a fairly fairly large reduction, and that's somewhat equivalent.

Uh these are approximate numbers because you you know there's still quite a lot of moving parts here, but 50 at about 58,000 square feet of of City Hall is what that results in, and I know an annual OM of about 1.4 million, and so uh and we also at the same time we removed some of those future land sales because obviously we the the overall strategy for how this city hall and the new city hall and a new site would be used would have to be a little bit different.

Um we kept the in those indicative vanilla financing terms.

Uh that is really just a fairly conservative move, right?

So if we go out to the market and try and test the market and bring competition in, we might get better terms than that, but we don't want to be pushing the envelope on sort of more aggressive financial uh financing terms at this point.

And so we replicated the structure, like I say, but brought it all down.

And what and and the result is okay, you can see that it's it's a lot better of a profile.

Now it doesn't exactly match the profile of revenues, right?

We've still got some spikes, we've still got this back-ended profile, but in totality, in cumulative totality, they basically match each other, but there would still be some work on the city's you know, sort of treasury to do to essentially match up those.

No, you're good, you can move to the next one.

What this shows is that it's a basically a different way of looking at that last graphic, which is this is this just for this project, it's the city's like cumulative cash flows, right?

So you can see that actually at the start of the project, we're in positive territory, so we can fund the project, but then by the time we hit about 2042, 43, we start going negative.

This is cumulative negative.

But if you recall when that last few years of uh greater revenues hits, then we build that back up to essentially like a break-even.

But it would, as I say, there's still a there's still a job to be done to figure out how to manage through those cash flow uh sort of movements.

Yeah, okay.

Next okay, so this is where we're handing to Nassian.

So it could even sorry and look from the training some real estate and economic demand consulting funds and we'll be working closely with the consultant team to evaluate the tourists for integrating the near city hall with private residential and commercial development.

No, so we just have a couple questions real quick before we get oh yeah, sorry about that.

No, good.

Yeah, sorry if I don't understand, I don't I'm not quite understanding this.

So the slide that shows the scale-down availability payments, it shows in 54 our revenues going up.

So why is our cash flow on the next slide?

Uh why is it negative?

So if you think about it, uh um if you go to the next slide, the yeah.

So we've got a few years where we've got sort of legacy cash, right?

So if you think about this is cash coming to the um to the city, we're building up a little bit of a reserve, right?

In this very 2028 through 2032.

Okay, so we're building cash up, then we start paying the availability payment.

Okay.

So we're sort of netting it down.

Then we've got a a spike of land sales, so we've got you know, big, you know, increased reserves, but then over time that dwindles down again because we've got less, and it we sort of go through that process.

When we get in that period between 2040 and 2054, you our net on annualized basis, our net cash is lower than what we're paying out.

So we go into that negative cumulative negative, but then when we hit the 2055, we go back to positive, so that pulls it back up to essentially a break-even by the end of the term.

Yeah, this is cumulative.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it'd be it's the negative number goes back down again towards the end, just as when that other revenue is increasing again, right there.

Yeah, yeah.

I guess my my concern was in the in the year you know 2042.

What is the city council going to have to do for cash that year?

Yeah, we have to identify some revenue stuff.

That that's this this for me, that that sine wave is unattractive to me.

Um yeah, I think you'd you'd want to at the outset like not tackle the problem then, but set out a cash management protocol at the start of the entire project to manage through that.

Because actually, you know, the developer would look at that too as a risk, right?

So uh they and they would and you wouldn't want them to price that risk in because that would be expensive.

So basically, you'd you would solve that.

Um, and there's lots of different ways to do it.

You know, you could uh you know, buy short-term commercial paper or you know, just basically manage your way through that process, knowing that by the end of it you would be essentially returned to to whole.

Yeah.

But we don't have more debt capability at that point to to issue, right?

We're not we're the right correct.

Well, we wouldn't have anything that we could, yeah, we wouldn't, we wouldn't because now 20 years from now on the public works and whatnot are.

Correct.

Yeah.

Uh so that's the struggle.

20 years from now is it as we talked about, 30 year building hard project.

20 years from now, hard project where we're gonna be with any other financial revenue stream.

So it's not uncommon that we can't.

And again, more of like a bookend they're doing is what can you ultimately abort max, knowing we still have a an issue to solve, and we should try to solve that.

But in the end of the world, you can do it, but there's a cost that we added to it as you explain what they do.

Yeah, even at Clarkham is again, I was not the financial advisor who is a different firm, but um, who's in the room?

Uh smoothing that out was very important and to ensure that Elizabeth Comfort, you know, their finance had the money over time, and it wasn't you know, as if we, you know, consultants, okay and walk away.

We work really hard to make the math math over time, and they just you know, different city, different scenario, right?

But um that's an important part of the analysis.

Yeah, I just don't want the kids in c in high school right now who are gonna be sitting up here in 20 years to to deal with that.

Yeah, I want I want to fix that.

Yeah, yeah.

Other questions, Councilman?

Thanks.

I kind of a high level stepping back a little bit.

The reason why we're looking at a P3 in the first place and not just funding it through uh full faith in credit bonds, like the public works campus, is because the city's bonding capacity is would not allow us.

So we're maxed pretty much.

No, we're looking at a P3.

We think there's a opportunity for a partnership of a mixed use type facility or other uses of the property beyond just being a city hall.

That was kind of our motivation was how do we leverage that to perhaps get more out of it?

Um so it had no, it didn't have anything to do with our existing debt capacity.

We could finance us like we did with the public works campus.

We couldn't under the full build-out scenario, and under this scenario, this is assuming we only do the city hall.

So we're kind of going here is where we need to get to, and now we kind of work backwards with where is the revenue stream.

So I think as we progress with this presentation, our recommendation is okay, how do we identify those additional revenue streams?

Right and what can they contribute to start flattening this out a little bit more to something that we can collectively import?

And even if it was our own debt, we would still be in this position because the revenue stream doesn't change.

Right.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

My well, my next question.

I'm gonna switch a little bit, so maybe.

Um so the I mean that that was sort of behind the strategy to acquire more than just about an acre and a half is what we need for city hall.

So when we looked at land in the BCD, we said let's acquire more land than just our facility needs because we want to make ourselves attractive to a P3 to look at other revenue generating um uses that could help fund the city hall.

So that was part of that thinking is let's think bigger than just a city hall, so that way we can fill in some of this revenue stream, which we're gonna talk about here in a moment.

Okay.

We have 3.2 in the BCD, yeah.

Yeah, and these were I mean council decisions to direct staff to look at a P3 and to bring this to us.

Um so that's another reason why we're here.

And then my second question, so just this graph that we're looking at.

My understanding is that the um public works facility is that debt service is mostly paid for uh by uh water and sewer ratepayers.

Um, some of it does come from you know, general fund, interfund transfers, things like that.

But so I I just wondered not to question the intelligence of the people who put this graph together, but I just want to make sure.

Um, because this could be a worse picture, um, because my understanding is we can't use water and sewer rates, which are paying for the public works campus to pay for you know, the central services building essentially, you know, because that's an enterprise fund.

So my I just want to make sure the underlying assumptions are are correct here.

Yes, and for Samantha, she's here.

But yes, I think there's a portion of that, and then also as our capacity increases as well to be able to pay off debts, we're factoring that in at the end of time.

So that nine and a half, maybe only five comes back, that's available, but our other capacity could increase as well if that were factoring too.

That natural well, I'm sorry, sort of progression step uh can be factored in.

But just to be clear too, so like the difference between public works and maybe a city hall.

So public works, um, there's kind of five main departments, some of which are utility funded, some like our fleet department, they also they sustain themselves on transfers from all the departments.

So police and fire that are utilizing their services, part of their overhead transfers in police and fire are helping to pay for that.

City hall really is, you know, when we talk about central services like HR, IT, um legal, etc., the entire organization pays for those.

So it is the imprint of a city hall is larger than a public works campus in terms of affecting the operational budgets for all the city departments.

That's why I think we also want to be really sensitive to that because to the extent that we have this large debt issuance that affects those transfers, it does negatively impact our deliver our ability to deliver those core services, those operations.

We want to again look creatively about how we can fill in some of that revenue without impacting our operations.

Yeah.

So just to be clear then, these if we go back to the other version of this, the dark navy blue here, the city revenue, that is um like general fund dollars, it's um partially coming from it's factored into rates from each of the utilities, right, to contribute to central services.

Um so there's just some assumption about growth in general fund dollars, right?

Yes, so this is essentially burdening the budget, if you will.

I mean, it's adding another um expense line, correct every month that has to get paid or every quarter.

Right, right.

Can I just and then I'll do you so just to be sort of simplify this and make make sure I'm saying this right?

The green area, it covers the tan area at the end ultimately it does.

But we're saying it's green, it's not blue.

Okay, here we go.

Um, but the problem is it's lumpy, right?

So it's not exactly matched up.

So there's periods where you are under and before you come back up.

I think just to make sure that point's kind of clear.

That's why when we looked at the other one for the very large facility, it was not close.

This is we can't afford it overall, it's just the timing and how we level out that revenue in those places where we don't have that.

We use lumpy as the quote then.

Sorry.

We're looking for ways.

Uh we should get you to make it less.

Yeah, let's let's continue on and talk because I think we haven't talked about what some of those new revenue streams might be and how they could factor into this deal.

So let's let's keep going.

I I I just my last question, I because I I I worry that anyone has heartburn about the hundred and like not getting 130,000 square foot building.

That number like blew my mind a little bit.

Um, and I and so I just was wondering like what due diligence, it seems excessively large to me, and based on like this spaces I've worked on designing.

And so I was just curious, and I I looked at a little, I looked at the study that you just sent me.

I didn't get to dig into it too much, but there were some things in there like MuniCourt judge space.

You know, there was some stuff in there that I was like, I don't think that's in the program.

So it's something we need to look at as police needs to expand.

We have to evaluate do they need that space from unicork because polices as well.

So I I don't think you're it's a number, yeah.

Uh and it's based on they were they were assuming a rather aggressive population increase because this was coming out of COVID and what we were seeing.

The model I showed earlier is a little bit more relaxed, going about a two to two and a half percent a year increase.

So we're trying to show that the 134 is I don't need that tomorrow.

I really don't need a huge increase until for another 15 years.

But for me to live to 2070, I'll eventually have to get there in some capacity.

I guess what I'm I guess maybe what I'm getting to is I think what I would what I would would make me feel better about any of these scenarios in any building at all is having a long-range facilities plan that is really grounded in a realistic view of our staff and our space needs and a realistic view of population increase.

Um and I so I would I would encourage us to um kind of work on that before we get too far down the road with this.

Were you were you also asking about the cost as well?

Just for FYI, we did do some benchmarking on the cost too, you know, just to like cost per square foot, you know.

On the cost per square foot basis, and it was generally speaking came out pretty pretty close to use the whole I mean we call Northwest and regional and CLAC and you know all of our models and yeah, I mean it it is not the Taj Mahal.

But it's also not like it's it's in the Yeah, we did a name on Clack because we don't want to talk to Hall.

It is not a Taj Mahal, but it's based on the space plate.

And we uh we didn't do any space planning, we just took your existing space planning.

We did update it with our space camera, right?

So wells based on interval and updating it recently with based on this more of a shared workspace hoteling.

We really incorporated that into the square footage to to make sure that we are building a modern space that has less often.

This is not what a vision of a new city hall would look like in the future.

It's much more efficient in terms of how spaces used.

Joe is very helpful.

We've done a lot on the individuals, and I think this is the first time we're looking to bring everyone under one roof.

So over the past few years we've done like what is police needs need, what is our obviously with our city hall, and we did a large one for the public works and utilities.

So this was kind of like that next phase, and then we have done some of police and fire as well about their negative facility needs.

But we can look at it.

All right, let's get into some more details.

All right, Ignacio, sorry.

You're up.

No, all great, great discussion.

So as we've seen, even a scale-down city hall, uh 50,000 square feet requires a meaningful financial commitment from the city, 78 million dollars.

So we're waiting to improve the feasibility is by integrating the city hall with private development to create the revenue streams.

And I think that's the point uh Matt was getting at.

There are three conceptual approaches we can follow.

The first one is a vertically integrated scenario where the city hall and private uses share the same structure.

In this case, the city could become maybe an anchor tenant within the larger mixed disabled, and that could take the form of a lease or lease back or even a sell these back arrangement.

Uh each each of those will come with different implications for control and financing.

The second approach is a horizontally integrated scenario for the city hall is adjacent to private development on the same site or a nearby adjacent site.

This offers flexibility and can still generate revenue through land transactions.

And then um, you know, there's the the standalone city hall comes up, which you know it it could be the downtown or up downtown with the other uh city sites being more monetized through ground leases or free simple sales.

So each of these is scenario is where we've seen complexity, risk and potential for economic activation.

They're not only the same choices, but they have sort of financial implications as well.

Um we get to the next slide.

Well, regardless of which development scenario we pursue, we also need to decide how the city hall is delivered and how any public land is through sected.

And there are three components to consider here.

The first one is and and Tom walk us through the city hall delivery options, right?

From traditional public delivery versus P3 models.

Uh the second is the probably proper transaction options, whether we sell land a right, uh ground is set or entering through a joint development arrangement.

And a third one is sort of a hybrid or bundle of those two prior um uh options where we partner with one entity to handle both the city hall delivery and uh the private development on city property.

Uh this decisions again will directly affect risk control and long-term value for for you.

Um we go to the next slide.

It's sort of covering the range of P3 options, uh, the sort of uh delivery options for the city hall.

I want to walk real quick through the um options we have for transecting public land.

Um this slide shows sort of a spectrum from lower risk to higher risk return.

Um at one end, we have a simple sell uh approach that provides immediate revenue and eliminates development risk, but it also means you know, giving up uh long-term control of a site that the city owns.

Uh, we have um a ground lease option as well that preserves ownership of future value but introduces some uncertainty around the timing of the revenue.

Uh we have a gym venture approach where the city will show risk with uh with the developer as well as the upside.

And finally, um we will have sort of um uh a few developer approach that will allow the city to capture the full profit potential, but also exposes uh the city to highest level of risk.

Uh so these are four, you know, typical ways in which you can look at sort of transecting uh public land uh to generate revenue and um and I want to emphasize each of them comes with its sense of trade-offs uh between risk control and financial return.

And these are options that um along with the delivery models that Tom presented earlier, need to be evaluated together with the highest investment analysis of the downtown and the BCD sites.

Um, and I know that uh Matt will get into sort of uh the highest investment analysis is one of our next steps.

Any questions for Ignacio before we have so this is this is the land that we might not build the city hall on the other properties that we own, right?

And how we might work with correct generate.

Correct, but also possibly if you were to the site to have this the interim scale down city hall vertically integrated in a larger private development, like a mixed use development where you can maybe sort of become an anchor tenant of that private development and sort of try to accommodate the sort of the space needs of 50 to 60,000 square feet within uh sort of a uh uh uh uh a privately developed project that also can modulate its other uses.

So, yes, I mean, any of these uh transaction options could work for uh excess property that you want to use for the city hall, but it cannot they can also work for a situation where you're sort of using property you own to co-locate a vertically integrate or even horizontally integrate um the city hall with private development.

Okay.

All right, thanks, Ignacio.

So I just wanted to walk through kind of some near-term needs that we could address that sort of maximizes the existing facilities we have.

So again, of the buildings we have downtown, we also now have the 15th Street, which is where transportation mobility was previously located, so their administration building.

If we include that, we have usable about 60,000 square feet that we can use.

So additional 10,000 can be used for us to sort of spread out and make use of our existing spaces.

Our lease for the building across the street does end in 2029.

Uh, it has a technically ends in 27, but we have a right to a two-year option.

So that's where you see this kind of dip where we're looking at as we approach 2030, is with that 15,000 feet, we're looking at a uh potential loss of almost 25 to 30% of our uh usable space.

Um and then if we include the use of the transportation facility, we can kind of bump, get back to enough square footage where we can really hang out for the next sort of five, six, seven years as we contemplate furthering development of the city hall.

So there's no necessary rush today for us to go ahead and build a new structure.

We have some time if we utilize some of our existing spaces.

There is some cost to that.

Uh we do could look at some evaluating, extending our lease across the street for the Wall Street Annex, or perhaps even approaching on the purchase, knowing the length of time that we may need to be in there, utilizing the 15th Street building, as I mentioned, getting to about 60,000 square feet.

Uh we could look at possibly remodeling uh and expanding the council chambers to go and beyond it.

We have some ideas that could kind of look to add another uh 60, 70% capacity to this space.

If we factor all those in, we could get be able to utilize our existing spaces up until about 2037.

Uh probably cost two to three million dollars in renovations.

And for lease payments, we spent about a half million a year for the building across the street.

So you can add on another two and a half million and anticipated lease beyond the 2029 for 2035.

So just some thoughts on some short-term that we could do as we progress with this decision making.

So tonight, really what we're asking for is continue for us to assess those short-term space needs, look into that further.

We'd like to take that alternative scenario and do a much larger comparison and analysis.

So really diving into what are those potential revenue streams, how do we identify potential partnerships, what are the delivery models, really take it to the next step of the P3 sort of philosophy, and then look at how we assess sort of reserve funding strategies.

So bringing up your topic, how do we set up, how do we remove the lumps?

How do we set ourselves up for future councils where we're kind of flattening that out?

At the same time, we'd also like to conduct sort of a highest and best use analysis for both the downtown facility and the BCD.

Taking a step back and looking at those properties from more of an economic development perspective, as Katie and her team brings forward the economic development strategy in the next few months, taking a look under that sort of auspice and also going, what is it, what are these sites best do for the community?

So not necessarily my bottom line representing you as the organization, but from a community standpoint, what should these do?

How do they create the greatest return and what is that community benefit?

And really focus on that land activation for both this downtown area as well as kind of the B C D and what we're trying to accomplish across all of our goals.

And we can do that relatively quickly, and we probably be back at the end of the second quarter next year, April, not probably yeah, April, May, maybe June, uh, with those analysis to bring forward to this team.

And Matt, just to be clear, the alternate scenario development, we're talking about that scale down, the one that we can actually cover eventually.

We're not talking about the 1340s.

Correct.

And I think it's important to note as we evaluate those revenue streams where we're setting the max dollar and we're setting the square footage.

That's gonna move based on how much revenue we can project that we think we're gonna have.

So we want to be fluid.

That's that's just our starting point.

It'll be fluid as that analysis goes and where we think.

But just to be just to be clear that we're kind of taking that one off the table and we're moving it to the smaller.

Yes, I think the one off 134,000 is is unfortunately not financially feasible.

And not maybe just worth spending more staff time exploring at this point.

Let's look at the other one.

Yeah, so that means we're then committing to having staff be in multiple locations for perpetuity.

Is that right?

Then we need more.

I think there's uh I have a criteria, but I'll go to the map so we can kind of I think there's opportunity if we look at the city hall site downtown.

You can see City Hall with its parking lot is sort of off to the back.

There's opportunities where we can look at redeveloping the front half as a first phase as we build a structure somewhere else, and then as that second phase, we we then relocate.

So I think there's options where we play with the different ones to generate revenue.

But yes, it means we do have to retain some part of our existing facility today in order to get us to 2055, 2060.

Right.

And I just want I want to bring up the topic of municipal court, right?

Like, is right now it's separate from where City Hall is.

If we need to take that space for police, I mean that could be a a use that's separate from city hall, right?

So I think we'll just need to talk about like what the uses are of the space and something like that might be okay being separated out, other things we want staff and we want you know teens in the same building, or we want public access to services all in the same building.

So I think that's I think what we have what we have are some options, some exciting, honestly, options on kind of how to puzzle this out and what we want to do.

Um so I appreciate that that information.

So is there um you want to go back to the slide and sort of like yeah?

So we just kind of framed up some initial criteria that you might ask us to look at as highest best use.

There's more of the real estate industry sort of standard for highest and best use, which looks at a lot of kind of the finance aspects of it, but we just wanted to take a look at what is that alternative look.

So I've just sort of throw up some suggested criteria that we could look at, and if there's any other that you would like us to prioritize for this team as we move to that next step that you'd like us to factor into that sort of decision making tree, we're kind of using this as an opportunity to add that to it.

Okay.

Can you go back to the one that had the green four?

Yeah, that was definitely okay.

So um, council, I'd love to hear from everyone your thoughts on sort of these things here.

It sounds like staff is asking us to keep moving forward.

We're not making any big decisions tonight.

We're gonna have a lot of decisions in front of us, I think.

And so, what this looks like to me is continuing to bring us some information.

Um, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, and I just generally, and then also on that highest and best use.

If there's any particular values as we're looking at how do we use our land best for our needs and for the community needs, if there's any particular value that you want to make sure staff hears tonight, let's bring that out too.

Thank you.

So Steve, you want to start?

Sure.

Um Matt andor Eric.

Uh, I think one of the things that folks are gonna be concerned about is not a Cadillac building, but perhaps a Cadillac staffing level.

You know, how can we how can we say that our staffing level for century central services is compared to you know similar cities around the state?

How are we doing?

How are we projecting that kind of thing?

Yeah, I think uh this went back our budget deliberations.

We had some data there, and I think we're like 18-ish percent right uh of our total FTEs or central services, we compare that to our pure cities, we're on the lower side of things.

Um that's a performance metric that we continue to update you on.

So it's always top of mind that we are in balance because again, that if we overload that central service cost, but has a negative impact on our transfer score.

So we're always looking to balance that.

Okay, and so we're projecting based on holding that percentage going forward, right?

Yeah, we can update our program reports to sort of reflect that more.

I think we're using some industry norms uh when we did the initial program report from 2024, but we could tie it more closely with what our percentage is that way too.

Because that just really drives the need, doesn't it?

Yeah, and then for me, the in terms of highest best use criteria, I I think not specifically stated, but I'd love to see something that helps encourage multimodal travel uh in this area and and vehicle miles reductions that along with our other complete community type goals.

So that's what I'd offer.

Thanks.

Okay, Megan.

Um, I mean, I'm pretty pleased with this list.

Um I mean, I do I do agree.

I mean, it is it would be nice to find a way where we could get the staff as condensed as possible into one location.

I think that that um I understand that we we have this constraint with um with the the reduced square footage.

Um it is what it is, but to the extent that we can try to concentrate as much as we can.

I mean, that I would love to see that.

Um in the downtown area, I think would be ideal as much as possible because it does seem to be I think it it is a nice um livability and and and quality for the staff to be near you know parks and restaurants and um so that's kind of my feedback.

Megan um I think first thing that comes to my mind is being one of one of two on council that sort of started this beginning was the promise that we made to the BCD.

And I want to make sure that that we are um holding to that promise.

It may not look exactly like we had we had talked about in in 2020 or 2021.

Um but we have committed to activating that area with all the investment that we have made.

We made a concentrated effort to invest.

And um I want to make sure that that we hold ourselves to that.

Um and and maybe it looks different.

Um the other thing, uh council chambers, it's it's not an accessible um place.

Um, and so I think if we are talking about moving something out about a decade or more, I I do support renovating this area to make sure that we can get more people in this room and make it a little bit more functional and accessible for people.

We're using some kind of outdated uh technology and and and systems in here that that um I think can could need some work.

Um, and then I guess the third thing I just wanted to focus on is a little bit more mushy.

Um, but it's you know, I it's it's like Megan was talking about with the staff.

I think it's important that we have incredible staff that work in the city, and I think that it is an important value for us that they um can work in in a in a good safe and um uh functional environment.

And um for anyone who has been in a lot of the places that we that staff is in right now, it's not that.

Um, and I think that that they are deserving their incredible people that deserve um to work in in a in a better space, and I think also people work better um when they're around each other and able to have conversations with each other and work on things together, and so I support getting as many people as we possibly can in one area.

Great, yeah, Mike.

Um, before we're talking about the guiding principle kind of stuff, you know, for the best um nice and best use.

Um I I'd like to see us um more explicitly add in a discussion about the 15th street.

I'm gonna use the word campus, that whole big rectangle of land that we own between Greenwood, Highway 20, um, Bear Creek, and 15th Street.

Primarily to the west side, but um, yeah, somewhat to the east side as well.

Um, because it uh you know, we have a real opportunity here.

It's it's the third piece of land uh or third part of the city where we own a big chunk of land.

We have opportunities to activate here as well, which we've heard about um from this part of town that they would like to see more of that, and it seems that there's real opportunity here.

Um so I I just would like to see this looked at more seriously is in the mix of the three different locations for things, and if you know, might this be a place for City Hall or some other piece of this this whole discussion.

Um so um I think what I'm asking is right now it's treated more perhaps as a land sale kind of thing and and a little bit of a transition, but this really looked more seriously as three locations where we could do some mix of these things on the highest.

Yeah, I just want to quote is that do you want to provide some background on 15th Street?

Well, I mean, I think the only thing that I want to say just being at the rural fire board meeting earlier today is you see on the right there some area under our fire station that we have obligated ourselves to the rural fire board about, but everything else um I I agree with you, and I think Matt basically what we're asking is on that highest and best use.

And I think Matt, basically what we're asking is on that highest and best use.

Can you also look at this?

Right, right?

Right, exactly.

Right.

And if and if that's gonna be possible for for staff to do, I think that would be helpful for us to understand our options.

I mean, we have public safety campus, if if you will, that we're gonna need to be looking at does it have the ability to grow and expand, but we have quite a bit of land there to do quite a lot with.

And we're restoring fleet that's now gonna be at public works, right?

So all those uses now up the public works.

Yeah, so I don't know.

Do you have anything you want to add?

I just give a background.

As you can see, we have about 14 acres that is part of the the so the previous slide, the area in blue is police and muni court.

The area in red is as the mayor mentioned, the kind of expanded footprint fire.

Uh the buildings there are the old transportation building, and then um other outhouse buildings that we no longer are going to utilize because all the equipment now is at the public works campus, and then we have additional land to the south um area there.

So the purple east side of the road as well.

That's yeah, it has some it has it has some topography issues, but we'll look at it.

Um and then the trail goes through it.

But one of the things with this is you can see by the comp land designation being PF and RS.

Um, while the PF is fine for us from the city hall use, us being able to market it in the future RS is a factor.

So when we were discussing this factoring in for the land sale, as as uh Council Riley mentioned, we were like I said a little bit longer play, working through our UGB process, looking at possibly altering the comp land designations area to kind of promote that.

So all that we could factor in and just giving everyone update.

It's we've already been thinking about that from a longer term play, uh, but we can bring it into this discussion around the administrative facility uh as well, and then how do we activate as well?

So we can do that.

Yeah, it sounds like I'm seeing head nods on including this in the analysis.

Okay, and then you have to do that.

So I think the guiding principle kind of concept, like I I really think catalyzing the BCD as Councillor Perkins said is really important.

We need to do that and we need to do it soon.

I think one of the biggest things we've been hearing um from folks in that part of the community is just they're frustrated with how long it's taking us.

So that needs to be um kind of front and center in this.

I think related to that is also making sure that whatever choice we make that we're enhancing the vitality and economic viability of downtown.

That's really important.

I would love to see some version of this old idea of heritage square in the downtown area, which is really for me about some location where we get a community gathering space.

You know, for those who don't know that story, the basically the parking lot to uh we're this direction, right?

This direction between us and the school district, the idea was to turn that into some kind of public square and the Troy Field might get used differently than it is today.

I'm not saying it has to be there exactly, but some kind of community gathering space, some of those elements I think would be great to have.

We don't have that down here very effectively yet.

And then I think we need to be leveraging the assets and resources we put into this to meet more than one community need.

I'd like to see, you know, there's this whole discussion going on about convention and meeting space and it's sort of a multi-use flex space that visit Bend is doing.

We've got this um study that was just completed, a feasibility study for performing arts, and then we have council chambers, not you know, which doesn't necessarily have to be the same location as City Hall, but we need to we need to hit more than one community need in doing this, and um in one of these three locations, and just that idea of of um economic development and an activation of spaces, I think it's really important as something that's in that highest and best use great thanks, Ariel.

Well, this is a a really tall order, yeah.

A lot of note takers within the yeah, no, I think I think I really like what I've heard uh other counselors mention so far, and I I also think that it's important to think about how we can activate these spaces in addition to meeting our needs.

I I did want to share just two things.

One is just an observation in terms of you know, this is not something we're not asking for something super flashy here.

Like I don't think this is the Cadillac version of you know, I actually like our our council chambers.

I think they're kind of small and cozy.

Sometimes we do get people spilling out into the hallways, but you know, this is not this is not the Hillsboro City Council chambers, uh which was kind of gobsmacking when I saw a photo of it online.

Uh, you know, several hundred seats in the audience and and just seemed like wow, and Hillsboro is only like 5,000 more people than Ben did, but um this is really driven by need.

We do have staff people who I've seen bring a laptop to sit on a temporary chair in a storage room to get some work done.

We have um staff who are doubled or tripled up in rooms sometimes without windows.

Um we we just need space, and I think the community benefits when people can work together and collaborate efficiently and more effectively.

So to me that's what's really driving the that's the primary need here that we're trying to address.

So I really appreciate the comments about what can we accomplish in terms of what are our immediate needs and identifying them and then kind of seeing what what opportunities arise out of that in terms of the highest and best use analysis.

I'm really looking forward to the results of that.

I would say just the observation is I hear from community community members all the time about we need more parking downtown.

And we have a the several hundred parking spaces around City Hall that are either library, school district, or city.

And I think a lot of people are confused about whether they can actually park there.

It it doesn't seem like it's really utilized very well.

And I feel like there's an opportunity there because my impression is it's not utilized very effectively.

So if we can include that in the highest and best use analysis of like, you know, some of these lots are so restrictive that they're just they're not being used.

Maybe there's an opportunity there that you know it might be convenient to have something like a 15-minute spot available, but I don't know that that's actually the highest and best use for that, you know, this this land downtown.

That seems like such a special opportunity.

So I just wanted to make sure that that kind of broad analysis of like highest and best use for here, but I also I like what councilor Riley was saying about that area off of 15th, the campus there.

Um we're gonna think broadly about this.

And I guess the last question I just want to share, and I'll follow up later, but in in our revenue projections, it looked like they were different shapes.

It looked like we had this in the scaled down availability payments chart.

Yes.

The city revenue was lower.

Slightly different.

And I thought I thought that the assumption was that it was gonna be remaining the same as the full build-out scenario.

So I didn't really understand why are we assuming less in terms of city revenue.

I apologize.

I think the version online, I need to update with this version.

I apologize.

Um under this revised scenario, as Chris mentioned, we took out some of the land sales.

So I couldn't assume selling all of this if I needed this space.

So we pulled out a couple of items um and even some of our reserve funds in case that's used for something else, just to say, all right, if we don't go full bore in with all of our revenue into this, where where would that be?

So this it's slightly different because I pulled a couple things out to make the assumption of there might be an alternative decision tree, and where would we more likely align and not going all in and dedicating every social revenue we have to this project?

Okay, definitely.

Yeah, council translates.

Um okay, so I'm uh I just want to state again that um I think it's really important that the city um perform a long-range facilities plan that does not just look at central services uh or or the staff that will be located in the city hall, but that also we look more broadly.

I've heard mentioned, which I had never heard before yesterday, that the police department um may need to expand.

I had no idea that that land was dedicated to the um rural fire district.

So if there are other major capital expenditures, we do a 10-year capital plan for infrastructure.

We should probably have a 50-year capital plan for facilities.

Um so if we don't have that, um I think we need to do that, and I think that's kind of step number one, so we really know what we're aiming at for.

Um so that said, uh kind of on the same lines.

I think I think with the staffing plan that needs to be looked at a lot more closely too.

I I saw that graph that we're at 18% central services staff compared to total staff, but we're also very high on staff per population compared to those other cities, so it it feels inflated.

Um, and I think uh if we're value engineering our facility, we should be value engineering our operations too as well.

Um so I hope we can take a look at that.

I'm also really open to um sort of creativity, you know, and looking at other city-owned land.

Um, for example, uh we've got surface parking at Drake Park, which is like extraordinarily high social value land.

Um, and we're it's like views for cars, you know.

Um it would be cool if that that seems like it would be a really great place for like a heritage square or a you know, really awesome kind of public gathering place.

Um, and if that parking could be incorporated into a parking structure incorporated with a city hall facility, um, ideally at a few more parking spaces uh to meet the needs of our downtown businesses.

Um I think I think that would be really cool.

I'm open to ideas like that, I guess is my point.

Um so so I would encourage the highest and best use uh scenario to kind of look a little bit broader beyond just um uh down 15th Street downtown core area, but to also include kind of some public own lands sort of sprinkled around.

Um as far as short term, um I'm I'm totally open.

I yeah, I agree.

I don't know that council chambers necessarily needs to be in City Hall or all the time at least.

Like I would be totally fine using the muni court space for council meetings if we if we had to, like in in interim scenarios.

So like as you're looking at short-term staffing needs, things like that.

Like I think we should consider scenarios like that.

Um and then lastly, I would um I would encourage uh staff to think about forming kind of more of an advisory committee on this, or using council as a sounding board um and meeting more frequently than every six months.

Um, because I think this is really important to our community, it is in our council goals.

We've made promises to people, so um, I think you need feedback more often than four to six months in order to keep this really moving forward.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Also do it faster.

I'm kidding.

Yeah, more engagement, but also faster.

Yeah, like a treadmills for your office, maybe I think we need um a really welcoming accessible city hall for uh both our employees and the public.

I don't think we exactly have that right now.

So I'm really actually really excited about this opportunity.

I I believe in the dis in decisions we've made in the past to put us in this position to have this opportunity, and I'm really excited about the private partnership um and how we can leverage that to take some risk off the city while hopefully getting some gain um that benefits the community alongside our needs.

And and to me, that mixed-use city hall building is really the vision that I've always had that I want to keep us driving towards that we're not um taking this site, which we need to be honest, is in a premier part of downtown, but nothing happens here after five except for parking a car.

There's no activation, there's no square, there's no stores, there's no houses, right?

So to me, those are the type of things I want to catalyze for the BCD alongside the city hall.

Um, and I think that the the values that everyone has said here and that are reflected here, um, I think capture that.

The one thing I wanted to highlight was um housing and shelter and how we might leverage and what are the best places for that to be happening with our property um because we are using some we have some of those uses going on like with the Rainbow Motel and and where and how amongst these properties might that be good for us to do for the community, how could that activate the BCD?

I and I agree totally with um with Megan and Mike who mentioned this, and I'm sure everyone that that is something that um still remains really important to me and I appreciated the letter that we got from ECDBA.

They they recognize this process may slow down, it may be phased, it may look different, but that value of um catalyzing and activating that area is still really important to them.

And I think we can still achieve that even if we have to pivot here or look at some other options.

So I'm really excited about this opportunity.

I really thank you for the work that you've done so far, and we will um be back to see you again soon.

Um as soon as possible now that we've given you a bunch of other notes tonight.

If I may clarify because I have to develop a scope for these two.

Yes.

I saw head nods for adding that.

The parking lots, if I just is that that is a lot of work, Damien's are we what's that forking lots?

If yeah, I think that was Gina's reference was the mirror pond lots.

So I'm just asking because that'll just my own costs.

Not to take them away permanently, but to take them away if they're integrated in a downtown scenario where if City Hall were to stay downtown, we a lot of it.

Literally just just made a decision about some flex space on Mirapond parking lot.

So I guess that's correct.

That's one for deciding not to do that.

But that seems I guess I guess I'm okay with just evaluating we're talking about evaluating right now, right?

I'm okay with um evaluating potentially our all of our where do we own downtown.

Okay.

I'm all but I am worried about the message that we just directed TRT dollars for the flex space.

So that to me, I don't I don't want to re think that decision right now.

We made a decision there, but there may be some other opportunities.

There's opportunity we can look at our the parking facilities that we have here around this block.

And we can we could take the approach of of you know we know where the school was at with heritage square.

We can kind of just expand that boundary a little bit as we look at it.

I think that we can easily add that.

I just I wanted to check on the Mirapod lot because as you mentioned the decisions made, so I just before I create a scope of work for our team here.

We've seen are we okay with that?

Um which which part that we're what Matt just said, uh kind of expand maybe the school parking lot and how would that all interact as part of the highest and best use analysis?

And the Troy Field and even our city lot that we have behind Troy Field, so kind of focusing on just around this block.

Yeah, removing lot parking down there is gonna mean we have to replace it with parking so far.

Correct.

I think it's what you're getting.

That's would have to be some kind of creative.

There are different rules around property that's owned that we use for parking and the parking fund, the properties that we have around here downtown, the BCD and 15th Street, those are naturally general funds, so any expenditures are selling or redeveloping their we don't have to replenish that parking fund, so to speak.

So there are some other caveats to that how those facilities bought, sold, etc.

Did you have other questions around scope that you need to do that?

That was that was most property.

And then the highest the criteria I I will go back and listen to make sure I captured it all, but I think a general yeah, I think I think you've captured most of it here.

There's just some maybe some finer points that people wanted to bring up.

So I think that's great.

Seemed like it may make sense from a cost perspective.

You know, if we're gonna be in this area for seven to ten years.

Yeah, that was on your short-term needs.

We'll engage at a high level and come back.

Yeah, and if obviously those are business decisions, and if we have something that's more concrete, we can bring it back in exec to discuss what that might mean.

But great.

We can start those high-level discussions of what that means with the owner and the rep.

Okay.

All right, great.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you all.

Thank you all very much.

Um, I do want to let council know just because this is a big topic for the community.

Um, our communications department is putting a little press release together just to help sum up what went on here tonight.

And um, I had suggested maybe getting a couple of counselors if you're around after this meeting to maybe talk to Renee and just if there's a little quote or something that you could work with them on just to help the community understand what we did here tonight and where we're at with this process.

I think that would be great.

So just give me a heads up that we might ask you about the meeting.

You guys are good to go.

You're good.

Thank you.

All right, yeah, have our discussion follow-up on last week around scoping that neighborhood commercial work.

Yeah, so uh what I heard from last week's discussion.

I've kind of put into three different categories.

I think there's a need to look at legislative advocacy, potentially some solutions.

So this is in relation to the neighborhood commercial conversation.

There was a council schedule request from counselor Francisa, and so I sort of come back to you this week with a plan for that.

So we we looked at our work session schedule.

Uh, I can get this item scheduled for January 14th.

Uh we only have one more work session for the rest of the year because we have both the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays that remove the work sessions.

So the uh December 10th work session will be the home committee uh initial recommendations directed by council, the electrification policy, two really big topics.

So that one is already full.

Yeah, it's all the next topic.

The next I know this is an urgent item, so I wanted to prioritize.

So they will be the first work session in January.

We had to shift some things around just because of the holiday.

We just shifted the every dialog ride 24 hours.

The schedule back because uh Wednesday falls, I think on uh New Year's Day falls on that Wednesday, so we just shifted those meeting schedules back.

Um so with it being January 14th, I wanted to let you know our plan would be to come back with uh a work plan and timeline for legislative advocacy, potentially looking at the short session if there's some changes that could be made.

Uh land use policy, uh so looking at our own codes, uh both short from short term and then some long term looking at uh as we as we've been talking about changes to our comp plan uh that could take place, and then third is on the financial side of things.

So we have begun some discussions of looking at feasibility studies for uh with our use of urban renewal dollars for what's the market for uh commercial activity, uh, and then expanding upon that.

Do we want to look at incentives uh like the site-specific TIFF and like broadening the use of that?

So we'll present all of those options in those three different categories and the work plan to address them at that January 14th work session, and then you can sort of decide what what's attractive and how you want to proceed from there.

Yeah, and um, my hope is that on the incentive side that we're not it's not gonna take us too long to develop some options there.

Just it seems like that might be one of the ways that we get at um uh accelerating accelerating stuff, you know, and and actually being able to step in and help make something happen sooner.

So I'm hoping that that's not gonna take too long.

Okay, we all good with that.

Yeah, perfect.

Okay, January 14th for that.

Any other previews of that you kind of give us the other work session?

Yeah, so we are we are putting a huge plan over the next six months of populating all of the topics, both with the council goal work plan, some follow-up items that you've seen this fall.

Uh so we'll be finalizing the schedule that's posted with the city manager report or the the memo.

Um, so you'll see that populate over the next couple of months, and so as you have check-ins with me too, you're you're welcome to kind of look through that so you can get a preview.

It's a lot.

Um, we're also gonna be using our business meetings a little bit more because the work sessions tend to be pretty stacked, and so to the extent that we can shift some of those work session topics to the regular business meeting, we're doing that as well, just to make sure we're using that someone.

Yeah, they're discussion though.

There are discussions for that, yeah.

Or in some cases too, we look at some of those items where we might want a decision out of you in some direction, even if it's high level or it could just be a motion.

It's ready to you know, we're we're combining that discussion with we want some direction.

We're gonna put more of that work in those regular business meetings.

Yeah, great.

Thanks.

Okay.

Council Francis.

I didn't forget.

Thank you.

Let's do our things.

Okay.

Um, we haven't done this, I don't think, since I have a request of council.

We have a council rule that allows the city to um find counselors to attend conferences.

Um I've been invited to be on a panel at the uh meeting of the Community Renewable Energy Association, which is a really cool um government and private uh group that's composed mostly of Oregon counties as well as the city of Pineville.

Um and I think I was invited because um they want to outreach to cities a little bit more and try to get cities to be more involved.

Um and the idea is to promote the uh reliability um and and um and uh resiliency of our energy systems basically throughout the state.

So um so that meeting is in Eugene and it's next week.

It was a last minute invitation, so I'm last minute coming to you with this request.

So is any questions?

Thumbs up.

This sounds interesting.

Sounds good.

We want to report when you come back.

Um and then this is gonna be an opportunity also to say that um registration just opened for the winter meeting of the U.S.

Conference of Mayors.

I did not make it to any of their conferences this year, so I'm trying to head to their winter meeting in DC.

Um, we are a member of that organization, and they they you see a lot of their work on the advocacy side that I forward on the council, and we sign on to letters, and it's a pretty valuable organization.

So um hoping that's okay with everyone as well.

Yes.

Um and I've done that in the past too.

And then just to clarify, our rule, because some of us went to LOC conference, bakes in the LOC conference as something that counselors can always ask to attend as part of our work.

So just so people know that going forward.

All right, Eric, anything else?

All right, great.

Thank you, everybody.

Great discussion today.