Good to go.

All right, welcome everyone to our Ben City Council business meeting for the evening.

Um let's start with roll call um on your end, Councilor Mendez.

Ariel Mendez, he Mike Riley, he, him.

Melanie Keebler, she, her.

Megan Perkins, she, her.

Megan Norris, she her.

Steve Platt, he him.

Gina Franzosa, she, her.

All right, we are all here.

Um, okay, so we are gonna get right into our good of the order.

And our first is the proclamation for MS Awareness Week, which I'm going to read.

Okay, so the proclamation for MS Awareness Week.

Multiple sclerosis or MS is a chronic and often unpredictable disease of the central nervous system that affects nearly one million people in the United States, including many individuals and families in Bend.

People living with MS may experience a wide range of symptoms such as mobility challenges, fatigue, vision changes, cognitive impacts, and chronic pain.

These symptoms vary widely from person to person, making MS a complex condition that requires ongoing research, community awareness, and strong support systems.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society leads the movement to improve the lives of people affected by MS.

Through research funding, advocacy, education, and direct support, the society works to ensure that individuals receive comprehensive care and have access to resources that promote independence and quality of life.

Locally, the Oregon and Southwest Washington chapter provides information, programs, referrals, and community connections for the residents of Bend who are living with MS.

People with MS contribute significantly to the cultural, social, and economic strength of Bend.

They are artists, educators, workers, caregivers, students, and neighbors who enrich the region every day.

Recognizing MS Awareness Week highlights their resilience and acknowledges the ongoing work needed to support community members facing chronic neurological conditions.

Yeah, come on up.

And for the proclamation and for uh the motion today.

Are there any upcoming events anyone should be able to do that?

Yes, there is.

And uh it's a it's a great event to raise more awareness.

Great, thank you.

And this one I have a personal connection with my mom has MS.

She was diagnosed when I was in high school and a longtime member of the community, so thank you for bringing this forward.

All right, thanks so much.

Can you um send us the information about the event on April 25th, just a council all at Bendorgan.gov then.

And we took our picture ahead of time.

We're doing something new tonight.

So you're welcome to take a seat and we'll move to our next proclamation.

So we don't have to stand up and do all the being with us.

All right, our second proclamation I am also going to read, and that is for Absolutely Incredible Kid Day.

Whereas on March 19th, 2026, the National Youth Development Organization Campfire, joined by Campfire Central Oregon, will celebrate the 29th annual Absolutely Incredible Kid Day.

And Campfire provides a nurturing, encouraging, and fun environment for young people to explore and discover their skills, passions, and unique attributes.

As part of the celebration of children on this day, adults are encouraged to write and post letters of love and appreciation to young people in their lives.

And the Campfire Mission pledges a firm commitment to provide the experience youth need to discover who they are.

And whereas grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, teachers, mentors, and adults alike are urged to participate in absolutely incredible kid day and make a difference in the life of a child.

Now, therefore, the City Council of Bend, Oregon does hereby proclaim March 19th, 2026 to be absolutely incredible Kid Day in the city of Bend and encourages all residents to join this meaningful event.

I move to approve the proclamation.

Second.

Oh, okay.

Councilor Norris and Councilor Mendoz on the second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

And then we have Keisha from Campfire here who come on up.

I also have a personal connection.

I'm wearing my Wuhilo necklace from my high school graduation from Campfire.

I grew up in Campfire here in Central Oregon.

So thanks for being with us today.

Thank you, Mary Mayor Keebler.

Um yes, I'm Keisha Kaboda, I'm the executive director of Campfire Central Oregon.

Um Campfire has actually been uh active in Central Oregon since 1915.

So as long as the city of Bend has been around, there's been a campfire presence.

Um and absolutely incredible Kid Day is a national event that was uh designed by Campfire Nationally.

Uh this is our 29th year.

So we uh are just taking the opportunity like there's Mother's Day and there's Father's Day and there's no kid day.

So we think that kids deserve to be celebrated every single day.

Um but at least on this date, uh March 19th is a day to celebrate them.

We do um celebrate it locally here by offering um a day of free ice skating.

And so this year it will be on March 15th.

That's a Sunday.

Um I believe it's the open skate hours on that day from 1230 to 3:30 at the pavilion.

So any kids in the community are welcome to come and they can skate for free that day, and we'll have fun activities and cake and um some great adult mentors that will be uh skating with the kids.

Awesome.

So thank you so much.

All right, honoring today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, so that will move us into council action and reports.

Um we didn't have any letters this time.

Kate did send out the summary of our testimonies that we've been submitting in the legislature as they wrap up.

They're almost done.

They will be done on Saturday, is what I'm told.

Um so we'll move right into our counselor reports.

Councilor Franzoza, did you have anything to report this week?

There we go.

Yeah, um, yeah, I just wanted to say um I haven't uh attended too many meetings.

I have watched several uh recordings, um, but I have had quite a few conversations with folks, and so I kind of wanted to um give a shout out to all the folks in the community um who care so deeply about Ben.

Um they care about the people of Ben, they care about our sense of community, our community character, our beautiful landscape.

Um they care about equity, they care about safe streets, um, and they do, and they do so much.

Um I I really did get a kind of a record number of emails, I think, from people asking how they can kind of be involved and get involved.

Um, and I um sorry for calm.

I actually want to recognize someone who um has done a lot for the community, and I have only met him uh casually a couple times, but um Dave Marchie, some some of you may know him.

Um there is a celebration of life for him on Thursday.

Um, but what Dave actually did for the community, I think, is um created uh really elevated the commons into a place that is uh a community gathering space, a place for celebration, um, a place that's uh safe and clean and extraordinarily fun to hang out at.

Um I uh it was definitely a part of my um initial uh exposure to Bend, actually, year decades ago, um coming here and attending uh concerts and really fun events there.

You know, and that is something that just someone in the community was like, hey, this is how this like this place can be so much more.

Um and sort of um took it upon himself with his with his friends and his network.

Um and I um I think there's a lot of people in the community who have done things like that, and there's so many more to come.

Um, but I I um and I mean I hope there are so many more to come too.

Um, because I think that that what that place means to bend is is a lot and it's really special.

So anyway, there is that event on Thursday.

If folks are are interested and available um to attend it, I I would encourage you to go because I think there are gonna be a lot of people from the community there.

So that's all I wanted to say tonight.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Francosa.

All right.

Um Councillor Platt, thanks very much.

Uh over the last couple of weeks, I had the honor of uh attending the the uh planning commission meeting where they were talking about some items that are coming to us, oddly enough, here in a little bit.

But again, I I really appreciate the kinds of um questions that they asked the vet to sort of set us up to win here on the council by by looking at uh at the events very very closely.

Um I really enjoyed attending the advisory body summit that we were all at um last week, where it was an opportunity for all of the folks that are working hard on our committees to get together and hear about where we are taking the city uh over the next 20 years in that growth plan.

And there was a lot of really good inputs there, so I appreciate the city setting that up well for us and getting us uh ready to roll on that.

Um and then the last thing that I wanted to say, as far as it things that I've attended recently was last night there was this understanding homeless in central Oregon uh event at the um uh on the church in the West Side, uh West Side Church, and just really deeply meaningful to see the folks that were all over our community.

It was really well attended, and they were there and just engaged, and they had they had folks who have been previously in and out of the system talking about what that means uh for them and and where they are in the process now.

Um and it just energized me even more uh to really want to do what we can for all members of our housing.

And then last, I know you're not gonna be surprised that I'm gonna comment on this, but um it was a it was a month ago when I made a comment about our country uh jumping into uh a war with little or no notice.

Um and and here we are again.

Uh I'm very concerned.

I'm very concerned about the the impacts both in the near term and the long term of what we're doing.

My thoughts are with the folks who are serving right now, the servicemen and women who are serving and their families and understanding what they're going through, both in serving and also worried about those that are serving right now.

I think it's very unclear how this is all gonna turn out, and I have a lot of concerns about the direction we're heading right now.

That's it for me.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilor Platt.

Councillor Norris.

Um I also attended the advisory board summit, and we'll just say that staff did a great job organizing that, and it's just great to see um all the community members who participated and are involved and care so much about our city and are willing to do even more work than they're already doing.

And so I look forward to working with all of them.

And I wanted to attend a few more.

I know that our one of my neighborhood associations had a get together and I couldn't make it because I had a sick kid with all these bugs going around.

Parents at home taking care of their kids.

So um that's all I have.

Okay.

Yeah.

Council Perkins.

Yes, I sort of missed missed a few days of of council events myself um when I went under, thanks to my children bringing home everything.

Um but uh was it seems like we were on a little circuit of of really cool events this last month.

Um uh the mayor and I kept running into each other at uh two different Black History Month um celebrations.

One was called a ritual dinner, and the other one was a really awesome celebration that highlighted black women at COCC.

And we have some amazing talent in our community.

And then also was able to celebrate the spring festival.

So it's the year of the red horse, right?

Red horse.

Fire horse.

Fire horse, fire horse.

And it was a really beautiful celebration put on by Epic, which is the Asia Pacific Islander County.

And yesterday was able to speak to had the pleasure of speaking to a state and local government class at COCC with Commissioner Chang.

And they were pretty bored when I got in there, and I decided that I was going to read them a sampling of emails that we received.

And that got their attention right away.

And we had a really interesting conversation about that afterwards.

And it was it was really nice to kind of talk with Phil about how they were really curious about how we all work together.

And we we did our best to best to explain that.

And then you guys uh Monday we um had the Bend Economic Development Advisory Board uh meeting.

We uh said goodbye to our former chair and vice chair and elected a new uh a new chair and vice chair.

Um we did that after there was a really uh great uh sort of round table talking about what the work plan could look like for BDEB.

And so the idea was sort of to talk about that first and then um decide if you wanted to jump into the chair and vice chair role.

Um but some really good ideas.

They BDAB really that the what I got out of that the most was that they want to be they really want to have an impact um on the city and on and on on council um and so how can they most center themselves um and and and be most impactful.

Um so I thought that was really great.

And then we got a sneak peek of the public assembly venue feasibility study from um visit bend, which is um really really interesting for a city or I should say a market area of our size.

We are like the only community that doesn't have one of you know either a convention center, uh you know, a uh community center or this or that, a huge arena, you know, something like that.

Um we are the only one um that doesn't have any of that.

And so there's a lot of opportunity, and what I think is is really great about this this potential um facility is that it's it's something that that not only could bring in people from from other places, but uh that our community could use, and they they really seem focused on um they've already talked to the school district to find out what's kind of school district events that could they could happen there.

What if it rains during graduation?

You know, where do you go?

Things like that.

So um I look forward to that conversation um continuing.

And I kind of had this idea that maybe later on in the conversation, that seems like it might be a really good thing to have a civic assembly on.

So I'll be talking to visit Ben about that.

Okay, Councilor Riley.

Thanks.

Um I attended a rally a couple days after our last business meeting where we I read the um proclamation in support of Ukraine and read the proclamation again at that rally for folks in the community who were in attendance, and I just wanted to express my appreciation for those who showed up and for the people who organized the rally in support of Ukraine.

Um I attended uh two different community events um over the last couple weeks.

The first I've uh heard about one of them was the COCC's Black History Month celebration and focusing on uplifting the contributions of black women, and it was just like as um Mayor Putin Perkins said it was great to just learn about and hear from um all the talent and talented black women in our community.

Um and then I also attended a season and on violence they brought on the speaker Ijoma Oluo to talk at Caldera High School about the work that she does, the kind of anti-racism work and her most recent book Be a Revolution and kind of how people could make a difference in their own community.

Um so those were great events, they were well attended and um lots of opportunity to learn and reflect.

I tested uh attended the advisory body summit as well.

Um and then I just wanted to share uh Councilor Platt's concerns about what's going on in Iran right now and my concern as well about what's happening now, why how why we got into this in the first place and uh what does it mean over the medium and long term.

I have a lot of worries about that and express my support and um for the people who are serving in uniform um over there for the United States and other countries, but also for the people of Iran, the people of Israel and the people of the rest of that region and what they're suffering through right now.

So thank you, Councillor Minnesota.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Friday, February 20th, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board met.

Uh we selected uh chair and vice chair.

I will continue to serve as the chair, and Councillor Riley was elected uh vice chair.

The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan will be adopted next month.

So that is available in draft form, and that is basically every major transportation uh project and program, including uh transit is included in that document.

And if you're interested in that, you can check that out on the MPO's website.

On Thursday, February 26th, I attended uh the central uh City of Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee.

Uh COBAC.

COBAC approved its work plan and also heard a report from staff on a really neat innovative idea to help people with visual impairments navigate our city, and that is 3D models of our intersections.

We have some really unique intersections in Bend, and we've heard from people who have never actually been able to visualize what they look like, and that makes it very hard to uh traverse them.

And so what these are are 3D models that are printed and will be installed and available for people to feel and in kind of a tactile way, and maybe for the first time actually understand what the layout of an intersection in Bend looks like.

So uh keep an eye out for those, um, and that's all that I have.

Great, thank you.

That's really cool.

Um, yeah, I'll start with just echoing what Council Ryan and Councillor Platt said.

I'll be a little more blunt.

Um, the president has no business starting a war without congressional authorization.

This was done without the consent of the American people.

There's not been a reason to explain why.

So for the folks who are standing up and saying they're very concerned or upset about this, I absolutely understand it.

And um, I know we're a local government, but it is going to affect us and everybody in this country.

So I very much sympathize with all the concerns around that.

Um I'm gonna start with reporting up what's been going on legislatively, um, a lot happening in the last week or so as they move towards Sinadai on on Saturday, I think is the target.

So for us, um, the SB8 fix was amended into a bill, um, House Bill 4037, which did pass out of um the Senate, the first of the House went to the Senate, was amended and passed out of the Senate today without amendment.

So it will need to go back to the House one more time, but that is well on its way.

Um, the TLT flexibility bill has passed out of the House and passed out a committee in the Senate and has a vote tomorrow.

I'm gonna drive to Salem just to clap eyes on that and see if that can go all the way through, but it's looking pretty good, which is great.

Um, and then recreational liability had a breakthrough today with um a compromise and moving that bill forward as well in the House and then to the Senate.

So we will keep an eye on that as well.

Um other things that I've been up to.

Um, took a visit to Pacific Crest Middle School to visit a class that does sort of a journalism project where they interview local people, local leaders.

They always have really great questions around homelessness, water, transportation, future planning.

Um, so that was really great.

And then Eric and I both had our, and I think uh Council Perkins was also the joint meetings with um parks setting up our joint meeting that's coming up next month, right?

Well, the 17th of this month.

Oh, this month, yes, it's March.

We have a lot of meetings this march out.

We were really hitting we council has really been working hard this first three months of this year, and so have the staff.

I'm just gonna say we've had a lot going on, but all good things.

So setting up for that, and then also had our joint meeting with county leadership.

Um, just talking through a few of the things that are gonna be coming up between us there.

Um, and I think I will leave it at that.

So that will move us into our visitors section next.

We didn't have anyone sign up to testify virtually tonight, so we're gonna be just doing in person.

So if you're in person here, you'll come on up to the desk.

We've got um the big timer that Ashley's turning on here, so you'll have two minutes to speak.

Please introduce yourself and whether you live in the city of Bend.

Um, please address council as a body and no language or actions that would disrupt the meeting.

I don't think we're gonna have any problems with that tonight.

So we will start with um Aaron Rivers here.

All right, I'm gonna go first, okay.

Hello, uh, my name is Aaron Rivers.

I'm here with my daughter Kacia Rivers.

We live in Southwest Bend, and we're here to comment on the city of Bend's off-leash law animal at large.

Um I've emailed City Council, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses I received.

It sounds like the biggest challenge to citywide enforcement is staffing resources.

I understand the current limitations, and I hope a solution can be reached in the near future.

In the meantime, I'd like to suggest two other lower cost measures.

Number one, increase the fine for animal at large from 250 dollars to 500 or more, and include a community service requirement such as cleaning up parks, playgrounds, fields, and trails.

And number two, I'd like to publicize the increase in the penalty for animal at large through press releases, social media posts, and conspicuous and graphic signage throughout the city.

And Akecia would like to say a few words about off leash dogs on public spaces.

Take your time.

My name is Arcade Waivers.

I footy yours out.

I live at Bent Oregon.

I don't know.

Great.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for visiting and giving us your time.

Thank you.

All right.

You're welcome.

Come on.

Sweep me out.

Just grab that.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Kristen Reidelberger next.

Thank you for your service and the opportunity to testify.

My name is Kristen Reidelberger, Cities and Towns program manager at Central Oregon Landwatch.

Landwatch respectfully urges the city to continue including junipers in the tree code as both a regulated and priority tree, maintain the discretionary path for industrial zones, and uphold the current requirements for large development sites.

Native junipers are a vital part of Benn's urban forest.

They provide shade and cooling, improve air quality, store carbon, reduce stormwater runoff, stabilize soils, and support public health and economic vitality.

They also offer essential wildlife habitat, food, nesting, shelter, and shade, and help sustain biodiversity within our city.

Junipers are also uniquely adapted to Central Oregon's dry, rocky soils and increasing heat.

They are climate resilient, require no irrigation, and directly support the city's water conservation and climate goals.

While juniper removal may be appropriate in certain conservation settings, that rationale does not apply to areas slated for urban development.

In our built environment, junipers should be preserved as part of a climate resilient urban canopy.

We recognize Benn's fire risk and commend the city's current work on defensible space and home hardening.

These proven site level strategies protect people and property without reducing protections for native junipers.

Finally, weakening protections for junipers raises significant equity and environmental justice concerns.

Doing so would place higher value on Ponderosa pine forests, largely on Bend's west side while diminishing the juniper forests that define much of the east side.

All neighborhoods deserve the myriad benefits of a healthy climate, healthy, resilient urban forest.

Maintaining the tree code's current standards allows Benn to continue to meet our housing needs while advancing equitable climate resilience, fire safety, wildlife habitat, and water conservation.

Thank you for your consideration.

And I've also submitted more detailed written comments.

Thank you, Camus.

Thanks.

All right, Chris Madison.

Good evening.

My name is Chris Madison.

I'm an ISA board certified master arborist and urban forest professional, and I served on the track board that helped shape Ben's current tree code.

I'm proud of that work, and I'm proud that our city responded to the public's call for a stronger stronger canopy protection.

I'm here tonight to urge the council not to weaken that code by exempting Western Juniper or industrial zones from its protections.

Trees are a measurable, measurable public assets.

Research shows that for every dollar invested in urban tree management, cities receive an average of $2.25 in return through benefits like stormwater mitigation, reduced pavement repair costs, safer streets, lower energy use, and improved public health.

The current code already reflects this.

It has generated 111,000 mitigation fees, money that goes directly back into our cities, making it healthier and wealthier.

And the best part about investing in trees, they grow along with the benefits they provide.

These monetary benefits exist regardless of tree species or tree location.

On industrial zones, zoning doesn't determine a tree's value.

If I hold two apples in my hand, I'm going to want something of like value if you take one.

It doesn't matter which hand you take it from.

The city doesn't waive stormwater management or impervious service limits in industrial zones.

There's no sound reason to treat tree preservation differently.

On junipers, the Benn City Code actually explicitly argues for their attaining their protected status in Benn's comprehensive plan to call for retain quote unquote retaining and conserving the natural character of Bend.

Aside from our native Ponderosa Pines, I can't think of a more bent tree than the juniper.

In fact, in our community, I've seen that junipers provide such a sense of place that some citizens purchase dead ones and place them prominently in front of their homes.

Jokes aside, junipers are a native drought tolerant tree that are ideally suited for our area.

I'll close with this.

A society that grows great when men old men plant trees in whom's shade they never shall sit.

You have the chance to help shape bend into that society.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

All right, Donna Britt.

Hi.

I'm Donna Britta, a business owner, a small business owner here in Bend.

My license was up for renewal this year with a deadline of March 1.

I was away most of the month of February helping my elderly mother, and I went online to the city portal to renew my license last Friday evening, February 27th, as I had done many times before.

I hit the button to add the renewal cost to my cart for checkout, and when I attempted to complete the transaction, the checkout page would not load properly.

I thought maybe it was on my end, so I backed out, restarted my computer.

When I went back into the portal, the button was no longer available for me to click and add the item to the cart to check out and pay my fee.

I tried numerous times over the weekend.

There was no button present for me to add the fee to my cart and check out.

And since it was the weekend, I could not reach anyone at the city.

I was flying all day Monday, March 1st, so I came into City Hall in person yesterday to renew.

Upon arrival, I explained how the portal didn't seem to be working properly and asked the front desk person if there was any way if I paid immediately that the $20 late fee could be removed.

She went back to inquire with the licensing department and returned with a no, the late fee could not be removed.

And she relayed to me secondhandedly from the licensing department that that was on me since I was trying to renew at the last minute and that I had had plenty of time to renew earlier.

I didn't appreciate being chided.

There is no incentive for renewing in advance, and I was renewing before the deadline.

And what business is it really of the cities when I renew as long as I do so before the deadline?

I agreed to pay the late fee and was prepared to renew immediately.

I was then informed that I could only use cash or check as the card processor was not working.

Since I wanted to pay with the card, I was offered the customer laptop to get into the portal to pay that way.

I got into the portal and my license renewal was not showing up at all.

The front desk person again went back to the licensing department and came back informing me that since I had missed the deadline.

I'm here tonight to suggest if this is what happens when there's a problem with the city portal, that perhaps there should be a warning on the portal site that states regardless of any issue or glitch you may experience while trying to renew your license on this portal.

It's on you, not the city.

Don't bother telling us your problem, we don't care.

So in summary, I followed the instructions.

I was within the timeline, and the problem was technically on the portal end on your end, and now I'm being penalized.

And it really bothers me, and I wanted to share that.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Donna.

That sounds super frustrating.

I'm going to turn to the city manager.

We will take care of that for you.

So if you have your contact information, I want to personally reach out to you.

Yeah, I agree too.

Right here.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I really do.

I appreciate you bringing that forward because we need to know about those things so that the city manager can work to make sure that's not happening in the future.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

That is it for our public comment tonight.

So that moves us to the consent agenda.

Which is very short.

Move to approve the short consent agenda.

All right.

Move by Councillor Perkins, second by Councillor Riley.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Then that will move us to item number five.

This is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amendment and then development code related to tree preservation requirements in BDC 3.2.200 tree preservation.

I'm going to open the public hearing.

I'm sad the kids left.

They really wanted to see me do that.

Um, and then we'll have our stock presentation.

I need to declare an actual conflict as I've done on the past on this tree code at my employer's hidden homes, and this would have a financial impact on them, so I'll be leaving the dais.

Are you deliberating vote?

Good evening, council.

I am here tonight to talk about the tree preservation code amendments.

And with me, I have Ian Gray Urban Forester to help Annie help answer specific questions about tree preservation.

So tonight is a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending uh the code regarding the tree preservation requirements.

This code went into effect in July 17th of 2024 when the council adopted the amendments that created 3.2200 for the new preservation standards.

And at that meeting, the council asked staff to track the data for certain areas of the tree code and in a year from then bring back the data and get direction from staff on any potential council on any potential amendments.

Staff analyzed and collected data starting August 16th of 2024 when the code amendments went into effect up until September 30th of 2025.

And then we met with council during the annual review on October 22nd and received direction that based on the limited amount of data that we have to propose some amendments as staff recommended, but keep the scope narrow.

The planning commission held a work session and public hearing and recommended approval of the amendments, and Commissioner Bob Grayson's here tonight to give you an update on the planning commission discussion.

And then tonight, as I said, is the public hearing of first reading, and if all goes as planned, the proposed code amendments would go into effect on April 17th.

So just a reminder of when the tree code applies to development projects.

Generally it applies to projects that are on sites one acre or larger, land divisions when you're creating new lots or parcels, site plan review applications such as commercial buildings or multi-unit housing developments.

And any time the properties one acre or larger and does include other types of housing.

There is some exceptions to the code that allow properties to just mitigate and not comply with the preservation standards, and those are on properties one acre or smaller that are not including any housing and are like a land division or site plan review application.

And then any housing on sites one acre or smaller do not have to comply with the tree preservation code standards.

So again, the code's only been in effect since August 16th.

The amount 2024, the amount of data gathered has been very limited.

So the proposed amendments are narrow in scope.

The proposed amendments do add some new exemptions, and this is based off staff using the code for a year and realizing we just need to add these for some consistency.

One of the exemptions is any residential land division or middle housing land division where the lotter parcel is one acre or smaller.

And that is just consistent because you can already remove trees if you're doing housing one acre or smaller.

Another one is for land division applications where each of the resulting lots will be one acre or larger, and that is going to be exempt because those new lots that are all one acre or larger will be reviewed in compliance with the tree preservation standards when they come in at a future date for site plan review.

And then we don't have an exemption if you have no trees on site, so we're just putting that in so it's clear.

So just to be clear on that second bullet, Pauline, at the point where they're doing the land division and making smaller lots.

If those lots are bigger than an acre, when they come back to build the homes, they're going to have to do a tree preservation.

So it doesn't make sense for them to do it both when they divide and when the times come in.

Right.

And that's as we've been implementing the code for years.

That's how you've been doing it.

That okay.

We need to just create this exemption and review the trees at the appropriate time.

The current code has a section that is in compliance with the climate-friendly and equitable communities rules or CFEC rules that requires all new parking lots that are a half acre larger to provide a tree canopy that is at least 40% of the new parking lot, install solar panels on property, plus they also have to plant trees along driveways and parking lot drive aisles, or they can do a combination of both.

What we've seen over the past years when applicants propose to mitigate and replace trees on site, and they have a half acre of new parking lot.

There is a lot of trees that are going on this site, 40% tree canopy, parking lot dry valve trees, and then plus mitigation trees.

So we're saying with the proposed code amendment that the amendments will allow replacement trees and the 40% canopy trees to um meet the same requirements.

So you're not putting extra trees.

And just to be clear, this could apply to both commercial project with like commercial service and stuff, but also multifamily.

Yep.

Any new parking lot is required to put in one half acre or larger.

The current code also has a clear and objective root protection zone.

And when the code was adopted back in 2024, we needed a clear and objective root protection zone because we did not have Ian on staff to help us with the discretionary path.

So the root protection zone today requires if you have a tree, um, you measure one inch for every radius, and then you have to go out one foot in diameter around that tree to protect it.

And these are only required for trees that are identified for preservation.

The discretionary path now allows an applicant to propose an alternative root protection zone for specific trees on site, and it has to be undocumented and report by a certified ISA arborist and based on documented field investigations.

Um the recommended encroachment would be no more than 25% stated in the code, but there will be times where they do need to encroach more than 25%.

And if that's the case, the requirements also require that the encroachments be on the 25%, must comply with specific specific mitigation measures under the supervision again of an on-site International Society of Agriculture certified arborist or ISA arborist assigned to the developments project.

The public outreach was done in October, uh, notifying uh developers of potential, just get gathering their feedback, I should say, of um when the code went into effect and how their year experience was it.

We emailed over 300 people notice of the planning or city council's work session during so that they could um listen on the annual review, and then uh city council conducted that annual review.

We uh followed the noticing requirements and emailed notices also to the neighborhood districts, and then I also again sent that email to over the 300 people on several different occasions notifying them of all work sessions and public hearings.

So people aware that there are minor amendments proposed to the tree preservation standards.

Um as I said before, the council reading second reading would be March 18th.

The effective date would be April 17th.

And just to clarify too, these proposed amendments are narrow in scope.

There is a work session next Wednesday on March 11th that is specific to juniper trees where Ian will be presenting at that work session.

So tonight is just um just to 3.2200 on the amendments that I just went over.

Great.

Any questions for Pauline at this point?

Yeah, council Mendes.

Yeah, could I ask a question about the the root protection zone requirement?

So if we're proposing allowing a tree specific exception, um, how would that work?

Because I I I thought like you can't really tell where a tree's roots are without digging them up.

Yes, and no, you can make inferences um based on the shape of the buttress of the tree.

It'll have what we call a buttress flare, and where those ribs come down to the soil, it's a pretty good indication that that's the direction of travel of the structural routes.

Those are going to be the critical ones that we want to stay away from.

So allowing incursions into the root protection zone really is a case-by-case basis.

We can use things like soil probes, very thin steel, use press down into the soil if it's soft enough and you can feel the roots under the ground.

So you can confirm to a certain extent where the roots are.

So depending on the architecture of where you think the root plate is, you may or may not be able to allow you know closer limits of disturbance for proposed construction.

Because obviously, you've probably seen in the built environment mature trees very close to sidewalks or foundations of relatively new buildings.

So it's certainly doable.

Are there going to be impacts?

Yes.

What we're trying to avoid are impacts that will destabilize the tree, and the 25% is a recommended amount of root loss that certain trees can withstand.

The ISA has best management practices where they recognize that depending on the species, the age, and the condition, particularly younger trees are much more tolerant of some of those construction impacts.

You can in many instances get much closer to the base of the tree, but within reason.

So that's why we say case by case contractor needs to assign an ISA arborist or a consulting uh arborist to the contract to uh help with establishing and protecting those root protection zones.

So the person who's making this judgment, are they gonna be they won't necessarily be city staff?

Will there be?

I mean, it seems like there will be an opportunity to be to you know pass judgment in either a conservative way and say, well, we really want to be this is a you know tremendous tree, so we want to be really careful, or maybe we can take a little more risk.

So they'll have to come to us with proposal.

Um it's currently in the in the city view process.

I'm looped into the development review, so I have to do tree protection fencing uh inspections and do it periodically over the course of the project.

Um so I can go out initially help them decide whether or not this is doable if they want to get closer to certain trees.

Um and then we go from there.

I was just up on uh Discovery West phase 10 with Brooks Taylor and their contractors as they're starting to push through new road cuts and they were concerned about certain trees, and so we had this very conversation.

They are not, because that was approved prior to the tree preservation codes are not obliged to, but they're trying to work with us, and it's an opportunity for us to educate the contractors.

So they're actually quite encouraged to hear that Ben had an arbitration on staff, and they can ask me questions and I can weigh in on whether I think that's you know reasonable to try and preserve trees that are very close to these cut and fill sections.

Thank you.

Yeah, just is it possible?

I read this root protection zone as as a way to retain more trees.

Yes, that's the that's the driving idea behind it, the driving motivation behind it.

We are if you rigidly apply the one foot for every inch of diameter, it's too inflexible.

You should you can get close to some trees in certain instances.

So we are hoping that this will actually encourage greater retention of you know good trees.

Great, thank you.

Because then they will actually be able to count them.

Right, right.

Yep or replanting costs.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, on the draft code, there just was this change that wasn't addressed anywhere else.

I wanted to ask about it, and that was about why we're only having to specify coniferous or deciduous rather than the species of the tree.

Like what was the reason to do it in the first place and why the change?

The commission asks the same question.

Um the we don't track the types of trees that are being preserved.

All we track is you know the five, twenty, twenty-five percent the data.

The size and so some sites have you know hundreds of trees, and for them to go out and get so specific on the type of tree, and even if they didn't fill it out, we're not really making them go back because we're not tracking that data.

So we just limited it.

Right.

And so why are we even worrying about coniferous or deciduous at this point?

So I mean, I mean, there will be some resource use uh I mean, yeah, I mean, species mix is is important.

Um certainly when you've got an interface, say with ponderosas and junipers, for example, obviously they're both conifers, but um when you have more of a mixed forest, you've got different resource use, obviously, with a big development project, you get these massive changes after you get done with mass grading.

So um understanding what trees thrived on those parcels originally, if even just breaking it down to coniferous and deciduous is helpful.

Okay.

All right, any other questions?

Well, or are we gonna establish a schedule for some kind of future review?

Because we're sort of talking about this whole thing about um, I think we should do that next week.

I think I think that would be a good work session.

As part of the work session, so per you're gonna be part of that work session.

Yes.

So I'd ask if that be part of the agenda then for next week that we have a discussion about when we're next gonna review the tree code because part of this has been that there's not enough data to get into any substantive.

So what's the sort of milestone for what we do that?

Is it just annual, which maybe is already assumed in the code somewhere, and I just need to be able to do that.

I believe at the work session where we got direction to come back with the staff recommended at least one more year to come back to council so that we have another year at least together day, but we can bring more back next week too.

We'll just define that next week.

Yeah, that's great.

Any other questions for staff?

Bob, was there anything you wanted to add?

Shaking his head, no, thank you for being here.

Um, and uh we do not have anyone sign up for public comment online for this, right?

Ashley?

No, I didn't see any written.

Is there anyone here to give a public comment on this item?

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we can have a motion and deliberation.

I move for the first reading of the ordinance amending band development code BDC 3.2.200 tree preservation.

All right, move by councillor Ray, second by counselor Platt.

Any further discussion, council?

I mean, I think I think we have a good package of limited changes here and they they all make sense to me.

Um, I think I'm in support.

I I want to um name because we had discussion with some folks in town who were talking about how do I see how I'm making an impact.

So every person who participated in the tree code committee has led to this moment.

Um everyone who wrote to us, there was someone who came and sang a song about Ponderosas one time, which was amazing.

Everyone who cares about trees and has written to us, got us to this moment.

And then I think I really want to emphasize that this sort of iterative.

Let's look at how it's working, let's make small changes, let's look again.

I is we need to be doing that a lot more often, and I think we've been trying to do, but this is an example of how we can the code will not be set in stone, and we will adjust as needed to try to achieve the goals of trying to preserve our trees, right?

So um really appreciate all the work you did to bring this back to us, and we'll see you again next week.

Yes.

All right.

Um council, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

All right, unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, moves us on to item number six.

Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing issuance of up to 9.5 million dollars of full faith and credit bonds.

Okay, uh, good evening, mayor and counselors.

My name is Kimala Letz.

I'm the assistant finance director here with the city.

Um, I have several resolutions for you today, so bear with me.

Uh, the first is staff is asking council to adopt a resolution authorizing the sale, execution, and delivery of full faith and credit in an amount not to exceed 9.5 million.

The resolution also includes uh the ability to refund any outstanding full faith and credit obligations if feasible for the city, and also loan funds to the borough.

The proceeds of the 9.5 million will be used to finance the closeout and remaining costs of the public works campus, the air traffic control tower required match contributions, streets equipment, and bend urban renewal renewal, eligible projects within the core area.

The issuance of these bonds is for projects that were included in the 2527 adopted by an old budget, and the proceeds have been adopted in the budget as well.

Okay, did you did you want to do number seven as well?

I can, yeah, absolutely.

Why don't you go ahead and explain this?

Okay, great.

Yeah, and so the second item I have this evening is asking council to adopt a resolution to authorize the refunding of the 2016 water revenue bonds, which will save the water fund approximately 300 to 400,000 per year for the remaining life of the bonds, which is roughly three to four million over the remaining ten years.

Okay, council questions on six or seven on our agenda for questions.

Question on Go ahead, Council Mendes.

Uh six.

So I just wanted to clarify looking over the the the breakdown of the nine and a half million uh full faith and credit bonds.

Um could you clarify which, if any portions would be expected to be paid back with uh general fund revenue from property taxes?

Yeah, sure.

So um none of the portions of this issuance are expected to be paid back with the general fund.

The issuance is backed by the general funds full faith and credit, but the funds that these uh proceeds will be allocated to will be responsible for paying back the debt service.

Thank you.

I think for me that was really important to clarify.

Yeah, because I I um I don't want people to think that this is we're you know expecting to use property tax revenue to repay these.

That's not what's happening, and um uh that's all.

Absolutely, thanks.

Any other questions for Kimala?

All right, seeing none.

Um got a couple of motions.

I move to adopt a resolution to authorize the issuance sale, execution and delivery of full faith and credit bonds in an amount not to exceed $9,500,000.

Second, all right, move by council Perkins and second by councillor Platt.

All those in favor, say aye, aye, aye.

All right, and then uh the next one's longer.

Authorizing the pledge of net revenues of the city's water system, authorizing the execution delivery of financing, legal and disclosure documents, designating authorized representatives and delegating authority and related matters.

Second all right, thank you.

Moved by Councilor Perkins, second by council Riley, all those in five favor.

Aye.

All right, thank you very much, Kimala.

Thank you.

All right, moves us into our second readings and council and results.

You're in the first time.

I have to do the two of them, so I don't know.

Why don't you declare a conflict for eight and nine and then we'll move through them?

I as I did uh with the first reading for items eight and nine, I'm declaring actual conflict to my employers, Hayden Holmes, and this would have a financial impact on them.

So deciding right.

Okay, and then Ashley, you want to introduce eight, and we'll get into a motion.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to amend the Ben comprehensive plan.

Sorry, plan map to modify the boundaries of land use designations in a portion of the Southeast Urban Growth Boundary UGB expansion area.

I I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of an ordinance to amend the Ben comprehensive group plan map to modify the boundaries of land use designations in a portion of the Southeast UGB expansion area as proposed.

Second.

All right, move by Councillor Platt and second by Councilor Mendez.

Roll call vote.

Councillor Francesa.

Councillor Mendez.

Aye.

Councillor Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Ten Perkins.

Yes.

Counselor Platt.

Yes.

Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

Okay.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to annex 66.46 acres of land in the Southeast Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of the ordinance annexing 66.46 acres in the Southeast Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area, assigning a sign district and requesting jurisdictional transfer of the abutting rain free drive right of way.

Second.

All right, move by Councilor Mendes and second by Councillor Platt.

Roll call vote.

Councilor Francesa.

Councillor Mendez.

Yes.

Councillor Riley.

Aye.

Mayor Proten Perkins.

Yes.

Councillor Platt.

Aye.

Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

All right.

Let's get Councilor Norris back.

This is the second reading of an ordinance creating Bend Municipal Code Chapter 3.120 firearms prohibited in city buildings.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of an ordinance adopting Bend Municipal Code Chapter 3.120 firearms firearms prohibited in city buildings.

Second.

All right, move by Council Riley, second by Councilor Norris.

Roll call vote.

Councillor Franzosa.

Yes.

Councillor Mendez.

Aye.

Councilor Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Proten Perkins.

Yes.

Councilor Norris.

Aye.

Councillor Platt.

Yes.

Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

All right.

That gets us through our second readings.

Thanks, everybody.

On to our city manager's report.

Yes.

Just wanted to update council.

There's a lot of work happening with our equity work right now.

We have Ben Duncan here this week.

We're reviewing job descriptions.

We'll be making a stop with the Human Rights and Equity Commission next week, and we'll be sending out some emails with drafts of those descriptions looking for some feedback before we put those out for advertisement.

That's both the engagement leadership position and the policy related position that we talked about a few weeks ago.

We're also moving forward with the uh resolution to support our immigrant community that's coming before you on March 18th.

That's also going to be reviewed with the Human Rights and Equity Commission next week.

We've been working with the Latino Community Association on the scooping of that as well as a coalition to help review that resolution to kind of restate our values as a welcoming city, and then we've really created kind of two sort of pathways for support as requested by LCA, one in the form of uh crisis, kind of a crisis response for fo uh families in need, and then also really to promote our welcoming um program.

So welcoming both welcoming week as well as our the concept of our office hours really in uh um uh being part of a welcoming culture that we're trying to create, not just within a welcoming week, but year round.

Uh so we're uh scoping that out through different uh different mechanisms, both a grant agreement and a contract for services that will all come back before you on the 18th.

Wanted to remind council we have a round table next week, March 12th, uh, with the Southeast Area neighborhood districts that includes Larkspur, Old Farm, and Southeast Bend.

Um, where we're gonna talk about uh growth planning, development infrastructure.

We'll have a round table with representatives from each of those neighborhoods, and then um have opportunities for uh folks to engage with city staff.

Um so really great opportunity if you live in Southeast and see all this growth and change and want to become more involved.

We also have a joint meeting uh with the Ben Park and Recreation District on March 17th that's being hosted by Ben Parks and Rec.

We're working on we have the agenda uh finalized that's going to be highlighting our key projects that we're coordinating on, mainly in the core area here around Drake Parks or the Drake Park Bridge, the Gilcrest Bridge along Columbia Park and the Riverfront Project, along with um overviews of our both of our comprehensive plan and parks plan and where there's opportunities for coordination, including some discussion around um housing incentives.

So uh and then I think as uh the mayor mentioned a lot happening in Salem this week, and just want to commend the staff.

There's been a lot of uh happening the last these first three months um because on not only are we running a full schedule with lots of joint meetings and all of that, but then there's the legislative session which is moving really quickly.

Um so I just want to thank um all the staff that have been involved in helping support that.

Yes, and upcoming for the week of spring break, we will not be meeting.

Yes, which we've been many weeks in a row, yes, so we get to have a break.

Okay, that is it for the council meeting.

So we're gonna adjourn um and head to our borough agenda.

Okay.

So we're adjourned officially.

Okay.

Um call this meeting in order for the urban renewal agency.

Um March 4th, 2026.

Um we're gonna have a discussion.

Um, but we have to approve meeting minutes from the last four meetings.

I move to approve the borough meeting minutes.

Second.

Um minutes.

Okay, all those in favor.

All right, aye, any opposed?

Okay, great.

Um and then we're gonna talk about two things.

First of all, um some bonds related to the bond issuance that we already talked about in the previous meeting, um, and then um have a review of development assistant programs with Jonathan.

So Kimla, do you want to come up and talk?

Hello again, counselors Kimela Let's assist and finance director here.

Um, I'm here tonight.

Uh staff is asking for authorization for the Bend Urban Renewal Agency to incur $5.1 million dollars of debt as budgeted in support of the core area plan and to pledge tax increment revenues as the source for the annual debt service payments.

This authorization would allow staff to finalize agreements between the city and borough for these debt payments that I mentioned earlier tonight.

So, and then we had some back and forth today, and just to be really clear, I mean we're there's one set of bonds being issued by the city.

Correct.

Borough is basically saying yes, and we're pledging to repay them with increments.

Correct.

Yeah, the city is loaning borough the money and borough is pledging to pay it back, correct?

So there was some language that sort of almost suggested there was another issuance of bonds coming.

Yes, and that's not some of that, but yeah, we did.

Yeah, thank you.

So does anybody have any questions for come on about that?

Okay, so we need a motion, or just to just to clarify that this is the not all of the not all of the bonds will be issued immediately.

There's a media plan for 3.2 million.

Correct.

And then as part of the core area plan, there's a I don't know how to describe it as uh almost like uh reserve of capacity for future programs.

Is there anyone who can share a little bit more about it?

Yeah, what the what how come we're not um issuing all of it all at once and what are we hoping to achieve by spacing it out?

Yes, so good evening, Jonathan Taylor, Urban Renewal Manager.

You adopted the 2026, 2030 uh five-year strategic investment plan in December.

We identified 8.9 million for the core area, 1.5 was to go to Franklin to continue that project for the under press underpass crossing.

That left around $6.3 million that Burra had over the next five years to authorize.

We've worked with finance Kimla and her team to understand how to maximize the remaining increment over those five years.

So we are proposing 3.1.1.2 million this bond season.

Next year, we're probably looking at another two, and then in year 2028, 2029, the remainder of that 6.4.

We're just trying to maximize as much TIFF as possible while not um reducing our principal and interest payments up front.

So we're being a little bit more strategic.

And so re so debt service on these bonds depends on uh development in the core area.

Yeah, so we have a little bit of a different approach for Borough.

We have the same fiscal policies that the city has.

Um both Borough and the city have the same thing.

We are working with Kimla and her finance team of 1.25 uh debt service, and so we just have to make sure that the tax increment revenues can cover that debt payment along with existing debts that we've already taken and the administration of the plan.

And are we on track?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a motion.

Um I move to adapt the resolution to authorize financing of the eligible projects under the Bend Urban Renewal Agency and an amount not to exceed five million one hundred thousand dollars with proceeds of full faith and credit bonds issued by the city and execution and delivery of related agency documents to evidence the Bend Urban Renewal Agencies or uh obligation to the city to provide payment for debt service.

Okay.

So moved by Councillor Norris, seconded by Councillor McClatt.

Any further discussion?

Okay, all those in favor?

Anybody opposed?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jonathan.

Item number four.

Good evening, Chair, members of the agency.

Um tonight we're going to talk a little bit about development assistance programs.

This is an entirely educational opportunity.

It's more uh more data and more nuance, but no decision is being made tonight on any programs or projects.

This is an opportunity that have been requested by a majority of you over the last year of re-looking at our development assistance programs, both in the core area, Juniper Ridge, and Murphy's Crossing.

So really tonight's outcome is just to kind of learn what type of development assistance programs that a typical urban renewal agency uses inside the state of Oregon and how these can be utilized to accomplish the five-year goals that Burra adopted in December.

So no action is required tonight, but staff will return periodically during all these program developments over the next several months.

These include loans, grants, and rebates.

But at the very end of the presentation, staff is going to look and ask do you support some proposed policy changes to the housing site specific program so we can begin some of the research and outreach to the development community about some of the programs and projects you're looking to accomplish.

So really what tonight is it's the kickoff of a six-month structured approach for doing kind of incentive programs that support Borough's five-year mission and 2030 targeted community returns.

So based on the financial uh excuse me, the investment strategy along with council goals.

We've identified that Borough would like to assist in helping create and build 1,000 multifamily units, create 500 jobs, develop 20 acres of land, create at least four acres of parks, trails, and open space, assist 20 new small businesses, improve some business frontage, and continue to construct linear feet of public infrastructure, but more importantly, generate 1.5 dollars for every dollar invested by Borough in these districts.

So we begin tonight.

What is an actual incentive?

So we've we've had this conversation over the last several years.

Uh it's a tool that offers something of value, whether that's financial or otherwise, to motivate an investment or a community outcome that you're looking for that would not have occurred naturally in the private market or within a desired time frame that council is looking to achieve.

Unfortunately, whether good or bad, this usually takes a premium pricing to accomplish to spur those community developments and community benefits.

Some of the important principles that we've heard over the last several months as you want staff to continue to bring forward some of these programs, is these need to be targeted and strategic.

So these should be used to direct areas of projects to uh areas that you want to attract private development.

Resources must be prioritized to be catalytic, and locations must be maximized to impact the community more effectively and efficiently.

We want performance-based uh and accountable measures.

This uh ensures that there is minimal public risk, that there is sustainable use of funds, and that we continue to use uh private investment in a act in an appropriate way.

Financial stewardship, that's a conversation that we've had over the last year of like what is the appropriate amount and incentive should be for the desired community benefit, flexible and adaptable.

That's one of the reasons why we're here tonight with site specific, and we also want all of these programs and projects to be sustainable, not only for borough and the city, but for the private development that we are looking to attract in these areas.

So we'll begin tonight with just the basic forms of what urban renewal agencies do, and they use grants.

Grants are kind of the direct non-repayable financial contribution that enhances a project feasibility by covering certain eligible cost.

Funding is usually contingent upon specific outcomes, timelines, and adherence to adopted policies, and this is usually approved before or during a project for a divine defined redevelopment activity.

These are best used when there's specific mission-driven outcomes.

Uh, the project would not proceed or would be significantly delayed without this type of assistance, but also that the project doesn't have the financial capacity to repay or uh doesn't generate an immediate return to support that type of development.

Some of the pros is this is a faster deployed program.

Take for example the core area revitalization effort program.

The previous iteration, uh, you guys uh authorized 100,000 dollars to do facade improvements and interior improvements, and so that was pretty quick.

And so that was pretty quick.

We had those out the door within about three months.

We believe this is catalyzing.

You saw Dogwood, Dogwood received about three $35,000 from Burra, 450,000 from Visit Bend.

That's a pretty cool and neat little corner on 2nd Street.

And it's really more targeted to small businesses.

How can we help?

Like Kalima Market, we provided $25,000 to do interior improvements for them, some door installations, some HVAC, as well as Timber Kitties who did their HVAC replacement as well.

Some of the cons with grants, it doesn't generate a financial return.

So once the money goes out the door, we're not going to see that back.

And these aren't really maximizing TIFF.

This is just to make a community benefit pop or a visual stimulation in the core area.

Because we're providing funding up front with no immediate returns, it's usually a delayed opportunity cost.

We'll realize the benefit in one to two years.

And usually grants are non-scalable, so once they're they get 25,000, that's usually what they're only looking for.

It's not a large project stack.

Loans is what a lot of urban renewal agencies do.

This is usually a financial agreement in which a lender, in this case, would be a would be Burra provides funds to a borrower under specified repayment terms.

Usually urban or loans at below market rates to provide gap financing to advance those projects that align with urban renewal objectives.

Usually this is best used when a project is fundamentally viable but requires a little bit of flexible below market financing to address that specific gap in funding.

Some of the pros are this is a recycle opportunity.

Once the funds come back in with a little bit of interest, this grows the pot that you could use elsewhere.

This is usually lower risk as compared to a grant because there's collateral or some sort of position that the loan uses.

It does improve feasibility with a private lender.

So if a project comes in and secures some sort of loan from Burra that often that oftentimes benefits their private capital stack.

They really look at those finances.

And then lastly, it leverages private dollars with public dollars.

Some of the cons though, there's that risk of default.

Sometimes it's less effective for the higher risk projects that you know when you want an urban development in an area that hasn't been catalyzed.

The first development is often higher risk.

And then there's limited accessibility, so you have to have good credit, you have to have a good financial capability of repayment.

And so it either eliminates some of the newer small businesses that doesn't have a credit history of lending or anything like that, and then also the opportunity for the larger developments.

Currently, Borough has one loan program, and that's the affordable housing loan program that you all adopted in May of 2025.

Rebates, that's one that we've really focused on in the last two years.

This is a financial incentive, which a portion of taxes are paid and then returned to the recipient after eligible criteria or performance measures are verified.

Rebates are typically formula-based or is a fixed amount designed to encourage ongoing behaviors, outcomes rather than providing upfront financing.

When rebates are usually best used, is when you want to target and influence a decision-making or accelerated timeline for those desired impacts.

Some of the pros is this is the most the least riskiest type of incentive program because you're not providing upfront financing, but you're also having annual certification on any kind of community benefit that you're looking for.

This is a performance-based opportunity.

So once a development or a project doesn't meet one of those criteria, you don't award that annual rebate.

This is very transparent and is tied to specific actions.

Some of the cons is it does delay some financial returns, so you're deviating some TIFF to these developments with the anticipation in 10 to 20 years that that TIFF will be back on the books for either the city of Bend or our taxing districts.

But then lastly, the perceived giveaways to private developers.

That that is oftentimes one of the larger cons that sometimes the community misinterprets as not getting the community benefit in which they are looking for.

This is where Borough would, or any kind of urban renewal agency would acquire some property that's usually underutilized, blighted or strategic, and sell it or lease it to a developer below market value.

This is where the write down comes in because this is where the property's market value and the discounted sell or lease price occurs.

This is usually best used when a redevelopment seeks to strategically catalyze redevelopment efforts because the number one cost up front is land acquisition and development.

Some of the pros are it reduces the overall development cost, it leverages that private dollar that Burra is contributing to and it lines and it's flexible.

Some of the cons are it's the greatest upfront cost of Borough, and it does require oversight with some clawback provisions if the property isn't developed.

So over the next several months, staff will continue to bring back some policy proposals under loans, grants, and rebates for Juniper Ridge, Murphy Crossing, and the core area.

We're having this work session tonight just to kind of outline and educate what some of the options are for you to consider over the next several months.

Beginning in May, we will begin that program development beginning with loans, and we'll continue to have stakeholder outreach on all these.

We're also after tonight, once we get a little bit of direction on the site specific program, we'll tie that in with some of our stakeholder outreach.

We will return again in May for some review by Borough on loans and some site specific issues.

We will continue formulating additional loans and grants and rebate programs throughout May.

We will continue to outreach with our stakeholders in June, and then we'll have some of the final reviews in June in June and July with a potential Borough adoption of whatever programs that you have to authorized staff to create sometime around August 5th.

So tonight's uh policy considerations does Borough support staff exploring the following development assistance programs grants, loans, rebates, land acquisition, and write downs, and then we'll get into the site specific conversation in a second.

So on the timeline, does that mean that we would not be approving the final any final revisions to the site specific policy until August 5th?

Correct.

Also, unless you direct staff to speed that up.

Sounds good.

I think we need to have all the options on the table and figure out what our best investment strategy is.

In terms of the site specific.

And sort of no, sort of grants, loans, rebates, and acquisition.

I I'd like to continue exploring all of those.

Yeah, I agree.

And it can be multiple of those, not just like one.

I don't think we have to pick one.

Right, yeah.

Correct.

And you could pick all of them, and it just depends on what the development and Borough's willing to offer to specific criteria.

Okay.

Question about the land acquisition and write downs.

Is the idea that Borough would be the property owner, or would that get transferred to housing works or some other entity?

Good question.

It could be both.

Um Borough could acquire property, let's say, and we'll just use an example, Juniper Ridge.

There's 273 acres that the city currently owns.

We are looking at how do we continue to move those industrial lands to market.

Borough may propose to buy a portion of that land from the city, do some pre-development cost, and then turn around and sell it to a developer.

That money can go into a program revenue fund, which opens up additional opportunities for BERRA in the future.

For housing, you can acquire the property and you could sell it at a discount to housing works, rooted homes, you can do some home ownership opportunities with that.

And then that portion of money that gets funneled back in from a sale can go right back into another property acquisition for continued home purchase, home ownership.

A lot of this is the world's the limit if we have specific criteria that Borough's looking to accomplish.

And we're we're essentially doing all of these except for the land acquisition and write down portion of the case.

Correct.

We haven't approved a loan yet.

Or have we for the you have not approved?

Some discussion.

Jonathan, as we go through this process, I'm just hoping that the target community returns, targeted community returns that you have, sort of your what we're aiming for here.

We're gonna be able to get outcomes on those as we go through.

I've talked with Katie about just having a you know having a dashboard for that kind of thing, but I'd love to have those no matter how we approach this, just to show everybody the results that we're getting.

Okay.

We can definitely work with GIS for a Borough dashboard too.

Yeah.

If y'all I just appreciate that that's the five-year mission, and that slide is in here, and I think that needs to be in every presentation just to remind what we approved as far as what we're trying to do in the next five years.

I I would propose that that be uh something.

We'd love to make a dashboard around here.

Absolutely.

One more with these components.

Yeah.

Okay.

So as we move into the site specific conversation, uh, well, one, let me just make sure we're good with grants, loans, rebates, and land acquisition policy development and bringing it back to Borough for further refinement.

Okay.

So I want to give Borough slash council a lot of uh kudos for some of the work that we've all done over the last three years, especially since um I've come on board, I've seen a lot of progress, not only with urban renewal, but economic development housing.

I want to start with this slide first.

So, what has Borough assistance accomplished over the last uh three years?

With MUPTI and site specific, we've increased more housing units, we've inspired more affordable housing options, we've slowed and lower rent growth over the last three years.

You have now inspired competitive vacancy rates within the city of Bend, and there's also a lot more in field development that has occurred in the last three years that hasn't occurred prior to that.

So if you look in the little like blue bar between 2023 and today, there has been a 4% drop in rent growth since 2023.

This translates to an average of savings of about 1,100 per year per bin residential household.

So if you look at the graph, you'll see a lot of uh inventory growth beginning in 2023, and then as we've kind of both Rachel and myself over the last several years have noted, you see a stabilization of rent and now some decline.

And so, where does that come from?

So we pulled some recent research on housing production.

So new market rate development usually decreases nearby rent by five to seven percent.

This was just released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve in 2020.

In addition, not only to nearby rent decreases, a 1% increase in total market supply lowers average rents by about 0.19%.

That's by the University of Chicago of 2025.

But then more importantly, because we've inspired a lot or incentivize a lot of housing units over the next three years in the future.

Renters anticipate better options.

This usually reduces their willingness to pay higher rents now.

So the market of what tomorrow will be is often reflected in what landlords are going to want to pay or charge today.

So they're trying to balance not only the demand today, but the future supply tomorrow.

And so what we're seeing in BIN is a huge stabilization of rent based on a lot of units coming online, but also a lot of incentives bringing um future into um how to how to the market.

Yeah, the pipeline.

So there's a lot of good work being done in housing and economic development and urban renewal, but also with our community partners as well.

Um so I just want to say good jump off point for our rebate conversation.

Isn't that some of that also driven by the change in the kind of target mix of housing units that we established in the UGB?

Um, you know, where we started to shift away from being so heavily dependent on single family residential homes and a much higher number of multifamily and sort of this uh correct uh duplex, triplex, you know, uh townhouse, all that sort of stuff.

And yeah, so I don't want to just give sanctionaries in particular.

Yeah, I don't want to give mupti and site specific all the credit to that.

You have SDC exemptions, you have expedited permit reviews, you have your targeted UGB expansion requirements, everything that Rachel's team does.

So all this aggregated is applying to this today.

And just to explain the Y axis there, so it's starting in 2000, the Y axis represents multiples of reference year 2000.

Yeah, so this is an index graph.

So we established in 2000, whatever the the amount was being created, that's one.

And so every increase is 0.25, and so it's just the because rent growth is at 2,000 dollars, and sometimes housing production per year might be at 700, and so the graph would be off the chart.

So we used an index just to kind of show the comparables.

Okay.

So a little bit about both MUPTI and site specific.

There's about 1,400 units that have either come online or being incentivized.

Riddle Ridge and Emblem are the current two uh projects under the site specific that are under construction.

Jackstraw was recently completed in October of 2025.

But in addition, we have Beridian, Century Platform, Parkway, and Joule that are still in queue of getting their development agreements signed and executed.

And another point is this program and policy has pretty much equitably distributed this development throughout the entire city.

So we have one in the north near Obi Riley Road, we have one on Mount Washington Drive, another one on Mount Bachelor, and then three in the core area, but then also one in the southeast.

So I'm not gonna belabor this one too much because we've heard this bill for the last two years, but the tax increment assistance for housing affordability and employment growth is a rebate on property taxes for desired community benefits.

What that looks like is there's a base policy.

Borough may award assistance in the amount of 12 years if they provide 15% of dwelling units to those households earning 90% area median income.

And also those rent increases must be lower than those allowed under state statute.

Then addition, there was an enhanced policy where Borough may award assistance greater than 12 years if one or more of the following also occurred in addition to the base policy.

More than 15% of units at or below 90% area meeting income.

Those rent increases have been added to more than 15% units, meets energy efficiencies, and then awards at least 23% of its prime contractors to small businesses.

Just to review what the process is for review, it has to be located in the city.

It has to meet blight definitions according to state statute, and the property must be smaller than 20 acres if outside an existing TIF area.

The taxable value must increase by at least 500,000.

That's where the proportional impact comes into play.

And then obviously the proportional assistance for 12 years or more.

There are two requirements in the policy.

It has to be a two to one return for our taxing districts, and it also has to generate 1.5 dollars for every $1 for the economic benefit of the community.

And then there's a project review, which are the blighted conditions remedied by the project, and has the applicant held a pre-application meeting with the city.

And that's a pretty important one too, because we don't want to incentivize stuff that our code doesn't allow.

So the crux of tonight is does Borough support staff exploring some of the following?

And if you have other additions or options that you'd like staff to explore tonight as well.

I do want to note that the home committee had recommended no changes to the site specific program.

But some of the things that staff has heard over the last year, we wanted to bring back that in front of you.

Um so we'll begin.

So 20% of units at 80% area median income or below might be the new target for affordability.

Apologies for the mix-up on the PowerPoint earlier today.

It was 15%, it's 20%.

Should Borough further limit rent increases for those rent restricted units.

Right now we have tied it to the state statute, which doesn't necessarily apply to new market rate development, but Borough elected to apply that rental statute.

Right now it's 10% per year.

Do we want to create one policy that simplifies to a 20-year maximum rebate and incorporate the green energy and local contractor allowance into the required criteria?

Because we're having a conversation overall about core area development and protection of neighborhood commercial.

If a project in the future is located in a zone mixed use or mixed urban, should we require a percentage of first floor commercial?

And then we are looking at the homeownership model using site specific.

And we've we've had several conversations with our community partners about how to actually best navigate that, but we've also heard from borough members that that should be something that we look into over the next several months.

And so these are some of the five bullet points that we've heard over the last six months about policy revamps when this comes up.

If you're in support of this, we'll begin this process, but also if there are other recommendations or some exploration topics that we need to take into account.

So I was thinking we could just take and go through each one of these.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm curious that the home committee recommended no changes.

Is that because they thought it would be like unattainable or get become more unattainable if they're if the criteria I should look at?

I think it was basically that it seems to be working.

Right.

So they didn't feel a need.

I think it was mostly around that that AMI number, maybe that needed to come down a little bit.

But other than that, there was not um, hey, this this part doesn't make sense.

It seemed like you've gotten projects that are qualified and there wasn't a burning need to change anything.

And I think they were sort of just deferring to council.

Right.

So I don't think it was like it was a horrible idea.

I think they're also focused elsewhere for us.

Sure, yeah.

Okay, like this seems like it's doing well.

Let's talk about it.

Most of the projects that have come before us have pursued the enhanced policy track, right?

So while they haven't necessarily many of them have some something different on the percentage of units and/or AMI, and then some of the others have elected one or both of the green uh energy and the um local contractors.

Correct.

So that's I think the idea behind merging it into one policy because we're generally seeing that being used.

Um we and staff has also heard from several borough members of should we look at the time duration and make it a little bit more succinct.

I mean you'd still get affordability for 20 years, whatever timeline uh borough wishes to put on a program, but we've heard from several uh borough members maybe look into that just a little bit.

And so that's why we're like, if we're gonna create one policy, should we simplify it to a standard yearly rebate?

So if you come in, it's not subjective by Borough or staff of what we're proposing.

You meet this program, you agree to it 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, which would whatever Borough is looking to do, it's just a flat program policy with clear criteria.

Yeah, I'd I'd be yeah, start with each one.

Are we the first one?

I'm fine with all of these.

Um I think I think I would want to um take that to the some of the developers though, or on that inflexibility about the timeline and see if that's gonna make it a problem because that is a uh one of the nice things about this program is that it does a little bit flexible to be customizable to a certain development's sort of stack or timeline or whatever they're working on.

I do have um around requiring first floor commercial.

I'm more interested in incentivizing it.

Okay.

Um we we there was a little bit of a flare-up in the legislature this year around prevailing wage for mixed-use projects, and that if affordable housing developers are trying to include first floor commercial, it increased the cost for their whole development.

And so if with a requirement, I'm I'm afraid we might not get as many applicants, but I'd be super interested in how to is that a bonus area that if you are doing commercial, then you get some new some other incentive, maybe a longer period or something like that, but as we were doing with uh green energy in the local contractor.

But otherwise, this all looks good to me.

I was just gonna say that was my comment too.

I would just I'd be curious what the development community has to think about that first floor commercial, but I also understand how it could really activate the core area and it's really important.

So yeah, that was I'm supporting.

I think the the number one thing that I'm that I'm interested in, and I think it's probably gonna be hardest for some of our developers, as I understand to swallow is the 80%.

Yes.

Um and when I look at our five-year production right now, what we've got committed, and this is Jonathan off your off your nice slides that you've shown us earlier, that above 80%, we have met the requirement, the five-year requirement, at least if all those units come to market.

But man, we are short when it comes to the lower AMIs, and there's that area, right?

That 60 to 80, that's just the toughest thing to get at because there's no extra federal dollars.

So I really really want that one, and I'm hoping that we can find a way to get the developers to go for that, because that's really important to me.

Could I ask a little bit more about the commercial aspect of it?

Um, just as a reminder, one of our council goals is to create complete walkable neighborhoods, and is the idea here that we would focus on first floor commercial as opposed to requiring that development happens nearby other existing commercial.

You know, we hear sometimes uh transit-oriented development.

Well, I would be interested in exploring grocery store-oriented development.

I would, you know, I want the complete neighborhoods, and I don't know that we need to necessarily say first floor is the way to do that, but is there a way to then just tie it to the existence or you know, to if it is a developer to make sure that they're paying attention to like the proxy combining that?

Yeah, I think we're right.

Can I offer a thought there?

I think part of that may be looking at um location, because if we're talking about like the core area or the B C D, we already know there's commercial going on there, right?

So maybe that's more of a location focused bonus requirement, whatever we want to do there.

But um, because right now this applies citywide, and and home community did uh did consider should it tighten up and they said no, keep it citywide.

So I think if we want to if we want to have one citywide policy and then maybe a different policy in certain areas, we certainly could do that.

I also am not sure this policy is the is the way we're gonna drive that kind of commercial to happen, right?

But I don't know, maybe so.

I mean, what are we exploring?

Well, if um if part of what uh to understand what you're asking, let's say in one of these um one of these zones, somebody was proposing a development that had two buildings, and some of it was commercial and the other building was gonna be the bigger building was gonna be residential and the other building was gonna be commercial.

Um that's not necessarily first floor, but it's immediately adjacent.

That's what you're getting at.

Could we have a policy that has some flexibility to for that kind of activity?

So it's not just about one vertical building with all those uses, but something that's done jointly as one project that's adjacent.

So that cannot not be looked at.

Yeah, so uh just um throwing out an idea.

Currently, the existing policy is um rebated both commercial and residential.

If Borough is looking to inspire more commercial, you could say, well, if you build it, you can get that exemption.

If you don't, you don't get that exemption or that rebate on that commercial.

There are there are ways that we could meet council goals of complete walkable communities, but also to the mayor's point of like strategic and targeted development in specific areas.

Um and this is a very flexible policy, both in terms of location, but also the impact that you're looking for.

I also on this one wonder if it should this should maybe be the one place that we consider that's like the the enhanced policy because it's new and we're learning how to experiment with it and it gives us some time to test it rather than it being incorporated in.

I mean, I guess uh maybe it's only an option in those types of developments, so it doesn't matter.

But is there a way to use the model we did before where we were kind of testing the energy part and going farther and seeing what we got, and we've learned that we can get more community benefit delivered as part of one policy, but maybe this piece is kept separate as an enhanced policy, sort of experiment for 18 months.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think we're gonna have a good discussion about what what's the base and what's the bonus policy, and maybe yeah, some of the newer stuff is our handle.

Yeah, and Councillor Francosa, do you yeah, I just um want to echo some of the stuff that was already said.

I you know, this this policy um has incentivized market rate rental housing, and as counselor Platt pointed out, we've kind of hit the mark on that one.

So um I'm I'm only interested in pursuing this further if it can be really clearly demonstrated how it can help um either with homeownership or um 80% and below rental.

Um but yeah, honestly, I I feel like we've been uh we've kind of neglected homeownership, and I I hope we can get to that at some point.

Um the other uh, you know, the other point that was brought up that I agree with completely too is you know, complete communities, walkable, bikeable, uh, neighborhoods rich with services, um is what we should be aiming for, and that's not what this policy is accomplishing.

Um so I I don't I hate to like be putting money into something that goes against our goals.

Um so you know, if if this policy can be used to deny that, then you know, then that's great.

Um we do have these existing urban renewal areas that are supposed to be these, you know, part of the climate-friendly and equitable communities zones for our our city.

So um, so I'd I'd like to see a focus on those areas and effective policies in those areas to get the outcomes there that that we want.

Thanks.

To that last comment.

Uh thanks for raising the the climate-friendly and equitable community areas, because I did want to also ask what what people thought about the idea of more discretion in terms of geographic focus in uh in the past.

I think at least for some of us, we thought that the definition of blight was relatively expansive and that um there might be an interest in being a little bit more restrictive when it comes to looking at when this would really be necessary to move a project forward, or alternatively, when we would really be getting some important community benefits in return.

So I would support looking at, you know, maybe saying this is tied to uh CFEC areas or some way of of ensuring that we're not actually just subsidizing greenfield development that technically meets the standard of blight, but I think maybe there's still some questions about to other, yeah.

What are other folks' thoughts about that?

I'm okay with thinking about geographic areas.

Um I will say that for me, this policy I think can benefit the whole city, and I think getting projects out of the ground sooner than they would normally be built is a benefit to Bend.

Jonathan showed us the when new market rate housing comes on, it affects the rest of the market.

So, yes, that particular housing that's brand new is not going to be priced at a level that everyone can pay for, but it affects the rest of the market, and even the future pipeline of housing can help keep some of those rents down.

And if we stop building that pipeline, you can guess what the result will be, right?

So I think um I think I'm gonna approach it with the idea that yes, if we can get as much of that 80% AMI and get as much of that as we can, that'd be great.

So and so if we don't want the rest of the rents to go up, we have to give that benefit, right?

Which is the rebate program, which is I think why it's been successful.

And there was a bill that just passed through the legislator this year that's it only applies to Portland, where they are requiring that you have to fund basically inclusionary housing policies, policies that are that Portland said, okay, if you're building housing, this percent must be affordable.

And they weren't funding it.

So it wasn't happening, right?

Because developers couldn't raise the other rents high enough to subsidize that part.

So this bill that passed through said through tax rebate or something else, you got to fund that so that we can actually get it built, right?

And we're ahead, we've already been doing that, right?

Um, so I think that's why this program has been a good success for the future of Bend.

Um, and so I'm I I want to have those 80% um homes.

I want to have these um all over the city, and I will say also to have a good walkable neighborhood where you have a coffee shop, you gotta have a lot of people.

You have to have density to really make that happen.

Um, and so part of what this benefit brings too is a lot of people to one space that will go to that coffee shop that's on the first floor.

Um, and I think that's worthy of uh promoting as well.

So I'm I'm totally okay with looking at geographic limitations, and I don't think we've officially chosen our CFEC areas.

So we need an update from Brian on kind of what those studies showed and how that might correlate with this because I agree that's where we're gonna see need to see a lot of this happening.

The state's exact expecting us to build these types of things in those areas, so I don't think it's a bad idea to cross-reference that at all.

But I just want to say I think the the general benefits of this um are good, and we need to make sure that we're not forgetting that.

So I respond to that.

Yeah.

I think I have a slightly different worry, which is if you look at, for example, Southern California style development where you have very high density housing but not a lot of amenities.

I worry that I don't want to be in a position in the future of having to approve a pro uh a project that technically meets the definitions of the program while we're we're not achieving our other council goals of uh walkable communities that have lots of amenities.

And I I worry that we've been in this situation before where we have a housing project that is really good in terms of building housing, but we're not bringing the amenities along with it.

So I do think that's that's a real risk, and I'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to address that or build that in so that we're not in the position of having to say no to an otherwise good project that adds a lot of homes.

Yeah, I hear that.

I hear that.

And I think for me, part of it is like we can't achieve everything with this one policy.

So, what other things can we do parallel to this that is making sure that we're achieving that goal too?

I think that's that's totally correct.

If I may, I the the worry about the term blight.

Um I'm I really want to caution us as a as a borough and to try to ask the city to kind of develop its own or a uh a non-standard blight definition.

I really feel like we need to go with as stated in the in the state policies or our building code, and I really I want to be careful about it either is or it isn't based on this code, and we and then we say that, and I know sometimes that makes us uncomfortable, and yet also I want to live by that policy or not policy based on the blighted definition.

So if we want to change that, I think we want to have an open discussion now about the yeah.

So with the blight conversation and definitions, the reason that it is so broad in the general statute is to two reasons.

One, the statute where the legislature really wanted infill development.

They didn't want to increase UGB because greenfield is a pretty ubiquitous term.

And so there's 14 key criteria that are very broad because they want the city to have the discretionary to infill that development without always going back to asking for a UGB expansion.

So it's it's that trade-off of protecting rural farmland and forest land, and then also the blighted definitions of for example, unproductive land inside the city, and that's that they the state the legislature is allowing those local municipalities to determine what unproductive is.

So just to clarify, then do we have a majority of support that wants Jonathan to spend more time looking at the geographic um limitations essentially for this, right?

That we only would do this in some places and not others.

I think that's really the essence of the question, right?

I'm okay with it being part of the discussion.

I'll know again hopefully wanted it to be citywide.

I'm generally gonna lean towards citywide, but I I'm okay thinking about that, especially in relation to the city.

So bringing so that we'd be asking them to bring back some options for us when we come and revisit this in a couple of months.

Yeah.

Okay, so I'm seeing enough heads.

Gina, are you agreeing with that?

Okay, so I think yes, we'd like to see some options and sort of the pros and cons and what are the risks and costs of that if we take that approach.

Okay.

And get some developer feedback.

Um I am here in support on the 20%, 80% part of this.

Um the um the further limiting the rent increases.

I can you just talk a little bit about more about that, like what that looks like so I understand it better.

So the pro forma for you all to review when these applications come, and another thing that staff will do is simplify the pro forma and application so they're all uniquely or not all unique, they're not uniquely submitted.

They're gonna be one standard application, so just FYI that's at least right side up.

Correct.

That'd be great.

Um for the firm further limit rent increases because the current state statute doesn't apply to new development, Borough elected to say actually we want to preserve not only the units, but also we want to prevent displacement from rental increases in the future.

Right now it's 10% based on inflationary and state statute language.

What we're thinking is working with the development of community and identifying one specific rental per year increase, whether that's tied to the annual property tax or just a general inflationary component.

So what I was thinking is if this is something we could look at, what would the development community be with a max rent increase per year for these units at 4% or 5% instead of tying it to the inflationary standard of the state statute?

Now the developers may come back and be like it's kind of hard to forecast what rent increases need to be in year 10 because of the depreciation asset of the multi-unit housing complex.

So I just kind of want to caution, but it's something that we've heard from our local housing providers that are in the nonprofit sphere of like could you see if we can cap some of these rental increases a little bit lower than what the state allows?

Is there was there any discussion about the length of times?

Right now, the the current policy is for whatever year they get the rebate, they've got to maintain that policy.

And so right now we're just looking at this with be congruent with whatever year they get.

And so just to be clear, the state statute doesn't apply to brand new housing.

Correct.

So that's it's not applying at all.

So even if we just took the number from the state statute and said we want to we want that to be it, that would be a positive change.

And you're already in your already doing that.

It's so like I think we could, yeah, I think we just need to look at the numbers, but yeah, I assume that you'll come back to us with some options and/or reactions.

Yeah, right.

Um, and then so just going back to this neighborhood commercial, so um versus the mixed use.

Um as part of this, are we essentially you're gonna look at whether we can use this tool to help incentivize the neighborhood commercial stuff that we've been talking about?

I mean, this is specifically for housing, but on the employment side.

Yeah, and so uh under Eric, we've we have a whole process for the neighborhood commercial approach that we've been working on.

Right now we are in the contracting phase with our RFP for the retail portion of the analysis that we're doing.

So that's already been kicked off or all on the way with that.

Should we in the process look at incentivizing this kind of first floor neighborhood commercial, not only with housing development, but in other areas of site specific as well.

And we can get into that in the next slide because we're gonna briefly touch on the employment.

But if you're in a mixed-use mixed urban, because of the complete walkable communities, should we at least approach the development of community be like, if we incentivize this commercial, could you provide X amount of square feet for every X amount of square feet for residential makes sense?

And then the last piece on this that I just wanted to raise is I I think we need to spend a little bit more time thinking about the energy criteria for this.

Um we have some changes that are gonna happen to the energy code in the fall, and I how I was gonna propose is that Steve and I, along with you and Cassie maybe dig into this a little bit and just think about coming up, you know.

Are we gonna I'd like to tighten it up a bit?

I think we should look at that.

Right now, it's just sort of a suite of you could look at any of these options and either come up with a specific list or set something general.

Um, something like well, has to be X percent above code in terms of efficiency now.

And that may get around, you know, not include solar.

So I'd like us to dig into it a little bit basically and come back with a recommendation about for consideration of how we might think about those a little bit differently, just so that it actually is pushing us to do a little bit more than that than's required essentially.

That's okay with everybody.

Yeah, I would be interested in with the local contractor allowance, maybe some of the work that has been going on already with supplier diversity, maybe seeing if we can tighten that up even a little bit more.

If that's something that you're seeing that is being used in in a lot of these projects, um I would like to see how we can start.

So we could like raise it.

Yeah.

And um, you saw a number of our applicants went above the 23%.

We I do want to clarify in the policy some of the definitions that we're using, so I agree with that because it's a little bit ambiguous with the HUD definition.

Um, but with the local contractor, we haven't received any of the uh certifications yet for um this policy because the intent was all along when we were doing the policy development, once we get that contract list, it's gonna go to the city's supplier diversity program, and then they're gonna start building a portal and a uh procurement list for that.

So this was meeting a lot of other goals than just the speci specificity of using local contractors, but yeah, we can look at tightening that language up as well, too.

I also um we want to do a lot here, yeah.

And so I'm gonna count on you to tell us at the next meeting or the following meeting, say if this is something if this is becoming something that is so unwieldy that no one can actually use this.

Um you know, I I I would love for you to tell us that.

So right, because there's no point in having a policy that has so many things that you that that are unachievable for for our developers in our community.

So yeah, those are gonna be my comment too that I'm gonna approach this with this this policy cannot do everything for us, and we may need to say, okay, the place to lean in on that is over here, yeah, not in this policy.

Um so just keeping that in mind for sure.

And then I'd like to have us when you come back, um, some sort of proposal for the next time we're gonna do a period of like a review refinement.

Like is it gonna be in two years, or are we gonna let this run a lot longer, or just that that's part of the agenda as we get closer to making a final decision on this policy?

Um I've got the directions on this one, and I just want to provide a little bit of update.

We will be discussing the employment policy in May, and this is around, and I just want to clarify Katie and I will be back around May to talk about some targeted investments in the BCD about how to use Juniper Ridge urban renewal to help some of the industrial existing uses in the core area to move to Juniper Ridge to free up that commercial within the core area, and so that's gonna be a part of this conversation as well.

How does BURRA uh approach our target sector clusters, our neighborhood commercial, and then what kind of number of employees and wages do we want for this type of development assistance?

Currently, we have not had anyone uh apply for the employment.

It's still active, still active right now in Juniper Ridge, but Juniper Ridge has a lot of site development issues, lava rock, lack of infrastructure, and stuff like that.

So there's gonna be a lot of conversations around how do we make Juniper Ridge pop in order to make the core area um successful.

Okay.

My only comment on this is once this session is done, there's been some work on economic development.

I'm wondering if there are new incentives from the state.

Any way we can align to make it easy for people to use us and their thing at the same time might be helpful.

So that's stack right incentives.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's it.

Okay.

I think that's it.

Anything else for Burr tonight?

I mean, that's a burrow manager report.

Borough manager report.

Yeah, who is that?

Jonathan, did you just do it?

Yeah, we just did it.

Okay, we are adjourned.

The state of the city.