Let's do a quick roll call.

Start with you, Councilor Platt.

Steve Platt, he him.

Megan Norris, she her.

Megan Perkins, she her.

Mani Keeber, she her.

Mike Riley, heel Mendez, he him.

Gina Franzosa, she her.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna make an announcement at the top before we get into things.

We have quite a few people for uh public comment tonight.

Um, under our rules, I can do some limitation on the time of this.

We're not gonna have more than an hour of public comment.

Um so we are gonna try to get through everybody.

I'm gonna be pretty strict on the two minutes.

We're gonna be calling up multiple people at once.

Consider if you're with a group, if you have some folks who haven't spoken to us before, letting them come up in priority as I call through the names, maybe, but um, we want to hear from as many people as we can tonight.

But we do have other businesses to get to.

So just giving everyone a heads up on that.

Um, okay.

We're gonna start with good of the order in our proclamation.

Thanks.

This is a proclamation for Fair Housing Month.

April 11th, 2026 marks the 58th anniversary of the enactment of the Federal Fair Housing Act.

This act prohibits discrimination against protected classes when renting or buying a home, obtaining a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engaging in other housing related activities.

Historic patterns of segregation and discrimination in housing exist not only nationwide, but also here in Bend.

We recognize that many individuals facing discrimination do not feel safe reporting their experiences and challenges.

Therefore, the magnitude of segregation and discrimination in housing is likely greater than currently known.

Housing is a vital component of health and stability, directly impacting our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain employment, and our capacity to enjoy equitable access to recreation.

It is critical to maintain, evaluate, and further develop policies that create housing choice and foster complete communities.

We affirm that every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear regardless of appearance, religion, place of birth, immigration status, disability status, gender identity, or whom they love.

Through this proclamation, the city of Bend reaffirms its commitment to developing trusted relationships with protected classes, supporting community agencies working every day to build diverse and welcoming neighborhoods, identifying and reducing barriers to fair housing, amplifying stories of discrimination, and listening and learning from our community members.

We hereby proclaim April 2026 to be fair housing month in the city of Bent.

Move to accept the money.

Move to accept the proclamation.

Second.

Alright, moved by Councillor Norris, second by Councillor Frenzo.

All those in favor?

Great.

All right, we have we have three people here.

If you could just introduce yourself and love to hear your comments.

Sounds great.

Hi everyone, my name is Mario.

I work for the Fair Housing Council for Oregon.

I work on the enforcement team, and I'm the investigations and intake manager.

We work statewide as an organization to address fair housing issues, and my team in particular investigates claims of discrimination throughout Oregon.

We help residents with cases relating to eviction, reasonable accommodations, refusal to rent, and among other things.

The variety of people we help never fails to amaze me.

In some cases, it can be a family who will still know they weren't a good fit because they have children.

It may also be a veteran who wasn't allowed to have a service animal.

Or it may be recipient of Section 8 who is being charged more for simply having a voucher, which is actually a case for working on working on activity here in Bend.

Looking at looking at how Fair Housing applies to Bend, I see a city growing very fast.

With that growth comes the duty to protect new and existing renters or buyers.

Thankfully, this region has an abundance of talent.

We have organizations who care deeply about their cause, like LCA and Bully here next to me.

And we have a city government like Bend that pays attention and supports our work.

And we have a very involved populist who likes to keep up to date on what happens in their community.

With these resources, we have the opportunity to stick to our commitment to fair housing and civil rights in general in this area.

In the past year, we've grown relationships with organizations in this field, both government and non-government, to help advance our work.

We work closely with organizations like Bully and Legal Aid.

Lasso.

It is worth mentioning that enforcement work isn't all we do.

We have an education and outreach team who provides trainings to landlords and they're present at outreach events in the community.

They are very active during the month of April for Fair Housing Month, and I encourage anyone listening to look up an event on our website.

They are they are available statewide.

We have several available this month for Fair Housing Month.

And just for reference, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was passed in April, so that's why we celebrate this month.

This past year, our organization has had some challenges related to funding as a result of the federal grants that this current administration has taken away.

And in addition to that, some of that money we had already done to work for.

So they kind of stole money from us in addition to taking money away.

This has had an impact on our ability to open new investigations in areas like Bend, Redmond, and unfortunately, and most recently, even Portland.

Thankfully, we did receive a grant that allows us to work in cities with a population under 20,000.

So we will stay active in rural communities.

But communities like Bend and Redmond will not be able to have our services.

This is we push forward with a deep commitment to what we do because we're seeing an increase of demand for our services.

Just recently in December, we received over a thousand requests for help in a single month.

We appreciate the city of Bend's support for Fair Housing, and thank you so much for having me here to receive this proclamation.

Thank you.

Hello, so my name is Christa Rico.

I am a learning and development specialist from Boley Fair Housing.

So the Bureau of Labor Industries, otherwise known as Boley, is a state government agency led by the labor commissioner Christina Stephison.

We have four departments the apprenticeship training, wage an hour, and the employer assistance.

Civil rights has three different units.

It has the workplace public accommodation and housing discrimination, also known as the Fair Housing Enforcement Team.

Boley has been enforcing fair housing law for many years.

However, the fair housing unit branched away from civil rights in 2022.

This allowed us to specialize a unit working only on fair housing enforcement.

Prior to this, fair housing investigations were being handled by our civil rights investigators.

Our fair housing team is made up of five investigators, one learning and development specialist, and one fair housing enforcement manager.

The Fair Housing Enforcement Unit promotes housing justice, equity, equal access, and inclusion by education, training, and outreach.

We investigate allegations of discrimination to determine if there is a violation of the law and enforce any violations found.

We also provide mediations to help all parties come to a resolution everyone can agree on.

Since we became our own unit in 2022, we have received 1,898 inquiries about fair housing discrimination statewide.

Of these questionnaires, 20 of them were from residents in Deschutes County.

In 2025, we received 643 fair housing questionnaires alleging housing discrimination statewide.

Three of them came from Deschutes County.

Now let us focus a little more in Deschutes County.

Out of the 21 cases since 2024, 42% of these cases were claims of discrimination on disability.

27% were race, 12% sex, 8% source of income, and 8% national origin, and 3% sexual orientation.

Specifically in 2025, we received claims of allegation of discrimination on the basis of source of income, disability, and sex, otherwise their gender.

Not all allegations we receive result in an open investigation.

Some cases are closed upon intake.

To be more specific, since 2022, 42% of our questionnaires in Deschutes County were dismissed.

The three cases received in 2025 did result in opening an investigation and are currently being under review.

As of 2022, Deschutes County has only had one settlement.

However, we do currently have five open investigations that not have not yet resulted in any outcome yet.

As I mentioned, we do promote and provide education on fair housing law.

Last year in 2025, we offered workshops and attended 22 events statewide.

Through our partnership with Neighbor Impact, LCA and other agencies, we were able to attend nine local events.

This year we have focused on attending resource fairs and are looking to offer more workshops.

Our calendar is open, so please reach out for any um discussion on caliber collaborations.

It is also important to note that while HUD has been impacted by the current administration, our business practice remained unchanged and we continue to enforce Oregon State Law Fair Housing under Statute ORS 659A.145, 659A.421, 659A.425, and OAR 839.

The impact HUD received has caused an increase in housing questionnaires coming to Boley.

As a brief statewide glance, in 2025, we received 237 questionnaires from January through April.

We have received 455 questionnaires this year so far.

So that has nearly doubled in the amount of inquiries and questionnaires that we have received.

We here at Boley Fair Housing ensure access to housing, protect everyone's civil rights, promote and educate not only Oregonians but housing providers and stakeholders alike.

We take pride in the work that we do, and we will continue to enforce fair housing law to ensure everyone has the right to choose and live in a home free from unlawful discrimination.

Thank you.

Good evening, Julia Fornichari Olson.

I'm the director of the Central Oregon Legal Aid Office.

Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, City Councillors for your work and recognition of the importance of fair housing in our community.

Legal aid provides free legal help to low-income Oregonians, and by that I mean 125% of the federal poverty level or below.

So just to give you a frame of reference around $1,600 a month as a maximum at 125%.

Our office serves Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties, and it's estimated about 40,000 individuals are eligible for legal aid help.

And I work with a dedicated staff of three attorneys and two bilingual intake specialists.

But because we can't help everyone, we prioritize our work based on what our client communities tell us is important.

So fair housing consistently comes up as very important to client communities.

And we believe that Oregonians have the right to access housing free of discrimination.

So what do we do?

We represent clients to enforce fair housing laws.

Last year in housing matters, we represented over 150 clients within the city of Bend.

I estimate about half of those clients had a fair housing component.

And we provide a range of legal services.

We um we have affirmative discrimination cases open.

We may send a demand letter to a landlord, large or small, um, you know, asking that they stop or demanding they stop an illegal practice, uh negotiating a settlement for the client, a change of policy, eviction defense, um, and providing advice to tenants so they understand their legal rights under the law.

In terms of outreach, uh we work closely with community partners to reach marginalized and underserved communities who might not ordinarily reach us or walk through our door.

And another component uh of our work is hosting no-year rights trainings in the community.

Um we get out in the community, we also have virtual trainings, um, and we provide a series for community advocates and representatives of various programs on fair housing rights and a range of housing information so that they are informed and tenants uh are armed with the information they need.

Um so they can also reach out to us for uh referral, but also so we're um listening to what our community partners are hearing from our clients so we understand what the issues are.

Um, so that's a component of our work is to get very close to our community partners and collaborate.

So, with that, I appreciate the proclamation and your time tonight.

Thank you so much for all the work that you do in the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, so next, um, not a proclamation but just a statement because um we want to recognize National Public Service Recognition Week.

That is coming up as May 3rd through May 9th.

Um, and since 1985, this full first full week of May has been set aside as public service recognition week to honor those who serve our nation as federal, state, county, and local government employees.

Public service workers make substantial contributions to the American economy, managing public lands, infrastructure, financial systems, research institutions, and regulatory frameworks that support economic growth and sustain the conditions for competitive and innovative marketplace.

Here at City of Bend, Public Service looks like the individuals who show up when our community needs the most.

Our first responders who work as firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and police officers.

Public service also looks like the people who ensure the water comes out of our tabs, it's safe to drink, and at the city of the Bend, that also means streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and individuals who show up rain, shine, or snow to maintain all that infrastructure.

We are here tonight, and this meeting is live streamed, cataloged on the website and available to the public because we have people who work in public service roles, like communications and the city recorders office and IT.

Um, and so I want to commend the dedication and professionalism of all those who work in public service and deliver those essential services to our community.

We thank you for your service.

All right, so that moves us into council action and reports.

Where there were a few letters that popped up before this meeting that I wanted to make sure we got on the agenda.

Um, one of them was putting in some comment on a on a proposed rule by HUD that would um reduce the availability of housing resources for people in our community, and I send a follow-up email.

There's a couple more that I just want to make sure it's okay with council that I work with staff on those, sounds like yes.

Um there we had a request from staff.

There is an act currently called the Streamlining Federal Grants Act that staff wants us to support.

So just want to make sure people were okay with that as well.

And then um, Council Franzoso brought up from CoACT and I had from COCO, the US 97 safety letter, and then I hope people got a chance to look at.

Sounds like there's maybe a few tweaks coming, but if we feel comfortable, I'll put my name on that as well.

Okay, great.

And then we had one appointment where we are moving an alternate member to a voting member on the environment and climate committee, and that is Rebecca Kay.

Move to appoint Rebecca Kay to the Environment and Climate Committee.

Second.

All right, moved by Council Crickens, seconded by Councillor Platt.

All those in favor?

Great.

All right, that brings us in the councillor reports.

Council Fonzola.

Thanks.

I attended the COAC meeting where the letter originated.

But we finalized our list of Central Oregon's priorities for ODOT's next capital investment plan.

So it's just one more step in a very long process.

But we'll we'll learn more.

And also some improvements to safety on Greenwood going through Benz.

So we'll see.

We'll see what gets selected.

I also I spent some time watching the last um few home committee meetings.

That is the housing options made for everyone.

Um thanks to the counselors and mayor who sit in on those very lengthy meetings, um, but lots of amazing information.

Um I connected with a few of those committee members on what was discussed.

Those the what comes out of that committee is really important to me, so I was happy and grateful for the time that those folks provided.

Um I attended the first of what will be monthly Borough Planning meetings with um Council Riley, Chair of Burr, and Vice Chair Breath, um, along with staff, um, separately met with Katie Brooks and members of the Benn Central District Business Association to discuss the urban renewal core area.

Um, and I attended the public contract subcommittee meeting and heard an update on the city's procurement policy, which we're gonna talk a little bit more about tonight, um and a few other things, but I'll leave it at that.

Great, thank you.

Counselor Mendez.

Uh Tuesday, April 7th, I attended the Central Oregon Civic Action Program's uh active um the uh Civic Action Summit, which explores something that we've heard before.

We had a uh a civic assembly on youth homelessness, uh, which was the first of its kind, and we're interested in seeing if there's uh other opportunities to engage the public this way.

This is a unique way of engaging with the public using random selection to ensure that there's a representative group of people so that even if you don't participate in this process, chances are that someone who is just like you or similarly situated does participate in it.

Um, and I think that gives it some additional validity that we don't often hear because we often hear from a lot of the same people, and it's not a representative sample.

So that was great.

That's it.

Okay.

Um I attended the COCAP uh event on civic assemblies as well.

It was really great event, and great to see your turn out there.

I'm looking forward to ways that we can use that tool more across the whole region and here in Bend as well.

Um I wanted to express my gratitude for two things that I two events I attended this past week.

One was to Thrive for Central Oregon for organizing the We Are Home Festival of Native Films last week in Madras.

Um there were some really great films, some very inspiring stories, and including one about native views on Sasquatch as a guardian of our relationship with the natural world, which was really fun and inspiring.

Um I also attended the COCC Meal of the Year event with a couple other counselors and elected officials last weekend, and it reminded me that I have attended a community college three different times in different phases of my life, and really emphasized the value of community colleges and the education that they provide in the community, in particular for the students of community colleges, why scholarships are so important.

And we heard several stories about both people who donated scholarships as well as recipients of scholarships up at COCC, including the student body president.

Um so I just wanted to say a big thanks to those who organized that event.

I hope they raised a lot of money, and a big thanks to all those who donated that night to their scholarship fund.

And then lastly, all of us were at the electrification round table last week, and thanks to all those who attended, some of whom are in the room tonight, um, as well as the staff who worked so hard to put that on.

Great.

Council Bergens.

Uh I'll stick to three.

Um I attended a workshop with many of the organizations and service providers that work with uh those experiencing homelessness and are in uh central Oregon as we continue to try and find a path forward together and build out the the homeless leadership coalition strategic plan and to find out how we can how we can all be involved and how we can all sort of focus on a um some some key elements and some and some key goals.

Um and so that was that was really that was really good.

Um of course there was a lot of um concern in the room about um how to how to move forward when um funding is is such a um such an unsure thing right now for for a lot of these organizations.

Uh last night I attended the human rights and equity commission uh meeting and we had a fantastic meeting.

We got an update on the supplier diversity program, which you'll hear about at the end of our meeting, which is something that I am just incredibly excited about.

And we continue to the process of having a conversation of the AIM tool, which is an equity tool.

AIM stands for Ask Identify and Measure.

So we got a great presentation on that from staff.

And then we had some folks come in from our water department to talk about how they plan on using that in their work.

And so it was great to see this tool that kind of seems like this this amorphous thing is actually gonna start being used and used in the city of Bent.

So that was really great.

And then one thing I wanted to highlight, and and I thought it would be perfect for uh the because of the people that are in this room tonight.

Um I am serving on the League of Oregon City Cities Energy and Environment Committee, and um the League of Art, these committees are basically policy committees, they're elected officials and and and staff from around uh from around Oregon, and the idea is that you do some learning, um, have some guest speakers and really you know communicate about issues that are happening in your community, then you come up with a group of policy objectives that you then go and advocate to the state legislature.

Um and so I just thought I'd just read you like two paragraphs so you could see that um some of the conversations that we're having here are very similar all around the state.

Uh committee members shared their perspectives on topics such as building decarbonization, energy affordability, need for better energy planning around volcanic and seismic risks, energy resilience, and the affordable housing nexus to energy policy.

The group discussed the need for balanced approaches that consider both environmental goals and energy affordability for residents, particularly in smaller cities.

The committee expressed interest in alignment and scenario-based discussions on controversial topics to address complex issues like nuclear energy, data centers, and natural gas.

The committee touched on the need for more information on nuclear energy, geothermal projects.

That was me.

Uh, increased transmission capacity, balancing concerns about roots and their uh environmental impacts and the effects of data centers on local communities.

Members emphasize the importance of maintaining affordable utility services while ensuring cities can cover costs while upgrading the grid.

The committee discussed energy resilience and affordable aid challenges, particularly focusing on the impact of black brownouts and the need for individuals and small cities to have backup power solutions.

So I thought I'd share.

And that's all.

Great, thank you.

Council Norris.

Yes, um, I attended the Parkside Place ribbon cutting ceremony, which is very exciting, um, uh offering 40% affordable housing.

It's a great example of public-private partnerships and how a state pilot program can really become successful.

Um so it was great to celebrate with everyone.

And then I attended the environment and climate committee.

Um, just want to give a shout out to Mark Buckley, who has been on the uh committee since its founding, and he was most recently the chair, and so we really appreciate his service to the committee.

Um another item there is that there's an induction stove loaner that is will be available May 11th.

And so if anyone wants to rent an induction stove, you can do that.

Um I'm sure you can get more information from the ECC.

And then Earth Day Fair and Parade will be on April 25th at the uh Alpenglow Park.

And then the only other thing is I also attended the public contracts uh meeting and look forward to talking more about supplier diversity.

Great, thank you.

Council Platt.

Um after the after the mayor and I did attended the most recent home committee, we went over to the Vision Pulse event where we had a lot of the same folks in there talking about increasing affordability options for homes and production in our community.

And so we really are focused on bringing that bringing that to fruition here and continuing the good momentum that we have this year in the past several years.

So that's great to be there.

The site um I had the opportunity to speak at the preserve our public lands event uh at uh OSU Cascades about a week ago.

And um man, they're fired up folks there that are concerned about the long-term sustainability of the assets that make our place here and nationally so incredibly wonderful and bring people to our community.

So we really want to focus on preserving that as well, along with a lot of the environmental concerns that we have.

I was able to go to the uh Hawthorne Crossing uh open house at the city held um last week as well, and there were a lot of engaged folks there who had some good conversations, also talking about what we're gonna do with Franklin going forward as well.

So just a lot of crosstalk with folks and getting a lot of really good information from them.

Um and then uh lastly, I had the opportunity to represent the elected official representing the Chutes Trails Coalition uh yesterday, where this is a group from coming around uh uh from all over the community that has uh trail users of all types equestrian hiking, biking, and talking about long-term uh production and protection of those assets, which is another just critical element for what makes Ben so wonderful.

So thanks.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, a couple things from me.

Um, I attended the um governor's life science task force that she has pulled together that had an initial meeting a couple of weeks ago in Portland.

Um, really excited that myself and a few other people from Bend, including someone from Saran are on this task force that's looking at how do we make Oregon more competitive in this area, and as Bend is one of the leaders in growing this sector, um, glad that we're gonna be part of that conversation.

Um, have been going around um inviting some of our young folks to our upcoming youth summit, um, which is gonna be on Monday, May 4th, and um going into high schools and to the student voice council and just asking folks to sign up.

So we're getting some RSVPs, and hopefully, we'll have that well attended, and just wanting to hear from our young folks what are their issues that they're they care about and give them a chance to talk to us directly at that summit.

And um, I just returned today from uh Boston where I was out at a program that's sponsored by Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative that was a really great program that our staff have been participating in, and we're gonna see some of the work that they've done on the wildfire preparedness um project that they're working on.

But a really great opportunity to take those three resources that were given to us and help to advance that project forward.

And this was sort of the capstone end of my involvement for the year, but we'll continue to see that work um as that comes to us at council.

So that's it for me.

Um, no, there was one more thing.

Let me sorry, let me bring up my statement.

Um, so there was a recent um incident that I wanted to comment on that um that folks brought to the city's attention.

And pardon me for getting my um written points up here.

We got too many emails today.

Okay, well, I'm just gonna go off memory.

So can you afford to find it?

You will.

Yeah, you sent it to us recently.

I just did send it like two hours ago, and I now I can't find it.

Um, Mike.

So um I want to give an update on an issue that was brought to the city's attention last week.

Several concerned community members reported to city staff that an account that appeared to belong to a member of a committee had made threatening and discriminating discriminatory comments on social media in response to a post by a local member of our LGBTQ community.

These comments reflected poorly on this member's ability to serve on our committee and undermined safety for other committee members and staff.

After gathering information, I reached out to that committee member to ask him to resign.

He did agree to resign and will no longer serve on the committee.

He did not deny making those comments.

Um, I want to emphasize that our committee members are volunteers, they're not employees.

Um, I appoint those committee members to our committees and council approves them as you saw here tonight.

Um, committee members do have a right to express their personal opinions, but crossing the line into threatening comments is not acceptable.

We will continue to uphold safety and dignity for our LGBT LGBTQ plus community and for our staff and for our other volunteer committee members going forward.

Just want to make sure I gave a statement on that since some community members had written in with those concerns.

Okay.

Thank you, Mike.

So that's gonna move us into our visitors section.

Um again, I'm gonna be pretty strict on the time tonight.

We're gonna keep everyone to two minutes.

Um Trisha's gonna get our um big clock up here, and I don't know if we can even slide it over even more in front of Steve at all, but just to make sure folks can see it.

Please keep your eye on this clock.

You will see that it um further.

Is that as far as it goes?

Well, that's as far as it goes.

Um, it will turn yellow when you have about 30 seconds left, and that is a good time to start wrapping up your comment.

Um, we have a couple of folks online, so what I'm gonna do is I have a couple of folks in person I want to take, and then we're gonna move to online, and then we'll move back to the folks who are in the room.

Um, so Jason Bowerman, I'm gonna have you start us off, and after Jason is gonna be Nancy Hawks.

Honorable counsel, Mayor Keeler.

Thank you for the service to the community that you provide.

Thank you for your bold leadership in this time of unprecedented chaos and uncertainty.

We really appreciate all of your dedication to public safety and especially the biking and walking infrastructure improvements that have been made around Bend recently.

In Old Bend, the traffic turn restrictions have already made a huge difference on cut-through traffic on Sizemore, and for that we are extremely grateful.

As some of you may know, I live on Riverfront Street, which is the most transited street for bicycles and pedestrians in Bend between Miller's Landing Park and Drake Park.

And despite being the key route, despite being the Deschutes River Trail, it remains unimproved for the last decade.

So my ask tonight is pretty simple.

Do us all a favor and try to cut down on the cut through traffic every day.

We see out-of-town visitors that are trying to save a minute of their vacation time, screaming down Riverfront Street all the way to the dead end, and despite the plethora of signs that the neighbors have erected there, despite all the paint, despite everything, they find themselves frustrated at the turnaround next to the park at the bollards, and after executing a seven or thirteen point turn, screaming back up the alleyway towards the people that are on the trail towards my children towards my house.

So it would be really simple if you guys added the same type of treatment that you have a size more that you have a 15th Street with those temporary or quick build structures to restrict turn-ins off of Galveston Avenue.

And that would accomplish 80% of the design intent of the one-way option that Brad Tower and Henry Stroud developed for the city last year.

It would be really quick.

It'd be simple.

You don't necessarily need to address all the other deficiencies at this time, but just eliminating the cut through traffic would vastly increase the experience for those rolling, walking, and riding on riverfront.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jason.

All right, Nancy Hawks, come on up.

And after Nancy, we're going to go to our online speakers.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

My name's Nancy Hawks, and my husband John and I have lived at 2731 Northwest Shields Drive and Discovery Park development of Northwest Crossing.

We moved in 11 years ago.

And back then, the large there was a large bend broadband box, now TDS fiber optics distribution box 25 feet from our bedroom.

It made no noise.

Since then, TDS replaced the small fan with a large one, very loud fan, then added a second large one, both run 24 hours a day.

More recently, TDS designed a city approved wood enclosure now surrounds the box, making it much more of an eyesore, which has upset our neighbors, and it also blocks traffic.

We have a petition signed by almost 80 of our neighbors asking for the box and its enclosure to be moved.

I have all of those right here.

If you're interested in reading the comments and the letters, the city manager and the mayor have copies.

The box is universally considered a noise nuisance, um, a unif a visual nuisance and has serious negative effects on everybody's property values.

We invite and encourage all of you to come by our home and see firsthand what I'm talking about, and then come to my front door and tell me that you believe the box is fine and that you would be okay with it being in front of your house.

Um I challenge you to go and all over Bend, anywhere in Bend and find a TDS box this close to a home anywhere.

Um what we're asking for is the city and TDS to sit down with us for a discussion about how to resolve this problem.

We're willing to contribute our portion of the cost.

Thank you, Nancy.

That's two minutes, yeah.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

All right, we're gonna pull up our folks online.

Okay, and let's start with Morgan Greenwood.

Is she unmuted, Trish?

Go ahead, Morgan.

Can you hear me, Mayor?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, for the record, Morgan Greenwood, government affairs director, Cascades East Association of Railroad.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony this evening.

As reported in the Oregonian and elsewhere, Pacific Power has implemented successive rate increases to fund infrastructure, wildfire mitigation, and system investments.

This places pressure on household utility costs.

Regional data reinforces this concern.

Central Electric Cooperative reports that the 7500 new homes and all future growth projected in Southeast Bend will be supplied by their tier two power sources, which are both dirtier and more extensive than their tier one hydroelectricity.

Regional systems are already strained.

Uh, as we have heard Pacific Powers current fuel mix and CEC's projected future fuel mix ensures that all uh all all electric homes will consume less fossil fuels than homes using natural gas.

Additionally, wildfire-related public service uh public safety power cutoffs introduce further reliability challenges that must be accounted for.

The proposed policy is estimated to increase building costs in aggregate by as much as 1,000 per home.

This amount includes high efficiency electric appliances and heating and cooling systems, higher water vaults to serve all electric developments, and increase her lot costs to provide natural gas service for homes with gas fireplaces.

This directly raises the purchase price of new homes and combined with rising electric rates, increases ongoing utility costs for homeowners.

In effect, the policy increases the cost to build, the price to buy, and the cost to operate a home.

Given these considerations, we encourage council to adopt a pilot program to evaluate the rural cost and performance of all electric homes in Benn.

We respectfully request that any policy adopted thereafter include a three-year sunset, at which point the necessary analysis is conducted to ensure that it is achieving the goals outlined in the community climate action plan.

Thank you, Morgan.

Thanks, Morgan.

This is the end of your time.

So we'll go to um let's go to Brian O'Guri next.

And then after that will be Jeff McGillabray.

Thank you, Mayor, and City Council.

Rising permit fees in Bend, where most uh the people in Bend do not work live.

Uh Bend is not the end, Bend is an expensive with high taxes and high cost of living.

Now adding additional taxes to live in Bend because of natural gas.

If the grid could supply electricity without using natural gas, natural gas cogens or coil making electricity, this would be a mute point.

If electrical heat pumps could hold the heating load below 40 degrees Fahrenheit in our house, this again would be a mute point.

You need to remember that heat pumps can only work efficiently above 40 degrees Fahrenheit by design.

New course making new home buildings using natural gas furnaces and heat pumps instead of air conditioning units only.

This I could see is a good bend construction regulation for new home builds.

Maybe when a furnace goes out in an older home, the city could require them to add a heat pump with that natural gas furnace.

When we have mild winters and hot summers, the heat pump would do what it is designed to do.

When it is below 40 degrees, natural gas will hold the load.

Not using natural gas would cause you to use strip heat.

Strip heat is very inefficient for the way of heating in the past.

I've seen it cost three times what it costs using gas.

When the power goes out, you can use small generators to uh small suitcase generators to run the furnace with using natural gas.

It is very hard to do that with a strip heat furnace.

Remember, our loved ones need to be safe, warm, and home.

You need to understand house cannot survive efficiently using electric heat only in high, colder elevation areas.

It will not function correctly.

This would put your family in harm's way.

In conclusion, this electrical grid is not ready for the load.

Thank you, Brian.

All right, next is Jeff McGillivray, and then after that, Jess Benson.

Hi, can you all hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Hi, uh, mayor of counselor and city manager.

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening.

My name is Jeff McGillbury.

I represent UA Local G90 plumbers and steam fitters and the workers of the Oregon State Building Trades.

I'm Dave Burger's counterpart over here in Eugene.

Uh Dave is on vacation in Mexico, so uh you guys can meet tonight.

Um I'm here again as I spoke here before to speak against natural gas fee.

I planned on uh break being in person and handing you the 1300 letters I have sitting in front of me from Bend area community members that oppose a natural gas fee.

But with the winter storm warning and an early morning meeting in Eugene tomorrow, I'm here on Zoom instead.

But don't worry, I'm just now hitting send on those 1300 letters going to all the dolls.

So you get to enjoy those.

Uh you know, I know you know where we stand on the natural gas fee, but I wanted to ask you to keep keep in mind not only these 1300 community members that took the time to write letters, but all the community members in mind when you decide how, when, and where to implement this policy in a community that is in an affordable housing crisis, and in a community where electrification comes from a carbon dirty portfolio in a community where there is already a power shortage, in a community where there is a large portion of workers in Bennett who can already no longer afford to live in Benn.

Please keep the community in mind before making Bend even more unaffordable.

Want to thank you and everybody in the council and staff for all the hard work you do for the people of Central Oregon, and want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Thank you, Jeff.

Next, Jess Benson.

Jess, you can go ahead when you're ready.

If you're speaking, Jess, we cannot hear you.

Oops, there we go.

Okay, great.

There we go.

Hello, maybe council and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Jess Brady Benson, and I am organizing director at Grow Climate.

We organize with climate for climate justice alongside Southern Oregon and South Coast communities most impacted by climate change.

In spring 2025, the Ashton City Council unanimously passed the carbon impact pollution fee following years of organizing amongst community members, youth leaders, and staff in collaboration with the city of Ashland.

This became the first of its crime policy in Oregon, paving the way for other cities to take this critical step towards improving energy affordability, indoor air quality, and climate resilience for their residents.

Everyone deserves clean air and a livable future.

That's why high schoolers on our action team in Ashland demanded this from their council, and we stand alongside residents who are advocating for the climate impact fee in Bend.

This is not a tax on residents, rather an incentivizing force to encourage developers to build more efficiently.

If you don't build with gas, you don't pay anything.

Since the policy was implemented this January, it has been effectively incentivizing more efficient housing development in Ashland.

And we urge Bend City Council to follow suit.

This policy has the potential to bring multiple benefits to Benn residents.

First, improving health, as indoor air pollution from gas appliances that heat and cool our homes has been proven to cause major health problems like childhood asthma, cancers, and respiratory diseases while producing harmful emissions that worsen the climate crisis.

The heat pump will produce reduce emissions by 84% compared with an average gas furnace, while a heat pump hot water heater will reduce emissions by 82% compared to a gas water heater.

We'll also increase resilience as Douglas heat pumps and other efficient equipment provide both heating and cooling in the midst of more and more extreme weather.

It will also save money for Benn residents.

It has been proven that building all electric from the start is significantly more affordable, and the technology already exists.

Affordable housing developers are already making this choice.

Thank you, Jess.

That's the end of your time.

Appreciate it.

Alright, that's the end of our online callers.

So what we're gonna do in person now is I'm gonna call two people up to sit at the table, and then I'm gonna call another two to sit right behind at those prep chairs and be ready to go.

Okay, so Tristy Osbund and Sophia B are gonna start us off.

So come on up to the table.

Everyone's doing a great job with your signs.

It's okay to have signs.

We just want to make sure we're keeping them at a level that they're not blocking anyone from seeing.

And then behind, we I want Mary Pance and Emily Dugan to come on up and be on deck to go next.

Okay.

All right.

Make sure you say who you are so that we know who you are and then go ahead and get your comments.

Sounds great.

Um, City Council and staff, my name is Tristy Osbon.

Uh I work in environmental sciences and also a climate advocate here in Bend, and I'm here tonight to urge you to pass the climate impact fee.

There's been a narrative that that if this fee is passed, jobs will be lost.

However, this is not the case if this fee is to be implemented.

For one, if we were to switch to 100% renewable energy tomorrow with absolutely no plan, of course, some people would lose their jobs.

However, this is not what we're doing with this fee.

In fact, it'd be a slow integration of new buildings without gas, meaning that there would still be an operation of a mixed fuel grid system.

Therefore, the existing and aging infrastructure is going to be in need of service, maintenance, and upgrades, which creates a predictable and ongoing need for skilled professionals to be able to install, maintain, and repair these systems.

Furthermore, plumbers, pipe pitters, and steam fitters are indispensable for new construction projects, from linking the initial piping to installing final fixtures.

As we are also becoming more focused on energy efficiency and water conservation, this creates new opportunities for tradespeople to specialize in low-flux fixtures, high efficiency water heaters, and advanced plumbing systems that meet the modern building standards.

On top of this, Bend is consistently ranked as one of the fastest growing cities.

We all know that.

Not to mention that plumbers, pipe fitters, and steampers have a projected job growth of about 4% by 2032, which is around 44,000 job openings per year, and that is on track with the average growth across all sectors according to the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I want to leave you with a quote from Michaela Locke, a great climate advocate.

And it says, I believe deep in my soul that there will never be or never come a point at which acting to transform the world for the better isn't worthwhile.

I don't want anyone to ever believe they can't do something now because they didn't do something before.

It is never too late to take actions that will make our world a better place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Sophia.

Mayor, Council, staff, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I'm Sophia.

I'm a resident of Bend, and I earned my bachelor's in environmental science with a focus in energy and climate.

Um I want to start with practical matters.

I really think it makes sense to get this going fast and align with the building codes schedule.

I also want to advocate for no exemptions and the doubles in the details with that one.

I think I just will refer to all the reasons that have been stated in previous meetings.

The details are kind of excessive, but um important.

Ultimately, what I want to share is how disappointed I am with the cowardice exhibited on this council with regard to this issue.

Um, the whole point is public health and safety.

Um, and you're being apologetic about it, hiding in action behind a weak fee level, pushing the timeline out, making decisions out of fear of losing your seat rather than acting towards a livable, healthy future.

Um it's the definition of putting profit over people, and I think those priorities are wrong.

I think you're setting a dangerous precedent, and my fear is that it's potentially setting this up for failure long term by taking an ineffective approach.

Um yeah, the idea seems to be that you know we're using the first few years of it as an observation period to work out the kinks, of course.

And um, I think let's just not waste more time talking about things and just try it.

So um, and and not waste time putting more dangerous appliances in homes without at least internalizing those externalities.

Thank you, Sophia.

All right, Mary and Emily, come on up.

And then on deck, um, Peggy Kirkendall and Brian Adams come on up.

If you're already in the front row, say where you're at.

All right, Mary, you want to start us off?

Hello.

Uh my name is Mary, and I wanted to thank you all for one pursuing the climate impact fee because I know it's a juicy topic.

I know you guys are getting a lot of letters.

A lot of those letters may not even be from real people.

We don't know.

But what I really wanted to emphasize is that there's this argument I keep hearing that's like, this is gonna make housing unaffordable.

And it's like, do y'all know how much a house is?

A house is tops like a million dollars in Bend.

What we can afford is like maybe 400,000, which is still unaffordable, and none of us are gonna buy a house, but a fee of a thousand dollars, two thousand dollars is not going to stop someone from buying a home.

If anything, it's going to make the people who come to Bend and decide to buy a $2 million home accountable, and if they pay that fee, that fee goes into a fund that makes it so folks like us can upgrade our homes in a system that is more equitable.

Because I'm from Bend and I cannot stand how freaking expensive it is to live here.

And my poor sweet parents sold their home on the west side five years ago.

And I was like, why'd we do that?

But it's fine.

And the main point I'm trying to push is that this fee is not going to make housing unaffordable.

It's already unaffordable.

What's going to make it more unaffordable is when Cascade Natural Gas raises their prices by 17.4% next year, which I don't know if that's public knowledge, but that's a really high percentage on an already really high utility bill.

So thank you so much.

Housing's already unaffordable.

This will not change that.

Thank you, Mary.

All right, Emily.

Hi, Mayor, Counselors, thank you so much for having us tonight.

Uh, my name is Emily Dugan, and I'm an analyst with the Oregon Citizens Utility Board, also known as Cub, which represents the interests of residential utility customers with a focus on the for-profit utilities regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission, or POC.

I'm also a Bend resident.

I'm here to express Cub's strong support for the proposed climate impact fee.

Tonight and over the past few months, you've heard many comments in favor of this fee explaining why it is an important step for an emission from an emissions and climate change perspective.

I'm here to tell you why it is an important step for residential customer affordability overall.

For years, Cub has expressed concern over continuing to grow the natural gas system and that this will harm the current and future customers of the natural gas utilities, including Cascade Natural Gas.

Adding gas service to new buildings increases the cost of service to existing customers and adds additional risk to them in the future.

Those who are unable to switch away from gas service, especially low-income households and renters, could be hit particularly hard.

They could be left with all the costs of supporting the natural gas system as those costs are spread over fewer and fewer households.

This fee is an important decision-making lever to incentivize developers to install electric appliances and protect households from the future costs of using gas in homes, many of whom are already experiencing unprecedented raises in their utility bills, as Mary said.

Yeah.

We strongly support the funds we collect the funds collected from this fee go towards helping families decarbonize with the priority placed on low-income residents, especially those in households that are relying on inefficient forms of heat like resistance uh electric resistance heating.

We thank you for this opportunity to comment, and we encourage you to review our full comments and analysis in the email that I sent you earlier today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Emily.

All right, Peggy, come on up with Brian Adams, and then on deck is Mike Reed and Brennan Breen.

Hello.

Hi, go ahead.

Well, I'm gonna represent the homeowner that's been looking for a house to buy in Bend for four and a half years.

We have looked at houses you would not believe.

All of them come equipped with gas.

And I am angry.

We have lived in Kansas, in Texas, in Oregon, and of those three states, only Oregon promotes natural gas.

I grew up with electricity, it's safe, it's clean, it doesn't cost an arm and a lay.

And besides, it cuts down on asthma among young children.

I don't think people actually understand what chemicals are in natural gas.

Formaldehyde.

Just let that sink in.

Arsenic.

Those are killer gases.

And everybody's worried about money.

What does it cost to treat a child that has asthma?

What is it cost, you know, when you have lung cancer?

Those are the real costs.

Those are the health costs.

And then you add you add to that methane.

And my gosh, methane is a number is a car is not only a carcinogen, but it's it's a hydrocarbon that's going to be killing us.

One of the reasons that we moved to Bend was because of the clean air.

Our clean air is not going to stay clean very long.

We we lived in Houston, where we had you know the refineries, and I can tell you that under Ann Richards, when she cleaned up those refineries, the last the the it was amazing.

When Bush came in to follow her, it was filthy.

And those wonderful white marble buildings in downtown were gray.

Thank you, Peggy.

Appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillor.

Uh, my name is Brian Adams.

I'm a Benn resident, president of CoENergy that's headquartered in Redmond, Oregon.

It's a company that's owned by more than 68,000 Oregonians through our local electric cooperatives.

I also serve on the Oregon Department of Energy Energy Advisory Work Group and the advisory body for the state's 2025 energy strategy.

I'm here because I support clean energy, but I also believe we have to be honest about the real world limits of our energy system.

Right now, Ben's push for electrification combined with restrictions on natural gas is moving faster than our grid can support.

That creates real risk for reliability, housing, and affordability.

Last week you heard from Central Electric and Pacific Power during the electrification round table, and the takeaway was clear.

The system is already constrained.

Central Electric is increasingly reliant on tier two power, raising wholesale costs from 40 dollars to 70 dollars per megawatt hour, and that power is often coming from out of state uh through gas and coal plants.

At the same time, they already are turning away new housing and industrial loads and prime bill due to infrastructure limits.

This should be a warning sign for us in Bend.

Pacific Power faces similar challenges while Oregon House Bill 2021 requires aggressive emission reductions.

There's significant uncertainty that they can meet those timelines.

The company has already indicated that they may rely on rate caps that limit compliance.

And earlier this month, Pacific Corp, their parent company announced they were pulling back all planned renewable projects outside of Oregon.

Finally, the city's own data shows fewer than 10% of new homes are installing high-efficiency systems, and in order to today's grid mix electrification result in higher admissions than natural gas.

This policy risk increasing both costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

Moving forward with the 2027 implementation will likely raise utility costs for all residents while putting additional strain on the already constrained system.

I urge the council to pause either delay implementation to 2030 or start with the pilot program.

Thank you, Brian.

All right, Brennan Green and Mike Reed, come on up.

And behind them, Bobby Kmitsky and Garrett Mostert.

Good evening, Mary Keebler and City Council members.

Thank you for your service.

My name is Mike Reid.

I'm a Benn resident, and I care about our city's future.

I'm also a grandfather, and I'm worried about the environment my grandchildren will face when unless greenhouse gases are greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

Bend has a proud tradition of being an eco-friendly city.

Prior city councils have cultivated a strong culture rooted in sustainable practices that support our outdoor recreation and our environment.

I, along with many others, recognize that the current carbon fee is not perfect.

However, I applaud the city council for crafting a policy, which one considered can continues our city's concern for protecting our environment.

It also recognizes the contribution that natural gas plays in global warming and climate change, damaging our environment and infrastructure.

Bedging will incur costs because of climate change.

The city is justified to levy a carbon fee to encourage better energy options.

This carbon fee also aligns with our city's climate action plan, and it also correlates with our state of Oregon climate goals.

It takes into account the concerns of some by taking a very conservative, very go slow approach, which I don't particularly agree with.

But this allows businesses and communities to adapt to measure the effect and best of the carbon fee.

I thank you for taking action.

The proposal is a step in the right direction.

Let's get it passed.

Thank you, Mike.

All right, Brennan.

Council and staff, my name's Brannan.

I'm an air source heat pump.

I am two to four times more efficient than a gas furnace, despite some misinformation.

I also work in sub zero temperatures.

Uh and I decrease emissions even on PAX grid, especially when you consider if I were installed today, my service life would extend until 2042.

I am the only credible way to decarbonize buildings.

I'm taking my heat pump hat off.

Okay, I am also a community advocate.

I hope you can appreciate you've put me in a bit of a bind for the past few years because it's very hard to explain to volunteers why a city council with seven Democrats seems incapable of meaningfully pushing back against for-profit building lobbyists and for-profit oil and gas industry lobbyists.

Last February, you chose to take the right-away ban and a knox ordinance off the table.

Those were your strongest tools in the toolkit to combat climate change.

This February, you cut the climate impact fee by 80%.

I would say that was a needless and arbitrary exercise of shooting ourselves in the foot.

This month, one of you declined to meet with me, even though I'm a low-income bioracial chemical engineer that has worked on more gas facilities than Cascades lobbyists.

And last week I heard one of you ask, why don't more young people show up to Democratic Party meetings?

Your track record shows that you are not listening to us and that you don't care.

So if you want us to show up for you, please show up for us.

Climate action now, not 2028, no exemptions and no exceptions.

Please make the right decision next week.

I'll just remind you your work session is on Earth Day.

Also, I have 30 seconds left, and I'm taking Spanish class, so I'm gonna practice quickly.

Do your part as elected officials.

We have to divest from fossil fuels, and there is no straight of hormoofs between the sun and a solar panel.

Which would ask and it's no choice.

Thank you, Brennan.

Everyone should be able to speak though he's here.

No matter if we all agree or not.

Okay, Garrett, and then is Bobby Kaminsky still here.

Oh, Bobby, come on up.

You're at the table.

And then behind um Garrett and Bobby is Alan Spencer and Sarah O'Dall will be next.

Go ahead, Garrett.

Good evening, Mayor Keebler, members of council.

My name is Garrett Mosher here today on behalf of the Central Oregon Builders Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on proposed electricity electrification policy.

COBA remains committed to partnering with the city to create an electrification pilot program with Ben's current affordable housing crisis and concerns relying regarding the reliability of our grid.

We feel this is a necessary step to understand the impact this will have on housing affordability, grid reliability, and utility rates for Benn residents.

As councilor Mendez mentioned a few meetings back, transportation remains the biggest contributor to Ben's carbon footprint, largely because 53% of Ben's workforce commute to work from surrounding areas due to our lack of affordable housing options.

Policies that increase the cost of housing risk pricing more of our workforce advent, increasing the largest source of emissions and undermining the intended goal of this policy.

A time-constrained pilot program would provide real local data on the direct and indirect development costs associated with electrification and help council avoid these unintended consequences.

Given that the grid is currently too carbon-intensive for electrification to result in meaningful emissions reduction, there is time for this pilot to take place, study the findings and make more informed decisions.

This position is shared by other industry advocates in the city's business and economic development advisory board.

I would also like to reiterate our recommendation to exempt affordable housing up to 120% of area median income from the proposed fee.

Developers are already navigating costly local regulations and preparing for the implementation of R 327 home hardening standards.

Exempting housing up to 120% AMI would reduce the impact electrification would have on much needed workforce housing enrollment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Garrett.

Bobby, go ahead.

Good evening, counselors and mayor.

It's a real privilege to be here tonight to speak in favor of the climate impact fee.

I have heard a lot of people argue that electricity production in this area does emit greenhouse gas, and that is true.

But there is no path for decarbonization of the residential sector if we continue to invest in natural gas infrastructure in our houses.

The second point that I'd like to make is that the climate impact fee is in alignment with climate justice.

Uh in the way that the fee can be used to invest in decarbonization of houses for folks with lower incomes.

Often these sort of policies leave folks with lower incomes out of the equation and only allow for more affluent families to be able to afford the electric appliances that can help clean the air inside their homes.

You've already heard about the health risks of natural gas inside the home when childhood asthma.

And these are issues that, as proposed, the climate impact fee can assist with in our community.

The third thing that I'd like to bring up is Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry.

My brain just went blank.

The third thing I'd like to bring up is that when developing policy, this is the stage where everyone's asking for a delay in implementation.

And in my experience in my work, is that a delay in implementation doesn't actually solve any of those problems.

Those problems are going to be there when you roll out this policy, and it would actually be better to roll out the policy sooner to handle those problems because they're going to occur either way.

And I'd also like to make the point that there is a potential opportunity when drafting this policy that you could have a fee increase scheduled that would allow for the industry to adapt as they as they continue on so they will know when the next fee increase will happen.

Thank you, Bobby.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, Sarah Odendahl and Alan Spector come on up.

And after them is going to be Derek Reimers and Joe Craig.

If you can get ready in the front.

Sure.

Um, Mayor Keebler, members of the Benn City Council.

I'm Alan Spector with Cascade Natural Gas.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to the proposed electrification fee.

While we pose the fee, we appreciate the ongoing dialogue with the city.

As discussed in previous work sessions, electrification is not synonymous with decarbonization.

Until Pacific Powers renewable energy targets are achieved, the city's own analysis shows a risk of carbon increases under a fee, especially if builders are driven to install lower efficiency electric equipment.

The need to build all electric homes is questionable given that only 3.4% of statewide greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to gas distributed by Cascade, inclusive of emissions from both combusted and fugitive methane.

Of that 3.4%, only 1.4% of statewide emissions come from the non-generation customers we serve, like homes and small businesses.

As a revenue decoupled utility, our profits are not driven by maximizing natural gas usage.

And we're empowered instead to maximize energy efficiency, which reduces emissions further.

We're actively piloting our dual fuel heat pump system program in Bend through March of next year.

And we understand how so we can understand how natural gas furnaces and heat pumps can work together to support resource adequacy, energy affordability, and emissions reductions.

We believe such systems should be exempt from the fee.

Dual fuel systems become even more important if the proposed building codes that would mandate electric heat pumps for cooling take effect, since an overall increase in statewide electric demand is going to make the role of natural gas even more critical for resource adequacy.

And as noted in our roundtable presentation, there's multiple renewable natural gas projects injecting into our system today, as well as to more in development.

And those volumes in Washington and Oregon are equivalent to the average usage of about 18,491 homes served by Cascade in Oregon.

So Cascade connecting approximately 500 new homes in Bend annually, we believe an exemption for RNG makes sense for our community.

Thank you as always for your consideration.

Thank you, Alan.

All right, Sarah.

Good evening, Mayor Counselors for the record.

My name's Sarah Odendahl, CEO of the Bend Chamber of Commerce, a resident of Bend.

I just want to say thank you for the round table last week.

I thought that was a really uh good use of everyone's time and a very thoughtful um opportunity.

Um appreciate the city's commitment to continued collaboration.

Um we at the chamber, we share the city's climate goals.

We want to ensure this policy, when implemented, is in a way that's data-driven, sequenced appropriately, grounded in local realities that we have here in Bend.

Um I want to hit on three points.

First, as you've heard me my soapbox before housing affordability, right?

This is our North Star.

This is what our workforce needs.

This is what our community needs.

Um, Garrett mentioned the workforce commuting, um, the impact um from transportation on our on our community.

Um this policy that we're considering, I think also is layered with other policies as you've heard about tonight.

Wildfire hardening, tree code.

All those costs add up.

They tick, they tick, they tick.

I heard somebody say a thousand dollars added to a home isn't gonna make a difference.

That's gonna make a difference.

That is absolutely gonna make a difference for people that want to buy homes.

Um, secondly, we strongly support a pilot program.

We've talked about the pilot program.

We put some real teeth on the bone on the pilot program, I think, um, as you heard from um the building community last week.

Um, the proposed 2028 timeline creates an opportunity to truly partner with the development community to generate real local data on construction costs, homeowner impacts, and emissions outcomes.

So, this is an example of how we can lead with policy that's grounded in real world results, not just in assumptions.

Um, third, we'd like to support the consideration of exemptions and flexibility, specifically the 80 to 120, the workforce housing, that's our sweet spot of housing that we support.

Um, we also support exemptions, as Alan mentioned for innovative new technologies.

So we are committed partners in this work.

We look forward to continuing to collaborate and keeping housing uh affordability as our North Star.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right, Derek and Joe, come on up.

And after that, um, Michaela and Dan, please come get ready.

Go ahead.

Michaela May and Dan Carlos.

Yeah, we're okay.

Ah, Mayor Keybert, Council staff, thank you for the opportunity to make comments.

My name's Joe Craig.

I'm a resident of Benn.

I live in a net zero home with solar panels.

I do not use more power on the grid than get the gas homes.

The gas homes in my neighborhood use much more power than mine.

Okay.

So I'm here to support a strong climate impact fee.

Global warming's real.

Fossil fuels are dangerous.

Methane is not good for us.

Natural gas is mostly methane, which is responsible for 30% of all global warming.

Bend can either be a progressive city and implement this or lag behind and give into the propaganda from the gas company.

They do not have credible, cost-effective plan to decarbonize.

They're over-reliant on renewable natural gas, which can only service 5% of their entire customer base.

They have zero operational renewable natural gas projects in the state of Oregon.

Right now, Oregon ranks 47th in the last 10 years with renewable energy.

The state's not helping us.

The EPA is being weakened.

It's up to cities to be progressive and move forward.

We need more solar panels on homes.

When builders talk to people about that, realtors come to my house, it was built in 2016.

They say, see the solar panels.

They say, you know, if you want to sell your house now, there's a large market for houses like that.

Yet there are homes being built in this city without solar panels.

Burlington, Vermont has less sunshine than we do, but they have more solar panels.

We need to be progressive.

I appreciate what you're trying to do.

Please implement the policy and start it in April 27.

Thank you, Joe.

Derek?

I currently work as an electrical building design engineer.

I'm here volunteering on behalf of Energize Bend, asking that you implement a climate action fee starting of April 2027 without any exemptions.

Since this is now my third time commenting on this manner and my previous comments were primarily catered towards my electrical background, I'm going to step out of my comfort zone and share more about myself.

I had the opportunity to start my career here, and it has taught me more about myself and my values more than I ever would have imagined.

These values lead me to speak here in front of you today and advocate for the longevity of our earth and human race.

To contribute to these goals, I have a couple of plans that I would like to share with you.

First, my dream job is to work for an electric utility, such as Pacific Power is a power distribution engineer or as a renewable power generation engineer.

These jobs appeal to me because our grid is only getting older, and there will be a point in the future that renewable energy sources will have to dominate fossil fuels.

Leading me to my second point of I would like to have my own children someday.

However, I cannot in good conscience bring another life into this world knowing I cannot bring another life into this world until I believe that the federal and local governments will take action preserving climate and health based on science.

I personally have already had two sinus surgeries in hopes of improving my quality of breathing, whether this issue is genetic or the cause due to the fact that my hometown is near 16 open surface coal mines, I am not sure.

But buying a home in an area where fire season is regular and expected does not make me want to raise a family here.

And chance my future offspring having to deal with the same problem.

Breathing problems I do.

An example of our federal agencies failing scientific evidence has already happened earlier this year.

The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA decided they no longer have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

So what does this mean for we, the people?

We have to rely on our local governments to act in other ways.

Mayor Keyword, Council and Staff.

Please seek an implementation date of April 2027 of the climate impact fee and do not exempt anyone from this policy.

Period.

20% of the social cost of carbon is already too low, and it will not incentivize people to want to build all electric, in my opinion.

Thank you, Darren.

All right, Dan and Michaela, come on up.

And then we'll have Satya Austin Opper and John Pitt.

Who's first?

Whoever wants to go first.

Ready?

Um Mayor Keebler, City Council and Staff, thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you.

Um my name is Michaela May, I'm 17, and I'm a junior at Caldera High School, although you probably know who I am by now since I've been here for advocating for a strong climate impact fee for over a year.

Um as you've been considering this fee, I'm sure you've seen hundreds of data points and plenty of facts and um to back up arguments for why you should or shouldn't support this policy.

I could give you some more data or facts, um, but that's not the reason why I'm here.

Um tonight I'm here to give you the message for why I'm here and why plenty of other people in this audience are.

Uh please treat the climate crisis like the crisis it is.

Um, it's not something that we can afford to wait to act on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michaela.

Dan.

Hello, Mayor and City Council members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Dan Cartmel, and I live in Bend.

I'm here today to comment about the proposed climate impact fee that relates to the gas appliances installed in new construction housing.

Specifically, I'd like to address some of the concerns that have been raised about the proposed fee.

To be clear, I am in favor of the city moving ahead with this new fee without exceptions, waivers, or delay.

I'm a mechanical engineer with over 40 years of professional experience.

I believe that I have a clear scientific understanding of the connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the result of global warming and climate change effects.

Presently I'm on the leadership council of Electrify Oregon, a statewide nonprofit that advocates for household electrification.

We believe that the greatest opportunity for ordinary people to have a significant positive impact on climate change is to eliminate fossil fuel use in their daily lives through the electrification of their homes and vehicles.

One concern is that that's been raised is that the city of Bend carbon reduction targets may not be achieved through household electrification because local electric utilities have not yet achieved their carbon reduction targets.

First, customers of Central or Central Electric Co-op already get 80 to 90% of their electric power from clean renewable sources.

Second, any Pacific Power customer can sign up to participate in a community solar project to offset 80% of their consumption with solar generated electricity and get a 5% rebate on that power every month.

Ben could use their existing communication channels to encourage city residents to sign up.

Finally, Pacific Power Electricity is getting cleaner every year.

An electric appliance with a 20-year lifespan will get cleaner and cleaner every year, right along with the grid.

Suggested exemptions for affordable housing and dual dual fuel heating systems, as well as the need for a pilot project appear to be unwarranted and unnecessary upon careful examination.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

All right, John and Satya, come on up.

Whoever wants to go first.

Thank you.

Hi, Mayor, Counselors, staff.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Satya.

I'm a Bend resident.

Um, and I wanted to start by thanking you all for moving forward with this climate policy.

It feels really good to know that the people who are making decisions for this city do care about climate action and do care about meeting our climate goals.

Um so thank you for getting us to this point.

Um I know there have been a lot of conversations about exemptions and if affordable and middle income housing should be exempt from this rule.

I don't think it should be.

Thank you.

John, go ahead.

Mayor, Council staff, thanks for uh chance to speak.

I'm John Pittney.

I'm 76 years old.

I live in Bend.

I'm a retired United Methodist minister, and I coordinate 10 churches here who believe God's holy earth is worth showing up for.

Thank you for your commitment to putting climate impact fee in place for Bend.

Please do everything you can to keep that policy strong and resist watering it down its capacity to cut greenhouse emissions and clean the air.

This is our seven-year-old grandson Jackson.

We are driving him and his and his bestie Finn somewhere the other day, and they were talking in the back seat about uh making fart noises and telling poop jokes and stuff like they regularly do, and then all of a sudden uh conversation changed, and Jackson was saying, Finn, do you believe in global warming?

He said scientists have actually pinpointed that the polar ice caps are gonna melt in 2050.

Ben, you have to you have to believe me.

Well, later he came to me, Jackson, and said, The grandpa, I'm not sure.

I believe that if that's gonna really happen or not.

Our second graders are paying attention, and it's confusing.

I never wanted to be a grandpa who had to explain to my grandchildren why I didn't do everything I possibly could to stop local warming while I had a chance.

And here we are, the Earth's on fire.

Uh, since I graduated from high school, 75% of the world's wide life is disappeared.

So what do I say?

Do I say to you is that uh what message are you sending to Ben's children by the policies you put in place?

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Thank you, everyone, for being here.

I want to lay out just a couple of the next steps on this policy in particular.

So, as you know, we're having a work session next week.

That is a time for council discussion amongst ourselves on the next steps on this policy and directing staff on how to uh draft the ordinance.

So there will not be a public comment period at that meeting, and then we are targeting June as um the time to have this come to council for an actual vote, and there will be uh chance to come comment publicly at that meeting.

So those are the next steps in this policy that we've been working on for quite some time with lots of different input, and we appreciate you bringing us your input here tonight.

So that's gonna do it for public comment tonight, and we're gonna move into our consent agenda.

If you're gonna if you're gonna shuffle out, just please don't have a loud conversation in the hallway because that does trickle into here.

Thank you.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

One reminder we can't take any more comments.

We cannot take any more comment.

April kids children's pretending service.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Councilor Franzosa moved to approve the consent agenda.

So a second.

I hear Councilman is on the second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of that.

All right.

Okay, so then my other stack of folks who I have your comment um cards here for number five.

We're gonna move into item number five now.

So this is a quasi judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance on tax amendments to bend development code 3.6.500 short-term rentals.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna open the public hearing and I'm turning it over to Ian.

And just so folks know for both of the quasi judicial public hearings tonight, Ian's gonna do something a little different and just call through each of us to make a very clear record on each of his questions.

So just expect that to be happening.

Go ahead, Ian.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um so the first question I'm gonna ask is whether any counselors have any ex party contacts or site visits they wish to declare.

Um I'm gonna start from my right to left and probably leave the mayor last, so start with counselor Platts.

No, okay.

Council Norris.

No, Mayor Profend Bergens.

Councilor Riley?

No.

Councilor Mendes?

No.

Councilor Francisco.

Mayor Keebler.

No.

Okay.

Next question.

Uh this concerns whether anyone has any actual or potential conflicts of interest or other personal interests that would interfere with your ability to serve as an impartial decision maker.

Council Quett.

No.

Council Norris.

No.

Mayor Pro Tim Perkins?

No.

Councilor Riley?

No.

Councilor Mendez.

Councilor Francosa.

Mayor Keebler.

No.

Okay.

Now there's an opportunity for anyone present who wishes to raise a challenge on the basis of bias or personal interest.

If so, now is the time to do it.

Looking around the room, seeing none, hearing none.

Might be a raised hand, not sure.

I see a James Ballarkey with a raised hand.

Can we unmute it, Trish?

Yeah.

Second.

No worries.

So James, can you repeat the question, Ian, and then we'll have James respond?

Yeah, the question is whether anyone who's present either in the room or online wishes to challenge any of the declarations or the absence of any declarations of bias or personal interest from the council members.

So James, do you wish to challenge any of the statements that the councillors made that we do not have conflicts or personal interests?

Yeah, I think the microphone.

James, it's very hard to hear you.

If you can, if you're near a microphone, you can get closer to it.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I just find it hard to believe that there's no conflict of interest considering that our property is based in the CN zone, which is the neighborhood commercial.

And there's only, I think, four or five active CN zones in Ben, and to have that zoning put into this, you know, uh what do you call that?

The short-term rental permit, you know, limitations.

I just think we got singled out, and someone has some vested interest in why they would signal SL.

So James, James, for the record, which of all the counselors have stated we do not have any conflicts, we have not made ex-party contacts.

You need to specify if you think there is a counselor that has one.

Um if not, we'll move forward.

Okay, no, I do not have any uh information to a counselor.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh moving on, I'll now read a statement explaining the requirements of state law.

All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to the applicable criteria in the Bend Development Code and comprehensive plan that the party believes are applicable.

The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the decision maker or other parties to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue.

The failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional issue or other issue regarding a condition of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker or other parties to respond to the issue will preclude a claim for damages in circuit court.

And if prior to the end of tonight's public hearing, any party requests additional time to present uh additional testimony argument or evidence, the decision maker may allow either a continuance or additional time in its discretion for parties to submit that additional comment, argument, or evidence into the record.

That's it.

All right, great.

Can I ask a question on that?

No, uh, not right now.

We're gonna go ahead and get into our staff presentation and then we'll get to the public comment uh after that.

So Pauline, go ahead.

Good evening, council.

Uh tonight we are here um for a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance amending fend development code 3.5 3.6500 for short-term rentals, and there's a recommended motion up on the screen for you, which I'll present again at the end of the presentation.

Just for some background, this discussion has uh taken place now since September of 2024, where city council held a work session and directed staff at that time to prepare amendments to this uh particular short-term rental section.

And the proposed the recommendation at that time was to require new short-term rentals in a zone identifying as neighborhood commercial zone to follow the review process and standards in the corresponding residential comprehensive plan map designation, which is medium density residential in October of 2024.

The planning commission held a work session and public hearing a recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the council, and then in December of 2024, the city council held a public hearing, but due to the complexity of the revisions, including suggesting allowing maybe one unit per uh commercial neighborhood property or percentage.

And then in December of 2024, the city council held a public hearing, but due to the complexity of the revisions, including suggesting allowing maybe one unit per commercial neighborhood property or percentage.

It just got a little complex at that time.

It was definitely late in the evening.

And so the city council voted to table the matter until 2025.

And then in November of 2025, the City Council revisited the issue, and a majority supported moving forward and directed staff to process the amendments again.

Did hold a public hearing on this and recommended approval, and during their discussion, they also had a motion on the table to recommend one unit per allow one unit per commercial neighborhood property.

So if there's interest and based on all the discussions and public hearings that we've had in the past, I did come prepare with some additional motions in case there's interest for different amendments.

The commercial neighborhood properties include five different properties.

They're all located in the old Fenn neighborhood district.

Again, their comprehensive plan designation is medium density residential.

And up on the screen, you can see the five properties.

Almost looks like three different locations.

Two of the properties are located on Congress.

One's the old Iron Horse Antique Store, one's a residential dwelling.

Two properties are located on Dwell Delaware.

One is the Jackson's Corner and one is a residential dwelling.

And then there's a commercial site on Northwest Hill Street that is a neighborhood commercial property.

In 2006, that neighborhood commercial zone was eliminated eliminated.

However, these five properties still remain with that particular zone of neighborhood commercial.

The current code for these five properties requires a type one review process if they propose to have a short-term rental.

A type one review process does not require any notification to neighbors.

There's also no 500 foot separation requirement between proposed short-term rentals for the CM properties.

And there's also not a limit on the number of short-term rentals per property if you're zoned commercial neighborhood.

The proposed amendments would change that and align the requirements with their comprehensive plan map designation again of medium density residential.

This would require a type two administrative review with public notice.

It would require a 500-foot separation between short-term rentals, and it would limit one short-term rental per property.

Currently, of the five short-term rental or five commercial neighborhood properties, one does have an active short-term rental permit, and one applied one property applied for two short-term rental permits.

One has been approved by the planning division and one still under review, but they have submitted for that property.

If the proposed amendments do get approved and there is that 500-foot separation requirement, the three other properties that do not currently have short-term rentals would unlikely be able to apply and meet that five.

They could always apply.

So we posted it prior to the planning commission hearing, and we also posted it more than 20 days prior to the city council public hearing.

We mailed notice to all the property owners within 500 feet of each property prior to each hearing, and we also mailed an emailed notice to the neighborhood, old Bend neighborhood district land use chair.

The next steps would be a second reading on May 6th if it gets a recommended first reading tonight, and the effective date would be June 5th.

Because this is a quasi-judicial public hearing, I just want to remind the council of what the approval criteria is, that the request is consistent with the statewide planning goals that are designated by the planning director, that the request is consistent with relative policies of the Benn Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11 growth management, and that the request, if located in any of our master plans, is consistent with them.

However, this particular these five particular properties are not located in any special plant district, master plan, or area plan.

Again, the recommended motion is up on the screen.

I can answer any questions for you.

And then Commissioner Suzanne Johansson is here to on behalf of the planning commission to go over their discussion.

Yeah, Suzanne, is there any comments you want to give?

She's taking her head no at this point.

Okay.

All right.

Well, great.

Thank you for being here in case we have questions.

Um, council, informational questions for Pauline at this point.

Yes.

Yeah, I have a question.

Why so there's no applicant, so I was kind of confused.

Has anyone had discussions with the applicant?

I'm like, who is the applicant?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

City initiated.

So the and then I guess my second question is can you go back to the approval?

So it's just kind of funny because we're approving a request by staff, but these are kind of the same approval criteria that we have to take into account for like a comp plan amendment or development code amendment or anything.

Right.

Right.

They're similar.

So this is a quasi-judicial text amendment because it's specific to five properties, and there's some factors in the um findings that you can review that uh state whether or not this qualifies as a quasi-judicial.

There's three factors, and of the three, two of the three, it does meet the quasi-judicial factors.

Whereas a legislative amendment is like effects citywide policy where this is very narrow.

So that's basically why it became a quasi-judicial okay.

The first time we talked about it, it was part of a whole package of code amendments.

So that had a larger implication citywide.

All right, other questions for Pauline.

Steve.

Pauline, you mentioned that there are am I counting three project properties that have uh have short-term rentals right now within this sector of five properties?

Two properties.

One property has an approval and an active short-term rental permit, one property applied for two short-term rental permits because they have two units on the property.

Okay, obviously within 500 feet of one another.

The 500 feet right now does not um I know it doesn't, but they but they are right within 500 feet.

I would have to measure if they are.

Um, and then if you were so I I listened to the the planning commission discussion as well.

So if there was the one per property uh amendment that was that was to this, how many total would we be talking about all in then within the five sectors?

Well, the one that's already active would remain, the two that applied, they would also remain because they've already submitted.

Okay.

So that leaves three properties for an additional one per each, so three.

Okay, thank you.

Let's have my so is there anything in the CN zone that is different from the underlying residential zone, the RM zone that's allowed in CN.

I'm just wanting to make sure that I understand the relationship between those two.

In table 2.1200, I believe it is, there's a list of residential uses, which all these properties can comply with.

There's also um uh a neighborhood commercial list of uses which these properties can use.

So, like a coffee shop, um, child care facilities.

Um I don't have them off top of my head, they're very small-scale type of neighborhood serving commercial uses.

But these five CM properties can use it, not to get too complicated, but there is a process for other residential properties to also propose commercial uses as long as they meet um different standards separate from these.

And is that list for the CN um properties different than what's in the underlying zone?

Yeah, okay, it's the same.

That's what we thought.

Okay, other questions.

Yeah.

Um, I hopefully quick.

So but what you just said confuse me more.

So is it so the CN zone?

I thought the CN zone maybe was kind of done away with, and these properties like accidentally were left on the map with a CN designation, and so there's just confusion.

Yeah, it really can't get more confusing.

So we have these five CN properties, but we also have a separate process to um that supports neighborhood commercial uses in residential neighborhoods.

If they're not one of these five properties, they have to meet certain spatial locations, so they have to be on a corner, possibly on arterial collector, they have to be an acre or less.

There's a whole bunch of citing criteria that they have to meet, and if they meet those, then they too can um propose the list of commercial uses that these five CN properties can also do.

Got it.

Oh, okay.

So there are so the development code does provide development guidelines for developing in the CN zone.

That exists.

Yes, it's not okay.

Thank you.

Great.

Ariel.

Um Pauline, I'm curious to know if you think there are there's sort of a middle way here because looking at the purpose of why we regulate short-term rentals in the the development code says the purpose of the section is to protect the character of the city's residential neighborhoods by limiting and regulating short-term rental of dwelling units.

But on the permit page, it says the city of Bend limits and regulates short-term rentals to balance neighborhood livability with private property rights and our tourism economy.

So on the one hand, it's we're regulating to preserve the character of neighborhoods, and on the other hand, we're trying to strike the right balance here.

I think that on balance, we've done a pretty good job of striking a pretty good balance, a middle ground approach.

And I'm wondering if if you feel like there are options here that are more of a middle ground, because this is very this is much like all or nothing.

And so either time delimited, you know, we could say allow this for five years, and then it would be regulated uh by the uh residential neighborhood, or we could we could put a different cap on the number of units.

Um do you have thoughts on which of those options might strike a good balance?

Um well typically we don't like to put sunset clauses in the development code, so capping changing it a certain year is definitely a little bit more difficult.

Um capping it at like one per property or two per property or a certain percent is definitely easier to codify.

Um allowing these commercial neighborhood properties still to have a short-term rental, they could still have residential units, um, long-term and short-term.

Thank you.

So, Pauline, if we get to deliberation and we're talking about maybe doing something like that, do you have language maybe ready on those lines of sort of that cap for us today?

Okay.

Any other questions for Pauline before we go to the public comment?

Okay, thank you, Pauline.

All right, so we're gonna do public comment just much like we just saw with the two-minute timer that Trisha's putting up here.

We're gonna have folks come up and sit at the table.

Um, so we'll start with Nanzi Gould, and after Nancy will be Peter Geyser, so come on up.

We have uh a few people here to comment on this, so please try to uh stick to the time limit and I will help you with that as well.

And to be clear, we are commenting on this item only, which I think you're all prepared to do.

So go ahead, Nancy.

Thank you.

My name is Nanzi Gulu, and I think I've been here for two years on this topic.

I don't know what the amendment is that you might be appendaging to this, and if that's been put into the public record.

So if we're testifying on something that you're considering to adopt, I think it would be appropriate to have the ability for the public to see that.

As the amendment is written now, I support it.

Because that is the nutshell of what neighbors in our community support, which is commercial downstairs, and long-term rentals upstairs.

There are six long-term rentals in the Jackson Corner building.

What our neighborhood doesn't support is short-term rentals because we've got those all over.

And I don't think it's fair to say the CN zone should be exempt from the concentration limits that are now 500 feet for the residences that are right next door.

Remember, these changes evolved from a 250-foot setback to a 500-foot setback because of the effects of short-term rentals.

So I am supportive of the amendment as it's written.

I have no idea what this other proposal is that uh Pauline mentioned.

And uh, I don't think we need more short-term rentals uh in our neighborhood.

That's my brief and spectacular moment.

Thank you, Nancy.

Peter, go ahead.

Yeah, uh, I'll just be real brief.

Um I I also concur with Nancy in terms of supporting the amendments to the uh code.

And I was one of the primary petitioners in our neighborhood.

Uh we turned in 118 signatures last fall to you guys.

And uh I spoke with well over half those uh neighbors personally, and they there's a real strong concern about more STRs in our we're a small neighborhood, we got 140 STRs, so uh we're I'm here representing a good number of those petition people that signed that petition.

And and I want to just express our appreciation for your serious consideration of amending the code to be more fair and to support affordable housing.

Thank you.

All right, Michael McLandretti.

I'm probably butchering that, and um Evan uh Corp.

Michael, why don't you go first?

Thank you.

Council Mayor, staff, thank you for listening and uh paying particular attention to this important matter.

I've been here now three times, and it's um uh I think it's time to come to a conclusion.

Um I'm a long-term resident of Bend.

I've been here for 21 years.

I live at 148 Northwest Congress Street, directly across from the 210 Congress property.

As a longtime resident of the old Bend neighborhood uh the Riverside Edition, I am here to firmly support the proposed changes to the BDC 3.6.500 that would require the CN zone properties to comply with the standard short-term rental permit rules.

This is a meaningful policy that directly aligns with city housing goals, promotes long-term affordable housing, and treats CN properties as what they are residential, not commercial.

Continuing to grant CN owners as special carve out is fundamentally unfair to every other property owner in the city, including myself, which I cannot apply for a STR permit.

Furthermore, allowing uncontrolled STR densities for these CN properties is akin to having an unregulated commercial hotel nestled into our fabric of the close-knit neighborhoods with vacationing tenants coming and going.

This is just not the way a residential neighborhood should be developing.

The Bend Development Code would not allow for a hotel, so why would it be appropriate to have an STR hotel shoehorned into our historical and well-established old Bend neighborhood?

This is not in line with the city's housing goals for the nor the BDC.

I do think it's time to move on this issue, and I urge you to please consider this and take a firm stance in support of these changes.

Thank you for your attention to the timely and important matter.

Thank you.

Can you say your name?

McLandris.

Thank you.

It was my poor pendantship.

Evan, go ahead.

Hi, Council members.

My name is Evan Carp.

I am a Bend resident and a property owner.

I've been living in or visiting Bend since 1992.

I'm here tonight in opposition to the proposed amendments to the Bend Development Code 3.6.500.

I'd like to focus on three points.

First, fairness and predictability.

If this is intended to be a forward-looking policy change, existing property should be grandfathered, especially those that relied on prior city guidance.

Property owners and investors make long-term decisions based on the rules in place at the time.

When those rules are materially changed without protection, it undermines the competence in investing in Bend going forward.

Today it affects a small group.

Tomorrow I can affect anyone in this room.

Second, lack of financial analysis.

To my knowledge, the city has not provided a clear financial impact analysis of this proposal.

As a resident, I would like to understand the impact on property values, the potential loss of property tax revenue, the impact on transient tax revenue, and how those costs compare to any projected benefits.

Short-term rentals in these zones also support local businesses, tourism and foot traffic, and commercial corridors, which should also be part of that analysis.

Third, policy and alignment and transparency.

I understand the city's broader goals around housing and neighborhood balance.

Those are important.

My concern is the proposal does not effectively address those goals, particularly in commercially zoned areas.

It is also not clear how this issue arose, who raised it, and why it's being prioritized now.

But from the outside, it appears that significant time and resources are being directed towards an issue affecting a very small number of properties, and that deserves more clarity.

Closing, at a minimum, I'd urge the commission to delay action until a full financial and policy analysis is completed and to include grandfathering protections for existing property owners.

Bend has been a place where people invest for long term because they trust the consistency of its governance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Evan.

Next, Jason Faurman and Nathan Acres.

Thanks.

Thank you for that.

Is there any way for extra time?

No, we all have two minutes in this public comment period.

Go ahead, Jason.

Council and Keeler staff, thank you so much for taking the time to consider this carefully, and I trust that you've had ample time to review the letter which I submitted, which outlines some of the potential mechanisms of harm and financial deleterious impact to the property that I'm a partner in, which is uh 215 through 225 Northwest Hill Street, known to many longtime bed residents as the Taco stand.

When we purchased the Taco stand, we didn't really have a long-term vision for redevelopment, but we did perform prior to purchase a uh sort of an economic pro forma to see what redevelopment would look like.

In that context, it seemed that to add additional housing units, it would be necessary to provide some that provide or create some that provided a higher level of income generation, and that's where the option for short-term rental optionality is very important in addition to the uh tax efficiency and the redevelopment process.

But I also want to speak to some of the personal issues that I didn't raise in my letter.

As a de facto ban on short-term rentals, none of the properties in Old Bend lie outside of the current 500 foot concentration limits.

So this would act as a retroactive de facto ban on an existing use.

That pre restricting previously allowable use gives the appearance of government sanctioned anti-competitive favoritism.

And some of the petitioners who brought up this issue again to counsel themselves hold STR permits or have held them near the currently affected properties.

It also opens the door to further restrictions on allowable uses, creating potentially a slippery slope where those unhappy to live near the invariably more complex living conditions surrounding businesses, which also create livability benefits, can reduce the desirability of those neighborhoods once those restrictions are put into place.

And on a personal level personal level, this textual amendment would eliminate optionality for me for putting up in-laws far-flung friends or for temporarily housing displaced and deserving families.

Thank you, Jason.

Go ahead.

Oh, it's starting.

Oh, sorry.

No, you guys killed me.

Uh my name's Nathan Acres.

I own the Iron Horse building, and so I'm here tonight to ask you to not move this on to a second reading.

Before purchasing this property, I re received clear and written confirmation from multiple city staff members that the code allowed for more multiple short-term rental property or permits under the zoning.

I relied on this.

We paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in design and planning, and now we're being told that it's something different.

At the same time, I understand that permitting process were uncovered.

Oh, through this process, we've uncovered new issues, including one unit of ours that does not have uh occupancy or uh residential use, something that we were unaware of, so the record at this point is not complete, so we're asking for additional time.

Uh there has also been no financial impact study.

Evan covered that.

There's like none.

So I mean, this is affecting us pretty dramatically, and it's three three properties, three property owners.

Um, I would just ask for transparency in this, and I want to understand that how this issue came up, who's pushing it, and why it's being pushed now.

And if it's meant to be forward-looking, then we should be grandfathered in.

I don't see any reason.

And it's only the short-term rental permit is pretty important to understand this.

It's based off of square footage.

We can only put four at our at our specific site.

Jason's gonna be limited at the amount he could put at his site, so it's not gonna be an unlimited number as it seems.

Uh, at minimum, at minimum, I would uh ask you to hold this at first reading and revise it before moving forward.

And I think a reasonable solution to this is grandfathering in and allowing us to have what we purchased the property under for my property is four units of short-term rentals.

Mr.

Akers, can I clarify when you said additional time?

What did you mean by that?

I want you guys to allow us to have additional time because we have to now go to legal to so as we're submitting in our short-term rental permits for our property is currently sitting.

It was brought up, so we need to go back through.

We basically need to go back through our purchase agreement and find out if the person that sold it to us misrepresented anything because they were sold as residential units, and now we're being told by the city that they don't have any type of residential use for one of the units, which Mr.

Akers is are you asking to hold this record open so you could submit additional information, or are you are you talking about a different process that you need more time?

I just don't want to push to second reading.

I need to have more time for us to be able to like actually have the time to investigate that legally.

Okay, thank you for that.

And I want to hold it open.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

We've got um Scott Crawford who's next, and then we'll go to James Millarkey who's online.

James the high question.

Mayor counselors, thanks for joining us tonight.

Appreciate you listening.

Uh my name is Scott Cropper.

I'm a local realtor and investor here in Bend, and I'm here today because I care deeply about the long-term health of our market.

My main concern with this ruling is really about investor confidence, and Evan did touch on some of this.

We all know that real estate thrives on predictability.

We uh when we change the rules midstream, like we saw with the shift from the 250-foot rule to the 500-foot rule regarding STRs, and now what these proposed commercial zoning changes, it creates uncertainty and hesitation for people looking to put their capital into our city.

This particular ruling only affects three parcels, as we talked about earlier.

Uh, just five total properties, but really it's just three parcels.

When you look at the big picture, I'm not sure that the cost-benefit analysis really adds up.

The benefit of rezoning these specific lots seems small compared to the much larger cost of making investors wonder if the goalposts are going to move again in the future.

Uh, if I'm talking to a commercial investor and they are and they see a change like this happen on such a small scale, their next comment could very well be if this commercial zone can change today, what's next and how will it affect me?

We want people to keep building and renovating the housing and commercial spaces in our growing city as it it needs growth and it needs renovation, especially a place like the iron horse.

To do that, we need to make sure Ben feels like a stable place to do business.

I'm asking the council to consider the method the message this sends to the broader market and to prioritize a more consistent approach to our zoning regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Scott.

All right, so we'll go to James online.

What's that?

That's not carding for some trying to fall out.

Sorry.

I am here.

Can you hear me?

Yep, go ahead, James.

Hold well, actually, hold on one minute, we're gonna get your timer up.

So you can see the two minutes.

Okay.

All right, go ahead, James.

All right, thank you, council, for the time tonight.

Uh, I just want to talk about the feasibility of projects like this.

So when Nathan and I did our investigation of this project, and we were told what we could do by the city as well as by the rules that were currently governing this.

You know, we purchased the property with 1.5 million dollars, and when we investigated what we could do with it, we knew we could put four units on the property and continue to have a commercial space.

That was gonna cost us an additional 3.8 million dollars to do that.

A lot of people say in these previous meetings, they don't understand why we have to have these Airbnb permits.

And the math's pretty simple.

Uh total projects would be about 5.2, 5.3 million.

I think we're gonna have to finance about 4.2 million dollars, and that will require uh payment of about 28,000 a month when you factor in property taxes, uh insurance, and just general overhead, not including like maintenance and uh management fees, right?

So, in order to do that, we can't do that sustainably with long-term rentals because we'd have to rent them out you know with only four units for 8,000 or more a month, plus the commercial space, which I would imagine we'd probably get around one to dollar fifty per square foot.

So it really becomes a feasibility.

We went through the fight already.

We got it approved by the local uh neighborhood.

Um so it's been designed.

We put 200 plus thousand dollars into this investment, and to have it break the wave of us would just be detrimental to us financially, but also to the economic simulation room to put in the so I really want you guys to take that into account.

We're gonna build something for the community that would be viewable, I guess, and short term rentals there, but they don't have that big of an impact.

There's only four or five of these short uh buildings in this area.

So just look at it from it's a tiny amount of lots that have this even available, and most of them don't even have STRs.

So I feel we're being singled out that we really just like you guys in the move we put into this financially packed everything.

Thank you, James.

Thank you.

Um so that concludes the folks who were signed up for public comment today.

Um, Ian, I'm gonna turn to you because we did have a request to hold the record open.

So can you just explain to us what that means?

Yeah, uh the law requires at least uh when we're dealing with an initial evidentiary hearing for the record to be held open if anyone asks for it, that can be either a continuance where we come back with a continued continued public hearing or the the verbal oral public hearing we close tonight and the record can be left open for additional written evidence argument or testimony.

That is often preferred in what we typically do.

Um I will say that this by at least one measure isn't the initial evidentiary hearing because this goes through a process where that happens at the planning commission, but it's been the custom for this body to allow uh continuance or record extension when somebody asks for it, as they did tonight.

So I think that's the best practice.

Um statute does say that when uh a record extension is granted for additional written evidence argument or testimony that it has to be held open for at least seven days, and then people who want to respond to anything that comes in during that period need at least seven days to do that.

So what we typically do is identify those dates if the body is going to grant an extension, and then once that record is fully and finally closed, council would come back at a future meeting for deliberations on that record.

Okay, and so can we discuss right now whether we want to hold the record open as a next step?

We can and we should okay.

You're saying it's um it's been our customary practice, it's not required by code or the the law requires it at the initial evidentiary hearing planning.

Um based on how you look at our process.

I think there's an argument that that happens at the planning commission, but for this application, this is the initial time that council's hearing it, at least as it's currently presented.

Um it's my recommendation that we consider it the initial, even if there's maybe an argument that it's not.

So we would need at least a seven-day holding open.

I've I've done the math, not my strong suit.

Um seven days from today is April 22nd, so there's there's a potential option for council to leave the record open until 5 p.m.

Close the business on April 22nd for any additional evidence arguments or testimony in writing that anyone wants to submit.

And if that's the case, anyone would have an opportunity to respond to any of that additional those additional submissions also in writing by 5 p.m.

on April 29th.

Um the law says the applicant can have the last word.

The city's the applicant.

I don't think we need to think about that here.

So if that's the if that's the format, the record would be fully and finally closed at 5 p.m.

on the 29th.

And then we would schedule this at a council meeting, and we would basically do a shortened process where Pauline could address things that had come up in written comments, and then we would go right into deliberations.

Yeah, and that's that's what we've done before.

I think we want to be a little conscious of not sort of effectively reopening a public hearing, so it's really incumbent on council to be prepared for that continued or resume deliberation by reading the record of the additional material that's come in.

But yeah, it's customary for staff to maybe provide a brief update and be available for questions.

Yeah.

Okay.

And can I one other information question?

So that would preclude deliberations tonight.

We would just if the record is held open, there are no deliberations tonight.

Okay.

Okay.

Council Steve.

Yeah.

Ian, how would how would somebody who wants to respond to the seven-day record?

How would they get access to that to be able to see that and respond?

Uh Pauline can illustrate that, but it's in City View, so they go in and everything that comes in gets uploaded to the file so people can read it more pretty close in real time as it comes in and is uploaded.

Great.

Thank you.

Does that include anyone in the public can do that, or just people who have participated so far through the anyone, it's still open for anyone to join the party.

And so there would be additional public comment as well at the next slide.

Yes, yes.

The first the first seven-day period is wide open.

Any additional written evidence argument or testimony that anybody wants to submit into the record.

And it gets a little bit more limited in that second period.

And then you respond, and then the second period is to respond to that additional, and then at I'm just going to clarify you come back here, but we're not going to have another public comment at that point.

Then we would close the record the record would be closed and we would deliberate.

Yes, if we do it this way, the record closes automatically on the at the on the date at the time specified, which I'm suggesting could be 5 p.m.

on the 22nd of April.

Or sorry, 29th.

29th for the response.

All right.

So that's a suggested um path forward now that we've had a request.

I'm seeing head nods this way.

Does anyone object to doing that?

If that's been our practice, yeah, I think that's okay.

So uh Ian, do we need a form of motion for that, or do I just simply say it's held open on the dates that you've given?

Yeah, I think that works.

Um I'll say it one more time just so it's clear.

Record would be held open until 5 p.m.

on April 22nd for additional evidence argument or testimony.

That's all we're writing.

And then there would be an opportunity for anyone to respond to any of those additional submissions until 5 p.m.

on April 29th, at which point the record would automatically close.

Okay, so that is the intent of holding the uh public hearing open at this time.

So we're holding the record open only as Ian described, and we're gonna stop for today and we will come back a future time for the deliberation.

Unless if they that's great, if there are any additional questions for staff, now's a good time to get them out.

If there aren't I I just have one.

The there was um mention of that these were the only are there other properties like this within city limits, or is it just these five?

Yeah.

Okay, okay.

Anything else for Pauline?

Sure.

Is there another zone designation that's very similar to the CN?

Would you consider the C C the CN is so limited in the type of neighborhood commercial uses that they have?

Um then they have to comply a three point six two hundred for some of the other neighborhood commercial requirements.

Very specific.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, with that we'll we'll stop for today and we will be back.

All right, so we're gonna reconvene our Venn City Council meeting, and we are now on item number six.

This is a quasi judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to amend the Ben Development Code to amend Article twenty-eight, Timber Yards Master Plan Development.

All right, so we're gonna open the public hearing on this quote judicial hearing and do the same questions from Ian.

Oh, oh yeah.

Yep.

Um okay, we're gonna do this the same way we did last time.

The first question does anyone have any exparty contacts or site visits they wish to declare starting with Councillor Platt?

No.

Councilor Norris?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Perkins?

No.

Councilor Riley?

No.

Councillor Mendez?

No.

Counselor Francosa.

Mayor Kepler.

No.

Okay, next question.

Does anyone have any actual or potential conflicts of interest or other personal interests that would interfere with the ability to serve as an impartial decision maker in this matter?

Counselor Platt?

No.

Councillor Norris?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Perkins.

No.

Council Riley.

No.

Councillor Mendes.

No.

Councillor Francosa.

No.

Mayor Keebler.

No.

Okay.

Uh, next step.

All testimony argument and evidence must be directed to the applicable criteria in the Ben Development Code and comprehensive plan the party believes are applicable.

The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the decision maker or other parties to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue.

The failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional issue or other issue regarding a condition of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker or other parties to respond to the issue will preclude preclude a claim for damages in circuit court related to that issue or condition.

And then finally, if prior to the end of the public hearing our party requests additional time to present testimony argument or evidence, the decision maker may allow either a continuance or additional time and it's discretion for parties to submit additional testimony argument or evidence to the record.

Renee Brooke Planning Manager, and I'll be filling in for Karen Swinson this evening, the senior planner who has been working on the Timber Yards Master Plan and providing the staff presentation.

We do have other staff available as well for any questions you might have specifically related to infrastructure, transportation mitigation.

And we have staff from private development engineering here.

So just a little bit of recent history of the timber yards site outlined here.

In the larger red outline, is the corpine opportunity area.

The master plan area is this hatched area shown within this graphic.

Generally bounded by bond, industrial way, scale house loop, and the parkway.

Into the development code.

Shortly thereafter, the applicant applied for and we approved a seven lot tentative plan subdivision for the bulk of the master plan area, this large rectangular area north of Scale House Loop and south of Industrial Way.

Also, at that same time, we approved a site plan review application in the northwest corner of the master plan at industrial and bond for a large mixed use project, including retail and residential uses, a six-story building there in the corner.

But no construction has started at all within the master plan area.

As I mentioned, it's in the core pine opportunity zone.

The applicant is proposing changes to the adopted master plan in response to some revised land use assumptions and market conditions, thus why it hasn't no construction has taken place under the existing master plan approval.

These two graphics side by side are showing the existing phasing plan as adopted into the master plan and the proposed phasing plan.

And on its face, it doesn't look like many changes, and that's really quite true because although the revised assumptions that the applicant took into account are somewhat specific on their end of how they intend to build out the master plan, the ordinance exhibit A, which is the track changes version of the actual development code, has quite limited changes because it's really just changing out some figures, including these two, and making some uh revisions to the transportation mitigation table, which reflect a slightly downskilled intensity of build out of the master plan.

And I'll get into those in a little bit uh further in the presentation.

But um again, the reason that there aren't that many changes in the actual code for this master plan is because the master plan is really just one step below our comprehensive planning efforts, and it lays out general street layouts and analyzes infrastructure needs to build out the master plan.

So we really focus on the water and sewer demand and any transportation mitigations required to build out the master plan.

Um we rely on the underlying zoning for the large for a large part to dictate development standards, density, and so that is largely what would happen here in this master plan area.

This is in the mixed urban zone district, and the applicant isn't proposing any changes to allowed uses in the MU zone.

They do we do have in the existing master plan an increase in building height.

Um, the MU zone allows 65 feet, the current master plan and the proposed would allow going up to 75 feet, so that's one specific standard for this master plan.

And there are some more specific design standards for building out um the buildings within the master plan area.

But otherwise, the the largest changes are really on this figure.

The existing phasing plan shows this east-west street, which is called Timber Yards Drive, would be removed as an actual vehicular street, and then the proposed plan would become more of a bicycle pedestrian corridor through the east-west section here.

There's also a change in the configuration of the open space, which is this darker green color, is the existing and proposed open space.

It retains the same amount of open space, so it reconfigures it based on the revised concept that the applicant has for building out the master plan.

And phasing, although the phasing lettering would remain the same, um, the applicant is proposing most likely to build from the east side of the master plan to the west, whereas originally it was planned to be built from the west to the east.

Um so phases could occur in any order.

There's no magic to the numbering of the phases, but it does uh play into the transportation mitigations that are in the table in the code.

In terms of the proposed text amendments, it really does just acknowledge the replacement of that local street with a non-vehicular open space tract.

The reconfigured open space.

And then again, the construction schedule likely going from east to west instead of west to east.

Due to the reduced assumptions and the overall build out of the master plan, there are some revised and reduced transportation mitigation impacts, impacts, and then thus the mitigations that go with those impacts.

One major change is that the applicant will be required to build out the entirety of industrial way from Bond to Awni Street, as well as a new roundabout at Bond and Industrial Way, and a mini roundabout at Awni and Scale House Loop Industrial Way before any buildings within the master plan are occupied.

And in the prior master plan, it was more segmented phases of building up the infrastructure as the master plan developed.

It also alters timing of some of the required transportation improvements based on some of the more minor transportation improvements based on building out from east to west.

So these north-south streets will be built out as needed to provide access and infrastructure to the site.

And it removes a requirement that's in the current master plan to construct southbound Highway 97 Colorado Avenue improvements, including curb returns and ramps, and change what was going to be a full roundabout at the Ani industrial way intersection to a mini roundabout.

And then this, although we don't get into this level of detail in a master plan, this is informative as it this table shows the different assumptions that we studied, the applicants studied and the city staff confirmed in terms of sewer and water demands and transportation impacts based on some assumptions for build-out.

So in this left column are the original use assumptions that went into the adoption of the current master plan.

Those weren't separated by phase.

So the total assumed build-outs down here in this bottom left corner of approximately 1600 dwelling units, 180 room hotel, some office and retail use, the proposed use assumptions that the applicant submitted now gets into a little bit more detail in the phases.

This first phase A is that part of the master plan in the northwest corner at the intersection of bond and industrial way.

We do actually have an approved site plan review application for that site for that mixed-use building and the land use approval is good through January of 2028.

So it is still possible that could be built out as approved.

And then you see the different assumptions going into the different phases here of a mix of hotel retail dwelling units with some options depending on market conditions and different phases as they're building out the master plan that they could swap out some assumptions for hotel or retail with more dwelling units.

And so that gives you at the bottom line, general assumption assumptions that went into our anticipated impacts to water sewer and transportation infrastructure.

Showing the conceptual open space plan, but I do want to just say with a caveat, these building footprints are very conceptual, with the exception of A up here in the northwest corner, which is approved generally in that footprint.

But this does show the applicants thinking in terms of transitioning from what we had seen before and prior concept plans of more podium style parking and mixed use development.

This in the core here of phases C through G are shown more as four-story apartment buildings with surface parking.

And then this shows the conceptual bicycle and pedestrian plan with again some improvements to multimodal connections, both around the master plan boundary and then through it, and making this connection here from the new roundabout at Awning and Industrial all the way through to Bond.

And then the technical aspects of tonight's proposal are the approval criteria for the development code text amendment.

You've seen these many times.

But we have findings in your attached to your staff report that show that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals and our local comprehensive planning policies.

Unlike most master plans that you've seen in expansion areas, we don't have specific comprehensive planning goals for this area, other than the general statement that the core pine opportunity area is envisioned as a vibrant mixed-use urban area.

So we do have findings in there though about other general plan policies in chapter 11 of the comp plan that speak to maximizing redevelopment of vacant or underutilized land, especially in the core area.

So we do have findings for those.

We also have findings that show that the amendments are consistent with the master plan approval criteria.

Sewer and water impacts have been studied and they either have capacity or the applicant will provide the services to the site.

Transportation and transportation impacts are mitigated.

There's no new impacts.

In fact, there's fewer impacts.

And the overall master plan standards are met, which are outlined on this slide, which generally, well, it so requires a number of things.

Each master plan must show that it has access to commercial goods or services within one half mile of the master plan boundaries.

This entire master plan is zoned mixed urban, which allows a variety of commercial uses as well as, as you know, a lot of commercial uses, both north and south of this site.

So that easily meets that standard.

They also need to show how they'll be implementing any planned multimodal connections through this site, which they continue to show that both around the site as well as the east-west corridor through the site.

Must also find that the land use densities are land uses and densities are consistent with the mixed urban comprehensive plan map designation.

They're not proposing to change the MU designation and any uses within this master plan will need to comply with that designation, as well as the minimum densities.

There are no maximum densities in the MU zone.

And they need to provide at least 10% of the gross areas open space, and there's no change to that.

They're showing that they can provide 10% open space.

And I think that covers it.

That's the end of my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions or we need other staff.

It can be that soon.

And we have Suzanne from the planning commission here as well.

Is there any comments you want to give Suzanne?

Come on up.

Thank you.

And while Suzanne's coming up, I neglected to mention this did go to planning commission on March 9th, where they deliberated quite a bit and ultimately recommended unanimously 7-0 to recommend approval of this to council.

Well, that was half of my comment.

What else you got?

The one thing I wanted to uh address was the commercial development, because as you know, we've had a lot of conversation about commercial development and master plans.

But in this particular location, there's plenty of commercial in the area, so the cons we did not have a concern about reducing the amount of potentially the amount of commercial housing changes were based on market conditions, and it will still bring a lot of needed housing into the central part of the town.

Master planning does allow a lot of flexibility for the future since it's a long-term process, so things change.

There could even be a revision back to going back up to six-story buildings if conditions warranted.

Overall, we felt like it met all of the city's goals and the and the development standards with regard to housing needs, vertical mixed use, land in field development, walkable communities, multimodal connections, and open space.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Any questions for Renegis on this before we have the applicant on that?

But can you just review the MUP?

How MUPI shows up here and kind of where that applies and what the time frames are for that MUPT approval and any requirements that are associated with the MUPT plan for the particular part of this project that we're sure.

Councilor Riley, just real briefly.

So as I mentioned, this area that's shown as A here on the conceptual open space plan.

I'll just use that since it shows the general footprint.

So we have an approved site plan review application for a mixed use development on this part of the master plan, and the applicant did receive MUPD approval as well.

So they have structured parking with wraparound commercial uses, shielding the parking.

They have um I think either additional open space or um enhanced open space and blanking on the third criteria that they qualified under, but that MUPD approval is good through January of 2031.

As long as the C of O the certificate of occupancy for that building is issued by then.

So they have until January 2031 to get C of O for that building to retain the MUPD benefits for building A.

For building A only, yes.

Right.

Um, just to be clear, that's there's we're not decided that's a separate decision from tonight, but it's just context for what's that that has been that's moved farther through the process, basically, in terms of the review process and the approval.

That building has that particular building.

That building actually has land use approval.

And there is there is an approved land division application for the majority of this site, but we do anticipate with changes in street network and other um aspects of the site, we would get an updated land division application that we'd review subsequent to the decision on the master plan.

And so this could happen sooner.

Well, they're gonna move they're proposing to move from east to west.

This may have to happen sooner if they actually want to take advantage of not me, right?

So that's gonna be up to the applicant to make the decision about the timing of all those things.

But okay.

So the smaller mini roundabout um the industrial way, and then the improvements at the Colorado 97.

So what I wanted to better understand is in the um either in because it's in the in the findings, it says the safety and operational issues previously identified in the original master plan remain unchanged.

Those those conditions are issues identified, um, remain unchanged, but they were driving the need for those two requirements.

So I just wanted to better understand what those those issues were that remain unchanged.

And understand that their trip generation is lower than before.

So they're share their obligation to fix is at a different scale.

But what is it the conditions overall in this area that remain unchanged that those original requirements were gonna address?

Is there something that we're gonna need to ask someone um either Chris Henningson or someone from the applicant team to ask answer that specific question?

Especially if it's about the the highway 97 Colorado intersection or or Russ.

Yeah, hello everybody.

Good evening, Respiration Chief Operations Officer for the city.

So two things, Mike uh has a right over the mini roundabout.

That was changed due to some um significant kind of layout issues when we started looking at it with the applicant in terms of turning movements through there.

Because we we need to move some there, it's kind of an offset um intersection with the rail involvement.

There's a there's a spur rail that comes down here that created some tight turning radiuses.

It was reviewed by internal staff in conjunction with uh with their engineers and our transportation group.

We decided a mini roundabout was the best solution based off of some tubograph and some kind of just geometry issues that we have at the intersection, still functions as a roundabout.

It's similar to the one that you see in front of OSU.

Um just got cut on Central Drive.

That's kind of the form of fashion of it.

Um the second one was we just had a we had a trip reduction that occurred at the ramps that kind of were below our threshold trigger, and Joe Bessman can go into that conversation as well.

The way the trips were distributed on the system from the new development.

It was determined that that we didn't really have the threshold to go for that improvement at the what are those improvements on the um on the 97 thing.

You know, what's I'm not sure what I understand specifically what the they were gonna be required to do.

Oh, they're gonna make they're gonna make some some minor changes to some of the turning radiuses um to shorten the intersections as you're come through driving south.

Driving on the parkway.

Yeah, and and I that's a good question for the applicant too, because they they they worked through all that in terms of the what that design and what we were trying to do.

And there's some other projects that ODAS looking at that intersection as well, and also just for awareness that that is also um within the central area urban renewal plan as well.

Um, for because there what needs to happen there is a major improvement, you know.

Um, and we've got a lot of conflicts there with the rail and some other things that that it's it's a significant improvement that we do not that ODOT and the city do not have funding for at this point, but we do have that included in our urban renewal district in accordance with those improvements that would have been required have to have been essentially removed when the major improvement for the ultimate yeah it was it was a very small temporary fix, just trying to shorten crossing distances for for pedestrians and other things like that because there's long sweeping turns.

Elizabeth has something to add to on this question.

Elizabeth has something to add to on this question, not in this question on the last question, sorry on MUPD, just one clarification.

The MUPD approval was for the site plan that's already been approved for that building, so it's two conditions need to be satisfied.

They can't let that site plan expire, or MUPD goes away as well, and they have to finish the building by 2021, 2031.

Thank you.

Also, just to clarify the three uh criteria, which is open space, enhanced landscaping, and then the wrapped parking.

Yeah, enhanced late scale.

Yeah, the landscaping in the water.

And then my last question just to confirm this the density still meets the minimum requirements for CFA, right?

Yes, my understanding in talking with our growth management staff is that a minimum density for climate friendly area designation is 25 dwelling units to the acre, and the concepts we've seen from this applicant team would probably result in something like 35 units to the acre at a minimum.

Thank you.

Council Franzosa.

That was I that that's kind of my same.

Is that all the that qualifies it as a CSA as the or C F A?

There are a lot of other criteria.

I don't I don't think so, but I it's one of them.

It's one of them.

And the other criteria would still be met.

We have it designated the CFA, so we still have to.

I guess my I know, but my concern is we have we haven't designated the CMAP options.

CFAs yet.

And yeah, do we still have enough options?

Yeah, to to meet those criteria.

Okay.

I guess is my question.

But there's no answer for that.

Is that yeah, and those codes aren't in effect when those code changes haven't happened, they're not in effect yet.

Yeah in terms of destinating those, you know.

I'm I'm I'm from the city's perspective and looking and this isn't the developer's problem, it's our problem, right?

Um, so yeah, just curious if we've if we've considered that.

I mean, because like so um I understand there's density, but are there other issues here?

Because it's it seems like the issue is the infrastructure was too expensive and the building type that they had was too expensive, and so they're modifying it to lessen the infrastructure development cost, and they're modifying it to reduce their you know building development cost.

And so if the city is interested in really is really in having a CFA there, then is there a different you know, resolution to the cost um of development that that we can work with them on?

I guess that's we'll say the the item for council this evening is an amendment to the master plan.

So there's there's nothing that precludes them from building that a higher density under the master plan.

They build out under the MU zone um the musone district, which allows um with their additional height up to 75 feet and a max and no maximum density.

So even though their assumptions might be around the 35 dwelling to the acre, um they could go denser.

They um and but in terms of the other criteria for qualifying for climate-friendly area, there's a lot, and I'm not sure that we have all the answers to that today.

Well, and what we're deciding tonight is not whether this could be CFA, it's just whether it meets our current um qualifications for the master plan amendment.

So then my next question is does the so does the comp the concept plan present a so the other the other piece of the MU is that there's an emphasis on um ground floor retail.

So is that does the concept plan all those buildings that are shown, do they all have ground floor?

Maybe that's a question for the applicant.

Yeah, well, let's let the applicant present and maybe some of these and we can always have staff come back at, but why don't we why don't you all come up and present?

Don't show us your email, Renee.

It's not me.

I'm not whose email is that I don't know.

I'm still trying it says I think it's fishes.

I see T Savage at Minority.

There we go.

There we go.

It still looks like a pairing.

All right, so why don't we bring the applicant up to present?

Okay, and actually, if you but if you don't mind, so my question about the MU is that it says an emphasis on retail.

So how do you a ground floor retail?

So how do you evaluate that in the MD zone when someone comes forward with a with a development plan?

So solely residential projects are also allowed in the MU.

Um and then the design standards built into the timber yard master plan really mimic what we have in the Bend Central District.

So there is an emphasis on having um certain details and um proximity to the street, and so we would still need to review projects with those design standards that are in the master plan itself.

The reason why I'm asking is because the commercial square footage has gone down so much.

Is that square footage actually realistic?

Like when they come in with development plans for each of the parcels.

I'd like to let the applicant yeah, the applicant might have studied that a little bit more in detail then because we haven't really hold on to that question.

And let's have them come up and present and maybe help answer that question.

So okay.

So good evening, Mayor and Council.

Hi.

I guess I'm going to start today.

I'm going to let Dave ED kick us off here.

Hi, Mayor Keebler and Counselors.

And my name is Dave E.

I'm the applicant with Kennedy Wilson.

And I'm together with Joey Schreier tonight with AKS Engineering and Joe Bessman with Transite Engineering.

He is our traffic consultant.

I just started by saying that in a perfect world after our approvals in 2023, we'd be well underway with development.

And for the reasons you've heard tonight from staff as well as this graphic on the slide here and our writings in the record.

A lot of things happened with the world, and we were pretty disappointed.

We went way down the road with getting permits.

We were about to start development.

We had site fencing ordered construction trailers.

We were going to have Kennedy Wilson employees who were supervising construction moving into Bend.

We went that far.

And unfortunately, we made a uh conscious decision to pause the project because we just didn't think the economics uh in market-driven factors were working with us.

So we paused a project that was uh unprecedented in my mind, but it was something that uh gave us pause to start looking at um we can fix this as quickly as we can so that we can move forward with something that uh makes sense.

And uh we've come to this point to this point where we have now a uh plan and a program, which we think is a lot more uh uh germane to uh the system as it exists today, the the capital markets, and I think that we ought to uh try to approach the project from east to west now because if we're not uh certain about uh the higher uh intensity uses such as parcel A or the proposed hotel uh that was originally contemplated.

Uh let's start from east to west and go with uh more proven product in our in our mind that we could uh develop.

So that's what we decided doing here, and uh I think it's a sound idea.

It's one which gives us uh time to gauge the market in the future with respect to getting to the you know the best uh view parcels, the most I guess the best parcels on the property at the end uh on Bond Street, uh and getting there with what we have proposed or something close to it.

That's where we are today, and I hope we can just move forward tonight.

And Joey's gonna go through a deck here, and I know there's some questions on traffic engineering, so let's uh get started with that.

Great.

Thanks, Dave.

Uh so we have just about I think 10 slides here, and we'll try to go quickly appreciate Renee's um presentation.

And Suzanne uh uh planning commissioner Johansson did a great job.

She she stole my thunder too.

So just uh a quick slide here with the project team.

This is this the same team that's been working on this project since uh 2023, as as Dave mentioned.

Um we have multiple members of this team here to try and answer questions.

Uh I'd also start out thanking staff for their recommendation for approval, and um when we went to the planning commission last month, I think we all very much appreciated their their unanimous recommendation for approval as well.

So this this slide shows the approved and our kind of current updated concept, and and under either of these timber yards remains kind of this vibrant connected, walkable community.

Uh and as Renee, I think aptly summarized.

The code amendments reflect the following changes.

One, it replaces Timber Yards Drive, which was originally shown as that main east-west road with a bike and pedestrian-oriented linear open space.

Two, it changes the phasing so that the project can be built from east to west, really east to west, but starting at that new ANI roundabout.

And then three, um, we've also updated the anticipated programming, which which results in less traffic and requires less mitigation.

That means the scope of these amendments is excuse me, intentionally, it's quite narrow.

We're not we're not changing allowed uses, we're not changing allowed density or asking for new or different uh development standard deviations.

We're really just adjusting the planned street network to better accommodate the programming changes that again are not necessarily part of the master plan itself.

Those will be reflected in future subdivision site plan review applications, but it's it's our effort to kind of keep communicating with the city about what we think development is likely and how that development is likely to occur in the future, near future.

So the updated concept for the site is still very high level, as I was saying, but it's actually you know, we're showing more detail than is required for the master plan.

And that may invite some more questions, and that that's fine.

We're happy to try and answer that.

Um as I said, these these will be refined as we move into the the next kind of phases of applications, tentative subdivision and site plan reviews for the individual the individual sites.

The modification to the area outlined is blue, uh sorry, outlined in blue is is necessary for the the factors that that Dave described in his introduction that were included in the cover letter that accompanied the the application.

And and really the idea here is to have these changes, provide some flexibility to Ken D.

Wilson, flexibility that they need to move forward with a portion of this project right away.

And to Dave's point, you can see here on the far western edge.

Um we're hoping that kind of the market dynamics will allow the development at the western edge to occur very, you know, the same as what's already been approved, that the uh the entitlement that we've continued to extend and kind of in line with that that original vision.

Um we're also kind of adjusting these things to allow us to start as soon as possible on the phase of the project just just west of the Ani roundabout there.

Um I might mention I forgot to mention it's a good time to talk about it.

Is our expectation is to start development here this fall with horizontal grading, if you will uh development with the vertical aspect of the first homes starting in the next spring.

I think that's important and notable because it's you know we paused and now here we are, and we want to get going as quickly as we can.

Go ahead, Joe.

Yep.

And so another kind of key design element of that master plan, and one that's not kind of thematically changing, although there is kind of now this this open space corridor where Timber Yards Drive was.

Um, but as Renee pointed out, uh, where there's no reduction in the amount of open space, it's been reconfigured, and and as the master plan requires uh at least 10%.

We are we are meeting or exceeding that.

And these images are just kind of again conceptual to give a sense of what could come of kind of that linear open space.

Um again, similar to the original concept.

We're looking for something that's going to be immersive that that's using uh local and kind of more natural materials to kind of create create that programming, ample seating amenities, uh, and really trying to figure out how how can we design the space to be used, be well used, you know, by people of all ages and abilities.

There was a question, I think, about multimodal, um, all of kind of these essential transportation infrastructure elements remain, and Joe Bestman's here.

If there are some questions that we can try to answer around the uh some of the mitigation, but we still have that strong east-west pedestrian bicycle route that connects um the Ani roundabout to Bond Street.

We still have the mobility hub there on Bond Street, uh, kind of the the western edge, the southern piece of that western edge, the kind of green graphic there, and then we are uh continuing to extend the multi-use paths around kind of the entire perimeter of the site.

So, to summarize with these amendments, Timber Yards continues to provide a number of benefits to the city and the community.

Uh, again, this is an underutilized property, and this is going to kind of move that forward, provide housing very hopefully very near-term for the city and the community.

Uh, and the housing is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the site's designation as an opportunity area.

Again, it extends streets and multi-use multi-use trail, which improves connectivity and safety for both pedestrians and cyclists.

And then also each each home, each commercial space is going to generate significant amounts of SDCs to help fund a lot of services, park, sewer, water, and transportation.

So again, a quick presentation.

We recognize there may be questions, and please give us a chance to answer any of those questions before you close the record and begin your deliberations.

One last thing.

Given the fact that that isn't necessary based on our current scheme of development.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, informational questions for the applicant at this point.

Yeah, all right.

Um thanks for being here, Dave.

You mentioned in the that first slide concerns about um absorption.

Uh I was wondering if you could expand on that a little bit.

Yes, uh, I think the uh rental rates that would have been ascribed to the type of product that we were intending on building initially.

Were um we weren't comfortable with that, you know, basically, and uh the velocity of a project is a big word in development.

You that's the idea to make money and is to go through and uh absorb the product as quickly as you can, and our confidence level was not there with the uh market conditions, market reports we got, economic conditions, what have you?

That was basically what we were concerned about.

Absorption.

Thank you.

And then the just a quick comment, I think about since the concept of the linear open spaces is not yet set, just and this is not related to the question.

I'm not allowed to make a comment.

Okay.

Do you want if if you want to ask them something about what you're talking about?

Okay, here's the question.

Yeah, for example.

Why select wavy multi-use paths instead of straight ones?

That would maximize the utility of the open space while also making for better transportation corridors.

So I think that's a fine comment.

I would say that these paths are very much conceptual.

I think the linear, the linear open space is what we're trying to show.

Um, and those paths within them could take many forms.

Um, but appreciate that comment.

Thank you.

There you go.

Okay, council Fretzel, that's my questions earlier that I was trying to ask Renee, but I guess I should have been asking you guys.

Um, so I'm I'm just reading from the development code here.

The mixed-use urban zone is uh it is supposed to have an emphasis on retail and entertainment uses on the street level.

So, how do you interpret that?

Um, how are you interpreting that in your in the concept plan then?

So I I don't have that code section in front of me, right?

But I don't know if that's from the purpose statement for the zone because residential uses among a number of other uses, including commercial, are permitted outright.

So there's nothing in the code that requires ground floor commercial, even though looking at the zone generally, that that is maybe a desire from the city.

Yeah, yeah, I keep running into that.

Details of the code don't match the intent that we seem to put forward.

Ian, can you speak to what a purpose statement is versus the code?

Yeah, it's it's it's just that a purpose statement, it's often part of the code, it is here.

Um there's uh extensive case law saying purpose statements are not criteria unless the code specifically says they are.

So they they they can reflect intent and but they're considered mostly aspirational unless the code specifically says their approval criteria.

And so this code also has its own purpose statement in the master plan already, correct?

Uh which which code, the timber's missile code?

I have to look, but I think it does.

I'm looking at it right now.

Okay, it does.

Yes, it does.

I don't think uh other questions for the applicant.

I just go ahead on the climate-friendly areas.

I found the executive summary from I don't know how many years ago.

And this this area actually was not a prime area for climate-friendly areas.

So I just thought that would be good for to share since we couldn't get into that.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Other questions for the applicant about the changes they're proposing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um, any other follow-up with staff on the criteria or the or anything else we want to ask staff before we close the record there.

And I will also seek public comment before closing the record.

Renee, not Pauline.

Renee has here.

Um okay.

We did not have anyone sign up for public comment.

If you're on Zoom or in the room and you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand.

I'm seeing none.

Um, so I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and we can move to deliberation and motion.

I move for the first reading of the ordinance to amend the Ben Development Code to amend article oh gosh 18, 28, 20.

Okay, I need my glasses.

Temporary master plan development.

Second.

All right, motion by council Norris, second by council really.

Any further discussion?

All right.

I just I mean, I I just I feel like we keep, you know, we kind of keep running into this, right?

Like with neighborhood commercial and complete neighborhoods, and like, and here we are, you know, with with this, and I mean it's it market forces are what they are, it's a reality.

But yeah, I I yeah, I I hope we can um yeah, take kind of take a look at our development code and and just make sure if we don't, you know.

I know the purpose statement doesn't have any enforcement, but it people read it and it means something to somebody, it meant something to me.

I'm like, why would it be there if it if it wasn't intentional?

So anyway, I hope we can have some discussions about what our development code is achieving and not achieving.

Yeah, I do think the difference in this particular location is that it is surrounded by lots of different commercial sets within short walking distance to all kinds of restaurants.

I don't know if it's agree with you, but my point is that it's a little different from some of the other parts of town where some of this has come up where they're a little bit more of a desert.

Desert of commercial, and so um it you know, I think it's just different because it's in the urban core.

Um we're still getting a lot of housing units and potentially get more.

We'll see how it all evolves relative to the market.

My hope would be over time that we might just might discover that more retail can show up there, more neighborhoods are being retail and that it contributes to a lot of vibrancy that's already in that part of town.

And I'm really glad that Ani is getting built because that is was a priority for the transportation bond oversight committee for a really long time.

So that's really positive about this too.

Okay.

Um yeah, and the specific uh the specific purpose statement for this master plan, which isn't changing, um, to transform vacant land, and just to remind folks this is vacant, there's nothing there right now.

Um, and historically industrial area into vibrant urban and mixed use neighborhood with housing, close proximity to employment and commercial services, which are scaled to serve the needs of area residents and workers, and the second one is about connecting with our transportation plan, which you just mentioned, um, and safe, attractive, and efficient pedestrian routes and other multimodal transportation options that aren't too wavy.

That's not in there, but that's what council members would like.

Um so I think we're still achieving that.

And and for the small changes that are in here, I think we've met the criteria.

So I think I think we're in agreement with that.

But all right, anything else before we vote?

Okay, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Hope to see grading side.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, items.

Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing eminent domains, the properties located within the Ani safety and connectivity project.

Speaking of, yeah, all right.

Real quick, uh, while we're transitioning here, just in terms of the Ani project, uh, that piggybacks exactly what we were just talking about.

So a portion of what Maddie's gonna share for you is the work on Ani that goes underneath the parkway next to the rail there.

We are working very closely with the developer.

They have water and sewer line improvements that need to be done before we come through and do the multimodal improvements on top.

So uh rest assured we are having that coordination now, and the approval of this master plan amendment uh definitely helps us uh to do that coordination and scheduling effort.

So um that is in the works.

So that being said, um, this isn't an Ani project update.

This is an eminent domain thing, so hopefully we won't take up more than a couple minutes of your time.

Great.

My name is Madeline Alan Sandos, and we're presenting on the Ani Safety and Connectivity Project, eminent domain resolution.

Uh quick project background.

This project provides critical east-west connectivity and important safety upgrades.

The focus is Q Route 7, which is shown in the green dotted line, which begins near Bend High, travels west to third and burnside, south down third to Scott, and then over to Awani Street at Ani and Division Street private development, as previously mentioned, we'll extend transportation improvements to Bond Street.

Along this quarter, the project will upgrade four intersections as shown in the gray dots, add a shared use path shown in dark green, and improve the sidewalk along second street shown in orange.

This resolution covers the right-of-way acquisitions and temporary construction easements needed on a portion of 12 properties.

These property actions allow the project to move forward with safer, more efficient intersections and expanded pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

The map on the left highlights all properties where temporary easements and right-of-way acquisitions are needed, and we're also showing in the blue A dots access agreements.

The 12 parcels shown in the yellow are the ones we're discussing today.

Right of way acquisitions are needed for permanent improvements, such as intersection upgrades at Third and Miller and filling in sidewalk gaps.

Temporary construction easements are needed where grading extends onto private property, and access our agreements are required for driveway tie-ins.

The city will make any every reasonable effort to reach voluntary agreements with the property owners, and condemnation would only be used if an agreement cannot be reached.

This resolution allows the timeline to run in parallel with negotiations, which helped reduce the risks of construction delays.

Any questions for staff on this?

Getting ready to move forward.

There's an open house.

There's an online open house in right now house right now.

Correct.

Okay, great.

All right.

I move to adopt a resolution exercising the power and then the domain if agreement cannot be reached with property owners for the acquisition of portion about the 12 parcels necessary to construct the ANI safety and connectivity project and authorize the city manager to take steps necessary to implement the resolution.

Second.

All right, moved by Council Riley, seconded by Councillor Mendez.

All those in favor.

All right, great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council.

On to item number eight.

Council is asked to adopt a resolution reauthorizing a qualified rental property tax exemption for the Mountain Laurel Lodge affordable housing development at 990 Southwest Yates Drive.

Council is being asked to consider a resolution to approve the property tax exemption in your documents.

You will find a staff report on the project along with the application documents and financial impact analysis.

I'll be presenting on the key elements of the application, and following this presentation, we have the applicant here to share more on the importance of this exemption for the community and answer any questions that you have on the application.

The qualified rental housing property tax exemption is a low-income property tax exemption authorized by Oregon State Statute.

The city adopted this exemption in the early 2000s, with the exemption having been used nine times since the adoption.

In fact, our applicant today, Mountain Laurel Lodge, was our first of these exemptions approved 20 years ago, and we're considering their renewal application today.

Each exemption must be authorized by the Venn City Council, and council must take final action within 60 days of data application.

For this application, that timeline ends next week.

The city may only exempt their portion of the property taxes unless the developer secures exemption from 51% of the taxing districts.

Once an application is deemed complete in our office, we send notice of application and requests for consideration to all seven taxing districts.

This includes staff report, application documents, and financial impact analysis.

Each taxing district has equal opportunity to consider the application within the 60-day timeline.

Some taxing districts request presentations, often placing the item on the public meeting agendas for consideration.

On March 7th, High Desert ESD Education Service District is what that stands for.

Approved this uh exemption.

On March 25th, the Chutes County Board of County Commissioners approved this exemption.

And I'm pleased to let the council know that just last evening the Ben LePine School Board put this back on their agenda and approved the exemption as well.

With 51% of the taxing district approval secured, your approval this evening would result in a full property tax exemption.

And I'll note uh here that the motion language in your issue summary uh does not reflect the full exemption, and so if you approve, we have alternate motion language for you.

I would like to highlight a couple key factors of this um special are the specific property tax exemption as not to be confused with any other taxing incentives such as TIFF or past tax exemptions such as Mufti.

This is a completely different standalone program with strict adherence to the parameters set in the state statute and the Venn code.

It's important to understand that the savings from this tax exemption must be passed dollar for dollar to the residents in the form of rent reduction.

This is unique to this specific property tax exemption, and it's specifically for low-income rental housing, meaning affordable for those making 60% AMI or less.

To give a little perspective on what that number means here in Bend for household of two, this is up to 54,900, and for a household of one, this would be up to 48,000 annual income.

Typically, this would be your recreation workers service industry or your entry tech level workforce, but for our applicant, this specifically is um our elders on fixed incomes that we are considering this evening.

In your document, oh sorry.

Mount Laurel Lodge is an existing 55 and older community on Century Drive just past OSU after that roundabout.

All 54 units are affordable.

Um that means the entire property is deed restricted at 60 percent AMI or less.

In your documents, you have financial impact analysis that provides estimates based on information provided by the applicant.

So briefly, the overall exemption impact to all taxing districts combined over 20 years is estimated to be just under 2 million.

The initial first year impact to the city is estimated to be about 22,625, and a 20-year impact to the city being estimated at 417,426.

I would add that this impact um would not be a loss of current revenue as the property is currently exempted from property taxes, and this application is a renewal.

Now, either before your discussion or um if you have questions during your discussion, we have Pacific Crest owner John Gilbert here to share more about the impact of the exemption on this community.

Great questions for Carrie.

Council do we want to hear from John?

Just give him a thumbs up.

Yeah, two thumbs up, thumbs up.

Yeah.

All right.

I mean, I just wanted to acknowledge the recognize that um the other taxing districts, but in particular, Ben the final schools.

I spoke to some of the board members, and I know that this was of concern to them, but I really appreciate that.

You know, one, they are facing some real financial challenges, but two that they were viewed this a little bit differently, in particular because it's a renewal and it's not currently on the tax rules.

So I appreciate them you know considering it and moving forward and partnering with us to make sure we continue this um exemption and support the elders and seniors in our community who benefit from it.

Yeah, and as well as the county and high desert ESD for their support as well.

All right, if there's no questions, we can have a motion.

I move to adopt the resolution to reauthorize.

Sorry, Carrie has different language for us than what's on our agenda because we weren't sure um if the school group was gonna have it on their agenda or not.

It's slightly different.

Hold on just a second and move everything now.

I just did some math in public, and I think our addition right here is 35 bucks off their rent per month for each one of these folks.

So that's what we're doing.

Just do all that.

That's real dollars.

Yep, so I can hear just our part.

Oh, it's so small, Carrie.

I know I really want to approve the resolution reauthorizing an exemption from property taxes for all taxing districts for the mountain Laurel Lodge affordable housing development located at 990 Southwest Yates Drive in Bend, Oregon.

Second.

All right, move by Councillor Mendes, second by counselor Platt.

All those in favor.

All right, thank you, Carrie.

Thank you, John, for being here.

Thank you for having this development.

Okay.

Um Tricia, you get to read nine through 12.

Yes, she's once.

Council is asked to authorize a contract with granite construction company for construction of the 2026 street preservation paving project in an amount not to exceed 2,410,796.

And council is asked to authorize a contract with due little construction LLC for construction of the 2026 residential chip seal project in amount not to exceed 949,000 dollars.

And council is asked to authorize a contract with VSS International Inc.

for construction of the 2026 micro sealing project type 2 and type 3 in an amount not to exceed 589,325.

And council is asked to authorize a contract with VSS International Inc.

for construction of the 2026 residential type 2 slurry seal project and an amount not to exceed 395,325.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Invited as a panelist.

Sorry, I was trying to get connected and was having issues.

Yeah.

My apologies, it's already late.

And here we were gonna try to be quick.

Do we need to link through the email invite?

We'll pull it up, but I'll put up where you have it.

Yeah, quicker.

Okay, sorry, we'll get it to you.

Um that up for us, David Abbas, director of transportation mobility department.

Good evening.

With Paul Nicewander, our streets and preservations program manager.

Uh, we're gonna tag team uh with you here.

We'll try to be quick uh in light of the time.

As uh as was mentioned, four street preservation contracts with you this evening.

Uh items nine through twelve, one presentation for all four.

Um we'll try to be quick here.

You have a pack, a map in your packet of the project locations.

Also want to mention there is a link on item number nine and the council agenda online for folks at home if they want to grab the map themselves from there, uh they can.

Next slide, please.

Our agenda real quick.

Uh, we're gonna tag team as I mentioned.

I'll talk about why street preservation or streets conditions.

Uh Paul uh talks about the four different contracts, and then uh we'll wrap up.

I'll jump back in and we'll talk some trends and see if council has any uh questions this evening.

Um but basically uh you're fine with the next slide.

But a good transportation system serving all users, uh, a key element to a connected city.

Why street preservation?

We've we've had many conversations over the years, uh, or keep the good roads good philosophy.

Um street preservation helps maintain and provide a good transportation system with cost effective treatments, including bike lanes uh for cyclists, EDA ramps, crosswalks for pedestrians, uh some sidewalk info where we have the uh available reset resources and we're able to, and we're out there with boots on the ground.

So uh supporting all users.

Uh as you see in the graph here, if we can maintain our system up in that uh good to fair condition, uh we can treat and preserve and extend the life of our assets at uh you know good cost effective measures in that three to six dollars a square yard type range.

Those are the sleep the seals, slurry seal, chip seal, micro, um as the uh road ages, oxidizes becomes more brutal, cracking.

We get down into those more extensive treatments of paving, uh rehabilitation, reconstruction, and the cost goes up uh considerably, as you can see in that 25 to you know up over 100 a square yard range.

So similar to painting your house, protect your house, protect your siding, keep the moisture out of your, you know, you don't want to let your sighting get to where uh you have to replace it.

Same same thing with the roads we're trying to do there.

Um next slide, please.

A little different format than you've seen for me in the past on our PCI.

Uh so I'll talk real quick about this.

Uh, but as you recall from 2015 to the early two 2020, uh, we were really investing in our system, improving our pavement condition index or PCI, and uh improved our system from a 68 up to a 76.

Early 2000s hit pandemic, um, so adjusting budgets conservatively for that for the unknowns.

There's inflation, uh, cost of doing business increases.

Um, since then in the early 2000s, we've really just kind of been holding our ground at a PCI of about 76, 77, uh, as you've seen from us in the past.

Uh being very diligent not to go backwards, but also try to support our other needs uh in our community as well.

Um, also I'll mention here uh you know, last year the transportation utility fee phase one was passed, and as you recall, that was kind of let's shore up and hold our ground, keep the lights on with with these inflation and cost and and things increasing this year.

Phase two being uh phased in implemented, uh, same thing there, hold our ground, but also uh start some other uh items, some of the transportation system plan programs, bike program, pet program, travel demand management, increase our level of service in some areas, uh dedicated legends crew for safety and markings, uh, which also helps out in winter ops, some of those types of things.

Uh so as we know phase three is of the tough, we put that on hold uh understandably, see what the state could do.

State's still working on it.

So I just say this that later this year when we're working on them to next two-year biennial budget.

Uh, we'll want to make sure we can uh maintain and keep up with our system on the graph here.

Just point out real quick last winter uh be on the left side of the screen there, uh, October, November, December of uh you know, the end of 2024, we're going into 25.

We bumped up a minute uh uh a point to 77 at the end of the construction season.

We enter the work we did that year, as well as any known capital improvement work, private development work, some of those public frontage requirements uh that happened.

So we bump up to a 77 maintenance never goes away.

So as that uh continues to age, our pavement management system is like now you're a few months older.

We drop back down to a 76.

So we're just right there teetering at that 76, 77 level.

Um I'll point out that this winter that did not happen.

Um we're still at a 76.

So a lot of factors there, which projects were picking, how much capital work you know really got done that year, or is it still in construction?

So we're we're at a solid high end of 76, and really just knocking on the door on 77.

So uh we'll just want to keep an eye on that going forward and and try not to go backwards.

Uh next slide, please.

System uh arterials collectors residentials.

The highlights here uh total system about 921 lane miles to maintain.

Arterials are at a PCI of 81 collectors at 79.

So not too not too bad there.

Uh the industry target we're looking for to be as cost effective as we can uh with the taxpayers dollars is an 83.

Uh so we're we're fairly strong in the arterial collector.

Those are what most people see, right?

Driving around town, kids to school, grocery store, post office.

Uh the bulk of our system or 73% of our system is those local residential roads tucked back in neighborhoods.

Um that's 73% of our system.

Those are the 75, so we still got some work to do there.

Overall, though, PCI is 76.

Uh next slide, please.

And I'll turn it over to Paul to hit on our contracts.

Mayor Keegler, Council, thanks for letting me attend this evening.

Uh, today I'm gonna talk this evening.

I'm gonna talk about our four projects that we have on board uh tonight.

Uh, first one is our agenda item number nine is our paving project.

Um rehabilitation of uh 12.9 lane miles, which is gonna include two inch and four inch grind inlays.

Um, my estimate was 2.249 uh million dollars.

Uh we did receive three bids on this, ranging from 2.4 to 2.987.

Uh the lowest bid was granite construction for two million four hundred and ten thousand seven hundred and ninety-six thousand.

Um with that next slide, please.

Next slide uh is our chip seal program, agenda item number ten.

Um lane miles of this uh project.

Uh my estimate was 897, uh 479.

We received three bids uh ranging from uh 949,000 to uh 1,273,000 in change.

Our lowest recipe bidder is doodle construction for 949,000.

Next slide, please, so um agenda 11, uh our microsurfacing project.

Um, this is microsurfacing 11.1 lane miles.

Uh rut type three rut filling.

Uh, we're gonna be doing this primarily on third street.

Uh it's all gonna be night work.

We're gonna try to get away from all the traffic with this type of material that allows it to cure at night.

Uh so we're gonna do type three rut filling uh within the ruts, and then we're gonna get with then we're gonna slurry it or micro seal from curve to curb uh from basically Wilson out to ODOT, just out in front of Le Schwabs there.

Um we received two bids for that ranging from uh 800 uh or 589,000 in change to 615.

My estimate was 627 or 626,000 in change.

VSS was the little bidder for 589,325.

Our last item uh number four is our slurry seal, which is going to be uh pretty much all residential streets, primarily uh 26.1 lane miles.

It's a type two polymer modified slurry seal.

Uh my estimate was 547,380.

Uh we received two bits uh ranging from 395 and change to 479.

Our lowest response bidder was VSS for 395,032.

So back to David.

Thank you, Ashley.

Uh so kind of in closing here, uh contracts is a total.

I just wanted to point out uh going into this year with this fiscal year budget, our street preservation budget was 4.3 million.

And so kudos to Paul and the team for pretty much nailing that.

These four contracts before you this evening, 4.34 million.

Uh so right there, happy with that.

Uh total lane miles being treated with all four of these contracts, 77 lane miles.

Um I want to point out that 40 of those are local residential.

Uh so we're you know, we're trying to keep the good roads good with our trials and collectors.

There's maintenance never goes away, but where we can, we're really trying to chip away at those local roads and take care of those.

Um like I said, the locals are about 73% of our system.

So that total 77 lane miles just put in perspective.

We're touching 8.4% of our total system.

Um next slide, please.

Just want to point out uh we were talking about maps earlier on our website uh for transportation mobility department under street preservation.

There is an interactive map for folks where you can go in and click on a project and you know look at some additional detail as these contracts get awarded, and there's uh more information on schedule and things like that.

So next slide, please.

Closing here with a couple of trends.

Uh, what I'm showing here is the average cost per ton of asphalt from our successful paving contracts uh going back to 2015.

Uh so you see the trend there, uh, particularly in the last you know, six six, seven years or so.

Um, and and noting that from last year to this year, the price per ton of asphalt we're seeing seeing about a 20% increase at 120 dollars a square yard.

So uh really just we we want to keep up with that trend, like I said earlier, not go backwards, and and so we'll continue to monitor these things and have the have the discussions in the next biannual budget preparation.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is deferred maintenance backlog.

What this is uh is basically unconstrained budget in one year.

If we could go do everything that our pavement management system says we should do, and this is the roadway surface, um, and these are in millions of dollars, like that year.

If you could go do it all, which is unrealistic, obviously, but if you could go do it all, we'd be at a PCI of 83 with zero deferred maintenance for that year.

The next year, there's gonna be other work to do.

All the streets aren't on the same cycle, but just to give you an idea of the trends.

Uh, as I mentioned earlier from 2015 to early 2020, as we were really trying to improve our system.

Uh, proud of that.

As we were increasing our pavement condition index, our deferred maintenance was going down by millions.

Um, in this last five, six years that trend is has gone back up as we uh you know, work in battle to keep up with inflation and cost of doing business and really hold our ground and not go backwards.

That deferred maintenance just gets more expensive each year that goes on uh due to those same factors.

Next slide, please.

That's it.

All right, happy answering questions.

Thank you.

Four motions to do.

I move to authorize a contract with granite construction company and substantially the form presented to council for the 2026 street preservation paving project in an amount not to exceed 2,410,796.

Okay.

All right, move by counselor Perkins, second by Council Riley.

All those in favor?

Aye.

I move to authorize a contract with due little construction LLC and substantially the form presented to council for the 2026 residential chip seal project in an amount not to exceed 949,000 dollars.

By council Perkins, second by counselor Platt.

All those in favor, I move to authorize a contract with BSS International Inc.

and substantially the form presented to council for the 2026 micro sealing project type two and type three in an amount not to exceed 589,325 dollars.

Second moved by counselor Perkins, second by counselor Norris.

All those in favor.

I move to authorize the contract with VSS International Inc.

and substantiate the form presented to council for the 2026 residential type two slurry sale project in an amount not to exceed 395,325 dollars.

All right, moved by council perkettes, second by counselor Mendez.

All those in favor.

Thank you very much.

Good to see you on the road.

Um all right, Councilor Norris for the next few items.

Yes, I am declaring an actual contact on items 13 through 16 because I am an employee of Hayden Homes, and these items we have a financial impact on my employer.

So I'll be leaving the room while you vote on the settings.

All right, so we're gonna run through a bunch of second readings here, which are all roll call votes.

So we'll just need motion, seconds, and then roll calls.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to amend Ben comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the Stevens Road Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of the ordinance to amend Ben comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the Stevens Road Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

All right, roll call vote.

Oh wait, sorry, we need a second.

Thank you.

Second by council menders moved by counselor platt.

Okay, councillor French has that.

Yeah, councillor Mendez.

Aye, Councillor Riley, yes, Mayor Potem Perkins.

We have a stain.

Counselor Platt.

Yes.

Uh Mayor Keepley.

Yes.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to amend the Bend Development Code, Chapter 2.7, special plan districts, refined plans, area maps, and master plans to create the legacy village plan development and approximately 260 acre major community master plan.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of the ordinance to amend Bend Development Code Chapter 2.7 special plan districts refinement plans, area plans and master plans to create the legacy village master plan development.

Second.

All right, move by Council Mendis, second by Councillor Platt.

Councillor Frenchessa?

No.

Councilor Mendez.

Aye.

Councilor Riley?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Perkins.

Abstaining.

Councilor Platt.

Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

This is the second reading of an ordinance to annex 265.7 acres of land in the Stevens Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote.

The ordinance and annexing 265.7 acres in the Stevens Road Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area assigning sign districts and requesting jurisdictional transfer of the abiding rights away.

Second.

Councilor Francesa.

No.

Councilor Mendez.

All right.

Councilor Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Perkins.

Stain.

Councilor Platt.

Yes.

Mayor Kepler.

Yes.

And this is the second reading of an ordinance amending Ben Municipal Code Title IX buildings to adopt discretionary section R 327 wildfire hazard mitigation residential building code standards.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of the ordinance amending Ben Municipal Code Title IX Buildings.

Second.

Alright, move by Councilor Mendes.

Second by Councilor Riley.

Roll call vote.

Councilor Francosa.

No.

Counselor Mendez.

Aye.

Councilor Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Proten Perkins.

Abstain.

Councilor Platt.

Yes.

Mayor Keebler.

Yes.

All right.

I just said I abstained and abstained because I wasn't in attendance.

I would have voted yes on every single one of them.

Sure.

Thank you for the clarification.

Okay.

Now we're on a city manager report, which is a little different tonight because we're doing a quarterly goal update.

Yes, so uh Kate's going to share the screen here.

We're going to go through this fairly quick.

Um because I actually want to get to the punchline, which is all about actually meeting efficiency and hearing some of your feedback around how we can improve both the quality and potentially kind of reduce maybe some of the quantity of the meetings.

So as Kate pulls that up, um, so our quarterly update.

We actually have a report that's posted online, a status report that goes through all of the 040 close to 50 action items, um, the progress to date and all that.

Uh so we'll we'll go through the numbers really quickly.

Um for the most part we're staying on track with the goal items.

We've got a couple that we've had some delay.

Uh first is under accessible and effective government.

We have the coalition of the coalition to prevent hate speech and discrimination.

Um that's been in the goal for a while.

We actually there was a discussion at HRAC last night.

Um we are hiring Kuhn Trian as a contract to help fill in some gaps as we are filling staff so those the positions for the equity, the secondity leadership positions will be post by the end of the week.

And uh who is also gonna help us scope that uh a little bit more, but it's been slightly delayed because of some of those staffing issues.

You can see that there.

Um there's been some delays in our transportation and infrastructure area.

This is really related to the state inaction on both transit and transportation funding.

Uh those have some interdependencies with our climate resiliency uh uh slight reduction there.

We had ED charging that was connected to mobility hubs, which is connected to that state funding.

We're gonna try to pick that up and uh with our funding with uh the GO bond and providing that to CET to get some of those mobility hubs going.

We have an opportunity, I think for Troy Field as well.

Uh on the schedule of the next two months.

We had a really busy first quarter with lots of special meetings and it was pretty stacked.

We're starting to slow down a little bit.

We'll have a little bit of a break coming up in the summer with uh breaks of both July and August, a fifth week in April.

We have a a week break, which is and then here's the schedule uh based on those goal areas.

So I'm not gonna go through this in great detail, but you kind of see what's coming up.

Uh really activity in all of the six goal areas over the next two months.

Um quickly here into some of the highlights in each of the goal areas.

Uh really here I wanted to point out the uh water uh the per capita use for our goal is 165 gallons a day.

We're exceeding that right now, which is good news.

Um we'll have to just monitor it because it changes, fluctuates throughout the year.

We also wanted just a quick plug for the volunteer recruitment for our tree inventory that's taking place.

And the wildfire resiliency is happening in June at home.

We did the home hardening.

The other part of that is the defensible space.

We're doing a lot of prototyping right now with our work at Bloomberg and looking at potential ways to provide direct assistance to homeowners beyond just the assessment.

How can we actually help homeowners to remove some of that vegetation along along our uh or that five foot zone of their home?

So some exciting work there.

Yeah, yeah.

Do you want me to point out all of the virus?

Yeah, you can probably get some.

I mean, the good news is all of the um the mesh on all of the vents on my house are uh eighth inch, which is what they need to be.

And this is like a 1970s era house, so miraculously cool.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you for picking demonstration.

Yeah, um, and then on economic prosperity, just to highlight here the EID is coming before you for the Ben Central district uh next sort of in the next council meeting on May 6th.

On the site specific uh incentives, so we had 12, 1300 units.

One project did fall off of the what was the what council approved that market conditions just don't support it.

Um so we're at 959 units.

Just wanted to point that out.

Um, and then the supplier diversity, there's a memo attached to this uh council item.

We actually talked about it in HRAC last night, the public contracts committee.

Uh, really, it's a program that pairs a contract with the professional business development group out of Portland to help folks get certified.

The idea is to really rely on the states, the Oregon business, um, the Oregon Small Business Enterprise certification, and our administrative policy to go alongside that is to put up a preference towards contracting if our their contracts under 25,000.

Our requirement is to solely use if they're available, um, OB OBC OBSE uh businesses, and then at least two bids if it's two 25,000 to 250.

Um, so we'll we'll talk more about that as it unfolds, but just uh that's been a discussion that's been making its way around again more detailed in that memo.

And then housing, uh good news, our our permit numbers are still holding.

So we are at uh about 40 percent uh of the goal, and we're about 37% through the timing period.

So 1,500, almost 1600 housing units that have been permitted since July 1st.

Um about 10% uh of that, 145-ish uh are deed restricted affordable.

So that number has also been holding, uh, which has been kind of what we've been doing historically.

Um, some areas of concern, uh our state parking spots.

You can you'll if you look at our dashboard, some of those state parking spots have actually gone down and switched to the shelter.

So Central Oregon villages, they had safe parking permitted, uh, it was where former the Don's house was.

That's now been permitted as an outdoor shelter.

So it just the state parking is still there, it just moved into a different column.

Um, but we still have that as an area of concern is uh the state its own we'll get more information from the state shelter funding framework.

They are really only funding things that were that have been in existence since 2023.

Um so that's something that we are still on the hunt for of some dedicated local funding source so we can continue to provide uh capacity for our houseless neighbors.

And we do have some concern with just the permit valuation for that construction permit is actually a little bit less than we've had in years past.

So yet yes, the activity is up, but the valuation which is used to calculate those fees is a little bit down.

So some of the revenue coming in to support our affordable housing program, both the fee and then the construction excise tax on industrial land is is under what we have uh forecasted for budget.

Um we're a little bit we're higher than we have been in years past on that uh 80% and below AMI, um, but not as not where we want to be with our uh ONA housing numbers.

Uh public safety, we've really revamped the dashboard so you'll see a lot more uh public engagement and trust metrics, uh looking at our uh customer service feedback on that on that dashboard.

Um, and then that kind of the big news is reported we are starting to issue warnings for the automated traffic enforcement starting today.

We have a 30 month or 38 day uh 30 month, 30 days in the month late to uh issue those warnings and we'll start issuing citations after that, and then that joint meeting we have the rural fire this print on May 13th to talk about low term funding.

And transportation, uh some progress, you know, per council direction of really enhancing so since the state didn't follow through, we've shifted some one time resources in the form of uh real estate proceeds to beef up our safety program.

Uh we'll be coming back to you to make sure that we're spending that, you know, as we've been talking about with uh enhanced crossings and other safety measures.

Um our brand for Reed Market Bridge is still holding, so that will be coming before you for finalization on May 6th, which is just in time because that is uh interdependency for that CIP prioritization that will take place on May 13th.

So with that, it just provides a little more um flexibility for how we're uh prioritizing the remaining pieces of the geolan.

And then just recognition of the silver um bicycle-friendly community uh certification, and then just to uh put a shout out to the folks that you heard from, they were received a really great award on Slurry SEAL uh excellence award.

Two awards and payment preservation.

All right, yes.

Uh and then um I'm gonna have Jesse just talk through a couple of highlights for the dashboard.

We're just kind of giving you teasers, and then I want to come back and then talk about the council schedule and some proposals.

So let Kate pull it up here.

So we're gonna focus on two areas tonight.

So we've got in our climate resiliency area.

There's um two metrics I want to talk about with that.

And so the first one is uh is around scroll down.

We can see so we had previously one metric that was showing uh number of units, homes that were um you can see it, and there's right the upper right, which is using electric instead of gas.

So we previously had one number, we have now broken it out by multifamily and uh single family homes.

And again, these are new multi-family, new single family with that.

Um new single family is sitting at 14.3%.

That's you know, we're three quarters of the way through this year in the biennium.

Uh last year, the last fiscal year we had, we were at 11%, and uh over the subsequent years before then I should say uh it's actually been trending up this whole time.

So we're seeing that trend continue to rise through this year.

Uh multifamily is sitting at 94.7%.

That's pretty typical to be pretty high.

There's not a lot of multifamily that uh is created that has lettuce gas um and electric.

I mean, they just don't do a lot of gas, where we are seeing those types of connections is when it's like a redevelopment and it'll be like a four-plex or something, there's gas already there, and they'll put it in with that.

Uh, and then the the other area I want to just touch on tonight is the wildfire um home assessments.

So we have two metrics now up there.

So the first metric, the one you see on the left, the 319, that are that is the number of assessments we've done this fiscal year in the city of Bend, and the 387 assessments is the total for city of End and for Rural Fire as well.

And then the last area we'll touch on is in transportation and infrastructure.

This is looking at uh our crashes that we are tracking.

Uh we have a goal to be at 1900 or fewer.

Uh again, we're three-quarters of the way through the year this right now, and um we're at 929.

It doesn't look like at this point that we're gonna stay under that um kind of threshold we're looking for.

I expect it to be probably well over a thousand as we get into the end of this fiscal year.

Uh, but we'll have to see how the automated enforcement, if that makes a uh slows the trend down and look at that, we'll see what it does with it, and we can touch base later on that.

That's all we had to touch on today.

We can just give you a lot of information.

Any questions for either the metrics or the information that I shared before we get into the proposal for meeting schedule.

Can I just jump on um because I you know you went through quickly supplier diversity, and I know that we all received a memo.

I hope you had a chance to read it.

But I just want to just really thank um uh Justin Cyrus for for this project has been talked about for years and years, and they really embraced it and um are really gonna make the procurement process um more accessible for for local and first-time uh contractors and and for that.

I'm grateful and I'm excited to see what happens.

So just wanted to give kudos.

Oh, thank you.

And if I can echo that, I want to, you know, um we talked about it at the public contracts committee.

And I think I'm really excited about the partnership with the professional business development group, PDG.

Um Mayor Pro Tem Perkins has been as well to some of the events with them and the community, and they're really attracting the part of the community that um I think we're trying to reach, and it's just exciting, and we're gonna be able to move forward with them and vote, helping us to train people on how to become part of the system and to do some of these certifications and also just continue to get more input on how we can make those system work more effectively for these small minimum businesses.

Really exciting that I really appreciate that.

Yeah, as always, I love our dashboard, and I don't know if another people know about it and how much information is on it.

Um, when I had a chance to present on it, you know, earlier this year, other cities were very impressed.

Um, and and I've also seen it from start to to now, how much it's improved and how much um we're really being transparent.

So um I hope we can continue to help folks find it and just click around and and see all the information they can find on there about what we're doing.

And we're always looking for your feedback too.

If there's something that's like we've had some great discussions with some of you, you know, that might want to go deeper in some areas which have inspired some of these uh metrics.

So we really want you to sort of own and be invested in these.

So if you have ideas on how to make them.

Yeah, what one thing I had mentioned to Chief today was you know, a specific page on our on our data around our calls and tickets that's just about our red light cameras just to really highlight what's going on there because there's a high interest center in that and that would be able to track that.

All right, so we thanks for the feedback that you provided on just how things are going.

We're seven, eight months uh in this new schedule.

We started it in September of last year of alternating the business meetings and work sessions, but essentially means a meeting every w every Wednesday.

Um we wanted to check in and see how it's going with any change, you know.

We want to uh see what's working, what's not.

So what we heard uh working well is uh folks prefer the earlier start times for both the business meetings and work sessions.

Maybe tonight's the exception, but generally shorter meetings are too related.

Um and the separation of the business uh meetings and work sessions.

What's not working well uh is the meeting frequency, especially when there's special meetings on layered on top of that.

Uh some people just feel like it's an unsustainable pace.

Uh meetings feel rushed, especially those work session and agenda review meetings.

Uh we want more time.

The council wants more time for council discussion versus sometimes it's just too much staff information, not enough time, maybe it's a little imbalanced that way.

Um and the posting of information, just people want that information earlier, though maybe a little more depth.

Um so what we're proposing, we're really trying to meet you where you're at and uh respond to that feedback is to uh if you go to the uh next well.

I'm sorry, let's do it.

It's there on next slide.

Um we're gonna propose that we move to one work session a month, go away from the two to just get another week without meetings.

Um, but that what that there's a trade-off that we're proposing is going a little bit longer.

I'm not here to give you a specific date and time.

We'll do some doodle polling and seeing what will work as a follow-up to this, but want to just get a general um agreement of removing one of those meetings a week, going a little bit longer.

And then the also the trade-off is kind of going back to your feedback, um, like on the council uh goals, there's a lot of items that are more operational.

So the plan is just giving you memos, updating you through the weekly uh city manager memo or through the quarterly report, really focusing in on those work sessions on the items that are there.

There's gonna be other work session topics, but really putting a priority focus on what you see there.

Um, so you know, those uh those times that we will have as a work session.

We're gonna provide more background memos, background materials, um, the staff presentation.

What we would propose is those are just to help frame up questions and really giving you all more time to digest the sort of the policy uh the direction that's needed for staff.

Um, so that's sort of going a little deeper, fewer topics, more focus is the sort of general direction that we're going.

Um, but we do have some good feedback that you gave us too.

That's near-term improvements that we can make to the material, so we would start those right away, just in terms of small improvements that can be made to the issue summaries and staff presentation.

So that will start right away.

What I want to do is just sort of propose this concept now, work with you on potentially looking at some dates and some finer um details because there's a lot of upstream things, changes that need to be made when we make those changes, and then the bowl will be implement in probably August or September.

Uh, because we do have a come a break bring up already scheduled, and we have work sessions already booked, so this is not something we can just turn on the time.

So there's my pitch.

Uh when I get your reactions to that.

So thoughts, council on the maybe you can go back, Kate, to that uh previous slide there.

So just as basically this is the proposal to start with right now of going to that one work session, right?

And then it would that be two and a half hours or maybe a little longer because we won't wouldn't be having separate one.

So thoughts from folks?

Yeah.

Uh Eric, I like the way that you're talking about sort of framing it up with us doing sort of the homework ahead of time having the memos.

That said, I think there is value in level setting for the public that's watching these events on those presentations.

So I don't want to slim them down so much that that there's not some level setting that's going on for the public because we want to do that.

I was thinking of that as well.

But I agree.

But I agreed, like I think people go to the presentation to find the information, but as long as we've still got all the other things linked on that agenda.

Okay, here's the memo, and here's the additional information for people to dig into that might be helpful.

Yeah.

I think I have a maybe slightly different perspective on that.

Because I think the feedback that I've heard from the people who who watch, and it's a very small substance.

They they appreciate hearing our deliberations.

And if there's an appetite for that kind of presentation, maybe they can also read those those memos.

But I I think the benefit of more time for us to discuss also has a public benefit as well.

Yeah.

I had a second councillor Mendes.

Is there anyone who really just wants to keep having two work sessions a month?

Yeah.

Not seeing staff, keep your hands down.

Which I don't think staff will answer.

So I think we would also agree.

The four weeks are stuff.

Yeah, yeah, I think I want to emphasize that point.

I don't think it's just about our needs.

I think it's about the needs of staff as well.

I mean, that's sort of everything I've heard.

I mean, I've vented a little bit about this, and and my the feedback I've forgotten is like, yeah, it's just too much, you know.

So my hope is that it gives people a little bit more time and a little breathing room because preparing for us isn't all their jobs.

Right.

Right?

There's more to it than that.

So yeah, I do want to say, I mean, we're s I I think counsel should still expect some of these special meetings and round tables and things like that.

And this will also give us a little more space for those as well.

So we're not doing them the same week as well.

Work session, you know, we're and maybe we can try to uh be cognizant of that as well.

But I mean, I think that for me the biggest concern has been that the overall quality, the meetings and the discussion and deliberations for council has not improved that much.

And because I think we've predictably put squished more stuff into more meetings.

And so, you know, I I agree on um to start times and all that stuff, but I I don't feel overall the quality's gone down the turn.

I think this could contribute to that.

Um I think other piece you're saying is that we may be discussing some things a little less, right?

Because you're saying more operational stuff that's not policy question, right?

We're gonna do in written form.

Right.

Trying to get there.

Yeah.

And if you go to that next slide, this is well, I'm kind of highlighting as the focus area for the next year is these topics.

Right, which are plenty meaty on their own.

Okay.

All right, well.

I mean, I could if I can ask, like, I mean, maybe we should drop one of those if if there's not enough, you know, time in the work sessions.

Um, but you know, I feel like we've put quite a bit of time into economic development, and we also put a lot of time into economic development by via borough, you know, during our business meetings.

So, you know, there that's that was a question I had if that encompasses the.

It's that is the borough sort of stuff.

And some work sessions may be borough related.

Yeah, yeah, that's a broad topic to cover like the set of programs that we're really needing to reviewing um both on the employment side and on the job or uh on the housing side.

And I guess like with wildfire resiliency, it's kind of like what do we need to decide on that?

You know what I mean?

Like I think I feel like Melissa knows what I feel like we've talked about that quite a bit, you know, the assessments and this is the defensible space piece of this.

So, you know, we did the building code, the R2 327, but then this is the do we we have code work to do, and then I think we'd also like scare and stick, we like to also offer some programs and direct assistance.

And we've been talking about maybe the citizen assembly being uh a good venue for that.

So maybe it's less council, but we still need to frame it.

It's probably not gonna take a ton of time.

We've we've actually kind of already got it pre-programmed this summer to start talking about it.

It's the work that we've been doing with the Bloomberg initiative.

Okay.

We've seen some general consensus around this plan, and again, Eric's gonna come back sort of in July.

Sort of like more, this is what we're doing.

It's your point.

I think we if we're gonna look deeper at the work plan too, then we might propose to take some things off too or delay some of the things.

Can we give permission to Eric if there's things that need to be taken off that we want to see that?

We want to have those suggestions.

Yeah, we should do that.

Yeah, obviously it depends on what they are.

Yeah, well, that's what I'm saying.

But I think I want this is something it's been a pattern that's happened over many years now because we've been a very ambitious council with a very ambitious staff that wants to do a lot of things.

And and I think it's okay to come and adjust.

We've already done that when we did our goals, right?

I think that's a really good thing to do.

So I just sometimes we need to tell you like you have permission to tell us, hey, we can't do all these things.

We're gonna do is work on our end to propose some things in July their next quarter to like delay a little bit.

We looked, we did a deep dive.

A lot of things are already in motion, so it's not like oh, we can just stop doing this because it's like yeah, already cut.

But maybe some things might need to be slower.

We did a deep dive a lot of things are already in motion so it's not like oh we can just stop doing this it's like yeah already some things might need to slower might both move a little slower so but if you all have things that you're interested in please and I think this you're saying that those focus areas are gonna be what we focus on after this new step's implemented then so like well what's the what's the list to start with and then you're this is the subset that you're saying is going to put what is not on that list.

What's moving off of it?

I guess it would be a little bit next time you talk about it.

Okay sorry I I was just gonna say a three hour meet work session sounds like daunting um I think we were looking at like two and a half and a half max with a I'd say a program break every time for 10 minutes but that's good feedback yeah when these meetings get to be three hours if you don't want so yeah yeah it's true agree with this absolutely and then I would I did I don't know if we want to do you want those work sessions to not be on the weeks of the business meetings I know there's some folks that you want that free week and you you'd be okay with both a work session and a meeting I think if we're a if we're eliminating one in my opinion I I'm okay with it being on the other week but that whole thing yeah I I don't want personally don't want both in one week.

Yeah I mean there's lots of subcommittees too that have or not subcommittees but advisory boards and yeah that are in schedule so it could call a lot of okay that that makes it easier so we'll we'll just sort of pull you with times if we start a little earlier later whatever we'll get that figured out.

Can I say one random more thing too that um I we tried out tonight and we've done before for proclamations if you're doing a proclamation I would like to start having come take the picture before we meet people here.

Megan came out here they took their picture it's done we don't have to worry and that sort of I think because we're getting into the time of year there's a lot of proclamations we're fighting to keep it at two per meeting right now basically so um just letting people know that's another time saving maybe in our business meetings.

So cool is that it's like yes all right I think that's it for example thanks everybody for joining us