City Council - workshop

So we'll go ahead and call to order our city council work session. I don't actually, it was Gina online. I don't see her video. Okay. So Councilor Franzosa is going to join us virtually. Councilor Norris is recused on this first item on the tree code to still join us after that item is done. And so hopefully we will see Councilor Franzosa pop in here soon, but we're going to go ahead and get started with our tree code follow-up first. So we're ready for those staffed.

Oh, and there it comes. Great.

Good afternoon, Council. I am here today to go over our annual review of the tree preservation code and some follow-up from a work session the Council held in March. I am here today with Renee Brooke, our planning manager, Nia Gray, our city of Bend urban forester. So the purpose of today's work session is to go over the annual review. And I will highlight our first annual review, which was 2025, and then this annual review and compare them. And then the follow-up items from Council's March 11th work session requested additional information from staff to bring back regarding possibly using street trees as mitigation credits, trees located in the future right-of-ways to be excluded from tree preservation, and then a little bit more discussion on western juniper regulations. So again, for staff recommendation for council consideration, we have two. that we'd like to propose. One is to discuss fee and lieu reimbursements for additional tree preservation. I'll go into more detail about this. Another one is to expand the tree preservation incentives for voluntary tree preservation on smaller lots. The three that staff still needs direction on from the March 11th work session is again using required street trees to satisfy mitigation requirements. exempting trees located in future public right-of-ways from tree preservation and standards for Western junipers. So first we'll go over the annual review of the tree preservation code. And again, the two review periods, the 2025 review period was about 13 and a half months. And then the 2026 review period, it's a little over 11 months. So a little bit different, but it is an exact two years that we've had the code in these review periods. And since the end of the 2026 review period of August 16th, I just checked before coming in here today and we haven't had any additional data. So it's still relevant. The tree preservation standards apply to all our zones. They apply to partitions and subdivisions. They apply to site plan review applications. So development for like a commercial building or an industrial building or an apartment complex. And then they also apply to dwelling unit applications on properties larger than one acre. So as you recall, anything under one acre under for development of housing is exempt. So the applications that are subject to the tree preservation code in 2025 included 40 land division and site plan review applications and this last review period with only 15 applications. And then for the properties over one acre, those are very small. 2025, we had two residential lots and in 2026, we had one residential lot. The number of applications that are exempt because they're for the development of housing on one acre or smaller in 2025 was 819 applications and 467 this last review period. So overall applications requiring preservation or mitigation in 2025 was almost 5% of our total applications. And in 2026 was three and a half percent of our total applications. So almost 95%, for example, because they are one acre smaller for the development of housing. The preservation options that applicants proposed And the green represents the 2025 review period and the blue is 2026. For those proposing clear and objective standards, so it's either the 20% priority trees and our priority trees are the 20 inches or greater, or 25% of the total DBH on site. If an applicant proposes either of these, they're 100% done, they do not have to mitigate. So in 2025, we had 26 applications comply with the clear and objective standards and not have to mitigate and 14 this last year. If an applicant can't preserve the 20% or 25%, they have the option to do a minimum of 5% and then they do have to mitigate. And in 2025, we had 10 applications as last year we had one proposed that option. And then we had to do the discretionary track in 2025. That's where they can't preserve the 5%. And maybe they're an industrial site or there's topography issues. They can go to discretionary track, remove as many trees as they need, and then they have to mitigate. So in 2025, we had two. And then this last year we had one. And then the one acre sites are smaller. They still have to comply with the code, but they have the option of just removing trees and mitigating. We had four last year and then the share. The tree mitigation options proposed by applicants so they can choose to replace trees on site, they can replace trees and choose to make a payment in lieu of tree preservation, or they can just make a payment. In 2025, we had nine applicants propose just replace trees on site and we had two this pay period. In 2025, we had five applicants do a combination and none this year. And then we had two in 2025 that just chose to make a payment. So just a little data to show the number of trees that will be replaced on site or assessed to be replaced on site in 2025 is almost 1400 trees as this review period is 70 trees and the money that has been assessed or collected the payment in lieu in 2025 was 63,000 and we did not assess any money to be collected this review period. We are proposing a additional incentive to retain more trees for council to consider. So sometimes, and we've heard this from developers on site, it is possible to preserve some additional trees due to construction standards changing or other things that can change in the field. Staff is supportive of this recommendation to consider them paying in lieu for these trees, but if they are successfully retained after a three-year period, then they would get credit back. They would have to identify these trees as potentially being preserved so that we can make sure that the root protection fence is up during the whole time and they are actually being protected. And then we have them identified and that they are retained healthy for at least three years.

Do you have any questions? If you have on this slide.

Yeah. So I'm just curious, what's the basis of three years versus two years?

Three years of, do you want me to just do it?

I mean, the three years is the required preservation period for standard tree preservation if they did that up front. And three years is really the bare minimum to assess potential construction impacts. They manifest themselves very slowly in trees. So three years at least gives you a partial window on that. So it's kind of like the bare minimum safeguard to see if the tree is going to live. Okay.

incentives. Unfortunately, no one's using our incentives still. They didn't last year. They're not using them this year. I think it really because our code is pretty flexible. We have had requests from a couple applicants that are one acre or less developing housing that would like to use incentives if they were able to save trees and to encourage the preservation of trees. Staff is supportive of this. We do need to look into it a little bit more. What we are thinking if Council was supportive of just directing staff to look at this, it would only apply to saving the larger trees. So priority trees on one acre or less, and then kind of look at the incentives that are currently offered to the larger projects for setbacks, lot coverage. Staff could see supporting a reduced setback or increased lot coverage to preserve the larger trees on sites for development of housing one acre or less. So the follow-up items from the council's March 11th, 2026 work session, first was the street tree discussion, whether or not to allow those as mitigation to count towards mitigation requirements. So I looked at subdivision applications. So this is not partition. So this is four or more lots or standard subdivision application over the past years. And of the 11 applications that were for subdivisions, if we were to count the street trees to count towards their replacement trees, Six applications, well, they were just exempt because they already met the standards. Three applications, if we were to count their street trees would be fully mitigated. They would have not plant any additional trees on site to mitigate for the ones they removed. And two applications would have to mitigate even after you count the street trees, but it would be a 53% reduction on the amount they would have to plant.

Just on that one, is there the same three-year standard for the street trees? In that case, like they've got to be viable that long? I believe so. Thank you. Yeah.

And then there was 27 site plan review applications. Again, this is for commercial, industrial, apartment complex type developments. There's 15. That just met the standards, so they did not have to do any mitigation. Seven applications that did have to mitigate, if we did count their street tree requirements, you would get no additional trees because the street trees would fully meet or exceed their mitigation requirements. And five applications would still have to plant some trees on site, but it reduced it from 65 trees to 37, so about a 43% reduction in the amount of trees we would get for mitigation. And then trees located in the right of way there's a lot more data, even on the street trees that's in your packet and for this one. But I just wanted to highlight one project to show if you were to not count trees in future right of ways what that would look like. So this developments a little larger developments for 241 residential lots has a large open space track of 6.3 acres a large commercial. site at 7.7 acres and a large high density residential site at 9.9 acres. There is 137 regulated trees on site. And the preservation proposal for this particular project was to preserve 5.5% of the total trees on site and then plant 64 trees is their mitigation. And their mitigation, what they're proposing, say this open space here, they also have a small open space track behind all these homes that they were going to plant the 64 trees in. Um, if under current code there again, 137 regulated trees on site and they would have to mitigate and replace with 64. If you excluded the trees in the right of way, you're down to 110% regulated trees on site and they would have to mitigate by planting 48 trees. So instead of 64, it'd be 48 trees, which is about a 20% reduction. And, um, or I guess 25% reduction. There was 20% trees that were in the right of way that would no longer be counted as part of the tree preservation standards. And then Western junipers, we talked about it, we looked into it to try and see if there is a clear and objective way to protect junipers differently than other trees. Our findings is that there really is no clear equitable method to apply species-specific regulations to juniper trees. It would be very subjective to look at them considering their old growth juniper's standards and density would be subjective. It would probably include some additional costs for developers because you would be looking at these trees differently than you would be looking at all the other trees on site. And it would likely not advance the city's urban canopy goals by regulating junipers differently or at all. Council discussion. So again, staff is recommending two considerations for council. One is to look at the fee and lieu reimbursements for additional tree retention, and then expand those tree preservation incentives for voluntary tree preservations on sites one acre or smaller. And then staff is looking for direction from the council work session, whether or not to count those street trees as required mitigation, onsite planting mitigation requirements, whether or not there is direction to exempt trees located in the future public right-of-ways or tree preservation and any suggestions on preservation standards for juniper trees.

Thank you, Pauline. One question I had about the numbers before we get into discussion was just, you know, a bit different numbers from year to year. But am I correct? You know, we're talking about one application that could be just over one acre, it could be five acres, it could be a large or small amount of homes per application. So just to make that comment about the numbers, why they might look a little different from year to year. Is that correct?

Yeah. So those two on the when you look at the street tree numbers for the land divisions, that, you know, three of them wouldn't have to plant any additional street trees, but those two larger land divisions, they would because they were required, well, they removed more trees, it's just a bigger project. Right. Okay.

Okay, so any other questions for staff before we discuss? Yeah.

The tree mitigation slide that shows the 2025 annual review period and the 2026 annual review period, Two questions about that. One is, why do you think there seems to be such a big preference for developers to do replacing the on-site trees instead of paying that in lieu of feet?

They prefer to have a clean slate. They don't want to have to work around them. So they prefer to just get rid of them and

Well, but they're asking, why not just pay a fee? Why actually put the tree in the ground? And I think I also was wondering that, but I noted that majority are either are replacing them.

So $600 per tree, right? So that's 63,000 divided by 600 is 105. So only 105 trees are being replaced. paid for mitigated by paying a fee, but 1,397 in 2025 are being replaced on site. So that seems like that's a really big difference. So to me, that either sounds like, well, maybe the cost of replacing a tree on site is so much lower than the fee that a developer just says, why would we pay the fee? We'll just, we'll just plant some new trees. So maybe we haven't got that ratio, right? Like the, you know, how many trees are necessary to replace one or any thoughts on why does it seem like there's such a big preference for on-site replacement?

It is a low fee. You have to state that up front. It's an incredibly low bar. I think there's also some project specific restrictions. There's a lot of competition for utility easements. So in some situations, the setback as such and the utility easements right up front, there's not a lot of space. We're increasingly finding that with high density. that it would be challenging to find spaces to plant trees. So in that scenario, the developer might just say, let's maximize our footprints and number of units and we'll just pay the fee because it's relatively cheap.

On some of the larger applications, like larger subdivisions, they have some open space tracks or park that would be dedicated to BPRD at some point where they can allocate those replacement trees too. So sometimes it's the nature of the application itself that lends itself to just, we're going to put more trees back in this area versus tighter sites tend to be the ones where they'll opt to pay the fee because they're just not sure that they can fit those replacement trees back on the site.

Those strips, those open space strips you're seeing in the larger application.

And then I spoke with one of our planners to a couple of applications on the larger residential land emissions, they're landscaping the front yard. So they're putting trees in there. So they do get to count those trees as part of their mitigation requirements. Great.

And then the second question, that's helpful. Thank you. The second question is comparing the numbers from 2025 to 2026 on the total applications reviewed. It's, you know, 2026 has close to half the number as 2025. But then when we look at that mitigation slide, it's nowhere near half the number of trees mitigated. Is there something else that's going on? Like, are they just so happens that they're these new projects don't have existing trees or how come that I would have expected there to be much more tree mitigation going on based on the number of applications?

Well, I noticed that too. And, and it was, I think that, um, they can, they can opt to do no mitigation. So they were opting to follow the 20% or the 25%. So it didn't end up in that mitigation column. So you can see 14 of, so that's why there's such a low number, because 14 of them just didn't need to mitigate. Because they complied with the code. Right. So they kept enough trees to not have to mitigate. Yeah.

So that's an example of the code working. Yeah.

Well, yeah, I was noting from the slide, the majority of folks are following that instead of getting into the mitigation path. Okay. Any other questions before we get into that?

I mean, last slide, more like. philosophical question, because you said that's an example of the code working. I mean, that's a question for you, Ian. Do you feel that this is working? Because it seems like there's a lot of administrative stuff going on. And are we seeing the output that the tree code is supposed to provide?

I would say that the permit data clearly shows that most of the limited number of applicants that are subject to the true mitigation requirements are meeting those requirements. So as written, They're working, easily working, with very little need for mitigation or replacement tree planting or paying a fee in lieu. Those codes reflect the will of the voting public, as evidenced by the lengthy collaborative process for the True Air Committee. Now, I would say that despite being a critical first step, as I referenced before, it is a pretty low bar. So I'm not surprised that we're seeing a lot of people meet the retention requirements. The fact of the matter is the urban forest locally has been declining for decades. I don't know that the codes as currently written are going to slow that down particularly, but... They were designed to try and encourage or incentivize retention of those larger trees. And that's really what we're trying to push towards. If we tweak the code some more, we might get some very marginal savings on development costs, but we'll see some amplified negative results in the urban forest canopy and tree loss.

Steve. And just to add on to that, in my mind, as I understand it, is it kind of a loss every time we do a replacement tree?

Yes. And as much as large trees do all the heavy lifting with ecosystem benefits, cooling, shading, all that good stuff. And the unfortunate reality is that newly planted street trees, an average lifespan, depending on the research you read, is anywhere from seven to 12 years. So once you lose those large trees, they're gone forever, unfortunately. So we could plant trees till the cows come home, but we would probably never catch up. That's depressing. Thank you.

All right, so can we go to the discussion questions? Thanks, Pauline. All right. Can we start with the staff recommendations? And I kind of wrote down actually three different things. So you have the sort of, if you can preserve these trees for three years and we can verify they're still there, then we can maybe give you back a fee that you paid if you show that you preserve them. That would apply across the board. And then incentives opportunities for folks under one acre. and then also maybe you talked about maybe changing the incentives that are already in for setbacks for people that the code applies to to make those a little more generous to see if anyone will use those those were three things that came from staff so what was the last one um just when pauline was showing like here's the setbacks you could do if do we want to no one's taking that path do we want to change that path to be getting a little more generous in the incentives and see if people will want to use the incentive path so thoughts on the staff

Can I ask, actually, I have a question about how the code is being implemented. So my understanding, and I know we talked about this, that kind of root protection zone is really large. It's like twice the, what is it, one foot for every inch of diameter or something like that. So it goes oftentimes, well, even as some of the photos showed, it means that root protection zone goes far beyond the drip line. of the tree. And in the previous version of the development code, the root protection zone was always just the drip line of the tree. So, you know, I brought this up previously. I'm just going to bring it up again. You know, if the root protection zone is more reasonable than developers will choose to protect trees rather than remove them and pay the very low as Ian pointed out replacement fee. So that, I mean, I would really like to see us do that and see if there's any. I know some developers had notified me of that and had reached out to me on that. So I don't know. I think it's something worth considering.

Did we not break the root protection zone in a previous code update? We've allowed a discretionary path on a case-by-case basis. So where the developer wishes to... reduce the, you know, the approach distance to a tree. They're keen to preserve the tree. We can allow that on a case-by-case basis. And that was amended last year, March. Yeah, last year we did that.

So I just want to be really, really clear. That was not a recommendation from the committee that I served on. That is a change to the code that staff made for some reason that I don't understand.

What are you recommending at this point? We already have a discretionary path.

Are you asking if there's a discretionary path means it's not clear and objective. And so that just means added paperwork, added time, added delay for everybody involved for staff and the developer. So what I would recommend is that we just go back to what it was before, which is the root protection zone is the drip line of the tree.

I would just point out that that's not industry standard and it's fraught with challenges because not all trees have a spreading growth habit. Some of them are very common. They're like ponderosas. So a 120-foot tree would have a drip line that's barely 10 feet away from the trunk, which makes no sense whatsoever. So it's really dependent on tree diameter.

Okay. Council, thoughts on this suggestion that Council Frenzel had made, if we want staff to pursue that or not? or leave as is with the discretionary path.

I'm inclined to follow the recommendation of our art on staff arborist. Yeah, I agree.

Okay. Um, other thoughts on other parts of the staff recommendation.

So I think I, I mean, I'm supportive of the fee and Lou reimbursements for additional tree retention. Um, I don't know what others think about the incentives. I think my perspective is that one reason that developers may not be taking advantage of the incentives is that it's a pretty low bar to meet with the existing program. So if it's easy enough to meet it, then it sounds like it's working and maybe there's some things we could tweak, but I don't know that I want to revisit saying, oh, let's let's make this even more complicated by adding some additional incentives at this point. And then I think you said there was a...

Under one acre, offering some sort of... So it doesn't apply to under one acre. They are not required to comply with this. But if they save some trees, and I have a question of like, how many, what kind? And Pauline was saying larger trees, especially. Could we then also let them access those incentives around setbacks and the other things that are in the code? How do you feel about that?

I mean, this is hard because I think that... I'm more on the side of allowing more flexibility on things like setbacks and density anyway. So I don't know that this is the place to say, oh, this is how we're going to achieve those objectives. I think I go back to the two main things that I wanted to achieve with this, which was to end unmitigated clear cutting. And I think we're accomplishing that. And the second one was to eventually expand our urban tree canopy. So on that second point, I kind of want to see more revenue generated, and that's where I feel like I'd be interested to hear if maybe the bar is so low and we're not seeing people use the in lieu of fee, maybe we have more of a target to say, maybe that should be closer to 50-50, those numbers, because we're going to need some revenue to plant things like trees in the right of way and meet other objectives. I don't know. I wouldn't oppose it, but I don't know that this is the right mechanism to achieve our objective. So I think I'm inclined to say, leave it, leave it as it is.

Okay.

What about Steve? 819 lots were under an acre, right? That were not subject to this. So I'm inclined to go with the mayor on this in that If we can get a few more trees on those lots, man, I'd love to do that. That's a big number of the applications that are hitting us. So I'd love to.

Do you agree with the focus on larger trees? Yes. Because we have to make a line somewhere.

Yeah. I can't really see how it's a loss in any way. It's optional. You don't have to do it. But if we can incentivize.

I'd love to.

Yeah.

I'm in agreement on that. Okay. Okay. I support the first bullet up there in lieu of reimbursements and the expansion of incentives, but for the smaller lots. I don't know that there's evidence necessarily that's going to be that helpful on the others, but the smaller lots for sure. I think that's some of the pain points that we're seeing across the community. I mean, it can speak to a couple of things that have happened in my neighborhood, and at least one of them doesn't appear... I don't know if any of the trees would have been saved there, but maybe we would have gotten a couple. I mean, that project apparently was because of the requirements for sidewalks to nowhere, I would call them, but different topic that we're dealing with separately. And that's why the trees had to be removed, but maybe we would have had a little bit more tree preservation here with some other incentives. So I'd like to see that happen on the smaller lots and focus on the bigger ones.

Okay. Council Friend-Souza on those first two bullets.

Well, first I actually really appreciate Councilor Riley making that comment. A lot of times when developers come in, they're just told that the sidewalk has to be put at the right-of-way line and they're not really allowed to meander sidewalks unless they kind of push and really ask for it. But if you could do that, then you could protect a lot of trees. In that way, of course, eliminating the sidewalks to nowhere, that's really, really helpful too. So, I mean, I think that should be considered as, you know, kind of an incentive or sort of a standard practice. But otherwise, I mean, honestly, like what I just told you guys about how the tree protection, the root zone is so large, it doesn't matter. Like, sure, go ahead with these. But I mean, the bigger issue is that the root protection zone is so large, it's just impractical to preserve trees, right? um and we all see trees around that are really close to houses and really close to buildings and really close to sidewalks and really close to roads and they're fine so you know i don't know i think we i think we just need to be a little bit more reasonable about the root protection zone and we'll probably get more trees saved so okay all right so i think we've got council support on those first two bullets point um i think the direction on the incentives for under one acre is for large trees to draw the line there and so maybe show us what that would look like

um okay so then in the other uh section here let's start with the juniper trees um we had a presentation about juniper trees we have requests to exempt juniper trees or do something different with juniper trees is anyone interested in doing something different with juniper trees at this point yeah okay Okay, I'm seeing shaking heads. So we can move forward off of that one. Those are going to stay the same. We're not going to do anything different with juniper trees at this point. Okay, so let's talk about street trees and trees located in the right of way. This was a request from our housing development community, especially some of our larger communities that are coming in. And I think also have the juniper tree issue, but we've kind of made it clear that we're not going to change that. So thoughts on these to bullets and how to move forward with these. Councilor Mendez.

Yeah, I think I would like to keep it as is and keep them in separate buckets because the result of accepting these proposals would be a step backwards for the overall tree canopy. And in my view, I feel like the difference between the onsite trees and the trees in the right of way is sufficiently different that we ought to treat them differently. So I think I would prefer to keep it as it is now.

Other thoughts? Can you explain? You mean treat these two options differently or not quite sure?

Well, so using required street trees to satisfy mitigation requirements. I mean, the existing requirements are, well, we should, I should ask staff, can you explain how the existing requirements apply to street trees in the right of way?

So when a new development comes in, they are required to plant street trees in the planter strip between the sidewalk and the street. And depending on the width of the planter strip and the type of tree dictates the spacing of the trees. So in your packet, I went through all the developments and showed how many street trees were required for each development that we had over the years and over the past two years. And it compared it to if we also counted the required mitigation, what that would look like.

So- An applicant, if they need to mitigate, they can't fully preserve all the trees that they need to without mitigation and they choose to plant additional trees on site as part of the mitigation. That's one bucket of trees. Their application type may also require street trees. That's a different bucket right now. It's two different requirements of the code. The request was if they have to come in and plant street trees as a requirement of the code. couldn't those count as some other mitigation trees? So double counting the trees for two-door.

I just feel like the existing non- right-of-way street trees like just the on-site trees that's flexible enough we see the evidence of that in over the last two years and that's working so i don't see the need to say let's relax that and end up with fewer trees and i just want to be clear we're talking about street trees that we require as part of the right-of-way strip is what we're talking about so if you're putting someone's front guard separate from the space where the roads go yeah

Right, yeah, on the side of the streets is where we're requiring the trees. Councillor Franzosa and then Councillor Perkins.

Thanks. Yeah, I agree with what Councillor Mendez said. And another reason why I think it's really important to keep them in two separate buckets is because street trees are not typically the trees that we're accustomed to seeing in, you know, undeveloped bend, right? They're not Doug fir. I don't know if they're not Doug fir, they're not juniper. And so I was actually curious, I have a a question is, are developers allowed to plant coniferous trees in the right-of-way now? I thought ponderosa were not actually allowed in right-of-way.

If it's wide enough, yes. But it is a class six tree, the biggest category. So it has to be at least 10 feet, over 10 feet. No planters. Yeah.

Hilarie Sorensen- got it okay and another question about this, so the spacing of street trees is. Hilarie Sorensen- Like a maximum spacing right so like developers actually could. Hilarie Sorensen- plant trees in the right of way to satisfy the mitigate like they could put mitigation trees in the right of way right or or or no is that space not allowed to be used.

Hilarie Sorensen- No and that's the question that we're asking Council for direction on is. do you want to allow the onsite replacement trees to allow a developer to use the street trees to count towards their onsite replacement trees?

So the street trees, let's say they have to put in 10 street trees and they are spaced a hundred feet apart or whatever. Couldn't they put in like five more trees and those would be the mitigation trees. So they still have to meet their minimum street tree requirement. What I'm asking is, under our code with the street tree requirement, is there enough space that developers could choose to plant some of the mitigation trees in the right of way?

It's an interesting question. And I find the spacing for currently for trees often quite wide. And there's often cases where it looks like there is more space. Certainly if you chose trees that had a growth habit, let's say more columnar, so you'd have less touching canopies, you could squeeze more trees into that right of way. Um, like I say, there's a lot of competition for space there between fire hydrants and water valves and water lines and septic lines. It's yeah. It, uh, it does get challenging even at times just to have one tree per lot. So, um, it's, it's fraught with challenges in some cases it could be doable, but. Okay.

That's Perkins. Um, I'll pass for now. I'm thinking. Okay. Any other comments on street trees before I make some comments?

Well, I mean, the concern about this one is essentially a cost issue, right? I mean, bottom line is it's a cost issue. This would be a way to reduce costs. Replacement trees and numbers would go down. And if you did that in lieu of, the cost would go down. Or just the buying a tree. Yes.

Yes, but minimal savings. And the big problem is that it disincentivizes the retention of those larger trees. If they know they can just mitigate by planting a ton of street trees, and they don't have to worry about all the larger trees on the lot, they can just cut them down. That's the problem.

Okay. So I appreciate your viewpoints, Ian, but I just want to also add that we've heard from folks that it's not necessarily just a minimal saving. A minimal impact. And I think what I'm thinking about in this context is additional costs and fees that are being experienced in our housing development world right now. And some of those have been by choice of council. And I want to think about where it is we can help bring some of those costs down. I think the street trees should count towards mitigation. It was something that we debated at the very beginning of this, and it wasn't a super easy call. I have seen some examples from some folks on a couple of the larger developments where we're getting a lot of great new housing, where I would like that housing to be as affordable as possible, and this is one small step in that direction. I probably wouldn't go so far as to exempt the future right of way, just because I feel like there's some issues with that being equitable, depending on which piece of property you have. And also, it seems like it's still a lot of process to figure out where the right of way is and what the trees are there. So it's not really saving process time, but the street trees, we know how many are going to be required. We can count those. and that can help a little bit with some of the costs here. I also will say, I don't think this tree code is the tool for us to create an urban canopy that we want. I'm just gonna say that right out loud. I think what we need is a master plan for our urban canopy that takes a holistic look about not only the regulation that we have, which I agree, I didn't wanna see clear cutting straight up of lots. I'd wanna look at larger trees. I think the tree code is doing some work there, but... if we want to look at a bigger master plan on how we grow the urban canopy back to what we want to do or how we support native trees or how we, in areas of town that have historically before the tree code was in place, not have a lot of trees, how do we get trees back into those zones? I think that's the direction we need to go. So that's part of why I'm okay loosening a little bit here on the street trees because I think we need to do some more holistic work. and figure out some funding sources, frankly, for more of an urban canopy master plan that we can use some of the great data that you're collecting now, work with our parks department who have a lot of trees in their purview that we should be looking at as well and having more of a holistic plan for the future. So that's where I'm at on this one right now.

So could I ask you a question? Sure. So I don't necessarily disagree with what you just said. And I wonder what you would think about, because I think that if we say yes to loosening this requirement, that yes, we get lower costs, but we also get lower number of trees. So why not wait? I still think that the trees in the right of way are sufficiently different, like the discussion of utility location and lot width and things of that nature. I think I'm okay treating them differently. What do you think about waiting until we have that larger conversation to address a question like this, when we can think more holistically, rather than focusing on one thing that would

If I were confident that was going to happen anytime soon, I would say yes, but I think that's a long timeline on that project because there's a lot of data that we need to still gather and a lot of community conversation we need to have because we also have community demanding things like defensible space code and wildfire preparation. And I just want to tell folks, if you have a ponderosa right next to your house with the branches almost touching your roof, that's going to be an issue for an invincible space right so again we're going to be asking developers to comply with another new code probably around where they put trees and where landscaping goes and so for me loosening this a little bit now knowing that in the next few years we're going to have housing development coming in that we want to see those costs as low as possible i'm okay with that just that one part of it right um and i think um coming back with that bigger plan is something that we can also do so yes what i would say about that is that

You may be right that we need to kind of do a bigger picture relook at the tree code and sort of how it's shaped and what it's getting us and do we have the right focus, way of simplifying it, a focus on bigger trees. But right now, this framework is the framework we have to protect our canopy as best we can and to potentially generate some revenue to build canopy in places where it may be needed. and all the different benefits that come with that, including the parts of town where we may have lower income communities and stuff who need those trees. So it seems that we're sort of undercutting the system we did set up to achieve the goal that you've articulated, Mayor, now. And so I'd suggest, you know, maybe there really is a need and it needs to be a higher priority for re-looking at the tree code a little bit more comprehensively with this plan and trying to accelerate that. And in the meantime, not undercut the system that we do have in place. That's what it feels like it's happening, starting to do here.

I guess my final point would be, we require those street trees in specific places to be planted. And I see that as a little bit different than some of the other things that folks can do to move trees around within their development. So that's another reason why I feel like we can sort of take that on

and saying okay you get credit for those we're requiring you to plant those so that's the only other thing council perkins no i i i we all want to see um an urban tree canopy we all we all feel the same way right there's i i don't think that this fund is magically going to appear where we'll be able to do it i so i agree with the mayor that this there is we have to look elsewhere, right, to do what we want to achieve with that. And so when I said I was thinking, I was thinking back to the many, many meetings that we had at TRUAC and talking about the street trees. And I do, I agree with the mayor. I think that this one thing is something that we heard a lot that is really impacting the cost of housing. I do not think that... Karen Hollweg, it's going to have a big impact on our tree canopy if we say we need to do some this one requirement, and so I am in favor of number one and agree that number two and three here. Karen Hollweg, i'd like to just not touch. Karen Hollweg, Council clap.

Hal Hallstein, This is a tough one for me. I look at, I was the guy who said we need to hit those own goals for housing, particularly the affordability aspect of that. And we haven't. We have not hit those goals. We're not close in those goals in terms of production. And yet, so that speaks to the cost for me. And yet, same time, I am committed to maintaining our tree canopy. So I would like to have that part of discussion as soon as possible. That said, I think the overriding need in the very near term is to reduce a little bit of cost for our developers. So I'm going to go along with street trees mitigation.

Okay. Mike, where are you at on this one?

I am honestly not persuaded that changing the code like this is going to make a big difference on the cost that we're seeing per unit in housing in our community. I'm just not persuaded that that result is going to be an outcome of this change. And so when I take that and then think about the other goals that we have. This is, to go back to what I said, this is the structure that we've set up for the community to achieve these broader goals. I think as we've heard, the bar is relatively low. We're seeing that people can meet, largely meet the requirements. I think it's a, the connection of this to per unit cost of a home, I'm having a hard time being persuaded that that's really, really strong and it's gonna make a significant difference. affordability. So I would recommend we kind of keep this piece as it is. And this, I won't be on that future council, but you all commit to making this a priority and think you kind of a rethink of the tree code. And is it getting the results we want it to get? And is there a different way to do it? The other thing I would point out is that there's a lot of things we're talking about that we need some kind of revenue for this You know, and this was the tool that we had to generate for the canopy. I mean, we've got defensible space. We've also got home hardening. When you think about both of those things for existing homes, that's the revenue need, right? We don't have a way to pay for that. So this just, if we get rid of this funding mechanism, then we're sort of another one of these lists of how are we going to generate some revenue to achieve some of the goals we've set.

Well, I don't think this tool is generating the revenue. It's not. It's generating very much. Because most people are complying. So that's where we're at. So I don't think this is the revenue in place.

That's what we wanted was most people to comply.

Right. But it's not allowing us to fund any other goals at the moment.

OK. The small amount of revenue also speaks to the small impact that this would have. I mean, if the total program only generated $63,000 in 2025, it's not a lot of money. I mean, the option is there for a developer to pay the in lieu of fee, which it feels like a low bar. So I just, yeah.

Well, we're not doing the bottom three. There's not four counselors in support of directing staff to pursue those at this point. So the top two only is what we are giving direction for out of this work session. And that will come back to us when Eric is code.

Oh, We have a timeline yet for kind of the co-package. So I'll get back to you with a specific timeline.

Sure. Yeah. And good discussion from our staff. I know we also previously this year received those letters from developers. If they have updated numbers that they want to share with us, I'd encourage folks to do that just so that can continue to be part of the discussion. All right. Thank you. All right. We're a little behind here. So we're going to go through our developer roundtable recap and then our transportation CIT. Sarah Hudson, did just have this and it'd be great if we could get through this in like 15. Sarah Hudson, So. Sarah Hudson, We all have this. Sarah Hudson, still in our minds from when it just happened.

Sarah Hudson, Okay, great good evening Council i'm Sarah hudson senior policy analyst joined by Cyrus mini business development manager. Here to follow up on the development roundtable that took place last week. So really just want to take the opportunity to debrief, get policy direction on kind of the two main items that we discussed during the roundtable. So again, that's the employment site readiness and then some system development charge relief program options. So we'll go over what those options were as a reminder, discuss the feedback that was given at the roundtable, We have some specific questions for council direction and then kind of talk about next steps for each. And then at the end, we also have a number of other ideas and issues that were raised during the roundtable, just trying to get a temperature check on kind of prioritization of items that council might want staff to evaluate and bring back.

So let's start with employment site readiness and a little bit of background as to how we got here. The topic was first discussed at the Bend Economic Development Advisory Board meeting in conjunction between city staff and also one of our industrial developers in town, talking about some of the impacts that they were seeing around items like the tree mitigation code, which was just discussed. As well as some other kind of logistical and administrative items within the code for mass grading, rock crushing, etc. With how business is being conducted on our industrial zone lands across the city. From there, Mayor Pro Tem Perkins made a request to have this be a work session items, which is why we're here today. And as you recall, this was an item that was discussed at the developer roundtable on August 31st. So the potential policy options that we discussed at the developer round table that you all are familiar with at this point are broken down into three different avenues that we walked through. And they would all require some amendments to both the Bend Development Code and the Bend Municipal Code. The first option was deregulating trees on all industrial zone lands across the city. Option two was looking at creating a flat rate per acre type of assessment that could be equally distributed across the industrial zone lands across the city. And the last one would be creating more of a tiered system where that acre assessment would be based on specific density of a parcel that was going to be developed. And the themes that we heard from the developer round table for option one around deregulation and allowing for the masquerading and rock crushing to occur on site, I think the themes that came out of both of those pieces of feedback were around two broader items of competitiveness and complexity. I think we heard resoundingly that the complexity of the development process from all the different policies that are being layered on and compounded on top of each other from the local level and the state level are just becoming insurmountable. So I think that was something that we heard really clearly. And then from the competitive standpoint, I think we've seen that there have been businesses that have chosen to make capital investments and pursue expansions in neighboring cities because of the cost of development that we have here within the city of Bend. So those were the two kind of primary themes that I think were drawn from the feedback bullets that are listed here for what the preferences were from the developers that were around that table. So going from there, the council direction that we're requesting tonight is what policy option, if any, would council like staff to pursue at this point? And if there are any external touch points that you would like us to make sure to engage with community members on as we develop what any potential code amendment package might look like pertaining to these issues.

Okay, so we just had this roundtable, so we all heard the feedback there. Thoughts and support for, can you go back to the three options, for the options that staff has outlined here? What do people think?

I think we heard resoundingly that option one would be, I think, the easiest and the most effective option, so I will be in support of option one.

All right, other thoughts? Councillor Mendez? I mean, I would say leave it as is. It's a low bar to meet. And, you know, looking at it's a few thousand dollars to pay the in lieu fee for a couple dozen trees. So I don't see that as.

I think it's more than a couple dozen.

Yeah. The feedback that was received at the developer roundtable from one of the applicants was that they anticipated it being around $10,000 per acre.

with the current amount of trees.

Correct.

So sorry to cut you off. Councilman, please continue.

I don't know. I think that seems like a reasonable amount. I mean, if we were to do anything, I would say I think industrial land is important. And in recognition of that, maybe a discounted rate. But otherwise, this feels like it's a step back. We're going to lose trees. And I feel like that's not the... We need to have a system to... build our tree canopy, not find ways of cutting them down more. So I want to see, I don't see this as a step forward. I see this as a step back. So I'm not supportive of it.

Respectfully, I would say that we are losing jobs to other cities in Central Oregon.

And so that's what I'm asking people to pay a few thousand dollars to mitigate trees. That's because the cost of land is so expensive.

I think we heard at the developer roundtable that it's both. Right. It's part of the equation. There's a whole bunch of things that add to the equation. You can take one thing out.

Ask us to cut fees, give them exemptions. Of course they're going to say that.

Let's not talk over each other. I appreciate the discussion. Councillor Franzosa.

Thanks. I support option two, creating a flat rate per acre. I don't think it needs to be 10,000 an acre. I think it could be a little less than that. And still, I think, be really fair. And I think, you know, the development cost, speaking to the development cost in Bend, I mean, just look at the permit timelines. Like, that's where the issue is. It's not in the tree code. The tree code is... minor compared to the cost of delays that developers face when they go through a permit process.

All right, Steve.

Based on the tree canopy, what I would love to be able to do is to base it on tree density. So those lots that were more dense more dense would have a higher charge. However, I've heard from other folks in the community, folks who's like Landwatch and others that have said that they actually would consider that option too. And we've heard from the developers, even though that's not their first choice as well, I think it's kind of a middle zone for me. So while it's not my favorite choice, I think it's a compromised position that I could get behind.

Option two. All right. I would say the same thing. I think option two, I think we, you know, as with the rest of the tree code, what we're trying to do here is both either protect existing canopy or when we can't keep that for various reasons, we want to have replacement trees. So we're, you know, building or maintaining or growing a canopy at some level over time because there's all kinds of benefits that come to the community from that. And we also need revenue to do that. And I think that if we're going to cut down trees in industrial zone land, which I agree we need to do, I think there's a lot of reasons why we want to take a different approach in industrial lands. But we need to also help contribute towards the improvement of the canopy over time. It shouldn't just be a flat out deregulation and or no fee. um so i think number two is the right approach um i think the difference for me here is that this is about creating jobs and i think that the job side of the affordability question and the the income side of the affordability question and bend is really really important and we need to focus on it equally if perhaps sometimes even more than we do on the housing side um i think there's maybe more room for us to make more of a difference on that part of affordability So the other thing I would propose here, and I think we heard this from one of the David McGoldrick, Ph.D.: Community members from land watch the input we got from them was you know thinking about is there a way where what we're charging here is based on you know if you were to mitigate by selling the existing code. David McGoldrick, Ph.D.: we're going to charge some percent of that fee on a per acre basis and that maybe we do it's a lower reduction so it'd be a 40% reduction i'm just throwing this out but 40% product production. David McGoldrick, Ph.D.: If you do just meet the code in terms of. street trees and other kind of greening activities. But if you go above and beyond that code by some percent, then maybe we reduce it further, reduce the fee further. Again, it's a standard number. It's a set percent across all industrial land. And it's clear that if you do a little bit more greening, either replacement trees or protecting some trees to keep a little more green space and keep the heat island effect down and other benefits that would come to people who are visiting that area that are working there. you get a little bit more of a reduction. So that's my proposal.

Okay. Councilor Norris?

I'll let you guys all continue with the discussion.

Okay. I agree with Councilor Perkins that what we heard was a request for deregulation of trees. That would be the simplest and easiest way for our industrial land owners to move forward with creating the lots they need to create the jobs that we need here in Bend. And I do want to remind, folks that when I think about this, it's in a bigger discussion than just how many trees are here. Are we losing trees? Are we gaining trees? We're also talking about how we're developing within our UGB, how we are creating space for homes and jobs, how we are thinking about people who commute into Bend. 50% of our workers commute into Bend and the amount of carbon that they're putting into the atmosphere every time that happens because either their job is here or it's elsewhere or their home is elsewhere because they can't afford it. So to me, this is part of a bigger discussion about having development in a compact city area and how do we mitigate for some of the things that are happening with tree loss as we develop, but recognizing that if we try to save every tree that already exists, that then we end up with sprawl. then we end up with needing more space per development, per home, per job site, right? And so that's sort of how I'm thinking about all this. I think for industrial zone lands, I agree with Councilor Riley and others, like thinking about these different than residential lands makes sense to me. I don't think there's support for deregulating trees, even though that would be the simplest and easiest. I think creating a flat rate per acre, I would keep it as simple as possible. So I would not want a complicated... Angela Mettler- calculation of this or that I would say let's just make a flat per acre fee that we feel comfortable with and go with that so it's very easy for folks to use if they're not going to comply with tree code just go to the flat breaker fee. and set that at a rate that we feel comfortable with. So that's where I'm at with this one. And I also support the other requests to be able to do rock crushing onsite, to be able to grade the sites, to get those ready for the job sites that we need to develop here in Bend. Do folks have thoughts about that one? That was sort of a separate bullet. Because I think we've got for number two. I agree with both of those.

I think number two, I'd like to see a couple options, I guess. And I'm happy to chat with staff a little bit more about the idea I had. I think the incentive point that we heard about, can we reduce that fee a little bit further if somebody does a little bit more above and beyond the minimum requirements and we need to figure out what that threshold is, might be an important thing for us to consider to make it could help. Again, it's voluntary. And then they get an additional benefit.

All right. Councilor Norris, anything you want to add? No, I think I'm good. Okay. All right. So it seems like option number two with some potential options on how that works out, but that will be what we'll bring back for council.

Are there cases of how close are residential areas to some industrial zone areas where rock crush

I think they can, it just depends on where you are in the town, but they can be next to.

They have stabilization requirements in the code. So if there is going to be grading or rock crushing occur on a site, there are standards that would have to be adhered to to mitigate what the impacts of that process.

There was rock crushing happening at what is now the Cavi master plan for years. They're right in the middle of neighborhoods. So it can be close to neighborhoods for sure.

Sorry, can you remind everyone where industrial land is in Bend? Because there's not a ton of it. It's mostly in one spot, right?

Yeah, mostly. Juniper Ridge is where we're seeing the most development right now, obviously, in the northeast part. There is a decent chunk of industrial land in the southeast area as well. And then sprinkled in the middle, there's a couple other potential developments that have zoned industrial land. But it is limited.

And the southeast is mostly Stevens Ranch, right? It's that big 50-acre lot. Yeah, that we just looked at.

That you did a swap for.

Yeah.

OK. And then the other item? OK. Switching gears to SDC relief programs, there was two major areas discussed, the first of which was SDC relief in the core area. So this, to be clear, would be a full exemption of SDCs for eligible non-residential adaptive reuse projects. The idea that was kind of floated was using kind of the minimum development standards review as a threshold, as an existing standard that's already kind of in the process that's evaluated. So if a project was exempt from or subject to that, then it would be eligible for this SDC exemption. The idea originally came from CAB kind of saying that SDC assistance would be helpful for catalyzing the core area. kind of getting temporary uses in there. I know the larger vision is for redevelopment. At their August 20th meeting, they recommended prioritizing the BCD specifically for this program. In terms of feedback that we heard from roundtable attendees, there was strong support for this program with a broader look at the core, not just specific to BCD, especially because of kind of like the tip generation benefits of looking at that kind of larger boundary. There was also, we kind of floated a two to five year timeline and there was preference for kind of going on the longer end of that. So five years just to align with kind of the construction impacts of the Hawthorne Overcrossing. things like that. There were some comments on considering kind of a broader range of qualifying projects just to maximize that redevelopment potential and kind of business activation opportunity. So that's, feedback on that particular program. We also discussed whether SDC relief for grocery stores on the east side of the city could be meaningful because we know that's a desired type of use and has come up as, you know, can it catalyze different commercial development, kind of be kind of an anchor type of property. The feedback that we really heard from attendees is that while any SDC relief is appreciated, it's probably not likely to yield those outcomes. It's not going to move the needle and be the kind of make it or break it factor for whether a grocery store pencils. There's just so many other kind of market conditions, the number of rooftops, things like that. There was a recommendation that if we want to continue that conversation, kind of talking to grocery store operators at one point. So really the direction that we're requesting now is on this core area SDC exemption with the idea that that grocery store concept didn't really seem to have That kind of move that needle move the needle potential, so the question for Council is would counsel like to pursue time limited SEC exemptions in the core. And then kind of the sub questions to that are what is the geographic scope, would you be looking at the core or BCD the duration of that Program. So two to five years, and then a question about project eligibility. So again, we floated that MDS review as that threshold. But if there's kind of further consideration there, and then just to kind of highlight and give an example, if say a coffee shop were to go into an office space, something like that, any kind of change of use, that would be an eligible use under that threshold. Okay. Councilman Granzosa.

Thanks. Yeah, I think this is a great idea. And I'd actually like to see it citywide. And I think, I mean, I would just go with a five-year. The reason why it should happen citywide is because the SECs are really high. And I think, gosh, I'm blanking. Kevin Spencer, I think, was the person who was talking about, but also Jay Lyons was talking about how, you know, they've got spaces, a new tenant comes in and then they get slammed with SDCs and it can be a real deal killer for certain businesses. So I think in general, it's a really pro-business approach that we should take. I think it could really support small businesses, especially in entrepreneurs. So I would go with the five-year duration. I'd really like to see kind of annual reporting on it. And the project eligibility, I think, Sarah, yeah, like what you described is kind of what I was envisioning. So when it's a change of use, that's kind of where the SDCs can get Amy Nunez- onerous and and stymie growth, or you know the economic development that we want to support.

Amy Nunez- I. Amy Nunez- Five years core area and then it looks like that's one of the topics is is looking into expanding the boundary of this, and so, yes, I would be in favor of that as well.

Amy Nunez- So you want to start with citywide or core area.

Amy Nunez- start with core area and then look into okay. expanding the boundaries.

But not the BCD itself, the large core area.

I think that's what we heard from people. Other thoughts?

I tend to take a little bit more narrow approach. I think we should do this, but I think we should do it and focus on the central district only. I'd say when do we expect to have the Hopper and Bridge open and available for people to walk, bike and 28s. So two years from now. So, I mean, I'd probably say do at least two and a half to three years just to give it a good duration. I'm not so sure about five. I think the big concern about these system development charge exemptions in general is that having been watching this for a pretty long time, what they set us up for It's all kind of problems that need to be fixed later, but they don't set this group of people up for it because this group of people probably won't be on council. And I know that's true for me, but probably won't this whole group. And then, so therefore you're going to have to do things like bond measures in the future. Like we had to do with the transportation bond. Part of the reason we had to pass $190 million was is because in the past we didn't charge the full amount we should have for STCs. And we had a bunch of existing problems that had to get fixed. And when we talk about doing something like this citywide, especially for five years, we're starting to build the case for that again. Now you can make the argument, well, when the 190 million bond measure comes up, we'll just re-up it because it's already on the tax roll and that's easy. And we're gonna probably have the same discussion about the one for 30 million that we passed in roughly 2010 or 12. But I just want to really caution us about what we're setting ourselves up for when we get too grand with these things. I think this kind of an SD thing is SDC exemption is a good idea. And there's very specific benefits that we're going to get. And we all know we need to activate the core. So I would really like to see us do this, do it for three years, and have it be really focused on a place that we're really trying to achieve specific goals about housing and job. I also think it's important we have some conditions around this so that in roughly, if it's a three-year exemption period, that at year two, two and a half, We're getting an evaluation and we also are getting some kind of capacity analysis of what's been happening and what are we running up against in terms of, especially, I think it's sewer and water might be the bigger issues. And, you know, is it still working? What kind of investment challenges are we setting the community up for here that we may or may not have straightforward ways to pay for those fixes? So I think that needs to be built into this exemption if it's going to move forward.

An evaluation as it moves forward?

An evaluation, an assessment. If it's three years, by year two and a half, the council has that. And also some kind of capacity analysis has been done to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up for some real constraints all of a sudden that then stops development. And we have to fund them. We've run into those problems in the city before as well.

Okay. I'm so sorry to speak again, but I just wanted to offer, I had asked Eric King a couple questions Just to be clear about which Eric I'm talking about a couple weeks ago about how much money the city was actually collecting and SDC is from like tenant improvement projects, which that's what this would be. And it's, it's pretty low, like the most collected in the last couple years was like a million dollars a year, but most years it's like $500,000 or less. So it's not a huge hit. Really, it hasn't been any way to date. So, thank you. Steve.

Core area, five years. Okay.

Yeah, core area, five years. I mean, I would like to honestly see a little bit more than five, just because we were hearing that, I mean, this could take oftentimes five to 10 years to get off the ground. But I think that I would be satisfied with at least five-year timeline with the ability to kind of check in and see how the program's going. And if we need to extend that timeframe. We could do it. We could do it. Okay. Comprendes?

I think I'm somewhere in between. I was going to say Bend Central District for three years, but make it really easy and turnkey and just say it would be an exemption that applies to the projects that are eligible for the minimum development standards review track. My understanding is that could be activated pretty easily. So make it easy, make it simple, and let's take stock in two or three years and see how it's going. And part of that I think is checking to see, especially on the water and sewage side, how are we doing in terms of capacity? I'm less concerned about the transportation one for a place like the Bend Central District. So I feel like maybe I'm just a little bit more cautious here. But yeah, let's see something targeted, easy, and then evaluate.

And what's on the table, as I understand it, is this minimum development standard concept.

Yeah, and I heard basically everyone is in agreement with that. So for tenant improvements, change of use, adaptive reuse is the way to start instead of for things beyond that, which was mentioned at the developer end table. I agree. I would like to do the core area because I would like to specifically focus on helping to get redevelopment happening there. And I don't want to limit it. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Too much into the BCD I think the core areas, a good area to start this with with the potential of looking citywide and five years, I think, is a good. HAB-Masyn Moyer- sort of sunset date for this for us to consider whether it would continue past five years, so I think we've got four of us on that train so well let's bring that back as an option as the option for Council to consider, and then we can of course continue to deliberate when that code is before us.

The other approach that I'll just point out that the CAB is taking, and I believe we've signed off on this too, is giving, with the grant programs, we're giving people essentially extra points if you're in the core area, the central district, or the core area versus the core area as a whole. And could we take a similar approach with this where you don't get the full exemption, you get a 75% exemption. You get a little bit more if you're in the core of the core. That's consistent with the way CAV is approaching. We decided to kind of follow through on these kinds of incentive programs, assistance programs. So I think that would be interesting to look at as well.

Okay. Well, with I think the direction of five years core and that threshold that we can come back next week for our first reading of an ordinance to amend the municipal code. There was a number of other topics that were brought up through the course of the roundtable. So I take it back to the grocery store really quickly.

I know you said recommend inviting grocery operators to present. And there was talk of this, the study or the there was a report. Are we going to see that? Or we think that could help us?

David Ensign, Yes, yeah that report, I think, is still being finalized right now and it's a urban renewal project so it'll be I would assume taking the cab and then counsel from there, but I don't know if we have an exact timeline for that quite yet.

Thanks.

Okay. So just to try to run through these other topics fairly quickly, I think we touched on the first one of looking into expanding the boundary of this SDC relief throughout the city or beyond the core. There was also concepts raised around SDC credits, so one item being having a longer look back. Right now we do a 10-year look back for STC credit. So that was a point that was raised during the roundtable, as well as flexibility and the transfer of STC credit. So not right for qualified public improvements, not right that are kind of in that benefit area, but the ability to transfer more broadly.

Some of the other topics that were raised, hopefully Council had a chance to review the memo that was sent in from Taylor Brooks around sales on industrial developments. There was a proposal in there that looked at amending the code for sales operations to occur. So is that something Council would like staff to further explore? um creating a fast track permitting option for commercial or industrial tenant improvements that was a point that was made pretty clear by one of the developers at the roundtable meeting and then creating a shot clock for transportation sewer and water analysis review similar to what we have with other different permit timelines

So because we're a little behind and I want to make sure we have enough time for our CIP discussion, what I might propose is that this slide come back to us when we do the SDC code change in the 16th. Council take a look at this, think about it, and then let's discuss in the 16th the next steps, any of these things. For just to be frank, I think some of these may end up in goals next year. Some of them maybe we want staff to look at now. So I think let's just wait one week on this, come back to it, and then let's all be ready to give the input on these extra topics at that time.

To be clear, the second bullet on here, can you explain that a little bit more to make sure I understand it correctly?

For the SDC credit for the 10 years? So right now we kind of give credit if the use has changed over time, we look back 10 years to kind of figure out kind of that delta of use. So one point that was raised during the roundtable was, well, what if 12 years ago it was a recreation facility, you know, since then it's been an office, but I wanted to make it a recreation facility again, because of that kind of 10 year look back, we don't kind of credit for what was paid back then when it was a rec center.

And also when we had a different method.

So this is really about extending the look back period.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just trying to get at it to make sure.

Yep. Yep. That's right. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

We are going to 6.30, right? Yes. I wasn't on the calendar invite and I got a little nervous. You knew it was full?

I know. Okay.

Good evening, council.

Ryan Oster, Director of the Engineering Department here for the City of Bend.

Dara Saverin, Program Manager for the Bond Program.

And you will also this evening be hearing from Carrie Harris, who I believe is hiding out in the boardroom right now, waiting for a little while before her and her team come out. And so three topics today we're going to cover with respect to a CIP update related to the General Obligation Bond. uh we we've come to you multiple times before just giving you updates along the way um i feel like we're in a really good spot right now if we get some some direction from council we can really ultimately look forward to adopting the next biennium five-year cip and having some really good resolution for the rest of the life of the geobond so we're going to talk about the remaining contributions we have on some unfunded money specifically around the parkway contributions and some other projects uh go quick quickly through kind of some potential projects we could do and then any other system needs or remaining projects you would potentially like us to consider as staff and then carrie will come in and revisit the discussion we had a little while back about eighth and only in the intersection form and a deeper dive that she and the team did in analyzing what the intersection improvement we should do there. And then I'll wrap it up with an update on the little over a year now, but the annual quick build update from the Greenwood project.

So over to Gary. So Ryan started a little bit of the why now on the left side of the screen and then on the right we have questions that we wanted to present early and then we'll circle back to at the end of the presentation as well. Why now? For one, we had a project list that we started with with the bond program. That's the resolution 3218 that's referenced here. Over the course of the last few years, as Ryan mentioned, we came to council or the oversight committee and had several changes approved to those that adjusted the overall costs of those projects. We've also been really successful with a couple of grants, which is exciting. The Reed Market and Hawthorne grants are major ones that have helped us consider or council consider how to make some of those adjustments and what we'd still be able to afford with the overall program. The State Highway being the Oregon Department of Transportation. There's several parkway projects as listed in the resolution that included contributions to interchanges along the State Highway as it goes through Bend. A couple of those projects we moved forward with, the North Corridor contribution was sent to them and utilized the Empire Project. They have programmed right now. We'll talk more about that. That's coming up. And then there's about four or five others that were planned to be contributions during the program that aren't coming to fruition because they don't have the matching funds. So that's the larger dollar amount when we're talking about unallocated funds. traffic needs, there's one project that we're not seeing operation safety needs, and then bond program financing, just looking at savings and interest. The questions, we've had conversation with TBOC, we talked to council, there's been a lot of leading conversations to today about how we would resolve any unallocated funds. The thought right now is trying to get some bookends from council here on what questions we might want to take to the Transportation Mobility Advisory Committee. and have a conversation that either prioritizes projects or sets up scenarios or identifies what buckets you want to keep the money in as far as what categories we have included today. So that's kind of the conversation as we'll go through here. We'll be looking at those six categories that exist in the original project list, and those would be the buckets that we're kind of starting at from a data perspective. The resolution, well, I'll start on the left side. That's the six categories that I'm highlighting. The second column is the resolution budget, having a total dollar amount of 179. The current budget, so that reflects adjustments that have been made just with bond dollars to date and how those reside in each one of those individual category buckets. The two major grant awards that I mentioned, one falls in the bike ped category, the other in the eastbound, westbound, so Hawthorne and Reed, and then a total dollar amount in that final right column. So originally, roughly $180 million was going to projects. This doesn't include overhead and administrative costs. And with grants, we're getting up closer to $244 million. Noting on the bottom here, there's some reductions in eastbound westbound because of the grant that we received. So that was pretty significant, but it was also really fortunate grant once again to get because the original bond amount wasn't enough to fund that project in full. And then I also just noted the key routes project. We started out with a $5 million shortfall because what was identified in the bond resolution was $5 million less than what's identified in the TSP to do our key route project. So a couple of large dollar differentials there. To initiate the conversation around the unallocated bond funds, and this is what staff has put together. This is one of our questions at the end of if you concur with this dollar amount. So we mentioned the ODOT contributions that they do not currently have matching funds for. This doesn't include the dollars where ODOT does have matching funds. Specifically, that's the $1.5 million at Empire that we currently have programmed. All the other ones, Reed Market, Murphy, Butler, Powers, Revere, those are all placed into this bucket of money and in our CIP currently. That's the way it's outlined. Chase Powers, Peril. is primarily an intersection improvement project that we have done the same on that as we've done with with all of our projects in advance of initiating them where we're going through and looking at traffic operations and safety um the 20-year horizon on this one doesn't show the need from an operational or safety perspective but we do still recognize that there's the need for the east-west connectivity across chase so we're we're proposing to retain one million dollars there to complete the modernization of chase as a synergy project when we complete the Broster House and Chase intersection project. So with those two together, that would complete that east-west connectivity through that location.

And Garrett, the roundabout's outside of this funding.

That's in the Transportation Construction Fund, and that's scheduled to start in fiscal year 28 next summer.

Yeah, that's actually a really good point just for folks who are watching this presentation. Like, this is not everything that we're building. This is just geobond funds. So there are other things we have funds for that we're building that are different projects that may be on some of these roads, but they're not geobond funds. So they're not in part of this presentation per se.

And yet they often link and connect to one another.

Oh, yeah, for sure. I'm just saying for folks who are saying, is this all we're spending on transportation? No, this is just the geobond. Yes.

And then the last one, as I mentioned, the $7 million, that's our finance team here looking at interest, savings, overhead projections. So this is an estimate of where they think we'll end up at the end of the bond program, knowing there's five years left. But I think it's an area where we could change if there's significant economic changes. So they just want to make sure that we caveat out.

It's a plus or minus. It's a plus or minus, but it's not going to be minus. Ideally.

This is projecting out. It could be less.

We have future bond issuances still to perform to left, so it's dependent on what sort of interest is gained.

I'm not going to lose.

Yeah, I agree. That's what the math says.

Maybe it's the wrong symbol. We are less than symbols. And then...

So there's a few projects right now, you know, relatively major projects that we want to ensure we're retaining some contingency funds for. So, you know, we're mentioning the $28 million as unallocated funds. That's the dollar amount that we want to discuss trying to figure out what we have for a list of projects that would be completed if we have that full amount. But we also want to recognize that we do need to reserve some contingency dollars until the winter of next year. until we have better price security on these four projects listed here. So to repeat that, we wanna have projects that can fully spend the 28 million, but we need to recognize that 9 million of that might not exist if we need to utilize them for contingency funds on these major projects that are still ongoing in the early stages.

So 28 minus nine. Yeah, so really 21 million that- As long as everybody agrees this contingency is a good idea.

And then after we get that cost assurance through the guaranteed maximum price contracts or through ODOT, the bidding cycle, we may be able to free up some of this nine, but we just want to make sure it's there. Plus or minus nine. Plus or minus. Plus or minus. Okay.

So continuing, this one can be quick, continuing that category conversation, our current budget, the 179, that's in the middle column showing per category. And then the unallocated adjustment is everything minus that savings interest amount deducted from the unallocated amount. So as an example, a lot of it is the parkway connections category. If we don't spend that 17.1 million, and right now it's not allocated anywhere here, then it would bring us down to $1.5 million spent in that Parkway category. And noting at the bottom with the totals, that difference between the two is that $21.1 million that we have is currently unallocated. This doesn't consider the contingency or the project savings. That would be another $7 million on top of that to get you to that $28.1 million. We're just trying to show how the categories change here. And then this is the last one before Empire. We're going to talk in a little bit more detail on Empire. But we started this slide with thinking about the current resolution. So we're trying to stay with that category theme and maybe do some kind of level setting understanding of what projects could cost within each one of these to show how we could utilize that full $30 million amount and fully utilize it within the framework of the project list resolution that was established. There's a lot of focus on the parkway part here that we'll talk through. Empire, for one, there's two projects on Empire for clarification. There's the one that we have the $1.5 million contribution to right now, which is primarily the Empire Highway 20 intersection. And then there's a larger project that ODOT is looking at and prioritizing right now, which is the connectivity between Highway 20 and 97, which is what we'll get to more. That's the $20 to $30 million estimate here. The next two, Reed and Colorado, those are projects that the city could perform that benefit the local and state system. This is not the actual interchange, but it's just the signalization of two ramps that are unsignalized today. Murphy, we did a study with ODOT as part of the bond program. The estimate there was much more than our $10 million allocation. Moving over to Bikeped, happy to go down through this list as well, but this one kind of speaks for itself. The total dollar amount is what we're trying to show. Same for the others. And Lastly, I would just say the conversation leading up today around, you know, do you want to do projects or do you want to identify category percentages and dollars and earmarks for any specific projects is something we're trying to get some input to help us go to TMAC to have that conversation and to try to help focus them on this conversation. And then they could potentially prioritize these projects if you want to stay within the framework of the resolution project list.

Sure. And so just again, to clarify, you know, when it says Empire Highway 20, US 97, 20 to 30 million, that's the all in cost. So even if we put all of our 19 million, we still could not build that thing without some help from ODOT or some other funding source, right?

And that's our best number right now. We've been three different concepts. There's a study that's going to end next summer that ODOT is conducting. And yeah, and then we'll know more.

it's fair to say, even if we put all the 19 million, that's probably not going to get us there. Just thinking about the giant cost of that project to do all the highway connection. So just want to be, we're talking about, and then if you look at some of the other projects, you know, that's all in costs as well. So, okay.

Yeah, I guess I'm struggling with this because I'm struggling with all the different numbers. We've got 20, 28 minus nine, And then, and then we have these totals at the bottom of here. And I guess I'm a little struggling.

Yeah. It's sort of showing like, Hey, we really want to do city, you know, we really want to just do parkway stuff. Well, if we want to do all the parkway stuff, it would be that much. I want to do all the bike pet stuff. It would be that much. So I think it's just showing the different categories of sort of the magnitude of investment that is needed.

But I guess what would be helpful to me is understanding also the obligation under, you know, the, the bond to each of these categories too. I know the former slides talked about that, but we can't just say today, let's put all of this in bike ped because the bond, and I went and looked at the bond, the voter pamphlet from 2020, and I'm happy to read it to everybody, but- It has the categories. It has all the categories in here. So I want to make sure that we go into this conversation-

knowing that and that's part of the conversation and this doesn't have to be an all-inclusive list there's there's other things in the tsp that if you're interested or even tmax interested that has the potential of landing on a what-if list but that would as garrett noted require an amendment to the bond resolution which I think we're generally trying to avoid, trying to stick with delivering what we said we would. But of course, we can't do everything on this list. And so it really is the conversation we're asking council, any input you might have on this now, great, let's go back to TMAC and we'll go very deep with them in terms of, what it would mean to do the Hawthorne over crossing connection or adding another few years to the neighborhood street safety program and hopefully come back in January with his, this is their recommendation of how the money should be spent.

Right. And I think I agree with trying to stick with what is in what was told to the voters as much as possible. And I just want to, to council perkins point you know when we're looking at the parkway like that is the all-in cost the bond was never designed to pay for all of those things it was always designed for us to give a little money so if we see the odot money um and we just don't think that's going to happen anytime soon especially not within the bond period just because of what's going on so i think that's why we're looking at all right should we put all those apples into one basket on the parkway should we do something else so That makes sense to me, but yeah, I can see why it's a little confusing not showing what the bond promise was versus the whole cost. OK, do we want to look at Empire real quick and then go back to this?

Yeah, let's look at it.

OK. OK, so just to dive a little bit deeper into Empire, there's been multiple concepts considered. And I realize I don't have a north-seeking arrow, but north is to your right, south is to your left. And basically, the class five cost estimate, which gives us a range that it could go up or down significantly, is in that $20 to $30 million range. So Mayor, you kind of beat me to the punch line. Even if we went all in with all 19, it would require additional funding from some other source to get that funding gap closed. And so Garrett, again, already said ODOT, the only thing on the entire state transportation program and their step is $5 million at the intersection of Third and Empire. That's it. They don't have anything else devoted to Murphy, to Butler, to any interchange here in the city. So there's absolutely no interest or no need to even approach them to say, well, what if you guys did this? Because all they have is $5 million there at Third and Empire. And so, yeah, the all-in, the city's contribution, and this is maybe one question. You don't have to answer it tonight, but if you want to give TMAC some bumper pads, we could stick with the 1.5 contribution, a third and empire that Garrett mentioned, or you could go all in and take all 18.6 of the Parkway contributions and say, we want to do this 20 to 97 direct connection contribution. And but then that would really limit any other possibilities. You know, you might have just I mean, if you say 18 six, it's like, well, we don't really need to go have a conversation with TMAC because there's nothing. How do you want to spend a half a million dollars? It's kind of a pointless conversation. Right.

So can I can I ask a question about this? I'm I mean, I'm looking at it like on a really tiny screen here, but I mean, it looks like this is crazy. would create a new roundabout. So like this 20 to $30 million cost is like a new roundabout. So the 97 to northbound to 20 westbound connection right now uses that the old flyover. So this would replace that flyover and funnel all that traffic that way. I mean, I guess maybe what I'm asking is this looks like a perfect solution, but is there a solution that is $15 million?

Yeah, there's multiple different scenarios we could evaluate. But at the end of the day, this is really going to be ODOT's decision because this is 99% their system. So Garrett mentioned they're doing a study right now that's going to get wrapped up in the spring. This was us asking our consultant and we shared a concept with ODOT and they said, yeah, generally we like that. But they haven't even guaranteed that this is what they want to do. This is just putting it bumper pads up so we understand if we want to go dance with them, this is the amount of money we're talking about.

One other thing that came up in the conversation about this diagram is that flyover thing, the full circle there that we currently use to get to go to Sisters or get onto Highway 20. That is also potentially surplus ODOT right-of-way. So in terms of there, because that's going to close, right? It's not going to be used anymore.

In this estimate, it sees where it is just because we save money on tearing it down.

But there is a world in which it could be torn down. The need for industrial land in our community is quite high. And being able to actually use this land and get ODOT to surplus it in some form, what the value of that ODOT is depends on their surplusing policies.

And what's shown under the number three in that teal, that's also surplus property that under this design consideration, ODOT could sell off as well.

My point is that there is more surplus property here that could be used for some higher and better uses. Did you count how many trees are in that? I did.

Actually, I see one, two, three, four. Okay. So here are the fundamental questions related to the GEO bond for you as council. Number one, are you okay with our assumptions on how we calculated this 28.1 minus the 9 million in contingencies? So we're generally playing with a number of around 19 million. Or is there something else you would like us to consider? Because this assumes that we're going to continue to deliver the Colorado project as programmed. Empire OB Riley is programmed. Probably another one that I can't think of. Yeah, IPS. Yeah, all of those will get delivered as programs. But there's a world in which you could say, take money from this other bond thing that we're currently planning and add it to this or take case peril powers off of this. So that's all up to you to know what number you'd like us to go back to TMAC with. I have a question that's kind of related to that.

Sure. No, go ahead. I guess it's about the Colorado options because we could do less at roughly the river crossing and the stuff in there and put more of that money into the interchange improvements. There was a discussion about that yesterday a little bit.

Yeah. So the $7 million allocated at Colorado now is, if you look at our TSP.

That's currently in the, we will do it.

That's currently in the geobond and we're planning on doing it. And that's to address capacity issues at the roundabout near the pavilion, as well as cleaning up. the whole Arizona bond, Colorado wall, you know, all those signals and short-term lanes and odd driveways. So that 7 million would all basically go towards fixing the nodes. And then the intent would be at some point in the next 10 to 15 years, we would be widening Colorado bridge and we'd already have the ends of it done with this work. That's not in the bond. That's not in the bond. It is in the TSP. It's a long-term project. Correct.

But then other improvements that are needed at Colorado and the parkway interchange.

One of the ones mentioned, yeah, if you're driving, trying to go northbound from Colorado onto the parkway, that backs up all the way to Market of Choice. And so that's another consideration. That's one that Garrett mentioned. We as city could deliver that and we really don't even need. Where is that on our current CIP and current plan? It's not today. It's not anywhere. Yeah.

No, so that's one of those where... That's in the bucket of ODOT contributions.

Well, yeah, there was some Colorado improvements, and that was $4.3 million. We were supposed to give 10% of that, and they were supposed to come up with the rest, and that money doesn't exist anymore.

So we could take on the whole project ourselves with some of these...

We can take on the portion that's within the city system. So that was why the Reed signal and Colorado signal were there as considerations because those were parkway improvement nodes.

So my question is, is this a question potentially for TMAC to wrestle with a little bit? What's more important? It is. Those improvements closer to the river or the improvements of the parkway, especially since parkway improvements are... an important thing that's not really happening because we can't rely on ODOT. And so does it make sense to think about the timing of those projects differently?

Is there a slide that shows, I mean, it sounds like there's kind of this category of projects that like, yeah, we all agree we need them. Then there's this category of projects, well, we probably don't need them right now. And then there's this category of projects like, well, we really need them, but they're not funded. So it would be nice to kind of just see that because we're all confused by the numbers here. I'm confused by the numbers. I thought Colorado was in the unallocated or not unallocated, but in the additional funds. I thought I thought we had talked about that back in February.

Interchanges, not the bridge down the road.

Yeah, I thought the bridge down the road was was kind of I thought you guys told us back in February, March. Yeah, we don't really need that.

That's kind of what I thought too, but we've rushed to the study ahead on that one so that we could take, you know, more of a close traffic operations, look at that prior to this meeting. So we just finished that like last month. It's, it's relatively recent and it shows the need. We have over 20,000 vehicles a day that go through that location. And so it shows the need for intersection improvements at both ends. Um, it's supposed to grow to 26,000 in the next 10 years. So we're already exceeding just the roadway capacity, nevermind the intersections.

Okay. On Colorado.

On Colorado.

Yeah. Well, that's great information. So then what about all the other ones, though? Like, that's kind of what I was asking for in the emails that I was sending before. Like, it would have been really nice to kind of see these projects sort of side-by-side compared, like, yeah, at the level of urgency, like... These intersections are already in such bad condition. They were built for 10,000 vehicles a day, and now they're seeing 50,000, something like that. So I'm having a hard time. And I feel like council should grapple with that a little bit more before we send it to TMAC. I don't know if 19 million is the right number.

I agree with you, Gina.

I think the data is good input. We've heard from a couple of you. I think that's a good thing for us when we start looking into these individual projects to help identify the need along with other considerations where I think i struggle with thinking about it is around looking at the bike ped category versus a category that includes intersection improvements or capacity needs because those are those are two different considerations that were that had two different sets of data when the tsp was developed right and so that was that was where we were trying to start the conversation at the category level to identify Do you want more money in parkway or intersections or east-west or bike ped? And then developing the data sets for each one of those to bring that to TMAC and then bring that data here as well. So I think that's the next step in the overall consideration.

Yeah, I mean, I would like... So the principles I'm acting under here is... what was written into the resolution and what was in the voter pamphlet, I want to stay within those parameters as much as possible. So I'm not super interested in pulling other projects in. I like to think about buckets. And I'm saying, and so for moving parkway money around, I think most of it should probably stay on the parkway. But I'm also open to hearing from TMAC about that. And to have TMAC look at, I would like to have them be able to look at all the remaining bond projects, right? Like kind of holistically, as we're just talking about here. And then what we've been presented with here, if we move this money around, and if there's a couple other projects maybe that de-prioritize or de-scope like the Chase, what do we do with that extra money and how do we move it around the buckets? I think that's exactly what TMAC could help us with. My principles would be don't go far outside the scope of the resolution. We're moving it around within the buckets we already identified. And also look at what we've spent so far. and look at the data that Council Francis and Council Perkins are talking about around, you know, what's the need of the intersections? What's the safety concerns? Basically, sorry to say, Garrett, but like round two of prioritization of the Geobond projects. That's what we expect. Basically, that's what we need to be doing at this point. And we're about at the midway point here. So I'm okay with TMAC kind of grappling with a lot of that universe instead of putting really strict guardrails on it. But I don't know how the rest of you all feel.

I would advocate for us giving some amount of direction about a certain amount of the money going to the Highway 20 fix. I mean, as just a member of the community, regardless of sitting on the council, it's infuriating to me we didn't fix that already. But the huge project we just did up there and we're left with this mess we still have to fix, frankly. And I think we... have an opportunity to make a significant contribution to try to make that project happen. So if we can do that, but I don't think it should all fall on the city of Bend. That is mostly, as you said, the state highway problem. We understand that they're having their own funding issues that who knows how long it's going to take to fix. So And we're probably not going to get, you know, the whole project covered by them and with a small amount from us. So if we could do, you know, roughly eight to ten million dollars at least dedicated to that and let TMAC know that that's kind of what we're thinking. So they want to argue for something different. I'm fully open to hearing from them. But that's generally where the council is going. That's what I think we should do. And then we should be looking at the rest of this stuff. I think that fixing, finishing the Hopper and crossing is an really important kind of long-term value for the community. And it also means we don't have to do any more investments, I think, in Greenwood or Franklin around bike ped, besides what we've already done or are in the process of just about starting, that we already started on. So let's just really focus there. And then I think we should reserve some money for neighborhood street safety stuff, because the need is so high across the community and the desire of neighborhoods to have smaller safety projects. It's really important.

Okay.

So those are my three priorities, really. And I think they're all consistent with what you're saying, Mayor, in terms of consistent with the bond.

Yeah, definitely.

But just to clarify, that would be extending the life of the Neighborhood Street Safety Program, right?

Yeah, right. This would be the revenue source to continue those projects.

Through the end of the program, through 2031. HAB-Juliette Boone, Right.

HAB-Juliette Boone, Yeah, it'd be helpful if we have that kind of, you know, and then we can get into more data in terms of like, you know, the more specific projects, but if we have kind of that HAB-Juliette Boone, I mean, HAB-Juliette Boone, Which is, I think what I'm hearing HAB-Juliette Boone, Empire fix is one big bucket and I'm seeing a lot of head nods on.

We need to take that on and some level. And then the other one was the NSP Council friends as a

Just about the Empire Highway 20, I mean, is the, I guess I have two questions here and a comment, like, is ODOT's, so ODOT has budget to fix the intersection at Empire and Third, right? Sorry.

Five million, they have earmarked today.

Okay, and so does that include the southbound on-ramp and, like, a some sort of traffic control at that southbound on-ramp or is nothing included for that?

And I think that's kind of the signal we'd like to send of like, hey, we'd like to, can you maybe be a little more flexible with that money that you've earmarked for that intersection? Because some of that, those improvements might not be needed if we can get a better, more comprehensive fix. So I think we'd like to couple our financial contribution with a you know, plea to look at this area more holistically instead of in isolation.

Use it as a, we're throwing a piece of bait out there. You guys need to bite on this because the opportunity for us to get this fixed with the lower cost of ODOT is really high with our contribution.

Yeah. Okay, because I was just kind of concerned because I know the bond, we have to spend the bond by a certain year. You know, if we're saying we're going to set 10 million aside for the perfect world solution of connecting, you know, Highway 20 East with 97 South, like, The bond will expire by the time ODOT gets ready to do that. So I don't know that I agree with the $10 million allocation here. I think I'd like to see a very cost-efficient solution, including that southbound on-ramp, and then we can kind of talk about how much money we put towards it. I don't feel like putting $10 million, just hand-waving and doing that. Because I think the other, like the Murphy, what I'm really curious about with Murphy and... I mean, really, I guess it's just the two missing Murphy ramps is, you know, how does that play with the development, all the development that we have going on in the southeast right now? Like, I don't know that all of that development was considered when the TSP was prioritized. And I'm just asking that question. I just don't I don't know the answer to that. I don't know one way or the other if it was. And, you know, you see that in the TSP that that's like called out as important access for emergency response, you know, in the case of a wildfire. So I'm actually kind of curious to know if how important that Murphy, those Murphy missing Murphy ramps are for an emergency response situation. And then the other comment I wanted to make was about Boyd Acres. Could you go back to that slide with the – yeah, that one. So the Boyd Acres key route, like the TSP shows that at $1.8 million. I know, Ryan, we had a little back and forth on email on this one. I mean, I get that the preferred option is $13 million, but if it's like, you know, the $3 million option, which is like slightly protected – bike lanes and, you know, or a shared, you know, use path or something like that versus nothing. Like, I think we'd rather the $3 million option. So like, I think that's a really good question to TMAC. I mean, I don't know that I would agree with their responses. My response is like, we should just spend $3 million and make that road safer and not spend $13 million and, and forego improvements at, you know, so many other places. So I think a real sharp pencil on all these projects is, except for NSSP, because $3 million on NSSP isn't very much. We all know there's a huge list of projects there to be done. So anyway, thank you. That's it.

Okay.

Let me see if I can maybe summarize. Sure, go ahead. So it sounds like there's a lot of agreement on NSSP, including that. It sounds like maybe asking TMAC to look at like cost efficiencies for Boyd, as we just heard. Or alternative routes. Or alternative routes that maybe can help us accomplish that.

It's a key route, and so I want to be careful about that, but I agree with the other thing.

In general, to look at reducing that cost in that area.

Is that one way to do it? Is there some alternatives that make more sense in the context today than they might have when we adopt this?

And then with the... ODOT contribution. I think there is some general interest in contributing, but we need still more data, more understanding of what ODOT's position, timeline, all of that. It feels like we still need to come back to council with that before we give that to TMAC to look into. Do you want to not talk to TMAC? Can they not have ODOT come in? We have an ODOT liaison who will bring... Do you want to just have that conversation directly with TMAC?

Let's let them get in the nitty gritty of it because... we have a very packed agenda. And I think we all generally want to fix something at Empire. There's just a lot of details. And I would be supportive of TMAC coming with a couple of scenarios. Not just, we think this. But like, OK, if you want to go big on Empire, it looks like this. If you want to say, not so much, it looks like this. And here's how we would reallocate stuff.

And as Councilor Franzosa pointed out, they would all need an escape lane in case ODOT can't be getting that money spent.

In the time frame we need them to spend.

Yeah. And one other in the Colorado to kind of look at, to have TMAC look at Colorado towards the river, towards the parkway. And then I think, Gina, to your point too, if like, is there other information we can get from ODOT in terms of Murphy and the other parkway connections, if there's some traffic modeling that we can do to look at emergency response and connectivity.

That might be another piece that we can... We could, but unfortunately, there's zero dollars in the back from ODOT. That's the big challenge that we have. There's no money. Even if we were making a compelling case to ODOT that Murphy's important, they're going to say, fine, fund it yourself.

ODOT is so

I mean, in the voter pamphlet, it does say, I mean, it calls out that Murphy. Yeah, there's, yeah, no, it does. Yeah.

And that's, that's the reality though, is that all of those projects along the parkway, our contribution was maybe a quarter of the couple. So I guess the most or less, it was never. close to the full cost of the project. It was meant to be very important. So that's the challenge with those parts of the bond measure is that they were without ODOT's full partnership.

It was sort of a promise that wasn't super clear. It was like, yes, Murphy, but also did every voter understand that meant a little piece of Murphy that would never happen unless ODOT, you know, like that's part of it.

promise, if you will, was made on the Midtown crossings because we didn't have very much money in there, but the hope was we'd be able to leverage the money and we were successful there. Completely different outcome, essentially.

Yes, for sure. For Eric's summary as well, I don't know how much support there was for fixing the Hawthorne connections. But certainly I... You mean the ends of the bridge? The ends of the landing spots. I certainly agree with Councillor Riley on that as a priority as well. And I didn't hear you mention that as part of your summary. Yeah.

No, I didn't, but thank you for... I think that one's important in terms of, you know, it's sort of almost the final piece of some of the core infrastructure to make the BCD really pop and therefore the core area as a whole.

So in terms of a TMAC kind of priority, I'd like them to understand that as well.

From a staff perspective, we would really like assurance that construction funding is coming for that because there's really important coordination for us between the ODOT managed portion and the city managed portion. There's details there that would be beneficial for us to reduce costs and waste investments. Can I add one more thing to Eric's conversation is the, um, Mayor Keebler had mentioned the unallocated amount, and I want to make sure we have bookends on that so we're not opening this up too much because right now there's a lot of things that are open for us to navigate in three months to come back to you. And Colorado, what's that? The unallocated, we've outlined at 28.1, but then there's some suggestions of looking beyond that. I think we need to have some limitations to that because we have committed dollars on a lot of these projects that we don't want to, I don't think we want to be opening up to that. conversation. So I'm asking, is it just Colorado? Um, or are there others there that are being suggested to enter into that conversation?

The ones that we had ended up, it was Colorado and you already identified Chase Purcell. And then I think we're also looking at, is there cost savings that could come from projects, right?

So not, it's not, those are included in the savings interest amount, that $7 million. Those have been identified.

So Garrett, are you asking, can we get happy with 21 million to play?

Well, 28.1 is the number that we want to talk about. Not the minus nine. But no, we're using the minus nine or we're holding the minus nine for one year until we have price security. So we need a project list that... addresses the full 28 million amount in case we have 28 million we don't want to come back and do this again right here here's what for 19 and then if there's more money here's like this is the first project we prioritized that yeah prioritization exactly yeah so on the lower part of the prioritized list might not get done it'll get done if there's money

And the Colorado is the trade-off between the timing and need and all that of those two investments, one around the river and the other around the parkway.

Yeah.

Okay.

So are we asking TVAC then to, if hypothetically they say, you know, yes, Hawthorne connections, 6 million, NSSP 3 million, and then there's 10.1 million left over, and we say, or they say, empire is a priority, then when do we see, here's ODOT's 5 million contribution, and here's an idea of what a total 15.1 million

improvement to that corridor would look like are they we're asking them to sort of sort through that and then send a couple no i think i think i think having odot come to them and and talk i mean to even talk about like could this five million in the step be moved or no is is there any energy on getting this done and what would that look and do they are they agreeing with that you know they said that looks pretty good but do they have anything else because i i think we just need more assurance or information from them it's just going to be tough so i don't i don't know that it's figure everything out but maybe invite them to present and discuss and sort of talk through some scenarios and right yeah i mean

depending on what happens at the state level from a political standpoint and a transportation package, I mean, we could throw five or 10 into the bucket and find out next spring that that didn't do anything. Right. Or we could find out, Hey, that actually really helped. Here's the last 15 you need to complete the project.

Yeah.

So again, it's just, we'll give it a shot and, but we'll have an escape lane just in case. It isn't going to work.

Yeah. I just, and you know I was going to do this, but I just want to remind everyone that this is the first thing that this bond was about was about improving traffic flow. And I just want to make sure that these decisions that we are making are doing that. And I get a little nervous when we're talking about continually front-loading a lot of bike ped projects. And I feel like a little bit that it's at the expense of some of the, for the people who drive to work every day or come in from outside our city every day, the 53%, it's a little bit at the expense of them. So I just want to make sure that we're staying true to that.

So you think that if we have more kids walking or biking to school, that that helps or hurts traffic?

I mean, that...

You just had the first day of school today, and I've heard that there are a lot of extra drivers.

Yes.

So if there are more kids getting to school without being driven, does that help traffic flow or hurt it?

My point is that. I think I get. Ariel, don't interrupt. She's answering your question. No, my point is that. I have nothing, you know I'm a supporter of safe routes to school. I bike my kid to school every day. But I'm also a lucky person that can do that because my kid's school is two blocks away from me and very, very safe. But I also know that there are people who don't have the flexibility of time that I have, to be able to do that and have to drive their kids to school because then they have to get to work. And there are people whose kids are going to school in Redmond because they live in Redmond and driving here every day. So I don't think it's an equivalent. I am not against safety projects in any way, shape, or form. I am wholly supportive of safe routes to school, and I think we should do it. I'm just saying that a key component of this bond was to improve traffic flow. And I hear a lot from people in our community that that part of that bond they don't feel that has been realized yet.

And I think I agree with you. And what I heard was a lot of interest around tightening up in Colorado from across the diet. So I think we're responding to that along with the Empire funding. So I'm with you on that at the same time. And I think that's something that we should ask TMAC to look at at the same time that we're improving multimodal travel.

And I think- What I would say is that I think to echo Councilor Platt's point, not only are we talking about Colorado, we're also talking about the investment on Highway 20. We just agreed to move forward with the widening of the roundabout at bond and read market. I mean, there's a lot of things that we actually are doing that are quite finished yet, and they're still on the list of bond projects to be done. So I think it's important for us to keep all of that in mind when we're looking at this. I agree about the traffic flow piece, and I think there's a lot we're doing across the city that don't necessarily show up on this list, which was, it's hard to talk about this sometimes because we're not seeing the full context.

Okay, we got a couple other topics. Give us a thought.

Yeah, I mean, like my comment earlier about maybe Murphy should actually be prioritized. I'm actually kind of getting at like what you all are talking about. Like there are some traffic issues in our city and I wonder if some of these projects couldn't help with it. Like if Murphy, aside from emergency response, wouldn't also alleviate some of the problems with traffic that we have in the Southeast. And about the safe routes to school, like that was something I've been thinking about for a council goal for next biennium, but maybe the neighborhood street safety program should actually, that 3 million should actually be focused on safe routes to schools. Maybe that would be a good, because we do know that congestion during the school year, during start and end times of the day is really a big problem. The other one I kind of wanted to ask about, I know we need to move on, but this third and read market for $12 million, what is that exactly? I mean, that's another one that to my mind is like, can we do some signalization improvements for less? Yeah.

we include on here cause it was in the original bond resolution. I think counselor Riley's mentioned that a couple of times bond and read and third and read. Um, It was included as part of the study that the bond funded and ODOT managed. And there's several improvements, remaining improvements on Reed that were identified. And that was one of them. There is some direct correlation to the signalized intersection as well, if you do third and Reed, being that there's turn lanes that are added and some medians that would extend all the way up to that future signalized intersection. So there's some benefit to doing them together.

So it's because it's combining kind of two projects, the intersection and the signalization at the parkway entrance.

And it bleeds all the way down the third and Broster House as well in the triangle that you have there. It's all related together. Got it.

Okay. All right. Great. So we'll move forward to TMAC. They have a big job. And I think, I think we just, this stuff is not easy. There's a lot of moving parts. And you mentioned the states that like, there could be a transportation package that just like throws this all up in the air. We don't know. So I think TMAC do the best they can do. And I think we're going to have to be in conversation with them. And if they run into questions and they're like, Hey, we need more guidance from council. I think that is a conversation that should happen. So, but I think they're all very motivated to dig into details as well. So.

Great.

I think we've got enough. Okay.

Thank you.

A couple more topics to go.

All right. Terry and Kayla, if you want to come.

There's so much more, Mike. Don't worry. You got more to talk about.

So yeah, and this is, we're coming back. Carrie Harris, who's one of our project engineers in the engineering department, and Kayla, who is with DCAS and Associates as well. And they have gone, taken a deep dive into the eighth and only intersection and kind of weighed the pros and cons of the different concepts. So I will hand it over to them.

Thanks, Ryan.

482 pages. Right. Yeah, you saw it.

Steve read all of it.

I bet you did. Okay.

So yeah, this was, or it is a 2020 GeoBond project, very focused on the intersection capacity piece and traffic flow that y'all were just discussing. So one of those projects that's getting at that we do expect at the intersection of only an eight specifically to see about a 15 to 20% growth over the next 20 years in terms of vehicle numbers. So this project is trying to proactively address that upcoming growth. We since doing an initial 2021 study analysis of this intersection. We now have an updated bin travel demand model. We also collected updated traffic counts this past year. And we did a 16-hour efficiency evaluation. So looking at not just the after work peak hour rush of traffic, but really looking at alternatives throughout a whole day. So we wanted to test the 2021 recommendation and see if that held up. And as part of that, So we have our study intersection here with the star and then this also shows nearby key routes and very close proximity to the intersection. But I did want to know, as you guys are probably aware, this intersection is not a part of a key route. So we have key route three going east west nearby on Norton and key route one on Sixth Street. But on the next slide, we'll see that we are planning to include some improvements along the key route. So at 8th and Norton, we'll be doing an enhanced crossing. This is just some early draft concepts of what that could look like. The work in orange, ODOT is planning to complete. So it'd be more like the work in red that the city would be completing with our intersection project.

So this wasn't in the slide back, right? So this is like... This is like bent a little south there. Is that what it's going across? Is that what I'm seeing? Yeah.

Do you want to go back one more? Yeah, so it's Norton is the road just to the south.

Yeah, I know. But I mean, when it goes across the road, is it bent a little south of the... Yeah, so ODOT is planning to add a striped bike lanes onto Norton on the Q route.

So this is that early draft concept tied to ODOT's work. We still are going to be looking at this closely and determining if it should be on the south side or north side of the road or what's kind of the best treatment there for the enhanced crossing. So this is just draft level.

So it's the island in the middle, the refuge, right? Yeah. And are there RFBs here?

That's on the table that we could consider. Other crossings on 8th Street, they're currently just using the signs without RFBs.

But with this being a key route, that's certainly a tool in the toolkit.

And I'm certainly, whenever I'm using them, I'm very surprised at how quickly people are complying with them. They've been very positive. Mm-hmm. And encouraging.

And this key route does have that big dog leg in it, right? It's dog leg south. It's just that it's baked in the route, right? Yeah.

To avoid the 8th and Olney North side. And that's the intent.

So I just wanted to highlight that no matter what we do at Olney and 8th, we still are planning to do something at 8th and North.

As part of the role.

As part of the project. So now we're going to get into stuff at Olney and 8th specifically. We did a deeper dive into the multiple signal alternatives, multiple roundabout alternatives. It sounds like some of you have read that. But we kind of focused on our top two preferred alternatives of each of those control types. So we're looking at like the best we could get with the signal and then the best we could get with a roundabout that addressed capacity here in the project goals. And just wanted to note, you guys are probably aware, but the city has a roundabout first policy in our standards. So unless there is a strong reason for advancing a signal over a roundabout, we do have direction to select roundabout treatments over signals. But with that said, we'll start looking at the updated signal alternative. And Kayla will take us there.

Yeah, so this updated signal option that we're showing on the screen is extending that west on right turn lane, adding a south on right turn lane. And then also adding a shared use path. Today the bike lane is in that right turn lane. And so that turn lane... I was in it today. So those turn lane improvements are needed to address the future capacity, which Kerry hit on already, as well as the queuing in this area. And so as a reminder, the future analysis without any improvements was showing fairly substantial cues, especially in that westbound direction. And this is kind of a key route to the hospital. So that's something that we wanted to address with this option and this updated signal. So we're showing that the right away impacts with this option. are fairly high. And so in total, that right-of-way and that construction cost, we're talking about around $5 million. And we're, with this option, really unable to reutilize any of the existing signal equipment because of the way that we're lengthening, widening some of these turns, turn lanes. And so if we go to the next slide, we've got a little bit more detail on those right-of-way impacts. And so really we're talking about kind of two properties on the north side of only your pen here. And so with the improvements that we're showing, that driveway is getting narrowed to a point where we don't really think that they'll be functional or usable any longer. And so our right away specialist was saying that a before and after appraisal would be working because of that loss of property value. And so that's likely in the $400,000 to $500,000 per parcel there, which is really adding up quickly to that total right away estimate that we're showing on the screen. And it may also trigger a relocation review. So if the occupants were found to be eligible, that's kind of an additional cost that we're not showing on the screen with this option. So that was the signal option for the roundabout. What we're recommending is kind of that best roundabout option is this partial multi-lane roundabout that adds that westbound right turn lane. Again, with the shared use path there and then the dedicated southbound left turn lane. And this results in some runaway impacts for that southbound addition, but quite a bit less substantial for that westbound movement. We are able to get a bit without that same level of driveway impact for those two properties. And so in total, we're talking about closer to for that right-of-way and that construction cost. We're talking about closer to $3.4 million. This roundabout would include those flashing beacons. Those are our FBs on all multi-lane crossings. And the design team, if we progress with this option, we're going to be looking at other ways to enhance the crossings here and building upon the city's latest design guidance to encourage proper lane use for the multi-lane roundabout here. And so Carrie's going to show kind of a comparison of these two on the next slide, but Ultimately we are kind of recommending moving forward with that multi-lane roundabout option in large part because of those large right away impacts.

Yeah. So I just have two slides here on kind of comparing really quickly the alternatives to the existing condition. So our existing condition here is pretty scoring, um, qualitatively poor, bad, um, Kayla touched on the cues. So we've rated that bad. And then, as well as multi hour efficiency we're seeing our current intersection was failing over six hour period so not just that one hour peak period but really six hours of the day it's over capacity so. points to doing something. So then when we look at alternative one for the signal build out option that Kayla highlighted, we still have a category that's scoring bad and a few poor categories like cost and cues, as well as the bad right away. So when we qualitatively ranked as a team, the roundabout option for the partial multi-lane roundabout, we had all neutral good or great in the project goal categories. And so that ties to our recommendation And then, yeah, just a final slide on kind of those operations. You'll see that the existing intersections model to fail in five years. And then both alternative one and alternative two are modeled to get us through the next 20 years. But we see those right away impacts and the cost is pretty substantial with alternative one. So kind of closing out here, this is our recommendation, but happy to answer any questions.

CoB, Cindy Spence, Wait Council any objections to the staff recommendation after the deeper look at the two alternatives.

CoB, Cindy Spence, yeah. CoB, Cindy Spence, So back years ago, 2019, when we were looking at the transportation system plan, we had the same problem. These intersections are at capacity, lots of projected traffic, and at the time, DKS associates staff person Chris Majewski said, in the example, this was Greenwood and 3rd Street, and the mayor wanted to know Well, why don't we have more expansions at Greenwood and Third? He said, Greenwood and Third is a fairly built-out intersection, so we don't have additional lanes in the project list. We have mobility hubs, high-capacity transit, and travel demand management in the longer term to help address that. So I would say there's also other things on the list, too, like, you know, well, specifically in this case, what would it look like for St. Charles to... implement a transportation demand management program? How do we model things like the quality of pedestrian and bicycle networks? Those aren't included in the analysis that Dowell provided for us. So when do we get to talk about those in a more holistic way so that we don't see 20 year projections of lots of cars and traffic and think the only solution here is to expand this intersection? So I think that might be an Eric question. We have the other conversation so that we don't think that the only solution on the table, the staff recommendation is let's expand the intersection.

Yeah, I mean, I think those are broader conversations about programming needs. And those are much more in the realm of our transportation mobility department. And we're going to be talking about transportation safety and some of our programming efforts in October and our council goal quarterly update. So we can talk more about it then and kind of some updates on those programs.

And there's still a good bucket of money in the geobond for coordination with CET. Yeah. And so there's millions in there that could lead towards some of what you're talking about.

I can't be the only one who thinks that this is just like a very narrow way to look at this problem.

Well, I think you need to look at all options on the table, right? So this isn't the only solution that's going to solve traffic in the city of Bend, but this is within the scope of work that the TSP identified. So looking at a travel demand system from St. Charles is a great idea, but that's well outside of the scope of what we've been assigned to do.

So this might more remember because he was on the negotiating team that pulled the TSP projects, the short-term projects into the geo bond. And there was a lot of back and forth, and these intersections in this area were specifically related to traffic flow, going back to those values that were in the east-west traffic flow. So there was a specific intent behind the story of these intersections being included for that reason. It was how do we align? We'd done a bunch of focus groups. research to about what would voters support. And there was a concerted effort to pull these projects forward to improve traffic flow in that area.

Can I just understand, Councilor Mendez, when you're saying about expanding the intersection, you're specifically referring to adding the extra lane when you're going westbound and when you're going southbound. Is that specifically what you're referring to? I mean, in this case, the recommendations. Right now, we have to cross at least three lanes, basically, right?

Well, so we rejected the signalized intersection with the additional land that was associated with additional turn lanes. But in this case, it's not a single lane roundabout. It's a multi-lane roundabout. So... I'm just puzzled about why don't we see the other tools discussed or even modeled or considered before we talk about expanding? Because I would say safe routes to schools, better transit, transportation demand management, those are congestion relief programs. And they're probably cheaper and more effective than what we're talking about here. So I don't understand why we're only talking about this and not...

Well, I think we did hit on the key route is a block to the south. And that is where we would like to see pedestrians and bikes travel, not through this as their primary choice. So I believe we're addressing both issues at the same time with this solution. You're never going to address 100% one and zero the other. But I understand what you're saying. But not every intersection can serve every purpose for every user of the system.

And maybe I can also add to related to the modeling. Um, we were building this upon scenarios that were developed for the TSP that did include all of that as part of the background assumption. So we, for our future forecasting, we have already assumed that there is much better transit service, uh, in Bend than what exists today. Right. And that there is investment in the key walking and biking routes to the level that was envisioned with the TSP. So that, that is all part of that background. modeling work. And so that's why we're only seeing 1% less than 1% growth per year, which is a pretty small number when we're talking about the scale of growth in Bend overall. So that is a background underlying assumption that is in the travel-dependent model that we were working with. OK, great.

Um, okay. We've got 10 minutes left. We need to talk about Greenwood.

I need to, I have some comments.

I'm going to come to you. Yes. I just want to just for clarity's purpose for the staff. Is there, um, so councilor Mendez, you're sort of a no on moving forward with the staff recommendation. Is that right at this point? Okay. Is there anyone else who's a no on moving forward with the staff recommendation at this point?

I'm a no.

Which I'm going to let you put your Put yourself in there. Okay. So I think there is council support for moving forward with the recommendation council friends. So, so go ahead.

Thanks, yeah, I mean, I was just shocked to learn that the multi-lane roundabouts in Bend are the highest crash intersections that we have. And so that's the primary reason why I'm not in favor of going forward with a roundabout here, but I'm also not in favor of going forward with a roundabout here because this is a walkable, bikeable neighborhood. People have been relying on this intersection for decades. And we're making a major change to it that I think is just really unwise from an urban planning perspective. I understand from an engineering perspective, it makes perfect sense. But you're not considering the context. And I think that's really the problem here. And I do want to know why it feels a little bit like the signalized intersection concept that you've proposed here is very different than what we looked at a month ago or whenever this came before us. And so I'm kind of concerned that you sort of changed it. you know, to kind of come up with an outcome that, that you like, and you're not presenting to us all the information that you presented to us last time. Like last time we looked at actual queue lengths, we actually looked at delay times and it, and it really was like kind of a wash. What I asked for was for you guys to go back and kind of actually look at the studies that are referenced in all the design manuals. And, you know, and that's, that's not presented here. We've just got kind of a, you sort of cleaned it up so that it, It looks better. I mean, it's, so I'm kind of curious if you would please explain why you've changed the design for the signalized intersection.

We're calling up the Q-Links, which was a hidden slide because I wanted to keep this presentation tight and it was in the materials that were given to you before this meeting. So we understand your objections, I think.

I don't, where, is it in the presentation? Is that what you're telling me? Or was it in the, I didn't see it in the memo.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Everything. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It's one of them. Yeah.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- It's hard to see that bottom thing. Okay, so I just, that's just to react to your accusation there council friends, so that you're not being presented with information. It was in the memo. It is was here as a slide. If we wanted to pull it up. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Which here it is in your objections are noted. I think we can continue that discussion when this comes back to us. I think there's council support to bring this back to us as recommended with the multi lane roundabout.

I think just, I mean, this is one of the intersection bottlenecks that we talked about, east-west connections. And, I mean, having these really long queue lengths is not good for the livability of neighborhoods, I don't think. It doesn't make people feel safe crossing those roads. I'm struggling, honestly, with the idea that we're expanding the intersection when you Doesn't seem to me that the roundabout actually gets us there in terms of the numbers of lanes that a pedestrian has to cross compared to the existing condition.

I mean, imagine if this was proposed for like Newport and 14th, the outrage people would lose their minds. And I, I, I feel like that's, I, this, this is accommodating drivers that don't even exist yet 20 years into the future. I don't, I just, I've already said enough, and I think everybody knows where I stand on this. So it's, let's just, let's move on.

Okay. All right. Thank you for diving deeper into that and presenting us with that information, including the very lengthy memo. We appreciate that. We'll see you back again, the next steps on this. When will this be coming back, Ryan? Or Eric, do we know?

We come back for right-of-way eminent domain resolution of need. That'll be the next step.

That's the first step, and then there will be the design contracts.

And then the GMPs, yeah. Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. And I'm just going to, for the record, publicly apologize to Carrie and Kayla for the backhanded insult that we're somehow manipulating the data to get to a result that we prefer. I don't take that very lightly. I think we do a lot of hard work, and that's pretty insulting to hear from a council member that they think we're doctoring the data to lean towards one result. So just wanted to get that on the record.

And I would support that. I mean, I think Staff are really professional and it's really uncalled for to be accused that way. So I really need to stand up for our staff that put the hard work in.

Yeah, I agree with that. And that's why we immediately were pulling up the information. Folks, look at the materials, read the materials, please. You know, have all the information if you want to disagree. And that's totally fine. I don't agree with going this direction. I don't agree with this contract. That is totally fine. It's a different thing to accuse our staff of manipulating things. I don't think that's what's going on here. So.

To wrap up, Greenwood, just I think you're all probably tracking this already, but shout out to David Abbas and our Transportation and Mobility Department. They have already gone out and removed this 215 feet of curb that kind of created a no man's land for that left turn lane. So today it exists with a longer left turn bay on Greenwood so you could go north on 3rd Street. So we'll continue to keep an eye on that. to see how much that impacts the backup that we that we seem to get from time to time because people attempting to turn left were having to park in the through lane and therefore it was preventing some movements so uh thank you to them for getting that completed and it's it's done now Quick few more slides here. We've now done five different evaluation periods of Greenwood working left to right. These are different locations in which we did this. One was pre-construction in May of 24, and then post-construction we did January of 20, or we did, September 24, January 25, June of 25, and most recently March of 26. With the caveat that the only one that really wasn't being influenced by the closure of the Portland Avenue Bridge or the Wall and Only intersection is the March of 26 evaluation. So this just gives you an idea of what the average pedestrian and bicycle volumes were along the corridor. So at different locations, you can see pre-construction versus post-constructions. They've generally increased, and I've got some more specific numbers to show you. But just as an example, you know, when you talk about east of Hill Street, Post construction, we've seen the volumes go from somewhere around 100, 150 before. Now they're up to the 300 to 400 range. And crash data has been a good topic to discuss. And I'll just caveat this with it really depends on the lens you want to look at this through. So BP, the Bend Police Department can give you crash data going years before and years after the intersection. And I know that was a big topic of discussion. And so if you want to look at it holistically, you certainly can. The report that we generally get from them extends all the way from third in Greenwood back to wall in Greenwood. So it includes multiple signalized intersections along the way. And that's where, honestly, a majority of the crashes are occurring. And so narrowing it down, again, not trying to doctor any data because it's all available. It's shared with you. But if you just look at the six months prior to construction and you look at that trend line, there were 10 accidents within that range that I just previously mentioned. And now we're in the last six months post-construction. So basically March of 26 till now, we've seen 11 accidents. So it's generally a wash when you look at that time frame specifically. Not to say that there aren't different ways to look at the data, and you could certainly interpret it different ways, but there's a lot of caveats in terms of have crashes gone up or down, and has the severity of a crash gone up or down? And we used to hear from the business owners along the corridor that they'd have a box of mirrors sitting in their front of people that were parked that just kept getting their mirrors clipped off. None of those got reported as accidents, but we do know those existed. So again, there's a lot of data we could talk about, but this is just one snapshot in time of pre and post construction. And then some specific data. This is generally unchanged from the last few times we've shared this data. So vehicle volume has gone down in both directions overall. The 85th percentile speed has also gone down overall. We have seen those increases in pedestrian and bicycle volumes. The average daily commute time as well as regular during and during peak hour has gone up. So you might have seen an increase from 85 seconds to 92 seconds or 86 to 95. So an average of 8 to 10 seconds of increased travel time to get through there, which is probably the result of people traveling at a slower speed, which is kind of the intent. So that is just kind of my data summary slide of Greenwood. There's a report attached to the council packet. So there's more to read there if you'd like. And always happy to revisit any questions you may have on that pilot project.

Is there any intention to do any further data collection?

There is not at this point. No. So from a staff perspective, we're basically saying let's get the Franklin project, which reminder, there's a major closure coming next Monday. It's already been. Yeah. And then, and then we also have the Hawthorne over crossing bridge. And I think we can have a very different conversation once those things are complete about what Greenwood should or shouldn't look like once we have those projects done.

Great.

I think we want to keep this basically as it is until those projects are fully completed and even operational for a while. People get used to all the new configurations.

Okay. All right. Thanks for that data and update.

I just wanted to, for the good of the order, echo what we already talked about in terms of... I think the accusations that you made, Councillor Françoza, I don't think they're appropriate. And I just want to make sure other councillors have expressed that. I don't think it's fair to characterize staff that way in terms of their motivations. And it's generally, it's not what I see as a councillor when I sit here. I see staff doing a really, working really hard to present to us a series of options and answer the questions we've asked them to answer. So I understand we may disagree with the outcome or even the recommendation, but I think that's a little different than people's motivation.

Appreciate that. Thanks, Ryan.

Well, I mean, I'm sorry. I hope you'll give me a moment to respond here. I ask specific questions, but Ryan can walk away. That's the respect he shows me usually when we get together. So I've asked for information. It wasn't provided. And it's fine. The decision's been made.

You know what? I'm going to say just a moment here. Sometimes, well, you know, Steve read this thing. Yeah, I read these every week. And I did trawl through the 482 pages of this thing because there's a lot of data and there's a lot of time that's been put into these. And a lot of professionalism that's been put on the line. And I appreciate it. I spent probably 15 minutes trying to understand why the southbound right lane was worse than the southbound left lane, and I finally figured it out. Because you had it in there for me, and I could look at that. So thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate what you do. And Eric, I appreciate what your staff brings to us each week. Thank you.

Caroline Miller, I just want to add that I have i've worked in a lot of different jurisdictions and I always say to everyone that we are very lucky here in the city, then we have great staff, we have great leadership and our staff and. Caroline Miller, 100% support you here okay.

Are we tabling the BPRD shared framework?

Well, did anyone, it can be one piece of feedback. Yeah, I think that's fine.

I was surprised to see Placer AI mentioned. I felt like it doesn't, we shouldn't have a specific company mentioned in a framework agreement like this.

That's just the one they're already using, but I think we can take that feedback. That's fine. That's all. Yeah, that's easy.

I did receive some feedback, which I incorporated into the draft that was attached to the packet. Unless there's anything that we need to talk about substantively, I was just going to move this forward to the October 7th meeting in the form of a resolution to adopt this. This is just the framework, so there's a lot more work to do. to follow from this, including updating IGAs and other agreements that we have with parks that are mentioned here. This just gives us that kind of that foundation really recognizes both bodies, the values that we are wanting to incorporate. And I think, you know, really appreciate Donna being here from the park board. Thank you for staying through this long meeting, but I think we're on a better path. And so the hope is we can kind of keep moving this forward. I know parks is going to be talking about it at their meeting. They've talked about it some already, and I think wanting to see if there's any major changes from council.

It doesn't sound like there were, except for just one note from Mario, which I think is fine.

I reviewed it, Donna, and provided some input that Eric's referring to, and I really appreciate the collaborative work, and I think it's a good articulation of how we can work together and our shared values. So thank you for that. Thanks.

Okay, great. So we'll move that forward to, what was it, October?