live captioning test.
.
>> all right.
Bend city council will not meet
to consult with legal counsel
with litigation to be filed.
Representatives of the news
media are directed not to report
[Inaudible] As previously
announced.
No decision MAY be made at the
end of the executive session
we'll return to session at 6
P.M..
Thanks.
Order -- there's an echo from
someone.
Good.
We'll go ahead and call to order
the bend city council business
meeting for tonight and start
with roll call with councillor
platt.
>> councillor perkins is excused
tonight.
We'll go into good of the order
and start with information and
then ask for council.
So I'm going to invite molly
heiss from neighbor impact to
come up to the table and this is
just going to be receiving
information about the snap
benefits issue that is going on
with the delay of snap benefit
money to people in our
community, a couple quick stats.
34% of people in oregon are
struggling to cover basic
expenses and 27,000 rely on snap
to keep food on the table in
oregon.
I thought this was a timely
topic we want to hear about for
our community.
Molly's going to talk and then
I'll have an ask for council.
>> indeed.
Good evening mayor kebler and
esteemed councillors.
thank you for inviting us here
to talk about it.
I'm the deputy executive
director of community services,
that includes oversight of the
regional food bank.
We are the regional food bank in
partnership with feeding america
and oregon food bank.
Here to just create more
information around the need and
talk about what we're doing.
My stats are slightly different
in that I have 23,405 central
oregon households without food
assistant as of NOVEMBER 1st.
That includes 9001 as reported
by the oregon department of
human services local branch
office in bend alone.
We supply food across central
oregon to 57 partner agencies
and we maintain and operate 15
mobile pantry sites, taking food
out to communities and regions
across central oregon that don't
have access to food resources.
We're going out to food deserts
with the mobile food pantry to
help deploy.
The network has experienced a
cut prior to the snap
disruption.
We lost commodities from the
federal government, 28% of our
food volume that we're used to.
The thing of significant note of
this disruption and government
shut down, the last time we were
flooded with food commodities.
We had a significant amount of
food to move, almost more than
we could handle.
This time is extremely
different.
We had a shortage we were
informed of in MARCH and started
feeling by MAY and that has
disrupted food flow across
central oregon and to our
partner agencies and mobile
distributions.
One thing that is really
interesting, every meal provided
by -- for every meal provided
by food banks, snap serves nine.
It's the problem that no system
can respond to and meet the
need.
If you think of the fact that we
need $7 million a month to
respond to this across oregon
and we bring in millions of
pounds of food a year and that's
not enough to meet the need.
The need is real.
Snap also fuels our local
economies.
Up to $1.80 in grocery spending
is snap dollars and creates a
one month benefit loss will pull
about $7 million out of grocery
stores and those are the
appropriate response mechanism
to help support with snap
purchases.
They have staff and regional
locations.
Food banking is not built to
deploy these kinds of resources.
We function and our partner
agencies function with
volunteers.
So even if we did replace the
$7 million deficiency, we could
not respond in the same way.
What we are doing though is we
are raising emergency funds,
which is part of why I'm here
today.
And purchasing extra food to
fill the gaps to help to the
best of our ability to make the
partner agencies whole so our
neighbors across central oregon
are fed.
We are not able to fully meet
every need.
We have seen 100% increase, we
got reports from partner
agencies today, in their
volumes.
And that's in the last week and
a half.
We are providing grocery cards
to head start families.
That is the project I was on
this week.
We went to locally owned grocery
stores across the communities
that head start families are in
to make sure the revenue stayed
in the community and they had
local access to use those gift
cards.
We are also drawing down our
reserves to help contribute and
purchase more food to flow into
the system.
The other piece is supporting
our employees, we're a hunger
organizations and we're not
going to let employees impacted
by the snap disruption go
without.
No single effort can solve this
crisis, but every contribution
helps someone eat today, this
week or this month.
One of the interesting and
relevant pieces around
contributions to neighbor impact
is because of our food
purchasing power, we're able to
stretch every dollar three fold.
So, we can turn $1 into $3 worth
of food.
The impact of that is that when
you are giving cash to families
or supports to families to use
in a retail outlet, we can
actually pump more volume with
an investment into the food
system as a whole.
Shelves will run low and lines
will grow long but we'll face it
together is our attitude.
That is why we're here and
appreciate the invitation and
every dollar feeds someone.
we've had some -- the community
has stepped up in folds and
gotten contributions from
private donors.
We had a contribution from
pacific county and pacific
source.
The money flowing out of the
governor's office that she
released for the month is in
flux.
We'll get about $250,000 of that
to neighbor impact and that is
still in the contracting
process.
We're working as if that money
is moving forward and covering
balances with the reserve and
refueling the cover
ffers.
We have an online food drive for
people to contribute to the
system.
You can go through and select
bulk purchases, potatoes,
apples, onions, things like
that, rice and beans.
That's been something that the
community has been really
engaged in.
We've gotten a lot of people
writing checks and saying they
want to be a part of the
solution.
Volunteering is also a key
factor of this with additional
people coming into the system.
Every food pantry and hot meal
site, every agency needs extra
support.
So whether it is true to your
heart to volunteer close to home
or come volunteer at a regional
food bank, our warehouse up in
redman, please engage in any way
you are able to or your
constituents might be able to.
Some of the most needed items if
people are dropping off at a
local food pantry or our
warehouse or regional offices,
tuna, canned chicken, soups,
peanut butter, fruits, ready to
eat meals and pasta.
Lastly, it is non partisan and
doesn't take political positions
but this situation was created
by political inaction.
We urge leaders to restore the
safety nets that support
millions of americans.
Denying food to people is cruel
and failure of government to
meet basic obligations.
We so appreciate the city of
bend leaning in to an
opportunity to support people in
central oregon.
>> thank you very much, molly.
I appreciate the statement and
all the information about what
you're doing and hearing that
our community is stepping up.
I want to encourage in this
moment, anyone who is able to
give or help to think about
doing that.
I also wanted to see what we can
do as a city.
I'll turn to eric on options for
us to help.
>> first off, we want to help.
We're instituting a food drive
at all of our campuses.
We're going to partner with our
fire department who has
externally facing campaign as
well.
We're going to have drop off
bins at our locations and we're
going to do active things.
I also want to entertain the
idea of council contributing
some financial resources.
As you know, we just got good
news from the county assessor
and property tax revenue came in
a little higher than projected.
In the range of 10-20 thousand
dollars contribution.
that's just a starting point to
sort of start the discussion to
see what you're comfortable
with.
>> this is not something that is
ongoing every month, we're doing
-- this needs to be fixed and
you are right, this is a failure
of government that we're letting
people go hungry.
We want to step in to help but
this is not a permanent solution
in any way, shape or form.
Any thoughts for councillors?
>> I'm fully supportive of a
contribution.
I think we need to step in and
help and appreciate you taking
the lead and helping the
community.
>> I agree.
I think we should entertain
$20,000.
I just want to echo the
statement you made about the
government failure.
I mean, this is in many ways, I
can be more political than you
can perhaps.
A failure of the current
administration to just --
implications of many decisions
being made in washington D.C.
And the administration and those
in power in congress.
It is very frustrating they're
being cruel to people in our
community, people across the
country.
>> just to emphasize, if people
want to help, you mentioned
donating, buying food,
volunteering.
It sounds like there's a big
disproportionate affect of
donating.
This is not how we're going to
be able to fix through
individual people stepping up.
We can try to lessen the impact
of it, but there's no
substitution for this.
Our federal government needs to
step up and fix this.
>> I'm fully supportive.
I agree with councillor riley,
the 20,000.
>> is everyone okay with that?
>> I am.
The one thing I wanted to add,
the complicating factor I can't
get over.
You said the last time the
government was closed, you were
flooded with commodities and
this time it is the opposite.
Just making this even harder for
you.
>> absolutely, yes.
We found out this MARCH that
commodities we're going to be
turned off.
We weren't sure if it was
temporary or not.
We started to feel the effects
with the food volumes at the
banks in MAY of 25 and partner
agencies reported really feeling
it about JULY.
In speaking with our food
program director who has been
here 10 years now, this is just
unprecedented.
We have not had a snap
disruption since the 60s.
And then, again, with the
government shut down last time,
we were flooded hand over foot
with commodities.
Central oregon stepped up and
filled the gap with food
donations and brought us within
the 12-13% range but it is still
a gap and heading into the
disruption with the gap and
shortage of food, it is an
incredible blow to the system
and people that are hungry.
>> we thank you and I think we
have unanimous direction and we
will continue to get this
problem fixed as soon as
possible so people can get out
of the situation.
We appreciate everything you and
your organization do.
>> that's amazing.
Thank you.
>> so council action and support
and speaking of advocacy, there
was a letter on the public lands
rule for blm, an advocacy
organization that had a sign on
request to a letter opposing the
recision of this pretty
important rule that protects our
public lands.
I just wanted to make sure
council was okay with signing it
on our behalf.
It is due next week.
Okay.
And then we have some
appointments.
I don't know one of our M.P.O
folks, do you want to explain
why we're looking at some staff
as alternates.
>> transportation planning for
our area, the thing unique about
the bend mpo, it is comprised of
mostly the city of bend plus a
couple of out lying areas and in
our case we have a unique
make-up with the city oregon
department of transportation and
deschutes county is the three
primary members.
We have been in the process of
updating the bylaws to change
the make up of the parties in
the mpo to basically give the
city two full representatives,
odot would get one, deschutes
county would get one and then
we've been trying to find a way
to get east transit a full
voting member.
The reason we're asking for
staff alternates here, currently
the bylaws require at least two
of us in this case, councillor
oh
riley and myself to be present.
If two members are not present,
they cannot conduct business, no
matter how many other are
present unless we have staff
alternates.
In order to -- if we cannot
make it, we would like to have
the ability to ask for a city of
bend staff person to serve in
our place and so in order to do
that, we have identified three
people, ryan ryan
brian rankin,
david abbas and janet hruby.
I think they would be able to
step in and represent the city
in order to conduct business in
the case one of us is absent.
>> okay.
Anyone have issues with that?
Trying to make sure they can
meet and do their business.
I think we'll -- do we need a
motion to approve the
appointments?
>> yes.
>> okay.
Someone make a motion.
>> I move the appointment of
brian rankin, david abbas and
janet hruby as alternates to the
bend metropolitan planning
organization policy board.
>> second.
>> all right.
All in favor?
Okay.
Great.
Okay.
So we are going to move into
council action and reports and
we have a couple of schedule
requests.
This is the first meeting of the
month.
We'll get with those and start
with yours council member riley.
>> I'm asking the council to
take back up the question about
whether or not -- just not
quite a year ago, it will be a
year in DECEMBER, that we had a
discussion about whether or not
we should apply the
concentration limits for short
term rentals that apply to the
underlining residential zone to
the cn zone, the neighborhood
commercial zone.
It is grandfathered zone in the
books for three properties in
the old towne community and done
away with in 2006.
If I understood it, I rewatched
the recording today.
It came to us with a code update
package with the recommendation
to amend the code that way so
the underlining concentration
limits would apply under the
current rules, they do not apply
to the three properties.
My pitch to all of you, a year
ago what happened is that was
the night we were dealing with
the one time expansion of the
ugb and south end of the
community and making this
decision after 11:00 at night.
We were all pretty exhausted and
tired and I don't think we were
thinking particularly clearly.
We basically said let's table it
and there was a motion to table
it.
I do think it is something we
should finish.
It is a piece of unfinished
business and said we would come
back a year ago.
I would like to come back and
finish the discussion.
I'm not advocating for any
resolution tonight, just trying
to get it back on the agenda to
make a formal decision about
what was presented to us by the
planning commission.
>> thoughts?
>> I have a question.
I was just curious why -- I
understand it was a legacy zone
in this one neighborhood, but I
think the idea was to retain
neighborhood commercial.
There are other commercial
convenience and commercial
general, which encourage the
same type of mixed use
development on these properties.
I'm curious why we're just
focusing on these and this zone
and not looking at all of the
commercial zones the allow
residential uses.
It is happening in other zones
where developers are using the
middle housing code to build
housing units and converting to
short term rentals.
We're seeing sort of loss of
neighborhood character and
intention we kind of set up with
that zone.
I don't know -- I know this is
not a time for deliberation, so
I don't mean to derail -- the
request but I just want to make
sure we're not making -- I
don't know, a one-off action and
that we're looking at this from
a policy perspective.
>> I hear councillor riley
asking about neighborhood
commercial in relation to short
term rentals and council member
franzosa asking more broadly.
Is the request specific to
neighborhood commercial or short
term rental?
>> my intention tonight was for
these three properties and piece
of business we didn't finish.
I get the point about looking at
it more broadly.
There's an example where they
came in middle housing in the
commercial zone and housing and
now they're being rented as
short term rentals and not
contributing to help meet the
housing need in the community.
I think it is a larger policy
question.
You know, this is a little
different issue here with people
wanting to have the same set of
rules for their zone applied, so
it's not exactly the same issue.
But I think this is a piece of
unfinished business.
My main concern if we mix these
together, what does it do in
terms of delay of discussion.
I would like to get it resolved
relatively quickly.
We said we were going to resolve
it 11 months ago.
>> so, would the process be we
would basically start from zero
on the three properties, notice,
planning commission, that whole
--
>> I think so.
What I'm sort of hearing council
discussion is was the scope of a
work session.
>> that was well.
>> just to go back to your
question, I think our intention
would be just to couple this
with the next housing package in
the spring.
We have to notice for all sorts
of other things we would do
related to housing.
We would just put this on, so it
would be efficient to have that.
If you wanted to have a broader
policy conversation about the
scope of that, we would need to
do it sooner rather than later
to decide if we're going to
include it in the package or
not.
>> and the proposal for the
neighborhood commercial zone,
the three properties is short
term rental rules written today
would apply to them.
>> they are currently exempt
from the rules.
There's no concentration limits.
There's no guidance other than
you can do whatever you want.
>> in the discussion last year
was around is that the right way
to do that.
I want to be really transparent,
we received a neighborhood
petition from neighbors who are
looking at a specific
development they are looking to
not allow to do short term
rentals and I expressed last
year and again, worry about
legislating from one property
that people are opposing
development on.
I'm supportive of the first
thing eric said, adding this to
the housing code package in the
spring and I'm not saying which
way we're going to vote but it
is fair to put it back in and
finish the discussion and decide
what we want to do.
>> that's fine.
That's how we would do this,
right?
We have to do the notice and go
back through the planning
commission.
>> that work is already done.
But if you want to change the
scope, we would need another
work session.
>> I'm not interested right now
in scheduling a larger work
session around this.
I think this is hanging out
there, let's finish the
discussion and maybe a jumping
point to the next discussion.
>> I'm not interested in
redesigning the short term
rental policy we have.
I'm just interested in it
applying to all zones that allow
residential uses.
>> I think that's a larger
conversation though than -- we
would need to have more research
and more ideas on the impact of
that for property owners.
>> I'm hearing two questions.
Does the majority of council
want that one legislative change
for that limited amount of
properties to come back and then
maybe also interest in a work
session on the broader policy
question.
>> can we answer the first
question first?
Just to put it in the code
package in the spring.
>> I don't see it as a bigger
policy discussion.
It is residential allowed in
commercial zones.
It is yes or no.
Why are we picking.
>> it sounds like we have a
majority to move forward.
>> to the second question.
>> councillor franzosa, maybe it
is not big or broad, but it is
different.
That was the point.
>> that topic is work session
worthy.
I think we need a work session
on that and then direction from
council.
>> yeah, we didn't have a
request to make that work
session request today.
It is jumping off of mike's --
I would prefer to move forward
with this item and then after
done with that code, I'm willing
to do a work session on the
other topic.
I wasn't prepared to really talk
about that further today.
i didn't know that was going to
be asked for.
>> maybe future work session.
>> okay.
The second one is councillor
franzosa interpretation of state
housing policies.
>> thank you.
Last year city council adopted
state housing loss.
We're seeing these code
revisions are having unintended
consequence, the loss of land
for neighborhood commercial
space, which is resulting in
residential only development.
And so I want to be clear, we
were just talking about the
neighborhood commercial zone,
this is -- little c
neighborhood commercial space, a
variety of commercial zones that
allow for mixed use.
But now we're seeing residential
only development in the lands,
so this loss of neighborhood
commercial space will make it
challenging if not impossible to
achieve our goal for complete
communities and even climate
friendly areas.
My request is a work session to
discuss and grapple with the
competing factors of complete
communities and affordable
housing.
I envision this discussion, what
does that mean to me?
It could include options for
council to take action, such as
further tweaks to the code
language or advocacy for policy
change at the state level.
Basically, I would be asking
that staff present some ideas
that they MAY have with the
ultimate goal of affording every
resident in bend regardless of
income, housing and convenience
of basic services within a
reasonable walk, bike or ride
within their home.
I hope it can be scheduled at
the earliest possible date due
to the housing crisis and loss
of commercial neighborhood land
I have seen.
>> I have a follow-up question.
That is a broader conversation
than I think the narrow
interpretation of a couple of
statutes you said.
I was looking for the statute in
the development code and never
quite got the cite.
Are you asking us to zero in on
how staff interpreted state law
into code or a bigger
discussion.
How narrow are you -- your
request is narrow but hearing a
bit more tonight.
>> I don't know that my request
was that narrow.
I think I used exactly these
words about losing commercial to
affordable housing and being
sort of unintended consequences
and competing interest there and
our goals being pitted against
each other.
I am not an attorney.
I don't know.
I think I can read the words
though of the state statute and
the words of the code and
they're not the same.
Would an attorney agree or
disagree, I don't know.
That's why I would like staff to
sort of present the options,
including the code language
matter but maybe some other
options so we don't lose more
neighborhood commercial.
I think that's the concern which
we have sort of heard about from
our community.
>> I share that concern and I
think it's a bigger
conversation.
Eric, can you tell us how that
bigger conversation fits into
what we're doing?
>> there is a strategy and
action around complete
communities.
I think one of the things we
have been talking about,
feasibility study to look at how
we can support the -- how the
market can support neighborhood
commercial and our growth plan
to really look at that code and
look to see if there's barriers
or other things we can do from a
code perspective.
I think more of a nuances of
intersection of state law and
our code, that is something
probably a little more -- that
is a little more nuanced and
maybe where we can start but it
can grow into the other items
that are council goal related.
>> I'm fine with that, if we
just focus on the difference
between the statute and the
code.
>> I think we need to talk about
that.
I have a follow-up on what you
have brought up tonight I wanted
to ask about that is not a work
session request but I have a
meeting with the state
deligation on friday.
I would like if council would
allow me to start talking about
it with them.
What I would like to do is say
here's what's happening on the
ground and they have sort of
heard about this and start to
think about this state law and
our ability to plan and how is
that going to work going
forward, if we're going to have
laws that are passed that
override zoning.
if council is okay with me
starting that conversation with
the deligation, there could be
an opportunity upcoming and I
want to move quickly on that.
I'm not going to take a position
on anything and they MAY have
ideas on solutions around that.
But if that's okay, I would like
to do that friday to get the
ball rolling.
>> yeah, I support that.
>> for sure.
>> I think from my perspective,
I do think we have been hearing
about this now for a while from
different parts of the community
in the north and south.
I'm not sure I agree that the
wildflower is exactly the same
issue going on.
We made the decision to reduce
that commercial -- it was
pretty straightforward on that
one.
Unless there's something else
going on I don't know about yet.
There's a valid concern about we
have these nice plans on the
books but if some of the land is
going to get eaten up in the
short to medium term while we
wait to have enough households
to support the complete
community and then we can no
longer provide it because
there's not space to do it, we
can't deliver on the promise.
I think that tension is a really
important tension that the
council should explore.
And that's -- for that reason,
I support what councillor
franzosa is asking for.
I think it's the policy question
I'm most interested in.
Part of it is, is there a fix to
the state law.
Do we need to think about
tweaking our code slightly.
is there something we have
authority to do in the interim
short of state law being
changed.
I'm not sure when I heard when
we might get to that.
I think the policy discussion is
valid.
Even if the answers are maybe
not what everybody wants to hear
or what I want to hear, we need
to explore it and communicate it
to the community.
>> yeah.
>> just in terms of framing that
work session, to look at our
development code state law and
see if there's room for any type
of changes there and see how
possible that is.
I know he's done a much deeper
dive.
>> yeah, I will say my
perspective is that the changes
that council adopted late last
year to implement sb8 and house
bill 3395, the language from
those bills is incorporated
pretty directly in our code.
The sb8 says land zone for
commercial uses can qualify for
affordable housing.
We had to wrestle with what that
means and we have some new
terms.
But I think we have incorporated
the requirements of the two
bills pretty directly and
squarely within code.
If council is asking can we hear
more about that and see if
there's any room to make changes
to sort of make sure we're not
deprioritizing the goal and
other things we could advocate
for, I think there's something
to talk about.
I want to set expectations.
Sb8 is pretty straightforward.
I think.
hb3395 creates a different path
for affordable housing and
fairly straightforward and
requirements are taken almost
whole into the code.
>> I recall the conversations
and the legislature chooses
different definitions of
affordable housing when they
pass a bill.
I'm less interested in that than
the bigger policy conversation
on how are we supposed to plan
for neighborhood commercial
given state law and given how
things are playing out in bend
right now.
I think as long as we have the
space to talk about that and the
community can understand that.
If we get into code stuff, I
don't want to get too deep into
that without losing the bigger
picture in the work session.
>> I watched the session, the
council session from 2024 where
the code was adopted and there
was not any deliberation --
there was deliberation on income
qualified but that's not what I
think are the different word
choices from the state statute
and local code.
I'm concerned we're sort of
leaving an issue unaddressed
that is having an impact on the
community today.
>> I think there's support here
to have the conversation.
I think we're trying to frame
the scope right now.
>> yeah.
I would say there are
opportunities that we should
look at.
I'm not questioning what we did
was aligned with state law.
It was pretty clear at the time
it was.
Can we retain the alignment with
state law and consider other
options that support us moving
and ensuring we continue to move
in a complete direction.
Are there other ways that we can
get that outcome.
>> I'm wondering if this work
session idea or scoping there of
is maybe informed by the
discussion the mayor might be
having.
I want to make sure --
>> that's a good point.
I wonder if we could -- I think
there's support for a
conversation here, either work
session next week, maybe finish
this conversation after maybe
eric you look at the work plan
and what's upcoming to see when
it will fit in.
And I can bring the information
from the deligation, if they say
this law is not going to be
touched, forget it.
Or if they say there's an
opportunity to amend, that might
be part of the conversation as
well.
Does that fit with what you were
talking about?
There's support for the work
session, it is figuring out when
and how to have the
conversation.
>> let me look at the schedule.
We might be able to fit it in.
There are already items related
to council goals.
Maybe we can group it together.
I just don't have that -- let
me --
>> by next week you can bring it
to us?
>> that's fine.
>> does that work?
Okay.
Who is echoing again?
Eric.
okay.
All right.
That was the last of the
schedule requests.
Thank you for the conversation.
Councillor, kick us off with the
report.
>> I did a ride along with the
officer to see and learn about
the issues he's dealing with and
trying to keep our folks living
homeless on the streets safe and
the folks who need to use the
streets safe.
I attended the old bend
neighborhood party.
They put the block trailer to
great use and it was very fun.
I attended central oregon
caucuses business summit in
redman and heard about a lot of
job losses and underscored the
work we take as a city.
Public contract subcommittee met
and had a great discussion about
keeping competition open and the
methods we choose for the major
public contracts coming up.
Building of better bend lecture
on community micro grids.
Thank you to those who put the
lectures on.
The city is a sponsor of those.
Today I met with ben duncan, a
consultant helping the city to
assess the equity goals and
align with the work the city
does and it was a wonderful
discussion and I'm excited to
see what he recommends for us.
And finally, I attended barry
washington memorial unveiling
and that was -- there was
incredible community outpouring
of support for his family and
seemed to mean a lot to them for
us to all show up.
That's it.
>> we did have a long break.
An extra week.
>> bend metropolitan planning
organization met on
OCTOBER 17th.
One of the thing es
s we discussed,
we had some challenges relating
to an agreement with the oregon
department of transportation
about whether or not a new iga
is necessary, a new
intergovernmental agreement is
necessary for the bylaws we
implemented over half a year
ago.
We decided to move forward with
the bylaw updates to the
greatest extent we can without
an update to the agreement.
So this essentially means the
recommendation will be to have a
four member policy board, two
members from the city, one
member from deschutes county,
one from oregon department of
transportation.
City of bend accessibility
advisory committee met
OCTOBER 23rdrd.
One of the things we heard was
an extensive account of one
community member's experience
navigating our city while blind.
It was pretty eye opening to
hear about some of the
challenges, especially around
navigating things like
roundabouts and the importance
of making our city accessible to
people with different abilities.
So, it was moving to hear about
and I hope we'll have an
opportunity to take action on
some of these items as we move
forward.
On friday, the oregon
metropolitan planning
organization met and the one
thing I wanted to highlight from
the conversation is to my
knowledge, the governor has not
yet signed the transportation
package the legislature passed.
One of the things people have
said she MAY be waiting on is
when she signs that, the
signature gathering effort to
potentially pass a referendum on
the package begins.
And one thing that I wanted to
make sure people are aware of is
depending on what is in that
referendum, if it is just the --
depending on what focus on
revenue gathering it is, it MAY
be that all the new funding for
things like transit or safety
initiatives or maintenance,
depending on what is in the
referendum
referendum, all of that gets put
on pause until NOVEMBER 2026.
Right now we would expect to get
new transit funding as early as
JUNE.
If the signature gathering
effort is successful, none of
that happens and everything is
put on pause.
If you are thinking about
signing to put it on the ballot,
the real consequence is all of
the funding in the case of
transit is only two years of
additional funding anyway gets
put on pause.
And there were a couple of other
items.
Reid market had a big turnout on
-- last monday.
Lots of interest in the market
and great to see the turnout and
a lot of city staff there from
multiple departments.
Thank you.
>> all right.
Councillor riley.
>> I was mostly out of town for
the last couple of weeks.
Before I left, I attended the
open house for the new state
parking program, mountain view
community development is
bringing online up on the north
end of town.
It was great to see one more
place to have I believe there's
five or six -- five units there
that can house some people that
need that and help them
transition into more permanent
housing in the community and
really appreciate their work
they're doing to make the sites
available in our community.
That's it.
>> okay.
Councillor norris.
>> we had family from out of
town, I attended the parkside
place legislative tour.
We had the governor visit and
other state legislators.
It was a great event.
It was a really good example of
a project public-private that
has a good amount of affordable
housing and great to see
buildings out there going
vertical.
And it was really well attended.
I know there was a tour after I
couldn't participate in.
>> councillor platt.
>> thank you for carpooling with
me.
>> in an electric vehicle.
That was great.
>> what they're doing there --
>> that green shirt on.
>> it is really impressive.
I'm just so thankful for what
they're doing.
Interestingly given the state of
our flying right now, eric king
and I had a chance to do a ride
in our local air space here from
our airport.
Tracy williams set that up for
us.
Somebody who has done a little
bit of this in my background, I
was impressed with some things
like fixed wing patterns.
Sort of innovative.
They have them on opposite sides
0 of the airport and that's the
kind of thing that matters when
aircraft are flying in the same
piece of sky.
We used to say it is a big sky
out there, but when everybody is
come together the same place to
land, it gets small quickly.
I'm thankful they're mindful of
those kind of conflict points.
And then also the memorial
dedication.
That was great.
And one other thing I really
enjoyed being a part of, with
the bend schools and oregon
department of education, I got a
chance to go call families.
And compliment them for their
students really improving their
attendance to school.
We wrote post cards and called
families.
And it is just really neat to
have families say, oh my
goodness why are you calling and
then say it is a good thing.
And thank you for what they're
doing to get your student and
learner to the classroom every
day because it does matter.
That was another great thing to
be a part of.
Thanks.
>> thanks.
Yes, I was on the tour with the
governor who came and toured a
couple of places that we have
been working on as council to
provide more housing for the
community.
Good conversations with
legislators and talked about
expansion in the thick of right
now.
and how they're trying to
provide more housing.
We're grateful for the governor
and legislators who came to
visit in bend.
And looking to bend as a leader
in this area and hoping to
continue the good work across
the state to help with the
housing crisis.
I also attended and spoke
briefly at the barry washington
memorial dedication.
It was great to have the family
here and good moment for them to
see the realization of the
permanent memorial.
There's been an informal
memorial there since barry was
killed.
I'm proud this was a process led
by the family with the help of
community advocates and some of
our staff that were very
involved, including our mobility
department staff and getting
this installed in the
right-of-way.
I want to thank kathy as well at
the city for all of her work
with the family to make this
happen.
It was meaningful to them and
how many people showed up to the
event.
I went on the ride along with
code enforcement.
I recommend everyone do that.
It is eye opening on how our
code is working and what
resources are needed to enforce
it and how people are
experiencing homelessness on our
streets.
Unfortunately still in bend.
I think I have been continuing
to meet weekly on the district
mapping advisory committee for
the county.
We had a meeting today.
i advised people to please pay
attention to that.
We are approaching referring a
map to the commissioners by the
end of the month.
We are meeting weekly but meet
in the middle of the day and not
seeing a lot of folks give input
I think because of the meeting
time.
If folks have input, please
e-mail and let us know.
And then finally I'll highlight
that mayor pro tem perkins and I
got to visit a local small
business born and grown here in
bend and it was great to talk
with the business owner and
employees about their business
and how they have received
assistance through grants and
trying to grow and provide a
really robust living wage for
employees.
And we spoke to employees about
cost of living and
transportation and all the
issues that our workforce is
seeing here.
Is
thank you for the reports and
we're going to move into the
visitors section.
This is time for members of the
public to offer public comment
to the city.
We have in person commenters and
I think one person online and a
couple more here.
If you are here to talk about
item 5 which is a public
hearing, I'm going to set your
note aside and we're going to
call you then.
That includes folks online, if
you're signed up for item 5.
You will not be called right
now.
We are going to have folks come
up to in person come up to the
table, state your name and if
you live in the city of bend.
You will have two minutes to
speak.
Ashley is getting the super cool
timer up.
Make sure you look over, the
little light will turn yellow
when you have 30 seconds and
then I will ask you to wrap up
to give everyone time to speak
tonight.
Please address us as a body and
not as individuals.
Please no disruptive language
that will disrupt the meeting.
If you are breaking the rules
for public comment, I'll let you
know and ask you to stop.
If you can't stop, I MAY take
away from your time or ask you
to leave.
Let's start with jim elliott.
Come on up.
>> hello councillors.
I've lived in bend for 23 years.
I was here two years ago, I'm
sure you remember because I
brought this photo of my son.
Now, come on.
I'm not going to do that again.
Adam who was killed on his bike
in brooklyn in MAY 1st of 2023.
It was two years ago when I
appeared before you because I
came here to ask you if you keep
him in mind and other bikers and
pedestrians as you use the
transportation bond money.
I'm here today to thank you
because wow, there's been
changes made to the positive
that I know it's not easy
because motor vehicle drivers
I'm sure are saying what are you
doing out there with these new
bike lanes and changes in the
intersections.
But it is so important.
The other reason I'm here is
what jim is going to speak to,
the world day of remembrance in
which we think about our loved
ones and citizens who have been
killed on our streets.
Jim, go ahead.
Thank you.
>> I'm a resident of bend.
Thank you for the opportunity to
speak about the world day of
remembrance for road traffic
victims.
On NOVEMBER 16th people and
cities around the globe will
pause to remember the nearly
1.2 million people who have lost
their lives and nearly 30
million people injured due to
road traffic crashes in the past
year.
This terrible toll affects the
families and friends of the
victims and those that provide
the emergency services and care
to them.
We cannot ignore this
unnecessary violence any longer.
Bend is not immune.
We've had over 600 traffic
crashes in the first 10 months
of the year.
One fatality.
In addition, people in the
community are mourning loss of
the loved ones in other cities.
Bend invites the city council
and community to join us at
11:00 A.M. On sunday
NOVEMBER 16th.
Community members will speak
about the loved ones they lost
and moment of silence and
followed by informal ride.
Please join us as we remember
those who have been affected by
road traffic violence and mrenl
pledge
to continue to keep it safer for
the community.
We're asking you to modernize
the standards so safe choice is
easy on every block.
Let us continue to build a city
that the ability to drive does
not determine the ability to
live.
>> thank you.
>> I forgot to say I'm here with
families for safe streets,
founded 12 years ago in new york
city but going nationwide and we
have a chapter here.
There's another citizen that
couldn't be here tonight, she
lost her brother in JULY in new
york.
>> thank you for sharing.
Michael baker.
>> good evening.
I'm a resident of bend for eight
days.
So -- I'm the brand new -- the
honor of being the new ceo for
boys and girls club of bend and
we're looking forward to getting
to know each of you and
increasing the services at the
boys and girls clubs.
I'm thrilled with the board of
directors that we have in place
and honored to be representing
the children that come to our
facilities.
I will tell you and you'll hear
me talk about it on a regular
basis and I'll be here on a
regular basis, we know the magic
number is 105 days.
If we can get a child to attend
boys and girls club 105 days
they're twice as likely to
graduate high school on time.
We'll do that here in bend as
well.
Hopefully be able to do that
here and recognize the children
that this year will have
attended 105 days.
I'm happy to report that --
only being here eight days,
pulling the most recent report,
we have nearly 50 children
-
qualifying for that honor.
And we would love to present
them with their gold membership
cards here with the mayor and
council.
So looking forward to doing
that.
Again, want to thank each of you
for continued support over the
years and encourage each of you
to come down and take a tour.
We are the best kept secret here
in bend.
Thank you for your support.
>> thank you for being here.
>> thank you mayor and members
of council for letting me speak
today.
I am a hair stylist at the salon
off of colorado avenue.
With the new development, it
seems that parking has become
very limited and I guess a lot
of our customers are having a
really hard time parking there.
It seems that I keep hearing he
said she said -- I guess I just
really want to get to the bottom
if there's a plan, if there's
going to be a parking structure
or what not.
We're all really affected by it.
I don't know if I can make it
last for two minutes.
>> you don't have to.
>> we can kind of grab you in
the hall.
>> there's a private parking lot
at the box factory.
That private owner controls but
also the public streets.
We've talked about a publicly
managed parking district for the
streets.
David can give you more
information.
He's here with the glasses.
>> okay.
There we go.
Thank you.
>> mike fanning
>> good evening.
I'm a resident of bend and I'm
here to alert you to a real
problem we have in northeast
bend with the development that
you approved as part of the
master plan.
In FEBRUARY of 2020.
Right now thousands of northeast
bend families do not have a true
neighborhood center where
community can gather, shop for
groceries, dine at restaurants.
In 2020 you approved the master
plan presented with a specific
grocery store anchored
commercial center.
You moved the urban growth
boundary for the plan and
codified it was a binding
obligation.
Access to commercial goods and
services number one on the list.
We purchased the homes trusting
the applicants would develop the
plan.
After using the markets to sell
hundreds of homes and approval
for the development, the
applicant sold the land.
The new owner has indicated his
vision is completely different
than what you approved.
In fact, the new owner wants to
divide up the 18 acre site that
was supposed to be the market in
17 separate plots sold off
separately.
This is not close to the master
plan you approved.
Since thousands of people in
northeast bend need this
commercial center, the community
alliance as well as other
homeowner associations are
asking you to exercise your
authority to pause all activity
on this piece of property which
includes pausing all permits,
any further subdivision of the
land until the master plan
compliance is adhered to.
All northeast bend residents
deserve this community.
The loss of commercial space
will rid it the character and
further the city's goal.
Part of the property is being
allocated toward low income
housing and we talked about this
earlier in the meeting.
The master plan you approved can
still be a reality but only if
we all act now.
Thank you.
>> david green.
>> good evening mayor and
councillors.
I'm a resident of bend and
representing bend bikes tonight.
We're asking the city of bend
and bend parks and recreation
district to increase the
coordination about paths through
bend.
Park and rec paths have become
an important part of the low
stress network for people
walking, biking and rolling
>>
.
These trails are important
transportation routes.
They're some of the most
pleasant ways and safest ways to
get across town.
There's already some really fine
coordination between the park
district and city.
The shared responsibility for
the river front street is one of
those examples.
The existing agreements for
maintenance of some of the paths
that is joint park and rec and
city is another.
there are real big problems
also.
Only e-bikes without a throttle
are allowed on park district
trails.
Differing rules between city and
park district facilities reduce
the value of the system.
For example, the bike share
bikes are all throttle based and
not allowed on the park district
trails.
Some of the trails also end at
sidewalks which creates big
questions about how ebikes can
use the trails.
Way finding needs to be
coordinated, routes that use a
combination of facilities need
to be marked so people can
easily travel the routes across
town.
People shouldn't have to
recognize the difference between
jurisdictions when they are
riding on these trails.
So we think this coordination is
needed but it is also within
sight.
We have made a similar request
to bprd and will send you a
letter in the next few days
asking for this.
Thanks and please let us know if
we can help.
>> thank you, david.
And craig sheets.
>> I've gone to every port in
california, I finished up
portland, I finished up
vancouver.
I have two left and then going
to the great lakes and you can
see what we're speaking about
here, attack on oil.
That would be to the oceans and
then devastate to the great
lakes.
Everybody back here can see
that.
containers come from other
countries and need to be
checked, they're not.
They're checking 3% of 30
million a month coming into our
country.
Here's where bend comes into
order.
These trains load up right off
the ships as you can see.
Endless trains.
L.A. Has so many it's not even
funny.
You can see it is going through
the forest along the rivers.
I know because I rode fright
eight
trains for seven years.
Starting on rivers.
As I said, the great lakes.
I will be on my way to the great
lakes.
United states has the most
deceased children from
narcotics.
We are the highest rate of
killing our kids in this country
from availability of narcotics.
And meth labs that rotate
through hills.
You have some fancy -- you
never know where it is coming
from, they rotate and take
turns.
Another good place to hide them,
out on the ocean.
And they helicopter it back in.
Appreciates you letting me
speak.
>> thank you, craig.
We have your documents up here.
>> yep.
>> thanks.
And online commenters.
They're not for item 5?
>> one is for five.
>> the one we'll do now is not
for item 5.
>> hello?
>> we can hear you.
go ahead.
>> thank you.
Just a quick note as one who was
mentioned in the resignation
letter of -- and as an
individual, I would like to
support the city of bend's
intent to conduct an independent
review of the circumstances
-
leading to his resignation.
We say we remain committed to a
fair and objective process
without undue speculation or
rumor.
However, I'm seeing in
reporting, comments from city
hall that seem to be underlining
the spirit of this commitment.
So, just very quickly in
reporting on opb, he's thanked
by eric king for his long list
of accomplishments for over two
years.
His supervisor says he has made
us a better organization and
will be missed.
The chair of human rights and
equity commission has called his
resignation a big disappointment
and she described him as such an
integral part of life in the
city.
Councillor franzosa said I'm
really concerned the departure
will be leaving us -- not
leaving us well positioned to
meet the council goals on
equity.
Surprisingly enough in other
reporting, we hear comments from
city hall such as demonstrates
inconsistent statements,
behavior and actions.
Just to sum up, I do hope this
review process goes through
giving everyone a chance to
speak freely without retaliation
and address facts.
And not speculation.
>> thank you foster.
Okay.
That's it for the visitors
section.
That will move to item four.
Consent agenda.
Did you want to pull something
in.
>> I wanted to pull item b.
>> the 15th and ferguson
roundabout project.
Is there a motion to approve.
>> I move to approve without
item b.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
All right.
Item b, council riley.
>> I was just basically have a
question I hope someone can
answer.
I think it's important the
community hears it.
We've had questions about the
ferguson and 15th roundabout.
And I just wanted to make the
point that I believe there's
going to be an opportunity for
public engagement in 30% design.
If you could speak to that
quickly.
I just wanted to make sure it is
out there and people know
roughly when ryan.
>> there we go.
So, thank you for the question.
So, the amendment tonight is to
progress beyond the 30% design,
the final design.
No, it is full design.
We haven't started yet.
We'll follow our standard
outreach process and come out
around the 30% with design
alternatives and then probably
more follow-up.
We're talking to the hoa board
now, but there will be plenty of
comment period times.
>> and an open house.
>> standard open house process
for the community.
All that.
>> I bring it up, it has been a
big concern for the two
neighborhood districts down
there.
We got a question and input on
the design recently and kind of
the implication that I read into
it, we have to do it, it is too
late.
I want people to know --
>> haven't even started yet.
>> it is really important for
them associated with this and
I'm glad we're moving forward
with it quicker than originally.
With that, I move we authority
ze
the contract for the project.
>> second.
>> moved and seconded.
All those in favor?
All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
That will move us to item 5
which is a public hearing.
Oh, yes.
These are my item number five
people.
I'm going to open the public
hearing and we will start with
councillor norris.
>> I need to declare a potential
conflict out of abundance of
caution.
I am permitted to participate in
the deliberation and vote on the
item.
>> great.
We will start with our staff
presentation when they're ready.
>> good evening, council.
Pauline hardie with the planning
department and the principle
planner with the planning
department is with me.
We're here to give you an update
on the proposed amendments and
can answer any questions you
have following our presentation.
So, over the past couple of
years, staff has been working on
identifying areas for
improvements to the bend
development code to update
various standards and processes
to align with city practices and
state law.
The amendments include several
simple ones for clarification.
Going through the code, you
probably saw a lot of
corrections to ambiguities and
conflicts.
There were code updates that
addressed modernization, looking
at the rear setbacks for the low
density residential districts
and new bicycle parking options
and various design standards
throughout the code.
Process improvements include
updates to procedures, deschutes
design review, noticing
requirements, duration of
approvals and extensions and
modifications of approval.
For the modifications of
approval, one of the amendments
includes creating a new process
for determine
ing similar use or
change of condition of approval.
We have used that throughout the
years and now we have a process
we can use.
An example would be back in the
day when we required parking for
accessory units and the state
changed the law they can go
through the process now and
amend conditional of approval.
We received a phone call today
about legal lot of record
determinations.
We codified our process and
there might be an additional
process we want to look into.
We didn't have time today but
can bring it back if necessary.
We are creating a new minor
process, simple type one process
to help a lot of projects.
We are proposing to clearly
identify the process, type cc,
cc for city council.
An example of this which we
already do, the major master
plan process.
They go through the planning
commission, they hold a public
hearing and makes a
recommendation to the city
council and they are the final
decision maker.
The code is the type three cc.
We are replacing our declaratory
ruling chapter with 4.10.
Three of the interpretations and
determinations are remaining the
same.
We are adding a new one for
determination of similar land
use.
In the development code above
every use table says please see
4.1.1400 to do a determination
of similar land use.
There was never a process in the
code, we're creating the process
and identifying the different
processes depending on the
request.
If they are site specific, and
if they affect city wide
regulations, we create a
legislative process.
A lot of clean up for
interpretations and
determination.
As with a lot of code updates
lately, we make sure we're
consistent with the oregon
statutes and administrative
rules.
The proposed amendments to
implement the 25-27 goals.
the first being the housing goal
that states to develop and
implement strategies to meet
community housing needs and
reduce homelessness.
The action is to adopt the code
and processes improvements that
remove barriers and speed up
medium housing and affordable
housing and the proposed
standards updates several
processes.
The first one is providing
additional time extensions to
site plan review and land
revision applications.
Today site plan review
applications are good for two
years.
This will add an extension to
single phase and extension to
the first and last phase of site
plan applications.
This proposed amendment adds
extensions to phased land dwogz
application
division applications.
The benefit of adding the
extensions gives larger projects
like subdivisions or large
apartment complex building an
extra year to two years to get
the development completed.
The amendments stream line
review processes by better
organizing standards and
procedures.
When an applicant has to --
submit a narrative, they're not
going through all these
different chapters where several
requirements live.
It will be better organized and
more timely for the applicant
and staff.
The amendments stream line a
review process for expansion of
existing multi family
developments.
Today it has to go through a
full site plan review
application.
We've had where all they want to
do is add one to two, maybe
three units and instead of
having to go through a full
process, the recommendation
would be they would just go
through the type one process.
The updates also reduce severe
set back in the low density
residential district.
Today is 20 feet and down to 10
feet.
This will allow more room.
This just allows more usable
space.
The amendments also implemented
transportation and
infrastructure goal with the
action to update transportation
design standards and
specification for all users
aiming for zero fatalities.
After looking at a lot of other
codes, realizing our bicycle
parking chapter was pretty
outdated.
We updated it to include secure
and convenient bicycle parking
with short term and long-term
bicycle parking requirements.
We didn't go through and
increase bicycle parking numbers
or spots required, we just
identified requirements for
short term, which means it is
going to provide parking for
customers or people there two
hours or less.
And then we identified parking
requirements for long-term, for
residents or employees that plan
to stay for over two hours.
In addition, we added additional
options to meet the parking
requirements.
We already allowed u-racks but
the proposed code amendments
would allow vertical wall
mounted racks and for oversized
bicycle parking like cargo
bikes.
Planning commission
recommendations.
We have two commissioners here
with us tonight.
And they held their public
hearing and voted 7-0 to
recommend approval of the
amendments.
They did have some discussion
and as parts of your package of
amendments, it includes an
amendment to simplify the design
requirements for exterior
buildings.
At staff's request, they added
an amendment for easy reference
in the tables.
Just want to make sure the
public knows that they go to the
commercial tables, there is this
option to convert to residential
uses.
The bend central district, this
was a group effort almost.
I worked with the core area
advisory board and planning
commission on amendments to help
buildings who just want to redo
the facades.
Simplify the process.
And there was definitely support
from the planning commission as
well as the core area advisory
board but interest in making
sure if they were to redo the
front facades, there is still
windows or transparency or
glazing maintained.
We still want a walkable
environment.
The planning commission's
recommendation is included in
your packet, that if they're
going to go through the simple
process, meet the minimum
requirements of the central bend
district.
i asked the planning commission
to fix something very
repetitive.
During the public comment period
as well as at the planning
commission public hearing, we
did hear from bend park and
recreation district about a
request to stream line the
review process to the special
interest overlay zone.
The request is to simplify the
process for fuel reduction and
forest health in this area.
The request is similar to the
proposed amendments in your
packets, the deschutes waterway
overlay district for tree
removal and we heard from bend
park and recreation district and
homeowners association.
So the bend park and recreation
district is simply asking we
have the same review process as
we are on the water way overlay
zone.
Through this process, I have
learned different definitions,
one being fuel break versus fire
break.
So staff is recommending adding
a type one amendment for the asi
as well as definition for fuel
break.
A fire break is -- I worked
with the fire marshal object
this.
A fire break cuts everything
down.
A fuel break helps to prevent
fires from spreading and this is
the process the fuel break, what
they have been using.
They recommend that we have a
definition for fuel break and
also amend the code in the area
instead of using the term fire
break, use fuel break.
And then the additional
amendments would be to the asi,
areas of special interest in
section 2.2.700.
I guess I'll go through them
real fast.
Basically saying the weeds are
exempt and they can remove them.
If they want to remove trees,
the type one review process and
then prohibit removal of
vegetation that is protected.
We did receive a comment as well
entered into public record from
the central oregon irrigation
district.
They requested that we take it a
step further and not have a
review process.
Staff is recommending that we
still move forward with the type
one review process.
In my work program, I'm going to
be coming back with a major
clean up to the waterway overlay
district.
At that time, we can look at
different processes.
But for this code amendment just
proposing the type one review
process.
I want to give background on
proposed amendments for council.
When is the definition of open
space in the bend development
code reading it is any property
or area of land or water set
aside designed or reserved for
public or private use for the
purpose of providing recreation.
Our definition for open space
does address and allow public or
private use.
The development code master
plans adopted in 2017 has a
requirement since then that all
community master plans provide
minimum of 10% of gross area as
public or private open space.
And it gives examples such as
parks, squares or plazas, multi
use paths.
they have to be at least 20 feet
wide.
Tree preservation areas and
included public or private
recreational facilities.
Just to give you an idea
>>
, on
the master plan we've had 14
master plans under development
and looking at the master plans,
we have gotten a variety of
parks and variety of homeowner
association community centers
and pools.
And lots of open space tracks.
Lots of trails.
Protected areas of special
interest as well as urban plaza.
In 2022, I did a site visit to a
master plan area.
It is a fenced in drainage
basin.
I wanted to make sure when we
say you have to provide 10% open
space public or private, that it
couldn't just be a fenced in
drainage base.
I proposed an amendment to the
planning commission, city
council in 2022 trying to get
across that that does not count.
I went back and listened to the
minutes for the planning
commission work session back in
2022.
From the minutes, it does state
that commissioner payne asked
about master plan open spaces
and I clarified it can be public
or private but must be useful.
The whole intent of the usable
open space is used by the people
who live there or the communty
or both.
And then in 2022 in the planning
commission held their public
hearing, I again clarified the
open space needs to be public
and usable or open to the master
plan area.
Like a community pool.
The city council in 2023 had the
public hearing and I wanted to
make it clear it was open to the
public and the reason behind
this, we don't want to see a
fenced off drainage basin not
available to anybody.
In this master plan there are
plenty usable to the public with
easements on it and several
multi use trails.
So, they were fine.
I just when I saw it, I wanted
to make sure it is not counted
as open space.
The public was intended to mean
it is usable by people.
The proposed amendments are not
to change the status quo of what
we have been doing since 2017,
it is just to clarify.
If there is interest in
providing even more clarity
about the fenced in areas, the
mayor suggested a potential
amendment for the council to
consider up on the screen to
clarify any public or private
open space must not be fenced
off unless related to a park or
public or private recreation
facility included to tennis
courts, driving ranges and ball
fields.
We have always allowed the
private facilities but this
clarifies they can't be fenced
off like drainage basins.
The public process so far has
included a planning commission
work session on SEPTEMBER 8th.
Planning commission held a
public hearing.
We have two commissioners here
on SEPTEMBER 22nd.
Tonight is before the city
council with the first reading
and if we move forward, the
second reading would be
NOVEMBER 19th with effective
date of DECEMBER 19th.
So, amy and I are here to answer
questions you MAY have.
Make sure I didn't forget
anything.
Yes.
>> thank you pauline, very
thorough.
There were amendments that came
in from the comments from
planning commission.
Do you have amended motion for
us to include all of things you
have put on the screen.
>> I do.
>> questions
>> councilor amendez.
>> bicycle parking short and
long-term.
Difference between the rack.
Inverted u shape racks are gold
standard.
Easy to use.
You can walk up and they are
done.
For long-term we require minimum
of 25% and for short term
parking we require minimum of
50%.
Is that different?
Why not 50%?
>> let me get to that page.
>> it is page 68.
>> long-term they have
requirement of 25% minimum.
Also provides additional
options.
I think when we went through and
I am trying to think of the
table.
We tried not to require more
than today.
Because minimums they can
provide more.
What we see a lot in
applications and we added
flexibility.
Walkable areas.
a lot of apartment complexes
have indoor walkable for bicycle
parking and also have boxes and
the vertical racks.
They can provide minimums.
I am not sure if that is getting
to your question about the 25
versus
25versus 50.
>> we have more e-bikes and
heavier.
For some people who are maybe
not quite as able bodied to lift
one up to the wall, it seems
like an opportunity to make sure
we have ample accessible parking
not rely on maybe easier to
provide from developer
perspective less usable for
residents, I guess.
>> it sounds like we are trying
to be consistent with what we
required before.
Maybe you can say more about
that.
>> trying to think.
I don't have it in front of me.
Maybe I do.
I kind of think the old code
only allowed u racks.
The current code we have some
options for long-term parking.
Bicycle storage.
Can be provided in bicycle
storage room, lockers, racks
secure storage inside or outside
knowledge.
At ground level unless ramp.
Minimum depth and width six feet
easily accessible approved.
Space within dwelling units or
porches are not counted towards
satisfies requirements.
>> 25% should be increased to 50
to have more u racks versus the
wall?
>> imagine people riding
bicycles.
Seems strange different standard
for short and long-term.
people use both.
I recognize these a
these amendments are
policy neutral.
It is something that caught my
attention.
I wanted to see if there was
explanation.
>> I found the rest of it.
Our current code said except for
residential uses.
That is where we get the storage
rooms more often.
Minimum of 75 required bicycle
parking must be u style racks
outside the building.
75% minimum outside u rack
easily accessible to everybody.
>> no proposal to change that?
>> that is down to 50 short term
plus 25% long-term still gets
75% u racks.
Breaking it out for short term
and long term bicycle racks.
Another example like a hotel
would want to put all bicycle
parking inside and none outside.
In the code nothing to say u
racks outside available to
public.
Maybe restaurant or friends
stopping by for less than two
hours.
50% and 25% is what we did.
What we also did is if they are
located because it is an or.
The long-term can be 25% u
racks.
Located in lockable area with
racks complying with spacing
standards.
Can also include wall racks.
5% of those if there is more
than 20 for oversized bicycle
parking.
Those are also u racks.
>> we end up with fewer minimum
required inverted u is that
right?
>> no short term, I believe, is
50%.
We can bump up the long-term as
well.
>> we are talking about
minimums.
Other questions on any of the
code changes?
>> I have questions about the
fuel reduction.
Switching employees.
I am glad to see the change from
fire break to fuel break.
That makes a lot of sense.
I do want to have a discussion
here about the appropriateness
of having fuel reduction as land
use process of any type.
It is not a new land development
or land use, right?
>> I will ask for collin or
renee to help.
>> it is not new development,
right?
Or new land use.
It's a wildfire risk mitigation
kind of activity, right?
>> correct.
>> so how did it end up in
development code going before
planning department anyway?
Why isn't it?
It seems like it is fire
department.
>> tree preservation has been
decided that resides in the
development code.
We have the staffing,
infrastructure ability to
regulate through our development
code trees whether associated
with development or not.
With the work that we did and
adoption of new tree
preservation code is good
example.
Still preservation requirement
for existing properties one acre
or larger.
Whether or not they have
development proposal or not they
have to preserve trees, can't
cut them down.
The laws would come into play
here.
If you have tree regulation, we
need to have permitting system.
If we didn't require some form
of review there wouldn't be
ability to decide whether or not
they were doing either fire
mitigation or clear-cutting.
We would say, well, we have to
excuse property from all tree
regulations because we would
have to do some form of review
to see if they were just doing
fire mitigation or something
beyond fire mitigation.
We would have to have standards
applying to it and review to
understand if they were
complying with those.
That is a permit.
>> the application is probably
accompanied by letter from
probably fire department, right?
>> the fire marshal's office.
>> creation of fuel breaks and
association with fire prevention
authorities.
Necessary to mitigate fire
hazards and last is qualified
professional if deceased
if diseased or
hazardous.
>> we have urban forester.
>> we have code that requires
people to remove excess fuel
from property.
They have to come and get
permit.
How long does it take to get
through type one land use
process?
>> this is only in waterway
overlay zone.
I don't know why I am having
hard time with that.
Special interest protected
areas.
>> how long does the process
take?
>> type one is typically 30-day
30-days.
>> decision is issued in 30-day
30-days?
>> yes.
>> okay.
I didn't think that was intent
of urban forester to review the
mitigation by landowners doing
responsible thing.
>> as pauline said in the river
corridor and areas of special
interest.
These are areas that have been
deliberately set aside.
Something that needs higher
level of review.
>> just clarifying if someone is
talking about own your zone.
Not going to trigger this
process unless they live in
water lay overlay zone will not
trigger this process?
>> right.
>> thanks for the questions.
Any other questions from council
before we do public testimony?
>> I have one or two.
I am curious and this is
super-techy.
I am curious about the why all
overhead doors must be less than
8 feet wide except when they are
garages?
What is the point of that?
>> I should have had the slide
in here.
We received applications where
it looks and acts like garage,
they don't have driveway and no
second access.
They say not a garage.
It fits vehicles.
>> this is a residential house.
They are building an accessory
dwelling unit on first floor two
roll up garage doors.
Saying not a garage.
we have nothing in the code to
say that is a garage.
We are providing clarity on roll
up doors 8 feet or wider, get
car in there it is garage.
That helps us when they are only
allowed one access.
We know there will be illegal
access with the garage.
If they put in the garage they
won't have access.
We can address it then.
There is a lot of those roll up
doors where they are just
entrances into the living space
and less than 8 feet wide.
We know those are not going to
be parking vehicles.
We needed something in the code
to clarify what is garage door
and what is not garage door.
I had a great picture but it is
not in the powerpoint.
>> what about 2.3.500
architectural standards?
I read this today.
It is foggy now, I have to
admit.
I was curious about the why
behind that one again.
What is the point of this?
What is driving this?
On page 2 of the summary where
it is talked about.
Establishing design standards
prior design starts for
triplexes and quadplexes and
architectural review standards.
>> this one is the architectural
review standards are ground
floor level windows.
Easy to do on commercial
buildings.
All middle housing was in
commercial design standards.
We have window designs in mixed
use.
It is allowed duplex and triplex
and quad.
You would go to design standards
for duplex and triplexes and
quads.
>> it applies to these types of
developments?
>> yes, it doesn't change
anything.
We don't want commercial design
standards to apply.
>> just regarding open space.
I am not incline to disagree
with your recommendations.
Curious because as I read it, it
seems that it is up to the
developer if they want to meet
open space requirement with
public open space or private
open space.
I guess what are the safe guards
the community has?
We are not really allowing gated
communities any more.
>> those are not allowed.
>> private roads not allowed.
What are requirements?
How is park space designated in
master plan, how is connectivity
through trails or easements that
have connectivity?
>> there are two-parts of that.
One code amendment is 3.4500
park search areas.
Anything over 10 acres to this
particular section.
If they have a park that is
identified on the bend park and
recreation district park search
area map, they are required to
enter into discussions with the
park district.
If there is not identified need
for park in the area they don't
have to enter into those
negotiations or discussions.
Second one we have open space
area in 4.5 for master plans.
Whole other section for
connectivity requiring
connectivity through master plan
area.
You are guaranteed connectivity.
if park search area they are
required to meet with park
district.
If there isn't they can propose.
In this one in particular it is
open space tracts and a lot of
trails.
>> the connectivity requirement
not just within the master plan
but from the master plan out to
the rest of the adjacent land?
>> yes.
>> thanks.
>> any other questions?
Okay.
We will move to public
testimony.
I think everyone is here on open
space.
I hope you were paying attention
and could hear.
We welcome comments.
Online comments this time.
I saw them raise their hand.
They are ready to go.
Same rules for public comment.
Two minutes.
All same rules apply.
Speak to the item in this public
hearing which everyone is going
to do.
No problem.
>> good evening.
I am cary quada.
We care about protecting what
makes bend unique.
The trail is more than just a
path through the forest.
Living symbol of bend connection
to nature, recreation and
community.
The surrounding area which links
directly to the trail provides
vital open space for families,
hikers and cyclists.
Turning this land over to
commercial development
compromises integrity of canopy
trail and bend's identity.
It belongs to everyone to
replace with something to
benefit a few.
We ask the council to clarify
how it aligns with bend
commitment to sustainability,
transparency livability
commitments residents expect to
be honored.
When developed the canopy trail
and open space will be lost
forever.
We urge council to protect this
area choose legacy over short
term gain and save the trail.
>> we will go to in person.
Mark gentle.
>> hello, mayor, council.
Thank you for the opportunity to
speak.
Resident of bend.
When they added in 2023 that
open space must be open to the
public, it is perfectly
plausible.
It is good to hear that that was
the intent.
It raises a bigger broader
policy question.
I would recommend that because
this wasn't really taken up at
the planning commission, there
wasn't discussion about it.
This is the first time we have
heard this was the rationale for
putting those words in.
Now the rationale for taking
same words out two years later.
I recommend that you table this
particular portion of this
ordinance, send back to planning
commission, let there be more
robust dialogue, particularly on
the broader policy question of
how do you connect?
How do you avoid disputes among
neighbors when they see an open
space or trail and it turns out
it is private?
Is it going to be marked as no
trespassing?
is that the direction the
council really wants to go in
allowing this broad nonspecific
authority for developers to make
their own ad-hoc decision about
whether there is going to be
anybody or just nobody but us to
access this property?
I think it is broader
discussion.
I appreciate your time and
attention be.
>> karen johnson.
>> good evening.
I am karen johnson.
I just dropped my hearing aid.
The land use for the old farm
district speaking on behalf of
the board.
Bend development code 4.5.200. E
e.4 concerning green space in
master plans.
10% of the land must be green
space private or public.
If it's private section b
requires dedication if it is
parks department or city or to a
private corporation such as
homeowners association.
You look at (2).
If so the private open space
must be located in a tract
including open space easement.
What does that mean?
Open space easement.
Property right.
Particular individuals.
It means public.
Section d.
It says that the use -- it must
be open to the public.
Presumably the public is getting
the easement.
What this proposal does is
eliminate being open to the
public.
Allows developer to create open
space as part of master plan.
Exclude public from every square
inch of it that would include
trails.
Bend parks and rec is trying to
do a trail system including
entire city as written.
As proposed written it would
eliminate the right of people to
take a trail to a master plan.
I green with the prior comments.
I think this needs to go back to
planning commission to define
exactly what they mean.
To say an area is fenced off and
can be private.
Fenced does not mean people are
excluded from it.
As written right now you could
have tennis court but public
would be able to use that tennis
court.
Is that the way the city wants?
It needs to say so.
I think this has very bad policy
and it should go back to
planning commission for further
study.
Thank you.
>> thank you.
Roberta silverman.
>> resident of bend.
Requirement of 10% open space
public or private in master plan
developments is a good thing.
One of the most powerful levers
city has to balance growth
providing open recreational
green space to keep bend a
livable city.
Removing must be open to public
requirement creates dangerous
loophole in which developers
fulfill 10% requirement with
private open space closed and
off limits to general public.
It already exists in town.
Eliminating must be open to
public requirement is not small
change to clean up code
language.
It amounts to loss of public
benefit taxpayers and neighbors
reasonably expect from
entitlements granted at this
scale.
Code requires negotiation with
bend park and recfor acquisition
doesn't guarantee success.
Removing public access shifts
bargaining power away from bend
parks makes it easier for open
space private.
Matter of equity.
Public access ensures open space
available to everyone including
renters and seniors and kids and
workers.
Please continue to safeguard the
bend open space and retain
existing public access clause.
In code 4.2.0.
The planning commission did not
look at that in their session.
>> I want to give you a chance
if there is anything you want to
expand upon about your
deliberation and anything scott
or susan you want to speak to?
>> you talked about esoteric
code language.
This pack age was steeped in it.
I guess any other questions you
had for us?
>> open space was there is park
district does assessment where
parks are needed.
Requirement is that if there is
development that is going where
parks and rec identified there
is need for a park, they have to
put a park.
They can put private open space
in there but they have to work
with parks and rec.
Trails are open.
Connectivity is requirement
separate from open space.
We did have discussion.
It wasn't robust discussion
because pauline explained map
and parks and rec assessment
they do for where they need new
parks in the community.
The question is do we trust
parks and rec to tell us where
we need parks?
I am former board member of
parks and rec.
I will say I trust parks and rec
to tell us where we need parks.
>> those parks are all open to
the public.
They are public parks.
>> the developer could not meet
need for public park through
private open space?
>> correct, correct.
>> anything else to add?
>> thanks for working on this.
You both have big stacks there.
Highlights and tabs.
You took a look at it.
>> yeah, yeah.
Talking about windows in the
district for remodels.
The devil is in the details as
you see a little word change.
>> it was not our intent nor was
it my belief reducing amount of
parks we were going to have in
the city.
>> there are things like the
laws fire mitigation.
A lot of times when we have
these piecemeal also talking
about three properties that are
unique.
It needs to be part of bigger
discussion.
Fire mitigation plan, shouldn't
do it piecemeal through this and
that.
Every planning commission
meeting we bring up diversity of
neighborhoods to get it
commercial.
If that is something the city
council wants planning
commission to look into, huge
concern about commercial areas
going away and having the
neighborhoods.
>> we are not allowed to because
we are required to follow city's
work plan.
>> outcome of work session we
have.
>> you can tell us to do it.
We can't tell you to do it.
We can ask you to tell us.
>> thank you for bringing that
up and for being here and
speaking with us tonight.
Appreciate that.
>> anything you want to clarify
before we deliberate?
>> I wanted to share what the
master plan is for connectivity.
It reads multi-modal connections
must be divided on site in
compliance with city of bend
transportation plan and parks
recreation and green pace plan
and existing plans and trail
systems adjacent to master plan
must be continued through entire
master plan separate from open
space.
They have to meet connectivity
through aligning with tsp, bend
park and rectrail plan and
providing the connectivity.
>> the transportation system
plan is public.
>> okay.
We can move into deliberation on
the package.
Pauline we need to see the
amended motion, I think.
Any further discussion for
council?
I want to clarify our code right
now since 2017 have the ability
for master plan neighborhoods to
have private open space, public
open space or combination of
both.
What we have seen is usually
combination of both.
Park area we see parks in the
master plan areas.
This change tonight is not
changing what has been happening
since 2017.
Not creating that.
That d was not in the code until
2023 specifically to deal with
what pauline was worried someone
might claim was open space.
We want people to access open
space depending on the ownership
of the open space.
I am comfortable moving forward
tonight.
Bigger conversation to have
about master plan code and about
this public private open space
thing we can't resolve tonight.
This is cleanup palm lean is
trying to make clear to
to remove
in consistency.
I am willing to have bigger
conversation as we look towards
the growth plan.
I think that fits very well in
there and we can look at the
policy ramifications of how open
space is defined currently.
I think what we have got tonight
is a cleanup inconsistent part
of statute added two years ago I
am okay with cleaning that up.
The rest of the package makes
sense to me as well.
I want to acknowledge, yes, when
people saw that in truncated
form in package it is alarming
no public open space.
That is not what this means
tonight.
Any other thoughts.
>> I would be interested in
having the larger conversation
at some point in the future.
I think there is in some cases
there have been incidents where
developer has provided private
open space that they have been
turning to the park district and
besiege them to take over
because they can't afford to
maintain it or already used
cheap playground materials.
I would like to have that
conversation when keeping
neighborhoods open.
Also recognizing there are
certain amenities that are
probably better kept private.
Things like private pools.
There is more to this
conversation tonight.
I think we also have I want to
see us have the best connected
neighborhoods we can.
I think that you characterize
this accurately.
Not a big change.
Policy neutral.
Let's have that conversation
another night.
>> other comments?
>> no, that is it for public
testimony.
>> I would like to make a
proposal on the asi and the fuel
reduction.
I did notice in the public
testimony from parks district
and in conversation with coid
that exempting public agencies
from having to go through land
use for fuel reduction on public
land they are chartered to
maintain on behalf of the public
and trust seems like an
excessive sort of jurisdictional
oversight.
In sort of out of respect for
those agencies responsibility to
all constituents I would favor
exempting public agencies from
fuel.
>> it is a lot of acronyms.
Exempting public agencies on
public land.
>> is that something we didn't
have that asked to planning
commission.
Is that something planning
commission discussed around
exemption versus type one
process?
>> it was briefly discussed.
Also mentioned that the city
also goes through the process.
We don't exempt ourselves.
It did not go much further than
that.
>> I think park and recreation
district offered that.
>> probably in public letter.
>> they raise that request.
>> planning commission did not
recommend that?
>> I do notes believe planning
commission made that
recommendation.
>> I am seeing nods from
planning.
Do you want to explain why you
didn't make that recommendation
at the podium?
>> we had a recent interaction
with parks and rec about
development where they were
removing a lot of trees.
We felt it was excessive during
planning commission because it
was along the river.
We had oversight.
It required a lot of work to get
trees retained.
Our feeling was there is a value
in having public process to look
at the resources in our
community that ones they are
gone they are gone for our
lifetimes.
When pauline explained city is
required to go through same
process we didn't feel it was
appropriate to allow others to
have a different process than
what the city held itself to.
>> thank you for that
information.
Other discussion on this topic
from council?
>> we hold the city to the same
process requirements we hold the
special districts.
>> in favor of exempting the
city as well.
I trust the city staff and these
other public agencies they are
consulting professionals
including fire department and
the county forester and wildfire
experts in determining the
fields.
More fields they remove more
expensive the project is.
>> is there other support for
that idea?
I see show of hands if there is
support.
>> I feel like it is a lot to
consider right now.
I am working through having been
former parks board director
thinking about the projects,
tree removal in drake park
where, yes, city is partner
involved in that.
I feel like I am not able to
resolve that question right now.
>> the drake park removal
related to development not fuel
reduction.
This is just fuel reduction we
are talking about here.
>> sounds like there is not
support to add that to the
motion at this time.
Do you want to make the motion
pauline has on the screen.
>> I move for first reading
ordinance amending bend
development codes bdc title one
introduction title two land use
district title 3 design title 4
aplie kiss and title 5 make
changes to standards and
processes and amending
definitions and sections 4.1.600
deschutes river design review
procedures.
2.7.7 0 upland areas of special
interest overlay zone and
4.5.200 community master plan as
presented.
>> second?
>> second.
>> all right.
Moved by councilor mendez.
Second by councilor platt.
Further discussion.
In favor aye.
Any opposed?
All right unanimously passed.
Identified issues for the
future.
Thank you to the planning
commission and everybody that
wrote in with comments.
If you have further questions or
input send those to us.
We want to have that bigger
discussion about open space
continuing.
We thank you for being here.
Okay.
We are on to item 6.
Councilor platt go ahead.
>> as school district employee I
will recuse.
>> councilor platt steps off.
Item 6.
>> second reading of ordinance
to amend the comprehensive plan
and re-zoning 1 point 3 acres
adjacent to pacific crest middle
school you ar10 to residential
urban medium density rm.
>> notion and second.
>> move second reading adoption
by roll call vote amending bend
map to redesignate rezone
approximately 1.93 acres of land
in northeast portion of the lot
1711 5d00300 from urban reserve
uar-10 to residential urban
density rm.
>> second.
>> moved by norris.
Second mendez.
>> frances.
>>, riley, mendes, norris.
>> kebler.
>> yes.
>> that will get councillor
platt back and do the city
manager report.
>> I want to highlight
performance metric.
We walked through council goals
at last meeting and new
dashboard in place.
Just remind council aggressive
goal for housing units 3942 over
biennium.
35% increase over last couple
years.
Numbers load up every night from
the system.
Permitted 901 housing units
since fiscal year.
Where we are in the fiscal year
that was noteworthy.
I want to qualify.
We want to watch it closely.
901 for housing units.
I think that is good news I
wanted to share there.
On construction project updates.
Franklin we switched traffic
today.
One lane now eastbound traffic.
Project on track to be finished
by end of year.
Bear creek opened couple legs
private development that will
open by end of the week.
Going well.
Additional closures for paving
that is going well.
Holding on the only project with
ems still planning to do work in
NOVEMBER.
Thing are on track with that.
I will let you know if something
changes.
I want to hand out budget in
brief.
This is an effort by a number of
staff.
Thank you to communication
staff, city manager office,
roger policy analyst and finance
staff.
really taking a deeper dive.
This is 600 page document that
you all approved in JUNE
distilled into a couple pages
includes accomplishments and
goals this year.
How the process works, budget
process works.
Includes new faq for question
section to hit the top line
questions the community has
about resources.
It is an effort to live up to
that value of transparency and
fiscal stewardship.
Hot off the press and on the
website.
Fairly expensive to print.
The more online the better.
We have a couple printouts.
If you are speaking in front of
groups and want to hand this
out, just let us know.
>> 432?
>> you can get that online.
>> I see the new brand showing
up in here.
>> this is a test run of some of
what that looks like.
>> rob is going to talk about
the proposed review process for
city manager.
>> thank you, mayor kebler.
Good evening, city council.
Purpose for my visit tonight is
to propose and kickoff the 2025
city manager review process.
I sent packet to council
yesterday afternoon.
If you did not receive them I
have paper copy here for you.
The last review was done in MAY
of 2024.
They occur every 12 to 24 months
since I have been here for
approximately 15 years.
The purpose of review correlates
performance with council
priorities and prerogatives.
Part a is city manager review
form housed in appendix in the
document.
Second performance measures
aligned with council goal also.
Accomplishments tied to goals.
This is council's process.
I am here to help administrator
it and support council.
I proposed steps and timelines.
They are substantially similar
to the process that occurred
over a decade since I have been
with the city.
NOVEMBER 5 kickoff of process.
Council takes a look and says,
yes, proceed forward.
Between 6 and 18 of NOVEMBER is
time allowed for council to
solicit feedback from staff and
stakeholders.
B is listing of direct and
indirect reports of city
manager.
On NOVEMBER 19 I will e-mail out
an additional resource document
to council which will contain
city manager's self-assessment,
two-parts, goal status and
supplemental information as well
as review form.
Review form is attachment a.
That form how it works each
councilor completes their
quantitative assessment on the
form, sends back to me.
I compile results to single
document.
Council's voice of the city
manager assessment.
I will talk about that in a
second at the last date.
That is currently scheduled for
DECEMBER 3.
Three step process.
Step one council convenes in
executive session and looks at
results of those assessments on
attachment a.
I will compile those into
composite rating.
council reviews that and has
discussion.
Council drafts the public
statement during that executive
session.
Step two.
City manager enters into
executive session for discussion
of work performance directly
with council.
Finally, step three is council
presents public statement as
previously drafted in exec
session and come posssive
ratings and authorizes and
discussions modifications to
employment agreement.
That all happens in one council
meeting between exec session and
regular business session.
Three attachments.
Proposed review form, direct
indirect report contacts and
some sample questions to spur
conversation or thinking about
what to ask folks.
With that I am open to any
questions or feedback from
question.
>> quick note before questions.
All
I have spoken to you and
answered questions related to
concerns raised by departing
employee.
City is conducting third-party
review.
Our goal and we will meet it to
get that done in NOVEMBER.
To the extent that is
information relevant to the
process rob is describing
council will have that.
>> prior to DECEMBER 3 executive
session?
>> correct.
>> thanks, rob for overview.
Any questions about this?
If it wasn't clear how we have
done this the past few times i
have done it we divide up the
direct report contacts and
schedule on our to talk with
those folks using the questions
rob used you are not limited to
those.
Bringing notes back to the
meeting where we discuss eric's
performance and what we heard
from folks we talked to that
worked in the past to speak to
the direct reports from our
perspective.
Any other questions?
>> can you elaborate more.
This is your e-mail yesterday
the first I heard of the timing
of this processor what it would
entail.
Can you just explain maybe why
the timing was chosen?
>> I take direction from the
mayor.
The mayor and city manager
discussed this is a good time to
conduct it in the normal 12 to
24 months so it was scheduled.
>> we had done it in MAY
previous year.
With two new councilors.
I thought 10 months to work with
eric to use that with your
evaluation.
>> not uncommon from previous
experience, too.
>> I am not familiar.
I see in our DECEMBER meeting we
will talk about the city manager
manager's employment agreement.
Has that been shared with us.
Can you share that with us so we
can be familiar with it?
>> absolutely.
>> lastly, I would probably ask
for a little bit extended
timeline to receive this
third-party investigation report
before moving forward with that
DECEMBER 3rd meeting.
I would ask we schedule the
actual meeting once we have the
report in hand and determine if
there is any further
conversations we want to have
with staff or stakeholders or
further investigation if there
is anything in that
investigation report.
>> I think that would be wise to
hold that executive session on
the third.
If
if that is the discussion to say
we are not following through
with this today or finish this
today and need more time we can
do that.
I don't want to lose that
opportunity to move forward in
DECEMBER before the end of the
year.
>> absolutely.
>> I am fine with that if the
rest of council is.
>> I think that we need to be
open to that.
That is a piece of information
to inform the discussions we
would essentially extend the
discussion to the following
week's work session or the
following business meeting.
Whatever makes sense timing
wise.
>> we have the option to do
that.
>> that would be an outcome of
executive session.
>> any other questions?
>> I will pull names out of the
hat and divide up reports to
send to everybody who to talk
to.
Take it upon yourselves to reach
out to those folks and schedule
time 20 to 30 minutes to talk
with folks to get the ball
rolling in next couple weeks for
the executive session.
>> how many meetings per
councilor?
>> around two or three
department heads.
>> I did two.
>> standard questions.
>> rob has example questions.
Your conversations with not
limited good prompts to get
information.
I invite folks to look at the
rubric and think of questions to
fill that out.
Thank you, rob, appreciate it.
>> that is it for the meeting
tonight.