City versus Community Priorities
The city focuses on projects and programs which meet the city’s priorities instead of the community’s priorities.
The city achieves their priorities by practicing very poor community engagement combined with a strong public relations campaign.
Bike Lanes
City's #1 Focus
Traffic Flow
Community's #1 Focus
No active community engagement
With the broader community
Key Points
-
- The community's transportation priorities have been IGNORED by the city.
- The $130 million Public Works Campus demonstrated that the city is a poor financial steward. City leadership took a proposed $55 million remodel project and transformed it into a $130 million project by focusing on their council goals, instead of the community's needs.
- Will the City Hall process be a repeat of the failed Public Works Campus with another huge debt burden?
- The "community engagement" performed by the city fails to meet any of the four necessary elements: Active Participation, Relationship Building, Collaboration, and Inclusivity.
City Priorities vs. Community Priorities
#1: Transportation Priorities
Key Point
The city has IGNORED the documented community transportation priorities
A. What matters to the community?
A-1. Biennium statistically valid community surveys are conducted by DHM Marketing*
In every survey, transportation concern ranking is consistent:
-
-
-
- Traffic congestion (overwhelmingly)
- Street maintenance
- At the bottom of the list is “bike safety, lanes” tied with less bike lanes (2024 Survey)
-
-
* A marketing research company engaged by the city
A-2. Three (3) GO Bond surveys were conducted by
DHM Marketing*
The public feedback was consistent:
- Create better east/west connections that reduce driver’s time behind the wheel and improve livability
- Support safe travel to schools, parks, jobs
- Address congestion and reduce cut-through travel
- Help Bend prepare for future growth
- There was little to no mention of concerns about sidewalks or bike lanes.
A-3. The community approved the 2020 GO Bond Resolution which included these phrases meant to secure the approval by a majority of the voters:
"Community surveys show traffic congestion, flow, and safety are the top concerns of people living in Bend."
"The bonds would fund priority traffic flow, east-west connections, and neighborhood safety improvements projects citywide."
"Bond proceeds can be used only for transportation capital construction projects… to improve traffic flow and safety…"
"Resolution 3217 doesn’t mention replacing vehicle lanes with bike lanes or “making it safe for all users”."
B. Has the city fulfilled their obligations to the community with the GO Bond Resolution?
Click to view details
#2: Public Works Campus - 4 Questions
Key Points
- The city took what began as a $55 million remodel project and built a $130 million facility by focusing on council goals instead of good financial stewardship.
- The resulting debt service contributed to an “unsustainable budget.”
FOUR (4) QUESTIONS:
[Click to view]
- An $18.1 million biennium expense was mentioned in the May 2025-27 budget committee meeting and the 2025 November Budget-in-Brief.
- Very few in the community are aware of this new expense.
- Even fewer citizens understand this new expense was the primary cause of the first biennium “operations” shortage after many years of surpluses.
- Meanwhile, the city manager’s message claims the budget is “unsustainable” without mentioning the public works campus annual expense anywhere in the Biennial Budget.
- The new public works campus principal and interest will cost a total of about $273 million. A phase remodel of the two existing sites could have been funded with revenue for only $55 million.
- In 2018, the city compared remodeling the two existing facilities for $55M with combining facilities at one new 19-acre facility for $64 million (without including the estimate for site work or needed infrastructure extensions). The new facility option was chosen because it was said to be more efficient(?).
- In 2021, the city decided it needed to increase the size of parcel by 40% and use “design-build” contracting. This contracting process executes a contract before the design is finished and with no total “guiding” budget to control expenditures.
- In 2022, staff said the progressing design met Council goals by including “sustainable & energy efficient”, an “education tool”, and community benefits (DEI, sustainability, and art). Still, no total budget was mentioned.
- In September 2023 when authorizing the 3rd contractor addendum, the council is finally told the budget would be $130 million (a 100% increase). Also, the site had grown again to 35.5 acres, 87% larger than the original site concept.
The first mention seems to be in a staff presentation on September 20, 2023.
- The funding would be the $2.4 million in proceeds from the sale of the Boyd Acres facility and the balance with $127.6 million in long-term debt.
- Future Growth? But the population growth of Bend has slowed, and the “workload” is primarily a function of the length of infrastructure to maintain (streets, water, reclaimed water, storm drain)
- About 0.5% more streets per year
- About 2% more water mains in the last 9 years
- About 1% more reclaimed water mains per year
- Increased coordination?
- This “goal” seems to be addressed with the newly added Public Works Director and the use of technology like phones or zoom meetings.
- Most cost-effective?
- This $130M facility cost about $880 per square foot which is at least 3 times “private marketplace” typical cost. [Consider the established market value of public work facilities with the $2.4M sale price of the existing Boyd Acres facility.]
- More efficient?
- After this facility shifted to the extreme north edge of the city, there was a huge increase in “vehicle miles traveled” (and travel time) by employees who work in the field, the majority of these departments’ staffing.
Would the community have supported this project if the city had been “inclusive”
by including the community as “active participants” in this project?
[see #4 below for the definition of community engagement]
#3: Understanding the proposed City Hall projects
Key Point
Does the community really share the city's goal of building a completely new City Hall after the Public Work Campus experience?
Understanding the need
- In 2015, the city owns about 59,000 sf in five buildings.
- The 2015 study determined 83,000 sf was needed for the next 50 years.
- The 2024-25 study determined 134,000 sf was needed for the next 60 years.
- The 2025-27 Biennial Budget set the total project cost at $134 million ($1,000 per sf)
- But then, in a November 2025 presentation, two different alternatives were presented:
- “full build out” at 134,000 sf for $197 million ($1,470 per sf)
- “scaled down” at 58,000 sf for $78 million ($1,345 per sf)
Understanding the City's Justification
- Growing city - From 2015 to 2025, the population grew by 33% but the downtown FTEs grew by 87% (168 to 314 based on the latest annual finance report). (Contrary to city manager message that FTE growth generally matches population growth.)
- These FTE figures don’t reflect the number of employees working from home or the 37 FTEs in “engineering “ that recently moved to the public works campus.
- Also, Bend’s growth has slowed in recent years.
- Maximize efficiency (no explanation given on how this is achieved)
- Improve operations (no explanation is given on how this is achieved)
- Flexibility to include community space, civic plaza, park, cultural center, arts center (Description in the 2023-2025 Biennial Budget)
Understanding the city’s vision for relocating the city hall to the Core Area between 3rd Street and the parkway
- The 2005 Bend Central Plan presented a vision for creating a city “civic” center using the publicly owned downtown properties which would make an existing vibrant downtown even more vibrant.
- The Core Area is an extremely challenging location. City staff and Councils base this choice on the hope that the Core Area can be redeveloped. After nearly 10 years of little progress, is the vision realistic or driven by consultants that say what the Council wants to hear?
- Will more public funding eventually surpass the economic hurdle only to stumble on the market hurdle (Will enough people want to live or work these tall buildings with primarily studios and 1-bedroom units for over $2,000/mo?)
- How will the city address the homelessness facilities in the Core Area (Rainbow hotel, Bottle Drop, Navigation center)?
- The city’s Core Area management has been piecemeal instead of a holistic approach.
Understanding the cost
- The full buildout plan is $1,470 per sf and the scaled back plan is $1,345 per sf.
- For reference, the “Moda” building, the most expensive tall office building in the Old Mill District, was recently appraised by the County Assessor’s office with a 2025 construction cost estimate of about $300 per sf.
Understanding the proposed funding
- The consultants suggest land sales, downtown building sales, Juniper Ridge land sales, retiring public works campus debt in 2055and long-term debt.
- Remember the public works campus had a vague funding plan and ultimately, used only one sale of $2.4M and the balance of long-term debt that contributed to the first operations shortage in many years.
- Will the city continue to use long-term debt? [Hint- the city has a spending problem and is leveraging Bend’s future generations on the ambitious city council instead of living within its existing means.]
#4: The City's poor community engagement
Key Point
The city fails to “inclusively” engage with “active participation” with the majority of the community.
Key elements of Community Engagement per the internet definition
-
-
-
- Active Participation: Moving beyond passive information sharing to active involvement in decision making.
- Relationship building: Establishing, nurturing, and maintaining trust over time.
- Collaboration: Working together to identify needs and develop solutions.
- Inclusivity: Ensuring diverse voices, including marginalized groups are heard and valued.
-
-
City of Bend's Community Engagement
[Click to view]
(Source: page 12 of Council goal work plan)
- Ensure continuous & meaningful participation in decision-making process.
- Implement stakeholder involvement & collaboration through events and creative initiatives.
- Incorporated engagement framework with strong feedback to insure stakeholder involvement and collaboration.
- Prioritize new voices.
- Improve communication & collaborations with Council Advisory Groups.
- Biennium “surveys” by a marketing company [passive information sharing only]
-
-
- These surveys are intended to provide a statistical valid survey on how the community feels about the city’s performance and what issues matter most to the community.
- The Council usually chosen to ignore the community’s (especially the top transportation concerns).
-
-
- Biennium “listening sessions” [passive information sharing only]
-
-
- Activists and advisory committees provide the most feedback.
- A few individuals and neighborhood associations took their turns.
-
-
- Public meetings [passive information sharing only]
-
-
- An individual can speak for 2 minutes and there is little or no feedback is given.
-
-
- Events and Open houses [typically, passive information sharing only]
-
-
- City shares the preliminary “plan.”
- Attendees can ask questions and occasionally get answers.
- Occasionally, an attendee can take a survey, but the question options are between city preferred alternatives. No, “none of the above.”
- Most attendees are activists who share vision of the city.
-
-
- Roundtables [active participation but not “inclusive”]
-
-
- But the only participants allowed at the table are specific city invitees which usually share the city’s view.
-
-
- Emailing [passive information sharing only]
-
-
- Citizens can ask questions. A councilor will reply. But meaningful dialogue occurs rarely occurs.
-
-
- Advisory Committee - The council only appoints individuals who share the Councils view.
- Neighborhood Districts (ND) - A city councilor liaison is typically assigned, but the effectiveness is questionable. Currently, the Neighborhood Districts are in limbo after discovering the city had not followed through on providing liability insurance.
- Neighborhood District Roundtable - The city offered to host single topic “roundtables” twice a year with all 13 ND representatives but has not followed through on this idea.
- Project steering committee - [Active participation but not inclusive] Council or department head selects participant who share their vision. The MPO’s “Bend Transportation Safety Action Plan” advisory committee has only two citizens. Case Study on “people street” including the steering committee.
- Organization presentations - [Nearly always passive participation] Case Study on “people street"” includes the city’s presentations to the Downtown Bend Business Area on the “people street” study.
- Councilor “open office hours” [The best “Active participation” ever] This was a great opportunity to engage in a dialogue with a Council for 5 minutes with staff taking notes and follow up provided if warranted. This form of engagement ended several councils ago (The ones with the better performance score.)
- Neighborhood Leadership Alliance - The mayor shut down this Council Advisory Committee because the committee would not always support of the city’s vision.
- Infrastructure Advisory Committee - Another terminated opportunity. A committee made of individuals with engineering experience.