City of Bend examines centralized stormwater options to accommodate denser development

City of Bend stormwater planners and consultants presented early, draft findings on whether the city’s current approach—requiring stormwater to be managed on the lot of origin—creates barriers to denser housing and infill, and explored options for centralized or regional stormwater facilities.

Trista Koblewski, OTEC consultant working on the stormwater master plan, said Bend’s default pattern leaves most private runoff to be managed on individual lots or by HOAs, and that “small residential lots don't have a lot of room for these lot‑by‑lot stormwater facilities.” She said the team is considering code and procedural changes to allow more centralized facilities, including options where a tract, HOA or the city manages consolidated facilities that could also accept street runoff where appropriate.

Koblewski noted tradeoffs. Decentralized, lot‑level facilities can be hard for individual property owners to operate and maintain, may be constructed with inconsistent assumptions, and can crowd small backyards with swales or depressed planters. Centralized or regional facilities can simplify hydraulic layouts, remove maintenance burdens from many individual owners and better support redevelopment that uses 0‑lot‑line or near‑lot‑line footprints. But they raise questions about who will own, operate and fund the facilities: developers, HOAs or the city; how long developers remain accountable during build‑out; and whether the city wants additional operation and maintenance responsibilities if facilities occupy the right of way.

Koblewski cited existing code allowances—Title 16 provisions and master‑plan development processes—that can allow runoff to leave the lot of origin in certain circumstances, but said those pathways are not often used. The team is investigating whether the gap is a procedural one (lack of awareness or application guidance) or an intentional policy choice. She said staff are also evaluating potential technical standards updates that would expand permitted best management practices (for example, deep dry wells and stormwater trees) to increase flexibility.

WAG members raised equity, liability, financing and maintenance questions. One member said if private runoff is accepted into public facilities, the city should document the engineering necessity to avoid perceptions of favoritism to particular owners. Another member asked whether a proportionate fee could be charged to owners whose private runoff uses a public facility; staff said those allocations and billing implications require additional study and that stormwater fees today are typically small per household but that any change would involve tradeoffs for the stormwater fund and city staff workload.

Koblewski described regional examples under review from Portland and Seattle areas and said the draft master‑plan recommendations will include suggested policy and procedural changes, model language and a discussion of funding and staffing impacts. She asked WAG members for input and to share local examples of successful regional or centralized stormwater facilities for redevelopment.

Ending: Staff said the master‑plan work is ongoing and draft recommendations will be circulated; WAG members were invited to provide additional written feedback. No code changes or policy actions were adopted at the meeting.