Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Impact Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hundreds of public commenters urge Bend council to act on climate impact fee; developers and trades call for more analysis
Summary
Dozens of residents, students and local organizations urged Bend City Council to adopt a strong Climate Impact Fee and require electrification for new homes; builders, realtors and trades warned of affordability and reliability concerns and asked for pilots or further cost modeling.
Dozens of residents and local organizations used the council’s extended public-comment period on Dec. 3 to press Bend City Council to adopt a strong Climate Impact Fee aimed at encouraging electrification of new construction, while representatives of builders, realtors and trades warned the proposal could raise housing costs without additional analysis.
Speakers supporting the fee said it would reduce local emissions, protect public health and create funds to help low- and moderate-income households retrofit or switch to electric appliances. Peter Fargo of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon cited a recent Stanford study he submitted to staff, saying "a single gas cooktop burner on high ... can raise indoor levels of the carcinogen benzene above the levels of secondhand smoke." Multiple student and community speakers with Energize Bend and other climate groups urged the council to move quickly and emphasized long-term costs of delay.
Opponents urged caution. Morgan Greenwood, government affairs director for the Cascades East Association of Realtors, asked the council to pause consideration of new development fees until staff completes a cost analysis, a resiliency evaluation and community outreach. David Berger of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 290 said the city’s own study showed electrified homes could cost "4.5 times more than a gas home," and urged a pilot program to gather local data. Garrett Mosher, speaking for COBRA, recommended a pilot with residential builders and non‑monetary incentives rather than an immediate fee.
Speakers on both sides raised technical and equity questions the council said staff will address in an upcoming work session on Dec. 10. Several commenters asked for transparency around consultant assumptions — including the city’s assumed 2% annual electricity-rate increase — and for explicit protections for working families who could face higher monthly costs under some scenarios.
The council did not vote on the Climate Impact Fee at the Dec. 3 meeting; the public-comment period was intended to inform staff and council ahead of a Dec. 10 work session. Staff advised the public that the Dec. 10 meeting will be available online but will not include a public comment period.
