Bend councilors OK $120 million in bonds
One bond issue for N. sewer; other for Empire, Murphy projects, fire engines
(Update: Councilors approve bonds)
BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) -- Bend city councilors unanimously approved issuing two big-ticket bonds at Wednesday night’s meeting. One will mostly fund the Empire and Murphy road extensions and improvements, while the other funds the North Interceptor sewer line project.
The sewer line bonds total about $50 million, while the transportation and other spending totals about $70 million, including city energy-efficiency projects and two new fire engines to replace ones received 25 years ago.
The numbers may be big, but they line up with the city’s budget plan.
“They are really big numbers, but these project costs, the financing for these projects has all been factored into our biennial budgeting process,” Sharon Wojda, the city's chief financial officer, said Wednesday. “It’s being considered and reflected in our long-term financial plans.”
Improvements to Empire Boulevard will look to add more access and safety to the street. The Empire project is considered a priority project by the city. Work is expected to continue through July.
Next spring, the city will continue work on extending Murphy Road east to Southeast 15th Street.
That bond measure also includes $10 million to pay off previous city bonds from 2010.
The North Interceptor sewer line is adding capacity on Bend's north end to handle expanding business and housing developments on the north side of Bend. Upgrades to the sewer also will allow the city to decommission smaller pump stations, reducing future operational costs.
Phase 1 of the sewer construction began thus summer and will finish next fall. Phase 2 is set to begin next spring and finish in about two years.
Developers should pay for them!Not the tax paying residents who quality of life is being destroyed!
I believe that developers indeed will pay their share through SDCs that will repay the bonds. Or something along that order. (But remember, developers don’t really pay – the people buying (or trying to buy) housing or rent a place do.)
The tax payers should not be on the hook at all for upgrades to infrastructure due to development and construction. Developers and buyers of property being developed should be the only ones on the hook. If they don’t like it, don’t move here. Our cities were wonderful until the population explosion. And they were affordable too.
That’s why there are system development charges, so that, in the old saying, “growth pays it’s own way,” and as I just said to someone else, developers of course pass the costs on in terms of the prices they charge for homes, retail space etc. We can’t pass a law to stop people from moving where they wish. And govt. attempts to control prices… well, hopefully you know how those usually go. Just the other night, councilors approved changes to streamline the process so that a developer of one spot doesn’t have to spend millions many blocks away for improvements, thus stopping the project because it no longer pencils out. No doubt some will call it “developers getting away with” stuff, I do think sometimes people expect the improvements they see we need to be paid for by… a magic fairy. Or by “cutting waste,” or any number of made-up ways.Another fave fantasy – ‘they should have plenty of money to do x, look at all the growth?” Completely ignoring the basic fact that growth ALSO creates a demand for more services, wear and tear on infrastructure, traffic jams, etc. Are the two figures roughly equal? Rarely. So like families, govt. looks for ways to raise revenue to cover the added costs. We don’t blame families, or folks saying they need a raise or will leave for a better job, etc. But we of course, blame govt in our Blame Society. Because it’s soooo easy and it always feels better to point a finger than to say WE’VE got a problem.
No Matt Shea story comments? He’s being set up
That’s kinda misleading. How do developers not “really” pay? They don’t get a kickback from the city when people buy/rent a home. They pay SDC, they then pay for all City roads, sewer, water, sidewalks, etc in a development that they worked hard to get passed through the planing, permitting process, and then “give” them to the city free of charge for the right to sell the lots/homes. The Binfs are for public improvements, which indeed taxpayers and users payback, which developers that live in Bend likewise payback. BTW I’m not a developer, just a dirt worker.
Because developers, like all businesses, pass along the costs to their customers.
That’s a cop out answer.
Same could be said of yours? Care to elaborate? If not, no worries – this is one of the only issues (growth etc.) I allow myself to comment on here. Regulars have heard it all before.
So developers are the “bad guys” the root of all the cities woes for simply conducting business? Really all business is evil for wanting to make a profit?
Want to stop growth? Repeal urban growth laws in the state land use. Problem solved, no more development, problem? Think Park City, Aspen, Vale. Home prices will soar.
Want to lower cost? Repeal Davis-Bacon and take 1/3-1/2 the cost off these projects. Workers would be paid the same price they do private development work for.
Repeal the “civic consideration” clause the city mandated be taken into account for bids on city projects. Forget the price difference between high bidder on 27th sewer project and low bidder, but is was substantial.
Huh? I’m arguing AGAINST painting developers as the bad guys, the idea there are BAD GUYS and GOOD GUYS to blame/praise is mostly what I’m fighting! How repealing the laws that constrain and direct growth will “stop growth,” well I don’t get that. That’ll just bring sprawl. Sorry, but your answers are confusing.
Agreed
What the hell. Go for it. We can afford it. Sarcasm.
With the number of porsches and imported pickups with snorkels you see on the roads around here, i dont think you really need any sarcasm
Yes we can afford it
we?? …..have you ever voted no for a bond measure in Bend??
Soon Bend will have as many taxes as California.
Remember this when the May election comes up for transportation bond.
Some bonds, with dedicated revenue sources, don’t require voter approval, but of course the transportation bond is a different sort, that does.
NO, thanks
“two new fire engines” – Why are these being funded this way? These should be funded through the fire department budget not the general fund. Union expenses too much to do so?
Where do you think the Fire Dept budget comes from?
Again we argue ad naseum about growth! we are not going to stop people from moving here, the city can’t stop builders from building(think lawsuits) and we need the infrastructure to move people around! Sure don’t vote for the bond and just see how bad the traffic gets and then how much more it would cost to do the work 10 years from now! how short sited and NIMBY of you all!