City Council - Regular Meeting

Our city manager has the flu.

Thank you.

All right, without further ado, Chris, you ready? Acting City Manager Longetti is ready. I'll call this to order for September 14th. First thing we're going to do is turn off our cell phones. Then we're going to remember that as we gather today, we respectfully acknowledge that the land on which the city of Hood River sits is the ancestral home of indigenous peoples. This includes the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, Yakima, and other tribes who stewarded this land for generations. We recognize the lasting impact of colonialism and commit to working together for a more just and sustainable future. And then please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Are there any agenda additions or corrections, Chris? Great. At every meeting, we have a time up front for business from the audience. We have Brian Tuohy here this evening. Come on up, Brian, if you'd like to. There's a red ring that touched the white dot will become a green ring, if that makes sense. around the edge. You did it. That's it. You're on.

All right. So I am Brian Tuig. I live on Columbia Street. So I am here to propose a ride with the mayor who may recall, Mayor, that I think that we already met on a bicycle ride a little bit over 20 years ago, I think when you first moved here for the first time. And the reason is that Um, I want to see in person, I could have done this long presentation. I tried to do that. I thought it'd be better just to, if we go look at it, but the two lane bike lanes that now are near the middle school, the West side of the middle school, I think that's 17th. And then from May street on 18th up to Belmont, there were these two way bike lanes. And, um, I don't know. I mean, I'm mayor for a while, but I've spent a lot of time on bicycles. I'm going nowhere near those bike lanes. And I think it's really, really horrible that we're putting kids there. I think that somebody is going to get hurt and without being hyperbolic. We go into details of why two lane bike lanes are dangerous. And in this case where I think maybe specific recommendations by the organizations that, that rule and, and talk about these things, don't recommend them. Um, but it's pretty important that people that understand bicycles go look at them because they're just, they're super dangerous. I understand why you would do that near the school. But even more importantly is probably the way the bike lanes are up near Belmont on 18th. The sight lines are terrible. The lanes aren't wild. They're not protected. I don't think that anybody that does that professionally would ever do it that way. Like there's going to be trouble. And I just... I don't know how much you guys love to hear from me and I love being here as much, but this is kind of important. So I propose that we just go for a quick bike ride. I could do it any morning and maybe make time any other day, just so we can look at it and you could get headed in the right direction on that thing. Because again, it looks like they're designed for the kids and you're going to get a kid hurt with those things. If this is part of the Safe Routes to School program, which I'm suspecting it is, and you've spent some money on this thing, I think it's important that, like, especially something like this, that you get it right.

Thank you, Brian. We have two public hearings tonight. To start off, we have an SDC exemption for ADUs, System Development Charge, Accessory Dwelling Unit. Chris. I believe that was a script. Thank you, Chris. This is the time scheduled for public hearing regarding ordinance 2098. an ordinance exempting ADUs from water and sewer system development charges. We will first hear a staff report.

Is that OK? Very good. Yeah. So at its April 22, 2019 meeting, city council adopted a Hood River Ordinance 2050, which amended Title 17, which addressed accessory dwelling units, ADUs. At that time, the Hood River Municipal Code was amended so that promoting ADU construction by limiting the number of regulations received would also reduce the obstacles to their development. During the discussions leading up to that amendment, system development charges were also identified as obstacles for ADU development, and staff were directed to present options for lowering SDC charges. In response, the City of Hood River enacted a program that waived water and sewer SDCs for ADU developments if the unit shared a connection with primary residents. That policy was affirmed by city council in its May 13th, 2019 meeting and has been employed ever since. In April, 2025, the city adopted a comprehensive update to the system development charges that also incorporated a residential scaling, which assessed SDCs on a dollar per square foot of residential development This was done to account for the lesser impacts of smaller homes and to further incentivize construction. However, at that time, in the SDC methodology, it did not specifically consider ADU development, past practices, or otherwise address ADU exclusions from the adjustable rate methodology. What the ordinance in front of you does is looks to codify what is existing practices as it relates to ADU development and the assessment of SDCs. When an ADU shares water and sanitary sewer connections with a primary dwelling, current city policy provides that water and sanitary sewer SDCs are waived. Ordinance 20... The river municipal code to provide water and sewer exemptions for under those circumstances. This ordinance again, formally codifies existing sin practices and seeks to eliminate any confusion because of the residential scaling for system development charges. In the original ordinance, the amendment and exhibit a to the motion is is section E. And it reads, for any ADU established pursuant to chapter 17.23 and which share water and sanitary sewer connections with a primary dwelling, an exemption from water and sanitary sewer SDCs shall be received.

Thank you, Chris. We will now take public testimony. City Recorder, has anyone registered to speak or provided written testimony on this matter? Anyone in the room here to speak to us on this? We have no public testimony. The public hearing on ordinance 2098 is now closed, and the city council will deliberate on the adoption of the ordinance. Anybody want to kick off? Grant, go ahead, and then Doug.

I would disagree with staff's characterization that staff did not take this ADU carve-out into consideration when deliberating. I personally, uh, did understand that carve outs existed and specifically did not want to take special exemption to particular units into consideration when formulating this policy. I did not wish to create a separate, separate, but equal or separate, but better class of units one versus the other when formulating this policy. Um, is my perspective. I did not want to advantage one class of building over another class of building when formulating the per square footage formulation as policy. So that is my policy argument for us to consider regarding this particular one. And I would, my argument would be that we not advantage a class of unit type over another class of unit type.

That's it. Chris, how many ADUs have been constructed in the last year or so?

Yeah, so the information I was able to pull was since the SDC, the ADU policy was implemented in 2019. So since 2019, the city of Hood River has issued certificate of occupancies for 26 ADU units. That represents 11% of all new residential units developed during that period. And that that was the, that was as much of the day I was able to get, because I could not get approvals. Like, it was just able to get certificates of occupancy.

Would there be any consideration that we could give to recently. Constructed 80 use so that they could. Be subject to the same ordinance that we're enacting here. You know, I'm thinking of like. Examples where. Oh, we just made a rule change. This rule change is, you know, I think in the spirit of what we intended, as you were saying, and therefore we, we shall have a cutoff date. If something was constructed in the last six months or something like that, that would be subject to this. If somebody just built one, that, that sort of thing, it was that taken into consideration.

And I would have to run up anybody from engineering series. I'll actually, any is here. So again, we are codifying what has been existing practices. So it's not, it's, it is, Not my understanding that there is an ADU that has been assessed these SDC charges that meets the criteria.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a lot of questions. So the code that we're amending says that the applicant seeking the exemption under this section specifically requests the exemption. So have we just not been charging it even if people didn't know they should request it? Or that's one question, but maybe you don't have the answer to that. The other thing is the ADUs contribute to the load of city water in the sewer system. And if yes, why are we, why are we exempting this SDC? Um, and I mean, I guess maybe the transportation or the parks SDCs aren't ours to exempt. Um, but it seems to me maybe kind of a, like Grant was getting at, you know, why would, you know, if this is going to contribute to the load on those systems, why are we, why are we exempting them? That seems.

So the, so, uh, On the first part of the question with regards to the SDC exemption, or sorry, the request to the SDC, we've addressed that in prior council meetings as it relates to affordable housing and that language just exists in the code. In general, we try to inform people what they're, what their abilities, what sort of the code gives them. So we have not, again, we have not sort of required that ADU developers that meet this criteria specifically request the exemption. And again, this was based off of prior council's direction since 2019 to encourage ADU development. The other characteristic is that this is for ADUs that share an existing connection. So as it relates to SDCs for other developments, again, prior to implementing a residential scaling, it was the meter that triggered the SDC. So sharing the meter would not necessarily trigger the SDC. So again, so an ADU that was developed with a separate connection, separate meter that was not sharing the primary dwelling connection would not be exempt by this change in the STCs.

Based on the information that was included in the memo, it sounds like the cost of developing an ADU is between $250,000 and $400,000. I don't know that a $3,000, I mean, I think every little bit helps, but I don't know. I think we're fooling ourselves to think that this action alone is going to incentivize property owners to build ADUs. It's not that much money. And I just... HAB-Masyn Moyer- I kind of am with grant on this and that I don't know that it makes sense to have this practice. I also feel like HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know, in the other work that we're doing as counsel to try to help clarify the code. It seems pretty ambiguous to me that we'd include something that says that I'm some things can either be partially or fully exempt. And it depends on if the person, the applicant seeking the exemption asks for it, but in practice, that's not what we do. Like, I just, I think it's, I don't know. I have some concerns about this and I just, we should talk about it.

So just to be clear, this is the existing practice. Right. So if, if council wishes to change what, what engineering is currently doing with regards to SDC allocation for, for ADUs, that would, that would, that would be a, I don't know if that would be a separate action, but that would be separate. That would be direction to staff.

We're being asked to codify this in an ordinance, right? So I guess we're codifying a practice that, that we don't currently, that we currently use, but isn't really our practice.

Yeah, correct. Again, the practice was addressed in a prior city council, but was never codified. That is correct.

Doug. Thank you, Gladys.

Thank you. So my question was, of the 26 ADUs that have been built, do we track how many of those had separate utility connections versus shared? That was my first question.

Yeah, I do not have that information.

Okay. I had a similar question to Anna around. It's about $3,000 max. And in the last conversation, I also wondered if this has been identified as a bottleneck within the Jensen's strategy study that's taking place right now and wondering if this is an action item that we should discuss and vote on today versus waiting for the fuller analysis that's happening at the same time. Absolutely, just a thought.

Yes, so.

Our city engineer is telling Chris.

Yeah, we're playing a little. So I have not seen a draft of the general strategies report. What the city engineer has just told me is that this is not specifically addressed in that report.

Thank you. I you know, I'm trying to, similar to Grant's sentiment, I'm trying to understand if we are creating an inequity by saying, by giving more limitations and that folks who, they're still going to have to pay some level of SDCs. And I'm also not sure if like, If there's any sort of legal exposure to this gap, given that this has been implemented since 2019 and now we're amending it or making some sort of change, could that open us up to any sort of legal exposures to the gap that's being created or that would be created if we all say yes?

Yeah, I'll defer to the city attorney on the legality question. Just a couple of quick things I do want to point out. As it relates to the past practices and the ordinance. So part of the reason for codifying this is that ordinance 2050 provided as part of its recitals that accessory dwellings are an economical way to provide additional housing choices, particularly in communities with high land prices or lack of investment in affordable housing. They provide an opportunity to increase housing supply. in developed neighborhoods, and can blend well with single-family detached dwellings. So that's the language that's specifically in the ordinance that was passed by city council. So again, the action after that, or as part of that discussion, was what are the other obstacles to ADUs? SDCs were identified as an additional obstacle, and that practice was then implemented, again, under the direction of city council, but then not formally documented. So this is not a proposal on behalf of staff, right, with regards to a change in policy. It is really a follow-up on that ordinance and a follow-up on the existing practice. All the comments received from council, not the same. With regards to legality, I don't know how to address that.

The red-green thing for you. You've got it, you're out.

So from what I understand, Codifying the existing practice is well within your discretion. I don't see, I don't see exposure. I don't know if that answers the question exactly. Okay.

Acting city attorney, Kristen Campbell. Thank you. All right. And Doug and then Anna.

Chris, I don't know if you can speak to this or if anybody else can, but I know there's actions that we're taking in the near future regarding more incentives beyond SDC waivers for incentivizing ADUs. What other existing policies do we have, ordinances do we have to add to the incentive of SDC waivers?

Yeah, actually, I'm not aware. Well, if you aren't specifically.

Well, and I'll also add one thing on the legality is we exempt a lot of, you know, that's a whole list of exemptions that's in the ordinance that already exists, like for affordable housing. So you cannot overcharge a use in order to subsidize undercharging another use in your SDCs, but you can absolutely undercharge anyone who you want to, just as long as you don't try to note that up by being punitive against another user. And as far as other ways that we incentivize smaller buildings, I would point you to our middle housing code, which provides a lot of incentives around lot coverage, setbacks, parking requirements that prior council thought that that was appropriate to boost and incentivize smaller scale housing, higher density, greater efficiency of land use, which ADUs also provide.

Thank you. And my thinking is that this policy is in line with that and part of a greater pattern of us incentivizing the development of ADUs, which we sorely need for affordable housing stock. There's not been a lot that have been constructed, but I think that this is in line with our goals and priorities for ensuring that these types of units get built. So I'm in favor of this.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree with that. Also, I think I was trying to find it because I thought I read it somewhere, but it could have been something that my brain formulated. But I'm assuming that the idea is that because it doesn't require its own separate connection, that it's not adding a significant enough load to our wastewater treatment services. Yeah, I also view it similar to the scaled SDCs that we have for smaller developments. So yeah, I'm in favor of this.

I appreciate this discussion. A lot of good points. I think, Anna, you raise a good point. There's still a person living and dishwashing and showering and whatnot, and it's adding to the load. And if we don't charge well, then others are picking up that load. It's a valid point. I lived in an ADU for a couple of years, and it certainly furthers our goals for less expensive housing. One of the things I noticed about living in an ADU is I never used a lawnmower because I had literally zero lawn, which is not the way I used to live or live now. And so uh, it, it, uh, ADUs are, are a valuable tool for, uh, encouraging density. Another part of it that I used to chat with friends about all the time is my landlord could never sell this little cottage I was living in. It's like not splittable. Like that's a very strong limitation. This, the ADU is a, is a different kind of home. And, uh, it, it, it, it adds to the, to the, to the system loads but it encourages lighter use of many loads I mean for example I never watered the lawn either or when not mowing it so like I used less water than ordinary home I think that it's in line with our goals and I think we're allowed to do it and we're doing it already so I encourage passing this ordinance to codify this desirable and existing practice. And a motion when we're ready.

I'm happy to make the motion as long as everybody's done speaking on the matter. Okay, hearing nothing, I move to close the public hearing and place ordinance 2099 on the agenda for first reading and approval.

You're one page ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. I think, or I'm one page behind. 2098 is where we are, right, Chris? Yes. Great. Oh, am I one page ahead? Here we go, if you want.

I think what's happening is that the suggested motion has a typo in it. Oh. The motion says 2099, but everything else says 2098.

Is it 2098 or 2099?

I must have it up. I believe it's, sorry, 2098.

There is a typo in the package.

2098.

Okay. So revising my motion, I move to close the public hearing and place ordinance 2098 on the agenda for first reading and approval.

Moved by Stepina. Second. Second by Mitchell. Further discussion?

I do want to mention something. I love the opportunity or the idea that we're just adding more support for ADUs. I think it's so important, but it's also really valuable that when we do have these policies that are being written, that we have some sort of evaluation of the effectiveness and then really understanding where those areas that we can improve And it sounds like we don't have that information. And so moving forward, I'd love to be able to understand some of that information as we continue our journey on what is our housing strategy overall and how do we improve it.

Thank you, Councillor. Anna.

I'll just jump into, like I said earlier, I think every little bit helps and we shouldn't, you know, I have an ADU in my backyard. I think it's great, but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that this action alone is going to incentivize property owners to build all ACUs. So I just echo Gladys' comment of we should understand how this is actually being, is it effective and what is our longer term goal, longer range goal first and strategy for housing. So I appreciate that comment. Thank you, Gladys.

Further deliberation? Motion on the floor. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Yes. Nope. That was a somewhat later aye from Rivera, I believe, and a nay from Paulson. Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Thank you all. Thank you. We next have a public hearing. It says it's led by Dustin, who is at a conference. So I'm not sure who's doing it, but it's flood insurance rate maps. Dustin is on. Okay. The magic of the internet. Hello, Dustin. Thank you. Let me read this. Let me read the script. Okay. I call to order the public hearing for ordinance 2099, amending section 1544 of the Hood River Municipal Code relating to building and construction in flood hazard areas. Let me begin with a brief description of the hearing and a few disclosures. First, we will hear from the staff, then we will take public testimony. When public testimony is completed, we will close the record, deliberate, and render a decision. That is the procedural introduction for tonight's hearing. If anyone has any questions about the process as we go forward with this hearing, please feel free to ask them during the public testimony portion of the hearing. Does any council member wish to make any disclosure or abstain from participating or voting on the matter because of possible financial gain or conflict? Hearing none, does any member of the audience wish to challenge any counselors participation or have questions about tonight's hearing? Hearing none, we will begin with staff. Go ahead, Dustin.

Think Mayor. For the past decade, FEMA's been working on the Mid-Columbia and Hood Watershed. This update started with a map update that really goes back to our previous map, which was created and approved in 1984. Through a series of lawsuits and fits and starts, in May, FEMA provided us an updated hazard map, as well as work with an updated ordinance. Our first update for the flood hazard ordinance in 30 years. The city is incentivized by its... If it wishes to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, receive small business loans, hazard maps, grants, resources for natural hazard mitigation, it is required to participate and adopt regulations necessary to... to really manage flood hazards and construction and development within the city. This ordinance lives in the Hood River Municipal Code Chapter 1544, which is your building code as well as other accessory and ancillary construction development codes. This new update is based upon a model code created by DLCD and was reviewed and approved by FEMA. to determine are your new standards would be eligible and meet the minimum standards for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. So what you have is really twofold. You have a new map and we, along with engineering, put a simpler map together to show the areas that are really impacted within the city. We estimate about 50 properties are are impacted and based on the information in your packet, you'll see that they are generally linked to the Columbia River, both the waterfront, the marina, Phelps Creek, Henderson Creek, and the Indian Creek. The maps that are included really kind of indicate those locations. Last year and the year before, and I think the year prior, FEMA had conducted some public outreach. We had an open house. We had participants. We notified everyone who we thought would be impacted. So not only was mapped, but we really created a pretty conservative map on those areas, had the open house with FEMA. And we're now required to adopt these things. So we have a recommendation in the packet. I included a really the effects of withdrawing from National Flood Insurance Program. We have a recommendation to stay in that program, adopt the new maps and adopt a new ordinance that we may use. in the future just as a point of comparison in the last decade we've never implemented this because of so few properties within the city that are impacted plus additional regulations that on riparian corridors that are have a little additional environmental bias and sensitivity that keep a lot of this development out of the flood plain as well as floodway so we're here for any questions that you may have you have information you have a public hearing scheduled we're here for you

Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff at this time? Anna.

I have a few questions. What will the new permitting requirements mean for staff workload and applicant costs? Section 4.1 says that the floodplain administrator will be the city's building official. And I just wondered if our newly appointed building official has adequate support and training for this added responsibility.

in terms of workload, uh, based on the last 10 years, it will be zero. Um, So that's how many times we've used it in the last decade. Also in the previous version of the ordinance, 1544, it has been the building official. So that's in part due because it's the structural aspects where a lot of these things are triggered. Improvements that don't require land use, improvements that don't require engineering, it's the fitting portion there. So really we should expect very little in the way of workload changes.

Okay. As FEMA confirmed that the adoption of the ordinance is presented will actually preserve the city's NFIP eligibility?

Yeah, through DLCD. And the key date is November 13th. So we've been in conversation with FEMA as well as our NFIP liaison at the state. So working with them, we should be in good standing.

So that was my last question is why November 13th? That's throughout the thing, but the report was last year and we got a letter in May and now we're looking at this in September. So why are we doing a November 13th effective date?

That is the date that FEMA has said it will be effective. So that comes directly from FEMA.

Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

Hearing no other questions, we will take public testimony. Has anyone come to speak to us on this matter? Seeing none, we will close the record, deliberate, and render a decision, which I now do. We close the public hearing, close the public record, and we deliberate. Who would like to? Anybody like to speak? Sorry, I'm just going to editorialize briefly. Like for me, this has been an excellent interface with the federal government. Like FEMA came and then they couldn't come because they couldn't travel and they scheduled the thing at the firehouse. They canceled it. Like it's been sort of procedurally an epic Shakespearean comedy with the shutdown and all that. So that's what I've noticed more than like the flooding. Not if I would say comedy.

I just, you know, in doing my homework for this meeting and reading through this, the materials, I wondered what would happen if we, you know, why do we need this? What is National Floodplain Insurance Program? And one of the impacts, if we weren't a participant in that, is that FHA, VA, and other federally backed mortgages, finances could be affected, and conventional mortgage lenders could have additional notification obligations and stuff. So this really actually impacts, you know, our community members' ability to buy property in this community and stuff. So, I mean, there are some direct impacts, so I won't oppose this.

Gladys?

Similar sentiment. You know, this is the federal government coming in and telling us these areas. I know that we received some public comment from community members that said, I think FEMA has this wrong. Unfortunately, those Community outreach events didn't take place for due to staffing or limitations, and so it feels like this is one that is completely out of our hands and that we have to say yes, and if we don't as Anna mentioned, there are some devastating impacts to our Community members.

Anybody else anybody want to make a motion.

I move to close the public hearing and place ordinance 2099 on the agenda for first reading and approval.

Moved by Paulson. Second by Cavallari. Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Ruben Duran- Turning the page, we have the urban renewal agenda, I will pass it over to chair stepina.

Ruben Duran- Thank you, Mayor blackburn i'll call to order the hood river urban renewal agency meeting for September 14. Ruben Duran- Well, any agenda additions and corrections. Ruben Duran- There are none. Ruben Duran- Is there anyone that's signed up for business from the audience. Ruben Duran- nope. So the first action item today would be the passing of the consent agenda meeting minutes. I would entertain a motion.

So moved.

Moved by Mitchell.

Second.

Second by Gakey. Any discussion about the meeting minutes? All those in favor? Aye. Chair votes aye. Consent agenda passes the meeting minutes and regular business items will.

Thank you, Chair Stepina. And I have a PowerPoint I need to set up. Real quick. Okay, thanks for bearing with me there. So tonight we have a resolution 2026 URA-05, which is granting authorization to apply to the State of Oregon's Regional Infrastructure Fund grant to help support additional design on the Mount Adams Roundabout. And since we don't talk about the roundabout every so often, it's been a long running project, just thought it would also be a good time to touch base on what it is and where we are. So we're hoping to apply for the regional infrastructure fund grant. It's only $10 million available statewide. So want to maybe set expectations that there's going to be many more asks than there are dollars to go around. But that being said, the grant does prioritize projects that support housing production, infrastructure, and community resilience. And so I think we hit all of those with the roundabout. Maximum grant amount is $1 million for construction, but what we're looking at is $250,000 for design, engineering, and planning, which is where we are with the Mount Adams roundabout. We are lucky that this is restricted to communities of 25,000 population or less, so Portland isn't in the running. And just know that we were also successful in 2019 on getting one of these grants helped us buy 780 Rand Road. So the Mount Adams and Cascade intersection is operating below our standard of service. It's already impeding development on the west side. Serves approximately 240 acres of undeveloped and underdeveloped property over on the west side and is also an important route for agricultural traffic that queues up at a single stop sign controlled intersection waiting to get onto Cascade Avenue in order to make their way to the interstate. And the roundabout is the preferred intersection treatment that we've been pursuing from originally from the West Side Area Concept Plan integrated into our transportation system plan and then further refined by an ODOT-funded cascade refinement plan. So a bit more on that history. So the roundabout at Mount Adams and Cascade does find its origin all the way back in 2017 from the Westside Area Concept Plan. That was a multi-year, very in-depth process that included a lot of technical analysis and support, along with deep community engagement. both with Westside area property owners, but also really a citywide effort. I think anyone on council or following things in 2016, 2017 will remember the Westside Area Concept Plan. It's a full integrated transportation network, actually integrated water, sewer, storm, and transportation network plan. And one of the things that rose to the top for a recommendation was a roundabout at this location. The Westside Area Constant Plan was essentially ported over into the Transportation System Plan in 2021. So that's our city-wide system plan so that everything links together and works functionally. And the roundabout was further refined in its design with an ODOT-funded plan. DLCD was a transportation growth management grant in 2021. So their picture in the bottom right is from that effort. You see it's migrated in its location to the south and to the east, and that's to avoid negatively impacting the residences in the mobile home park to the north and also trying to avoid to the greatest extent possible existing buildings. 2023, we created the West Side Urban Renewal Plan largely to fund transportation system projects on the West Side. And this Mount Adams roundabout rose to the top because it's the most upstream capital project that benefits the buildable capacity. Well, one, it's the existing bottleneck, but also it serves the entire West Side. The Westside Urban Renewal District paid for 10% engineered designs, that is like 2D designs, sufficient to create a proportionate shared district, which is also how we funded the signalization of Second and Oak, and also the signalization of Cascade and Rand. We created proportionate shared districts ahead of those projects, and that helped be part of the funding source. And now in 2026, we just completed the intersection control evaluation, which is an ODOT process that's necessary because this is on an ODOT highway. They require a standardized process of evaluation of various alternatives. So this included evaluating the existing conditions versus signalized intersection evaluation. versus several configurations of a roundabout and finding that the roundabout was the ideal solution. And that was just approved by the state traffic engineer back in July. Very much at a conceptual level, but a preliminary hurdle that needs to get over. This leads us to move into what's called 30% engineer designs. includes all of these things that haven't been addressed yet. It is still very early in the design process. There's still a lot of design work. I say optimistically, we're tentatively on track for 2030 construction. But we basically have cleared a lot of the preliminary real basic conceptual hurdles. And we are just now able to get into the real nuts and bolts of engineering this project. So addressing topography and boundary delineations, traffic control plans, how this will coordinate with water sewer storm infrastructure, getting updated construction cost estimates. There's really a whole bunch of work that needs to be done and will be done the 30% designs and that's what the Regional Infrastructure Fund grant will help us pay for. Without grant funding, we'd be on track just to borrow urban renewal funds, just access urban renewal borrowing capacity, which then offsets borrowing capacity that could be used for housing projects, trails, parks, things like that. So particularly in the early years of this, Urban renewal district to the greatest extent we can get outside funding we start to build that virtuous cycle of investments that create development that create tax increment that let us do more investments, and so we want to get that positive flywheel going. To the extent that we can, and so going after every possible grant as part of that strategy. And so, with that I have the resolution in your packet authorizing me to apply. for this grant.

Thanks, Will, and thanks for putting together this presentation. I saw Gladys put her hand up, so I'll start with her, but we'll go down the row after that.

Thank you. So, Will, what I'm hearing you say is that while there has been a 30% study that's been completed, it's still, sorry, 30% design, that it's still essentially a concept. And that this $250,000 hopefully that we'll receive would be to really go into the details of the last slide that you just showed us, which is like the design engineering and the planning. And the reason that I bring that up is because we received some public comment from community members. Thank you community members for submitting your comments and that there were concerns around the designs. I'm hearing you say this is all still a concept and hopefully we can apply for these grant dollars so that we can get much more specific of what the actual design will look like. And that there is still a lot of collaboration and back and forth with the state and the state is essentially approving all of this along the way.

Yeah, exactly right. The only thing I'd say is we're not even to 30% designs. We're only through 10% designs. what this grant will help pay for is the 30% designs and that will address many, most, I think all of the concerns that have been raised as just additional design and engineering and studies required.

Thank you. My follow up to that is, would we have some sort of community input or ask for that at some point throughout the way as we're still continuing to design?

Yeah, stakeholder engagement is a big piece of 30% design, but focused on those directly impacted by the roundabout. So it'd be those adjoining property owners would be where the focus is at. You know, citywide, there isn't much, you know, room to really get in there and kind of engineer this by committee. This is really a technical portion. And so placement and alignment very salient to the adjoining property owners and we'll be working with them. I see the broader engagement is when we get to the 60 and 90% designs. And that's where we get into the look, feel, aesthetics, how this works as a gateway into the city. And that's where that broader engagement will take place.

Thank you so much. Anna.

I have a lot of questions. I also appreciate that we received some public comment. And really, what I took away from that public comment was more about infrastructure sequencing. Ultimate project cost, property impacts, and housing production analysis are kind of what we haven't addressed in just the materials that you gave us. But I guess I'm going to start. I have nine questions. But I'll start with kind of the bigger overarching question, which is what Westside infrastructure investment or sequence of investments will most effectively and efficiently unlock housing, address existing infrastructure deficiencies, improve the transportation network, and generate the development and tax increment that the Urban Renewal District was created to facilitate?

Yeah, well, I believe that it is the Mount Adams roundabout. It is the current bottleneck to transportation capacity on the west side, and it has already contributed to us losing, I think it was 130 units. Well, maybe 150 unit middle housing complex that a developer was interested in. But when they learned that they would need to contribute and make improvements to this intersection, that was maybe not the only thing, but certainly a piece of a puzzle that made them leave during the due diligence period. And now that we have a proportionate share district in place, people can now pay their proportionate share towards the roundabout and get land use approval. So we're in a better position than we were in that where that developer walked away. But part of that is we are. You know, you can only approve and build so much development that's beating traffic into an intersection that's already operating at a failed level of service. So we do need to increase this capacity eventually and not just keep approving things saying someday we will build a roundabout.

So how was it determined and the sequence of this? Because the property owner brought up some decent points about infrastructure needed for roadways and a sewer line and that kind of stuff. Wouldn't those also impact the housing availability?

Yeah, so this has been documented in the West Side Area Concept Plan and then also the constructability analysis that we did in 20... 23. I don't know if you remember that. We did a constructability analysis on the west side to evaluate the cost of constructing on the west side. So both West Side Area Concept Plan and that did a financial analysis found that there is not a funding deficit for water, sewer, storm. Water SDCs are correctly correctly calibrated so that development will be able to pay for their own water sewer storm, where the big funding deficit is in transportation projects. And that's ultimately why the Westside Urban Renewal District funds TSP projects and didn't include funding of water, sewer, storm projects. So in other words, developers through their SDCs should be able to pay for sewer improvements on the west side.

So what about the other, I think is it four or five roundabouts that are part of the TSP as well? Like if we just do one, I mean, is that, if we're pursuing just 30% design on one, how is that going to impact the rest of the system?

Yeah. So the TSP is made with, I believe, a 2045 time horizon. I'm looking at Kevin, plus or minus, with honestly growth rates that we're not achieving right now. So that's all of the plan and we can't implement all of the plan all at once. So the Mount Adams roundabout is prioritized first Because it's the most upstream and it's the current bottleneck today. Today it is operating at a failed level of service. And where those potential future roundabouts may be in the future are intersections that don't exist today and are for connecting roads that don't exist.

Some of them do. That's the op ramp and on ramp to 84, right? Like there's a roundabouts too, I think, in the little design. I remember that.

The ones that I remember were where Alignment D comes into wine country, where Mount Adams Extension comes into wine country and where Mariposa Way would come into that intersection. But I would also note that if you think through all of the intersections in the city, The only intersections that have any other control other than a stop sign are on Cascade, Oak, and OR 281. So no other intersection in the city has required anything more than a stop sign. So yeah, eventually we may need to add roundabouts out on the west side, but that would be probably when we have thousands more people living in the city.

I'm almost done, I promise. What is the ultimate financial commitment? I understand that this is just an application and there's chances that we might not even be able to get it, but usually when you apply for a grant and you get it for 30% design, the next thing is going to be great. You have two years to construct or three years to construct and Hella Pannewig – Assistant City Attorney, You said that we are relying on the proportionate share district or some of that, but what if we get the grant and we don't actually have the money to. Hella Pannewig – Assistant City Attorney, put into it, plus are we taking into effect or into account the you know cost for and the domain and acquiring the the neighboring. property owners' shares? Is that all part of what we're looking at?

Yeah, roundabout is significantly more expensive than a signalized intersection. But it also comes with significantly better performance and safety aspects. And so I understand. I believe that is why in the 2017 West side area concept plan. And then also when cities council made the decision to incorporate it as our preferred alternative in our transportation system plan. Why they chose to do a more expensive option than a signalized intersection. As long as that is our preferred alternative. Alternative in our transportation system plan, you know, that is the top priority for the West Side Urban Renewal District, because it is the most upstream capacity increasing investment. So yes, it would be a future decision for the agency board to make, but the intention is to seek financing to keep moving forward design. As far as what that will cost for 30% design, have a draft RFP that we'll get ready to issue. And it's only once we get bids back from that RFP that we'll know what the cost is. But we could cleave off those portions that either don't fit in the grant or that we think is just too much to take on right now.

I'm inclined to support pursuing the grant, but I just Hope that we will view it more as funding for further investigation and design and not as a commitment to that roundabout configuration and as a predetermined first step in the West. I hope we have some flexibility still, even if we get the grant to actually have some agility in deciding what we can, if other things come up that what we can invest in.

Will we? We can stop. I mean, only once we sign contracts and we say that we're going to do something. Well, I guess even when we sign contracts, yeah, we could give probably 30 days notice to stop work. I'd say we have a lot of flexibility to change directions at any time, but until I hear from the agency board as a whole that we are not prioritizing and moving forward the roundabout as our number one infrastructure priority on the west side, transportation infrastructure priority on the west side, that is kind of the way that the ball is going to continue to move, if that makes sense.

And this wasn't what I had written down, but I am not interested in that at all. I am a huge supporter of this roundabout. In fact, back when we were talking about bonding things, that was one of the things I was interested in until I was informed that that was probably not a good thing for a bond. But this is so hugely important, not only because of that intersection that's absolutely terrible. No offense to ODOT, but it is. It's just like huge. We don't get housing in the West Side without doing this at all. I am personally of the mindset that this is probably one of, if not the most important infrastructure project that is before the city because of what it can mean. And so, yeah, I'd like to see this done as soon as possible. And to that point, one of the things I do have written down is the 2030 timeline. Is that just like the general project timeline or does that also kind of factor in, you know, the amount of time that it would take to have the funds to actually build this project?

Yeah, that is the most accelerated timeline. Um, just, uh, thinking realistically about ODOT permitting and a review process, um, depending on how you structured the loan, we really had the borrowing capacity to start building this tomorrow if it was fully designed and perfected.

Okay. Um, and then one more, um, The remind me, I know we've talked about this, but so we've got, you know, 250K for design, a million for construction. I know you had mentioned that you didn't know how much like the 30% design elements would end up costing. Remind me what the estimated price tag is for the roundabout in general. Is it around like 10%? 10 million?

A little less than 10, including design engineering and a healthy contingency at this point. But I think the actual construction cost estimate was more like 5.4.

Contingency is 10%, right?

It's much higher at that level. Oh. Yeah, we're holding it. Let me just... It's not... Yeah.

I'm getting way ahead of myself. I was just curious. Thank you.

Oh.

If you haven't been there yet, I recommend everybody take a field trip to Highway 14 just east of Bingen. They just completed a roundabout there that is, you know, it feels different to see it than to think about it, and they put a cute decorative boat in the middle, so it's called a roundabout, and I drove through it four times today, and it's an amazing thing.

Thank you to the board members to my right. Anybody from my left? Grant?

Since we're going down the row, ready? TO MAYBE CLARIFY OR HELP WITH ADDING SOME SPICE, I GUESS, TO ANNA'S QUESTION. THIS PROPOSAL IS JUST A GRANT REQUEST. I'M TRYING NOT TO READ ANY MORE INTO IT THAN THAT. AND IT IS BASED ON OUR CURRENT TSP AND WEST SIDE DOCUMENTATIONS. staff is working on those existing plans and documents that you have in place that's what we have and these are the conclusions and restrictions that staff has to work with if we as urban renewal and council choose to change the tsp and other documents that is a direction that we can choose to uh barring us choosing or future council changing those documents Staff has TSP and Westside documents with which is the direction they are headed. So without changing that direction, staff is going to pursue this grant and build a roundabout. And that's a prioritized list. I hope that brings a little bit of clarity to everybody on why they're doing what they're doing.

That's it.

Grant? Okay, thank you, Will. There is a suggested motion. To someone who'd like to make it.

I move the Urban Rule Agency Board adopt resolution 2026-URA-05 authorizing an application to the State of Oregon's Regional Infrastructure Fund grant for the Mount Adams Roundabout.

Motion by Grant to pull.

Second.

Ben Mitchell? Any further discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Thank you, Will, for all your good work on that. Do you have any administrator updates today?

I do. I have one. The 60% designs for the height streetscape projects are wrapping up and we plan to hold another open house on October 13 at four o'clock to 630pm and this will be at working hands brewery topper in the same place that we had the open house for the 30% designs. This is going to be mostly show and tell with a lot more additional detail. But a big thing that bubbled up from the 30% designs is the protective bike barrier on 12th for the southbound bicycles. It's jersey barriers. And a lot of folks were concerned about the aesthetics of that. So we do plan to get input. We're going to have some different alternatives around maybe probably the cheapest side of the scale, painting them. Then there's some other options about adding some planters to them. And then on the very most expensive thing, there's some recast built, really attractive type things. But anyway, that will be the engagement portion is really getting input on that. both in person and we'll absolutely have a survey and online input for people who can't make the open house. But one thing, and Jackie is going to talk to you much more during our engagement, comprehensive engagement plan discussion today, but is being really thoughtful about communicating to folks what level of engagement we're going to Delegate. And so I have so I have a image here for for the IAP2 spectrum of engagement that I think we've all seen before and it's built into the community engagement plan, but I don't, unless you have immediate thoughts today, just wanted to plant the seed of thinking through as we get input on what those barriers look like. Do you have initial thoughts on the level of delegation that you want to give to the public input that we receive? And that can be now, or that can be just communicate to me between now and the open house.

Not on that, but did you say October 13th? Yes. What time?

At 4 to 630. This is the same night as a city council meeting. So those folks who want to attend, unfortunately, you may need to jet out, you know, at 540 in order to make it here on time.

Other questions for Will at this time about this? Gladys?

Yeah, I do have a question about this here. So it sounded like I heard you say we're going to have a survey and folks will have an opportunity to give feedback. I know that this won't take place until the 13th, but is the intention or the idea that we would release a survey first with designs and all that for folks to give their input or that would only happen on the 13th?

Yeah, I think we'd get the survey going as quickly as we can. We don't have all the discrete options fully fleshed out like dollar amounts. So, okay. So I can't, I can't give you a date yet, but it'll be as soon as we can.

Yeah. I think that once we do have a survey, you know, Jackie's well connected to our community partners and that she can absolutely share that link with several agencies here in the gorge for that feedback. Thanks.

Any additional questions for Will? Thanks, Will. Are there any items that any agency member would like to address at this time? Okay, with that, I will go ahead and adjourn the Hood River Urban Renewal Agency Board Meeting and hand the gavel back to Mayor Blackburn to reconvene the City Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Back to City Council. We have the consent agenda. We have six items on it. I just want to call out the last one. We had a sort of brief planning discussion leading up to this meeting about the planning commission appointment. We pondered whether we wanted to sort of spend more time on that or less time on that. I don't want... you guys to feel like we're trying to rush something through, but this was a candidate who was reviewed very favorably last time. We just didn't have enough spots and another person was appointed to the commission at that time, but this was a recommended candidate. So I just, if we want, we can appoint them in this brief way or we can broaden that discussion more if that would be your preference. I just had to make a decision and I made this decision.

Grant and then Anna, thank you. When you choose to make a motion, please separate item number five out from the rest of the items. Thanks. Great. Number five, we'll pull off.

Thank you, Grant.

I was just going to note that I was one of the persons that interviewed the candidate on February 4th, and she was amazing. So I think we'd be lucky to have her.

Thank you, Anna. So I suppose at this moment it would be in order to move to approve the consent agenda minus item five. So moved. Moved by Stepina.

Second.

Second by Mitchell and Rivera. Conversation on these five items?

Actually, I would like to talk about number four, too. Can we remove four and five? Four is the Indian creed.

No, no, no. We're moved and seconded. So I'm just trying to think of...

I think Moshe needs to fail and then we bring it up again, right?

We can all vote nay if we want on our own motion.

Yep. That's what I'm going to recommend is that if we want to do take out number four, let's just fail this motion. So we have a motion on the floor to approve one through six minus number five. Any further discussion on that motion? All in favor? Okay. None in favor. Opposed? Nay.

No. I never vote nays.

Everyone voted nay. Motion fails. I would entertain a motion.

I will motion to pass the consent agenda, removing items four and five this time. Moved by Stepina.

Second.

Second by Cavalieri. Discussion on passing those items? All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Thank you.

Do you want to leave the discussion, Grant, on five? I didn't have any discussion or any points to it. I just wanted to point out that I will be abstaining from this vote since I serve as co-chair on the Hood River White Sandman Bridge Authority.

Thank you, Councillor. I would entertain a motion to approve number five. So moved. Moved by Stepina.

Second.

Second by Gakey. Discussion on item number five? Go ahead, Anna.

I have a question about it. The question I had on number five was that the total aggregate compensation payable to the authority under this agreement shall not exceed $50,000. This is a one point something billion dollar project. Are we sure the not to exceed amount is correct?

Chris.

Yeah, that was the request from the river rights and bridge authority, the way the documents structured. We have the right to stop work. Once we hit the $50,000 limit and the agreement needs to be amended.

Further discussion on this item number five.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed. Chair votes I motion passes number five. Good. Thank you. Number four, Anna.

Okay, I promise to make these questions go fast. This is the, who presented this? Oh, it's Abigail, and she's not here, but this was for the the city accepting from the Port of Hood River some of the property along the Indian Creek Trail. But I'd like to understand exactly what our maintenance obligations are gonna be. What are the slope drainage issues, vegetation erosion, or creek-related liabilities? Do we have an annual estimated cost of the maintenance? Does this city acquire any environmental or landslide liability? Likely yes. Why did the parks decline the donation? And are there any easements besides the parks and rec trail easement or encumbrances or obligations? I didn't see much detail on that. I appreciate that it's a good idea to keep this in public ownership, but I just think we need to have a better idea of what we're accepting before we accept it.

Thank you, Councillor. Annie, I certainly don't want to put you on the spot, but we'd love to hear from you if you're prepared to speak to any of that in any way.

Hi, Annie Robinson, a city engineer. Um, so regarding additional staff, uh, load and work on the Indian Creek trail. Um, yes, there would be some, uh, I don't know. It's kind of one of those, uh, you know, as we adopt this land, you know, there are risks associated with that area. We did have a, you know, geotechnical report that was given to us by or prepared by a geotechnical engineer on the port's behalf for some of the erosion management that a individual did on their property. And so... I reviewed it and there was, you know, we do have a pretty sensitive area in terms of erosion. I mean, it is a creek side. It is where people are frequenting. So in my opinion, I think there would be some associated additional staff time that might have to manage this property on a really regular basis, you know, ensuring that there isn't any liabilities that we should be uh you know wildfire there's um people using the recreational space regularly so keeping sure that we're keeping the area safe is going to be a an added time and effort for the staff is that those are more questions no i um i mean i think um

That addresses some of it. Like it is, I just, I think I was looking more outside of just like staff time, like cost, you know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And I appreciate that Parks and Rec will be maintaining the trail itself, but there's other, the property outside of the trail is, I'm sure all of us walk it all the time. It's beautiful, but it's overgrown. It's super steep. It's kind of, It's just kind of scary, and I'm trying to balance the benefit of keeping it within the public ownership with what it might actually be to own this property.

I appreciate Anna's comments, and I don't want us to feel rushed at all. Abigail was imagining being here. I would encourage us to take our time and bring it. Amanda?

I guess part of my inclination to accept it is that we also own property surrounding it. So it's like, well, we already are dealing with that area in general, you know, yes, it's a little bit more, it might be a little bit different grade or something, but we own property surrounding it. So like, okay, just add to that a little bit, I guess.

Ben, go ahead.

I believe also that in our one-on-ones, Abigail mentioned that we're already working with the, I can't remember the name of the group, but it seems doing like a vegetation management. Ant something. Yes. Ant farm. Ant farm. Yeah. Because I had concerns about the fire element of it because there's been fires there in the past. And that was one of the things that was mentioned that put my mind more at ease about that.

I see good arguments on these sides. Gladys.

Yeah, I hear both sides. And I even remember at one point there was a community member that said, I'll bring all the goats and I tease Abigail about that one often, but also think it's important to Councillor Cavallari's point of really understanding some of these costs and to just hear it formally, you know, this ant farm group will also take care of this land and happy to maybe table this conversation until we can get some more clarity from Abigail.

Doug. What are the chances the port just sells it to a private owner if we take our time? There is a chance, I would assume. This isn't our timetable, that's the port coming to us and saying, would you like this? Because if not, we're going to sell it to a private owner.

I mean... I think we can, I don't, my opinion isn't strong on either end on that one, but I think we can all speculate. But, um, I do want to say that, you know, it's important to also keep it a good working relationship with the port. And, um, you know, as, uh, that's where, um, he said that, you know, we do own parts of the Indian Creek, uh, trail. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That are intersect is kind of if you look at the map there's portions that's the city actually owns it's part of the trail and then there's portions that are other private owners that have this trail so. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know, in one way, actually kind of maybe makes it a little easier to understand what we're owning and what's what you know kind of formalizing Okay, this is really the city's full like length of segment now that we. we have some ownership over now to, you know, maybe look at other options for connections or bike paths or something else, you know, that might be an opportunity for us. But again, I'm not, you know, the land isn't really completely free. I'm sure there's, yeah, there's definitely a lot of things that we have to consider with our staff.

Would you say that the parcels that were being donated are similar to the parcels that we already own? I mean, because... CoB, Cindy Spence, What I as i'm walking along and I envision it, and I mean the trail easement is there it's going to be there, no matter who owns it like that that's not going away for the public, because the parks and REC. CoB, Cindy Spence, You know I think they hold that trail easement and that is protected, but it's the property adjacent to it that we're getting that the port wants to get rid of. CoB, Cindy Spence, And I appreciate what you're saying about having a good working relationship but. I am thinking about like the super steep hill down to the creek and some of this other stuff. Is that similar to the property that we already, the city already owns?

I would have to kind of review. It's not exactly mapped in my brain where these lines are compared to what we own already. So yeah, I don't know if I have an answer. I can follow up. Yeah.

To answer your question, we already own the super steep part down to the creek. That is tax lot 11400. That is immediately adjacent to the south of the parcel in question. We own that I pulled up a web map. We own that. We own tax lot 9900, which is immediately south of that one. So we own the two tax lots that are both to the immediate south of the parcel in question. We also have tax lots along the pathway immediately to the west as well. So we're just connecting this parcel with adjacent parcels that we already own. And we would just be further maintaining more adjacent land that is already there at very marginal cost if we want to start counting the very marginal pennies due to service this land. Yeah.

That makes me feel a little better.

Um, from, from the public's perspective, uh, on, on that side of it, uh, they, they don't really look at it as terms of, uh, who owns which piece of parcel it's public, public property, public service. Um, it's public parks, uh, public use. Um, they don't really look at it on who owns which exact piece of trail once they cross an imaginary line in the dirt. Um, us as public agencies all serve the public so from my perspective if we can incorporate this trail under one roof so to speak and work with our partners to serve the public the more we can integrate these things together the better Doug I'll just also note that what Grant's saying is supported by what's in the packet

It details the lots that we already own on page 7172.

And I'm okay with this, I just think when it says in the packet fiscal impact, none, I think that's, however, the city will assume responsibility for maintenance of the non trail areas of these parcels. I think that's there there is some uh fiscal impact and i just wanted to have a better understanding of that so um thank you guys for helping me work through that and i'm i can i'm ready to go i'm sorry i just saw that no okay i was just gonna make a motion but if anna wants to do it she can go for it uh i move we accept the donation of the three parcels along the indian creek trail from the port of hood river moved by amanda

Second. Second by Doug. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Chair votes aye. Motion passes. Great. That takes us to the wastewater facility plan. Annie. Oh, left your... Yeah. Pulled you up early.

All right, good evening again. So this is for the adoption of the wastewater facility plan. So in the background, the city owns and operates the municipal wastewater collection system and a wastewater treatment facility. This discharges to the Columbia River and after it goes through our treatment plant, which we have just the one. The last wastewater facility plan was conducted in 2016 by HBH, and that really focused on just the collection system and looking at infiltration and inflow. Then back in 2013, Windsor engineers provided services for wastewater treatment facility planning, which also included an update to that 2016 wastewater facility plan. with the assessment of the wastewater treatment facility for a 20-year planning period from 2024 to 2045. So, yes, this is September 2026. This was actually completed in 2025. But it's really, we wanted to ensure as we were doing our rate study for the, that is by FCS that we were looking at, you know, this whole plan as it was produced in the CIP to budget for the needed improvements and for all of its collection and treatment facilities to continue providing sewer service through 2045. So this 2025 plan helps achieve regulatory compliance, maintain public infrastructure and improve grant funding eligibility, effectively plan the wastewater utility and improve water quality in the Columbia River and allow for reliable service to existing and future residents and businesses. Um, so going along, uh, you know, in this 2025, uh, there was, this is a about 500 page document. I'm not sure if you all read it in fully. Oh yeah. Okay. Grant just assumed it did. Um, so I'm not going to go through completely a presentation about what that entailed, but, uh, it did look at, um, existing capacity versus population demand, um, for that planning period from 2025 to 20, sorry, that's a typo, 2024 to 2045. It then identified short-term and long-term improvements for the city's wastewater treatment facility plant, not collection system, the facility plant. So Windsor engineers work closely with Jacobs Engineering Group and the Jacobs Wastewater Treatment Operations staff And they identified the liquids and solids treatment improvements within the wastewater treatment facility and. kind of looking at for the best work for our existing operations as an economical and sustainable solution, you know you can choose a lot of different treatments when you're upgrading your system, so we went through a lot of alternatives analysis to look through those. So, then in this 2025 plan the CPS are shown for both the collection system improvements. which is about 30.8 million. And the wastewater treatment facility improvements, 28.4 million. These are in 2024 dollars. Over the next 10 years through 2036. So there is actually more, it's just, this is what we're looking at from a 10 year span. Since the 2025 plan has been presented to the public staff, the city has actively worked towards competing and completing high priority items listed like the primary clarifier and many sewer line collection projects. As the city works with engineering services, many items on the sewer CIP list may adjust with time and alternative analysis for treatment or immediate maintenance needs. The 2025 plan provides a good framework for where the city needs to focus on its public sewer improvements to provide a safe and reliable system to meet the existing and future capacity of our city's demands. So there's a recommendation to adopt this, but we have questions first.

Thank you, Anna. Questions? Any? Anna? You tried, you waited.

Two questions, but I was going to give you a pass, but now I have to ask. I'll just ask one of them. Which of the $59.2 million in the identified projects should council expect to come back for separate policy rate or financing decision?

I mean, there's, that might not be a I might not be the best person to answer that question. I can say that, you know, we are, you know, after we did a little bit of pulling the thread on some of these CIPs and kind of having some staff discussion, you know, one of the larger projects that we really, I truly identified that we thought could help consolidate some of these, this budget is the primary clarifier. So, you know, one of the, with the wastewater treatment plant. This primary clarifier, there was a bid to have the existing primary clarifier repaired, but it actually, we discovered the repair is almost half the cost, if not maybe more, could be more than just actually adding a second primary clarifier. So we're working towards that. So I'm not sure if that's really answering your question, but it's something, it's a large, that's about a $8 million project, so.

Just a little bit of that. So, if you recall, when this plan was originally presented to Council, it was also presented by FCS that made a recommendation based on this draft report with regards to the rate adjustments for this fiscal year. So in a certain respect, we have tried to begin addressing the rate increases that may be needed over a time horizon. We didn't want to ignore it for this fiscal year, so we did make consideration with regards to this project list. So as part of the overall rate study that we're doing now, all the projects in this recommendation over a Well, whatever, whatever time horizon we end up doing, whether it's five or 10 years on the rate study, um, we'll be, we'll be part of the consideration and discussion for, uh, the, the, you know, the rate plan over the next five, 10 years. Um, I can say that, uh, I believe, and I was looking for it now. Um, we had done the CIP in the budget for last fiscal year. Um, knowing that some of these projects were coming down the pike, um, uh, that I believe was, uh, Well, and in 2024 as well. So we have about $23 million of wastewater treatment plant in the previous fiscal year budget. That became $31 million in five years over this current fiscal year budget. So we have begun to recognize the need to do these projects that are in this plan.

We are here to choose to adopt this if we wish. Doug.

I move that we adopt the 2025 wastewater facility plan and all appendices.

Moved by Stepina. Second. Second by Paulson. Any further discussion? I think this is perhaps the most expensive building that we own. This is a super important thing.

Really the most electricity too, I think.

And to run, right? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Chair votes aye. Thank you, Annie.

Thank you, Gatchel.

Another super important long-time incoming item, Jackie, the Community Engagement Framework. glad to see that my shark costume made it into the photo. You were a hot dog. Mustard was a hot dog that yeah.

I also saw the shirt I'm wearing in one of these it doesn't fit me anymore.

So it's a nice shot of the back of my head on page two.

Okay. Oh, yes.

All right, good evening, Mayor and councillors, Jackie van der Klooy and the community engagement coordinator. And so yes, this has been a long time coming project. So I'm pleased to present to you guys the framework for equitable community engagement. You guys may recall, sorry, let me remember how to flip through here. There we go. This was called out, well, it's been almost two years during our 2025 through 2026 council work plan session. This was a critical project that was identified during then. And really this comes on the back of Council for many years really wanting to ramp up engagement, especially during COVID when there was a lot of social isolation and lack of connection with constituents. This also came at a time where Council was also wanting to make a lot of statements about racial tensions that were going on throughout the country. Many of those tensions still exist today. And so, yeah, so basically what this framework attempts to do is take a lot of practices and take them kind of out of this academic realm and create a more predictable formal process for our engagement moving forward. That allows us as staff to be able to come to you guys with a full plan, whether that be you as decision makers or reviewers, also allows us to coordinate better with whoever the decision maker on any project may be. It might not always be council. And through this really consistent approach through our engagement to really build trust and relationships with our partners, with the community, and embed equity, inclusion, and accessibility into the planning process. So these are considerations that are already made when we come to you guys with a plan. It's goal-driven, so one aspect of that is really thinking, taking a step back, right? And saying, what are we trying to accomplish by our engagement? Really understanding, you know, where is there opportunity for the community to have input? Where are there technical aspects where, you know, there's absolutely no wiggle room? And just making sure before we do engagement, we understand how that input will be used and what we're trying to achieve. And also embedded into this framework is the notion that we are constantly going to be learning and improving our practices. And so, you know, we can go back and edit this framework. We can make it better. We can learn from our mistakes. We can learn from our successes as well. And so a couple of things to consider. This is the first time you're seeing this. And so I'm not looking to necessarily formally adopt it, but just share. You guys have been, it's in your packet, the complete thing. And so I'm just going to go through some highlights and then just some questions to consider. Like, does this plan do these steps, this template that's in there, does that meet your expectations if someone were to follow this? Whether that be staff, whether that be a consultant that we might be hiring for a specific project. If they follow these steps, will this provide a product engagement that meets your expectations? And if not, how can we improve this to ensure that those expectations are met? So really what it starts with, you guys probably remember, I think it was back in February, this started with interviewing all of you guys, all of our counselors, all of our staff leadership, as well as our staff DEI and Belonging Committee, and as well as our Mayor's Equity Advisory Group, a series of questions that led to really the core values that came out to be most important, which were transparency and honesty, inclusiveness and equity, respect, responsiveness, and authenticity. The foundations. So the framework is really broken up into two major components, which is foundations. What is at the core of all of our engagement? What should we expect? And then the next part is how do we actually implement that and plan for that? And so these are the aspects that those foundations are really you know, just laying the groundwork for how are we utilizing our partnerships throughout the community? How are we using any type of engagement to build relationships? And what other work are we doing outside of project specific engagement to build those relationships and partnerships? Because it's a balance of reciprocity, right? If we want our community partners to support our projects, we should also be supporting theirs. And so in this foundation, it does also highlight who are we already doing work with, who, like, if we were to give this to a consultant, it does already call out certain organizations that we've worked with in the past, certain stakeholders that would give them you know, something to work with. Um, if we're not always going to be doing all of the engagement ourselves or, you know, five years down the line, whoever that might happen to be. Um, all right. And then, so this is the sort of the major bulk of it is the planning and implementing. And so, Oh, it's a little bit hard to see. I'm realizing, um, but it really provides a step. You guys can see it on your screens. Okay, cool. It's really a step-by-step planning process. So this takes like these sort of big ideas and actually tries to make it concrete actions. So I'll just go through this. At the end of this presentation, I'll also just show actually what that template looks like because all of these steps are highlighted throughout that fillable template that any project manager would be completing with whoever the engagement team is, which would then be presented to the decision makers to ensure that this, you know, to ensure that they are aligned in how input would be used in influencing a decision. So the first thing is, do we actually need to do engagement? And so we start off with a series of questions. And depending on these answers, we might realize, hey, we actually, like this is a 100% technical project. We cannot, like, we might want engagement, but actually it will not influence the decision. Constantly going to the public for feedback on something that we are actually not going to change our minds about. It's actually not a good way to build trust. So the first step is to really consider, does this require real engagement beyond inform? For very complicated projects, even if they are at that inform level, we might still want to go through an engagement plan to ensure we're doing fairly, really robust information to make sure people understand what's going on. But so it starts off with some questions. If we decide that we do in fact need to come up with an engagement plan, Will shared this IEP2 spectrum earlier. And so this really walks through, you know, where is the level of influence that the public can actually have on a decision. Informed being, you know, we're just putting information out. We really like are not looking to receive information. Um, next step would be consult. This might be like, okay, we have three options. What do you think of these three options? We'll consider these as we make a decision. Um, and then it just ramps up from there to involve, collaborate, empower, empower being that we have given, um, the decision-making authority to the community and those that we're working with. Um, as well as, um, With each kind of engagement level, we worked on this chart ourselves, which is also intensity and then identifying like, you know, small projects we might want like really deep engagement, but only with like a small group of people of identified stakeholders. And so really we're looking at not just engagement level, but how intense are we at each project? And then this graph gives us some, examples of activities that might be appropriate for each of those intersections on the graph. So after we decide, OK, we do need to do engagement, we think that the highest level will be consulting, and we want a medium level of activities. So now let's identify who are those stakeholders? Who are those people most impacted by the decision? Whose voices would not be heard but for meaningful engagement? We often hear from the same folks, folks who already have a lot of access. and experience with city government or other governments. And so how do we make sure that our engagement focuses on people who would not be able to participate, but for the activities that we would be putting on. And so the next step would be identifying who those stakeholders are and then This is where we go back to being really clear about what are we hoping to accomplish Okay, now that we know these aspects, we know who we're trying to reach and. What do we, what do we actually want to hear from them from and once we know what our goals are and can understand what like a level of success would be that is when we can start planning our activities. And so, here are some guiding questions for that. What is the best method of engagement to accomplish goals? Is it inclusive, accessible, and welcoming? Are there existing partnerships to leverage? Do these activities reflect our core values of engagement? Are there specific issues we need to focus on with certain stakeholders and other issues with other stakeholders? Really getting into the nitty gritty. Next is then reporting the findings to the decision makers. And here's all the, you know, identifying the themes, right? Sometimes as we recently learned through our, or when we were conducting engagement for the bond activities, we had community survey, and then we also had statistically valid polling. And so how are we weighing these? If we do a survey, do we understand who we heard from, who we didn't hear from? Is this actually representative of our entire community? How is this going to help us make the best decision for our community? So being transparent about any limitations and then also weighing that with any technical criteria that we need to follow and being clear that, you know, what staff recommends, what we hear, like being very clear on who's saying what and helping those decision makers make that decision. And then lastly, really important is to have follow through with your participants, with the community. Make sure you're reporting what you've heard. If you are implementing what you heard, fantastic. If you can't implement what you heard for some reason, why? What are the next steps if people wanna continue to be involved? What can people expect to happen? Are we able to take those relationships ongoing, build community capacity and get folks involved in future, whether that be committees or just future engagement? And then what lessons did we learn? Where did we fall short on something and how can we improve that for the next time? And so all of this, it's really tiny for folks in the audience, I'm sorry. But so all of these steps are really laid out in this template that is attachment A in the packet. But it really calls out all of those steps and has a lot of those guiding questions in there. This would be completed by the engagement team with the project managers for any project. And before engagement would occur, this would be cleared with the decision makers to make sure that this is actually meeting their needs for any specific project. And so, as you see here, so it starts with that establishing the need, identifying engagement level, identifying stakeholders and goals. And then for each goal, it breaks down, you know, where is this on the IP2 spectrum? Who are the target stakeholders? What methods? I would say for most large projects, you would probably want to limit to about two to four goals. Total and then each goal probably limit that to two to four methods per goal. So you could say, you know, let's use just because it's front of mind with our bond engagement, right? You know, one goal could be just to inform people that we are considering pursuing one. Another goal would be to get feedback on what types of housing are most needed, right? Those are two very different goals. And then you can outline methods within each of those. So with that, I'll hand it back to you guys for any questions, concerns, edits.

I was involved with several steps of this, and it was such a pleasure to have you driving the through line of the ongoing project. It's so interesting to see the ways in which the different locations of gathering and consulting were pulled together into this. So thank you. Gladys.

Thank you. I do have a couple of questions and I just want to start off with thank you for this work. I think it will give any future consultant some more clarity and then even additional staff, especially if we ever get to a point where we have, I don't know, like an intern help, that it is really clear. I'll start off with the template since you just showed us that and wondering I didn't see anything around language access on the template and just wondering if that is like a given that folks know we're going to have information in English and in Spanish and how that is important for pre and post engagement activities. So just curious about that.

I do believe it. So there is equity and accessibility considerations right underneath methods. And then in the foundation part of of the framework, it does call out identifying that in particular, based off of the demographics of the region, that engagement materials should always be bilingual in English and Spanish, and that additional languages should be made available upon request.

Thank you for that clarity. You know, sometimes when our consultants bring us work of what they'd like to do, I find that not in all of them, but that sometimes it isn't really clearly spelled out that, you know, deliverables will be in English and in Spanish. And so if we can find ways to be really exclusive about that to individuals, I think that would work out really well. My next question is, so we have this plan, this framework, and just a thought for all of us as we carry our budget conversations, intentionally allocating dollars to community engagement and then like staffing commitment behind the framework once it is adopted and you know where where is that coming from my next piece just around the template that you mentioned is i didn't see anything around metrics that's in there so for example the the project we were just talking about earlier the mount adams roundabout the first phase is really to connect with those property owners that are being impacted but how many of those individuals do we want to connect with or really push the team or a consultant to connect with. In some of the assessments that we've done in the past or focus groups, there have been a low number of individuals that have turned out to complete that. And it represents like such a small number of our population that I'd love to have continued conversations of, are there moments where we are really clear about we want you to engage X percent of our community? You just brought up the polling for the bond, for example. I think that's a great We were really clear about the number of individuals that we wanted folks or praxis to engage with. And then the last piece that I wanted to mention is as we continue to move forward, it would be great to understand like the communications plan for like this coming year, for example, and some of the projects that we know are going to be completed so that we can better understand where are we engaging with individuals? Do we give more clarity about the specific metrics and that we're getting some sort of annual report or some sort of dashboard around the projects that we have engaged with and what the turnout or outcome of that was in addition to some of the town halls or open houses that you mentioned should we be much more intentional about planning at least a yearly, if not twice a year, town hall where we are inviting individuals from the community. But the sooner we have that put into a plan, then I think we can do some active outreach to ensure that there's participation from individuals. And those are all of my thoughts. Thank you so much, Jackie. I really appreciate the help. that you've done to put this together and all others that were involved in this work.

Yeah, and just a quick response. The template does have a success metrics box as well. However, upon reflection, it's not heavily discussed in the actual the framework itself. And so to ensure that people, when they're filling out actually like understand what that means, I'd be happy to add a little bit more into how do we determine what our success metrics are.

Thank you. Yeah. And I recognize that not every project, you know, that, that will have a very defined number of what we define a success, like 500 of individuals versus a hundred and that's okay. But I think we're, In some of our bigger projects, if we had like a communications plan for the year, for example, what are the things that we know are coming up? And let's take the roundabout, for example. We know that's going to be a heavy lift. We should probably be more intentional about designing what success means or some sort of metric in there. X amount of participants participate in the survey and we can get much more prescriptive. But how do we start? a phased approach really small and really clear about where should we give more definition about the metrics versus another survey or engagement where we're not gonna be as prescriptive or need to be as prescriptive, similar to the thought that you brought up around some of the technical pieces where it is really hard for folks to understand, especially if they don't join some of these meetings.

And I would just add too that some of those, differing metrics and deciding what success looks like. That's also why we have more than one method, right? Because we know that certain folks might feel more comfortable, whether that's like in a focus group hosted by the next door, rather than coming to a town hall here at City Hall. So that's why we can be really intentional and do a mixture of different things to ensure that no one's getting left out.

Thank you, Jackie, and thank you for all the hard work you've done on this and for everybody for participating. Thank you, Councilor Rivera, for reminding us how important this is continually to get to this point. One of the questions I have, I have two questions. One of the questions I have is similar to Councilor Rivera regarding things like budget and whatnot. Do you feel like there are impediments to having a robust framework like this be implemented in terms of we don't have funding, we don't have tools or technologies or any of this kind of stuff in your existing workload today? What blocks us from this, in your opinion, or do we figure that out along the way as we go forth with this?

I mean, honestly, I'm kind of excited to have this to be able to implement it because, yes, similar frameworks exist in other places. And, you know, and IEP2, for example, has... Like like this is split into three different frameworks that are each like 150 pages long right and so really the goal here was to like a have it be relevant to hood river. And be actually have it be like let's let's not over complicated right like let's actually have this be useful, and so I think this entire framework is like 14 pages long. And that's, including pictures and. and graphics as well. And so it's a little bit hard for me to answer that having not done it, but I'm actually excited because I really, really try to make this as useful as possible and to not just have it be like an exercise in academia, but to actually be able to walk away with something that would be useful. We reviewed a previous draft of this with department leaders a few weeks ago. And then I actually made pretty significant revisions to it because we were, something that was called out was just having it be like more of a step-by-step process. And so my hope is that because folks have been involved in the creation of this, it will actually be useful and helpful, but time will tell. Maybe there will be some challenges and then we go back to it and make some edits. And so I think it will be helpful because I also... The additional thing is that this happens first. I think a lot of the times... we start to do engagement after we're already at a certain point. And then it kind of makes it a little bit harder to actually do that meaningful, to actually really define what our goals are. And what this does is it really forces you to take a step back and say, okay, wait, before we do something, what are we trying to accomplish? How will this inform the larger project, right? We need to be clear that these are goals of the engagement, not goals of the project, right? And those are different things, but how does this inform the larger project? So did that answer your question?

It does. Yeah. And yeah, I'm happy to hear that you're enthusiastic about it versus, you know, Cowboy.

So, and I'll probably be the heaviest user of this, at least in the foreseeable future, but yeah.

Right. And I guess my second question is related.

It's getting colder in here. Can the person who knows how to work that box, work that box, please? Thanks.

Can you hold it as is?

Yeah. So my second question is, you know, so theoretically a lot of, I guess my question will be addressed because we're getting more proactive, but like, the sort of last step where we're sitting up here and we want people to be engaging and putting in like, you know, comments about things we're about to enact and whatnot. How do you see this maybe helping the last step of a process before we enact something and when we have a decision, you know, for something on the agenda for people to engage more? I know like getting up in front of your city council and making comments is like the most dreadful thing in the world to do for the most people on the street. But like, Does this go all the way to the end, in your opinion, with that sort of engagement with the community? Or is it like, are we sort of solving that problem upstream and don't have to worry about sort of last steps in this framework?

I mean, my hope would be that we are, by using this plan, that we are taking that step back and hoping to address it, you know, further up, much earlier in a project. Yeah. And then I think what is important from this as well is that it establishes before the engagement is done, really how that engagement will be used. And so, let's say for instance, we're doing, like a survey and we're voting on different options of things like is this is the vote when you look at that those results right are you going to say like okay that one one we're doing that no matter what or are we letting that inform as well as okay we also had an open house and we talked to a lot of people as well as we're weighing costs and benefit you know so it's just like it allows the decision-making body to really look at this engagement plan and for any project and understand how that engagement will be used and kind of make that agreement with the community through the project team as well. And so if you hear some, I'm sure, There'll be, you know, you'll have your own conversations with folks. People will come and provide testimony as well. And that's kind of up to the decision makers how they want to weigh those different types of engagement.

Great.

Thank you.

I know this is kind of written somewhat as like almost an internal document, but there's a lot of really good stuff here. So I don't know if there was a plan to just like have this online so that people, you know, I mean, one, it shows like our values as a city that we value engagement and two, like the work we put into it and three, just like. What some of the things they, you know, the public can expect, you know, I don't know if it looks like a different slightly different version of this. But, I mean, I think it's a personally good thing to just have out there. And then another comment I just had is I do really like the under bring engagement full circle. You know, it's we like to tell people, of course, when when things things go well and how we use their public input. But I do think it's important, you know, as a stated in here is when their input cannot be acted upon because. I think a lot of times, you know, people have a certain idea about how government works or, you know, it's just at the end of the day, it's just really informative for people to know about like, well, you know, because I think sometimes it's like, oh, you know, the city didn't do that. That was a policy decision where in some cases like, no, there was like we like that's a good idea, but like we can't implement it for X, Y and Z reasons. So I think that's a really important component of that and was glad to see that in here.

Rip and then Anna.

Thanks for providing a clear, concise, very actionable document, very ready to go. I just had one question that you sort of answered earlier on the success metrics. They weren't defined in the document, but you have a rough amorphous definition per project on what you'd like to do with each one. But it sounded like the definition of success is gonna depend on per project and it may change and there's no real defined success It's squishy, let's say.

It is very squishy, yes.

All right.

I mean, and, you know, you could say, like, okay, for a survey, A, we want to hear from 100 people, right? Like, that could be one success metric, but it could also be that we want to hear, like, from different, like, we want to hear different perspectives. If we're only hearing one perspective, then does that mean we're reaching everyone? So, yeah. Really, it's going to be up to the to the project team to decide what that success metric is. And it's really going to vary. But I mean, a success metric could even just be like we got together and enjoyed being in the community and engaging with folks. So it's, you know, really like really, really squishy.

I can imagine that squishiness is going to be a challenge at some point.

Yes, but to that notion, maybe it would be helpful to just provide some examples of what success metrics could look like.

If it's going to change based on the project, the nature of the project, I don't know. So it's just something for council to be aware of at some point. If it's going to change per project or whatever it is, that's going to be a challenge that council should be aware of, always aware of, and monitoring just these metrics or how we're accounting for this project or the projects in the future. Just be aware of these. This is going to be an ongoing challenge just to be aware of and accountable for ourselves and focused on.

That's all.

Thanks.

Okay. I have five questions. I'll make them fast. First, is this a policy or a staff guideline? The memo calls it an internal document, as Ben pointed out, but if council adopts it as an expected city practice, it could have pretty significant practical effects. So is it a policy or a guideline?

My understanding, it is more of an internal staff guideline. But I am a little bit unsure as well of the answer of that. So, yeah. To be decided, I guess. Yes.

Okay, that's number one. Number two, how much discretion does staff retain? Who decides if a project needs engagement and what level?

So that would be through sort of that process of... It would be probably the project manager, like the overall project managers, as well as whoever is the lead for engagement. For most projects, that would be me, but oftentimes it's when we also hire consultants as well. And so, I mean, there is a fair amount of discretion, but I think that they're incorporated into this is that it is... Ideally, improving dialogue with the decision-makers because before that engagement would happen, the decision-makers need to agree to this. If this is not meeting your expectations, then that would be addressed, like, you know, maybe presenting a plan. And if changes need to happen, then they could be implemented before things are too far down the road. And then saying, oh, this engagement was insufficient for X, Y, Z reasons after we're already very far down the road. And so this is really setting that, those, I mean, I really see this as setting clear expectations between the people during the engagement and the decision makers?

That kind of goes to how will council be involved, my next question, but address that for the decision makers, I guess. Here's kind of a fun one. What does equitable engagement mean when community preferences conflict? The framework is showing a strong on getting more voices in the process. The harder question is what happens when voices disagree?

Yeah, and that's going to happen. I mean, part of that is, which I touched on a little bit earlier, is that so we often hear from the same folks. Over and over and while they might have very valuable input and reasons. oftentimes You know people in more vulnerable of more vulnerable populations lower income multiple jobs. kids, you know, there's some folks that we are not going to hear from if we don't really go out and reach out and make a big effort. And so that equitable, and it's really also asking who is going to be most impacted by a decision. Um, and could it put them, you know, So these were some considerations when we were looking at the Westside Urban Renewal District. If more investments are going in, what does that mean? Could people be displaced? So really looking at who could be most impacted and who's most vulnerable and really focusing engagement efforts there. Because if you focus those there, you're going to reach everyone else as well. But if you don't put those efforts there, you're probably not going to reach those folks.

Okay. And my last question, and this has kind of been touched on a little bit, is what are the resource implications? The memo says the framework itself doesn't have a fiscal impact, but acknowledges that engagement strategies will have fiscal impacts. I'm wondering if we as council can start to expect to see equitable engagement as a separate line item for projects. Will it be added to costs of every project?

Um, yeah, and that's actually a little, a piece that I was a little bit struggling in because sometimes you see it already in, um, like worked into a contract with a consultant that there's already a line item there. Um, um, Dustin suggested that, you know, it'd be attached to a percentage of the cost of a project. Um, it felt a little too amorphous for me to try and tackle in this framework. Um, but. it does require considering a budget as well. And it's gonna also really depend on like, is it something we're able to handle and do all internally, or is it going to require us going external as well? And so, yeah, it's a little bit hard because if we're able to do it all internally, then there isn't necessarily a direct fiscal impact, but there are typically gonna be at least material costs, staff time, So anyways, that is to say, I don't have a clear answer for how that budget, but if that is something you want to see added to this or made more clear, then we can dive into that a bit more.

I think if metrics are going to be a part of it, and I think quality matters more than quantity. It's not have we engaged with X amount of participants or whatever. I think it's going to be quality, but I think if we're including metrics, which isn't a bad idea, I think understanding what the costs are and your time is valuable, Jackie, don't underestimate that. Like even if there aren't any external costs, the time that you spent on this and the resources that we put towards this, I think that's worth tracking. Thank you.

Thank you. I really appreciate this discussion. And as hearing all of you, I have some additional thoughts and I want to acknowledge that this is like step one. We have a framework and that we continue conversations to identify when in this next coming year or the next two-year work plan are we actually implementing some of these frameworks where it's smaller engagement with Jackie versus external folks and that we can get really clear about specific measures of success. Let's use the development code as one of them. As an example, X amount of renters, X amount of those that speak English and Spanish, for example. Business owners, I think we can get really specific with these bigger engagement opportunities if we know what's coming down the timeline for us to have that conversation. And then we can discuss the budget allocation for each of those projects. We used to do an annual survey for all city residents, and we haven't done that in a number of years. So I think somebody mentioned, like, is this a policy choice? I think it's more of an SOP, like an internal document of an operations procedures of how you do this work, but that we can have another policy discussion of what are the surveys or the engagement that we're doing on a yearly basis, for example, like a town hall or that annual survey that we used to have that we no longer conduct. So I just want to say I recognize that this is a first step into having a framework and that we should continue these conversations, whether that's adding this as a second item to implement into our work plan for the next two years, but that we should continue having these conversations around when are we engaging with individuals based on what projects are coming up and then what is the budget and the staff time requirement that would say this is too big of a lift internally and we'd have to have something some external support and then do how specific do we need to be with these projects and with said participants. Thank you.

This was just when Grant was talking about the metrics and stuff and I don't know if this would make sense or if it is just really dependent on project by project basis. But like, I was thinking, would it make sense to have metrics for certain types of engagement? Like a successful survey is this, a successful like town hall is this, or, you know, I don't know if that works or not, but just a thought I had. And thank you, Jackie, for all your work on that.

And just to go back, I mean, I envision us, you know, as implementing this, you know, as soon as possible, really. And with pretty much any engagement that goes beyond, you know, just like legally required notification, you know, like there's some like very just kind of standardized things. But, you know, we've been talking about a few projects already tonight that I'm excited to use this for.

I love Anna's question about what happens when there are more voices and the voices disagree, because in my opinion, that means that we all, and going forward, y'all have more information to use to make decisions with. Right.

And it does say, sorry, I didn't raise my hand, but to be both, I think that's such an important piece to highlight is, how are we using public comments to impact our decision-making?

And I think too, it is called out a little bit in the framework of just you know, identifying themes that we hear, but also where those opinions differ. And just being clear, like a lot of that is going to be in how we analyze what we have heard and report that out. And if we're hearing a lot of similar things, we also need to be careful, like, was this like a clear consensus? Was it not a clear consensus? That's all going to go into analyzing and reporting back to the decision-making body. So.

All right. More to come on this one. Thanks, Jackie. We're going to take a couple minute break and then we're going to pass some ordinances and finish up. Andy, can you holler at Chris? He's in Abigail's office. Can you holler at Chris in Abigail's office? Thank you. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Hal Hallstein, All right, we're going to continue on with the reading of a couple of ordinances Jen.

COB, Jean Gatza, Your Honor and entertaining motion for first and maybe second reading of ordinance 2098 by title only.

Hal Hallstein, Yes, we're all seven here, so we could do both. Hal Hallstein, Some move by stepina. Hal Hallstein, Jen said ordinance 2098.

Hal Hallstein, For first move for us first and second reading.

Thank you for clarifying, Greg. Moved by Stepina.

Second.

Second by Gaiky.

Councillor Poulsen.

Yes.

Councillor Rivera. Yes. Councillor Stepina.

Yes.

Councillor Cavallari. Yes. Councillor Mitchell.

Yes.

Councillor Gaiky. Yes. Your Honour.

Aye.

Ordinance 2098, an ordinance amending the Hood River Municipal Code, Title 12, Public Utilities, Chapter 7, System Development Charges, Section 12.07.090 to exempt accessory dwelling units, ADU, from water and sewer system development charges.

Ordinance 2098 has had its first and second reading by total only and will take effect in 30 days.

Your Honor, I'd entertain a motion for the reading of Ordinance 2099 by title only.

By person, please. By person, second reading. Moved by Mitchell. Second. Second by Stepina.

Councillor Gaeke.

Aye.

Councillor Cavallari. Aye. Councillor Rivera? Yes. Councillor Mitchell? Aye. Councillor Poulsen? Yes. Councillor Stepina? Yes. Your Honor. Aye. Ordinance 2099, Ordinance Amending Hood River Municipal Code, Title 15, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 44, Flood Hazards.

Ordinance 2099 has had its first and second reading by title only and will become law in 30 days. City Manager comments. Chris, do you have anything for us?

Nothing for me.

Committee reports. We'll start online with Gladys with committees.

Thank you. I hope that you've all had a chance to receive the annual pit survey results from Leslie for MCAC. I know that she emailed the reports to us as council. So please let me know if you have any questions and I'd be happy to follow up. They are working on a live dashboard that is on their website. So if you have a chance, check those out and let me know if you have any questions about that. Hood River continues to be a high utilizer of the services of MCAC. And as I've mentioned, they are gonna start a capital campaign for a year round shelter. I am happy to report back that the shelter will open here soon, but when it does, there is an agreement with the property owner that it will be a year round shelter. So it will be here for the next year. So super exciting. Um, we are going to meet for the Saruta sister city board on the 22nd. So definitely we'll give you all an update. This will be, um, you know, a big celebration. We're going to hear a lot of the debrief from the trip that took place. So I'll bring you all some more information. And those are all of my committee reports. Thanks.

I was out of town for the Energy Council meeting, but I believe Lindsay will be here next meeting to give us an update on the Energy Council work, which I'm looking forward to. And I have a MCED meeting this week, so I'll report on that next meeting.

I see granted one.

None. Good. Visit Hood River meets on Wednesday.

Good. CAP also meets on Wednesday. Nothing. Gladys, council comments.

Nothing from me, thank you.

Amanda.

I don't have any. None. Doug.

Just wanted to talk a little bit about the bike lane that is near the middle school. So directly adjacent to the middle school, so if we're thinking about 17 going down towards Sherman, that is no longer parking. It is a bike lane. But I've been hearing consistently from Megan Ramey and others And also people that are new people to parking around there and picking up their kiddos and everything, that they don't know that it's a bike lane. And I think we've got some ways that we've marked off bike lanes and everything. I think what we should probably be doing here is putting up no parking on this side of the street signs. So I sent a note to Abigail and I think Jackie as well, because Jackie's been involved in that a little bit. I think there's probably a quick fix there, but I think it's, you know, like right now there's a lot of people parking in that bike lane. They don't know it's a bike lane, that sort of thing. So I think we have to probably address that because there's been a lot of hard work to work on that section. And I think kids are using that stretch and we need to work on that.

Thanks for doing that follow-up, Doug.

Yeah, and I guess in regards to Brian Towey's comments earlier, I cycle with my kiddos on that stretch on 17th and the two-way. I'm not sure what is wrong with that section. He was saying that two-way bike lanes don't work and these sorts of things. i mean they're they're i would like some more information as to why he thinks that that's not safe um because my plan is to talk to abigail about it and encourage her her to reach out to brian and get more specifics okay thank you for that um and that's it for me then thank you then nothing for me

Anna.

I'll be fast. We received two emails, an email from a concerned neighbor, a fellow citizen regarding speed on May Street, kind of on the west side between, I'd say, like Rand or 30th and Frankton. And Just one of the things that I took away from his email was like, slow down, school is back in session and be considerate of neighborhoods. And I just think that's worth echoing. The second one was an email from another citizen about the possibility of a dog park somewhere. And I think I responded back to Mayor that I think it sounds like something we should talk about. And I just wanted to say thanks to our community members who do reach out and we see your emails and we work for you. So we appreciate the feedback. City Council Chambers, about the bike lane to that's in my neighborhood and. City Council Chambers, One thing that we want to add to that conversation is that i'd heard from a school teacher at the middle school. City Council Chambers, That staff there has been told by the principal that there's no parking there because eventually those are going to be used for buses, which is. it's clearly marked as a bike lane, but they're telling people not to park there because the buses are going to be there is what they're telling their staff. So maybe we want to get that clarified. And I think I understand what Brian's saying. I mean, we've taught our daughter when you're riding in a bike lane, you want to earn traffic on a road, like you want to be, you know, going with traffic. And so I think maybe not all cars are always looking for a bike coming from the opposite direction. That's kind of what I was assuming. Maybe that's what Brian's talking about, but following up with him is a good idea. And I also heard from a, local bike advocate, somebody that's been big in the biking community for a long time that years ago when she was engaged to participate in biking, like the number one feedback from the bike community was don't put bikes on roads. Like let's use the, you know, the rights-of-way, the utility right-of-ways or the the alleyways that exist in the neighborhoods and get bikes off of the road and see if we can't invest in that, which I know we don't have a ton of money for that, but that ultimately would be the best case scenario. So those are just my thoughts on that.

Thank you, I will follow up with Abigail regarding above and below May Street on 18th and 17th is what I've heard comments this evening about both those areas and I'll have Abigail follow up with that. And I sent out that thing about dog parks. My suggestion there is that that gets added to the sort of long-term list of planning issues because that's a legitimate project. And we nearly had one next to the sewage plant five years ago or something, and that did not come to fruition. So I think that should be something for our year-end longer-term planning to see if that's something we want to prioritize. So that's in my opinion, the destination of that input. I'm going tomorrow to the coast to be with Dustin at the Oregon chapter of the APA, the American Planning Association. We are picking up some hardware. We received a statewide award for Mariposa Village. So that's very exciting and congratulations to all of us on that. So I'll be doing that this week. That's what I have. That takes us into an executive session. Before the executive session, have I forgotten anything, staff or anybody? Great, I will read my script. The City Council will now meet in the executive session pursuant to ORS 192.662E to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Representatives of the news media and designated staff are allowed to attend the executive session as well as the affected property owner. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room and we will end the public broadcast. For the record, we have invited Pasquale Barone to join us in this executive session. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No decision may be made nor final action taken in executive session. The executive session is anticipated to last for 25 minutes. At the end of the executive session, the city council meeting will return to open session And the audience will be welcomed back into the council chambers. We will now temporarily discontinue the live feed and recording.

And we are reopening the regular meeting and we are adjourned.

Thank you.