City Council - Regular Meeting

The lights on. So I will call this Tiger City Council and Local Contract Review Board U meeting to order. Uh City Recorder Craigger, would you please conduct a roll call? Councelor Robbins here. Councelor Schlack here. Councelor Shaw here. Council President Wolf here. Councelor Anderson here. Councelor Gdusi present. Youth councelor Helock here. Mayor who

here. Will everybody please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance? All right, city uh team and uh council, do you have any non-aggenda items? Seeing none, let's move on to public comments. The public comment period provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council. While it is not a dialogue, either I or staff will follow up to address the issues brought forward in these comments. The calling number is 5039664101 and those wishing to comment should call now to get into the queue. Anyone present wanting to comment should sign up on the public form at the front of the room. First item is the written comment. Uh there were no written comments received by Monday noon deadline. Next is in person. Uh I will ask people who sign up uh to come forward and when your name is called and you have two minutes to speak. Um and first is Mark. Mark Far, come on in. Welcome Mark.

Thank you. I wasn't sure if uh so for item number seven, it's not a public hearing. So the time is to do it right now. So yeah, you see your mic on. It is now. Yeah.

Sorry. Mark Farah with Metropolitan Land Group. Good evening uh mayor and members of the council. Good to see you all again. I'm here to speak uh briefly on agenda item seven. There's two topics that you'll be considering this evening. One is street designs and the other is finance strategy. First want to uh appreciate and express appreciation to staff for uh the developer forum that uh happened and the results that we do see in the in the plans uh where some rightaway reductions have happened. We think there's still room to go there and we encourage you as council members to ask staff where uh River Terrace 1.0 standards have been expanded for River Terrace 2.0 0 as far as the cross-section on rightway and encourage you to ask them to rightsize and bring it back to standards where they've expanded it. Uh there are a number of things that um that we still have open questions on but that depends upon what the the council does this evening and making choices for right away. The second is the finance strategy. Um, and that we're in a bit of a interesting point because as the council decides what the strategy should be, uh, that has implications on what a developer or builder has to pay for. And so it's real tough to engage and say what we like or don't like until the council decides what's going to get rolled into the finance package and then we can react. So, we were looking forward to the developer forum that unfortunately got cancelled that was scheduled for next week even though it's before this meeting. We hope that you still uh ask staff to take uh input from developers on the finance strategy and and bring it back to council. Lastly, I'll just say both um I mentioned on the river terrace 1.0 know on the finance strategy I think you ought to ask Eco Northwest

or staff to give you very specific uh numbers on what the SDC's will end up being for different choices that the council makes so that the council can understand in RiverChair 2.0 know is the fees that are going to be charged for someone to take a permit out 80,000 100,000 120,000. What are the decisions that you're going to make have implications on the actual price the first $100,000 of that house so that you all can be clear? Do we want to lean in and add more requirements or maybe do we want to pull back so that we're not impacting the price price of housing so much? And I don't know where my time's at. Yeah, you're over by 40 seconds already.

Oh my gosh. Thank you. I apologize. I was I was I didn't see a clock up there, so I apologize. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh I don't see any anybody else. So, uh let's move on to the phone or video. Mr. Waters, are there any callers in the queue for phone or video testimony? There are no callers in the queue. There's one video testimony. All right. Uh would you bring uh the the video testimony person online? Thank you. Yes. That me

you go ahead.

All right. Uh hello councelor and mayor. Counselors and mayor. My name is Pam Verdo. I'm with Risewell Homes. I would also like to offer a public comment on this evening's topic of uh the transportation plan. Um, I'll get a little bit more specific since Mark added quite a bit of color. Um, I do think there's still some room on collector A, the commercial collector that you'll see uh and review this evening. I do believe that um modifying the parallel parking area will um allow us to have a wider sidewalk for a a more enhanced um experience for the pedestrian walking uh in front of the the uh services, retail, restaurants, etc. uh we have built uh very similar community in Beaverton where uh those restaurants are very much uh utilizing a portion of the sidewalk for beastro tables. So there's an interaction between uh passers by and and the restaurant and it it still leaves quite a bit of space for people to walk by and enjoy um their experience there. I think the 8-foot um landscape area is is quite large and we could probably take that same amount of space and just blend that a little bit and utilize the sidewalks uh or create a larger sidewalk. Um and then everything else that Mark just said that that's my comment for this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Water. Are there any more um anybody on the in the queue for phone or video? There's nobody else in the queue. All right. Thank you so much. All right, so let's move on to city manager report. Uh, finance director Ken is our acting city manager for this week and he will provide a brief report. Good evening.

Good evening, mayor and council and members of the community. Uh, I do have a slide. There we go. Uh, so I am your finance director, Eric Kang, filling in for acting city manager Emily Tritch to deliver the city manager's report uh, while she's enjoying some muchdeserved time off. Uh so I wanted to take a moment to invite the community members, partners, and businesses to join us on Monday, April 13th for Mayor Yangu's state of our city address. The event will highlight Tiger's accomplishments over the past year and share the priorities shaping our community's future. Light refreshments and snacks supported by D'Angelo's catering will be served prior to the mayor's remarks along with special performances by talented Tiger youth, musicians, and thespians. Childcare will be provided um and available with advanced RSVP. Uh we encourage attendees to reserve their spots through the city's website which can be found directly on the homepage at tiger-.gov. Please join us to be a part of this opportunity to connect and reflect on Tiger's progress over the past year. And that is all for my for the city manager report. Thank you.

Thank you, Finance Director Kaine. All right, let's move on next to our uh consent agenda. Tonight, I have three consent items. A resolution granting exemptions from property taxes under Tiger Municipal Code section 3.50 for four nonprofit low-inccome housing projects. Approval of city council minutes and approval of a contract award for mechanical HVAC preventative maintenance service repair and inspection services. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. I'll second.

Is there any discussion? Hearing none. Uh those in favor say I. I. I.

Oppose. Hearing none. The consent agenda is adopted by unanim unanimous vote of the council. Thank you very much. All right. Let's move on to legislative public hearing uh which is recreation immunity ordinance and I will open the public hearing. Uh any anyone uh who want to testify uh by phone, video or in person uh please uh either sign up now in front of the room or call in to gain the queue by calling 503-9664101 and our city attorney Rihala will give the staff report. Good evening, council. Uh, recreational immunity is the statutory protection that land owners in Oregon, both public and private, who open their land for recreational purposes free of charge are immune from certain liability. The claim must arise from the person's use of the land for recreational purposes defined in statute and protects the landowner from negligence claims for personal injury or property damage. Oregon statute provides additional protection to cities with a population over 500,000 in that it limits negligent claim negligence claims arising from the use of a trail in a public easement or an unimproved ride ofway by users on foot or on a bicycle. This protection extends to the city, its officers and employees, as well as the owners of land abudding the public easement or unimproved right ofway, and a nonprofit corporation and its volunteers for the construction and maintenance of the trail. For cities with a population of under 500,000, the statute provides for an option to opt into that protection through the adoption of an ordinance, resolution, or other regulation. The item before council this evening is to take advantage of that opt-in provision and limit Tigert's liability for potential

claims related to trails in a public easement or unimproved ride ofway. I'm happy to answer any questions. All right. Uh council member, do you have any questions? No question. Uh so we received no written comments for this item by noon Monday. Uh Mr. water. Are there any caller in the queue to testify on this item? There's no callers in the queue. Thank you. Uh, city recorder Quaker, has anybody signed up for this item? No one signed up.

All right. So there. So there's no no need to respond to public comments. Easy. Uh so I will close the um public hearing and council will uh uh start our deliberation or ordinance 26- uh 07. Any comments or a motion? Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number 26-07. Okay. Uh Council Gushi, do you have any comments? I'll second it. Okay. I was trying to think of a negative playing the devil's advocate and I couldn't come up with a good one. Good. any anything that I've missed or anything that we want to Okay, just checking

and any and oh uh city attorney Rala, go ahead. So, not only can I not think of a negative, but actually just today I did send this ordinance to a potentially affected property owner who is concerned about a trail on their property. So, not only are there no benefits that I can think of, but it actually is something that members of the public are concerned about because it could impact both them and the city.

Yeah. My understanding is that it's still if you if somebody's doing bad thing intentionally, they will still be liable. So, um yeah. So, um any other further discussion? All right. Will the city recorder read the number and title of the ordinance? Ordinance number 26-7, an ordinance limiting liability for the city of Tigard under OS 105.668 recreational immunity. Will the city recorder conduct a roll call vote starting with advis advisory vote from the youth counselor?

Youth counselor Helock. I Okay. Councelor Robbins, yes. Councelor Schlack, yes. Councelor Shaw, yes. Council President Wolf, yes. Councelor Anderson, yes. Councelor Gdusi, yes. Mayor Who?

Yes. The motion is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council. Thank you. All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is econom economic development strat strategic plan adoption. Economic development manager Hutter will present this item. Ecoore Northwest project director KGI and project manager FYI are joining remotely and there's a slide presentation. Good evening.

Good evening, mayor, council, community. Uh really exciting evening here. It was just a short nine months ago we started on this conversation to bring together um the community to create a three-year economic development strategic plan. And tonight um we have before you the final and uh resolution to adopt. Next slide please. So, reminder, the purpose of the the project was to create a three-year economic development strategic plan uh to make sure that we were strategically guiding the city's work, maximizing input, impact, and um doing everything that we could to work on council goal two of creating a vibrant economy for all of Tyiggard. Next slide. the strategic plan elements that uh have been iteratively brought before us as we work through workshops, community engagement, work sessions and uh interviews uh to come together with the economic development vision statement, the mission statement, their strategic pillars and the guiding values. These are all incorporated in the final plan. Next slide. We were last here on March 3rd with a overview of the second workshop as well as the draft plan and wanted to address the feedback um that we heard at that meeting as well as where we we see um council's feedback incorporated into the final plan that you guys have in front of you. So, we heard on March 3rd um on the first pillar, we heard from councelor Gadusi wanting to make sure that um the tool wanted to

know what tools we would use to track data analysis. Um, we've incorporated in the action items that we would be using a multitude of tools that the city already has as well as incorporating processes at this point to to better at um data collection and information sharing across all levels and elements of government. So, not only between council and staff, but as well as uh among departments and then also with our partners. Um, councelor Shaw asked if we could move the TCAC uh to a city category. That has been completed. Thank you. And councelor Shellac talked about resourcing um being a great place for prioritization in year one. Thank you for that feedback. Um that is again reiterated in the pillar one um actions for our second pillar. Uh we heard from councelor Gadusi wanting to understand what council's role is in partnerships as well as what uh council's role is in the economic development in economic development. We actually um pulled this section out from the action items and put it in the body of the plan um to address that it is uh critical for council to be involved at the strategic level of setting the direction for the city of Tigard of being the figurehead of being the forward- facing entity and that also um giving guidance to staff is going to be the best value of council's um involvement and role and then staying informed and collaborating with staff um as staff has the action items to move

forward and the partnerships to make sure that we navigate that. Um if you guys are interested I can read that section or it is in the body of the plan. That's up to you guys. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Um, we also heard um from councelor Schlack that the partnership and navigation was a critical pillar um and special attention needed to be placed in this. We've already seen um positive impacts of our approach to communication and partnerships um in the work that we're already doing right now. So, we're not waiting until this plan is adopted. We are making those changes right now. The next pillar uh under operations and communication um councelor Anderson asked to make sure that we have one point of contact for development. We see that playing out in actually the development of our work plans um not only for the next fiscal year but in realignment of staff roles and responsibilities right now to better clarify and be able to communicate to our partners um specialties among the team and uh points of contact. If anybody emailed me in the last week, you saw my out of office and you saw that that's already being enacted as well. um we really are trying to make sure that uh no matter who's trying to contact the city or economic development or provide um resources or information to the city or partner with the city that they really know who they're supposed to be talking to. So we uh collectively are cleaning up those communications as well. Also in operations and communication, mayors uh appreciated the story, action, the telling of the story and the action items. Um this phrasing got reinccorporated. This was a lot of the

conversation that we had in our our workshops of how do we tell our story? How do we um collectively uh build that brand and tell that story? you'll see the the phrasing specifically of action items identified to enhance how we tell our story both in pillar one and added back into um the phrasing for pillar 3 operations and communication and then development and placemaking um councelor Shaw I'm sorry councelor Shaw asked uh don't we already have the resources that we need and how can we leverage existing data sources um following the March 3rd meeting, we did go back and say, "Okay, everybody that's got information, let's let's collect so that we know really our gaps from where we're starting um to do our environmental scans and data analysis and make sure that we are really pulling in information and data that is already being um collected as part of other projects across the city. So, thank you for that reminder." Um and councelor Gadusi uh identified a question of how do we identify our target industries? Um further clarification got added into the development and placemaking pillar to uh understand what um the results of our work to do environmental scan and uh inventory and analysis of not only our businesses but um best opportunity for recruitment. So that language got clarified as well. Um councelor Schlack commented that pillar 4 is a weighty pillar um and really some place that city council can lean in. Absolutely agree. We see this um value especially in the support and um cross collaboration between all of the projects that that touch this pillar across all of community development uh

engineering public works across the city as well. And then um pillar four, counselor Shaw asked about a fast te fast fastpass type checklist for desirable projects. Um and we have already started in on this work. Um again, we're not waiting until July 1 to to get started. Um, we've already had a couple team meetings on how do we uh do better at getting those checklists, the quick resource guides, the uh information um into an easily obtainable, digestible format for all of our community members. So, thank you for your feedback. Um in March we did make sure that we incorporated all of that into the final plan that you guys have before you. And with that um next slide please. Uh it is recommendation of staff that the plan get adopted. Uh and tonight you've got a resolution in front of you indicating just that. Welcome any uh questions that council may have. Thank you, Danielle. Questions, comments, emotions? Oh, go ahead. Councelor Celer Wolf, you go first.

Yeah. Um almost just a um a comment. So, first, you know, uh great work. Sorry, I missed the opportunity uh to share on March 3rd. Wonderful feedback from council. And I think my only addition isn't um the framework, which is uh great, but kind of as you go into a one-year work plan or some of those components, what are the measures of success and what are your goals? Because I think that was adding metrics is great, but that would be the only piece that I didn't see. So, what are we striving for and how did we stack up against that? So, that's feedback, no changes in this, and um support the work that you did. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And thanks to councelor uh I almost did the same thing. Schlaw Shaw and councelor Schlag for their dedicated work on this important strategic plan. Councelor Shaw.

Uh, thank you, Council President Wolf. And, uh, I think that's a a good highlight. And I also want to thank our economic development manager, Hawthor, for just being so efficient with the last nine months and proving that workshops, communication, um, scheduling those meetings, um, listening to the voices both of community members, business partners, but also those of city council. I've been involved with a number of economic development projects over the I'll just go with a few years and uh this was by far the most efficient and such a delight to work with you and also with your partners at Eco Northwest but just want to highlight that I very much appreciate and I'm very excited that the city will have a strategic plan that between 27 and 30 that we can really as a council and we know the role the city council now will have in this endeavor. So just want to thank you. Thank you,

Councelor Shell. Thank you, Mayor, and I am in total alignment with councelor Shawn, the um congratulations and kudos that she she provided. I mean, I think I'm really pleased with the work that you and the team have done in advancing council goal number two, and I think this um economic development strategic plan will help set the city up for success in elevating economic opportunities in Tiger. So, thank you so much for all the incredible work you and the team have done. And also thank you to our comm many many community members and city teammates who are part of those workshops. This was a team effort in order to make sure this was right for our community and I think it is right for our community. So thank you. Absolutely. Thank you.

Well for me thank you and all the kudos and thank you for everybody and this is a milestone for Tiger and I'm really excited to see how it guides us for the next three years and achieving one of our council goals. So thank you so much. So any comments or motions? Mayor, I would like to move to adopt the economic development strategic plan. Mayor, I'd like to second the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? I will um see none, I will start with youth counselor uh for advisory vote. Yes.

Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those post say nay. Hearing none, the motion is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council. Thank you so much. Thank you. Exciting.

All right. So, next item on our agenda is Riverars 2.0 update on transportation and equitable finance strategy and our senior planner will give the staff's report. Good evening This is different.

It's a print out from the presentation. One page.

Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good evening everyone. Good evening, honorable mayor who and city council. My name is Britney Gada. I'll be providing the staff presentation on a River Terrace 2.0 update this evening. Tonight, we're talking about our recommended street designs. We're excited to share these with you today. Um, and also give you an overview on our finance strategy and tell you a little bit more about where we're at. Next slide, please. We are going to break up tonight's presentation into two sections. Um so the first part will focus on the recommended street designs. We're going to walk through what the policy goals were, um engagement feedback that we've received and step through the designs themselves. Um we'll have an opportunity for council discussion at the end of that section so we can talk through those designs. And the second part of the presentation is on our equitable finance strategy. So, we're going to be stepping through the infrastructure funding assumptions and delivery as we understand them at this part in the project. Um, again, going through engagement feedback and talking about next steps. And our request of council this evening is to pro provide policy direction on your priorities for infrastructure and river Terrace 2.0 as they pertain to the street designs and also our funding strategy. Let's go to the next slide, please. So, we'll start part one, which is our recommended street designs. Next slide, please. So, a variety of policy goals have gone into creating our recommended street designs. Um, I'm not going to go through each one of these because they're going to look very familiar. They align with our existing city transportation goals for our street network, um, as it relates to vehicles, pedestrians, and bikers. Um, and the street designs are that we're talking about tonight are the outcome of multiple iterations of

designs that have sought to balance and weigh each one of these policy goals. Next slide, please. There have been four different versions of the street designs that have been shared publicly. Um, so the first design started back in uh this past summer where we shared them with our two advisory committees, the technical and housing uh, excuse me, technical and community advisory committees. Um, we have gone through a few revisions since then, including a revision before they were shared with the public openhouse uh, in uh, September of 2025. Um and since then we started a very intense interdep departmental coordination series where we have worked very closely um mainly with public works and all of the different um divisions within public works that um maintain and operate our um city streets and facilities to understand how the different street designs affect their work and what is feasible for them. We've also worked with the fire district and put together different cost estimates on our draft designs which helped us better understand how much do these things cost? Does that affect how we design them? And so where we are today is with our recommendations. They've been shared with developers very recently during a forum on March 3rd um which I'll be going through some of their feedback this evening. Um they've also again been reviewed interdep departmentally and we're asking for your feedback this evening. Next slide please. So before we dive into the designs themselves, it's important to share what input we've received along the way. Um so I'm going to walk through the engagement responses we've gotten from four groups, the community developers, um our city staff, and also from you, city council. So um the next two slides are summarizing what we've heard from these groups. And you'll likely notice

that there are competing priorities among them. So from the community, the community has focused very heavily on making sure that pedestrian safety, excuse me, pedestrian and bike safety and comfort are maximized above all else. Um that would mean fully separating all modes of travel from one another, which um you can imagine creates very safe but also very costly facilities. Um they have also voiced some safety concerns that in River Terrace 1 vehicles are able to speed um and that even on multi-use paths bikes especially ebikes now are causing some safety concerns on multi-use paths as well. Um developers on the other hand have consistently shared that ride-of-way width should be reduced as much as possible because that every every inch every foot contributes to higher construction costs. Um they've also noted that in some areas of River Terrace 1 on street parking is underutilized. Um and they recommend eliminating on street parking in some areas. Um and they also do not share the community's uh concerns about safety issues in River Terrace 1. Next slide, please. So, from city staff, we have um we've learned a lot about all the different ways that these street designs play into how ongoing um and long-term maintenance and operations of these streets um come into play. So, we've learned that things like fully separated bike and pedestrian facilities are very difficult to maintain and in the short term and in the long term. Um, and it's also come to light that there's work needed internally to clarify city maintenance responsibilities on our streets. Um, and to establish level of service standards for different facilities such as multi-use paths citywide. Um, so that's been an it's an opportunity for us to continue

collaborating even outside of the River Terrace 2.0 project. Um, and from city council, we've consistently heard that the priority is for River Terrace 2.0 to be a walkable and safe community. one that encourages walking or biking to nearby businesses to meet your daily needs. We've also heard that the street network and on street parking needs to support vibrant, successful businesses and a high quality of life for residents. Next slide, please. So again, you may have noticed some competing factors here. Um so I I've summarized them into two buckets. um and what we've been doing along the way with designing our streets, the project team has um been consistently weighing these competing priorities and doing our best to balance them. So, the recommendations we're bringing forward this evening, we feel confident that they are adequately balancing these factors. Um but we're leaning on city council to tell us if we got it right or if shifts are needed. So, we can summarize the competing priorities into two different buckets. The first one on the left is the more right-of-way category. You have a wider streetscape. Um, and this would include extra features that maximize safety and comfort. It gets maximum on street parking on the on street. Um, and it also has additional safety features that would slow cars down more. Um, but these features are more costly to build and they're more costly to maintain. And on the right hand side, the other option is less rideofway. you narrow your streets so that they're more aligned with standard street designs in Tiger. These are safe facilities, but they might be less comfortable because they have fewer features to enhance that comfort and that feeling of safety. Um, and they generally cost less and are just more standardized for maintenance. Um so just as an example the recommended

street designs we have crunched the numbers and done cost estimates and found that they would increase construction costs by 14% over our standard city streets. So we started very far on the more right-of-way end of the spectrum to be honest. We had drafted fully separated facilities but found for a variety of reasons they were too wide and too costly and have come down to our current proposal which is 14% higher construction costs than the standard. We feel that this is a reasonable um and feasible um margin for developers and it would also um ensure that our policy goals for safety and walkability in this area are met. Next slide, please. So, the new street designs are um covering all different um Sorry, Councelor Robbins.

Is it all right if I stop you and ask a question now because I think I'll forget it and lose my place. If we could back up, did did you mean that the the plan that you're recommending is 14% higher than like the very basic average street? That's that's correct. Yes. So 14% more than if we used Tiger's current um just typical street designs. Thank you.

Yes. Awesome. So um we have created street design uh street designs for every single facility except for local or excuse me actually for every single street facility in River Terrace 2.0. Um these will be in our transportation system plan amendment. Um and they will um inform future development. Um, so I've given you a print out of this slide just so that you have a legend in front of you as we walk through the different um designs since they are all colorcoded. So um for example um one um one of the streets at Mountainside Way um that street in particular has three different designs. So you're going to be looking at the red segment, the orange segment, and the green segment. So please plan to reference this legend um along the way as we step through the designs. Um, next slide please. Let's start with um our largest street segment which is our commercial collector. So this would be that commercial main street that runs approximately one city block in each of the um commercial centers. Um this is shown as a red dashed line on the map. It's 108 ft wide which again is our widest facility. It's wide so that it can accommodate angled parking which maximizes parking in front of businesses. It also safely um adds bike lanes um behind the the on street parking behind the curb um which adds width but it also creates safe outcomes for bikers and a vibrant sidewalk umcape in front of businesses. Um 108 ft might seem wide but this is 2 feet more narrow than River Terrace Boulevard's corridor. Um, and it's in more limited areas to be more efficient with cost and land. Next slide, please. Mountainside Way is our main artery

through River Terrace 2.0. The majority of this cross-section uh is this one, which is in orange on the map. Um, in this case, mostly homes will not face Mountain Side Way. Instead, this would be the side of most homes. So, we're providing on street parking that alternates different sides of the street so that it's can act as overflow parking um for people. Um it also uses an enhanced multi-use path design which we're quite excited about. It includes different safety features that um encourage separation of bikes and pedestrians but allows people to move safely between those areas if necessary. Um, and also I'd like to highlight that Mountainside Way is 38 feet more narrow than River Terrace Boulevard. So, while this is the main artery, we feel that um, it will still offer a beautiful streetscape while being more efficient. Next slide, please. In some areas, Mountainside Way will cross streams. There are other streets in River Terrace 2.0 that will do this as well. So, we developed a constrained cross-section um which minimizes impacts to nature while keeping people safe and vehicles moving slowly. Next slide, please. For River Terrace Boulevard, this is in uh kind of a yellow gold on the map. This street continues key elements of the existing River Terrace One uh Boulevard design, but it reduces the width by 47 feet. Um, it takes out certain features like the median and double-sided on street parking um to minimize underutilized areas of parking since again this will be more of the side of homes. Um, but it also adds additional safety features on the multi-use path um using a stencil design

which is a lowcost but effective safety measure. Um and lastly, this type of design is uh better supportive of city operations and maintenance um by eliminating medians um and eliminating additional landscaping. Next slide, please. Other main roads or other collectors through River Terrace 2.0 would have this design. It's quite similar. it carries forward that multi-use path with stencils. But in this case, there will more likely be homes that front on these streets um and some on the side, but they will have um parking on both sides of the street to maximize on street parking in these areas um while including larger planter spaces um to have larger street trees for shade and beautifification of the area. Next slide, please. Neighborhood routes are those main main streets through neighborhoods that will have homes fronting on them. Um there will be some driveway access, not a lot, but this adds parking directly in front of homes on both sides of the street. Um it's very similar to the previous design, but it narrows the uh vehicle driving lanes and it eliminates the striping which visually causes cars to move more slowly and more cautiously. Next slide, please. Um, in purple, there are some areas where neighborhood routes will also cross streams. So, we ensure that there's a low impact design for these areas as well. Next slide, please. So, local streets, these are not mapped, so they're not on the legend. These will be determined at the time of development, but um through a lot of coordination with our internal public works um team and also with our fire district, um we are recommending that

our local streets are be similar to our typical tiger local street design. They are 32 feet wide, which allows parking on both sides of the street while keeping 20 feet clear for our emergency vehicles and operations. Um, and it also um it has bikes sharing sharing the travel way with cars in this case since cars will be moving slowly through these areas. Next slide, please. Um, local streets may also have to cross streams. We don't know if this will be the case, but again, we wanted to make sure it was communicated to future development that the uh that impact should be minimized in these areas by narrowing the roadway. Next slide, please. Um, our last design is an alley. So, these are going to be private facilities, but at the very least, we have standardized alley designs and it operates as a shared space for bikes, cars, and pedestrians. Okay, next slide is our um council discussion section. So, um again, the project team feels confident that we've adequately balanced um this the priorities of the community, city council, and the feedback that we've heard from different stakeholders. Um, but we're here tonight to ask what your priorities are for the River Terrace 2.0 street network. Um, and if we've done a good job. Do the recommended street designs align with your priorities? Thank you.

Thank specific discussion. Any clarifying questions before we go ahead council president Wolf?

Not sure if this counts as a clarifying. It's about the 14%. So, okay. Um so Britney I so thank you um for the detailed um uh maps of all the different streets um or proposals. So on the 14% that is above what's typical for Tiger do you is that benchmark against other kind of more recent designs and cities that are trying to create this walkable accessible um new development community. I'm just curious if that's, you know, like a standard in that kind of new design.

Yeah, that's a great question. Um, I wouldn't say it's a standard. It's it's simply an analysis that the project team wanted to do because we were concerned about how costly our original designs would be. So, it was more of an internal exercise. Um, I would say that, um, in general, we're hitting somewhere in the middle for our green field areas. I would say um King City um didn't go so far as to make um intentional street designs for every single street with all of these different types of safety features. I would say looking at the Cooper Mountain street designs um they go further in the safety comfort wider streets realm. So we're we're somewhere in the middle but we didn't crunch the numbers for other designs. So then could you because going through I mean it did seem like from where you started to what you're proposing there was a significant reduction in right of way in particular areas. So from a kind of a developers lens can you tell me how much you felt like you've reduced the cost to acknowledge that?

Uh it's a great question. We didn't do the specific you know cost estimates on the initial designs versus where we are now. Um I can say that for example mountainside way was reduced uh on the order of 40 plus feet. I believe it was over 100 feet wide. Um it was definitely over 100 feet wide and is now 72 feet wide. So um solid third or more of a reduction and at least with um and also safety features um in terms of construction costs we've just done done lower cost safety features um that take up less room on the streetscape.

Thank you. And I'll um I have a couple other questions. I'll defer though and see if other counselors have questions. Counselor have questions. Go ahead councelor Shaw.

Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Um I had the same question council president did about the 14% and we know that typically those costs are passed on to the buyers. So that'll be and I appreciate you've reduced it significantly because we're trying to keep home prices low. So just want to make sure we're acknowledging that that would be passed on. Um second, thank you for reducing the size of the mountainside way extension. Just purely a question. If you're going from the commercial to mountain side to the stream crossing, is that going to be confusing for a driver? Because just watching it, looking at it seems to me is confusing. Um, and then I guess in followup to that, um, which maybe asking you to be a mind readader, I is there any crash or safety data that we've seen from River Terrace 1.0 that points to, um, the fact that we're creating a wider format because it is less safe in River Terrace 1.0 know and I'll stop there.

Yeah. Um you read my mind. So um we have talked a lot internally to the project team about how to communicate to our drivers, walkers and bikers about how these different facilities fit together. How do you transition between them? And the only way to do it is to um differentiate between the designs at a natural breaking point. So at an intersection, at a roundabout, sometimes at a midblock pedestrian crossing, sometimes can be that visual signal that something is changing. Um so that has been done intentionally so that these things are flowing and um changing at intersections and roundabouts primarily um to keep it safe. And in some cases like River Terrace Boulevard, the key thing was like, okay, we've heard that there are safety concerns, but in other ways, transitioning to a totally new design adds its own safety concerns, right? So, we've had to balance that as well. Um, I did go and look for safety data for River Terrace Boulevard. I did not find any. Um, we do know that there have been complaints. Um, we do know that there are future city projects that are planned to do different traffic calming um, measures on River Terrace Boulevard because of fast vehicles. Um, but I have not found any concrete data on the multi-use path complaints that we've heard about um, electric bikes in particular going too quickly on those multi-use paths. Um, so that's why we've done more of an encouraging separation of spaces on the multi-use path rather than fully separating out the facilities um to be more efficient.

Uh, youth counselor, go ahead with your question. Um, so on slide 17, you have your local street design and you mentioned how bikes will be on the same road as the cars. What speed limit were you thinking for that? Just generally, it would be the same as our standard citywide local street speed limit. I believe that's 20 miles per hour. Yeah, thank you. Oh, Council Robbins, go ahead.

Thank you, and thank you for being patient with me. Um, I just figured I'd ask since we did just have public comment from a couple builders and so I took down the notes for one. Um, that there was still room on collector A to modify the parallel parking for wider sidewalks with beastro tables and reduce the landscaped area from 8 feet the planting space. And um, that was just mentioned so I wanted to, you know, prove that we're listening to public comment. Um, is there options for developers to make changes like that if they're developing on this commercial collector a um I it's actually here um not parallel parking, it's it's diagonal parking and I don't know if that would make it less angled or what the adjustment would be, but yeah. No, this is a good question and we did hear these comments during the developer forum earlier this month. So um there are there are different things that can be done but it all comes with compromises or concessions. So um and before I get into those I should note that um the project team together with our um transportation planners, our internal transportation engineers and our consultant team have tried to find opportunities to narrow these even by a foot even even just a little bit. And our opinions were that in different ways it either took away from the safety or the comfort or just the kind of versatility of the the sidewalk area. So things like um narrowing the stepout zone which is that gray strip between the angled parking and the bikes. That was one suggestion to either eliminate that or narrow it. Um but there is a chance that large vehicles could overhang and the noses of vehicles could encroach into the bike lane if we did that. Similarly, if we um narrowed up

the angled parking, that creates a similar uh potential problem. Um and we've also had complaints on Main Street um with angled parking not having enough room to maneuver in and out of them. So, we didn't we're trying to solve for known problems and prevent uh other safety concerns. I agree that the planting space on the commercial collector could be more narrow. We chose to do 8 foot wide tree wells so that this would offer space for very large beautiful um shade giving street trees whereas like a more standard six-foot area wouldn't be able to have the space to accomplish that. Um, so in we've I think we've also been asked if the drive lanes could be narrowed from 12 feet to one foot. And again, it's just giving that maneuvering area for the angled parking. So, we've we've tried at every step to narrow where possible. Um, and we've ended up with these recommendations as is.

Thank you. And I I do think it's good to have the space to have the large trees because that offers a big cooling effect in the hot summer months when it's otherwise all a lot of cement or asphalt. So, I do like that. But I just I just wanted to ask that question. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Wolf, if you have more questions. That actually was my follow-up question. So, thanks, Councelor Robins.

Yeah. All right. So, any more clarifying any questions before we go into discussion? Um, so I will start with uh councelor Anderson since he hasn't put any any said anything. So do you like uh does that reflect council priority or your your priority or about the street designs?

You know, I like I like the angle parking. I like most of it. There's just a you've got a lot of bike path. Um 13 ft bike path. It's just been develop developments that um you look over and you see the bike path's empty and it's just kind of wasted space and you know occasionally people will use it but but we're really banking on people using both bike and and ped for really not very big blocks right city blocks. So, if I have any complaint, I would say narrow the bike paths. You've got you got 10 feet at on collector C and you've got it at 13 feet on collector B and A. Well, even A is is bigger than that. So, that that's that's my concern.

May I ask a clarifying question? Is it the width of the facility or is it how often we're using them? Is it that you would prefer to have more standard bike facilities on more of the street designs?

I think so. I I don't know where are these people going to go on their bikes, right? Are they going to go to retail? Are they going to go to just another neighborhood? So, um, are they going to be used? That That's my only question. I'd I'd say width and and combine the two and not have you know separate separate paths but on the commercial collector have together. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Councelor Schlack.

Um yeah, thank you for all your work on this. I was sort of trying to compare the uh proposed designs with sort of my feel for for that area and um I don't have any significant concerns um about it. This these street designs are aligned with um my priorities. Council President Wolf.

Thank you, Mayor. Um overall, I agree. Um, I appreciate Councelor Anderson's question because I really do like the idea of having more spa space for the um the tables in the summer, spring, fall. It just seems like leverage a lot and um I think it's something that individuals really enjoy having um that space. Um, so if there's a way in the commercial area to kind of play with the bike lines, u, Mayor who as an avid cyclist may have a different perspective, but that would probably be my one redirect in the commercial areas. So, thank you so much, Councelor Shaw.

Thank you, Mayor. And I would concur uh with Council President Wolf as well as Councelor um Anderson as far as the bikes. I've always been concerned of having an um bike path on both sides because I do think that that adds extra development cost and maintenance cost uh for a limited ROI um for those who potentially maybe biking. So perhaps just one path on one side would be um something I'd like to see and I am concerned about the even the 14% being passed on. Uh but um also if we um don't necessarily have the crash data, you know, that's a little bit of concerning for me that we're putting a lot of extra cost um for something we think may help, but we're not 100% sure. So still a little concerned from that element. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with councelor Shaw. I do like the sort of bilateral multi-use paths like what you see of the collector D, the River Terrace Boulevard extension. Um, I noticed that that specifically is just done in one small section. And I know that that's a little bit more difficult to do in something bigger like the commercial collector, but I agree having that sort of multidirectional bike lane and then extending the sidewalk a little bit so that if we are having beastro or restaurants or things like that, they could use it better. Those are two separate thoughts, but Councelor Robbins,

I just want to thank you for all this hard work and um so many details I never would have even thought that had to be thought about. Um but I agree, I'm not much of a biker and so narrower bike lanes or um having multidirectional, which which does feel a little odd because you're supposed to bike only on the right side of the road. So, I don't want to impact that. But having narrower bike lanes because I agree with councelor Anderson that a lot of times they're empty and I guess as a store owner I might be kind of frustrated if there was empty space that I could put tables out and I think we all want to with economic development keep people outside.

Use the counselor. I think I reflect the current concern with the bike lane stuff and I think that utilizing the multi-use path design would be impactful positively. That's good. Consusy, any any more thoughts? Yes. One question though. Let's say we give all of these recommendations to a developer and they start developing and say, you know what, we don't want to do this. These are all recommendations and what we would encourage, but then they would be able to pivot and have that right and do whatever they kind of want to in the end. Correct.

That is a good question and I believe maybe councelor Shaw maybe you asked that and I didn't fully answer your question earlier. Um so the these street designs at this stage are recommendations but they would be incorporated into our transportation system plan amendment for River Terrace 2.0 know and then they would ultimately be um created into engineering design standards. So they are set in stone. There are certain processes that are built into our engineering standards where the city engineer can deviate here or there due to you know case byase issues. Um but outside of that there would not be an ability to deviate. Got it. Oh can I just do one clarify? Yeah, go ahead.

And so just to clarify so we would have like this is what the local street constraint is. This is what a alley can is. The developer can then put the alleys and local streets wherever is best fit, but those are set specifically. That's right. Thank you, Michelle. So, following up on my question where I'd mentioned um the collector streets going into the mountains, the uh mountain side and then those different types. Um so, collector ABC and the concern there. Do we are there other developments that have done something similar? because I'm a little worried that we think it may work if we do at an intersection or roundabout. I'd be much more comfortable if we knew for sure.

Yeah, it's a good question. We we feel confident. Um this is coming from one of the premier transportation consultants in our region tool design that works across the Portland metro region and I believe nationally. Um but we've seen this across the country where there's a desire to um customize these street facilities more and more to promote safety and walkability and comfort. Um we also are seeing in areas like Cooper Mountain where they have a variety of different um street designs for their facilities. Um sim similar level of design that we have. I don't believe that they created uh customized local street designs, but for all other types of facilities they did. Um so there's a similar type of transitioning that will go on there. So we we do feel confident that it works and we've been very intentional about identifying exactly where these different segments would go so that it will be safe.

Go ahead.

And then perhaps one follow-up question. I think it's always nice to have extra trees and extra shade, but that comes with the huge cost of maintenance and we know that right now um that we don't have enough dollars to even fund the maintenance we currently have and that would be on um AD and E. So, what is the proposal and how much would that cost? What's a proposal to maintain that? Because I don't want to set future councils up for um a lack of success. Yeah, you're hitting on something that we're working through with our finance strategy right now. So, we'll touch on it just a little bit in our next presentation, but um but you're right because there is a need to establish concrete maintenance um responsibilities for our different facilities. And when you have unique designs like River Terrace Boulevard or what we're proposing in River Terrace 2, um or even uh streets that are in the works that are planning to add multi-use paths and other types of features, uh we don't have standards uh that dictate exactly how those facilities are maintained by the city. Um so it's critical that we develop those protocols. Um but in terms of the finance piece of that and how much it actually costs, um that is something that we're looking at with the finance strategy, not only to make sure that construction of this infrastructure is feasible and the costs are incorporated into our system development charges um and other fees, but maintenance is also being assessed. Um so we're working with our public works team to try and understand that. Um, but any equipment that's needed, any personnel that's needed to maintain these facilities is incorporated into that finance strategy to make sure the city will have the resources to get that um the personnel and the resources. Um, and there are also other possibilities. We'll talk about this in the next section, but um, for example, in River Terrace 1, there was a transportation

use fee that was created. this was done for capital so infrastructure related projects but perhaps we're finding with 2.0 I know that maintenance costs are really the driver here that might necessitate creativity and different fees. So, we'll talk about that in the next section, but it's something that we're looking at very closely. Great. I appreciate that cuz then I can't I think it may be Sequoia bits off of 72nd where we've created the um they were supposed to be very they're concrete heavy but supposed to be plantings in between and we found that it's too difficult to too expensive to maintain and now they're almost open gaps where people can fall and so that's what I would like to ask to make sure we avoid. Thank you.

Thank you councelor Sha. Um, yeah, I I agree with the majority council. Even though I ride bikes, I still think they're I think I'm okay with having a multi-use path, just combining bikes and pedestrian under collector a I think the majority of council will will appreciate that option right now. Just uh and I'm also concerned about maintenance costs of those trees, right? because again it's a competing interest of making housing more affordable. So you're talking about adding additional fee for maintenance and that's not that's going to make it's more expensive to live there which is which is the opposite of what we want. So um so that's a that's the council direction collector a right now. Um and but also we will I think the census I would like more information on the tree maintenance costs down the road. um we you know if if that's if that's too expensive or it's additional cost then um no problem reducing those uh planting spaces. So, councelor councelor Slack

just to make sure I'm following. When we're talking about multi-use path on collector A, are we talking about the 13 foot one with two separate lanes or we talking about the collector C one where it's a 10-ft one without any demarcation? Um, e I mean either one looks fine for me. I I don't think there's a specific in direction at this point. Go ahead.

Okay. Excuse me. I was taking notes and thinking that the recommendation was for the commercial collector to use just one multi-use path on one side of the street, but that the other designs were okay for the multi-use path. Is that correct? Where it has the stenciling and those additional features that that was acceptable, but to look into if the commercial collector could be narrowed and have a multi-use path on one side. Is that is that understanding correct? So I guess we need to have the same definition of multi-use. Multi-use is bike and pedestrian

together. Yes, that's right. Okay. And and the council, the majority council only one bike that in one side of commercial collector. Is that that's what I was recommending mayor just instead of having on both sides because that adds significant cost to have it on just one side. So something similar to collector D. Collector D. Not only that, if you had the multi-use path on both sides, then after that short commercial, you'd have to cross over if you if you're on the side that didn't have that didn't continue, you'd have to cross over. So, multi-use path test on one side. Got it. All right. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe rather than narrowing collector a turn some of that extra space into Yeah.

Beastro. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah. D I think D is fine. Oh, just corrected D. That's what we're talking about. So, you won't D for A, but then C and B as C and B.

Just for clarifying for the senior planner data. Um, if we're doing that, then it would basically be like that for everything because we wouldn't want it like that for one part of it and then you have two and then one and then two. I would just standardize it as the 10- foot one throughout the entire situation. I mean, I I'm fine as I don't want to suggest that I'm uh not uh open to the um viewpoints that were expressed regarding um park maintenance and and bikes and um walking. I think they all make sense, but we might as well just standardize to one if that's that's the goal. I'd rather just have a wider multi-use path on both sides because it seems like if we're going to make a asymmetric design standard throughout that's going to make it even more complicated to try and develop it would be it just feels like it would be easier to say one 10 foot multi-use p multi-use path on both sides and it's consistent and everyone understands it. I don't know that's just my perspective. I yeah I would prefer that um have multipath on both side that's narrower but

um I'll just jump in and add that the reason why the multi-use path is um 13 ft when there's that extra strip down the middle to try and separate pedestrians and bikes um is because a typical bike lane is 6 feet wide and a comfortable sidewalk is also 6 ft wide and then you add the strip in the middle so it's 13. So if we go down to 10, it's just typically more of a substandard, more kind of constrained um width like how we're when we cross over streams and the constrained cross-sections, that's why it's 10 ft. Um but I hear your comment about more consistency. Um, so the 12-oot design, um, without anything down the middle is is exactly how, um, River Terrace Boulevard's multi-use path is designed, but we're at least recommending that stencils be added at the very least to kind of dictate uh or recommend where bikes travel and where pedestrians travel to try and resolve some of those safety issues. Um, so if council's preference would be not to have that safety strip down the middle for a more physical um, separator, which um, I should note that that separating strip is particularly helpful for those who are visually impaired um, since it does have a tactile surface that would signal this is the more appropriate place for a pedestrian to be to stay clear of bikes. Um, so that was why we did that just on M uh, excuse me, just on Mountain Side Way so that as that main artery where the most bikes and pedestrians are walking, especially to and from parks into their neighborhood and to the commercial areas, that there is that higher level of separation. Um, and that's why it's not consistent. That's why the other facilities narrow it back down to 12. It's not going to be as heavily used as the multi-use path on Mountainside Way. So we uh strip down some of the features in those areas.

My my preference is I mean for me I prefer to have multipath on both side because I ride bikes. Yeah. It's not it's just not convenient or grids all the you know to try to cross the street with a bike right so I would rather have narrow 10 foot on both side rather than than 112 and nothing on the other side. So I think having 10 on both side would be a good compromise but I I don't know. Go ahead. So question senior planner got it on berdo

is that considered 10 ft with and it doesn't have the strip in the center and it's got the sort of directional attempt at where bikes should ride and where people should walk. I don't know the exact dimensions of that facility. I'm sorry. Um, I can follow up with that though afterwards. I would appreciate that because it is very confusing on um on Murdoch that goes down into Templeton and it's a sidewalk and there's markings but it is unclear as to which side you're supposed to ride a bike and which side you're supposed to walk and it it's haphazard because I walk that quite frequently. Um so just want to make sure we're being clear as we're trying to be safe.

Yeah. And that's why I would propose just one side um of the street instead of having two multi-use paths on both sides. But I can I can work with that. Yeah. And I would agree with councelor Shaw again having it similar to collector D where you have multiuse path on one side. I still do think that we should have those sidewalks. I still do think that those should be extended because it sounds like with having just a multi-use path on both sides that ends up being bigger. If we're looking at something like the commercial collector then that sidewalk may kind of go away which becomes a problem as well and I wouldn't want that.

That is a good point. Um as I'm trying to process what what these changes would mean for the designs. So, for the most part, um, our, um, other collector, I believe that's collector D and our neighborhood routes, they all have this single-sided multi-use path design, and that does allow reduction of the width of the street. It's more efficient from a land perspective. Um, it's also more efficient just from a construction cost perspective. Um but uh to your point, Mayor H, the um the project team agrees that having facilities that are heavily used only on one side of the street is not convenient. It doesn't go, in our opinion, far enough to encourage the walkability and bikeability goals that we're seeking in this area, which was why Mountain Sideway in particular has those multi-use paths on both sides of the street. So all the bikes are moving in one direction on each sides of the street um and there's more separation for pedestrians. So it's a it's a tradeoff here um that again we we felt like we've struck that balance. I think um I would like to go take another look at the commercial collector in particular.

Yeah, please because another thing I just thought of collector A with the angle parking will allow more car to park there. Right. Correct. rather than just a parallel. Correct. And I think one of the council directions have more parking and commercial. So actually collect a you know honors that request. So maybe in collect a maybe we can still have

multiuse on both side. Maybe just get rid of the planting space and just have 12 foot on both side just for the collector aid because it as you point out it is a still a busier intersection that requires safe safer design and we also need um more parking right so so I'm so now thinking about it I'm not sure I want collector D in the collector A area where there are more traffic and we need more parking so councelor Schlack I agree. I agree with what you're saying, mayor. And and also I feel like when we talk about the commercial collector, one of the topics that came up was that sidewalks, we want to make sure there's enough room for effectively sidewalk entertainment area for restaurants and such. And imagining that you just have a big, you know, chunk of concrete and asphalt right there without any sort of trees or vegetation or anything seems counter to that goal that was also expressed tonight.

Got it. That would be my perspective at least. That's a concern of mine as well. If we were to put the multi-use path on both sides of collector A, it would take away the sidewalk and or the planter space. And I think that that would reduce the viability of that being a commercial space. The intent is to have people there to people hang out and stay. And if we have just pathways through rather than places to sit and be, it concerns me.

Yeah. So it comes back to maybe collector A which is not in too many places. Maybe it's it's okay collector A because it's not we don't see a lot of them. So go ahead council Robin. I think after listening to this discussion, I don't think we can design it much better than the experts have that that maybe they're um to reach that conclusion. Maybe, you know, yeah, that that it's it's better not not better than we thought, but there isn't really a lot of space to reduce the bike lanes, especially when you say that it's six foot is a normal comfortable bike lane. Um, yeah. So, I I think maybe I'll change my mind and say that I'm okay with it as

Okay. Yeah, councelor Sha. Thank you, Council Robbins. I'm not so sure we're trying to redesign as to limit the amount of cost because the cost will be passed on to home buyers. So, that's my concern and listening to councelor Anderson and also observing having bike paths my on both sides is going to be significant amount of cost of real estate that won't necessarily be used. So that's that's why I've been working towards trying to reduce the amount of concrete so we can reduce the amount of cost.

If I may, I I think one of the key things as I'm looking at collector A, so if we if if council wanted to transition to a multi-use path on one side of the street so that all bikes would be going in both directions on one side of the street. Um what that would result in would be a reduction of 2 feet on one side of the street. It would eliminate that um stepout zone, that twoft strip um behind the angled parking. Um and that's potentially the only change that that would result in. Um and then the other thing is that it's kind of creating a bit of an imbalance. It's forcing um bikes that are coming up to that Roy Rogers and Bull Mountain intersection to jump from either side of the street um enter the roadway if they wish to make turns. Um so it just makes things a little bit more complicated and inconvenient for bikers. Not to say that um it's not done elsewhere. It's just that having a single-sided facility does take away from just the convenience of being able to pass through on a bike and and visit the commercial areas. Um but a but a two-foot reduction I expect would occur.

Yeah. But but if we have multipath on one side that means the restaurant on that side is not going to like it because they will be bikes going through where they want the customer to sitting outside. So that is true. Do I believe Council President Wolf?

So that that's where I guess I feel like we're back to losing sight of an expanded space to be outside. And so I guess Bernie, that would be my question. Um because we're going back to public comment, making a fair assessment of that space not being viable for patrons to be outside. So I guess I'll put that question directly to you. Do you agree or disagree with that comment? And if you agree that's a concern, then I still go back to in that particular area, I still agree with councelor Anderson's initial idea to say we should create better space. I I just think in the long run that's an important component to have is to sit outside and enjoy that in extended months. Um but I may be alone by now. But so to go back, uh, Britney, if you could answer that question, do you agree or disagree that that space is too tight to be able to sit outside and enjoy uh nice weather?

That's a good question. Um, I personally don't agree, and there are a couple reasons for that. Um, the 8-ft planting space is designed to be 8 ft to be able to offer a wide enough space that if the correct agreements were in place with the city, a business could put beastro tables and seating um on those paved areas in between the street trees. Um, so 8t is rather wide. Certainly, it could be wider. Um but 6 ft is typically the bare minimum space that can safely accommodate a table and chairs. Um and the um the trees also are separating those spaces so there's a little bit more of a a visual safety for bikes so that they're not passing through that area very quickly. Um, I would also say that, um, I would argue that having one multi-use path on one side of the street would create less comfortable conditions on that one side of the street so that people who are dining or walking and enjoying themselves might feel a little less comfortable next to a 12- foot wide facility carrying all of the bikes. Um, and it also creates a bit of a a safety concern where people who are exiting their vehicles in the angled parking, they're then having to cross uh a two-ft stepout zone and a 12 foot wide multi-use path with more oncoming bicycle traffic to get to the businesses on the other side of that. Um, just kind of making it all a little bit less comfortable. But, um, as the design exists right now, I I disagree. I think that it's been designed uh to allow that safe and comfortable dining. Um there will certainly be opportunities for businesses to be constructed in a way that has other seating areas on their own private property if they wanted to

have a larger street presence out front. Um and so we've we've kept things tight and efficient while making sure that they're comfortable for small seating areas. What do you think, Council President Wolf? You okay with collector A? So I take what you're saying, Britney, is like that patio front. That's a design decision to like pull back. So to um which I guess in the winter runs the risk of having, you know, losing seating, but um I digress. Um well, I think I'm in a minority now anyway, so it won't matter. So I don't have any additional questions, so I really appreciate the honest response. Thank you.

Go ahead, councelor Schlack.

Yes. Uh considering the um shifting state of play on the council, would it it would be helpful for me to understand whether council is there's a majority of council who wants to proceed with the street design types as proposed or whether the council would like to consider um additional design amendments um along the lines of what some council members have discussed that would help. So I know councelor Schlag I and councelor Robins are fine with staff recommendations. Anybody want any changes? Councelor Shaw from a I'm not concerned about the design. I think design's beautiful and if we had all the money in the world this would be awesome. And if trees didn't grow roots that then impeded the spaces where I too would like to have some beastro tables I think it's great. Um, so I'm concerned from the cost perspective. As much as I'd love and think biking is great. I grew up in an area where everybody used the same bike path. You went north and south and it seemed to work. I do hear senior planner gota your concern about you're exiting a vehicle going over the two feet and then across a bike lane which could be expanded if you have multi-je. But I'm I'm just concerned about the cost and it's hard for me to make this decision when we don't know what the costs are. We've heard from the developers, they're very concerned. Um they're concerned because this hasn't been necessarily an issue in River Terrace 1.0. We know it was we hear from multiple perspectives how expensive the housing was there and yet we're on the same trajectory in River Terrace 2.0. So that's my concern. And so um I would love to see if we can I know you've been trying really hard and staff has to about how to reduce those costs, but I am still very concerned about that. Sir Ducy,

I share a lot of those concerns. I do think that there is a lot of rideway here that's proposed. Some of it is fine, but I do think that it'll overall be too expensive, not just in creation, but overall maintenance. So, I know that likely the HOA is likely fees are going to take care of a good chunk of it, but those on the larger streets are likely going to fall back to the city. And so if the maintenance fees ends up being significant, that's really putting future councils at a disadvantage. Councelor Anderson, we know your But Go ahead. We know what your thought.

Well, I I would just I would just narrow I would just narrow the bike lanes if if if you could um even 10 feet. I mean, 11 feet is a is a travel lane for a car. So, you could certainly pass a carriage or, you know, a couple if you're on a bike to get around that. Um, so I would probably just keep them on the same or two sides. So, six foot to I don't know. Well, instead of 13 foot, I would just go down to 10 foot or it's Yeah. 10. Uh, so now it's 686. So where would that 10?

Well, are you talking about the card car length or let let's let's look at collector B. So you got 13 feet for for both. So you got 20 26 feet for for bike and pad there. So that's a lot. I I would just narrow it down to 10 10 a piece. Yeah, 10 a piece. Okay. Councelor President Wolf. So, how does collector B apply to collector A, the commercial, then councelor Anderson? Just so I'm clear, maybe in title six and six, we'll do five and five.

Five and five. Um because I think because my comment was and I actually appreciate um councelor Anderson's perspective on collector B. Um this is not my area of expertise. I mean, there's part of me that was going to say move forward, except go back and have those conversations around commercial A because what's critical is that we have a market that really wants to be there and creates a a restaurant or a store that, you know, they want to be in and certainly then our residents want to uh be patrons there. So, um, but I appreciate kind of the idea around collector B and I'm still like, can we do more thinking on collector A?

Just to try and make sure I'm getting my head around the um feedback from my colleagues. So, it sounds like all the um design feedback really is around collector A and B at this point, but collectors C, D, E, neighborhood routes A, B, and the additional lo, you know, local streets and alley, everyone is is fine with it's really just thinking about the commercial areas and the transition points around them. I just want to make sure that we're we're limiting the feedback and not limiting it, but targeting narrowing it in. Yes. Yeah. Uh so now we have so I don't I think there are there's no clear consensus on collective A and B at this point.

Yeah. So uh I think we just need more information on how without ways to narrow them down even more without compromising our goal which is I know there are many competing goals. Oh we have uh Yeah, your micros. Yeah, if your experts come back and say, "No way. We can't do that. That's not safe." That That's fine. I'll accept that.

I appreciate you adding that because I I do want to call out that the 10-foot design does not follow any industry standard for safe facilities. So, it's likely that the consultant team would say we strongly discourage that. Um and the other side of this is um we are out of budget on designing these streets. We do have budget in the finance strategy separately where we can further analyze the costs of these different facilities and the maintenance involved in them. So that that conversation is still wide open. Um but there would be a cost that would come with revamping these designs. Um that said, we can work with our internal experts, our transportation planners and our transportation engineers and try and see if there are any opportunities to narrow these. Um but uh Director wanted to add something.

Thank you. Um uh uh CD director uh Samuel Kirkman. One of the things I wanted us to consider is I know there's a concern about the cost in the rightway, but one of the things we haven't talked about tonight is part of a is the angle parking and we are trying very um very um diligently to look at all the aspects. So we could reduce it um we could reduce the right of way but that means that something does have to give. And one of the things I want us to consider is that there's a consistency too because I've also heard the transition and the and the concerns that well if we keep switching back and forth on these various things that it's going to impact how people look at the flow. So if C and D are options that you do like the C and D components are looking at two-way basically two-way um traffic or two-way flow for both pedestrians, bikes and and vehicles. So, if we're trying to still keep within a consistent design, those are things to consider. Um, if we're considering making sure we can provide as much parking, we do need to have those angled parking areas. There is going to be there is going to be an impact. There is just not a way for us to back to uh Council President Wolf's comment, there always always going to be lovers. So, if the importance is providing that parking, we're going to need that right away. Um, and the other things to consider is that yes, often you see bike lanes as being not as um as utilized as others, but we're also talking about uh basically what I'm going to call a town center field where we are trying to encourage more. And to be able to do that, we've got to be able to create that consistency and to be able to create the space. The cafe areas that you're looking at for the for the 8ft sidewalks would be great. And it's something that I think we can bring to the team to say, can we look at designs where we utilize the six and the 8ft area as more of a centralized area where maybe then pedestrians can, but we've at least acknowledged that the bikes and the

scooters and the things that are there could need need an area where we can differentiate from pedestrians and the the the what I'll call them the loitering areas of sorts. So that's what's helpful about this design too is that there is a specified area for planters. Does that mean that I think we can look at utilizing that as a area that not only are tree walls but are also areas that we could look at at at um beastro seedings or maybe it's not maybe it's a bench and but we do need at least for tonight an understanding of are you comfortable with the idea that this is the this is the rightway we're going to need to be able to fit everything that has been requested and still meet kind of the the goal of getting a a a transportation system that moves people around that allows us to bring people in. And so I guess that's my ask is yes, it is really we we can start p we could start pinching out down um widths, but that's just going to there's just it's going to have an effect. If we do not have if we try to make the multi-use path on one side, it's going to it's going to create some issues with consistency and such. So those are things I I'm I'm hoping we can at least express to you all and and see if you're at least comfortable enough for us to then come back and talk about well if this is the design here are here is the financial components of it and can we and if it just doesn't work and if seems extensive then maybe we do have to talk about something different. This is the is this where is the design we're we're recommending really a good starting point for us to be able to say or at least a point where we can take as a template to say this is what the community has said this is what the developers have had this is what council has said what's what the um city city staff has and are you comfortable enough with that for us to be able to go okay there's going to there there may be needs for tweaks but we have at least the form or the bones to be able to do the analysis that we need to be ble to do.

Sean, so I appreciate that. So is your um suggestion then to develop estimated costs for collector A, collector B, collector C, so we have an idea of what the difference would be because there's obviously like collector A has 40 feet of concrete versus collector B which is what 23. So is that what you're suggesting? So we have a better idea of what the cost would be. That is what I'll

um we actually have all of that data. So where we are so a lot of this stuff runs in tandem. So we're designing our streets while we're crunching the cost estimates for how much it costs to construct them and maintain them. So we do have um we have a couple things that could be helpful that we can follow up with. We have um cost estimates to construct our standard street designs that the city uses elsewhere. So that kind of basic typical street in Tiger, we have the cost estimates for that type of facility. Then we have our cost estimates for these proposed facilities already figured out and that's where that 14% margin came in. So um it's interesting when you when you look at the numbers, it is by a long shot that commercial collector which comes out as the most expensive. It's the widest. It has the most features. It has angled parking. It makes sense. The other facilities when you take them comparatively the increases are quite subtle. I don't have the percentages off the top of my head, but I believe it was something of the order of 30ome% of the total additional cost comes from the commercial collector. So, it is that one that is driving the costs, but we've put it in very discreet areas, three city blocks approximately throughout the whole area to try and cut back on that cost. So, we can follow up with you with the breakdown of the costs, comparing the typical designs versus the proposed designs. Um and uh the next part of our finance strategy is to really dig into okay now we know the construction cost estimates and the maintenance cost estimates. What does that mean for fees? What does that mean for system development charges um which typically does get bundled into the cost of a home that someone is purchasing. So that does

directly relate to added cost for residents. we'll be able to find out is that SDC 2% higher, you know, because of these additional street designs or or is it 15%, you know, and maybe having those numbers um will help council um decide what the priority needs to be here. So, we're just not quite there yet with the finance strategy. That's what we'll be bringing back to council at the end of May, and we can be sure to lay out more of that analysis. So are we comfortable with uh director Kirkman's suggestions? Yeah.

All right. So we'll just wait. This is the starting point and I think few of us are comfortable with your recommendation but I think the majority still want more information. So

yeah, I mean I think the thing we're hearing at least, please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from the council is that there is an interest to keep the the alternating paths. There was a at least a conversation about combining some of the paths to one and it sounds as though that's not a priority and it's not something that that we should consider because there is an interest in being able to see to have both amenities on both sides of the street. So, I I think that's a takeway. That's something I'm I'm hearing. And I'm I'm hearing that there is still an interest in us providing as much parking as we can on the site. And the angle parking isn't something that you're opposed to, but in fact allows us to provide more parking. It just means that it's going to take up a little more right away, but it does provide the parking that that we've heard over and over again as an interest.

Yeah, that's why I heard from the developer too, right? They will want less on street parking where it's not needed, right? So this will provide more parking to where it is needed. So it allow us to have less parking at other places. So so angle parking is I think it's it's a win-win for everybody. So um any other we are we are way behind today but I'm okay with it today because it's a good conversation. So I'm not going to keep time today. But um any other any other comments or suggestion before we move on? Go ahead council schlank. We're coming back in May to revisit the transportation street designs based on this information. That's what I'm

We will provide some additional information specifically on the commercial collector areas, but the others seem to be fine and that the theme thematically we're still staying with looking at um part at the designs to incorporate um flows on we're not combining um one direction for bike park like for the bike lanes. So we're not combining it to one one multi-use path on one side from what I what we're hearing which helps us to kind of narrow what we're bringing back to council. For me I for me yes both side because as you mentioned it's if we just have one side on collector it's not consistent with everything else. So

okay I'm getting head nods. Yes we're in the group. Okay. Yes. It's fine. Yeah. If I go ahead, if I if I could ask to if we're talking about a town center type of feel, if we could include maybe a a zoning map of where you think retail and restaurants would be in comparison to this. Yes, we can absolutely include that. And I think there are some indications of that on the map that was printed with the different street designs. It's not zoning, but it does have um a red block around where the commercial areas would be at least, right? Um so that at least shows that area.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So I think we got consensus for now. So let's move on to the fin equitable finance. Okay, can we move to the next slide, please? Okay, part two. Part two of our presentation this evening focuses on the finance strategy um for River Terrace 2.0. Next slide, please. So an a finance strategy or in the case of rivers 2.0 an equitable finance strategy um is doing two things primarily. First it is identifying how different capital improvements like infrastructure is built and how is it funded. Um, and then it's also looking at those ongoing operations and maintenance needs, what the costs are associated with those, and if any special funding mechanisms or actions are needed by the city um to deliver this area. Um, so it's unique to River Terrace 2.0 I know that this is an equitable finance strategy because first and foremost, it's focused on promoting those equitable outcomes in the community that support the city's housing and affordability goals um while balancing development feasibility. Um so what we know now um where we're at in the project with the finance strategy is we're a few months in. We've done a good amount of the analysis, but we're still working on things. So, in the in the realm of what we know now, we've identified what funding sources will be available to um to help fund these uh infrastructure improvements. Um and we've also um done an analysis to

identify the revenue estimates that the city can anticipate at full buildout of this area. Um we have also developed an understanding of how this infrastructure would be funded and delivered whether that's delivered by the city other public uh other public agencies or by developers um and what the initial cost estimates for delivering those facilities are. And then we've also gone back to River Terrace 1 and tried to understand what happened with River Terrace 1. Was that successful? And did it create the outcomes that we're looking for here? Next slide please. So, there are a variety of funding sources that will help support this infrastructure. Um, some of those sources come from outside of the city. So, we have things like Washington County's uh transportation development tax. Um, clean water services has fees that they charge. Um, for the city, we have our system development charges or SDC's for transportation and parks. Um and in the case of River Terrace 1, we also used supplemental SDC's which we are expecting would be needed in River Terrace 2 for transportation and parks as well. Um and then developers also contribute their fair share of infrastructure that is needed to support their one development alone. Um and then there are other opportunities for credits and other funding um to help support those um parts of the infrastructure network that are bigger than their development. Um, there are also potential additional sources that might be needed here. We're still looking into these. Um, one example would be a tax increment financing district. Um, if you recall, the community development team sought a grant from Metro um to try and get additional funding to study if a tiff district in River Terrace 2.0 would be

recommended, feasible. Um and we um we are waiting for a final decision on that grant, but um we have been recommended for for funding to the Metro Council. So, we're hopeful that that will be approved and will give us the funding to do that study. Um other things we're looking into are um different fees like a supplemental park and recreation fee that could be unique to River Terrace 2.0 know or a supplemental transportation use fee like was done in River Terrace 1. And these supplemental fees are something that we're still talking about internally um since there are challenges that come along with maintaining these special fees. Um so it's up to um our internal team and the consultant team to identify if additional funding sources are needed for those special situations in River Terrace 2. Next slide please. So as I mentioned the core purpose of the finance strategy is to determine who builds what needed infrastructure and how is it paid for. So in the case of transportation this will primarily be delivered by developers at the time of development. There are a few exceptions to this like off-site improvements like um there is a um signal a traffic signal planned at Perth and Roy Rogers that's not going to be delivered by developers. They're not working in that area. Um but pretty much everything else will be um in part transportation will be funded by developer contributions for their fair share of their own development needs. Um and then there are other supplemental sources from the county and the city through different credits. Um parks we expect will be also primarily delivered by developers. There may may be some city involvement needed to deliver a community park. Um, but for the most part, these would be funded through um our city supplemental parks SDC's for

neighborhood parks, our citywide parks SDC's for community parks, uh, and some amount of developer contributions to provide open space. Um, and lastly, we have our utilities for water, sewer, and storm water. This would be a combination of public and private delivery um funded mainly by developer contributions since the infrastructure is needed for their developments with some credits available as well. Next slide, please. One of the key ways that the River Terrace 2.0 equitable finance strategy is is planning to help Tiger achieve our equity and affordability goals is through a tiered system development charge structure or SDC's. And this means that the SDC fee amount would change um by housing unit size. So it would effectively lower costs for future home buyers and and also to developers by lowering fees for those smaller units that we're trying to promote in this area such as middle housing units um and other smaller types of housing. Um the preliminary approach for this has been to only tier the fees that are specific to river chairs 2.0. So not not affect the rest of the city. As we've gone through this analysis, it's opened up a question wondering if it would be um more effective to tier all city SDC's to help promote uh affordability and housing development citywide. Um, this is something that we're continuing to look at and work with our partners in finance and public works about. We'll be coming back to you with more information on this uh at the end of May. Um, but I wanted to call out that um, as we've worked through these uh, these estimates. We're finding that only tiering the river Terrace 2 fees may not get us the affordability outcomes that we're seeking. So, we're we're

continuing to travel down that path and do more research. Um and lastly um this this structure um would use multiple categories for unit size for example 0 to 500 500 to a,000 etc etc to um tie the impacts associated with different housing units to um a justifiable fee for parks or transportation. Next slide please. So we have engaged with developers recently on the finance strategy assumptions at the March 3rd developer forum. Um we have heard consistently that the project needs to balance our infrastructure costs with affordability goals, feasibility goals and with enhanced design features. Um, we've also heard consistently that system development charges are one of the most, if not the most important determinants of development feasibility. Um, and that discounts and delayed collection of those SDCs has been very helpful in places like River Terrace 1 to help alleviate the cost burden. Um, and they have also voiced support for some of these more unique approaches that we're exploring, including the tiered fees to help lower that cost burden on smaller units. Um, and also cost sharing to spread out um, large costs for things like bridges um, among developers. Next slide, please. So, we're still hard at work on the finance strategy. Um, one thing we're still working on is um, our understanding of how storm water will work in River Terrace 2.0 South. So, you may recall that there has been a a loose plan um, coordinating with CWS and King City on what we're calling a super regional um, storm water strategy that would allow this interjurisdictional

partnership um, to manage storm water. Um we're hearing from Clean Water Services that that project um may not get off the ground in time for River Terrace 2.0 to develop. Um it's caused a bit of a delay in our process here since we're not able to move forward with our cost estimates if we're not sure what the storm water strategy is going to be in that area. So, um, we are, uh, continuing to coordinate with CWS and King City to see if this is still a viable path, but at this point, we're in a holding pattern on our storm water strategy for the River Tears 2.0 South area. We're also working to finalize those infra infrastructure costs and estimate fe um, our fees like SDC's and develop that tiered recommendation system with some options um, to consider. Um, we're also trying to figure out how the credit policy needs to work for SDC's. There are a variety of ways to do this and a bunch of levers that can be pulled, all of which affect the funding assumptions, the credits, the revenues. So, we're working to uh better understand what the options are and what the effects are. Um, and lastly, we'll be back to city council at the end of May with more information about estimated fees, tiering, etc., so that we can seek additional direction from you. Next slide, please. So now, um, I just want to take a little bit of time to get a high-level test of where council is feeling, um, about our finance strategy. So, we've I've broken up the discussion into two questions. Um, so I want to make sure you're aware there's a second question here since the first may uh, solicit some good discussion. Um, and the first is that in most Greenfield areas, there is this tension as we're as we're hearing with the street designs between the cost of development and then the cost that could um that could occur to city budgets um

such as those maintenance responsibilities um and sometimes even deficits in budget um that has to be balanced to ensure development feasibility. Um so for example this was done in river terrace one where there was this very conscience decision at the time by that council to offer discounts and and change the way that the finance strategy was organized in order to result in more development feasibility and lower fees. Um, so we're checking in with you all this evening to try and get an understanding if your um if your priority is mainly to reduce costs on development, support feasibility, support affordability as much as possible. um if the main concern is preventing any impact to city budget, understanding where we are as a city being constrained um or if we should continue um down the path of equal balance.

Thank you. Who can say no to equal balance? Uh we'll start this way. Uh are you ready? Councelor Robin, you want to? Yeah. or youth counselor, would you like to provide suggestion, direction? I think that maintaining the equal balance path that you guys are on right now would be beneficial. Councelor Robbins,

it's a difficult year this year for budgets. Um maybe if this was a different year, the answer would be different or if the future couple years might be different. Um, I do not want to sacrifice affordability for the rest of the city to make River Terrace 2.0 more affordable. Not that I don't want it to be affordable, but we do have to balance all of that. So, I would say equal balance, tending a little bit orange to prevent budget impacts because I don't know that next year's budget's going to be any better than this year. And so until the federal government things change and we have more stability there, I I don't know that we can afford it.

Sirissi, thank you, mayor. Um, overall I feel pretty much the same way. Um, one of my concern is subsidizing at this time. It's still going to take a lot of time to see that benefit for the people of Tiger and there's a lot that's going to happen before then. So yes, equal, but leaning more towards helping to prevent budget impacts. Councelor Shaw. Yeah,

I currently think it's a false choice. We don't have enough information from a finance strategy. We don't know what the storm water strategy is. We don't know the final infrastructure cost and estimate cost. So, I find it very hard to try and make a decision. And equal is the easy choice to say yes. Um I do know that um we've been working with some other development here in the city with STC's costs. That's made it prohibited prohibitive for anyone to even purchase those particular units. And so um because of that I would heir towards reducing development fees but again I think right now it's sort of a false choice until we have additional information. Um I and answering the other questions I do actually think having a tiered fee across the city makes sense. Um so that's something I'd be supportive. I'd be supportive of the transation use fee as well as a park and recreation fee. Uh because that I think will help um stem any long-term budgetary impacts on the city. Um, yeah, I think those are

I think those are the questions I was supposed to answer. Yeah. Good. Uh, Coun Council President Wolf.

Um, Councelor Shaw, thank you um for those comments, and I lean towards Councelor Shaw's comments. Um, as Britney knows, sometimes, um, I reached out to talk to her today, which is align with what Mark gave as public comment. Sometimes I need to get in the weeds to understand what I'm doing. a few thousand feet up. And in one of the slides, I think it referenced how important understanding the SDC's and that communication with developers. And I know in the meeting notes from March 3rd, it's referenced that that that is coming, but that it wasn't shared. Mark commented on that. Um so I am struggling to kind of make that decision because I feel like I don't have good information. So yeah, in a perfect scenario, I would love a balanced budget and um scaled fees. I want it all right. I want uh utopia and I know that's not where we are right now. Um so I almost feel like I'm a pass until I better understand uh where we are.

Yeah. To be honest. Councelor Schlack. Thank you, Mayor. Um would you be able to restate what the um potential budget impacts would be that we would be trying to prevent right now? It's mainly on it sounds like on like ongoing maintenance and stuff.

Yeah, it's a good question. And it's and I'm hearing it coming up that we need more information about that, what that would be. And um part of it is that we're checking in at this interim stage to try and understand what information do you need to help make that decision. So I'm taking notes of this. Um I don't I don't know every single potential cost to the city's budget at this time. Um it seems um safe to say that if the system development charge, for example, was too low, the city would not generate enough revenue to um cover the credits that it needs to issue to development, meaning that the city's budget would be in deficit. Um there are also timing considerations. If you issue too many credits before you bring in enough revenue, that's also a risk of either a temporary or long-term budget deficit. Maintenance is the other big one where um if we don't build in um maintenance considerations either into the SDC's, either into a supplemental fee, we could be putting the city at risk for not having the resources, the personnel um to be able to maintain these facilities to a level that is acceptable to Tiger.

Thank you. And then um regarding supplemental fees, the you said these would be the residential ones, right? So if uh someone buys a house or rents an apartment, this is what would be on their water bill. There would be an additional fee that other residents in other parts of Tiger may not pay. That's correct. So in River Terrace 1, there is a $5 transportation use fee. Um that is paid by the residents on a monthly basis. Um and yes, uh if there were a supplemental park and recreation fee, it's I believe the mechanism it would make sense to implement it similarly as a monthly additional payment on a utility bill.

And the plan would be to continue those indefinitely as opposed to say sunset them out at some point where River Terrace is no longer a new development. I'm I'm just that thought just crossed my mind. That's a that's a very good point. um that's not something that we've talked about yet since we have not broached that subject of supplemental fees quite yet. But

um in this case, we're seeing that additional funds could be needed for maintenance. So if a transportation use fee, for example, was structured to cover maintenance, I could see that being a cost in perpetuity to fund that additional maintenance um for a river Terrace 2.0. um similar to the park and recreation fee that is paid monthly in perpetuity um to help maintain our park facilities.

Yeah, I think I um sort of align with um Council Shaw and Council President Wolf and wanting to have a more detailed understanding about the budgetary impacts. I recall this topic briefly came up during our special meeting as well in terms of um at least me expressing my interest in the long-term budgetary impacts of this development. Um, I would have concern or I'd be interested in exploring whether those additional fees that those areas of Tiger are paying would be in perpetuity or if we would want to sunset them out at some distant point in the future. Um, I'm very intrigued by the idea of tiered SDC's both in River Terrace and and um citywide. So, I like that idea. Um, yeah. So, in addition to better understanding the budget impacts and making sure that we're setting our our city up for success in the long for the long term, I kind of uh like Council President Wolf and Councelor Shaw lean more on the reduced development cost side because really we're trying to create the type of community that we want to you know exist for in perpetuity and we need to incentivize that to make sure it happens. One of the other successful aspects of River Terrace 1.0 was how quickly it got developed out and that was partly because of the incentives that we had there. So, um, I wouldn't want to see this be green field for, you know, a hu very long period of time because then that's counterproductive to council goal one and our housing priorities there and as well as council goal two creating the commercial areas that people actually want to go in and do business with. So, um, more information on budget impacts and intrigued by some of the ideas that I'd love to explore more, but until I have that information, I'm going to lean more on the reduced development cost side of things. Thank you for letting me talk through my thought process. Very good. Councelor Anderson,

uh, can you last? Councelor Anderson, speak first. Go ahead.

Um, of course, equal balance would be great, but if you don't work with the developers, it won't be built for 10 years, right? So, um, we got to work with the developers. We got to find out what their s system development charges are. Um, I I I don't think I I like the tier tiers for the uh for the lower impact units. Um, if if you're not if you're not getting enough bang for your buck, maybe you should really lower it and make pretty aggressive. Yeah. Thanks. That's it. Can you can you talk a little bit about what you mean by if you don't get big enough bank you lower?

Well, we don't have that much um of of the smaller units, right? In this particular thing. Um so, you know, you're you're getting a tier, you're getting a break. Maybe get give the developers even a little bit more of a break. Oh, okay. if for the smaller for the small. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you, Council G. You have a question. Thank you, mayor. Um, just for clarification, if we're looking at the funding strategy overview memo, where does that fall on the spectrum? Is that generally sort of looking at the equal distribution?

The memo is really, it's not really on the spectrum. It's more I would I would say if anything, it's more of an equal balance. It's really just laying out what we know now. Um, I would say that, um, River Terrace One probably leaned in that blue category, maybe a little bit towards the reduced development costs. Um, kind of skirting equal balance, reducing development costs a little bit. Um, you know, it's it's going to be up to city council to decide to to councelor Anderson's point, how aggressive how aggressive do we want to be? and and it'll be our job with the consultants to bring back those scenarios and trying to understand what the impacts to city budgets would be. Um so I appreciate that comment since it's part of what we're looking at. It's the equitable finance strategy for a reason and that needs to make sure that it's feasible for development to get the outcomes that we're looking for here. So um so in May we'll be sure to be bringing back the full analysis and and really what we're discussing this evening and and why it's very valuable for me to hear your feedback at this interim stage is so that the consultant team isn't spinning their wheels uh crunching numbers putting together alternatives and scenarios um that that may not align with where council is headed. So it's it's a temperature check with council right now so that um our consultant team can focus on three or four different alternatives rather than the 20 plus options for how to structure all these fees um that are out there. So it's helpful just to hear where your heads are at um so that we can continue moving forward.

Yeah. For me I yeah it's hard for me to commit at this point as well for my colleagues recently don't have enough information but I am intrigued with tier approach and I I agree with councelor Anderson that I think we need to give a little bit help to those that we need more help right I think it will be harder to convince developer to build smaller homes so maybe we need to offer bigger carrot uh but the rest Um, you know, I think the market can can take care of itself maybe. Uh, but I just need more information and because the the risks you mentioned concerns me like if we offer too many incentive too quickly, we may be in in deficit because we may not recover them fast enough. So when you come back in May, it will be help it will be helpful for me to understand what what the risk are like risk like that and how council or the city can can do to reduce those kind of risk. I think that that will be helpful for me as well. Um but yeah at this yeah but I I'm in alignment with my council members. uh everything is retriging and we want more homes but at the same time we are really concerned about budget so I don't know that's helpful to you uh but the the next question I think uh councelor shall express interest in the the fee and I am too I don't know other counelors answer that yeah they're all nodding hands yeah for the fee for rivers 2.0 you know, transportation user fee, park fee, and other those are just example, but we're interested in supplemental fee. So,

thank you. That's that's helpful to understand. So, in River Terrace one, a good example of this with the transportation use fee. Um, it did pass $5 a month onto residents that is affecting affordability. Um, but it did allow the transportation SDC for River Terrace One to be lower since the SDC wasn't leaning or wasn't, excuse me, wasn't carrying the entire cost. Correct. So, it's helpful for us to understand that um that door is open. We'll continue working with our consultant team and finance and public works to understand um what our recommendations are for those fees.

Yeah. And and one thing you know I think we are advocating at the state governments they if they really want us to make more produce more housing give us some help with those kind of infrastructure right so so we don't have we won't be in a situation like this but I'm on my soap box go ahead thank you and then one other thought just when thinking about the budget impacts because we talk about you know sort of the the cash flow is how I I think of it in terms of SDC's how is coming in versus credits going out and then maintenance which feels very much on the public works side of things. I'd love to also understand what that expanded territory, if you will, would uh how that would impact our police budget as well since that's heavily dependent on the general fund. Yes, we'd get more property tax revenue in from this new area, but um you know, I I just think that's u a key city service that would be um required to expand its scope in some way. And I'd love to understand um how that would be folded in with budgetary impacts. Thank you, councelor Shaw.

Well, mayor, I'd like to jump on your soap box. Um, with utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and I understand the state has limited dollars, but if they are trying to get each and every city to build, there should some be some skin in the game for them, too. And perhaps that's a supplemental fee, I don't know. Uh, two separate issues. One, I'd like to see the state put some money in and put some skin in the game. And then two, perhaps that's also a supplemental fee to consider. Thank you. All right. Any last words? Sounds good. Oh, councelor Schlack, go ahead.

Yeah, I mean just my final thought, I guess, is when does an additional supplemental fee in one area go from a cost of new development to something that's inequitable in the long term. So, I'm just I'm curious to explore that long term if we're going to have a lot of residents paying additional supplemental fees in perpetuity. Yeah. Okay. It's a lot. So, but thank you for your work and hopefully you have enough directions and better than reading tea leaves at this point, I guess. So, yeah. All right. Thank you so much. I do. Thank you so much. Um I did have one more slide, but um I'll just go through it very quickly. Go ahead. Um if we can go two slides forward, please. I just want to let you know

um that we are still working and there are some big dates that are coming up uh for the project. Um, so we did have a developer forum scheduled on March 30th. Um, because of the kinds of analysis that we still need to do. We're not able to estimate SDC's quite yet. So, we have had to postpone this. We're planning on that being rescheduled in late April. Um, it could be early May, but that will be rescheduled prior to the May 26th city council update so that we'll be able to connect with developers and share their feedback with you during that next update. Um, and we are also approaching some metro grant deadlines. So, we're submitting our preliminary transportation system plan amendments, our park system plan, um, which is really exciting. Um, and we're also meeting with planning commission before we see you next. Um, so I think I'll leave it there, but I thank you all so much for your guidance. It's given me a lot to chew on. I have a lot of great notes to share with our consultant team so that we can be sure to come back with more analysis for you all. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right. There being no additional items, this meeting is adjourned. Good night, Tiger.