City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, so good evening, everyone. So I will call this study session to order. First item on the agenda is indirect cost allocation plan. And Finance Director Kang and MGP consultant Michelle Gehr will lead this conversation.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. For the record, my name is Eric Kang. I'm the Finance Director. So the first topic for this evening to report is the cost allocation plan study that was conducted and completed recently. So before I introduce Michelle and turn things over to her, I'm going to share a little context of why we did the study and how we got here today. So back in fiscal year 2024, it first talked about the need for a cost allocation plan update. At that time, it had been several years since the cost allocation plan updated. It was also very cumbersome and difficult to administer for staff. And then also it was overly complex. And so from an administrative standpoint, it was very difficult to interpret and explain, and even amongst internal staff. And so in fiscal year 24 and 25, we had implemented an interim plan that had been used just for those two years while the study was being conducted. And then back in 2025, we had conducted an RFP, and then ultimately we ended up hiring MGT as our external consultant to hire this to work on the study. And joining us this evening is Michelle Garrett from MGT, who has been our consultant since the beginning. And she'll be going over the cost allocation plan, what a cost allocation plan is, and the results of the study.

And so with that, I'll probably turn this over to Michelle. Awesome. Can you all hear me? Yes. Yes.

Yes. Hi. Hello, everyone. So I'm Michelle Garrett from MGT. I'm here to present your cost allocation plan. And as Eric said, I've been working with him to put it together for you again. I think I'd like to introduce MGT and myself before we get started. So I think next slide. So MGT is a consulting firm that only works with public agencies. We provide services such as technology and cybersecurity. We have a K-12 and higher education division. as well as a human capital division, which I love to talk about them. They absolutely know everybody everywhere. They're great people to work with. And of course, we have a fiscal services division, which is where I live. Within our division, we work on cost allocation plans, of course, but we also do user fee studies. So if you wanted to know, hey, how much does this specific permit fee cost us to put together? That would be a user fee study that we do those. We do internal service fund studies. We do jail studies. Pretty much if the question is, how much does this cost? We will do a study for it. So that is what we do.

So if you want to go to the next slide, that kind of goes over a little bit of that information.

A little bit about myself. A long time ago, I started out in as a CPA in public accounting. So Coopers and Libra in the big six. From there, I ventured into working for some reinsurance companies and some insurance companies. And then for the last 20 plus years, I have been working with MGT on cost allocation plans and other fiscal studies. Primarily, I work with kind of the West Coast, so Colorado, Arizona, California, Oregon, around there, but I also work with other states as well.

in there.

So today, if we go to the next slide, we're gonna talk about what is a cost allocation plan. We're going to talk about where the costs start from and how they get to the ultimate benefiting department. And then we're gonna put some actual numbers to that from your cost allocation plan, and then open it up for essentially discussion. So if we go to the next slide, we wanna talk about what is a cost allocation plan. So I'm gonna start with a definition. Cost allocation plan is an accounting document that allocates the cost of central service departments to their benefiting departments. So let's break that open. I'm gonna break it open in the next slides for sure, but let's start here. So, and it's an accounting document because it is based off of expenditure. So in your case, the cost allocation plan that we're gonna be looking at, is based off of the fiscal year 26 budgeted expenditures. So we take the fiscal year 26 budgeted expenditures for central service departments. So a central service department is any department in the city that provides services to other city departments. And we're gonna go over exactly who, what departments are central services departments for your plan. So it is a documented way, the cost plan is a documented way to assign shared service costs, those costs within the central service departments, to departments that benefit from those services. It's a transparent, it's a tool to be very transparent and objective so that the departments receiving allocations know where they're coming from and how they're getting there. It is also a repeatable tool annual process based on measurable drivers. So think about it. We're putting in expenditures into the plan. We're using other types of allocation statistics. And as you all know, things change, right, from year to year. As much as maybe we don't want them to, they do happen. And as things change, we would want to update this plan. So it can be done annually. It can be done quarterly. You have amended budgets. So that's up to you. So What it is is an accounting document that we give you the results of the plan. From there, it's your decision, policy decision, essentially what you want to do with it, how you want to apply it. So that's what it is and what it isn't. So let's go to the next slide. Cost allocation plan. So we talked about central service departments. This is not an exhaustive list that I have up here. But some examples of your central service departments are IT, finance, facilities, HR, risk, public works, fleet. You have more than that that is in there, but those are just some of them. So what we do is we take those costs, those essential service departments, and we kind of break them up, each one of them, up into different cost pools or service categories. So let's take HR, for example. We might say HR provides two services. They provide general HR and they provide recruitment. We're gonna then match up an allocation driver to these service categories. So for instance, general HR, we might say, okay, we're gonna allocate that citywide based on FTEs. Recruitment, we might allocate that based on number of postings or number of new hires or number of applications. Facilities, often allocated based on square footage, of course. IT, often allocated based on number of devices, of course. So you can see there's a relationship between the service category being allocated and the allocation driver. We have to make sure there's a relationship, but that also, it is something that is being recorded by the city. Believe it or not, I can walk into a city and ask them if they can give us the number of devices that they have for each department. And a lot of times I can't get that data. So we have to use data that we actually have from the city. Now receiving departments, that's gonna be the end result, right? A receiving department is any department that receives their fair share based on the selective benefit measure. So this can be essentially any department in the city. Even a central service department can be a receiving department because let's think about it, right? HR supports finance, finance supports facilities. They're all central service departments. So the cost allocation plan that we put together takes into consideration this cross support between central service departments. The Office of Management Budget, the federal agency, put forth the 2CFR Part 200 circular that helps give direction regarding how to put a cost allocation plan together. So we utilize that to put our plans together, and we utilize BERSO, which is our software that does all the math for us, thank goodness, so I don't have to do synchronous equations and all that kind of stuff. One thing I did want to mention is that a central service department also can be considered a pseudo department. So it can have both internally facing services and externally facing services. If that is the case, any externally facing services essentially don't get allocated. They will not get allocated to any of the departments within the city through our cost plan. So let's take this and actually let's start putting some numbers to it. You all received, I think, the cost allocation plan. It's a lot of numbers in there, not many words, but a lot of numbers. I love numbers. So if we go to the next slide, $27 million. If we take all your central service departments and see how much budgeted costs they're allocating out, it equals $27 million, okay? So that's the The cost being allocated out half of those costs, forty nine point five percent of those costs are coming from I.T., public works, admin and facilities. OK, those are your departments that have the largest budget. That's should be fairly obvious that maybe that's where they're coming from. Then we get to the receiving end of things. And utilities, your utilities departments, and I'm going to say utilities, but I'm really meaning water and sewer and sewer, all of the utilities departments kind of combined. They're receiving the largest portion of the allocations. They are a big department. So they're receiving $6 million of the cost being allocated. So let's dig down a little bit further. Let's go to the next slide. So here is where you can see IT is allocating out $5.4 million. Public works admin, $4.2 million. Facilities, $3.7 million. That's where that $13.4 million is coming from that's being allocated out, which is nearly half of the cost being allocated out. You can see there where it kind of really drops off, right? These are your other central service departments, utility billing, finance, risk, HR, city management, finance, admin. and design communications, I believe that is not an exhaustive list either as well. But those are the remaining costs that are going to be allocated out from those central service departments. All right. Let's see.

One second, there's a question. Yeah, Michelle, hi. This is Maureen Wolf, a counselor. So because public works is so huge, I'm curious, as a lot of the functions, whether that's library, police, et cetera, I'm assuming have an admin category, but is it because Public Works is so large of a cost component?

So that's the thing I was just curious about, since those weren't specifically identified. Yeah, so I can answer that one. So the Public Works admin, it only gets allocated to other Public Works departments. So they don't get allocated to your library or any of those services.

Were you asking if, like, library admin, why library admin is a central service department?

So Eric answered it for me. Okay. All right.

Sorry.

No, no, no. He's used to my name. Okay.

Thank you. I'm good. Just so you're aware, Michelle cannot see us. Oh, okay. So she just has audio keys.

Yes, I was looking in the chat. Maybe I can see the chat maybe. If you have questions there, it's not anything. Okay. So I think maybe this next slide will help a little bit. So where did the allocated dollars land? So utilities, like I said, is getting allocated 6.14 million. And that is coming from all of those central service departments that we're seeing. Well, not all of them. There might be some of those central service departments that actually don't support the utilities department at all, so they wouldn't get an allocation from them. And that would be an example where Public Works Admin does not support libraries, so they're not going to get an allocation from Public Works. Library is not going to get an allocation from Public Works Admin. But you can see utilities department is one of your largest departments. They're getting, if you look at the percentages there, 22% of the total allocated costs is going to your utilities department. Police, also a very large department. They're getting 12.7% of the total allocated costs. And then from there, it kind of drops off and you've got library, community development, parks and rec. And these are a conglomerate of all of the departments within park and recs, for example. And they're getting about to between two and two and a half million dollars allocated to them. So let's go to the next slide. So utilities, a lot of their allocations are coming from the utility billing department and the public works admin department. And you can see that because public works admin is allocated based on public works operating expenditures and public works FTEs. So that is how public works admin is allocated using those allocation statistics. I think there might be more allocation statistics as well, but those are the two main ones. So really their utility funds receive costs tied to their activity. Police, anything that's allocated citywide, general HR, for instance, the costs that are allocated from the city management, Those are allocated usually to get things allocated citywide. We use FTEs and operating expenditures and police is one of the bigger departments. So they're going to receive a majority of the allocations that are allocated citywide. Also devices, right? Those guys walk around with so many devices strapped to them. I don't know how they do it. And then of course, fleet work orders, right? Fleet, the biggest customer by far from fleet is the police. So They're getting a lot of allocations from that department as well. Library, a lot of their allocations are coming from facilities, HR.

Michelle, sorry, I just want to time check. You have four minutes left for this discussion. So if you can wrap it up.

I am, okay. So community development, a lot of their allocations are coming from IT, devices, time spent, and facilities. square footage, and then parks and rec. You can see in there, you've got the PWFTs and PW operating expenditures. So they're getting their share of the public works admin allocations as well as the utility departments. Also facilities is a big allocator to parks and recs as well. So the last slide here, city council discussion. So what we want from this cost allocation plan is we want the document to be transparent and objective. We want everybody to know, reading it, where those costs are coming from, how they're getting allocated, and what is getting allocated to them and how it's getting allocated to them so that they can see the methodology and tie back all the costs. Nothing is hidden. Everything is there for them to understand. So that is what a cost allocation plan is in a very high level. So from here, I'd love to take your questions.

Nobody raises their hand.

All right, Councillor Robbins.

Sorry.

Yes, I do. This is awesome. So my question is just kind of more on how these things will work and that. Can I get a printout of the slide so I can take some time to look over this?

Yeah, just put it in the packet.

OK, great, thank you. Sorry, appreciate it.

Yeah, if I might add another great place to look, it's my favorite place. is the table of contents of the actual cost allocation plan. It really shows you every single central service department within that central service department, what cost pool service categories they have, and it matches those service categories up with the allocation statistic being used to allocate their costs. So the table of contents of the actual report is excellent to look at. Yeah.

So Michelle, it's Maureen again. In terms of the questions, I think it makes sense. Thank you for all the slides and the thoughtfulness around it. I think from a transparency, call it a cost allocation for dummies. There's part of me, how I learn or process is, and I told Eric, this is how do you walk through an example, right? So we got this big pile of, you know, finance, HR, PWA admin, And then kind of how, and now I realize you can't see me waving my hands around, but how it kind of jumps into a bucket and then it gets reallocated one more time. And then boom, this is the allocation to public works or police. And so that's kind of what I was trying to find as just a, you know, an average person trying to, okay, walk me through this stuff and I understand the calculation. So the methodology, all those things, I think it's great. I'm glad that it is a tool that's helping finance. And I can talk to Eric more about that, but that's me just being curious about truly understanding the calculation, if that makes sense.

No, absolutely, absolutely. If I had had time and everything, I would love to walk you through the cost allocation plan, like one department to show you how we start with the budget and we break it up into the cost pools and then we add on the overhead and then there's that bucket of costs and how we allocate it, you know, based on this allocation statistic, and wham, that is how much gets allocated to police.

So it's, I would love to do that, you know, if... Yeah, and Eric can do that for me, and so I think it was more a reflection of, from a, just a, so, and I don't imagine us having an inquiry, but I think it's pretty transparent, and there's a 200-page report for anybody who wants to read it, so... That was just my feedback, but thank you so much.

Thank you. I would offer, you know, I'm happy to set some time to show you how that works separately. However, what we would really like from council is whether or not direct, if this from a reasonable standpoint makes sense, that the allocations are fair and they seem reasonable at a high level.

And then if there is any additional information that you need before we come back to city council about to have the plan adopted.

So we are doing the study how often?

Well, we'll be updating the allocation factors every year. Every year, okay. The study itself, the proposal that I would have is to do it at least once every five years. Okay. But again, we still continue to update it every year. Now, if there is a significant reorg in an organization, that is also a time when you should consider doing other allocations. Okay, so five years.

That's reasonable. Okay, thank you. Tom, you have? That looks good to me. Are you happy with it? Are you happy with that?

I'm very happy with the results of the plan and how it's much easier for staff to administer while still being able to use statistics that are easy to obtain and are defendable and using an independent metric. So we're using metrics like devices, work orders, purchase orders. These are numbers that are coming from Tyler.

Okay. So, Xiao, one last question. We're already two minutes over, but go ahead.

Yeah, I just, I appreciate the conversation. Thank you very much. And the information was spot on. Having come from corporate America, I get this. If a department goes away, I assume then they'll just be refactored into the formula going forward. but just was curious how that'll change if a small or large department went away.

So, yeah. So, if a department goes away, then we don't have the cost to allocate to any of the, you know, any of who would have been their customers. So, if the department goes away, the costs go away. More often than not, I see reorgs, as Eric mentioned, so costs kind of Don't go away, but they move around. Thank you.

Thank you.

So we're out of time. So Michelle, thank you so much. And everything looks great from Council's viewpoint at a high level.

So thank you so much for your work. Thank you, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. And so let's move on to the next item, which is classification and conversation study implementation guidance. Laura, I think Laura is coming to us. Human Resource Director Gomez and McGrath Consultant Mays will lead this conversation and they're coming. There you go.

Hello.

This is Laura.

This is Elena. Hello, good evening.

Here and this is for me. Yes, I'll go there extra bread. I had some this morning. Yeah. I'll let him know when. All right.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Excellent.

Well, good evening. My name is Melaina Halverson-Mays. I'm a senior consultant with the Graph Human Resources Group. And we have been working with the city now for the better part of, well, since last year. Yeah, I was going to say, I think it was last fall when we actually got started working on your compensation and classification studies. I talk fast. I apologize. And so if you have questions along the way that you want to interject, that's completely fine. And what you're going to find is that I love to talk conversation. So but I also understand we are on a timeline tonight. And so I trust that you will hold me to this. So let's just kind of let's just dive right in here. We can just advance. Wonderful. So in order for me to talk about recommendations, what I need to do is to help set the stage and tell the picture or tell the story of what in the world is happening in terms of classification and compensation and what's happening in the actual labor market. It's been a really challenging past five, six years for most everybody in the public sector, but we also know that The story actually probably started well before that, where we started seeing that the public sector has been losing ground. But certainly since COVID, since 2020, there's been some real, real struggles. And those struggles are not just in the Oregon area. They are all across the United States. But there are certain pockets that are a little bit more challenged than others. We are seeing trend-wise, just again on a nationwide basis, that things are starting to calm down a little bit as the private sector calms down. We see that there is a little bit of a softening on the public sector side, but that's not a hard, fast rule. There are organizations that are starting to water down their minimum qualifications for their positions because they can't find the human capital that they need. And so they are filling positions, but they might be filling positions with lesser qualified individuals. And some organizations have chosen, we're not going to do that. We are not going to sacrifice quality to be able to fill the positions. And we do know that there are going to be some, there continue to be some industries today that they are just absolutely challenged. And it is evident here that, and I know that we're going to have a couple of head nods in the room, Your water and your wastewater is very, very difficult. It is an unglamorous profession. People don't want to go into it. They don't understand the liabilities. They don't understand what a great profession that can be, most certainly, but it's just not a glamorous job. People don't want to go into it. Engineering, very difficult. Planners, very difficult. And so those are also very pocketed in terms across the United States. We are in Well, right now, finding an engineer just about anywhere is not working, but we might be successful in the state of Missouri. It's really just very, very regionalized. So we're doing better, but I would say that we're very fragile. That means it's very tentative, and there's a lot that can sway what you have going on for your human capital. So let's go ahead and progress. Next slide. Oh, next slide.

Sorry.

So now with that story... Now I want to talk with you a little bit. I'm going to look away from you. I want to talk with you about your demographics. This is on a citywide perspective, all of your employees. And what we've done is we've charted them out by age banding, okay? And what that tells us here is that overall, the city, your tenure is about nine years, which is about the average, which is wonderful. It says you're doing something right because right now nationally, the average tenure in public sector, just public sector, is six and a half years. That number keeps trending down. The federal government does that number every other year. The next one is going to be coming out in September or later this year. But what the story tells us is what really is happening with your workforce. So right now you have about 40% of your workforce that is age 15 and over, which means over the course of the next decade, You're almost guaranteed that you're going to lose 40% of your people simply because they're going to be retiring out. They're going to be ready to move on to the next chapter in your life, and you're not going to stop that from happening. It's guaranteed those people are going to leave. You also have almost one-third of your workforce that they are your much more mobile generation, and they are not necessarily dedicated to the city. They will go hop over to the community next door if the skills that they have is going to be paid 50 cents an hour more, a dollar an hour more in that other community. And we don't want to forget that value. the 40-somethings in there, that's kind of the generation that everyone doesn't really talk about right now because they're kind of sandwiched in between the two. And there's actually a lot going on in that particular generation, but they're becoming more and more mobile. And they see the younger generation, how mobile they are and what happens when they are mobile with better income, better salaries, but they're also the next generation They're your next generation. They're your succession plan. You want to hold on to those. So this is really kind of interesting. It helps us tell the story and understand what's happening in the city. So now let's progress to the next slide, and let's take a look at this is your city demographic and how long they've actually been with the city. So that nine years that I was telling you about, well, we've mapped this out a little bit different. And what you have found here is about half of your employees have been with the city for about five years, which means HR has been really busy with recruiting. You've had a lot of turnover. And so even though you've got a lot of long-term employees here, you've got a very young, inexperienced workforce in terms of inexperience to the city, but maybe not inexperienced within their profession. And because you've got union to non-union, you've got people that move positions, 68% of your workforce has been in their position for less than five years. So again, you're very, very inexperienced. You have a lot of professional growth and development, and we really do want to be focusing on retention when we start to see these numbers. So that's what you look like as an organization, citywide, union, and non-union. Let's hit the next slide, please. So now let's bring it in and let's talk about your study very, very briefly. We have a very set methodology that we do. I don't need to necessarily get into the weeds about this methodology other than to say that we are a very data-driven process. We met with all of your department directors to understand what programs, operations, services are provided, what are those positions responsible to do. We then went out to the market to study what similar organizations are paying for their positions. And then at the same time, we analyzed all of the positions here in the city to make sure that the classifications or the job titling of all of your positions are proper. When we studied this and then we brought back our recommendations, I met with your HR team first just so that they understood what I was building for recommendations. And then I met with all of your department directors so that they had an opportunity to offer feedback. Something maybe didn't really sit right, they had a lot of questions, and that's part of our review process. So that is our standard methodology that we put the city through.

Let's hit the next slide.

what we, and again, okay, so public comparable organizations, when we go out to the external market, we collect salary data. It's a very data-driven process. That data has to come from somewhere. If I'm going to approach you and I'm going to say, I'm going to ask you to make a financial commitment to the organization, you're going to say, well, what makes you say so? And this is the list of comparable organizations that we used to compare your market against this market. It's a very expansive list, but it is very much regionalized in this area. So when I talk about the market, these are the organizations that I'm talking about. Okay, let's go ahead and hit the next slide. I'd like to get to what it is that we found. Now, what I've done here is I've broken down three major groups, your nonrepresented employees, your SEIU, and then your TPOA. There's a lot to take in here. When we look at positions and we look at how far away you are from the market, the further away you are from the market, the less competitive you are. So we want you to be that top line says aligned to or above the average market. That's where we want your positions to be. If they are too far under, then they're not going to be competitive and you're going to have recruitment and retention challenges. And what you can see with the non-represented is that nearly half of the positions were too far under the market to be considered competitive. And you have that same thing happen with SCIU. So just under about half of the SCIU was not market aligned. And then what we found overall is that TPOA is at market. TPOA is doing very well against the average market. So when I talk about average market, what that means is all of those communities that I showed you on the previous slide, I take their data set and what we've tried to do is we've tried to put the city smack dab in the middle at about the median, at the 50th percentile. So against the average or the 50th percentile, this clearly told us that we had some work to do for your organization and that you've got some positions that are doing okay. You're going to see some You're going to hear some employees say, I didn't have a big move in this compensation study. You're right. Not everyone needed to move, but there are a fair number of positions that absolutely needed adjustments in their salary ranges.

Next slide, please.

One of the things that we found with your current system, compensation system. And this might be a little bit more in the weeds, but you've got multiple salary schedules that your employees are being compensated from, and they're all very inconsistently developed, and they don't work together. There's no harmony. There should be some interrelationships that are happening there, and they're all very, very independent So you can, the spread is, as an example, SEIU is the third line down, the far right-hand column says spread. That's the range from minimum to maximum. Your union has a larger spread than your management personnel do. Your management personnel have very, currently have very, very limited opportunities in comparison. So there is a lot of inequity that is occurring here at the city because of how your systems are and how they're structured and how they just don't talk to each other right now. So, you know, one of the things that was very, very evident to us was that we needed to get some, we need to get a consistent system in house here for you, put all of those positions on the same or similar model so that they could all start talking to each other. there is a relationship between SEIU to the non-represented, right? You've got the union personnel that are being managed by the non-represented employees, and you need to see, for example, what is that level of separation? Because as an SEIU member who earns overtime, I may decide that I don't want to promote up into my supervisory position because it's not financially worth it for me to do so. And then your succession planning stops right there. So as an organization, there's high value in making sure that everything is managed together. So with that, let's take a look at the next slide, please. And what is it that we built? We built a step model, a step system. So the structure is the same across all of the organizations. You will see that there is Equity, no matter where you are in those salary ranges, they're all going to feel the same. There is an exception to that, and that is the TPOA. I am recommending that TPOA be standalone. The model that is in place right now, it's working for you. Given the challenges in public safety, I felt that it was going to be best left best leave the TPOA alone, so they will be standalone. However, there is some tie back to the rank of lieutenant and above back to the TPOA. So even though it's a standalone, we have built it together. We've included it so that there is this interrelationship that's happening with that command structure. We have established your compensation philosophy at the 50th percentile. That means you are average to the market. That also means, excuse me, what that means then is that the community next door could be paying more for a position here, and that might be the case. We are not putting you at the top of the market. You're not at the top of the leaderboard unless you were to tell us that that's where you want to be, but that has a financial impact to it. So start now at the average. That's a good place to start. And if you decide on a philosophical basis that you want to be a little bit more aggressive in the market, that might be a future opportunity for the city. How we establish compensation for each individual position is based on four different factors. I've talked with all of your department leaders about this. I even had employee meetings on this as well, explaining to the employees how This process, it's not just the external market. It also does include position analysis, internal comparability, if there's some similarities between positions in various departments, and then compression separation, which is that amount of separation that you need between ranks.

I apologize. Let's hit the next slide, please. So Northwest Portland.

The last thing I want to just talk about because you are the policy body of the city and on an annual basis compensation comes up about what is it that we're going to do for our employees and the system that we have built, it needs to be managed. It will be managed by human resources. But we put a lot of time, energy, and fiscal into that. And so you want to be able to maintain that. So we have given some rules to HR to help make sure that this can be managed effective for as long as you want the model. We have some organizations that they've had their same model for about 20 years. It's really philosophically, is that model working for you? We do want you to do an update, a market update every three to five years. I think that that's important because you might find that we have various industries that are a little bit sensitive. And if you can capture what's happening in the market every three years or five years, you should be able to capture those little nuances before they become problematic and you start losing personnel. One example would be we've gone through the wave of finance directors and CFOs. Previous to that, we had IT directors. Right now we're in the world of engineers, and in a few years, we're going to have another industry that pops up. So that's important to help maintain.

All right, let's progress to the next slide.

I also, oh, all right, well, can we, I want to just, we're going to come back to this slide. Can we advance, please? All right, and one more. I also took a look at your benefits, and Benefits are not on the table for discussion tonight. I've given the information over to the city. I at least just want you to be aware that we have looked at your benefits. You're positioned okay. You're not positioned in a place benefits-wise where you would have to make immediate changes. There are some recommendations, however, that will better position the non-represented against the union And so that there will be some opportunities that may be presented to you in the future in terms of the total benefits package. But just know that we studied that as well. With that, if we could go back now, please, if we can go back two slides, let's talk about the financial considerations. So this is at the end of the day, how much is this going to cost? And right now, when we put all of your employees within their new model, what we call our baseline estimate is about $600,000. That excludes benefit roll-ups, and it excludes anything that might be coming out of the bargain or an additional COLA. That's just to get all of your employees into the new model and get them progressing again. Now, the other thing that this does exclude is a pay equity analysis that has to happen next, and that will happen through human resources. So this does come with a cost. This would be a base building cost to the organization. And I would imagine if you have questions about that. So I don't know how I'm doing for time. Okay. All right, perfect. I am happy to answer questions.

So you were saying... This is just to get started. We're not talking about pay equity. That could increase this even more.

You should expect that pay equity is going to increase this number.

Okay, so 600. We need to come up with 600. Just to get you started. Just to get you started. Anybody have a question?

I have a question. What is the difference between this analysis and pay equity? Because my understanding of how this works is we're kind of getting people up to pay equity with surrounding markets, or is that pay equity between positions within the city?

So what this process has done now is it has reestablished your compensation system, your structure, to make sure that all of the positions are being placed in a salary range that is aligned to the average market. So now your positions can be, we can say that they're going to be competitively paid. and that will help with recruitment and retention. The pay equity piece is a little bit different because what we want to, what the city will need to look at is within a job classification, as an example, males versus females, or looking at, you know, if anyone is Caucasian or if they are, you know, or not, looking at it from that vantage point. The other, there's, you know, real technical issues analysis that occurs with pay equity as well, because you can also be taking a look at what type of experience did a person come into the organization with? Because if you're treating Sally one way, but you're treating Jack a different way, and Sally and Jack have maybe a similar experience coming in, but you place Sally at step one, but you place Jack at step three. that has to be reviewed to make sure that you're not, that you don't have any inequities. And the thing is, is that you can't let Jack go down to step one. It can only go one direction, but that HR will have to study that. A lot of work. It's going to be a lot of work. Yeah. Pay equity is not going to be that. I mean, that's an entire project all by itself.

And that's a statute requirement that we have to do every three years. It hasn't been

In how long? Together? I'm believing that it has been at least three. We don't have any data that's supporting. Yeah. Anyway, so it's a statute. Okay. Every three years. And it's based off of the individuals. Yeah, go ahead. So thank you.

It's really interesting. So my question in the beginning, you talked about the really hard to place positions that we're struggling with. Does 50 percent get us there or does that become an equity issue to say that should be 65 percent?

There was a pay equity. I'm thinking there has not been a class and comp study. So most of the employees and staff have been maxed out. So there isn't really a true equity alignment of someone who has two years of experience versus someone who has 15 years of experience. Yes.

I'm sorry. No, because that's important.

I'm trying to remember which one was which.

No, that's quite okay. So, yeah, so that's what I'm curious about to solve those gap problems.

Competitively. Will we close the gap? We're closing the gap. Will it bring all of your candidates? Probably not. Public sector, we do a really poor job of advertising and marketing ourselves as being an industry of choice, even though there's a lot of reasons why you might want to come for public sector. Here's what I normally tell organizations. Start at the 50th because now you're going into this knowing that you're at the 50th. You can monitor metrics. You can monitor to see how successful it is. And if your turnover is low, your time to hire is low, that tells you the 50th is doing okay. If your metrics are not improving, then that tells you that you either have a cultural issue here or you have a that the 50th is not strong enough in your market and that you need to go to the 60th as an example. But I would rather you rely on having factual data to help make that decision because you know that every time that we're going to start elevating up these salary ranges to a higher price point is going to come with a dollar. It's an associated cost and that you can't take lightly. I hope that this is going to help close the gap in some of those. You've had some vacancies here for a long time. And I'm hoping that we will, we have positioned you stronger. Yeah.

And the only other second question I have is I'm trying to understand. So city tiger is above length of service, but yet 68% is below five years. So is that just an age map? Kind of. That was one of the first slides that you shared.

So, okay. Say that again.

So it's, One of the earlier slides said that City of Tigard is above the average 6.4, and we're 9 something. But 68% of our employees are less than 5.

If you see the 10-year, you've got some 20, 30, 40-year employees. They are keeping your average up, and as soon as they start retiring out, then you're going to start struggling. All right.

So how do we phase this in or is it a one time?

We've looked at whether or not we could phase this in and the employees, um, and where they would be placed in the salary range. You're, you don't have a lot of opportunity to do a base and implementation. You either you're, it's going to be a matter of what is the date that you're going to do. If you do it, you know, at the turn of, uh, um, your fiscal year, you have the full year cost versus you might delay it a few months to help get the implementation, but not at the full year cost.

That's really going to be your only options at this point. It's all or nothing.

So the staff have had some conversations, right? Or, yeah. So they, okay. That's what I thought.

They have been actively engaged and results were shared with them citywide, both bargaining units. They've talked about it. There were some appeals that came in about where they thought they should be or what their titles are, and that's what they're working through. But it doesn't change that too much. But the employees have been kept aware of every single step for a very long time in detail.

So how much information do they have? Like, Just what we have, or were they told you were in step two, where the range is?

They actually just have your ranges. They know what they are. Our salary schedule online, it's available to everybody. It shows where they are for that position, and they know what they're making, and it shows the salary schedule. This is the end. This is the beginning. So what we're showing them now is this is the new end. This is the new beginning, and here's what we call steps. So not all of them have steps. And that was something I was referring to back in October when we talked about the analysis then. It just seems to be easier to follow that instead of a undefined now, where do I go next?

Yes. Yes.

Councillor Schell.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate the conversation. Thank you very much. And great data. Oftentimes benefits are done in conjunction with these types of studies because oftentimes And you hear a lot, and maybe it's anecdotal, but that within government, the benefits package tends to be much stronger than it is in private sector. And so you look at overall compensation as a whole, not just baseline and then separate benefits. But is there a reason we didn't do both? Or is it just because we were so far underneath the current pay structure that you separated them out? Thank you.

We typically will look at benefits separate than separate. we look at them as two different topics, simply because benefits take time for you to study and decide if you're going to implement. And so the other part of that that we looked at was we looked at your non-rep outside of the organization, how you're doing against the external market, not necessarily union, because with the union, you have quote-unquote pros. So you might make a benefits change, but you're getting something for it and it further complicates the topic. So in addition to how your non-refs are looking outside of the market or what, you know, the benefit packages that are offered outside of the organization, also then looked at what's happening between your union and your non-union internal as well. And that was really where we found a lot of opportunity here for you was to try to better align what you have going on, because you have some inconsistencies, absolute inconsistencies in-house. Overall, you are, you know, I would say that you are a little bit of a disadvantage overall benefits-wise, and it's not necessarily anything that you're going to be able to solve right here, right now, today. Your retirement system, you're not on the state retirement system. you are at an absolute disadvantage for that because people who might want to transfer here from other public sector, they're not necessarily going to be as inclined to because they don't have the same retirement package. You know, you've got a couple of different options for health insurance. That's a positive plug for you. You're not at the top of the leaderboard for that. There's going to be some opportunities there and your time off could be improved. You're actually lagging in the market with your time off. So, There's some opportunities there. So overall, you're not in a position to say we don't have great wages because we have great benefits. We did not see that. We did not see that at all. You have some opportunities there. I don't think you're in crisis. I do want you to focus on your compensation first. That is number one. You have to focus on that first, and then your HR department can come forward with what needs to happen for benefits.

So it doesn't sound like a date has been decided upon for when this will be implemented.

Will council be notified when that date has been selected? I mean, based on the AIS, we have no say in the actual, like this is all operational.

So that's it. This is the back of work, the Q&A, so that the direction can be provided to staff to implement that next week.

Does anybody have issues with going this direction? No, I think we need to be competitive. We won't go track of talents.

So thank you. Councilor Schaaf.

Yeah, thank you. I agree. We need to be competitive. I guess with this $600,000, that obviously is a budget issue. And that is concerning. So I assume we'll be talking about that at some point because then it does become a ballsy decision. Thank you.

Where does that come from? 600,000.

So that would be a policy decision for the council.

So it could come from reserves or from, and then in the future, for future, if we're talking about for fiscal year 27, it would have to come from reserves. That would be the only option.

Unless we're talking about making further reductions in existing programs.

But this is a continual, right? It's this one year, but then every year after it's a policy decision. Correct.

Plus cost of living and pay equity.

So it's going to be more and more difficult every year.

Yes.

So I'm sorry, I'm being really dense, Eric.

So what you're saying is there isn't, other than taking it from reserves, that is the answer for fiscal year 27. So we just went through the community process that didn't say. No, I think, and I appreciate Councilor Shaw bringing it up, is my bigger concern.

is we're still missing a pretty big hole on benefits. Because as an individual, you look at everything, right? You look at the whole thing. So I'm really concerned about how we get that second half or whatever component, but I think it's a big deal.

So in order to provide any kind of guidance, I think we kind of need to know how long can we wait before really start to lose out and maybe that's not at all because we've already been losing out versus how long do we want to wait for the budget so it's less of an impact, you know, our fiscal year's coming up and we've just approved, you know, approved the budget committee part of the budget and we have to approve it. Are we going to have to, can we just amend it, do one more amendment to pull money out and we're hiring, how long Like, is this desperate times that we can't hire anyone? I feel like I need some input from different departments before being able to provide guidance, unless we just say, do it.

Do it. Is that recommendation to do it? Absolutely, 27.

Eric, can I ask you a question? Yes. This is Brian Rager. Not all of the 600K will be from the general fund, correct?

That is correct.

So that is an assumption to take into consideration. So you're going to have the enterprise funds that are going to be carrying a good portion of that. I don't have a percentage. I mean, it's a rough estimate.

It's about half. But nothing's going to go to police for this, right? Because they're going to sex the TPLA. Is that correct? We're a marketing winner. Oh, marketing, but not for This is on pause until they see what happens here.

The bargaining is the bargaining instance. I see.

Okay.

Yay. Okay. Any other questions or comments?

I didn't hear what staff recommendation was.

What is the staff recommendation?

next week. We'll present it next week for direction and guidance, otherwise we're still in a...

Right, present it for direction and guidance, and is the staff recommendation going to be to do it for fiscal year?

Yes, but it takes time. I mean, like Melina described, there's still a lot of lifting and work that needs to be done that hasn't started. And we won't be able to start that until we know what we're working with first. So we need this to progress to the next step. Okay, yeah.

Do you happen to know when the state statute came to be? Like, has it been over the last three years?

So we were just not doing it, or it's been a while? So it's definitely due. Yeah, it's due.

So, and to clarify, the three years is a safe harbor. So it doesn't mean that we're automatically out of compliance. It means that if we do a study every three years, we're in a safe harbor for claims. So it's required that we comply with the law. And the three years is a safe harbor. So I don't want there to be confusion that we have been a violation of the statute.

There is a pay equity that's completed when a new hire starts. But it's a unique kind of math. It's not something that's simplified with a step. We can actually securely say this group is here because of X number of years of experience for education and for certifications.

It's different.

It's based on percentage range.

Thank you so much for being here with us today.

Thank you, Laura. All right. So this meeting is in recess until the business meeting. Thank you.

I will call this Tiger City Council and local contract review board meeting to order. Deputy City Recorder Bartholomew, would you please conduct a roll call?

Council President Wolf? Here. Councilor Anderson?

Here.

Councilor Gaddousi?

Present.

Youth Councilor Hellick? Here. Mayor Who?

Here.

Councilor Robbins? Here. Councilor Slack?

Here.

Councillor Schell. Here.

Thank you. Will everybody please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. All right, city team and council, do you have any non-agenda item you want to discuss tonight? All right, seeing none, let's move on to the next section which is 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 503-966-4101, and those wishing to comment should call now to get into the queue. Anyone present wanting to comment should sign up on the public comment form at the front of the room. Those calling in for agenda number six, which is adoption of the Kingston Terrace Addendum to the 2020 Water System Plan, should wait until the item is announced and then call in. First is written comments. There were 15 written public comments received by the Monday noon deadline. Comments include 12 concerns with the public library budget for the fiscal year 2027, two concerns about River Terrace 2.0, and one about proposed public works and police building. And then let's move on to the in-person. So I will ask those who sign up to come forward. So when your name is called, please come forward to the microphone and make sure it's turned on. And today we have two people sign up. So each one of you have two minutes to speak. The first person I want to ask is Jessica Fredrickson. Hello. Yeah, please state your name. Go ahead and please state your name and where you live and you have two minutes. Yeah, please turn on your mic. Yes.

Hi, everybody. My name is Jessica Fredrickson. Good evening, City Council. Thank you for your time tonight. I just bought a house in Newburgh so that I could be closer to my work here in Tigard. I have worked nonstop jobs and paid taxes since I was 17 years old. I was awarded a Fulbright academic scholarship in college, and I graduated top of my class with a 4.0 in grad school. I've been a public servant most of my working life, first as a teacher and now as a librarian. My story has a happy ending, but it did not start that way. Once upon a time, I was the hungry, smelly kid in the laundromat in the park asking strangers for food. I was the kid falling asleep in class because my family lived in a car. And my mom used that car to deliver newspapers starting at midnight. The helpers in my life, the teachers and the librarians and the social workers, were not nice to have. They were essential. They are the reason that I survived. And I grew up to be the helper who's in front of you today. These helpers are the reason that I am the Youth Services Supervisor at the Tigard Public Library, which is where I work closely with the Social Services Coordinator to make sure that all of the needs of kids and teens and their families are met in our community so that they can not just survive, but thrive. And I'm here tonight as a living testament to the power of social services and to ask once again that Council restore funding for this essential and life-changing position in our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Jessica? All right, so next person, I'm sorry, I cannot read your name, but yeah, please go ahead and say your name for the record and where you live, and then you have two minutes. Oh, your mic is not on. There we go.

Perfect. My name is Siobhan Chandler, Irish name. I live here in Tigard, just up the road, actually. So I had not necessarily intended to come here tonight, but one of my favorite sayings is, The world is run by the people who show up. And so I'm showing up here tonight. I've never spoken to somebody group like this. That said, I used to be on the budget committee of this town. And when I think about the mandates that the voters in this community issued in the past year, there were two. I'm happy to share those with you. One was 34-34-5, and that pertained to maintaining the library systems at the level at which they were. That was specifically what that vote was about. that overwhelmingly passed. The second was also a mandate. And it was, we are not here to fund a new building for police and public works. I believe in the good work that police departments do to serve and protect their communities. That said, they are more than welcome to use the gun range that's available for all residents and workers of the police departments within Washington County. We don't need one of our own. And I want to also call out that Work is what we do, not where we do it. The public library, as our earlier person spoke to, serves people from all walks of life. I have lived here for 13 years. I have never once set foot in the public works building. That means those jobs could be re-contemplated, perhaps to be work from home or other areas. There is no need to have a vindictive budget to simply address the fact that we're sad that the...

Thank you. All right, anyone else want to speak? All right, let's move on to following video. Mr. Wold, are there any callers in the queue for phone or video testimony?

Mayor, there's one caller in the queue and one request for video comment. I'll connect the caller right now.

All right, thank you. Caller, welcome. And once you speak your name and where you live, you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Roger Potthoff. I am a 29-year, along with my wife, a 29-year resident of Tigard. I live at 11710 Ann Street. And I'm calling tonight in the wake of the vote whereby the public safety measure went down. And one of the most articulate messages, I think, in the voter pamphlet was written by Linda Monahan. And she commented about the need to preserve the land in the Tiger Triangle to generate tax revenue for our city. That's why it was included in the tax increment financing urban renewal zone. And so I am calling tonight to say that the Portland Business Journal on June 4th is honoring a hundred fastest growing companies. I hope Tigard has a presence at that meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Roger. Mr. Wald, would you please patch in the video testimony?

Yes, they can go ahead and start speaking now if they are online.

Yes, that would be me, Mr. Mayor, is that correct?

Yes, I can hear you, so please state your name, where you live, and you have two minutes.

Yes. Good evening. My name is Jeff Weiss, and I own the property at 16245 Southwest Beef Bend Road. I sent an email earlier this week supporting the streamlined road design, and tonight I want to focus on where the proposed intersection of Southwest River Terrace Boulevard and Beef Bend occurs. Under the Tiger Development Code, Section 18.910.050, Road alignments must follow a standard shared half-width dedication. It shares the burden between two property owners. To do that, Tigard must keep the center line of River Terrace Boulevard precisely aligned with my eastern property line, where it is under the streamlined road design. I know King City put in a road stub south to the south that is off alignment, but Tigard should not chase their mistake and change road locations for several reasons. It wastes buildable land. This corner is zoned mixed-use commercial, one of the few islands like this in the River Terrace 2.0 project, and it actively ruins a premium commercial footprint. It also complicates housing density goals. lost ground undermines these goals. And to reiterate, it violates city code. Shifting the corridor west completely abandons the half-width dedication rules required by section 18.910 Point 050. Tigard should not break its rules or penalize residents to fix another city's oversight. Please select the streamlined design and the associated road alignments. Thank you very much. I know this has been very difficult work for the staff members of the City of Tigard. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Jeff, for expressing your opinion, public testimony. All right, so let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is City Manager Report. Active City Manager Rager will provide a brief report. Good evening.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Tonight we proudly recognize May as National Military Appreciation Month. This month offers a dedicated time to pay tribute to the millions of men and women who have answered the call to serve in our nation's armed forces. We owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to our active duty service members, reserves, guard units, and veterans who have secured and protected the freedoms we daily enjoy. Just as importantly, we must also recognize that service is a collective journey. Behind every uniform is a family enduring long deployments, frequent moves, and the quiet anxieties of separation. The strength and resilience displayed by military spouses, children, and parents are foundational to our nation's defense, and tonight we honor their profound sacrifices alongside those of our service members. I want to highlight a moving video tribute shared by Councilor Gaduzzi. As an Air Force veteran, Councilor Gaduzzi brings a deeply personal perspective and an authentic voice to this month's recognition. The message beautifully captures what it means to serve and serves as a powerful reminder of our ongoing duty to support those who have given so much. And you can find this video on the city's YouTube page. I encourage all of our residents to find tangible ways to support our local veteran families this month and throughout the year. Thank you to Councilor Gaduzzi and thanks to all of our service members and families.

Thank you. And yesterday, Councilor Guzzuzzi and Councilor Schlack and I went to our Memorial Day service at Crescent Grove Cemetery, and that was a very moving tribute to, you know, different group of people who have, veterans who have sacrificed their life for us. So that was something that was very moving as well. So well said. All right, so thank you. Let's move on to next item on the agenda, which is consent agenda. The consent agenda is used for routine items. Information on each item is available on the city's website in the packet for this meeting. These items may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Council members may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Tonight, we have four consent items. Three are contract, and one is a resolution of support. The contracts are for Steve's Street Park, the pavement management program, and Red Rock Creek Water Line. The resolution of support is for a grant that will be used for the Ash Creek Nature Link Trail. Do we have a motion or any question for staff?

Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

So the motion has been presented and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. The consent agenda is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council. All right, so let's move on to item number six, which is public hearing. Consider ordinance adopting the Kingston Terrace Addendum to the 2020 Water System Plan. And I will open the public hearing. And anyone who want to testify by phone, video, or in person may call now to get into the queue by calling 503-966-4101. And first, I would like to invite Senior Project Wharton to give the staff report. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. My name is Ross Horton. I'm a senior project engineer with City of Tiger Public Works Department. And tonight, I would like to give a follow-up presentation to the presentation I gave back in February regarding the Kingston Terrace addendum to our water system plan. But before I do that, I want to pass the mic over to Skylar Warren, our Assistant Director of Community Development, and just have him give you a brief update as to why we are passing this, or why we are requesting an ordinance to pass this adoption.

Good evening, Mayor Hu, members of the Council. This is Kyler Warren. I'm the Assistant Director of Community Development. I do want to give just a brief update on what you're going to be hearing Ross present. The reason I want to give this update is it's a little different than we've handled system plan updates in the past. As we have been trying to shore up our processes and procedures within community development, working with our partners in engineering, we have determined that the proper procedure for any system plan that would fall under statewide planning goal 11, and that's pretty much all of them, transportation system plan, sanitary sewer, water, PARKS, TRAILS, THOSE ARE CONSIDERED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ANCILLARY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN OTHER WORDS THEY'RE IMPLEMENTING STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 11. Over time, as we do these incremental updates or major updates to these system plans, you're going to see these coming through to Council as Comprehensive Plan amendments. I just want to highlight that it's not actually amending the Comprehensive Plan, but because it is that ancillary document, it will be processed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Just wanted to give that background to the council and so you understood why you were seeing this a little differently than some of the past system plan updates.

All right. Thank you, Skylar. With that, we'll dive into the presentation about the Kingston Terrace Water System Plan Addendum. Next. So first, just a very brief overview about what our water system plan is and why we have it. So the water system plan is actually a document that's required by Oregon state law that looks out 20 years into the future to plan our water system for its make sure we're meeting our current needs and also planning for what the future needs will be. This document helps us plan for operational improvements that are needed, that plan for future capital improvements, and helps us maintain a high quality water system that serves water to all of our customers. This water system plan, it's updated every five to 10 years. Our next planned update actually is going to start next fiscal year in July. and major changes between updates to the water system plan are tackled as addendums. The last addendum that we did was River Terrace 1.0 back in 2014. We'll be doing the Kingston Terrace addendum this evening and then coming up in the near future we'll also be tackling the River Terrace 2.0 water system plan addendum. Next slide please. So let's talk about our obligation to supply water to King City. Tigard, the Tigard Water Service Area serves two thirds of Tigard, Durham, King City, and parts of unincorporated Washington County around Bull Mountain. We have separate intergovernmental agreements between the City of Tigard with Durham, King City has their own IGA as well as the former Tigard Water District area. Specifically with our agreement with King City, Tigard is obligated to serve water to King City and any areas that are annexed into King City, which brings us to our next slide where we will talk about the Kingston Terrace Master Plan. Back in 2024, King City incorporated an urban reserve area into King City. This added an additional 528 acres into King City, and their plan is to add an additional 4,100 housing units out there. It's a major change to our water system. It's gonna increase the water system size by about 20%. Development is already occurring out in Kingston Terrace and we're expecting it to continue until the early 2050s when it will be fully built out. So because this was a major system change, we wanted to look at this, how this change would affect our water system using the same lens that we used to evaluate our water system back in 2020 when we did the last water system plan update. So we looked at the demand assumptions, what storage and supply requirements were going to be needed to serve this area, as well as what fire flow and pumping capacity we would need to adequately serve The Kingston Terrace area and all this is incorporated into the water system plan addendum Next slide please During the presentation in February, we did a relatively deep dive on all of the system changes that are going to come about with the Kingston Terrace Addendum. But tonight, I just kind of wanted to give you a higher level overview of what impacts we're going to expect when Kingston Terrace gets built out. The first and arguably most important is the water system demands. Kingston Terrace is going to add, on an average day, when it's fully built out, an extra 1.1 million gallons of demand to our system. On a peak day in early summer, we'd be looking at additional 2.2 million gallons of water demand on our system, so a not insignificant amount. Because of these new demands, we had to take a look at our water supply fund, how our current water supplies are going to be able to serve this area. We did find that with the current capital improvement project underway with the Lake Oswego Tigard expansion, we project that we will have adequate supply until at least 2045 before we will need to start looking at other areas or other methods of supply like a new well or additional supply from Lake Oswego. We also looked at storage and how we're going to store water to serve this area and also where we're going to have to build storage to serve this area. So currently we're anticipating a minor storage deficit starting in 2030. We already have planned a capital improvement project, Reservoir 19, to address this storage deficit. We're anticipating that that Reservoir will be online in about 2031 so from a storage perspective We are anticipating to be able to serve Kingston Terrace without any issue we also looked at pumping demands and fire flow analysis and We have sufficient pumping capacity to move the water that we need to out to Kingston Terrace and we also did an evaluation of the pipe network layout and the sizing to make sure that there was adequate fire flow throughout Kingston Terrace and So with all that being said, our conclusion was that Kingston Terrace can be safely incorporated into our Tigard water service area now with infrastructure improvements to follow in the future that are gonna be tackled as part of our capital improvement plan.

Next slide, please.

And now in addition to Kingston Terrace, we're also currently planning for River Terrace 2.0. This is another urban reserve area that's planned to be incorporated into Tigard with an additional 4,500 dwelling units. So between Kingston Terrace and River Terrace 2.0, we're projecting that our water system is going to expand by approximately 40% in size over the next 30 years. So not insignificant changes that are happening to our little water system here in Tigard. We're expecting River Terrace to add an additional 1.1 million gallon per day of average daily demand and up to two million gallons a day on a peak demand day. So we are not only looking at the improvements required for Kingston Terrace when we're talking about our capital improvement plan, but we're also looking into the future and looking at what requirements are needed to serve River Terrace 2.0 as well. Next slide, please. So regarding those improvements, there's a few improvements that are needed to serve this area. The first is transmission piping, moving the water out to Kingston Terrace. The new transmission pipeline and the distribution pipelines that will be built as the area is developed Those are all reviewed by our engineering team here at Public Works to make sure that the piping network matches what was proposed in the water system plan addendum and to make sure that adequate water can be served to the entire area. Additional storage is going to be required in the near future to serve this area. We're currently planning for a 7.5 million gallon reservoir to be built on the southwest side of Bull Mountain Reservoir 19, and that's going to serve Kingston Terrace and River Terrace 2.0. And we're also looking at additional water supply. We're projecting that by 2050, an additional four million gallons a day of supply is gonna be needed to serve not only Kingston Terrace, but River Terrace 2.0. So as part of our capital improvement plan, we have projects in mind to expand our current water supply. Next slide, please. So I just want to do a quick review of the capital projects we have planned to support this growth in our water system. The first is the Lake Oswego Tigard expansion project. This project is currently, we're soliciting right now for the engineering design for this project. We'll be increasing the capacity of our main pump station by four million gallons a day to bring in up to 18 million gallons a day from our Lake Oswego Tigard partnership. We are planning to install a new pump at the pump station and also to make some major upgrades to the transmission piping between our reservoir in Lake Oswego and Tigard. We are planning to kick off this project here in the near future once we select our our engineer of record for it and then we're anticipating construction to be complete by 2031. Next would be Reservoir 19. This is going to be a large reservoir built on the south side of Bull Mountain to add new storage to the pressure zone that serves River Terrace 2.0 and Kingston Terrace. We've completed a siting study for it. We're about to start the land acquisition process, and we're expecting construction to start in 2030 and be completed shortly after that. We have a project for our 560-foot east pressure zone consolidation project. This project is going to develop a plan to replace two aging reservoirs at one of our sites here in Tigard and add some additional storage capacity to it. So that additional storage capacity will help serve these growing areas as well as increase the resiliency of our water system. And we'll be kicking that project off later this year. We are going to be starting our water system plan update later this year. So we'll be taking a comprehensive look at our water system, including the River Terrace 2.0 and Kingston Terrace areas, identifying options for our water supply expansion that's going to be needed in the future to serve these areas. And as part of that, we'll also be doing a system development charge rate study to find ways to fund the identified capital improvement projects that are going to be needed to serve these areas. And that will be kicking off later this year with the SDC study happening once the water system plan update is completed. And then finally, we have a capital project planned to address the supply question, the ASR expansion feasibility study. And this study is kind of the first step in locating a new drinking water well that would help serve water to Tigard's customers, not only in the expansion areas, but all of our regular customers that are currently in the water service area. So we'll be looking for locations for up to two new wells with the potential capacity of three to four million gallons a day. We'll be kicking off that study later this year to identify those sites, and then once we identify those sites and do some test wells, we can identify a capital project to actually build that drinking water well. Next slide, please. So I want to just give a quick review of what we covered here and kind of our recommendation as to what we are requesting of council. The first point is that Tigard is obligated to provide water to Kingston Terrace per our IGA. The Kingston Terrace area is going to expand our water system by quite a bit, but we've developed this water system plan addendum to come up with a good solid plan for how to address those changes and how to incorporate those changes into our water system. It's been reviewed by staff and we know because of this water system plan addendum we know what improvements are needed and we have a good plan to tackle them. We have a capital improvement project capital improvement plan in place with projects in place that are currently funded to make these necessary water system improvements. And lastly The Taggart Water Advisory Board and the Planning Commission have both received briefings on the Kingston Terrace Water System Plan Addendum, and they both recommend its adoption.

Thank you, Senior Project Engineer Horton, for your presentation. Now I will go into the public testimony section. We received no written comment on this item by noon Monday. Mr. Wold, are there any callers in the queue to testify on this item?

Mayor, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you. Deputy City Recorder Bartholomew, did anyone sign up? No? Okay, so no response needed. So now I want to open up to council question. Council Gaddousi.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IN LOOKING AT KINGSTON TERRACE AND THE ADDITION OF RIVER TERRACE 2.0, WOULD THAT BE AN ADDITIONAL 42% DEMAND ON THE HIGH GROUND WATER SYSTEM?

YES. BETWEEN THE TWO, WE'RE EXPECTING GROWTH TO BE ON THE ORDER OF 40% OF WATER SYSTEM DEMANDS. THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT. IT IS A LOT, YES. It is not insignificant, so it is gonna take, like I said, we have a good plan in place. It is going to take, Good engineering effort. It's going to take a lot of capital projects to to make sure that we can serve these areas It is certainly not an insurmountable task. We have a good plan in place We have identified what the deficiencies are currently in our system namely storage and supply And we have a good plan in place to make sure that we can serve areas as they build them out Council Robbins

JUST TO MAYBE FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING, BETWEEN KINGSTON TERRACE AND RIVER TERRACE 2.0, WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 6,000 AND 8,000 HOMES, RIGHT? THREE TO FOUR AND THEN THREE TO FOUR, RIGHT? YES. IF YOU HAD THREE PEOPLE LIVING IN EACH OF THOSE AT 6,000 HOMES, THAT WOULD BE 18,000 PEOPLE. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 57,000, SO It's it's almost half right so so when you look at it from that way It does kind of pencil out to be maybe the numbers more like 30,000 with that, but that's why it's so much Is that would that be? Does that kind of make sense what I'm saying?

Yes, that's I think that's pretty accurate representation of the growth. That's going to happen Yeah

AND FOR ME, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC, BY ADOPTING THIS SYSTEM PLAN, WE'RE NOT DECIDING HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE FUNDED TONIGHT. BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, THERE WILL BE FURTHER STC STUDY, CIP STUDY, SO TONIGHT WE'RE JUST ADOPTING THE PLAN. THAT'S CORRECT.

These large system improvements that are needed are typically paid for from SDC funds. So we will be updating the SDC rates after we complete our next water system plan to make sure that all of these identified projects will be funded through SDCs.

Okay, yeah, because... We have a committee member and now budget committee member who testified a couple times expressing concern that current Tiger residents will be unwillingly subsidizing those developments. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, this will be paid by SDC, all those new development, well, mostly, I guess.

That's correct. So for system improvements that are needed for expansions, that's where SDC's funds are used. Typically, water... the water bills that Tigard residents pay, they don't go towards these needed improvements. So yes, it will be SDC funds and we'll make sure our SDC rate study is done so that the SDCs are well funded for these improvements.

Thank you for the clarification. That's why I want to hear. Thank you. Any other question before I close the hearing? Councillor Anderson.

Do we have any percentage rights to the Willamette Water Project?

I don't know off the top of my head. And I don't want to misspeak. I know that Tigard has some rights on the Willamette River, but how they apply to the Willamette Water Project, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

I thought at one time there was about 10% that Tigard had. But go ahead.

Sorry. If the question is what, is your question what kind of investment do we have in the Willamette system or what, was it more, okay. So Tigard invested in the Willamette intake structure, the facility that brings water out of the river. So that's really our only investment so far. Back when that was done, it was just after we had, activated the Lake Oswego-Tiger connections and the council at that time saw the wisdom in making a small, relatively small investment in the intake structure just kind of gives us a place to start when we eventually need to go there. But we wouldn't be able to take water from the system now. That will require

uh... additional negotiations with uh... the folks that are involved in that project i'd say no other question i will close that public hearing uh... discussion or motion may i move to approve ordinance number twenty six dash twelve seconded all right the motion being moved by counselor robbins and second by counselor schlack is there any further discussion see none while the deputy city recorder read the number and title of the ordinance ordinance number 26-12 an ordinance adopting an amendment to the water system master plan as a sub element of the city's comprehensive plan Will the deputy city court please conduct a roll call vote?

Council President Wolf?

Yes.

Councilor Anderson?

Yes.

Councilor Gaddousi?

Yes.

Mayor Hu?

Yes.

Councilor Robbins? Yes. Councilor Schlag?

Yes.

Abby? Councilor Shah?

Yes. All right, ordinance number 26-12 is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council. All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda. Thank you for the presentation. River Tires 2.0 Streets and Finance Strategy Update, and I will invite Senior Planner Gada to introduce this item. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor Hu, city council members. My name is Brittany Gaeta. I'm a senior planner in the community development department. I'll be providing staff's presentation this evening for the River Terrace 2.0 community plan. Tonight we are following up on street designs and the finance strategy. These topics were both discussed at the previous council meeting when I provided an update on March 24th. So we are following up on that discussion here tonight and asking council direction on street designs. I am joined by Skylar Warren, the Assistant Community Development Director, Joe Wisniewski, the City Engineer, and Tiffany Gerke, the Principal Transportation Planner, who will all be assisting with the question and discussion period this evening.

Next slide, please.

So first, I wanted to follow up on the finance strategy. So if we can go to the next slide. Since the March 24th City Council meeting, staff has taken several follow-up actions to respond to the feedback that we heard at that time on two different topics. First, tiered system development charges, or SDCs, and maintenance costs. So the purpose of this update is really to report out on what we've done in response. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about these items. So regarding tiered SDCs, we heard unanimous support from City Council to explore expanding the tiered SDC approach to citywide parks and transportation SDCs, since that would promote housing affordability and address equity goals that the Council has. In response, staff is currently working to amend our existing consultant contract with ECHO Northwest and Clarity Rothstein to provide recommendations for tiered citywide SDCs. And when this study is ready, it'll be brought in front of Council to inform you of what those findings were and what their recommendations are so we can seek direction from Council. On the topic of maintenance, during the previous update, we heard from City Council that there was an interest in exploring a supplemental maintenance fee for River Terrace 2.0 future residents to prevent shortfalls to city maintenance budgets with the new infrastructure coming online. So staff went ahead and assessed the feasibility of implementing such a fee. We did find that there would be substantial administrative challenges to doing such, and that we're actually finding that River Terrace 2.0 designs are more aligned with the new normal of facilities that we're seeing planned in other areas of Tigard. You can see the 72nd Avenue design on this slide, which provides some similar off-street bike facilities. So in order to maintain equity and make sure that River Terrace 2.0 isn't treated differently than other areas of the city, it was decided by city leadership that we move forward with not implementing a supplemental maintenance fee on River Terrace 2.0, but instead calibrating our maintenance fees and the structures that we already have in order to make sure that additional maintenance brought on by these special features citywide is worked into our regular rate studies, which are always done after we finish an infrastructure plan. So, for example, we have the transportation system plan update coming up here citywide, so the transportation rate study would be done after that. So if we go to the next slide, just to give you a better idea of what that timing would look like, so first we have the River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan, which we're expecting to be adopted in 2027. The TSP, Transportation System Plan update, would happen the following year. And then again, following that up with a rate study to take into account these additional maintenance costs would happen in 2029. And then in terms of when development would actually start coming online in River Terrace 2.0, that wouldn't occur until 2030 when the city is actually starting to accept those right-of-way improvements and beginning maintenance on those facilities. It's at that point that we expect the additional staff to be needed for maintenance, which is estimated at two to three full-time additional staff. And then the earliest major maintenance that would be anticipated is about a decade later. So we would have that rate study done far in advance of major maintenance and at the very least a year ahead of minor ongoing maintenance like maintaining landscaped areas and things like that. Next slide, please. Okay, let's get into street designs. If we go to the next slide, I'll provide just a recap of what we heard during the March 24th city council meeting. So city council approved the recommended street designs with two exceptions. The commercial main street collector and mountainside way collector did not reach consensus from city council to move forward with those designs at that time. And some council members voiced concerns about the added cost that the wider enhanced designs of these street segments would add and that that may affect housing affordability. Council directed staff to explore different opportunities to narrow those cross-sections in order to lower costs. Next slide, please. So to follow up on that direction, staff has taken several follow-up actions. And I'll be walking through the findings of those actions tonight. So the first is that we sought input from three different advisory groups, the first being the Transportation Safety Team. The next would be the Tiger Transportation Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. We also researched examples from other jurisdictions. What are other neighboring cities doing in their greenfield development areas and how are they designing their streets? We also sought out the data on River Terrace Boulevard safety concerns and assessed the potential cost and land impacts. Basically, what cost savings would occur, what land efficiencies would occur based on alternative designs. And lastly, we assessed those impacts to policy goals. Next slide, please. So from the advisory groups, we generally heard support for these two designs, the commercial collector and mountainside way. There was also general support for maximizing safety for pedestrians and people biking. The main thing that stood out was there was mixed support from all groups on angled parking. So notably from the Planning Commission and the TTAC, the Tiger Transportation Advisory Committee, they noted that parallel parking would result in cost and land savings. And we'll go through that land analysis later in the presentation. That is one surefire way to save land and save cost is by switching to parallel parking. And that was noted by some members of both groups. For TTAC in particular, they also noted that switching to parallel parking reduces the amount of land that is dedicated to vehicles alone, right? And then on the flip side of that, those who are advocating for angled parking noted things like the ease of using those types of facilities, the additional parking that's provided in front of businesses, and creating that special Main Street feel as well. We also heard that individuals with disabilities and their caregivers, they're going to experience challenges either way with on-street parking. So it's up to the city to continue researching ways to better support those individuals. Next slide, please. So we found data in our service request database about the safety concerns that we've been hearing on River Terrace Boulevard. So we found 11 reported service requests that specifically commented on safety on River Terrace Boulevard. So this excluded things like cars parked for far too long in an illegal space. Ten different mentions of speeding vehicles with specific requests for the addition of speed bumps and additional signage for speed limits and crosswalks. Multiple comments noted that the slopes on River Terrace Boulevard just exacerbated the issue. That is something similar that we'd expect in River Terrace 2.0. These service requests are a way for the public to go onto the website and connect with us, connect with the city and let us know what issues they're facing on our existing facilities. This is a form of public engagement where we're learning about their experience in the River Terrace community. But this does back up the anecdotal information that we had been hearing during community engagement for River Terrace 2.0. And we've also been hearing anecdotally about concerns on multi-use paths. So while the reported service request did not highlight specific multi-use path concerns, Again, anecdotally, we've been hearing that on Fano Creek Trail and River Terrace Boulevard that there are conflicts between pedestrians and bikes, sharing those facilities, especially with the use of e-bikes and e-scooters. Next slide, please. So before we really get into the alternatives analysis, I'll highlight our transportation policy goals again. The main thing to keep in mind is that there's an inherent tension between these policies and how they both support each other and detract from the other in different ways. So while we are seeking to prioritize pedestrian bike safety and comfort and support walkability, we're also trying to maximize on-street parking. We're also trying to use land as efficiently as possible, you know, in turn creates a vibrant and beautiful community. So these conflicts, this tension means that sometimes these policies have to be weighted more heavily or less heavily than others depending on the situation at hand. So a good example of this would be on Mountainside Way we have several stream crossings. And one of our policies is to minimize impacts to natural areas. While we can't minimize impacts to natural areas, use land efficiently and lower costs while maximizing pedestrian and bike safety and comfort, right? So in these specific situations, that policy goal had to take a little bit of a backseat. We're still providing safe facilities, but you see that tension in that example. Next slide, please. Okay, so we wanted to offer a comparison between the mountainside way design and River Terrace Boulevard. And if we go to the next slide, it shows the River Terrace Boulevard cross-section, that design that exists in our code today, that reflects the as-built condition. This was our baseline. This is where we started with our River Terrace 2.0 mountainside way design. We knew that we wanted to improve upon this design. So when we look at the original River Terrace Boulevard design, we see it's 110 feet wide. It has significant landscaped areas. including a median, continuous on-street parking and all along the alignment, and it has that one-sided multi-use path. So when we started the community plan project, we asked our consultants to make improvements to make it more efficient to save land and save cost. We also wanted to respond to community feedback to separate all modes of travel. and to address the safety concerns that we had been hearing on River Terrace Boulevard. So this middle design was what the consultant came back to us with at 90 feet wide. And as we got into estimating the cost of that design, we realized we needed to be more efficient and reduce costs further. Ultimately, the design reduced roadway width by 38 feet compared to River Terrace Boulevard. That's over a third of a reduction in width. And this was done while accomplishing all of our policy goals and the enhanced safety elements compared to River Terrace Boulevard. A couple things to note were that we added the double-sided multi-use path again, which fully separates those modes of travel and allows the space to add some some safety features onto those multi-use path facilities. We also added one-sided, excuse me, alternating on-street parking, so it changes the side of the street, which creates this natural bending, this chicaning effect in the roadway, which will slow cars down and help improve safety in that area. And it also significantly reduces landscaping areas while still providing enough area for large street trees, but that significantly reduces width and also maintenance costs that the city will face in the future. At 72 feet, this is a, again, 38-foot reduction compared to where we started. Next slide, please. So just to recap that, so the landscape reduction is 37 feet, which is quite significant from a maintenance perspective. And these efficiencies in the proposed design also don't have any additional stormwater impacts, which can help reduce cost in other ways. In terms of benefits, it upgrades the sidewalk areas to multi-use paths, and even beyond that, it allows bikes to only move in one direction, which significantly reduces safety issues and conflicts with pedestrians. And it also has the ability to deliver on-street parking and traffic calming effects. Next slide, please. So the next comparison is to look at how Mountainside Way compares to our standard city collectors. We'll go to the next slide please. So our standard city collectors range from 58 feet to 74 feet depending on how many lanes of traffic they need to accommodate. It's worth noting that neither of the city's standard collector designs provides any on-street parking. It's just not something that is typically done, and that is an identified need in this area to add on-street parking to this collector. So in comparison, the recommended design not only adds that on-street parking, but it's also eliminating the median. So you can see in the three-lane design We have a 12-foot median, which has significant maintenance impacts and adds right of way width. So we've gained efficiencies in that regard while delivering on our bike safety goals and our on-street parking goals. Next slide, please. So the last comparison I'll make is with the other greenfield development areas in Beaverton and Kingston Terrace and how they are designing their streets for their major collector and their commercial areas. Next slide, please. So the first slide is comparison the designs that they're using for this kind of main artery, the major collector street in these greenfield development areas. So Kingston Terrace is on the top of this slide. It is a 76-foot wide cross-section. And when we're comparing our proposed mountainside way design to the Kingston Terrace design, the thing that really stands out is the Kingston Terrace design has bikes at the street level. So there is a buffer, but it does not accomplish that maximization of pedestrian and bike safety to the degree that our proposed design does. And it's actually still a wider cross-section, four feet wider. When we look at the Cooper Mountain design, this one is intended, Cooper Mountain is intending to really fully maximize pedestrian and bike safety. You can see that they have bike lanes behind the curb at the sidewalk level, but also separated. You can see that there's a buffer between the sidewalk and the bike lane. So they have eight feet dedicated to each mode of travel. So they're really pushing to maximize that safety and comfort. whereas our design is much more land efficient at 20 feet more narrow while still being able to deliver safety improvements over the River Terrace Boulevard multi-use paths and enhance designs that separate pedestrians and bikes. Next slide, please. So this slide is looking at the commercial collector designs in each of these areas. As you know, this is the widest street design in all of River Terrace 2.0 at 108 feet wide. In the Kingston Terrace commercial areas, they have chosen to put bikes in the shared travel lanes. And they've done this in order to provide diagonal parking. So while the Kingston Terrace design at 90 feet, it still does accomplish that angled parking to maximize it in front of businesses. The only way to safely provide bike facilities in that case at the street level would be for them to share parking. the lane with the vehicles. So Cooper Mountain, on the other hand, again, is maintaining those very large separated bike and pedestrian facilities, resulting in a 102-foot cross-section. But you'll note that they are providing on-street parking on one side of the street in a parallel design. So resulting in far less on-street parking than our recommended design. So in comparison, the River Terrace 2.0 design is six feet larger, wider than the Cooper Mountain Collector. I'll also remind council and the public that this design is a very short segment. It'll be about three city blocks where that occurs. So based on the comparisons that we were seeing with these other greenfield development areas, Both of the street designs that we're discussing tonight are either on par with these types of designs or actually even more land-efficient than our neighbors. Next slide, please. So just to recap these roadway width comparisons for the two street designs, you see the right-of-way widths for collector and commercial street, and what this table adds is the width used for each of the area's neighborhood routes as well. I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW THOSE DESIGNS TONIGHT SINCE WE'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THAT ONE BUT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTES WE ARE BY FAR THE MOST LAND EFFICIENT AT 62 FEET WIDE AT MINIMUM A 10 FOOT REDUCTION IN COMPARISON WHICH YOU CAN SEE CAN HELP OFFSET THAT ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY WITH THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR THE COMMERCIAL STREET. So it's allowing us to use a more narrow design on the neighborhood route can help supplement that additional acreage that we need to provide a wider commercial street for the three city blocks. Next slide, please.

Okay, let's get into the alternatives analysis.

Analysis, next slide please. Just to flash the recommended design one more time at 72 feet with its multi-use paths on either side using enhanced design features. and alternating on street parking. Next slide, please. So this alternative that staff assessed removes one of the multi-use paths. So it becomes the one-sided multi-use path like River Terrace Boulevard today, which results in a sidewalk on the other side of the street. This narrows the street by 10 feet. But by having a single-sided multi-use path, that means that bikes are moving in all directions on the same multi-use path. So it won't be possible to separate or even really encourage separation from pedestrians in that space. So we would expect that that would result in conflicts. So for that reason, this alternative is not recommended. One thing that staff would ask that council consider is if additional cost savings are desired to the mountainside wake collector Staff would actually recommend eliminating on street parking. So it's On eliminating on street parking may lead to some lack of parking supply in some areas. This is something that council had decided back in January was a priority and because of that, especially in our high density areas, but that change would not result in safety concerns. But it would result in notable cost savings. We did not assess the cost savings or land efficiencies that that would gain, but it would be notable. And you'll get a little bit better of an idea of what that could look like when we get into the commercial collector analysis. So let's move to the next slide where it breaks down the acreages and cost gained by the presented alternative. This is going to that single-sided multi-use path design. So in terms of acreage, this would add .75 acres of buildable land to private development, right? This means .75 acres less land would be dedicated to streets. So that would be about 13 units of additional housing based on the 18 unit per acre target density. In terms of cost savings, when we crunched the numbers it resulted in about a savings of 1.35 million. So on a per unit basis that would save about $321 for 4200 units. In terms of maintenance, there would be a modest savings with five feet of fewer pavement to maintain. But again, as I noted, moving to that one-sided multi-use path design decreases safety and comfort and it would result in some of those safety concerns that we've already been hearing on River Terrace Boulevard facilities. So for those reasons, staff continues to recommend moving forward with the recommended design for the mountainside way collector. Next slide, please. So the commercial Main Street alternatives analysis is next. If we go to the next slide, this is our recommended design of 108 feet wide. Again, noting the angled parking, the bike lane separated from the roadway, and the large planting space allowing a versatile space for amenities and large street trees. Next slide, please. So this alternatives analysis has prepared three different alternatives. They kind of build on one another. So the first one is to remove the step out zone. This results in a right-of-way savings of four feet. This is something that we've heard from developers notably that there is an interest in seeing this eliminated, but we did find that it poses some safety concerns. So pedestrians would not have a safe space to wait to cross the bike lane before getting to the sidewalk, and it also might result in cars overhanging into the bike lane in some situations. If we go to the next slide, alternative B converts to parallel parking. We do maintain the step out zone here to promote safety when trying to cross the bike lane. But this does lead to notable savings. We have 22 feet less right of way in this case. It does decrease the amount of on street parking provided by about 66%. So a good way to think of it is if you have 10 parallel parking spaces. Switching to angled parking can get you 16 spaces, so 10 to 16. This design also loses that connection to Tigard's Main Street design. So we have angled parking on our downtown Main Street, so it kind of loses that feel. We also think it's important to note that parallel parking is expected to cause more traffic conflicts. And that's just because of the unique location of these commercial areas being at the intersection with major county roads. So these commercial areas for visibility purposes and to support businesses have been placed at those busier intersections, which means those will be the only way for people to drive in and out of the neighborhood. So we do think that people backing into parallel parking spaces could cause some traffic to back up and cause some safety concerns. next slide please so alternative c also converts the parallel parking removes the step out zone and it puts bikes on the street so this is similar same right-of-way width savings at 22 feet offering notable land and cost efficiencies This does not deliver on community feedback requesting that bikes be separated from vehicles. And again, with the location of these commercial areas near busy intersections, we do worry that there would be safety concerns and comfort issues with bikes on the road in these locations. Next slide, please. So getting into the breakdown of cost, land, maintenance, and safety comfort. So again, alternative A is removing the step-out zone. So in doing so, it results in negligible benefits. THERE'S VERY LITTLE ACREAGE GAINED FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AT ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN ACRE OR FOUR UNITS OF HOUSING. ABOUT A $1 MILLION COST SAVINGS COMPARED TO THE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE COST OF NEARLY 200 MILLION AT $238 SAVED PER UNIT. Maintenance gains are negligible and there is that decrease in safety and comfort without the step out zone. Next slide please. Alternative B, which moves to parallel parking, this would result in about 24 housing units added since there would be 1.33 acres of land that would then be available for private development. About $975 less of cost would be attributed to each unit, and there would be, notable maintenance cost savings since there would be 24 fewer feet of pavement to maintain for parking areas. But again, these are short segments, so that is relative to the length of the block. We, as noted, did anticipate some trouble with traffic backing up at those busy county intersections and about a 66% reduction of on-street parking spaces. Next slide, please. So for alternative C, there's a lot of overlap with the differences with alternative B. So similar additional housing units, similar gains in land, similar cost savings, although a little bit less of a savings seen here. and the same maintenance gains. But with putting bikes on the street, we do add additional safety concerns for those users and do expect that that would be a rather uncomfortable biking facility just due to the heavy traffic anticipated there. So based on the findings for all of these alternatives and the safety concerns that we have identified, given the limited benefits in terms of land and cost, staff is recommending that we move forward with the recommended design for the commercial collector as well. Next slide, please. So due to the critical timing issues that the project is facing related to moving the finance strategy forward and the code amendments, we are asking direction from city council tonight on these two recommended street designs. Specifically, we're asking if city council directs staff to move forward with the two street designs as is. and in doing so maintain alignment with our current policy goals? And if not, which design alternatives should we move forward with? And the last question is that during engagement with the transportation strategy team, Mayor Hu, you asked that we ask Council, what policy goals does Council want to modify in order to support revisions to streets? So if the Council chooses not to move forward with the designs as is, based on our analysis, this means that there would need to be tweaks to our policy goals as well to support that, and staff would like to request some additional feedback from Council on that topic. If we go to the next slide, I'm just going to wrap up very briefly with a project schedule update. Next slide. So following direction on these street designs, the project team will be able to move forward with work on the finance strategy. It also will allow us to move forward with development code amendments and developer engagement, notably on the finance strategy since we'll be able to move forward with estimating system development charges that developers would be prepared to pay with development. And lastly, I wanted to inform Council and the public about a schedule change for the River Terrace 2.0 community plan. The timeline for that project has been extended by five months. This does place the adoption process in April and May 2027. And just based on typical land use application process timelines, the earliest that development would be expected to begin is in early 2028. So I'll conclude the staff presentation there. Thank you all so much for your time.

Thank you. So can we go back to couple slides to the council direction slide? Thank you. So I just want to ask, get a general sense of do you, to council member, do you support the street design as it is based on the additional information? Thank you so much staff for those very helpful information. That really make, That really clarified everything for me, where I want to go. But before I state my opinion, so let's go this way. Councilor Anderson, do you support both designs as it is, or do you want to change? If you do, what policy decision do you want to revise?

Yes, on Mountainside, very nice job on that. I'M HAVING A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE COMMERCIAL AREA, BUT I DO LIKE THE PARKING. AND IT'S ONLY THREE BLOCKS. SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS.

Thank you, Mayor. I support the recommended designs in both cases. I really like having the multi-use paths on both sides for Mountainside Way. I think considering how long that roadway will be, that will be really great as sort of the main thoroughfare for River Terrace 2.0. And then I'm strongly in favor of the proposed design and in particular the angled parking. I think that will be BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR THE FOLKS THAT WE WANT TO BE ENGAGED IN WITH THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS AND WILL BETTER SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THOSE AREAS. I ALSO AGREE THAT PARALLEL PARKING IN THOSE AREAS WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS CONSIDERING SHULZ FERRY ROAD, ROY ROGERS ROAD AND BEEF BEND. I JUST DON'T THINK THOSE ARE FEASIBLE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO SUPPORT BOTH RECOMMENDED DESIGNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YES, I SUPPORT BOTH RECOMMENDED FROM STAFF BUT IF I MAY USE MY TIME TO ASK A QUICK FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. SO SENIOR PLANNER GOT IT. WE HAD A WRITTEN COMMENT AND THEN FOLLOW-UP ON VIDEO OR AUDIO. WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT JUST IF THOSE CONCERNS ADDRESS THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING TONIGHT? SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU.

YES, OF COURSE. THANK YOU. So we received a letter from the Home Building Association and from a resident in River Terrace 2.0, and then one of the public comments shared this evening verbally. So yes, I think the recommended designs are, they do address these comments. If we look at the first comment that was received from Mr. Weiss, This comment letter is noting that there would be a 10% loss, essentially, to the land attributed to housing development across the planning area, which does not align with staff's data in the analysis that we did. As we shared during the presentation, it was about 0.75 acres of land in the one alternative and about 1.33 acres, which I believe was 0.9% of the total buildable acres. So we do feel that that comment was addressed. And we do think that moving forward with the recommended designs would primarily help support both on street parking in front of businesses and near homes and also helping to maximize pedestrian safety and comfort on our facilities across the planning area which should help just incentivize this area to be a vibrant and beautiful community where people want to live and help support housing production overall. And in terms of the Home Builders Association comment letter, the main comment regarding the right-of-way WIS were that the expanded right-of-way WIS will add development cost and again reduce that buildable acreage. And we do know that we're coming to Council this evening with this request to get direction on the street designs before we've been able to estimate SDCs and move forward with that finance strategy. So this letter is also acknowledging that. that there's a sense of incomplete information being provided to Council at this time before that decision can be made. But as our findings showed, the cost savings would be quite negligible. So if the total transportation infrastructure cost is about $195 million, The greatest cost savings was one of the commercial collector alternatives, which was a $4 million reduction in cost. So not very substantial. And again, acreage was quite negligible as well. And in terms of the timing of this and the sense of incomplete information, this is This is how the community plan process has to function. It's not possible for us to prepare all of the finance strategy details before knowing exactly how streets can be designed. We have to have direction from council to identify exactly what those components of the designs are so we can estimate the costs for them and work them into the costs that developers would see in terms of system development charges and any other fees. So there's a linear process here that has to occur and it's just not possible to change that method. And if there is something that came up down the line with the finance strategy where council felt uncomfortable with the outcome, then council has the ability to reopen that conversation at that time. Council President Werthwulf, did that address your comments, or was there another specific item that was brought up that I should address?

I do have a follow-up question, but I'll do that later. I wanna respect mayor who's addressing this particular question, so thank you.

Thank you, and I'll go to Councilor Shah. Councilor Shah, do you support staff design, recommend design for those two streets?

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I do support the staff's recommendation and have an additional question if I may take time to ask a question here.

Yeah, please.

Great. On Murdoch Street that goes into Templeton to Tualati, is that bike pedestrian walkway a multi-use path?

Thank you for that question. And I'm going to ask Tiffany Gerke, our principal transportation planner, to jump in and answer that.

Joe is ready.

Joe is here. Or Joe.

Yeah, Joe can answer.

Thank you.

I know.

So the Murdoch Street project was designed for bikes and pedestrians to utilize that same space. It does vary in width because of various constraints that we had with that project, but I would loosely title that as a mixed use path as well.

Great, thank you. And have we seen any safety concerns there?

Not that's come into the office since we built it.

Okay, well, thank you. Just want to note that that is something we have in place. So for speaking about equity across Tigard, we aren't necessarily being equitable because that is the path we've used to go to a major two schools in Tigard. So just pointing that out that it's a difference of paths, but I do support the two recommendations from staff.

Thank you, Councilor Shah. Councilor Gazzuzzi.

Thank you, Mayor. In terms of looking at the roads specifically, the mountainside looks fine. I do like alternative A for the commercial main street. It does look like it saves about a million dollars for just a couple of blocks. BUT OVERALL IN LOOKING AT OUR POLICY GOALS AND WHAT WE AS COUNCIL WANT TO DO, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T BRING UP AGAIN THAT I CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT BOTH TRAFFIC FLOW AND COLLECTORS FROM 99, SAYING THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON BEEF BEND AND BULL MOUNTAIN AREN'T THERE, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE GOING TO GROW BY 40-SOMETHING PERCENT IN THAT AREA. WE NEED TO DEVELOP THAT FIRST. AND THEN WITH THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD RECENTLY, THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING TO LEAD TO INCREASED COST FOR THE CITY. THAT INCREASED TAX PACE DOESN'T COVER THE COSTS THAT WE HAVE WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE ARE ADDRESSING TODAY OF COURSE IT'S A BIGGER POLICY ISSUE IN QUESTION BUT REALLY I FEEL WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GROW MORE RESPONSIBLY AND I FEEL THAT THESE NEXT FEW YEARS REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON CONSOLIDATION RATHER THAN EXPANSION.

Thank you. Thank you, Senior Planner Gatta, for this thorough work. I know it was a lot. May I ask a couple questions first? So for the two recommended designs that we're saying if we support or not, for the mountainside way, it's the recommended is the new proposed design. Is that correct?

Yes. The recommended is, yes, the one that was presented on March 24th.

Oh, it's the original one that is being. Yes. And then for the commercial Main Street, it's also the original.

That's right.

So we're saying, do we support the original designs?

That's right.

OK. Yes, I do. I do have a couple questions is now an appropriate time. OK. So I'm curious. Way back at the beginning of the presentation when we talked about the feedback groups that we got, is that when they liked the designs, was that the original designs? Yes. And was there any consideration or thought of the cost of maintenance? And did that come up in those discussions the way it did for us?

Yeah, that's a great question. So the information that was shared with council tonight was not ready yet when we met with those advisory groups. So the general kind of high level discussion of cost and maintenance issues were discussed, but not to this level of detail. Generally though, I will say the main thing that stood out was planning commission noting that going from angled parking to parallel parking in the commercial collector area was one of those ways that they did see to save cost for construction maintenance and to save land for housing.

Okay, thank you. I have to say, you know, I've said things about parking a lot of times, so I absolutely do not want to do parallel parking for the traffic concerns and also the significant loss in parking and just the ease of being able to pull in and regarding the difficulties for people with disabilities and caregivers, I realize that not everybody has a handicap placard and that is a difficulty but it's it we you know hopefully we can do something to help with that some but it would be like you said seen in either the parallel or the angled parking I do have concerns about the multi-use paths and the conflicts with e-bikes I don't think e-bikes and e-scooters are going to go away and whether or not we see it in the the the Service requests, we do hear about it a lot, right, of people, you know, those darn e-bikes. And just looking at the cost, because I know part of the reason why we were looking at these different designs was the concern of, the increased cost increasing the cost per unit and then making the units unaffordable. I just did a quick, quick math of the biggest savings for the commercial unit could be, the commercial street could be $975 per unit, and then the mountainside savings would be $321 a unit, which is a total of $1,296 per unit. Now, I imagine the developers might add on to that, but overall that THIRTEEN HUNDRED DOLLAR DIFFERENCE DOESN'T TO ME MAKE A UNIT MORE OR LESS AFFORDABLE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF DEVELOPMENT. SO I DO LONG ANSWER FOR SAYING THAT I DO AGREE WITH STICKING WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED DESIGNS.

YOUTH COUNSELOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT IN? PLEASE GO AHEAD.

NO, I'M GLAD TO LISTEN. It's easy to go last, because then I don't have to add anything. I would definitely go with staff recommendation.

Well, actually, I go last, but yeah. For all the reasons that I really value safety, comfort, and parking. So I think staff recommendation is, I totally agree with staff recommendation. But Council President Wolf has more question.

It's actually around the financing in the five months. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. So I recognize, Senior Planner Gatto, that we asked you for this information, and truly thank you for going back, really looking at what our options could be, and then allowing us to make thoughtful decisions. I'm wondering is there a way to kind of go back and look at this five months, are there ways to scrub that, especially since we're headed down the same path, and just really would like to look at options. If anything that I feel like council has heard is just that slowing down of the process. So I just wanted to advocate are there opportunities to look, and here comes Skylar, to see if there's ways to do that. Thank you, sir.

Good evening again, Mayor and Councillors. Council President Wolf, Skyler Warren, Assistant Director of Community Development. I'll take this question on behalf of Senior Planner Gaeta. So the five months is at this point the de minimis amount of time that we would need to add to the project in order to deliver it. We have endeavored over the course of the last almost 10 months now to find efficiencies as we've taken on additional scope in the project and additional tasks. And we got to a point where we could probably accommodate a month here and a month there. And what we realized is when we started mapping out where we were and where we needed to be, We really needed an additional five months. As originally scheduled, we would have been well underway on code writing at this point. And we are just now really getting underway on the code writing. We hope to have a public draft of code this spring. There's just been a lot of work that we've needed to do to make sure that we got the policy set right. And we do want to be very measured about this. We want to be very careful about this. We want to make sure that we're bringing the council along We want to make sure that we're bringing the community along and that we're getting feedback from developers and that we're able to incorporate that. And the reality is that that just takes us time. And even with additional staff allocations, you know, I looked at are there ways to assign staff to do other tasks. It just was not possible with the work program that we have right now and the staffing that we have right now.

and someone else might want to ask the same question because some of the feedback we received is are there opportunities to have better flexibility in the design? And so that was a curiosity. If you're talking developers, I think that's the feedback that we've received the most. And so I just wanted to share that feedback and just offer that up as ideas to shift in planning. But I think, Mayor, who did you say? Councillor Shaw has questions too?

I think Councilor Schlag, you're good. Councilor Shah, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, and yeah, I appreciate all the work that's been done here, and coming out of private practice, I too have a concern about the five months, and I believe Ed raised, and I know we'd want to ensure there's no conflict of interest, but my understanding is in the past, we've had some opportunity to bring in some outside staff that could help streamline And I'm wondering, too, if we didn't add like the new credit SDC and some of the other seems like new, innovative, creative ways to do financing that has not been done before in the state of Oregon, if that might streamline the five months as well. Thank you.

So the main driver, the critical path item that is leading us to the five-month delay is code writing. And code writing, we have two consultants on the team who are assisting with code writing. We have both Echo Northwest, an Oregon firm, and then we have Code Studio based out of Austin, Texas. They are assisting with the code writing, and we also have a full code team that includes Senior Planner Guido, myself, and then three other senior staff who are working on code writing. And it is an endeavor that just takes time to get right. And, of course, we want to make sure that we're getting feedback, both from the council and from developers, as we're pursuing that and so really having additional allocations of FTEs wouldn't help us to move that critical path because what we really need is time to write the code, have the relevant parties review the code, go back to the codewriting board, do some amendments, have everyone give feedback again, and that's what will take time. As far as the SDC question that you had, Councillor Shaw, we should be wrapped up on the finance strategy, I think, here probably by the end of the summer. Is that correct?

Yeah, the bulk of the finance strategy work will be done in the summer. There would be engagement that can occur at that point and feedback from Council that can occur at that point. And then from there, we can move forward and finalize the finance strategy and put together estimated rates and fees.

So that piece is not really holding us up in terms of critical path. I will also highlight the, THE HOUSING POLICY QUESTIONS THAT ARE SORT OF RELATED TO A FINANCE STRATEGY BUT IT'S LESS ABOUT THE FINANCE STRATEGY ABOUT WHAT MONEY IS THE CITY GOING TO TAKE IN TO FUND INFRASTRUCTURE. IT'S HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND AND APPLY IT IN THIS AREA TO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPERS ARE INCENTIVIZED, EXCUSE ME, TO PROVIDE THE HOUSING VARIETY THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. SO I KNOW THAT CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX FUND WERE PART OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSION THIS YEAR. REST ASSURED THAT WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL LATER THIS SUMMER BOTH AS PART OF OUR TIGERED HOUSING PLAN WORK, BUT ALSO AS PART OF THE RIVER TERRACE 2.0 WORK, TO PROPOSE SOME SOLUTIONS THAT COULD HELP UNLOCK DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR MIDDLE HOUSING, STARTER HOMES, AND THAT KIND OF THING IN RIVER TERRACE 2.0. SO, AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL HOLD US UP. if it did for some reason feel like we weren't able to get those other finance policies in place with the community plan. There's no reason that we couldn't adopt the community plan and then adopt those finance policies, you know, a couple months later or three months later. There's no reason for those to necessarily hold up the community plan itself. So I feel pretty confident that, you know, the SDCs and the housing policy work will not have a critical path impact on the development code writing.

Councilor Shah, you have follow-up questions?

I do. Thank you very much. I appreciate both those answers. So is it more of just a calendaring issue? We just didn't plan enough time for putting code to write it, to draft it, to get input. So it sounds like more it's just a We didn't allocate enough time for the code writing, for the underwriting of the code. Is that accurate?

Well, yes and no. I mean, code writing does take time. I think there are some things that I mentioned, some additional work that we did to do some analysis and provide counsel with information, provide the public with information, provide developers with information. that could help them better analyze the policy set and see how they felt about the policy set. Just some examples of that are the renderings that we did late last summer. That took some time for both internal staff and for the consultant team. OUR POLICY CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER ON THE PARKS POLICIES AND HOUSING POLICIES. OUR ANALYSIS OF THE TALL FLAT ROAD EXTENSION. THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL, MAYBE THAT ONE WAS PARTIALLY CONSIDERED AT LEAST IN THE ORIGINAL PROJECT SCOPE. BUT THERE'S JUST SOME ITEMS THAT We undertook in good faith to deliver the information that was necessary to the community that just put us a little bit behind in sequence.

All right, so I do want to be mindful of time. So let's go back to the whole purpose of this presentation is just to get our temperature or our direction on the road design. So you have clear consensus that we will go with a staff recommendation. Do we still need a vote or it's pretty clear? No, okay, so you have our consensus and you have more questions, go ahead.

Sorry, I just want to clarify because when I was asking all my questions before I thought that I was what I heard was that for both recommendations for both streets we were talking about Supporting the original recommendations that we saw on March 24th, but when we went through we said yes I support the recommended design and on slide 21 for mountainside way the recommended design is is the 72-foot design. But the original design we were presented back in March, I believe, was a 90-foot cross section, which I think that was the original one. So which one are we supporting?

It is the 72-foot design. The original design label is a bit misleading in that case. That was the original design that was shared with the public several months ago back in September. So the 72-foot design is the one that was shared on March 24th. Thank you.

It's hard to remember a couple months back, so I'm happy with it. I just wanted to make sure I understood what I was supporting.

all right thank you so yeah thank you again for the presentation you have clear direction from the council for the road design so thank you so much thank you all so much all right so sorry i don't think we have any other items so there being no additional item the meeting is adjourned good night tiger