So I will call this Tiger City Council and Local Contract Review Board Meeting to Order.

City Recorder Craig, would you please conduct a roll call?

Councillor Robbins.

Here.

Counselor Schlack.

Here.

Councilor Shaw.

Here?

Council President Wolf?

Here.

Councillor Anderson.

Here.

Counselor Godusi.

Present.

Mayor Who?

Here.

Well, everybody, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

All right, City Team and Council, do you have any non-agenda items?

Seeing none, let's move on to public comments.

The public comment period provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council.

While it is not a dialogue, either I or staff will follow up to address the issues brought forward in these comments.

The calling number is 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 form at the front of the room.

First item is the written comment.

Next is in person.

And when your name is called and you'll have two minutes to speak.

And first is Mark.

Mark Farr.

Come on in.

Welcome, Mark.

Well, thank you.

So for the item number seven, it's not a public hearing, so the time is to do it right now.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Mark Farrow with Metropolitan Land Group here.

Is it Mike on?

I'm sorry.

It is now.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Mark Ferrer with Metropolitan Land Group.

Good evening, uh Mayor and members of the council.

Good to see you all again.

I'm here to speak uh briefly on agenda item seven.

There's two topics that you'll be considering this evening.

One is street designs and the other is finance strategy.

First, want to uh appreciate and express appreciation to staff for uh the developer forum that uh happened and the results that we do see in the in the plans uh where some right-away reductions have happened.

We think there's still room to go there, and we encourage you as council members to ask staff where uh River Terrace 1.0 standards have been expanded for River Terrace 2.0 as far as the cross section on right-away, and encourage you to ask them to write size and bring it back to standards where they've expanded it.

Uh there are a number of things that um that we still have open questions on, but that depends upon what uh the the council does this evening in making choices for right-away.

The second is the finance strategy.

Um, and that we're in a bit of an interesting point because as the council decides what the strategy should be, uh that has implications on what a developer or builder has to pay for.

And so it's real tough to engage and say what we like or don't like until the council decides what's going to get rolled into the finance package, and then we can react.

So we were looking forward to the developer form that unfortunately got canceled that was scheduled for next week, even though it's before this meeting.

We hope that you still uh ask staff to take uh input from developers on the finance strategy and and bring it back to council.

Lastly, I'll just say both um I mentioned on the River Chairs 1.0 on the finance strategy.

I think you ought to ask Eco Northwest or staff to give you very specific uh numbers on what the SDCs will end up being for different choices that the council makes so that the council can understand in River Chairs 2.0 is the fees that are going to be charged for someone to take a permit out 80,000, 100,000, 120,000.

What are the decisions that you're gonna make have implications on the actual price, the first 100,000 dollars of that house, so that you all can be clear?

Do we want to lean in and add more requirements, or maybe do we want to pull back so that we're not impacting the price price of housing so much?

And I don't know where my time's at.

Yeah, you're over by 40 seconds.

Oh my gosh, thank you.

I apologize.

I was I didn't see a clock up there.

So I apologize.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I don't see any anybody else.

So let's move on to the formal video.

Mr.

Waters, are there any callers in the queue for form or video testimony?

There are no callers in the queue.

There's one video testimony.

All right.

Would you bring uh the video testimony person online?

Thank you.

Yes.

Is that me?

That's you.

Go ahead.

All right.

Uh hello, counselor and mayor, counselors and mayor.

My name is Pam Verdadero.

I'm with Risewell Homes.

I would also like to offer uh public comment on this evening's topic of uh the transportation plan.

Um I'll get a little bit more specific since Mark added quite a bit of color.

Um I do think there's still some room on collector A, the commercial collector that you'll see uh in review this evening.

I do believe that um modifying the parallel parking area will um allow us to have a wider sidewalk for a more enhanced um experience for the pedestrian walking uh in front of the the uh services, retail restaurants, etc.

Uh, we have built uh very similar community in Beaverton where uh those restaurants are very much uh utilizing a portion of the sidewalk for bistro tables.

So there's an interaction between uh passers by and the restaurant, and it's it still leaves quite a bit of space for people to walk by and enjoy um their experience there.

I think the eight-foot um landscape area is is quite large, and we could probably take that same amount of space and just blend that a little bit and utilize the sidewalks uh or create a larger sidewalk.

Um, and then everything else that Mark just said.

That that's my comment for this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Water, are there any more um anybody on the in the queue for phone or video?

There's nobody else on the queue.

All right, thank you so much.

All right, so that's a move on to city manager report.

Uh Finance Director King is our acting city manager for this week, and he will provide a brief report.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and members of the community.

Uh I do have a slide.

There we go.

Uh so I am your finance director Eric Kang, filling in for acting city manager Emily Trich to deliver the city manager's report uh while she's enjoying some much deserved time off.

Uh so I wanted to take a moment to invite the community members, partners, and businesses to join us on Monday, April 13th, for Mayor Yi Kang Hu's State of Our City Address.

The event will highlight Tiger's accomplishments over the past year and share the priority shaping our community's future.

Light refreshments and snacks supported by D'Angelo's catering will be served prior to the mayor's remarks along with special performances by talented tigered youth, musicians, and thespians.

Child care will be provided and available with advanced RSVP.

Uh, we encourage attendees to reserve their spots through the city's website, which can be found directly on the homepage at Tiger-OR.gov.

Please join us to be a part of this opportunity to connect and reflect on Tiger's progress over the past year.

And that is all for my for the city manager's report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Finance Director King.

All right, let's move on next to our uh consent agenda.

Tonight I have three consent items.

A resolution granting exemptions from property taxes under Tiger Municipal Code Section 3.50 for four nonprofit low-income housing projects.

Approval of city council minutes and approval of a contract award for mechanical HVAC preventative maintenance service repair and inspection services.

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

I'll second.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none uh those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oppose?

Hearing non uh consent agenda is adopted by unanimous unanimous vote of the council.

Thank you very much.

All right, let's move on to legislative public hearing, uh, which is recreation immunity ordinance.

And I will open the public hearing.

Uh anyone uh who want to testify uh by phone, video, or in person, uh please uh either sign up now in front of the room or call in to gain the queue by calling 503 966 4101.

And our city attorney Rihala will give the staff report.

Good evening, council.

Uh recreational immunity is the statutory protection that landowners in Oregon, both public and private, who open their land for recreational purposes free of charge are immune from certain liability.

The claim must arise from the person's use of the land for recreational purposes defined in statute and protects the landowner from negligence claims for personal injury or property damage.

Oregon statute provides additional protection to cities with a population over 500,000 in that it limits negligent claim negligence claims arising from the use of a trail in a public easement or an unimproved right of way by users on foot or on a bicycle.

This protection extends to the city, its officers and employees, as well as the owners of land abutting the public easement or unapproved right of way, and a nonprofit corporation and its volunteers for the construction and maintenance of the trail.

For cities with a population of under 500,000, the statute provides for an option to opt in to that protection through the adoption of an ordinance resolution or other regulation.

The item before council this evening is to take advantage of that opt-in provision and limit Tigers liability for potential claims related to trails in a public easement or unapproved right-of-way.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

No question.

So we receive no written comments for this item by noon Monday.

Mr.

Water, are there any call in the queue to testify on this item?

There's no callers in the queue.

Thank you.

No one signed up.

All right.

So there's no need to respond to public comments.

Easy.

So I will close the um public hearing and council will uh uh start our deliberation or ordinance 26-uh 07.

Any comments or a motion?

Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number 26-07.

Okay.

Uh Council Kaluci, do you have any comments?

I'll second it.

Okay.

I was trying to think of a negative playing the Devils Advocate, and I couldn't come up with a good one.

Good.

Any anything that I've missed or anything that we wanted.

Okay, just checking.

And oh, uh City Attorney Rahala, go ahead.

So not only can I not think of a negative, but actually just today I did send this ordinance to a potentially affected property owner who is concerned about a trail on their property.

So not only are there no benefits that I can think of, but it actually is something that members of the public are concerned about because it could impact both them and the city.

Yeah, uh my understanding is that it's still if you if somebody is doing bad thing intentionally, they will still be liable.

So yeah, so um any other further discussion.

All right.

Well, the city recorder read the number and title of the ordinance ordinance number 26-7.

An ordinance limiting liability for the city of Tiger under ORS 105.668 recreational immunity.

Will the city recorder conduct a roll call vote starting with uh advice advisory vote from the youth counselor?

Yes, Councilor Helleck.

Aye.

Okay, Councilor Robbins.

Yes.

Counselor Schlack.

Yes.

Councilor Shaw.

Yes.

Council President Wolf.

Yes.

Counselor Anderson.

Yes.

Councillor Godusi.

Yes.

Mayor Who.

Yes.

The motion is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is economic economic development strategic plan adoption.

Economic development manager Hodder will present this item.

Ecor Northwest Project Director Craigie and Project Manager Farchi are joining remotely.

And there's a slide presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Community.

Uh really exciting evening here.

It was just a short nine months ago we started on this conversation to bring together the community to create a three-year economic development strategic plan.

And tonight we have before you the final and uh resolution to adopt.

Next slide, please.

So reminder the purpose of the project was to create a three-year economic development strategic plan to make sure that we were strategically guiding the city's work, maximizing input, impact, and doing everything that we could to work on council goal to creating a vibrant economy for all of Tiger.

Next slide.

The strategic plan elements that have been iteratively brought before us as we work through workshops, community engagement, work sessions, and interviews to come together with the economic development vision statement, the mission statement, their strategic pillars, and the guiding values.

These are all incorporated in the final plan.

Next slide.

So we heard on March 3rd on the first pillar.

We heard from Counselor Gaducy wanting to make sure that the tool wanted to know what tools we would use to track data analysis.

We've incorporated in the action items that we would be using multitude of tools that the city already has, as well as incorporating processes at this point to better at data collection and information sharing across all levels and elements of government.

So not only between council and staff, but as well as among departments and then also with our partners.

Counselor Shaw asked if we could move the TCAC to a city category that has been completed.

Thank you.

And Councilor Shellac talked about resourcing being a great place for prioritization in year one.

Thank you for that feedback.

That is again reiterated in the pillar one actions.

For our second pillar, we heard from Councillor Caducy wanting to understand what council's role is in partnerships as well as what council's role is in the economic development in economic development.

We actually pulled this section out from the action items and put it in the body of the plan to address that it is critical for council to be involved at the strategic level of setting the direction for the city of Tiger of being the figurehead of being the forward-facing entity, and that also giving guidance to staff is going to be the best value of council's involvement and role, and then staying informed and collaborating with staff as staff as the action items to move forward and the partnerships to make sure that we navigate that.

If you guys are interested, I can read that section, or it is in the body of the plan.

That's up to you guys.

Excellent.

Thank you.

All right.

And special attention needed to be placed in this.

We've already seen positive impacts of our approach to communication and partnerships in the work that we're already doing right now.

So we're not waiting until this plan is adopted.

We are making those changes right now.

The next pillar under operations and communication.

Councilor Anderson asked to make sure that we have one point of contact for development.

We see that playing out in actually the development of our work plans, not only for the next fiscal year, but in realignment of staff roles and responsibilities right now to better clarify and be able to communicate to our partners specialties among the team and points of contact.

If anybody emailed me in the last week, you saw my out of office and you saw that that's already being enacted as well.

So we uh collectively are cleaning up those communications as well.

Also in operations and communication, mayors uh appreciated the story action, the telling of the story and the action items.

Um this phrasing got re-incorporated.

This was a lot of the conversation that we had in our our workshops of how do we tell our story, how do we um collectively uh build that brand and tell that story?

You'll see the the phrasing specifically of action items identified to enhance how we tell our story, both in pillar one and added back into the phrasing for pillar three operations and communication.

And then development and placemaking.

Um counselor Schla, I'm sorry, Counselor Shaw asked, uh, don't we already have the resources that we need and how can we leverage existing data sources?

Um following the March 3rd meeting, we did go back in and say, okay, everybody that's got information, let's let's collect so that we know really our gaps from where we're starting to do our environmental scans and data analysis and make sure that we are really pulling in information and data that is already being collected as part of other projects across the city.

So thank you for that reminder.

Um and counselor Caducy uh identified a question of how do we identify our target industries and further clarification got added into the development and placemaking pillar to uh understand what um the results of our work to do environmental scan and uh inventory and analysis of not only our businesses but um best opportunity for recruitment.

So that language got clarified as well.

Um counselor Schlack commented that pillar four is a weighty pillar and really some place that city council can lean in.

Absolutely agree.

We see this value, especially in the support and um cross-collaboration between all of the projects that that touch this pillar across all of community development uh engineering public works across the city as well.

And then um pillar four, councillor Shaw asked about a fast pass type checklist for desirable projects.

Um, and we have already started in on this work.

Um, again, we're not waiting until July 1st to get started.

Um, we've already had a couple team meetings on how do we uh do better at getting those checklists, the quick resource guides, the uh information into an easily obtainable digestible format for all of our community members.

So thank you for your feedback in March.

We did make sure that we incorporated all of that into the final plan that you guys have before you.

And with that, um, next slide, please.

Uh it is recommendation of staff that the plan get adopted.

Uh, and tonight you've got a resolution in front of you indicating just that.

Welcome any uh questions that council may have.

Thank you, Danielle.

Questions, comments?

Oh, motions.

Oh, go ahead, counselor.

Council Brass and Wolf, you go first.

Yeah, um almost just a um a comment.

So first to know uh great work.

Sorry, I missed the opportunity uh to share on March 3rd wonderful feedback from council.

And I think my only addition isn't um the framework, which is uh great, but kind of as you go into a one-year work plan or some of those components, what are the measures of success and what are your goals?

Because I think that was adding metrics is great, but that would be the only piece that I didn't see.

So, what are we striving for and how did we stack up against that?

So that's feedback, no changes in this in um support the work that you did.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And thanks to counselor, I almost did the same thing.

Schlaw as well.

Shaw and Counselor Schwag for their dedicated work on this important strategic plan.

Counselor Shaw.

Uh thank you, Council President Wolf.

And uh, I think that's uh a good highlight, and I also want to thank our economic development manager Hother for just being so efficient with the last nine months and proving that workshops, communication, um, scheduling those meetings, um, listening to the voices, both of community members, business partners, but also those of city council.

I've been involved with a number of economic development projects over the I'll just go with a few years.

And this was by far the most efficient and such a delight to work with you and also with your partners at Eco Northwest, but just want to highlight that I very much appreciate, and I'm very excited that the city will have a strategic plan that between 27 and 30 that we can really, as a council, and we know the role the city council now will have in this endeavor.

So just want to thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Schmack.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I am in total alignment with Councillor Sean.

The um congratulations and kudos that she she provided.

I mean, I think I'm really pleased with the work that you and the team have done in advancing council goal number two.

And I think this um economic development strategic plan will help set the city up for success in elevating economic opportunities in Tiger.

So thank you so much for all the incredible work you and the team have done.

And also thank you to our community, many community members and city teammates who are part of those workshops.

This was a team effort in order to make sure this was right for our community, and I think it is right for our community.

So thank you.

Absolutely, thank you.

Well, for me, thank you.

And all the kudos and thank you for everybody.

Uh this is a milestone for Tiger, and I'm really excited to see how it guides us for the next three years and achieving one of our council goals.

So thank you so much.

So comments or motion.

Um mayor, I would like to move to adopt the economic development strategic plan.

Mayor, I'd like to second the motion.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I was um seeing now, I will start with uh use counselor uh for advisory vote.

Yes.

Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Hearing none, the motion is to adopt a by a unanimous vote of the council.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Exciting.

All right.

So next item on our agenda is River Tars 2.0 update transportation and equitable finance strategy.

And our senior planet Gata will give the staff's report.

Good evening.

It's a printout from the presentation.

One page.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor Who and City Council.

My name is Brittany Gata.

I'll be providing the staff presentation on a River Terrace 2.0 update this evening.

Tonight we're talking about our recommended street designs.

We're excited to share these with you today.

Um, and also give you an overview on our finance strategy and tell you a little bit more about where we're at.

Next slide, please.

We are going to break up tonight's presentation into two sections.

Um, so the first part will focus on the recommended street designs.

We're gonna walk through what the policy goals were, um, engagement feedback that we've received, and step through the designs themselves.

Um, we'll have an opportunity for council discussion at the end of that section so we can talk through those designs.

And the second part of the presentation is on our equitable finance strategy.

So we're going to be stepping through the infrastructure funding assumptions and delivery as we understand them at this part in the project.

Um, again, going through engagement feedback and talking about next steps.

And our request of council this evening is to provide policy direction on your priorities for infrastructure in River Terrace 2.0 as they pertain to the street designs and also our funding strategy.

Let's go to the next slide, please.

So we'll start part one, which is our recommended street designs.

Next slide, please.

So a variety of policy goals have gone into creating our recommended street designs.

Um I'm not going to go through each one of these because they're going to look very familiar.

They align with our existing city transportation goals for our street network as it relates to vehicles, pedestrians, and bikers.

And the street designs are that we're talking about tonight are the outcome of multiple iterations of designs that have sought to balance and weigh each one of these policy goals.

Next slide, please.

There have been four different versions of the street designs that have been shared publicly.

So the first designs started back in this past summer, where we shared them with our two advisory committees, the technical and housing, excuse me, technical and community advisory committees.

We have gone through a few revisions since then, including a revision before they were shared with the public open house in September of 2025.

And since then, we started a very intense interdepartmental coordination series where we have worked very closely, mainly with public works and all of the different divisions within public works that maintain and operate our city streets and facilities to understand how the different street designs affect their work and what is feasible for them.

We've also worked with the fire district and put together different cost estimates on our draft designs, which helped us better understand how much do these things cost?

Does that affect how we design them?

And so where we are today is with our recommendations.

They've been shared with developers very recently during a forum on March 3rd, which I'll be going through some of their feedback this evening.

They've also again been reviewed interdepartmentally, and we're asking for your feedback this evening.

Next slide, please.

So before we dive into the designs themselves, it's important to share what input we've received along the way.

So I'm going to walk through the engagement responses we've gotten from four groups the community, developers, our city staff, and also from you, City Council.

So the next two slides are summarizing what we've heard from these groups, and you'll likely notice that there are competing priorities among them.

So from the community, the community has focused very heavily on making sure that pedestrian safety, excuse me, pedestrian and bike safety and comfort are maximized above all else.

That would mean fully separating all modes of travel from one another, which you can imagine creates very safe but also very costly facilities.

And that even on multi-use paths, bikes, especially e-bikes now, are causing some safety concerns on multi-use paths as well.

Developers, on the other hand, have consistently shared that right-of-way width should be reduced as much as possible because that every every inch, every foot contributes to higher construction costs.

And they also do not share the community's concerns about safety issues in River Terrace One.

Next slide, please.

So from city staff, we have learned a lot about all the different ways that these street designs play into how ongoing and long-term maintenance and operations of these streets come into play.

So we've learned that things like fully separated bike and pedestrian facilities are very difficult to maintain and in the short term and in the long term.

And it's also come to light that there's work needed internally to clarify city maintenance responsibilities on our streets and to establish level of service standards for different facilities, such as multi-use paths citywide.

So that's been an it's an opportunity for us to continue collaborating even outside of the River Terrace 2.0 project.

And from City Council, we've consistently heard that the priority is for River Terrace 2.0 to be a walkable and safe community, one that encourages walking or biking to nearby businesses to meet your daily needs.

We've also heard that the street network and on-street parking needs to support vibrant, successful businesses and a high quality of life for residents.

Next slide, please.

So again, you may have noticed some competing factors here.

So I I've summarized them into two buckets.

And what we've been doing along the way with designing our streets, the project team has been consistently weighing these competing priorities and doing our best to balance them.

So the recommendations we're bringing forward this evening, we feel confident that they are adequately balancing these factors, but we're leaning on city council to tell us if we got it right or if shifts are needed.

So we can summarize the competing priorities into two different buckets.

The first one on the left is the more right of way category.

You have a wider streetscape.

And this would include extra features that maximize safety and comfort.

It gets maximum on street parking on the on-street, and it also has additional safety features that would slow cars down more.

But these features are more costly to build and they're more costly to maintain.

And on the right hand side, the other option is less right-of-way.

You narrow your streets so that they're more aligned with standard street designs in Tiger.

These are safe facilities, but they might be less comfortable because they have fewer features to enhance that comfort and that feeling of safety.

And they generally cost less and are just more standardized for maintenance.

So just as an example, the recommended street designs, we have crunched the numbers and done cost estimates and found that they would increase construction costs by 14% over our standard city streets.

So we started very far on the more right-of-way end of the spectrum, to be honest.

We had drafted fully separated facilities, but found for a variety of reasons they were too wide and too costly and have come down to our current proposal, which is 14% higher construction costs than the standard.

We feel that this is a reasonable and feasible margin for developers, and it would also ensure that our policy goals for safety and walkability in this area are met.

Next slide, please.

So the new street designs are covering all different.

Sorry, Counselor Robins.

Is it all right if I stop you and ask a question now?

Because I think I'll forget it and lose my place.

If we could back up, did you mean that the plan that you're recommending is 40% higher than like the very basic average street?

That's that's correct.

Yes.

So 14% more than if we used Tigrid's current just typical street designs.

Thank you.

Yes.

Awesome.

So we have created street design street designs for every single facility except for local or excuse me, actually, for every single street facility in River Terrace 2.0.

These will be in our transportation system plan amendment, and they will inform future development.

So I've given you a printout of this slide just so that you have a legend in front of you as we walk through the different designs since they are all color-coded.

So for example, one of the streets, Mountainside Way.

That street in particular has three different designs.

So you're going to be looking at the red segment, the orange segment, and the green segment.

So please plan to reference this legend along the way as we step through the designs.

Next slide, please.

Let's start with our largest street segment, which is our commercial collector.

So this would be that commercial main street that runs approximately one city block in each of this commercial centers.

This is shown as a red dashed line on the map.

It's 108 feet wide, which again is our widest facility.

It's wide so that it can accommodate angled parking, which maximizes parking in front of businesses.

It also safely adds bike lanes behind the on-street parking behind the curb, which adds width, but it also creates safe outcomes for bikers and a vibrant sidewalks scape in front of businesses.

108 feet might seem wide, but this is two feet more narrow than River Terrace Boulevard's corridor, and it's in more limited areas to be more efficient with cost and land.

Next slide, please.

Mountainside Way is our main artery through River Terrace 2.0.

The majority of this cross section is this one, which is in orange on the map.

In this case, mostly homes will not face Mountainside Way.

Instead, this would be the side of most homes.

So we're providing on-street parking that alternates different sides of the street so that it's can act as overflow parking for people.

It also uses an enhanced multi-use path design, which we're quite excited about.

It includes different safety features that encourage separation of bikes and pedestrians, but allows people to move safely between those areas if necessary.

And also I'd like to highlight that Mountainside Way is 38 feet more narrow than River Terrace Boulevard.

So while this is the main artery, we feel that it will still offer a beautiful streetscape while being more efficient.

Next slide, please.

In some areas, Mountainside Way will cross streams.

There are other streets in River Terrace 2.0 that will do this as well.

So we developed a constrained cross section which minimizes impacts to nature while keeping people safe and vehicles moving slowly.

Next slide, please.

For River Terrace Boulevard, this is in uh kind of a yellow gold on the map.

This street continues key elements of the existing River Terrace 1 boulevard design, but it reduces the width by 47 feet.

Um it takes out certain features like the median and double-sided on-street parking to minimize underutilized areas of parking, since again, this will be more of the side of homes.

Um, but it also adds additional safety features on the multi-use path using a stencil design, which is a low cost but effective safety measure.

Um lastly, this type of design is uh better supportive of city operations and maintenance by eliminating mediums and eliminating additional landscaping.

Next slide, please.

Other main roads or other collectors through River Terrace 2.0 would have this design.

It's quite similar.

It carries forward that multi-use path with stencils, but in this case, there will more likely be homes that front on these streets.

Um on the side, but it will have um parking on both sides of the street to maximize on street parking in these areas while including larger planter spaces to have larger street trees for shade and beautification of the area.

Next slide, please.

Neighborhood routes are those main streets through neighborhoods that will have homes fronting on them.

Um there will be some driveway access, not a lot, but this adds parking directly in front of homes on both sides of the street.

Um it's very similar to the previous design, but it narrows the uh vehicle driving lanes and it eliminates the striping, which visually causes cars to move more slowly and more cautiously.

Next slide, please.

Um, in purple, there are some areas where neighborhood routes will also cross streams.

So we ensure that there's a low impact design for these areas as well.

Next slide, please.

So local streets, these are not mapped, so they're not on the legend.

These will be determined at the time of development.

But um through a lot of coordination with our internal public works team and also with our fire district, um, we are recommending that our local streets are be similar to our typical tigered local street design.

They are 32 feet wide, which allows parking on both sides of the street while keeping 20 feet clear for our emergency vehicles and operations.

Um it also has bikes sharing, sharing the travel way with cars in this case, since cars will be moving slowly through these areas.

Next slide, please.

Um, local streets may also have to cross streams.

We don't know if this will be the case, but again, we wanted to make sure it was communicated to future development that the uh that impacts should be minimized in these areas by narrowing the roadway.

Next slide, please.

Um, our last design is an alley.

So these are going to be private facilities, but at the very least, we have standardized alley designs and it operates as a shared space for bikes, cars, and pedestrians.

Okay, next slide is our council discussion section.

So again, the project team feels confident that we've adequately balanced this the priorities of the community, city council, and the feedback that we've heard from different stakeholders.

Um but we're here tonight to ask what your priorities are for the River Terrace 2.0 street network.

Um, and if we've done a good job, do the recommended street designs align with your priorities?

Thank you.

Before we get into specific discussion, any clarifying questions before we go ahead, Council President Wolf.

Not sure if this counts as a clarifying, it's about the 14%.

So okay.

Um, Bernie, I so thank you for the detailed um uh maps of all the different streets um or proposals.

So on the 14% that is above what's typical for Tiger, do you is that benchmark against other kind of more recent designs in cities that are trying to create this walkable, accessible um new development community?

I'm just curious if that's you know, like a standard in that kind of new design.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um, I wouldn't say it's a standard, it's it's simply an analysis that the project team wanted to do because we were concerned about how costly our original designs would be.

So it was more of an internal exercise.

Um I would say that um in general we're hitting somewhere in the middle for our greenfield areas.

I would say um King City didn't go so far as to make um intentional street designs for every single street with all of these different types of safety features.

I would say looking at the Cooper Mountain street designs, um they go further in the safety comfort wider streets realm.

So we're we're somewhere in the middle, but we didn't crunch the numbers for other so then could you because going through, I mean, it did seem like from where you started to what you're proposing, there was a significant reduction in right of way in particular areas.

So from a kind of a developer's lens, can you tell me how much you felt like you've reduced the cost to acknowledge that?

Uh it's a great question.

We didn't do the specific, you know, cost estimates on the initial designs versus where we are now.

Um I can say that for example, mountainside way was reduced on the order of 40 plus feet.

I believe it was over 100 feet wide.

Um it was definitely over 100 feet wide and is now 72 feet wide.

So um solid third or more of a reduction, and at least with um and also safety features um in terms of construction costs.

We've just done done lower cost safety features um that take up less room on the streetscape.

Thank you.

And I'll um I have a couple other questions I'll defer though and see if other counselors have questions.

Any counselor have questions?

Go ahead, counselor Shaw.

Great, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Um I had the same question council present did about the 14%, and we know that typically those costs are passed on to the buyers, so that'll be, and I appreciate you've reduced it significantly because we're trying to keep home prices low.

So just want to make sure we're acknowledging that that would be passed on.

Um second, thank you for reducing the size of the mountainside way extension.

Just purely a question.

If you're going from the commercial to mountainside to the stream crossing, is that going to be confusing for a driver?

Because just watching it, looking at it seems to me is confusing.

Um, and then I guess in follow-up to that, um, which may be asking you to be a mind reader.

Uh is there any crash or safety data that we seen from River Chairs 1.0 that points to um the fact that we're creating a wider format because it is less safe in River Terrace 1.0, and I'll stop there.

Yeah, um, you read my mind.

So um we have talked a lot internally to the project team about how to communicate to our drivers, walkers, and bikers about how these different facilities fit together.

How do you transition between them?

And the only way to do it is to um differentiate between the designs at a natural breaking point.

So at an intersection, at a roundabout, sometimes at a mid-block pedestrian crossing, sometimes can be that visual signal that something is changing.

Um so that has been done intentionally so that these things are flowing and um changing at intersections and roundabouts primarily to keep it safe.

And in some cases, like River Terrace Boulevard, the key thing was like, okay, we've heard that there are safety concerns, but in other ways, transitioning to a totally new design adds its own safety concerns, right?

So we've had to balance that as well.

Um I did go and look for safety data for River Terrace Boulevard.

I did not find any.

Um we do know that there have been complaints.

Um we do know that there are future city projects that are planned to do different traffic calming uh measures on River Terrace Boulevard because of fast vehicles, um, but I have not found any concrete data on the multi-use path complaints that we've heard about um electric bikes in particular going too quickly on those multi-use paths.

Um so that's why we've done more of an encouraging separation of spaces on the multi-use path rather than fully separating out the facilities to be more efficient.

Uh youth consular, go ahead with your question.

Um so on slide 17, you have your local street design, and you mentioned how bikes will be on the same road as the cars.

What speed limit were you thinking for that?

Just generally.

It would be the same as our standard citywide local street speed limit.

I believe that's 20 miles per hour.

Yeah, thank you.

Oh, Council Robins, by the way.

Thank you, and thank you for being patient with me.

Um I just figured I'd ask since we did just have public comment from a couple builders, and so I took down the notes for one.

Um that there was still room on collector A to modify the parallel parking for wider sidewalks with bistro tables and reduce the landscaped area from eight feet, the planting space.

And um that was just mentioned, so I wanted to you know prove that we're listening to public comment.

Um is there options for developers to make changes like that if they're developing on this commercial collector A?

Um it's actually here um not parallel parking, it's it's diagonal parking.

And I don't know if that would make it less angled or what the adjustment would be, but yeah, no, this is a good question.

And and we did hear these comments during the developer forum earlier this month.

So um there are there are different things that can be done, but it all comes with compromises or concessions.

So um, and before I get into those, I should note that um the project team, together with our um transportation planners, our internal transportation engineers, and our consultant team have tried to find opportunities to narrow these even by a foot, even even just a little bit.

And our opinions were that in different ways it either took away from the safety or the comfort or just the kind of versatility of the the sidewalk area.

So things like um narrowing the step out zone, which is that gray strip between the angled parking and the bikes, that was one suggestion to either eliminate that or narrow it.

Um but there is a chance that large vehicles could overhang and the noses of vehicles could encroach into the bike lane if we did that.

Similarly, if we um narrowed up the angled parking, that creates a similar uh potential problem.

Um, and we've also had complaints on main street um with angled parking not having enough room to maneuver in and out of them.

So we didn't we're trying to solve for known problems and prevent uh other safety concerns.

I agree that the planting space on the commercial collector could be more narrow.

We chose to do eight foot wide tree wells so that this would offer space for very large, beautiful um shade giving street trees, whereas like a more standard six-foot area wouldn't be able to have the space to accomplish that.

Um so in we've I think we've also been asked if the drive lanes could be narrowed from 12 feet to one foot, and again, it's just giving that maneuvering area for the angled parking.

So we've we've tried at every step to narrow where possible.

Um we've ended up with these recommendations as is and I I do think it's good to have the space to have the large trees because that offers a big cooling effect in the hot summer months when it's otherwise all a lot of cement or asphalt.

So I do like that, but I just I just wanted to ask that question.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

So President Wolf, you have more questions.

That actually was my follow-up question, so thanks, Councilor Robins.

Yeah.

All right, so any more clarifying any questions before we go into discussion?

Um start with uh counselor Anderson since he hasn't put any said anything.

So do you like uh does that reflect console priority or your your priority or about the street designs?

You know, I like I like the angle parking.

I like most of it.

There's just a you've got a lot of bike path.

Um 13 feet bike path.

I've just been in develop developments that um you look over and you see the bike paths empty.

And it's just kind of wasted space, and you know, occasionally people will use it, but but we're really banking on people using both bike and pad for really not very big blocks, right?

City blocks.

So if I have any complaint, I would say narrow the bike paths.

You've got it, you've got 10 feet at c on collector C and you've got it at 13 feet on collector B and A.

Well, even A is is bigger than that.

So that that's that's my concern.

May I ask a clarifying question?

Is it the width of the facility or is it how often we're using them?

Is it that you would prefer to have more standard bike facilities on more of the street designs?

I think so.

I I don't know.

Where are these people going to go on their bikes?

Right?

Are they gonna go to retail?

Are they gonna go to just another neighborhood?

So are they going to be used?

That that's my only question.

I'd I'd say width and and combine the two and not have you know separate separate paths, but on the commercial collector have them together.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Counselor Schlack.

Um Yeah, thank you for all your work on this.

I was sort of trying to compare the uh proposed designs with sort of my field for for that area, and um I don't have any significant concerns um about it.

This these street designs are aligned with um my priorities.

Counselor Parson Wolf Thank you, Mayor.

Um overall, I agree.

Um I appreciate Councillor Anderson's question because I really do like the idea of having more space space for the um the tables in the summer, spring, fall.

It just seems like leverage a lot, and um I think it's something that individuals really enjoy having um that space.

Um so if there's a way in the commercial area to kind of play with the bike lines, uh mayor who as an avid cyclist may have a different perspective, but that would probably be my one redirect in the commercial areas.

So thank you so much.

Counselor Shaw.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I would concur uh with Council President Wolf as well as Councilor Um Anderson as far as the bikes.

I've always been concerned of having an um bike paths on both sides because I do think that that adds extra development cost and maintenance cost uh for uh limited ROI um for those who potentially maybe biking, so perhaps just one path on one side would be um something I'd like to see.

And I am concerned about the even the 14% being passed on.

Uh but um also it if we um don't necessarily have the crash data, you know, that's a little bit of concerning for me that we're putting a lot of extra cost um for something we think may help, but we're not 100% sure.

So still a little concerned from that element.

Thank you.

Council Gutusi.

Thank you, Mayor.

I agree with counselor Shaw.

I do like the sort of bilateral multi-use paths, like what you see at the collector D, the River Terrace Boulevard extension.

Um I notice that that specifically is just done in one small section, and I know that that's a little bit more difficult to do in something bigger like the commercial collector, but I agree having that sort of multi-directional bike lane and then extending the sidewalk a little bit so that if we are having bistros or restaurants or things like that, they could use it better.

Those are the two separate thoughts, but Councillor Robins?

I just want to thank you for all this hard work and um so many details I would never would have even thought that had to be thought about.

Um but I agree I'm not much of a biker, and so narrower bike lanes or um having multi-directional, which which does feel a little odd because you're supposed to bike only on the right side of the road.

So I don't want to impact that, but having narrower bike lanes, because I agree with counselor Anderson that a lot of times they're empty, and I guess as a store owner, I might be kind of frustrated if there was empty space that I could put tables out.

And I think we all want to with economic development, keep people outside of the youth counselor.

I think I reflect the current concern with the bike lane stuff, and I think that utilizing the multi-use path design would be impactful positively.

That's good.

Counselor, any more thoughts?

Yes, one question though.

Let's say we give all of these recommendations to a developer and they start developing and say, you know what, we don't want to do this.

These are all recommendations and what we would encourage, but then they would be able to pivot and have that ride and do whatever they kind of want to in the end, correct?

That is a good question, and I believe maybe Counselor Shaw, maybe you asked that and I didn't fully answer your question earlier.

Um so the these street designs at this stage are recommendations, but they would be incorporated into our transportation system plan amendment for River Terrace 2.0, and then they would ultimately be um created into engineering design standards.

So they are set in stone.

There are certain processes that are built into our engineering standards where the city engineer can deviate here or there due to you know case by case issues.

Um but outside of that, there would not be an ability to deviate.

Got it.

Oh, can I just do what clarification?

Yeah, go ahead.

And so just to clarify, so we would have like this is what the local street constraint is, this is what an alley can is.

The developer can then put the alleys in local streets wherever is best fit, but those are set specifically.

That's right.

Thank you.

So following up on my question where I'd mentioned um the collector streets going into the mountains, the uh mountainside and then those different types.

Um collector A, B, C and the concern there.

Do we are there other developments that have done something similar?

Because I'm a little worried that we think it may work if we do it at an intersection or roundabout.

I'd be much more comfortable if we knew for sure.

Yeah, it's a good question.

We we feel confident.

Um this is coming from one of the premier transportation consultants in our region tool design that works across the Portland Metro region and I believe nationally.

Um, but we've seen this across the country where there's a desire to um customize these street facilities more and more to promote safety and walkability and comfort.

Um we also are seeing in areas like Cooper Mountain where they have a variety of different um street designs for their facilities.

Um similar level of design that we have.

I don't believe that they created uh customized local street designs, but for all other types of facilities they did.

Um there's a similar type of transitioning that will go on there.

So we we do feel confident that it works, and we've been very intentional about identifying exactly where these different segments would go so that it will be safe.

Go ahead.

And then perhaps one follow-up question.

I think it's always nice to have extra trees and extra shade, but that comes with the huge cost of maintenance.

And we know that right now that we don't have enough dollars to even fund the maintenance we currently have, and that would be on um A, D and E.

So what is the proposal and how much would that cost?

What's a proposal to maintain that?

Because I don't want to set future councils up for um lack of success.

Yeah, you're hitting on something that we're working through with our finance strategy right now.

So we'll touch on it just a little bit in our next presentation.

But um, but you're right, because there is a need to establish concrete maintenance um responsibilities for our different facilities, and when you have unique designs like River Terrace Boulevard or what we're proposing in River Terrace 2, um, or even uh streets that are in the works that are planning to add multi-use paths and other types of features, uh, we don't have standards uh that dictate exactly how those facilities are maintained by the city.

Um so it's critical that we develop those protocols.

Um but in terms of the finance piece of that and how much it actually costs, um, that is something that we're looking at with the finance strategy, not only to make sure that construction of this infrastructure is feasible and the costs are incorporated into our system development charges and other fees, but maintenance is also being assessed.

Um so we're working with our public works team to try and understand that.

Um, but any equipment that's needed, any personnel that's needed to maintain these facilities is incorporated into that finance strategy to make sure the city will have the resources to get that um the personnel and the resources.

Um there are also other possibilities.

We'll talk about this in the next section.

But um, for example, in River Terrace One, there was a transportation use fee that was created.

This was done for capital, so infrastructure-related projects, but perhaps we're finding with 2.0 that maintenance costs are really the driver here that might necessitate creativity and different fees.

So we'll talk about that in the next section, but it's something that we're looking at very closely.

Great.

I appreciate that because then I can't I think it may be Sequoia bits office 72nd where we've created the um they were supposed to be very concrete heavy, but supposed to be plantings in between, and we found that it's too difficult to too expensive to maintain, and now they're almost open gaps where people can fall.

And so that's what I would like to make sure we avoid.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Shaw.

Um, yeah, I I agree with the majority of council, even though I ride bikes, I do think they're I think I'm okay with having a multi-use path, just combining bikes and pedestrian on the collector A.

I think the majority of council would appreciate the option right now.

Just uh and I'm also concerned about maintenance costs of those trees, right?

Because again, it's a competing interest of making housing more affordable.

So you're talking about adding additional fee for maintenance.

And that's not that's just it's more expensive to live there, which is which is the opposite of what we want.

So that's a that's the council direction on collector A right now.

Um but also we will I think the sense is I I would like more information on the tree maintenance costs down the row.

Um we you know, you if that's if that's too expensive or it's additional cost, then um no problem reducing those uh planting spaces.

So counselor counselor Schmack.

Just to make sure I'm following when we're talking about multi-use path on collector A, are we talking about the 13-foot one with two separate lanes, or are we talking about the collector C one where it's a 10-foot one without any demarcation?

Um I mean you do one looks fine for me.

I don't think there's a specific direction at this point.

Go ahead.

Okay, excuse me.

I was taking notes and thinking that the recommendation was for the commercial collector to use just one multi-use path on one side of the street, but that the other designs were okay for the multi-use path.

Is that correct?

Where it has the stenciling and those additional features that that was acceptable, but to look into if the commercial collector could be narrowed and have a multi-use path on one side.

Is that is that understanding correct?

So I guess uh we need to have the same definition of multi-use.

Multi-use is bike and pedestrian together.

Yes, that's okay.

And the council, the majority council only one bike, that in one side of commercial collector.

Is that what I was recommending, Mayor?

Just instead of having on both sides, because that adds significant cost to have it on just one side.

So something similar to collector D.

Collector D.

Not only that, if you had the multi-use path on both sides, then after the short commercial, you'd have to cross over.

If you're if you're on the side that didn't have that didn't continue, you'd have to cross over.

So multi-use path just on one side.

Got it.

All right, yeah, yeah.

Maybe rather than narrowing collector A turn some of that extra space into bistro.

Thank you for the collect clarification.

Yeah, D, I think D is fine.

Oh, I'm just collected D.

That's why we're talking about.

So you won't D for A, but then C and B as C and B.

Just for clarifying for the senior planner data.

Um if we're doing that, then it would basically be like that for everything, because we wouldn't want it like that for one part of it, and then you have two and then one and then two.

I would just standardize it as the 10-foot one throughout the entire situation.

I mean, I I'm fine as I don't want to suggest that I'm uh not uh open to the um viewpoints that were expressed regarding um park maintenance and in bikes and um walking.

I think they're they all make sense, but we might as well just standardize to one if that's that's the goal.

I'd rather just have a wider multi-use path on both sides because it seems like if we're gonna make a asymmetric design standard throughout, that's gonna make it even more complicated to try and develop.

It would be it just feels like it would be easier to say one 10-foot multi-use path multi-use path on both sides and it's consistent and everyone understands it.

I don't know.

That's just my perspective.

I yeah, I I would prefer that um have multi-paths on both sides that's narrower.

Um I'll just jump in and add that the reason why the multi-use path is um 13 feet when there's that extra strip down the middle to try and separate pedestrians and bikes, um, is because a typical bike lane is six feet wide and a comfortable sidewalk is also six feet wide, and then you add the strip in the middle, so it's 13.

So if we go down to 10, it's just typically more of a substandard, more kind of constrained um width, like how we're when we cross over streams and the constrained cross sections, that's why it's 10 feet.

Um but I hear your comment about more consistency.

Um so the 12-foot design um without anything down the middle is is exactly how um River Terrace Boulevard's multi-use path is designed.

But we're at least recommending that stencils be added at the very least to and kind of dictate uh or recommend where bikes travel and where pedestrians travel to try and resolve some of those safety issues.

Um so if council's preference would be not to have that safety strip down the middle for a more physical um separator, which um I should note that that separating strip is particularly helpful for those who are visually impaired since it does have a tactile surface that would signal this is the more appropriate place for a pedestrian to be to stay clear of bikes.

Um so that was why we did that just on multi uh excuse me, just on mountainside way, so that as that main artery where the most bikes and pedestrians are walking, especially to and from parks into their neighborhood and to the commercial areas that there is that higher level of separation.

Um and that's why it's not consistent.

That's why the other facilities narrow it back down to 12.

It's not going to be as heavily used as the multi-use path on Mountainside.

So we uh strip down some of the features in those areas.

My my preference is I mean, for me, I put prefer to have multi-path on both sides because I ride bikes.

Yeah, it's not it's just not convenient or good all the you know to try to cross the street with a bike.

Right.

So I would rather have narrow 10 foot on both sides, right than a one twelve and nothing on the other side.

So I think having 10 on both sides would be a good compromise, but I I don't know.

Go go ahead.

So question, senior planner got on burdock.

Is that considered 10 feet with and it doesn't have the strip in the center and it's got the sort of directional attempt at where bikes should ride and where people should walk.

I don't recall the exact dimensions of that facility.

I'm sorry.

Um I can follow up with that though afterwards.

I would appreciate that because it is very confusing on um Mordoc that goes down into Templeton and it's a sidewalk and there's markings, but it is unclear as to which side you're supposed to ride a bike and which side you're supposed to walk, and it it's haphazard because I walk that quite frequently.

Um so just want to make sure we're being clear as we're trying to be safe.

Yeah.

And that's why I would propose just one side um of the street instead of having two multi-use paths on both sides.

But I can I can work with that.

Yeah, Council Codisti.

And I would agree with Councillor Shaw again, having it similar to collector D where you have multi-use path on one side.

I still do think that we should have those sidewalks.

I still do think that those should be extended because it sounds like with having just a multi-use path on both sides, that ends up being bigger.

If we're looking at something like the commercial collector, then that sidewalk may kind of go away, which becomes a problem as well.

And I don't want that.

That is a good point.

Um, as I'm trying to process what what these changes would mean for the designs.

So for the most part, um, our um other collector, I believe that's collector D, and our neighborhood routes, they all have this single-sided multi-use path design.

And that does allow reduction of the width of the street.

It's more efficient from a land perspective.

Um, it's also more efficient just from a construction cost perspective.

Um, but uh to your point, Mayor Who, the um the project team agrees that having facilities that are heavily used only on one side of the street is not convenient.

It doesn't go in our opinion far enough to encourage the walkability and bikeability goals that we're seeking in this area, which was why Mountainsideway in particular has those multi-use paths on both sides of the street.

So all the bikes are moving in one direction on each sides of the street, um, and there's more separation for pedestrians.

So it's a it's a trade-off here.

Um that again, we've we felt like we've struck that balance.

I think um I would like to go take another look at the commercial collector in particular.

Please, because another thing I just thought of collector A with the angle parking will allow more car to park there, right?

Correct.

Rather than just a parallel.

Correct.

And I think one of the council directions have more parking on commercial.

That's so actually collect a you know on honors that request.

So maybe in collector A, maybe we can still have multi-use on both sides.

Maybe just get rid of the planting space and just have 12 foot on both sides just for the collector A, because it as you point out, it is uh still a busier intersection that requires safe safer design.

And then we also need um more parking, right?

So I'm so now I'm thinking about it.

I'm not sure I want collector D in the collector A area where there are more traffic and we need more parking.

So counselor Schlack.

I agree.

I agree with what you're saying, Mayor.

And also I feel like when we talk about the commercial collector, one of the topics that came up was that sidewalks.

We want to make sure there's enough room for effectively sidewalk entertainment area for restaurants and such.

And imagining that you just have a big you know chunk of concrete and asphalt right there without any sort of trees or vegetation or anything seems counter to that goal that was also expressed tonight.

That would be my perspective at least.

That's a concern of mine as well.

If we were to put the multi-use path on both sides of collector A, it would take away the sidewalk or and/or the planter space.

And I think that that would reduce the viability of that being a commercial space.

The intent is that people there to people hang out and stay.

And if we have just pathways through rather than places to sit and be it it concerns me.

Yeah, so it comes back to maybe collector A, which is not in too many places.

Maybe it's it's okay collector A because it's not we don't see a lot of them.

So go ahead, Consul Robin.

I think after listening to this discussion, I don't think we can design it much better than the experts have.

Maybe, you know, yeah, that that it's it's better, not not better than we thought, but there isn't really a lot of space to reduce the bike lines, especially when you say that it's six foot is a normal comfortable bike lane.

Um so I I think maybe I'll change my mind and say that I'm okay with it as well.

Okay, okay, yeah.

Counselor Shaw.

And thank you, Councilor Robins.

I'm not so sure we're trying to redesign as to limit the amount of cost because the costs will be passed on to home buyers.

So that's my concern.

And listening to Councilor Anderson and also observing having bike paths might on both sides is going to be a significant amount of cost of real estate that won't necessarily be used.

So that's that's why I've been working towards trying to reduce the amount of concrete so we can reduce the amount of cost.

If I may, I I think one of the key things as I'm looking at collector A.

So if we if council wanted to transition to a multi-use path on one side of the street, so that all bikes would be going in both directions on one side of the street.

Um what that would result in would be a reduction of two feet on one side of the street.

It would eliminate that um step out zone, that two-foot strip behind the angled parking.

Um that's potentially the only change that that would result in.

Um and then the other thing is that it's kind of creating a bit of an imbalance.

It's forcing um bikes that are coming up to that Roy Rogers and Bull Mountain intersection to jump from either side of the street, um, enter the roadway if they wish to make turns.

Um so it just makes things a little bit more complicated and inconvenient for bikers, not to say that um it's not done elsewhere, it's just that having a single-sided facility does take away from just the convenience of being able to pass through on a bike and and visit the commercial areas.

Um, but it about a two-foot reduction, I expect would occur.

Yeah, but but if we have multi-path on one side, that means the restaurant on that side is not going to like it because they will be bikes going through where they want the customer to sit in outside.

So that is true, I believe.

So that's where I guess I feel like we're back to losing sight of an expanded space to be outside.

And so I guess Brittany, that would be my question.

Um, because we're going back to public comment, making a fair assessment of that space not being viable for patrons to be outside.

So I guess I'll put that question directly to you.

Do you agree or disagree with that comment?

And if you agree that's a concern, then I still go back to in that particular area.

I still agree with counselor Anderson's initial idea to say we should create better space.

I I just think in the long run, that's an important component to have is to sit outside and enjoy that in extended months.

Um, but I may be alone by now.

But so to go back, um Brittany, if you could answer that question, do you agree or disagree that that space is too tight to be able to sit outside and enjoy uh nice weather?

That's a good question.

Um I personally don't agree, and there are a couple reasons for that.

Um the eight-foot planting space is designed to be eight feet to be able to offer a wide enough space that if the correct agreements were in place with the city, a business could put bistro tables and seating um on those paved areas in between the street trees.

Um so eight feet is rather wide, certainly it could be wider.

Um, but six feet is typically the bare minimum space that can safely accommodate a table and chairs.

Um the um the trees also are separating those spaces, so there's a little bit more of a a visual safety for bikes so that they're not passing through that area very quickly.

Um I would also say that um I would argue that having one multi-use path on one side of the street would create less comfortable conditions on that one side of the street, so that people who are dining or walking and enjoying themselves might feel a little less comfortable next to a 12-foot wide facility carrying all of the bikes.

Um it also creates a bit of a a safety concern where people who are exiting their vehicles and the angled parking, they're then having to cross uh a two-foot step-out zone and a 12-foot wide multi-use path with more oncoming bicycle traffic to get to the businesses on the other side of that.

Um, just kind of making it all a little bit less comfortable.

But um as the design exists right now, I I disagree.

I think that it's been designed uh to allow that safe and comfortable dining.

Um there will certainly be opportunities for businesses to be constructed in a way that has other seating areas on their own private property if they wanted to have a larger street presence out front.

Um and so we've we've kept things tight and efficient while making sure that they're comfortable for small seating areas.

What do you think Council Person will you okay with collector A?

So I take what you're saying, Brittany, is like that patio front.

That's a design decision to like pull back.

So to um which I guess in the winter runs the risk of having you know losing seating, but um I digress.

Um well, I think I'm in a minority now anyway, so it won't matter.

So I don't have any additional questions, so I really appreciate the honest response.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Councilor Schlack.

I guess uh considering the um shifting state of play on the council, would it it would be helpful for me to understand whether council is there's a majority of council who wants to proceed with the street design types as proposed, or whether the council would like to consider um additional design amendments um along the lines of what some council members have discussed though?

So I know Councilor Schlag, I and Councillor Wobbins have fine with staff recommendations.

Anyone want any changes?

Councillor Shaw.

From a I'm not concerned about the design.

I think design's beautiful.

And if we had all the money in the world, this would be awesome.

And if trees didn't grow roots that then impeded the spaces where I too would like to have some bistro tables, I think it's great.

Um so I'm concerned from the cost perspective.

As much as I'd love and think biking is great.

I grew up in an area where everybody used the same bike path, you went north and south, and it seemed to work.

I do hear, senior planner Gata, your concern about if you're exiting a vehicle, going over the two feet and then across a bike lane, which could be expanded if you have multi-ject.

But I'm just I'm just concerned about the cost.

And it's hard for me to make this decision when we don't know what the costs are.

We've heard from the developers, they're very concerned.

Um, they're concerned because this hasn't been necessarily an issue in River Terrace 1.0.

We know it was we hear from multiple perspectives how expensive the housing was there, and yet we're on the same trajectory in River Terrace 2.0.

So that's my concern.

And so um I would love to see if we can.

I know you've been trying really hard and staff has too about how to reduce those costs, but I am still very concerned about that.

I share a lot of those concerns.

I do think that there is a lot of right-of-way here that's proposed.

Some of it is fine, but I do think that it'll overall be too expensive, not just in creation, but overall maintenance.

So I know that likely the HOA is likely fees are going to take care of a good chunk of it, but those on the larger streets are likely going to fall back to the city.

And so if the maintenance fees ends up being significant, that's really putting a future councils at a disadvantage.

Council Anderson, we know your go ahead, we know what you've thought.

Well, I I would just I would just narrow them.

I would just narrow the the bike lanes if you've if you could.

Um even the 10 feet.

I mean, 11 feet is a is a travel lane for a car.

So you could certainly pass a carriage or you know, a couple if you're on a bike to get around that.

Um I would probably just keep them on the same side or two sides.

So six foot two, I don't know.

Well, it's narrow.

Instead of 13 foot, I would just go down to 10 foot.

Or it's yeah.

10 so now it's six, eight, six.

So where were that ten well are you talking about the car carding?

Let's let's let's look at collector B.

So you got 13 feet for for both so you got 20 26 feet for bike and pad there.

So that's a lot.

I I would just narrow it down to 10.

10 apiece.

Yeah.

10 apiece.

Okay.

Council Person and Wolf.

So how does collector B apply to collector A, the commercial, then Councillor Anderson, just so I'm clear.

Five and five.

Um because I think my comment was going, and I actually appreciate um Councillor Anderson's perspective on collector B.

Um, this is not my area of expertise.

I mean, there's part of me that was gonna say move forward, except go back and have those conversations around commercial A.

Because what's critical is that we have a market that really wants to be there and creates a restaurant or a store that you know they want to be in, and certainly then our residents want to uh be patrons there.

So um, but uh I appreciate kind of the idea around collector B, and I'm still like, can we do more thinking on commer collector A?

Council should I just uh try and make sure I'm getting my head around the um feedback from my colleagues.

So it sounds like all the um design feedback really is around collector A and B at this point, but collector C, D, E, neighborhood routes A, B, and the additional you know, local streets and alley, everyone is is fine with it's really just thinking about the commercial areas and the transition points around them.

I just want to make sure that we're we're limiting the the feedback and not limiting it, but targeting narrowing it, yes.

Yeah.

Uh so now we have so I don't I think there are there's no clear consensus on collector A and B at this point.

Yeah.

So I think we just need more information on how ways to narrow them down even more without compromising goal, which is I know that many competing goals.

Oh, we have uh sambo.

Yeah, yeah.

Your micro.

Your microscope.

If your experts come back and say no way, we can't do that, it's not safe.

That's fine, I'll accept that.

I appreciate you adding that because I I do want to call out that the 10-foot design does not follow any industry standard for safe facilities.

So it's likely that the consultant team would say we strongly discourage that.

Um and the other side of this is um we are out of budget on designing these streets.

We do have budget in the finance strategy separately where we can further analyze the costs of these different facilities and the maintenance involved in them.

So that that conversation is still wide open.

Um, but there would be a cost that would come with revamping these designs.

Um that said, we can work with our internal experts, our transportation planners and our transportation engineers, and try and see if there are any opportunities to narrow these.

Um but uh director Sambo wanted to add something.

Thank you.

Um CD director uh Samuel Kirkman.

One of the things I want us to consider is I know there's a concern about the cost in the right-of-way, but one of the things we haven't talked about tonight is part of A is the angle parking.

And we are trying very um very um diligently to look at all the aspects.

So we could reduce it.

Um we could reduce a right-of-way, but that means that something does have to give.

And one of the things I want us to consider is that there's a consistency too, because I've also heard the transition and the and the concerns that well, if we keep switching back and forth on these various things, that is going to impact how people look at the flow.

So if C and D are options that you do like, the C and D components are looking at two-way, uh, basically two-way um traffic or two-way flow for both pedestrians, bikes, and and vehicles.

So if we're trying to still keep within a consistent design, those are things to consider.

If we're considering making sure we can provide as much parking, we do need to have those angled parking areas.

There is going to be, there is going to be an impact.

There's just not a way for us to back to council president Wolf's comment, they're always always going to be lovers.

So if the importance is providing that parking, we're going to need that right away.

And the other things to consider is that yes, often you see bike lanes as being not as utilized as others, but we're also talking about it basically what I'm gonna call a town center field, where we are trying to encourage more.

And to be able to do that, we've got to be able to create that consistency and to be able to create the space.

The cafe areas that you're looking at for the for the eight-foot sidewalks would be great.

And it's something that I think we can bring to the team to say, can we look at designs where we utilize the six and the eight-foot area as more of a centralized area where maybe then pedestrians can, but we've at least acknowledged that the bikes and the scooters and the things that are there could need an area where we can differentiate from pedestrians and the the what I'll call the loitering areas of sorts.

So that's what's helpful about this design too, is that there is a specified area for planters.

Does that mean that I think we can look at utilizing that as an area that not only are tree wells but are also areas that we could look at at bistro seatings, or maybe it's not, maybe it's a bench.

And but we do need at least for tonight an understanding of are you comfortable with the idea that this is the this is the right-of-way we're going to need to be able to fit everything that has been requested and still meet kind of the goal of getting a uh a uh transportation system that moves people around that allows us to bring people in.

And so I guess that's my ask is yes, it is really we we can start we could start pinching out down widths, but that's just gonna there's just it's gonna have an effect.

If we do not have, if we try to make the multi-use path on one side, it's gonna it's gonna create some issues with consistency and such.

So those are things I'm hoping we can at least express to you all and and see if you're at least comfortable enough for us to then come back and talk about well, if this is the design, here are here is the financial components of it, and can we, and if it just doesn't work and it seems extensive, then maybe we do have to talk about something different.

But this is the is this where we're is the design we're recommending really a good starting point for us to be able to say, or at least a point where we can take as a template to say this is what the community has said, this is what the developers have had, this is what council has said, and what's with the um city city staff has, and are you comfortable enough with that for us to be able to go, okay?

There's gonna there may be needs for tweaks, but we have at least the farm or the bones to be able to do the analysis that we need to be able to do.

So I appreciate that.

So is your um suggestion then to develop estimated costs for collector A, collector B, collector C, so we have an idea of what the difference would be, because there's obviously like collector A has 40 feet of concrete versus collector B, which is what 23.

So is that what you're suggesting?

So we have a better idea of what the costs would be?

That is what um we actually have all of that data.

So where we are, so a lot of the stuff runs in tandem.

So we're designing our streets while we're crunching the cost estimates for how much it costs to construct them and maintain them.

So we do have um we have a couple things that could be helpful that we can follow up with.

We have um cost estimates to construct our standard street designs that the city uses elsewhere, so that kind of basic typical street and tigered, we have the cost estimates for that type of facility.

Then we have our cost estimates for these proposed facilities already figured out, and that's where that 14% margin came in.

So it's interesting when you when you look at the numbers, it is by a long shot that commercial collector, which comes out as the most expensive.

It's the widest, it has the most features, it has angled parking.

It makes sense.

The other facilities, when you take them comparatively, the increases are quite subtle.

I don't have the percentages off the top of my head, but I believe it was something of the order of 30 some percent of the total additional cost comes from the commercial collector.

So it is that one that is driving the costs, but we've put it in very discrete areas, three city blocks approximately throughout the whole area to try and cut back on that cost.

So we can follow up with you with the breakdown of the costs, comparing the typical designs versus the proposed designs.

And the next part of our finance strategy is to really dig into now we know the construction cost estimates and the maintenance cost estimates.

What does that mean for fees?

What does that mean for system development charges?

Um, which typically does get bundled into the cost of a home that someone is purchasing, so that does directly relate to added cost for residents.

We'll be able to find out is that SDC 2% higher, you know, because of these additional street designs, or or is it 15%?

You know, and maybe having those numbers will help council um decide what the priority needs to be here.

So we're just not quite there yet with the finance strategy.

That's what we'll be bringing back to council at the end of May, and we can be sure to lay out more of that analysis.

So are we comfortable with uh director Kirkman's suggestions?

Yeah.

All right, so we'll just wait.

This is the starting point, and I think a few of us are comfortable with the recommendation, but I think uh the majority still want more information.

So I mean, I think the thing we're hearing, at least please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing from the council is that there is an interest to keep the the alternate paths.

There was at least a conversation about combining some of the paths to one, and it sounds as though that's not a priority, and it's not something that that we should consider because there is an interest in being able to see to have both amenities on both sides of the street.

So I I think that's a takeaway, that's something I'm I'm hearing.

And I'm I'm hearing that there is still an interest in us providing as much parking as we can on the site, and the angle parking isn't something that you're opposed to, but in fact allows us to provide more parking.

It just means that it's gonna take up a little more right of way, but it does provide the parking that we've heard over and over again is in interest.

Yeah, that's why her funded developer too, right?

They were wanting less on street parking where it's not needed, right?

So this will provide more parking to where it is needed.

So you allow us to have less parking at other places.

So angle parkings, I think it's it's a win-win for everybody.

So any odd yeah, we are we're way behind today, but I'm okay with it today because it's a good conversation.

So I'm not gonna keep time today.

But um, any other any other comments or suggestion before we move on?

Go ahead, Councilman Schmack.

We're coming back in May to revisit the transportation street designs based on this information.

That's what I'm we will provide some additional information specifically on the commercial collector areas, but the others seem to be fine, and that the theme thematically we're still staying with looking at um part at the designs to incorporate um flows on set.

We're not combining uh one direction for bike parking, like for the bike lanes, we're not combining it to one multi-use path on one side from what I what we're hearing, which helps us to kind of narrow what we're bringing back to council.

For me, uh for me, yes, both sides, because as you mentioned, it's if we just have one side on collector, it's not consistent with everything else.

So I'm getting head nods, yes, through the group.

Okay.

Yes.

It's fine.

Yeah.

Lost on the case.

If I go ahead.

If I if I could ask too, if we're talking about a town center type of feel, if we could include maybe a zoning map of where you think retail and restaurants would be in comparison to this.

Yes, we can absolutely include that.

And I think there are some indications of that on the map that was printed with the different street designs.

It's not zoning, but it does have um a red block around where the commercial areas would be at least.

Right.

Um, so that at least shows that area.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So I think we get consensus for now.

So let's move on to the fine equitable finance.

Okay, can we move to the next slide, please?

Okay, part two.

Part two of our presentation this evening focuses on the finance strategy for river terrorists 2.0.

Next slide, please.

So and a finance strategy, or in the case of River Terrace 2.0 and equitable finance strategy, um, is doing two things primarily.

First, it is identifying how different capital improvements like infrastructure is built and how is it funded.

And then it's also looking at those ongoing operations and maintenance needs, what the costs are associated with those, and if any special funding mechanisms or actions are needed by the city to deliver this area.

So it's unique to River Terrace 2.0 that this is an equitable finance strategy because first and foremost, it's focused on promoting those equitable outcomes in the community that support the city's housing and affordability goals while balancing development feasibility.

So what we know now, where we're at in the project with the finance strategy is we're a few months in.

We've done a good amount of the analysis, but we're still working on things.

So in the in the realm of what we know now, we've identified what funding sources will be available to help fund these infrastructure improvements.

And we've also done an analysis to identify the revenue estimates that the city can anticipate at full build-out of this area.

We have also developed an understanding of how this infrastructure would be funded and delivered, whether that's delivered by the city, other public agencies, or by developers, and what the initial cost estimates for delivering those facilities are.

And then we've also gone back to River Terrace One and tried to understand what happened with River Terrace One.

Was that successful?

And did it create the outcomes that we're looking for here?

Next slide, please.

So there are a variety of funding sources that will help support this infrastructure.

Some of those sources come from outside of the city.

So we have things like Washington County's transportation development tax.

Clean water services has fees that they charge.

For the city, we have our system development charges or SDCs for transportation and parks.

And in the case of River Terrace One, we also used supplemental SDCs, which we are expecting would be needed in River Terrace 2 for transportation and parks as well.

And then developers also contribute their fair share of infrastructure that is needed to support their one development alone.

And then there are other opportunities for credits and other funding to help support those parts of the infrastructure network that are bigger than their development.

There are also potential additional sources that might be needed here.

We're still looking into these.

So it's up to our internal team and the consultant team to identify if additional funding sources are needed for those special situations in River Terrace 2.

Next slide, please.

So as I mentioned, the core purpose of the finance strategy is to determine who builds what needed infrastructure and how is it paid for.

So in the case of transportation, this will primarily be delivered by developers at the time of development.

There are a few exceptions to this, like off-site improvements, like there is a signal, a traffic signal planned at Perth and Roy Rogers.

That's not going to be delivered by developers.

They're not working in that area.

But pretty much everything else will be.

And lastly, we have our utilities for water, sewer, and stormwater.

This would be a combination of public and private delivery funded mainly by developer contributions since the infrastructure is needed for their developments with some credits available as well.

Next slide, please.

One of the key ways that the River Terrace 2.0 Equitable Finance Strategy is planning to help Tigrid achieve our equity and affordability goals is through a tiered system development charge structure or SDCs.

And this means that the SDC fee amount would change by housing unit size.

So it would effectively lower costs for your future home buyers and also to developers by lowering fees for those smaller units that we're trying to promote in this area, such as middle housing units and other smaller types of housing.

The preliminary approach for this has been to only tier the fees that are specific to River Terrace 2.0, so not affect the rest of the city.

As we've gone through this analysis, it's opened up a question, wondering if it would be more effective to tier all city SDCs to help promote affordability and housing development citywide.

This is something that we're continuing to look at and work with our partners in finance and public work about.

We'll be coming back to you with more information on this at the end of May.

But I wanted to call out that as we've worked through these estimates, we're finding that only tiering the River Terrace 2 fees may not get us the affordability outcomes that we're seeking.

So we're we're continuing to travel down that path and do more research.

And lastly, this structure would use multiple categories for unit size, for example, zero to 500, 500 to 1,000, et cetera, et cetera, to tie the impacts associated with different housing units to a justifiable fee for parks or transportation.

Next slide, please.

So we have engaged with developers recently on the finance strategy assumptions at the March 3rd developer forum.

We have heard consistently that the project needs to balance our infrastructure costs with affordability goals, feasibility goals, and with enhanced design features.

We've also heard consistently that system development charges are one of the most, if not the most, important determinants of development feasibility.

And that discounts and delayed collection of those SDCs has been very helpful in places like River Terrace One to help alleviate the cost burden.

And they have also voiced support for some of these more unique approaches that we're exploring, including the tiered fees to help lower that cost burden on smaller units, and also cost sharing to spread out large costs for things like bridges among developers.

Next slide, please.

So we're still hard at work on the finance strategy.

One thing we're still working on is our understanding of how stormwater will work in River Terrace 2.0 South.

So you may recall that there has been a loose plan coordinating with CWS and King City on what we're calling a super-regional stormwater strategy that would allow this interjurisdictional partnership to manage stormwater.

We're hearing from Clean Water Services that that project may not get off the ground in time for River Terrace 2.0 to develop.

It's caused a bit of a delay in our process here since we're not able to move forward with our cost estimates if we're not sure what the stormwater strategy is going to be in that area.

So we are continuing to coordinate with CWS and King City to see if this is still a viable path.

But at this point, we're in a holding pattern on our stormwater strategy for the River Terrace 2.0 South area.

We're also working to finalize those infrastructure costs and estimate our fees like SDCs and develop that tiered recommendation system with some options to consider.

We're also trying to figure out how the credit policy needs to work for SDCs.

There are a variety of ways to do this and a bunch of levers that can be pulled, all of which affect the funding assumptions, the credits, the revenues.

So we're working to better understand what the options are and what the effects are.

Um and lastly, we'll be back to city council at the end of May with more information about estimated fees, tiering, et cetera, so that we can seek additional direction from you.

Next slide, please.

So now I just want to take a little bit of time to get a high-level test of where council is feeling about our finance strategy.

So we've I've broken up the discussion into two questions.

Um so I want to make sure you're aware there's a second question here, since the first may uh solicit some good discussion.

Um the first is that in most greenfield areas there is this tension as we're as we're hearing with the street designs between the cost of development and then the cost that could um that could occur to city budgets, um, such as those maintenance responsibilities and sometimes even deficits in budget that has to be balanced to ensure development feasibility.

Um so for example, this was done in River Terrace One, where there was this very conscious decision at the time by that council to offer discounts and and change the way that the finance strategy was organized in order to result in more development feasibility and lower fees.

Um so we're checking in with you all this evening to try and get an understanding if your um if your priority is mainly to reduce costs on development, support feasibility, support affordability as much as possible.

Um if the main concern is preventing any impact to city budget, understanding where we are as a city being constrained, um, or if we should continue um down the path of equal balance.

Thank you.

Who can say no to equal balance?

Uh we'll start this way.

Uh are you ready, Councilor Robin?

You wanted to Yeah.

Or youth counselor, would you like to provide suggestion, direction?

I think that maintaining the equal balance path that you guys are on right now would be beneficial.

Counselor Robinson, it's a difficult year this year for budgets.

Um maybe if this was a different year, the answer would be different, or if the future couple years might be different.

Um I do not want to sacrifice affordability for the rest of the city to make River Terrace 2.0 more affordable.

Not that I don't want it to be affordable, but we do have to balance all of that.

So I would say equal balance tending a little bit orange to prevent budget impacts because I don't know that next year's budget's going to be any better than this year.

And so until the federal government things change and we have more stability there, I don't know that we can afford it.

Counselor Kutsusi.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, overall, if you're pretty much the same way, um, one of my concerns is subsidizing at this time.

It's still going to take a lot of time to see that benefit for the people of Tiger.

And there's a lot that's going to happen before then.

So, yes, equal, but leaning more towards helping to prevent budget impacts.

Counselor Shaw.

Yeah, I currently think it's a false choice.

We don't have enough information from a finance strategy.

We don't know what the stormwater strategy is, we don't know the final infrastructure cost and estimate costs.

So I find it very hard to try and make a decision and equal is the easy choice to say yes.

Um, I do know that we've been working with some other development here in the city with SDC's costs that's made it prohibited, prohibitive for anyone to even purchase those particular units.

And so of that, I would air towards reducing development fees.

But again, I think right now it's sort of a false choice until we have additional information.

Um in answering the other questions, I do actually think having a tiered fee across the city makes sense.

Um that's something I'd be supportive.

I'd be supportive of the translation use fee as well as a park and recreation fee because that I think will help um stem any long-term budgetary impacts on the city.

Um, I think those are I think those are the questions I was supposed to answer.

Yeah, good.

Uh council council President Wolf.

Um Councillor Shaw, thank you for those comments.

And I lean towards counselor Shaw's comments.

Um, as Brittany knows, sometimes um I reached out to talk to her today, which is aligned with what Mark gave is public comment.

Sometimes I need to get in the weeds to understand what I'm doing a few thousand feet up.

And in one of the slides, I think it referenced how important understanding the SDCs and that communication with developers.

And I know in the meeting notes from March 3rd, it's referenced that that that is coming, but that it wasn't shared.

Mark commented on that.

So I am struggling to kind of make that decision because I feel like I don't have good information.

So yeah, in a perfect scenario, I would love a balanced budget and um uh scaled fees.

I want it all, right?

I I want uh utopia, and I know that's not where we are right now.

Um so I I almost feel like I'm a pass until I better understand uh where we are.

Yeah, do you that's fair, Counselor Schlack?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um would you be able to restate what the um potential budget impacts would be that we would be trying to prevent right now?

It's mainly on it sounds like on like ongoing maintenance and stuff.

Yeah, it's a good question.

And it's and I'm hearing it coming up that we need more information about that, what that would be.

And um part of it is that we're checking in at this interim stage to try and understand what information do you need to help make that decision.

So I'm taking notes of this.

Um I don't I don't know every single potential cost to the city's budget at this time.

Um it seems um safe to say that if the system development charge, for example, was too low, the city would not generate enough revenue to um cover the credits that it needs to issue to development, meaning that the city's budget would be in deficit.

Um there are also timing considerations.

If you issue too many credits before you bring in enough revenue, that's also a risk of either a temporary or long-term budget deficit.

Maintenance is the other big one where um if we don't build in um maintenance considerations either into the SDCs, either into a supplemental fee, we could be putting the city at risk for not having the resources, the personnel to be able to maintain these facilities to a level that is acceptable to Tiger.

Thank you.

And then um regarding supplemental fees, the you said these would be the residential ones, right?

So if uh someone buys a house or rents an apartment, this is what would be on their water bill.

There would be an additional fee that other residents in other parts of Tiger uh may not pay.

That's correct.

So in River Terrace One, there is a five dollar transportation use fee.

Um that is paid by the residents on a monthly basis.

Um and yes, uh, if there were a supplemental park and recreation fee, it's I believe the mechanism it would make sense to implement it similarly as a monthly additional payment on a utility bill.

And the plan would be to continue those indefinitely as opposed to say sunset them out at some point where river terrace is no longer a new development.

Um I'm just that thought just crossed my mind.

That's a that's a very good point.

Um that's not something that we've talked about yet, since we have not broached that subject of supplemental fees quite yet.

But um in this case, we're seeing that additional funds could be needed for maintenance.

So if a transportation use fee, for example, was structured to cover maintenance, I could see that being a cost in perpetuity to fund that additional maintenance um for a river terrace 2.0.

Um, similar to the park and recreation fee that is paid monthly in perpetuity um to help main to maintain our park facilities.

Yeah, I think I um sort of aligned with um Council Shaw and Council President Wolf and wanting to have a more detailed understanding about the budgetary impacts.

I recall this topic briefly came up during our special meeting as well, in terms of um at least me expressing my interest in the long-term budgetary impacts of this development.

Um I would have concern or I'd be interested in exploring whether those additional fees that those areas of tiger are paying would be in perpetuity or if we would want to sunset them out at some distant point in the future.

Um I'm very intrigued by the idea of tiered SDCs, both in River Terrace and citywide, so I like that idea.

Um yeah, so in addition to better understanding the budget impacts and making sure that we're setting our our city up for success in the long for the long term.

I kind of uh like Council President Wolf and Councillor Shaw lean more on the reduced development cost side because really we're trying to create the type of community that we want to, you know, exist for in perpetuity, and we need to incentivize that to make sure it happens.

One of the other successful aspects of River Terrace 1.0 was how quickly it got developed out, and that was partly because of the incentives that we had there.

So um I wouldn't want to see this be greenfield for uh you know a huge very long period of time because then that's counterproductive to council goal one and our housing priorities there, and as well as council goal two, creating the commercial areas that people actually want to go in and do business with.

So um more information on budget impacts and intrigued by some of the ideas that I'd love to explore more, but until I have that information, I'm gonna lean more on the reduced development cost side of things.

Thank you for letting me talk through my thought process.

Very good.

Counselor Anderson clarified the question.

Uh can you add that Council Anderson speak first?

Go ahead.

Um course equal balance would be great, but if you don't work with the developers, it won't be built for 10 years, right?

So we gotta work with the developers.

We're gonna find out what their ST system development charges are.

Um I I don't think I like the tier tiers for the uh for the lower impact units.

Um if you're not if you're not getting enough bang for your buck, maybe you should really lower them and make them pretty aggressive.

Yeah, thanks.

That's it.

Can you can you tell a little bit about what you mean by if you don't get big enough banking lower?

Well, we don't have that much of the smaller units, right?

In this particular thing.

Um, you're you're getting a tier, you're getting a break, maybe get give the developers even a little bit more of a break.

Oh, okay.

For the smaller for the smaller units.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Council, you have a question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just for clarification, if we're looking at the funding strategy overview memo, where does that fall on the spectrum?

Is that generally sort of looking at the equal distribution?

The memo is really it's not really on the spectrum.

It's more, I would say if anything, it's more of an equal balance.

It's really just laying out what we know now.

Um I would say that um River Terrace One probably leaned in that blue category, maybe a little bit towards the reduced development costs, um, kind of skirting equal balance, reducing development costs a little bit.

Um, it's it's going to be up to city council to decide to to counselor Anderson's point how aggressive, how aggressive do we want to be?

And and it'll be our job with the consultants to bring back those scenarios and trying to understand what the impacts to city budgets would be.

Um so I appreciate that comment since it's part of what we're looking at.

It's the equitable finance strategy for a reason, and that needs to make sure that it's feasible for development to get the outcomes that we're looking for here.

So um, so in May, we'll be sure to be bringing back the full analysis and and really what we're discussing this evening and and why it's very valuable for me to hear your feedback at this interim stage is so that the consultant team isn't spinning their wheels, uh crunching numbers, putting together alternatives and scenarios that that may not align with where council is headed.

So it's it's a temperature check with council right now, so that um our consultant team can focus on three or four different alternatives rather than the 20 plus options for how to structure all these fees um that are out there.

So it's helpful just to hear where your heads are at um so that we can continue moving forward.

Yeah.

For me, I yeah, it's hard for me to commit at this point as well for my colleagues recently.

Don't have enough information.

But I I am intrigued with tier approach, and I I agree with counselor Anderson that I think we need to give uh a little bit of help to those that we need more help, right?

I think it will be harder to convince developer to build smaller homes.

So maybe we need to offer bigger carrot.

Uh but the rest, um, you know, I think the market can take care of itself, maybe.

Uh but uh I I just need more information.

And because the the risks you mentioned concerns me.

Like if we offer too many incentives too quickly, we may be in in deficit because we may not recover them fast enough.

So when you come back in May, I will be helpful it will it would be helpful for me to understand what what the risks are, like risk like that, and how council or the city can do to reduce those kind of risk.

I think that that would be helpful for me as well.

Um but yeah, I just yeah, but I I'm a I'm in alignment with my council members.

I everything's retriguing, and we want more homes, but at the same time, we are really concerned about budget.

So I don't know that's helpful to you.

Uh but then the next question that I think uh counselor shall express interest in the fee, and I am too.

I don't know if other counselors answer that or yeah, they're all nodding hands.

Yeah, for the fee for River Towers 2.0 transportation USR fee, park fee, and other those that's just example, but we're interested in supplemental fee.

So thank you.

That's that's helpful to understand.

So in River Terrace One, a good example of this with the transportation use fee.

Um it did pass $5 a month onto residents.

That is affecting affordability.

Um but it did allow the transportation SDC for River Terrace One to be lower since the SDC wasn't leaning or wasn't, excuse me, wasn't carrying the entire cost correct.

So it's helpful for us to understand that that door is open.

We'll continue working with our consultant team and finance and public works to understand what our recommendations are for those fees.

Yeah.

And one thing, you know, I think we are advocating at the state government is that they if they really want us to make more produce more housing, give us some help with those kind of infrastructure, right?

So we don't have we won't be in a situation like this, but I'm on my soapbox.

Go ahead, Console.

Thank you.

And then one other thought, just when thinking about the budget impacts, because we talk about you know, sort of the the cash flows, how I I think of it in terms of SDCs, how much is coming in versus credits going out, and then maintenance, which feels very much on the public work side of things.

I'd love to also understand what that expanded territory, if you will, would uh how that would impact our police budget as well, since that's heavily dependent on the general fund.

Yes, we'd get more property tax revenue in from this new area.

But um, you know, I I just think that's uh a key city service that would be um required to expand its scope in some way, and I'd love to understand um how that would be folded in with budgetary impacts.

Thank you.

Counselor Shah.

Well, mayor, I'd like to jump on your soapbox.

Um, with utilities, water, sewer, stormwater, and I understand the state has limited dollars, but if they are trying to get each and every city to build, there should some be some skin in the game for them too.

And perhaps that's a supplemental fee.

I don't know.

Uh two separate issues.

One, I'd like to see the state put some money in and put some skin in the game, and then two, perhaps that's also a supplemental fee to consider.

Thank you.

All right.

Any last words?

Sounds good.

Oh, counselor Schlack, go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, just my final thought, I guess, is when does an additional supplemental fee in one area go from a cost of new development to something that's inequitable in the long term.

So I'm just I'm curious to explore that long term if we're gonna have a lot of residents paying additional supplemental fees in perpetuity.

Yeah, okay.

It's a lot.

So but thank you for your work and hopefully you have enough to directions and better than reading tea leaves at this point, I guess.

So yeah, all right.

Thank you so much.

I do, thank you so much.

Um I did have one more slide, but I'll just go through it very quickly.

Okay, go ahead.

Um, if we can go two slides forward, please.

I just want to let you know that we are still working and there are some big dates that are coming up uh for the project.

Um, so we did have a developer forum scheduled on March 30th.

Um, because of the kinds of analysis that we still need to do, we're not able to estimate SDCs quite yet.

So we have had to postpone this.

We're planning on that being rescheduled in late April.

Um, it could be early May, but that will be rescheduled prior to the May 26th City Council updates that we'll be able to connect with developers and share their feedback with you during that next update.

Um, and we are also approaching some metro grant deadlines.

So we're submitting our preliminary transportation system plan amendments, our park system plan, um, which is really exciting.

Um, and we're also meeting with planning commission before we see you next.

Um, so I think I'll leave it there, but I thank you all so much for your guidance.

It's given me a lot to chew on.

I have a lot of great notes to share with our consultant teams that we can be sure to come back with more analysis for you all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, there being no additional item, this meeting is adjourned.

Good night, Tiger.