I will call this Tiger City Council and Local Contract Review Board meeting to order.

WD City Recorder Bartholomew, would you please conduct a roll call?

Council President Wolf.

Here.

Councillor Anderson.

Here.

Councillor Gaducey.

Present.

Use Councillor Helleck.

Here.

Mayor who?

Here.

Councillor Robbins?

Here.

Councillor Schlack.

Here.

Councillor Shaw.

Here.

Thank you.

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

All right.

City team and council.

Do you have any non-agenda item you want to discuss tonight?

All right.

Seeing none, let's move on to the next section, which is public comments.

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

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

The calling number is 503-966-4101, and those wishing to comment should call now to get into the queue.

Anyone present wanting to comment should sign up on the public comment form at the front of the room.

Those calling in for agenda number six, which is uh uh adoption of the Kinston Terrace addendum to the 2020 water system plan till the item is announced and then call in.

Uh first is written comments.

Uh there were 15 written public comments received by the Monday noon deadline.

Comments include 12 concerns with the public library budget for the fiscal year 2027, two concerns about River Towers 2.0, and one about proposed public works and police building.

And then let's move on to the in-person.

Um I will ask those who sign up to come forward.

So when your name is called, please come forward to the microphone and make sure it's turned on.

And today we have two people sign up, so each one of you had two minutes to speak.

Uh the first person uh I want to ask is Jessica Fredrikson.

Hello.

Yeah, please state your name.

Yeah, go ahead and please state your name and where you live, and you have two minutes.

Yeah, please turn on your mic.

Yes.

Hi, everybody.

My uh name is Jessica Frederickson.

Good evening, City Council.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Um, I just bought a house in Newburgh so that I could be closer to my work here in Tiger.

I have worked nonstop jobs and paid taxes since I was 17 years old.

I was awarded a full ride academic scholarship in college, and I graduated top of my class with a 4.0 in grad school.

I've been a public servant most of my working life, first as a teacher and now as a librarian.

My story has a happy ending, but it did not start that way.

Once upon a time, I was the hungry, smelly kid in the laundromat and the park asking strangers for food.

I was the kid falling asleep in class because my family lived in a car, and my mom used that car to deliver newspapers starting at midnight.

The helpers in my life, the teachers and the librarians and the social workers were not nice to have.

They were essential.

They are the reason that I survived, and I grew up to be the helper who's in front of you today.

These helpers are the reason that I am the youth services supervisor at the Tiger Public Library, which is where I work closely with the social services coordinator to make sure that all of the needs of kids and teens and their families are met in our community so that they can not just survive but thrive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica.

All right, so next person, I'm sorry I I cannot read your name, but yeah, please go ahead and uh say your name for the record and where you live, and then you have two minutes.

Oh, your mic is not on.

There we go.

Perfect.

My name is Siobhan Chandler, Irish name.

Uh I live here in Tiger, just up the road, actually.

Just up the road, actually.

Um, so I had not necessarily intended to come here tonight.

Um, but one of my favorite sayings is the world is run by the people who show up.

And so I'm showing up here tonight.

I've never spoken to somebody group like this.

That said, I used to be on the budget committee of this town.

And when I think about the mandates that the voters in this community issued in the past year, there were two.

I'm happy to share those with you.

One was 34345, and that pertained to maintaining the library systems at the level at which we had uh at which they were.

That was specifically what that vote was about.

That overwhelmingly passed.

The second was it also a mandate, and it was we are not here to fund a new building for police and public works.

I believe in the good work that police departments do to serve and protect their communities.

That said, they are more than welcome to use the gun range that's available for all residents of the pol and uh workers of the police departments within Washington County.

We don't need one of our own.

And I want to also call out that work is what we do, not where we do it.

The public library, as our earlier person spoke to, serves people from all walks of life.

I have lived here for 13 years.

I have never once set foot in the public works building.

That means those jobs could be recontemplated, perhaps to be work from home or other areas.

There is no need to have a vindictive budget that to simply uh address the fact that we're sad that the uh thank you.

All right, anyone else want to speak?

All right, so uh let's move on to following video.

Mr.

Wold, are there any callers in the queue for phone and video testimony?

Mayor, there's one caller in the queue and one request for video comment.

Um I'll connect the caller right now.

All right, thank you.

Caller, uh welcome.

And once you speak your name and where you live, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Roger Pothoff.

I uh am a 29-year, along with my wife, a 29-year resident of Tiger.

I live at 117 uh 10 Anne Street.

Um, and I'm calling, I'm calling tonight uh in the wake of the uh the vote, uh, whereby the public safety measure uh uh was uh went down.

And one of the most articulate uh messages I think in the voter pamphlet uh was written by Linda Monahan, and she commented about the need to preserve the land in the Tiger Triangle to generate tax revenue for our city.

That's why it was included in the tax increment financing urban renewal zone.

And so I am calling tonight um to say that uh the Portland Business Journal on June 4th is honoring a uh hundred fastest growing companies.

I hope Tiger has a presence at that meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Roger.

Uh Mr.

Wold, would you please uh patch in the video testimony?

Um yes, they can go ahead and uh start speaking now if they are online.

Yes, that would be me, Mr.

Mayor.

Is that correct?

Yes, I can hear you.

So please please tell your name where you live, and you have two minutes.

Yes.

Good evening.

My name is Jeff Wees, and I own the property at 16245 Southwest Beef Bend Road.

I sent an email earlier this week supporting the streamlined road design.

And tonight I want to focus on where the proposed intersection of Southwest River Terrace Boulevard and Beef Bend occurs.

Under the Tiger Development Code, section 18.910.050.

Road alignments must follow a standard shared half-width dedication.

It shares the burden between two property owners.

To do that, Tiger must keep the center line of River Terrace Boulevard precisely aligned with my eastern property line, where it is under the streamline road design.

I know King City put in a road stub south to the south that is off alignment.

But Tiger should not chase their mistake and change road locations for several reasons.

It wastes buildable land.

This corner is zoned mixed use commercial, one of the few islands like this in the River Terrace 2.0 uh project.

And it actively ruins our premium commercial footprint.

It also complicates housing density goals.

Lost ground undermines these goals.

And to reiterate, it volunteers it violates city code.

Shifting the corridor west completely abandons the half-width dedication rules required by section 18.910.050.

Tiger should not break its rules or penalize residents to fix another city's oversight.

Please select the streamlined design and the associated road alignments.

Thank you very much.

I know this has been very difficult work for the staff members of the City of Tiger.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Jeff, for uh for expressing your opinion, public testimony.

All right, so uh let's move on to the next item on agenda, which is city manager report.

Active City Manager Rigor will provide a brief report.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

Uh tonight we proudly recognize May as National Military Appreciation Month.

This month offers a dedicated time to pay tribute to the millions of men and women who have answered the call to serve in our nation's armed forces.

We owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to our active duty service members, reserves, guard units, and veterans who have secured and protected the freedoms we daily enjoy.

Just as importantly, we must also recognize the service is a collective journey.

Behind every uniform is a family enduring long deployments, frequent moves, and the quiet anxieties of separation.

The strength and resilience displayed by military spouses, children, and parents are foundational to our nation's defense.

And tonight we honor their profound sacrifices alongside those of our service members.

As an act as an Air Force veteran, Councilor Gadozzi brings a deeply personal perspective and an authentic voice to this month's recognition.

The message beautifully captures what it means to serve and serves as a powerful reminder of our ongoing duty to support those who have given so much.

And you can find this video on the city's YouTube page.

Thank you to Councilor Gazzi, and thank you all.

Uh thanks to all of our service members and families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh yesterday, Council Godusi and Councillor Schlack and I uh went to our Memorial Day service at Crest Crescent Grove uh cemetery, and that was a very moving tribute to you know different different group of people who have veteran who has sacrificed their life for us.

So that was that was something that was very moving as well.

So well said.

All right, so thank you.

Uh, let's move on to next item on agenda, which is consent agenda.

Uh the consent agenda is used for routine items.

Information on each item is available on the city's website in the packet for this meeting.

These items may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.

Council members may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.

Tonight we have four consent items.

Three are contract and one is a resolution of support.

The contracts are for Steve's street park, the pavement management program, and Red Rock Creek Waterline.

The resolution of support is for a grant that will be used for the Ash Creek Nature Link Trail.

Uh do we have a motion or any question for staff Mayor?

I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Uh so the motion has been presented and second.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The consent agenda is adopted by a unanimous vote of the council.

All right, so let's move on to item number six, which is public hearing.

Consider ordinance adopting the Kinston Terrace Addendum to the 2020 water system plan.

And I will open the public hearing.

And anyone that uh who wants to testify by phone, video, or in person may call now to gain the queue by calling 503-966-4101.

And first, I would like to invite Senior Project Horton to give the staff report.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Ross Horton.

I'm a senior project engineer with City of Tiger Public Works Department.

And tonight I would like to give a follow-up presentation to uh the presentation I gave back in February regarding the Kingston Terrace addendum to our water system plan.

Um but before I do that, I want to pass the mic over to Skylar Warren, our assistant director of community development, and just have him give you a brief update as to why we are passing this or why we are requesting a ordinance to pass this um adoption.

Good evening, Mayor Who, members of the council.

Skylar Warren, I'm the assistant director of community development.

I do want to give just a brief uh update on what you're gonna be hearing Ross present.

Uh the reason I want to give this update is a little different than we've handled system plan updates in the past.

As we have been trying to shore up our processes and procedures within community development, um, working with our partners in engineering.

We have uh determined that the proper procedure for any system plan that would fall under statewide planning goal 11, and that's pretty much all of them.

Um, transportation system plan, uh sanitary sewer, water, um parks, trails, those are considered comprehensive plan amendments because they are ancillary to the comprehensive plan.

In other words, they're implementing statewide planning goal 11.

So uh at over time, as we do these incremental updates or or major updates to these system plans, you're going to see these coming through to council as comprehensive plan amendments.

I just want to highlight that it's not actually amending the comprehensive plan, but because it is that ancillary document, it will be processed as a comprehensive plan amendment.

So just wanted to give that background to the council and and so you understood why you were seeing this a little differently than uh some of the past system plan updates.

All right, thank you, Skylar.

Well, with that, uh, we'll dive into the presentation about the Kingston Terrace Water System Plan addendum.

Uh next.

So, first, just very brief overview about what our water system plan is and why we have it.

Um, so the water system plan is actually a document that's required by Oregon state law that looks out 20 years into the future to plan our water system for it's make sure we're meeting our current needs and also planning for what the future needs will be.

Um this document helps us plan for um operational improvements that are needed, plan for future capital improvements and helps us maintain a high-quality water system that serves water to all of our customers.

Um, this water system plan is updated every five to ten years.

Our next planned update actually is is going to start uh next fiscal year in July.

Um major changes between updates to the water system plan are tackled as addendums.

Um the last addendum that we did was River Terrace 1.0 back in uh 2014.

Uh we'll be doing the uh Kingston Terrace addendum this evening, and then coming up in the near future, we'll also be uh tackling the River Terrace 2.0 water system plan addendum.

Next slide, please.

So let's talk about our obligation to supply water to King City.

Um Tiger, the Tiger Water Service Area serves uh two-thirds of Tiger, uh Durham, King City, and uh parts of unincorporated Washington County around Bull Mountain.

Um we have separate intergovernmental agreements between the City of Tiger with Durham, uh King City has their own IGA as well as the former Tiger Water District area.

Um, our specifically with our agreement with King City, um, Tiger is obligated to serve to serve water to King City and any areas that are annexed into King City, um, which brings us to our next slide where we will talk about the uh Kingston Terrace Master Plan.

Uh, back in 2024, uh, King City incorporated uh an urban reserve area into King City.

This added an additional 528 acres into King City, and their plan is to add an additional 4,100 housing units out there.

It's a major change to our water system.

It's going to increase the water system size by about 20%.

Development is already occurring out in Kingston Terrace, and we're expecting it to continue until the early 2050s when it will be fully built out.

So because this was a major system change, we wanted to look at this how this change would affect our water system using the same lens that we used to evaluate our water system back in 2020 when we did the last water system plan update.

So we looked at the demand assumptions, what storage and supply requirements were going to be needed to serve this area, as well as what fire flow and pumping capacity we would need to adequately serve the Kingston Terrace area.

And all this is incorporated into the water system plan addendum.

Next slide, please.

During the presentation in February, we did a relatively deep dive on all of the system changes that are going to come about with the Kingston Terrace addendum.

But tonight I just kind of wanted to give you a high level, higher level overview of what impacts we're going to expect when Kingston Terrace gets built out.

The first and arguably most important is the water system demands.

Kingston Terrace is going to add on an average day when it's fully built out an extra 1.1 million gallons of demand to our system.

On a peak day in early summer, we'd be looking at additional 2.2 million gallons of water demand on our system, so a not insignificant amount.

Because of these new demands, we had to take a look at our water supply and how our current water supplies are going to be able to serve this area.

We did find that with the current capital improvement project underway with the Lake Oswego Tiger expansion.

We project that we will have adequate supply until at least 2045 before we will need to start looking at other areas or other methods of supply, like a new well or additional additional supply from Lake Oswego.

We also looked at storage and how we're going to store water to serve this area and also where we're going to have to build storage to serve this area.

So currently we're anticipating a minor storage deficit starting in 2030.

We already have planned a capital improvement project, reservoir 19, to address this storage deficit.

So from a storage perspective, we are anticipating to be able to serve Kingston Terrace without any issue.

We also looked at pumping demands and fire flow analysis, and we have sufficient pumping capacity to move the water that we need to out to Kingston Terrace.

And we also did an evaluation of the pipe network layout and the sizing to make sure that there was adequate fire flow throughout Kingston Terrace.

So with all that being said, our conclusion was that Kingston Terrace can be safely incorporated into our Tigerd water service area now with infrastructure improvements to follow in the future that are going to be tackled as part of our capital improvement plan.

Next slide, please.

This is another urban reserve area that's planned to be incorporated into Tigerd with an additional 4,500 dwelling units.

So between Kingston Terrace and River Terrace 2.0, we're projecting that our water system is going to expand by approximately 40% in size over the next 30 years.

So not insignificant changes that are happening to our little water system here in Tigrid.

We're expecting River Terrace to add an additional 1.1 million gallon per day of average daily demand and up to 2 million gallons a day on a peak demand day.

So we are not only looking at the improvements required for Kingston Terrace when we're talking about our capital improvement plan, but we're also looking into the future and looking at what requirements are needed to serve River Terrace 2.0 as well.

Next slide, please.

So regarding those improvements, there's a few improvements that are needed to serve this area.

The first is transmission piping, moving the water out to Kingston Terrace.

The new transmission pipeline and the distribution pipelines that will be built as the area is developed.

Those are all reviewed by our engineering team here at Public Works to make sure that the piping network is matches what was proposed in the water system plan addendum and to make sure that adequate water can be served to the entire area.

Additional storage is going to be required in the near future to serve this area.

We're currently planning for a seven seven and a half million gallon reservoir to be built on the southwest side of Bull Mountain Reservoir 19, and that's going to serve Kingston Terrace and River Terrace 2.0.

And we're also looking at additional water supply.

We're projecting that by 2050, an additional 4 million gallons a day of supply is going to be needed to serve not only Kingston Terrace but River Terrace 2.0.

So as part of our capital improvement plan, we have projects in mind to expand our current water supply.

Next slide, please.

So I just wanted to do a quick review of the capital projects we have planned to support this growth in our water system.

The first is the Lake Oswego Tiger Expansion Project.

This project is currently we're soliciting right now for the engineering design for this project.

We'll be increasing the capacity of our main pump station by four million gallons a day to bring in up to 18 million gallons a day from our Lake Oswego Tiger partnership.

We are planning to install a new pump at the pump station and also to make some major upgrades to the transmission piping between our reservoir in Lake Oswego and Tiger.

We are planning to kick off this project here in the near future once we select our engineer of record for it, and then we're anticipating construction to be complete by 2031.

Next would be Reservoir 19.

This is going to be a large reservoir built on the south side of Bull Mountain to add new storage to the pressure zone that serves River Terrace 2.0 and Kingston Terrace.

And we're expecting construction to start in 2030 and be completed shortly after that.

We have a project for our 560 foot East Pressure Zone Consolidation Project.

This project is going to develop a plan to replace two aging reservoirs at one of our sites here in Tiger and add some additional storage capacity to it.

So that additional storage capacity will help serve these these growing areas as well as increase the resiliency of our water system.

And we'll be kicking that project off later this year.

So we'll be taking a comprehensive look at our water system, including the River Terrace 2.0 and Kingston Terrace areas, identifying options for our water supply expansion that's going to be needed in the future to serve these areas.

And as part of that, we'll also be doing a system development charge rate study to find ways to fund the identified capital improvement projects are going to be needed to serve these areas.

And that will be kicking off later this year with the SDC study happening once the water system plan update is completed.

And then finally, we have a capital project planned to address the supply question, the ASR expansion feasibility study.

And this study is kind of the first step in locating a new drinking water well that would help serve water to Tigers customers, not only in the expansion areas, but all of our regular customers that are currently in the water service area.

So we'll be looking for locations for up to two new wells with the potential capacity of three to four million gallons a day.

Um to identify those sites, and then once we identify those sites and do some test wells, we can identify a capital project to actually build that drinking water well.

Next slide, please.

We have a capital improvement project, capital improvement plan in place with projects in place that are currently funded to make these necessary water system improvements.

And lastly, uh the Tiger Water Advisory Board and the Planning Commission have both both received briefings on the Kingston Terrace Water System Plan Addendum, and they both recommend its adoption.

Thank you, uh Senior Project Junior Horton for your presentation.

Now I will uh go into the public testimony section.

Uh we receive no written comment on this uh item by noon Monday.

Uh Mr.

Wold, are there any callers in the queue to testify on this item?

Mayor, there are no callers on the queue.

Thank you.

No.

Okay.

So no response needed.

Uh so now I want to open up to council question.

Council Godusi.

Um Thank you, Mayor.

Just for clarification in looking at Kingston Terrace and the addition of River Terrace 2.0, would that be an additional 42 percent demand on Tiger water system?

Yes, between the two.

We're expecting growth to be on the order of 40 percent of uh water system demands.

That seems like a lot.

It is a lot, yes.

Um it it is not insignificant.

Uh so it is going to take I said we have a good plan in place.

Uh it is going to take uh a good engineering effort.

It's going to take a lot of capital projects to make sure that we can serve these areas.

Um it is certainly not an insurmountable task.

We have a good plan in place.

We have identified what the deficiencies are currently in our system, um, namely storage and supply, um, and we have a good plan in place to make sure that we can serve these areas as they build them out.

Counselor Robbins.

Thank you.

Just to maybe follow up on that, if I'm understanding, between Kingston Terrace and River Terrace 2.0, that we're looking at somewhere between six and eight thousand homes, right?

Three, three to four and then three to four, right?

So sixty-eight thousand.

If you had three people living in each of those at six thousand homes, that'd be eighteen thousand people.

Right now we have 57,000, so that's it's almost half, right?

So when you look at it from that way, it does kind of pencil out to be maybe the numbers more like 30,000 with that, but that's why it's so much.

Is that would that be does that kind of make sense what I'm saying?

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

Yeah.

Yeah.

And for me, I just wanted to be clear for the public.

Uh, by adopting this uh system plan, we're not deciding on how they're going to be funded, right?

Tonight.

Because as you said, there will be further as SDC study, CIP study.

So tonight we're just adopting the plan.

That's correct.

So there these large system improvements that are needed are are typically paid for from STC funds.

So we will be updating the SDC rates after we complete our next water system plan to make sure that all of these identified projects will be funded through SDCs.

Okay, yeah, because um we have a community member and but now budget committee member who testify a couple of times, expressing concern that Tiger Rest current Tiger residents will be unwellingly um subsidizing those developments.

So I just want to make sure that you know this will be paid by SDC, all those new development.

Well, mostly, I guess.

That's correct.

So for system improvements that are needed for expansions, that's where SDC's funds are used.

Um typically water the water bills that Tiger residents pay, they don't go towards these um these needed improvements.

Um so yes, it will be SDC funds and we'll make sure our STC rate study uh is done so that the SDCs are well funded for these improvements.

Thank you for the clarification.

That's what that's why I want to do years.

Thank you.

Any other question before I close the hearing?

Counselor Anderson.

Do we have any uh percentage rights to the Willamette water project?

I don't know off the top of my head.

Um I and I don't want to misspeak.

Um I I know that Tiger has some rights on the Willamette River, but how they apply to the water project, I I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

Okay.

I thought at one time there was about 10% of the Tiger did but go ahead.

Sorry.

Um if the question is what is your question, what kind of investment do we have in the Willamette system or what was it more okay.

So Tiger invested in the Willamette intake structure, the facility you know that brings water out of the river.

So that's really our only investment so far back when that was done.

It was just after we had activated the like us, we go tiger uh connections and uh the council at that time saw the wisdom in making a a small and relatively small investment in the intake structure just kind of gives us a place uh to start uh when we when we eventually need to go there, but we wouldn't be able to take water from the system now.

Uh that will require additional negotiations with uh the folks that are involved in that project.

All right, seeing no other question, I will close the public hearing.

Um discussion or motion, Mayor.

I move to approve ordinance number 26-12.

Seconded.

All right.

The motion be moved by council robins and second by councillor Schlack.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, will the W City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance?

Ordinance number 26-12, an ordinance adopting an amendment to the water system master plan as a sub-element of the city's comprehensive plan.

Well, this W City Quarter please conduct a roll call vote.

Council President Wolf?

Yes.

Councillor Anderson?

Yes.

Councillor Caducy.

Yes.

Mayor who?

Yes.

Councillor Robbins?

Yes.

Counselor Schlack?

Yes.

Tabby.

Councillor Shaw.

Yes.

All right.

Ordinance number 26-12.

It's adopted by unanimous vote of the council.

All right, let's move on to the next item on agenda.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um River Towers 2.0 Streets and Finance Strategy Update.

And I will invite Senior Planet Gata to introduce this item.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor Who, City Council members.

My name is Brittany Gata.

I'm a senior planner in the community development department.

I'll be providing staff's presentation this evening for the River Terrace 2.0 community plan.

Tonight we are following up on street designs and the finance strategy.

These topics were both discussed at the previous um council meeting when I provided an update on March 24th.

Um so we are following up on that discussion here tonight and asking council direction on street designs.

Um I am joined by Skylar Warren, the assistant community development director, Joe Waznowski, the city engineer, and Tiffany Gurke, the principal transportation planner, who will all be assisting with the question and discussion period this evening.

Next slide, please.

So first I wanted to follow up on the finance strategy.

So if we can go to the next slide.

So the purpose of this update is really to report out on what we've done in response.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about these these items.

So regarding tiered SDCs, we heard unanimous support from City Council to explore expanding the tiered SDC approach to citywide parks and transportation SDCs.

Um that would promote housing affordability and address equity goals that the council has.

Um in response, staff is currently working to amend our existing consultant contract with ECHO Northwest and Clarity Rothstein to provide recommendations for tiered citywide SDCs.

And when this study is ready, it'll be brought in front of council to inform you of what those findings were and what their recommendations are so we can seek direction from council.

On the topic of maintenance, during the previous update, we heard from City Council that there was an interest in exploring a supplemental maintenance fee for River Terrace 2.0 future residents to prevent shortfalls to city maintenance budgets with the new infrastructure coming online.

So staff went ahead and assessed the feasibility of implementing such a fee.

We did find that there would be substantial administrative challenges to doing such, and that we're actually finding that River Terrace 2.0 designs are more aligned with the new normal of facilities that we're seeing planned in other areas of Tiger.

You can see the 72nd Avenue design on this slide, which provides some similar off-street bike facilities.

So in order to maintain equity and make sure that River Terrace 2.0 isn't treated differently than other areas of the city.0, but instead calibrating our maintenance fees and the structures that we already have in order to make sure that additional maintenance brought on by these special features citywide is worked into our regular rate studies, which are always done after we finish an infrastructure plan.

So for example, we have the transportation system plan update coming up here citywide.

So the transportation rate study would be done after that.

So if we go to the next slide, just to give you a better idea of what that timing would look like.

So first we have the River Terrace 2.0 Community Plan, which we're expecting to be adopted in 2027.

The TSP transportation system plan update would happen the following year.

And then again, following that up with a rate study to take into account these additional maintenance costs would happen in 2029.

And then in terms of when development would actually start coming online in River Terrace 2.0, that wouldn't occur until 2030 when the city is actually starting to accept those right-of-way improvements and beginning maintenance on those facilities.

It's at that point that we expect the additional staff to be needed for maintenance, which is estimated at two to three full-time additional staff.

And then the earliest major maintenance that would be anticipated is about a decade later.

So we would have that rate study done far in advance of major maintenance and at the very least a year ahead of minor ongoing maintenance, like maintaining landscaped areas and things like that.

Next slide, please.

Okay, let's get into street designs.

If we go to the next slide, I'll provide just a recap of what we heard during the March 24th City Council meeting.

So City Council approved the recommended street designs with two exceptions.

The commercial main street collector and mountainside way collector did not reach consensus from City Council to move forward with those designs at that time.

And some council members voiced concerns about the added costs that the wider enhanced designs of these street segments would add, and that that may affect housing affordability.

Council directed staff to explore different opportunities to narrow those cross-sections in order to lower costs.

So to follow up on that direction, staff has taken several follow-up actions, and I'll be walking through the findings of those actions tonight.

So the first is that we sought input from three different advisory groups, the first being the transportation safety team.

The next would be the Tiger Transportation Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.

We also researched examples from other jurisdictions, what are other neighboring cities doing in their greenfield development areas and how are they designing their streets.

We also sought out the data on River Terrace Boulevard safety concerns and assessed the potential cost and land impacts.

Basically, what cost savings would occur, what land efficient efficiencies would occur based on alternative designs.

And lastly, we assess those impacts to policy goals.

Next slide, please.

So from the advisory groups, we generally heard support for these two designs, the commercial collector and mountainside way.

There was also general support for maximizing safety for pedestrians and people biking.

The main thing that stood out was there was mixed support from all groups on angled parking.

So from notably from the Planning Commission and the TAC, the Tiger Transportation Advisory Committee, they noted that parallel parking would result in cost and land savings, and we'll go through that land analysis later in the presentation, but that is one surefire way to save land and save cost is by switching to parallel parking.

And that was noted by both some members of both groups.

For TTAC in particular, they also noted that switching to parallel parking reduces the amount of land that is dedicated to vehicles alone, right?

And then on the flip side of that, those who are advocating for angled parking noted things like the ease of using those types of facilities, the additional parking that's provided in front of businesses, and creating that special main street feel as well.

We also heard that individuals with disabilities and their caregivers, they're going to experience challenges either way with on street parking.

So it's up to the city to continue researching ways to better support those individuals.

Next slide, please.

So we um we found data in our service request database about these safety concerns that we've been hearing on River Terrace Boulevard.

So we found 11 reported service requests that specifically commented on safety on River Terrace Boulevard.

So this excluded things like cars parked for far too long in an illegal space.

10 different mentions of speeding vehicles with specific requests for the addition of speed bumps and additional signage for speed limits and crosswalks.

Multiple comments noted that the slopes on River Terrace Boulevard just exacerbated the issue.

That is something similar that we'd expect in River Terrace 2.0.

And you know, these service requests are a way for the public to go into onto the website and connect with us, connect with the city, and let us know what issues they're facing on our existing facilities.

So this is a form of public engagement where we're learning about their experience in the River Terrace community.

But this does back up the anecdotal information that we had been hearing during community engagement for River Terrace 2.0.

And we've also been hearing anecdotally about concerns on multi-use paths.

So while the reported service request did not highlight specific multi-use path concerns, again, anecdotally, we've been hearing that on Fano Creek Trail and River Terrace Boulevard that there are conflicts between pedestrians and bikes, sharing those facilities, especially with the use of e-bikes and e-scooters.

Next slide, please.

So before we really get into the alternatives analysis, I'll highlight our transportation policy goals again.

The main thing to keep in mind is that there's an inherent tension between these policies and how they both support each other and detract from the other in different ways.

So while we are seeking to prioritize pedestrian bike safety and comfort and support walkability, we're also trying to maximize on-street parking.

We're also trying to use land as efficiently as possible, which you know, in turn creates a vibrant and beautiful community.

So these conflicts, this tension means that sometimes these policies have to be weighted more heavily or less heavily than others, depending on the situation at hand.

So a good example of this would be on mountainside way, we have several stream crossings.

And one of our policies is to limit minimize impacts to natural areas.

While we can't minimize impacts to natural areas, use land efficiently and lower costs while maximizing pedestrian and bike safety and comfort, right?

So in these specific situations, that policy goal had to take a little bit of a back seat.

We're still providing safe facilities, but you see that tension in that example.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so we wanted to offer comparison between the mountainside way design and river Terrace Boulevard.

And if we go to the next slide, it shows the River Terrace Boulevard cross section that that design that exists in our code today that reflects the as build condition.

So this was our baseline.

This is where we started with our River Terrace 2.0 mountainside way design.

We knew that we wanted to improve upon this design.

So when we look at the original River Terrace Boulevard design, we see it's 110 feet wide, it has significant landscaped areas, including a median, continuous on-street parking and all along the alignment.

And it has that one-sided multi-use path.

So when we started the community plan project, we asked our consultants to make improvements to make it more efficient to save land and save cost.

And as we got into estimating the cost of that design, we realized we needed to be more efficient and reduce cost further.

So we ultimately the design reduced roadway width by 38 feet compared to River Terrace Boulevard.

That's over a third of a reduction in width.

And this was done while accomplishing all of our policy goals and the enhanced safety elements compared to river terrace boulevards.

So a couple things to note were that we added the double-sided multi-use path again, which fully separates those modes of travel and allows the space to add some safety features onto those multi-use path facilities.

We also added one-sided, excuse me, alternating on-street parking.

So it changes the side of the street, which creates this natural bending, this chicaning effect in the roadway, which will slow cars down and help improve safety in that area.

And it also significantly reduces landscaping areas while still providing enough area for large street trees, but that significantly reduces width and also maintenance costs that the city will face in the future.

At 72 feet, this is a again 38-foot reduction compared to where we started.

Next slide, please.

So just to just to recap that, so the landscape reduction is 37 feet, which is quite significant from a maintenance perspective.

And these efficiencies in the proposed design also don't have any additional stormwater impacts, which can help reduce cost in other ways.

In terms of benefits, it upgrades the sidewalk areas to multi-use paths, and even beyond that, it allows bikes to only move in one direction, which significantly reduces safety issues and conflicts with pedestrians.

Next slide, please.

So the next comparison is to look at how Mountainside Way compares to our standard city collectors.

So our standard city collectors range from 58 feet to 74 feet, depending on how many lanes of traffic they need to accommodate.

It's worth noting that neither of the city's standard collector designs provides any on-street parking.

It's just not something that is typically done.

And that is an identified need in this area to add on-street parking to this collector.

So in comparison, the recommended design not only adds that on-street parking, but it's also eliminating the median.

So you can see in the three-lane design, we have a 12-foot median, which has significant maintenance impacts and adds right-of-way width.

So we've gained efficiencies in that regard while delivering on our bike safety goals and our on-street parking goals.

Next slide, please.

So the last comparison I'll make is with the other greenfield development areas in Beaverton and Kingston Terrace and how they are designing their streets for their major collector and their commercial areas.

Next slide, please.

So the first slide is comparising the designs that they're using for this kind of main artery, the major collector street in these greenfield development areas.

So Kingston Terrace is on the top of the slide.

It is a 76 foot wide cross section.

And the when we're comparing our proposed mountainsideway design to the Kingston Terrace design, the thing that really stands out is the Kingston Terrace design has bikes at the street level.

So there is a buffer, but it does not accomplish that maximization of pedestrian and bike safety, excuse me, bike safety to the degree that our proposed design does.

And it's actually still a wider cross section, four feet wider.

When we look at the Cooper Mountain design, this one is intended, Cooper Mountain is intending to really fully maximize pedestrian and bike safety.

You can see that they have bike lanes behind the curb at the sidewalk level, but also separated.

You can see that there's a buffer between the sidewalk and the bike lane.

So they have eight feet dedicated to each mode of travel.

So they're really pushing to maximize that safety and comfort.

Whereas our design is much more land efficient at 20 feet more narrow while still being able to deliver safety improvements over the River Terrace Boulevard multi-use paths and enhanced designs that separate pedestrians and bikes.

Next slide, please.

So this slide is looking at the commercial collector designs in each of these areas.

As you know, the this is the widest street design in all of River Terrace 2.0 at 108 feet wide.

In the Kingston Terrace commercial areas, they have chosen to put bikes in the shared travel lanes.

And they've done this in order to provide diagonal parking.

So while the Kingston Terrace design at 90 feet, it still does accomplish that angled parking to maximize it in front of businesses.

The only way to safely provide bike bike facilities in that case at the street level would be for them to share the lane with the vehicles.

So Cooper Mountain, on the other hand, again is maintaining that those very large separated bike and pedestrian facilities, resulting in 102 foot cross section.

But you'll note that they are providing on-street parking on one side of the street in a parallel design.

So resulting in far less on-street parking than our recommended design.

So in comparison, the River Terrace 2.0 design is six feet larger, wider than the Cooper Mountain Collector.

I'll also remind Council and the public that this design is a very short segment.

It'll be about three city blocks where that occurs.

So based on the comparisons that we're seeing with these other greenfield development areas, both of the street designs that we're discussing tonight are either on par with these types of designs or actually even more land efficient than our neighbors.

Next slide, please.

So just to recap these roadway width comparisons for the two street designs.

And what this table adds is the width used for each of the area's neighborhood routes as well.

I'm not going to show those designs tonight since we're not really looking at that one, but I do want to highlight that for neighborhood routes, we are by far the most land efficient at 62 feet wide, at minimum a 10-foot reduction in comparison, which you can see can help offset that additional right-of-way width that's being asked for the commercial street.

So it's allowing us to use a more narrow design on the neighborhood route can help supplement that additional acreage that we need to provide a wider commercial street for the three city blocks.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

Let's get into the alternatives analysis analysis.

Next slide, please.

Just to flash the recommended design one more time at 72 feet with its multi-use paths on either side using enhanced design features and alternating on street parking.

Next slide, please.

So this alternative that staff assessed removes one of the multi-use paths.

So it becomes the one-sided multi-use path like River Terrace Boulevard today, which results in a sidewalk on the other side of the street.

This narrows the street by 10 feet.

But by excuse me, by having a single-sided multi-use path, that means that bikes are moving in all directions on the same multi-use path.

So it won't be possible to separate or even really encourage separation from pedestrians in that space.

So we would expect that that would result in conflicts.

So for that reason, this alternative is not recommended.

And one thing that staff would ask that council consider is if additional cost savings are desired to the mountainsideway collector, staff would actually recommend eliminating on-street parking.

So it's eliminating on-street parking may lead to some lack of parking supply in some areas.

This is something that council had decided back in January was a priority because of that, especially in our high density areas, but that change would not result in safety concerns.

But it would result in notable cost savings.

We did not assess the cost savings or land efficiencies that that would gain, but it would be notable.

And you'll get a little bit better of an idea of what that could look like when we get into the commercial collector analysis.

So let's move to the next slide where it breaks down the acreages and cost gained by the presented alternative.

This is going to that single-sided multi-use path design.

So in terms of acreage, this would add.75 acres of buildable land to private development, right?

This means 0.75 acres less land would be dedicated to streets.

So that would be about 13 units of additional housing based on the 18 unit per acre target density.

In terms of cost savings, when we crunch the numbers, it resulted in about a savings of 1.35 million.

So on a per unit basis, that would save about 321 dollars for 4200 units.

But again, as I noted, moving to that one-sided multi-use path design decreases safety and comfort, and it would result in some of those safety concerns that we've already been hearing on River Terrace Boulevard facilities.

So for those reasons, staff continues to recommend moving forward with the recommended design for the mountain sideway collector.

Next slide, please.

So the commercial main street alternatives analysis is next.

If we go to the next slide, this is our recommended design of 108 feet wide.

Again, noting the angled parking, the bike lane separated from the roadway and the large planting space allowing a versatile space for amenities and large street trees.

Next slide, please.

So this alternatives analysis has prepared three different alternatives.

They kind of build on one another.

So the first one is to remove the step out zone.

This results in a right-of-way savings of four feet.

This is something that we've heard from developers notably that there is an interest in seeing this eliminated.

But we did find that it poses some safety concerns.

So pedestrians would not have a space, a safe space to wait to cross the bike lane before getting to the sidewalk.

And it also might result in cars overhanging into the bike lane in some situations.

If we go to the next slide, alternative B converts to parallel parking.

We do maintain the step out zone here to promote safety when trying to cross the bike lane.

But this does lead to notable savings.

We have 22 feet less right-of-way in this case.

It does decrease the amount of on-street parking provided by about 66%.

So a good way to think of it is if you have 10 parallel parking spaces, angled switching to angled parking can get you 16 spaces.

So 10 to 16.

This design also loses that connection to Tigert's main street design.

So we have angled parking on our downtown main street.

So it kind of loses that feel.

So these commercial areas for visibility purposes and to support businesses have been placed at those busier intersections, which means those will be the only way for people to drive in and out of the neighborhood.

So we do think that people backing into parallel parking spaces could cause some traffic to back up and cause some safety concerns.

Next slide, please.

So alternative C also converts the parallel parking, removes the step out zone, and it puts bikes on the street.

So this is similar, same right of way with savings at 22 feet, offering notable land and cost efficiencies.

This does not deliver on community feedback requesting that bikes be separated from vehicles.

And again, with the location of these commercial areas near busy intersections, we do worry that there would be safety concerns and comfort issues with bikes on the road in these locations.

Next slide, please.

So getting into the breakdown of cost, land maintenance and safety comfort.

So again, alternative A is removing the step out zone.

So in doing so, it results in negligible benefits.

There's very little acre acreage gained for private development at about a quarter of an acre or four units of housing.

About a $1 million cost savings compared to the total transportation infrastructure cost of nearly 200 million at 238 dollars saved per unit.

Maintenance gains are negligible, and there is that decrease in safety and comfort without the step out zone.

Next slide, please.

Alternative B, which moves to parallel parking.

This would result in about 24 housing units added, since there would be 1.33 acres of land that would then be available for private development.

About $975 less of cost would be attributed to each unit.

And there would be notable maintenance cost savings since there would be 24 fewer feet of pavement to maintain for parking areas.

But again, these are short segments, so that is relative to the length of the block.

We, as noted, did uh anticipate some trouble with traffic backing up at those busy county intersections, and about a 66% reduction of on-street parking spaces.

Next slide, please.

So for alternative C, there's uh a lot of overlap with the differences with alternative B.

So similar additional housing units, similar gains in land, similar cost savings, although a little bit less of a savings seen here, and the same maintenance gains.

But with putting bikes on the street, we do add additional safety concerns for those users, and do expect that that would be a rather uncomfortable biking facility just due to the heavy traffic anticipated there.

So, based on the findings for all of these alternatives and the safety concerns that we've identified, given the limited benefits in terms of land and cost, staff is recommending that we move forward with the recommended design for the commercial collector as well.

Next slide, please.

So, due to the critical timing issues that the project is facing related to moving the finance strategy forward and the code amendments, we are asking direction from city council tonight on these two recommended street designs.

Specifically, we're asking if city council directs staff to move forward with the two street designs as is, and in doing so, maintain alignment with our current policy goals.

And if not, which design alternatives should we move forward with?

And the last question is that during engagement with the transportation strategy team, Mayor Who, you asked that we ask council what policy goals does council want to modify in order to support revisions to streets.

So if the if the council chooses not to move forward with the designs as is, um based on our analysis, this means that there would need to be tweaks to our policy goals as well to support that.

And staff would like to request some additional feedback from council on that on that topic.

If we go to the next slide, I'm just going to wrap up very briefly with a project schedule update.

Next slide.

So following direction on these street designs, the project team will be able to move forward with work on the finance strategy.

It also will allow us to move forward with development code amendments and developer engagement, notably on the finance strategy, since we'll be able to move forward with estimating system development charges that developers would be prepared to pay with development.

And lastly, I wanted to inform council and the public about a schedule change for the River Terrace 2.0 community plan.

The timeline for that project has been extended by five months.

This does place the adoption process in May, April and May 2027.

And just based on typical land use application process timelines, the earliest that development would be expected to begin is uh in early 2028.

Um so I'll uh conclude the staff presentation there.

Um thank you all so much for your time.

Thank you.

So uh can we go back to a couple of slides to the council direction slide?

Thank you.

So I just wanted to ask, get a general sense of um do you to council member do support the street design as it is based on the additional information?

Thank you so much, staff, for the those very helpful information.

That really made that really clarify everything for me where I want to go.

But before I state my opinion, so let's go through council let's go this way.

Councillor Anderson, do you support this the both design as it is?

So do you want to change if you do what policy decision do you uh want to revise?

Um yes, on mountainside, you could very nice job on that.

Um I'm having a little problem with the uh commercial area, but I do like the uh the parking.

Um it's only three blocks.

So yeah, I can support this.

Thank you.

Council Schleck.

Thank you, Mayor.

I support uh the recommended designs in both uh cases.

I really like having the multi-use paths on both sides for Mountain Side Way.

I think considering how long that roadway will be, that will be really great as sort of the main thoroughfare for River Terrace 2.0.

And then I'm uh strongly in favor of um the proposed design and in particular the angled parking.

I think that will be a better um experience for um the um folks that we want to be engaging with those commercial areas, it will better support the um economic viability of those areas.

Um I also agree that a parallel parking in those areas would cause a lot of traffic problems considering Schules Ferry Road, uh, Roy Rogers Road, and Beef Bend.

Um I I just don't think those are um feasible from my perspective.

So support both recommend uh recommended designs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Personal Wolf.

Um Yes, I um support both recommended um uh from staff, but if I may use my time to ask a quick follow-up question.

So um uh senior planner got it.

We had a written uh comment and then follow-up on um uh video or audio.

Um would you care to comment just if those concerns address the decisions that we're making tonight?

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, of course, thank you.

Um so we received um a letter from the home building association and from a resident of River Terrace 2.0, um, and then one of the public comments um shared this evening uh verbally.

Um so yes, I think the recommended designs are they do address these comments.

If we look at the first comment that was received from Mr.

Weiss, um this comment letter is um noting that there would be uh a 10% uh loss essentially to the land um attributed to housing development um across the planning area, which is not does not align with staff's data whether in the analysis that we did, um, as we shared during the presentation, it was um about uh two, well, about 0.75 acres of land uh in the one alternative and about 1.33 acres, um, which I believe was 0.9% of the total buildable acres.

So um we do feel that that um that comment was addressed.

And we do think that moving forward with the recommended designs would primarily help support both on-street parking in front of businesses and near homes, and also helping to maximize pedestrian safety and comfort on our facilities across the planning area, which should help just incentivize this area to be a vibrant and beautiful community where people want to live and help support housing production overall.

And in terms of the home builders, home builders association comment letter.

And we do know that we're we're coming to council this evening with this request to get direction on the street designs before we've been able to estimate SDCs and move forward with that finance strategy.

So this letter is also acknowledging that there's there's a sense of incomplete information being provided to council at this time before that that that decision can be made.

But as our findings showed, um the cost savings would be quite negligible.

So if the total transportation infrastructure cost is about 195 million dollars, um the greatest cost savings was one of the commercial collector alternatives, which was a four million dollar reduction in cost.

So not very substantial.

And again, acreage was quite negligible as well.

Um in terms of the timing of this and the sense of incomplete information, this is uh this is how the community plan process has to function.

It's not possible for us to um prepare all of the finance strategy details before knowing exactly how streets can be designed.

We have to have direction from council to identify um exactly what those components of the designs are so we can estimate the costs for them and work them into the costs that developers would see in terms of system development charges and any other fees.

Um there will there's a linear process here that has to occur, and it's just not possible to change that, to change that method.

And if there is something that came up down the line with the finance strategy where council felt uncomfortable with the outcome, then council has the ability to reopen that conversation at that time.

Um council president Worth Wolf, did that address your comments or was there another specific item that was brought up that I should address?

Um I I do have a follow-up question, but I'll do that later.

I want to respect Mayor Who's uh addressing this particular question.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll go to Councillor Shah.

Councillor Shaw, do you support uh staff design recommended design for those two streets?

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor.

Uh I do support the staff's recommendation and have an additional question.

Um, if I may take time to ask a question here.

Great.

On um uh on Murdoch Street that goes into Templeton to Twalty.

Is that bike pedestrian walkway a multi-use path?

Thank you for that question.

Um and I'm going to ask uh Tiffany Gurkier, uh principal transportation planner to jump in and answer that vote.

Joe's ready.

Joe is here.

Or Joe.

Yeah, Joe can answer.

Thank you.

I know.

So the Murdoch Street uh project was designed for bikes and pedestrians uh to utilize that same space.

Uh it does vary in width because of uh various constraints that we had with that project, but um I would loosely title that as a mixed-use path as well.

Great, thank you.

And have we seen any safety concerns there?

Uh not that it's uh come into the office since we built it.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

And just want to note that that is something we have in place.

Um for speaking about equity across uh Tiger, we aren't necessarily being equitable because that is the path we've used to go to a major two schools in Tiger.

Um so just pointing that out that it's a difference of paths.

But uh I do support the two recommendations from staff.

Thank you, Councillor Shaw.

Counselor Kuduci.

Um thank you, Mayor.

In terms of looking at the roads specifically, the mountainside looks fine.

I do like uh alternative A for the commercial main street, it does look like it saves about a million dollars for just a couple of blocks.

Um but overall in looking at our policy goals and what we as council want to do.

I mean, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up again that I continue to have concerns about both traffic flow and collectors from 99, saying that the infrastructure on beef bend and bull mountain aren't there, especially as we're gonna grow by 40 something percent in that area.

We need to develop that first.

And then with the budget discussions that we had recently, those new developments are going to lead to increased costs for the city.

That increased tax base doesn't cover the costs that we have, which is not what we're addressing today, of course.

That's like a bigger policy issue in question, but really I feel we need to find a way to grow more responsibly.

And I feel that these next few years really need to focus on consolidation rather than expansion.

All right, thank you.

Council Robbins.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Got uh for this thorough work.

I know it was a lot.

Um may I ask a couple of questions?

So for the two recommended designs that we're saying if we support or not for the mountainside way, it's the recommended is the new proposed design.

Is that correct?

Um yes, the recommended is yes, the um the one that was presented on March 24th.

Oh, it's it's the original one that is being for the commercial main street, it's also the original.

That's right.

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

That's right.

Okay, yes, I do.

Um I do have a couple questions is now an appropriate time.

Okay, um, I'm curious way back at the beginning of the presentation when we talked about the the feedback group so we got did is that that they're there when they when they liked the designs, was that the original designs?

Yes.

And uh was there any uh consideration or call or thought of the cost of maintenance and did that come up in those discussions the way it did for us?

Yeah, that's a great question.

So the information that was shared with council tonight was not ready yet when we met with those advisory groups.

So the general kind of high-level um discussion of cost and maintenance issues were discussed, but not to this level of detail.

Um generally, though, I will say the main thing that stood out was planning commission noting that going from angled parking to parallel parking in the commercial collector area was one of those ways that they did see to save cost uh for construction maintenance and to save land for housing.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have to say, you know, I've said things about parking a lot of times, so I absolutely do not want to do parallel parking for the traffic concerns and also the significant loss in parking and just the ease of being able to pull in and regarding the difficulties for people with disabilities and caregivers.

I realize that not everybody um has a handicapped placard, and that is a difficulty, but it's um it it we you know hopefully we can do something to help with that sum, but it would be like you said, seen in either the parallel or the angled parking.

Um I do have concerns about the multi-use paths um and the conflicts with e-bikes.

I don't think e-bikes and e-scooters are gonna go away.

And um whether or not we see it in the the service request, we do hear about it a lot, right?

Of people, uh, you know, those darn e-bikes.

And um just looking at the cost, because I know part of the reason why we were looking at these different designs was the concern of the increased cost, increasing the cost per unit and that then making the units unaffordable.

Um I just did a quick quick math of the biggest savings for the commercial unit could be the commercial street, it could be $975 per unit.

And then the mountainside savings would be $321 a unit, which is a total of 1,296 dollars per unit.

Now I imagine the developers might add on to that, but overall that $1,300 difference doesn't to me make a unit um more or less affordable in the in the grand scheme of development.

So I do long long answer for saying that I do agree with sticking with the original proposed designs.

Youth counselor, would you like to wait in?

Please go ahead.

Sorry.

No, I'm glad to listen.

Um it's easy to go last because then I don't have to add anything.

Um I would definitely go with staff recommendation.

Well, I actually I go last, but yeah, for all the reasons that you know I I really I really um value safety, comfort, and parking.

So I think staff recommendation is uh yeah, I totally agree with staff recommendation.

But counselor president Wolf has more question.

Um it's actually uh around the financing in the five months.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um so um I recognize um senior planner got it that we asked you for this information and truly thank you for going back, really looking at what our options um could be and then allowing us to make thoughtful decisions.

I'm wondering, is there um a way to kind of go back and look at does five man five months are there ways to scrub that, especially since we're headed down the same path, um, and just really would like to look at options of anything that I feel like council has heard is just that slowing down of the process.

So I just wanted to advocate are there opportunities to look?

And here comes Skylar to see if there's ways to do that.

But uh thank you, sir.

Good evening again, uh Mayor and Counselors.

Uh Council President Wolf, uh Skyler Warren, Assistant Director of Community Development.

I'll take this question on behalf of senior planner Gata.

So the five months is at this point the de minimous amount of time that we would need to add to the project in order to deliver it.

Um we have endeavored over the course of the last uh almost uh 10 months now to find efficiencies as we've um taken on additional scope in the project um and additional tasks.

And uh, you know, we got to a point where you know we could probably accommodate a month here and a month there.

And what we realized is when we started mapping out where we were and where we needed to be, um we really uh needed an additional five months.

Um as originally scheduled, uh, we would have been well underway on code writing at this point.

Um, and we are just now really getting underway on the code writing.

Uh uh we hope to have a public draft of code this spring.

Um, there's just been a lot of uh work that we've needed to do to like make sure that we got the policy set right.

And uh we do want to be very measured about this.

We want to be very careful about this.

We want to make sure that uh we're bringing the council along.

We want to make sure that we're bringing the community along and that we're getting feedback from developers and that we're able to incorporate that.

And the reality is that that just takes us time.

Um and even with additional uh staff allocations, you know.

I looked at are there ways to assign staff to do other tasks.

It just was not possible with uh the work program that we have right now and the staffing that we have right now yes, and and someone else might want to ask the same question because some of the feedback we received is are there opportunities to have better, you know, um flexibility in the design.

And um, so that was a curiosity.

If you're talking developers, I think that's the feedback that we've received the most.

Um so just wanted to share that feedback and just um offer that up as ideas to um shift in planning.

But I think Mayor, who did you say Counselor Shaw has questions too?

Yeah, I think Councillor Schlack has good uh counselor Shah, please go ahead.

Uh thank you so much, and yeah, I uh appreciate all the work that's been done here and um coming out of private practice.

I too have a concern about the five months, and I uh believe I'd raised, and I know it would want to ensure there's no conflict of interest, but in my understanding is in the past uh we've had some opportunity to bring in some outside staff that could help um streamline the process.

And I'm wondering too if we didn't add like the new uh credit um STC and some of the other seems like uh new innovative creative ways to do uh financing that has not done been done before in the state of Oregon, if that might streamline the five months as well.

Thank you.

So the main driver, uh the critical path item that is uh leading us to the five-month uh delay is code writing.

And uh code writing, we do have uh we have two consultants on uh the team who are assisting with code writing.

We have both Echo Northwest and Oregon firm, and then we have Code Studio based out of Austin, Texas.

Um they are assisting with the code writing, and we also have a full code team that includes senior planner Gita, myself, and then three other senior staff who are working on code writing.

And uh it is an endeavor that just takes time to get right.

And of course, we want to make sure that we're getting feedback both from the council and from developers as we're pursuing that.

And so uh really having additional allocations of FDEs wouldn't help us to move that critical path because what we really need is time to write the code, have the relevant parties review the code, go back to the code writing board, do some amendments, have everyone give feedback again.

Um, and that's that's what will take uh uh time.

As far as the STC question that you had, uh Councilor Shaw.

Uh we should be wrapped up on the finance strategy, I think here, probably by the end of the summer.

Is that correct?

Yeah, the bulk of the finance strategy work will be done in the summer.

Um there would be um engagement that can occur at that point and feedback from council that can occur at that point.

Um and then from there, we can move forward and finalize the finance strategy and put together estimated uh rates and fees.

So that piece is not really holding this up in terms of critical path.

Um I will also highlight uh the um the housing policy questions um uh that are sort of related to a finance strategy, but it's less about the finance strategy about what money is the city going to take in to fund infrastructure.

It's how is the city gonna take um some of its um affordable housing fund and apply it in this area to make sure that um developers are incentivized, excuse me, to provide the housing variety that we're uh uh proposing here.

So uh I know that uh conversations around the construction excise tax fund were part of the budget discussion this year.

Rest assured that we will be coming back to the council later this summer, both as part of our uh tigered housing plan work, but also as part of the River Terrace 2.0 work to propose uh some solutions that uh can help uh unlock development potential for middle housing uh strutter homes and that kind of thing uh in River Terrace 2.0.

So and again, I I don't think that that uh it will be something that will hold us up.

Uh if it did for some reason, feel like we weren't able to get uh those other uh finance policies in place with the community plan.

There's no reason that we couldn't adopt the community plan and then adopt those finance policies uh you know a a couple months later or three months later.

There's no reason for those to necessarily hold up uh the community plan itself.

So I feel pretty confident that um uh you know the SDCs and the housing policy work will not have a critical path impact on uh the development code uh writing.

Council Shaw, you have follow-up questions.

I do, thank you very much.

I appreciate those uh both those answers.

So is it more of just a calendaring issue?

We just didn't plan enough time for putting code um to write it, to draft it, to get input.

So it sounds like more it's just a we didn't allocate enough time for the code writing, but underwriting of the code.

Is that accurate?

Um well yes and no.

I mean, code writing does take time.

I I think um there are some things that I mentioned, um, some additional work that we did to um do some analysis and provide council with information, provide the public with information, provide developers with information that could help them better analyze the policy set and see you know how they felt about the policy set.

Um, you know, just some examples of that are the um the renderings that we did um late last summer.

Um that took uh that took some time for both internal staff and for the consultant team.

Um our uh policy conversation with the council in November on the parks policies and housing policies.

Um analysis of the Tall Flat Road extension.

I just there were some additional, and maybe that one was partially considered uh at least in the original project scope, but there's just some items that um um we undertook uh in good faith to deliver uh the information that was necessary to the community that just put us a little bit behind uh in sequence.

All right, so I do want to be mindful of time, so let's go back to the whole purpose of this uh presentation is just to uh get our temperature or our direction on the road design.

So you have clear consensus that we go we will go with a stab recommendation.

Do we need still need a vote?

Or it's pretty clear.

No?

Okay, so you have our consensus and any you have more questions?

Go ahead.

I do I do I'm sorry, I just want to clarify because when I was asking all my questions before, I thought that I was what I heard was that for both recommendations for both streets, we were talking about supporting the original recommendations that we saw on March 24th.

But when we went through, we said yes, I support the recommended design.

And on slide 21 for Mountainside Way, the recommended design is the 72-foot design, but the original design we were presented back in March, I believe, was a 90-foot cross section.

So, which I think that was the original one.

So, which one are we supporting?

It is the 72-foot design.

The the original design label is a bit misleading in that case.

That was the original design that was shared with the public um several months ago back in September.

Um so the 72-foot design is the one that was shared on March 24th.

Thank you.

It's hard to remember a couple months back.

So I'm happy with it.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what I was supporting.

So thank you.

So yeah, thank you again for the presentation.

You have clear direction from the council for the road design.

So thank you so much.

Thank you all so much.

All right, so I sorry, I don't think we have any other items.

So there being no additional item, the meetings adjourned.

Good night, Tiger.