Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens council approves amendment to Romano Properties riverfront agreement as residents press for clearer waterfront goals
Summary
The council authorized a first amendment to its exclusive negotiating agreement with Romano Properties for riverfront redevelopment and heard several public commenters calling for clearer goals, for-sale housing and a stronger economic development plan.
The St. Helens City Council on Wednesday approved a first amendment to the exclusive negotiating agreement with Romano Properties for proposed development at the city riverfront and heard residents urge clearer development goals and protections for prospective homebuyers.
The amendment, described by the chair as an update to the current ENA, was moved, seconded and carried after routine motion and roll-call prompts. Councilors present authorized signature of the amendment and directed staff to proceed with the next steps outlined in the ENA update.
The decision came after public comment focused on the substance and priorities for waterfront development. "Don't raise them and make them payable after the houses sell," said Steve Toske, identifying himself as a citizen of St. Helens, arguing against shifting systems development charges (SDCs) onto buyers and urging the council to prioritize 50 to 100 for-sale homes priced roughly at $650,000 to $750,000. Toske said the planning process has been opaque and urged clearer, publicly stated goals for the riverfront.
Olga Waller, owner of the Klondike restaurant, urged the council to pair any proposed fee increases with a clear economic-development plan and to engage local business owners as stakeholders. "You're gonna get through this," Waller said, offering a pep talk and encouraging the council to lean on commercial property owners and tourism strategies, including shoulder-season lodging and broader short-term rental bookings.
City leaders framed the amendment as an administrative update to maintain negotiations with the developer. The council did not amend the terms on the dais; it authorized the chair and staff to sign the updated agreement and continue the negotiated process.
Next steps identified by councilors include administrative signature and continued negotiation under the amended ENA; the council did not adopt new zoning or development standards during this meeting. Any future ordinance, zoning change or development approval would return to the council for public hearings and formal votes.
