BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2002
CALL TO ORDER:
The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob
Drake in the Forrest C. Soth Council Chambers, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton,
Oregon, on Monday, August 12, 2002, at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Fred Ruby, Dennis Doyle, Forrest Soth and Cathy
Stanton. Coun. Evelyn Brzezinski was excused. Also present were Chief of Staff Linda
Adlard, City Attorney Mark Pilliod, Human Resources Director Sandra Miller, Finance
Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Engineering
Director Tom Ramisch, Operations/Maintenance Director Gary Brentano, Police Chief
David Bishop, Police Captain Wes Ervin, Assistant City Attorney Bill Kirby and City
Recorder Sue Nelson.
Mayor Drake welcomed Boy Scout Troop 457 and Boy Scout Troop 728.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION:
Henry Kane, Beaverton, referred to an article in the August/September 2002, Your City
Newsletter entitled “How to Get Development Information” which explained that property
and development information was available through four separate City Web sites. He
complimented the City for this service, noting this was a good step forward.
Jean Conway, Beaverton, stated she was dissatisfied with the inequities in the garbage
rate increase. She said that in June she received notice of the rate increase effective
July 1, 2002. She said the notice indicated that the rate for monthly pick-up for a 32-
gallon can would increase over the next 18 months by $1.50 and that other residential
services would have similar rate increases. She said her rate increase was $4.00 per
month. She stated she had once-a-month service for a 32-gallon can and for the last ten
years she had been paying $6.00 per can while others in the City paid $4.00 per can.
She noted that as a reward for recycling and using a smaller 20-gallon can, a $2.00 per
month was deducted. She noted that those who were exceptionally good at recycling
paid more and felt the system was backwards; the ones who generated the trash should
pay for it. She stressed that she did not have a problem with the rate increase, but that it
was unfair that she was being asked to pay double. She noted the garbage company
did not have to change its route; every week they picked up her neighbor’s trash and
when she put out a can they also picked that can up. She recommended that every
resident with a 32-gallon be charged the same rate.
Conway said this could be done by increasing everyone to $10.00 per can (her rate) or
decreasing her rate to what everyone else paid. She gave an example of a town in
Massachusetts where garbage service was prepaid and said it had been successful for
many years.
Conway offered to provide contact information if the City was interested. She
concluded that she was asking for a fair and equitable rate increase and suggested that
if the City was serious about recycling, that it needed to reward its customers.
Mayor Drake explained that the rate assessment was a lengthy and detailed process,
which included analysis of the profit levels. He explained that currently residential rates
were supplemented by commercial rates; this commercial supplement covered the true
cost of providing services to residential areas. He said he felt it was a good bargain
considering what was left out of recycling and what ended up in the landfill.
Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, explained how the rate was developed. She noted that in
1994 once-a-month service was eliminated and the 77 citizens who received the service
were grandfathered in, with the haulers’ permission. Under the City’s franchise, the rate
for that service was $7.45. West Beaverton Sanitary Service was charging Conway
$5.97 and not $7.45. This rate increase seemed larger to Conway because she was
subsidized by the commercial rate and by West Beaverton. She explained that the
City’s rate would be $9.25 on July 1, 2003; the actual cost of service was $11.21, as
determined by Merina & Company, the consultants who did the cost of service analysis.
She explained that the franchise limited the haulers to a 9% profit and the haulers would
probably not subsidize to a higher level. She explained that the subsidy for the $9.25
rate was 3% higher than the subsidy for the weekly service and the separate billing and
monthly pickup was an additional cost to the hauler. She noted that often cans were
fuller and weighed more for monthly pickup than half-full cans on a weekly basis, and
that haulers paid tipping fees based on weight. She concluded that under the City’s
franchise system, the monthly rate increase was $1.80 and it was less of an increase
than all other citizens in the City of Beaverton as a percentage of cost of service.
Coun. Stanton noted her rate increased to $8.05 and confirmed that it would be $9.25 as
of July 1, 2003. She noted $8.05 was a substantial increase for Ms. Conway.
Adlard noted the actual cost of service was $11.21 currently.
Conway noted that the contracted weight limit was 60 pounds per can for everyone. She
repeated her concern was the $4.00 increase and that she was paying double what
others paid. She stressed she had once-a-month service because she recycled and she
felt she was being punished for recycling; she did not receive any extra service with this
increase.
Coun. Doyle confirmed that Conway had received the monthly garbage pickup; the
recycling and one yard debris can pickup.
Mayor Drake explained that the City was working toward a more uniform service. He
said although she was not paying for the service that others were if West Beaverton had
charged her the rate that they could have charged, the increase would not have seemed
so drastic; it had saved her money.
Coun. Soth confirmed that Conway had been a West Beaverton customer for ten years
and she had once-a-month service since 1992 at the $5.97 rate. He noted that the rate
should have been $7.45 and that West Beaverton gave her a lower rate.
Conway said her understanding from West Beaverton was that they wanted to eliminate
once-a-month service and included that service with will-call at the $8.05 rate.
Coun. Soth confirmed that the difference between the $8.05 rate and the $5.97 rate was
the $2.00 increase and that it would go up again in a year. He explained the franchise
agreement was negotiated between the City and the haulers. He noted the relations
between the customers and any of the seven haulers remained between the customer
and the service provider. He stressed the City could not dictate to the haulers anything
that was not a provision of the franchise agreement and suggested contacting West
Beaverton to see if there was anything they could do.
Conway said the owner of West Beaverton would not return her calls; she came to the
meeting because she could not get anyone to listen to her.
Mayor Drake explained they were listening and understood her message. He said had
West Beaverton Sanitary charged what they could have charged it would not be as
shocking to her. He noted the rate increase was done incrementally so that it would not
be a shock for most people and that people preferred incremental increases. He noted
that once-a-month service took more effort to provide than weekly service.
Conway said she did not agree with the rate increase.
COUNCIL ITEMS:
Coun. Stanton announced the fourth “Picnic in the Park” would be at the Tualatin Hills
Nature Park on Wednesday, August 21, 2002.
STAFF ITEMS:
There were none.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that the Consent Agenda be
approved as follows:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 24, 2002.
02243
Bid Award – Community Development Block Grant 9th Street Sidewalk Improvement
Project
Contract Review Board:
02244
Contract Award - Economic Development Strategic Plan Project Assistance
02245
Consulting Contract Award – Pavement Management Program Street Inspections
02246
Contract Change Order - Engineering Services Provided by Murray Smith & Associates
for the Hart Road Project
02247
Contract Change Order – Ratify Work Performed and Authorize Additional Services for
Construction Project Management New Library Building
02248
Contract Change Order – Ratify Work Performed to Close Out the Construction Project
Management Services on the Remodel of Old Library Building into the Beaverton
Resource Center
Adlard explained that on AB 02244, the contract scope of work would be lowered by
about $6,000. She said she found a consultant who would do the work for less and the
negotiation for the work and contract would take place within the next two weeks.
Coun. Stanton said she understood that the City was going to a different provider.
Adlard explained that the recycling piece would go to a different provider.
Coun. Doyle suggested that the timing of the signals be fixed when the water lines go in
across Murray Boulevard and Hart Road (AB 02246).
Engineering Director Tom Ramisch explained that the signals at this intersection were
set by Washington County and staff would continue to work with them.
Question called on the motion. Couns. Doyle, Soth, Ruby, and Stanton voting AYE, the
MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)
ORDINANCES:
Suspend Rules:
Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that the rules be suspended and
that the ordinances embodied in AB 02249, AB 02250, AB 02251 and AB 02252 be read
for the first time by title only at this meeting, and for the second time by title only at the
next regular meeting of the Council, and that AB 02251 and AB 02252 be pulled for
separate consideration. Couns. Doyle, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the
MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)
First Reading:
City Attorney Mark Pilliod read the following four ordinances for the first time by title only:
02249
An Ordinance Annexing Ten Parcels and Associated Rights-of-Way Lying Generally
Outside of the Existing City Limits to the City of Beaverton; ANX 2002-0009 (SW Koll
Parkway Expedited Annexation) (Ordinance No. 4221)
02250
An Ordinance Renaming Portions of SW Henry Street and SW Beaverdam Road and
Naming Certain Unnamed Streets to “SW Millikan Way”; SNC 2002-0001 (Ordinance
No. 4222)
02251
An Ordinance Relating to Abandoned Vehicles and Amending Chapter Six of the
Beaverton Code (Ordinance No. 4223). PULLED for Separate Discussion.
02252
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Development Code and Ordinance
No. 3301, the Municipal Code (Development Code Update TA 2001-0001 through 0005,
and TA 2001-0007 and 2001-0008) (Ordinance No. 4224). PULLED for Separate
Discussion.
DISCUSSION:
02251
An Ordinance Relating to Abandoned Vehicles and Amending Chapter Six of the
Beaverton Code (Ord. No. 4223)
Adlard explained the proposed Code changes would give a Code Enforcement Officer
authorization to tow abandoned vehicles. She said currently Code Enforcement Services
had all functions of this process except for towing, which was the Police Department’s
responsibility. She noted this change would allow the Code Enforcement employees to
handle all functions, which would speed up the process. She explained how the
program worked and the amount of time that would be saved. She said the City would
do its best to contact owners to be sure they had an opportunity to move their vehicles.
Mayor Drake explained that the City handled 1,000 abandoned vehicles this year. He
noted abandoned vehicles were like graffiti and sent the wrong message about the
community. He had heard consistently over the years that the process took too long;
this ordinance would allow the City to be more responsive to citizen’s concerns. He
stated the targeted vehicles were the ones that were left on the street for months at a
time and not the ones that had been parked for 48 to 72 hours.
Coun. Stanton said she liked the definition of an abandoned vehicle, which stated “A
vehicle left in circumstances demonstrating its owner never intends to return.” She
asked if a car would be towed if a person went on a three-week business trip and parked
his car on the street across from his residence.
Mayor Drake replied there were multiple tests to assess the situation. Once it was
assessed, he said, Police and Code Enforcement would see that the registered owner
lived on that street and they would not tow it unless their was a complaint. He said if a
complaint was filed, they would assess the criteria to find if the car belonged in the
neighborhood and if it was not abandoned.
Adlard stated the City had performance standards and followed the law. She noted that
if this was an abandoned vehicle, it would take ten days to receive a letter and the
stickers would be placed on the cars in 48 hours, rather than 72 hours. She said this
ordinance would allow a Code Enforcement officer to call the towing company. She
added the language was cleaned up but it did not change the intent of what the City
currently had in the ordinance for abandoned vehicles.
Coun. Stanton noted her concern was that it could happen to someone who had not
parked in front of his own house.
Adlard noted it was best to park your vehicle in front of your own home. She stressed
that the majority of reported vehicles were completely abandoned.
Adlard said there were towing companies without the company name on their trucks that
dumped vehicles in neighborhoods because the value of the vehicle didn’t merit their
storing it. She said there were many reasons why vehicles were abandoned and they
were almost always junk cars. She concluded vehicles were rarely towed unless there
was a complaint.
Coun. Doyle noted a couple of changes in the ordinance, which he had discussed with
Assistant City Attorney Bill Kirby (in record). He said he felt citizens would welcome the
new process.
Coun. Soth said he thought in most instances a vehicle would sit for close to a week
before someone reported an abandoned car.
Adlard stated most cars sat three to four weeks and when a complaint was received they
would investigate. She said they did not want to tow away cars that belonged to citizens.
She added they often came across cars without engines and obviously those were not
going anywhere.
Gustave Hellman, Beaverton, reported his car was towed and it did not meet any of the
criteria. He said he went on vacation on Thursday and when he came back on Monday
his car had been towed. He said the car was two years old and had a current
registration but it was still towed. He added he was liable for paying the towage and he
felt someone had gone through the car. He asked if there was a log kept on who made
the complaints. He said he did not object to towing cars that were obviously abandoned.
He suggested there should be a follow-up on malicious complainants.
Mayor Drake asked how long ago this occurred.
Gustave replied it was about ten years ago. He said he agreed that a code enforcement
officer should come out instead of a police officer but he did not understand the
requirements for notification.
Adlard explained the law required that an effort be made to contact the owner. She
noted a large fluorescent sticker was placed on the vehicles and it was the owner’s
responsibility to determine if something was wrong. She noted the enforcement officer
would go to the owner’s residence, and if no one was home, they would check with the
neighbors for information.
Coun. Stanton asked if the City kept track of all callers.
Adlard replied they tracked all phone calls and logged them into an account that had a
case history. She said when a person broke the law they had the right to go to Municipal
Court and the City maintained records to defend its actions. She added the City may not
always know the complainant.
Mayor Drake said the City focused on cars that were degrading neighborhoods or
unsafe.
Adlard noted this ordinance was not as restrictive as the ordinance for the City of
Portland. She said the City of Portland’s timeline was 24 hours and they towed
thousands of vehicles. She reported the citizens of Portland were used to having cars
towed on a regular basis and it had nothing to do with the condition of the vehicle.
There were no other comments or question on this ordinance.
02252
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Development Code and Ordinance
No. 3301, the Municipal Code (Development Code Update TA 2001-0001 through 0005,
and TA 2001-0007 and 2001-0008) (Ordinance No. 4224).
Community Development Director Joe Grillo noted Coun. Stanton had asked why
number 50.86 was not listed. He said there were numbers that were not used
throughout the document, so that in the future if there were modifications or additions,
there would be numbers available.
Coun. Stanton asked if the correction to Chapter 50 would be mentioned when passing
this ordinance.
Pilliod explained that per Charter requirements, when there was significant change in
wording that did not totally change the sense of the ordinance, he would specify that
section and would read it. He noted that this was a heading issue, not a substantive
change and it would be corrected in the printing.
Mayor Drake confirmed that there was no further discussion on AB 02252 or AB 02251
and noted both ordinances had had first reading.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
_____________________________
Sue Nelson, City Recorder
APPROVAL:
Approved this 4th day of November , 2002.
______________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor