AUGUST 12, 2002


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.


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.  


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


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. 


Coun. Stanton announced the fourth “Picnic in the Park” would be at the Tualatin Hills

Nature Park on Wednesday, August 21, 2002.



There were none. 


Coun. Ruby MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that the Consent Agenda be

approved as follows:

Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 24, 2002. 


Bid Award – Community Development Block Grant 9th Street Sidewalk Improvement


Contract Review Board:

Contract Award - Economic Development Strategic Plan Project Assistance 

Consulting Contract Award – Pavement Management Program Street Inspections

Contract Change Order - Engineering Services Provided by Murray Smith & Associates

for the Hart Road Project

Contract Change Order – Ratify Work Performed and Authorize Additional Services for

Construction Project Management New Library Building

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)



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:

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)

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)

An Ordinance Relating to Abandoned Vehicles and Amending Chapter Six of the

Beaverton Code  (Ordinance No. 4223).  PULLED for Separate Discussion. 

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



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


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.

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.


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


Approved this    4th    day of      November    , 2002.


Rob Drake, Mayor