JULY 15, 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, July 15, 2002, at 6:41 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Fred Ruby, Evelyn Brzezinski, Forrest Soth and

Cathy Stanton.  Coun. Dennis Doyle 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, Library Director Ed House, Utilities Engineer David Winship,

Police Captain Wes Ervin, Police Officer Mark Clark, Police Lieutenant Andrea Moore

and Deputy City Recorder Catherine Jansen.


There were none.


Coun. Brzezinski reminded Council that the next “Picnic in the Park” would be

Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., at Hiteon Park.  

Coun. Stanton announced that on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, there would be an Open

House on the proposed Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency at the Tigard Water

District Building on Burnham Road in Tigard.  She explained that this proposed agency

would look at water provision region wide and that the City of Portland had a Web site

providing information on this subject.  


There were none.


METRO Update on Periodic Review (Andy Cotugno, Planning Director; Susan McLain,

Metro Councilor)

Susan McLain, Metro Councilor, introduced Planning Director Andy Cotugno and

explained they were there to update Council on the review of the Urban Growth

Boundary (UGB). 

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, explained that Metro’s Periodic Review deadline

was the end of this year and their goal was to ensure that the 20-year land supply

requirement was met.  He said that Executive Officer Mike Burton’s recommendation

would be brought to the Metro Council on August 1, 2002; feedback and input would be

sought on the recommendation through a series of public hearings to be held throughout

the area.      

Cotugno summarized the issues considered in the review of the UGB.  Major issues

were:  size of the UGB; land use; how much and where was expansion appropriate; and

tradeoffs.  He reviewed in detail information concerning the expansion anticipated for

housing, industrial and commercial use as summarized in a June 17, 2002 memo he

gave to Council (in record).  He spoke on the issues considered when deciding where to

expand.  He stated that to address the sub-regional question for this side of the Metro

region, he thought they needed to revisit the issue of urban reserves.  He thought the

urban reserves could provide the means to establish a 50-year horizon, rather than five

years, to give everyone more certainty about long-term plans.  He noted that work on

Goal 5 would start again when Metro and the Tualatin Basin Group finished their review

and that would have an impact on the natural resources and the UGB.  

McLain explained the three-stop process for Goal 5 and said they were finishing Step 1,

the inventory process.  She noted meetings were being held this summer for public

review and testimony concerning the inventory.   She explained Step 2 would involve

looking at conflicting uses; the Program Step that would address protection issues would

be late 2003.  

At the request of Mayor Drake, Cotugno reviewed the history of the UGB.   He explained

that the Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in 1979 and was approximately 232

thousand acres; it was a 20-year growth boundary and included a 25%  market factor.  A

decade later the law was changed and the market factor was disallowed.  He explained

that during the ensuing years, most of the land was developed and there was minimal

expansion to the UGB.  He said that as of today, only minimal expansion of the UGB

was needed; out of 200,000 new housing units, 160,000 could be accommodated within

the existing UGB.  Thus, the region had a 15-year capacity in the UGB; a 20-year supply

was the requirement.  In the early 90’s, he explained, the 20/40 Growth Concept was

adopted to plan growth for the next 50 years.  He said that at one point they were

looking at the prospect of a 120,000-acre expansion, but there was a lot of territory that

people did not wish to urbanize in order to preserve farm land and natural resources.  

He said the Growth Concept that was adopted was predicated on an 18,000 acre

expansion with a strong emphasis on more efficient use of the land, through

redevelopment, use of vacant land along light rail corridors, and getting more use out of

existing land and infrastructure.  He explained that the 18,000-acre figure was

dependent on location, because the terrain would determine how much land was needed

for development.  He noted the number of acres needed for expansion depended on the

mix of flat farm land versus hilly land which would be more difficult to develop.  Because

the first priority was the difficult to develop land, Metro would need to look at a 20,000

acre expansion, as compared to the 18,000 acres they thought would be sufficient.  

Mayor Drake thanked him and noted this was good information for the audience.

Mayor Drake noted that a lot of the area marked for expansion on the map was

Clackamas County and it was rural and underdeveloped.  He noted that costs for

urbanizing the area would be higher and asked how this would be funded.  

Cotugno explained that the issue of supplying the region with job land in Washington

County vs. Clackamas County concerned impacting the farmland.  Farming was an

industry in Washington County, he said, and they needed to sustain that.  He noted they

also heard from the Westside Economic Alliance about the clustering of high tech, and

the need to be adjacent to one another.  He said they would have to draw the line

between expansion for urban purposes vs. preservation of land for the farm economy. 

He said that they only addressed the urban side of that issue.  He stressed there was an

outstanding need that would not be met in Clackamas County and how much would be

met in Washington County was still an issue.  He stated that full development of any

expansion area in Clackamas County was a 20-year issue though there were some

areas where it would be easy to extend the infrastructure into immediate job locations. 

He said there were both short term and long-term prospects in Clackamas County and

that money was set aside through the MTIP process to develop conclusions about roads

and land use.  He noted they just completed the Pleasant Valley expansion, for 1500

acres, and there were opportunities to accomplish some things there.  He stressed that

this was a long-term buildup of that area.  

McLain explained that people could contact John Donovan at Metro by calling 503-797-

1942.  She emphasized that this was an on-going process; that communities had to be

cognizant to resources and infrastructure to ensure that infrastructure was in place when

they were ready to start building.  She noted that cities would need to consider what this

meant in terms of expanding urban services and how these costs would be met.  She

stated that they recognized that all communities should be full service and all

communities were working to keep their future going.  She added there was no simple

answer; and input from the public, the jurisdictions, and businesses was needed to make

this a complete package.  

Coun. Soth confirmed that in the memorandum from Cotugno, the headings under

industrial land deficits referred to the size of the lots and “demand” was based on the 20-

year requirement.  He also confirmed that zone changes were done for the industrial

land that was being converted to commercial land and that the “refill rate” was

redevelopment and infill.

Coun. Soth asked if a person had a large lot (10,000 square feet)  could he rebuild a

single-family home or would the lot have to be split.  

Cotugno replied that the threshold was 20,000 square feet; any vacant lots larger than

20,000 square feet were counted as vacant land; lots smaller than 20,000 square feet

were referred to as developed land.  He explained that if someone had a 10,000 square

foot lot that he wanted to split into two lots, it was considered refill of developed land.  

Cotugno also explained that the zoning collectively throughout the region allowed for

higher densities than the rate that Metro assumed, which was 26.5% and was based on

current actual growth experience.  He noted they were not trying to measure the

potential zoning capacity for areas already developed; they were only trying to measure

the actual rate or what could be done to make it happen at a greater rate. 

Coun. Soth noted there was a great deal of concern about Goal 5 and the restrictions on

the use of private property with Title 3.  He asked if there was any flexibility so that a

property owner could maximize his own use of that land.

McClain replied there were a lot of issues that would come out in the next 18 months. 

She said there was a great deal of flexibility built into the process, especially in

Washington County because the cities were in an Intergovernmental Agreement with the

Tualatin Basin Group.  She said they would have the opportunity to talk with property

owners as well as local jurisdictions to make sure that flexibility was there.  She said the

Metro Council made an effort to ensure that there were exceptions in the Title 3

elements for properties that were completely in the sensitive area.  She said that the

flexibility would be there to address these concerns.

Cotugno added that on Goal 5 they only factored in current regulations and not

speculation on future regulations that might reduce the availability of land for


Coun. Stanton explained for the audience that Goal 5 sets policies for preservation of

natural resources and that Title 3 of the Metro Functional Plan covered the protection of

the streamside riparian areas.  

Coun. Stanton asked if the LCDC was going to take two years to accept the subregional

need concepts in the expansion plan.

Cotugno said they hoped that LCDC would have a rule by the end of this year but the

next question would be who was going to challenge it and how long would it take to

settle the challenge.  He suggested that whenever the rule was finished and available, it

should be applied.  He confirmed they would not be looking at the subregional list during

this review.

McClain added that the Metro Council could not legally consider the subregional issue

now because they could only apply actual rules and codes that had been adopted and

were in effect.  

Coun. Stanton confirmed that local jurisdictions determined the zoning for land that

would be included in the UGB, not Metro.    

McLain added that the 20/40 Growth Concept included design types that would need to

be considered.  Metro only asks that if a city requested zoning changes, they go through

Metro’s map amendment process.  She stated that the amendment process was done

on a regular basis and was an easy process.  

Coun. Stanton also confirmed that Metro could not decide how any jurisdiction would

spend its capital improvement funds in terms of building infrastructure and providing


Coun. Stanton said from comments made earlier she got the impression that Metro

would decide the zoning on the expansion areas and which areas would get funding for


McClain apologized for the confusion; everyone would need to work together to figure

out the solutions.  She noted it was important to look at timing of projects on a region-

wide basis to help build the 20/40 Growth Concept, which would provide complete full-

service communities.  She offered Metro’s help in getting everyone working together to

ensure that budget dollars were available for the needed projects.  She added that she

was referring to MPAC, JPAC, and MSTIP funds, not individual city funds being used for

other jurisdictions.  

Coun. Stanton confirmed that the Beaverton School District was working through Metro’s

special needs process to bring land into the UGB to meet the District’s needs.

Mayor Drake noted that this was an on going effort at this time and many agencies were

involved.  He explained they had been meeting monthly on this issue and he had been

part of the process.  He noted the discussions included State Representatives Haas and

Ringo, and One Thousand Friends.  He noted the process was moving slower than the

School District would like, but they have been able to build a stronger understanding of

this issue and a willingness to listen and be part of the process.  

McClain added that the District had done an excellent job in re-evaluating how they used

the land, how to get the most out of what they have and how much was needed for

particular facilities.  

Mayor Drake thanked them for the presentation.

Mayor Drake noted there were some Boy Scouts in the audience and asked them to

identify their troop and school. 

Nick Baker announced they were from Troop 547 and from Aloha and Mountain View

High Schools.

Library Annual Report

Library Director Ed House gave highlights of the Library Annual Report.  He

acknowledged the Library staff, noting they had worked very hard this past year and

morale was high.  He recognized June Bass, the Volunteer Coordinator, who

coordinated the 140 volunteers at the Library.  He noted the volunteers were doing this

out of the goodness of their heart and have contributed 11,403 hours of volunteer time; a

69 percent increase from the previous fiscal year.  He reported the following statistics for

the Library:  

-Oregon was the third highest state in the nation in circulation per capita.  Oregon users

check out more books than all other states other than Indiana and Ohio.  

-Per capita circulation for the Beaverton City Library was 15.2 which was significantly

higher than the national average and higher than Ohio (12.76) which leads the nation.  

-Total circulation was 1,621,725 items; a 9.9 percent increase over last year. 

-38 percent of the items checked out went through the self-check machines.  

-The door count for this fiscal year was 768,371 individuals, which was up 12.5 percent

from the previous year; an average of 2,164 people per day come into the Library.

-The technical services department added 32,772 items to the collection.  The Library

now has 302,000 items in its collection, which was a 40 percent from last year.  

-147,843 reference questions from the public were answered.  

-Children’s program attendance was up 39 percent; there were over 25,270 youth

coming to children’s programs.  

-The young adult division increased from 350 youths last year to 725 so far this year.

He noted that Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) had a new

automated telephoning service for calling patrons to advise them that their item was in or

overdue, which would save thousands of dollars in postage each year.  West Slope

Library had a fire six weeks ago and was now closed temporarily for repairs.  He

reported that the City of Beaverton had been working cooperatively with them until they

are able to reopen.  He reported on the variety of programs for the adults and that the

Library’s internet stations were very successful.  He noted that there was a lot going on

and they could not have done it without the help of the “New Friends of the Beaverton

City Library” and the “Beaverton Library Foundation”.  

House noted his concerns that if they continued to grow as they had been, more staffing

and volunteers would be needed.  He explained that to mitigate the staffing need,

libraries were starting to use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, where

computer chips were put on the items checked out and the chip was read by radio

frequency.  When a book was returned, he explained, it would go onto a belt and

through a reader to be automatically checked in (without having to have a staff person

process it through) and then onto a cart or a bin for shelving.  He noted this would save

a lot of staff time, which could be used for other jobs. He noted more information would

be coming in the near future on how to handle the growth that was expected.  

House reported that in November WCCLS would go out for an operation levy to

supplement the current funds received from the County and to replace funds from their

contingency that was spent down over the last few years.  He explained that the 73%  of

the Library’s funding comes through WCCLS; not all of that money was at a stake but if

part of that revenue stream was lost, services that have been provided this past year

would have to be curtailed.   He stressed it was very important that this funding continue

and be enhanced for future growth. 

Coun. Stanton asked who wrote the Gates Grant application.  

House explained that it was a team effort between the Library, Finance, and ISD staff. 

He noted they were happy with the results.  

Coun. Stanton noted the Library received a $16,000 Gates Foundation Grant and

complimented the library staff.  


Mayor Drake called for a brief a recess at 8:05 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Photo Radar Speed Pilot Project Results

David Bishop, Chief of Police, explained that last year Council approved expanding the

use of photo radar to five non-residential streets that had a history of excessive

speeding, accidents, and citizens complaints: Western Avenue, Hall Boulevard, Allen

Boulevard, Farmington Road and Hart Road.  He noted that Council direction then was

to implement the program and come back with an update.  He noted staff was now

asking that Council expand the deployment of photo radar.  He introduced Captain Wes

Ervin, Lieutenant Andrea Moore, and Officer Mark Clark.  

Wes Ervin, Police Captain explained that the primary concern of the Police Department

and the City was to ensure the safe, smooth flow of traffic throughout the City.  He noted

that speeding vehicles were a major factor in accidents and had a negative impact on

community livability.  He stated that photo radar was one of the most viable tools they

had to positively modify driving behaviors, that it had been used effectively on

neighborhood streets and last year the program was expanded to include collectors and

arterials.  He added that the expansion was written into State statutes.  He explained

staff first established criteria to identify problematic streets and establish the expansion

area.  Per Council instruction the following street criteria was set:  excessive speeding;

high accident risks; high volume of citizen complaints; mixture of automobile, pedestrian,

bicycle and truck traffic; special circumstances, such as construction or events; streets

frequently used by emergency vehicles responding on calls.  Based on this criterion,

staff proposed the following locations: Hall Boulevard, Allen Boulevard, Farmington

Road, Western Avenue, and Hart Road.  He said they were successful in all of the

locations but Hart Road; Hart had no safe locations to operate the equipment without

jeopardizing the public.  He reported the following results: uniformed officers were freed

up for other patrol duties; 22% of the citations by the photo radar team written were in

the expanded area; reductions in violations occurred.  He noted that there was some

difficulty in gathering the statistics and that the numbers obtained were from pre- and

post-studies using hand-held radar.  He said staff was in the process of acquiring

technology to improve statistic gathering.  He said that the overall effectiveness of the

program could be seen and the lessons learned were: better evaluation was needed; not

all locations were practical; technical problems reduced the number of citations written;

process technology issues created some problems that have been mitigated.  

Ervin then focused on the proposed future direction for this program.  He said their goals

were to increase neighborhood livability; reduce speeding; reduce risk factors that

contribute to accidents and positively modify driving behavior.  

Erwin said they would continue to follow the spirit of the State statutes and the desire of

the Council to: ensure the largest portion of the time (2/3rd of the time) they would have

the photo radar in neighborhoods and school zones; the remainder of the time they

would address specific speed impact areas; closely follow the State statute; and agree

on the definitions of the areas.  He repeated the recommended deployment criteria: 

excessive speeding; accident risks from traffic data; citizen complaints; mixture of traffic

use; Special circumstances.  He noted they would continue to work with the Traffic

Engineering Department for assistance and to identify areas of concern.  He explained

that with new equipment and technology the Department could do its own data collection

to measure deployment effectiveness.  Ervin noted that staff was requesting Council

approval on deployment percentages (40% neighborhoods, 25% school zones, 35%

expanded area) and on the criterion for Speed Impact Areas.  If approved, he added,

they could formalize the mission for photo radar with a clear definition of Speed Impact

Areas and they could deploy photo radar in the future and expand the locations within

the scope of this criteria.

Bishop noted that last month the Police Department held a Town Hall Meeting and traffic

control was the top concern of citizens.  He said that photo radar rated high with citizens.

Coun. Brzezinski asked how long the program had been running.    

Linda Adlard, Chief of Staff replied it was about 1 ½ years.   

Coun. Brzezinski confirmed that the data was based on approximately 15 months.  She

asked if in the last six months, staff was following the deployment percentages currently

being recommended:  40% neighborhoods, 25% schools zones and 35% expanded area.

Ervin confirmed that was correct.

Coun. Brzezinski asked about the 22% of the citations that were issued in the expanded

area.  She noted that if the department was spending 35% of its time in the expanded

area, then fewer citations were being issued.

Ervin replied that was correct.

Coun. Brzezinski asked if there were citizen complaints concerning those five streets.

Bishop said there were no complaints on these five streets.  He said the staff was very

honest with the community on what was being done and he felt that was the key to their


Coun. Brzezinski noted that when staff brought this to Council, a data table was provided

that showed each potential location and various statistics.  She said she wanted to see a

“before and after” for that same table.  

Bishop replied that could be done again.  

Coun. Soth said he was also interested in the data.  He asked if the presence of a police

officer at the Neighborhood Association Meetings (NAC) meetings, to explain the

program, had any effect on the reduction in speed and citations issued.  

Bishop replied that the officers at the NAC meetings have had a positive effect, and that 

photo radar and the Red Light Program were very well accepted in the City as shown by

surveys.  He said that at the beginning of the program the request for photo radar was


Coun. Soth said he wished there was a way to incorporate a decibel meter into that


Coun. Stanton stated she hoped to see before-and-after data, along with deployment

percentages during the test period and the percentage of tickets.

Bishop explained that the data was not available because the vendors had changed.  He

said that when they came back to Council they would provide the information. 

Adlard explained staff had the total volume figures and one key factor was total hours of


Coun. Stanton said she would like data on where the ticketed drivers lived.    

Adlard explained that could be sorted through the court system, but the majority were

Beaverton residents, then Portland, and Washington County.

Coun. Stanton said she missed seeing the van on Erickson and Main, around the

Beaverton High School.  She said she did not see it in the Spring and those streets took

heavy hits because they were posted for 25 mph.

Mayor Drake noted that he would not want the school kids to know it was there every

morning; it would be better to keep the location random to retrain drivers.  

Coun. Stanton asked if the percentage could be transferred to hours used.    

Bishop replied it could be done either way.

Coun. Stanton said her primary concern was that as the program was expanded more

reasons would be found to not be in the neighborhoods and school zones.

Mayor Drake stated he hoped the Council would give broad policy direction and allow

the Police Department to implement it and be responsive to trends and overall issues. 

He said he did not want to shackle the police in day-to-day discretion.  He added that

based on the concerns heard, he thought they were heading in the right direction though

some refinement was needed.  

Coun. Stanton noted that often she saw the van but it was not operating.  She said she

was committed to the schools and neighborhoods and wanted to know how many hours

would be spent in the different locations. 


Bishop stated that the schools were a high priority.  He noted it was also important to

use other alternatives, such as decoys and saturation patrols.  

Coun. Brzezinski clarified that the percentages were based on the hours used.  She said

she wanted to know how many hours were spent on the four roads and suggested using

the second vendor since there were problems with the first.  

Coun. Soth asked if the van was operated at night.  

Bishop explained that last week they started night operation.  

Adlard mentioned that although it was hoped people would decrease speeds when they

received a photo radar citation, there was not a consistency of drivers on arterials.  She

said it was easier in neighborhoods because it was the same people on the same trips. 

She explained the City would not see as dramatic a decrease in speeders on arterials

because people were coming through who may never have been on that arterial.  She

said she did not believe that the results would be the same as what was done in the


Mayor Drake suggested that staff come back with additional information to Council at the

August 5th or 12th meeting.  He said that Council could give its final direction then.


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

as follows:

Adopt Resolution and Authorize Implementation of New Plan Review Fees for Phased

Projects and Deferred Plan Submittals (Res. No. 3674)


A Resolution of Intent to Condemn Property for the 125th Avenue Extension, Phase 1

Project (Res. No. 3675)

Liquor Licenses (Ay, Caramba Fresh Mexican Grill, Rama Thai Restaurant)

Contract Review Board:

Retainer Agreements for Professional Services in Support of Fiscal Year 2002-03 and

2003-04 Capital Improvements Plan

Acceptance of Special Purpose Grant From the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and

Authorize Purchase of Specific Name Brand Equipment as Required by the Grant.

Coun. Soth noted that AB 02227 was the outcome of work done by the Tri-County

Building Board to make processes and procedures consistent throughout all

jurisdictions.  He noted they did an excellent job.

Question called on the motion.  Couns. Brzezinski, Soth, Ruby and Stanton voting AYE,

the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)


Stand for Children Presentation - Water Fluoridation

Mayor Drake explained that the City of Beaverton had a working agreement with

Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) and that a portion of Beaverton (15%) received

TVWD water that was fluoridated.  He noted they had discussed fluoridating the

remaining portion of the City’s water though the City had not acted upon it.  He noted the

City or TVWD had not received any negative comments regarding fluoridated water.  He

noted this last spring the City and the Joint Water Commission (JWC) were approached

about fluoridating water and took the information under advisement.  He said this last

spring the City of Beaverton conducted a poll that showed 63% of the respondents

supported fluoridation, 28% were against and 9% did not know.  Based on this

information, he scheduled a work session with Stand for Children who supported

fluoridation.  He noted he received information from people opposed to fluoridation and

had set a public hearing date for August 5, 2002, to hear from both sides and Council

would consider placing the issue of fluoridating water on the ballot.  

Audrey Scheidler, Aloha, representing Beaverton Stand for Children, explained that

Stand for Children was a national grassroots organization working to build a strong voice

for children and families in local communities, states and nationally to ensure that all

children grow up healthy, educated, and safe.  She stated the Beaverton and Hillsboro

chapters had over 200 members.  She said the members heard from citizens of the need

for access to dental care and the need for prevention education to reduce decay in

children.  She said this concern was heard from a variety of sources assisting low

income families (Head Start, Healthy Start, Virginia Garcia staff and others) Based on

the information they gathered, they developed three strategies for improving dental

health in Washington County:  1) dental prevention educator;  2) community water

fluoridation; and  3) neighborhood dental program.  She noted they had presented a

proposal to the JWC regarding community water fluoridation.  She said they agreed with

statements made by the US Surgeon General, the NIH, the CDC and the ADA that 

community water fluoridation was the safest, most cost effective and practical way to

reduce the occurrence dental decay in a community.  She noted that it benefited people

of all ages and socio-economic levels.

Rick Wilson, DDS, American Dental Association, Portland, stated that the ADA and

many other dental associations and dentists, supported fluoridation of water supply in

Beaverton and throughout the state.  He noted there was no other more cost-effective

way to prevent tooth decay.  He said that fluoridation of the water supply was supported

by every health organization in the world.  He said in the Year 2000 the US Surgeon

General came out with a report on oral health in America and strongly supported

fluoridation.  He thanked Mayor Drake and Council for addressing this much needed and

difficult issue.  

April Love, DDS, Newburg, said she worked with Head Start children and was appalled

by what she saw in these little children.  She spoke on technical measurements of

fluoride, how teeth decay, how fluoride works and what was allowed in water (in record). 

She said 80% of decay was found in 25% of the population and many of these were

poor children like those she treated in the Head Start Program.  She added in Head Start

the decay experience was extremely high (75%) in children less than nine years.  She

said there was also a decay problem in aging populations because anything that makes

the mouth dry (such as medicines) makes a person prone to decay.  She spoke on

severe health cases caused by dental infection (in record).  

Love added water fluoridation was a safety net for these populations and very cost

effective.  She stated Beaverton citizens would need to decide for themselves if the City

should have fluoridation.  

Mayor Drake noted that the 2000 Census showed that Beaverton had 21% of the

poverty level in Washington County.

Scheidler added it would take approximately one year to implement fluoridation.  Based

on information from Tualatin Valley Water, she said the type of fluoride used would be

sodium fluorosilicate and the approximate cost would be 69 cents per person per year

for 15 years.  

Coun. Soth asked how the vote was taken when this was presented to the Dental

Association; was it a vote of only those who were present or was it a weighted vote to

take into consideration those not present.  

Wilson explained that the ADA House of Delegates, which had over 400 members,

made policy decisions of the American Dental Association (ADA).  Prior to establishing

that policy, he added, they had reference committees that meet during the annual

meeting and at that time testimony was taken from delegates and non-delegates and

any ADA member could present input at those meetings.  He noted there would always

be dissident opinions.  He said he valued very highly juried, quality research and he had

found no legitimate science or research that supported the anti-fluoridation stand.

Coun. Soth questioned the material that said fluoride was ineffective in preventing pit

and fissure decay or baby bottle tooth decay.  

Love replied this was not consistent with her experience.

Wilson added that water fluoridation was not promoted as a cure all for decay.  He said

this was one of various steps.  He stressed fluoridation was a preventative measure and

along with fluoridation there would need to be education.  He added the overall program

promoted fluoridation, education, and dental care.

Love stated dentists that worked in areas that had fluoridation saw better teeth and did

not have the tremendous tooth decay seen in areas that don’t have it.  

Coun. Soth asked if fluoride was instituted today, how long before the results would

show up, particularly in lower income strata of the society. 

Wilson answered it would be several years down the road. He noted that children that

were being seen today would not see immediate benefit; these children were losing their

teeth now.  The children who would benefit were those who were conceived and born in

the next few years.  He explained how teeth were constructed and how the fluoride ion

makes stronger enamel (in record).  

Coun. Soth said he heard that autism could be caused by too early immunization in the

early years of life and asked if they had heard anything similar with fluoridation.

Love explained that fluoride had been in the water forever.   She added for 50 years it

had been added to the water to study it, and it had been in Oregon water wells for

hundreds of years naturally.  She said there had been many in depth studies to see if

there were any ill effects and fluorosis was the only thing found.    

Coun. Soth added that the JWC had indicated that it should be up to individual partners

to decide what to do.  

Love stated she would like to see all the partners do this.  

Coun. Stanton said she thought personally it was a small thing that could be done and

noted it naturally occurs in most water around the world.  

Love said 170 million people in this country were fluoridated.  She said when she was

screening some of the Head Start children and out of the 250 kids she checked only two

were given fluoride tablets.  She added that fluoride tablets required a prescription so

that was one avenue that was left out for lower income individuals.

Coun. Ruby confirmed that Portland was not fluoridated and asked if Stand for Children

had lobbied Portland and what was their position.  

Wilson replied there was a tri-county fluoridation effort that was working in this region

and Portland has been approached.  

Dr. Kurt Ferre, DDS, Chair, Tri County Fluoridation Forum, stated that with Portland their

approach was to work with the City and to get public endorsements to support this

proposal.  He said the progress had been slow because the Portland Water Department

had been working to resolve a computer system problem and Commissioner Stenn was

running for re-election.  He added that the third issue being debated was the possible

regionalization of the Bull Run Water System.  He said Portland felt that until that issue

was addressed, the timing was not right.  He said in the last two months Mayor Katz had

reassigned the Water Bureau to Dan Saltzman and on record he had supported

fluoridation so he would be approached.  He noted the City Club of Portland did a study

of the issue and voted unanimously to support fluoridation, and they sent their

recommendation to the City of Portland. 

Coun. Soth noted that the Bull Run initiative was only for storage and transmission, not

for distribution.  He added this did not mean all partners favored the regionalization of

the storage and transmission.  

Mayor Drake thanked them for the presentation.


Second Reading and Passage:

Pilliod reminded Council that at the first reading for Ordinance No. 4219, he had said he

would be preparing revisions to the ordinance.  He noted that Agenda Bill 02222,

Second Revision, contained two new “Whereas” clauses and the provisions of Section 2

were modified.  

Pilliod pointed out that there was also a memorandum dated July 12, 2002, from the

Community Development Director and the Assistant City Attorney.  He explained that the

City Charter required that if an ordinance was revised, that the revised sections have to

be read in full before the ordinance can be adopted.  He read the following sections in

the ordinance in full:  The third and fourth Whereas paragraphs and all of Section 2.  He

then read Ordinance No. 4219 by title only for its second reading:


An Ordinance Annexing One Parcel and Associated Rights-of-Way Lying Generally

Outside of the Existing City Limits to the City of Beaverton; ANX 2002-0005  (Meadow

Park Middle School Expedited Annexation) (Ord. No. 4219) 

Pilliod then read the following ordinances for the second time by title only:


An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Right of Way of SW Metz Street and SW 124th

Avenue (Ord. No. 4218)

An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, the Comprehensive Plan Map and

Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map for Two Parcels Located on Canyon Road and

Two Parcels Located on 110th Avenue; CPA 2002-0004/RZ 2002-0014 (Ord. No. 4220)

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Brzezinski that the ordinances embodied in

AB 02221, 02222 as amended, and 02223 now pass.  Roll call vote.  Couns. Brzezinski,

Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)


Mayor Drake noted there was a memo from Community Development Director Joe Grillo

to the Council and Mayor Drake dated June 28, 2002, regarding amendments to the sign

regulation portion of the Development Code.  He added this was in response to

comments that were made earlier this year and requested by the Council to selectively

look at the sign ordinance.  He noted this would be a cleanup of the sign regulations and

asked for a motion or consensus supporting moving forward on this request.  There was

Council consensus to move forward on this request.  


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 10:05 p.m.


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 10:13 p.m.


Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Brzezinski that the City Council adjourn into

executive session in accordance with ORS 192.660 (1) (d) to conduct deliberations with

persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations and in

accordance with ORS 192.660 (1) (h) to discuss the legal rights and duties of the

governing body with regard to litigation or litigation likely to be filed.  

Pursuant to ORS 192.660 (3), it is Council’s wish that the items discussed not be

disclosed by media representatives or others.  Motion carried unanimously (4:0)

The Executive Session convened at 10:14 p.m.

The Executive Session adjourned at 10:41 p.m.

Coun. Soth MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Ruby to authorize the retention of the 

services of Roger Brown Corp. for services relating to litigation in an amount as

discussed in Executive Session. Couns. Brzezinski, Ruby, Soth and Stanton voting AYE,

the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting

was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.


Catherine L. Jansen, Deputy City Recorder


Approved this 23rd day of September, 2002.


Rob Drake, Mayor