BEAVERTON CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 19, 2006

CALL TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting of the Beaverton City Council was called to order by Mayor Rob Drake in the Forrest C. Soth City Council Chamber, 4755 SW Griffith Drive, Beaverton, Oregon, on Monday, June 19, 2006, at 6:40 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Betty Bode, Bruce Dalrymple and Dennis Doyle. Coun. Cathy Stanton was excused. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Bill Scheiderich, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Community Development Director Joe Grillo, Public Works Director Gary Brentano, Police Chief David Bishop and City Recorder Sue Nelson.

PRESENTATIONS:

06108 CPA 2006-0001 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1 and 2 and the Glossary

Mayor Drake stated this presentation was being postponed to a future meeting.

VISITORS COMMENT PERIOD:

There were none.

COUNCIL ITEMS:

Coun. Bode said she and Coun. Stanton would be attending the Governor’s workshop on Homelessness tomorrow in Salem.

STAFF ITEMS:

There were none.

CONSENT AGENDA:

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the Consent Agenda be approved as follows:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 5, 2006

06109 Liquor License: Change of Ownership - Uptown Market

06110 A Resolution Stating the Official Results of the May 16, 2006 Primary Election (Resolution No. 3863)

Question called on the motion. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple and Doyle voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

06111 A Resolution Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2006 (Resolution No. 3864)

Finance Director Patrick O’Claire said the purpose of this public hearing was to adopt the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Budget and to hear public comments on the uses of the State Revenue Sharing Funds. He said the proposed budget was the same budget considered by the Budget Committee on May 22, 23 and 25, 2006. He said the Budget Committee proposed seven amendments to the budget that were incorporated into the proposed budget now before Council. He said the proposed resolution would adopt the budget, and set the ad valorem tax levy and appropriations for all City's funds.

Coun. Bode noted that all the budget hearings are open to the public and asked O'Claire to give an overview of the budget hearing process for the audience. She said fund accountability in municipalities was much more detailed than accountability in the private sector.

O’Claire explained the process in detail, from preparation through the Budget Committee hearings.

Coun. Bode said some topics caused a fair amount of discussion among the Budget Committee members. She asked O'Claire about the requirements for a balanced budget.

O'Claire confirmed that State law requires that the budget be balanced and that no fund be in deficit. He said if a fund was in deficit, the fund would have to be brought into balance by reducing expenditures to meet the level of revenues or contributions from the General Fund would have to be made to a particular special revenue fund.

Coun. Bode stated the budget process was very transparent; the budget document is available to citizens, all budget hearings are open to the public and the Budget Committee is made up of citizen members and the Council.

O'Claire added that the City also advertises the public hearings in the newspapers; included in that notice is a statement to let citizens know the budget can be found in the Finance Office, the City Recorder's Office and the Library.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing and asked for testimony.

There was no one present who wished to testify.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that Council approve Agenda Bill 06111, A Resolution Adopting a Budget for Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2006. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple and Doyle voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

Coun. Bode thanked the five community members on the Budget Committee for their commitment to this important process.

06112 Regulation of Payday Loan Businesses

Mayor Drake introduced Assistant City Attorney Bill Scheiderich. He said included for the record was a memorandum from Scheiderich to the Chief of Staff, with a recommendation for a slight change to the proposed ordinance. He said information from the payday loan industry was submitted for the record. Also, letters in support of the proposed ordinance were submitted by Rick Bennett, from AARP (American Association of Retired People) and by Laura Etherton, from OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interest Research Group) a consumer advocacy group.

Assistant City Attorney Bill Scheiderich reviewed the changes to the proposed ordinance. He said at the request of proponents of the ordinance, staff was recommending deletion of Section 7.12.030 (page 3 of ordinance) that would not allow an existing loan to be renewed more than two times. He said State law already requires that payday loans not be renewed more than three times. He said State law was amended to restrict renewals to no more than two times; this would become effective in July 2007. He said for the City to act in advance of the State law would expose the City to legal challenge. He said State law does apply to the City. He said the second change was already included in the draft ordinance before Council; the revision makes the City Council the body that would hear an appeal and make the decision on the appeal. He noted these changes were recommended for the draft ordinance that had not yet received first reading.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

Angela Martin, Our Oregon, Portland, said Our Oregon was a state-wide non-profit economic fairness coalition group. She said they received letters from many of their partners (AARP, Ecumenical Ministries, OSPIRG, etc.) who are concerned about the current consumer credit situation in Oregon. She said the proposed ordinance has been adopted by other cities and is an important first step to ending predatory lending in Oregon. She said the most serious problem of high interest rates could only be addressed by State law and the new cap on interest rates would not go into affect until July 2007. She said the industry has developed a new product to avoid the interest cap and other protections that apply to short-term loans. She said this was why the city ordinances were important. She said all consumers deserve access to fair, responsible and affordable credit. She said in their current form, payday loans do not represent helpful credit. She said these high-cost loans put consumers in a worse financial situation.

Martin said through her work on this issue she met many families who do not have a strong relationship with mainstream financial services. She said these families go to high-cost financial services, like payday loans, to bridge that gap. She said this puts these families in worse situations. She said she met many people who were willing to share their experiences as they worked for State-wide reform. She told some of these stories to the Council. She said passing this ordinance would help these families as they work their way out of debt.

Mayor Drake referred to one of the examples Martin relayed about an individual who started with a $700 loan that grew to over $2,000. He asked how long it took for the loan to grow to $2,000.

Martin said she did not have that information with her but she could get that information to Council.

Mayor Drake said he would appreciate having that information before the next meeting.

Luanne Stoltz, Portland, said she was the Vice President and Government Relations Director of the Community Financial Services Association of Oregon, the industry organization representing the payday loan companies. She said she also owned Any Day Payday Loan Company in Portland. She said many studies on the payday loan industry were done by nationally recognized independent research groups, such as the Federal Reserve Board, the State of Oregon, Georgetown University and Cypress Research. She said the facts from these studies showed that the customers were making informed choices when applying for payday loans; the customers unders tand the exact cost of the loans, they value the service and they were satisfied with the loans. She said she could provide copies of these studies to anyone who wished to see them.

Stoltz said payday loans do not diminish the consumer's welfare or disadvantage customers. She said the opposite was true. She read a quote from a recent study by Donald Morgan, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, "We find no higher levels of debt and no higher rates of delinquency. We are not finding evidence of systematic predation as we defined it." She said Morgan noted that in the mad rush to restrict payday lenders, few had attempted to determine whether such lending was actually predatory or reduced the well being or welfare of families. She said she distributed the article about the study to the Council. She said everyone would prefer low cost products, but if the State passed a law requiring 2% home loans, it would not result in more loans; it would result in no home loans. She asked the Council to remember that payday loans are unsecured; if the consumer does not repay the loan she would be out the money. She said the vast majority of her customers appreciate the confidence she places in them and repay the loans in a reasonable period of time. She said this issue concerning consumer choice and customers know what the payday loans cost in real dollars. She said customers were free to choose payday loans and manage their finances in a way that best meets their needs.

Stoltz said they agreed the industry should work in a cooperative manner with government to ensure consumers are making informed choices. She said that was why they supported Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Service's (CDBS: the industry regulator) request for additional funding to regulate the industry during the last legislative session. She said that was why they also conduct financial literacy seminars and support consumer credit counseling. She stressed they support reasonable regulation of the industry. She quoted from the conclusion of the policy review study done by CDBS "However much participants in and observers of payday lending may regard the rapid growth of this financial service with dismay or revulsion, or dismiss its contribution to consumer indebtedness, a dispassionate review reveals a rational basis for the growth of payday lending and good reasons for the relatively high degree of customer satisfaction with payday lenders revealed in our survey of well over 1,000 payday loan customers."

Coun. Arnold referred to the statement Stoltz just read and asked from where it originated.

Stoltz replied the statement was from the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). She said this was a regulatory department of the State and they audit payday loan businesses annually. She said the DCBS did a comprehensive study of payday loan usage in the state of Oregon and she offered to provide a copy to Council.

Coun. Doyle referred to an earlier statement that the loan default rate was 5% and asked if that was an accurate number.

Stoltz replied the default rate on loans that they never collect was about 5%. She said since the institution of recent regulations the default rate had doubled.

Coun. Doyle asked Stoltz if she testified before the House and Senate on the regulations.

Stoltz said she had testified before the Senate and House and had met with the regulators and legislators.

Coun. Doyle asked what their reaction had been regarding why the bill passed.

Stoltz replied it was characterized as a multiple bargaining chip.

Coun. Bode said she recalled in the loan process that a customer would give the lender a check when they take out a loan.

Stoltz said that was correct; if a customer borrowed $100, she would give them $100 in cash and they would give her a check for $118 dated for their next payday.

Coun. Bode said in reference to defaults, the lender could cash the check right away; if it was secure that they have to be employed.

Stoltz said if the customer had money in their account, they could do that.

Coun. Arnold noted in an article Stoltz provided by an economist it was noted that the postdated check was for an amount 10% higher than the size of the loan. She noted Stoltz was running at almost 20%.

Stoltz said 20% was rare; the typical rate was 15% to 20% of the face value of the loan. She referred to an article she provided regarding the cost of running a payday loan business in Canada (in the record), which is similar to the cost in the United States. She said the cost ranges from $12 to $35 depending on the size of the company and whether it is the first loan for a customer or a renewal. She said a small company like hers has high overhead; she said a large company can amortize its costs over a larger group. She said a large company could do a loan for $12 per $100. She said it costs her $16 to do a $100 loan, so she makes a profit of $2 for each $100 loan. She said while her overall default rate was low, her initial default rate was high; 20% of the checks deposited are returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). She said at that point they start negotiating with customers to setup a payment plan.

Coun. Arnold referred to page 5 of the Canada report and noted there was a 60% limit on the interest rate in Canada; she asked what that referred to.

Stoltz said Canada probably had a usury rate of 60%. She said most states that have a usury rate make an exception for payday loans. She said usury rates were usually for long term loans; payday loans are short-term loans.

Coun. Arnold said the article also stated that because of the high cost of business, it was important to the payday loan industry that consumers keep returning. She said that seemed to conflict with the idea of using the service occasionally to get out of trouble versus using the service frequently.

Stoltz said annually they have to report to the State the number of loans processed, the value of the loans and default rates. She said this year the State started collecting information on return customers; how many people take out 1-5 loans annually, 6-10 and more than ten. She said the numbers from her store indicated that 70% of her customers took out fewer than five loans; 29% took out 6-10 loans; and 1% took out more than ten loans. She said she thought her numbers were typical to other stores. She said the repeat customers only come back a few times a year; usually at Christmas or tax time or when it's needed for back-to-school clothes.

Mayor Drake referred to Stoltz's comment that passage of the bill was a political pawn and asked what that meant to her.

Stoltz said her industry's lobbyists explained it was an exchange for the Jessica law; the Democrats said they would pass the Jessica law if the Republicans would pass the payday loan law. She said she did not know if that was true or not.

Mayor Drake said that was a cynical view of the legislative process from both sides. He asked what her profession was before she owned the payday loan company.

Stoltz said she did not think she was a typical example as she was a teacher at Aloha High School for twenty years. She said her family had been in the financial services business for a long time including collecting agencies and check-cashing stores. She said her sister had four stores.

Mayor Drake said he was surprised to learn there were six payday loan businesses in Beaverton and triple that in the unincorporated area. He said it seemed there had been a huge growth of these businesses in this area over the last two years and he asked why that happened.

Stoltz said it was like any other industry; growth in the industry was good for the consumer because it provides competition. She said competition would drive the prices down to the lowest possible rate in order to compete with the other businesses.

Coun. Arnold said from the article regarding Canada's businesses it sounded like competition lead to larger organizations providing this service. She said if it grew in Oregon to the point where larger organizations would take over Stoltz would be out of business.

Stoltz said in any industry most people feel that consolidation drives mom and pop stores out of business. She noted with the advent of Home Depot, the mom and pop hardware store went out of business and that is probably what will happen in the payday loan industry as well. Stoltz thanked Council for the opportunity to speak.

Rick Lember, Beaverton, said he had been in this industry since 1999. He said he worked for Fastbucks Holding Company based in Dallas, Texas. He said they had 77 stores across nine states including one store in Beaverton. He said he volunteered at the Food Bank and at the Portland Rescue Mission and he gives back to the community. He said he oversees 11 stores in Oregon, employs 33 people and provides medical, dental, vision and 401K benefits to the employees. He said he wished to discuss the myth of excessive interest rates on payday loans. He said the APR (annual percentage rate) is a useful number for comparing automobile and home mortgage loans. He said these loans share two common factors; monthly payments are required and the loans are for more than a year. He said the APR gives the consumer a way to compare the rates offered by the lenders. He said the APR is not useful for short-term loans (a few weeks) where there is only one payment; the APR is not useful if there is no monthly payment.

Lember said in this industry they set fees for loans; to borrow $100 it would cost between $15 and $20. He said the State of Oregon makes a gross profit of 100% at liquor stores, the clothing industry has a 100% markup, and jewelry stores markup is 200%. He said there has been little controversy over these merchants' profits. He said using the APR to compare a payday loan to a car loan was like comparing the cost of traveling one mile by taxi versus airplane.

Lember said in the 1980's the Oregon legislature repealed the limits on interest; they determined money was a commodity and the market would set the price. He said as long as the consumer was informed, it was a reasonable agreement. He said the payday loan industry consistently supported legislation to inform customers; there are over 40 pages of laws that regulate the industry and most of those laws relate to consumer information. He said they do object to the legislation that includes price fixing/interest rate caps. He said a consumer satisfaction survey done by Georgetown University showed that national payday industry customers had one of the highest satisfaction rates of any product offered. He said many of their customers had no other option and the industry grew out of the need to help these customers who have no other place to go. He said the lender takes the risks. He said there were many reasons the customers use this service and the rates were different with each store.

Coun. Doyle asked what the price-fixing regulations were like in other states.

Lember said it varies in every state; in California the consumer could borrow no more than $300 and the cost was 15% and other states have different regulations.

Mayor Drake asked if he borrowed $100, rolled it over twice and then could not pay the loan, would the interest be 521% at the end of the year.

Lember said that was correct.

Nina Hamman, Beaverton, referred to Mayor Drake's previous question and said there was no additional interest charged after three refinances. She said if he borrowed $100 and rolled it over twice, the charge would be $45.00 and there would be no additional charges if that was not repaid. She said she was the District Manager for Money Mart and they have one store in Beaverton. She said payday loans were primarily used by the middle-income levels. She said according to Cypress Research Group, and confirmed in previous studies by Georgetown University, over 2/3’s of payday loan customers have incomes of over $25,000; 50% of the borrowers have moderate incomes of $25,000 to $50,000. She reviewed the professions of many of their customers. She said the Georgetown University study confirmed that 92% of customers strongly agreed that payday loan companies provide a useful service to consumers.

Hannan reviewed how the industry is currently regulated and said in July 2007 new legislation would eliminate the payday loan industry as it is known today. She said a study done by Ernst & Young on the cost of service shows it is about $12 per $100. She said they respect their customers and want them to make decisions that will improve their financial situations; it is of no benefit to the lender to have consumers accumulate debt that they cannot repay. She said they work with their customers to fashion payment plans when they cannot repay their loans. She said current State laws allows their customers to pay down their loans at any time. She said they support having customers make the decision on what amount they can pay on their loans; it is inappropriate for governments to make these decisions for consumers' individual budgets. She urged Council to allow consumers to make their own informed choices.

Mayor Drake asked if he chose to borrow $100 and rolled it over two or three times, did she say the only cost he would pay was the $15 to $20 fee each time. He asked how they reached the 521% interest rate.

Hamman said the loans are based on the consumer's pay schedule so the interest rate varies. If a consumer is paid every two weeks or monthly, the rate would vary from as low as 190% up to 521%. She said it was easier to use the flat rate. She said currently her fee was $17.50 per $100 and it is easier for the customer to unders tand the exact cost of the loan. She said there was no application fee; to get a loan a consumer would need their most recent pay stub, most recent bank statement, a blank check, a valid driver's license and a utility bill. She said it takes about five minutes to get a loan.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if that applied to her particular business and if the other businesses in Beaverton had different processes.

Hamman said that was correct. She said it was a pretty general process and she did not know of any other loan industry where a person could walk out with a loan of up to 25% of their net pay in five minutes. She spoke about a customer she helped with a loan to pay their heating bill.

Mayor Drake said he did not understand where the interest rate starts on these loans.

Hamman said the $17.50 was basically the interest rate and it varies depending on the time span for the consumer's payday; how many days to the payday. She said if the next payday was less than seven days from the loan origination date they would just go to the next payday as the due date.

Mayor Drake asked if he could not pay the loan over the course of the year, would the high interest rate factor in at that time.

Hamman said State regulations do not allow them to compound or accumulate interest. She said at the time someone defaults, there are no additional fees or interest compounded on top of that. She said what would apply would be the bank overdraft fee and one $25 return item fee.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if the finance fees and charges were being equated to an interest rate.

Hamman said the $17.50 fee was being equated as an interest rate.

Coun. Arnold said asked how they decide who will be approved for a loan.

Hamman said they do not discriminate.

Coun, Arnold asked why the customer had to bring in their bank statement.

Hamman said that would show that their account is open and active.

Coun. Bode asked Hamman about her background and if she lived in Beaverton.

Hamman said she worked at Multnomah Falls for over ten years, then she and her husband owned a kids resale store. She said she stayed at home for ten years before she started working at Money Mart, where she started as a customer service representative and was promoted to District Manager. She said she lived in Troutdale.

J. Allen Green, Beaverton, said he was not a payday lender or customer. He said he was a vendor who was acquainted with this industry and its leaders and staff. He said they were people of the highest character and their customers were intelligent people who know what they want and what they are doing when they apply for a payday loan. He said some customers are irresponsible and allow themselves to get into trouble but to lay their trouble at the feet of those who were their only help was unfair. He said he valued freedom of access and fairness in the marketplace, in society and in government. He reviewed recent efforts of legislators and social service workers to regulate the payday lending industry. He said they were sincere in their efforts to protect the consumer from what they perceive as predatory lenders.

Green questioned where the predatory label originated and said this industry has been regulated by the State for years. He said the nature of the payday loan encourages borrowers to plan ahead and have a high commitment to paying off the loan that is secured by a check written against the borrower's checking account. He said that was an intelligent way to impress upon a borrower with a weak credit history that the loan is to be paid back on a certain date.

Green said the label came from perceived high interest rates. He said that most people do not understand the quirks of APR calculations. He said the APR was useful for long-term loans, but for short-term loans it distorts the picture. He said if he lent a friend $1.00 for one day and the next day accepted a ten cent fee along with the $1.00 being paid back, he could be charged with assessing interest at an APR of 3,650%. He said if that $1.00 was paid back a year from the day it was loaned, with the ten cent fee, the APR would only be 10%. He said it was a flat fee of ten cents, and the longer the period the loan was extended, the lower the APR. He said that was why the APR was not a fair measuring stick for short term loans; payday loans are short-term. He said the fee set for the loans covers operating costs and make a reasonable profit.

Mayor Drake asked him to address the question regarding how the 521% was calculated and the fact that there was no incentive to payback the loan on time if there was no charge after the third rollover.

Green explained that if he charged $20 to borrow $100 for a two-week period, there were 26 two-week periods in one year. He said $20 multiplied by 26 (two-week periods) was $520. He said that $520 on a $100 loan was 521% interest.

Mayor Drake said that was different from earlier testimony that the loan could only be rolled over two or three times, and there was no fee beyond that.

Green explained if a person paid back his loan and the $20 on time in a two-week period, he would pay 521%.

Mayor Drake asked if the rollovers were limited and the loan was not paid, how would the lenders get their money.

Green said he just learned this company does not charge any more than the fees for the loan. He said that was generous of them and the APR would go down substantially on that loan if it was not paid off for a year. He repeated the longer the loan was extended, the lower the APR.

Mayor Drake asked Green why he was involved with this business and if he was the individual who brought in the petitions that went to the legislature.

Green said he did not bring in any petitions but he submitted information earlier and attended prior Council meetings where this was discussed. He said he wrote an editorial in The Valley Times that he hoped would clarify the issue. He said he felt bad about the predatory label that has been placed on the industry.

Coun. Bode referred to the scenario of the $100 loan and $20 fee and asked if after three rollovers and one NSF fee of $24 (assuming the check had not cleared), the borrower would owe $184 in six weeks.

Green said that was correct.

Coun. Bode said then the account would go to collections and that industry usually has a 60/40 contract. She said the lender would only get 60% from collections.

Green agreed and said some people were irresponsible with credit. He said he believed the blessings of freedom far outweigh the possible risks of making a bad choice. He said the low default rates for these loans, was a credit to the ingenuity of this industry because they were dealing with credit-risk customers. He said he would hate to see this industry coming to an end because of over regulation. He said the State legislation would have the greatest impact on the industry, not the City's action.

Coun. Bode said she would give Green an A+ for presentation. She asked him what vendor business he represented.

Green replied he provided an ATM terminal to these businesses, though he had no customers in Beaverton. He said he lived in Beaverton. He said he would like the Council to take the high road and help with consumer education.

There was no further testimony.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

(Note: Council comments on this item occurred later in the meeting during First Reading of the Ordinance)

First Reading:

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 06114, 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. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple and Doyle voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

Scheiderich noted the proposed ordinance was amended prior to the first reading by deleting Section 7.12.030 as explained earlier in the public hearing.

Mayor Drake asked if the motion included approval of the proposed changes to the ordinance.

Couns. Doyle and Bode indicated that was their intent.

Scheiderich read the following ordinance for the first time by title only.

06114 An Ordinance Amending Provisions of Chapter Seven of the Beaverton

Contract Review Board - Public Hearing:

06113 Request for Approval of a Contract-Specific Special Procurement

Finance Director Patrick O’Claire explained this public hearing was before the Contract Review Board to allow exemption from the competitive bidding process to do a special procurement to appoint a contractor to do the design work for the Summer Creek Bridge. He said this was allowed by the City's Contracting Rules. He said the contract would be held for seven days following the public hearing to allow testimony to be submitted to the purchasing director. He said if there was no protest after the seven days, the City could award the contract as recommended in Agenda Bill 06113.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

There was no one present who wished to testify.

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle that the Council acting as the Contract Review Board approve Agenda Bill 06113 and (1) find, based on the information supplied in this agenda bill and its attachments, that under the standards of ORS 279B.085(4) the City is justified in using the alternative contracting method described herein for the purpose of selecting OBEC Consulting Engineers to provide professional engineering services related to the design and inspection of the Summer Creek Bridge; and (2) authorize the City to award a contract to OBEC Consulting Engineers of Eugene, Oregon, for an amount not to exceed $166,015.00 to provide engineering design and inspection services for the Murray Boulevard Extension Project in a form approved by the City Attorney. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple and Doyle voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

Coun. Bode explained for the public that this was a very technical project and involved the construction of a 300-foot bridge over greenspace and wetland areas at Summer Creek. She said this project was under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and involved several agencies including the City. She said the City needed to find a company that had bridge building knowledge and the experience of working with the Army Corps of Engineers. She said this was an extremely interesting project and she looked forward to seeing the bridge when it is completed.

ORDINANCES:

Coun. Doyle referred to the payday loan regulation ordinance that received first reading earlier in the meeting. He said the presenters agreed that with the real problem for this industry in Oregon lies with the bill passed by the State Legislature. He said the City's ordinance refines the process and has an effective date that is one year earlier than the State's implementation date of July 2007.

Coun. Bode asked what the median income was in Beaverton.

O'Claire said he believed it was about $56,000.

Coun. Bode said she was comparing that to earlier comments that the average income of payday loan customers was between $20,000 and $26,000. She said the people who signed the petitions (in the record) were from all over the region.

Coun. Arnold said the regulation of the APR was the crux of the problem and that was under the jurisdiction of the State. She referred to earlier comments that comparing the APR was like comparing the cost of a taxi ride to the cost of a plane ride. She said one had to ask if people were taking taxis without knowing they were in for a plane ride. She said the concern was fairness and consumer awareness. She said she supported the ordinance because she felt it was fair to the citizens of Beaverton.

Coun. Doyle said he was glad Council addressed this issue and he appreciated the speed with which the City Attorney's staff prepared the ordinance. He said he felt it was essential for the Council to take this action.

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 06116 and 06117, 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. Couns. Arnold, Bode, Dalrymple and Doyle voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously. (4:0)

First Reading:

Scheiderich read the following ordinances for the first time by title only:

06115 PULLED - To Be Scheduled for Future Meeting: An Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan Chapters 1, 2 and the Glossary (Ordinance No. 4187) Related to CPA 2006-0001. (Ordinance No. 4395)

06116 An Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 4187) Land Use Map and the Zoning Map (Ordinance No. 2050) Regarding Three Parcels Identified on Tax Map 2S10600 as Lots 101, 102 and 105. CPA 2005-0006/ZMA 2005-0008; 16655 SW Scholls Ferry Road. (Ordinance No. 4396)

06117 TA 2006-0004 (2006 Omnibus). (Ordinance No. 4397)

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

APPROVAL:

Approved this 7th day of August, 2006.

__________________________________
Rob Drake, Mayor