APRIL 9, 2007


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, April 9, 2007 at 6:45 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Catherine Arnold, Dennis Doyle and Cathy Stanton.  Couns. Betty Bode and Bruce Dalrymple were excused.  Also present were City Attorney Alan Rappleyea, Chief of Staff Linda Adlard, Finance Director Patrick O'Claire, Public Works Director Gary Brentano, Library Director Ed House, Human Resources Director Nancy Bates, Police Captain Tim Roberts and City Recorder Sue Nelson.


Mayor Drake proclaimed April 9-15, 2007 as Community Development Week and April 15-22 as Days of Remembrance.


Mayor Drake said representatives from the Chamber of Commerce would testify first in support of the Action Item (Agenda Bill 07072) Economic Gardening Pilot Program for they would have to leave to attend another meeting. 

Lorraine Clarno, President, Beaverton Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber  would support the Economic Gardening Program that was being considered this evening.  She said the Chamber had been a strong partner with the City since the formation of the Economic Development Department and had participated in the strategic planning process and in several projects.  She said the Economic Gardening Program would have a broad impact on the growth and expansion of small and medium-sized businesses in the community.  She said the result would be job growth, generation of wealth and a stronger community.    

Keith Holmbaum, Board Member, Chamber of Commerce, said the Board of Directors took a formal position supporting economic gardening last year.  He said the Chamber had worked to realign resources to ensure it can be a strong partner in this effort.  He said this partnership aligns perfectly with the Chamber's mission.  He said the Chamber would serve as a communication conduit for its members and local business would provide staff training and would serve as one of the intake and initial interview providers.  He said they would work diligently with the City to determine the most effective and reasonable criteria to determine business participation.  He said they were proud to be part of this effort and hoped the Council would approve the Program.     

Coun. Doyle thanked them for attending.  He said their participation was important for this Program has to be a joint effort with the entire business community.    

Jack Franklin, Beaverton, said he came out of retirement to serve on the Washington County Fairgrounds Revitalization Project Committee, representing eastern Washington County which included Beaverton.  He said the County Board of Commissioners has assigned the Committee the task of determining how best to utilize the fairgrounds and guarantee the survival of the fair.  He asked that each Councilor submit written comments regarding this project to him at in the next month. He said information on the Committee meetings was available on the County's Web site at

Coun. Stanton said she was on the Hillsboro Airport Issues Roundtable (HAIR) that was working on regulatory and community issues and the airport was across the street from the fairgrounds, so she was interested in keeping track of what happens with the fairgrounds. 

Coun. Arnold asked how he was appointed to the Fairgrounds Revitalization Committee. 

Franklin said he was recruited by a County Commissioner.  He said he was interested in county fairs for he grew up in the country and one of the highlights of each year was attending the fair.  He said he felt Washington County's agriculture roots should not be ignored and the fair needs to grow and broaden its appeal by including displays, contests and events showcasing state-of-the-art technologies.

Mayor Drake said he had talked to the County Commission Chair and watched the news coverage on this issue.  He said there was a lot of agricultural business in Washington County and the technology and software industries were growing rapidly.  He said this provided a great opportunity to blend the historical and agricultural nature of the County with the present and future technologies, for a diverse and modern County fair.  He said he saw this as a positive step and he thanked Franklin for serving on the committee. 

Coun. Stanton said she had lived here 27 years and had been to 27 county fairs; she reiterated that she supported county fairs. 

Franklin thanked her and said he won the State truck pulling championship one year at the fair. 

Richard Eyde, Beaverton, asked for Council support of Traffic Commission Issue TC 613.  He said the Menlo neighborhood supported slowing the traffic on Menlo Drive for it had become a raceway.  He said they wanted to have the speed bumps installed as soon as possible. 
Coun. Stanton explained that traffic calming would slow traffic but it would not decrease the amount of traffic.     

Eyde said they understood that.


07066 - Cross-Connection and Fats, Oils and Grease Programs Presentation

Wastewater Maintenance Technician John Mitchell presented a PowerPoint presentation about the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) and Cross-Connection Programs.

Mitchell said last year he reported on the new equipment and maintenance procedures that were being incorporated into the FOG Program.  He said from 2004 to 2007, the system improvements and regular maintenance resulted in reduced workloads and a cost savings of over $36,000 for the City.  He said to date they have added 112 new small grease traps and 18 outside interceptors to remove grease and oil from the sewer system.  He said a conservative estimate was that these new systems would remove 44.5 tons of grease and oil from the system.  He reviewed FOG projects at Shari's Restaurant and McCormick & Schmick's Restaurant, and he complimented local businesses for their cooperation and professionalism in working with City staff and implementing system improvements.   

Mayor Drake said this was Mitchell’s second career; he was with Franz Bakery for 30 years as a salesman and supervisor.  He said Mitchell's expertise was invaluable in getting the business community to buy-in to the FOG Program.  He said through this Program, staff helped keep the local water streams more clean and natural.    

Coun. Stanton asked if the new tank at Shari's Restaurant would serve all the restaurants in that mall. 

Mitchell said that the new tank was for Shari's only.  He said the other restaurants installed their own inside traps and all six restaurants were in compliance.

Coun. Arnold asked what was next on the horizon for this Program.

Mitchell said they would continue to monitor all facilities and make changes to the cleaning schedules as needed to improve the maintenance cycles. 

Coun. Arnold asked what residents could do to limit the FOGs they discharge into the system.

Mitchell said they have an informational brochure that asks residents not to put fats, grease and oils down the kitchen sink and suggests other means for disposal.  

Coun. Doyle thanked Mitchell and said the enthusiasm of the staff makes this a successful program. 

Mitchell said the Cross Connection Control Program was mandated by the State for any water service provider that serves over 300 people.  He reviewed the cross connection plumbing system and how it prevents backflows.  He said backflow assemblies were required to be tested annually by a certified Cross Connection Specialist.  He reviewed the City's Cross Connection Control Program procedures.

Coun. Stanton asked if inspection notification letters were sent out automatically.    

Mitchell confirmed that letters were sent automatically and the owners have 33 days to respond.  He said if no response was received; follow-up letters would be sent. 

Coun. Stanton suggested sending a notice 30 days after the anniversary date if the City did not get a notice from the certified backflow tester, since the tester has customers scheduled automatically.      

Mitchell said the State mandated that water providers were responsible for notifying people that the annual inspections were due.      

Coun. Doyle asked if other communities had implemented this Program.

Mitchell said every water provider that serves over 300 people has to conduct this Program; procedures may differ but everyone has the same June 1 deadline.    

Mayor Drake said he had received comments from citizens because they did not understand the Program.  He said at one point all the Councilors were on the inspection list for they had automatic sprinkler systems that had to be inspected.   

Coun. Stanton confirmed that this was required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Mayor Drake thanked staff for the presentation.


Coun. Arnold said the Neighborhood Summit about Living Greener Practical Solutions would be held April 27, 2007, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.  She said people could sign up for the Summit by calling the Neighborhood Office (503-526-2243). 

Coun. Stanton said the Beaverton Community Band would give a concert at the Cedar Hills United Church of Christ on Sunday, April 15, 2007, at 7:30 p.m.    She said on Monday, April 16, at noon, the Washington County Public Affairs Forum would hear a presentation on the Economic Growth of Cities; the presenters would be Tom Hughes, Mayor of Hillsboro and Mayor Drake.  She said on Wednesday, April 18, the Community Faith Forum would be held at St. Vincents.  She said people could contact the Vision Action Network if they wished to attend the Faith Forum.    

STAFF ITEMS:           

There were none


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

07067 - Traffic Commission Issue No.:
TC 611:  Stop Control on Public Driveways in Peterkort Village Subdivision
TC 612:  Revisions to Traffic Enhancement Fund Project Allocations
TC 613:  Revised Traffic Calming Project Rankings for 2007
TC 614:  Parking Restrictions on Public Driveways in Peterkort Village Subdivision


07068 - Selection of Primary Vendors for the City Wide Expansion and Support of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Project

07069 - Contract Change Order - Construction Engineering and Inspection Services - Summer Creek (Murray Boulevard) Bridge Project No. 3229

07070 - Bid Award - Summer Creek Bridge (Murray Boulevard Extension), CIP Project No. 3229

Coun. Stanton referred to Agenda Bill 07067, Traffic Commission Issues, that indicated Menlo Drive was a neighborhood street not a collector street.  She asked why Menlo Drive was not a designated collector street.    

Traffic Engineer Jabra Khasho said Menlo Drive was classified as a neighborhood route on the Street Classification Plan.  He said it did not have the traffic volume for a collector street. 

Coun. Stanton said she wanted to have a conversation about street classifications.  She said traffic volume was used to classify collector and arterial streets.  She said she felt street classifications should include design as well as volume.  She said she would discuss this with Khasho in the future.

Coun. Stanton referred to the Voice over Internet Protocol (Agenda Bill 07068) and said she assumed all purchasing would occur after July 1, 2007.

O’Claire said some items would be purchased before July 1, 2007, and the purchasing would be done in multiple phases. 

Question called on the motion.  Couns.  Arnold, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (3:0)


07071 - Oulman Ballot Measure 37 Claim for Compensation M37 2006-0006

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing.

Interim Community Development Director Steven Sparks read a prepared statement defining the process that needed to be followed for this hearing, including the various disclosure statements (in the record).

Sparks asked if any Councilor had a potential or actual conflict of interest.

No one declared a conflict of interest.

Sparks asked if any Councilor had an ex parté contact to declare.

Mayor Drake explained he would only vote in the event of a tie.  He said he had known Oulman for a long time for he was a former City employee and he visited his home a few years ago on a separate land use issue.  He said he did not feel he was biased in any way.

Sparks asked if any Councilor wished to declare any site visits.

Couns. Arnold, Doyle and Stanton said they knew that property as they drive in that area weekly.    

Sparks asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the right of the Council to consider this matter or challenge the right of any Councilor to participate in this hearing, or wish to request a continuance of the hearing to a later date.

No challenges were declared.

Sparks reviewed the staff report.  He said this claim was filed by Frank and Judith Oulman and they requested compensation in the amount of $350,000 or waiver of the Development Code.  He said this parcel was zoned R-5 when it was annexed in 2004.  He said the claim states that the Oulman’s wished to develop a nine-unit Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the Code would not allow a nine-unit PUD.  He said staff's position was that the R5 zone would allow a nine-unit PUD under the Code; that this was a question of process.  He said staff had recommended that the City not pay the claim and not waive the Code regulations.  He said if the Council did not concur;  page 6 of the staff report listed alternate actions that the Council could take.   

Coun. Arnold asked Sparks if he was familiar with the County PUD regulations. 

Sparks said he was not real familiar with it although he knew hearings were handled by the County Hearings Officer. 

Coun. Arnold asked if the Council waived the Code, would the proposed project be considered by the Planning Commission using the County's criteria.

Sparks said historically when the Code was waived, use restrictions/requirements were waived but City procedures would apply. 

Rappleyea said Sparks was correct; a procedure was not a limitation on a use.  He said if there was a subdivision application, it would be handled under the City's Type 2 or Type 3 procedure and County standards would be applied.  He added that Type 2 applications are approved by the Community Development Director and can be appealed to the Planning Commission; Type 3 applications are considered by the Planning Commission and appealed to the City Council.     

Coun. Arnold asked if the date the property was purchased was relevant, in relation to the zoning. 

Rappleyea said the applicant only requested the waiver back to the time of annexation; he could have requested to go further back in time but he did not.  He said the claimant could choose what regulation they think restricts the use of their property; they could also choose whatever year they think is best for their property use. 

Coun. Arnold asked what the ramifications were of the PUD Code amendment. 

Sparks said the new Code would be effective April 18, 2007.  He said if an application was submitted prior to April 18, it would be reviewed under the current PUD Code.  If an application was filed on April 18 or later, it would be reviewed under the new PUD Code. 

Coun. Arnold asked if an application was filed later, could the claimant file another M37 Claim for that application. 

Sparks said the claimant would have to file a different application and there would be a process for reviewing the application.

Rappleyea said if the Council denied compensation and the claimant submitted an application before April 18, it would be reviewed under the existing standards and there should probably be no loss of value.  He said if they missed that deadline and then the project was denied because it had not met the new PUD Code they would then have the basis for a new M37 Claim.

Coun. Arnold said if Council approved the use of the County Code at the time of annexation would they have to use that Code or could they wait until after April 18th to submit another claim.  She said she thought there was a possibility of using three Codes: the County Code, the current City Code, or the new City Code effective April 18.    

Rappleyea said the City would have to deal with what the claimant currently asked for; the waiver to 2004 under the County standards.    

Coun. Stanton said in the Oulman's letter of March 21, 2007, it stated that the development would access an existing private street that was not permitted in the City but was permitted in the County.  She asked for the size of the private street and if it was narrower than current City standards.

Sparks said the City should be issuing a Site Development Permit soon for the adjoining property west of the subject site.  He said that project was approved by the County and would be served by a private street.  He said both the County and City have private street standards; the City's private street standards are that it be built to public street standards.  If someone wants to build a private street that does not meet the City standards, it is a modification to the Engineering Design Manual which is an administrative decision approved by the City Engineer.  He said private streets must have minimum safety access and turning movements which are reviewed by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVFR).  He said TVFR reviewed the adjoining project, had some issues with the turning radius and the proposal was modified to satisfy those concerns.  He said if a proposal came in for the Oulman property, it would probably tie into this street, which would be acceptable to the City.    

Coun. Stanton asked if he knew the width of the street and if it was narrower than the City's standards.  

Sparks said he did not know the width of the street. 

Coun. Doyle asked if the City granted the waiver to the 2004 date and the application was reviewed, if the results were not acceptable to the applicant could he file a M37 Claim. 

Rappleyea said he probably could and it would be filed against applied standards.  He said if the claim could be tied to safety or Federal clean water standards, the claim would be denied.   He said other standards could apply.  He said anytime someone does not like a land use standard that is applied to a property, they could file a M37 Claim and receive a decision.  He said that did not mean they would all prevail. 

RECESS:  Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 8:00 p.m. 

RECONVENED:  Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.


Mark Dane, Blue Sky Planning, Portland, representative for claimants Frank and Judith Oulman, said the claimant was not able to attend the hearing as he was out of state.  He said the intent of the M37 Claim was not to seek financial remuneration but to protect the ability to develop the property under the same regulations as when the property was annexed.  He said Oulman was not intending to develop the property today but he wanted to be sure that he could do so in the near future.  He said Oulman wished to tie his property into the adjoining development to the west.  He said Oulman had discussed this with the property owners of that adjacent site and they would probably come to an agreement in the near future. 

Dane said that the proposal identified inconsistencies between the County and City Codes.  He said most of the inconsistencies involved the subdivision requirements in the PUD Code.  He said Oulman was seeking written confirmation that he could do a nine lot PUD.  He said the M37 Claim was to secure that position.  He said the Oulman’s preference was to be allowed to develop the property in the near future under the 2004 Washington County standards, in a similar fashion as the adjacent property to the west; for that would allow for continuity of building design, open space and streets. 

Dane said Oulman would not be able to submit a development application within the next week.  He said the application would probably be submitted this summer.  He said Oulman had specific concerns with the City's proposed PUD Code.  He said under Section 40.15.155A1, there would be a two-acre minimum; this one-acre site would not meet that minimum.  He said there were concerns relating to the shape of the open space.  He said there were issues with the requirement that minimum lots sizes be 50% of the designated base zone, for that meant the lots sizes would go from 5,000 to 2,500 square feet.  He said the adjacent lots to the west were 900-1,000 square feet because the lots were intended solely to incorporate the building envelope of the home.  He said there was also an issue with the maximum lot size being150% of the designated base zone.  He said in order to retain the existing house, in the same manner as the house to the west was retained, the 150% would be exceeded.  He said there was also a requirement that row homes be no more than 70% of the lot area.  He said given the small size of the lots, that would exceed the 70%.  He said there were issues with the ten-foot front setback and the requirement that attached garages be recessed a minimum of four feet from the front of the building.  He said this would make the design of the units out of compliance with the existing approved design.  He said the approved units would front onto the open space and the vehicular access was on the street. 

Dane reiterated that there were a number of conflicts with the City Code and the new PUD Code, including not being able to utilize the buffer in the 20% open space requirement and issues with the street width and parking.  He said they were requesting that this project be considered under the County's 2004 standards and that these issues be worked out through the process.  He added that the property was purchased January 1, 1975; the claimant did not wish to go back that far in order to be fair.  He reiterated that the claimant wanted to be sure he could develop the property as he thought he could.  He said the annexation was voluntary for Oulman had to annex to the city to connect to the sewer system when his septic system failed.    He said there was little opposition to the previous project because they retained an enormous amount of the natural corridor.  He said they planned to connect the trail from this proposed development to the current trail and retain as much of the existing vegetation as possible.    

Coun. Arnold asked Dane if his comments regarding an existing plan referred to the development to the west.

Dane said Oulman did not have an approved plan; he had a conceptual design.  He said until he was sure he could build the development he did not wish to invest in the project to do the necessary planning and design.

Coun. Arnold said she was deliberating whether the City Code was diminishing the value of his property.  She said it did not appear that was correct.

Dane said under the Washington County Code they could develop nine lots.  He said they thought they might be able to do nine lots under the City's Code.

Coun. Arnold noted the application would still have to meet the County's standards for floodplains, buffers, traffic safety issues, etc. 

Dane clarified that Section 404 of the County Code allows using the gross area alone and that would allow nine units.  He said the subdivision process allows areas to be net out; however, that was not necessarily the case under the existing PUD Code.  He added that the restrictions in the upcoming PUD Code were tighter than the current Code.  He said the claimant could not submit an application before the new PUD Code effective date due to financial constraints.

Coun. Arnold asked what would have to happen to submit an application by Wednesday (of next week).  She also asked whether nine units would be allowed under the County Code but possibly not under the City Code.

Sparks said the bare minimum for submittal was a completed application with the property owner's signature and a check.  He noted there was a conceptual plan developed and that would suffice with the check to get the filing in today.  He said the fee for a PUD was around $1,600.  He said he was not an expert on the County Code; however, the County Hearings Officer would have discretion to determine whether or not he would allow nine units on a one acre parcel, but it would depend on the nature of the land (buildable land versus wetlands) and the standards.  He said the City's PUD Code would allow nine units on one acre; the gross parcel area could be used to calculate the maximum number of units on a property.  He said in the past they have worked with the minimum density because that was what people were doing.  He said only recently has the City started receiving applications from people requesting the maximum density.

Dane said the application would be a PUD and it would be designed with floodplain and drainage alterations and tree plans.  He said the PUD application fee might not be substantial, but the entire fee for all the applications would be $20,000. He said it would take about $25,000 for professional help to prepare these plans.  He said that was a lot of money to invest at this time. 

Rappleyea clarified that the process question was if the claimant could submit an application by next week to vest his right and be able to use existing Codes.  He said Sparks was correct in stating that would be simple to do.  He said the problem was that the application would have to be completed in 240 days.  He said if Oulman wished to develop two years from now, that would not be possible under this process.  He said unless Oulman was willing to submit all the applications and studies needed for completion, the application would expire.

Sparks clarified that the application would need to be completed within 180 days (not 240);  if it was not completed within that time the application would be deemed withdrawn.  He reiterated that several applications would need to be filed.

Coun. Arnold said she was concerned about asking staff and the Planning Commission to work with the unfamiliar County Codes.

Dane said the City was currently working on two of his subdivision projects that were approved by Washington County and were being processed by City staff.   He said the first project was the development adjacent to the Oulman site and the other was on Oleson Road, north of Garden Home. 

Rappleyea said that was a different process; the County approved those projects and the City was implementing the decisions.  He confirmed that was not the process for this site.

Coun. Arnold asked if the tree plan and other applications would have to be done under the County Code.

Sparks said under County Code the applicant would have to do a land division to partition the lots.  He said the County did not have a design review process so the City would have to do that.  He said he did not believe there were protected trees in that area, so the City's tree process would only apply if there were trees on the site outside of the CWS buffer area. 

Coun. Arnold asked if the applicant had to go through the same process, regardless of whether the Planning Commission would be interpreting County or City Code.  

Sparks said there would be more process involved under the City Code than the County. 

Mayor Drake said it would be processed under County Code provisions that were in affect at the time of the annexation.  He said it would not be difficult for City staff to  process the development once the project was approved.  He said the issue now under consideration was under what provisions the project would proceed; the July 12, 2004, County Code was the prevailing Code when the property was annexed. 

Coun. Stanton asked why the recommendation was to deny the claim and deny waiving the Development Code provisions when the County Code was already in place.   

Sparks said the M37 Claim was focused on getting nine units to the acre and building a private street.  He said both of these provisions are allowed by the City Code.  He said that was why staff recommended denial of the claim and the waiver. 

Coun. Stanton asked for the difference in the width between the County and City private streets. 

Sparks said the private streets in the adjoining development to the west were 20 feet of pavement curb-to-curb.  He said the County requires 24 feet for projects larger than nine units; that standard can be modified if the Fire Marshal agrees to the reduction, which is what happened in that project.  He said the minimum pavement width for a local street that has less than or equal to 500 daily vehicle trips was 20 feet.  He said the applicant could presumably convince the City Engineer that a 20 foot width would be consistent with the intent of the Engineering Design Manual. 

Coun. Stanton asked why they being asked to deny the waiver of the Development Code, since the City would allow the nine units and the 20 foot street width. 

Sparks said that would be a decision for the Council to make.

Rappleyea said there were three options available.  1) Approve the waiver to 2004 and use the County standards.  He said the benefit to this was that the County Code was more flexible.  The drawback was that it would have to be super-imposed on the City's procedures.  2) Do a pre-emptive waiver of the new PUD Code.  The Council could decide that this project would be considered under the current City Code. 3) The third option was not waive the Code and deny the compensation.    

Coun. Arnold said her understanding was that M37 was only concerned with loss of value; it had nothing to do with process.   She questioned procedural details such as requiring a tree plan and how that would impact the applicant's cost.

Rappleyea said the applicant would not be required to go through procedures when there was no criteria to apply.  He said a tree plan would not be required if there were no tree criteria provisions.

Mayor Drake clarified that if the project was developed in the City they would go back to the July 12, 2004 County Code.  He said the Code requirements mentioned by Dane (tree plans, lot sizes, etc.) were not required by the County at that time; there would be no cost burden to the applicant.  He said the trade-off in waiving the Code, was that the City has stricter requirements for its tree program, which makes Beaverton a more attractive community.  He said it was not up to the Council to judge.  He said because of the passage of M37, the applicant has the right to refuse City standards, based on the time he was able to apply different standards.  He stressed that County standards apply, not City standards, for State law trumps local decision making.  He said Oulman has the right to develop under County standards per M37.  He said if the Council were to deny this claim the City would have to go to court to defend the decision.    

Coun. Arnold said she was trying to see if there was a difference of value. 

Mayor Drake said she was looking for an answer that could not be given.  He said she was taking it to the next plateau; beyond what was being considered. 

Mayor Drake thanked Dane for his comments.  He asked if anyone else wished to testify.

There was no further testimony.

Rappleyea advised Council that the safest route would be to waive the Code back to 2004.  He said the middle-of-the-road route would be to select the current Code and freeze it in time now.  He said the riskier alternative would be to deny the waiver and deny the compensation. 

Sparks said the graphic Dane supplied at the meeting indicated there was a floodplain and wetland.  He said the floodplain and wetland requirements cannot be waived as those are Federal standards; also, fire and safety standards cannot be waived.  He confirmed the Federal standards apply whether the project was developed under City or County standards. 

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun, Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Arnold, that Council deny the claim for compensation, grant the waiver of the Development Code and apply the use restrictions contained in the Washington County Development Code in effect on July 12, 2004.    

Coun. Stanton said she would support the motion. 

Coun. Doyle said this would provide the potential for continuity in the development of the road and it provides the applicant the time needed to do due diligence rather than having to rush development.  He said this was a middle-of-the-road approach and it was cost effective for the City.    

Mayor Drake said if he could vote, he would support the motion.  He said he took exception to Dane's comments regarding preference for a hearings officer versus a planning commission.  He said he took part in and fully supported the City's decision to go from a dispassionate, paid hearings officer to a planning commission.  He said he would always advocate for the City's Planning Commission for these were sharp individuals and the best representative government available.  He said while a hearings officer was dispassionate, he preferred a planning commission made up of citizens with a high sense of integrity, who weigh issues thoroughly and who better understand and care about the area. 

Coun. Stanton confirmed that this action would mean the project would be considered under the Washington County Code.

Coun. Arnold said she would support the motion though she did not like this action because it was not a clean process and the Planning Commission would now have to work with the County Code. 

Question called on the motion.  Coun. Arnold, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (3:0)


07072 - Economic Gardening Pilot Program and Transfer Resolution (Resolution No. 3895)

Economic Development Manager Rob Pochert reviewed the staff report (in the record) and said staff was seeking Council approval for implementation and funding of an Economic Gardening Pilot Program.  He reviewed the Implementation Plan and appropriations for the Pilot Program (in the record). 

Coun. Arnold referred to the $95,750 appropriation and asked what portion of that would be annual reoccurring costs. 

Pochert said most of the software subscription costs would be reoccurring costs.  He said on pages 12 and 13 of the staff report, the figures that were marked with an asterisk (*) represented costs for the current Fiscal Year 2006-07 and were included in the $95,000 appropriation.

Coun. Arnold asked what would be the annual subscription costs.

Pochert said subscription costs would be about $55,000 annually. 

Coun. Arnold asked what staff would be needed to implement the system.   

Pochert said they had adequate staff for the Pilot Program.  He said if there was a future need for additional staff, it would be brought back to Council.  

Coun. Arnold questioned how existing staff could accommodate this additional Program with their current workload.  She noted other cities had staff dedicated to their economic gardening programs.

Pochert said the City was just getting started with this Program and it would be accommodated through a shift in staff duties.  He said the City of Littleton, Colorado had five people dedicated to its program, but the program had been established for 15 years and it was large and very involved.  He said the other community in Colorado that started a program borrowed staff from the Chamber of Commerce.  He said as the City's Program evolves, it will have a better idea of future staffing needs.

Coun. Arnold asked if they had a commitment from the Chamber for staff. 

Pochert said the Chamber allocated a portion of a staff person to help setup processes and allocated funds for startup costs.  He said the training for that person was included in the initial costs.  He said they would train the partners and coordinate the Program with other programs like the Small Business Development Center.  He said there was a lot of interest in what the City was trying to do.

Coun. Stanton asked about Community Development Block Grant funding from HUD.

Pochert said they discussed funding with HUD and there were certain things that could be added to the Program that would qualify for CDBG funding.  He said HUD would not give the City additional funds; however, the City would be allowed to use some of its current administration funds to support these activities.  He said these were under the category of Micro Enterprises or businesses with five or fewer employees.      

Mayor Drake said if this was a success it would result in business growth, as experienced by other cities.  He said the staff would have access to community development resources and partnering with the Chamber would help existing local businesses and the Chamber itself to grow.  He said the City was helping to promote growth and there would be more people working on this than just City staff.

Coun. Arnold said she thought the other cities received sales tax monies.  She asked if the City would continue to fund this Program internally, or would there be fees to help support the Program.

Chief of Staff Linda Adlard said staff was asking for the basics for a pilot project.  She said at the end of the pilot project, they would be able to determine the value of the Program to the businesses in Beaverton.  She said at that time they would have to evaluate if this was a good program.  She said they would look at how they value smaller businesses in the community and it may not have much of a monetary side, unless it brings other employers into Beaverton who support the quality of life and the schools.  She said they believed this was the right direction to head, rather than trying to bring companies into Beaverton.  She said staff would keep Council updated on the Program. 

Coun. Doyle said he supported this Program for the potential was huge.  He said the City should support its local businesses since the citizens often support the City's ballot measures.  He said the risk was minimal and the positive factor was the growth of local businesses. 

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council approve the recommended action for Agenda Bill 07072, as follows: 1) Approve the Economic Gardening Pilot Program Implementation Plan; 2) Authorize Implementation of the Economic Gardening Pilot Program; and 3) Approve the Transfer Resolution to provide an appropriation total of $95,750 to begin implementing the pilot program for this fiscal year.  Coun. Arnold, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (3:0)  (Resolution No. 3895)


Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Arnold, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 07073 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, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (3:0)

First Reading:

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

07073 - An Ordinance Amending Beaverton Code Section 8.012.15(A) and Repealing a Portion of Beaverton Code Section 8.02.15(E) and Declaring an Emergency. (Ordinance No. 4434)


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.


Sue Nelson, City Recorder




Approved this 23rd day of April, 2007.

Rob Drake, Mayor