JULY 23, 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, July 23, 2007, at 6:40 p.m.


Present were Mayor Drake, Couns. Betty Bode, Bruce Dalrymple, Dennis Doyle and Cathy Stanton.  Coun. Catherine Arnold was 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 Chief David Bishop and City Recorder Sue Nelson.


07152  Bicycle Friendly Community Award 2007 Renewal by the League of American Bicyclists

 Jay Graves, owner of the Bike Gallery, representing the League of American Bicyclists, said Beaverton had been awarded the Bicycle Friendly Community Bronze Award.  He said this award was given only to communities with strong commitments to bicycling.  He said the reviewers were impressed with the City’s progress in its efforts to close the gaps in the bike network and to improve law enforcement as reflected in the 2006 bike theft sting operations.  He said he joined the League in recognizing the work done by the City to make Beaverton a bicycle-friendly community.  He presented the award to Mayor Drake.

 Mayor Drake thanked Graves for the award.  He acknowledged the City’s bicycle community members and staff liaison Margaret Middleton who worked hard to make bicycling understood and accessible in the community.   

Coun. Bode referred to the recent tragedy when bicyclist Tim O’Donnell was killed while bicycling.  She asked Graves if he had any comments regarding the work of the Legislature regarding automobile/bicycle accidents.    

Graves said that legislation that was just adopted was the result of an accident last year in Forest Grove where a couple was killed while bicycling.  He said this was a progressive law that should make drivers think twice about driving carelessly around bicyclists.  He said bicycling had increased over the last two years due to high gas prices and healthier lifestyles.

  Coun. Doyle asked how Oregon compared to neighboring states in terms of legislation that might help reduce fatalities. 

  Graves said the newest law was one of the toughest in the western states and Oregon would be able to get a lot accomplished with this law.  He said Oregon was heading in the right direction. 

07153  Presentation on Emerging Trends and Issues, Aging in Our Community

Rod Branyan, Acting Director, Health and Human Services Department (HHS), Washington County, introduced himself and Chris Larsen, Senior Program Coordinator, Disability, Aging and Veteran Services (DAVS) for Washington County.

Branyan presented a PowerPoint presentation on Emerging Trends and Issues, Aging in Our Community.   He said the DAVS was conducting its five year update of its Strategic Plan 2007.  He said in January 2006 the first of the baby boomer generation turned 60.  He said counties and cities nation wide had begun testing their aging readiness to determine what was needed to create communities that would allow the baby boomers to live as independently as possible.   He said they were meeting with citizen groups and agencies to obtain feedback on the Strategic Plan.  He said the information they were collecting would be useful to the County Commissioners and city councils for future planning.   

Branyon reviewed aging statistics for the next 20 years.  He said in 2005, 68,000 Oregonians reached age 85; by 2025 more than 95,000 Oregonians would be 85 or older.  He said this was an increase of almost 40%.  He said 100 years ago the average life expectancy was 47 years; today the average life expectancy was 77 years.  He said in 2004 there were 88,289 people in the United States that were age 100 years or older.  He said these changes affect senior services now and in the future. 

Branyon reiterated that people were living longer due to medical advances and healthier lifestyles.  He said the Strategic Planning process would help identify the services needed for the aging population. He said as people age, the focus would be on maintaining health and vitality, and decreasing the need for health care and supportive services.  He said needed programs would focus on health education, disease prevention, physical fitness and nutrition.  

Branyon said that in the United States family caregivers provided over 75% of the care for aging adults.  He said programs that provide counseling, training, tools and support programs would be needed for these caregivers.  He said that retirement practices would change for the baby boomers would work into their later years and would want job flexibility, retraining, social involvement and learning.  He said programs would be needed to recruit and retain older workers, along with volunteer opportunities that tap into the skills, talents and experience of older adults. 

Branyon noted that according to the American Association of Retired People, a livable community would have affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility options to facilitate independent living.  He said key components of a livable community included: transportation, sidewalks for walking, safety and security; shopping; housing; health services; recreation and cultural activities; and a caring/supportive community.  He concluded that the baby boomers would change the way society ages; and new images, models and approaches to aging would be needed to transform communities into good places to grow up and grow old.  He said once the Strategic Plan was completed, copies would be distributed to the cities.

Coun. Bode asked if DAVS was sought out by the Builder’s Association as the latest in urban design was considered. 

Larson said they were trying to get the Builder’s Association to listen to DAVS.  She said that they had published brochures on universal design to influence builders on what was needed in the way of housing and services for an aging population.  She said the Association has not sought out the advice or opinion of DAVS.    

Coun. Stanton suggested that DAVS ask the Builder’s Association to be part of the strategic planning process.    

Coun. Dalrymple said that the National Association of Homebuilders has a very strong senior housing council and they have a tremendous amount of information that DAVS could access. 

Branyon said there was some movement in the area of housing with the trend to smaller homes and lots, which were beneficial for seniors and first-time home buyers.    

Coun. Doyle thanked them for coming.  He asked if they would explain to the public about Oregon Project Independence (OPI).  He said this was an impressive program though it was not well funded by the State.  He said many people could benefit from this program and it would save the taxpayers a great deal.

Larsen said OPI was a State-funded program and its purpose was to help people stay independent in their own homes by providing help and service in the home.  She said the OPI provided aides that come into the home to provide housekeeping and shopping services, or personal care services.  She said the Program had a great success rate in helping people remain in their homes and not have to go to assisted health care facilities.  She said the Program was administered by DAVS.  

Coun. Doyle asked what the Program cost was for a typical client. 

Larsen said the typical cost was a few hundred dollars per month to keep them in their own home but nursing homes can cost $3,000 to $4,000 per month.    

Coun. Stanton asked if there was a program for family caregivers to get reimbursement for their care giving expenses.

Larsen said there was a family caregiver’s support program to provide respite care.  She said respite care was for caregivers who have a 24-hour/seven day a week schedule.  She said respite allows them to have someone else come in and take care of their family members for a few hours or a weekend, so that they can get away and take care of their own personal needs.  She said there was also a relative adult foster home program for those who qualify for Medicaid; the caregiver could apply to be paid as a relative foster home provider for their relative.  She said this was for low-income people.    

Coun. Stanton said she did not understand why the State had not figured out that it was better to have a family member be a caregiver for a parent and that it was cheaper and better to pay the family member for that service rather than someone from the outside. 

Larsen said that was correct.  She said DAVS gets about $130,000 annually for its Family Caregivers Support Program.  She confirmed that this was a small amount for this Program. 

Coun. Dalrymple asked if OPI was comparable to what home health and home care agencies were currently doing. 

Larsen said they contract with a home care agency to provide OPI.  She said the difference was that rates for the OPI were based on a sliding scale; this helps the middle-income population who cannot afford the high rates of a private agency. 

Coun. Dalrymple said it seemed the biggest issue was funding and not the program and services.  He said it will be hard to fill the gap between the low-income who can qualify for Medicaid and the middle-income. 

Branyon said programs and funding were both important.  He said more education was needed on what factors lead to healthy aging and the opportunities available for people to age in a healthy way in their homes.  He said studies show that if people take care of themselves in their younger years they will have fewer problems as they become older.  He said a combination of programs and funding needs to take place. 

Coun. Stanton said that there were 359,000 caregivers in Oregon and $130,000 coming through the State for respite care; that equaled $0.36 cents per caregiver.  She said that funding was woefully inadequate. 

Coun. Doyle said that was the point he was trying to make regarding costs and funding.  He urged private donors to give to this County program for respite care.  He said the community needed to be educated, for this was coming down the line and it was a frightening reality.  He said he was glad they were trying to plan for the future.


Bruce Buffington, Police Chief’s Advisory Board Member and NW Bicycle Safety Council, congratulated the City, the Police Department, and Planner Margaret Middleton on receiving the Bicycle Friendly Community Award and said it was well deserved.    

Henry Kane, Beaverton, said he filed a motion to appeal the Commuter Rail Project to LUBA.  He said these monsters do not belong on city streets; they are dangerous and if they are on city streets the standard safety equipment should be installed.  He said the commuter trains should not inconvenience traffic on Canyon Road and Farmington Road.  He said when MAX opened three high school students were killed.  He suggested that staff answer the issues about safety.  He said the street between the intersections was less than 100 feet (between Farmington Road and Broadway, and Broadway and Canyon Road).  He said two trains were 170 feet long and he did not know if ten miles per hour was slow enough to make a sudden stop.  He asked that these issues be addressed before the line opens. 


Coun. Bode said at the July 19 Picnic in the Park at Hiteon Park, over 748 hot dogs were served and she was impressed by the number of people who attended from the surrounding neighborhoods.  She said as the City proceeds in its visioning process, the consideration of neighborhoods was important.  She said the next picnic would be July 26 at Ridgecrest Park from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and she welcomed all those who wished to attend.

Coun. Stanton said State Representative Tobias Reed would be speaking at the Library on the Legislative Session’s achievements and Oregon’s future.  She said additional information was on the City’s Web site.    

Coun. Dalrymple referred to the Hart Road repaving project and asked if the speed bumps would be reinstalled. 

Public Works Director Gary Brentano said a new style of speed humps that are easier for emergency vehicles to maneuver would be installed on Hart Road.    

Mayor Drake asked the Library Director to talk about the speaker who will be at the Library on August 2, 2007.  

Library Director Ed House said Mr. Richard Brenne would be speaking on “The Truth About Everything” on August 2 in the Library Auditorium.  He said Brenne was a 1974 graduate of Beaverton High School; he has worked in Hollywood with many well known people and won the Jack Nicholson Screenwriting Award.  He said Brenne has since moved to Boulder, Colorado and has become interested in sustainability.  Brenne will be speaking on sustainability and has invited experts in the fields of glaciology, peak oil and population growth to join him in a panel discussion of these issues.  He said the discussion will start at 7:00 p.m. in a town-hall format and it should be very interesting.  He encouraged everyone to attend.    


There were none.


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

07154  Liquor Licenses: New Outlets – Pastini Pastaria; Geraldi’s

Contract Review Board:

07155  PULLED - Procurement Process Relating to the Hiring of Outside Legal Counsel  
(Considered separately - see below)  

07156  Bid Award – Allen Boulevard (Hall-Alice) Utility Improvement Project

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

07155  Procurement Process Relating to the Hiring of Outside Legal Counsel 

City Attorney Alan Rappleyea said this would change the policy under which the City Attorney’s Office has worked.  He said the existing Code was not being changed; the Code requires that Council approve the retention of any outside legal counsel.  He said when a request to retain outside counsel comes before Council a funding amount is included in the request.  He said he noticed that they were going back and forth to Council for small funding amounts, whereas the Purchasing Code allows authorization for funding up to $50,000.  He said to avoid the repetition staff proposed to change the office practice so that they would be able to expend up to $50,000 without specific approval as allowed by the Purchasing Code.  He stressed that all requests for outside counsel would still go to the City Council for approval, along with all requests for funding over $50,000.  He said he understood there was concern from some Councilors that the $50,000 limit was too high. 

 Coun. Stanton said this was a policy change in the procurement policy and she did not feel a policy change should be on the Consent Agenda.  She said she felt $50,000 was a high dollar amount but that was the limit in the Purchasing Code because staff used many consultants from approved lists for consultants.  She said while the $50,000 limit would be the same as that set by the Purchasing Code, the Council would not know who would be hired.  She said there was nothing in the agenda bill that said the Council would be apprised of outside legal counsel when it was less than $50,000.   She said she wanted to know when outside counsel was hired; it was Council’s fiduciary and moral responsibility to pay attention to these matters and to be apprised of legal issues in which the City was involved.  She said she was comfortable suggesting that the $50,000 be changed to $10,000 and she would like to be sure that the City Council was apprised every time legal counsel was engaged.

Rappleyea assured Coun. Stanton that Council would still be apprised every time outside legal counsel was retained; that provision was not being changed.

Coun. Bode read from the Agenda Bill that “the City Council must pre-authorize the hiring of all outside legal counsel in all instances.  This is true regardless of the expected cost of services.”  She said she interrupted that to mean that the Council would pre-authorize the hiring of all outside legal counsel.  She said she thought $10,000 was satisfactory.    

Coun. Stanton said when she read that she saw it as past practice and to her it did not say that practice would continue.  She said it did not say that the Council would approve hiring counsel when it was less than $50,000. 

Mayor Drake said per the Code, staff was required to seek Council approval and that was not being changed with this amendment.  He said the only change was in the funding amount.  He said he wanted Council to know that this was not his request and he was fine with either the $5,000 or $10,000.   

Coun. Bode asked what was pushing this change.

Rappleyea said that staff had to keep returning to Council for small funding increases.  He said that they brought the hiring of all outside counsel to Council for pre-authorization and that would not change.  He said the reason the recommendation was for $50,000 was because that was what was currently in the Purchasing Code for legal services.  He said past practice has been that Council approved all funding for outside legal services, but recently there had been several smaller amounts that were going back and forth. 

Coun. Dalrymple said he would not suggest changing the Code.  He said he agreed with Coun. Stanton that policy changes should not be placed on the Consent Agenda.  He said there were two parts to this issue: the subject matter and the cost associated with the administrative process to fulfill Code requirements.  He said he would expect the Council to be brought up to date on legal issues, whether it be in executive session or during a public meeting.  He said he could support any range from $5,000 to $10,000 maximum.    

Coun. Stanton quoted from the Rules of the Council, Office of the City Attorney – Responsibilities and Duties:  “H. Subject to prior approval by the Council, select and retain all outside legal counsel employed by the City.  She said that the City Attorney was required to get Council approval for hiring outside counsel and she wanted to retain that provision.

Rappleyea repeated that no change was being made to that requirement.   

Coun. Bode said she saw no evidence of the need to change the current policy or current amount. 

Mayor Drake reiterated that Council was not being asked to change policy.  He said the only request was to change the funding limit to $50,000 to match the Purchasing Code.  He said if Council preferred $10,000, that should be included in the motion. 

Coun. Doyle said he was comfortable with $10,000 limit.  He said he did not want to get into micro-managing small dollar amounts.  He said the safeguards in the Charter were still in effect.    

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that Council approve the Procurement Process Relating to the Hiring of Outside Legal Counsel as proposed in Agenda Bill 07155.

Coun. Stanton said she would be voting no on her motion as she had no compelling reason for making the change.  She said she felt it was incumbent on the Council to be involved every time the City needs to go outside of its own legal staff. 

Coun. Bode said she would support Coun. Stanton and not support the motion.  She said transparency in what the Council does was important and she saw no particular need to change the process.  

Question called on the motion.  Couns. Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting NAY, the MOTION FAILED unanimously.  (0:4) 

Coun. Stanton said if the City Attorney wanted to resubmit this issue with a different limit on the funding and an explanation as to why it would be valuable, including data on what a break point would be from the last two years, she would be pleased to review it.


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 7:50 p.m. 


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m.


07157  Ordinance to Adopt Procedures for Reviewing Candidate Statements in City Voter’s Pamphlet

Rappleyea said the proposed ordinance would adopt procedures to enforce City Charter provisions that require that if there was a material misstatement of fact in the Voters’ Pamphlet that the City Council would nullify the election.  He said the Council previously considered two versions of a proposed ordinance; in the first version the Council would make the determination if there was a material misstatement of fact and in the second version the Circuit Court would make that decision.  He said the reasoning behind the second version was that something as important as nullifying an election would go to Circuit Court anyway and the Court would be able to handle the factual determination regarding a misstatement of fact for the Court was familiar with that process and standard, making this a more efficient process.  He said the Council would make the final determination on the nullification of the election.  He said the County and State used the Circuit Court process for misstatements in their voters’ pamphlets.    

Coun. Doyle noted that the Charter requires that if someone questions the statements in the Voters’ Pamphlet, that the Council has to act upon that concern.  He added if the Council did not approve this ordinance, Council would still have to meet the Charter requirement to act on this matter.

Rappleyea confirmed that was correct and said with this ordinance they were trying to avoid an ad hoc decision. 

Coun. Doyle asked if the Charter provision to nullify an election was commonplace in all city charters. 

Rappleyea said it was an uncommon provision and he had not seen it in any other charter.  He said that was why the proposal was to mirror State law and follow this through State statute.     

Coun. Doyle asked if there was any historical documentation to show why this was in the Charter, since it was not common place.   

Rappleyea said there was some discussion about that but he did not recall the details and the record was not explanatory.  He said he read old city council minutes regarding this issue but they had not shed much light on the matter. 

Coun. Doyle asked what other cities do in this situation.

Rappleyea said if it was from the County Voters’ Pamphlet the State law was followed (ORS 260.532, False Publications Regarding a Candidate Measure and 260.715, Publications Related to Voting a Ballot).  He said these State statutes were cited in the proposed ordinance as a remedy.  He said there was nothing under the City election laws that states false statements cannot be made; the proposed ordinance provided a remedy in that it requires an affidavit swearing to the truth of the statements. 

Coun. Doyle asked if they could remove that section from the City Charter and indicate the City would follow State law. 

Rappleyea replied that they could do that, for the Circuit Court has the ability to nullify an election.  He said if the City did not have this Charter provision and someone wrote a false statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet, a citizen could file a Circuit Court action stating a false statement was made in the pamphlet and requesting that the election be nullified. 

Coun. Doyle said he was struggling with the fact that the City was unique in this matter and he did not want to stand out for this reason.  He said perhaps the Council should consider coming in line with everyone else. 

Coun. Dalrymple said he would support Coun. Doyle’s suggestion of coming in line with the State regulations in relationship to what other local cities do.  He said he would not support this ordinance for he felt it was the result of an emotionally charged period.  He said he thought if it were a different time, the Council would not have discussed this issue.  He said he would not support this document; however, he would consider supporting Coun. Doyle’s position. 

Coun. Bode asked for clarification of Coun. Doyle’s position.

Coun. Doyle said his position was to remove that section from the Charter so that the City would follow the normal litigated practice that has been established by the State.

Coun. Bode reviewed the history of how this issue evolved through a citizen’s request.    She said she was not certain that the Council should make a decision to remove a section from the Charter when this topic was initiated by a citizen and it was not a County-wide concern; it was a City concern.

Coun. Stanton asked how this section was written into the Charter and if Beaverton was the only city in the state that has this provision. 

Rappleyea replied that he researched this issue when the matter was first raised and the information available did not shed any light on why this provision was placed in the Charter.  He said he checked with his professional network and with the League of Oregon Cities and no one had any experience with this provision. 

Coun. Stanton suggested that in the future the Council should discuss establishing a Charter review committee.  She reviewed how this matter came before Council and  noted this was the second work session the Council has had on the proposed ordinance.  She said her position had not changed from when this was first considered in April 2007 and she was still not comfortable with having the matter go to Circuit Court because this was the Council’s responsibility.  She said this ordinance may be more than what was needed but she liked the idea of a signed statement by the candidate agreeing to provide supporting information if requested.    

Coun. Bode asked if the supporting information would be submitted when and if there was a question about a possible misstatement.   

Rappleyea confirmed that was correct; staff would request that documentation only if a complaint was received regarding a misstatement in the Voters’ Pamphlet.

Mayor Drake said this was an interesting conversation and each Councilor had a unique perspective.  He said the City embarked in a different direction in 1980 when the community elected a strong mayor form of government and the Charter was changed.  He said Beaverton had always been a unique community.  He said Beaverton has Home Rule Authority; the State allows the City to adopt its own rules and ordinances as long as they do not abridge or circumvent State law.  He said the Charter provision regarding misstatements in the Voters’ Pamphlet dealt with creating a false perception of a candidate and candidates should be held accountable for their statements.  He said he was comfortable with that provision because it was a strong statement by the Beaverton voters in 1980; they wanted the elected officials to be honest. 

Mayor Drake said he understood everyone’s comments, but he questioned what would happen if at some point if State law was watered down and not as strong as the citizens wanted it to be.  He said that was why he was comfortable with the Charter provision and why he disagreed with the Councilors.  He said that Charter provision was important and it was a strong statement.  He said in the first draft of the ordinance, the Council was the judge and jury; that was awkward because the Council hires the City Attorney and it would not work well if the City Attorney had to investigate a sitting Councilor.  He said he was comfortable with this provision and the ordinance, for if a statement was false a citizen would have an official means to present their concerns and this was a statement that the citizens want their elected officials to be a “notch above.”  He said he saw nothing wrong with the citizens making this important statement in the Charter.  He said he would not vote unless there was a tie, and if there was a tie he would support this second version to default to State law after making a statement. 

Coun. Bode asked Mayor Drake to explain the process for a Charter change.

Mayor Drake said citizens can initiate a Charter change through a petition process or Council can refer a Charter change to the voters.  He said Charter provisions can only be considered in General Elections and November 2008 was the next General Election.

Rappleyea confirmed that was correct. 

Coun. Bode said as an elected official, to be true to the community she did not feel she could take any other position than to support the requirement that candidates sign the form agreeing to provide proof of accuracy of their candidate’s statement.    

Coun. Doyle said he felt there was a problem in the current Charter with this provision because the sitting Council would serve as judge and jury, and he felt that was the categorically incorrect way to solve this problem.  He said he would consider going forward with the ordinance that would take this to the Circuit Court (second version of the ordinance).  He said he felt the Council had to fix this flaw.

Coun. Stanton said that any citizen who had a concern regarding a misstatement, would bring that to Council.  She said from previous discussions she thought the Council would not pursue this matter in Circuit Court; that would be done by the person who filed the complaint.  She said she thought because of the Charter provision, that Council would consider this first and could make a determination if the statement was true.  She asked if the matter would then go to Circuit Court.    

Rappleyea said the Council could make a determination as to whether there was a material misstatement of fact, but to nullify an election and remove someone from office, the Circuit Court would have to make a ruling that it was a material misstatement of fact.  He said this was required by the ordinance.  He said without the ordinance the Charter would stand as is and Council would make the determination of what was a material misstatement of fact, including due process with hearings, notice, etc.  He said it was a fairly elaborate process as noted in the first version of the ordinance. 

Coun. Stanton said she still felt the Council has to make a determination. 

Rappleyea added that the ultimate decision of whether or not a person would be removed from office would have to be made by the Council per the Charter.  He said the Circuit Court could make the determination that there was a material misstatement of fact through a court hearing and then the Council would still have to make the determination regarding removing that person from office.  He said the Circuit Court could nullify an election under State law.    

Coun. Dalrymple said he was leaning toward using the current Charter provision and he was fine with adopting an affidavit for signature.  He said he would want honesty and he felt there was nothing wrong in asking candidates to sign a statement saying that they would tell the truth.  He said beyond that he was not willing to support this ordinance. 

Coun. Doyle said the affidavit was a critical piece in running for office and he was comfortable with that section.  He said the rest of the ordinance was procedural in nature and he was not sure what was being discussed in terms of process.

Rappleyea said the process was that a person could file a request for information regarding a material misstatement of fact; the City would obtain that information, give it to the individual filing the complaint and they could take it to Circuit Court.  He said that was the intent and that was how it was handled at the County and State level.  He said that still gave the City sufficient flexibility if it wished to make its own determination.  He repeated that the ultimate decision on a material misstatement of fact was the Circuit Court and the Council would make the decision regarding nullification of an election. 

Mayor Drake said there could be a time when a Councilor would want to keep distant from this decision; if an incumbent Councilor was defeated by a candidate who made a false statement that Councilor would have a vested interest in proving or disproving that fact.  He said the Circuit Court would provide that distance for the Councilor and staff, and would ultimately determine if the statement was truthful; it could also nullify the election if needed.  He said the Council could keep the strong statement that it wants integrity but the process provided the person follow through on their complaint so they could take this to court.  He said this would keep the Council sanitized and would protect the City Attorney.    

Coun. Doyle said Section I was the heart of the current discussion; Sections 2 and 3 were legal language.  He said he thought the Council was saying that it wished to add a little more tooth to what the City currently has, and not require a Charter amendment.   

Rappleyea said he thought Section 1 of the ordinance would be a great deterrent, especially the provision for the affidavit.

Coun. Doyle said he was comfortable with the ordinance before the Council.

Coun. Bode said she agreed with Section I.  She asked for clarification on Sections 2 and 3.

Rappleyea said Section 2 stated this ordinance would not displace any other legal remedy available to a citizen.  He said Section 3, the Severability Clause, provided that if any part of the ordinance was found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the ordinance would still be valid.

Coun. Bode said she would support this ordinance. 

Coun. Stanton asked if Sections 2.06.488 and 2.06.489 had to be in the ordinance. 

Rappleyea explained that Section 2.06.488 was important for it stated that under ORS 260.715 a person may not make a known false statement under oath or affidavit when it was required by election laws.  He said if Section 2.60.489 was removed then the Charter provision that the Council makes the ultimate decision would be unstated.

Coun. Stanton noted under Section 1 there were subsections 2.05 and 2.06 and she asked staff to check on the numbering.  She asked if Section 260.489 could be removed.

Rappleyea said that would leave unstated who would make the determination of material misstatement of fact.  He said that meant someone could demand that the Council make that determination since it is required by the Charter.  He said the intent was that the next time this issue arose, there would be clear direction on where people would go in the process.  He said if it was removed staff would have to ask Council if it wanted to make the determination or if there was an alternate preference. 

Mayor Drake said this would put the Council back in the same loop that occurred last year.  He said leaving this out would require going through several hoops to get back to Council, including determining material misstatement. 

Coun. Stanton repeated she felt this was her responsibility as an elected official.

Coun. Bode said this could involve an incumbent Councilor and that would create the conflict with the Council and City Attorney.  She said having the Circuit Court rule on the material misstatement of fact provided the needed separation.  She said she agreed with how the ordinance was written.

Coun. Stanton said when the Charter was revised citizens wanted the Council to make that determination rather than having to pay to go to Circuit Court.

Coun. Bode said that if a citizen brought an issue as serious as this to Council, the Council had the option to take it to Circuit Court.   She said that could be preferable. 

Coun. Doyle said he was comfortable with that section for it provided neutral judgment with full due process.  He said without that provision, the ordinance was flawed.    

Coun. Bode MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Doyle, that the proposed draft ordinance to adopt procedures for reviewing candidate statements in the City’s Voters’ Pamphlets come back to Council in the form of an ordinance for first reading within a month or so. 

Coun. Dalrymple asked what ORS 260.532 referred to. 

Rappleyea explained that ORS 260.532 prohibited false publications relating to a candidate or measure and provided for damages.  He said that was not limited to the voters’ pamphlet but included any advertising media.  He said that section also provided the authority for the Circuit Court to make the determination that an election was null and void.  He confirmed for Coun. Dalrymple that the Charter does not refer to any of the ORS sections cited in the draft ordinance.

Mayor Drake said the flaw in the Charter was that there was no vehicle for this action. 

Coun. Stanton said she would not support the motion and she read from the Beaverton Charter the Section 30.B that stated that if the Council found there was a material misstatement of fact that the nomination or election of that candidate was nullified.  She said this was put in the Charter by citizens who wanted the Council to make that determination.  She said she saw no compelling reason for moving this from the City into Circuit Court where it would cost a minimum of $360.  She said a person should not have to go to Circuit Court when they have recourse through the City Council.

Question called on the motion:  Couns. Bode, Doyle and Mayor Drake voting AYE, Couns. Dalrymple and Stanton voting NAY,  the MOTION CARRIED.  (3:2) 

Mayor Drake noted this was the fourth time he had voted in 15 years as Mayor.

07158  Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance

Code Services Manager George Fetzer said the Council considered the proposed  Property Maintenance Ordinance at a work session on May 2, 2007.  He said this ordinance was developed using property maintenance codes from the cities of Gresham, Tigard, Portland and Salem, and a model International Property Maintenance Code.  He said the objective of this ordinance was to preserve the housing stock and the quality of life in the community, and reduce the possibility of deterioration and blight.  He said the ordinance would establish standards for the maintenance of residential structures and prevent overcrowding by limiting the number of people allowed to live in a residential dwelling.  He said the City did not currently have these standards. 

Fetzer said since that work session he had made a few revisions to the ordinance as follows: Formatting changes were incorporated; the Table of Contents and annotations were deleted; minor revisions were made to the section on windows as recommended by the Building Department; the overcrowding section was simplified and made clearer as explained in the staff report (in the record).  He presented a brief PowerPoint presentation showing the types of problems that this ordinance would address and he reviewed the standards established in the ordinance in detail (in the record).

Coun. Bode referred to one of the pictures where a car was parked on grass and asked how long a car could park on the grass before it was in violation.

Fetzer explained that as soon as a car parks on the grass it would be in violation, for the City does not allow parking on unpaved surfaces including the front or side yards.

Coun. Dalrymple asked if a car was parked in the driveway with two flat tires and it was clear it had not been moved or in operable condition how would that be dealt with in the ordinance.

Fetzer said if the vehicle had current plates and registration, he would not have reason to know it had not been moved.  He said if the plates were expired and the tires flat, it would fall under the City’s current Code for discarded vehicles.  He said just having a flat tire would not make a car inoperable. 

Mayor Drake referred to a picture that showed an algae laden swimming pool.  He noted that the County and cities had led an effort to prevent West Nile Virus.  He said this looked like fertile breeding ground for the virus and asked if that was correct. 

Fetzer said that was true and that was why the neighbors call about these problems.  He said that was not the standard that the City was seeking and that was why it was included in this ordinance.

Mayor Drake said that some homes may have conditions or uses that have been grandfathered in and were allowed to continue.  He asked that Fetzer speak about that situation.

Fetzer said there were some parts of town where there were no curbs and gutters only gravel driveways.  He said generally speaking vehicles are required to park on a paved surface.  He said the City does not try to go back to the older sections of town and tell people they have to pave their driveway.  He said SW 141st Avenue was an example of this type of neighborhood.  He said in this case they encourage the residents to keep their vehicles on the traditional driveway area from the garage to the street.  He said in this situation he would not write a citation to someone for parking on the grass when their driveway was grass. 

Mayor Drake said the City did not currently prohibit the number of people who could live in a residence.  He said if the people could prove they had lived at a residence for awhile and if the ordinance was adopted, would the resident be able to stay in the home if he had lived there in advance of the ordinance. 

Fetzer said they could not continue to live in the home; the residents would have to follow the new Code.  He said they had no vested land use rights to violate the standards of the Code just because it was done in the past.

Coun. Stanton referred to Section 8.07.300, Overcrowding, asked if that meant ten people could live in a 1500 square foot home.  She asked what constituted habitable space.

Fetzer said the habitable space was the living, sleeping, eating and cooking areas; it did not include attics, bathrooms, halls, laundry rooms, storage space, toilet or utility rooms.  He said the habitable space would have to be measured. 

Coun. Stanton asked if this meant to eliminate situations where a family could live in one bedroom and another family in a second bedroom, with a communal kitchen.

Fetzer said that was correct.

Coun. Doyle asked if the civil penalties were a reflection of the State Code that the City adopted. 

Fetzer said that was based on the current Beaverton City Code.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing. 

Rita McCormick, Beaverton, thanked the Council for considering this ordinance.  She said she has been a Central Beaverton resident for over 40 years and a member of the Central Beaverton Neighborhood Association Committee (NAC) since 1988.  She said in the past the NAC has discussed problems with properties that were not being maintained.  She said she and Mayor Drake have discussed this in the past and he said the City would look into this.  She said she and the NAC read the proposed ordinance and the NAC agreed that it was a reasonable document and that it would be a benefit to the residents to have set standards within the community.  She said enactment of the Code would help people live in, enjoy and be proud of their neighborhoods.  She said this would help keep Beaverton beautiful.  She thanked the City for working on this ordinance.

Milt Wear, Beaverton, said he supported the City’s efforts in this direction.  He said he was from a neighborhood that had typical violations under this new Code, some serious violations that need to be addressed.  He said his neighbors supported this Code and some were in the audience.  He said some property owners were trying to improve their properties and this new Code would help improve the livability of the neighborhood. 

Mayor Drake asked Fetzer to speak to the issue of empty houses.

Fetzer said the City has a vacant building ordinance that the City adopted last year.  He said there was a vacant house on Beech Street and he was working with the owner and his attorney to keep the home in a satisfactory condition.  He said the City was working on this case. 

Mayor Drake closed the public hearing.

Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that Council direct staff to bring back the draft ordinance contained in Agenda Bill 07158 for the normal process of a first and second reading. 

Coun. Doyle said he would support his motion for the existence of the situations that this ordinance addressed have been thoroughly demonstrated over the years.  He said he was pleased with the ordinance and he thought it was a step in the right direction.  He thanked staff for all the time and effort to develop this fair ordinance.

Coun. Bode thanked the residents who came for this issue.  She said the impressive community participation speaks to the citizens concerns for livability in Beaverton.  She said this was a good and positive ordinance that sends out the correct message.  She thanked those who worked on the ordinance.

Coun. Stanton said she lived in a beautiful neighborhood but there were a couple of problem homes and it only takes one or two abused homes to impact an entire neighborhood.  She said she was very appreciative of this ordinance. 

Coun. Dalrymple said when he was running for election he went to many homes door-to-door and visited a lot of neighborhoods.  He said he was surprised at the condition of some of the homes and how some were not maintained.  He said he appreciated this ordinance and he would support it. 

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


Coun. Doyle MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that the rules be suspended, and that the ordinances embodied in Agenda Bills 07151, 07159 and 07160, 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. Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (4:0)

First Reading:

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

07151  An Ordinance Amending Beaverton Code Chapter 6 Relating to Parking Zone Additions (Ordinance No. 4445)

07159  An Ordinance Amending Ord. 4187 Figure III-1 the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to Apply the City’s Neighborhood Residential Standard Density (NR-SD) Plan Designation to Three Properties and Ord. 2050 the Zoning Map to Apply the City’s R-7 Zone to One Property Located in Northeastern Beaverton   CPA 2006-0006/ZMA 2006-0009 (Laurel St/Kennedy St/103 Ave)  (Ordinance No. 4446)

07160  An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 4187, Figure III-1, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to Apply the City’s Neighborhood Residential Standard Density (NR-SD) Plan Designation and Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, to Apply the City’s R-5 Zone to Property Located at 4980 SW Laurelwood Avenue; CPA 2007-0014/ZMA 2007-0014  (Ordinance No. 4447)

Second Reading:

Rappleyea explained there were some minor amendments to the text for Ordinance 4443, Agenda Bill 07138.  He read the ordinance title for the second time and pursuant to the requirements of the Charter he read the amendments to the ordinance in full.   

07138  TA 2007-0002 (Operations Center 2007) (Ordinance No. 4443) 

Coun. Stanton MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Bode, that the ordinance embodied in Agenda Bill 07138 now pass. 

Coun. Dalrymple asked questioned the timing on the amendments and why it would come during the second reading versus the first reading. 

Rappleyea said it was a provision of the Charter that if any amendments were made between the first and second reading, the amendments have to be read in full at the second reading.    

Coun. Stanton said when this ordinance was initially on the agenda it was withdrawn so that she could discuss it with staff.  She said when the ordinance came before Council for first reading, there was a page that highlighted two sections stating that this would be added at the second reading and the two sections would be read in their entirety since they were not part of the full ordinance considered during first reading.     

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


Mayor Drake called for a brief recess at 9:30 p.m. 


Mayor Drake reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m.


Coun.Doyle  MOVED, SECONDED by Coun. Stanton, that Council move into executive session in accordance with ORS 192.660(2)(h) to discuss the legal rights and duties of the governing body with regard to litigation or litigation likely to be filed and in accordance with ORS 192.660(2)(d) to conduct deliberations with the persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations.  Couns. Bode, Dalrymple, Doyle and Stanton voting AYE, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.  (4:0)

The executive session convened at 9:45 p.m.

The executive session adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

The regular meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m.


There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Sue Nelson, City Recorder




Approved this 13th day of August, 2007.

Rob Drake, Mayor