City Council - Regular Meeting

Think we're ready.

Alright. I'm gonna call tonight's meeting to order. Will the recorder call the roll?

Councilor Duggars. In progress.

Let the record show councilor Duggars is at here. Councilor Hartmeier Prigg? Here. Councilor Hassan? Here. Councilor Kimmy?

Here.

Councilor Teeter?

Here.

Councilor Tibnum? Here. Mayor Beatty? Here.

So our meeting is echoey? Yeah.

Jessica's texting to let them know it's echoing. I 'm not sure if this producer is new. Sorry.

Okay. For tonight's agenda, we're gonna, do proclamation visitor comment, and we're gonna move number nine, the action item to the top, and then go forward with the agenda as followed. So we have two proclamations tonight, a women's history month and an international women's day. And councilor Hartmeyer Prigg is gonna read women's history month, and I will read international women's day.

Thank you, mayor. Whereas, women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the the growth and strength of Beaverton in countless recorded and unrecorded ways. And whereas the following women have been elected and are currently representing Beaverton at the federal, state, regional, and city levels. Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, Congresswoman Andrea Salinas, governor Tina Kotek, state treasurer Elizabeth Steiner, labor commissioner Christina Stevenson, senators Wednesday Campos, Kate Lieber, Courtney Neron Misslin, and Lisa Reynolds, representatives Farah Chai Chi, Dacia Graeber, and Mari Wontadabi, Metro Council president Lynn Peterson, Washington County Chair I don't think it's me. Okay.

Washington County Chair, Catherine Harrington, Commissioners Nafisa Fye and Pam Treese, Beaverton Mayor Lacey Beatty, counselors Ashley Hartmeier Prigg, Nadia Hussen, and Alison Tibnant, to Walton Hills Park and Recreation District Board members, Barbie Minor, Pradna Patel, and Tia Ping, Beaverton School District Board members, Tammy Carpenter, Sunita Garg, Perez, and Melissa Potter. And whereas women have served and continued to serve in critical economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of life by constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home. And whereas women of every race, class, and ethnic background served as early leaders at the forefront of every major progressive social change movement. And whereas women have served our country courageously in the military. And whereas despite these contributions, the role of American women in history has been consistently overlooked and undervalued in the literature, teaching, and study of American history.

Now, therefore, on behalf of Lacey Beatty, the mayor of the city of Beaverton, I hereby proclaim March 2026 as Women's History Month in the city of Beaverton and urge all residents to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities that honor the history, accomplishments, and contributions of American women.

Thank you, councilor Hartmeyer Prigg. And since it's echoing, maybe the council will just be will just be brief in our comments tonight. Whereas International Women's Day celebrates the economic, political, and social achievement of women, and whereas women have been leaders not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the epancivation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which creates a fair and just society for all. Whereas Pauline, Donna, Magna, Colette, Amber, Isabelle, Amy, Scott, Joy, and Tammy are all current members of the Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce Women and Business Committee. And whereas International Women's Day acknowledges the obstacles women still face in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities and for their central role in creating positive change.

And whereas according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings of women were 82% of what men earn for equal work in 2025. And whereas women worldwide are still denied educational opportunities with about a 122,000,000 girls currently out of school in the out of school internationally according to Eunice. And whereas gender equality in education and in the workforce benefits everyone. And whereas despite these inequities, women continue to make major contributions to our society ranging from the historical victories of the women's suffrage movements to the current day leadership in local, state, and federal government. Now I, Lacey Beatty, mayor of the city of Beaverton, do hereby proclaim 03/08/2026 as International Women's Day in the city of Beaverton and urge all residents to celebrate women achievement, raise awareness against bias, and take action, for equality.

As the mom of two daughters, it's important that we stop and recognize, women across the spectrum, including our women in business for the chamber. This is a proclamation I look forward to, issuing every year. And I also issue this one naming all the women elected officials that touch Beaverton. I was the thirteenth woman ever elected to serve in our city's history and the first woman to serve as the mayor. That's not very many in a hundred and thirty five year history. And so we must continue to recognize every year that this happens. And I'd like to invite our women of business up to take a photo, and we have some proclamations for you as well.

Just the volunteers.

This exact moment we're sitting in. Okay. We will now move on to visitor comments. The city requires preregistration for online in person visitor comments at council meetings. Registration closed at noon today.

All registration was conducted through the city recorder's office via email or phone in preparation for this meeting. There are six people registered to comment at tonight's meeting. As a reminder, visitor comments provide the opportunity for the community to speak about matters even if they are not on the agenda. Visitors may state their comment and should not expect the council to engage in back and forth dialogue regarding the comments as this is a time for the council to hear from the community. The city council seeks to be welcoming and inclusive towards all speakers at public meetings, and we strive to create an atmosphere of mutual care and respect.

While community members may disagree with each other or the city on issues and may may give critical feedback, they're expected to do so respectively and without disruption. Disruptions interfere with the ability of others to present in person or online to participate in this meeting. Council members do not interrupt community members during their public comments, and we expect community members to offer the same courtesy to other speakers. Visitor comments are limited to three minutes for each person. If follow-up is needed, the city manager and recorder are taking notes. Do I do we have

the list of tonight's? Alright.

Alright. Our first person up tonight is, Catherine Skinner followed by Ken. Nope. Alright. Jennifer Croft, followed by James Coltrane.

Done, maybe.

Okay. Thanks.

Hi. My name is Jennifer Croft. I have been a Beaverton resident for about five years. I'm here tonight to address the push for an increase in revenue to fill for the forecasted deficits in the general fund budget. At the last council meeting, I talked about the need for billionaires to pay their fair share rather than be subsidized by working families, and I stand by those statements.

But since then, I have learned a little more about the budgeting practices in our city, and because of what I learned, I feel the need to address city leadership again and request that you stop looking for additional funding until the services promised to the community by the city are reliably being provided. For fiscal year twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six, the city allocated 48,200,000.0 to the police department from the general fund. I wanna let that sink in for a second because I thought the police, department was funded by their own independent public safety tax. I know that some places do it differently than others, and I just kind of assumed. But here they aren't.

41¢ of every dollar paid into Beaverton's general fund goes to the police department. You've been asking us to consider a local option levy, and tonight you're scheduled in a work session to discuss local service fees to try and fill a $10,000,000 gap in the budget and prevent layoffs. And I get that because, I mean, layoffs suck. Anyone who has ever been on the giving or receiving end can attest to that. I get but I would put forward that those who refuse to do their jobs don't deserve to keep them.

Beaverton's safety reality here is that for months, we've had ICE agents in our city and around the PDX in general, but specifically here in Beaverton too. They brandished their weapons, intentionally intimidating bystanders, smashing windows, assaulting and abducting our residents in front of their children, like, in front of everyone's children. You don't really need me to tell you about this, though, because you already know it. Like, there have been people commenting here and making these comments for months. In fact, Mary, you yourself called it an ice storm kind of, and, you know, it really kind of is.

So yeah. So in our police department's mission statement, it says that they work hand in hand to ensure a safe environment for all. I would like to ask chief Jepsen and all of you, when will my neighbors be safe in clothes and masks? I guess that's it. Sorry.

Ken?

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor, Council President Duggar, members of the council. My name is Ken Zatarain, and with me tonight is John Balgley. We live in the Hemp Street Heights neighborhood, and I believe John met some of you all last night. Last week, we wrote to you a letter about the increased traffic through our neighborhood from the Alpen Rose development. Our letter describes the miscommunication and lack of engagement that frankly left a lot of our neighborhood feeling unheard, confused, and frustrated.

That frustration really boiled over when we received a survey to vote either for four speed humps or nothing as a way to manage the traffic impacts. We asked your staff for a community meeting so that we could understand what was happening and share some alternatives. We appreciate that your staff promptly, agreed, and they met with us last week. Director Tim faced a room of some 80 to 90 residents expressing those years of pent up frustration. And I say Tim held it with the utmost professionalism, and we appreciate that.

The meeting opened the door to working together toward a solution. So now Hemp Street Heights has been a stable neighborhood for seventy years, and a key part of that character over those seventy years is low traffic volumes. The street connection to Alpinjeros will fundamentally change that because the developer is only adding one new connection, and it's through our neighborhood. To preserve our livability, we need substantial traffic calming measures to discourage through traffic. We raised this concern during the Portland hearings process.

The hearings officer response requires the developer to draft a traffic management plan, submit it to Beaverton for approval, and to construct the improvements that are in that plan. He specified that the plan shall not should, but shall mitigate the impacts of the increased trips. Unfortunately, the plan the developer submitted does not meet that requirement, and it will not mitigate the impacts to our neighborhood's livability. And the developer actually wrote that no traffic management is actually warranted, but in a magnanimous gesture offered us the four speed humps. So that's why we're here tonight testifying to you to ask your help on three points providing direction to your staff.

One, reset the process by withdrawing the survey and ensuring staff has the resources they need to conduct a meaningful engagement process two, do not approve a developer plan without full neighborhood engagement and three, ensure that that new plan includes robust traffic calming treatments beyond just speed humps in order to meet the hearings officers' requirements. We thank you that our concerns are being heard and that the city is willing to work with us. We are ready to be full constructive partners in developing a solution that protects the livability of our neighborhood. We welcome you all to come out and see it firsthand. And as you know, a city is only as strong as its neighborhoods.

Won't you help us preserve ours? Thank you. Well, that was timed well. Oh, okay.

Alright. I do appreciate the mister Rogers nod at the end there. And the bell. It sounds very much like Daniel Tiger. James Coltrane? Evelyn, followed by David? Hi, Mayor chair Ducker, and members of the council. Is it on? Hello.

There we go. Hi, Mayor Beatty, chair Deckard, members of the council.

My name is Evelyn Cocher.

I usually hear pronouns, I am a lifelong Beavertonian, and I am once again coming before you to ask you to take more concrete action around ICE. This council passed a state of emergency regarding immigration enforcement back in January. Since that meeting, immigration enforcement and the City's reaction to it has not been on the agenda of City Council a single time. On January 20, Councillors Kimi and Hassan presented codification of sanctuary city laws that presented concrete steps for what the city can do in the face of federal overreach. That proposal was unanimously voted down by every other member of this council, all of whom do not come from immigrant backgrounds, and was instead remanded to the subcommittee.

Reports from that subcommittee have not emerged since that vote on January 20. If there is action taking place from the city on immigration, the people deserve to know. We deserve to be having town halls in English and in Spanish to let us know what action the city is taking or if no action is being taken at all. The subcommittee needs to have their minutes and their progress be put out to the public, preferably at these meetings, so we can know what is going on about the codification of our sanctuary city laws. Mayor, yesterday at the State of the City, you said that you wished that we could do more about immigration enforcement, and I'm very thankful that you hold that sentiment.

But there absolutely is more that we can do. As I've said before, the City Of Beaverton is the largest jurisdiction to not set aside rainy day funds to benefit the families and the businesses that have been affected by ice kidnappings. Salem has done it, Portland has done it, Gresham has done it, Hillsborough has done it, Forest Grove has done it, Beaverton has not. One third of our city is a person of color, vulnerable to Kavanaugh stops, like myself. One fifth of our city was born abroad, vulnerable to Cavanaugh stops like myself.

I carry my passport with me everywhere. When you say that the policy that has been remanded to subcommittee is subject to labor review with the police union, that is perfectly acceptable, but there are elements of that policy that can be made separate from it and passed more immediately. This council needs to be treating this like a life or death emergency, because for many people in Beaverton, including myself, it is a life or death emergency. We cannot wait to take action. We cannot wait to have another Alex Pretty in our town. We must stand up and protect the immigrant community of Beaverton. Thank you.

David?

Feel like I need to get it right at three minutes now. This pressure's on. Good evening, counselors. For the record, my name is David Kearns, and I'm a Beaverton resident. I thank you to the counselors and staff here that have helped me navigate the disorienting interjurisdictional process of filing to run for city council.

Some of you on the 5th Floor know me quite well at this point, and I look forward to working with you in whatever capacity the future holds. I spoke last city council meeting briefly about finding out of the box solutions on combating ICE. Since then, I have worked with some members of the community to identify some of the weak points in our city's protections, particularly concerning Beaverton sanctuary status. I have two specific asks to, for you to implement to strengthen Beaverton sanctuary status. The first ask is for you to work with the Beaverton police department to ensure that policy prohibits access to data collected by the Beaverton police through platforms such as Axon Evidence.

These are made to streamline the sharing of data between jurisdictions, and the use of these third party cloud databases can be used to sidestep sanctuary policies. This has been seen in other cities as well, and it makes and it creates a significant vulnerability. The second vulnerability I wanna bring up is that the requirement of residents providing their name and address to, for public comment basically guarantees that residents that are in fear of federal law enforcement will never be able to speak in this setting. I am a firm believer that all members of our community deserve a voice here, and I believe you all you all are as well. I don't have a hard solution for this, but I believe this is something that warrants exploring, and with your resources, a solution can be found.

Thank you all for your attention to these matters, and I look forward to collaborating with you further. Thank you so much.

Alright. We're moving our action item top. The next item on the agenda is recommendation from the city manager recruitment subcommittee regarding the appointment of an interim city manager and the subcommittee's request that the council schedule further action of the recommendation at the next city council meeting on 03/17/2026. I want to begin by thanking our city manager Jenny Hariyama for her service to the city of Beaverton and the work she has done alongside the council and the staff over the last several years. As council knows, the city manager recruitment subcommittee has been discussing the next steps to ensure a smooth leadership transition.

Tonight, we are providing an update on those conversations and asking council to consider recommendation at the March 17 meeting. The subcommittee is recommending that Elizabeth serve as the interim city manager for a one year term. Elizabeth is well prepared for this role. In her time as the assistant city manager, she has already built strong relationships across the organization. She's been leading several high several high profile policy discussions including water rates, fiscal sustainability, and the WCCLS library funding measure.

Before joining Beaverton, she held several leadership roles at the city of Gresham, including assistant city manager and communications director. She brings a strong background in communications, fiscal strategy, and voter approved funding measures, which will be especially valuable as the city works through important financial discussions in the years ahead. Bringing forward the internal interim would provide continuity and stability while council conducts a thorough, thoughtful national search for the next permanent city manager. We look forward to bringing this recommendation back to the city council for formal consideration on March 17. Do you guys want to add anything?

I mean, I just wowed everyone with my written intellect here, but yeah. Okay. So we do if are there any questions about the subcommittee? Sorry. I am looking right here.

Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, subcommittee, for doing this work. Clarifying question on what you said at the end. So today, we would we would move to adopt your recommendation, but the next meeting is the, like, employment agreement. Like, we would actually make a selection tonight.

Make sure I

so, yes, tonight, you would there'd be a motion, and you could vote thank you, Jessica. And you could vote on, whether a majority of the council concurs in that recommendation. And at the next regular meeting in two weeks, we would come back with an agenda bill formalizing the appointment and setting out the terms and conditions of the appointment.

Councilor her councilor Hassan.

Thank you, subcommittee, for the work. I think my main question is around the one year, if you have comments about that.

What questions do you have?

When I thought think of an interim, I think three to six months. So you said a year. Yeah. I would love to hear more.

That's pretty standard interim city managers, particularly given the execution start will be April 1 and one month after that is our budget. And so our ability to really work in the building to get any firm on board would take at least a month or two and then we would start that thoughtful work of internal recruitment. And then once we go out to the public, it's usually open for two to three months. Then by the time the council starts interviewing, by the time we make a recommendation, it's how long it took to fill the judge's position, It took how long it took to fill the city attorney's position. And I also think stability right now with everything happening is key and having someone internal would serve that.

That's not to say we could do it slower or faster, but I think given the history of the council and the meetings and what it's gonna take a year is really reasonable.

And if if I could interject, I would just say that that's also a term that the city can negotiate with Elizabeth as well. It would be part of the

Not here.

Contract that we would need to negotiate.

I would just be curious to start with six months and extend it, not not for any reason, but just continuing to have the conversation and making sure we're still kick starting a process. So I am curious if you have some thoughts.

Yeah. One of the things that really sold me on a year, and I hope this is helpful, is I want to be really thoughtful about the process that we create in selecting a new city manager. Right? We Jenny was really the first one, the first permanent one that we selected. We the council selected. And I think it's really important for us to be intentional with all the things that we learned in that process. And I think the mayor's point is accurate. That's if we copy the existing process. And and we wanted time to actually and and make sure that that we just didn't copy the existing process. That we we work with you to get each of your feedback on, is there anything that we learned.

Right? That and and that would just take more than six months for us to design it and then execute it. And so that combining with the stability was really what sold me on a year. So I think what you'll see is the process will kick off much faster. And then it'll just be designed and built and executed over a year.

Most Does that make city managers have a minimum of a thirty day notice to their city. So even if we selected someone, thirty days is really fast. Ginny gave us six weeks. And so even if we pick someone in ten months from now with this whole process the way that it is, I mean, would be contingent on somebody noticing their city and their contract might say two months, which in hindsight, we might have wanted something like that as well. And this is our number one position.

And so just knowing how difficult it is for the council to make decisions, how difficult it is for the council to find meeting times, I think a year is the best opportunity, and it gives our staff security in knowing that we're making thoughtful decisions. I will also say, Gresham is going out, Tiger is going out, Lake Oswego is going out, all the cities are recruiting right now. Finding an interim is really difficult, and there's only three or four names that consistently kind of move around the region, which would not be in Beaverton's best interest. To have such an exceptionally qualified internal candidate, all the other mayors are pretty jealous.

Sorry. I just I hear you. Could we do the six months and extend? That's my like, I'm not disagreeing that that she could last a year. I think I'm just looking for that flexibility for us and for her. And I just if you could help me understand that part because I don't think I understand why you're saying the year, but I'm just stuck on, like, you can do the six months and extend. Is is there a reason?

Zero way we're gonna get a a city manager hired in six months from now.

I don't think that we're gonna hire a city manager in six months. I think I was saying to start the six months and to know that we can extend. That's all.

I'm I I would like to move forward with a year. So I don't know if the rest of the council councilor are you are you in? Dieter?

Yep.

Councilor Hudson, I appreciate you brought that up. Those were some thoughts that I had too during the subcommittee conversation and some of the thoughts we had about just trying out six months. Like, if it works, then great. Like, we'll just keep on going. If she feels like it's not the right fit, then we have a chance to reevaluate.

But I think for me, the the biggest concern for me, the part that wants me to commit to that longer time frame of time frame of a year is that we are in the budget season right now, and I don't anticipate us making some really major strides over the next few months since we'll be so focused on the budget. And with Elizabeth being our acting finance director, there's a lot of transition that'll happen there too. Like, she's carrying a really heavy workload, and for me to think about putting on more of more pressure with moving quickly with her recruitment is really, really hard. Like, I I wanna be focused on the budget over the next few months, and so I'm okay with that longer time timeline. I get why you're saying that too because I had some similar thoughts.

Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Thank you, councilor Ticker. That was helpful explanation. And I think another question for Kristen. We would just be making the motion to approve, but to your point of, like, it's a negotiate it's like, so that that could be part of the terms. Right? That it could be a six months plus an extension or a twelve like, so that's still, I guess, to be determined. We're not directing that tonight.

Yeah. I I would recommend that the council just consider whether you want to move forward with the recommendation tonight so that way the subcommittee and city staff can engage in negotiations with Elizabeth about the terms that both parties can agree to.

Okay. Thank you. I okay.

That helps. Thank you. I I I just wanna offer the flexibility. I just want us to be as flexible as possible because maybe in six months, you're like, woah. So thank you for that clarification.

Is there a motion from the council?

Sure, mayor. I'll make a motion.

I'm sorry. Hold on. Before we make the motion, will they need to specify that I'll work on the negotiation?

I I don't think that needs to be specifically done. It can just be

to The subcommittee.

Approve the subcommittee's recommendation and request that staff in the subcommittee take the steps necessary to come back in two weeks with an agenda bill for the appointment.

Great. Thank you.

I move that the council approve the recommendation from the city manager recruitment subcommittee regarding the appointment of Elizabeth Coffey as interim city manager and that the subcommittee and staff will return at the next council meeting on 03/17/2026 for formal approval of the interim city manager's terms of employment.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion on tonight's motion? Seeing none, will the recorder call the roll?

Councilor Duggar? Yes. Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg? Yes. Councilor Hassan? Yes. Councilor Kimmy? Councilor Teeter? Yes. Councilor Tipton? Yes. Mayor Beatty?

Yes.

Seven yes, zero no.

Awesome. Alright. We're

on

to our first presentation of the evening, agenda build two six zero four six, Washington County's micro transit pilot project.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor Brady and City Councilors. I'm Rob Zeller, a Senior Planner with the City's Planning Division. I am joined this evening by Washington County staff, who will present an update on their microtransit pilot project. I am here tonight because I've been serving as the staff liaison to the county for this project. This project provides a transportation option for Southwest portions of the city that lack transit service and supports transportation goals in both the Cooper Mountain Community Plan and South Cooper Mountain Community Plan. So we are excited to see this moving forward. On that note, I will pass it off to the county so they may introduce themselves and start their presentation.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Good evening. Mayor Beatty, Council President Duggar, members of City Council. We're excited to be here tonight to talk about the county's microtransit pilot project. We're here tonight I'm here tonight with Ride Connection staff as well. And so this is an opportunity for us to not only introduce the Spot service to you, but also to make a formal introduction of Ride Connection as Spot is not the only service that is currently serving Beaverton residents today. So I'll go ahead and introduce myself. My name is Raza Farhuti.

I'm a transportation planner with Washington County serving as the county PM for this project. Also here today with Andy Nelson, who is the CEO of Ride Connection, as well as John Muir, who is the service planning supervisor for Ride Connection. So just a brief agenda overview for you. So we're gonna first talk a bit about Ride Connection, the role they play in Washington County and the services they provide. We'll then get into the project background and purpose for the MicroTransit pilot project.

We'll do a brief primer on what exactly is Microtransit and how does it work, and then talk a bit more in detail about the service area and the connections that it serves, to the broader region. We'll do a little more deep dive into exactly where in Beaverton Microtransit is serving and then talk a bit about the branding and user experience for the Microtransit pilot, and then we'll finish up with some next steps. Now I'll pass it over to Andy.

Thanks so much. Good evening, everyone. My name is Andy Nelson. I'm CEO of Ride Connection. We actually do not work for the county. Ride Connection is a private nonprofit organization, but we're a proud partner, I'll and get into that in a minute. Just a little bit about Ride Connection, we've been around for about forty years. I'm here with my colleague, John, who'll meet in a minute. And our mission is to work with folks for whom our wonderful transit system just isn't an option for folks with mobility issues, folks who are older, folks who may have income limitations. And we're busy.

We're probably doing about a million rides a year. Think, John, maybe more than that. And we have quite a bit of activity happening here in Washington County. You may be familiar with some of our LINQ services, including Bethany LINQ. But throughout the county, we're connecting folks to school and to work and to health care and to each other. And super excited about being here tonight to talk about microtransit.

So a bit of the project background. Washington County is a public transportation service provider within the state of Oregon. And so we're responsible for completing a transit development plan every two years that highlights our needs and opportunities for transit service, both outside of the TriMas service area, where we have some intercity services and demand response services, but also within the TriMas service area where there are gaps in the current transit network and our first last mile link shuttles help fill that gap. So our latest transit development plan from about two years ago identified that the fast growing part of Beaverton, South River Mountain, Progress Ridge, and River Terrace and Tigard, all lack public transit service even though there's a lot of housing growth, multifamily, affordable housing. There's the Mountainside High School that opened recently and a lot of commercial as well.

So we thought in the meantime, even though TriMet has plans, they still have plans to extend service, we thought that the microtransit service model could help address the need, at least in the near term, until TriMet was able to extend their services. So we applied for a statewide transportation improvement fund discretionary grant with the state of Oregon to fund a pilot, a limited duration pilot, of about fifteen or eighteen months to be able to test out the micro transit service model. And this was done in partnership with Frye Connection, who we've had a long standing partnership with to provide these services in Washington County, and so they were a natural partner for us for this grant. So a little bit about what is microtransit. So these are flexible on demand shared rides similar to Uber or Lyft.

The idea is that you use an app that you download from an App Store or you call in to request a ride, and you'll get picked up by a passenger van. These are vans that we've purchased through the the STIFF grant. We have two of them. And the idea is that this is meant to be a shared service. So you might have a direct ride to your destination.

You might deviate a bit to drop off or pick up other folks along the way. But the idea is that you have, you know, on demand flexible service to help get you around. And so these are vehicles that we've purchased that are, again, up to date passengers. They are accessible for wheelchairs and mobility devices. They have bike racks, so they can accommodate up to two bicycles. And unlike Uber or Lyft, these are free to the public. So there's no eligibility criteria. You don't need to be a Lyft paratransit user. You don't need to be an older adult. These are free for everyone to use.

So as part of the pilot, our purpose and vision for this, we wanted to obviously help fill this gap. You can see in the TriMet service map here, this entire area is currently under not served at all. So we wanted to help connect people to key destinations within the service area, and we'll talk a bit more about those in the next slide, but also connect to frequent try my routes. So whether they're trying to get within the service area or connect beyond to jobs or education within the region, they'd be able to do so. And our purpose, our hope with this project is that we can even once TriMet does extend service into this area, we think there still could be a role for microtransit to play to help feed into that TriMet service within the Cooper Mountain area and River Terrace.

So we're excited to see what data comes out of this pilot. And also could help provide lessons for us to apply microtransit elsewhere in Washington County. We're thinking, like, maybe in the rural areas where we currently have dial a ride service that's, pretty expensive to provide to folks and requires a pretty lengthy, time in advance to reserve a ride days in advance. And this is something that could be more of an on demand flexible solution for those rural areas that are still in need of service, but obviously, it's much more difficult to provide that service. And then just to talk a bit about the engagement that we did over the past year, specifically last summer to help guide the pilots and how we devised the service.

We did several tabling events in the City of Beaverton. We went to Beaverton Farmers Market. We did some tabling events at New Seasons Progress Ridge. We also went to the Murray Scholes Library and the THPRD Summer Kickoff Concert just to talk to folks to see what their needs are, do they travel to the area, what they would like to where they would like to potentially connect to within the TriMet service. We have a heat map you can see on the top right where folks said that they would like to be able to access within the area. So Washington Square obviously was a big draw, so was Progress Ridge, Murray Shoals, South Cooper as well. Now I'll pass it to John to talk a bit more about the service area for the pilot.

Thank you. So after completing all of that engagement last summer, Ride Connection worked with the county to draw a service area. There were a tough series of trade offs that we, had to think about. We wanted to serve as much of the, transit gaps transit need as possible in the area. At the same time, we had to look at our available budget, the two vehicles that we could put on the road at any single time, and, you know, how much of the area we could adequately serve while keeping response times adequate.

So the seven square miles we drew, we think, really includes a number of key, neighborhood destinations. It includes, about 33,000 residents, 5,000 jobs. Of those, 20,000 residents and 4,000 jobs are within Beaverton City limits. It includes the neighborhoods of South Cooper Mountain, Progress Ridge, Murray Hill, Sexton Mountain, and we drew it to, include both Mountainside High School and the affordable housing developments surrounding that. That was a top priority.

But also Cooper Mountain Nature Park, key shopping destinations like Walmart or the Progress Ridge Town Center, Murray Shoals, and the library there are all served by the current pilot. And we also knew that we needed to connect folks into transit. It wasn't just enough to provide a community service. We looked at a couple different transit centers as we were, doing our planning and engagement, but ultimately settled on Washington Square Transit Center, both due to the popularity and responses we saw in our survey, but also the number of TriMet lines, that Washington Square offers people to connect into, with connections all over the region, including to Beaverton, Tiger, Tualatin, Oregon City with the Line 76, but also to Portland with the 45, and a couple other, transit lines. With TriMet service reductions that we'll be implementing later this year, we're going to see some changes to the destinations people can access with Washington Square, but even Downtown Portland will still be within a a transfer.

And then within that half mile buffer of the Washington Square drop off zone, there's 2,700 residents, 5,700 jobs. A few nearby destinations, not always with the the greatest walkability, but still people can access the the Hall Nimbus. West Station, we've seen a few requests from there as well as affordable housing. We developed a unique brand as, as Reza mentioned for this service. So SPOT stands for Shared Public On Demand Transit.

We developed a unique website, catchthespot.com, wrapped our eight passenger vans in SPOT branding, including contact information and information on where to to download the mobile app. So you'll see these, vehicles driving around the the project service area. And the idea is that if we are successful with microtransit and if we do find opportunities to scale this up or expand it to other areas, it will all be captured under the Spot family of services. And then a little more on sort of the customer experience and how to use the service. We operate from 06:30AM to 09:30PM, Monday through Friday, may consider weekends in the future, but are focusing on weekdays for now due to existing budget.

People can request same day rides, and they can do that either in the mobile app, the Spot Ride app, which you can download either in the Apple or Android store, or customers can call in over the phone if, for whatever reason, the app does not work for them. People can be can request to be picked up as soon as possible, and, typically, we like to see a response time of around fifteen minutes. We we see that as good on time performance, but folks can also bill book a trip, to leave at a certain time or arrive at their destination by a certain time. And within the app, as they're requesting a trip, people can specify the number of riders who might be coming with them, guests, children, friends who are traveling with them, the number of mobility devices. Our vehicles can accommodate up to two wheelchairs or electric chairs each.

And then we have bike racks on the vehicles that can accommodate two bicycles. And now I am going to hand it over to Andy, to detail our kickoff.

Yes, John. Thanks. So a lot of effort obviously getting this up and rolling. And the next question is how do we get the word out? Many ways. One way we did that is in January, had a kickoff. Enthusiastic, I might say. A lot of our friends were there. Thank you for being there. And it was a really nice way to raise some enthusiasm. We held that at right at Amity Orchard. And I think we got some got some media coverage, which was a nice start. And just to get the word out in the community that this service is available and what it is and how it works. So it was well attended and a great way to get everything rolling.

Johnny, Yeah. You should share

the the good news. Alright.

I'll I'll take the ridership report.

Yeah.

So we're about two months into service, and I have our our first six weeks of data to share with you. In those first six weeks, we did 585 total trips. I I will actually mention today, I think we completed our thousandth trip. So we are seeing ridership increase. And so in those those back to those first six weeks, we saw 585 trips, but over 600 customer accounts created. And I think that really suggests that there is, you know, more demand out there in the community.

Six zero one. I'm it doing in real time.

Awesome. Very cool. People are interested in the service. They might be trying to figure it out or thinking about it for a future need, and we'll probably see that number grow. We're seeing a little over one boarding per suit service hour. And, you know, as I think we mentioned earlier on, a priority is to group trips to make this an efficient and cost effective service. So our goal is to get to between two or three boardings per hour. That's what we know, from national and international examples, is is is kind of a a sign of a effective and efficient microtransit pilot. It's not near the productivity of mass transit, but it's not supposed to be. It's more of a feeder service or community service.

So we'll be monitoring the project, throughout the next, several months, making sure that we are on track to meet those targets. And if not, one of the great things about microtransit is it can be adjusted, throughout the pilot. We can adjust our service area, service hours, you know, peak vehicles on the road, and other service features.

Alright. So I'll wrap this up. So, as I mentioned, this is a limited duration pilot. We currently have grant funding through June '27, which is really nice so that we'll be able to not only serve for the remaining year of this school year, but also all of next school year. So in the meantime, Ride Connection will continue to monitor ridership, and they may make some tweaks to the service based on demand, whether it's modifying driver shifts or tweaking the service area.

We're going to continue with outreach, so we're really trying to make headway with Mountainside High School and make sure their students are aware of the service. We're also gonna reach out to under other underserved populations like elderly people with disabilities to which to the extent of which we can, access them. And then depending on the success of the pilot, you know, we'll be working on a final report to kind of, summarize our, experiences with microtransit. If things go well, we'll be trying to explore funding opportunities to perhaps extend it beyond the initial pilot phase. As John mentioned, we're always looking to add weekend service as well when funding becomes available.

Our hopes initially when we planned this pilot was that TriMet would be in a position to extend their fixed route bus into the area. Because now they're not in a position to do so, we'll be working hard to look at other options. But we're really excited to see this pilot get started and hope to see the ridership continue to grow. So thank you so much for your time today. And, yeah, if you have any questions, we're happy to answer them.

Councilor Tivnan.

Very excited about this. Our city has a lot of big neighborhoods, and the further inward you go, the harder it is for those folks to think of transit as something that could be feasible for them. And we had talked about this a few years ago as being one of those things that you see sometimes in other countries that works very, very well. To see it starting to get applied here is very exciting, especially knowing that we're growing out to areas that TriNet has not currently got a plan in place for. Question just about the app, which is fantastic, and it looks very similar to, I think, what people will already be familiar with if they use Lyft or Uber.

Is is there a, like, rate your ride feature afterwards? And if not, is that something that could be considered? Because I think that it could be a really excellent way to gather some feedback when you're doing the pilot. It could be as simple as having the, like, one to five stars and then maybe a, like, click for more input or something like that. And then there could be something that's about, did this address the needs that you have? Do you have any other comments for us or something like that? So just a thought to throw out there.

Yes. Thank you so much, counselor, for the question. And we do, in fact, in the app, a rate your ride feature. I think it automatically pops up. Once a a customer's ride has been completed, they can rate a ride out of five stars and have options, to give more detail on what worked well or what didn't. People have been very generous with five star reviews. So far, I've seen as demand increases and maybe people have to wait longer for their rides or are, you know, on the vehicle longer, sharing that ride, we might get some more interesting results. We also might look into whether we can push out a survey through the app, maybe midway or towards the end of the pilot because we definitely do want that community feedback.

Councilor Hudson. Councilor Hartmeier Prigg.

Thanks for including me in your presentation.

I feel really special.

I was gonna ask questions about the funding, but you addressed that of just that it goes through January 2027 and that you'll look for permanent funding. You know? So I think we can help by spreading the word and get ridership up and make sure that, we can kind of prove out the model. But I also wanted to just thank you too because it is something with this area. We've been really concerned about them not having access to transit and, like, knowing that there was maybe not enough population yet to, like, expand the bus lines and whatnot. And so it's really great to, like, have this need be met by this. And a friend of mine, he he texts me every time he sees the the spot bus now. He's like, look. There's a spot again. There's a spot again. So, it's very it's very cool. We went for a little ride, y'all. It was great. It's a good little bus. So thank you for being here with us tonight and for offering this service.

You so much. Councilor Hudson.

Yeah. This is really exciting. I'm feeling like I wanna download the app ASAP. Curious. Are you guys I work a lot with, like, the immigrant refugee community. And so, like, how are you connecting those orgs or groups? Because I could see, like, you know I know a lot of folks who are taking public transit, and as the public transit options go down, they're not knowing what to do or how to do it. Have you ever thought of, like, ways to partner with community based organizations or connect with those folks to help them have some sort of relationship connection.

Yeah. We have a long history of doing just that, throughout the metro area, but love the idea. I think that's a great way to build ridership. Any connections you can make for us, we we take it and appreciate your partnership.

Okay. You or RZA?

I think you can reach out. I'm

on the website.

You can start with me,

and I'll yeah.

I think

it'd be great to just connect you to some of those community groups because I could see them being really interested in those kinds

of services.

Yeah. That'd be fantastic. Yeah.

We really

appreciate And

and one more point. Ride Connection offers travel training as one of our suites of options, on public transportation, and we do plan to train people specifically on how to use Spot. That program is open not just to older adults, people with disabilities, but also, people with limited English or English language learners.

Okay. Yeah. I'll be connecting you guys. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Kimmy.

Yeah. Thank you for coming in. Great presentation. This is something I was always interested since before I ran for public office, but I was always trying to figure out how you connect the last mile, right, from the major hub to your house. There's almost no way. So, one of my question is, I know you picked Washington Square to the hub. Have you considered Beaverton Transit Center, or is that an option that you can have?

So we didn't initially consider Beaverton Transit Center. One of the issues with microtransit is that you don't want to make the service area too big or require vehicles to go so far out of the service area to the extent that you're degrading service for everyone else, extending wait times. So initially, we were looking at Washington Square, Tiger Transit Center, or Merlo MAX Station because those seem like the closest hubs to connect to. We did definitely get requests for Beaverton Transcenter when we did our online open house and survey last year. So it's not something that we would totally put off take off the table.

But I think we would need to potentially increase the number of vehicles we have in service before we consider extending the service boundary just because it's so much further away from, like, the core of our service area.

Yeah. Just something to consider because I'm trying to connect the max passengers to Yeah. Your destination. And Washington Square, obviously, do not have a max line. So

Yeah. Exactly. Beaverton would probably be the best case Beaverton Transfer would be the best case scenario, but it's something that we'd have to look into to see whether we can Thank you. Make that change.

One quick one is that what are the demographics of a typical passenger? Is it elderly? Is it young? What are the what are the businesses that they go to and to use this ride? Do you know?

Yeah. That's a great question. And we don't have a strong grasp on demographics as far as, like, race, ethnicity, gender, age. That's something that we hope to find out through surveying, once we're further along into the pilot. We do know that there is a lot of use taking place out of the affordable housing complexes near the high school and out of the high school itself, and a lot of travel on the Shoals Ferry Corridor between Mountainside High School in that general area and Washington Square Transit Center.

Not to say that there isn't ridership elsewhere in the service area. So we take that to mean there's probably a lot of youth using the service, and we hope a lot of, residents of affordable housing, and potentially seniors who live there as well.

K. Alright. Thank you. We would love to know. We don't know miss out on anybody who wants to use it. So yeah. Thank you so much.

Councilor Teeter.

Yeah. Thank you, Reza, and and team for for this. This is definitely something we've needed for quite a while. I remember when I was first getting plugged into a lot of Beaverton leadership opportunities way back Even eight years ago, council members back then were talking about how this area was needing and going to need more transit access. So thank you. So this is funded by this DIP funding discretionary grant for one year. So we'll learn things over this next year that will we use that to apply for a new grant. What does that what happens with future funding?

So that's a good question. I think there may be opportunity for us to apply for additional grants in the future. There was a really good opportunity I was looking at with ODOT's innovative mobility program, if you're familiar with it. They have something called the service continuation or expansion grant, and it was gonna be what I was gonna target for additional grant funding to extend the pilot. Unfortunately, because of ODOT's budget issues, they've suspended that grant program.

So kinda back to the drawing board, but I am gonna explore all avenues to potentially to to figure out how we could potentially extend the pilot because I think it's very important for the community that we've launched this pilot. We don't wanna strand them again once the pilot runs out. So if the city has any ideas of where we could potentially partner to, apply for a grant or any opportunities that you can see, let's talk because I'm I'm very interested.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. We talk a lot about how the lack of transit out here will ingrain habits in people as they're building and moving into new homes out here, where they won't depend on transit from the very beginning. But I I love that this is going to be here for this next year at least, but I would love for us to work together to figure out how we can keep it funded.

I think of other ways to get information out to the community, like the Westside Transportation Alliance, Trimet buses that are serving near that area, like having information posted up. I'm just excited for the word to get out. And so if I can help share the word, I'm definitely gonna do that too. But thank you for the work on this. And I love pilot projects because it allows us to try something and see what works before we invest a whole lot into something and just change and adapt. So thank you.

Yeah. No. We definitely agree with that. And one thing I'll mention is that we are working with TriMet. They're launching a new version of the regional trip planner, and we've worked with them specifically to include Spot. So now when people once that launches and people are trying to build trips going to and from the area, SPOT will show up as an option for them as part of their journey. So we're excited for that.

And just to add, we do feel it's significant that it is stiff funded. As you know, the future is stiff is being discussed in Salem, and this is a great example of how these dollars can make a practical difference to to folks. That's important part of the message.

Awesome. Thank you. I've got to see this presentation a few times at WCCC and other mayors forums. And I think this is a perfect neighborhood to run a pilot. All government officials love pilots. It's just in our DNA. My concern is is, like, we're not gonna have the best data because it's gonna take so long to build. I live in the cert the service area, so I'm pretty excited. I have a 20 year old that lives with me that doesn't drive. And, you know, I want her to go outside, walk, and do more, so maybe she could take it up to Cooper Mountain.

I think the bang for the buck is a lot of high school kids don't wanna drive, and it's becoming such a trend. And so I think I would recommend some lunchtime tabling at Mountainside High School Mhmm. To go and talk to them about this, particularly, you know, in the neighborhood coming back and forth. All the elementary schools in this area are not serviced by a bus. All these are non walk like schools that are outside the kind of and I understand that there are some my kids go to Sexton Mountain.

You have to live pretty far outside the service area to get a bus ride. And so I think they do walking bus and school bus. I think telling parents, obviously, they're gonna put their kid on the this without them, but this could be a pretty good option when the weather's terrible because a half a mile walk with your kid in the rain is rough to do. So I think there are some ways to help you guys out. I'd love to come and do a tabling event with you guys and talk about it in the neighborhood because the only way it's gonna stay is if people use it.

I do think, like all things, money is so tight right now, and it's gonna be difficult. And my getting people juiced up to write it and then it not being there is Mhmm. A a concern I have. So we look forward. I do you know, I worked at Virginia Garcia before I was the mayor, so I have a long history with you guys in using rideshare for community members that don't drive, didn't have licenses, maybe had immigration statuses other than legal, sick patients. So, like, I'm very familiar, and this was something we use constantly. And so I know the quality of work and service behind what you guys are doing. So, you know, send me an email, and let's get together.

Yep. We will

just to validate what you say, a good friend of mine is a counselor, guidance counselor at the high school and with much enthusiasm Yeah. There in describing the situation. It's, you know, it's been tough

Yeah.

For the kiddos to find a way home, especially if they're in after school activities or so it's gonna it's really gonna, I think, be popular

Yeah. It's it's it's interesting to me the, like, lack of driving. So many young people don't drive, and so I think this would be you know, starting at the school would be a great place to make sure kids have this as an option as well.

And and one of the reasons why we thought the school would be such a good source of ridership is because Beaverton School District doesn't have an activities bus after school, like Tiger Twalton School District does. And so when kids are leaving after practice sports practice or extracurriculars, there's no way there's no transportation for them. They rely on friends or their parents.

And Kyle Flat Road is such a dangerous road to even drive your own car on, let alone sit your kids walking down. So Yeah. I would say, though, as somebody that lives in the neighborhood, Merlot is so much closer than be like, coming here to City Hall takes me, like, fifteen minutes from Sexton Mountain. Going to 1 70th is, like, seven minutes. So when you're looking at efficiency

Mhmm.

Our concern on the city council is there's no north and south connection to the max. Yeah. And so this is not doesn't do that, you know, quite as well. And so just and and expansion, I would love us to consider the north and south connection to get to the max. That is an important thing we talk about quite often.

I think when TriMet extends their service on Shoals Ferry, that'd be a prime opportunity to repurpose microtransit.

If If

Yes. At this point, yes.

But North South service, we understand is a great need, and so microtransit could fill that niche.

And I know what it's like to present to elected officials, and they go, but what about this? What about this? There's one more thing. So come pick up the 20 year old from my house, and I will give you five stars all day in that. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today.

Thank you

so much. Thanks.

Alright. Council President, consent agenda, please.

Thanks, Mayor. I move to approve the Council Consent Agenda and the Contract Review Board Consent Agenda.

I'll second.

It's been moved by council president and seconded by councilor Hartmeier Prigg. Any discussion on tonight's consent? Seeing none, will the recorder call the roll?

Councilor Duggar?

Yes.

Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg? Yes. Councilor Hassan? Yes. Councilor Kimmy? Yes. Councilor Teeter? Yes. Councilor Tivnan? Yes. Mayor Beatty?

Yes. Seven yes, zero no. Alright, Robin. It's time for the show. The next item on the agenda is the first of two public hearings this evening.

This hearing concerning an ordinance amending the comprehensive plan in ordinance number two zero five zero, the Beaverton development code, LU42025Dash00608, designing walkable place project comprehensive plan amendment, c p t a four two zero two five Dash zero zero six one five, and a text amendment t a 42025Dash00607. I now, call to order the public hearing. Before we move to the substance of the hearing, I will ask the city attorney to cover specific preliminary matters.

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, city council. I'm Robin McEntire, assistant city attorney. Tonight's hearing will proceed as follows. After the preliminary legal matters, staff will make a presentation.

The council will have an opportunity to ask questions, then council will hear public testimony in the following order. First, from those in support, then by those opposed, and finally, by those neither in support nor opposed. After the council asks any final questions of staff, the hearing will be closed, and the council will deliberate toward a decision. If you wish to testify at this hearing and are attending tonight's meeting in person, please complete a yellow visitor comment card found on the table by the entry doors. Once the card is filled out, give the card to the city recorder seated seated at the end of the dais and wait to be called.

To let the city recorder know you wish to speak, enter star nine if you're attending by phone or other the members

use to make its decision tonight, and then I will ask members

of of the the council council if they wish to make any disclosures. The council's decision on the adoption of the ordinance must be based on the consideration of the statewide planning goals and administrative rules adopted under ORS chapter one ninety seven, applicable federal or state statutes or rules, applicable plans and rules adopted by Metro, the Beaverton Development Code section forty point eighty five point one five point one c, and the comprehensive plan section one point five point one. The council may consider any relevant testimony that it receives. Failure to raise an issue during the city's hearing on this ordinance precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Any party withstanding may appeal the decision of the city council to the State Land Use Board of Appeals according to the rules adopted by that board.

Persons withstanding include those who submit written comments or present oral comments. So at this time, I'd like to ask, if any members of the council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest. Let the record show there were no responses. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the ability of any member of council to participate in this decision? Okay. Let the record show no response. Mayor, that concludes the preliminary legal matters.

Red means on. Okay. Oh, I see. There we go. Mayor Beatty and City Councilors. My name is Brian Martin. I'm the long range Planning Manager for the City of Beaverton. With me tonight is Associate Planner, Sarli Hickson. Tonight's public hearing is related to comprehensive plan amendment and text amendment applications for the Designing Walkable Places project. You have a fairly large packet tonight.

The agenda bill attachments Ordinance Attachments A, B, C, D and F are basically a record of what happened at the Planning Commission, including the staff report, documents that reflect the commission recommendation and the minutes from that meeting. Exhibit E is a supplemental memo for City Council that contains the red lines that reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council. Those are the Conference on Plan and Development Code changes for your consideration. With an addition of Exhibit G, which has a memorandum where staff is proposing minor modifications to the Planning Commission recommendation to better organize and clarify design standards and guidelines related to building entries. So I wanted to take a minute because it's a lot of pages to explain that.

I also understand that the city recorder sent you a testimony after right around the time the meeting started. So you may just to to make you aware that that exists. The Planning Commission on January 7 recommended that Council approve the Designing Multiple Places comprehensive plan amendments and the Development Code amendment. So there's a CPA and a TA that you're considering tonight. Next slide, please.

The original project goal for the project was to revise development rules to make it easier for people to live in vibrant places and walkable places with easy access to work, services, shopping and play. So that's where a lot of these amendments come from. In our in our when we talk about walkability, though, in this project, it has a little bit of a broader definition or scope. It does involve people walking in safe environments with clear connections to destinations. It also involves involves writing a code, including site and building design standards.

So it encourages vibrant, interesting mixed use places where people wanna be. And that's why these see the proposed amendments regarding open space, landscaping, storefront windows, walkways, etcetera. It's really about unlocking making sure it's human scaled and designed for people. Next slide, please. The and then now I'll start a brief summary of the amendments.

The comprehensive plan amendments are for Volume one and five. Volume one are some brief updates to policies to promote pedestrian oriented design in station communities areas and promote housing in high density neighborhood areas. Volume five changes would remove major pedestrian route maps because those maps are no longer going to be used to apply design standards in the code. Next slide, please. The text amendments for the development code would remove code barriers to development in places where more and larger buildings had already been envisioned and planned for, but the code didn't always support that outcome.

So rather than the mix of methods the current code uses, some of which are in conflict with each other, The proposed amendments mostly rely on regulating building bulk to establish the maximum amount of development on a site. So it basically involves how much floor area can be built on a site, which, using maximum floor area provides a cap on that building area, or space inside the building. But it also provides it in a way or regulates in a way to provide flexibility for location, arrangement, and design of buildings and flexibility for things like residential unit size inside the buildings. And the graphic on the lower left gives you an idea of how any given floor area could be arranged in a variety of ways. You can get different outcomes.

The table on the right shows the maximum floor areas proposed. In most districts, the maximum of six allowed near frequent transit and four farther from transit, with some exceptions for different zones and areas. Next slide, please. The proposed amendments will also update building design standards to support these areas being built at a human scale with welcoming entries, windows facing streets and walkways and usable open space for tenants, the general public or both. I won't go through all the things on the slide, but that's some of the elements of them.

Next slide, please. Site design is also important to making great walkable places. The proposed amendments would update standards to require some buildings to be near the street to improve pedestrian interest along the street and access for passersby, walkways that provide access to different buildings on the site and that connect to the street sidewalks on the street. Landscape buffer standards apply where needed to address anticipated impacts among different uses. And again, usable open space that provides places for people to gather and connect with each other with rules that are flexible to work with different uses, development types, and contexts.

Next slide, please. So after that summary, the approval criteria for the applications are found in comprehensive plan Section 1.5.1 and for the tax amendment, Development Code Section forty point eight five point one five. Next slide, please. Staff recommends that the council approve the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission with the alterations in Exhibit G supplemental memo, which I believe is reflected in the suggested motion. That concludes the staff presentation. Thank you very much for your time. Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Are there any questions for staff from the council? I would just say sometimes I think when people come and watch these hearings, they think this is first time we've heard it, and this is something we've been working on for quite some time. And so don't take the council's lack of questioning as we're not concerned. We have seen this many, many times with many, many work sessions. Okay. So there appears to be no okay. Thank you for this no questions. Are you in it? Oh, okay. I thought you were testing it.

As a reminder, the council will be taking testimony first from those in support, followed by those opposed, and finally, by those who are neither in support or opposed, although I only have one. So with that, we would invite the first speaker up to the mic, and that is Michael. Michael, you have three minutes to address the council. And we also received your written testimony as well.

Good evening, Beaverton City Council. My name is Michael Ridenour. I work at Beaverton First United Methodist Church here in Downtown Beaverton. But tonight, I am testimony giving testimony just in a personal capacity. I primarily wanted to just vocalize my support for the Walkability project and also just ask a couple of questions that I think it would be helpful just to clarify how this plan relates to a couple other developments going on in the transit space.

As somebody who has a visual impairment and isn't able to see well enough to drive, I rely on transit and walking to get everywhere that I go. So I have a deep appreciation for the various gaps in the pedestrian infrastructure in Beaverton and how it needs to improve. And as somebody who also oversees a food pantry that serves a number of clients that don't have access to a car, I also know that access to mobility is very important to improving access to food and other critical resources and services. Beaverton has made some important progress in recent years, especially in areas like Beaverton Central and areas along the TriMet Corridor, but too many neighborhoods still lack continuous sidewalks, safe crossings, adequate lighting, and traffic calming. Large arterial roads divide communities and make short trips feel unsafe or inconvenient without a car, so and I'm very excited to finally see some momentum to improve the walkability of Beaverton.

As I read through the walkability plan document, I did just have a couple of questions that I think would be useful to clarify. As was mentioned earlier, TriMet is in the process of undergoing a number of service cuts to cover their budget shortfall and a lot of these cuts are happening in Washington County. Line 52 recently got cut and Line 76 just got cut a couple days ago. And so, I was just wondering, yeah, what is what can Beaverton City Council do to try to mitigate the impact of those cuts? And then also, I know Metro has a project for trying to improve safety along Tualatin Valley Highway and I was just wondering how that intersects with the walkability plan and whether that opens up any new potential.

Thank you so much for your time, and thank you for your dedication to making Beaverton a more walkable place for pedestrians like me.

Awesome. Michael, just for a little bit of con like, these hearings are typically where we take feedback and not kinda go back and forth, but I I think you've raised some important questions tonight that the council can follow-up on. I'd be happy to have a separate meeting with you and kinda talk through how those plans kind of inter gauge. But do any of the city council have any questions of Michael and the other thing that you probably may or may not know if you testify in a committee like this, we can also ask we can ask you questions. So just for clarity. Anyone wanna ask him questions? The little role reversal, if you will. Alright. Looks like you're off the hook, but I look forward to following up with you after the meeting tonight.

Thank you so much.

Awesome. Thank you. Are there any, follow-up questions since there's no one else here to testify tonight? Is there any follow-up questions for, from the council, from the staff needed? Any follow-up from the attorney?

I have none.

Okay. So I am now gonna close tonight's hearing. No further questions from the council. The public hearing is closed. The council may either adopt the proposed ordinance recommended by Planning Commission or take other action. If other action is proposed, the motion must include specific direction as to what the other action is. Is there a motion regarding this ordinance? Council president.

Thanks, mayor. I move to adopt ordinance number four eight seven nine and the ordinance amending the comprehensive plan in the Beaverton development code LU42025Dash006088 designing walkable places project comprehensive plan amended c p t a four two zero two five dash zero zero six one five. And text amendment t a four two zero two five dash zero zero six zero seven with amendments to Beaverton development code section 60 o five dot 15 dot three and sixty dot o five dot three pi five dot three as presented in the supplement supplemental memo dated 02/25/2026.

I will second. It's moved by council president and seconded by councilor Teeter. Any more discussion on tonight's motion? Councilor Teeter.

I just wanna say I'm really excited about this. I think there's a there's a lot of really good work in this, and this amount of code changes is is monumental for for the areas that this will this will affect. This will will be really good, and a lot of it is not seen because it's so deep in code. I was happy to see the testimony we received just before the meeting from Edward Trumke with the the Peter Court Properties saying that they had their architects run through some scenario planning with this code just to see if it works, and they had some good interactions with that, some good feedback. So I'm excited to that's a good first step, and I'm excited to see how this kind of affects the neighboring the neighborhoods around it.

This is like a peak dork day for you, micro transit, walkability. Kevin,

this

is probably like Christmas for you. Councilor Duggar.

Thank you. I just wanna also in addition to thanking staff personally because this has been high on my agenda for a long time. I just if if any of the planning commission folks happen to watch this over the next few days, I wanna just acknowledge their work too. So that was super helpful in the the in our prep for this and making me because we get our briefings and I've I saw that too. But that that was really helpful, and I'm just really proud of the work that they did bringing the the the changes in amendments in in in the memo and whatnot. So I just wanna acknowledge that, and and I'm super excited to support this.

Besides the city council, the planning commission has the longest meetings. I highly doubt any of them are watching tonight's meeting, but we will send forward a note. Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Yeah. I just wanted to also acknowledge, like, when we look at our council pillars that this hits so many of them that it touches on inclusive community, safety, quality infrastructure, good government, community wellness, potential for economic prosperity. It hits our sustainability goals. Honestly, it hits all eight, now that I'm looking at them. And so, I mean, that's just it's phenomenal, and I do think that this is another great example of, like, designing, like, the future that we want to see in Beaverton.

There's other projects that we're working on that I've been, like, kinda skeptical on because I I you know, you I kinda wonder, like, oh, it means we might have to take down some street trees, and I get really upset about that. And then you go walk it, and you see that there's, like, a two feet space to pass through the sidewalk because of that street tree, and that means it's not very walkable. Right? So I just love how much this is hitting all of our goals, and it's helping design the future of where we do have to do redevelopment, to meet our housing goals and whatnot that we have really clear expectations of what that future can look like. So it's a pretty cool project. Councilor Husson.

Yeah. I just wanna echo what folks have said. I mean, this is a huge project. It's 548 pages, if you weren't aware, and that's why I don't have questions, and I'm very excited to support it and vote yes.

Alright. Will the recorder please call the roll?

Councilor Duggar? Yes. Sorry. Councilor Mayor Prigg? Yes. Councilor Hassan? Yes. Councilor Kimmy? Councilor Teeter? Yes. Councilor Tivnan? Yes. Mayor Beatty?

Yes. Seven yes, zero no.

For the record, even though council president voted three times, in America, you only get one vote. So ten zero. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing on ordinance number four eight eight zero, an ordinance related to the local liquor license review process and amending Beaverton code chapter five point o two. Anyone wishing to speak at this hearing should follow the instructions included on tonight's agenda. For those attending in person, please complete a yellow visitor comment card found at the table near the back door of the council chamber.

Give that card to one of the many city recorders sitting at the end of that dais. Each member of the public will have three minutes to speak. When you speak, please give your name, city of residence for the record. Council members may ask questions of the presenter, the city attorney, or staff that will help the council make their decision. I know there is no council or no staff presentation tonight. Are there any questions the council has as staff?

Yeah. Please.

This is kind of known to the staff because I had asked this question, and maybe this question is to the council. When I jump to page nine seven seven six. Page six of nine. The appeal process is within fifteen days after the date of notice of the decision. And it took me back to traffic commission when we had some challenges, and I wondered if that should be longer time. I'm open if staff has feedback staff has feedback, and then would float that back to the council to just

think on.

Thank you, councilor. Some some brief feedback. We did try to correct the issue that happened recently that you referred to by having the appeal time start on the date of mailing or e mailing. Beyond that, the specific appeal periods were chosen to be consistent with other parts of the code. But if counsel were inclined to change them, that could certainly be done.

Just a quick follow-up. So it reads after the date of notice. So does that mean, like like, how do you know when I received it? Is that a silly question?

It's I'm looking at page five of nine under five point zero two point two three O, counselor. A. And right on the top of page five, that the applicant has fifteen days after the electronic or physical mailing date of the notice to file a written notice of appeal with the city recorder. Oh, it's a little confusing because it's in two different sections.

I'm just gonna read it one more time and then.

Have we ever had an appeal of a liquor license in this city? I do not know.

We haven't had this process. Right?

You can appeal. Like yeah. This is only changing who does it, not the appeal process.

I mean, I'm I'm good with it. It just brought me back to that, and I just wouldn't want to do that. And so maybe in the future, just something to be thinking about.

Any other questions? K. I will open the public hearing. Is anyone here to testify?

We have no one in person or on line for testimony.

Right. There appears to be no members of the public who wish to comment on tonight's matter. So I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? Anyone? Bueller?

Yeah. Okay.

I move that the council adopt ordinance number forty eight eighty, an ordinance related to the local liquor license review process and amending Beaverton code chapter 5.02.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion on tonight's On the motion? Seeing none,

will the recorder call the roll?

Mayor Beatty? Yes. Councilor Tipton? Yes. Councilor Teeter? Yes. Councilor Kimmy?

Yes.

Councilor Hassan? Yes. Councilor Hartmeier Prigg? Yes. Councilor Ducker?

Yes.

Sorry, I'm almost afraid to speak any further,

it's echoey. Seven yes, zero no. All

right, we're on to tonight's work session, Agenda Bill 26,053, Fiscal Sustainability Service Fee.

Alright. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Elizabeth Coffey, assistant city manager, and I'm joined, by Susan Cole, our assistant finance director. And we are here, to talk about fiscal sustainability and specifically, the potential, services fee that is on council's fiscal sustainability action plan.

I'm sorry. I apparently skipped a step. The next item on the agenda is a work session and presentation regarding the fiscal's city's fiscal recovery and potential service fees. Since this work session includes discussion of possible service fees that the city could charge residents, the city urges service users. I'm declaring a potential cost of interest.

The potential conflict I'm disclosing arises because I'm a city resident and user of city services, so the enactment of a service fee could impact my personal financial situation. A declaration of potential conflict of interest is required in this sort of situation, but it does not prevent the person with the potential conflict from fully participating in tonight's work session. I encourage other counselors to make similar announcement of potential conflicts of interest.

I'm declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city service fees. The conflict arises because I'm resident and user of city services, and the enactment of a city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

I'm declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city service fees. Conflict arises because I'm a city resident and user of city services, and the enactment of a city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

I'm declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city services. The conflict arises because I am a city resident and user of city services, and the enactment of the city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

I am declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city service fees. The conflict arises because I'm a city resident and user of city services, and the enactment of a city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

Yeah. Just do it and then I'm gonna I'm gonna do it and then I wanna call a brief recess so we could get some guidance from the attorney, but please.

I'm declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city service fees. The conflict arises because I am a city resident and user city services, and the enactment of a city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

I'm declaring a potential conflict of interest regarding tonight's discussion about possible city service fees. The conflict arises because I'm a city resident and user of city services, and the enactment of a city service fee could impact my personal financial situation.

Alright. I'm gonna call a brief five minute recess. We'll be back at 07:50. Alright. This is a unusual city council meeting for sure.

Alright, Elizabeth, and your finance posse. Let's do this.

Alright. And so next slide, please. So tonight, we're gonna go over, just a real brief recap of fiscal sustainability action plan, talk about, policy considerations, fee structure options, and timeline and next steps. Next slide, please. So keep in mind as you're listening to the presentation, we have three main questions for you tonight that we're looking for feedback feedback on.

The first is what is the purpose of the fee? The second is, just feedback around the revenue target, for the fee. And then third, what structure option would you like staff to refine and finalize with the goal of coming back to you, at a second work session, in April. Next slide, please. So we'll do a brief recap of the fiscal sustainability action plan.

I know we've had many conversations about this, and this is not new to, council. But every time we're talking about this in the public, just wanna, let, remind folks of our situation in case they're tuning in for the first time. So, property taxes make up 54% of the revenue in our general general fund, fund, and there are structural limitations at the state level through measure five and fifty that limit how much property tax revenue we can bring in. And generally speaking, our expenses are growing faster than the revenue coming into the city. A lot of residents aren't aware that for every dollar of your property taxes, only 21¢ goes to the city of Beaverton, for our general fund, and that, is what we use to fund really critical services like police, our library services, community engagement, community development, economic development, and so on.

And as you can see here on the slide, there are a number of other governmental agencies here in Beaverton, that also receive a slice of that property tax, dollar. And so as a result, we have a deficit in our general fund. Next slide, please. So, in 2022, council adopted a fiscal sustainability action plan and, has been hard at work ever since. And so far, we've reduced $9,000,000 in expenses, including 32 staff positions.

And, now we're in the process of working on short term, medium term, and long term actions. And you can see here on the screen, there's a number of short term actions that we're focusing on in the next year. And tonight, we're here to talk about the second bullet point, which is a potential, services fee on the, utility bill. Next slide, please. Sometimes we get questions about why, we have both a local operating levy and a fee, on the fiscal sustainability action plan, and it might be helpful to briefly talk about how property taxes are assessed and how, lots of the value of the different types of ratepayers and properties is not fully captured.

And so, for residential, ratepayers, our property taxpayers, which is the majority of the city, 45% of the value of those properties is not assessed through property taxes. And you can see here, the percent that's assessed for commercial industrial. And then in the middle, there's a significant chunk for multifamily apartment complexes where 63% of the value is not assessed. The other interesting thing about property taxes is that there are certain rate payers that are exempt from paying property taxes, nonprofits and churches and public facilities. And one of the reasons that cities often choose to have both a local operating lobby and fees is that they're just different revenue tools.

They impact people differently, and the fee is something that is charged to all account holders. There aren't exemptions to the fee. And the other thing that's nice about, fees as a revenue tool is that, for example, here at Beaverton, we already have low income assistance program for to help people pay their utility bills, and that would certainly continue with the addition of the fee. Next slide, please. So now we'll talk through some policy considerations as we, lead into talking about various structure options.

And so we have done a scan of jurisdictions of similar size to Beaverton as well as some of our neighbors. And you can see that most cities have some sort of fee on their utility bill, and the ones that do not typically have a local operating levy, to make up those funds. And so you can see here that, in the middle column, there are a number of cities that collect fees on their utility bill for services, and that can range from general services to parks, police, etcetera. Those fees typically range approximately between $5 and $26 per month depending on the jurisdiction. On the right hand column, you can see here the number of, cities that also include a transportation utility fee on their bill as well.

Most folks do, and I'm mentioning that because the transportation utility fee is also something that is on, the council's short term fiscal sustainability, action plan. So, for cities, when you combine both those fees and the total bills typically range between $10 a month to $32, per month. So, we will be about to talk about, four different fee structures in just a minute. And so there's a couple of things that you can keep in mind, as we have that discussion. One is, what is the goal of the revenue tool that we're talking about?

What problem are we trying to solve? And we'll talk through that a little bit, more in just a minute. The second thing to think about is how will the revenue grow over time to keep pace with rising expenses. That's not something we'll talk a lot about, tonight. We'll probably save that for the April work session.

But generally speaking, fees can be indexed, which means they grow by a certain percentage annually to keep up with expenses. Or sometimes if you have a backlog of financial needs, you can consider phasing in the fee by a certain dollar increments year over year. And then primarily, as we evaluate the four four fee structure options, we're gonna be looking at three key criteria, and the first is really the impact. Who benefits the most under each option and how are the different customer classes impacted? The second is transparency.

How easy will this be for the public to understand? And then third, what is the feasibility of us being able to collect the fee? Do we have the data we need to collect it? Will our system allow us to collect it? And in this case, are we able to implement it, at some point in fiscal year 'twenty six and 'twenty seven?

All of the options that proposing as they currently are proposed are ones that are feasible for us to collect. And so we'll start off with the first policy question. What is the goal of the fee? What is the problem that we are trying to solve? Over the last several months, we have talked about how our general fund has a significant deficit, and any reduction in that deficit will benefit all of those services that are in the general fund.

And, so our and we've talked a little bit about kind of keeping services, preserving services, maintaining them, not necessarily, creating a revenue tool at this time to enhance services or, add new services, but really just trying to eat away at that deficit and maintain what we currently have. So as a result, staff is recommending that you consider focusing the fee on general services. That will provide you with the most flexibility over time. What's most important to preserve today might be different five or ten years from now. The next slide, please.

Oh, sorry. The next question that you have to consider is really what is the revenue target and how much of the problem are we trying to solve. I wanna acknowledge that much of the discussion will may center around what is the monthly impact to the community of a potential fee, but I just wanna keep in mind that the trade offs of less revenue less fee would equal less revenue. And for the purposes of this discussion, we have provided estimates of the impact of the fee at approximately bringing in $5,800,000 in revenue. This will give you an an idea of the monthly impact of the fee for the community, but we can easily come back to council at the next work session with more options for different revenue targets if that's what you would like to explore.

So moving on now to fee structure options. So the first option that council could consider is having a flat fee by EDU. So EDU stands for equivalent dwelling units. That is a metric that is used by utilities to assess service charges. Typically, one EDU equals one single family residential home.

The reason that this is a potential structure for this particular fee is that it assumes EDUs as a proxy for service delivery. The assumption is that the more EDUs that you have, the more activity you have on your property, the larger it is, and the more city services that you might potentially need. So this works a fee is set per e d unit per e d u, and then e counts accounts are charged for each e d u that you have. And so when we look at the impact, this is tied for the lowest option for single family residential properties and not a big surprise for some of our larger customers on some apartments, commercial, public facilities. It's either the highest or the second highest depending on the size of the property.

Transparency is very high. It aligns with our current utility bill, and the feasibility for staff to implement is easy. Again, it aligns with our current utility bill structure. The second option that council has to consider is a little bit of a variation on the first option. And so, again, we're looking at EDUs, and we're based on the number of EDUs that the customer has, there are different tiers that are created, and they would be charged a fee based on the tier that they're in.

So, for example, if you have two to four EDUs on your property, you would be charged the fee for that second tier and five to 19, a different fee, and then fees would essentially be capped if you have 20 or more EDUs, and then rates are set for each of those tiers. So the impact, largely because of that, quote unquote, kind of cap on that fourth tier, for apartments and public facilities that are a little bit larger, that's the second lowest option. And then for single family residential, multifamily, and commercial, the second highest. Transparency is, I would say, about medium. It's a new structure that we would need to explain.

For feasibility, it is slightly more complex and difficult to administer in the billing system. It does not mean that it could not be done. Option three is a fee by customer type. In this option, customers are divided into, different classes as they are currently, a single family, multifamily, apartments, etcetera, and then a flat fee is charged for each customer type. And the impact of that, for single family residential, that's tied for the lowest option.

For all other customer classes, this is the highest option. Much like the last option, transparency is about medium and the feasibility is medium as well. It's just a new structure to implement. That brings us to our last option, which is a flat fee by account. In this model, a flat fee is charged to each utility account regardless of their size.

The impact for this, this would be the lowest option for apartments, commercial, and public facilities because this model does not take into account the size of the development in any way. It's just if you have a utility account with us, you get a flat fee. For single family residential customers, this is the highest option because we are not capturing the size of the development in any way. If we are going to capture the same revenue, that rate needs to go higher and impacts our single family residential customers. The transparency is very high.

This is a very easy and simple structure to explain and, again, very easy to implement. Next slide. I won't spend too much time on this slide. It's basically a recap of the previous slides. It's putting all of your policy making considerations together on one slide, and you can see the varying impacts across the board for the different customer classes.

The key takeaway for this slide is really that there is no perfect fee structure. Each one will come with pros and cons, which is why we've provided you this policy lens to look at the structures through. Next slide, please. So this slide shows you the potential monthly rate impacts with, again, that revenue target of 5,800,000 annually. And you can see here, the impact, across the board, for single family residential is pretty straightforward.

Multifamily, the median EDUs in those properties tend to be two. So you can see the properties the fee estimate is based on the median EDUs. For apartment complexes, we often get a lot of questions about how the utility bills work for apartment complexes, so I want to take just a moment and explain that. The per unit cost for apartments under option number one, for example, remains the same as single family residential. Apartment complex owners receive the total utility bill for the entire complex.

And so while the unit cost is the same as single family residential, they will receive a bill for all of the units that are in their complex. The median EDUs for apartments is 14 or the median units, and it will be up to apartment complex owners how they want to bill each renter for that property. Some apartment complex owners may choose to bill send bills to each of their specifically around utilities, and others may not. That's not something that the city has control over. That's their decision as a business owner.

You can see here for commercial properties, we have a lot of small businesses here in Beaverton, so the median is pretty small, around 4.75. And then public facilities, those are your THPRT, Beaverton School District, government agencies. The median EDUs for those is about 14. So that gives you an overview of the potential monthly impacts for those customers. In the next slide, our previous slide showed you the median impact.

In this slide, we're going to explore just a few of the outliers just so that you understand a little bit the impact of the different fee models on those folks that are not within that median range. So for context up on top, the single family residential is included, and then we've provided you with a a few customer or, excuse me, commercial options. And so if you remember, the median commercial has five EDUs, and so these are a couple of commercial properties where the EDU number is much higher. So we tried to make them ones that you could easily visualize, and so there's an example of Fred Meyer and an assisted living facility, and you can see the varying impacts of either the per EDU model or the tiered fees, customer type, or flat. Apartment complexes, again, the median EDUs for that are around 14 and you can see here, you know, a different apartment that has about 54 EDUs, the impact, and we've included our highest apartment, which is definitely a little bit of an outlier, so you can see kind of the impact, potentially there.

And then for public facilities, we have provided examples, of the total bill for Tualatin Hills Parks And Rec and Beaverton School District. They have multiple accounts with the city, so we've added those all up as kind of an estimate of what their total impact might potentially be with each fee structure option. So next slide, please. So we have provided you a lot of options to think through as well as some policy considerations. And so when we look at just the impact of each potential option, one thing that staff has recommended is that council could consider narrowing your discussion tonight around just two potential options, option one and option two, and then you could consider eliminating options three and four.

The reason for that is option one, the flat fee per EDU is the lowest or second lowest impact for 95% of your customers. The negative or the con to consider or the trade off is that larger properties will face larger monthly bills. The second option, the tiered fees by EDU, that has a moderate impact across all customer tiers. For large properties, it does soften the impact a little bit. And then the trade off is that it is a little bit higher for those single family residential customers.

The reason that we've recommended option three to maybe take off the table, that fee by customer type. That is the highest option for most customers in all customer classes except for those single family residents and very large properties. And then finally, we recommended taking off the fee by account because that is the highest option for single family residential at 88% of your customer base. Obviously, totally up to counsel however you might want to structure your conversation tonight, just offering that up, in case that is helpful. So wrapping up before we head into discussion and questions, in terms of next steps, I wanted to kind of clarify what could we come back to you with, in April.

And so, if you coalesce tonight around one particular fee model that you'd like, staff to explore further, it would be important for staff to know kind of what is important to you about the revenue model. If you are fine with one of the structures that's been proposed as is, great. If you do have some concerns about one aspect of the model, then that would be helpful for us to know, and we can explore if there is any way to mitigate that. And so as an example, for option number one, if you're concerned about some of the impact for those larger customers, we could explore the feasibility of a cap on the total charge. And you'll note the considerations in orange on the side.

If we do make changes to the structure, then that could reduce the total revenue collected or have impacts on other rates. So that's something we would need to explore with a potential cap. And then we would also need to explore the feasibility of implementing that as it's not currently something that we have in our system. This we could also look at, for example, adjusting the rates for option two tiers. And so we could do some tinkering with the model and come to you with some more options if you really have some heartburn about some of these options.

So the plan is between now and your next work session, we will work with our consultant to refine the fee based on your feedback. We plan on coming back to you in a council work session in April. I do wanna note regarding the fiscal 2627 proposed budget. That will be getting finalized for proposal and consideration in early April, and then we'll be working on refining that and getting that ready for the budget committee meeting. So we will still be having discussions around this fee.

So we will be making some assumptions based on some of the feedback that we hear from Council tonight about how much revenue we could conservatively assume from this fee in the budget for next year. In terms of council adoption process, we would amend the Beaverton code to authorize collection of this fee and then adopt a resolution authorizing the amount of the fee. Between now and the next work session, we do plan on doing some engagement with some of our highly impacted stakeholders, and our public facility partners. And then, certainly, after the adoption of the fee, we would do additional, outreach and communication, which would take a couple of months. And so with that, just a recap of the questions that we're looking for feedback on today.

The purpose of the fee, do you agree with the staff recommendation around focusing it on general services? The revenue target of the fee, we've been talking about $5,800,000 tonight as an example, but don't have to be tied to that. And then what fee structure might is there one that you might be interested in having staff finalize? And so with that, I will close out my portion of the presentation and open it up for discussion and questions.

Thank you. Councilor Tivnan. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Thank you. Thanks, Susan Elizabeth. Question on, did the order in the presentation change from our briefing? Okay. I was getting confused. And then is the flat fee by EDU the same as the the one that was called charge by EDU?

Yes. And I apologize for any confusion. Based on some feedback that I received during the council briefings, I tried to simplify the fee names and then changed the order around to kind of group the two e d e u options together.

Okay. And so Thank you. Mhmm. Okay. And then, for the kinda, like, baseline neighboring cities examples, did they also apply at e d u to different account types? Like, maybe not necessarily the structure, right, but, like, not just residential. They would also apply to different types of properties.

Yeah. And so different, cities have different structures, and so our consultant did a environmental scan to see what structures are most commonly used. And so, for example, Gresham does a flat fee per account. Medford public safety fee is per unit. Salem's is based on the type of account. Tigard has a per EDU model. So there's, these are kind of what you're seeing here recommended today or or proposed today, are the most common options that we've seen.

And, and I think it's I think you're also saying so, like, for example, when we look here at, like, multifamily or public facility, right, that whatever their measure is applies to every like, anyone that has an account, no matter what type of facility you are. The fee applies to you.

Yes. That's correct.

And then can you help me understand a little bit when we're looking at, like, the sample monthly bills and when we look at, like, public facility, Tahiti, Beaverton, and then, like, in options two, three, and four, and there's the dollar amount, and then it says multiple accounts, is that an amount that would be charged per just for the total like, the aggregate still?

Yeah. And Susan can chime in if I if I am incorrect, but the dollar number that you're seeing here represents the multiple accounts. So it's the it's the total. Do I have that right?

Yes. That's correct. What it what would not be charged in these examples for THPRD and the Beaverton School District are, irrigation only accounts. So roughly 25% of THPRD's properties within the city of Beaverton are irrigation only, and so they would not have this charge.

Okay. And then, for example, in option four, which I recognize is kind of the potential one one of the ones to come off the table, but, like, it shows so this is a fee by account, but they have multiple accounts.

So for each facility is maybe another way to think about that.

Okay. So potentially in option four, say THPRD had five facilities, it would be that amount times five because each one would be its own account.

Right. So option four for each account they have, they would be charged $20.56. And so when you add it all up, it would be $575 per month.

Oh, oh, okay. That's helpful. A helpful distinction. Okay. And then okay. So now I'll give you my feedback. I think the purpose of the fee being general services makes sense, and I think that the revenue target is good where it's at. In terms of the structure, I am also in favor of removing options three and four from consideration with how high some of these rates are going. And then I also would like to explore the potential, like, max fee.

Councilor Tibnall.

Okay. Yeah. When I first was reviewing this, my gut was telling me option one on one slide, but then when I saw what it really translates into option two just seems like the best way to go. From my perspective, it seems like it balances things out across all of these different types of payers, and especially given the feedback that we had gotten from the school district recently. I'm hoping there's gonna be a lot of engagement.

I know you mentioned that. But looking at some of the what they would be paying under option one feels really, really onerous to put that kind of, responsibility on the shoulders of our other public facilities. So just throwing that out there. I know I'm all out of order on this. But number one, yes, I agree with the purpose and putting this into general fund, but I did have a question. I know we wanna keep things a little loose right now. But if in the future, if this council or future council decided to to get a little bit more defined or prescribed with that, do they have the ability to to do that?

Yes. So this will be, in the Beaverton code, and you have the authority to be able to change, the code. We can also talk to the city attorney's office about kinda what goes in the code and what goes in the resolution to provide you with a little more flexibility if that's desired.

Okay. I don't see it happening. But, and then number two, the revenue target. I similar to councilor Hartmeyer Prigg, I'd love to see a a range, like, exploration across. I I know as part of the refinement process it's probably in there, as well as some other things.

I which I was curious about that, what that will look like, when you hopefully get consistency on what option to explore. But yeah. So a five to six minimum makes sense and, yes, to looking at more too. And then, yeah, option two is the one I I think needs to look be had It's late. I think option two is the one to look into further.

Further. It's

I'm gonna jump in real quick. I think that the target for the amount is good. I also would drop options three and four. I have a lot of reservations about a max fee because we went through this with garbage. When somebody pays less, somebody else has to pay more.

And we see this with utility bills as well. And so it's not by by creating different limits somebody has to pay. So it's gonna really I mean, if the council wants it, we can explore it. But, like, my reservation of doing that is that it's gonna put more onus on single family residents, which when you go back to your slide, just as a reminder for people watching, because we've seen this many, many times, and I do nothing but talk about measure five and fifty these days. Single families pay more in property tax than multifamily now, and it costs us more to service multifamily now.

And in option one, while I understand the sentiment that, like, they have larger bills, we're not asking families to pay more. And there's also don't make a a poor assumption that if a family lives in an apartment, they're poor. Right? We have lots of high end apartments in this community. We just built one on Broadway. We have lots of market rate apartments. So we can't conflate those two things that apartments equal poor communities. And so what we would be shifting is a lot of burden on largely our largest growing populations 55. We know they're staying in their homes because they can't afford to move. These fees will have real impacts to those communities.

I think what we have is a messaging problem versus a high bill problem, and I don't know one single person out of the kindness of their heart that will pay this bill without passing it on to residents. And where in this, we talked it has a a bit of a definition up here. Where where do churches fit into this? What kind of property are we considering in this scenario?

A pop quiz. I will have to get back to you on that. I'm not exactly sure. In the mix. If they have utilities and a bathroom, it Okay.

They would

be in the mix. I'm just not sure what where they would fall. Right.

Because I think, like, the other reason the council is trending down and looking at this path is that we have a lot of government owned nonprofit buildings and churches in our community that are not paying property taxes was because they're exempt, but they're not contributing to the services. And so, again, it's shifting the massive part of our burden on a particular part of the community. And just, you know, the other thing I want the council to consider is THPRD is collecting nine cents per thousand. We're at 30. THPRD also charges to use their facilities.

And so as we're looking at capping some of these, they have a cost recovery system built in. They just raised their rates on child care centers. So now that their child care centers are norm almost because my little sister has her daughter in child care at THBRD, it's almost the price that I pay at our non subsidized day care. And so they are raising fees right now, and they are a public facility. So I I want us to explore what these fees will do for them, and they already charge residents on top of the property tax that they receive.

And so and they're utilizing roads and sidewalks and infrastructure that the city's providing. So if they were within the city, that revenue would be coming to us, but they're their own individual agency. So I'm interested in exploring one or two and kind of looking out. And if we're gonna put a cap, what does that do to the rest of the formula? Counselor Kimmy.

Okay. So I like yes. To number one, the purpose, I agree. Number two, I agree with the target amount. And three, option two for me, think is more fair. But one thing I might add is maybe clear definition of the tiers. So we can definitely explain why Europe belong to this tier rather than the other tier. So, and then of course public messaging. So, that's all I have. Thank

you. Councilor Dieter.

Thanks. I've got a couple questions and a couple comments. When we say funding general services, I have my own assumptions of what that means. We have a definition of what's included, or is it just anything in the general fund?

Correct. The revenue would be going into the general fund. And in you know, if you think about our budget, the revenue just kind of comes into the general fund as a whole, and it wouldn't be assigned to any particular service. And so the goal would really be to reduce the deficit, and that would benefit all of the services that are funded through the general fund.

Okay. Thank you. The reason why I ask is because we've talked about a public safety related levy, and I think I've just got some some caution if we make it too specific, and then we need to actually change a different funding strategy that we might wanna use in the future. So I I like making it for general services and maintaining that flexibility. For messaging for the community, we we are sharing what the purpose is.

Like, we wanna stabilize the general fund. We wanna stabilize our funding challenges. I think when we're telling the community what we're doing, that's not gonna really hit it for them. I think the messaging should be more, we're trying to stabilize our services because without this, you aren't gonna be receiving a good bit of what you're getting right now. And we wanna be able to keep providing some really great services.

So I I think when we're talking with the community, should keep a focus on what they are getting rather than what we are getting even though it's the same thing. They'll see it differently, I think. When I look at larger properties versus smaller properties for single family, I'm making the assumption internally that larger properties would likely have a higher capacity to pay. So if you're a larger apartment building, you would have more users who would bring in more rent, more revenue. Can you check me on that? Again, am I assuming incorrectly? Do we have I'm not needing specific examples where that's not true, but

Well, that's what makes the equivalent dwelling unit or the EDU a great foundation for this fee is because it is representation of the size of the facility. So it's based basically on if you can boil it down to the number of bathrooms, for example. So for our largest apartment complex at 458 EDUs, that's a representation of the size of that unit of the whole complex.

Okay. Okay. I had some similar thoughts to the mayor about who is bearing the cost of this, and so I appreciate the the slide that showed the breakdown of the different assessed values of different types of property and where who is being taxed most relative to their use of of city services and been a big advocate for subsidizing multifamily and and and apartments on council, but these are these are developments that are already here. They've got people in them, people using the using the facilities, using the services. So I I like option one.

I like how it just charges based on the estimated number of users or the estimated number of people on the property. I think it's really easy for me to explain that,

like, it's

$9 for each bathroom or each user, for example. And so I think I see the high bills on some of these examples and and I I think I'm okay with that because proportionally, it's still $9 per person. And I think I I can communicate that well. I think tiering it makes it a little bit more complex. I would have some caution about a max, similar concerns that Mayor shared there.

Just I'm not sure how it would impact the rest of our payers. I'm gonna check my notes, make sure there's nothing else I left out here. No. I like option one. I like the range of like like counselor Tibbon was saying, the 5 to 6,000,000, seeing what the range would be is good. And that was it. Thank you.

Can I clarify? I think you guys are using a terrible example. We are not charging per bathroom. This building has, like, eight bathrooms. This is not times eight. This is one. So it's per like, residents, not bathrooms. I just wanna clarify that because in my if you listen to my state of the city yesterday, we built really big homes with lots of bathrooms. So if you live in a big home with three bathrooms, you're not paying $30 a month.

But this building would not be one. This would be more than one based on our size, wouldn't it?

Right. I would have to go into the details of Yeah. How a EDU is calculated, but the mayor is correct. It's not only the number of bathrooms. It's other types of things that would go down the drain. Right. Yeah. In a big facility. Like Fred Meyer might have big commercial sinks, big commercial drains. This building has other other things that feed into the number of EDUs. Okay. Counselor Hudson.

Yeah. So, I wanna sorry. I wanna share a little bit of what counselor Teeter said on the purpose of the fee. I have some nerves around what we're communicating to the public. I think I just think government trust right now just in this community is really in in the the world community is really low.

And so just what that messaging is is gonna be really critical because when you put it to general services without some more context, I think people get a little nervous. So I just really want us to land maybe, like, the key things we're gonna say to focus us so that folks can feel like there's a lot of buy in that's gonna be needed for this, and so that is something that sits with me to see to to to be cautious not to keep it too general, but not so narrow that we're limiting what we can and can't do. I support the revenue target for the fee. I support removing three and four. I I am leaning toward option one.

I do think that this is gonna be, it'll be helpful to keep us in the loop on communication and timeline so that we can be prepared on our end once this starts to roll out because, again, I think there is a communication sort of branding exercise that we need to be doing to help people understand what's going on. I think we've done a good job about talking about measure five and fifty, but just kind of continuing down that path because I imagine when we get to the point of a hearing, it will have a lot of attention, and I just want us to be really cautious and careful. And I appreciate that you're taking it to some of our partners as well. I think that's gonna be really critical, but my gut is option one.

Council president.

Couple of questions before I give you feedback. From a cost recovery standpoint, do we because I think this is gonna be critical. Do we know our deficit? Like, how much we can because because what we're talking about is an allocation to different people in the city. Right? Like, what I wanna know from a cost recovery standpoint of single families versus businesses versus multifamily, do we I've heard general comments here and there that certain things are subsidized versus not. Certain users, maybe multifamily or subsidized versus single family. Do we have actually those numbers, like from a general standpoint of general services? Right? Are we subsidizing single family homeowners now?

Are we subsidizing multifamily? Or are we subsidizing commercial users? We know we're subsidizing public entities. Right? Because they're not paying property taxes. Do we have any better idea of that? And I don't expect that tonight. Right? You're not gonna have that, but I think that would be really helpful for me. Because right now, I'm I I don't I look at this and I'm like, I don't know how much each person should pay because I don't know how much we're subsidizing them existing or how much others are being subsidized. Right? Does that make sense?

Yes. And I'll maybe start, and then Susan can jump in perhaps. But I think we're talking about general fund services, like police and communications and community engagement, and those services are primarily funded through property taxes. And then, some services maybe have, you know, grants and other revenue sources. But, I mean, that's when you talk about, you know, what are what is the community paying in to the general fund, primarily, it's through property taxes.

And so that's really where that graph comes into play, showing the different assessed value. And I think when there's been comments made about subsidizing multifamily, I think that's more related to the development of those types of housing units here in the city. So we're not wouldn't say we're necessarily currently subsidizing our service delivery to, residents through the general fund, but is that a fair assessment, Susan?

As best you know. Right?

One of the reasons why the General Fund exists and that property taxes exist is to provide services that are not able to be recovered through a fee or other type of hook in terms of, a utility rate or, if you not to pick on THPRD, but if you go to a pool, you have to, you know, pay the drop in fee. So in operating a city, it's very difficult to pinpoint who is benefiting from what service and if they themselves would define that they themselves are benefiting from that service. So the reason why we have property taxes and other types of taxes and grants and that sort of thing is to fund these kind of public goods that are very difficult to charge a direct fee for that explicit service and a cost recovery mindset. So that's why we're phrasing this as a general service fee to help support those public good type services that Beaverton is able to offer, whether it's public safety or indirect that we all get through our Municipal Court and the wonderful services that they provide, or our Planning Department to plan our community on the transit presentation that we just had.

All of those type of staffing services are funded through the general fund as a public good. And so that's what this fee is hoping to also accomplish, is to provide an additional revenue source to provide those public goods to our community.

Yeah. I I guess, ultimately, what I'm getting at is very generalized numbers here, but there's a 100,000 people in Beaverton ish. We know it's maybe a little more, a little less than that. And our general fund is a little more than a 100,000,000. That's not exact, but so about a thousand dollars per person. Right? And what I want what I was really getting at is, like, our single family like, that's per person. Right? So a household of two, am I that's what my household size is. Am I contributing $2,000 to the general fund, you know, or am I contributing $500?

Right? And because I'm using other services. And I know that that is not an easy question to answer. But but, like, that's kinda what I'm getting at. Because even when I look at e d u's, right, like a household of 10 people is gonna pay $9 a month, and a household of two is gonna pay $9 a month. And so someone is getting subsidized, Right? If we look at it from that perspective. So even this isn't perfect. Even though, you know and then like I look at businesses. Some of them don't use any like a small business doesn't really use any city services.

I know tons of them. But like some big businesses, Fred Myers of the world, and I'm not just saying them, but but, like, that use a lot of city services. They get police calls a lot for shoplifting. We are subsidizing that. And so, like, trying to get to that answer is what is driving like, I don't love the service fees.

It feels like if the polling was bad on a property taxes isn't in the round, and I'm willing to live with it, and I'm willing to take the heat for it. But this like, I wanna if if we're gonna do it, I wanna really make sure that we get to the best answer possible. And and I can't give you the best feedback right now without that. And I you know, I'm leaning towards option one just looking at this. Some of the the things I don't like are our city services.

None of this captures from residents that are that don't live here. Right? Like a lot of our city services are used by people that are traveling through to their employers. That's another reason I don't love this. Because they they cost us a significant amount of money on our roads, on our police services, our emergency services, all of those. Right? Some of the things I love about it are that we have a lot of entities in the city, public entities, some private that don't pay anything in property taxes based on their status. And if in a perfect world, I would like to levy this on them regardless just because I feel like we all need to have skin in the game. Right? And and I know that that that is not an easy comment for for some of our public partners to hear.

I I understand that. And I I I under understand how difficult because no one's in a great budget place. So I'm gonna shut up because I don't wanna opine on this too much.

I I mean, I'm trying to follow what you're saying. You like it, but you don't like it. Some people pay more. You wanna figure out how to tax people coming into the community. No. I'm sorry. Are I don't you giving staff? Because I'm looking at their face and I

I'm giving the context of why I'm giving Perfect. For the purpose, I do think we have to be general. You know, I I actually agree on some level of cost counselor Husson from a communication standpoint, like residents need to know what they're paying for. General does not tell them that, but we also need the flexibility. Right?

The revenue target, the question I had on that is like, is that just zero to 5.8 5,200,000.0 in one year? Is there is there is there possibilities to ramp this over a couple years? I would don't I don't think that's a great idea, but like that might make it more palatable for some people if we do a two year implementation. So maybe if there's like an option for that, that might be worth looking at. And then the fee structure what fee structure should staff refine?

Yeah. I mean, I I would lean towards number one on that one just for simplicity. I wish we could capture revenue at the end of the day from people that were outside of the city with this. And if it you know, I don't know how to do that with this structure. May maybe it's a plus this structure because I think we need every user of the city, you know, again, when we talk about subsidy, lot a of people are getting subsidies that don't live here. And if and this doesn't capture that. So this might be a plus question for another time or something, but I I would like to see us explore that too. That's it.

Councilor Hartmeier Frigg.

I just wanted well okay. So we don't have to take an action tonight, but we're aiming for some sort of symbiosis.

Yeah. She's asking for, like you know, I think what I heard if I was gonna wrap up, most people wanna look at one and two. Yeah. There is a lot of energy around one. Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg was the only one that asked for a cap, but I think it's worth looking at the equation. Even that way, we can answer that correctly. And, like, what does the cap do to the formula?

Well, and I I think, like, hearing from you all, like, I would actually say, don't waste time on the cap. It sounds like it's not the right place to spend time. But, also, I really do agree with counselors Husson and Teeter about the the clear messaging. I do think it's really it's gonna be challenging, like, to say it's a general services fee. While we need to be able to use it for that purpose, I I really appreciated the framing around what is the resident, what is the payer of the fee getting. I think that's that's gonna be really important for them to understand how what this fee is helping pay for. Yeah. That's all.

Okay. So I think I've heard that we'll come back to you with some refinements around option one and option two with no cap for option one. And then we will include some details just about our messaging strategies for our next work session.

I think it'd be good to walk out some of the the you were gonna hear from is the school district and TH parity. So if we could do some walking out on what those fees look like, I think that would be helpful for the council. I also just wanna recap for the council. When we we had the transfer to I'm looking at Tim because we had this transportation utility fee a couple weeks like, weeks, months. And the majority of you guys were, yeah. $20 a month fee. Boom. Let's do it. And we are, like, looking at a $9 fee for our services, and there's a lot more trepidation here. So, you know, I think this is sometimes where it is we get caught up in this loop as city council that we, like, give direction, then we come back and we're reservation, like, sending a $20 fee for roads, but not having the staff to actually do the work is gonna be challenging.

And if you are watching at this late hour, we did not agree to a $20 fee. We said we would think about and looking at it, this changes the dynamic. And I guess in my mind, I always thought about a fee for utilities and roads separately, and we start looking at that. So we do need to we've given you guys a lot of direction to come back, and there's a lot of use on the fees here. So let's bring it back for a few their in-depth conversation on these things. We know this is a lot of work to get us to this point, but this is a this will be probably one of the biggest council decisions we've had to make in a while, so give us as much information as possible.

Will do and I should have mentioned that we I have talked with Tim and we do plan on partnering together and trying to move a little bit more in alignment going forward so that you all understand the total impact to our residents.

Do you have something, counselor Tavan?

I think it's worth just throwing this out there and I'll keep repeating this. Whatever path we move forward with, there will be the impact that you're talking about. There's gonna be a lot of sticker shock. This is an excellent time to start educating people about the fact that we don't have a choice until our state legislature addresses very outdated measures that are hamstringing cities within our state, we don't have a choice on this. So this is the begin beginning of the campaign.

Right. And I mean looking at all the other cities, they've made this choice because we're in this situation and it is really challenging for people when the state issues billion dollar kickers, and we are trying to figure out how to fund our library. So this is not easy decisions, which is why the questions are the way they are, and we have to explain this to the community. This is a team effort, comms and the council. So we'll make the hard decisions, but you guys gotta help us defend them. Okay. Thank you for joining us this evening. We're on to our last agenda item, council items. Councilor President. Council Hartmeier Prigg.

Thanks. Okay. I had a follow-up question to one of the comments that we heard tonight about, the traffic calming in that Alpenrose, Raleigh Crest area. And I was curious, like, will that plan go through traffic commission and then come to council for adoption?

Come on over.

No one else knows what's going

They knew it.

Hi. Good evening. Tim Elsie, Public Works Director. Thank you for the question. No. That would go through our normal traffic calming procedures. And so we we did have a so if you like, I can explain a

little So bit

this is from a subdivision in the city of Portland that is accessing some city Beaverton City Streets through a previously platted right of way. We had a meeting with the residents, and Ken was correct. It was not a fun meeting. But, you know, part of it was that the residents wanted to know some answers as to whether or not that right of way had to be open or whether or not it could remain closed. And I did speak with our attorneys this morning to get some answers to those questions.

I did walk out and talk with Ken and John to make sure that they knew the answers to those questions. And it has gone through a rigorous planning and zoning process. It has been approved by the city of Portland, and so one of the conditions of approval is that there's a transportation management plan or a traffic management plan to mitigate the additional traffic that will come onto the city streets through the previously platted right of way. So the the meeting that we had, we spent a lot of time trying to ensure that the decision by Portland was final and that the city of Beaverton did not have the ability to change that. I think we have those answers now, and in speaking with John and Ken on their way out, I think we're gonna have a productive meeting the next time we have a meeting.

And one of the things that they did ask is whether or not we could say that the previous survey that went out, we could call that null and void. And we did do that at the public meeting, but I didn't do that clearly enough, so I just sent them an email here a minute ago memorializing that that had been done and that we will be working with the neighborhood to come up with a traffic management plan that will mitigate the speed of the traffic through their neighborhood. One of the things that I discussed with the attorney this morning is that we can't redesign the streets. We we can't do that, and it has to have some sort of proportionality, but that proportionality can, in in my mind, ensure that the residents of Beaverton are taken care of. One of the things that I continue to tell John and Ken and the people that came to the meeting is we work for them.

You know, we don't work for the developer. And so we wanna make sure that we come up with a transportation management plan that will protect our neighborhood to the extent possible.

Thank you, Tim, and thank you for spending time with the neighborhood. That's hard to sit with a room of 80 or 90 people and just appreciate you doing that. And thank you for also helping us understand, like, what we can or cannot do to help. I think that's another that's a hard it's a hard place, you know, as a potential decision maker or someone who might get an appeal. But, like, in this case, we were a little stuck. And so I just appreciate you continuing to work, we'll help find ways to make it easier on the neighborhood.

You bet. Thank you for that.

And I think it's our we do the least amount of work with Portland even though we share a big border with them. We also have a lot of transportation issues up in the Canyon, Sylvan or in that neighborhood because it is a Portland school in a city. We have the same issue with Redtail Golf Course that it's a Portland Golf Course surrounded by the city of Beaverton and a lot of growth is happening in this area. So I do think we need some more planning together with them on how these things impact our residents because it's gonna continue to grow and shift this direction.

I have one or do you have something on this? Okay. Sorry.

Thanks, Tim. I was talking with John last night, actually, and I've been in the loop on this project for a little while now. You mentioned the process, the traffic coming process. I've talked to Jenny in the past, just kind of getting clarity on it. It sounds like we were working through the the old traffic calming process because the current one was not approved until a month and a half or so ago. When you're saying you wanna go call call the current process null and void, does that mean going through our current traffic calling process that has, like, easier barriers to actually get or easier thresholds to get the changes the committee wants to wants to see? What process are we using here?

No. Not exactly. Okay. What it means is that this is a little outside of our norms in a lot of ways. So the way that we would have done it in the previous process would be we get 51 of the people that vote in favor of it, and we would put in that plan.

You know, the the current process says that we don't actually have to have 51% of the people to put in the plan. What we're trying to do is because this is they're being affected by this neighboring neighborhood, pardon me for that, but from a different jurisdiction through this right of way, we just wanna go out with them and come up with a consensus, sort of, of the plan. One of the things that I'm a big favor of in public process is systematic development of informed consent, and all those words are important, it's systematic, it's development, it's informed, and finally consent, that doesn't mean consensus, but it means that everybody understands how it will affect their property, and they still agree to it because it's for the better good of the neighborhood. Because what's gonna wind up happening in the end is that whatever traffic calming measures we put in the neighborhood, they're gonna have to drive over as well, or drive over, around, or through. And they may lose some parking, they may be inconvenienced a little bit, they may have to go over some traffic humps.

So we wanna come up with something where people would be willing to say, you know what, I'm gonna lose that parking space in front of my house, but it's better for the neighborhood, so I'm gonna go forward with it. And so that's what we're we're not gonna hold to any strict 51% or less with this, we're gonna go out with the neighborhood and come up with a traffic management plan that can we can give to the developer as a fulfilling their condition of approval for this subdivision and then they can construct it. And then one of the conditions of approval is they have to construct the traffic calming measures before they can open up the right of way, and so they'll only open up the right of way after these are constructed. Does that answer your question?

That was perfect. Thank you. I've I've had heard great feedback about your presence at the meeting, and I've got a lot of confidence in your ability to translate a lot of this engineering talk and the method that people can understand. So thank you for for bearing a lot of heat from the neighborhood and helping them work through this.

Yeah. You bet. No worries.

Okay. I have more. Not for you, Tim. So thank you. Thank you for joining us.

I wanted to give a shout out to councilor Husson on your work that you've pushed us on for a long time about our data sharing because we keep hearing from constituents and their concern that we're sharing data, and I have confidence that we're not. And it's because you have brought it up from this dais multiple times. And in the contract that we adopted for Axon recently, we made sure that there was no data sharing in that contract. And so I know that we don't always talk to our community about the things that we are doing for lots of good strategic reasons. Oh, you know, that, like, we we we don't always talk about some of it, or it's through individual advocacy that it happens.

And I did just wanna call it that one specifically because I have utmost confidence that Beaverton does not share our, law enforcement data because of the work of staff and counsel. So I know that we aren't really talking you know, we don't go back and from public comment, but that is something that we've heard a few times. And I want our community to know that we are not sharing data. Yeah.

That's a good point because a lot of the public comment we've been receiving on this topic, like, we're actually doing quite a bit, and so I think we need to work on a sheet to talk about it, not just for the council to be able to articulate it, but for our community to know as well. And, you know, there there are things we can't share, but there are a lot of things we can share. And so we should we'll work with the city. She's writing notes, so she already knows. I'm gonna call her and ask her about it.

On that, you just made something pop into my mind. We we have been working on this, and there are reasons why there's certain things that we can't bring into a public meeting yet. There are other things that we can. Maybe there could be a very brief presentation added into our next council meeting to just give a very quick status update even if it's, working on this, cannot talk publicly about it or something.

I think a city manager report rather a presentation like that takes a life of its own and our agenda is already

very full.

But I do think, let me get with the city manager to work on like some of the things we're already doing. And I think a way, because it's not really like here that this people need, we gotta figure out a way to tell the community. Yeah. And so most people are not watching these meetings. Council president.

Yes, mayor. I'd like the council to direct the city manager to identify an efficient process for to allocate $25,000 to a community organization located here in Beaverton that provides direct support in the form of mutual aid to Beaverton residents and families impacted by federal immigration. There's a couple things that I've been thinking about. Did you wanna add in like from a money perspective?

Think when we looked at it, it could come from the council travel budget that's been severely underutilized by this council. And so I think this is a good place where you guys aren't traveling. It's a good place for the money now. It doesn't impact other services. And I feel I know one counselor is traveling, but no one else is. And so this would be a good place for that money to come from.

And I we're past the halfway mark. In fact, of the fiscal year, we only have a quarter left really. And since we've under spent the money, this can't be recurring. Right? This has to be a one time seed funding. But I I I know of some organizations that I won't, you know I will not name them. But I I we wanted a fair and efficient process. So even ones we don't know about could apply for this. It needs to be pretty timely so we can get it out pretty quickly. But when I spoke with the city manager about this idea, she was confident that she could direct a fair process pretty quickly. So I'm asking you all to support that, if you would.

Yeah. And I also think, you know, some of the other cities that are giving larger amounts, they're they're full service cities. And I know that, like, community doesn't always like to hear that, but the reality is they're pulling those revenues from a lot of places that we don't have the access to. And so if the council wants to move forward with this similarly to past times when council has made action like this, I have sent follow-up on our behalf to our special districts encouraging them to figure out a way to participate to maximize our effort because I recognize that this is not a large amount. Hillsborough gave quite a bit more, but I think you know on our topics tonight around property tax and where we're at, they just have a larger pool to pull from.

And so what I would want us to do is make sure that we're encouraging our special districts to also figure out maybe there's a line item in which they can contribute in a similar fashion.

Can I yeah?

Mayor, can I chime in

on that?

Yes, please. Okay. I would be in full support of this, recognizing that it's not relatively a large amount compared to some of our neighboring jurisdictions. We have very little flexibility in the funding that we are actually using to deliver the services that we are delivering right now. And reducing any of that would threaten the services that people rely on every single day that are essential.

I think this is a really creative option to use something within our own council budget that we don't have the opportunity to use before the end of the year. And we might use it more more next year, but for now, considering this is seed funding, I think is a really good strategy because it might be what it takes to help get some mutual aid group over the hump where they can access more funding, and deliver more services that are timely and needed right now. So I I really appreciate the work that's gone into finding this, and I would be very excited about it.

Councilor Hassan.

Yeah. Thanks for bringing this. I mean, I wholeheartedly support this having worked a lot with a lot of different groups and orgs on the ground that are doing this work. And I'm thankful to know that, I guess, we haven't traveled much and that we have that funding. Now I wish okay. I would ask, though, with the council's support, if there are other opportunities with as the year ends and there are other savings or other dollars somewhere. And, of course, we would use every tax dollar as responsibly as possible, but if there was places in other parts that we would able to potentially allocate that based on how the experiences and and the work that's being done in the community.

Yeah. I wholeheartedly supported it as well. And I I kinda like this idea. I know this is a one time thing, but if we get to this point in the fiscal year and there's still money left in there, maybe it's something that we can explore every year. It's something just

And we've used this same pot of money in budget season. We used it in the arts commission. We used it for an emergency management one year. I mean, I think it's a great use this year. And I also think there's a lot of value of you guys learning and being around other city councilors. And so we should like, this is a great use for this item and I wholeheartedly support it but we should not use this line item to backfill the budget every single year. It's learning and being good at your job is really important as well. Councilor Edward, not as that in their in parallel to impacted families. I didn't that's not the parallel I was trying to draw there.

Yeah. Mean, obviously, fully support it at the hopefully, at the end of the year or from now to the end of the year, if we could find out that we could save some money or find some money from the entire council budget, which not just the councilors, include the mayor. Whatever we can, whatever we can do, whatever we can physically do, that'd be great. It's not gonna be much, but whatever more can be helpful. And I hope it goes directly to Beaverton residents and the service organization who serves the Beaverton residents. So that's my input.

Okay.

Any other do you have another item? Please.

I have a couple things. I'll start with Jenny. I will not be at the March 17 meeting. I don't know if I will be virtual because I will be in DC for the National League of Cities conference. But I just I won't do it here, but super excited for you and and what's happening because I won't actually physically be able to be here to say that.

I also wanna take a moment and honor Paulino Martin San Pedro. Paulino was a Beavertonian who represented our deepest values. He was a father, amazing neighbor, and a lovely human. Many of you know he was abducted, from Beaverton in November, and two weeks ago, he passed away. To Eric, from one eldest child to another, the burden we carry in the dreams of our immigrant parents includes survivor's guilt and joy at the same time.

It is one of the hardest things to carry, the guilt of what we have here that our parents fought so hard for and the way forward to still find ways to experience joy. May you find a way to experience joy because I know this is what your father wanted for you and your siblings. To Eric and his family, we love you. We see you. And, Paulino, we will never forget you.

I want to also recognize, that this morning, I woke up in fear for the safety of my family across the globe. This isn't new for me as an individual with deep connections to the global South, similar to many of our Beaverton residents, and it's important we continue to humanize any violence happening locally or globally. It does impact us. Schools, hospitals, embassies, these should be safe places and spaces. And my heart goes out to anyone in our Beaverton community that is navigating grief or loss over what's happening globally, or for me, whose family has decided to sit still where they are despite everything that's going on.

Alright. With that, meeting adjourned.