Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

August 25th, 2026, Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting. Thank you for finding us this evening. I want to explain that the reason we're not meeting in the auditorium is because the HVAC system has not been working, and we have found our last few meetings that it gets rather warm, especially in the evening, and it's very uncomfortable in there. As such, We're prepared on those hot days to move into this room because the HVAC system has a part that needs to be manufactured and it's going to be at least seven weeks before it's here and installed. So thank you very much to our staff as well for everyone's flexibility, for putting up signage and making sure that everyone knows to meet here. Clerk Moss, could you do us the formal honors?

Certainly, Chair Harrington. Washington County Board of Commissioners, also meeting all other county service districts, is meeting this regular session August 25, 2026. Commissioner Snyder? Here. Commissioner Treece?

Here.

Commissioner Fai?

Present.

Vice Chair Willey? Here. Chair Harrington?

Here. Thank you. Would everyone who is able to stand please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next up, we have our first public communication session for this evening, which will last a total of 10 minutes maximum. This is an opportunity for members of our community to speak to the board about any topic they wish for up to two minutes an individual. Clerk Moss, who do we have this evening?

First two we have, Madam Chair, is Nuri Safari and Zinnia La.

Good evening and welcome and welcome back.

Thank you, Chair.

Go ahead when you're ready.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair and the Board of Commissioners. Our names are Nuri Sahavi and Zinulu, and we're high school juniors living in Washington County. We're very passionate about the issues that concern us in our youth community in Washington County. So we've been exploring avenues for youth involvement in local county government. However, after we conducted some research, we found that there are quite few possibilities for youth, especially youth that live in unincorporated areas of Washington County, to engage in local county government.

This has led to us exploring new ways that we can make our voice heard in local government. With input and initial support from Commissioner Treece, we are asking for your support in developing a youth engagement program for Washington County. We hope to work together to provide opportunities for youth in Washington County to engage with their elected officials in local policies that impact them.

Now, we understand that the county is currently revising their community engagement plan, and we would appreciate the opportunity to have a small group of interested students, which we would love to be a part of, to work with staff to develop a plan for a future youth engagement program in Washington County.

This could take shape in many ways, and we are happy to pursue this in the way that the board sees fit. We do recognize current budgetary limitations and are willing to work with the county on solutions. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to hearing from you all soon.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us this evening. And on behalf of the board, let me just say that you are invited to join in any of what is now called our SPARC meetings. And I can't remember what the acronym stands for at this moment, but there are four of them. And it would be a good place to start for now. But thank you for bringing your suggestion forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, next who we have is Victoria Demichak and Dale Feek.

Go ahead when you're ready. Great. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm Victoria Demichak. I am here because I have been deeply concerned about data centers, and I have been encouraged to see, first, Commissioner Nafisa Fai's commitment to having ongoing collaborative engagement with Metro to support the County and to support the environmental and fiscal health of all of us who live here. I want to say that this is an opportunity that I have hoped would happen for a while. I live in an incorporated Washington County. I will have two best substations close to my house or my children's school. I have solar power next to my house that is despite being in a rural area, which is clearly for data center use and consumption. My children's school has four data centers within a half mile. I feel like it is far past time for us to consider how we collect information about the implications, the effluent and the cleaner Oregon toxins that data centers emit in air and water. We identify the implications on children's and human's health. And we identify what fiscal tools we have, not just to support our county, but to respond to those. And I am also saying this as a young, youngish woman who went through breast cancer. And it is, it is not with no family history. I have to look around myself and say, how do I keep myself safe? How do I keep my children safe and how. When I am told that it is environmental factors that probably caused 12 centimeters of tumor to form in my body, what should I do with that? So I ask you all tonight, please consider how you want to support many of us who live here, who want to continue living here in a healthy and safe way. Thank you.

Mr. Feek? You've been called, Mr. Feek. Come on up.

Chair Harrington and Commissioners Deofik, I've asked this question based upon the $17,356 penalty that was charged to the county, Washington County Vendor Organization account number. So I finally got the documents of that, and I sent an email to the person, Renis Keflin's Kelfkin's West County Campus Project Services. And I got a reply back from today, okay? And so I asked, what funds does this money come out of? Is it a county fund or a clean water services fund or another source? Did the penalty get contested? And how has it been paid? And so she replied back, got a minute for two seconds. She replied back, Answer. What funds? The project was funded through the major street transportation improvement program. A fine will be paid out of the project budget. Two, is it a county fund or a clean water? It's a county fund. Did the penalty get contested? Answer. The county immediately addressed DEQ's concerns and sent them photos of the corrections a few days later. We contested one of the violations that said the county had not conducted the necessary inspections required by DEQ. However, the county had made all the required inspections. DEQ had requested to see written reports while they were on site. Those reports were provided, 30 seconds, to DEQ the following day. In a recent meeting, the county met with DEQ reviewers and presented this information. We're waiting to hear back from DEQ if they plan to reduce the fine. Question, has it been paid? Answer, no. DEQ is re-evaluating the fine based on our recent meeting. So she says, feel free to reach out to me if you have any additional questions for the division manager, Russell. K-N-O-E-P-E-L. So I got the answers to my questions. I'm pleased to know what the issue was. It was not the site where the canoeing was going to happen. I was curious what it was. It's not related to that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Feek.

All right, Madam Chair, the last one we have in person before our one online to complete this 10 minutes is Janet Nelson.

Thank you. And sorry about earlier, but you need better signing. My name is Jana. I know we've been trying to raise awareness about the Safety Concerns Per Century Boulevard Extension Project going on. What we would like to see is that we do a traffic simulation study to show how many fewer cars would be on our commuter routes if we put the money towards improving bike infrastructure along high traffic roads throughout the county. That leads me to safety improvements that are necessary to ensure that this project, the Century Boulevard, does not create additional hazards. The primary request is to reduce the width of Century Boulevard through the neighborhood of Imlay Elementary and keeping it to two lanes. Currently it's scheduled to be three, which I also have a question on whether that was addressed to the Hillsboro School District because that expansion to three lanes creates a need for additional bus routes per the safe routes to school policies. Also, we would like to have you look at changing that century there next to Noble into a bike and pedestrian bridge only in order to promote the City of Hillsboro's objectives for increased bike and pedestrian access. At the intersection of Main and Century, we would like to see physical barriers to be placed at all four corners to protect pedestrians. And we would like medians to be added with tall trees that create the perception of a narrower road, thus leading to less on that road. I know there's been talk of enforcement, but we know how that works because when we try to enforce anything, we're told we don't have the police to monitor those things. So look at it from this side and correct those issues.

Thank you.

All right. Last one I have, Madam Chair, is one member on Zoom, Jacob Roloff. Mr. Roloff, can you hear us?

Yeah. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead for up to two minutes.

Okay, good evening commissioners, my name is Jacob roll off I live in unincorporated hillsborough in helvetia area actually neighbors with Victoria. who just spoke, I am concerned about data centers and my lack of voice in the city of hillsborough's decisions which impact me as a county resident. I wanted to first thank Commissioner Fai for proposing the Data Center Task Force a few weeks ago, and thank you to Chair Harrington and Commissioner Treece for following her lead and going forward with that. Uh, I want to say that I think the county needs to pass a moratorium, uh, on data centers immediately, uh, as there's multiple problematic developments in various permitting stages in Hillsborough. Uh, some next to schools and others on former farmland. Um, it appears that there is a large group of what I like to call data centrists. Um. that want to tinker around in committees to find their information, while communities who have already done some of that research work and who live in impacted areas demand moratoriums to convey that information to electeds. Even our governor has given you the green light of encouragement to pass a local moratorium. And on the other side of the coin, those who ostensibly oppose Trump, even on this commission, should take a second look at their position on the data center issue when you hear him say that, quote, only smart communities want data centers, unquote. I would not want to be on the same side of any issue as him. And likewise, the governor's DCAC committee has said that despite months of meetings, they need more time to gather information on this extensive issue. And I just find it incredible that a moratorium, which is temporary, is not the first item of business to bridge this gap in information among, it seems, almost every elected in our state. So please pass and consider a moratorium so that you can learn more and gather information on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And that concludes our first public comment opportunity for this evening's meeting. Next we'll move on to public hearings. And before we have the first one, I need to read a statement. Because the next statement refers to code related to our fees, I need to read this as follows. As public officials serving Washington County, and subject to Oregon government ethics law, we as individual commissioners are prohibited from using or attempting to use our positions as elected officials to obtain or avoid financial impacts for ourselves, our relatives, members of our households, or businesses we or our relatives are associated with. If a public official makes a decision recommendation or official action that would or could result in financial benefit for ourselves, our relatives, members of our households, or associated business, such action, recommendation, or decision is considered an actual or potential conflict of interest. The ethics law is violated when a public official when met with a conflict of interest fails to disclose and dispose of the conflicts. The Oregon government ethics law provides that when a public official is met with an actual conflict, the public official must declare that conflict and thereafter is prohibited from further discussion of the matter or making any decision on the matter. There are some exceptions. The Oregon Government Ethics Law provides that public officials who have declared their actual conflict and refrained from discussion on the matter creating the actual conflict may vote when their vote is required to take action on a matter or move an item to final decision. This exception is known as the minimum vote exception under ORS 244.020 sub 13 sub A and will be used tonight to reach a quorum vote to enact, amend or reject ordinance 917. This statement was provided to me to read from our county council. AT THIS JUNCTURE, I'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS TWICE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, I WILL ASK MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO DECLARE THEIR CONFLICTS, IF ANY, IN RELATION TO ORDINANCE 917. AND EACH OF US HAS THE INDIVIDUAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, AND I'LL GO FROM MY LEFT TO RIGHT, DOWN THE LINE. COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.

THANK YOU. I HAVE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE CONFLICT ARISES BECAUSE THE PROPOSED Vehicle registration fee would apply to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I'm recusing myself from any discussion of this matter pursuant to ORS 244.120 subsection 2BB. If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of minimum number of votes to take an action, I will vote on the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Treese. I HAVE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE CONFLICT ARISES BECAUSE THE PROPOSED VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE WOULD APPLY TO ME AND MY RELATIVES WHO OWN VEHICLES REGISTERED IN WASHINGTON COUNTY. BECAUSE THIS IS AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I AM RECUSING MYSELF FROM ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER. 120 sub 2 sub B sub B. If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote on the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Willey.

I have an actual conflict of interest. The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee would apply to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from any discussion of this matter. PURSUANT TO ORS 244.120, SUB 2, SUB B, SUB B, IF MY VOTE IS NECESSARY TO MEET A REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF VOTES TO TAKE ACTION, I WILL VOTE ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

COMMISSIONER PYE. I AM NOT DECLARING AN ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THIS MATTER. I HAVE REQUESTED EXPEDITED WRITTEN GUIDANCE FROM THE OREGON Oregon Government Ethics Commission. In the meantime, I am relying in good faith on the Commission's June 12, 2026 advisory opinion regarding the City of Beaverton's transportation fee and its application of the class exception to a generally applicable fee. I have provided the Board with my written notice explaining my position and I asked the board clerk to be included for the record. Unless I receive guidance to the contrary from the Ethics Commission, I intend to participate in the deliberation and vote. I have serious concerns about increasing costs on Washington County residents at a time when many residents are already struggling with affordability. I also believe my constituents deserve to know why I voted the way I did. Explaining the reasons behind a vote is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of public office. Government accountability and transparency requires more than recording a vote. It requires allowing the public to hear the reasoning behind it.

Thank you, Commissioner Fai. I have an actual conflict, please, ladies and gentlemen, we do not allow interference in our meetings and that includes noise making. I have an actual conflict of interest The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee applies to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from any discussion of this matter. Pursuant to ORS 244.120 sub 2 sub b sub b, If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote on the proposed ordinance. I will also say in addition that we received clarification from our county council that after tonight's meeting, we are allowed to provide information to anyone, including to our members of our community explaining our vote. Thank you. All right, so at this juncture, I need to ask for a motion to conduct a second reading of ordinance number 917.

And read by title.

Oh, wait a minute. I just need to find my notes here.

I put the script in front.

Yes, so at this juncture, I need to ask for a motion to... Make the second reading of ordinance number 917 by title only.

So moved.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk Moss, could you please take the roll?

Certainly, Chair Harrington. Commissioner Schneider? Yes. Commissioner Treece? Yes. Commissioner Fai?

No.

Vice Chair Willey? Yes. Chair Harrington?

Yes. We need to stop after three affirmative votes, so... Sorry about that. I should not have voted at this juncture since it was not the unanimous vote. Do we have a motion to read the ordinance fully?

Chair, I don't think you need a motion. It's required by... Just being very careful. Yes, thank you, Chair. Without the title by only, the ordinance must be read into the record. This is Chapter 314, Vehicle Registration Fee. Section 3.1010, short title. This chapter shall be known and may be pleaded as the vehicle registration fee of Washington County. Section 3.14020, authority. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by the Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS 801.040, 801.041, and 803.445. Section 3.14030, Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, words in their present tense include the future, the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. The word shall is mandatory and not discretionary. The term chapter shall be deemed to include all amendments hereinafter made to this chapter. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and their deviations shall mean. Section A, vehicle shall have the meaning given in ORS 801.590. B, registration or register shall have the meaning given in ORS 801.410. C, motorcycle shall have the meaning given in ORS 801.365. D, moped shall have the meaning given in ORS 801.345. Section 3.14040, fee-imposed exceptions. Subsection A. Except as provided in this chapter, a vehicle registration fee is imposed on all vehicles registered within the State of Oregon Department of Transportation and where the residential or business address on the application for the registration or renewal registration is located in Washington County. Subsection B. Pursuant to ORS 801-041, subsection 3, a vehicle registration fee will not be imposed on the following. 1. Snowmobiles and Class 1 all-terrain vehicles. 2. Fixed-load vehicles. 3. Vehicles registered under ORS 805-100 to disabled veterans. 4. Vehicles registered as antique vehicles under ORS 805-010. Five, vehicles registered as vehicles of special interest under ORS 805020. Six, government owned or operated vehicles registered under ORS 805040 or 805045. Seven, school buses or school activity vehicles registered under ORS 805050. Eight, law enforcement undercover vehicles registered under ORS 805060. 9. VEHICLES REGISTERED ON PROBATIONAL BASIS FOR INTERSTATE OPERATION 10. VEHICLES WITH REGISTRATION WEIGHT OF 26,001 POUNDS OR MORE DESCRIBED IN ORS 803-420 SUBSECTION 14A OR SUBSECTION B 11. VEHICLES REGISTERED AS FARM VEHICLES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 805-300 12. Travel trailers, campers, and motorhomes. 13. Vehicles registered to an employment address as provided in ORS 802-250. 14. Vehicles registered under ORS 805-110 to former prisoners of war. Section 3.14050. Amount and payment of fee. Effective dates. Subsection A, except as provided in this chapter, at the time of equals first registered or at the time of registration renewal, the applicant shall pay a county registration fee for each year of the registration period as follows. 1. July 1, 2018 to June 1, 2027, $30 annual fee. July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2029, $40 annual fee. 3. July 1, 2029 to June 30, 2031, $50 annual fee. 4. Beginning July 1, 2031, affected of intel amended, a $60 annual fee. Subsection B. At the time a motorcycle or moped is first registered or at the time of registration renewal, the applicant shall pay a county vehicle registration fee for each year registration period as follows. 1. July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2027, $17 annual fee. 2. July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2029, $23 annual fee. 3. July 1, 2029 to June 30, 2031, $28 annual fee. 4. Beginning July 1, 2031, effective until amended, $34 annual fee. Subsection C. At the time a trailer issued a permanent registration, as described in ORS 803-415, subsection 1, subsection C, is first issued, the applicant shall pay a county registration vehicle fee, county vehicle registration fee of $10. Subsection D. The county vehicle registration fee is in addition to all other fees required to be paid to the state of Oregon under ORS 803-420. E. The fees shall be collected by the Oregon Department of Transportation on behalf of Washington County at initial registrations occurring on or after July 1, 2018, and at renewal or registrations expiring on or after July 1, 2018. Section 3.14060, distribution to cities. Subsection A, the county will pay and distribute 40% of the monies collected to those incorporated cities having a population of more than 300 persons residing within the county. The distribution shall be based on each city's proportional share of the total number of Washington County residents residing within incorporated cities, as determined by the most recent reports of the Portland State University Population Research Center. B, all distributions under this provision will be made after administrative fees are collected by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the county. Section 3.14070, agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Pursuant to ORS 801.041, the county shall enter into an intergovernment agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for collection of vehicle registration fee on behalf of Washington County. Section 3.1080, use of the revenue. A, subsection A, the county finance department or designee shall be responsible for the disposition of the revenue from the fee imposed by this chapter in a manner provided by this section. Subsection B, for purposes of this section, net revenue means the revenue from the fee imposed by this chapter remaining after providing for the cost of collection, transfer, and administration by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the county. Subsection C, the net revenue of the fees collected under this chapter shall be used only for purposes for which monies from registration fees may be used pursuant to state law. The net revenue received by the county shall be credited to the county road fund and shall be used for the capital improvement, maintenance, and operation of county roads. The net revenue received by cities shall be used only for road purposes as outlined in the applicable state law regarding expenditure of road user fees and taxes.

Thank you, Ms. Duke-Reason. Point of information, Chair. Yes, Commissioner Fai.

Courtney, this question is to you. What does our Rules of Procedure say about the order of voting? Since the Chair said on the record that we're trying to get to three votes, could we do it alphabetical order?

Commissioner Fai, Chair Harrington, your rules of procedure don't currently provide any set order for roll call, and we have been traditionally been calling roll call in a traditional manner by practice.

So I would recommend, I don't know, I've been called multiple times first, so I don't know, Board Clerk, if you could speak to your, what's your process on when you're going to call voting?

Madam Chair, would you like me to answer that or?

I would like you and Ms. Duke-Dreesen to confer. And the reason for my doing so is because our board clerk is a county employee. And like with any county employee, asked a pointed question that is not part of a board presentation, I want to make sure that that county employee has the best available legal advice. Thank you for backing me up. Ms. Angie, our County Administrative Officer. And for those of you who wish to testify as part of this public hearing, we will be following our rules of procedure for public hearings. Ms. Dresen, would you like to answer the question, or would you like Clerk Moss to answer the question?

I will answer, Chair Harrington. Thank you. Absent rules being set in your Rules of Procedure, by practice, the Clerk has always called the roll call from the Commissioner sitting closest to him, then farthest from him, reserving the Vice Chair's vote and the Chair's vote last. Because in this scenario, we are in a different format due to the HVAC system. I have advised him to call it in the order as we would be sitting inside the auditorium. Which is the same order we're sitting in here today. Correct. Only we will start with Commissioner Fai, since she normally is seated closest to the clerk. Commissioner Treece, Commissioner Snyder, Vice Chair Willey, and then Chair Harrington until we reach a dispositive vote. Thank you.

OKAY. SO NEXT, WILL WE HAVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION FROM OUR FIRST READING OR IS THIS FOR PRESENTATION TONIGHT? THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING, CHAIR HERRINGTON. BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF ARE PREPARED FOR A PRESENTATION. OKAY. THEN COME ON UP, STAFF. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CHECK.

Thank you very much, Board of Administrators. My name is Anne Ober. I'm one of the Assistant County Administrators. Good evening, Chair and Board. I'm Jessica Pels, Land Use and Transportation. This is the conclusion of a long process that we've been holding with each of you around our GROW project or our FTO project. Tonight we're going to be talking about vehicle registration. We're going to present some slides and then we're here until we're complete, I guess. Are there questions tonight? There's no questions at the public here. Okay, we'll turn it over to Jessica. Okay, great.

Thank you. So as Ann mentioned, this is the Resilient Transportation Funding Options Project. So I'm just going to go through a little background on why we're here tonight and the steps that we went through to get here. So the project goal, first of all, is to improve the resilience of county transportation capital project funding by proposing to the board long-term sustainable funding and financing options that reduce reliance on the county general fund. And this slide helps tell that story. So first, there's been continued pressure, as we know, in the past budget years on our limited general fund revenue. And it supports a lot of programs, including our major streets transportation improvement program, which is the program that we use to fund most of our county transportation capital projects. So that is called MISTIP, in other words, Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. So we see that MISTIP acronym here. But the MISTIP program is funded by a general fund and has seen reductions in the past several budget cycles. The chart is showing the rise in costs in the National Highway Construction Cost Index. And I think you can see there about 2021, it was pretty dramatic rise and it's never really recovered. So we're seeing capital project cost increases of up to 30% since 2021, which we were not prepared for by any means. If you remember, MISTIP allocations are done on a cyclical basis every five to seven years. So at the time that we did the previous, we're in 3F now and we did previous 3E and 3D. we weren't prepared for these kind of cost increases. So we're really trying to future-proof a little bit the MSTEP program, really find that sustainable funding source to help combat these rising costs.

I do just want to add here real fast that the MSTEP program, the ordinance does not direct the funds directly to MSTEP. That is the expected use. However, we do have – it is guaranteed for transportation funds. So it could be for our – our deferred maintenance instead of new construction. And we just wanted to be transparent with the public.

Actually, I did not put that in the presentation, but I could talk about that a little bit. The vehicle registration fee is statutorily restricted to transportation uses, so it can only be spent in the right of way. So we can use it on anything that we spend transportation road fund on, for example, because it does go into our road fund. So that's maintenance, operations, culverts, bridges, anything in the roadway right away. I'm going to go through the work plan that we went through for RTFO a little bit here. So first step, we identified a wide range of potential revenue options. And this work started back in December 2024. So it's been a long project. Then we defined evaluation criteria. We evaluated those revenue options against the criteria. We did implementation viability analysis for the highest scoring options. So we looked at things like how much it would cost to administer a revenue option, whether we already had it or if it would be standing up a new option, just do it require a partnership with outside agencies, things like that, just to understand is it actually feasible to implement a new option. And then we developed a proposed short-term funding strategy. Back in January, we came to your board with this proposed short-term funding strategy, and that's where we explained that a potential increase to the countywide vehicle registration fee was really the one revenue option that was identified as an immediate funding opportunity. It was short-term implementation, high-impact funding options, so it has a higher level of revenue certainty because we will always have the cyclical registration of vehicles in the county. It also was a pretty easy administrative burden because it is administered by ODOT. So we have an existing agreement with ODOT to administer that and it is included in the statute that counties can do this increase and we have a set rate that we can go up to. So it was just identified after all this evaluation that this is really the one that was the short-term strategy to move forward with. The second strategy was consider evaluating cost recovery needs for the remaining short-term opportunities. with high revenue potential. And a lot of that is things like cost recovery for fees that will take some ongoing work on the back end. We went out and did some research or research outreach. We did outreach on vehicle registration.

We also did research.

We did research. We did both. With Commissioner Treece and Commissioner Snyder leading the outreach team. We did briefings with 10 of the Washington County mayors. We gave presentations at several city councils. We went to the Washington County Coordinating Committee, the Transportation Advisory Committee, the Westside Economic Alliance, the Washington County Chamber. So we kind of did a road show just to get some feedback on the potential increase. And there were four key outreach themes that came out of this. First was an understanding of the need for funding. The vehicle registration fee, the county's vehicle registration fee is shared with cities. So it's 40% of that goes straight to the cities. So an increase in the vehicle registration fee benefits both counties and city transportation, so maintenance and improvements, so it helps everybody. There's an understanding of the need to continue funding for the MISTIP program in addition to the maintenance and operations that we can do with that funding. There were concerns about affordability. There was a desire for low income or a senior discount, acknowledgement that costs are rising across the board. We did look into this and right now there's not a statutory route to a low income fee or a discount. There was some suggestion to reduce the fee impact if possible by potentially repealing a fee increase if at some time in the future legislature passes a significant transportation funding package, maybe negating the need for the fee increase. They asked the board to consider reducing other services to avoid a fee increase, just sort of throwing out these ideas of what else can we do instead of increasing a fee. And then there were some other ideas to consider, such as registration fee for bikes, an education campaign to make sure that community members know they do need to register vehicles. So just to get the word out about that.

I do just want, before we, can we go back to that? Yeah. We did modify based on these pieces. I just want to call that to attention, especially on the affordability. Currently, it is not allowed for us to do a low income or senior discount. But the board directed us to do a step process to allow for less direct immediate impact. So that is included in what was read by our county council tonight. which is a $10 increase over a longer period of time and a total of $30 over the course of six years.

Yes, and that's reflected in this chart here. Our staff recommendation is that your board adopt ordinance number 917, which would increase the countywide vehicle registration fee by $10 per year in fiscal year 2728, fiscal year 2930, and fiscal year 2031-32. The chart shows that stepped-in increase and the revenue that would be expected.

And because this is our last slide before the thank you and the final vote, I just want to call out a special appreciation to the staff who have worked so hard on making this happen. Jessica, in particular, has been sitting in through every meeting. Brenda has been sitting in through so many meetings. So thank you to Jessica, Brenda, Stephen, and everyone else that took to get here. Thank you. Thank you.

And with that, at this juncture, I will open a public hearing and ask Clerk Moss if we have anyone who wishes to testify for up to two minutes, an individual.

We have one on the phone and then we'll go to the room. The first one we have is Alden Snow. Alden, can you hear us?

Yes, I can. Thank you.

Please go ahead for up to two minutes.

All right. I'm curious. It seems like the price of registration is doubling like you're doubling our taxes over the next couple of years. And I'm I want to know what our return on investment in that is going to be. Are we going to see twice as many roads paved or repaved or twice as many transportation projects successful and especially considering that some of this goes to cities. Is there anything to keep the cities from just using transportation-related projects for data centers or other things like that? Or how do we know that this big increase in funding that we're giving is being spent on things that we're going to get back that we're going to benefit from? That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Snow. Public hearings is not an opportunity for DIALOGUE AND ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. I WILL CONTRIBUTE, HOWEVER, THAT I BELIEVE THE PRESENTATION ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS. WHO'S NEXT? CLERK MOSS? MR. FEEK?

CHAIR HERRINGTON, COMMISSIONER DALE FEEK. AT THE WORKSTATION TODAY, COMMISSIONER FLY PROPOSED ADDING WORKSTATION DISCUSSED ADOPTING THE MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY. DURING THAT DISCUSSION, BOTH YOU CHAIR HERRINGTON AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR SONYA HANGEY AND COMMISSIONER SNYDER AND WILLIE SAID AGENDA IS OVERLOADED. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS limited to VRF, and what you're talking about is irrelevant to the vehicle registration fee.

The point I'm trying to make, though, has to do with money, because money is very limited. Money is from the Trump regime. The state, the region, the county, and the cities are being limited. So it's been limited. If, in fact, we don't have enough money to even do this little study, the staff has to be taken away to do that, then where are we going to have the money? We need money to run things through. I'm in favor of passing this tax and it's necessary to provide services. And the staff, I think, has shown why it's important to do this. And there's their homework related to talking to many different people. So that was my background for why I understand what happened during the work session today. So I'm in favor of it.

Thank you, Mr. Feig. Clerk Moss, who's next?

That concludes it. Is there any other member in the audience that wishes to probably comment on this public hearing? As you've heard from staff, not seeing any hands. Anyone coming forward? Not seeing any other hands online, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Clerk Moss. And with that, before I ask for a motion, I need to ask each member for individual disclosure. I'll, once again, start from my left to my right. Thank you. I do thank you, Vice Chair Willey. And with that, I'll close the public hearing. And now I'll ask for the individual disclosure, once again, going from left to right.

I have an actual conflict of interest. The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee would apply to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I'm recusing myself from any discussion of this matter pursuant to ORS 244.120 sub 2BB. If my vote is necessary to meet a required minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote. on the proposed ordinance. And then I'm also going to add this time that I am extremely disappointed about where we've ended up as a state with opinions and direction from the Ethics Commission basically making it so that we cannot do our most basic work in public.

That was Commissioner Jason Snyder. Now Commissioner Pam Treese.

I have an actual conflict of interest. The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee would apply to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from any discussion of this matter pursuant to ORS 244.120 sub 2 sub b sub b. If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of a minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote on the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Pai.

For the record, I am not declaring an actual or potential conflict of interest on this matter. I have requested expedited written guidance from the Oregon government from Oregon Government Ethics Commission. In the meantime, I am relying in good faith on the commission's June 12, 2026 advisory opinion regarding the City of Beaverton transportation fee and its application of the class exemption to a generally applicable fee. I have provided the board with my written notice explaining my position, and I ask that my letter be included in the record Unless I receive guidance to the contrary from the Ethics Commission, I intend to participate in the deliberation as I have, and I intend to vote. I have serious concerns about increasing costs on Washington County residents at a time when many residents are already struggling with affordability. I also believe my constituents deserve to know why I voted the way I did, explaining the reasons behind a vote, is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of public office. Government accountability and transparency requires more than a recording of votes. It requires allowing the public to hear the reasoning behind it. Now directly to affordability. I'm voting no on this fee because affordability has to remain our priority. Our residents are already facing rising costs across their household budget. and I cannot support adding another fee at this time. Thank you.

Vice Chair Willey. I have an actual conflict of interest. The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee would apply to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from any discussion of this matter pursuant to ORS 244 If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of a minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote on the proposed ordinance.

Thank you. This is Chair Catherine Harrington. I have an actual conflict of interest. The conflict arises because the proposed vehicle registration fee applies to me and my relatives who own vehicles registered in Washington County. Because this is an actual conflict of interest, I am recusing myself from any discussion of this matter pursuant to ORS 244. If my vote is necessary to meet a requirement of minimum number of votes to take action, I will vote on this proposed ordinance. I do have a question. County Council Duke-Dreesen, Commissioner Fai has said that she has provided the notice to us that she has supplied to OGEC. While she did send us a letter and it was dated Monday, August 17th, we've also received conflicting information from her that she did not send it to them on that date. So we don't know when such a letter was sent. So I'm wondering if she made a request that the packet for tonight's meeting include THAT LETTER, BUT THAT LETTER BY ITSELF IS INCOMPLETE IN THAT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE TRANSMISSION TO OGEC. SO I'M WONDERING WITH WHAT SHE IS REQUESTING IF SHE SHOULD ALSO PROVIDE THE MEANS BY WHICH SHE TRANSMITTED THAT AND WHAT DATE. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, CHAIR. NEW SPEAKER WE HAVE NO IDEA IF IT HAPPENED BEFORE TODAY'S MEETINGS OR NOT.

Thank you, Chair Harrington. You're correct. We did receive the letter. It does have an August 17th date. We will follow up with Commissioner Fai to be sure that the records of the minutes in your public meeting are accurate and correct and complete and follow up on the date of submission request. Thank you very much.

Appreciate that. Okay. Now we've done the necessary disclosures. So at this juncture, I would ask for a motion and a second to adopt ordinance number 917. So move. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk Moss, could you take the required votes and only those required votes?

Yes, Chair Harrington. Commissioner Fai? No. Commissioner Treece? Yes. Commissioner Snyder?

Yes, I wish I could say more, but I can't.

Vice Chair Welley? Yes.

And I don't get to vote. The ordinance passes three to one.

Correct.

With one non-vote. Yes, we will reflect in the minutes the conflict in a minimum vote. OK, thank you. And at this juncture, here it is, the agenda. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 915. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION TO READ ORDINANCE NUMBER 915 BY TITLE ONLY. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. NEW SPEAKER. all the actual or perceived conflict of interest does not apply. So now I'll turn it over to May I read it by title only?

Thank you, Chair Harrington. Ordinance 915, an ordinance amending the comprehensive framework plan for the urban area rural natural resource plan, transportation system plan, community plans for the Lower Reedville, Cooper Mountain, Bethany, Bull Mountain, Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, Metzger Progress, Raleigh Hills Garden Home, Sherwood, Sunset West, and West Union, and community development code relating to community involvement in the planning process. Thank you.

Now we'll have the staff report.

Thank you, Chair Harrington and members of the board. I'm Carol Johnson, Planning and Development Services Manager at Washington County. I'm joined this evening by Todd Borkowitz, who will provide the staff report.

Yes. Hello, Chair Harrington and Commissioners. For the record, I'm Todd Borkowitz, Senior Planner at LUT's Community Planning Group. And I'm here today to present Ordinance Number 915, which reflects direction provided by the Board of Commissioners related to community involvement in the planning process.

There we go.

Here's an overview of tonight's presentation. So I'll provide a summary of and background of Ordinance 915, followed by a description of the proposed amendments, feedback that we received from the community members and the Planning Commission, and then the recommendation from the Planning Commission and from staff. So Ordinance 915 would amend these comprehensive plan elements, the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Area, the Rural Natural Resource Plan, the transportation system plan, several community plans, and the community development code. The ordinance relates to citizen involvement in all phases of the planning process. Citizen involvement is goal one of Oregon statewide planning goals. The state defines citizen loosely, but requires use of the term in reference to goal one. Washington County does not generally use the term citizen, but does so when quoting directly from when referring to Goal 1. Goal 1 requires that jurisdictions have a citizen involvement program that addresses these six elements, most notably opportunities for widespread public involvement and the ability for the public to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Goal 1 also requires jurisdictions to have a committee for citizen involvement that monitors and encourages public participation in planning. So the county's community involvement program for land use planning was adopted in the 1980s. It had two primary elements, community planning or community participation organizations, or CPOs, and the Committee for Community Involvement, or CCI. So the program was originally created through a series of resolutions and orders for RNOs, which established CPOs as the primary avenue for community involvement in long-range planning projects, land use ordinance proposals, and certain development applications. And here are those R&Os. They define the scope and structure of the CPO program, the role of CPOs and the CCI, and procedures and geographic boundaries of the CPOs. And these R&Os are currently included as appendices in two of the comprehensive plan documents Community involvement through the CPO CCI program is reflected in most elements of the comprehensive plan in references to CPOs and the CCI are widespread. So the comprehensive framework plan for the urban area and the rural natural resources plan contain RNOs as well as several policies that describe the role of various parties in the planning process and details the community involvement in that process. So the Transportation System Plan and Community Plans have numerous references to CPOs and the CCI, and the Community Development Code establishes CPOs and the CCI as planning participants and specifies that both should receive notice of neighborhood meetings and some types of land use actions. In 2021, the Board directed an assessment of the CPO-CCI program And in 2024, it authorized a process for modernizing the program. The process ultimately identified alternative structures for CPOs in the CCI that the board determined better aligned community engagement practices with the county's current needs, organizational capacity, and community values. Then on January 27th of this year, the board adopted R&O 2614, laying out changes to the county's community involvement program. So through RNO 2614, the board directed the repeal of RNO 8658, and that RNO included policy and implementation for community involvement in the planning process, as well as repeal of portions of RNO 80108, and that included the formation of CPOs and recognition of CPOs as planning participants. The RNO also directed staff to take necessary steps to dissolve the existing CCI and transition all Goal 1 requirements of the CCI to the Planning Commission, and have directed staff to file any needed ordinances and take other necessary actions to update the Comprehensive Plan. So given this direction, Ordinance 915 is proposing several changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan. These changes are needed because the Comprehensive Plan currently reflects the Community Involvement Program prior to RNO 2614. In addition to this ordinance, staff is also developing a new RNO that repeals resolutions and orders relating to CPOs in the CCI and neighborhood meetings, and that meets the goal one requirement to adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement that clearly defines procedures by which the general public will be involved in ongoing land use planning processes. The RNO will be brought to the board for approval after ordinance 915 takes effect 30 days after the ordinance is adopted. So with that, here are the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Whatever possible, change the term citizen to community member, which is consistent with terminology used elsewhere in the county. For the state's recommendation, we will continue to use the term citizen only in reference to Goal 1. And for added clarity, ordinance 915 proposes to add to the comprehensive plan the state's definition of citizen as shown here. The ordinance also proposes to remove all references to CPOs and the former CCI given the board's direction. Ordinance 915 proposes to amend policies one and two in both comprehensive framework plan for the urban area and the rural natural resource plan These policies are nearly identical in each plan and relate to the planning process and community involvement. The amendments would also update language in each policy for two sections, implementation strategies and summary findings and conclusions. As mentioned earlier, the appendices of each of these comprehensive plan elements contain the now outdated RNOs and ordinance 915 proposes to remove these appendices. Ordinance 915 proposes to amend several sections of the Community Development Code, or CDC. The ordinance would revise Section 107, Planning Participants. It would designate the Planning Commission as the officially recognized committee for citizen involvement for the purposes of Goal 1. And it would also modernize outdated language and reflect recent state law changes on Planning Commission membership. The ordinance also proposes to remove CDC sections identifying CPOs, and the former CCI as planning participants. It would also remove the CDC section identifying neighborhood organizations or associations as planning participants since currently there are no such recognized entities and we are unaware of any intent to provide for them in the future. So the ordinance would amend CDC section 107-5 which addresses land use ordinance notices in sections 204-3 to 204-4, which defined requirements for notices on type 2 and type 3 development actions. The board directed that CPOs no longer receive land use ordinance notices. Such ordinance notices, however, would still be available to anyone requesting to be added to the mailing list to receive notices. Notice type two and type three development actions would no longer be sent to CPOs, but would still be provided to other entities, including property owners within a specified distance from the subject property. The ordinance would also delete references to CPOs as parties entitled to an appeal, to appeal a decision on a land use action. Lastly, ordinance 915 would amend section 203-3 neighborhood meetings. Such meetings are required for certain development application types, including some partitions and subdivisions, some adjustments and variances, and some type two and type three developments. The proposed amendments would modify the location where a neighborhood meeting must be held to require that it be within the community plan boundary where a subject property is located versus within the former CPO boundary. It would emit CPOs from the list of entities that must receive notice of neighborhood meetings, and it would align requirements for neighborhood meetings with those of notice for certain development actions. So to date, we've received only three letters of testimony on the ordinance. Six community members testified at the July 15th Planning Commission hearing. We also received one additional letter of testimony today. The testimony submitted at that time generally expressed reservations about approving ordinance 915 until more was known about how the county's new community participation program will be implemented. But at the July 15th Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission continued deliberations to August 5th so that staff could provide answers to some of the questions they had about the implementation And these answers are included in the board packet on this ordinance. After further deliberations on August 5th, the Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend that the board approve Ordinance 915. So given this, we recommend that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Ordinance 915. By separate action, we recommend that the board adopt the associated findings that were included in your packets. And with that, THANK YOU, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION? I HAVE ONE, AND I'M LOOKING BACK AT OUR AUGUST 11TH WORK SESSION, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE CLARITY ON OUR NEW COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM. I just can't remember what it's called, but I know it has a new name. SPARC is the acronym, but I don't remember what SPARC stands for.

So if you can give me one second, sometimes I even get lost in the government land of acronym soup. And since this is a new acronym to us, I'd like to just double check before I. And while you're doing that,

I'll announce that these are new community groups that will be launched in September and October. So the one for the District 1 area will be held on the first Thursday of the month, September 3rd. The District 3 meeting will follow on September 17th, so the third Thursday. The District 2 meeting will be held on the second Thursday of the month of October, so October 8th. And the District 4 meeting will be held on the fourth Tuesday, excuse me, Thursday, which will be October 22nd. And they're called?

SPARC, which is S-P-A-R-C, Strengthening Participation in Reaching Communities Program. That's Strengthening Participation in Reaching Communities Program, SPARC. And if I repeat that seven times seven different ways, maybe that will be etched in my government acronym glossary.

That was quick. Strengthening participation and reaching community. Communities, plural.

Yeah, you ended it with program, and I thought there's no P in there. It is a program.

Strengthening participation and reaching communities. S-P-A-R-C. Spark. Okay. You can find out more about the logistics of those on the county calendar. Are there any other questions other than that? Okay. Seeing none, I would like to open the public hearing. Clerk Moss, do we have anyone who wishes to testify?

We do. We have Mary Manso. Mary?

Welcome. Good evening. I'm actually here as a member of a group. WE HAVE DRAFTED A LETTER THAT WE WANT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. AND WE'RE PROVIDING A DRAFT OF THIS LETTER THAT WILL BE GOING TO LCDC IN RESPONSE TO YEAR AUGUST 25TH, 2026, A LETTER INFORMING LCDC THAT YOU'RE TRANSFERRING CCI RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT LETTER TO THE CLERK, BUT I ALSO HAVE TESTIMONY FOR MY OWN PERSONAL ISSUES, AND I'M HOPING I GET FIVE MINUTES. I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. THAT WAS ONE.

YOU'LL GIVE A COPY TO THE CLERK. THAT'S FROM THE GROUP. NOW YOU'LL GET TWO MINUTES AS AN INDIVIDUAL. WE'LL RESET THE CLOCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PREPARING THAT.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE ROLE CPOs HAVE PLAYED IN THE PAST. VOLUNTEERS PROVIDED MUCH MORE THAN MONTHLY CPO MEETINGS. CPOs WORKED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HYPERLOCAL ISSUES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF INDIVIDUAL TO IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS TO ISSUES RAISED BY OUR MEMBERSHIP. TO HELP DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION IN OUR COMMUNITY, OUR CPO SET UP A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. ALTHOUGH OUR CPO HAS BEEN ON HIATUS SINCE THE END OF MARCH OF 2026, EXAMPLES OF POSTINGS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WHICH HAVE CONTINUED, INCLUDE COMMISSIONER TREESE'S UPCOMING TOWN HALL ON AUGUST 27TH WITH 1770 VIEWS. INFORMATION ON PCC'S APPLICATION FOR A NEW CLASSROOM AT PCC ROCKFORD CREEK CAMPUS WITH 2,051 VIEWS. A PUBLIC NOTICE FOR COMMENT ON HOME OCCUPATION COMMIT WITH 9,657 VIEWS. INFORMATION ON THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR IN AND OUT PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF THE RESTAURANT WITH 77,692 VIEWS. THE RESPONSE TO OUR CPO FACEBOOK POSTING TELLS ME THAT OUR MEMBERSHIP IS INTERESTED IN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THEIR COMMUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS WASHINGTON COUNTY. ELIMINATION OF THE LOCAL CPO PROGRAM IS LEAVING A GAP THAT WILL NOT BE FILLED WITH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT FOCUSES ON COUNTYWIDE ISSUES. REMOVAL OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS TO CPOs AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR for LUT acceptance of land use applications, notices for public comment periods and public hearings, notices for neighborhood meetings will sever the ability for the community to easily access this information about their community that they previously were able to access through the CPO leadership. Will the lack of this easy access to information require more public records requests? Please engross ordinance I-15.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mantel. Clark Moss, do we have anyone else?

I did not see anyone else sign up in the room. Is there any member in the audience that would like to provide comment for a few minutes on this public hearing? Not seeing one, raise your hands or come forward. Is there any member online that would probably comment on this public hearing? As you've heard from staff and the board, give you just a moment to realize raise your hand function. Not seeing any hands. Chair Harrington.

Thank you. And with that, I'll close tonight's public hearing and ask for a motion to adopt ordinance number 915.

Move.

We have a motion and a second. First, are there any comments from any commissioners?

I would like to just briefly acknowledge that I think this is the most deliberated topic that we've had since I joined the commission 18 months ago. I think we've done A LOT OF ROBUST WORK ON IT AND I DON'T PLAN TO REDELIBERATE ALL OF THAT TONIGHT BUT I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. I WILL COMMENT THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS TOPIC WITH A LOT OF CARE AND THOUGHTFULNESS. AND IN NO WAY HAVE WE BEEN We have thanked the many volunteers who have participated in the CCI as well as the CPO programs, and nothing about what we have adopted in this process by resolution or by ordinance is in any way diminishing the value of our community members who have given us much time and energy for the betterment of our community. But we are in a situation where we needed to modernize the program and make sure it was delivering a return on investment for county government work. And that is what I believe firmly we have done. So we have a motion and a second to adopt Ordinance 915, Clerk Moss. Could you please take the roll?

Certainly, Madam Chair. Commissioner Fai?

Aye.

Commissioner Treese? Yes. Commissioner Snyder? Yes. Vice Chair Willey? Yes. Mayor Arntzen?

Yes. The motion passes unanimously 5-0. Next, I'll move on to the action agenda and ask for a motion to adopt the findings for ordinance number 915 and authorize the chair to sign the resolution in order memorializing this action.

I move to adopt the findings for ordinance number 915.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please vote by raising your hand or saying aye. Thank you. Commissioners, any opposed? The motion carries unanimously 5-0. That brings us to our second public comment period for this evening's meeting. Clerk, this is an opportunity for members of our community to provide comment for up to five minutes an individual. for 30 minutes maximum. Clerk Moss, do we have anyone who wishes to do so?

Yes, we do, Madam Chair. We have five people signed up. The first two, Elizabeth Grazer, followed by Lonnie Bond.

Welcome, Ms. Grazer. Are you here? Online?

I don't see her online, so Ms. Bond, please come up.

Please go ahead.

I'm not going to bury the lead here. Pass the moratorium on data centers. Many of you have so willfully ignored constituents on this issue, even though 75% of us nationwide oppose the very existence of data centers. These buildings are reviled in every imaginable demographic because we all know what too many elected officials are playing dumb about. Data centers are horrible for the environment, the economy, and the people. Now I could sit here and explain all the ways in which these centers are destroying us, but you already know, and leading us to believe that a level-headed, well-argued case backed up with research and evidence is just cruel. You know that they are concrete islands that destroy the very soil upon which they're built. You know that they generate noise pollution. You know that they dump toxins into our air and water with reckless abandon. And yet there are how many of them already here destroying ecosystems, stealing data, and propping up their surveillance state? For the record, it's 135 in the state and 45 in Hillsborough alone. What's worse is that you know good and well that they don't create long-term jobs. They don't contribute to economic stability in the region. They don't even pay into the tax system because elected officials have been practically begging them to come here since 2006 when Google built their first hyperscale data center in the Dalles. And now 1,000 friends of Oregon has to sue the city of Hillsborough just to try to get them to stop giving away our tax dollars to corporations that want to keep building data centers here. The real clincher though, the question that so many people seem to be dancing around is why they need more and more of these storage centers at all. And the answer is an ugly elephant in the room. They need it because they're collecting data about us. They've learned where we live and work, what we buy, our habits and tendencies and preferences. Then they use that information to sell us the idea of a lifestyle we can never truly achieve because they're using AI to lock us out of jobs that are just barely enough to live. And now they're selling all of this data, which is stored in giant buildings that sit in our backyards and belch out pollution and pestilence 24-7 to the government. A government that is using that data to come after our community, who is surveilling us so that they can kidnap people off the streets and throw them in concentration camps to die. A government that is violating our constitutional right to due process, to privacy, to speak freely, to eat and breathe and live as we see fit. Yet some of you seem more than happy to let the billionaires who own them stomp all over us in the name of capitalism. This has to stop. I'll tell you what I told Hillsborough City Council in July. If you think that sitting up there is going to protect you from the boot that is coming down on the people in this country, you are sorely mistaken. These data centers are a direct manifestation of authoritarian capitalists coming after their detractors. Stop selling our land to the people who are trying to ruin our lives. that if you choose to ignore us, we will do everything in our power. We will work tirelessly and relentlessly to make sure that every single politician who so much as breathes a word of continuing data center proliferation loses their job. Pass the damn moratorium.

Thank you. Clerk Moss, who do we have next?

Next, we have Antonio Verdozzo and Pam Code.

The last time I was here was October 28th. And in my public comment, I noted that that was my first public comment and how naive I was. I'm not naive anymore. I am not here to tell you guys to pass the data center moratorium. You know that you should do it. What I am going to be here to do is, since I already know now, I'm more politically aware, I'm going to make public record of your record. I'm going to make public record that Pam Tree's testified in favor of Janine Solman's data center bill. I'm going to make public record how Katherine Harrington and Pam Treece were found culpable in ethics violations. I'm going to make public comment how many investigations Harrington has had about the way she treats staff, and we don't have to read about it to believe it because we have watched them. We have watched you attack Commissioner Fai, recently and a couple of meetings ago where you said that you were attacked, where she was literally stating facts, making a notation of your actions. I'm here to remind everybody how Pam Trees was very troubled about Katherine Harrington's treatment of employees, yet she chooses to accept an endorsement from her. I am here to note that Pam Treece was a Republican until she ran for office. I'm here to note that Pam Treece will bend to any wind as long as it serves her political appointment. I'm here to note all of your endorsements because I was naive. I have done my civic duty since I was given the right to vote and I relied on endorsements. religiously, and I cannot trust them. I actually, I'm gonna correct myself, I can't trust them. Because birds of a feather flock together. And what does county do not admonish them for expressing themselves. Also, I would like to remind you that you guys work for us. And you cutting off public comment at 30 minutes is dereliction of duty. you are bound to listen to every constituent that has signed up for public comment. You can shake your head, Harrington. Thank you. Thank you for doing that because you are absolutely making my point. You don't know. Do not speak to me. It's my public comment. Don't interrupt me. Ladies and gentlemen. What I am saying is not...

Do not interrupt me. Please stop the noise making per our rules of perception.

Stop the clock. She's interrupting my time. And I am entitled to my time. This woman works for me. I am a taxpayer. Please turn the clock back. Exactly. Thank you.

Are you turning the clock back? They will, ma'am. Okay, fortunately, as I said, I was waiting for that. We've had to move so different room back these my until they reset clock correctly.

Thank you.

We're in a different room. So the logistics are a little more complicated. I'm sorry for the complication.

Sorry for your interrupt.

It was necessary because people were not following the rules of procedure, which are posted regarding tonight's meeting.

OK, so back to what I was saying, it's really interesting to me that today you guys chose to take public or to recuse yourself from a vote. And I'm just wondering why that's not something that you routinely do. Because when Pam Treece voted to continue to have River Road closed, she didn't recuse herself given that the developer contributed to her campaign. And that's a conflict of interest. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to show up to every single meeting and I'm going to make public records. of your votes and your actions. And for all of the people that were not able to see Katherine Harrington when Jacob Roloff was giving his public comment, and he thanked her for supporting the cease-a-fie, she shook her head no. So she's not in support of that. So I'm not gonna make the same mistake that I did when we came to beg you for our lives in November, when it seems that routinely, Commissioner Pai takes the lead and you guys fight against him. You either ignore her lead or you actually work against it. And it is not until you are shamed or public, you have something to gain like pantries. Pam, you absolutely do not know how data centers work because we don't need them for 911. 911 has been operating before data centers were even a thing. but you're taking the lead from Janine Solman. And you guys are using inflammatory language to press the community to support these things. So we do not need data centers to protect the community that is being kidnapped the way Janine Solman stated. We do not need them for the 911 system. You guys are not going to pull the wool over the community's eyes anymore. I'm going to make sure that everyone knows how you voted, how your actions have affected the community, and how you guys are willing to bend to the wind as long as it serves you.

Chair, point of inquiry.

It's to you, Chair Harrington. I'm asking County Council.

Chair Harrington, you. have authority here to run the meeting. We're in the public part of the of the noticed agenda. So we can continue with public comment.

I would like to continue with public comment per rules of procedure.

But Chair, there's a point of inquiry here. So what's the rule, Robert's rule procedure on this?

We don't usually follow Robert's rules during the public comment period. We follow the rules of procedure, which has been adopted by the board.

Robert's rules are generally reserved to when we're taking motions, taking votes.

Yeah, but we're in a regular meeting. We're following that. The point of inquiry I had for the chair is I was going to ask her understanding of the rules of procedure, but snapping. What does that say? How's that an interpretation of a disruption?

So, Chair Harrington, would you like me to respond? Yes, please. Generally, the guidance given to public bodies is not to have outward displays of support or opposition during a public meeting because it can be intimidating or discouraging to other people in attendance. That is the general guidance. I would have to review the rules of procedure quickly if you'd like. I did tonight. But that is the general guidance given to public bodies and adopted in rules. And it is, in fact, a position to make meetings accommodating for everyone in attendance.

Clerk Moss, could you please restate the name of the person who is before us now? Yes, you have Pam Code before you. Thank you, Ms. May I bring this? Yes. Thank you. Please go ahead. We're getting your material. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. You're prolonging our meeting. We're only going to allow 30 minutes total for this section.

So I'm here to speak to the Century Boulevard Extension Project again. I began speaking about it back in May. No, I'm sorry, in June. And then on June 23rd, a young man was killed at that intersection when he was struck by a vehicle riding his bicycle. His name was Connor Navarro. This issue remains unresolved. pertinent to many of us. People continue to show up and speak out at the city level, public meetings, and so I bring it forth to you all once more. I wanted to present, not yet knowing where the county is and the city are together in terms of planning new safety measures, I wanted to bring forth a couple of measures that I personally saw and witnessed when I went to Nashville. within the past couple weeks. So if you could please, my request is that you would take note and carry this forward for me in whatever capacity you're able to do in the way of like increasing safety at that very dangerous intersection. So here on page one, the top picture is a dedicated bike lane that has physical barriers, those candlesticks there, as well as you can see the little bumpers that are fixed to the road. And that is a dedicated bike lane that increases safety using physical barriers. The bottom picture on page one shows kind of like the high metal bollards stuck very firmly into the ground, blocking the way between the sidewalk, the road, and a little market down an alley there. On page two, we've got like the road here in Nashville. It's got like The sidewalk lined with really tall sturdy metal bollards. That street next to it is only a two-lane road. So it's just for a two-lane road. They've got a line of bollards plus that big sturdy tree there. On the bottom of that page, we've got the bollards that are wrapping around the corners of an intersection. That intersection's got really wide corners. If you look really hard, you can also see them across the street. So it's on all four corners. I'll also note that this is Broadway in Nashville, which is the most visited area by tourists. It's got a lot of human activity, but it's safe. It draws a lot of human activity, which of course draws cars in, but they really are not accommodating cars there and it is promoting safe human activity. Lastly, on page three, we've got the massive, massive planners there that are also very sturdy, and that is at an intersection. I also want to note that I was driving through Lake Oswego the other day, and they had two-lane, 35-mile-per-hour roads that were not in residential areas that, again, were 35 miles per hour and only two-lane. That's around the Tyrone Creek State Natural Area. So I just wanted to note how even for a two-lane road with no homes, they're willing to lower the speed limit to that extent. I also have noticed that the Walgreens down the street has bollards. And so I'm kind of like, the Walgreens has a sense to implement some physical measures to save itself. So why not? We also can, I think. All right here. So here's another question that I would really appreciate for it to be brought forward for you guys to bring it forward for us. So the widths of the lanes currently on Main Street are 11 feet wide. And previously, the widths of the lanes on East Main were 12 feet. So the question, my next question is like, what are the widths of the lanes on Oregon highways? As far as I have found, they are 12 feet. The question then for me that I asked for you all to bring forward as the planning continues is why should people driving on East Main be expected not to speed when they are on the same or similar, they're driving on roads that are the same or similar widths to highways? perhaps we can look at narrowing the roads by implementing some more physical safety measures. On page four here, I do have photos from the memorial of another young man who died in June. Please take more public comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cook. Clerk Moss, who else do we have?

Last one we have signed up in the room, Valita Volkman. have one online that will complete the 30 minutes.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Hello, Chair Harrington, other members of the board. Thank you for having me. My name is Felina. As you know, we have been trying to raise awareness for safety concerns related to the Century Boulevard Extension project. As she was saying back in June, a young man was killed on his bicycle by someone driving 70 miles an hour. That's not okay. We need to have safety measurements in place so people are not driving 70 miles an hour. It's not the first time and it sadly probably won't be the last if we don't get some safety measurements in place. Our pleas have not resulted in a pause to construction to reconsider adjusting the plans. Instead, we watch daily and, in my case, bawl our eyes out as we look at the destruction in Noble Woods and watching the Buick's Wren hopping on the ground and hearing the red-breasted nuthatches singing. And also, this project is creating an even more dangerous situation for bicyclists at the moment because, as it is now, there's no bike lane running from west to east on Main Street. We would like to see a traffic simulation study to show how many fewer cars would be on commuter routes if we put money towards improving bike infrastructure along high traffic roads throughout the county. And the safety improvements that are necessary to ensure the project doesn't create additional hazards. First and foremost, narrowing the width of Century Boulevard through the neighborhood of Imlay Elementary, keeping it to two lanes. Secondly, making it a bike and pedestrian bridge only across Noble Woods, not only just to promote the City of Hillsborough's objectives for increased bike and pedestrian access, but it will also lessen the disturbance to wildlife in the park with less pollution from cars and less noise pollution in the park and less possibility of birds getting hit by cars driving through Noble Woods and over Rock Creek. Thirdly, at the intersection of Sentry and Main, we would like physical barriers such as bollards to be placed at all four corners to protect pedestrians. Also along the Main Street from Corn Pass to Brookwood Parkway, we would like medians to be added with tall trees and to create that illusion of a narrow road that would naturally cause drivers to slow down along main street approaching century boulevard from both directions there should be speed bumps added as a physical reminder for drivers to slow down also bike lanes along this section of main street should have candlestick barriers and or be raised at the level of the sidewalk And there also needs to be enhanced pedestrian crossing at the entrance to Noble Woods to protect people who are going to the park and leaving the park, pedestrians, bicyclists. And there needs to be enhanced pedestrian crossing at Century High School, which is arguably the busiest crosswalk along the entire length of Century Boulevard to protect those high schoolers as they're walking to and from school. So in the Century Boulevard Extension Project was first proposed in 1999, we didn't have all of these schools in these places. And so we need to adjust the plans to take into account what the modern situation is. And also, please vote yes on the data center moratorium. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Clerk Moss, who's the last person?

Last person is Virginia Bruce. Ms. Bruce, can you hear us?

Good evening, Board of Commissioners. And now for something completely different. I am hard of hearing, and I have contacted the county several times to ask for captions to be enabled during the county's public meetings. Commissioner Treece assured me that this was something that the board was looking at. but I certainly don't see captions at this meeting. I have been in touch with the Oregon Disability Rights Organization and I'm meeting with them shortly. I would like to get any feedback from the board on whether you intend to implement captions. I was told that the Zoom captions are not accurate enough for the board to use them. There is another option, which I have suggested, and I have really not gotten any feedback on this. That's it. I want you guys to implement captions on your public meetings. As far as I understand it, the disability rights of the nation, require adjustments for people with disabilities. That's it.

Thank you, Ms. Bruce. For the public, I'll say that we are following the requirements for ADA access. So, we are fulfilling our state and federal requirements. And as you mentioned here, WE ARE IN A SITUATION OF FINDING THAT REAL TIME CAPTIONING DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME QUALITY OF CAPTURE AS OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS. COMMISSIONER TREES DID BRING THIS FORWARD FOR THE COUNTY TO LOOK AT. We are staying the course with the best system that we have to date. So thank you very much. I just wanted to assure you that your comments had been processed accordingly. Thank you. And that's it for our second public communication opportunity for tonight's meeting. At this juncture, we'll have board announcements. So I will share. Our upcoming meetings include next Tuesday, September 1st. We'll start with the county work session starting at 9 a.m. We will pause that and reconvene later. And then we'll have the Housing Authority Board of Directors meeting at 10 a.m. And then immediately following that, we'll have the Washington County Board Business meeting at approximately 10.40 a.m. And then if we run into our lunch break, we'll have our lunch break and reconvene the work session no later than 1 p.m. Tuesday, September 8th, we'll start the Washington County Board work session at 11 a.m., have our lunch break, and then reconvene as needed at 1 p.m. Thursday, December 10th, we'll have the Washington County Board Roundtable that will start at 9 a.m. We'll go through our agenda, have our lunch break, and reconvene as needed by 1 o'clock. Tuesday, September 15th, we'll have our Washington County Board Work Session at 9 a.m. And we'll pause that, go to the Board Business Meeting at 10 a.m. go through that business, reconvene our work session up until the lunch break if there's time. Otherwise, we'll reconvene our work session at 1 p.m. Those are our most recent board listings that I have for announcement tonight. It's amazing that the month of September is here already. That's all I've got for board announcements tonight. I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please vote by raising your hand or saying aye. Thank you, commissioners. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously, five to zero. We're hereby adjourned.