All right.

I'm going to call tonight's meeting to order.

Will the recorder call the roll.

Councillor Duggar.

Let the record show Councillor Duggars said here.

Councillor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Here.

Councillor Hassan.

Councillor Kimmy.

Counselor Teeter.

Here.

Counselor Tivnon.

Here.

Mayor Beatty.

Here.

So our meeting is echoing.

Jessica's texting to let them know it's echoing.

I I'm not sure if this producer is new.

Sorry.

Okay.

For tonight's agenda, we're gonna uh do proclamation visitor comment, um, and we're gonna move number nine, the action item to the top, and then uh go forward with the agenda as followed.

Um so we have two proclamations tonight, a women's history month and an international women's day, and Counselor 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 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 Windsor Campos, Kate Lieber, Courtney Nearon Mislin, and Lisa Reynolds, Representatives Farah Chaitchi, Dacia Graber, and Mari Wantadami, Metro Council President Lynn Peterson, Washington County Chair, I don't think it's me.

Okay.

Washington County Chair Catherine Harrington, Commissioners Nafisa Fey and Pam Treese, Beaverton Mayor Lacey Beatty, Councillors Ashley Hartmeyer Prigg, Nadia Hussen and Alison Tipnon, to Walton Hills Park and Recreation District Board members Barbie Minor, Prodnia Patil, and Tia Ping, Beaverton School District Board members Tammy Carpenter, Sunita Garg, Karen 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.

Whereas Pauline, Donna, Magna, Colette, Amber, Isabel, 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 U.S.

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 122 million girls currently out of school in the in it 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 March 8th, 2026 as International Women's Day and the City of Beaverton and urge all residents to celebrate women's achievements, 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 13th 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 135 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.

It's like we didn't work on you.

Just the volunteers.

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 eat may give critical feedback, they are 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 we have the list of tonight's all right?

All right.

Our first person up tonight is uh Catherine Skinner, followed by Ken.

Nope.

All right.

Jennifer Croft.

Followed by James Coltrane.

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, um 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 2025-2026, the city allocated 48.2 million to the police department from the general fund.

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.

Anyone who has ever been on the giving or receiving end can attest to that.

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 brandish their weapons, intentionally intimidating bystanders, smashing windows, assaulting and abducting our residents in front of their children, like in front of everyone's children.

In fact, um yourself called it an ice storm kind of, and you know it really kind of is.

So in our police department's mission statement, it says that they work hand in hand to ensure a safe environment for all.

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 the new plan includes robust traffic calming stream treatments beyond just speed humps in order to meet the hearings officers' requirements.

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.

I do appreciate the Mr.

Rogers nod at the end there.

And the bell, it sounds very much like Daniel Tiger.

James Coltrane.

Evelyn, uh followed by David.

Hi Mayor Beatty, uh, Chair Ducker and members of the council.

Is it on?

Hello, there we go.

Hi, Mayor Beatty, Chair Ducker members of the Council.

My name is Evelyn Cocher.

I usually hear pronouns I am a lifelong Beavertonian, uh, 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, we immigration enforcement and the city's reaction to it has not been on the agenda of city council a single time.

So on January 20th, counselors Kimmy and Hassan presented a codification of the 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 set instead remanded the subcommittee.

Reports from that subcommittee have not emerged since that vote on January 20th.

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 Renee 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, Forrest Grove has done it, Beaverton is not.

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 Pready in our town.

We must stand up and protect the immigrant community of Beaverton.

Thank you.

David Mr.

I feel like I need to get it right at three minutes now.

There's 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 fifth floor know me quite well at this point.

Um 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's sanctuary status.

I have two specific asks to for you to implement to strengthen Beaverton's 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 want to bring up is that the requirement of residents providing their name and address to uh 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.

All right.

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 March 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 17th 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, and her time as the assistant city manager, she has already built strong relationships across the organization.

She's been leading several high pro 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 17th.

Do you guys want to add anything?

I mean, I just wowed everyone with my written intellect here, but yeah.

Okay.

So we do um if are there any questions about the subcommittee?

Sorry, I am looking right here.

Um Counselor Hartmeyer Prague.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and thank you, subcommittee, for doing this work.

Um 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.

Sure.

Um so yes.

Tonight you would um the emotion and you can vote.

Thank you, Jessica.

And you could vote on um 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 Hart, uh Counselor Hussen.

Uh thank you, subcommittee for the work.

I think my main question is around the one year.

Um, 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.

Um that's pretty standard uh for interim city managers, particularly given uh the execution start will be April 1st, and one month after that is our budget.

And so our ability to really work uh in the building to get any uh 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 and move 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.

That would be part of the 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 kickstarting 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 is I want to be really thoughtful about the process that we create in selecting a new city manager, right?

We we Jenny was really the first one, the first permanent one that we selected.

Uh 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 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 learn, right?

That and that would just take more than six months uh 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, if that makes sense.

Most city managers have a minimum of a 30-day uh notice to their city.

So even if we selected someone, it 30 days is really fast.

Ginny gave us six weeks, and so even if we pick someone in 10 months from now, with this whole process the way that it is.

I mean, that 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.

Um 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 um 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 uh 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 there a reasonable zero way we're gonna get it in 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'm 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 the rest of the council, counselor are you in, Teter?

Yeah.

Uh yeah, Councilor Hussen, I appreciate you brought that up.

Those were some thoughts that I had too during the subcommittee conversation.

Um about just trying out six months.

Like if it works, then great, like we'll 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 a recruitment is really really hard.

Like I've I want to 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.

Councillor Hartmeyer Prague.

Thank you, Councilor Kerr.

That was a helpful explanation.

And I think another question for um Kristen.

We would just be making the motion to approve, but to your point of like it's a negotiation.

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 12 month.

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 um consider whether you want to move forward with the recommendation tonight so that way um the subcommittee and stit 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 just want to offer the flexibility.

I just want us to be as flexible as possible because maybe in six months you're like, whoa.

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 all work on the negotiation?

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

It can just be um to the subcommittee.

Um 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 Coffee as interim city manager, and that the subcommittee and staff will return at the next council meeting on March 17th, 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?

Councillor Duggar?

Yes.

Councillor Hartmeyer Prigg?

Yes.

Councillor Hassan.

Yes.

Counselor Kimmy?

Yes.

Counselor Teeter?

Yes.

Counselor Tivnon?

Yes.

Mayor Beatty?

Yes.

Seven, yes, zero, no.

Awesome.

All right.

Uh we're on to our first presentation of the evening.

Agenda Bill 26046, Washington County's microtransit pilot project.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Bailey and City Councillors.

I'm Rob Seller, 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'm 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, Councilor 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.

And so this is an opportunity for us to not only introduce the spot service to you, but also uh to make a formal introduction of Rye 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 Ressafarhoudi.

I'm a trans station planner with Washington County, serving as the county PM for this project.

Um also here today with Andy Nelson, who is the CEO of Ride Connection, as well as John Mira, who's a service planning supervisor for Ride Connection.

So just a uh brief uh agenda uh overview for you.

So we're gonna first uh talk a bit about Ride Connection, the role they play in Washington County, the services they provide.

Um 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, um, and then talk a bit more in detail about the service area and the connections that it serves to the broader region.

Uh we'll do a little more deep dive into exactly where In Beaver 10 Microtransit is serving and then talk a bit about the branding and user experience uh for the microtransit pilot, and then we'll uh 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.

Uh Riot Connection is a private nonprofit organization, but we're a proud partner, and I'll get into that in a minute.

Uh just a little bit about Ride Connection.

We've been around for about 40 years.

I'm here with my colleague John, who you'll meet in a minute.

Uh, and our mission is to work with folks for whom uh our wonderful transit system just isn't an option.

Or folks with um mobility issues, folks who are older, folks who may have income limitations.

And um busy.

Uh we're we're probably doing about a million rides a year, I 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 link services, including Bethany Link, uh, but throughout the county, we're connecting folks uh to school and to work and to healthcare and to each other.

And we're super excited about being here tonight to talk about microtransit.

So a bit of the project background.

Um 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 uh needs and opportunities for transit service, um, both outside of the TriMet service area um where we have some inner city services and demand response services, but also within the TriMet service area where there are gaps in the current transit network and our first last mile link shuttles uh help fill that gap.

Um so our latest uh transit development plan from about two years ago identified that uh the fast growing part of Beaverton, uh South Clever Mountain, Progress Ridge, and River Terrace and Tiger all lack uh public transit service, even though there's a lot of housing growth, multifamily affordable housing.

Um there's the Mountainside High School that opened recently and a lot of uh commercial as well.

So uh 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 15 or 18 months to be able to test out the microtransit service model.

Um and this was done in partnership with Ride Connection, who we've had a long-standing um partnership with to provide these services in Washington County, and so they were a natural uh partner for us uh for this grant.

So um a little bit about what is microtransit.

So these are flexible on-demand shared rides, similar to Uber or Lyft.

Um the idea is that you use an app that you download from an app store or you call in uh to request a ride, and you'll get picked up by a uh a passenger van.

Um these are vans that we've purchased through the the STIF grant.

Um 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 uh, you know, uh on-demand flexible service to help get you around.

Um so these are vehicles that we've purchased that are again up-to-date passengers.

They are accessible for wheelchairs and mobility devices.

Um they have bike racks, so they can combinate 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.

Um, 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 a next slide.

But also connect to frequent TriMet 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 uh data comes out of this pilot.

Um, 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 dialer ride service that's uh pretty expensive to provide to folks and requires a pretty lengthy uh um time in advance to reserve a ride, days in advance.

And this is something that could be more of an on-demand flexible uh solution for those rural areas that um that are um still in need of service, but obviously it's much more difficult to provide that service.

So just to talk a bit about the engagement that we did over the past year, specifically last summer to help uh guide the uh the pilot and uh how we devised a service.

We did several tabling events in the city of Beaverton.

We went to uh Beaverton Farmers Market, we uh did some tabling events at uh New Season's Progress Ridge.

We also went to the Murray Scholes Library and the THPRD Summer Kickoff Concert just to talk to folks to see uh 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.

Um we have a heat map you can see on the top right where uh folks said that they would like to be able to access within the area.

So uh Washington Square obviously was a big draw, so was Progress Ridge, Murray Shoals, um, South Cooper as well.

Now I'll uh pass it to John to talk a bit more about the service area for the pilot.

Thank you.

So after uh completing all of that engagement last summer, uh Ride Connection worked with the county to draw a service area.

Um there were a tough series of trade-offs that we uh had to think about.

Um we wanted to serve as much of the uh 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, um, and you know how much of the area we could adequately serve while keeping response times um adequate.

Uh so the seven square miles we drew uh we think uh really includes uh a number of key uh neighborhood destinations.

It includes uh about 33,000 residents, 5,000 jobs.

Uh of those, uh 20,000 residents and 4,000 jobs are within Beaverton city limits.

Um includes the neighborhoods of South Cooper Mountain, Progress Ridge, Murray Hill, Sykston Mountain, um, and we drew it to uh include uh 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, uh, 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.

Um we looked at a couple different transit centers as we were uh doing our planning and engagement, uh, but ultimately settled on Washington Square Transit Center, uh, both due to the popularity and responses we saw in our survey, but also the number of TriMet lines um that Washington Square offers, people to connect into with connections all over the region, uh including uh two Beaverton, Tiger, Twalleton, Oregon City with the line 76, but also Portland with the 45 and a couple other uh transit lines.

Um with TriMet service reductions that they'll be implementing later this year.

Uh we're going to see uh some changes to the destinations people can access uh with Washington Square.

Um, but even downtown Portland will still be within uh a transfer.

Um then within that half mile buffer of the Washington Square drop-off zone, there's 2700 residents, 5700 jobs, a few nearby destinations, um, not always with um uh 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 Reza mentioned for this service.

So Spot stands for shared public on demand transit.

We developed a unique website, catch the spot.com, wrapped our eight-passenger vans in spot branding, including contact information and information on where to download the mobile app.

So you'll see these vehicles driving around 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 6.30 a.m.

to 9.30 p.m.

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 uh request to be tricked picked up as soon as possible.

And typically we like to see uh response time of around 15 minutes.

Uh we we see that as good on-time performance.

But folks can also build book a trip uh 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, uh people can uh specify the number of riders who might be coming with them, guests, children, um, friends who are traveling with them, the number of mobility devices.

Uh our vehicles can accommodate up to two wheelchairs or uh electric uh chairs each.

Um 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 uh to detail our kickoff.

Yeah, John, thanks.

Um a lot of effort, obviously getting this up and rolling.

And uh the next question is how do we get the word out?

Uh many ways.

One way we did that is in the end of January, we had a kickoff.

Um enthusiastic, I might say.

A lot of our friends were there.

Thank you for being there.

Um it was um a really nice way to raise some enthusiasm.

We held that at um right at Ham Day Orchards.

And um I think we got some uh got some media coverage, which was a nice start, and just to get the word out in the community uh 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.

Yeah, Johnny, you should share the good news.

All right, I'll take the ridership report.

Um so we're about two months into service, and I have our first six weeks of data to share with you.

In those first six weeks, uh, we did 585 total trips.

Uh I I will actually mention today I think we completed our thousandth trip.

So we are seeing ridership increase.

Um so in those, those back to those first six weeks, uh we saw 585 trips, but over 600 customer accounts uh created.

And I think that really suggests that there is more demand out there in the community.

601, I'm doing it in real time.

Very cool.

Um people are interested in the service.

Um, they might be trying to figure it out or thinking about it for a future need, um, and we'll probably see that number grow.

Um we're seeing a little over one boarding per 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 kind of a sign of an 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 uh throughout the next uh several months, um, 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, um, you know, peak vehicles on the road and other service features.

All right, so I'll wrap this up.

So um, as I mentioned, um, this is a limited duration pilot.

We currently have grant funding through uh June of 27, which is really nice so that we'll be able to not only serve uh for the remaining year of this school year, but also uh all of next school year.

Um so in the meantime, Ride Connection will continue to monitor ridership and they may make some some tweaks uh to the service um based on demands, uh whether it's uh modifying driver shifts or tweaking the service area.

Um we're gonna continue with uh outreach, so we're really trying to uh make headway with Mountainside High School and make sure their students are aware of the service.

Um we're also gonna reach out to under um other underserved populations like elderly people with disabilities um to which um uh to the extent of which we can um re um access them.

Um and then depending on the success of the pilot, you know, we'll be working on a final report to kind of uh summarize our uh experiences with uh microtransit.

Um if things go well, we'll be trying to explore funding opportunities to perhaps extend it beyond the initial pilot phase.

Um as John mentioned, we're always looking to add a weekend service as well when funding becomes available.

Um, you know, our hopes initially when we planned this pilot was that TriMet would be in a position to extend their fix route bus into the area because now they're not in a position to do so.

Uh we'll be um working hard to look at other options.

Um but we're really excited to see this uh pilot get started and um hope to see the ridership continue to grow.

So thank you so much uh for your time today.

And uh yeah, if you have any questions, we'll have to answer them.

Uh counselor Titan.

Very excited about this.

Um 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 TriMet is not currently got a plan in place for.

Um question just about the app, which is fantastic and looks very similar to I think what people will already be familiar with if they use Lyft or Uber is um is there a uh 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.

Um and we do, in fact, in the app have a rate re ride feature.

I think it automatically pops up once uh a customer's ride has been completed, they can rate a ride out of five stars and have options um 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.

Um, 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.

Counselor Huston.

Counselor Hartmeyer, Brig.

Thanks for including me in your presentation.

I feel really special.

Um I was gonna ask questions about the funding, but you addressed that of just that it goes through June 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 um 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.

Um 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 um 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 the service.

Thank you so much.

Counselor Hussen.

Yeah, this is really exciting.

I'm feeling like I want to download the app ASAP.

Um 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, um 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 or connection?

Yeah, we have a long history uh doing just that uh throughout the metro area.

Um but love the idea.

I think that's a great way to build ridership.

Any connections you can make for us, we'd we take it and appreciate your partnership.

Okay.

You or Riza.

I think you can reach out.

I'm on the website.

You can start with me.

And uh 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.

Thank you.

And one more point, uh, ride connection offers travel training as one of our suites of options um 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 um uh people with limited English or English language learners.

Okay, yeah, I'll be connecting you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Kimmy.

Yeah, thank you for coming in.

Great presentation.

This is something I was always interested since before I I ran for a 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 uh one of my questions 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 to extending wait times.

So initially we were looking at Washington Square, um Tiger Transit Center, or uh Merlow Max Station, because those seem like the closest kind of hubs to connect to.

We did definitely get um requests for Beaverton Trans Center when we did our online uh 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 our the number of vehicles we have in service before we would 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 your destination and Washington Square obviously do not have max line.

So yeah, exactly.

Beaverton would probably be the best case.

Beaverton transit would be the best case scenario.

Um, but it's something that we'd have to look into to see whether we can uh make that change.

One uh quick one is the what are the demographics of uh typical passenger?

Is it elderly, is it young?

What are the what are the businesses that they go to and to use this uh ride?

Do you know?

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um and we don't have a strong grasp on uh demographics as um far as like race, ethnicity, gender, age.

Um that's something that we hope to find out through surveying um once we're further along into the pilot.

Um 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 Scholes Ferry corridor between Mountainside High School and 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 um residents of affordable housing um and potentially seniors who live there as well.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Well we would love to know.

We don't know miss out on anybody who wants to use it.

So yeah, thank you so much.

Uh Counselor Teter.

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 those the STIP funding discretionary grant uh for one year.

So we'll learn things over this next year that will we use that to apply for a new grant.

What is that what happens with feature funding?

So that's a good question.

Um I think there may be opportunity for us to apply for additional grants in the future.

Um there was a really good opportunity I was looking at with it's ODOT's innovative mobility program, if you're familiar with it.

They have something called a 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 uh suspended that grant program.

So kind of back to the drawing board, but I am uh 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 want to strand them again once the pilot runs out.

So if the city has any ideas of where we could potentially partner to uh apply for a grant or any opportunities that you can see um, let's talk because I'm I'm very interested.

Okay, thank you.

Um 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.

Um but I would love for us to work together to figure out how we can keep it funded.

Um I think of other ways to get information out to the community, like the West Side Transportation Alliance, TriMet buses that are serving near that area, like having information posted up.

Um 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 uh 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 uh build trips going to and from the area, spot will show up as an option for them as far as their journey.

So we're excited for that thing.

Just to add, we we do feel it's significant that it is stiff funded, as you know the the future is stiff is being discussed in Salem.

And this is a great example of how this dollars can can make a practical difference to folks.

So that's important part of the message.

Um awesome.

Thank you.

I've got uh see this presentation a few times uh at WCC and other mayors' forums, and I think this is a perfect neighborhood to run a pilot.

Uh all government officials love pilots.

It's just in our DNA.

Um my concern is is like we're not gonna have the best data because it's gonna take so long to build.

Um I live in the cert this service area, so I'm pretty excited.

I have a 20-year-old that lives with me that doesn't drive.

Um and you know, I want her to go outside walk and do more, so maybe she could take it up to Cooper Mountain.

Um I think the bang for the buck is a lot of high school kids don't want to drive.

And it's becoming such a trend.

And so I think I would recommend some lunchtime tabling at Mountainside High School uh 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.

Um 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 look pretty far outside the service area to get a uh a bus ride.

And so I think they do walking bus and school bus.

I think telling parents obviously they're not gonna put their kid on the bu this without them, but this could be a pretty good option when the weather's terrible.

Um 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 um the only way it's gonna stay is if people use it.

Um 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 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 ride share uh for community members that don't drive, didn't have licenses, maybe had immigration statuses other than legal, um, 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.

Yeah, well, I think you're saying that maybe Baity, and just to validate what you say, a good friend of mine is a counselor, guidance counselor at the high school, and with much enthusiasm there uh in describing the situation.

It's you know, it's been tough for the kiddos to find a way home, especially if they're on after school activities or so it's gonna it's really gonna, I think be popular.

Yeah, it's uh it's it's interesting to me, the like the 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 practical extracurriculars, there's no way for there's no transportation for them.

They have rely on friends or their parents.

So flat road is such a dangerous road to even drive your own car on, let alone say your kids walking down.

So I would say though, as somebody that lives in the neighborhood, uh Merlow is so much closer than be like coming here to City Hall takes me like 15 minutes from Sexton Mountain.

Going to 170th is like seven minutes.

So when you're looking at efficiency, our concern on the city council is there's no north and south connection to the MACs.

Yeah.

And so this is not doesn't do that, you know, quite as well.

And so just an expansion.

I would love us to consider the north and south connection to get to the MACs.

That is an important thing we talk about quite often.

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

If at this point, yes.

But north-south service, we understand is a great need, and so microtransit could fill that in it.

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 night.

Thank you.

Uh thanks for joining us today.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

All right, Council President, consent agenda, please.

Thanks, Mayor.

I moved 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 Hartmeyer Prigg.

Any discussion on tonight's consent.

Seeing none, will the recorder call the roll?

Counselor Duggar.

Yes.

Councilor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Yes.

Councilor Hassan.

Yes.

Councillor Kimmy.

Yes.

Councilor Teeter.

Yes.

Councilor Tivnon.

Yes.

Mayor Beatty?

Yes.

Seven, yes, zero no.

All right, 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 and ordinance number 2050, the Beaverton Development Code.

LU 42025-00608.

Designing walkable place project comprehensive plan amendment.

CPTA42025-00615 and a text amendment TA42025-00607.

I now uh 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 McIntyre, 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 click on the raise hand feature if you're attending online.

Each member of the public will have up to three minutes to speak.

When you speak, please give your name and address for the record.

Now I will explain the criteria the council must use to make its decision tonight, and then I will ask members of the 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 197.

Applicable federal or state statutes or rules, applicable plans and rules adopted by Metro, and the Beaverton Development Code, Section 40.85.15.1C and the comprehensive plan, Section 1.5.1.

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 with standing include include those who submit written comments or present oral comments.

So at this time I'd like to ask uh if any members of the council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest.

Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the ability of any member of council to participate in this decision?

Let the record show no response.

Mayor, that concludes the preliminary legal matters.

Red means on.

Okay.

Oh, I see there you go.

Um, uh 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 Sorley 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.

Uh the agenda bill attachments, ordinance attachments uh 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 uh 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 got a lot of pages to explain that.

Um I also understand that the city recorder uh sent you uh testimony after right around the time the meeting started.

Um so you may um just to sort of make you aware that that exists.

Um the planning commission on January 7th recommended that council approve the designing designing walkable 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.

Um the uh 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.

Um so that's where a lot of these uh amendments come from.

Um in our when we talk about walkability though in this project, it has a little bit of a broader uh definition or scope.

It does involve people walking in safe environments with clear connections to destinations.

Uh it also involves involves writing a code including site and building design standards, so it encourages vibrant, interesting, mixed-use places where people want to be.

And that's why you see the proposed amendments regarding open space, landscaping, storefront windows, walkways, etc.

Um, it's really about unlocking development and making sure it's human-scaled and designed for people.

Next slide, please.

Um now I'll start a brief summary of the amendments.

The comprehensive plan amendments uh are for volume one and five.

Volume one are some uh brief updates to policies to promote pedestrian-oriented design in station communities areas and promote housing and high density neighborhood areas.

Volume five changes would remove uh major pedestrian route maps because those maps are no longer going to be used to uh 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.

Um, 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 uh establish the maximum amount of development on a site.

So it's basically involves how much floor area can be built on a site, um, which using maximum floor area provides a cap on that building area or space inside the building.

Um 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 uh 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 would 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.

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 passers by walkways that provide access to different buildings on the site and that connect to the street, uh 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, uh development types and contexts.

Next slide, please.

So after that summary, uh the approval criteria for the applications are found in comprehensive plan section 1.5.1 and uh the for the text amendment development code section 4085 151c.

Next slide, please.

Staff recommends the the council approve the changes as recommended by the planning commission with the alterations in exhibit G's supplemental memo, which I believe is uh is uh reflected in the in the uh suggested motion.

Uh that concludes the staff recommend uh uh 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 the first time we've heard it.

Um, and this is something we've been working on for quite some time.

And so don't take the council's lack of uh questioning as we're not concerned.

We have seen this many, many times with many, many work sessions.

Okay, so there appears to be uh no um thank you for this.

No questions.

Are you in it?

Oh, okay.

I thought you were testing it.

Um 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.

Um, 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 uh to address the council.

We also received your written testimony as well.

Good evening, Beaverton City Council.

My name is Michael Radenauer.

I work at Peaverton First United Methodist Church here in downtown Beaverton.

Um, but tonight I am testimony giving testimony uh just in a personal capacity.

Um 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.

Um 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.

Um so I have a deep appreciation for the the various gaps in the pedestrian infrastructure in Beaverton and how it needs to improve.

And as somebody who is 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.

And so I'm very excited to finally see some momentum to improve the walkability of Beaverton.

As I read through the uh walkability plan document, um, I did just have a couple of questions that I think it would be useful to clarify.

Um 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.

Uh line 52 recently got cut, um, and line 76 um just got cut a couple days ago.

Um and so I was just wondering, yeah, what is what can Beaverton City Council do to try to mitigate the impact of those cuts.

Um and then also I know Metro has a project for trying to improve the safety along Tualeton Valley Highway.

Um and I was just wondering how that intersects with the walkability plan and whether that opens up any new potential.

Um 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.

Uh Michael, just for a little bit of con like these hearings are typically where we take feedback and not kind of go uh back and forth.

But I I think you've raised some important questions tonight that the council can follow up on.

Um I'd be happy to have a separate meeting with you and kind of talk through how those plans kind of intergauge.

But um, 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 want to ask them questions, a little roll reversal, if you will?

All right, 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 uh follow-up questions since there's no one else here to testify tonight?

Is there any follow-up questions for uh 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.

Uh 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 4879 and ordinance amending the comprehensive plan and the Beaverton Development Code LU42025-00608 designing walkable places project comprehensive plan amend it, amendment CPTA 42025-00615.

And text amendment TA 42025-00607 with amendments to Beaverton Development Code section 60.05.15.3 and 60.05.35.3 as presented in the supplementum supplemental memo dated February 25th, 2026.

I will second.

It's moved by Council President and seconded by Councillor Teeter.

Any more discussion on tonight's motion?

Counselor Teter.

I just want to 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 monumental for the areas that this will this will affect.

There's a this 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 Drumpke 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.

Um 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, uh walkability.

Kevin, this is probably like Christmas for you.

Counselor Duggar.

Uh thank you.

I just want to also, in addition to thanking staff personally, because this has been high on my agenda for a long time.

Uh I just if any of the planning commission folks happen to watch this over the next few days, I want to just acknowledge their work too.

So that was super helpful in the the in our prep for this and making the because we get our briefings and I've saw that too.

But that would that was really helpful, and I'm just really proud of the work that they did bringing the um the changes in the amendments and in in the memo and whatnot.

So just want to acknowledge that, 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.

Councillor Hartmeyer, Prague.

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.

Um 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.

Um there's other projects that we're working on that I've been like kind of skeptical on because I I you know you I kind of wonder like, oh, well, 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 um 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.

Councillor Hussen.

Yeah, I just want to echo what folks have said.

I mean that 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.

All right, well, the recorder please call the roll.

Counselor Duggar.

Yes, yes.

Sorry.

Councillor Hart Mayer Prigg, yes, Councillor Hassan.

Yes, Councillor Kimmy.

Counselor Teter?

Yes.

Counselor Tivnon?

Yes.

Mayor Beatty.

Yes.

Seven, yes, zero, no.

Uh, for the record, even though council president voted three times in America, you only get one vote.

So 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 5.02.

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.

The council chamber and give that card to one of the many city recorders sit at the end of the 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 uh their decision.

I know there is no uh council or no staff presentation tonight.

Are there any questions?

The council has a staff.

Yeah, please.

Um this is kind of unknown to the staff because I had asked this question, and maybe this question is to the council.

Um when I jump to page nine, seven, seven, six, page six of nine.

Um the appeal process is within 15 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 a 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.

Uh thank you, counselor.

Some some brief feedback.

We did try to correct the issue that happened um recently that you referred to by having the appeal time start um on the date of mailing or emailing.

Um beyond that, the uh specific appeal periods were chosen to be consistent with other parts of the code.

But if council 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 how do you know when I received it?

Is that a silly question?

Uh no.

It's um I'm looking at page five of nine under 5.02.230, counselor.

Okay.

And right on the top of page five, um, that the applicant has 15 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 the 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.

Uh any other questions?

Okay, I will open the public hearing.

Uh, is anyone here to testify?

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

All 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.

Okay.

I move that the council adopt ordinance number 4880 and ordinance related to the local liquor license review process and amending B Reton Code Chapter 5.02.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any more discussion on tonight's on the motion?

Seeing none, will the reporter call the roll?

Mayor Beatty.

Yes.

Councilor Tipnon.

Yes.

Councillor Teeter?

Yes.

Councilor Kimmy.

Yes.

Councillor Hassan.

Yes.

Councillor Hartmeyer Prigg.

Yes.

Counselor Duggar.

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 26053, fiscal sustainability service fee.

All right.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, I'm Elizabeth Coffey, Assistant City Manager, and I'm joined uh by Susan Cole, our assistant finance director.

And we are here um to talk about fiscal sustainability and specifically uh the potential um services fee that is on uh council's um fiscal sustainability action plan.

Um I'm sorry, I apparently skipped a step.

Uh the next item on the agenda is a work session and presentation regarding this Cisco'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 uh 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 a 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 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 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 want to call a brief recess so we could get some guidance from the attorney, but please.

A conflict arises because I am 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 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.

All right.

All right, Elizabeth and your finance posse.

Let's do this.

All right.

Um and so next slide, please.

So tonight we're gonna go over uh just a real brief recap of the fiscal sustainability action plan, um, talk about uh policy considerations, uh 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 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 want to let uh 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 fund, and there are structural limitations at the state level through measure 5 and 50 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 cents goes to the city of Beaverton for our general fund, and that is what we use to fund really critical services like police, uh, our library services, community engagement, uh, 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 uh has been hard at work ever since.

As so far, we've reduced $9 million in expenses, uh 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, uh 45% of the value of those properties is not assessed through property taxes.

And you can see here uh the percent that's assessed for commercial industrial, and then in the middle, there's a significant chunk for multifamily apartment complexes where a 63% of the value is not assessed.

Uh the other interesting thing about property taxes is that there are certain ratepayers that are exempt from paying property taxes, uh, nonprofits and churches, and public facilities.

Um, and one of the reasons that cities often choose to have both a local operating levy 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.

Um there aren't exemptions to the fee.

And the other thing that's nice about uh fees as a revenue tool is that, for example, here in 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 uh lead into talking about various structure options.

Um 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.

Um you can see here that in the middle column uh 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, um, etc.

Those fees typically range uh approximately between $5 and $6 per month, depending on the jurisdiction.

On the right-hand column, um you can see here the number of uh 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 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 revenue four fee structure options, we're going to be looking at three key criteria.

And the first is really the impact.

So 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 the 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 2627?

All of the options that we're proposing as they currently are proposed are ones that are feasible for us to collect.

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 want to acknowledge that much of the discussion will make center around what is the monthly impact to the community of a potential fee.

But I just want to 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 $5.8 million in revenue.

This will give you an impact 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 ED unit per EDU, and then e counts accounts are charged for each EDU 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, 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.

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 nineteen, 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, are a little bit larger.

That's the second lowest option.

And then for single family residential, multifamily, and commercial, the second highest.

Transparency, it's 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, 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, etc.

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.

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 5.8 million dollars 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 tenants 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.

And then public facilities, those are your THPRD, Beaverton School District, government agencies.

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.

And 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 differing fee models on those folks that are not within that median range.

So for context up at top, the single family residential is included.

And then we've provided you with 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've provided examples of the total bill for Twellaton Hills Parks and Rec and Beaverton School District.

They have multiple accounts with the city, and 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've provided you a lot of options tonight 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 custom in all customer classes, except for those single family residents and very large properties.

Obviously, totally up to council, 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 we could 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.

Um, if we do make changes to the structure, um, 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 um that as it's not currently something that we um have in our system.

Uh this we could also look at, for example, adjusting the rates for option two um tiers.

And so we could um do some uh tinkering with the model and come back to you with some more options if you really have some um some heartburn about some of these options.

So uh the plan is between now and your next work session, we will work with our uh consultant to refine the fee based on your feedback.

Um we plan on coming back to you in a council work session in April.

Um I do want to note regarding the uh fiscal year 26-27 proposed budget.

Um that uh will be getting finalized for proposal and consideration in early um April, and then we'll be working on refining that and getting that ready for the budget committee meeting.

So uh we will still be having discussions around this fee.

So we will be making some assumptions uh based on some of the feedback that we hear from council tonight about how much revenue we could uh conservatively assume uh from this fee in the budget for next year.

Uh in terms of council adoption process, we would amend the Beaver 10 code to authorize collection of this fee and then adopt a resolution authorizing the amount of the fee.

Uh, 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.

Um then uh certainly after the adoption of the fee, we would do additional um outreach and communication, which would take uh a couple of months.

And so with that, um, just a recap of the questions that we're looking for feedback on today, um, the purpose of the fee.

Do you agree with the staff recommendation around focusing it on general services?

Um, the revenue target of the fee, we've been talking about 5.8 million tonight as an example, but uh don't have to be tied to that.

And then what fee structure might is there one that you might be interested in having uh staff uh finalize?

And so with that, um I will open close out my portion of the presentation and open it up for a discussion and questions.

Thank you.

Uh Counselor Tivon.

Oh, I'm sorry, Counselor Hartmeyer, Prague.

Thank you.

Thanks, Susan Elizabeth.

Um question um did the order in the presentation change from our briefing.

Okay, I was getting confused.

Um 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.

Um, based on some feedback that I received during the council briefings, I tried to simplify the few names and then changed the order around to kind of group the two EDEU options together.

Okay, so thank you.

Um okay, and then um for the kind of like baseline neighboring cities examples, did they also apply it EDU 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 um cities have different structures, and so our consultant did an environmental scan to see what structures are most commonly used.

And so, for example, Gresham does a flat fee per account, um, Medford public safety fee is per unit, uh, Salem's is based on the type of account.

Um, Tiger has a per EDU model.

So there's um these are kind of what you're seeing here recommended today or or proposed today, um, are the most common options that we've seen.

And um I think it's some I think you're also saying, so like for example, when we look here at like multi-family 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.

Um, 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, THP or Beaverton, and then like in options two, three, and four, and there's a 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.

Um, what it what would not be charged in these examples for THPRD in the Beaverton School District are um 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 this 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 twenty dollars and fifty-six cents.

And so when you add it all up, it would be five hundred and seventy-five dollars per month.

Oh okay, that's helpful.

A helpful distinction.

Okay, and then okay, so now I'll give you my feedback.

Um, I think the purpose of the fee being general services makes sense.

Um, and I think that the revenue target is good.

Where it's at um in terms of the structure, I am also in favor of removing options three and four from consideration the with how high some of these rates are going.

Um then I also would like to explore the potential like max fee.

Counselor Tibnon.

Okay.

Um, 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.

Um, 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.

Um, but looking at some of the what they would be paying under option one feels really onerous to put that kind of um responsibility on the shoulders of our other public facilities.

Um 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 the general fund, but I did have a question.

I know we want to keep things all loose right now.

But if in the future, if this council or future council decided to get a little bit more defined or prescribed with that, do they have the ability to to do that?

Um yeah, so this will be um in the uh Beaverton code, and you have the authority to be able to change um the code.

Um we can also talk to the city attorney's office about kind of 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 any happening, but um, and then number two, the revenue target.

I similar to Counselor Hartmeyer and Prague, I'd love to see a range, like some exploration across.

I I know is part of the refinement process, it's probably in there, um, as well as some other things, uh which I was curious about that, what that will look like when you hopefully get uh consistency on what option to explore.

Um, but yeah, so a five to six minimum uh makes sense, and yes, to looking at more too.

Um, and then yeah, option two is the one I I think needs to look be had sorry, it's late.

I think option two is the one to look into further.

I'm gonna jump in real quick.

Um I think that the target for the amount is good.

Uh I also would drop options three and four.

Um 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, um, 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.

Umlees pay more in property tax and multifamily now, and it costs us more to service multifamily now.

And in option one, while I understand the sentiment that like they are have larger builds, we're not asking families to pay more.

And there's also don't make a um poor assumption that if a family lives in an apartment, they're poor, right?

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 um largely our largest growing populations over 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.

Um where in this um we talked, it has a a bit of a definition up here.

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 in fact.

But it is in the mix.

If they have utilities and a bathroom, okay.

Because I think like the other reason the council is trending down and looking at this path is that we have a lot of um government-owned nonprofit um buildings and churches in our community that are not paying property taxes 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 raise their rates on uh child care centers.

So now that their child care centers are norm almost uh because my little sister has her daughter in child care at HPRD, it's almost the price that I pay at our non-subsidized daycare.

And so they are raising fees right now, um, 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 is 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?

Uh counselor Kimmy.

Okay.

So I like uh Yes to number one, the purpose.

I agree.

Number two, I agree with the target uh amount.

And three, option two for me, I think is more fair.

Um but one thing I might add is maybe a clearer definition of the tiers.

So we can definitely explain why you belong to this tier rather than the other tier.

So um uh and then of course public messaging.

Um that's all I have.

Thank you.

Counselor Teter Thanks.

Um I've got a couple questions, a couple comments.

When we say funding general services, I have my own assumptions of what that means.

Do we have a definition of what's included, or is it just anything in the general fund?

Uh correct.

The revenue would be going into the general fund.

And um, in you know, if you think about our budget, um, 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 uh 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 c some caution if we make it too specific, and then we need to actually change a different funding strategy that we might want to use in the future.

So I I like making it for general services and maintaining that flexibility.

For messaging for the community, we sh we are sharing what the purpose is.

Like we want to stabilize the general fund.

We want to 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.

Um we want to be able to keep providing some really great services.

So I I think when we're talking with the community, we 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.

Um 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.

Um you check me on that?

Like am I assuming incorrectly do we have ex 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.

Uh 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 uh assessed values of different types of property and where who is being taxed most relative to their use of of city services and um been a big advocate for uh subsidizing multifamily and and a far and a and apartments on council.

Um but these are these are developments that are already here.

Um they've got people in them.

People using the using the facilities using the services.

Um 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 nine dollars for bathroom or each user, for example.

Um 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 nine dollars per person.

Um 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 um similar concerns to the mayor shared there.

Just I'm not sure how it'd 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 Counselor Tibnon was saying, the five to six million, seeing what the range would be is good.

And uh 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 you like residence, not bathrooms.

I just want to 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 how an EDU is calculated, but the mayor's 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 things that feed into the number of EDUs.

Okay.

Counselor Hessen.

Yeah.

So I want to sorry.

I want to share a little bit of what counselor Teter 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, um, 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 um uh there's a lot of buy-in that's gonna be needed for this, and so uh that is um 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.

Uh I support the revenue target for the fee.

Um I support removing three and four.

Uh and 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 would just want us to be really cautious and careful.

Um and I appreciate that you're taking it to some of our partners as well.

Um I think that's gonna be really critical.

Uh, but my gut is option one.

Council President Um couple questions before I give you feedback.

Um, from a cost recovery standpoint, do we um 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 want to know from a cost recovery standpoint of single families versus businesses versus multifamily.

Do we know, you know, I've heard general comments here and there that certain things are subsidized versus not certain 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 a 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.

Um 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.

Um 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.

Um those services are primarily funded through property taxes.

Um then some services maybe have you know grants and other revenue sources.

Um I mean, that's when you talk about you know what our 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 um 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 um uh housing units um here in the city.

So we're not I I wouldn't say we're necessarily currently subsidizing our service delivery to um residents through the general fund.

But is that a fair assessment, Susan?

As best you know, right?

Like 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 um a utility rate, or um if you not to pick on THP or D, 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 and the wonderful services that they provide or our planning department to plan our community on the the transit um presentation that we just had.

All of those types 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 guess ultimately what I'm getting at is very generalized numbers here, but there's a hundred thousand 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 hundred million.

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 two thousand dollars to the general fund?

You know, or am I contributing five hundred dollars, right?

Because I'm using other services.

And I know that that is not an easy question to answer, but but like that's kind of what I'm getting at, because even when I look at EDUs, 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.

Uh it feels like if the polling was bad on a property tax, this is an end around, and I'm willing to live with it and I'm willing to take the heat for it.

But this like I want to if if we're gonna do it, I want to really make sure that we get to uh 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.

Um of 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 what 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, um, 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'm 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 want to opine on this too much.

But 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 want to figure out how to tax people coming into the community.

What direction are you giving staff?

Because I'm looking at their face and I'm giving the context to why I'm giving this.

Perfect.

Um for the purpose, I do think we have to be general.

You know, I I actually agree on some level of custom counselor Huston 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.

Um the question I had on that is like is that just zero to five point eight or five point two million in one year?

Is there is there is there possibilities to ramp this over a couple years?

Um I would I I 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.

Um, and then the fee structure.

What fee structure should staff for fun?

Yeah, I mean, I would I would lean towards number one on that one, um, just for simplicity.

Um I wish we could capture revenue at the end of the day from people that were outside of the city with this.

And if you know, I don't know how to do that with this structure.

So 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, a lot 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 uh I would like to see us explore that too.

That's it.

Councilor Hartmeyer Prague.

Uh I just want to 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 want to look at one and two.

Yeah.

Uh there's a lot of energy around one.

Uh counselor Hartmeyer Prigg was the only one that asked for a cap, but I think it's worth looking at the equation.

Uh, 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.

Sounds like it's not the right place to spend time.

But also I really do agree with Counselor Susan and Teter about the the clear messaging.

Yeah.

I do think it's really it's going to be challenging, like to say it's a general services fee.

Well, 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 a that's going to be really important for them to understand how what this fee is helping pay for.

Um yeah, that's all.

Okay, so I think I've heard uh that we'll come back to you with um some refinements around option one and option two with no cap for option one.

Um, and then we will uh include some details just about our messaging strategies um for our next uh work session.

And I think it'd be good to walk out some of the the you were gonna hear from as a school district in 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.

Um I also just want to recap for the council.

When we we had the transport, I'm looking at Tim because we had this transportation utility fee a couple weeks ago, like weeks, months, and the majority of you guys were like, yeah, $20 a month fee.

Boom, let's do it.

And we are like looking at a nine-dollar fee for our services, and there's a lot more trepidation here.

So I 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 spending sending a $20 fee for roads, but not having the staff to actually do the work is going to be challenging.

Uh, 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, and 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 in-depth conversation on these things.

We know this is a lot of work to get us to this point.

Um, 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.

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

Do you have something, Counselor Timon?

I think it's worth just throwing this out there, and I'll keep repeating this.

Um, 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 beginning 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 um 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 in the council.

So we'll make the hard decisions, but you guys got to help us defend them.

Okay, thank you for joining us this evening.

Uh, we're on to our last agenda item.

Uh, council items.

Councilor presidents.

Oh, Council Hartmeyer Prigg.

Thanks.

Um, I had a follow-up question to one of the comments that we heard tonight about um the traffic calming in the 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, no one else looks really.

They knew it.

Hi, good evening, Tim LC Public Works Director.

Thank you for the question.

Uh no, that would go through our normal traffic calming procedures.

And so we we did have a so if you'd like, I can explain a little bit more.

Um, so 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 um 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 close.

And I 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 uh make sure that they knew the answers to those questions.

And it has gone through a rigorous uh planning and zoning process.

It has been approved by uh the city of Portland.

And so one of the conditions of approval is that there's a transportation management plan or 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 uh 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 um survey that went out, we could call that an all-invoid.

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, and 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 uh 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 uh 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 um 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 want to 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.

Um 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.

Because 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.

Um, and so I just appreciate you continuing to work and we'll help to find ways to make it easier on the neighborhood.

Thank you.

And I think, you know, 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.

Uh Sylvan are in that neighborhood because it is a Portland school in a city.

We have the same issue with Red Tail Golf Course, that it's a Portland golf course surrounded by the city of Beaver 10, 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 going to continue to grow and shift this direction.

I have one or do you have something on this?

Okay, sorry.

Thanks, Tim.

Uh I was talking with John last night actually, and I've been in the loop on this project for a little while now.

Um you mentioned the process, the traffic combing process.

I've talked with Jenny in the past, just kind of getting clarity on it.

Sounds like we were working through the old traffic combing process because the current one was not approved until a month and a half or so ago.

When you're saying you want to go call it call the current process null and void, does that mean going through our current traffic calming process that has like easier uh barriers to actually get or easier thresholds to get the changes the community 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 um 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 uh 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 uh from a different jurisdiction through this right-of-way, we just want to go out with them and come up with a a consensus sort of of the plan.

Um 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 filing 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 going to 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 uh be inconvenient a little bit, they may have to go over some some traffic humps.

So we want to come up with something where people would be willing to say, yeah, you know what, I'm gonna lose that parking space in front of my house, but it's better for the neighborhood, so so I'm gonna go forward with it.

So I'm gonna go forward with it.

And so that's what we're we're not we're not gonna hold to any strict 51% or 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 uh 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.

Okay, is that your question?

That was perfect, thank you.

Uh 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.

Okay, I have more.

Not for you, Tim.

So thank you.

Thank you for joining us.

Um I wanted to give a shout out to Counselor Hussen on your work that you've pushed us on for a long time about our data sharing.

Because we keep hearing from constituents and they're concerned that we're sharing data, and I have confidence that we're not.

And it's because you have brought it up from this day 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.

You know, that like we don't we we don't always talk about some of it.

Um, or it's through individual advocacy that it happens.

And I did just want to call it that one specifically because I have utmost confidence that Beaverton does not share our um law enforcement data because of the work of staff and council.

So I I know that we aren't really talking, you know, we don't go back and forth 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 uh 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 uh a sheet to talk about it, um, 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.

Uh she's writing notes, so she already knows I'm gonna call her and ask her about it.

Um on that, you just made something pop into my mind.

Um we are 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.

But 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 you know working on this cannot talk publicly about it, or something.

I think a city manager report rather a presentation like yes, yeah.

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.

Um, 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.

Uh I'd like uh the council to direct the city manager to identify an efficient process for uh to allocate 25,000 um to a community organization located here in Beaverton that provides direct uh uh support in the form of mutual aid to Beaverton residents and families impacted by federal immigration.

Um there's a couple uh um things that I've been thinking about.

Um did you want to add in like from a money perspective?

Yeah, I think I talked to when we looked at it, it uh 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.

Um, and I feel we 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 I we're we're well past the halfway mark, in fact, of the fiscal year.

We only have a a quarter left, really.

And since we've underspent the money, um 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 uh we wanted a fair and efficient process.

Um, so you know, 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 uh 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 um if the council wants to move forward with this, um, 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 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.

Um 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.

Um 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 needed right now.

So I I really appreciate the work that's gone into finding this, and I would be very excited about it.

Counselor 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.

Um, and I'm thankful to know that I guess we haven't traveled much and that we have that funding.

Now I wish okay.

Um I would ask though, uh, with the council 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 be able to potentially allocate that based on how the experiences and the work that's being done in the community.

Yeah, I wholeheartedly supported it as well.

Um and I I kind of 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 reason you know money left in there, uh maybe it's something that we can explore every year is something just like that.

And we've used the same pot of money in budget season.

We used it in the arts commission.

We used it for an art um 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 counselors, 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 a it's um learning and being good at your job is really important as well.

Counselor Edward.

Not as that in there in parallel to impacted families.

I didn't that's not the parallel I was trying to draw there.

Yeah, I mean, obviously I fully support it uh at the hopefully uh 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, uh, which not just the counselors, but include the mayor.

Uh whatever we can, whatever we can do, uh whatever we can physically do.

Uh that'd be great.

Uh it's not going to be much, but whatever, whatever more can be helpful.

And I hope it goes directly to be button residents and the service organization who serves the POT and residents.

Uh so that's my input.

Okay.

Any other you do, you have another item, please.

I have a couple things.

Um I'll start with Jenny.

I will not be at the March 17th meeting.

I don't know if I will be virtual because I will be in DC for the National League of Cities Conference.

Um, 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.

Um I also want to take a moment.

Um honor Paulino Martin San Pedro.

Um 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.

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.

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.

With that, meeting adjourned.