[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Good
[0:07] evening. I am Mayor Harlow Brown. I call to the order the regular meeting of Beaverton City Council.
[0:17] City recorder, please call to the roll. Mayor Brown.
[0:23] Here. Mayor Beatty. Here. Councillor Dugger. I'm here.
[0:28] Councillor Hart-Mayor Pregn here. Councillor Hussain.
[0:32] Councillor Kimmy. Councillor Teter. Councillor Tipton.
[0:37] Here, all present. Madame Mayor, thank you for joining us for our
[0:42] inaugural Mayor for the day event. Thank you for choosing to come to Beaverton City Council
[0:48] and calling tonight's meeting to order. I understand you also wrote a proclamation for
[0:52] us this evening. Can you tell us what the proclamation was about?
[0:55] Well,
[1:01] maybe one of my assistant city councillors could read the proclamation.
[1:09] The proclamation.
[1:13] Just one moment.
[1:19] Do you remember what you wrote about?
[1:21] Perfect.
[1:22] Okay.
[1:24] Do you want to read it?
[1:26] I do.
[1:27] Okay.
[1:29] Can you read it?
[1:30] Yeah.
[1:30] I can read it.
[1:31] Okay.
[1:32] Thank you.
[1:33] Mayor Brown.
[1:34] This is a resolution from the office of the mayor of the city of Beaverton, where as
[1:39] the city of Beaverton values the voices of its youth and recognizes the importance of
[1:44] engaging young residents in civic life, inspiring leadership and fostering community involvement,
[1:49] and whereas Harlow Brown has identified inclusivity and community connections as priorities, reflecting
[1:56] a desire to ensure all voices are heard and valued in Beaverton, and whereas listening sessions
[2:02] positions provide an effective way to gather ideas, address concerns and foster a sense
[2:07] of belonging among community members. And whereas the Mayor Brown's platform includes
[2:12] the goal that every community member feel included. Now therefore, I have you read this
[2:18] part.
[2:20] I, Harla Brown, Mayor of the City of Beaverton, do hereby resolve as follows.
[2:30] Section 1, planning. The city shall define the goals of the sessions
[2:34] to prioritize gathering feedback and ensuring inclusivity.
[2:38] Accessible locations and times shall be selected
[2:41] to maximize participation by all residents.
[2:44] Broad promotion shall be conducted through multi-lingual
[2:46] and multi-channel outreach to ensure all voices
[2:49] are invited to the table.
[2:51] Section two, execution.
[2:53] The city shall facilitate welcoming and inclusive sessions
[2:56] by providing interpreters, childcare, and ADA
[2:59] compliant spaces.
[3:01] Feedback shall be documented accurately
[3:03] through approved methods such as note-taking or recordings with consent.
[3:08] Dialogue shall be encouraged in a manner that fosters inclusion, trust, and respect for all participants.
[3:14] This resolution is effective upon passage and will remain in effect indefinitely.
[3:20] Awesome.
[3:22] Way to go, Mayor Brown.
[3:23] Why don't you take a picture with your city council and me with your certificate and we invite your chief of staff to join us as well.
[3:30] Thank you.
[3:30] one
[4:23] more one two three all right thank you all right
[4:59] we are now on to the
[5:01] visitor comment portion of our evening as a reminder public comment is an
[5:05] essential part of local government and how we operate however in order to
[5:09] comply with organs open meeting laws this is not a time for dialogue rather a time
[5:13] for us to hear from you if follow up is needed we'll have the city manager and the
[5:18] recorder do that. We have one in person testimony, so we'll let them come up to the
[5:25] mic first Nicole when you come up to the mic. You'll have three minutes to address the
[5:29] city council.
[5:36] All right. Hi everyone. I'm here on behalf of SEIU represented employees, which is the
[5:41] majority of employees here at the city of Beaverton. We need to urge you to reject agenda
[5:47] bill 24142 titled update to management non-rep salary schedules and benefits or at least to delay
[5:54] a vote until you can gather more pertinent information.
[5:57] For context, this bill is asking the City Council to approve a second raise for management and director level employees who already received a 4% raise on July 1st.
[6:06] It appears that the justification for this request is that last week Council ratified the SEIU contract providing a 6% cost of living adjustment for union represented employees.
[6:15] Thank you, by the way, we couldn't have gotten there without your support.
[6:18] I need to point out a mathematical error in the city's justification for this second raise.
[6:24] First, a 6% increase on the average SEIU represented worker salary, which is about $69,000 a year, is a much smaller number than a 6% increase on the average manager salary, which is about $123,000 a year.
[6:38] We have difficulty in understanding where the equity lies in that and the good government and fiscal responsibility.
[6:45] I
[6:48] want to be clear, managers, directors, and classified level staff are our co-workers
[6:55] and our colleagues.
[6:55] This is nothing personal.
[6:57] We absolutely want them to get the money that they deserve.
[7:03] However, managers were offered a 4% pay increase during the budget preparation season last spring
[7:08] when beavertonians were able to make comment on the budget draft.
[7:13] That raise was implemented on day one of the current fiscal year.
[7:17] Meanwhile, represented workers began negotiations for a successor contract in January, while managers
[7:23] were automatically given this 4% pay increase we were offered a 3% cola.
[7:28] Through a no-fall of our own, the negotiation process has taken over 9.5 months, only being
[7:32] ratified last week.
[7:35] If managers and directors need higher wages, which may be the case, they have the opportunity
[7:39] to negotiate that during the budgeting process not by piggybacking off of our hard work.
[7:44] work. In fact, they have another opportunity to negotiate a higher raise if needed in the
[7:49] upcoming fiscal year session. Meanwhile, represented employees don't have that opportunity. We're
[7:54] locked into a three-year contract. We have no ability to change the coal as it will be getting
[7:58] in the next three fiscal years. We know the cities in a budget deficit, and I want to be clear
[8:03] that that is in no way the fall of the workers. Yet we are the ones threatened with layoff and
[8:08] blamed because we are too expensive. The reality is that this second raise for managers
[8:12] and directors amounts to $6,639,000.
[8:17] That amount would pay the annual salary
[8:18] for over nine represented employees.
[8:21] Is this a good use of taxpayer money?
[8:23] Is this good government?
[8:24] Those are questions for you to answer,
[8:26] but we believe that this is an example
[8:28] of inefficiency and poor fiscal responsibility.
[8:31] Please reject or postpone a vote on agenda bill 24142.
[8:34] Thank you.
[8:36] Thank you.
[8:37] Our next visitor comment is a remote
[8:44] hearing from Maggie Myers for the Climate Action Plan. Is she prepped and ready to go?
[8:50] No Madam Mayor, she is not online.
[8:56] Okay. With that we are going to move and we just for
[9:01] the council we do have five written public comments that came to us as well. Okay we are
[9:07] going to move on to the next order of business which is our proclamations. We had our
[9:17] There's a couple of recommendations.
[9:21] Can you wait this one?
[9:27] Councillor Hartmayer-Preg is going to take the first one.
[9:30] Okay.
[9:30] Proclamation on behalf of the office of the mayor of the city of Beaverton, whereas the
[9:34] city of Beaverton is committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging as a fundamental
[9:39] aspect of a healthy thriving community, and whereas the heritage and contributions of Native
[9:44] Americans help make Oregon economically, culturally, spiritually, and ecologically stronger.
[9:49] And whereas the city recognizes that the area currently known as Beaverton rests on native lands and was originally home to the Opphalotti tribe, a band of the Kalapuya who, at present, are part of the confederated tribes of Grand Ron since time immemorial and who call the area Chikapi or place of the beaver.
[10:08] And whereas the legacy of colonization, genocide, disease, forced relocation, and a
[10:14] ratio has had lasting impacts on the Native American community, and whereas the
[10:19] current Native population of Washington County is composed of people belonging to a
[10:24] multitude of indigenous nations, and is estimated to be at least 10,437 people, a
[10:31] significant figure, but much lower than what it would be had it not been for the
[10:35] aforementioned defenses.
[10:37] And whereas the city and other institutions have much work to do to repair the history of
[10:41] oppression and disenfranchisement of native peoples, and to develop active partnerships
[10:46] with tribal nations, government to government, to strengthen Oregon and help build a future
[10:51] of hope and promise for all.
[10:53] And whereas public institutions in Beaverton should work together to increase the visibility
[10:59] of Native Americans and their contributions offering every opportunity to embrace culturally
[11:05] significant customs and regalia in public spaces, as well as incorporating Native American
[11:11] heritage within public place naming, and whereas the month of November is a time to celebrate
[11:17] the rich and diverse cultures to raise awareness about our shared history and to acknowledge
[11:21] the important and continued contributions of the Native American community today.
[11:26] Okay, now, therefore, on behalf of Lacey Beatty, the mayor of the city of Beaverton, does
[11:32] hereby proclaim November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month in the city of Beaverton
[11:38] and encourage all residents to observe this month.
[11:42] Thank you.
[11:44] Okay, our next order of business is the Diversity Advisory Board Certificate and Recognition.
[11:51] Do we have the, we're working on it?
[11:54] Okay. All right. We need just a minute for that.
[12:36] I don't know if we've ever held the room this silent.
[12:39] So,
[14:15] okay. We're going to go old school,
[14:17] had to pull up an email. Sorry about that.
[14:20] I thought it was printed up here for me tonight.
[14:22] Welcome everyone. It is an honor to be here as we celebrate
[14:26] what has become Beaverton's most treasured traditions,
[14:30] the Beaverton Night Market.
[14:32] This evening brings our entire community together,
[14:34] showcasing the vibrant diversity that makes Beaverton so awesome and so special.
[14:40] Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging are values that strengthen our city and
[14:46] drive our work together.
[14:48] For the past 10 years, yep, 10 years, the Beaverton Night Market has embodied these values,
[14:53] growing into a celebration of our multicultural heritage and drawing neighbors from all backgrounds.
[14:59] sounds.
[15:00] To experience a wonderful mix of cultures. Through food, art, music, and connection, the
[15:06] night market is where we come together to learn, share, and build lasting bonds. We are deeply
[15:12] grateful to the past and present members of the Diversity Advisory Board whose passion
[15:17] and dedication have helped shape the night market into the vibrant event it is today. On
[15:22] behalf of the city council and the entire Beaverton community, thank you for your contributions
[15:27] and making this cherished part of Beaverton life,
[15:30] bringing our community spirit to life year after year.
[15:33] And we're here tonight because we didn't get to do this
[15:35] at the night market this year.
[15:37] I mean, it worked out for me because I was on vacation,
[15:39] but I heard it was a horrible way to end the evening
[15:41] because of the rain and pack it up.
[15:43] So we wanted to make sure that we took some time tonight
[15:46] to just recognize the deep value that you guys brought to us.
[15:49] We do have one of the founding board members
[15:51] made us wait a city council, so be careful.
[15:53] It's a gateway to public service, as you know.
[15:55] but tonight we want to take a photo with you.
[15:58] We have some stalls for you tonight.
[15:59] I'm an ask the city council to join Jen.
[16:03] She's gonna hand you some stuff to hand out.
[16:04] We're gonna take some photos and after that,
[16:06] we created an opportunity for you guys to fellowship
[16:09] in the hallway and get some snacks
[16:11] and get your certificates
[16:12] and just wanted you to hear from us.
[16:14] How incredibly thankful we are
[16:16] that you bring your talent and work to the city.
[16:19] And while next year is year 11 and not cool as year 10,
[16:22] we'll just we'll all join you in a great celebration.
[16:24] So thank you.
[17:20] about 4 to 500 guests but then 4,000 people showed up I don't know if you remember that time
[17:25] and you have been successful events since then.
[17:28] It was like the biggest event for the city of Beaverton.
[17:31] So I want to congratulate all of you
[17:33] and hopefully we can do bigger and better next year.
[17:36] Thank you so much.
[17:44] And like total bonus points,
[17:45] if one of you brings back Dr. Kimmy a tree
[17:48] because in fairness, he's quite earned it.
[18:11] Thank you, Mayor.
[18:12] If we can have the slides up,
[18:13] I have five announcements and we'll be brief.
[18:27] I move to the next slide.
[18:31] So it's that time of the year
[18:33] and we have emergency preparedness tips for residents available online so that
[18:38] they can be able to be informed about landscaping, to travel, to
[18:42] overall safety as winter comes upon us. So we encourage you to go to BeavertonOrgan.gov,
[18:47] Backslash Emergency Preparedness, and check out those winter weather tips.
[18:52] The next slide, we want to remind folks that we have our leap disposal events that are coming up,
[18:57] We're actually ongoing right now.
[19:00] As Saturdays through November 30th from 8 to 4,
[19:02] you can drop off your leaves at Highland Park Middle School,
[19:06] and then also Sunday through December 8th, 8 a.m.
[19:09] to 4 p.m. at the Public Works Operations Facility
[19:13] that's located on Allen.
[19:15] And again, you can get more information
[19:17] at beavertonorgan.gov, a lead disposal.
[19:22] One of our favorites, it's that time of the year,
[19:24] one book when Beaverton.
[19:25] So save the date Saturday, February 15th.
[19:28] You can spend an evening with the author Diane Wilson at the research and get your complimentary tickets at www.theresearch.org.
[19:38] And then we have a really great exhibit at the research again called the Curio.
[19:43] This is November 1st through December 30th and you can find more information again here on our website beavertonorgan.gov
[19:50] of batch slash beaver 10 arts market.
[19:53] And then finally, you may have participated
[19:56] in the opening of the new park playground.
[19:59] And so the pirate ship of flag is up.
[20:02] And special thanks to our public works crews
[20:04] who made this happen, we really appreciate that.
[20:06] And so the kids have something to play on.
[20:08] And then finally, we've got our tree lighting event
[20:10] that is Friday, December 6th at 6 p.m.
[20:13] So we have to see there.
[20:17] All right, thank you.
[20:19] We are on to consent.
[20:20] And we are pulling agenda two.
[20:22] Councilor Dagger pulled 2-4-1-4-2 and 2-4-1-4-3.
[20:27] With those as a set aside, I'll take the consent agenda, Councilor President.
[20:32] I want to move to approve the consent agenda, excluding those two items.
[20:40] Second.
[20:40] All right.
[20:41] You guys are a little rusty, so that took a little longer than normal.
[20:43] It's been moved and seconded in any discussion on tonight's motion.
[20:49] Seeing none, will the recorder call the roll?
[20:52] Councilor Dagger.
[20:53] Yes.
[20:54] Yes. Councilor Hart, Mayor Prigg. Yes. Councilor Hassan. Yes. Councilor Kimmy. Yes.
[21:01] Councilor Teeter. Yes. Councilor Tidman. Yes. Mayor Beatty. Yes.
[21:05] 7-0. Okay. With that, we are going to have a discussion on two consent agendas and I do
[21:11] have an opening statement for that. Okay. I want to start by expressing my gratitude to our city
[21:17] stock, especially our management team. Your leadership and dedication are what keep
[21:23] Beaverton moving forward.
[21:25] And I deeply value your contributions.
[21:28] I also want to acknowledge and appreciate
[21:30] the city's manager's work over the last two budget cycles
[21:33] to address and close the budget deficit.
[21:35] These efforts have not been easy.
[21:38] And I know the council and city manager
[21:40] have made tough decisions together
[21:42] to keep us on track for our long-term fiscal health.
[21:45] That said, tonight we are discussing
[21:48] the proposed 2% cost of living adjustment
[21:51] for management employees.
[21:52] While it has been the standard practice to align management COLA increases with union
[21:57] COLA increases, I believe we need to carefully consider the context and the long-term implications
[22:03] before following this precedent this time.
[22:07] Every decision we make must reflect our current fiscal realities, staffing challenges, and
[22:13] the overall sustainability of our city operations.
[22:15] This year, we are facing a projected $10 million deficit, which the City Manager informed
[22:23] the Council of in a memo yesterday.
[22:25] This deficit is expected to continue each year until we make structural changes.
[22:32] Approving this additional coal at now, while well-intended, could inadvertently undermine our
[22:37] ability to address these broader fiscal challenges.
[22:41] moreover, we are about to enter negotiations with our police union, approving this
[22:46] COLA for management but not the rank and file officers could only create
[22:51] disparities but also weaken our position in those negotiations. It is also
[22:56] important to note that during union negotiations we were not operating under the
[23:01] assumption that we would later be asked to approve an additional COLA for
[23:04] management. Over the summer while SEIU negotiations were ongoing, Council was
[23:09] asked to approve a 4% COLA for management. Had I known at the time that we'd also be asked for
[23:15] another increase, I would have requested a full financial understanding of the broader budgetary
[23:21] impacts in that context. We are now facing $639,000 of additional costs this year,
[23:29] an amount that will only grow in future years. While the city manager has assured us that this
[23:34] increase can be absorbed in this year's budget through vacancy savings and
[23:38] understanding. I am deeply concerned about how this cost will impact future budget
[23:43] years. Considering of those vacancies to be filled, considering those vacancies
[23:48] that we're using to underwrite this will be filled next year. $639,000 is
[23:53] equivalent to four to six full-time positions and I'm left wondering how will the
[23:58] city manager protect those jobs in the next budget cycle. I want to reiterate
[24:03] that while we recognize the hard work and contributions of our management team,
[24:07] we must be cautious about the long-term consequences of this decision.
[24:12] Management compensation should not be tied just to internal equity,
[24:17] but to a fiscal sustainability plan.
[24:20] If we improve this increase without fully understanding its implications,
[24:24] we risk making decisions today that are going to force painful cuts tomorrow.
[24:29] cuts that could affect both the management and union employees alike.
[24:34] This is not a precedent I wish for us to set.
[24:38] Finally, more of our managers have expressed feeling overworked and underappreciated.
[24:43] While I know that compensation plays a part,
[24:46] I'm not convinced that COLA alone will address those deeper concerns.
[24:50] How can we better support our managers making sure they feel valued
[24:53] and have the resources they need to succeed and thrive?
[24:56] My goal is to ensure fairness, sustainability, and respect for our employees.
[25:03] We need to carefully evaluate this proposal and light of both our current financial challenges
[25:08] and our long-term priorities.
[25:10] I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the city manager on how we will continue
[25:15] this important conversation.
[25:17] In closing, before we move on, I want to summarize the key questions and concerns that I hope
[25:23] we discuss tonight.
[25:24] long-term fiscal impacts. While the city manager has assured us that this
[25:30] year's COLA increase can be absorbed, how do we account for growing costs in
[25:34] future budget years, especially giving our ongoing $10 million deficit? Staffing
[25:42] implications, the $639,000 increase is four to six full-time employees. How will the
[25:48] city manager's plan to protect those jobs in the next budget cycle? A
[25:53] negotiation with the police union, how will approving the COLA for management affect our
[25:57] position in upcoming police negotiation, especially since police management will now receive
[26:04] an increase that far outpaces the rank and file. And how are we going to support managers
[26:10] feeling underworked and overappreciated beyond COLA increases, what are additional steps we
[26:15] can take to ensure that they feel valued and have the resources they need. These questions
[26:21] are critical as we balance fairness and sustainability. I'm confident that working together we can have a
[26:26] path forward that addresses these concerns thoughtfully.
[26:36] Councillor Dugger.
[26:40] Thank you Mayor.
[26:42] Once again I am reminded of how uncomfortable it is to talk about compensation. Whether we're talking
[26:50] about compensation of Councillors or some of our trusted colleagues. But it's a big but.
[26:58] But my job, in fact, job number one of each of us up here, is to represent the voice
[27:05] of B-R-10 residents, the only primary thing that we have to do, that is our most essential
[27:13] role here.
[27:14] So here's some of the facts that I'm thinking about for this discussion.
[27:19] As the mayor said, we have a $10 million general fund deficit.
[27:24] It will likely be even larger for other funds.
[27:27] I'm looking at 638,000 in additional costs this year.
[27:32] If we approve this, the floor for wages goes up even higher next year for every subsequent
[27:40] COLA after that.
[27:42] I'm looking at 16% increases in PERS, double-digit healthcare increases.
[27:49] I think about our bonding rate, right, like that's a really important thing, very nerdy
[27:55] and for us it's but it's incredibly important it's good right now Beaverton has good
[28:01] credit but we have to be good stewards of the money in order for us to keep that
[28:07] credit and these are some of the things that are driving my thoughts so those were
[28:12] the facts these are the thoughts what are we going to cut to get us get us out
[28:17] of this ten million dollar deficit what are we going to cut there's no way we
[28:22] contacts are way out of this. We have, we need those reserves, right, that we
[28:28] currently have in order to maintain our ability to bond in the future. If we
[28:32] have any future plans, we have to have good credit, and in order to have good
[28:37] credit, we have to have reserves. Simple as that. Also, how can we just pay for
[28:42] this at its most basic answer? If the answer is an operating levy that we're
[28:47] going to have to go to the visitors, sorry, the voters, the climate for an
[28:51] operating levy will need to show voters that this body that we can be responsible with
[28:56] their money, right? This is the, this feels like the opposite of that. Giving people
[29:03] an additional raise on top of the 4% coal that they got plus their step increase does
[29:08] not feel particularly responsible in this fiscal situation. I spoke with 20 of my neighbors
[29:15] actually more than that. Just 20 shared with me and I've been asking people what
[29:22] did you get this year? What was your race? About 20 of them shared with me, not a single
[29:27] person that I spoke with, not a single person, got more than 3% this year. I don't know
[29:32] what each of you are getting. We all have full-time jobs. I'll volunteer mine. I'm getting
[29:37] 2.5%, not 2.5% plus a cola, not 2.5% raised plus something else that is in.
[29:45] Every single person I talk to, the most they were getting in this community, is 3%.
[29:51] Social security, just an ounce of 2.5% increase for this coming year, not 4%, not 6%, 2.5%
[30:00] So these are the people that are going to have to pay this bill. You have to be really, really careful with this.
[30:07] That's bigger than any of our residents that I know of for getting. I think of the incentive structure here. If management automatically gets the raises that the union staff gets, and we empower them to negotiate on our behalf, what incentive do they have to take that fiscal standard?
[30:29] right? If I'm negotiating and I know I'm going to automatically get that I'm going to approve
[30:34] whatever the highest number I could possibly get because it affects me personally. This is setting
[30:39] up the wrong incentive structure and let's be honest here with staff and residents. There's no way
[30:46] to close this budget gap, especially in the general fund which is inherently a people fund that doesn't
[30:53] involved significant layoffs. I don't want to have that conversation in April. I know
[31:00] what it did last year when we had to make difficult decisions on the library that gutted
[31:05] me as a human being. I do not want to make that decision this year, and if we keep digging
[31:10] this whole deeper, we are going to, like we're already going to have to have a version of
[31:15] that conversation and I'm asking you please don't make it worse than we already have. We cannot
[31:20] dig that hole deeper. And I understand there's issues with compression. Let me tell you in the
[31:27] private sector, this isn't that big of an issue because very few times in my professional career
[31:31] have I ever been in a situation where that wasn't a thing. It's very common, right? The reality is
[31:36] people management is a specific skill just like any other skill that we pay for. If someone has been
[31:42] in their job for a long time and say if people managers knew maybe the team manager should be paid
[31:48] glass. We need to look at these on an individual basis, not as a blanket, blanket solution.
[31:54] Honestly, that's punting. That's punting and it only gets us one more year because we're
[31:58] going to have to have this conversation next year too. And we need to fix these things
[32:02] structurally. Finally, to our management employees, I am sympathetic. I wish there was more money
[32:06] for this. You all deserve, you know, to be well compensated to have stability in your finances.
[32:12] But the real choice for us, and again, I wish it were different.
[32:19] We don't get a vote on the things we want to vote, is do we dig this whole deeper, and
[32:25] do we pay for it with higher layoffs in April?
[32:28] And my answer is uncomfortable as all this is, is no.
[32:32] And that's why I'm going to vote no, and I encourage you all to do the same.
[32:35] Thank you.
[32:36] Councillor Hutt, Mayor Preg.
[32:38] Thank you, Mayor.
[32:38] I'm just with all the information that we have, and curious when would be the right time
[32:44] to have city manager like to share anything additional?
[32:48] I'll facilitate that if there's no more opening comments.
[32:51] Well, I have a question mostly just about like the legal implications of it, and like if we
[32:56] have pay equity issues, or what are, you know, what are the, where are we opening ourselves
[33:00] up to liability if we were to not move forward?
[33:04] Megan and I had this conversation earlier this week and if you want to let the council know what you told me that's great too.
[33:11] Sure. Mayor council, so with regards to legal issues related to this COLA. In the M3 category, you do have a pay equity issue that would be a legal issue if the M3 category of employees were not to receive the same COLA as the SEIU employees.
[33:30] And the reason this occurs is because there's some similar job duties that occur in that particular classification
[33:37] that would, again, result in pay equity issues.
[33:41] You don't have the same problem with pay equity with regards to your M2 classification.
[33:47] However, as it has been noted, there are the business issues of compression, retention,
[33:54] and just general business management that occur in that category, but pay equity that legal
[34:00] issue is limited to the entry category.
[34:06] Does anyone have any other legal understanding
[34:10] of the legal advice from the attorney? Okay. Any other comments from the council before I ask
[34:15] the city manager to address the concerns? Go ahead, city manager. Oh, sorry. Yeah, Councillor
[34:23] The class and comp study has that been done as it relates to this conversation.
[34:31] Classification is wrapping up but the compensation is not complete.
[34:35] So that is another layer and it has fiscal implications that will come before you.
[34:39] At some point but we will need to brief the council before that happens.
[34:43] Okay, so this is reflective of not having completed the class.
[34:47] That is correct work. That is why you continue to have compression.
[34:52] Okay. And that we're not at market rate.
[34:56] And if we were to guess how many roles are, like, are we looking at all roles for
[35:01] Class Cuff right now? It's City Wood.
[35:04] Okay.
[35:08] Projected amount that we're likely going to have to put into the kicker to address this.
[35:13] I have an amount that doesn't include a per's and a health care roundification, which could
[35:18] be around in the order magnitude of 1.5, but when you roll that all up, it could be as
[35:22] high as 3 billion.
[35:25] But again, we're still doing that work.
[35:28] Okay.
[35:29] Okay.
[35:29] Thank you, Mayor.
[35:30] So I appreciate the comments and I wanted to clarify that this is being brought before
[35:34] you, not as a raise, but to address some of the legal pay equity issues that come with it.
[35:40] So that's the one priority.
[35:42] The reminder that I think it's important to counsel is that you are advised in executive
[35:48] session that this would have ramifications on the organization and this is one of the ramifications
[35:54] which is why it's being brought for you for discussion. The attorney mentioned about the pay
[35:58] equity issues on M3 so that's really clear that we've got a legal issue there. With respect to
[36:03] compression I just want to define for you what that is so that we can go in with the context.
[36:08] It's also referred to as wage compression or salary compression. A really great example is when you
[36:14] have a long tenured employee that makes less than a new employee when they're doing the
[36:18] same work. Pay compression also occurs when salaries between employees do vastly different
[36:24] work, but they're extremely close in pay, or that the pay between managers and the employees
[36:29] they supervise are incredibly narrow. So when I say narrow, I think 1%, 2% delta between
[36:35] the two. So that's how we're defining compression. And then of course at the attorney said there
[36:41] There are good business sense and morale issues that go along with this, and I recognize
[36:45] that the budget is a consideration.
[36:47] And the council also did ask for information with respect to where managers are on top
[36:53] step.
[36:54] In our executive, we're at about 80% at top step.
[36:59] Our middle management is around 62 top step, and then our M3s, which are supervisory level,
[37:05] they're around 54%.
[37:07] And again, that is the group that has the legal implications.
[37:09] You made a lot of comments, I will find out comments about the deficit and about our general
[37:16] fund deficit.
[37:17] And you are correct.
[37:18] It's $10 million.
[37:19] And I want to be mindful in this conversation with you that we cannot start talking about
[37:24] the budget, outside of the budget development process.
[37:27] But I will share some assumptions with you in that $10 million.
[37:32] So it does assume that 6% increase for SCIU.
[37:36] So, it does make assumptions for BPA because the expectation will be very similar.
[37:42] It does make considerations for the 4% that you authorize for management, less the 2%.
[37:50] If we wanted to get down to brass tax, your deficit minus 2% before you would be 9.7 just
[37:57] in the general fund, so just kind of give that context to you.
[38:00] It is important that the numbers, your correct, that the cost is $638,000 across all funds.
[38:10] That number includes the impact of PERS, that number includes the impact of healthcare
[38:16] increases and other rollups.
[38:18] Those expenses are not specific to management.
[38:21] PERS does have implications with salary, right?
[38:24] So if your salary goes up, so does PERS, so that's important to understand.
[38:27] but these numbers will run across all employee groups.
[38:31] So when we do the calculation,
[38:34] your bargaining groups will also have the same significant hit
[38:37] and these are large massive numbers.
[38:39] When you look at a 16% increase in COLA across the board
[38:42] like Councillor Dugger noted,
[38:45] I do think it's also important to note
[38:47] that your total hit on the general fund for this COLA
[38:50] is about $379,000.
[38:53] That's it, we can't absorb that.
[38:55] I understand the implications of moving forward in subsequent budgets, but again, that
[39:00] 638 is split among funds.
[39:04] And I had a presentation, but obviously I'm not able to give it to you and it outlined
[39:09] but it is in front of you.
[39:10] It does outline how the funds are appropriated and you'll see that 60% of the general fund
[39:16] will receive that 379 and the delta is spread between over 13 different funds.
[39:23] And so, the order of magnitude on those funds is very nominal compared to the general fund.
[39:29] So again, your eyes on the right prize without the general fund is the most important thing
[39:33] and probably the priority here.
[39:35] I don't want to dismiss that these are high numbers.
[39:37] But I do want you to understand that these are spread upon a number of different funds.
[39:43] And so, the impact to those funds, like street fund for instance, or utility funds, is them
[39:48] on a much smaller scale.
[39:49] And that's just for information purposes only.
[39:52] I will say that when we look at making recommendations for budget reductions, without this 2% that you will still be looking at service level reductions, you will still have to consider workforce reductions regardless.
[40:08] I'm not dismissing that, but that is the case unfortunately.
[40:13] So we can take this on this off the table if that is Council's desire, but we will still
[40:18] be facing these uncertainties despite whether you decide to approve this or not.
[40:24] I did want to say that we are actively developing, as we did last year, three, five and seven
[40:30] percent scenarios of how we would address different types of reductions across the organization
[40:36] and preparation for the budget.
[40:37] Many of these things are going to include a lot of strategies that should be familiar to you.
[40:43] With or without this COLA, it would involve vacancy eliminations.
[40:47] We would do strategic hiring delays.
[40:50] We'd also make reductions in professional services.
[40:54] So those are consultant costs.
[40:55] We would probably look at travel and training, although we're making every effort to preserve that.
[41:00] Efficiency measures. A great example would be converting all of your paper distribution to electronic.
[41:06] riskoping projects and of course better managing your departmental overtime.
[41:11] So the last point I will make and then I would like to provide you a couple of
[41:15] options as you deliberate before you is with respect to your bond rating. Your
[41:21] deficit is not going to affect your bond rating actually going into the current
[41:25] year and to next year your bond rating will be relatively unaffected and the
[41:28] reason that is is because bond ratings really are influenced by three things.
[41:32] there are influence by your ability to maintain your reserves by policy, your ability to pay
[41:38] your debt service, that's the priority, and that supersedes actually all services when
[41:42] you issue debt. And then the other is to make sure that you balance your budget each year,
[41:47] and by law you're required to balance your budget. I've confirmed with both the finance department
[41:52] and our rating folks that we are stable, we have a rating of AA1, and we have a rating of AA plus
[41:59] on our water rates so those something to be proud of and we'll continue into the next fiscal year with those same ratings and then just wrapping up I would like to put a couple of things before you for consideration.
[42:12] I do think you have a couple of options here obviously you can approve the agenda bills you can disapprove the agenda bills those are two.
[42:20] But one consideration too is that you can also look at this if you wanted to explore options of no retro pay.
[42:27] There's about $150,000 across all funds savings and there's about another 91,000 in general fund.
[42:34] You could approve the COLA for just M2s and M3s only and exclude M1s.
[42:40] That would be a smaller savings but that's about 67,000 across all funds and 48,000 for the general fund.
[42:48] And I would highly urge you to prove at anything at a minimum M3s because there are significant
[42:54] legal implications associated with that, but I would also urge you to give great consideration
[43:00] to the M2s because compression while maybe common, it is a huge issue in this organization.
[43:07] And I think that it would potentially result in more turnover, more dissatisfaction, and
[43:13] And we currently have 28 vacancies in the management team across all funds.
[43:19] I would not want to add to that and that would be my fear because when you rehire, it
[43:23] is far more expensive to do that.
[43:25] And actually I would argue that it is more expensive than this amount that's before you this evening.
[43:30] I will speak for the executive team that we are more than happy to not take this if that
[43:35] is what you ask of us just symbolically.
[43:37] I will close in one statement that both myself and probably about a quarter of the team are already voluntarily not taking this raise.
[43:46] This is not the first time that I have not taken a cola, so I just want to say that for the record.
[43:52] I'm fully aware of the implications of this budget on this community and we'll stand with you and not accept that cola because I understand how important this is.
[44:01] Thank you.
[44:02] Can you address the concerns with giving police management cola in your
[44:06] equity argument with us? You're saying that we should give management across the
[44:11] Union cola because of equity. How are you reconciling that with the police
[44:15] department? So the police department is a part their command is a part of that M2
[44:21] band if you will so to carve them out outside of that when they're not even
[44:26] related to the BPA negotiations. I don't think that that makes sense. I probably
[44:31] We would want to hear more from the council on what the concern is of that.
[44:36] I also want to be very mindful our HR directors here to not get into conversations about a potential negotiation that's going to happen, probably in about two weeks or so.
[44:46] So we do need to kind of be careful about that and I see a head nod over there.
[44:50] But you just said we shouldn't consider removing the police union or the police management because they have nothing to do with the negotiation.
[45:00] That is true. So why should we consider giving management the exact COLA that the union got with that same argument and reverse? You're asking me to adopt us to adopt a COLA predicated on what the union got and when I just asked you if we should pull out the police department to wait till the police negotiated, you don't think it's fair for them to wait. I don't think it makes sense, but if that's council's direction, that's fine. This asked before you.
[45:29] So it's not saying that you need to give this same exact call.
[45:34] This is because that 2% that is not being given is raising issues of pay equity, legal issues, and existing compression issues.
[45:45] I cannot make those decisions behind a closed door because I don't have the authority to do it.
[45:50] But they are ethical issues that I think need to get addressed and this body can do that for us.
[45:56] So, again, it's whatever council's pleasure.
[46:00] I don't see the logic in pulling out a specific group that is already in the M2 ban,
[46:05] but council has discretion to do that this evening if they feel that it would be more
[46:09] fair to do that.
[46:14] Any comments from the council?
[46:21] Councillor Dagger.
[46:23] I guess that just feels not the right solution, because if they're paying equity issues at
[46:30] low end for individuals, you don't give everyone a raise or an additional
[46:36] coal. You fix it for those people. And as Councillor Hussain said, you know, we
[46:42] need those COMP studies and we need all of that in order to fix those issues. If
[46:46] we just do 2%, we are going to be exactly back here next year having the same
[46:51] compression issues. And do we do it again? Like we have to fix these things structurally
[46:56] or we are going to continue spiraling and spinning
[46:59] and not doing the people's work.
[47:02] And I understand like this is,
[47:04] again, incredibly uncomfortable.
[47:06] Like I feel like I'm being set up
[47:07] to be an enemy of management staff.
[47:10] And I don't like that because I'm not at all.
[47:12] I very much appreciate my colleagues.
[47:14] But we need solutions that are real.
[47:18] Not just blanket, give the management the same 2%
[47:22] that everyone else got.
[47:23] that I need to know amongst that, the M3s, that's the category, like if there's specific
[47:31] is that like two people, is that all of them, because from when I looked at the documentation
[47:37] that was provided to us, the 22 people in M3, the cost of the raise was the same as the
[47:46] 11 people in M1, so that tells me there's inequity right there, like it makes perfect sense,
[47:52] right like people that make more going to make 2% of a bigger number is going to be more
[47:57] but that doesn't feel equal to me because the conversation is around pay equity and
[48:04] compression. We need to solve that actual problem and not just blow up the whole thing by
[48:10] giving everyone the same cola to be back here again with the same conversation.
[48:19] Thank you.
[48:20] I keep coming back to the class of compensation study and I know we asked recently on the
[48:27] mayor asked or Councillor Hassanath when that was going to be completed and or that
[48:33] is it completed.
[48:34] It's like no, it's still in the works.
[48:36] What's the timeline for that to be completed and is it in the next calendar year?
[48:43] I'm hearing July 1.
[48:45] July 1.
[48:46] Okay. So 25. 25. Okay. And is that is the what's been the cause of it taking as long as it has?
[48:57] It's not well, I can ask the HR director to speak on it, but it's not an easy process. It takes a lot
[49:03] to wield that. The fact that we've gotten through the classification is pretty a Herculine effort.
[49:09] The compensation is nuanced. We also have to build in all of the coalists that we just made
[49:14] adjustment and I will tell you that we can add this 2% in and we still have disparity
[49:19] between groups because we're not at market.
[49:22] I don't know, Patricia, if you want to clarify a little bit, that's in both of the compensation
[49:25] piece for them and the timeline.
[49:31] And I'll have a follow-up.
[49:34] Thank you very, very quick.
[49:36] So the classification study takes a long time.
[49:39] We touch every single classification and we touch every single job description.
[49:42] We compare with our markets, and therefore that requires some detail.
[49:48] Then we move on to the compensation study, which is a moving target.
[49:53] Every time the cost of labor goes up, not the cost of living, so we really can't tie
[49:58] our compensation study to a cola.
[50:01] We tie it to the cost of labor.
[50:03] Our cost of labor is driven by what's happening in the city of Vancouver, the city of Portland,
[50:09] City of Eugene banned the sale of the entire I-5 corridor and so it's a moving target.
[50:15] We did a preliminary review and we found that our jobs range from anywhere from 7% to
[50:23] 27% behind market.
[50:26] So we are currently experiencing a really rough time in talent acquisition.
[50:32] We're having people tell us that they will not take our jobs.
[50:35] We're having people just ignore our office.
[50:39] We're having a problem retaining employees
[50:41] because they can get a better author elsewhere
[50:44] because the cost of labor continues to rise.
[50:48] As of July 1, the cost of labor as well went up.
[50:53] We were looking at a January cost of labor number
[50:56] in July 1, on July 1, we had to adjust.
[51:00] We recently met yesterday, Monday,
[51:02] We met with the consultant troop HR and we're also grappling with the cost of labor moving.
[51:11] Our market has always been tight and we've always been behind.
[51:17] I just want to let you know that we have tried to stay 7% behind the 75th percent out of the market.
[51:24] So the city of Beaverton has never been ahead of the market in terms of our wages.
[51:28] what we're really dealing with now is of the inability to offer any kind of
[51:35] salary to persons who are looking to come all the way even at the top step.
[51:40] The
[51:45] reason why I asked it is because I think there's a macro issue going on in
[51:50] this room right now. The first thing is if we didn't have a deficit, if this was
[51:55] pre-2020 and the economic outlook, the financial outlook was different for the
[52:01] city, I don't think that there would be as much friction and tension around the compensation
[52:07] conversations that we've had, but it is, it's, talk about compression. That's the theme
[52:13] across the entire organization in every way, shape or form. And so, understandably, emotions
[52:20] are really high around this. Inflation has kicked a lot of us in the teeth, and smaller
[52:27] other colas are still something that means something and so I understand all the emotion
[52:35] around this but the part that I keep coming back to is we have a bigger problem that you
[52:39] just pointed out that we cannot attract talent. I mean, of course we can and we have incredibly
[52:45] talented people applying for our positions but the net is constrained by the fact that we
[52:52] We have neighboring municipalities that are offering different compensation and all of
[52:57] that.
[52:57] And I'm also getting a sense that maybe this class and comp study is, it's lingering
[53:02] out there like hoping conditions will change a little bit before we stamp things down in
[53:07] place on what we need to be offering because whatever it is, we're not going to be able
[53:12] to afford is what I'm reading between the lines on this, that there's just the only comfort
[53:18] in this is that we're not the only city going through this.
[53:20] I hear routinely about cities all over Oregon, especially up and down that I have corridor
[53:27] that are having massive deficit conversations a year over year, just like we have, but
[53:33] I think where my head is today is how much of this is symbolic versus addressing the systemic
[53:41] issue that we have with our pay at all levels of the organization and across categories.
[53:48] And then how much of this is coming down to, no, we had to fight for this and you didn't and just the friction again that can develop when money is so scarce and everyone's hurting.
[54:07] And I'm not saying that I have my opinions fully formulated on this right now, but I'm very curious what the rest of the Councillors have to say about this.
[54:16] the fact that no matter what we do today, we've got angry residents, we have water rates
[54:21] to talk about soon, we've got things that are no one is going to be happy about including
[54:27] us who live here and are paying these costs as well. But is this, what are we trying to
[54:37] accomplish today versus in the long term and what is the real feasibility and likelihood
[54:43] than what we do today is really going to move the needle and move it in a
[54:50] substantial way that doesn't end up, like you said, coming back to be Groundhog's
[54:54] Day next year. Councillor Teeter.
[55:00] Patricia, can you respond before I jump in?
[55:06] I have several responses but I just really wanted to reiterate the point that when
[55:12] When you have compression and we have that with police management as well, you may have
[55:20] one position that is an 11, another that is a 10, or let's say both of them are 11,
[55:26] but let me take 11 and 10, there are 5% between ranges, ranges, when you get 6%, you just
[55:32] now have given 1% lower to a position that is very similar in work.
[55:38] So, whereas we may have a thin line for legal pay equity, we have an internal pay equity.
[55:46] In fact, we have compression.
[55:48] So we have also some M2s that are doing work that are comparable to SEIU.
[55:55] The M2s by nature are not over time eligible, not one.
[55:59] So when you see your events people and your program people working there Saturday, Sunday,
[56:04] nights, they're getting not one dollar more. But if they're working alongside an SEIU employee,
[56:12] that employee is over time eligible. That's one of the points that I wanted to make sure you understood.
[56:18] And that's when we talk about the compression. It's not just compression that is unfortunate.
[56:26] It is dangerous because then what are we going to tell over people? There's a moral issue,
[56:32] there's a retention issue, the cost of hire is going to be approximately three months of any salary
[56:38] that you pay, the cost of hire, and then we talk about the loss of productivity. So we do have a
[56:45] morale on a retention issue in this city, and we also have a reputation issue. We're getting cheap.
[56:51] So I just wanted you to hear that. The city manager has explained how we would recover from what
[56:59] this offered. I am very aware of the impacts. I did tell you twice that this would have
[57:06] impacts. We really wanted to hold tight on that 4%. And we didn't. And so there are
[57:13] impacts that are in front of us, and I can't deny them. I see them. I see that the sheets,
[57:19] I see the ranges, I see that the classifications, and most of all, I see the employees who are
[57:25] impacted. And as the city manager says this is not about the department heads. We're here on behalf
[57:30] of the people who have to do this work alongside others who earn more than them or close to them
[57:36] and they're not all the time eligible. I appreciate your statement but I do want to push back that
[57:43] telling us twice versus giving us the solution very different. Telling us that this could be a problem
[57:49] versus presenting a solution that would have prevented a strike would have been helpful in that moment.
[57:55] So I want you to just tread carefully on where you're shifting the blame right now because
[57:59] it's coming across like you told us to make a decision and that was not true.
[58:04] You informed us that causing this union could cause inequities.
[58:08] We did not talk in that room about giving it unilaterally to every person in this organization.
[58:13] We're constantly asked to make decisions with partial information and this is one of those
[58:18] moments.
[58:19] The council is trying to reconcile that right now.
[58:21] and if we are a chief organization, we have repeatedly asked you for a class in comp study.
[58:26] Nowhere in the private sector would it create an entire year to do that?
[58:30] We want to fix the problem, but you're not giving us a solution.
[58:34] You're telling us where the problem again, Councillor Teeter.
[58:40] Okay, we keep talking about structural fixes and how important that is for this part of the process.
[58:47] My answer will be grounded in that.
[58:49] So, a year and a half ago, we were in budget committee and I made an attempt to
[58:54] an amendment that would have reduced management salaries from 5 percent to 3 percent.
[58:58] It failed for a variety of reasons.
[59:00] One of those being the rest of budget committee felt that it was not a structural fix because
[59:06] we would have to increase those salaries again in the future.
[59:09] And I feel like we're having that same conversation right now where we're proposing not giving
[59:14] a cola to, or not giving cola to a certain amount because it's not a structural fix.
[59:21] But we'll just have to face this again down in the road anyways, we'll have people who
[59:25] don't want to come work for us, people who leave to go work elsewhere.
[59:29] And that replacement cost of recruiting and hiring and onboarding is very, very expensive.
[59:35] And I don't want to have to go through that for department heads over and over again or
[59:39] different levels of management.
[59:41] And so I know this is a really difficult decision for us.
[59:43] This is why it came before us to make this decision because we ran for office to be in this position to make the hard decisions and to give approval or not for this sort of conversation.
[59:55] So staff can't make this on there and this should fall on us and it is.
[1:00:00] But I do mean in support of it because of these reasons and the structural fixes. And I'm going to stop there. I this is really this really difficult conversation, but I think we need to have it. Councillor Kimmy. So I considered all the positions and people's you guys thinking and the process that but for me personally, I like to keep the people we have. Instead.
[1:00:32] and they didn't leave us during the COVID or this financial hardship, I think all the staff
[1:00:37] and everybody knows how much deficit we have and they're willing to work with us and so far
[1:00:46] through the COVID, through all this time to dedicate their time. All the people that I meet usually
[1:00:51] at the events and outside are managerial positions and there's SEI staff obviously and I do like to
[1:00:58] compensate them. We cannot offer to pay the market rate, but then at least the minimum
[1:01:04] that we could do, I think that goes far as a messaging wise. Even though I understand
[1:01:10] the deficit that we have, but I would love, I like the option too on this, that would
[1:01:16] get the ball moving.
[1:01:20] It's not minimal impact, but it's less impact than any other.
[1:01:28] If that's
[1:01:29] And then let motivated the people to take their time to work here.
[1:01:36] I like to propose that I'm leading to number two on the proposal.
[1:01:42] But what that is, yeah, consider option to maybe two, four, one for two and a man,
[1:01:49] maybe two, four, one for three.
[1:01:51] So it does no retro pay effective in November 19, 2024, salary savings of 105,000 across
[1:01:58] all funds, salary savings of 46,000 in general fund, benefit saving of 152,000 and 91,000
[1:02:08] in general fund, and approved 2% quota for M2 and M3 only, not M1, so that's going
[1:02:14] to salary saving of 47,000 and 33,000 for a general fund. So all combined benefits and
[1:02:21] saving salary 67,000 across all funds and 48,000 per general fund.
[1:02:27] So this is much less than full approval of everyone getting full adjustment, but at
[1:02:34] least we can end this conversation and get us moving until we address the structure issue
[1:02:43] that's what I'm thinking right now.
[1:02:45] Councillor Hartmeyer, Greg.
[1:02:49] Thank you.
[1:02:49] So I guess I read A and B as separate, you're asking us to do both.
[1:02:57] I guess I read it as two separate options.
[1:03:02] You could do the both though.
[1:03:04] But we could do the both.
[1:03:05] But is that what you're looking to do both?
[1:03:08] Okay.
[1:03:08] Thank you.
[1:03:09] I just want to clarify that.
[1:03:12] I just want to say that I hope that all of us in the room, and I know that all of us in the room,
[1:03:19] are here because we are a part of Team B for 10.
[1:03:21] and I hate how adversarial this feels right now
[1:03:25] because I don't think that that's the intention
[1:03:27] of anyone and I think that when I think
[1:03:30] about our fiscal and fiduciary responsibility
[1:03:32] to the city while there's like this like $600,000
[1:03:36] right in front of us right now,
[1:03:37] there is like that larger impact of losing talent,
[1:03:42] losing talent in this room potentially
[1:03:44] that I take to be part of my financial responsibility
[1:03:49] to the city. And this is really hard and I do think that I understood that we would have
[1:03:55] consequences because it's all interplays and it's fascinating to hear that the cost
[1:04:00] of labor is less moving target. Like this is not part of my professional life so I don't,
[1:04:04] you know, I feel like I've learned a lot just in today's conversation and also, you know,
[1:04:12] we have been like this council is, we're young and we're all post-COVID or in COVID and so
[1:04:18] dealing with a lot of hard things. And I think Beaverton has typically had more abundance, right?
[1:04:24] And because of that, weathered COVID well, right? Really invested in keeping and retaining folks
[1:04:31] through and not having to go to layoffs and investing in our community to like lead to this thriving
[1:04:37] local economy, or maybe it's not quite thriving right now, I know things are tough, but just that
[1:04:42] like we have this vibrant community as part of it.
[1:04:45] And so for me, I could get on board,
[1:04:50] comes for me with your recommendation.
[1:04:53] It is important to me that we retain staff
[1:04:55] that we avoid illegal equity issue with our M3 folks.
[1:05:00] The people know that while pay is not the only thing,
[1:05:04] I think it's a very fair mayor
[1:05:05] that is, pay is not the only thing
[1:05:07] that tells someone they're appreciated.
[1:05:08] It also is extremely helpful when costs are going up to have a little bit more to help with your bills.
[1:05:17] So Councillor Kimi, I would be in support of option 2 as well and doing both AMB.
[1:05:24] I appreciate that and I'll say I am not in support of M1 salary and no retro for 2 and 3.
[1:05:30] I'm 100% on board for 3 but I think we need to reject the notion and stop normalizing that when we ask for something it should take a year.
[1:05:38] It's not normal for a class in comp study to take this long, zero chance the private sector would take this long because it has to do with hiring.
[1:05:46] And if you're telling me it's a morale issue and you're telling me it's a way to fix it, I need you to put your time where you just set a cross from me and said it was.
[1:05:55] And if you, I will not, I don't want to support anything besides M3 until I get a class in comp study.
[1:06:00] I'd rather take this $697,000 and address the actual problem, knowing that we're going
[1:06:07] to have two to three million dollars more, because I also think it's unfair to suggest
[1:06:11] that every position in this organization is not at market.
[1:06:15] That's absolutely not true.
[1:06:17] And so it's hard for me to make a decision, absent of information.
[1:06:21] If you're telling me everyone's under market, and if I go back and ask, you're going to produce
[1:06:25] a document that suggests otherwise.
[1:06:26] We're asking, you're asking us, again, to make an incredibly tough conversation or
[1:06:32] decision without the full information.
[1:06:35] I think the very least we should recess this conversation to have more information brought
[1:06:40] to us, because I don't think a 2% COLA is going to impact morale if we don't fix the overtime
[1:06:47] problem you're suggesting.
[1:06:48] If we have so much overtime of our management that they can't function, it's creating compression,
[1:06:53] What's our plan to mitigate and manage over time in the police and all these other union jobs?
[1:06:59] You're not giving me a solution. You're giving me another problem to solve and you're asking the council to solve a problem
[1:07:05] We're not skilled to solve
[1:07:07] Councillor Hassan.
[1:07:12] I have a question and then I can share some of my comments and thoughts
[1:07:16] and I know you were sharing that a lot of our roles are behind
[1:07:21] I do believe that some of our roles are not behind like would like
[1:07:27] I'm getting the impression that we're not competitive at all
[1:07:29] and I just don't believe that across all of our roles
[1:07:32] unless you say so.
[1:07:34] So I guess if you could elaborate,
[1:07:35] like do you think every single one of our roles
[1:07:38] is truly behind in market?
[1:07:41] Not every single one.
[1:07:43] We have actually come to you throughout the course
[1:07:46] of the last couple of years for reclassifications
[1:07:50] and those would typically be at market now.
[1:07:54] And that's why we would have asked for reclassifications because they were horrendously behind.
[1:08:00] I also want to address that the question was asked of me, and I may have misunderstood it.
[1:08:06] And I take responsibility for that if I did.
[1:08:08] But the Class Comps Study, we aim to have that effective in July 1.
[1:08:13] That Class Comps Study is being wrapped up right now.
[1:08:16] So it's not taken us a year to do the Class Comps Study.
[1:08:19] I was proposing to the city manager that we do not enact anything on the classical study
[1:08:25] onto July 1, and that it goes through the budget process.
[1:08:28] So I answered the question from this side about when will that be effective, and I said
[1:08:33] July 1.
[1:08:34] So I just want to make that very, very clear.
[1:08:37] We are wrapping up that study.
[1:08:39] We actually had to take a turn about a month ago because of the cost of labor shifted dramatically.
[1:08:47] and they consulted and advised us to update our numbers and to wait until the
[1:08:54] colas were applied because we were really behind the market because the
[1:08:59] cost of labor had shifted away from us. Okay Jenny you had read some
[1:09:05] percentages around like M1, M2, M3. Can you restate those numbers and just tell me
[1:09:10] the data point behind them?
[1:09:14] Yes, this was information that Councillor
[1:09:17] requested. So there are approximately 11 staff and M1 and they're at 80% top
[1:09:24] step, M2, 142 at 62% top step, and M3 there are 22 and 54% top step. And top
[1:09:35] step is the top of. Meaning that they're at the top of their range and so any
[1:09:39] other increase would come as a result of a COLA and we don't have bonuses or
[1:09:44] things like that. So they're locked in.
[1:09:50] I'll just share some thoughts.
[1:09:54] Well, let me ask one more question because I'm thinking of the testimony that was shared,
[1:09:59] and I should know this and I apologize. It is a common that we do the percent that
[1:10:04] the union gets to management. Is that normal?
[1:10:09] That is been the practice here, but as the mayor said, the council authorized the 4% and
[1:10:15] And at that same time, that 4% was authorized, up to 4% was authorized for SCIU.
[1:10:21] It wasn't only subsequent to that conversation that it went up to 6.
[1:10:25] And then we are like, hey, we might have some issues and here we are.
[1:10:29] Okay.
[1:10:30] So I'm just going to say it.
[1:10:32] This is really uncomfortable because we're talking about people's money and we're sitting
[1:10:36] in front of the people who do the good work for our city and that makes it really hard.
[1:10:40] I am thankful that Councillor Teeter brought up that moment because I remember that moment
[1:10:46] of us seeing if there was a way to do a different raise to try to start addressing some
[1:10:51] of these issues. And so, you know, here we are needing to address these issues. While I
[1:10:58] am continuously gravely concerned around our budget and constantly talking with anyone
[1:11:03] than everyone who will listen, I don't feel that our management staff should have to take
[1:11:12] the brunt of that right now. I want to take a moment and acknowledge it sounds like
[1:11:18] a lot of M1 staff are offering to potentially forego and or not take it. I want to just
[1:11:25] say that I see them and I value that and I appreciate it. That's a big ask. I am concerned
[1:11:31] for that M2 and M3 staff in terms of making sure that folks are in the right place.
[1:11:36] But I also want to be thoughtful of the comments that SEAU has made today.
[1:11:41] I am comfortable supporting option two, which Councillor Kimi suggested. My concern or ask would be
[1:11:48] that we continue to have more open conversations like this. And I know we can't talk about budget,
[1:11:57] but like things that are going to be related to budget because there are policy decisions that
[1:12:03] in my four years the budget has made without us always being able to weigh in in this form of
[1:12:09] government and that's what I've really struggled with is that there is so much that we've just
[1:12:14] sort of let continue to exist because it's been excellent and great but we have never really
[1:12:19] assessed it to some of our priorities and values and I say that struggling because I really see
[1:12:25] all the sides, but I just today, in this moment, I don't know that it is the right choice
[1:12:32] to just do this, but that I ask that we continue to have these conversations and that Jenny
[1:12:38] continues to feel like she can bring them here so that we are not stocked with decisions.
[1:12:48] Councillor Dugger.
[1:12:49] I want to make one more comment because I've heard a couple times people talk about retention.
[1:12:54] There's actually one option here where we 100% know we will lose staff, and that is supporting this cola.
[1:13:03] Okay, this is going to cause six or seven of your colleagues to lose their job in April of next year.
[1:13:11] All things being equal. This is the truth.
[1:13:14] So, like we're talking about theoretical versus real. One of these is real.
[1:13:20] 100% sure we are whatever positions however many it ends up being and none of us know what that is
[1:13:27] Whatever that ends up being
[1:13:29] Six of them could have been saved because of this vote. So I just want you to think about that
[1:13:34] There's one way 100% of this eliminates talent at this city. There's one that the other option is we think about it from a theory
[1:13:44] also one thing we
[1:13:46] like
[1:13:46] Like, as those of us in the private sector too, I have my full-time job.
[1:13:50] The benefit structure is incredibly different with purrs versus a 401k versus a 403b.
[1:13:57] So we have to look at compensation as a total and in this institution pays 100%.
[1:14:02] We don't ask our employees.
[1:14:04] Is that correct?
[1:14:05] Can you remind me?
[1:14:06] We do not ask our employees to pay any, and that is an incredibly rich benefit.
[1:14:10] I'm very proud that we can offer that.
[1:14:12] We have to look at the total compensation.
[1:14:14] So I think it's a little more complicated.
[1:14:16] I think the further some willing to go, because again, we are going to have these conversations
[1:14:21] in April, is I would be willing to accept the caller for this 6%, so the 2% additional
[1:14:28] for the M3, with the promise that we get this study right away.
[1:14:33] Like we needed in our hands to make, and I could commit to future conversations on M2 with
[1:14:40] that study that that's as far as I'm willing to go because I'm gonna we all are
[1:14:45] gonna have to take this back to the voters into our residents and justify why
[1:14:49] there's why their social security is going up 2% but staff you know we're
[1:14:55] giving them an additional 2% on top of the 4% on top of the step increase so just
[1:14:59] I just want you to...
[1:15:00] I want to think really long and hard about this. Councilor Tidalan, before we wrap up and I summarize, I think where we are, I need to hear where you are.
[1:15:11] I think this goes down as being the hardest decision. I've had so far on council. I'm not in favor of, well, okay, well, I'd say at an absolute minimum, it has to be M3. For all the reasons that our interim city attorney mentioned.
[1:15:29] But I am not in favor of only M2 and only M3 and extracting out M1 because the cost savings
[1:15:38] there seems negligible and the symbolism of it is so powerful and I don't like that.
[1:15:44] I also am extremely eager to get the class in comp study.
[1:15:51] I need more information I think that's been said a couple times is we're up here making
[1:15:58] slaptash decisions feels like with not a lot of runway to come up with something that
[1:16:04] feels really good and sound structurally sound. So I would love to hear more about what
[1:16:14] it looks like to approve M3 and revisit this. Is that even possible to do that?
[1:16:22] it is possible to do that.
[1:16:26] I'm trying to think of, you want a motion?
[1:16:31] I'm trying to, I don't want
[1:16:32] somebody to just jump in and get what they want here. I want us to try to have a compromise because
[1:16:35] this is challenging. So there's a few of us that want to just do M3 to summarize.
[1:16:51] You want to give
[1:16:52] The agenda bill as written I'd be willing to this councillor Kimmy was mentioning and I was in concertive none
[1:16:59] Going with no retro pay and potentially
[1:17:03] Just raises for M2 and M3 so that'd be my compromise there. So you want to get Cola to M2 M3 and no retro
[1:17:15] You want to give Cola to M2 M3 no retro. I am very open to
[1:17:20] The discussion around M3 only and getting more information to
[1:17:26] Like where can we get the systemic piece of this? I thought that was really poignant the way you said that
[1:17:34] So I'm open to the M3 only conversation because I don't want to put like a legal risk there
[1:17:42] The class and comp critical to get it soon. So like for me getting more information will be helpful
[1:17:48] Mm-hmm, and to Councillor Hussain's point like there's there's so much more than just like this
[1:17:53] this piece of the compensation conversation that I think, you know, like that it's hard to not think about that.
[1:17:58] It's hard to make a decision in a vacuum.
[1:18:00] So, you want to have a conversation about M3 only, and you want to give cola to everyone, because you don't want to pull out, ask M1 to make it to give their, up their cola, you want to prove it for everyone, that's what I'm hearing.
[1:18:14] Okay, well there's four of us for the M3 discussion, so we're going to move forward with that, but I want to have a thoughtful conversation about what information
[1:18:23] information do we need to include into in a future round of discussion?
[1:18:27] We're trying to meet the legal risk that the city attorney told us.
[1:18:30] And we're trying to mitigate and make good decisions for mid-level management.
[1:18:34] And I hope that is what is coming across.
[1:18:37] But often city councils are saying, well, it's your choice.
[1:18:40] None of us are pay experts.
[1:18:41] We're trying to make the best decisions we can with the information, but there is holes in this information.
[1:18:46] We can't pass a cola without understanding what the class and
[1:18:49] comp is to everyone else. We on this council want to fix the class and comp of our management.
[1:18:55] If we are going forward to have to do a levy, we need the full information and we're
[1:19:00] piecemilling it together. So I think where we're at is a to approve tonight the M3 pay
[1:19:08] cola and for us to have a future conversation about the class and comp. And I think it's
[1:19:14] vital for us to have that ahead of the budget. That to me is the most important thing we do
[1:19:19] So, because if you guys are talking about the budget right now, absent of this class
[1:19:22] and comp information that is potentially two to three million dollars, we can't make
[1:19:28] a budget decision like that.
[1:19:30] So whatever it takes for you to get this done, we need a class and comp study that we can
[1:19:35] react to, that we can implement or approve so it can be wrapped into this year's budget.
[1:19:41] And the speed of which you do it will help us support you in the mid-level staff.
[1:19:46] Does that seem like a fair compromise?
[1:19:47] Yeah,
[1:19:51] but I just wanted to yeah, yeah, yeah, total compensation and so how fast you can give us that information is how fast we can make a decision about M2s and potentially M1s before the budget, but absence of that information, you're asking us to make an isolated decision that puts us at risk and it's going to be hard for the budget decision and we're allowed to talk about the budget.
[1:20:16] We just can't deliberate about how we're going to fix the problem and we need solutions to us and when you bring information to council that puts it out our feet without information, you can expect us to make a decision like this.
[1:20:28] So I think if there was a motion to be had.
[1:20:32] In terms of attorney, can I have a little process help like would it be helpful to recess and put together an articulate motion here because I could try but I just don't know if I would mess it up.
[1:20:41] Is that okay with you?
[1:20:41] So, that's fine.
[1:20:44] All right, let's take a five minute recess and if you could help, heard.
[1:23:04] So, Interim to City Attorney, please correct me if I misspeak, but I think we've got this.
[1:23:10] So, I move that we amend agenda bell 24142 to include a 2% cost of living adjustment for
[1:23:18] management category 3 that includes the additional benefits and
[1:23:23] allowances for the M3 category and we amend a agenda bill 2, 4, 1, 4, 3 to reflect in the
[1:23:32] salary schedule the M3 category only changes.
[1:23:37] I'll second that.
[1:23:45] Yes, I know that this is an effort for compromise but the previous option that Councillor Kimi
[1:23:50] has shared was the compromise for me I would like to include M2 so I'm not going to vote
[1:23:57] yes on this.
[1:23:57] I
[1:24:08] just want to reiterate the council's position, is that we're open to a discussion on adjustment,
[1:24:12] given information about class and comp, and so we want to set this piece to come back
[1:24:19] to us, but we need that information to do it.
[1:24:21] So the faster that's wrapped up, the faster we can consider that, I do want to say it is
[1:24:27] our expectation that we have this information ahead of the budget, and it's very clear from
[1:24:34] us that we want this information ahead of the budget.
[1:24:37] We want to fix the structural issues with our managers, we want to make sure that we are a competitive city and we need that information.
[1:24:44] So whatever you need to do to accomplish what we're asking you, that is the direction we're giving from the Dias tonight.
[1:24:50] With that, will the recorder call the roll?
[1:24:56] Councillor Dugger?
[1:24:57] Yes.
[1:24:58] Councillor Hartmeyer Prick?
[1:25:00] Yes.
[1:25:00] Councillor Visson?
[1:25:01] Yes.
[1:25:02] Councillor Kimmy?
[1:25:04] Yes.
[1:25:05] Councillor Teeter?
[1:25:06] No.
[1:25:07] Councillor Tivmone?
[1:25:09] Yes.
[1:25:10] Mayor Beatty?
[1:25:11] Yes.
[1:25:11] 6-0-1.
[1:25:13] All right.
[1:25:17] One of clarification, 6-1-0.
[1:25:21] Sorry.
[1:25:22] Okay.
[1:25:23] 6-1-0.
[1:25:27] Thank you.
[1:25:28] All right.
[1:25:29] So now we're on to our first presentation.
[1:25:31] We have our first reading and three work session.
[1:25:34] Our first presentation and I is agenda bell 2-4-1-4-6.
[1:25:38] A Beaverton Street mural program.
[1:26:01] Okay.
[1:26:01] Good evening.
[1:26:02] Council and Mayor.
[1:26:03] My name is Kara Hall and I'm the Assistant City Transportation Engineer and I'm here this evening to share with you the Beaverton Street Mirile Program.
[1:26:11] So this is a program that we've heard a lot of interest to have in place both internally and from our community members.
[1:26:19] So we're really excited to be in front of you this evening as we target roll out of this program in early 2025.
[1:26:28] So, I'll start with a quick background on why we're bringing street murals forward
[1:26:35] in the form of this program, talk a little bit about the guidelines and requirements,
[1:26:39] and then wrap up with any questions or clarifications that you all need, and also asking for thoughts
[1:26:47] from you as we think about opportunities as we look to roll this out early next year.
[1:26:53] Why street murals?
[1:26:54] And before I get into the why, I'll start with what?
[1:26:56] But by street murals we literally mean a mural that's painted in our public streets.
[1:27:02] And the reason that we're bringing this forward is because the city already supports the
[1:27:06] use of murals in our public spaces to tell stories and beautify those spaces.
[1:27:13] And this is an opportunity to expand that to our transportation system.
[1:27:17] This will provide our community members with an opportunity to contribute to developing
[1:27:22] a sense of pride in identity and their neighborhood, and it's being brought forward this evening
[1:27:27] by Transportation Engineering with collaboration from ARTS.
[1:27:34] So the program guidelines, so as I mentioned, it's really designed to empower community members
[1:27:38] to build that sense of identity within their neighborhoods. Staff will support that process through
[1:27:44] technical review, but the applicant will drive the rest of the process. So that means talking with
[1:27:51] their neighbors about a neighborhood's interest in having a mural, coming up with the design,
[1:27:56] moving through the application process and all the way through installation.
[1:28:01] So those components of the program will be on the applicant themselves, but city staff
[1:28:06] will be there to support them through the entire process.
[1:28:10] This program will require approval by transportation engineering, and I'll speak to some of the engineering
[1:28:15] components of this in just a minute, as well as by the Public Art Selection Committee.
[1:28:20] and that is related to the city code around murals and approval of public
[1:28:24] murals needing to go through that committee. We are also going to require
[1:28:29] approval from the neighbors within 200 feet of the mural. Again, it's really
[1:28:34] about building that sense of neighborhood identity, so we're hoping this can be
[1:28:38] a partnership and that everybody that will be within that distance of the
[1:28:41] mural is aware and excited to contribute to that installation. So for the
[1:28:48] location requirements. These murals will be allowed within our streets and our
[1:28:53] intersections. This will not include crosswalks. And the reason for that is
[1:28:58] from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is a manual used
[1:29:02] nationally and within Oregon to ensure the consistent use of regulatory signs.
[1:29:08] So the MUTCD does allow the use of asphalt, including patterns within our
[1:29:13] crosswalks. These are typically more subdued treatments. So an example of this would be the red brick
[1:29:19] treatments that you see in the crosswalk area on Hall and Watson in downtown Beaverton.
[1:29:25] But it does state that any of the colors within the crosswalks should not take away from the contrast
[1:29:32] and how much those white transverse lines stand out. The Federal Highway Administration has also
[1:29:39] issued a ruling on this section in the MUTCD and their interpretation is that crosswalk
[1:29:45] art so a mural within the crosswalk itself is not permitted.
[1:29:50] Now I do want to note there is an updated version of the MUTCD that's making its way
[1:29:55] through the adoption process in Oregon. They're targeting adoption in 2026.
[1:30:00] This section has been expanded in that manual. At this point, we do not know if the Federal Highway Administration intends to change their ruling and interpretation of this, but this is something that we do intend to monitor and should that change we would come back and consider revisions to the program at that time. So a few more specifics on where the murals would be allowed. So the first component is that they need to be a local street owned and maintained by Beaverton. As we all know, there are many streets that go through Beaverton,
[1:30:29] that we do not own and maintain, and we therefore cannot approve changes to those streets.
[1:30:36] The focus on local streets is really getting to the amount of volume that's on the street,
[1:30:40] as well as, again, that sense of neighborhood identity.
[1:30:43] These are the streets that tend to be more residential in nature and have that threshold of volume
[1:30:49] less than 2,500 vehicles per day.
[1:30:52] Another component of that is just the maintenance.
[1:30:54] We see this with the striping that we put down on all of our streets.
[1:30:57] the more cars drive on that striping, the more they wear out.
[1:31:01] So we want to put these mirrors where we think they will last and where we can really
[1:31:06] continue to enjoy them.
[1:31:07] And then the last piece is that they must not interfere with any regulatory markings.
[1:31:11] So anywhere where we have the center line striping, markings near the intersections, bike lanes,
[1:31:18] we will have buffers that need to be maintained from that existing striping.
[1:31:23] And that's really to make sure that the striping that is there for regulatory purposes continues
[1:31:28] to stand out and people that are traveling can easily differentiate between the mural
[1:31:33] and the regulatory striping.
[1:31:37] So getting into the artwork requirements, the guidelines for the murals will follow all
[1:31:43] of the existing requirements for murals in public spaces.
[1:31:46] So this is things like no text, no logos, no advertising.
[1:31:50] I already mentioned that we do need to maintain a buffer around all of the traffic control
[1:31:55] devices, and this will also require approval by the Public Art Selection Committee.
[1:32:00] As part of this program, we're not going to require artists that are designing these
[1:32:05] murals to present to that committee, but we will encourage them to do so.
[1:32:12] So getting into the materials and installation component, so this is something that will be
[1:32:18] be reviewed and approved by transportation, engineering, and public works.
[1:32:22] As I mentioned earlier, we will be asking the applicants to obtain the paint that they
[1:32:27] will be using.
[1:32:28] The type of paint will need to be reviewed and approved, and that paint must include an
[1:32:32] additive for slip resistance.
[1:32:34] So this is to ensure that as vehicles are driving over it, bicyclists are riding over the murals,
[1:32:39] they're not too slick.
[1:32:41] We need to make sure that throughout this process, the installation process specifically
[1:32:45] we're maintaining access with ADA requirements and making sure that we're not blocking any
[1:32:50] curb ramps or anything like that. And that will be done through our temporary traffic control
[1:32:55] plan. This is also something that we will be asking the applicants to help develop. And City
[1:33:02] Staff will work closely with them through the process. So we're working to develop a form that
[1:33:07] they could fill out, draw where that will be painting the mural and where they think they need
[1:33:11] to close the street.
[1:33:13] City staff will review that, make any necessary changes to that, and then provide them with
[1:33:18] the final plan that they need to implement.
[1:33:21] This is very typical for how we work with community members that are coming in to do things
[1:33:26] like repair sidewalk panels, street trees, and also special events.
[1:33:31] And should community members need things like barricades or cones to actually facilitate closure
[1:33:36] of the roadway?
[1:33:36] They would be able to reach out to our public works team and our operation staff will help make sure that material gets to them.
[1:33:46] So this is an overview of the application process.
[1:33:50] This program will include seven steps.
[1:33:52] Starting from talking with your neighbors, developing your design, getting that temporary traffic control together, and then submitting your application.
[1:34:02] So our hope is that when community members come in to submit this application, they have the mural.
[1:34:08] design, they know where they would like to put it, they have some ideas about what temporary
[1:34:12] traffic control needs to look like, and the materials they're proposing to use.
[1:34:17] In that next step, the application review and decisions, that's when staff will collaborate
[1:34:21] with them on things like RL of the colors consistent in the mural with all of the guidelines.
[1:34:28] Do we need to make changes to that temporary traffic control plan, is the location appropriate.
[1:34:33] And lastly, we'll move to permit issuance and inspection.
[1:34:37] At that point, community members will have their permit and they'll be able to install
[1:34:41] the mural.
[1:34:43] One point I do want to highlight here is that that initial permit will only cover the installation.
[1:34:48] So should an applicant decide at some point down the line that they want to come back to make
[1:34:53] changes or to maintain the mural, we will ask them to apply for another permit that will
[1:34:58] It will be a streamlined process and that's really just to make sure that the changes to the mural are consistent with all of the regulatory aspects and make sure that they have that temporary traffic control in place.
[1:35:11] We expect that this application process from time of submittal to getting that permit issued will be about eight weeks.
[1:35:19] That will allow staff time to review, collaborate with the applicant as well as move that mural approval through the Public Arts selection committee.
[1:35:27] So
[1:35:30] next steps for this program.
[1:35:32] So I mentioned we're targeting, we're a lot of this early next year.
[1:35:36] One component of that is setting up an online permit and resources web page.
[1:35:40] So we're partnering with community development.
[1:35:43] They already have a permitting system that community members use when they come in for things
[1:35:47] like sidewalk repair, street-to-ree removal.
[1:35:49] We can use that program to facilitate this process as well.
[1:35:53] We're also developing a number of resources that will be available to community members
[1:35:58] on the website. That will include information on the types of paint that you need to use,
[1:36:03] the slip-resistant additive where you might be able to get in touch with local artists
[1:36:08] if you don't have someone in your neighborhood that wants to design these murals and some
[1:36:13] more information on our expectations for that traffic control plan as part of the process.
[1:36:20] We are also looking to coordinate with the neighborhood programs to share this information
[1:36:24] with the NAX and use that as a way to make community members aware of this program
[1:36:29] and get people interested in installing a mural in their neighborhood.
[1:36:35] And I already mentioned that we anticipate beginning accepting applications in early 2025.
[1:36:42] That concludes my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:36:46] Awesome. I know you presented a traffic commission. Is this the first time you presented to us?
[1:36:52] yes. Great first presentation. Way to get on the board. I know it's probably not an easy
[1:36:59] day with the conversation we have to sit through and come present to us but that was great.
[1:37:03] I think the way that you presented the information to us, you're giving us the ways to interpret
[1:37:08] this and most importantly, this is something the city council has been asking for. So thank
[1:37:14] you for your thoughtful approach and where you're at. I just have a couple questions for
[1:37:18] for you. I know we can have modifications to an established crosswalk because of the
[1:37:23] design standards. I hope they fix that. Could with this, if we approve this tonight,
[1:37:29] would this preclude us from doing something say at Watson and first where there's not
[1:37:33] an established crosswalk, but it's an area that we desperately need some kind of like traffic
[1:37:39] calming, would this code allow that?
[1:37:41] Yes, so that's a good distinction. So just because it's not a March crosswalk does not mean that it's not a legal crossing and an area where there could be a March crosswalk in the future.
[1:37:53] So at this point that would maintain consistency with whether there's March crosswalk there or not.
[1:38:02] But under that work and what a crosswalk is, is not literally every corner, so where
[1:38:08] would like looking at your map, like it would have to be in between crosswalks, so instead
[1:38:14] of doing it right at first and Watson, could we do it between Watson, first and second in
[1:38:18] the middle of the road?
[1:38:19] You could.
[1:38:20] Yep.
[1:38:20] Or even in the intersection, we'll just need to maintain the 10-foot buffer from the area
[1:38:25] that, as you correctly noted, is identified as the legal crossing.
[1:38:29] So what about Crescent Street?
[1:38:31] How would that fit into this plan?
[1:38:33] Yes.
[1:38:34] It's not crossing.
[1:38:35] It's a continuous curb.
[1:38:37] Yes.
[1:38:38] So I think for Crescent, I mean,
[1:38:39] the one caveat to all of these locations is we need to look at the volume.
[1:38:43] Sure.
[1:38:44] And the number of vehicles from them per day.
[1:38:46] And those locations, so are those local streets?
[1:38:49] Okay.
[1:38:50] But any of those local streets,
[1:38:52] and I realize it's a very small map and hard to see,
[1:38:54] but any of those streets that were shown back up there.
[1:38:58] on that map, they're in orange, so those are the ones that we expect to be eligible under
[1:39:04] this and be able to meet the requirements both from the classification perspective
[1:39:11] and the number of volume.
[1:39:13] Okay. Last question, fees. Did I miss that in your presentation?
[1:39:19] There would not be any fees associated with the permitting process for this program.
[1:39:23] Thank you.
[1:39:28] Sorry.
[1:39:28] Who's first here?
[1:39:29] Councillor Teeter.
[1:39:31] Okay.
[1:39:32] Thanks.
[1:39:32] Thanks, Cara.
[1:39:33] We've got several of us put in our name and say something.
[1:39:36] So thank you.
[1:39:37] This is very exciting.
[1:39:38] I know the mayor said something council has been asking for.
[1:39:42] It's something the Beaverton Downtown Association in downtown.
[1:39:44] Beaverton has been wanting for a long time.
[1:39:47] Arts commission.
[1:39:47] I've heard about it.
[1:39:49] I've heard about an interest in passion for this for a long time.
[1:39:51] So thank you for your flexibility as engineers working with artists.
[1:39:55] I think this will be really exciting.
[1:39:57] I have one question regarding the process, the application process.
[1:40:02] For people who are interested in this, are they able to have a pre-application call with
[1:40:07] engineering team before they go through the whole process and find out if they're not able
[1:40:11] to do that design or that intersection or whatever they're trying to do?
[1:40:14] Yes.
[1:40:15] So as we build out the information online, we will be including a number of links for folks.
[1:40:20] So the information, like what your street classification is, that's on our city website, we'll be making sure folks can get pointed directly to that so they can go online, look at their street and determine if they're one of those local streets.
[1:40:33] We also collect traffic volume around the city and have that information published online as well.
[1:40:39] That is not for every street, so that's a situation where should a community member have a question.
[1:40:44] That will be a conversation that transportation engineering will be happy to have with them
[1:40:48] prior to them going through that application process so we can find the right intersection
[1:40:53] or block in their neighborhood for them to be able to install the mural.
[1:41:01] But, Councillor Teter?
[1:41:03] Great.
[1:41:03] She just stunned you to silence.
[1:41:06] Councillor Hussain.
[1:41:08] Thank you so much for this presentation.
[1:41:10] I have a couple quick questions.
[1:41:12] This is silly.
[1:41:13] It's a little bit in the weeds, but I'm just curious to prepare the staff.
[1:41:16] How are you like confirming property owner support?
[1:41:20] Like is that just through the permit and you, like, I just don't want you guys to get stuck with that.
[1:41:25] Yes. So when they log in and kind of start that permitting process, there will be a number of forms.
[1:41:30] But they'll be asked to fill out throughout.
[1:41:33] That includes some forms related to the murals.
[1:41:37] Again, all consistent with how we approach public murals now.
[1:41:41] And the neighborhood support form will also be there.
[1:41:43] And that will just be a form that says, these are the neighbors within 200 feet of this location and we talk to them and confirm that everyone is on board.
[1:41:52] So we will provide the form for them to be able to do that.
[1:41:56] And then ask them to go out and get the confirmation.
[1:42:00] Okay.
[1:42:03] In terms of like next steps aside from this presentation, is the next step that you guys just start or do you need to do any formal codifying of things?
[1:42:11] No, at this point, our direction has been that we can bring this forward as a program.
[1:42:17] The staff is initiating and we will be working to build out the infrastructure online and get the word out to community members, but no other actions needed.
[1:42:27] Okay, so just like two general comments, the ways in which projects are prioritized, I'm assuming it'll be like as they come in.
[1:42:34] but I just want to be thoughtful that like all of Central Beaverton doesn't get up and just
[1:42:38] if not that we don't love Central Beaverton, but just making sure that we're diversifying what that looks like.
[1:42:43] I don't know what the language is around the public art displays, but
[1:42:48] I am nervous about the possibility of like someone proposing something that could be
[1:42:54] potentially hateful and not necessarily known.
[1:42:56] So are there any policies in the public art that's written that sort of help address that?
[1:43:01] There are. There are through the existing mural program and there will be kind of a twofold review with the mural itself.
[1:43:09] One transportation engineering will do a review to confirm that it's not impacting any of the regulatory markings.
[1:43:14] That there's nothing that mimics a traffic control device in the mural.
[1:43:18] At that point it will then be passed to art staff.
[1:43:21] They will confirm that it meets the requirements of our public mural program and it will then go to the public art selection committee.
[1:43:28] So there will be a number of review points
[1:43:31] that can be built into the process.
[1:43:32] Okay, so here for it, you know, just imagining
[1:43:37] what 2025 looks like and somebody wants to do a mural
[1:43:40] honoring, you know, the current future.
[1:43:45] Just something to think about.
[1:43:46] I don't know what that looks like in language.
[1:43:47] I'm just putting it out there for you all because it's not hard
[1:43:50] to get a bunch of neighbors to do something like that.
[1:43:52] So I trust you all to do it.
[1:43:53] I'm just putting it out there because it's on my mind.
[1:43:55] So thanks for listening.
[1:44:02] I don't want to eclipse over that because we went through this with the sign code.
[1:44:08] This is not a new conversation for us.
[1:44:11] I know.
[1:44:11] I'm just saying like I think let's sit here for a second because you bring up a very valid
[1:44:16] point and we haven't the mural code was predates all of you.
[1:44:21] You were probably on the arts commission when it passed but not on the city council.
[1:44:25] So it'd be nice if the staff could rescind us that language.
[1:44:28] I don't think we need a future work session but like let's get it in front of us to make
[1:44:31] sure that if there if we deem that there might be future language adjustments to it.
[1:44:39] And we have recently wrick any money should not be allowed to be we just recently talked
[1:44:46] about this with the arts commission as well there needs to be a check in balance from
[1:44:49] the council on public money and so just thinking about when we get there we don't want to hold
[1:44:55] up the process, but Councillor Hassan has a really good point. I think you understand
[1:45:00] And that's enough of where this council is to know, come back with a solution for us. This is staff generated. So I don't think it needs to be council directed. Just give us some checks and balances that we could get behind. Councilor Dagger. Yeah, I was just going to really quick. The 200 foot requirement. Is that 100% of neighbors in the area. So what if there's like an apartment complex, right? With an intersection nearby, like, I don't know that 100% should
[1:45:29] be the standard right because if I'm an apartment complex and I just want to
[1:45:34] annoy people around me no right then all of a sudden you know I'm saying like
[1:45:39] I don't know just something to think about yeah that is an area that we've
[1:45:43] identified that we're going to have to kind of navigate on a case-by-case
[1:45:46] basis because this is local streets are primarily residential they're
[1:45:51] primarily single family homes due to plex triplex and not as many with
[1:45:58] multiple families, but that will be something that we'll have to navigate case by case and determine
[1:46:06] who the appropriate kind of approver in that is. And I think one way we've handled this
[1:46:11] when this has come up before in other areas is to look to the property owner for their approval
[1:46:16] and not necessarily that we're asking every person in the apartment complex for their approval.
[1:46:26] Yeah, I think it goes along with your point of like the language and everything. I think we've got to be really careful here
[1:46:32] But I also like don't want to make it too hard to get this done and no
[1:46:36] I think what you're hearing from us
[1:46:37] And this is how I coach college ball like I'm gonna give you we're gonna give you some boundaries
[1:46:42] You go out there and make it work and if you're meeting resistant come back to the city manager and I as the next step
[1:46:47] Like if we get into this process where something's gonna be denied give her and I had the professional courtesy of like working through the issue together
[1:46:54] and then if we have to revisit it with council,
[1:46:56] we can do that.
[1:46:57] Councilor Tipnall.
[1:46:59] Staying on that theme around the 200-foot
[1:47:02] feet of installation or of the installation.
[1:47:06] I have two questions around that.
[1:47:06] One is I'm not seeing anything in here
[1:47:09] that says that the individual who's applying
[1:47:11] for the permit has to actually live within 200 feet of that.
[1:47:15] So they could, but they have to be a beaverton resident.
[1:47:18] Is that correct or no?
[1:47:21] I know the artist, doesn't it?
[1:47:23] Okay.
[1:47:23] All right. That's just point of clarification. I'm just curious about that. Um, but to that 200 feet, um, I could see a lot of people getting really excited about this, which I hope they do. I would love to see a lot of these pop up around the city and just the lighting people throughout the day.
[1:47:41] Probably not while it's being installed, but I can also see a barrier to people being
[1:47:48] just intimidated by the thought of going door to door and making an ask like this.
[1:47:54] So just something to consider would be maybe some prompt language that could be added to
[1:47:59] the form, that could help them figure out how to formulate the ask because it isn't asked
[1:48:04] and some people are probably wary of anyone coming up to their door asking for anything.
[1:48:09] so just to help reduce the barriers to get to a place where they can have that
[1:48:13] conversation and get all of the yeses that they need since they need a hundred
[1:48:18] percent. That's pretty high bar and I just see that as being a potential barrier
[1:48:22] to us actually seen a lot of these popping up all over the place just simply
[1:48:26] because of communication breakdowns or because people are too intimidated even
[1:48:29] taking on. So just one thing that I can share is that we reviewed how a lot of
[1:48:35] have approached this program and coming up with this, we intend to get this program started
[1:48:42] and get it moving and then monitor how implementation goes. There's a couple different areas where
[1:48:47] if we were to identify barriers with getting members on board, the traffic control plan,
[1:48:53] there are opportunities to revise that and approach that differently. So,
[1:48:57] staff doesn't tend to monitor how implementation of this is going over the first year
[1:49:02] and then come back with any updates if we need to address some of those challenges
[1:49:07] or barriers for the community.
[1:49:10] And it sounds like to me, though, to Councillor Assange's point, it's all going to be in Central
[1:49:14] Beaverton unless you can get five oaks triple creak to like start going door to door because
[1:49:18] I'm guessing Central Beaverton's going to take it.
[1:49:21] Tutorial.
[1:49:22] Tutorial for some of our neighbors and other parts of the city.
[1:49:27] I have a question about, like, we're dealing with, you know, like, our roads are, like,
[1:49:35] we're dealing with the percentage of, like, what?
[1:49:38] Thank you, deteriorating roads and, like, road quality and things like that.
[1:49:42] And it's also, like, something on my mind that's, like, I don't want to slow this down.
[1:49:45] I think it's really, really cool.
[1:49:47] But I'm just kind of curious, like, what will that interplay maybe look like when it's time for a road to be redone?
[1:49:52] And, you know, I think that the way it's laid out, it's pretty clear, like, you know, they're not permanent in the sense because they're going to get driven over that they may fade away.
[1:50:01] But I'm just kind of curious, like, the consideration around, like, our road.
[1:50:06] What is the scoring that I can't think of? PCI?
[1:50:10] Thank you. The payment condition index.
[1:50:14] And thank you, colleagues, nerdier colleagues than I.
[1:50:18] just I'm just curious right because like also if you've got if you're on a road
[1:50:22] that doesn't have a smooth surface you probably or maybe you're gonna use those
[1:50:27] as you know mixed medium in your mural if you got a pothole are you getting to a
[1:50:32] point no I'm not getting to a point I'm mostly just curious like right how does
[1:50:36] that get considered in this right and like just knowing that like it's kind it's
[1:50:40] a situation we're dealing with across the city it's probably the heavier traffic
[1:50:44] the ones that wouldn't qualify for the mural program anyways but that was
[1:50:47] something that came up for me as I was reading back.
[1:50:49] That's an excellent question.
[1:50:50] And where we would kind of bring that in
[1:50:53] is when an applicant were to come in to,
[1:50:57] and say, I want to put this mural in this location.
[1:51:00] One of the things we'll be looking at
[1:51:02] is any planned and upcoming work on that street.
[1:51:06] So if an applicant were to come in in May,
[1:51:08] and say, hey, it's getting nice out,
[1:51:10] I'd like to put this mural in my street this summer.
[1:51:12] If we know that we're going to be doing water projects there
[1:51:16] and need to tear that street up.
[1:51:18] We're going to encourage them to wait
[1:51:20] until after that project is complete.
[1:51:22] The same would go for any known resurfacing
[1:51:25] or containment repair that was coming.
[1:51:28] We would make the applicant aware of that
[1:51:30] and ask them to wait so that we don't have to destroy
[1:51:35] that mural shortly after it was put in.
[1:51:38] I think the adage you're looking for
[1:51:40] is don't put, live sick on a pig.
[1:51:43] I'm never paid for it.
[1:51:47] I just a comment that I know traffic engineers really busy, so if this gets on, I hope
[1:51:55] you can prioritize obviously that you're not overwhelmed with the work that other needs
[1:52:01] more attention.
[1:52:02] And then maybe add a pink to all the murals, the shout out to Ashley, you can ignore that
[1:52:10] comment.
[1:52:10] But they'll be fun, so you're on board.
[1:52:15] Thank you. This was like a refreshingly different presentation from traffic engineering
[1:52:19] and kind of the work that you're doing this on top of your job. Excellent first point on the board.
[1:52:25] Thanks for joining us tonight.
[1:52:28] Okay, the next agenda on the, or the next item on the agenda is the first reading of an ordinance.
[1:52:34] On December 3rd, 2024, during the Regulatory Scheduled City Council meeting,
[1:52:38] and a public hearing will be held regarding ordinance
[1:52:40] amending the comprehensive plan, volume 1, chapter 1,
[1:52:44] 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
[1:52:46] Volume 3, volume 6, chapter 2, and 4
[1:52:49] in the Appendencies O and P.
[1:52:51] And volume P, the zoning map, the ordinance number 2050,
[1:52:56] the Beaverton Development Code, chapter 10, 20, 40, 50,
[1:53:00] 60, 70, and 90.
[1:53:01] LU-42024-00682, CPMA-42024-00679, ZMA-42024-00681, TA-42024-00680, Cooper Mountain
[1:53:21] Community Plan Project, and if you understood what that meant, you were in the great company.
[1:53:27] Our first work section of the evening 24148 water rates structure analysis.
[1:53:43] Good evening. May our city council. My name is Susan Cole. I'm the assistant director for the finance department and I am joined this evening by the FCS group, John Galaducci and Gabbard.
[1:53:55] There are consultants that have helped us work on the water rates.
[1:54:00] And as in your packet this evening, you will note that this is the first of two work
[1:54:06] sessions to tackle this issue.
[1:54:08] So tonight is just designed to give you some background information on the analysis that
[1:54:13] our consultants did, and then to outline a handful of options for a future rate structure.
[1:54:19] So, we're not asking for any sort of consensus or decisions, just your feedback, that's why
[1:54:26] we're here tonight.
[1:54:27] It's a fairly meaty topic, and so that's why we thought it would be good to have two
[1:54:31] separate work sessions that we can all wrap our minds around our water rights structure.
[1:54:39] So, I think that, yes.
[1:54:41] Okay.
[1:54:41] So, our agenda this evening is, as I mentioned, it will give you a background on utility
[1:54:46] rate studies and revenue requirements for a water utility. They will dive into some
[1:54:51] cost-of-service analysis work that they did, including our purple pipe system on South
[1:54:57] Cooper Mountain, our different pressure zones in the city, potential tiered rates based
[1:55:02] on usage, and then also what we call cost-of-service rates, and our consultants will go into defining
[1:55:07] what all of that information means.
[1:55:12] So first of all, I wanted to just remind the city council
[1:55:16] about the context that we're in for our rates and also to talk a little bit about the
[1:55:21] capital investments that the water utility is made. And then just to point out that
[1:55:26] this council did ask city staff to review tiered rates at this time last year when we came
[1:55:32] before you to do our annual review of the rates. The city council did want tiered rates
[1:55:37] explored and so that's why we're here this evening. And then of course with the consultant.
[1:55:42] So, first of all, this slide may look familiar.
[1:55:46] If you go back in time to last year, we have prepared this rate path for the City Council
[1:55:53] just to disclose the path that we are on with our water rates.
[1:55:56] And it's based on a multi-year rate path because of the capital investments that our utility
[1:56:01] is making.
[1:56:03] Currently right now, we're at $5.90 per unit of water.
[1:56:07] and what this graphic shows you is we are on a rate path to increase our rates
[1:56:12] over time to afford those investments. This next graphic here is a demonstration
[1:56:19] of the capital investments we've made with the water utility. There's a couple
[1:56:23] acronyms here. The first one, WIFIA, is the water, I always have to Google this,
[1:56:28] the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, which is a loan program
[1:56:32] through the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. We received a loan of 81.1
[1:56:37] 1 million dollars from the EPA to finance 49% of $165 million late at projects.
[1:56:44] So that is one important piece that feeds into our water rates.
[1:56:47] Another important piece is the Willamette Water Supply System.
[1:56:50] That is bringing drinking water from the Willamette River.
[1:56:53] That is also a major investment that the water utility has made.
[1:56:57] And so that is feeding into our rates scenarios.
[1:57:00] And just a little comment there on the graphic, you'll note that we have invested or
[1:57:04] plan to invest over $327 million in the water infrastructure between the fiscal year 20 and
[1:57:10] fiscal year 27.
[1:57:14] This slide demonstrates the debt service that the water fund is entering into and has already
[1:57:20] entered into.
[1:57:22] And so you can see this particular slide takes us out to the fiscal year 2062.
[1:57:26] And that is because some of our debt is up to 30 years.
[1:57:29] And you can see here how our debt service stacks on each other.
[1:57:33] where we have a series of loans from the state,
[1:57:35] the WIFIA program that I mentioned,
[1:57:37] and then a series of water revenue bonds,
[1:57:39] and those are basically bonds that we sell
[1:57:41] to investors on the municipal bond market.
[1:57:44] So this just demonstrates all the different types of debt
[1:57:46] that the city has entered into,
[1:57:48] and also plans to enter into into the future.
[1:57:52] And this is just showing you what our rate horizon
[1:57:53] looks like with the little asterisk there in the star
[1:57:56] and what we anticipate into the future.
[1:57:58] So, as I mentioned, council has asked for tiered rates and we are here with the consultants.
[1:58:05] And, whoops, before they get into stuff, I just wanted to point out our public outreach
[1:58:10] plan for the city council.
[1:58:12] You'll note here the bullet points of our plans to engage the community over the next two
[1:58:17] months before we come back to you on January 28th at our next work session.
[1:58:21] So we have a series of outreach meetings planned where I will, myself and staff members and
[1:58:27] And I'm not sure if our public outreach, I don't think so, Jessica, will be joining us.
[1:58:31] There'll basically just be staff that will be answering questions of our community and
[1:58:35] making a very brief presentation just to let them know that we are considering water rate structure changes and
[1:58:41] water rate increases.
[1:58:42] So you can see there what our outreach plan is.
[1:58:46] Okay, and with that, I'm ready to turn it over to the consultants.
[1:58:58] Thank you, Susan.
[1:58:59] Thank you, Mayor and Council.
[1:59:00] So I'll provide some background information and then Doug will take us through the initial results.
[1:59:06] We'll start with your existing rates. One of the nice things about them is they're very straightforward or rather simple structure.
[1:59:15] Fix charges that go up with the size of the meter.
[1:59:19] And then a volume charge you see that the 590 that Susan just mentioned is the standard uniform rate.
[1:59:25] So every 100 cubic feet of water that's used by a customer in Beaverton pays 590 per CCF.
[1:59:36] So why are rate studies important? Well in the big picture they help you align
[1:59:42] Where your costs are coming from with where the revenues going to come from from rates the amount of revenue and then who should be paying
[1:59:51] in those rates? So
[1:59:53] revenues need to recover
[1:59:55] the costs of doing business
[1:59:57] in each utility.
[2:00:00] They have to be dedicated to that specific purpose so water revenues can only be, water rate revenues can only be used on water costs. They help quantify the different policy choices that you make as a city, priorities, and initiatives, conservation can be one of those. And those decisions and policies are embodied ultimately in the rates. They tell the true cost of providing the service. And then they communicate to your customer.
[2:00:31] in the way of the bill and the invoice, what they're buying and there are public meetings associated with this process that help the service and the rate process be accountable.
[2:00:47] So these are the major steps in a rate study starting from the top, but we're calling a financial policy evaluation.
[2:00:54] that's really just making sure that we have target fund balances and smart
[2:00:59] policies that will allow the utilities to be healthy in this case the water
[2:01:03] utility by an ongoing basis and protect the utility against risk. The
[2:01:09] revenue requirement forecast is the first major landmark that that is the
[2:01:15] determination of how much money is needed from rates to recover all the
[2:01:21] financial meet all the financial obligations of the utility. So that's how big is the
[2:01:26] pie? How much money do we need from rates? The cost of service analysis is where we
[2:01:32] start to look at how we slice the pie among your different customer types. So we look
[2:01:37] at the different functions that the water utility meets like providing fire protection, providing
[2:01:44] customer service, peak demands in the summer, and then how do your different customer types
[2:01:50] demand those functions differently and that will lead to different rates for
[2:01:55] different customer types usually. In the case of Beaverton we have an initial
[2:02:00] rate structure that is one size fits all. The rate design, once we know how much
[2:02:07] money we need to be recovering from each customer type, we can get creative
[2:02:11] about what the rate design looks like. That's where we can look at tiered rates that
[2:02:17] to get more expensive beyond thresholds of usage
[2:02:20] to try and have a conservation incentive.
[2:02:24] Communication plan, how do we reach out to the customers
[2:02:27] and solicit their input, let them know what's coming.
[2:02:34] A little bit more on the revenue requirement,
[2:02:36] the main components are those fiscal policies projected
[2:02:40] operating costs, so that's where we look at salaries,
[2:02:44] costs of maintenance and operations,
[2:02:46] professional services. Those are predictable costs. The ones that are really more difficult
[2:02:54] to manage are capital costs. If you picture large expenditures every few years, we manage
[2:03:00] those often through debt and you saw the accumulation of debt. What that does also is smooths the
[2:03:08] rates over time rather than spending 10 million in one year and then going back down with
[2:03:13] the rates you spread them out by planning and through that.
[2:03:17] So one of the primary objectives of a rate study in that Revenue Requirement Study is
[2:03:25] the mix of cash funding for capital projects versus debt funding and do you continue
[2:03:32] to accumulate debt or can we spend some cash on capital.
[2:03:36] What we're trying to do is find the optimal mix of debt and cash and build that into the
[2:03:42] financial plan.
[2:03:48] Final slide on the revenue requirement, the main components,
[2:03:52] fiscal policies, those are target fund balances, forecasted ONM, debt service,
[2:03:58] which is a big component of the revenue requirement as you saw, and then rate
[2:04:02] fund to capital.
[2:04:06] So again, that's the size of the pie, the cost of service
[2:04:10] analysis gets into slicing it. In this example, we've taken two steps to get to
[2:04:17] that sliced pie at the bottom of the slide.
[2:04:21] The first step was allocating the different revenue
[2:04:25] requirement elements by function.
[2:04:28] So that would be customer service, fire protection,
[2:04:32] meeting peak demands, for example.
[2:04:35] And then we look at how the different customer types
[2:04:37] that you see in the pie there demand those functions.
[2:04:41] In this case, single family pays the bulk
[2:04:44] of the cost burden through their rates as a result of that cost of service analysis.
[2:04:50] So that gets at who should be paying?
[2:04:55] Rate design.
[2:04:57] Oh, this is an example of the cost of service allocation.
[2:05:00] Just focusing on that customer function, let's say it's a million dollars.
[2:05:07] Customer service functions, like billing, don't really vary by the size of the customer
[2:05:12] or the amount of water that they use.
[2:05:14] So if you've got 60% of your customer accounts, single family, they'll pay 600,000 of that million dollars likewise for multi-family and commercial.
[2:05:26] Those proportions differ depending on the function.
[2:05:31] Finally, rate design, this is where again we can get a little bit creative and this final slide in the background section.
[2:05:40] And if you focus on those two boxes in that middle column,
[2:05:45] what the city has right now, we would call a uniform volume
[2:05:49] rate.
[2:05:50] And that incline just shows that the more you use,
[2:05:56] the more you're going to pay in a straight line over time.
[2:06:00] An inclining or tiered rate, as you see right below that one,
[2:06:04] we have a price for the initial block of water use.
[2:06:08] And then a higher price for the second block of use, and a higher price for, in this case the third block of use, there can be any number of blocks.
[2:06:18] What that does is price higher volumes of use in a way that incentivizes conservation.
[2:06:27] It also provides a, what can be considered a lifeline rate for very low levels of usage.
[2:06:33] those come in at the cheapest at the cheapest rate so we'll show you an
[2:06:39] example of a tiered rate.
[2:06:48] All right so now we begin to put numbers to
[2:06:50] everything that John was just explaining to you. We begin with financial
[2:06:54] policies. The assumptions on the right and the right column are the assumptions
[2:07:00] that were baked into this rate spreadsheet. They are all kind of industry
[2:07:05] standard and appropriate for a city like Beaverton.
[2:07:08] And those are, they constrain our modeling and we make sure that they are met.
[2:07:17] A salient feature of Beaverton's situation is your capital program.
[2:07:21] And ordinarily, if I showed a chart like this, when talking about rate setting,
[2:07:27] you'd normally expect that a big rate increases were hitting your way immediately.
[2:07:31] I mean, $73 million in the current fiscal year is a lot of money.
[2:07:36] But this is offset partially by all that WIFIA financing that you're getting.
[2:07:41] So it's not an immediate issue, but we still have to help you be able to afford all that
[2:07:47] debt service that's coming your way.
[2:07:49] And so that's what this is all about.
[2:07:52] So what you have in this graphic is the whole revenue requirement analysis in the nutshell,
[2:07:58] and I'm going to walk you through this because this pays to linger a little bit.
[2:08:03] The bottom layer of each column, the dark green, are your operating costs.
[2:08:10] And as you can see from the green line that represents your current, your revenue at current rates,
[2:08:20] you have more than enough now and even into the future to handle your operating expenses.
[2:08:26] But the layers, the couple of layers above that of debt service is where you begin to see very quickly that current rates are not going to be adequate.
[2:08:38] And so that's where we get the dotted line that shows the annual increases that are required to make sure that the total needs operating capital financial policies, all those needs are met.
[2:08:51] And so you have 7.5% increases for a few years and then backing off to a more inflationary
[2:08:58] number after that.
[2:08:59] And that makes sure all the needs get met.
[2:09:02] Now we're still in the revenue requirements so we haven't looked at individual classes
[2:09:06] and we haven't designed the rates differently for different kinds of users so don't get
[2:09:10] too married to these numbers yet.
[2:09:12] But if we were just looking at what the across the board rate increases would need to be,
[2:09:17] those are right here.
[2:09:20] Putting those on a full rate schedule, I don't want to spend too much time on this because we're going to change all these numbers in a minute.
[2:09:29] I do want to point out, notice the implementation dates and that second light tan band.
[2:09:35] You have your first 7.5 scheduled for March 1st and then after that on October after that each year after that.
[2:09:46] And so, your first two rate increases will be scheduled to come together pretty close
[2:09:52] to one another.
[2:09:53] And that's an important part of this modeling, if that assumption turns out to be wrong
[2:09:58] or you want to go in a different direction, we would need to know that so that we could
[2:10:02] model that appropriately for you.
[2:10:06] Sticking with the across the board increases, this is where it would put you in the list
[2:10:10] of comparators, and the bottom line is your relative position would remain unchanged, even
[2:10:16] even though you'd be going up a little bit.
[2:10:18] And this represents kind of the first year change
[2:10:22] versus everybody else's rates now
[2:10:25] for a single family residence consuming HCCF a month.
[2:10:32] So let's get into the cost of service analysis.
[2:10:34] So the way we do a cost of service analysis
[2:10:36] is we assign all of the dollar costs,
[2:10:41] all of the revenue requirement, to a function.
[2:10:45] And you see those functions in front of you
[2:10:47] in the left-hand column, and then we take those allocations each function, and we allocate
[2:10:54] each function to customer classes. And so there's a lot of cross multiplication going on
[2:10:59] here, but what you end up with at that second allocation is still the total revenue requirement,
[2:11:05] but now that it's been filtered through functions and now into customer groups, we now know
[2:11:10] what you need from each individual customer class.
[2:11:16] And when we did that, we found that
[2:11:19] you're actually doing pretty good right now.
[2:11:22] There is, as this graph will show you,
[2:11:25] it looks like there is a little bit of subsidy
[2:11:28] that multifamily is providing to single family,
[2:11:32] but as you can see, it's not a lot.
[2:11:35] And so right now your current rate structure
[2:11:38] pretty much matches the cost of service. In other words, the classes of customer
[2:11:46] that place more of a burden on the utility are in general paying more. And so you
[2:11:54] have a very equitable recovery. But the rate designs that we are about to show
[2:12:01] you, which is the really interesting part of all this, we are not going to
[2:12:05] about these differences and we're going to bring multifamily and single family, we're
[2:12:09] going to bring all of these into this target range that you see here on this graph.
[2:12:15] So it's a little hard to pick out the portion of the rate change that is attributable to
[2:12:23] a lining cost of service, but it's in there.
[2:12:26] So we just want to make that clear.
[2:12:28] Because now we go on to rate design and we've got a whole bunch of things moving at once.
[2:12:34] So the rate design options, a couple things we're going to look at briefly are purple pipe rates.
[2:12:41] That's for the non-potable water. The pressure zone rates, so assigning those who require pumping,
[2:12:48] having a surcharge that allows them to pay for that pumping, and then we'll move on to the tiered water usage rates
[2:12:55] that fall into option one and option two, and I'll explain what those options are.
[2:13:00] are. I should emphasize they are not the only options available. They represent a couple
[2:13:07] of different approaches which can inspire you to come up with other scenarios I'm sure.
[2:13:16] So purple pipe rates are the rates that would collect the cost of delivering non-potable
[2:13:23] water through the purple pipe system. And when we allocate the cost of providing that
[2:13:31] program to the customers in place who would be using that program, the rates are super
[2:13:37] high and not feasible. It's like, it's like potable water with, with flex of gold in it.
[2:13:43] I mean, it's, it's really infeasibly high. And so the recommendation is to delay implementation
[2:13:51] of the purple pipe rates until the customer base expands and that would leave you I think
[2:13:59] with a more feasible result.
[2:14:04] Now tiered rates by pressure zone, that's another cost-based idea where we would collect
[2:14:12] and recover the costs of providing pumping to the higher pressure zones.
[2:14:17] And we can have, because there's more than one tier, we can have multiple tiers of those
[2:14:23] rates that surcharge that would recover those costs, depending on how you quantify those
[2:14:29] costs, the recovery could be higher low.
[2:14:34] I'm going to show you some examples of what we came up with, but just I begin with a
[2:14:39] reminder that this is another one that staff recommends delaying the pressure zone rates until
[2:14:47] more build out has occurred.
[2:14:49] and so we're addressing purple pipe and pressure zone rates here but when we
[2:14:54] get into the rate design scenarios those are not
[2:15:04] So we'll talk about it here and then we'll move on from it. So this is an example of what pressure zone rates could look like.
[2:15:14] We have three tiers in the upper right hand corner. You have a tier zero, which is non-pumped. Tier one, which is a tier zero.
[2:15:29] the first level and Tier 2, which is a higher level where it's pegged at one and a half times
[2:15:36] the cost of the first tier. And in the table on the left, you see the monthly rates at each
[2:15:47] meter size for each tier. So a single family residence, which typically has a three quarter
[2:15:55] inch meter in tier one they would pay an extra $13.20 per month or that
[2:16:02] pumping and then if you were up in tier two they would pay $19.80 per month.
[2:16:08] Now that I've described those to you you can instantly forget about them because
[2:16:12] they are not part of the rate design scenarios that we're about to see.
[2:16:18] So now
[2:16:18] we talk about tiered water usage and John has already gone over over what
[2:16:23] these are but we're now beginning to move away from your uniform volume charge. Now we have
[2:16:32] different rates for different levels of consumption and now we'll show you what that looks like.
[2:16:37] So we got some eye candy here for those of you who like to visualize distributions but I wanted
[2:16:42] to draw attention mainly to the table that shows you the tear thresholds in CCF. So you have
[2:16:52] a tier two threshold of six, which basically represents the break point for what most people would use in off-season in non-peak usage, non-watering, I guess you would say.
[2:17:07] Okay, tier three threshold at 11 CCF is kind of at the higher end of what someone would
[2:17:18] use during the watering season and then they pay $11 after you're above 11 CCF after
[2:17:26] that.
[2:17:27] So this is kind of a, this is a rationale of why we picked these tier thresholds.
[2:17:34] These tier thresholds will remain constant now
[2:17:36] through the two scenarios that we're about to show you.
[2:17:41] And this slide explains how we arrived at that.
[2:17:44] Okay, option one.
[2:17:46] Option one is the gentle cost of service tiered rates.
[2:17:53] They really make use of your existing right structure
[2:17:56] and don't add too much more complexity
[2:17:58] to it other than the three different blocks.
[2:18:01] blocks. And so you see that the meter size charge would go up a little bit and pardon
[2:18:12] me. And on the volume charge you would have a charge go down for the first block so good
[2:18:24] for low users and then go higher from there.
[2:18:30] This is part of the ad one, please.
[2:18:32] Well, you have a chance too, guys.
[2:18:37] Unseasier throat.
[2:18:38] The one that that top bullet on this slide is kind of important because one of the things
[2:18:44] that we notice is that split between fixed and variable revenue is heavily weighted
[2:18:50] toward revenue from the volume rates.
[2:18:53] So what that does is it puts the city in the position of in a in a let's say
[2:19:01] Summer of low demand lower than expected demand. You're going to see big
[2:19:06] Effects on your revenue. That's it. That's a volatile revenue
[2:19:11] Set up there. So when we look at the next option, we're going to try to show you one that where there's more revenue coming from the fixed charges
[2:19:19] But there's still a conservation incentive
[2:19:22] built-in and less reliance on the volume rates.
[2:19:29] In some ways. So now, this is the full rate schedule for option one.
[2:19:36] Just so you have it all complete, I could read it to you but then you'd fall asleep and that would not be good.
[2:19:44] So let's talk about option two. Option two is the non-genital option.
[2:19:50] This is what we would suggest to you if we were left to our own devices and say, hey, man, let's do cost of service rates all the way.
[2:19:59] We are introducing little extra complexity here.
[2:20:02] So once again, we have a fixed charge, but the fixed charge now has two layers.
[2:20:08] There is an account-based charge, which is what you see in the upper left table.
[2:20:14] And then there is a meter-based layer of the fixed charge, which is what you see on the right side.
[2:20:19] So, for example, a single family residence with a 3-quarter inch meter would have in 2025 a combined fixed charge per month of $37.50.
[2:20:36] Because you're combining the single family account charge with the lowest meter size meter charge.
[2:20:43] So the fixed charge now has two different layers to it.
[2:20:47] On the volume charge, you'll see that the volume charges are lower because that's the
[2:20:59] only place you can go when the fixed charges are higher and they certainly are higher here
[2:21:02] to recover more revenue in the fixed charge.
[2:21:06] So to make sense of how we compare this, we will go right by this wonderful slide which
[2:21:14] is the full rate schedule for option two that you can look at at your leisure. This is the one
[2:21:20] you'd probably be interested in. So what we have here are five different categories of user.
[2:21:29] And we're not talking about different classes. This is all single family because
[2:21:35] that's all the tiered rates would apply to a single family. The green column on the left of each
[2:21:44] cluster is the current rates and so they're not really comparable.
[2:21:50] The final three columns in each cluster are comparable and you want to compare them.
[2:21:57] The first one, the orange one is the 2025 across the board rates.
[2:22:01] If we just stopped at the revenue requirement and did the 7.5% increases for everybody and
[2:22:08] kept the rate structure the same, that's what's in the orange.
[2:22:11] In the yellow column, you have the option one rates, and in the final blue column, you have the option two rates.
[2:22:22] And this is where you see kind of the proverbial winners and losers of each scenario.
[2:22:26] So if you are a low user, you really like that option one.
[2:22:33] Because the fixed charge is lower, and that fixed charge really matters if you're not using a lot of water.
[2:22:39] If you are a high user, then you probably do better under the tiered rates of option two.
[2:22:52] So that's just how different kinds of users come out.
[2:22:57] But this is a helpful way to compare the options of the two the tiered rate options versus the across the board option.
[2:23:07] And in some cases, like at 12 CCF, there's really not much difference between them.
[2:23:16] So to summarize, the three choices you just saw, the existing rate structure with across
[2:23:23] the board increases, and then two tiered options.
[2:23:27] Tiered option one makes use of your current rate structure without adding a lot of complexity
[2:23:33] to it while phasing in the cost of service results.
[2:23:37] And it maintains, as John said, the current revenue split between fixed and variable.
[2:23:45] And there is because of that, there is a greater conservation incentive.
[2:23:55] Option two replaces the current rate structure with a more pure cost of service rate structure
[2:24:01] where you have that base charge that has its two layers for both the customer class and the meter size.
[2:24:07] It shifts more revenue collection to that fixed rate, and so for that reason, it has greater revenue stability, which is helpful for the utility.
[2:24:20] You are always trading off what's good for the utility versus what's good for the customer, and that's the trade-off between conservation incentive versus revenue stability.
[2:24:31] So,
[2:24:35] just to articulate the specific questions that we are seeking feedback from Council about,
[2:24:43] how should Beverton's structure, its water rates, to recover costs?
[2:24:48] Specifically, should Beverton move to a tiered rate structure or keep the existing structure?
[2:24:54] And secondly, if a tiered structure is preferred, should the rate structure phase in cost of
[2:25:01] service rates as in option one or entirely replace the current structure as in option two.
[2:25:11] The next steps that we see here are a Council work session toward the end of January where
[2:25:18] we will bring back a summary of the public outreach and we'll have Council direction on
[2:25:25] the rate structure.
[2:25:27] Public hearing is currently scheduled for February 18th with rates to be effective March
[2:25:34] first, which brings us back to that March 1 implementation date that you saw on the
[2:25:39] rate schedules.
[2:25:51] Awesome.
[2:25:52] And we'd be happy to entertain any questions you have.
[2:25:54] Thank you.
[2:25:57] I think for me to make decisions going forward, there's a couple things that I feel like
[2:26:01] are missing for me to fully grasp this, like how many people in these categories, like it's
[2:26:07] really great and you've found very knowledgeable in what 8CF versus 5 is, what I would like
[2:26:14] to know is like how many houses is that? And is there like a geographical map that can put
[2:26:20] up to say like this particular neighborhood uses more like could we get a feeling of how
[2:26:25] that's going to impact different neighborhoods? I'm glad that you're skipping over the pump
[2:26:31] fee piece. All of our public feedback today was like please don't do that. I live on a hill,
[2:26:36] which is understandable for them. But I need to know a little bit more and I think also from the
[2:26:41] Council's perspective, like we're still waiting to figure out what happened with our utility
[2:26:45] billing the last few months.
[2:26:47] From our understanding, we're under billing a lot of bills right now.
[2:26:50] And so if we go in and add this tiered rate structure and somebody's anticipate bill goes
[2:26:57] up exponentially, like I need that information to make a decision.
[2:27:01] So I can't make a decision or get really credible feedback without knowing some of those
[2:27:07] other variables.
[2:27:08] Councillor Tiffnan.
[2:27:09] Thank you. Just a couple of questions. The first one was on the slide where it showed
[2:27:16] the different graphs of different types of structures. There was a seasonal one on
[2:27:21] there. That one caught my eye and it wasn't included in this, though you did have a notion
[2:27:27] about conservation at conservation incentive and I'm assuming that the seasonally-based one
[2:27:33] And like in a community saying Nevada or Arizona is kind of a no-brainer to help incentivize
[2:27:41] people to use less water during the peak seasons.
[2:27:45] And I'm curious if that's a consideration or concern that applies to a community or region
[2:27:52] like ours to the, I wouldn't say the same extent, but in terms of just the cost of it, of
[2:28:00] If the energy costs of everything that goes into delivering that water, if they're going
[2:28:10] with the tiered options that you present, especially option one, with that conservation incentive
[2:28:14] built into it, is that kind of an apples to apples with going with that seasonal approach?
[2:28:21] Is there any upside to potentially considering the seasonal rate structure?
[2:28:25] So seasonal rates used to be a lot more common than they are now and all it was was you have you have one volume rate in the winter and a different volume rate in the summer period of peak use.
[2:28:39] The reason that I think the industry has moved more toward the tier rates, tiered rates is because one, we've got billing systems that can bill them back then. That was a hard thing to do and it's not anymore.
[2:28:53] But the other thing about the seasonal rates is they even folks who conserved water and don't use water in the summer are subject to the higher rate.
[2:29:05] And that's why the move toward the tiered rates has happened because it has those incentives and that reward for folks who conserved year round.
[2:29:16] So that's generally why the industry has moved that direction.
[2:29:20] Okay. Thank you. That's very insightful.
[2:29:23] I had one other, you were asking about the number of customers and bills.
[2:29:27] Yeah. You could go to slide 37.
[2:29:34] Yeah. So this shows, and I know this doesn't fully answer your question,
[2:29:39] but just to give you a little bit of background on that, on the Y-axis,
[2:29:45] there are the number of individual bills. So those bars are the number of bills
[2:29:51] and you see the median there at a little over four it will all on the x axis is the
[2:30:00] CC, the volume bill. So over 30,000 bills at 4, 3, or 4 CCF. So that's a lot of bills at low usage. And you can see how that distribution, as you move out to more and more higher and higher volumes of usage, the number of bills goes way down. And one of the things I wish we had showed you is at some really egregious levels of usage, like 40 or 50.
[2:30:29] DCCF and you have customers who use that in the summer, you would see the bills on
[2:30:35] those tiered rate options much, much higher than your current uniform rate, which I think
[2:30:41] is what you want in general. But anyway, that gives you a little more information and we'll
[2:30:47] get you more.
[2:30:47] Well, and I'm guessing probably some of those large water companies or other government
[2:30:53] users like schools and parks. And so it would be helpful to have a little bit more complete
[2:30:58] understanding. So I hear what you're saying and Portland puts out their lists of the top 10
[2:31:01] you know water abusers and I don't want to publicly shame people but it'd be interested to kind
[2:31:07] of see and I also think if you could work with GIS to do a map overlay with neighborhood so when
[2:31:12] we're thinking about it from a zoning perspective like have we intentionally created neighborhoods
[2:31:17] that are using intent a lot more water because of the lot size that's just helpful information for us
[2:31:22] as we're struggling with building codes and all of that other stuff and so I don't expect you to answer
[2:31:27] today but as you come back this would be information that is helpful for me
[2:31:31] because we're planning North Cooper Mountain we're planning a brand new
[2:31:34] neighborhood are we setting up the incentive there to be big lots and high
[2:31:38] water users and so that's kind of information as I'm leaning towards kind of
[2:31:43] how we're making this disease these are all single-family residences so the
[2:31:47] tiered-rate structure would not apply to any other customer type only single-family
[2:31:52] residents is because they're the ones that have the most discretionary usage and they're
[2:31:58] the ones that peak the most, so sorry if that wasn't clear, we've got, yeah, I'd like
[2:32:03] to see the map of the person using 60 CCF, so please tell me what lots are there.
[2:32:10] But yeah, we'll see what we can do about getting you that heat map.
[2:32:13] That was the second question I had to help inform which option was to give some examples
[2:32:20] of who would fall into that highest-use category of 20 CCF and just to have a better idea
[2:32:27] because there is a difference at that level and understanding if it's a school or if it's
[2:32:32] a single-family residence. So we're talking like estates at that level or just large-scale
[2:32:42] single-family footprints. These are all single-family residences on this chart. So
[2:32:48] So, but yeah, you will find some large footprints with huge yards, folks that just have like green
[2:32:59] lawns.
[2:33:00] And so we can do some of that research because we have the individual count data.
[2:33:06] Councillor Dagger.
[2:33:09] Thanks.
[2:33:09] I have a few questions.
[2:33:10] First, I appreciate you guys bringing us up tiered options.
[2:33:14] Like we have been asking a number of us for this for some time.
[2:33:17] So, kicking off this is good.
[2:33:19] that I'm going to echo the mayor's call for more information.
[2:33:22] We want to make the right decision.
[2:33:24] We want to make a decision we can also sell to our residents.
[2:33:30] So with that, I have, I think, four questions.
[2:33:33] Have you ever seen, instead of a base water rate increase,
[2:33:37] a separate line, I'm calling it in my brain
[2:33:41] a surcharge for capital projects?
[2:33:43] Yes, here's why I asked that, right?
[2:33:45] Like, if we raise the base rate once those projects are paid off,
[2:33:48] That race not coming down, right? But if it's a surcharge, then we can actually communicate that very clearly on the bill
[2:33:55] So have you guys ever seen that is that multiple times?
[2:33:59] I haven't seen one go away
[2:34:01] You know, which is fair like you're gonna have more continuous capital, but at least people see the direct investment. They're making in their water system
[2:34:11] Question of clarification around delaying the purple pipe
[2:34:15] rates? Are we, is that water flowing and free right now? How is that working?
[2:34:21] It's part of our current rate structure, so they pay the monthly fixed charge plus
[2:34:26] the $5.90 per unit.
[2:34:28] Okay, that's what I want to clarify. So it's not, it's not free water. It's just charge
[2:34:31] of, okay, now I'm totally in support of that. The, the, the models that you have on the revenue,
[2:34:38] Is that assuming any behavior change with the tiering of the rates?
[2:34:45] No, there is no price elasticity built in.
[2:34:51] So these are probably accurate, not precise.
[2:34:54] I think is a way to look at it.
[2:34:56] There might be some, if we incentivize water conservation, we might see some lower usage,
[2:35:03] which is probably a good thing for our construction, too.
[2:35:05] There are a few things that we've seen over decades of these tiered rate structures.
[2:35:16] There is occasionally a response to the structure in the first year, maybe the first two
[2:35:22] years, and then in general behavior goes back to where you saw it before you're just recovering
[2:35:28] it in a more equitable way, I guess you could say.
[2:35:32] We've also seen water use per unit going down since the mid 90s in a kind of an amazing way, and that's because of low flow fixtures, all kinds of different changes to the way homes and commercial structures are designed.
[2:35:50] So there's been this conservation over time in part due to pricing, but a lot of other factors as well.
[2:35:57] No, that's helpful.
[2:35:59] Last easy question, assuming the tiered option 1,
[2:36:04] where it was like 0 to 6, and then 7 to whatever.
[2:36:08] So if I'm a water user who uses 8 cubic feet,
[2:36:11] I'm assuming my first 6 are going to be built at the low rate,
[2:36:13] and then if I do 8, the next 1 or 2
[2:36:17] are going to be built at the highest rate.
[2:36:18] That's exactly right.
[2:36:20] And then the last one, maybe a little more complicated
[2:36:23] if you don't have the answer, that's OK.
[2:36:25] Because when I think about conservation, I also think about where in the Western United
[2:36:28] States water rights are a really big important conversation.
[2:36:32] Do we anticipate any future that's having to purchase water rights?
[2:36:37] Do we have sufficient capacity to support the growth anticipated?
[2:36:41] Is there anything we should bake into the rates for purchasing water rights?
[2:36:47] Yeah, I guess I'll answer that.
[2:36:50] The City of Beaverton has water rights through the Joint Water Commission on the
[2:36:54] 12th and River, and we did also work to get water rights on the Willamette River.
[2:36:58] Currently, our water rights are in excess of what we can actually deliver here to the City of Beaverton.
[2:37:03] Once we invest in the Willamette Water Supply Program, so we do have excess water rights.
[2:37:08] And over the course of time, like the next 20 or 30 years, the City will work on developing those.
[2:37:14] But that is part of the reason why we decided to invest in the Willamette Water Supply.
[2:37:18] is to get that drinking water supply up here.
[2:37:22] That's super helpful, I appreciate that.
[2:37:23] Yeah, our water master plan does show
[2:37:25] that our future growth demand will be met
[2:37:27] with our current water resources.
[2:37:29] Okay.
[2:37:30] It's a 30-year supply.
[2:37:31] So when we took the hard vote
[2:37:32] of getting into the wool lamb at water,
[2:37:34] it was with a 30-year lock.
[2:37:36] I see, okay.
[2:37:37] Not further questions.
[2:37:38] Thank you.
[2:37:39] It was super helpful.
[2:37:41] Councillor Teter.
[2:37:43] Okay, there's a lot of detail here.
[2:37:45] Thank you.
[2:37:45] You know,
[2:37:47] the water rights question is touching on a theme I was going to touch on also just
[2:37:51] regarding the environment that we're working in.
[2:37:53] We have a lot of water that we could access and though reservoir and in the will limit
[2:38:00] eventually soon.
[2:38:03] We've got expensive infrastructure improvements that we're building out.
[2:38:06] We're seeing with our debt service, we're having rate increases to cover those.
[2:38:10] So I share that because I'm thinking of conserving water.
[2:38:15] And conserving water itself is not the highest priority for me because we have so much of it.
[2:38:21] But I do like charging based off of usage and having a tiered rate for that.
[2:38:26] And the reason for that is more based off of the infrastructure that we're building out.
[2:38:29] And if people, if we're needing to build more infrastructure to bring more water in or to pump
[2:38:34] more water up hills. I'm okay with pricing usage according to that. And also it
[2:38:40] gives people an incentive to use less water. If they want a lower water bill we
[2:38:44] can easily say, oh you don't want to pay that much. That's great. Have a
[2:38:48] lower bill. Have a lower bill. So I'm in support of some tiered rate options. I
[2:38:53] think I lean option one, but I think I want some more information too.
[2:39:04] I like the
[2:39:04] The map that was coming to my mind was if we could get some neighborhood income maps and
[2:39:10] overlay that with pressure zones.
[2:39:12] I know we're not likely not going pressure zones immediately.
[2:39:16] But I think what we'll likely see is that we've got higher income areas that are in higher pressure
[2:39:22] zones and need more infrastructure to serve those areas.
[2:39:25] But I would actually like to see that data and see if that's an accurate assumption.
[2:39:28] question.
[2:39:30] I've got two more points.
[2:39:35] Actually, no, I don't. I am done. Thank you. Oh, wait
[2:39:39] one more point. Sure. Okay. Go ahead. The chart that showed the target of charging
[2:39:46] based off of cost of service for a single family multi-family commercial is back towards
[2:39:52] the beginning. Yeah, that one. I had the bar running across it. One that's very quickly.
[2:40:03] It had the orange highlight right across the middle. This is slide 30. So this is not being
[2:40:07] controlled from me. Oh, that one. Yeah, I like that. Okay, thank you. I like this slide a lot.
[2:40:17] One of the higher level priorities for me would be balancing this out more. I think we've likely
[2:40:22] We've got more renters and multifamily housing and I would like to pull the, the burden,
[2:40:28] the cost burden that they're carrying down to be more in line with the rest and balance
[2:40:32] that out a little bit.
[2:40:33] So I really like this slide.
[2:40:34] So thank you.
[2:40:35] And just to assure you that that is accomplished through the rate design, it's not, it's not
[2:40:41] called out specifically, but, but it is, it is set with that in mind.
[2:40:46] Okay.
[2:40:46] Great.
[2:40:46] Thank you.
[2:40:48] Not to complicate your ask, but I think the other thing is right when we're talking about property tax revenue, we collect less property tax from multi-family housing.
[2:40:57] So in our wanting to drive down the costs for them, the burden is already overly shared by single-family dwelling because of the system that we operate in.
[2:41:07] And so like that is something else to keep in mind when we're servicing debt that everyone is paying for, not to overly complicate your ask.
[2:41:15] Councilor Hassan.
[2:41:20] I am supportive of option one and I just say that because when I look
[2:41:25] at the dollar amount of that versus option two, that's a really big jump. And I just
[2:41:29] ask that whatever we decide, we commit to that because that is a shift to thinking that
[2:41:35] we're going to be doing with water. I was going to ask for the average, a lot of my questions
[2:41:40] were addressed, so I feel really good. I am curious if you jump to slide nine and you
[2:41:46] I don't have to, but I will tell you it is the public outreach plan.
[2:41:50] Can you share what are you doing with, are you giving them the same presentation, side nine?
[2:41:57] No, we are not.
[2:41:58] We have a very shortened presentation for our outreach plan.
[2:42:04] Our discernment with the help of our sub-consultants is, I mean, they wouldn't ask me, right, I would give them a spreadsheet.
[2:42:10] But our consultants recommended that we do a very abbreviated presentation where we bring
[2:42:17] the two tiered rate options to these groups and just explain to them what tiered rates
[2:42:23] mean, the two options of the gentle cost of service versus the more pure cost of service
[2:42:29] that that's what the city council is considering and go from there.
[2:42:33] See what the questions are.
[2:42:34] So I'd like to hear from others. I think that's going to go over their heads. So I'm not trying to
[2:42:43] like. No, they wrote they wrote fact sheets. We're going to have a website. Okay. Their presentation is
[2:42:51] I'm not doing it justice. It's I wish Diane abolished was here. I mean she they did a very nice job. Yeah,
[2:42:58] It's very bullet-pointed, summarized, yeah.
[2:43:03] Okay. I mean, I'm a love our boards and I love our commissions and I love the people and I want to be thoughtful of how we're engaging with them, and what decisions they're going to get to make versus decisions that we have to make.
[2:43:16] Yeah, it's more of an educational presentation versus soliciting specific desires.
[2:43:23] You know what I think, so we talk about this a lot on the City Council.
[2:43:28] Like we go out for public comment and feedback, but without a lot of understanding around
[2:43:34] the concept of the idea, it's hard to get feedback.
[2:43:37] We're struggling with it and we're people that are deep in this.
[2:43:40] What I think would be interesting is water usage is public record.
[2:43:44] You should pull the water usage of everyone in the room.
[2:43:47] You don't have to tie it to who it is, but saying there are three people in this room that
[2:43:51] use 20C.
[2:43:52] Yeah, there's three people in the room that do this.
[2:43:54] So they could have a,
[2:43:54] because you're asking someone to make a decision
[2:43:57] when they don't have any concept of what that means.
[2:44:00] And that feedback is not going to help this board
[2:44:02] make any decisions.
[2:44:04] And I think what I would just say is like,
[2:44:09] like the Willamette Water is one of, right,
[2:44:11] like, and I sit on our water boards,
[2:44:13] and I am very, you know, seasoned,
[2:44:17] and I am still learning about the water.
[2:44:19] And so if we can focus on the public outreach plan being more educational, which I think is what you're saying.
[2:44:25] So that's a great, but even like taking a step back of like, well, I'm at water supply like Barney, like clean what I, that is not a aside from five, maybe three, maybe two, people that maybe sit on BCCI, they, they will not know the depth of what you're, what you're talking about respectfully.
[2:44:45] So, I just, I like what my fellow councillor said, I like the map idea of the overlay.
[2:44:52] I think I lean towards option one, it seems to make sense.
[2:44:56] I want us to feel comfortable to pull up the bandaid.
[2:45:00] And I just, I want to move in that direction. I am very nervous if you are going to these folks and saying,
[2:45:08] tear one, tear two, what do you think? It makes me anxious because we don't know what we think.
[2:45:15] And we're asking folks to weigh in. And I have complete respect for these volunteers. I think this is just
[2:45:21] It's very technical, so if we can just think through how deep they're getting into this, it would really help, because if it's a tier one, if it's like a poll versus like tier one or two, which one do you, I mean, it's just, I am nervous as to how much and how this gets presented to those boards and commissions and what weight they truly have an influencing a decision that we will make in this room.
[2:45:49] Sure, I appreciate those comments, and I probably did not do it justice.
[2:45:54] So the firm that FCS is sub-consulted with Jessica Stanton and global communications have
[2:46:01] scripted information for me to present to these groups, and I did not do it justice.
[2:46:06] It's more along the line of education and disclosure, you know, summing up that bevertness
[2:46:12] This is charges money for its water and this is why we charge the money and then we're
[2:46:17] considering doing a restructuring that they might see changes in their bills and it's
[2:46:23] part of the larger fiscal sustainability that the city is undergone, that where we want
[2:46:28] to delve into the tiered rates, the City Council brought up, so that those lifeline users of
[2:46:33] water that use a lower rate would be more affordable for them.
[2:46:38] So the nature of the outreach is really more of a summation of what we've done here tonight and
[2:46:45] disclosure that we are looking at restructuring our rates.
[2:46:49] Okay, and I would add as we move to that, which we will thank you, just continuous education
[2:46:55] for the residents, right? We're moving towards a tiered rate for these rate, right? And so I know that
[2:47:00] that doesn't need to happen tomorrow, but I think when this comes back to us like having an understanding
[2:47:06] of what that educational plan will be as we make that decision will also be really critical so that folks understand in our community because to the mayor's point like we got some emails like I live on a hill like I shouldn't have to pay more and I'm like what are you even I mean so just the spin that happened from whatever was sent out to the community I'm not you know saying anyone's to blame for that but it was really funny to read some of the emails that we got people feeling some feels when when that is not what I've heard in this conversation for the most part so thank you very much I appreciate
[2:47:35] the presentation. Councilor Edward, came in. It's getting late, guys. We still have two more
[2:47:42] presentations. Okay, so major difference between Salem and here is about double, right? The rates
[2:47:50] that we charge, that's because of what reason. CD of Salem, Eugene, everybody's costs of providing water
[2:48:01] are different depending on, and I don't know why.
[2:48:04] Right, so we don't-
[2:48:06] Slide 26.
[2:48:08] I just want to know why there's a major difference between the cities.
[2:48:13] Couldn't begin to tell you.
[2:48:14] I don't know.
[2:48:15] Oh, okay.
[2:48:17] Yeah, factors that would influence, it would be their customer base.
[2:48:21] For example, Beaverton's customer base is very residential.
[2:48:24] We don't have a lot of commercial industrial, unlike other communities.
[2:48:28] It would be the cost of the infrastructure.
[2:48:30] I'm not familiar with, yeah, I'm not familiar with Salem's infrastructure or source of water.
[2:48:35] There's a number of different variables that influence their water rates.
[2:48:39] So I'm going to jump in really quick.
[2:48:42] I'm not familiar with most but 12 value water district as an example is that the most expensive site of this of this chart.
[2:48:49] And they've bought into the highest percentage of the will and water supply system.
[2:48:54] So they're paying a much larger fee for that.
[2:48:56] That's my understanding.
[2:48:56] Yes, and the City Council eight years ago, when we started pulling out, so this graph is why the City Council of the past made the decision under the banner of Beaverton residents get Beaverton Water because TVWD was making massive infrastructure investments that our residents, we saw this happening and if you lived in Waterhouse, you weren't going to really see anything change for you because what they were servicing was North of Bethany and building it out and asking their rate payers
[2:49:26] to absorb the cost over it.
[2:49:27] So that bar is what drove the city council
[2:49:31] to have two or three years of water fights and a nutshell.
[2:49:35] And other cities, it's all about the infrastructure
[2:49:37] and how they offset it.
[2:49:38] So it's really, like we always put this up
[2:49:41] as just a barometer,
[2:49:42] but it is really not apples to apples in any way.
[2:49:44] Right, so I just wanted to ask that
[2:49:45] because I think public will probably wonder
[2:49:48] why are we paying so much compared to other city.
[2:49:51] I mean, I could, because of infrastructure investments
[2:49:53] that we are making,
[2:49:54] that's why we're investing toward the future.
[2:49:58] So one thing I wanted to ask the future investments,
[2:50:01] the infrastructure investments that we have made,
[2:50:03] how long does it last, usually?
[2:50:06] Water pipes generally last 100 years as our assumption
[2:50:11] for the depreciation and I'm not sure
[2:50:14] about water treatment plants, but 50 years?
[2:50:19] Yeah, so another reason why I'm asking this question
[2:50:22] is they want to know what they're paying for.
[2:50:24] and that we are paying toward the future of our water rights.
[2:50:27] The hundred years down the road.
[2:50:29] Another one more question is,
[2:50:34] yes, we want to incentivize people with the tier rate.
[2:50:38] People who use less water, we pay less, more water and more.
[2:50:41] But you came back and said about two years after
[2:50:45] they use about the same.
[2:50:47] But then what is the benefit of having tiered rates versus what we have right now
[2:50:51] with higher rate?
[2:50:53] It's more about the communicating with your price signal that reward for customers who
[2:51:01] use less water.
[2:51:02] The incentive is still there.
[2:51:05] It's alignment of the rates with what you're trying to achieve in conservation.
[2:51:11] And unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily change behavior over the long term what we've
[2:51:18] seen, but there's still that reward and
[2:51:22] disincentive.
[2:51:23] So the folks who are using more are paying more,
[2:51:25] and that's considered more affordable.
[2:51:28] One last thing I want to just make a comment is that,
[2:51:30] when we are building a Cooper Mountain,
[2:51:32] we're required to have irrigation system to water the
[2:51:35] front lawn, which requires a lot of water already.
[2:51:39] So maybe we should rethink that,
[2:51:41] where I don't know we can dictate how they develop their land,
[2:51:45] but we can incentivize that why don't we plant, try front lawns so you don't have to irrigate and make it green, because that's a lot of water and I'm surprised that purple pipe, I thought you pay less rate, but then you end up paying more.
[2:52:01] You should pay less, which is, the reason we're recommending delaying implementation because it is a lower, it is a lower value commodity.
[2:52:11] And so it will take some build out of the system for the cost structure to meet that condition, there's enough people to amortize it over.
[2:52:22] Thank you, that's all I have.
[2:52:28] I think some questions that I would have for maybe the next conversation that would help
[2:52:33] me also make a decision or things about how do we see this actually impacting the potential
[2:52:41] revenue, right?
[2:52:42] I know a lot of what we're trying to, we have to cover our costs and understand how that
[2:52:47] all comes together.
[2:52:48] But I think when we see an example when we had the budget conversation, we're talking
[2:52:54] like where does the dollar go to right and use the different breakdowns like kind of simply like
[2:52:59] you need this amount of every dollar coming in to cover your operations you know like
[2:53:06] there's a little bit of like a simplification of the story because I also said I want
[2:53:10] of our water things I've I feel like I've read this I've seen this a lot and I'm honestly kind of
[2:53:15] confused and I can't tell the benefit of option one or two whether that's to the city or to the
[2:53:21] rate payer, you know, I'm a little bit confused on just the benefit there.
[2:53:26] Other thing I really needed to clarify, and maybe this is something we can answer tonight, is
[2:53:32] we have non-residential water users today, but the example of the tiered rates,
[2:53:39] we talked about only applies to single-family, and you said because that's the primary consumer?
[2:53:50] So commercial, non-residential and multi-family water use is less discretionary, basically.
[2:53:58] They're using what they need to use to do whatever their business does in general.
[2:54:03] They're already sensitive to the price of water, that uniform price of water.
[2:54:08] So historically, a tiered rate structure has not been effective when applied to non-residential water rates and same with multifamily.
[2:54:21] It's single-family residences that peak dramatically in the summer because they start outdoor watering, washing cars, whatever they're doing.
[2:54:31] And so tiered rates are generally applied only to the single family residential class.
[2:54:37] So the options we showed you include a uniform volume rate for multifamily,
[2:54:44] for non-residential, the tiered rates would only apply to the single family residential rates.
[2:54:50] So instead of a single rate structure like you have now, you would have different rates
[2:54:55] for different classes, which I know sounds complicated, very common, billing systems routinely
[2:55:02] deal with this.
[2:55:03] In fact, what we see in Beaverton's rate structure is more of an anomaly now than different
[2:55:09] rates for different classes because of the different demands.
[2:55:12] So I hope that, I hope that you said that.
[2:55:14] I think though, I mean, maybe this is just like in my head as a non-water expert and a non-water,
[2:55:21] you know, like someone who doesn't study consumption and rates.
[2:55:24] that a multi-family facility or a non-residential facility,
[2:55:29] like if it's any sort of commercial area,
[2:55:33] like they also have irrigation.
[2:55:35] There's also, there is non-discretionary water use
[2:55:39] and so I don't know why other,
[2:55:41] like we wouldn't have in like that, you know,
[2:55:44] and maybe it's too hard to say,
[2:55:45] but I know like we use like a calculation around
[2:55:48] like how we determine our sewer rates, right?
[2:55:50] is like you compare your kind of year-round consumption
[2:55:54] and then you, I don't remember, it's average,
[2:55:58] or you take the winter rate or something, right?
[2:56:00] Yeah, because like in the summertime,
[2:56:01] if you're using for irrigation,
[2:56:02] that water's not going through the processing
[2:56:08] of the sewage, right?
[2:56:10] So, like logic tells me that all these other classes
[2:56:14] of folks also have non-discretionary water use
[2:56:17] and that, you know, we also do want to incentivize their like that balancing of we've got to pay for
[2:56:25] this investment we've made into our water infrastructure and covering operational costs and
[2:56:30] incentivizing that while it's probably been like 10 inches like in the last day, right? I mean,
[2:56:36] while I understand it feels like we live in a place of abundance like there have been many droughts
[2:56:41] in my lifetime in Oregon. So it's not like I don't want us to take it for granted and that's I think
[2:56:45] for me, a motivator in putting in a tiered structure was to say, like, yeah, if you're
[2:56:52] this chart, that one chart, it looks like somebody's got 100 CCFs, that's wild, as a single
[2:56:58] family resident. So that person should be paying a heck of a lot more money than someone
[2:57:05] who's like bathing and drinking water, right? So that, to me, is like also the balance
[2:57:11] and like recognizing that the majority of the information we have is single family, I would
[2:57:14] be curious to see like is there a revenue impact in the other areas because for me just
[2:57:24] logic says there has to be more out there to help cover our costs by these other types
[2:57:29] of users. So these rate structure options are all designed to recover exactly the same
[2:57:36] amount of revenue. So even if you went to a tiered rate structure for non-residential,
[2:57:43] the way that we are developing the rates based on the revenue requirement first and the cost of service.
[2:57:49] It would still recover the same amount of revenue as the options we're showing you now.
[2:57:56] It's calculated to do that.
[2:57:59] We would be happy to put together a commercial tiered option.
[2:58:06] There are lots of other reasons not to do that.
[2:58:10] That in my opinion, one of them is if you think of different types of commercial customers
[2:58:16] unlike single family residences where yeah, you have lots of different types of single
[2:58:21] family residences large and small, but they're generally they don't vary that much.
[2:58:27] When you think of just the size of different apartment complexes and multifamily complexes,
[2:58:34] how much they differ within that class, non-residential same thing, you could have a laundry
[2:58:39] and a grocery store, and they might have the same meter size, but they're running a whole different volume of water through there just because of the type of business.
[2:58:53] And that water is not discretionary. They need that for their business. They're running the same amount through their year round.
[2:59:01] And that's one of the reasons that a tiered structure just isn't as well applied to non-residential
[2:59:10] or multi-family.
[2:59:12] They often do have irrigation, but they also have separate irrigation meters at times.
[2:59:18] I don't know how common those are in the city, but the separate irrigation meter is what
[2:59:23] they will use to do their out or watering.
[2:59:25] Again, their year round usage of, you know, through the domestic meter is pretty uniform.
[2:59:34] It goes up a little bit in the summer, but single family goes up dramatically in the summer.
[2:59:40] And that's where, and they're 90% of your customers.
[2:59:44] So that's where the biggest bang for the buck is.
[2:59:47] Thank you.
[2:59:48] That was very helpful for me to just have a better understanding.
[2:59:51] I think there's kind of maybe that like outlier surcharge that I would be interested in as like a supplemental thing right where it's like if you are
[3:00:03] We're going to charge you for it. You can't be that kind of water user, right? So, I think that would maybe be something that would help me feel a little bit better about catching the outlier, understanding that there's different ways. And I think it's also helpful to think about it from that kind of the water classes, right? These class of users and changing the system to kind of account for that would actually help us get to the end goal as well.
[3:00:30] Well, and I think, too, one of the things we didn't really talk about is like, why?
[3:00:35] But to Councillor Teeter's point, we're not running out of water.
[3:00:40] I mean, from an environmental standpoint, we're making that argument, but growing up in
[3:00:43] Southern California, where they literally would run out of water.
[3:00:45] So you couldn't water and irrigate, so we want to make sure that we're solving the right
[3:00:50] problem here.
[3:00:51] The reason we started this wasn't to try to reduce water consumption.
[3:00:54] and it was to make sure that people that were using a lot of it were paying their fair share.
[3:00:59] And the majority of this conversation is bound conservation when that's not really the problem we're trying to solve.
[3:01:05] But I agree with you and I think in most cities your assumption is correct.
[3:01:09] We have an overpopulation of multifamily housing here that all have gigantic lawns that they irrigate that I do not think have a separate irrigation meter.
[3:01:16] And so that is just some information that would be helpful for us to know.
[3:01:20] While you've heard a lot of opinions tonight, thank you for staying with us till 9 p.m. to share them with us and we look forward to future conversations.
[3:01:28] Thank you so much.
[3:01:28] Yeah.
[3:01:29] And let's take a little bit of a five minute break for our next two presentation and realize what time it is.
[3:01:34] So let's think about how we're.
[3:07:25] Hello, the Gavils already get back in your seat.
[3:07:29] You had your option.
[3:07:32] All right.
[3:07:33] Right, I do think, is this your first presentation to us about the agenda?
[3:07:38] Yes.
[3:07:39] Okay, so we have two first timers tonight, and hopefully we can give you that third timer jacket in the near future.
[3:07:45] But here we are for your first presentation to us.
[3:07:49] If you caught that joke, you're probably my friend with that.
[3:07:52] The floor is yours.
[3:07:54] Thank you.
[3:07:56] The work at Johnson Blake, government relations manager, I'm here to talk today about our draft state legislative framework.
[3:08:02] I am joined online by Joel Rubin, our federal lobbyist from CFM Advocates.
[3:08:08] So I would like to point out that it is midnight his time and just thank him publicly
[3:08:15] for staying online and being with us today.
[3:08:19] And I'll let him introduce himself when we get to his part of the presentation.
[3:08:26] So I'm just going to start us off by orienting us where we are today.
[3:08:30] We're coming into a long session.
[3:08:31] and today's work session is prepping us
[3:08:34] for potential adoption of the legislative framework
[3:08:37] on December 10th.
[3:08:39] That will give staff adequate time
[3:08:41] before a January 21st start date.
[3:08:44] And then the session adjourns on June 28th,
[3:08:49] which is Sinie Di, the constitutional mandate.
[3:08:51] It's fine.
[3:08:55] So I'll have this at the end to very straightforward.
[3:08:58] I have one question for you today.
[3:09:00] Are there changes that you would like to see
[3:09:02] to this framework before adoption on December 10th,
[3:09:06] and I'll have this at the end, too, for our consideration.
[3:09:10] So the framework you have before you actually has four
[3:09:13] different columns, but for the presentation today,
[3:09:16] I put them into two just to kind of streamline
[3:09:18] what we're going to be talking about.
[3:09:21] And I want to make a note here at the top that today,
[3:09:24] I'm really going to go over high priority bills
[3:09:26] that we're seeing coming down the pipeline
[3:09:29] and what a lot of the air in the room, if you will, at the state legislature is going to be spent on.
[3:09:36] However, we do anticipate 2,500 bills, so just because we're not talking about them today does not
[3:09:43] mean that we won't be monitoring them for impacts to Beaverton. And while we'll adopt the framework
[3:09:51] in December, if anything changes or anything unanticipated comes between now and the end of session,
[3:09:58] We will be touching base with you, and when I say we, CFM advocates, are lobbyists in the building, both state and federally, so you will see them around as well.
[3:10:10] So the two priorities that I have for us today, land use, sustainability, and housing, and then infrastructure and economic development.
[3:10:18] As you can see, these are very broad and they are going to cover quite a few things, so
[3:10:24] I'm going to go over some specific bills, but I'm also happy to answer questions about
[3:10:29] any policy items that we don't touch on today.
[3:10:34] So jumping right into land use sustainability and housing, we are anticipating a housing
[3:10:39] package.
[3:10:40] It is still the governor's priority around housing and especially middle housing.
[3:10:45] We've already been seeing some language coming out and engaging with the governor's
[3:10:50] office on this. However, we do have a couple priorities within that housing bubble.
[3:10:56] So our first priority is while we support the, and according to the framework, continuing
[3:11:04] to talk about housing, we're also conscious that a lot has been done over the last few
[3:11:09] sessions. And we're asking for a small pause in any major changes to housing policy to
[3:11:16] allow staff time to adopt code changes and bring them before you, as well as allowing
[3:11:25] it to play out on the ground so we can continue to come back to the session and engage with
[3:11:29] them on what we're seeing and further policy using examples from the field.
[3:11:36] The other priority that we have and I have it up here is the dash four. This is something
[3:11:43] that staff worked on with the governor's office last session, but unfortunately didn't make
[3:11:47] it into Senate Bill 1537, we're really hopeful to bring this back again.
[3:11:53] And this is a focus on infrastructure as it relates to housing production.
[3:11:57] So specific to Beaverton, we're talking about infrastructure that is system wide, that
[3:12:04] helps move housing production along.
[3:12:07] So in that context last session, we talked about the camera booster pump station, which we were
[3:12:12] very successful in securing $3 million dollars. But we're also talking about larger loan and grant
[3:12:18] programs that other cities could also access. And we've modeled this kind of off of the WIFIA
[3:12:25] program but something a little bit smaller and more accessible to cities who don't maybe have
[3:12:30] the capital for something quite that large but would also be a resource for Beaverton in the
[3:12:36] future throughout Cooper Mountain. I also rolled into this House Bill 3115. This does
[3:12:43] span a lot of different categories, but as it relates to housing, we are anticipating
[3:12:50] to see that come back this session. There's been a variety, and as you know, cities are
[3:12:56] across the board on this issue, so it will be a very diverse conversation. However, part
[3:13:04] Part of that conversation has been about repealing House Bill 3115 as it relates to the most
[3:13:10] recent Supreme Court ruling.
[3:13:12] So we are prepared to engage in those conversations to around Beaverton's most recent code updates.
[3:13:22] So moving to infrastructure and economic development, it is going to be a transportation session.
[3:13:28] So this is going to be a big focus for most of the legislators and staff in the building.
[3:13:35] This is going to be a little different transportation session than we saw previously, so as you'll remember our last transportation session was House Bill 2017, where a lot of very large projects came out and we're seeing it on 217 currently.
[3:13:51] This is more going to be focused on maintenance and operation and what the backlog looks like for the state and local governments.
[3:13:59] So our approach is really tailored here that you'll see about what it looks like to backfill
[3:14:06] for us and also what it looks like to bring our transportation system into the future and not
[3:14:14] be so reliant on fuel's tax that is becoming decreasing commodity every day with electric vehicles.
[3:14:20] So there's already been robust conversations around the road usage charge program and how we start
[3:14:27] that transition. And a very big focus on active transportation options and what that looks
[3:14:35] like for both the state and local streets and the diversion that happens between the two.
[3:14:41] Up here, one of the founding principles that we're looking to go off of is opposition to any deviation
[3:14:48] away from the 50, 30, 20 funding model, which is how our state highway fund is divvied up and is a bulk of
[3:14:57] Beaverton's revenue when it comes to straight funds.
[3:15:00] I added a lodging tax reform in this, and the connection here is there will be a bill that would open up options for how we use TLT funds, and it would allow for expanded uses of when we think about impacts of tourism. So that could look like infrastructure. It could look like roads sewer water to accommodate increased tourism in cities.
[3:15:29] And the last I'm here with infrastructure is franchise fees and permit authority over
[3:15:37] the right of way.
[3:15:38] We do anticipate a robust conversation around the new model cities are using, Beaverton
[3:15:46] changed over from franchise agreements to right of way ordinance in 2016 and this is going
[3:15:53] to be a topic of conversation of how our utility providers are transitioning with us
[3:16:00] and there's also going to be potential talk around shop clocks and permitting.
[3:16:04] So we're anticipating both of those things.
[3:16:10] So I won't go into too extensive detail.
[3:16:14] I know it's a little wonky of a map, but I will bring up.
[3:16:17] We do have one capital construction asked currently that we've been workshopping.
[3:16:22] it's a sewer line everybody's favorite conversation on the corner of Murray
[3:16:28] in Scholes Ferry. It is an older sewer line that runs under a beautiful pond in
[3:16:35] front of a restaurant that has what I like to call a projectile fountain. So this
[3:16:42] older sewer line runs under an unlined pond and there is risk for future leakage
[3:16:49] if you will, but we also found the opportunity that if we up size that line, it has the
[3:16:57] ability to serve an additional conservative 800 units on the top of Cooper, and I want
[3:17:04] to add that this kind of builds on the camera booster pump station conversation that we had
[3:17:08] last year that we're trying to figure out what are all of our options for spurring development
[3:17:15] across all of Cooper and not having to wait for the bottom to develop up but
[3:17:20] giving them connection points that already exist if we can. And a little caveat
[3:17:28] to that we're also talking with our partners in the area because this seems to be
[3:17:32] a very good regional project so we've seen some interest there as well. And we're
[3:17:37] using a different technology to do that. We are and we can talk about slip
[3:17:43] lining and I know Tim's in here and he'll like nudge me if I get something wrong but it's very
[3:17:50] creative especially since it's under a pond. We don't really want to dig up a pond if we don't
[3:17:56] have to. So we have the ability to kind of if you think of an angioplasty on a heart we thread it
[3:18:03] through and we burst the pipe and it bursts out and we thread the new pipe through. It's a lot more
[3:18:10] environmentally sensitive because we're taking up a much smaller footprint than having
[3:18:14] to trench through and it would maintain the integrity of the pond at the same time.
[3:18:20] And we're able to actually thread a larger pipe than what was there before.
[3:18:26] So it's really neat and we've already had requests from legislators to come watch it happen.
[3:18:31] So we might have to have a pre ribbon cutting on the pipe first thing if we move forward.
[3:18:36] So, with that, and before we transition to the federal piece, I'll have this question
[3:18:42] up and I'm happy to answer any questions about the state framework before I turn it over
[3:18:47] to Joel.
[3:18:48] Thank you for the framework, Jocelyn, and doing something cool and unique in water has
[3:18:55] been kind of our bread and butter, and we pre-shopped this idea around and people are pretty excited
[3:19:01] about it.
[3:19:02] I also think it has other applications in the city, so it's like an investment in our
[3:19:06] future way to do this work.
[3:19:10] The mayor's outside of our framework meet and talk a lot about the legislature, and
[3:19:14] it's going to be a tough year for cities.
[3:19:17] We've already been meeting in earnest with the governor.
[3:19:19] We've been meeting with the mayor's collectively.
[3:19:22] The threat of losing federal funding is very real.
[3:19:25] And the type of federal funding we've been very successful at getting around infrastructure
[3:19:30] is going to do the same work that the governor's asking us to do.
[3:19:34] build house, build roads, do this.
[3:19:36] And so I think we're going to spend the majority of the session in defense mode about
[3:19:41] protecting city resources and making sure that the legislature doesn't put more unfunded
[3:19:47] mandates on top of us or expect us to do the same amount of work.
[3:19:50] I mean, we just had a very lengthy conversation about our budget constraints as they are.
[3:19:55] They will get exponentially worse with the loss of federal revenue.
[3:19:58] and so why we do have one capital construction asked, the majority of what I think we're going to be doing is defending that and defending the city's position on revenue the 40 30 20 because right now it's at great risk of losing it
[3:20:13] and if we lose that piece our ability to do anything so as much as I like to be in Salem doing sexy things we might get one shot at Schitt's Creek and nothing else so just keep that in mind.
[3:20:24] Councillor Hassan.
[3:20:25] Yes,
[3:20:28] thank you. We're talking about state and then we're going to move to federal.
[3:20:32] Okay, so I have an ask. It isn't super sexy, but given what's happening nationally,
[3:20:41] we've had a lot of groups that are starting to convene to talking, like, talking about protecting
[3:20:45] civil rights. I don't think that there's like an ask, ask. It's more like adding language
[3:20:50] around in our legislative agenda where we are looking to protect the civil agenda and reproductive
[3:20:54] of our immigrant refugee, LGBTQ plus and other historically excluded communities.
[3:20:59] What I'm hearing from legislators is that is something they are already working on.
[3:21:05] I think people are still in shock, well I know people are still in shock over what happened.
[3:21:08] So this is already happening at the state level, but I think it would go a big way if we just had that language.
[3:21:15] I don't know that there's any specific asks yet, but
[3:21:18] I do think that it's important that we have that language because it is possible
[3:21:24] that those civil rights will be at risk.
[3:21:25] I do think the state will take it probably,
[3:21:28] but I think it's helpful to have that language
[3:21:30] to show our community that we're thinking about it.
[3:21:37] Councillor Kimmy,
[3:21:45] you don't want to talk?
[3:21:47] That was from earlier.
[3:21:48] Oh, okay, sorry, go ahead.
[3:21:49] That's okay, it just jumped.
[3:21:51] Yeah, so Councillor Hussain just to clarify
[3:21:54] that where our state engages in protections
[3:21:57] making sure that we reach in support.
[3:22:00] I'm comfortable with that.
[3:22:03] Yeah, I think we need to do it
[3:22:04] in a defensive mode versus like an offensive mode,
[3:22:08] because we have no jurisdiction over those,
[3:22:13] and so there's no way for us to like do it,
[3:22:15] but if it was supporting partners in what they were doing,
[3:22:18] I think we have a real exit central threat
[3:22:20] to a lot of our democracy right now.
[3:22:22] So I think we have to be careful,
[3:22:24] and we can put it in the framework,
[3:22:26] and Jocelyn, I can be watching bills,
[3:22:28] and I think it's important for you guys
[3:22:29] all belong to different groups than we do,
[3:22:32] so as things are bubbly not letting us know where they're at so we can put our energy there.
[3:22:38] I mean I'll just add like I know that people are working on some of this so I will be advocating
[3:22:42] and I'm happy to share with the council but this is really critical given all the communities that
[3:22:46] will likely be impacted. Councillor Teeter. Thanks, Jocelyn. You might not get too many comments
[3:22:53] from us tonight looks like but I would say that's because you've done a really good job with this
[3:22:58] And I feel like it's in line with a lot of things that I would like to see in it.
[3:23:02] It is disappointing that it will be in defense mode, but that's not anything we can control.
[3:23:06] So we can control it, we can control it, and I think that's just protecting our effectiveness
[3:23:11] as a city and respectability and responsibility for our community.
[3:23:18] And I would support Councillor Hussain this idea that she's shared just now.
[3:23:23] Councillor Tiffon.
[3:23:27] This is the reason I like the council one-on-ones
[3:23:30] that we get in between the meetings is to have time to think about these things.
[3:23:35] You did a great presentation then, and I didn't think of anything between then and
[3:23:40] now that I think needs to be shifted. I'd just like to say, like coming to the close
[3:23:45] of my fourth year, which is weird to think it's been that long, I finally have fully grasped
[3:23:52] and understand and appreciate exactly how a city wags the dog on a state level and I think that
[3:24:01] the lenses that have been chosen and the strategy behind these and how they tie to what we're working
[3:24:08] on is the right mix and especially knowing when to go offensive, when to go defensive and
[3:24:15] just making sure that all the pieces on the chessboard are where they should be
[3:24:18] to the best advantage we have.
[3:24:21] So I feel pretty confident about this.
[3:24:23] No changes from me.
[3:24:24] Thank you.
[3:24:25] High compliments, Jocelyn, on the framework
[3:24:27] from you're hearing from the council.
[3:24:29] And I know that you worked really hard
[3:24:31] in the one-on-ones and bringing us together.
[3:24:33] And she is an endless meetings with the LOC,
[3:24:35] with other groups, keeping her eye on the ground,
[3:24:38] lots of transportation meetings.
[3:24:39] So I know it's not fun and sexy to be in the mode we're in,
[3:24:43] but we are at our peak influence right now as a city
[3:24:47] and people deeply care about where Beaverton is on issues.
[3:24:50] And a lot of that is your work, Jocelyn.
[3:24:52] So we're ready to move to the federal framework.
[3:24:58] And there's you.
[3:25:00] You can take it away, Joel.
[3:25:03] All right, thanks so much, Jocelyn.
[3:25:05] And I think I can share my screen, though.
[3:25:08] I'll do that in a second before.
[3:25:09] I just want to thank Jocelyn for all her help
[3:25:13] and support in getting the federal agenda
[3:25:16] where it is today. I want to thank the mayor for all her hard work in advocating for the
[3:25:21] city's priorities. Back in Washington DC, she's been amazing back here and you'll see a lot
[3:25:28] of the successes that we've had this year are in large measure due to her advocacy and thank the
[3:25:35] council and the staff for everything that you all do to put together. Comprehensive agendas that
[3:25:42] have projects and policy items that really fit with the priorities of your
[3:25:47] congressional delegation but also the federal government's program. So just
[3:25:52] thank you at the beginning and then I'll share my screen here and
[3:26:04] I'm going to
[3:26:04] turn this into slideshow.
[3:26:11] Hopefully you all can see that.
[3:26:15] Just so that I can only see
[3:26:16] you. So give me a thumbs up if that's okay we're good. All right so what I'm
[3:26:21] going to be talking about tonight is the recent successes that we've had together at
[3:26:27] the federal level. Discuss your federal draft agenda. This is the initial draft that we've
[3:26:33] been working on with your team. The election outcome and then preview of 2025 after the
[3:26:44] election and what that means for us. The word defensive is definitely going to be a parent
[3:26:51] in my presentations at the federal level with the outcome of the election.
[3:26:56] The City of Beaverton has done an amazing job at the federal level of being successful
[3:27:02] and advocating for your project and policy items.
[3:27:08] In doing research on some of the city's statewide, it's clear the City of Beaverton is batting
[3:27:20] above its its weight in terms of successes. What you'll see here is in 2024. If you have one
[3:27:29] successful earmark project that's considered success. You all have four pending successful projects
[3:27:40] in front of Congress to date totaling $15.5 million. Congresswoman Bonamichi was able to
[3:27:50] care $3 million for the Senior Housing and Community Space Project, which is a really
[3:27:57] exciting project in your downtown to make sure that there's affordable housing and
[3:28:03] space for childcare in your downtown, which is sorely needed across the Pacific Northwest.
[3:28:11] So she was able to provide $3 million in the House Appropriations Bill for the Senior Housing
[3:28:17] project.
[3:28:19] Congresswoman Salinas, I'm going to skip the NTLI, was able to secure $500,000
[3:28:27] for the Behavioral Health Court in the House Appropriations Bill. This is one of the more
[3:28:34] important behavioral health diversion programs that help the most vulnerable in the city.
[3:28:40] And so really appreciate the help from Congresswoman Salinas.
[3:28:47] The NTLI North Transmission Line Intertie, Senator Markley and Senator Wyden were able to
[3:28:54] secure a $2 million earmark or CDS project in the Senate bill.
[3:28:59] For that project that's one of the more important sustainability and seismic resiliency projects
[3:29:07] for the city.
[3:29:08] In addition to that, Congresswoman Bonamichi and Salinas teamed up on securing a word
[3:29:15] authorization for the NTLI project for $10 million.
[3:29:22] That is something that they provided this authorization for.
[3:29:28] It's a multi-step process, but ultimately to $10 million in investments for that water
[3:29:34] infrastructure project.
[3:29:35] So, super excited to have both of their support for that, ultimately $15.5 million coming from the federal government to the city of Beaverton through the earmark and word of process.
[3:29:51] The reason why it's in yellow, these bills have not been finalized yet, the hope is that they'll be finalized.
[3:30:00] All in December, next month, December 20th. If not, then early in 2025. So we're actively working to maintain those funds in the final appropriations bills. And I'll talk about that a little bit later. Just in terms of context of some of the other successes. You all have secured over $8 million for the loop projects through grants and CDS.
[3:30:29] mark projects. You just broke ground on the Beaverton shelter that you got $3 million
[3:30:34] for it. It was discussed earlier. The WIFIA program provided over $80 million for the
[3:30:42] city, which means $31 million in actual finance and savings to the city. So a lot of good
[3:30:49] successes that we've had working together over the last couple of years.
[3:30:57] So the main purpose
[3:30:58] of today is to talk a little bit about your federal agenda for 2025. Today we're, you know,
[3:31:08] you're aware of these projects. They've been on your list before. And over the next month,
[3:31:14] before the December 10th council meeting, when you're going to be finalizing your federal agenda,
[3:31:22] feel free to ask questions about these projects. This is a draft agenda. We can add
[3:31:30] but this is the project less that we've been working on with your staff to put forward to your congressional delegation next year.
[3:31:40] The loop has been a high priority for the city for the last few years, and we're going to be bringing it back with a significant raise grant request to the Department of Transportation for $25 million.
[3:31:54] dollars. Like I said, we've already secured over close to $8 million in federal funds already,
[3:32:00] but we want to get this project complete. So we're looking for additional construction funds
[3:32:05] through the RAGE program and then additional $4 million through the Airmark Earth Congressional
[3:32:10] Direct Expending process as well. So continue to work with your congressional delegation on that.
[3:32:17] The Laurelwood Avenue Neighborhood Access Project is basically a safe routes to school project.
[3:32:22] this is the last $1.8 million you all need to complete that project. It's a safety. It's a
[3:32:29] neighborhood. It's a transit project that we think will be popular with your congressional
[3:32:35] delegation. The North Transmission Line Intertie, like I mentioned, we received a $10 million
[3:32:42] authorization earmark. We're looking to land some additional money through that process and build
[3:32:48] on the $2 million earmark that Senators Mark Lee and Widen already secure for this project.
[3:32:53] It's feasible. And we'll be working with them to see if they can provide more resources
[3:32:59] for that infrastructure project. The nonprofit business incubator, we actually received $500,000,
[3:33:06] a couple of rounds ago from the Congressional delegation. And as that program was initiated in 2023,
[3:33:13] We're looking to build that out and get some additional funds for tenant improvements and equipment to make sure that nonprofits non-profit incubator has the resources it needs to make sure that your local nonprofits are successful aquifer storage.
[3:33:31] That's a grant request that we're looking, it's a sustainability project, it's a resiliency
[3:33:37] project that provides additional water resources in the Cooper Mountain region throughout the
[3:33:43] whole city as the city looks to grow, expand in a sustainable way, so we'll be submitting
[3:33:49] that grant request again that we've tried before, the brick program through FEMA is a difficult
[3:33:55] one to go after and we've been unsuccessful in the past but we're going to go again this next round
[3:34:01] for that. And then a brown field assessment grant basically looks to redevelop properties within
[3:34:09] the city for economic development use and we the city just submitted a $500,000 brown field assessment
[3:34:15] grant last week. So we'll be advocating for that as well. On the policy side of things I would just
[3:34:24] note before I get into anything specific. As is mentioned with a new administration, the
[3:34:30] Trump administration, we may be planning a bit more defense that we had in the past under
[3:34:35] the Biden administration with some of these domestic funding programs. But this is a work
[3:34:42] in progress. Not everything is going to be included on here. As we see things pop up, we'll
[3:34:49] We'll be working with the conference of mayors, we'll be working with the national league of cities on issues that are important to the city of Beaverton.
[3:34:57] And we'll be able to add those items to your agenda if that's something of interest to the city, but these are some of the items that come front of mind with the new administration coming in.
[3:35:09] Obviously affordable housing and the homelessness assistance programs at the federal level are very important to the city of Beaverton and cities throughout the state of Oregon protecting the home program, the CDBG program, homeless assistance, housing vouchers, low income housing tax credit are all important to the city of Beaverton.
[3:35:29] We'll be looking to protect those in fiscal year 2026,
[3:35:36] excuse me.
[3:35:38] Sustainability programs, the Biden Administration and
[3:35:42] PASS the Inflation Reduction Act, and the bipartisan infrastructure package.
[3:35:47] And both of those bills are going to be under a threat under the Trump administration.
[3:35:54] So we want to, the city wants to, has a climate action plan that you're working towards,
[3:36:02] that would be helped and assisted by those federal programs included within the Inflation
[3:36:08] Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill.
[3:36:11] And we want to try to protect those programs as Congress looks to roll those back and the
[3:36:18] Trump administration looks to roll those back.
[3:36:20] So, those are items that we're going to be discussing with your congressional delegation
[3:36:25] and other committees and agency members as well.
[3:36:30] The regulatory concerns, this is something I believe is next on your agenda, the FEMA.
[3:36:38] There's a floodplain biological opinion that's pending and being enacted by FEMA.
[3:36:44] As we speak, it's been rushed to be honest, FEMA is going outside of their mission in
[3:36:52] terms of providing mitigation guidance on endangered species, which is not within their mission.
[3:37:01] And cities throughout Oregon are being negatively impacted in terms of redeveloping and developing
[3:37:09] within your flood plain is going to have significant impact on your flood insurance program,
[3:37:15] and if these measures move forward, which they are administratively, it could have significant
[3:37:22] impacts in terms of your growth, in terms of housing, economic development, transit facilities,
[3:37:28] within your downtown core, that are all within your flood plain. And like I said, there's going to be
[3:37:32] a broader discussion on this after my presentation here, but we're going to continue to raise these
[3:37:39] concerns with your congressional delegation. See if there's a legislative or administrative
[3:37:45] delay. Obviously, we all are supportive of the Endangered Species Act and protecting
[3:37:51] Endangered Species. But at the end of the day, all of these initiatives by FEMA are being
[3:37:58] put forward before NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Agency, decisions have been made.
[3:38:06] And so, yes, we want to protect endangered species, but typically that happens after the
[3:38:11] NEPA ruling has come out, and NEPA has not actually happened yet.
[3:38:15] So we want to emphasize that, this is going to be a huge burden on cities like Beaverton
[3:38:20] throughout the state of Oregon, and want to make sure that the Congressional delegation
[3:38:24] is aware of that, and at the least delay some of the implementation moving forward.
[3:38:32] Two more items, tax reform, obviously in 2017, the Trump administration passed a huge tax cut tax reform bill.
[3:38:42] Within that, they capped state and local tax deduction at $10,000 per household.
[3:38:49] That has a negative impact on housing, which is an important issue for the city of Beaverton and other cities in the Pacific Northwest,
[3:38:56] that it makes housing less affordable to purchase.
[3:39:01] So looking to restore that state and local tax deduction,
[3:39:04] especially for some high income tax states like Oregon.
[3:39:09] In addition to that, advanced refunding was eliminated
[3:39:12] in the 2017 tax bill.
[3:39:15] Basically what that means is if a city went out for bonding
[3:39:19] and you got a 5% interest rate and interest rates went down
[3:39:23] to 2%. You could not refinance your bond to that lower rate. It's just a way for them to save
[3:39:30] money in that tax cut bill. It's scored beneficially for them so they could cut taxes elsewhere.
[3:39:36] We want to restore that. We think that's unfair for cities. You should be able to refinance your bonds
[3:39:42] at a lower level. There was no practical reason for that other than to find other offsets to cut
[3:39:49] taxes elsewhere in that tax reform bill. So that's something that National League of Cities,
[3:39:55] the Confederates, along with the state and local tax reduction, are going to be advocating for.
[3:40:00] So we've included that in your policy items and working with your staff.
[3:40:04] Lastly, supportive housing for disabled veterans. Disabled veterans get benefits that they've earned
[3:40:14] being disabled and serving their country and sometimes those benefits count against
[3:40:20] them in their housing benefit plans, like the housing vouchers, that income that they
[3:40:27] receive from being a disabled veteran is counted against the income levels that the housing
[3:40:34] programs consider when they're providing those vouchers or other housing benefits to veterans.
[3:40:40] And we think that's unfair.
[3:40:42] The Compton Mayors thinks that's unfair.
[3:40:45] The mayor has led on this issue.
[3:40:46] It's actually the Biden administration has passed
[3:40:49] some regulatory reform to address this.
[3:40:52] But we really want to see this put into law to make it permanent
[3:40:55] so that veterans get the benefits that they deserve in our house
[3:41:01] and address some of those issues that they're seeing.
[3:41:07] Real quick, I got a couple slides here.
[3:41:09] I know it's late.
[3:41:09] Just everybody knows, the outcome of the presidential election, President Trump picked
[3:41:16] up all of the swing states in the 20-44 election, and there was a bit of a red wave that
[3:41:25] happened nationwide that also led to the Republicans taking over the Senate.
[3:41:31] They're going to have a 53 to 47 majority in the Senate, and they were able to keep
[3:41:39] the House of Representatives. They're likely to have a 20 of you need 218 for
[3:41:45] majority. They're likely to have 222 around that majority in the House. So it's
[3:41:50] going to be one party rule back here in Washington DC in 2025 and 2026. And so
[3:41:57] that's the world we're operating under when we're looking at your federal
[3:42:01] agenda and trying to be successful. And so looking forward to 2025, what we
[3:42:07] What the Congress needs to finish is their FY25 budget.
[3:42:11] That's where all of those earmarks that we talked about earlier.
[3:42:14] All of those are included in the FY25 budget.
[3:42:17] Right now, Congress is trying to pass all of those bills by December 20th.
[3:42:21] It's possible, I was actually just talking to Senator Murkley's chief staff tonight as possible.
[3:42:26] They might extend that to January early 2025 to pass those bills.
[3:42:32] But we're hopeful that those earmarks will remain in any final budget bill.
[3:42:37] and that year projects will be fully funded
[3:42:40] before the next Congress comes in.
[3:42:43] The debt limit, we are seeing this negotiation
[3:42:47] every couple of years now.
[3:42:49] The nation has basically a credit card limit
[3:42:51] on how much debt we have today.
[3:42:53] We have a $35 trillion debt,
[3:42:56] which is a lot of money.
[3:42:58] But we need to extend that to $37 trillion
[3:43:01] or what have you over the next couple of years
[3:43:03] because we continue to have $1 trillion plus budget deficits on a yearly basis.
[3:43:09] So Congress needs to address that and with one party rule, it's more likely we'll have less
[3:43:14] of a fight over that and the trouble administration will work with the Republican Congress to increase
[3:43:20] the debt limit early in 2025. We continue to have tight margins in the House and the Senate,
[3:43:26] so it's going to be difficult to pass any major legislation. The exception to that is tax reform
[3:43:33] form and tax cuts, what there's a special budget procedure where you don't need 60 votes
[3:43:39] to pass tax cuts in the Senate.
[3:43:42] So we're going to be looking at a $123 trillion potentially tax cut bill in the Senate that
[3:43:52] passes through the House and the Senate, that's going to be looking to pair back a lot of
[3:43:57] those investments in sustainability and energy projects that the Biden administration passed
[3:44:03] through the same budget reconciliation process, but also passing tax cuts for corporations,
[3:44:09] individuals, and other things that President Trump promised in his campaign. And ultimately,
[3:44:16] we're in Trump 2.0 with 47 President of the United States. We already seen a lot of his controversial
[3:44:22] cabinet nominations. It's going to be a while right back here. I know during the first term, I was
[3:44:31] time. And then in the early in the morning, it's going to be challenging. I think we are all
[3:44:41] curious to see how the Trump administration is going to govern. And I think that we're just
[3:44:50] going to like your federal agenda. It's got to be flexible. I think we just need to see how they
[3:44:55] operate and manoeuvre accordingly with
[3:45:00] Your federal agenda and your advocacy as they move forward. So it will be certainly an interesting 2025. And we look forward to continue to working with you all and having a successful federal agenda. But obviously working to protect some of your core fundamental issues at the same time. So with that, I'll just say thank you. I appreciate the time. I'm sorry if I went a little long. And it was a late night.
[3:45:28] But you all, I really appreciate all of the time effort of your staff, the mayor for coming out here to Washington DC advocating for your projects and programs.
[3:45:41] It's really been fun and enjoy all the success working together.
[3:45:49] Thank you, Joel, for the overview.
[3:45:50] I want to start by just thanking you for the work that you do on behalf of the city.
[3:45:55] I know I constantly get asked by mayors, not just in Oregon, but everywhere else.
[3:46:00] How Beaverton is able to punch above our weight class the way that we do.
[3:46:04] And the amount of federal funding we've been able to secure has been a lot of your recommendation
[3:46:09] of analyzing the federal government where delegation is putting projects together, working with
[3:46:14] their staff.
[3:46:16] And we started working together with you as a city during the first Trump administration
[3:46:20] when there wasn't a lot of abundance and so being able to work together during the Biden administration was great
[3:46:26] But I look forward to your kind of recommendations on how we operate since this isn't new
[3:46:31] This is somewhere we've already been
[3:46:33] But it is going to be weird for organ to be operating our state-level agenda with the super majority of Democrats and
[3:46:40] Comparing that with our federal agenda with the super majority of Republicans. So I
[3:46:45] I like the outline, the way that you've given us, it puts us able to play defense.
[3:46:50] And I think some of the areas that we're going after for funding might just survive.
[3:46:55] So thank you for all the work that you've done today.
[3:46:56] I think it's great.
[3:46:57] And I think you're right.
[3:46:58] We're going to have to be nimble.
[3:47:00] We're going to have to adjust to how things are starting to roll.
[3:47:02] We're going to have to rely on partners like the US Conference of Mayor that has a Republican
[3:47:06] leader right now, the National League of Cities that have a Republican leader.
[3:47:09] We're going to have to work with these other organizations to try to keep what makes cities
[3:47:13] run.
[3:47:14] And I think we're going to spend a lot of time telling people about cities over the next four years.
[3:47:19] Councillor Teeter.
[3:47:22] Thanks, Dr. Boyle.
[3:47:23] Two comments.
[3:47:24] Can you go back to the slide with the yellow numbers for projects that we're working on this school year?
[3:47:33] Yeah.
[3:47:35] Projects that are not quite finalized yet.
[3:47:39] Yeah, that one.
[3:47:40] Oh, it's the best.
[3:47:41] Yep, that one.
[3:47:41] and the 2024 projects that are in yellow.
[3:47:46] So those are not officially finalized yet.
[3:47:48] Should we be concerned about timing,
[3:47:51] and that potentially jump administration could cut those
[3:47:55] before we fully implement those or receive those funds?
[3:47:59] Yeah, so it's not funny, but it's interesting.
[3:48:03] I was talking, like I mentioned,
[3:48:04] I saw Senator Merkelee's chief of staff tonight.
[3:48:07] And basically her advice to anybody
[3:48:10] somebody that received a grant in the last couple of years was to get those grants
[3:48:15] agreements signed and in place because they are worried that the Trump administration
[3:48:21] will pull those back.
[3:48:23] The caveat for the list that you're looking at here is that it's different.
[3:48:28] These are earmarks that members of Congress have secured themselves, so it's unlikely, so
[3:48:34] it's a great question, but it's unlikely that the Trump administration would look to pull
[3:48:39] those back because he's going to be upsetting. He wouldn't just pull back congressional projects
[3:48:46] that seems about the pale, but we should be cautious of that. It's more of those grants that
[3:48:53] you received last year, a year before that haven't, don't have those signed grants agreements
[3:48:59] that I am telling all of my clients to be worried about is get those grants agreements signed.
[3:49:04] and the Trump administration will be looking to potentially roll those back.
[3:49:09] Okay, and I think Jocelyn wants to chime in there.
[3:49:12] Yeah, if I may, Joel and I had this conversation earlier today,
[3:49:15] and we do have a couple outstanding agreements, but staff has been working very hard
[3:49:20] to make sure that we can get those in place by early January,
[3:49:24] and we are in track to do that.
[3:49:27] Okay, great.
[3:49:28] Yeah, from my perspective, whatever we can do advances forward,
[3:49:31] It's quickly as possible. I would be happy to support. And then Joel, my last question, if you can go to the next slide for our proposed 2025 projects.
[3:49:43] Sorry. Yeah, there you go. Yeah, this one.
[3:49:48] Some of these are your marks. So I would assume similar comment is what you just made. These have a better chance of actually being received.
[3:49:57] But then the raise grant is different and the aquifer storage in the brown fields.
[3:50:02] Are these likely to continue to or is there any concern there?
[3:50:05] I want to make sure we've got some good probability or at least set our expectations
[3:50:08] appropriately.
[3:50:10] Yeah.
[3:50:10] No.
[3:50:10] Great question.
[3:50:12] I'll start with the brown fields.
[3:50:14] Brown fields has generally been a pretty bipartisan funding program in Democrat and Republican
[3:50:22] administrations.
[3:50:23] It's looking at old sites that are contaminated, cleaning them up, and putting them back into reuse.
[3:50:29] So that's not something I'm too worried about.
[3:50:33] That program is funded adequately. We'll keep an eye on that.
[3:50:37] The RAIS program, I'm not worried about the funding levels.
[3:50:41] At least for the next couple of years, it's funded through 2026.
[3:50:46] But I do feel like the priorities of the Trump administration are going to change the RAIS program.
[3:50:52] The raise program under Biden administration has supported bike-ped projects, transit projects,
[3:50:58] more sustainable livability projects. And the Trump administration generally, they called it the
[3:51:05] build program under the Trump administration. They're likely to go back to more safety,
[3:51:11] freight, highway-centric projects. I think the loop has some of those components. You fit perfectly
[3:51:21] under the Biden-Rays program today, it's going to be a little bit more of a challenge
[3:51:26] to get that funded under a Trump administration's build type program.
[3:51:31] But you're safe, you do have safety, you have a state of good repair, there's elements
[3:51:37] of the loop project that are that could fit okay under the build program under a Trump administration,
[3:51:44] but yeah, it's going to be more challenging.
[3:51:45] So, this last, the Biden administration has the raised program, it's closes on January 30th.
[3:51:55] It has all the parameters of the Biden administration, so all of the sustainability and safety issues are going to be included.
[3:52:03] So, the city is going to be going after it under the Biden parameters.
[3:52:07] The question is, does Trump pull that entire program back on January 21st and rewrite it and open it up again with his own program standards?
[3:52:21] That's a possibility. I think you could still be competitive. It's just you got to change the narrative a little bit around the program.
[3:52:27] So yes, it's going to be a little bit more of a challenge.
[3:52:33] which is why I've been trying to push us that this would be our second bite at the
[3:52:39] apple and we missed that opportunity for a plethora of reasons and so we kind of
[3:52:44] got one shot right now where we would have likely had to.
[3:52:48] Councillor Ossohn?
[3:52:50] Yeah, this, I don't know, I don't know if this is a joll joss thing question.
[3:52:55] Did the equity, like what was the equity office way in on this just from the multicultural
[3:52:59] cultural center perspective so that I can understand where that is.
[3:53:04] Yeah, I'm happy to take that because the equity office did review this proposal and gave feedback on it.
[3:53:11] From a multicultural center, we're still in the process of doing the assessment that the council asked for.
[3:53:18] And that is underway and should be coming before you in the coming year.
[3:53:23] Joel and I did discuss it around a federal agenda, however, where we're typically at
[3:53:29] with grant and CDS requests, they're going to want to see that assessment before we move
[3:53:35] forward with something like that.
[3:53:37] So, our plan around that was to bring that in front of Council and let that inform ongoing
[3:53:43] conversations around what that could look like.
[3:53:46] Okay. Jenny, do we know when we're going to have more information on that if you have
[3:53:51] information. My guess would be sometime in spring. Okay. So this is great. The Federal Policy
[3:53:59] Agenda is fine with me.
[3:54:04] Anyone that I've talked to in the last two weeks is terrified of what's
[3:54:08] coming. And these folks are not going to trust government these communities. And so whatever we look
[3:54:19] to build in the future, whether it's through our partners, it really does matter.
[3:54:26] I'm not saying that we need to do anything here, but I just, I've shared my thoughts in
[3:54:31] the past about the nonprofit business incubator, and it really comes down to this idea that
[3:54:36] there are organizations that do really good work to build organizational structure, but
[3:54:40] they are typically disconnected from the most marginalized communities.
[3:54:44] And so everyone who's calling me, when I'm like, what about a Pano, what about this?
[3:54:47] they're like, oh, I didn't, you know, so I just want to encourage us all to think about
[3:54:52] what support is going to look like.
[3:54:55] I've talked to folks and said I think we need to move in a direction of setting up safe
[3:54:58] houses for people and that I can't know where those are for certain reasons.
[3:55:03] So I'm not saying that I have any additions to this federal agenda.
[3:55:09] I, you know, like I'd love for the equity office to maybe give us some ideas around the nonprofit
[3:55:13] business incubator because I don't think we need to incubate nonprofits.
[3:55:16] profits, I think we need to set up orgs that are already doing work to success here in
[3:55:20] Beaverton. I just like my phone calls for the last two weeks are like, you know, access
[3:55:27] to food, not wanting to walk into the doors of a city building for safety purposes, and
[3:55:33] I just hope that we think about that. Whatever that looks like over the next couple of years,
[3:55:37] I don't think the thing is going to happen the next year. I certainly wouldn't expect
[3:55:41] to get the funding. Let me be clear, I know we're in defense, so I'm not asking for much,
[3:55:46] but what are we doing to build that because I feel in my community I have worked so hard to build trust around systems and government and now I'm just telling those people it's okay if you don't trust them because I don't know that you should so a little bit of a vulnerable thought and maybe not completely related to this but I think it's important that we're thinking about it as we imagine what we are doing for our community for the next couple of years. Thanks.
[3:56:12] Okay.
[3:56:20] Thank you, Jocelyn, for putting this together.
[3:56:23] Thank you, Joel, for being with us at, you know, one in the morning.
[3:56:27] We appreciate you.
[3:56:29] And we look forward to the passage of our agenda in December.
[3:56:32] Thank you both.
[3:56:34] Thank you.
[3:56:36] All right, we have our last order of business, agenda bill 24150,
[3:56:40] new FEMA requirements for review of development and special flood hazard areas.
[3:57:07] Good evening.
[3:57:09] Yeah, it will be morning soon for us, definitely pass my bedtime council. I am Andy Varner, the community development director.
[3:57:15] Honest Latansky, planning division manager in the community development department.
[3:57:20] Very, very aware that you heard something earlier that you liked and asked for, that Cara supplied with street mural program.
[3:57:26] What you're about to hear is something you definitely didn't ask for, but we're going to soldier through this and try to do it very quickly because Joel did a good job kind of laying what the issue is before us.
[3:57:35] We'll try to breeze through this in 10 minutes or so.
[3:57:39] Yes, thank you, Andy.
[3:57:42] So the theme from the previous presentation was playing defense.
[3:57:45] This is something that definitely falls into that category.
[3:57:49] This presentation will include some history and context on these new FEMA rules, a high-level
[3:57:56] explanation of the new requirements, a discussion of implications for Beaverton, and a staff recommendation
[3:58:02] for moving forward.
[3:58:03] I'm not going to read my slides, I'm going to air on the side of going quickly and I told Andy to kick me under the table if I go too slow, but let's get to it.
[3:58:14] So to sum up over the past several years, FEMA has been pulled into habitat protection business through lawsuits that relate to the Endangered Species Act.
[3:58:30] This has been underway since, like, 2009 and it is a slow-moving process.
[3:58:37] It's been contentious and partly as a result of how long it's taking, FEMA has now
[3:58:44] moved to require rules that will be in place temporarily while the full program that FEMA
[3:58:51] has been working on undergoes environmental review through NEPA.
[3:58:55] So, we have this review underway of this implementation of Endangercies Protection within the floodplain.
[3:59:05] That's going to take probably another few years.
[3:59:08] It's kind of unpredictable, it tends to be long.
[3:59:11] But between December 1st and when that process is over, there are some temporary rules that are being put in place.
[3:59:18] jurisdiction in Oregon. We're only notified about these. On July 15th, it was a surprise.
[3:59:25] We've all been kind of, you know, thrown in front. What's going on? What does this mean?
[3:59:31] There have been lots of meetings. We've been working with the League of Cities with
[3:59:34] says, you know, counties, etc. In order to kind of get our heads around it,
[3:59:39] this is a work in progress. So there may be questions that come up for you that I can't answer.
[3:59:43] This is a snapshot in time because the city has to make some decisions about how to move forward
[3:59:47] in order to be in compliance.
[3:59:51] So the rules themselves, it's a mouthful, pre-implementation compliance measures,
[3:59:58] that really...
[4:00:01] I'm going to say that because it's shorter. Essentially what it boils down to is that these are pretty blunt measures that are intended to preserve and protect endangered fish species habitat within the floodplain. It's casually known as the 100 floodplain formally speaking. It's the special flood hazard area. And part of the bluntness of these rules will be in place for the duration of the kind of longer term.
[4:00:29] an environmental review is that they treat all areas in the special flood hazard area the
[4:00:35] same.
[4:00:35] They assume that all of these areas represent valuable habitat for endangered fish species.
[4:00:42] When you look at a parking lot in downtown Beaverton, that's in the flood plain.
[4:00:45] You might not immediately think, oh, precious fish habitat, however, that is the way that
[4:00:52] they're treated in these tools.
[4:00:54] The options for Beaverton to respond are threefold.
[4:00:59] These are options that FEMA has identified.
[4:01:01] I will note that out of approximately 200 jurisdictions in Oregon that this affects,
[4:01:07] I think there's just one that is actually going to be implementing something by December
[4:01:14] 1st, at least on a fully adopted basis.
[4:01:17] This is partly because of the time it takes to make code changes in Oregon, but it's also
[4:01:21] partly because the options that FEMA provided in published in August are problematic under
[4:01:27] organ law.
[4:01:28] They didn't, they don't really reflect the organ land use system.
[4:01:32] And so we're, we're kind of in a little bit of a holding pattern waiting for more feedback
[4:01:37] from the Department of Land Conservation and Development.
[4:01:40] FEMA is actually in the process of updating some of these options, particularly the site
[4:01:45] by site habitat assessment.
[4:01:46] So there is kind of more to come, but the bottom line is that in spite of outreach by jurisdictions
[4:01:56] and elected officials in Washington, including from Oregon's governor, these rules will
[4:02:02] still go into effect as initially stated in that July 15th letter December 1st as the date
[4:02:09] when we need to tell FEMA what we are going to do.
[4:02:12] So the implications for beavers and I'm just going to kind of go through these relatively
[4:02:17] quickly.
[4:02:18] I do want to pause for a moment and explain a little bit about the National Flood Insurance
[4:02:22] Program.
[4:02:23] This is basically a program that FEMA runs in order to protect property from losses in
[4:02:29] the case of a flooding event.
[4:02:31] And it is actually required that the jurisdiction where property is located be a participant in
[4:02:38] the National Flood Insurance Program in order for that property owner to buy insurance
[4:02:43] that is essentially protected by FEMA.
[4:02:46] That insurance is a requirement for getting a mortgage.
[4:02:50] So Beaverton has a lot of strong reasons to make sure that we are continuing to be in
[4:02:58] compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.
[4:03:01] I also think it's really important to understand that jurisdictions that do not participate in
[4:03:06] the National Flood Insurance Program are not eligible for federal disaster assistance.
[4:03:10] So in a time when we're thinking about wildfires, earthquakes, floods, being eligible for
[4:03:17] that type of relief is really, again, really important risk management for the city.
[4:03:21] So the current flood regulations in Beaverton actually do some things to help with habitat.
[4:03:27] We also have local code requirements for things like planted landscape buffers.
[4:03:32] We have clean water services rules for vegetated corridors.
[4:03:36] We have stormwater rules.
[4:03:38] The same rules are not in place in every jurisdiction in Oregon.
[4:03:40] So Beaverton already goes part of the way towards doing what FEMA is asking folks to do.
[4:03:46] And that's important to kind of keep in mind as we move on to the staff recommendation.
[4:03:50] But first I want to say a few more comments about Beaverton implications.
[4:03:54] In Beaverton, there are 945 properties that have at least some area that is in this designated
[4:04:00] floodplain area, 218 of those are in Bureau. These rules are rigid. They don't really contemplate
[4:04:07] redevelopment of sites that don't currently offer habitat. They're not flexible. And in addition
[4:04:12] to downtown, we have a lot of impacts in industrial areas in Beaverton. So this is the context,
[4:04:17] it's pretty serious. But at this point, there's very little flexibility in terms of what Beaver can
[4:04:22] Beaverton can do in order to reflect those local conditions. This is a map showing in light blue
[4:04:28] here, it may not be super visible. The floodplain within the city, the orange
[4:04:34] outline there is BRSA. You kind of get a feeling for a larger area of the
[4:04:38] context. So it's a lot of properties. It's a lot of pretty high profile
[4:04:42] locations within the city. The staff recommendation has a couple of phases. Being
[4:04:50] that we're in a situation where we still don't really have a full
[4:04:53] understanding of what FEMA is exactly asking us to do. We're waiting for
[4:04:58] revisions on a number of these documents. The requirement date is still December 1. However,
[4:05:03] FEMA staff has indicated that they will not be looking for the literal full compliance
[4:05:09] on that date, but they're looking for its jurisdictions to make a good faith effort and
[4:05:13] to communicate with FEMA staff about what progress is being made to come into compliance.
[4:05:18] So the staff recommendation is to begin assessing potential habitat impacts on a case-by-case basis
[4:05:24] beginning on December 1st using existing adopted codes.
[4:05:28] Those are the codes that we have the authority to apply.
[4:05:31] In addition to that, though, what we can do is collect information about the development
[4:05:36] that's proposed on these sites, and we can document the types of mitigation that our code
[4:05:42] currently will require on those sites so that FEMA can be shown that we are not ignoring
[4:05:48] them, and we are doing things that actually do get part of the way.
[4:05:51] It's that kind of good faith effort.
[4:05:52] Meanwhile, staff recommends that we initiate a project to identify how that model code can be adapted to work with Beaverton code.
[4:06:02] We still have very little flexibility in terms of the projects that are subject to this review and the rules themselves.
[4:06:10] However, what we do need to do is figure out how this works with Beaverton's codes.
[4:06:15] But we can't just adopt the model code wholesale in addition to the issues with the organ
[4:06:19] land use law that hopefully will be resolved with DLCD's assistance.
[4:06:23] Our code is not a freestanding floodplain ordinance.
[4:06:28] Those rules are actually integrated into the development code and into the city code.
[4:06:32] So there's no way for us to do it without kind of teasing it apart.
[4:06:35] And because it's a moving target, we really think we need to take a little bit of time to make
[4:06:39] sure that we're doing as much we can to respond to Beaverton's specific situation.
[4:06:46] And then in the long term, once that federal environmental review is completed, there
[4:06:50] will be some additional options.
[4:06:53] I don't want to pretend that they're going to be really wonderful options, but there will
[4:06:56] be more flexibility in that final program than there is currently under these pickups.
[4:07:02] So at that time, staff suggest that the city consider taking some time to tailor a program
[4:07:11] and rules that will actually be able to respond more effectively to the Beaverton context
[4:07:17] and consider things like a fee and loop program so that mitigation can happen in one place
[4:07:21] and meal development happens in others.
[4:07:23] That's not an option that we have under these pickups right now.
[4:07:28] So there are a couple of next steps I want to note.
[4:07:30] One of them is that the city does need to inform FEMA of plans to move forward by December
[4:07:35] 1st. It's not formal. They said it can be an email, so it doesn't need official
[4:07:40] counsel action, but we do need to hear from you tonight. We need to provide support for
[4:07:45] applicants and property owners and staff who are working or contemplating development on sites
[4:07:51] that are affected by the floodplain. This may include CIP projects, although nothing has kind of
[4:07:56] popping up that's the CIP project. We need to do some data collection that FEMA is going to tell
[4:08:00] more about that's beginning in January. And then finally, we need to be continuing to coordinate
[4:08:05] with FEMA with our jurisdictional partners at the county level, regional level, and state level
[4:08:11] in addition to our friends in Washington in order to really understand as best as we can what's
[4:08:18] going on and how we can respond. And with that, questions, thoughts, comments from council would be
[4:08:25] presented. Thank you. This isn't Vivertens first having to comply with flood
[4:08:31] plains, the long history of where the police station was going to be, and then
[4:08:36] it being rejected by FEMA. So I'm comfortable supporting your recommendations to
[4:08:40] us right now. It doesn't feel like there's really a choice in this for us. So
[4:08:43] thanks for coming. But I mean, I guess if you have any strong opinions, counts
[4:08:49] or hurt my outbreak. No, I thank you for trying to find a way to comply. I think
[4:08:54] that's the best we can do, right?
[4:08:56] I mean, I think when I hear the correlation
[4:09:01] of the FEMA stuff with the flood insurance, right.
[4:09:03] Like, yeah, there is no choice.
[4:09:05] We have to comply.
[4:09:06] So thank you for coming up with options.
[4:09:08] When I was reading the options, I think the case by case,
[4:09:10] is hopefully the most flexible for staff right now
[4:09:14] while there's still stuff working out about it.
[4:09:17] So in support, making sure you have support on the record
[4:09:21] to show that we were making a good faith effort towards the complaint.
[4:09:25] Councillor Dugger.
[4:09:27] I know this is an incredibly stupid question.
[4:09:29] I'm assuming there's no implementation money from VMA coming.
[4:09:32] Just a dictate.
[4:09:33] It's okay to-
[4:09:34] Yeah, no, there's not.
[4:09:38] That's correct.
[4:09:40] And I'm assuming you don't know what kind of mitigation
[4:09:42] would be required for a piped creek.
[4:09:46] So the mitigation actually depends on what the impact is at this point.
[4:09:51] the development. So they use what's called a no-nut law standard and they use a couple
[4:09:56] of proxies for habitat impacts. And so if you can't achieve a no-nut law under these
[4:10:01] categories, then you need to find a way to mitigate. And they actually do spell out what
[4:10:05] is identified as appropriate mitigation. They're not appealing mitigations. And so it's really
[4:10:13] going to be a pretty strong deterrent for development that affects areas within that floodplain.
[4:10:20] So the only thing I would add, and I know this was kind of a vague statement, but especially
[4:10:26] within the Bureau area, I think we're on the precipice of a lot of development, right?
[4:10:31] Like we've done a lot of infrastructure work a lot, so we can look at those 900 properties
[4:10:37] and probably make some educated guesses on which ones are probably need to get our attention
[4:10:42] first, you know. And as much certainty as we can provide for the land owners and the
[4:10:50] developers, you know, that's one of the things I hear consistently is like, if rules are
[4:10:55] changing, I'm not going to, it's a risk problem, right? I'm not going to invest too much.
[4:11:00] So as much stability as we can provide and guidance to those land owners, I know that's
[4:11:07] going to be intensive resource wise, particularly since we're getting nothing from FEMA, but
[4:11:12] I just think about a lot of people that are a lot of landowners are sitting there waiting
[4:11:18] and this is another wait.
[4:11:20] So if we could provide any sort of guidance to them, that would be my preference.
[4:11:26] I think we're very sensitive to that.
[4:11:28] Unfortunately, this is not a situation where we can offer much clarity.
[4:11:32] We can share what we know, absolutely, everything in terms of those, the model code, the habitat
[4:11:38] site assessment, that's all out there.
[4:11:41] but we also know that those things are changing, so we are going to do our best to identify
[4:11:48] these risks and communicate them, but we also don't want to go out with a message that
[4:11:54] we know is going to change because that might create more frustration.
[4:12:03] Councilor Teeter.
[4:12:06] Thank you, Andy.
[4:12:07] Yeah, I'm comfortable moving forward with you all's recommendation.
[4:12:11] My brain is also in the Bureau of District.
[4:12:14] And I'm curious about the phase of the process, where this would actually affect projects.
[4:12:22] So if a project was received approval, I assume it would be good to go.
[4:12:27] It wouldn't be affected, even if it's not under construction.
[4:12:32] So I think one of the things that's important is that we don't have a 32-ply code that
[4:12:37] aren't actually already adopted.
[4:12:40] And so for projects that have all of their permits, they can build.
[4:12:47] They're good to go as long as they don't have delays and let the permits expire.
[4:12:50] For projects that have maybe one permit but they need another one.
[4:12:54] Again, for now we'll be applying existing codes, but at the point where we're adopting
[4:12:59] the whatever modification of the model code that we are adopting, those new rules are going
[4:13:04] to apply. And there is a risk for projects that are part way through the process that
[4:13:10] they could be caught in that rule change. And so one of the things that we do need to do
[4:13:16] is figure out, again, this goes back to the communication. We need to be informing folks about
[4:13:21] those risks so that they can make rational decisions about how they're approaching the potential
[4:13:27] to develop their property. There is also, you know, these rules apply within the special
[4:13:33] flood hazard area, not on the entire property. So in lots of cases there will be a property
[4:13:38] where a portion of it is in this flood zone and a portion of it is not. If they can choose
[4:13:44] to avoid that flood area, then they're in much better stead, not every property has the
[4:13:50] ability to do that. So it's really going to be tremendously variable on a case-by-case basis
[4:13:54] and so we're going to need to talk to folks individually
[4:13:57] in order to really help them understand what the risks are
[4:14:02] and what could happen.
[4:14:04] Great.
[4:14:05] OK.
[4:14:05] Thank you.
[4:14:06] Goal search, Timnon.
[4:14:09] Very quick question.
[4:14:11] Other than stocked ponds like progress and commonwealth,
[4:14:13] are there fish in these creeks?
[4:14:19] I don't know the answer to that question.
[4:14:21] There's a lot of creeks in Beaverton.
[4:14:22] I'm sure some of them have fish.
[4:14:26] But, like, right, I mean, there are lots of places, you know, you walk around downtown
[4:14:35] again.
[4:14:35] You look at a parking lot that's been paved for decades and decades and decades, does
[4:14:41] not immediately appear to the amateur as being fish habitat.
[4:14:48] It's a complex topic, but the bottom line right now is that even if it is obviously not fish
[4:14:56] these rules don't give us the option of...
[4:15:02] Granting exceptions. All right. Thanks for hanging with us. Good luck tomorrow getting up with your kids for school. So we'll be thinking about you. All right. We do have one last agenda item council and this council new business. I do have something for us tonight. One of the things that is our responsibility of the city council is doing the review of our three employees. We have not done that. We have a new city. We're going to be hiring a new city attorney.
[4:15:31] So I want us to as we're adopting our council rules and the work that we're doing now
[4:15:37] We need to move on to this next step of also our responsibility, which is the review of our employees
[4:15:42] So I'd like to recommend we create a subcommittee to put together a process for the council for the judge the city attorney and
[4:15:49] The city manager and I gave some thought if we're amenable
[4:15:53] To might serve on that subcommittee and I think counselor Hassan based on her HR background and it's something
[4:15:59] she's been very interested in and Councillor Duggar, given that he manages more people than anyone on the council right now and myself and I think three of us could work with Kirsten who does not report to us but reports to one of our employees to help make sure that we're staying within
[4:16:16] the legal compines and then find it necessary to find a consultant based on our outcomes of that so that's my proposal.
[4:16:23] So mayor, so that process is already underway for me. I advise the council that we retain the facilitator is courting with my contract
[4:16:32] To do the review so I'd like to take a look at that because I think you picking your own consultant
[4:16:38] It's not in your contract. So this has been sent to the council a while back
[4:16:42] So I can send you an update on where we're at and with that and then we can figure out where you'd like to go
[4:16:47] Yeah, well, well, I think it will come to the subcommittee if we're minimal to that and the subcommittee will make some decisions.
[4:16:54] Um, to clarify subcommittee to, like, help figure out the process.
[4:16:59] Yeah, yeah, not do the review.
[4:17:00] Yeah, but to put it the process together for us to come back because we can't do it in an open session and we really need a couple people to focus on it.
[4:17:09] Yep. Good.
[4:17:12] Can I chime in real quick?
[4:17:13] Yeah, Jenny, I want to ask you for a little more clarity.
[4:17:18] You're saying your contract says what about the consultant?
[4:17:21] My contract sets up the process that a facilitator will be used.
[4:17:25] I cannot recall though, we'll need to pull it.
[4:17:27] How that facilitator is selected.
[4:17:30] And I think that's what the mayor meant by that.
[4:17:32] Okay, okay, thanks.
[4:17:33] But would you have two other employees?
[4:17:35] She's not our only employee.
[4:17:37] And so she's taking care of her own, but selected that process.
[4:17:40] We need to be doing that work.
[4:17:42] and so I think that three of us on the subcommittee will work with our legal department to make sure that we're in compliance going forward and that
[4:17:50] review hasn't actually started so I think we'll be okay. All right, thanks.
[4:17:58] You're not in the chat. I'm sorry. I was waiting for Councillor Hussain to say something but it came up in conversation before the meeting today that when an item is pulled from consent agenda if we could get a heads up on that
[4:18:14] as early as possible so that everyone just knows to maybe take a closer look at
[4:18:21] the agenda bill doesn't even need to say who the who which council are
[4:18:25] pulled at just to know. Yeah and so I think the process we've done now in is to
[4:18:31] email me and the city manager and then we'll have the city manager inform the rest
[4:18:34] of the council the item has been pulled but don't start emailing each other saying
[4:18:39] that you're pulling at. So we'll work on that piece. Cool.