[11:02] in Canada
[11:06] 31st.
[11:12] » He said Canada, but maybe it was on the
way to their last floor.
[11:27] Right.
[11:33] The time is 7 PM on September 8th and I
call this meeting of the Battleground
[11:38] City Council to order. Uh please stand
if you can for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[11:47] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[11:53] republic for which it stands
under God, indivisible with liberty and
[12:00] justice for all.
[12:04] [clears throat]
[12:09] » All right,
[12:14] clerk, can you call roll, please?
Mayor Overhozer,
[12:19] » present.
>> Deputy Mayor Vale,
[12:22] » present.
>> Council member Kypers,
[12:25] » present.
>> Council member Mson,
[12:27] » here.
>> Council member Ferrer,
[12:29] » present.
>> And council members McCoy and Bowman are
[12:34] both absent this evening.
>> Mayor, I'll make a motion to move um to
[12:38] excuse council member McCoy and council
member Bowman.
[12:43] » Second.
All right, we have a motion and a
[12:46] second. Call for the vote. All those in
favor? I
[12:50] » I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Passes
unanimously.
[12:56] » All right, we'll move on to summary
reports and presentations. Uh, council
[13:00] members, do we have any reports?
>> Yes,
[13:05] » I have. Uh,
council member Mson, you're up.
[13:10] » Uh, two of them. Uh we just uh exited
our second or third budget advisory
[13:17] committee meeting tonight. Um got some
good information out of there. Uh the
[13:22] second thing I'm going to have for
council member reports is council
[13:26] members. This is to advise the council
that an ethics complaint has been filed
[13:30] concerning a member of the city council.
The complaint has been received and will
[13:34] be reviewed in accordance with chapter
42.23 23 RCW, the city ethics code and
[13:40] applicable policies and procedures.
Mayor, if you wouldn't mind setting a
[13:45] committee review meeting.
>> You betcha. More than happy to do that.
[13:55] All right. And we have council member
Kypers.
[13:59] » Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick
update. The governance manual review
[14:05] committee has continued to meet. We will
be meeting again this coming Thursday,
[14:10] day after tomorrow. And we continue to
uh move along on um the review of all
[14:17] the various segments. It's going to be a
pretty heavy lift because there's a lot
[14:21] of um substantive changes that we're
looking at. Uh we'll continue to update
[14:27] through bi-weeklys, but we will have the
final draft for council to review all
[14:34] the recommendations and the changes um
at the end of well our target is
[14:40] December, but frankly it's going to be a
push to get it done. We we have a lot to
[14:45] cover and we meet for an hour. So
that's the update.
[14:51] » Thank you, Council Member Kypers. Any
additional
[14:55] council member reports this evening?
Hearing none, we will move on to the
[15:01] mayor's report. Um,
I actually don't have anything to report
[15:07] on this evening. Um,
the one thing that I'll uh state is that
[15:13] I will be scheduling the ethics
committee meeting. Um I'm not going to
[15:17] set the date and time here on the dis
but we'll get that scheduled with our
[15:21] ethics committee which is uh council
member Mson myself and council member
[15:27] Kypers. Um
and I will uh get that done here soon.
[15:34] So I don't know if I need to do I need
to set a date from the dis for that.
[15:39] » No, Mr. Mayor.
>> So okay.
[15:42] All right.
And do we have any presentations this
[15:47] evening?
Oh, got blank on that one. Good. And we
[15:53] will move on to the agenda approval. Um,
does any council member wish to amend
[15:58] the agenda this evening?
[16:03] Hearing none, I'll call for a motion.
>> I move to approve the meeting agenda as
[16:09] presented.
>> Second.
[16:11] » Right. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor? I
[16:16] » I.
>> Any oppose?
[16:19] Hearing none.
Agenda is approved.
[16:27] Look at us. We're sailing away. All
right. We'll move on to citizen
[16:31] communications. I will now open the
meeting for citizen communications.
[16:35] At this time, as authorized, under the
council's adopted rules, the mayor may
[16:40] adjust both the individual speaking time
and overall length of the constituent
[16:44] comments period to ensure the orderly
and efficient conduct of the meeting.
[16:49] Due to the number of individuals wishing
to speak this evening, each speaker will
[16:54] have three minutes and the total public
comment period will last no more than 30
[16:58] minutes. This portion of the meeting is
a limited public forum to receive input
[17:03] from the public. It is not intended for
dialogue with the council. To help
[17:08] maintain an orderly and efficient
meeting, please avoid conduct that
[17:12] disrupts the proceedings. This includes
speaking out of turn, exceeding the time
[17:16] limit, creating loud or coordinated
demonstrations such as applause,
[17:20] cheering, jazz hands, or other visible
or audible interruptions, calling out
[17:25] from the audience, or otherwise
preventing others from being heard.
[17:30] While all viewpoints are protected under
the First Amendment, obscene language,
[17:33] derogatory remarks, personal attacks, or
campaign speeches can create
[17:38] disturbances that interfere with the
orderly conduct of the meeting. Speakers
[17:43] are therefore asked to present their
comments in a manner that allows the
[17:46] meeting to proceed efficiently and
respectfully. Threatening behavior,
[17:51] intimidation, or any conduct that
substantially interrupts, delays, or
[17:56] interferes with the meeting may result
in removal from the chambers to protect
[18:00] the safety and order of the proceedings.
If your remarks relate to an item
[18:06] scheduled for a public hearing, please
wait to provide your comments during
[18:09] that designated hearing period. All
comments should be directed to the
[18:13] mayor. The council may not be able to
respond to individual comments and may
[18:18] refer citizens to a staff member for
assistance.
[18:23] If due to time constraints you are
unable to provide verbal comment this
[18:26] evening, please submit written comments
to the clerk's office with the title
[18:30] public comment for dispersement to
council. The deputy city manager has
[18:35] placed his cards at the podium. Please
feel free to take one if you would like
[18:39] to contact him with any questions.
If you have printed materials to submit
[18:45] for the record, please hand them to the
city clerk seated directly to the right
[18:48] of the podium. Thank you for your
cooperation and participation in the
[18:52] council meeting this evening.
[18:57] And uh clerk, are there any members of
the public on Zoom that wish to public
[19:02] uh comment remotely?
>> No, Mr. Mayor.
[19:06] » All right. Thank you very much.
[19:11] First up, we have Stephanie Adams.
[19:23] Good evening, council members and staff.
I rise to voice my deep concern over the
[19:29] Christian nationalist steps that this
council has recently taken. Governing a
[19:34] diverse city requires maturity,
pluralism, and respect for the law.
[19:41] Unfortunately, recent actions by members
of the council feel less like civic
[19:46] leadership and more like a middle school
locker room.
[19:51] There's a very rigid us versus them type
of mentality,
[19:58] an obsession with dominance,
and a refusal to tolerate the beautiful
[20:03] diversity of our community.
When you use your public office to
[20:10] privilege one specific religious
viewpoint, you treat everybody else as
[20:15] an outsider who doesn't belong. I would
venture to guess that most of our
[20:19] citizens don't meet with your approval.
I don't care about your vision for
[20:24] battleground.
The majority of us actually find it
[20:28] abhorrent.
Our city is not a playground click. We
[20:34] deserve mature leaders who represent all
constituents,
[20:38] protect the separation of church and
state, and focus on real issues rather
[20:45] than focusing on dividing us. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Stephanie. Next up, Colleen
[20:53] Eubanks.
[21:05] Good evening, council members, honorable
mayor, you're all honorable. Thank you.
[21:10] I just want to say first of all, thank
you for what you are doing to help
[21:13] Battleground Mobile Home Community and
um uh we just thank you. I sent a public
[21:23] comment for public dispersement that
kind of gives a a status as to where
[21:29] we're at right now. And uh we're in need
of of a few resources. So I would ask
[21:37] that you would consider those comments.
They're very brief and um give
[21:42] consideration and if you have any
information, give me a call. I would
[21:46] really appreciate that. Again, thank you
very much for all that you're doing.
[21:52] Thank you, Colleen.
Next up, Jessica Cole.
[22:03] Hello, council. I'm Jessica Cole. At the
last council meeting, there were not any
[22:07] Long View counselors in attendance like
we've seen repeatedly over the last
[22:11] several months. Unfortunately, there was
a Kel Kelso council uh member here and
[22:16] we have one from Kelso and uh Long View
counselors represented here tonight. Um,
[22:23] that council counselor is frequently
pictured with current and former Long
[22:27] View counselors who have attended our
contentious meetings, including some
[22:32] involving firing Chris Swanson when she
was Long View City Manager and some who
[22:37] were here when um, Battleground City
Council fired her. After the meeting, I
[22:42] watched the council counselor talk in
the city hall parking lot with
[22:46] counselors Ferrer, Mson, and Deputy
Mayor Vale. Miss Veil continued talking
[22:52] to quite some time with the council
counselor. When Dave Terry took a
[22:56] picture of them, Miss Vale addressed us
by name and then when I looked over, it
[23:01] appeared as if she was recording with
her phone. And I'm starting to wonder if
[23:04] being recorded by my own city counselors
is going to become a regular thing. It
[23:09] is especially frustrating because Miss
Vale is my city counselor. Yet, when
[23:15] I've tried to speak with her by phone,
she told me she would only communicate
[23:18] with me in writing for transparency.
Yet, apparently, lengthy parking lot
[23:22] conversations with an elected official
from Kelsa is different. Anyone can
[23:27] attend our public meetings, but
Battleground has enough outside
[23:30] involvement and controversy.
I'd rather see our counselors focus on
[23:36] battleground city residents,
battleground issues,
[23:42] and the work that you all were elected
to do here
[23:46] on that topic. Over the last two weeks,
I've been trying to get hold of the
[23:49] mayor by text, phone, and voicemail, but
never received a response.
[23:55] And I just wanted to touch on some
public things. Um Trent Richardson's
[24:00] memorial that happened recently. um one
of our local churches open their doors
[24:04] to have that happen so a lot of
community and family and friends and
[24:08] teammates and classmates could come and
I'm just really appreciative for all
[24:12] that did all people involved and the uh
young adults that put on his um
[24:20] vigil earlier. There was a cool flyin at
the airport. I never heard of it. It was
[24:25] a second year. Thank you so much for
everyone that that let us hang out in
[24:28] your yard at the airport here in
Battleground National Night Out. Thank
[24:33] you to Lieutenant Keller for um working
around and getting it um rescheduled
[24:37] because of the fires. And it was great
to have at our new uh the new location
[24:42] um between Cam Academy and Chief. And um
I really appreciate Alicia coordinating
[24:48] the um historical walking tour with
Clark County Historical Museum. It was
[24:53] really great. And just so you know, I
might know something about G
[24:57] battleground that you all don't know
now. So I I'm willing to share. Thank
[25:02] you so much.
>> Thank you, Jessica.
[25:06] Next up, David Terry.
[25:14] » Everyone, David Terry. I'm a
battleground resident. Uh,
[25:18] [clears throat] I wanted to just go over
some of the greatest hits of this
[25:21] council since uh, the mayor's taken the
goble in January 2026. We're through
[25:26] eight months of of uh, work now. Uh,
proclamation inconsistencies and
[25:32] favoritism allegations, denial of a
previously accepted proclamation. Mayor
[25:36] Overhaltzer unilaterally declined to
issue a June 2026 Pride Month
[25:41] proclamation despite committee members
submitting drafts nearly identical to
[25:46] other proclamations that have been
accepted. Perceived selective
[25:49] representation, the council's fast
stocking of proclamations for the
[25:53] National Day of Prayer, support for
federal immigration enforcement, nuclear
[25:57] families,
and [clears throat]
[26:00] resolutions containing condemning um
Antiva. It's been a total waste of time.
[26:05] And one of those meetings cost us over
$37,000 according to the uh uh assistant
[26:11] city manager at the time. Council
meeting invocations at first amendment
[26:15] friction introduction of meeting
invocations. In August 2026, the council
[26:19] voted to institute formal prayer
invocations at the beginning of council
[26:23] meetings. This has triggered immediately
uh community protests, warnings from
[26:27] civil liberty uh oriented people and
even our own clergy in this in this
[26:31] town. Uh, seems crazy to me, but we're
we're doing it anyway. Uh, the abrupt
[26:37] termination of city manager Chris
Swanson. Special surprise meeting with
[26:42] 24 hours notice. The council voted 4 to
three uh to terminate the city manager
[26:48] without cause. Just two days prior, the
council had completed an annual
[26:51] performance review uh granting her a pay
increase in positive feedback. This
[26:56] again makes no sense. I have no idea
what the hell you people are thinking.
[27:00] potential open meetings act exposure. Uh
opposing counselors and residents
[27:06] publicly questioned how the four vote
block could be done with no meetings. I
[27:11] mean this seems very this seems very
suspicious to all of us out here and
[27:16] that could cause more litigation.
Significant financial liability by
[27:20] firing Chris without cause. The city
triggered a cont contractual severance
[27:25] of 12 months pay deferred compensation.
uh then that's going to go get close to
[27:30] a half a million dollars by the time we
take someone else. And this was all for
[27:34] the good of the city you all voted for.
Uh I read in the paper that now the
[27:40] city's been notified of a pending
lawsuit from our former city manager. So
[27:44] that could even drive the cost into the
millions in either defense costs or
[27:49] court awarded costs. Now that's going to
be on your guys's tab. That's our tax
[27:53] money.
We we lost our We said bye-bye to our
[27:57] legal representation. We said bye-bye to
our lobbyists. We said bye-bye to our
[28:02] strategic planning consultant. I mean,
it makes us look like we're not a good
[28:06] city to work with. Um uh and then I I
just want to say, are you guys going to
[28:11] start working for us or are you going to
just keep burning down our city? We
[28:14] cannot understand what the heck you're
doing. Thank you.
[28:18] » Thank you, David.
[28:22] » All right, that will conclude citizens
communication.
[28:27] And we will move on to the consent
agenda.
[28:33] Does any council member believe any
items need to be withdrawn from the
[28:37] consent agenda this evening?
[28:44] I'll um make a motion to remove item M
from the consent agenda
[28:51] and uh
pass the rest of it. Yeah.
[28:55] » Okay.
>> Second.
[28:57] » We have a motion and a second to remove
M. All those in favor of removing M from
[29:02] the consent agenda.
>> I.
[29:05] » Any oppose?
>> Nay.
[29:08] » We have one nay. Okay. And then we have
uh
[29:12] Deputy Mayor Vale.
[29:17] So M is removed.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I wanted to
[29:21] make a motion to remove items I through
L, but it appears um there may have been
[29:26] a motion made to um remove M and pass
all remaining.
[29:33] » Yeah.
>> Um
[29:35] » that happened. the clerk. Um, I heard a
motion to remove item M, a second, and
[29:43] then a vote to remove item M, but not a
um approval of the remaining items on
[29:51] the consent calendar or agenda.
>> So, I believe you can.
[29:57] » So, we're still removed them.
>> Okay,
[30:00] » perfect. Thank you for the
clarification. I would like to make a
[30:03] motion to remove items I, J, K, and L
from the consent agenda.
[30:12] » I'll second that.
>> All right. We have a motion and a second
[30:16] to remove I, J, K, and L.
>> Uh, just point uh just to clarify, you
[30:21] don't want H, which is also part of the
grace. No. Okay. Make it sure.
[30:25] » I don't believe so. Is that
>> No, just the items. Yeah. I through L,
[30:29] please.
>> Are we in discussion? We are in
[30:32] discussion. Yeah.
>> So, just so I'm clear, we're going to
[30:35] remove I through L, but what about M?
>> M's already been removed.
[30:38] » Okay. Just making sure.
>> So, if we're in discussion, why are we
[30:41] um asking these to be removed?
>> I would like further consideration on
[30:47] each I through L to be discussed
individually.
[30:51] » And I through L I will be recusing
myself from based on the rightway
[30:58] agreement. Okay.
All right. All those in favor of
[31:03] removing I, J, K, and L from the consent
agenda,
[31:08] uh,
say I.
[31:11] » I.
>> I.
[31:12] » Any opposed?
Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously.
[31:18] And let's hear a motion to pass the
remainder A through H.
[31:25] » So moved.
>> Second. We have a motion to pass the
[31:28] remainder of the consent agenda A
through H. Do we have a second?
[31:31] » Second.
>> Oh, we got a second. Thank you, Council
[31:34] Member Kypers.
>> All those in favor? I.
[31:38] » Any opposed? Hearing none.
[31:43] And uh should we consider I through L
first or M and continue in the order of
[31:50] the removal?
>> In the order of removal.
[31:52] » Okay. So, we will consider item M first.
That is the interim city manager
[31:59] employment agreement
[32:03] and uh let's hear discussion on that.
>> Do we have legal online?
[32:08] Hillary is there. Yeah.
>> Okay. Sorry about that.
[32:11] » I'm here.
>> Miss Evans, a couple questions on um
[32:15] well, I'm going to start with my first
question. Looking at the contract that
[32:19] was presented to us. Um, and excuse me
for dragging this out a little bit, but
[32:25] I don't really have a whole lot of
opportunity to reach out to you. Um, as
[32:29] there's a chain of command and how we
can communicate with you. Uh, one of the
[32:33] items on that contract uh, offer was a
contingency of time. Do you normally see
[32:40] in interim city manager contracts where
the recipient of the contract is setting
[32:46] a definitive time to it or are they
typically open-ended?
[32:50] Um, I've seen it done both ways.
Certainly, some people who take an
[32:55] interim job do not want to leave their
full-time gig for an extended period of
[32:59] time. So, it's usually the employees
choice if they're truly acting as
[33:03] interim and they don't want to abandon
their duties in their full-time job.
[33:07] I've seen it before. It's not typical.
It's not It's not the usual, but usually
[33:11] people want to be at the higher pay rate
[laughter]
[33:14] for as long as they can, but it it can
go both ways,
[33:18] » right? Mayor, I have another question,
but I'll round table wait my turn.
[33:22] » Thank you, Council Member Mson. Any
further discussion from anyone?
[33:31] » Um, I have a question for Hillary as
well. Hillary, um, you saw the original
[33:37] draft of the agreement, correct?
[33:43] » I did.
>> You did not.
[33:46] » No, I did. I I believe I saw a version
of it. Yes.
[33:50] » Yeah. And were there any uh red line
edits that you made as recommendations
[33:55] for that agreement?
>> It's possible. I don't remember. Um
[34:02] I can look it up and get back to you. Um
you know, I've reviewed this as it's
[34:08] written and there's nothing that stands
out to me as
[34:11] unusual.
Um,
[34:15] I'm scrolling through it now on my other
screen.
[34:19] I don't remember if there was anything
that I suggested that wasn't accepted.
[34:26] » Okay, thank you.
[34:31] » And Rob, can you offer any clarification
on that
[34:37] » about which question? Um my question was
legal had a chance to review that
[34:43] correct?
>> Yes.
[34:44] » And were there any edits that you know
of that were made to that uh recommended
[34:49] agreement or
>> not not that I recall if there's one in
[34:52] particular you have in mind?
>> No, I'm just making sure that we had
[34:55] legal fully review it and that that was
your recollection as well.
[34:58] » Understood.
>> Thank you.
[35:03] Okay. Uh oh, we have council member
Ferrer. You're up.
[35:07] » Yeah. Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight.
Couple hours sleep. Well, I just I had
[35:11] some
like some concerns that I wanted to have
[35:16] addressed and I don't know when would be
the best time to talk about those
[35:22] concerns considering like you said, we
don't have an the ability to, you know,
[35:28] talk to legal or I'm used to us being in
executive board sessions where we talk
[35:35] about us as a board. we talk about what
our you know what we like what we don't
[35:42] like you know before we come and just
decide to
[35:46] » well um I'll just clarif I'll help to
clarify this as much as possible uh when
[35:51] I consulted our clerk
um and legal about whether an executive
[35:57] session qualified for this it did but it
only qualified on the competency and
[36:05] merit of the of potential employee for
the interim. It did not uh cover any
[36:13] kind of compensation
or benefits or anything like that. That
[36:17] would need to happen in a public
meeting.
[36:20] » So,
just to help clarify and if you need
[36:24] further clarification before you ask
your question, you're more than welcome
[36:28] to consult Hillary or legal now. You're
in a meeting.
[36:32] » Yeah.
>> To see if that direction can be given.
[36:34] Well, because we just got done doing
this with the um the Clark County
[36:39] Mosquito Board and we did everything in
executive session when we discussed the
[36:44] contracts and if everybody on the board
was accept you know they accepted that
[36:52] everything that was in the contract that
was our time to talk about it. We went
[36:56] and had a special meeting specifically
for that. So it's this is just kind of
[37:01] weird to me. It makes me feel a little
uncomfortable that we don't have the
[37:05] opportunity to talk, you know, openly,
you know, and voice our concerns. Um,
[37:12] yeah.
[37:16] Um,
legal uh Hillary or Liz, either one. Do
[37:21] you guys do you guys have any
recommendations to offer on that as far
[37:25] as an executive session? whether it
would again maybe you can help me
[37:32] recall.
>> Sure. There are very few exceptions to
[37:36] the OPMA unfortunately. Um it's by
design. You'll see a lot of councils in
[37:41] this awkward situation of discussing
contract terms in open session. The only
[37:46] exceptions are is if you're worried
about potential litigation resulting
[37:50] from one of these contract provisions,
we could make the straightfaced argument
[37:53] that an executive session is warranted.
Um, another another thing is if you're
[37:58] reviewing performance of a current
employee. So, if you have concerns
[38:03] about, you know, the qualifications of
your interim, certainly. Um, and then
[38:07] just generally speaking, um, I I don't
know how you generally do it, but if you
[38:12] have reviewed the agenda and you have a
concern with something on the agenda,
[38:16] you're always welcome to shoot me an
email. And I don't need know if you
[38:19] should go through Rob to do that, but
certainly um, it's preferable to get
[38:24] these questions answered prior to open
session and in a one-on-one email or
[38:28] phone call with me um, because that
would retain the attorney client
[38:31] privilege and potentially answer your
concerns. So, just for future reference,
[38:34] I know it doesn't help you now, but
those are my thoughts.
[38:48] » I'm going to mirror what council member
Fer stated as we've been instructed
[38:53] before that we don't have access to our
previous legal team. uh if we have that
[38:59] ability and I could pose some of my
questions to her via email um so I can
[39:04] have a better understanding, I would it
would help me in my process, my thought
[39:08] process working through this.
[39:15] Yeah,
understood. Um is there any further
[39:21] discussion on this? I have Deputy Mayor
B.
[39:26] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um, as most of you
know, we've had another candidate that's
[39:31] potentially interested or that is
interested in the city manager position
[39:34] and is also interested in consideration
potentially of the interim position.
[39:40] [clears throat] And so, um, my thoughts
would be before we enter into this
[39:45] contract, I would like more time to be
able to speak with this individual and
[39:49] find out if that would be, um, the
direction that this council would like
[39:53] to take. I know that that there was a
vote uh that asked for uh deputy city
[39:58] manager uh Barrier to to take this
position. Um but if we have another
[40:04] candidate that's able to this might also
be um preferable at this time. So I
[40:11] wanted just at least to bring that
before council. I think it's probably
[40:16] worth pointing out that we did have a
motion and it passed I believe 5 to two
[40:24] uh to retain Rob as an interim city
manager pending uh agree agreed upon
[40:32] terms. Um and that is why we're looking
at this now is as we're reviewing this
[40:38] interim city manager [clears throat]
employment agreement. So, if we want to
[40:44] um change that,
that would probably require somebody um
[40:51] rescending their vote or
reconsidering the motion. Again,
[40:57] terminology is lost on me on this one.
Liz, maybe help me out. But,
[41:01] um
[41:05] that would require us to make some kind
of action. Otherwise,
[41:10] we have already had a motion.
[41:14] If I'm correct, Liz.
>> Yes. Just reviewing my notes, Mr. Mayor.
[41:21] » I think it'd be
>> so um
[41:25] » either to resend or to reconsider
requires that a council member who voted
[41:31] on the prevailing side make that motion.
Um,
[41:36] both require a second and can be made by
any council member.
[41:41] Uh, a motion to resend is out of order
if the original vote has already led to
[41:46] an action or event that cannot be
undone.
[41:50] Um,
a motion to reconsider may be made
[41:55] either during the same council meeting
in which the original motion was decided
[42:00] or at the next council meeting.
So, um, it is likely that it would need
[42:07] to be a motion to resend.
[42:14] » Thank you, clerk.
[42:18] » Council member Kypers.
>> Thank you. Um,
[42:22] I'm concerned about the direction that
we're going here. I think that
[42:27] um
we have not taken the time as a council
[42:32] that we should take to evaluate where we
are as a council and where we are as a
[42:39] leadership uh and where we are with our
overall management of the city. Uh we
[42:46] made a decision to uh we made we voted
to bring Rob on as the interim. we
[42:54] approved that. I think that we need some
time to um establish maybe a committee
[43:01] that's going to look at the hiring
process. Um I'm happy to see that we
[43:07] have an applicant, but we still need to
um we can't just throw somebody in into
[43:12] a position
and then work as we've always worked.
[43:19] And I think that we need to have some
time to um give ourselves the ability to
[43:24] work through some things as a council to
have some conversations around
[43:28] priorities
and so that whomever we're bringing on
[43:33] um in this next position as city manager
is given a strong foundation to work
[43:40] from. They have set goals and they know
where we want them to head and we've not
[43:45] had that conversation yet. I think that
um
[43:50] I I think that Rob is doing a a great
job keeping us going as the interim and
[43:57] that we just need to continue that and
give ourselves the time to go through
[44:02] whatever the process is going to be.
Whether we're going to move forward with
[44:06] hiring another company to help us with
that, if we're going to do it
[44:09] internally, whatever, we haven't had a
chance to com have a conversation about
[44:14] what this is. So, unless
the four of you have some ideas on what
[44:20] you want to do, I I would like to be
part of that conversation and um
[44:26] just stabilize us a little bit before we
start bringing in new people.
[44:34] Thank you, Council Member Kers.
Um okay, so
[44:41] we still have this agreement in front of
us. Is there any further discussion that
[44:46] we would like to have involving this
agreement?
[44:54] » Okay.
Hearing none, um I would
[44:59] » well I would like to table it because to
be able to the next meeting so I'm able
[45:06] to address my concerns with the
attorney.
[45:11] That that's what I would be asking for.
Is that
[45:14] » that's your motion?
>> Yeah, that would be my motion.
[45:17] » Second. So,
>> just to cl Okay, just to clarify, we
[45:21] wouldn't want to table. I think we'd
want [clears throat] to postpone.
[45:23] » Postpone. Is that the one that goes just
to the next meeting? Cuz I just I just
[45:26] want to the next meeting.
>> Table is to the next meeting. Postpone
[45:31] is to allow for it to be even after the
next meeting.
[45:35] » I was confused. I thought table was
indefinite unless you set a time and
[45:39] postpone was to the next meeting. My
apologies. So, okay, we have a motion
[45:43] and a second to table the meeting or
table this topic until the next meeting
[45:49] to give council time to
um communicate with our legal council on
[45:54] this uh agreement.
>> Uh the clerk requests who was the second
[45:58] on that motion.
>> It was council member Mson.
[46:02] » All those in favor? I
>> All opposed?
[46:07] » Nay.
Hearing the motion passes
[46:12] three to one.
>> Can I just ask a question?
[46:16] » Yeah.
>> Oh, you look confused. [clears throat]
[46:19] » That would be four to one.
>> It's It's four to one. I didn't vote.
[46:22] Oh.
>> Oh, you abstain, mister.
[46:26] » Um, this question is for Rob. How would
be the best way you'd like me to do
[46:31] that? Should I go through you? Should I
email the attorney my questions? Or what
[46:36] would you prefer, sir? If if you'd
prefer to speak directly with Hillary
[46:40] and and she's okay with that, I don't
have a concern with it.
[46:43] » Okay. Okay.
>> Hillary.
[46:46] » I saw thumbs up from Hillary. She's got
a thumbs up.
[46:48] » All good.
>> And if you guys need Hillary's contact
[46:51] information, uh, we can have it shared
with council.
[46:54] » Yeah, I'd like to get that, please.
>> I can share that with you.
[46:56] » Me as well.
>> Thank you, Rob.
[46:58] » All right. Now we will move on to review
items I, J, K, and L uh from the consent
[47:06] agenda. For this, I will recuse myself.
Uh so do me a favor. Somebody run this
[47:13] meeting.
Uh well, I think she might recuse
[47:17] herself as well. So
um Brian, do you mind running this?
[47:22] Sure. Taking point on that. And uh just
not
[47:26] Okay.
Um, if I may interject, u, Mayor
[47:32] Overhozer,
um, should both of you recuse, this item
[47:38] cannot actually be passed because there
will not be a
[47:44] » quorum present.
>> Well, then maybe we need to
[47:49] » perhaps you
>> uh Well, first of all, I'd say it'd be
[47:53] good if all of our council members
showed up to our meetings, but
[47:55] » yeah. Uh, did you have something you
want to say?
[47:58] » I do. Um, I would just like to ask
Legal's input. Uh, I know that I want to
[48:03] be fully transparent as well with all
decisions that are made. Um, but, uh, my
[48:08] husband works for a company that's, uh,
affiliated with these four, um, I
[48:15] through L, uh, these four property
owners. Um and so uh just for the sake
[48:22] of transparency, I was planning to
recuse myself. Although at the same
[48:25] time, he's not in any position to be um
to gain anything financially. Uh any um
[48:33] any
promotions or anything else. Um the
[48:38] decision to um to accept or deny these
would have no bearing on his employment.
[48:44] Um so we're completely separate. Um, and
so, uh, does legal advise that I would
[48:49] need to rescend myself in this
particular situation or am I able
[48:54] because I can make a decision that is
neutral to remain at the meeting for
[48:58] these items. So, I don't have any of
your
[49:03] city specific rules and pro procedures
for council, but what I can say is when
[49:08] it comes to state law, uh, you've
probably all heard about this in
[49:12] training, but it was probably a while
ago. uh you're prohibited from entering
[49:16] into a contract in which you have an
interest. An interest is something that
[49:22] you personally would benefit for. If you
look at RCW42330,
[49:29] it does not apply to contracts where the
officer has a relative unless you have
[49:35] an interest in the earnings of that. So,
um, and if you did, there's a process
[49:43] that we would go through called a remote
interest, which would determine whether
[49:47] or not you'd be able to recuse yourself
and the contract could still proceed.
[49:52] Um, but if that's not the case, um,
unless there's something specific to
[49:58] Battlegard, unless you guys have adopted
a more strict set of rules for yourself
[50:02] than has the state, I think you're okay
to proceed.
[50:06] But I love the transparency. I always
like to put those things out in the
[50:09] record just so people know what's going
on and then go ahead and vote if you'd
[50:12] like.
>> Thank you, Hillary.
[50:14] » Thank you.
>> Okay, so I will recuse myself from this
[50:18] uh discussion and vote and I will leave
it in the good hands of Deputy Mayor
[50:23] Veil. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Excuse me.
[50:32] » I did.
>> I switched seats just as Mayor
[50:36] Overholster said I didn't have to, but I
thought it would be embarrassing to go
[50:39] back to my own seat. Okay, so um so
we're going to be discussing items I, J,
[50:44] K, and L, which is uh Southeast Grace
Avenue phase 2 rideaway purchase
[50:50] approval at Battleground Main Property.
Item I,
[50:55] item J, Southeast Grace Avenue phase 2
rideofway purchase approval battleground
[51:01] property 10. Item K, Southeast Grace
Avenue phase 2 ride-of-way purchase
[51:07] approval battleground property 13. And
item L, Southeast Grace Avenue phase 2
[51:14] ride-of-way purchase approval, Main
Street Theater Restoration.
[51:20] Any discussion?
[51:24] I've looked through uh looked through it
for the second time today. I don't have
[51:29] any heartburn with it. [clears throat]
>> I mean, I have I'm curious to know why
[51:34] you
or is that the only reason why you
[51:38] pulled them? Oh,
>> yep. That was the only reason
[51:44] » Yeah. So, no further discussion. I will
entertain a motion for approval.
[51:50] » So, move. Second.
So, we have a motion uh from council
[51:54] member Ferrer
and second from council member Kypers.
[51:59] All in favor?
>> I
[52:01] » I
>> I
[52:03] » I. Any opposed?
Motion passes.
[52:08] Uh with four votes.
Thank you.
[52:26] Scary back there. It's dark. Like it.
Kidding. Um. All right.
[52:34] So,
get down here. We're through all the
[52:37] motions. All right. Business. Uh, clerk.
Uh, are there any communications
[52:42] submitted regarding business items that
have not yet been provided to the
[52:46] council? If so, could you read those
comments prior to council discussion?
[52:51] » None have been submitted, Mr. Mayor.
>> Thank you.
[52:55] All right. City Manager, executive
search presentation.
[53:01] Introduce Deputy City Manager Rob
Farrier.
[53:04] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of
council. At your last meeting on August
[53:08] 17th, council directed staff to obtain
uh requests for proposals from executive
[53:13] search firms for the city manager
recruitment. Attached to the staff
[53:16] report on this matter are seven
proposals we've received uh for that
[53:21] recruitment. There are multiple options
that are available to the city council.
[53:26] Um for example, you could select you
could direct staff to um contact one of
[53:32] the selected firms and move forward with
obtaining an agreement for an executive
[53:36] search. uh given the gravity and the
importance of what your undertaking
[53:40] would be uh you may decide to agendaize
it and add it to a further agenda at a
[53:46] future meeting for further discussion or
you could take no action whatsoever. Um
[53:53] the uh proposals were attached and um if
you have any questions feel free to let
[53:58] me know tomorrow. Our HR manager is here
as well and just let us know I have
[54:02] questions.
>> Thank you.
[54:04] » Thank you Rob.
Um, well, looks like we're entering into
[54:08] discussion on this. Uh, Council Member
Mson,
[54:12] » I'll keep it brief. Rob, I'd like to
have more discussion in our bi-weeklies.
[54:16] I do have some concerns about hiring
outside consultants. I would like to
[54:20] find out through the bi-weeklys what the
temperature of the council is to see if
[54:25] uh as council member Kypers brought up
tonight being
[54:29] thoughtful and thorough in what we
discuss on and how we move forward
[54:33] whether we're going to do this internal
or we're going to do this external. So
[54:37] um I did see some of the I saw the
numbers that were in the packet and
[54:42] there's a pretty big disparity also the
locations of where these firms are at.
[54:46] So, I'd just like to have more
discussion with you and find out what
[54:50] your bi-weeklys are like with council,
where they're at.
[54:54] » Okay. Uh, if the rest of the council
members feel that same way, we'd be
[54:57] happy to put it on the next bi-weekly
agenda and solicit input at that time.
[55:04] » Any further discussion?
>> I No, I I agree with that.
[55:09] » I'll say something just real briefly.
First of all, uh thank you Tamara for
[55:14] putting that all together, reaching out
to the firms and and consolidating the
[55:19] responses, putting that together. Some
very robust feedback that we got. I I
[55:24] was uh pleasantly surprised and pleased
with seven firms coming back. All some
[55:31] proposals lengthy by the way. Um and I
did read through most of those. Uh I
[55:37] feel like we have some pretty solid
candidates uh for a recruiting firm
[55:41] available to us. I agree uh with that
being said that we should run this
[55:47] through some bi-weekly for further
discussion and and counsel. I also to be
[55:54] honest wouldn't feel comfortable making
a decision tonight on that based on our
[55:59] uh missing two of our council members in
person um tonight. And I think that is a
[56:04] big decision that um everyone should
have the chance to weigh in on. So um or
[56:09] at least have their um their piece said
during bi-weekly so we can get a
[56:14] temperature. So uh
I think a thumbs up will probably do to
[56:18] give direction to staff to go ahead and
present that.
[56:21] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Rob.
[56:25] » All right. Next up, now we're getting
into the meat here. Sidewalk maintenance
[56:31] presentation. Big stuff. Uh, I'd like to
introduce uh, Deputy City Manager Rob
[56:37] Barrier and public works director Mark
Hersy. Take it away, gentlemen.
[56:41] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of
council. At a prior meeting, the city
[56:44] council had requested staff to make a
presentation on sidewalk maintenance
[56:48] here in Battleground, including an
overview of relevant codes and
[56:52] operational practices. Um the city has a
long history of requiring property
[56:57] owners to maintain sidewalks that are
abudding their property. Uh, for
[57:01] example, uh, ordinance 95-769,
which was adopted in 1995,
[57:07] um, included specific language that
stated, "Whenever any street or public
[57:11] way in battleground, um, has been
improved by the construction of a
[57:15] sidewalk along either side thereof, the
duty, burden, and expense of the
[57:18] maintenance, cleaning, repair, and renew
renewal of such sidewalk shall devolve
[57:22] upon the owner of the property, private
property directly, but in the sidewalk."
[57:27] [gasps]
Further uh in RCW that's the revised
[57:31] code of Washington um this in this in
the municipal code we've uh we've
[57:38] codified portions of the RCW related to
sidewalk maintenance specifically
[57:42] chapters 3568
uh and 3570 which authorize cities to
[57:47] assess the cost of repairing sidewalks
on the abuing property owner.
[57:53] When you look at RCW, uh, it describes
the legal framework by which code
[57:58] cities, which includes the city of
Battleground, may define obligations for
[58:02] sidewalk maintenance, specifically
3568010,
[58:06] which was first adopted by the state of
Washington uh 80 years ago, almost in
[58:10] 1949. It says that any city or town uh
is authorized to construct, reconstruct,
[58:16] and repair sidewalks, gutters, and curbs
along and driveways across sidewalks
[58:22] and to pay the cost thereof from any
available funds or to require the abuing
[58:27] property owner to construct the
improvements at owner's own cost or
[58:30] expense subject to limitations of RCW.
current practice here in the city has
[58:36] been to implement um both BGMC, the
municipal code and RCW chapters as they
[58:43] relate to maintenance of sidewalks. Um
to that end, staff typically sends out a
[58:48] notice to the affected property owner uh
regarding their responsibility to
[58:52] maintain damaged sidewalks. That
includes a photograph of the damage. Um
[58:56] it also includes specs uh for repair of
the work. um and a statement that they'd
[59:02] be required to get a permit from the
city to repair the sidewalk, which is at
[59:05] no cost, if I'm remembering that
correctly. Um
[59:10] we have not uh we have not followed
through on that because of the concerns
[59:14] expressed by council members about this
practice. And so this evening, we are
[59:18] asking uh council to provide staff with
your guidance and your direction on how
[59:22] you would like us to address this moving
forward.
[59:26] staff's opinion is that the model we
have right now seems to work. Um, and we
[59:31] would like to see it continue as is, but
that's not our call. That's your call.
[59:36] And so we would um leave it at that and
open it up from your questions. Thank
[59:41] you.
>> Thank you, Rob. Uh, first up we have
[59:47] Council Member Mson.
>> Well, thank you, Mayor. So Rob, this
[59:51] just kind of repeating what I said uh
when we were looking at code updates
[59:54] before, more specifically in the
northwest quadrant of our city. There
[59:59] was a period of time where uh require
tree there was a certain tree required
[1:00:03] by the city to the developer during the
construction. And those trees are what
[1:00:07] has caused a lot of damage. Again,
putting the burden on the uh homeowner
[1:00:13] for something that they didn't have a
choice of. The only choice they had was
[1:00:16] buy the house they could afford or don't
buy the house they could afford.
[1:00:20] Um, I would be open to exploring some
options for those property owners and
[1:00:26] some some relief to get the concrete
fixed, whether that comes from, you
[1:00:32] know, state grants if they become
available. um you know, are they
[1:00:37] lowincome families, senior citizens on
fixed incomes? Where where can some
[1:00:42] assistance come in to help uh impose
that safety mechanism to get those
[1:00:47] sidewalks repaired? If uh in a perfect
world, if we weren't looking at that
[1:00:54] specific quadrant of our city and it was
just a you know everything was done the
[1:00:57] right way, I would get more of an
imposition on the code to if a property
[1:01:03] owner damaged it, you know, for whatever
reason. I I would get that. But there's
[1:01:08] a lot of lot of houses over there that
they didn't have a choice on that tree
[1:01:11] that got put in, but they got left with
the benefit of it. So, I'm all in favor
[1:01:16] of just leaving it as it is. But I would
uh entertain some idea or some, you
[1:01:22] know, some options if there was some
kind of a relief for those homeowners to
[1:01:27] get that repaired, you know, essentially
out of no cost of their pocket.
[1:01:32] » Uh just so I understand, are you
suggesting that we look to see if
[1:01:35] there's available funds from other
sources that could then be tapped to
[1:01:39] help um homeowners, property owners um
pay for that cost? Yeah, I think I think
[1:01:46] if we're going to present it that and
you said stated it very well. I'm
[1:01:50] stuttering here because I feel like I'm
lack of sleep too, but you stated it
[1:01:53] very well. I think there would be the
contingencies though. Um again, you
[1:01:56] know, were you a property owner that
bought during this time and this tree
[1:02:00] was planted and this is what's caused
the uplift in the concrete. I wouldn't
[1:02:03] want to see um resources just being
handed out. You know, say somebody
[1:02:08] poured a
RV pad and didn't follow it right and
[1:02:12] they damaged the concrete. That's not
something I think that, you know, we
[1:02:16] should use the funds for. But, uh,
again, there's I I'll use my neighbor
[1:02:20] for example. She had three of those
trees on her property and it was
[1:02:24] uplifting the concrete in those three
spots. She's on a fixed income. She
[1:02:28] can't afford to have a contractor come
in and repair that.
[1:02:31] So, I would be interested to see what
kind of funding ideas that you and the
[1:02:36] staff can come up with to look at some
of that remedy. Other than that, I'd
[1:02:39] like to see it just stay how it is.
Council member Kypers.
[1:02:44] » Thank you. Uh, so can I get
clarification? Was this a specific tree
[1:02:50] that was planted that is no longer being
planted?
[1:02:54] Okay.
Because
[1:02:57] » Mark,
>> thank you, Mark. Yes.
[1:03:00] » Sorry, you can't hear my head rattle.
That is
[1:03:05] » so because I mean obviously in all the
new subdivisions there's trees planted.
[1:03:10] Some of them are dying. You know,
there's expectation that they be
[1:03:15] rectified.
The HOA may or may not have any
[1:03:19] responsibility. You know, there's all
these different um situations. So, I was
[1:03:24] just trying to understand where that
was. I agree that if this was a specific
[1:03:29] tree planted that obviously was going to
be problematic and we've got people who
[1:03:35] can't afford to take that on um then
yes, if there's ways that we can provide
[1:03:41] any assistance um in general, I support
the process. I don't
[1:03:48] see any reason to change what we're
doing other than um I support um Council
[1:03:53] Member Mson's recommendation.
>> Thank you, Council Member Kypers. Deputy
[1:03:59] Mayor Bale.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um and I just
[1:04:02] wanted to um offer some transparency for
public that's watching or those in the
[1:04:07] gallery. Um, and please correct me if
I'm wrong, Mark, but my understanding is
[1:04:10] that there was a specific tree that was
being planted and that there are collars
[1:04:16] that are put in the ground that help to
prevent the tree roots from spreading
[1:04:20] now. And so when we have trees that are
put in the ground, we don't have um the
[1:04:25] same issue currently. And so this was in
the past a specific type of tree that's
[1:04:30] no longer being used. So, the
neighborhoods that impacted that are
[1:04:33] impacted negatively by this um are few
and far between, but it's still
[1:04:38] something that council is concerned
about because we don't want people to be
[1:04:41] having to pay I mean tens of thousands
of dollars possibly to fix concrete. Um
[1:04:49] » yeah, so from the late 90s to I'd say
the late 2000s, there was a specific
[1:04:55] tree that was required. Um, and what
you're talking about is the root barrier
[1:04:59] that was not a requirement. So nowadays
we have a large list that was
[1:05:04] specifically designed by a landscape
architect that has expertise in this
[1:05:08] sort of thing. Um, so they selected
trees that are more specific to small
[1:05:15] planner strips like we have. Plus, we
require the root barrier. And it's not
[1:05:19] to say you're not going to have an
escaping route. You know, there are
[1:05:22] going to be one-offs. But um compared to
where it's almost every tree in the area
[1:05:26] that Brian's talking about, you know, it
it's going to be very far and few
[1:05:31] between.
And just a quick follow-up question, um
[1:05:34] I'm sure we do in our planning also have
code um or suggestions that state if
[1:05:41] those particular trees die that they're
replaced then with trees that that do
[1:05:46] conform.
>> Yeah. Any tree you replace, you have to
[1:05:48] replace with the current and you have to
do it to current standard. So you have
[1:05:52] to add the um root barrier.
>> Perfect. Thank you,
[1:05:58] » Council Member Ferrer.
[1:06:08] » No, the way the code is written is this
is in chapter
[1:06:14] 3569 of RCW.
[1:06:19] It states uh whenever a portion not
longer than one block in length of any
[1:06:23] street in any city is not improved by
the construction of a sidewalk thereon
[1:06:28] or the sidewalk thereon has become unfit
or unsafe for purposes of public travel.
[1:06:33] Uh and the city council of such city by
resolution finds the improvement of such
[1:06:38] a portion of such street such street by
the construction or reconstruction of
[1:06:41] sidewalk is necessary for public safety
and convenience. The duty, burden,
[1:06:46] expense of constructing or
reconstructing such sidewalk shall
[1:06:49] devolve upon the property directly
abuing upon such portion as provided
[1:06:54] except as a couple of callouts. And one
of those call outs, council member
[1:06:59] Ferrer, is that a an abuing property
owner would not be charged with any cost
[1:07:04] of construction or reconstruction in
excess of 50% of the valuation of such
[1:07:09] abuing property exclusive of the
improvements thereon. according to the
[1:07:14] valuation last placed upon it for the
purposes of general taxation. So what
[1:07:17] that means I read that and if I read
this wrong Hillary correct me if a
[1:07:21] property not the building the location
there on but the property itself is
[1:07:24] asset say $10,000 the maximum amount
that could be assessed to the property
[1:07:29] owner will be half of that $5,000.
[1:07:34] So that's the property alone, not the
building, the
[1:07:38] » the dirt essentially, not the
constructions of of the improvements
[1:07:40] there on,
>> which is a lot better than I heard it in
[1:07:44] the beginning. I'm like, well, $500,000
house, you get
[1:07:46] » Yeah. typically if you have a house like
that, $500,000, the dirt itself might be
[1:07:50] only worth $100,000. And the followup to
that is it was the new language that we
[1:07:56] had discussed as council where we
addressed those concerns prior to what
[1:08:01] everybody's mentioned to this evening on
the dis is that there was leans on the
[1:08:05] property that you could do but with the
language as it is written now is can you
[1:08:11] still
>> that can still happen. What'll happen is
[1:08:13] if the city were to send out a notice to
a property owner and the property owner
[1:08:17] for whatever reason um decided they
didn't want to improve, they didn't want
[1:08:21] to reconstruct the sidewalk, then the
city could go in on its own dime and it
[1:08:25] could do the improvements and the cost
related to that would be structured as a
[1:08:29] lean, which would be on the property.
And so the city would not recoup those
[1:08:32] costs until the property change hands at
some point in the future,
[1:08:35] » right, when they decide to
>> and and it would be a lean far down on
[1:08:39] the totem pole of leans, so to speak.
And so it's it's a mechanism. It's a
[1:08:44] tool that the city could use to recoup
its cost, but it doesn't guarantee that
[1:08:48] you're actually gonna see money at the
end of the day.
[1:08:50] » Okay.
>> I will point out that for the city to
[1:08:52] repair a sidewalk is far more cost than
it is for a homeowner to have a
[1:08:57] contractor
>> typically. Yes.
[1:09:00] » Um [clears throat] couple questions I
have. I've waited nice and patiently
[1:09:05] because um Mark uh you might know this.
You had mentioned the late 90s to the
[1:09:10] late 2000s is when those types of trees
were put in without the root barrier. Do
[1:09:15] you know the date when the code was
changed to add root barrier?
[1:09:21] Is it somewhere around the late 2000s?
I think it was after that, but we had
[1:09:26] the stretch where we had the economy
tank. So, while it wasn't a standard,
[1:09:30] there wasn't anything getting built
either. So, um
[1:09:34] » that makes sense.
>> I could find out the date. I don't have
[1:09:36] it off the top of my head.
>> Okay, very good. Um, couple spitball
[1:09:40] ideas I have here. Um, and I I'm asking
this out loud even though I probably
[1:09:46] already know the answer. um for like our
downtown revitalization, we're offering
[1:09:51] a certain amount of money towards uh new
facade
[1:09:56] um in conjunction with a business owner
that wants to repair that facade, but
[1:10:01] there's quite a bit of paperwork that is
involved and they have to use um certain
[1:10:06] type of contractor
uh
[1:10:10] prevailing wage contractor so that it
falls under the city's guideline of use
[1:10:14] of a contractor. Correct. Um, I'm
wondering if we might be able to offer
[1:10:19] something to uh property owners in the
same way that if they have a sidewalk
[1:10:26] repair that is needing to be done and it
falls within the late 90s to late 2000s
[1:10:32] when these types of trees were put in.
Could we offer that as a as some kind of
[1:10:38] fund to help fund that repair or what
you think? potentially you could
[1:10:43] organize a program. You're able to help
the poor and the infirm and so if they
[1:10:48] met certain income thresholds that would
classify them under that. There is the
[1:10:53] potential that we could do something
like that. I know that there are other
[1:10:56] programs amongst the state and even
other states that do have programs about
[1:11:00] sidewalks because this isn't this isn't
just a battleground issue. It's a very
[1:11:04] prevalent issue across. So we can look
and see what those programs look like
[1:11:08] and come back with some options. But
that would be one just off my head that
[1:11:12] you could do easily. It does caveat it
though that $1 makes any project a
[1:11:17] public dollar. So it would fall with all
of the same rules as if we were doing
[1:11:22] it, which brings in the prevailing wage
and so forth. And don't think you'd have
[1:11:26] to go out to bid because it'd be under
our threshold, but you would still have
[1:11:30] to do prevailing wage. I mean, I I think
I would be curious in seeing what that
[1:11:34] would look like as far as a a program
for residents that fall under a a
[1:11:40] certain threshold [clears throat]
economically.
[1:11:43] Um, and what that would look like as far
as a program. I do understand that, you
[1:11:49] know, if if they're meeting a certain
criteria that maybe there would be a
[1:11:53] certain amount of funds or uh some kind
of sponsorship program like that. uh
[1:11:58] potentially I think that could be really
beneficial.
[1:12:02] Um Council Member Mson,
>> uh Mayor, I just wanted to show some
[1:12:08] support to your thought process on that.
I just want to make sure that there's
[1:12:11] not going to be any perceivance of
gifting of public funds. But I would
[1:12:14] like to see if after we work through
budget this year and if you know Megan
[1:12:22] does a fantastic job as she always does
and we find some couch cushion money um
[1:12:26] that especially for the low income
for the lowincome fixed income families.
[1:12:33] Uh I'm looking at Google Street Maps
right now because I can just think of a
[1:12:36] dozen of them that I'm you know where I
know there's damage. I I would support
[1:12:40] something like that.
Um maybe even so much as to go on
[1:12:45] incomebased as well if you know somebody
has maybe a little more means they can
[1:12:50] at least get a reduced rate if they're
interested in fixing it.
[1:12:53] » Agreed.
All right. Well, we've uh got some staff
[1:12:59] direction, I believe. Is there anybody
else that'd like to comment on this?
[1:13:02] » If if I may, just to confirm what I've
heard. What I've heard is keep the
[1:13:05] program as it is, but come back with
potential options, programs that could
[1:13:10] help help people who to reduce their
cost. Do I hear that correctly?
[1:13:16] » Yeah, that's that's one of the two
options.
[1:13:18] » Okay. Yeah. Whether it be a I think just
to paraphrase, and not to put words in
[1:13:24] your mouth, uh, Council Member Mson was
looking for outside grant funding, um,
[1:13:29] state or federal or something. Uh, that
would be a grant funding opportunity.
[1:13:33] I'm more talking about a a city program
that would help fund that as well.
[1:13:38] » Very well. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:13:41] All right. I feel like we've wrapped
that up nicely. We will move on to the
[1:13:45] Gordy Jolma Family Natural Area. Uh and
I'd like to introduce public works
[1:13:51] director Mark Hersig again.
>> Thank you, council. Give me one second.
[1:13:55] I can quick presentation to share.
[1:14:21] All right, I'm just going to quickly
talk about the uh Gordy Jolma family
[1:14:25] natural area access easement. Um so I'll
give an introduction um talk about where
[1:14:31] we're talking about um what the county's
specific request is um to a conclusion
[1:14:38] and then some time for questions. Um, so
I'm sure you're all familiar with, but
[1:14:42] the county purchased the former Cedars
Golf Course. Um, they're working on a
[1:14:48] master plan for it. Um, essentially
it'll be a natural area with a bunch of
[1:14:53] walking trails. Um, the creek
[clears throat] will get kind of put
[1:14:57] back to its natural state. Uh, so a lot
of those ponds that were built with the
[1:15:01] golf course will go away. Um, and so
that's kind of their overall plan. Um
[1:15:09] they're specifically uh talking to us
about an access through the Cedars
[1:15:14] Landing subdivision. Um so that lies
just north of the old golf course. Um
[1:15:19] and then you can see in the picture
there, there's a little star. Um the
[1:15:23] city actually owns a storm water
facility there and that's what we'll be
[1:15:26] talking about. Um so the county's
request, they're requesting an access
[1:15:31] easement through city storm water
facility. You can see that um the parcel
[1:15:36] we own is in blue and then the area that
they're uh talking about is highlighted
[1:15:41] in black. Um so it would just be along
the path area of the storm water
[1:15:46] facility. It wouldn't actually be the
storm water facility piece. Um
[1:15:51] essentially the easements over areas
that have already been paved and these
[1:15:55] areas are already uh used as pedestrian
pathways. So, there's a trail system
[1:15:59] through that subdivision. Um, and they
would just be using a portion of that.
[1:16:05] Uh, so in conclusion, the county needs
an easement from us to provide access to
[1:16:10] the Gordy Jolma area. Um, the area
they're asking for is already used for
[1:16:15] pathways. Uh, and the county has made an
offer to us for that easement. We'll
[1:16:20] discuss that in executive session, but
any non-cost related questions I want to
[1:16:25] make sure we talk about in an open
meeting. So, if you have any questions
[1:16:28] related to that, um, feel free to ask
them. Now,
[1:16:33] » really, it just boils down to it's just
I'm providing access for that
[1:16:36] neighborhood to get into there.
>> Correct.
[1:16:44] Not seeing anyone queue in. I uh I just
have one question. Do you foresee any
[1:16:49] adverse effects to our storm water
facility by the work the county is
[1:16:52] proposing to do? No. As far as I know,
they're generally just going to use
[1:16:56] what's there. Um, I have not had Hillary
review the easement yet, but I will have
[1:17:01] that done assuming we want to move
forward and uh make sure there's no
[1:17:06] impact to our access to the storm water
facility.
[1:17:11] » All right. Thank you, Mark.
[1:17:16] » All right. Moving on. We have ordinance
number 2026-18
[1:17:22] municipal code amendments and I would
like to introduce finance and
[1:17:26] information services director Megan
Lowry.
[1:17:29] » Good evening council. Before you you
have the opportunity to consider the
[1:17:32] ordinance 2026-18
which would modify chapter 3.04 of our
[1:17:37] municipal code. We had originally
established the economic stabilization
[1:17:42] fund and insurance fund back when we
were in a recession and we wanted a
[1:17:47] separate fund for savings ultimately.
And while we're still being fiscally
[1:17:52] prudent, it does create additional
administrative burden and financial
[1:17:55] presentation issues. So, we are
requesting to remove those two funds and
[1:18:00] fold those funds back into the general
fund, which then would just go towards
[1:18:03] our general fund reserve. So, at this
time, staff is requesting we set a
[1:18:08] public hearing for those code
modifications.
[1:18:13] » Very good. Um, I would ask that Liz read
the ordinance title, please.
[1:18:22] » Ordinance number 2026-18,
an ordinance of the city of
[1:18:27] Battleground, Washington, repealing
Battleground Municipal Code 3.04.010
[1:18:33] 010
Insurance Reserve Fund, repealing
[1:18:37] Battleground Municipal Code 3.04.050,
[1:18:42] economic stability fund, directing a
fund balance transfer, and providing for
[1:18:47] severability and an effective date.
[1:18:53] » Thank you, clerk. Um, all right, we have
comment period discussion. I have uh
[1:18:59] Council Member Mson.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um Megan, I don't want
[1:19:03] to speak on your behalf. I'm excited to
see this before us. Um but you can maybe
[1:19:08] share enlighten us that by removing this
fund, it takes that constraint and
[1:19:12] increases our reserve fund from
I don't have the numbers in my head
[1:19:17] right now. It increases it by what
percentage again
[1:19:20] » roughly?
>> So what we currently have for our
[1:19:24] resolution related to the general fund
reserve is 90 days. I believe we have
[1:19:29] had a request moving forward to have
more of a target of 120 days. So going
[1:19:33] from 25% to 33% ultimately reserve
because again an economic downturn you
[1:19:40] want to make sure you have sufficient
funds to maintain operations. So this
[1:19:43] just assists with that and maintaining
that target. So there'll be a follow-up
[1:19:46] resolution that council can consider of
adding the 120 days instead of the 90
[1:19:53] days as an optimal target for our
general fund reserve.
[1:19:57] Okay. Thank you. So, mayor, um just kind
of a little bit on this, when we had our
[1:20:04] last big economic downturn, we um we
didn't have enough reserves and
[1:20:09] unfortunately there we lost some great
staff members due to it. Megan, thank
[1:20:14] you for doing this. This is a pretty big
deal, I think. Um, this this protects
[1:20:21] our staff in a way that it keeps the
city moving fluidly in the event of any
[1:20:26] the next economic downturn. I think it's
very responsible of this council to have
[1:20:31] those reserves set in place so that we
can act accordingly when the time comes.
[1:20:36] Thank you.
>> Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Council
[1:20:40] Member Mson. Any further discussion on
this? I'll just say I'm a big fan of
[1:20:45] Dave Ramsey and an emergency fund is
huge and uh speaking from a city
[1:20:50] standpoint, 120 days is something we can
aspire to, but 90 days is great, but
[1:20:55] it's good to see the constraints come
off of these funds and the
[1:20:59] administrative uh tasks that are
involved with it. So, um I will call for
[1:21:05] a motion.
>> All right, mayor. I'll move to set a
[1:21:10] public hearing for the next regular city
council meeting of well not this October
[1:21:15] 5th. Yeah. And um October 5th regular
city council meeting to um regarding
[1:21:22] ordinance number 2026-18.
[1:21:26] » Yeah.
>> 18.
[1:21:28] » 18.
>> Yeah. I said 18, did I not? 18.
[1:21:30] » My bad.
>> I was going to keep going. Sorry. No,
[1:21:33] you go ahead. I'm reading down.
[1:21:40] Okay,
we have a motion and we have a second.
[1:21:45] Uh, all those in favor?
>> I.
[1:21:48] » Any opposed?
Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously.
[1:21:55] Now we'll move on to ordinance 2026-9,
municipal code amendments.
[1:22:02] Uh, and I'd like to introduce again
Megan Lowry.
[1:22:06] » Thank you. So, this code amendment is
related to the adjustment of utility
[1:22:10] bills in chapter 13.05100.
What this does is it modifies the
[1:22:15] language a little bit to remove the city
manager ultimate signing authority on
[1:22:22] any sort of utility bill adjustments,
giving that to the finance director. So,
[1:22:26] correcting that language as well as
clarifying some language in our actual
[1:22:29] adjustment. It was written very
specifically which has caused
[1:22:34] some concerns with the auditor related
to interpretation of what the original
[1:22:38] intent was of the leak adjustment. So
this brings it forward to put the onus
[1:22:44] on the finance director for that and
give some ability of working through
[1:22:49] that with residents.
So with that, we would ask for a hearing
[1:22:56] to be set
for October 5th.
[1:23:04] » Very good. Thank you, Megan.
>> Any discussion on this?
[1:23:11] I think anything that gets us less
scrutiny from the auditors is a good
[1:23:16] thing and and makes it easier for people
to get some relief on their utility
[1:23:21] bills if say their water man is leaking
and they find it the hard way when you
[1:23:25] get the bill. So, um
clerk, could you read the ordinance
[1:23:30] title, please?
Ordinance number 2026-9,
[1:23:36] an ordinance ordinance of the city of
Battleground, Washington, amending
[1:23:41] Battleground Municipal Code section
13-05-10
[1:23:48] 0
adjustment of utility bills and
[1:23:51] providing for severability and an
effective date.
[1:23:56] » Thank you, Liz.
And I will uh entertain a motion. I'll
[1:24:02] move to
set the public hearing for October 5th,
[1:24:06] 2026
to amend ordinance number 2026-9
[1:24:12] municipal code amendments.
>> Second.
[1:24:17] » All right, we have a motion and we have
a second by Deputy Mayor Vale. Any
[1:24:22] discussion?
>> Hearing none. Call for the vote. All
[1:24:26] those in favor?
>> I.
[1:24:29] » Any opposed?
Hearing none.
[1:24:33] Motion passes. All right. On to
administrative reports. Are there any
[1:24:37] administrative reports from staff this
evening? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just very
[1:24:41] quickly, uh last Tuesday we had our
first session of BGU, Battleground
[1:24:46] University. This is the fourth year that
we've done this program here in
[1:24:50] Battleground. Um it's a full class. We
have 25 students that are part of the
[1:24:55] class. Um, and it provides um, our
residents uh, an opportunity to learn a
[1:25:01] little more about the ins and outs of
municipal governance. The way you
[1:25:04] describe it is everything you want to
know about government, but we're afraid
[1:25:06] to ask, taking some of the mystery out
of city hall. And so, uh, we will have
[1:25:11] classes roughly, uh, every two weeks,
uh, during off councsil weeks. So, our
[1:25:17] next class will be next week. Uh, we'll
be here in city hall. Um, and we'll talk
[1:25:22] about finance and then after that'll be
public works and then community
[1:25:26] development and our last class that'll
get us into October towards the end of
[1:25:31] October and that'll be over at uh PD and
it'll be public safety. And so we'll
[1:25:35] have uh an opportunity for our students
to see um all the ins and outs of the
[1:25:40] police department, maybe get tased while
they're at it if they're
[1:25:43] » there's interested in that in that kind
of thing. Uh, and then our first meeting
[1:25:47] here in no in November, as long as
you've attended four out of the five
[1:25:51] classes, you graduate. And so I
encourage all of our students, and
[1:25:55] there's at least one student I see in
the audience right now who happens to be
[1:25:58] one of my neighbors. Uh, and there's a
former student I'm looking at right now
[1:26:02] who is a BGU grad. There's two two BGU
grads. I believe there's a BGU grad on
[1:26:07] the Diet than the Deas, as I recall. So,
uh, it's it's pretty cool. And so, um,
[1:26:14] if you'd like to come out and take a
look and and and visit a class, you're
[1:26:17] more than welcome to. That concludes our
report. Thank you.
[1:26:21] » Love it. BTU is awesome.
Big fan. All right,
[1:26:28] we will move on to council
communications.
[1:26:31] Are there any council member
communications this evening?
[1:26:35] Council member Mson, you are up.
>> All right. So, this is something I can
[1:26:39] speak near and dear to my heart to. I'd
like to congratulate Natalie Worthy in
[1:26:44] her appearance at Miss America.
Um, she represented our state well. She
[1:26:50] represented our county well, and she
represented Battleground well. Um, I
[1:26:55] would also like to note her director,
Sherry, uh, is fantastic at helping
[1:27:00] young women succeed in this program.
Sherry's, uh, legacy is pretty robust
[1:27:05] when it comes to Clark County and
specifically Battleground. Again, I
[1:27:09] would know. Uh, so I just want to
congratulate Natalie and Sherry on their
[1:27:14] appearance this last weekend.
Very good.
[1:27:21] Not seeing any additional
communications. I will just throw one
[1:27:25] out there. Uh it's a little preliminary,
maybe a a cart before the horse, but
[1:27:32] congrats to Battleground PD uh for 100%
compliance with the A or WPC's
[1:27:40] reacreditation process. I know they're
still not quite through the gates yet,
[1:27:44] but uh 100% compliance after they went
through all of our process, procedures,
[1:27:51] interviewed our officers. Um and I'm
pretty sure they're thorough and uh just
[1:27:57] congratulations to the entire PD and
everything they're doing down there. Job
[1:28:01] well done.
[1:28:05] All right.
Now I will announce that pursuant to
[1:28:10] RCW42.30.1101B,
[1:28:16] the city council will enter an executive
session to consider the selection of a
[1:28:20] site or the acquisition of real estate
by lease or purchase when public
[1:28:25] knowledge regarding such consideration
would cause a likelihood of price
[1:28:29] increase.
The session will last 10 minutes
[1:28:33] commencing at 8:20
[1:28:38] to end at 8:30
with no action to follow. After the
[1:28:44] executive session, we'll call the
regular meeting back to order.
[1:41:36] Thanks, sir. Hut.
>> Thank you, clerk.
[1:41:40] Uh, the next regular city council
meeting will be held on Monday,
[1:41:44] September 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m. No study
session is currently scheduled.
[1:41:53] » And I would like to adjourn at 8:30.
>> Uh, Mayor Overholder, I believe. No, we
[1:41:58] already did both.
>> Oh,
[1:42:01] » yeah.
>> We asked Hillary. She said it was okay
[1:42:03] to do it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[1:42:05] » Thank you.
>> And we're adjourned.