[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.

09-08-2026 Battle Ground City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript