City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, it is 6:00 pm. Go ahead and get the uh Battleground City Council study session underway. Uh I believe we have Mark Ersig presenting. Is that correct? Or is that Oh, Chief Lynn presenting. Take it away, Chief. All righty. for each of the uh for the mayor and deputy mayor and city council. Uh also on your uh podium, we left you the municipal codes for all the surrounding areas um that pertain to the same subject. So I want to make sure that you also had that in case you want to refer to it, but we'll try to capture everything here on the PowerPoint. So uh the first slide is There we go. First side is our current language. And without boring you, basically this language has been in effect for uh about 25 years. I think it's had one small um update to it. But basically what the code language says is if you are going to drive a have a uh trailer, RV, boat that it is to behind the front of your your house. Uh no driveway parking, no uh on street parking, no parking in the uh grass areas, etc. In springtime, uh we were asked uh to uh begin looking at this. In July, the CSOS, I'm sorry, the uh code enforcement came under the um responsibility of the police department. And that's where all this starts to uh come into effect.

the code enforcement. Just so you know, as we go forward, since code enforcement and parking are now together, we retitled them to community service officer. So, or CSO and as you'll see on the screen there, this is their job. Um the role of the code is to to be able to provide uh some consistency of what it is that we have. And then in the second bullet point you see the community considerations. Hence why we're here tonight. Uh as I had mentioned as we started the code has been in effect since 1995 with one small uh ad in uh 2004. The way that the enforcement for this is done is typically only uh it's complaint based. Uh I I say typically because there are some small occasions that um one of the csos might see something that's extremely egregious. Typically even when they stop uh to look at it, a neighbor will come out and say they don't want to put their name down but ask us to do something. So I would even say on those we could still say it is still complaint based. This is two examples uh that I asked them to do. Uh they drove around and I said, "What would you consider to be egregious and please send me some photos?" So these are photos that the csos took. uh as you'll see it says on the bottom of the uh far right one that it says uh approximately 50 to 70 of the complaints that we have received involved multiple units. When we say multiple, that was more than one, just

trailer or RV, as you'll see on the right there, uh on the right hand photo. On uh on the left side of the right hand photo is a pontoon boat, uh then a trailer, and then a uh travel trailer on the far right. So, the way the code is written, that would be against uh the code. Same thing with the photo on the left, you have multiple units. the way the code is written that is against the code. Uh for the police department, I'll just say publicly. It really doesn't matter to us. Uh it's whatever the ordinance says and if we receive a complaint, then we'll go out and answer the complaint. But to have an opinion either way, it it's just like uh the the speed limits, whatever you said or Matt, that's what we'll go out and enforce.

Can I ask a ask a real quick question on this slide? Yes, ma'am. I'm seeing on the right photo it says approximately 50 to 70 complaints. Yes, ma'am. So, this is definitely more than the one that I was understanding that somebody there was only one on all these, but this so both of them have received multiple plates over complaints over. No, I don't think that's 50 to 70 on that. No, that's not correct, ma'am. It's the way the that slide was written. Um, there's 50 to 70 of the total complaints that we have involve multiple units. It wasn't just one unit. Okay.

Uh however, uh and I'll I'll provide more here in just a minute of how many involve just one. And when I say one, it's uh considered just a unit. That could be a trailer, that could be an RV, that could be a boat. Uh that would be against the way the code is written right now. Did I explain that? Yeah. No, I understood. I guess I just want um if you have any clarity, maybe you put it on later. So, do you know if these specific types that have more than one unit on the uh the the property if they receive multiple complaints over u a range whether that be if you'll let me get to I think I have a slide. Okay. Uh and if it doesn't I will be more than happy to readress that.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes ma'am. So I believed one of the things is to just kind of give you an idea of what it would look like. This is one where uh two different homes where we received a complaint and I said, "Well, what does it look like after you address this?" The photo of this the screen that you'll see uh I'm sorry, the slide that you see in front of you, this is now that the RVs have been parked behind what would be considered the front of the house. So that would show this is what it looks like if the uh residence is in compliance. Typically when a complaint is received uh as soon as that case comes in uh it's entered into our system uh we generate a notice to the uh resident telling them that we received a complaint. uh that is then followed up on by the community service officer. They'll go out and look at the property and they'll look and see if uh there's a violation of the code. If there's a violation of the code, they'll write a written uh warning notice and and letting the resident know that they have 30 days to come in compliance. After that, uh, we go back out and make another, uh, review of that to see if it's been done. Ultimately, from where I stand, uh, our job is to just try to get compliance. It's not about trying to generate fees or anything like that. It's to handle the complaint. There are, as you'll see on the far right, uh there are things that we can do, including uh assessing daily fines. Uh the residents can have be subject to

abatement. These are all very very extreme, but uh certainly the code allows for that. And now here we are to talk about uh what that code should look like. So to answer uh council member uh your most of what you said uh out of the 4527 uh violations that were noted uh 359 of them had multiple issues. So that typically was a boat and an RV or a trailer and a boat. Uh so we know that most of them uh had multiple issues. I asked him, can you break that down more? What does that look like? U so out of all of the ones out of the 427 of them, uh 326 of them, the sole complaint for the violation was that it was parked in a driveway. And so the way the code is written right now, that would make it against the code, that would account for 76% of the 427 that we have. That left the other 101 uh being not dressed in a driveway. Those were typically the ones that are parked in the yards. Uh depending on who you listen to, many of the uh people who would complain felt those were the more egregious ones. uh that they were parked in yards, not on a uh imperous surface and certainly uh if it was just by itself. Then what we did um to answer uh those we looked at the top ones that uh were

either on typically on impervious surf uh non-imperous surfaces or had multiple units uh and they sent out warnings to 127 of that first group of that and that was done in uh Q4 last year. that would have probably been done around November, December. Out of the 127, 65 people came in compliance. And what that means was uh the code uh the community service officer went back out, said, "Yep, the violation no longer exists, and they uh took that off their list." 48 of those had not been done yet, just uh bandwidth. We just had not got out and uh and followed back up on those. 14 uh they considered to be non-compliant. Uh non-compliant just means that they had not moved it uh to make it allowable under the code. So of those 14 uh they received a uh fine. I believe to this date only one paid and since that uh since the moratorum that was issued on uh here at council, we refunded that money and everything has uh been put on hold until this um council decides if they want to make some amendments. trying to give you uh that this text all in that uh on that screen. Basically, that screen provides you uh what this handout does. As you'll see, uh it's almost 50/50 of surrounding cities that will allow a RV, trailer, boat, what have you to be parked in the front. And

when it says front, some of it says, some of the cities say it can only be on a driveway. Some of the cities will say that uh it depends on the topog topography, if I'm saying that right. Um or that the side of their house physically does not allow them to have a vehicle uh parked over there. So, we tried to give you a snapshot of everybody else and what it is that they're doing so that you can come up with a determination of what if you see any changes that you'd like to make, what some of the other cities are currently doing. Then you have some options. Uh these are uh areas that we pulled out of the surrounding cities. So to just kind of give you a reader digest uh some of the cities have uh if you wanted to uh look at options uh one obviously just leave it as is that is an option. Another option is uh and I believe it's the Wugal and I'm sorry the uh Camas and uh one of the others it might be Wugal their option is if the side of your house uh because of topography or because of the way it sits that it is not available for you to be able to move a vehicle there. We will allow one vehicle to be parked out front. So that is a second option. A third option would be that you allow driveway parking. Um most of the cities uh majority of the cities, let me rephrase that, allow for one to be parked uh in a driveway, but there are specifications when they talk about a driveway. uh if you don't one of the things that uh I have been educated on is if we don't at least spell out what a

driveway is, it will leave it to interpretation and people can make up their minds of what a driveway is and what a driveway is not. Uh and then lastly, uh the your pretty much your only other option is that you allow any type of front parking. And when I say front, I'm talking about anything other than the street because we already have ordinances that about street and that's really up to you. Uh there's some that force them to have screening uh screens around them so you can't see them. Uh there's some that require inspections. Uh so it's truly how how deep do you want city involvement to be? And that is it. Uh, I like I said, I wanted to have let you have that handout for a reference. Uh, but this truly comes down to whatever your appetite is of what you would like to see. So, if there's any questions, I'm happy to entertain that. And certainly my colleagues here that are um well-versed at this can all jump in and help on things that I'm not quite as clear on. So let's go back to the slide that shows the different cities

that one sir. Yes sir. Thank you. So so the center in Long View uh restricted on both sides of the the fence if you will no pun intended. Is there Chris maybe you can speak to this? Any kind of information on complaints in that city during your time there and how it was dealt with? I wouldn't be able to quantify that uh regarding this issue of parking RVs and trailers, but their code doesn't allow for it at all. Okay. I think most of our complaints, honestly, if I had to, it was uh regarding garbage. Garbage.

Yeah. Because they have alleyways that are shared tubs and so the majority was that.

I got another one, but I'll wait. round table here. Uh chief one number that I didn't see in there out of the I think it was 427 complaints and violations I believe total uh yeah how many of them and and you might not have this information at hand and that's okay too but how many of how many of those residences received multiple complaints on one residence? Do you know that answer? that I do not have and uh Miss Ferrer had asked that and I I failed to address that. I don't have that. I can get that uh because as the complaint comes in a case number is assigned to it so that if nothing else I have a tracking that I can say uh what are we doing with these? So there are certainly a quantifiable number that has had multiple people that have called in. And the reason I know that for certain is from meeting with the community service officers who have said even while out there I had several people come up or um on this particular one only one person complained. So there it I would say the vast majority are single person complaints. The vast majority. Yeah, I would be interested in knowing which those which ones were had multiple complaints about them by filed multiple times.

I can get that information and report back. Thank you, sir. Yes.

I just wanted to say thank you. I appreciate all the information that was presented. I appreciate the preparation of this package um and I appreciate yeah all of the facts um and percentages that were shared. I think it's very very helpful when making a decision like this to have as much data as we can possibly have. So I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated you putting this all together for us. Thank you. But I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that the people all sitting at this table all weighed in on it. So they all get a tip of the hat.

Great. Well, thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll echo that. Thank you all um for putting all this together. My only thought or concern is this is a lot to go over and chew and digest tonight and this is supposed to be a business item at the end of the evening and um yeah that's my only concern. So, so we have some other ordinances that, you know, people have talked about throughout the years that seem to go unnoticed as far as the beautifification of a house. So, a couple of them I'll bring up are noxious weeds, um, sidewalks that are damaged due to tree roots from the trees that were required to be planted by the city, um, things of that nature. What kind of complaint system? What kind of numbers are we seeing on that? Do you have any kind of rough ballpark on that?

I do.

Um I took over the uh like I said July uh so I've had them for 5 months, 6 months and there was a change in the system and I also it's important to note at that time there was only one person that was handling uh all of code enforcement. So when that one person came over said okay let's sit down and let's talk about where we're at. when that person came over, they had 237 cases. Um, it's almost impossible for one person to manage that. The decision that I made, right, wrong, or indifferent, was uh took the priority off of parking and had them start addressing these this uh backload. That backlo uh Council Member Mson was Yes. All of what you talked about. It it it runs the entire gamut.

I'm happy to report that as of um a week ago, we have that down to 80 uh of cases that we have and are still prioritizing those. But some of these cases uh are already in the legal system and require judicial actions uh to move forward. So some of those are going to move very very slowly. Um I have already put together um some of the what you could see as the improvements of what they've done. Uh I would say again the vast number of those 237 that we've resolved uh was through uh compliance. Uh I'm a big believer in, you know, we go out and make sure they understand and then uh work with them before any fines have to be assessed. Uh we have some that we've had to assess some fines and we do have a few uh that I have already logged that uh they are not uh they have not, let me phrase that, they have not done anything to help. uh those are the ones that the process now that we do have something that uh Kristen was able to get into place that gives us an additional mechanism uh to try to get additional compliance. So I guess my that was my long answer of saying we have a whole bunch and uh some of the homes are in were in such disarray as some of the photos that that we've taken of them will will document.

Right. Thanks Chief. Yes, sir.

I would say into response to your question, Council Member Mson, there were stats that were ran um by code case count for by violation type for 2024 and 25, but 25 was only like the first six months because we switched systems. went from a system called 311, but we do have those stats. By and large, if you look at the weekly update that we send out, animal uh complaints are number one by and large. And I'd say the parking when it comes to private property runs in there about third or four, but we're happy to send that information along if you'd like to have it.

Go ahead, Council Member. Um, couple clarifications. Uh, if something's sticking into the sidewalk, that's nothing we can regulate cuz that would be an ADA violation. Is that correct? My understanding that's absolutely correct.

Um, my other question um would be for parking on uh non-improved surfaces. Is there a department of ecology issue with that of us allowing that? there is a issue that that goes beyond my expertise and when I have those I am happy to punt them because I don't want to get that part wrong. I just don't under I'm don't I don't understand it as much and I have people that I work with that are much much brighter and can point me in the right direction. Yeah, I believe it would be but we can clarify that.

Yeah, I was just going to ask that. Do we already have an ordinance that talks about um I know it's not specifically underneath trailers and boats, but parking should be on either paved or rocks or Yeah, I believe so. Yes, go with it. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you.

I'm just trying to set some expectations for what we can and cannot do. Um that's all I had. Um I I would make the recommendation. I think we have a lot of people here uh that maybe want to talk about this and if council's done with questions maybe we open it up to comments because uh I'm afraid that uh if we do this in the main meeting we may run into a time crunch. So just a suggestion mayor procedural wise can we open it up to public comment during a study session? Yes Mr. Mayor you can do so. Okay. Um, yeah. How do you feel about that,

Brian? Amy? Yeah, we good. All right. Okay, I'm going to go through these. Here we go. Here we go. Looks like we have two public comment requests currently about RBN boat storage and uh RB code. Um let's go ahead and get uh is that Sharon Murphy? Sharon Murl, you'd like Murf, come on up.

Oh, real quick. Let me go ahead. No, you come on up. You're good there. But I just want to state these things as public comment. Um because I am opening this up to say citizen communications. We'll go ahead and limit that to three minutes. Um to to provide public comment. Total time for the public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes and we don't want to do that anyways. Um we'll be into our meeting. This is an opportunity to hear from the members of the public in a limited public forum. Not an opportunity for extended comments or dialogue. Please refrain from derogatory remarks, personal attacks, campaign speeches, and applause. Although the city council desires to allow public comment, the city's business must proceed in an orderly, timely manner. If your comments pertain um well, I'll skip that one. Your comment should pertain to the RV parking enforcement code as it as that's what we're uh in a study session for. All comments should be directed to the mayor. Um, the council may not be able to respond to individual comments and may refer citizens to staff member for assistance. Um, there are city manager business cards at the podium. Please feel free to take one. If you would like to contact her with any questions. If you have any handouts, please hand them to the city clerk directly to the right of the podium. Understanding of participating in the council meeting this evening. And without any further ado, go ahead, ma'am. Mayor Over is it overhauzer?

Overhoser. Yeah. Nice. You do pretty well.

And thank you Chief Flynn, all of you and city council for being here. I am grateful that you're taking the time to hear us and address these laws. Mine is a little bit different, but I want to tell you a little bit because while we're doing the code, I'd like this added to the code. Um I know you all love Battleground as much as me. I want to share a little bit about my h this is my husband Paul. Um we raised our four kids here. Um, I lived here most of my adult life. My parents lived in Battleground. His parents lived in Battleground. Um, my children went to school here. My grandchildren live here. Um, two of my adult children actually have careers in Battleground. We have a business here. So, we love Battleground. And so, I know we all want to make it beautiful and safe and that is part of my reason for coming here. I love Battleground. I really do. And, um, my brother is the reason why we're really here. um since December with all these complaints coming. We were also one of the violations. Um he served his country as a veteran. He actually moved to Battleground, settled and worked for the Battleground post office. So you see where I'm going. We love Battleground. Um but due to a tragic brain tumor last year he um was uh left with no sight and um he was forced to quit his job at the post office and he lives in our well he did live in an RV on our property one acre behind not only my house my shop. So my house my shop his RV due to all this stuff going on um we had to move him out and his house's kind of gone back. We're trying to rearrange things to get him into our house. But when I'm here tonight, sorry, I'm getting a little emotional. Um, I should just look at my notes. We had no idea that that was a violation. We set it up for safety. We got us our septic 30 amp. Everything was perfect. Um, so as soon as I got the violation, we moved them out. But what I'm here

tonight is to look at the code. Um, I've been on the phone non-stop with the VA, with lawyers, and everybody's pretty much on our side. but it takes a lot of time. So, I'm here tonight as you're addressing the code for parking if you can also look at the code. Um, there is a law that says you can host a veteran on your property if all safety standards in your house are met. And the safety standards are it's an acre or more and it has the the full hookups and everything, which we do. And so, I was very happy when um somebody told me about that law. So, I hope you guys look at that as far as changing the code. I have 29 seconds. Oh my gosh, my house fits all that. Also, um other major cities are changing um their laws to classify RVs as tiny homes um to solve the housing crisis. Maybe we can look at that as a code. Um I'm so nervous now that there's 13 seconds. Anyway, just if we could look at the code as you're looking for the the parking and RVs in front is to also allow some temporary housing for disabled vets or blah blah blah. My time's up. Sorry. We are just to mention we have been in compliance. We've since moved him out back into his parents house and been in compliance this whole time. But I've been concerned about the ongoing there's going to be fine. Thank you. Right.

Sorry I wasn't on mic. Uh Jim Drehor Dryhorse Dry come on up. Been butchered for multiple generations.

First of all, once again, thank you council members. I know a few of you aren't here tonight and Chief, that was that was exceptional. Really in-depth. It gave me a lot better understanding in your presentation and where this has come from. And uh I appreciate your investment. All of you guys, I'm sure you it sounded like all of you guys were invested into this and it makes me feel good as a citizen to know that we're doing this together. Um, Mrs. Farrier, um, I believe from what you were saying, this is a lot to digest and I agree. Um, I was kind of hopeful that we were maybe going to get an idea on where this was going to go tonight. And from what I get, it's probably going to take a little bit more time to get this ironed out. I agree with that. Let's get this right. Um, I complied. My trailer is in storage. It's costing me money to have it in storage, but I'm willing to take that and put my own personal money out to stay in compliance while you guys get this right. This is important. Um the the vagrancy issue and the uh what would you say? The the issue of having multiples. I want to make sure that we're not stepping on any toes, but I also want to make sure that we're not going over and above and creating not as many boundaries as we would need um to keep us a nice place to live and not a a shanty house in in per se. So anyways, that's what I wanted to say. I wanted to say thank you. Good job, Chief. I appreciate it. And uh I look forward to see what happens.

Thank you.

All right. And I don't think I have any other additional public comment that pertains to the RV code enforcement or parking. Is there anyone else? Come on. A little slow. And uh just please state your name and

I'm Alex Rhynold, 21109 Southwest Fifth Street. Lovely battleground. Um, couple of things I didn't hear that you didn't well and you maybe you covered them earlier, but for people who are using an RV as a way to get around the accessory dwelling unit ordinance or they're running an Airbnb out of it. I assume that doesn't come under the parking thing. That's a different kind of enforcement. Correct. Okay. So, otherwise, as somebody just Joe Schmo who lives in the neighborhood, I do own an RV. It's parked off site. But, you know, if you're going to park something in your driveway, I don't have a problem, you know, with like one thing as long as you're not blocking anything and all that kind of stuff. And, uh, the only thing I don't see is typically when I take my RV to go somewhere, I'll bring it to my house a day or two beforehand, park it in the driveway so I can load all my stuff in after work, take my trip, come back, and a day or two after to unload, put stuff away. So, I would hope somewhere in there would be a little lenience for, you know, a few days here and there. So you can load and unload before you know the hammer comes down on you. And I also have one of those houses that was approved by the city that cannot park an RV. I would literally have to dig the whole house up and move it five feet one way or the other. And that's an impossible cost for an RV. So maybe something for homes that are approved that don't fit the ordinance that can't put anything in the back would would be also helpful for some folks. Just another suggestion there.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. And just for clarification, we do have some allowances for loading up shortened period of time for load and unload. Correct. Okay. Any additional comments from the dis? All right. Hearing none, I will uh go ahead and close this study session. and we will reconvene at 7 p.m. for the regular scheduled meeting. Thank you.

All right. I call this uh meeting of the Battleground City Council to order. The time is 700 p.m. on February 2nd. If you can please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, we'll uh go take go ahead and take roll call, please. Mayor Overberholzer present. Deputy Mayor Vale present. Council member McCoy mostly here. Council member Ferrer present. Council member Mson here. And the clerk received notice that council members Bowman and Kypers would not be present this evening. So I'll make a motion to excuse council member Kypers and Bowman from the meeting. Second. All right. A motion by Council Member Ferrer, second by Deputy Mayor Bale. Uh, all those in favor? I

All opposed. All right. Passes unanimously. All right. Moving on to the agenda. Does any council member wish to amend the agenda this evening? I'll motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. Second. All right. Motion approved by council member Fer, second by council member Mson. All those in favor? I I. Any oppose? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously.

All right, moving on to summary reports. Are there any council member reports this evening? All right. Hearing none. We'll go ahead and move on to the mayor's reports. Um, we have a few presentations here. Uh, want to introduce, uh, Paige Strickler, partner at CFM Advocates, uh, with our federal legislative agenda. Hey, Paige. Good evening. My name is Paige Strickler. I'm a partner at CFM Advocates and I'm here today to provide you an update of what is going on in Washington DC and then go over your draft uh 2026 federal agenda for you to adopt uh later tonight. Okay, Robert. Oh, there. Okay,

we're good.

So, this is what I'll be talking about tonight. So, um there we go. CFM, uh we are your federal advocates, which means we write federal grants for you. Most recently, I wrote one with your chief of police for radios. Uh we um identify projects to get uh congressionally directed spending requests in. We travel to Washington DC with you. We attend uh meetings on the hill and we also work with the local congressional delegation staff here in Battleground to highlight uh the city's important issues. We also work on legislation such as a transportation reauthorization bill that's coming up this year. And um we help you position uh so your projects are in the best um possible uh front to to get federal funding. So in 2025 we were able to secure an earmark for you. Unfortunately, it was the year that Congress was a little bit dysfunctional and it ended up uh just doing a continuing resolution, which means it just kept funding levels at kind of the status quo and didn't increase and didn't allow any of these congressionally directed spending. So, unfortunately, we're unable to uh secure that funding, but it also show this slide shows you uh other funding in past years. So, probably the most important slide. Um, meeting with the mayor and a couple of your council members and the city manager, we have um come up with a list of projects to put forward. Uh, congressionally directed spending request portals from the members of Congress usually open in the late February to mid-Marchch time frame. So, there is time. Uh but this is what we have learned that is of most importance

to you. The first being Eaton Boulevard to start reconstruction of that um for your police department uh asking for money for radios both mobile and portal as well as dash cams. And then now that the planning work is complete for your downtown revitalization, we'll be going after construction funding for that. And then the last one is your uh water wastewater transmission line. And I understand from your city manager that the alternatives analysis isn't quite complete. So we're going to have to play that one by ear a little bit if there is one chosen before the portal's open. We can go ahead and submit for that. If not, we'll put it on a future projects list. So we'll we'll talk about it. We'll still make them aware of why it's important. Um but we'll we'll talk about it for next year's funding. Uh this is probably one of the biggest um reauthorization legislation that will impact battleground because of your transportation projects. The reauthorization uh transportation bill uh is coming forward. It was supposed to be started in December. Um but as you may have read in the paper, there's been a little bit of dysfunction in the federal government. And so now it's looking like it'll be in the next month or two when the Senate will start to work on that. And this is the um bill that helps fund uh uh grants for like the build project safe streets for all stuff that directly impacts battleground and it and it allows you to go after different pots of federal funding. Um, so I don't know uh if you all know, but there was a special election held in Texas and it's uh reduce the margin uh in the House of Representatives by even more. And so Speaker Johnson has a very

slim margin to get anything passed, which is making it uh that much more difficult to um fund the current appropriation bills. And so what we want is uh last year's uh congressionally directed spending requests are kind of all in the pipeline and there's still several bills including the transportation one and I mentioned this because it's the one that we really want it to to pass. So there's kind of the pipeline is cleared out and so your eaten project can kind of go to the top of the list. Um, and I was checking my phone before I came up here and and uh the rules committee in the House still hasn't figured out how to to kind of put this uh forward final passage. So, I will work with Chris and let her know what's going on, but we're hopeful that last year's request will pass this week, which means there's a lot more opportunity to uh have new projects in the pipeline, which so that really impacts Battleground. And with that, I'll answer any questions you have. I guess I'll just ask one. Um, is I was looking into the um STR and is it do they have what's the end date? Is that is that September or when is that finalized? When does it have to what's the due date to finish that?

The surface transportation rehabilitation. Yeah. Um the ratherization bill. Yes. It's it in theory it's supposed to be done by the fiscal year, end of fiscal year, which is September. Congress likes to kind of nudge on that a little bit, but we are very hopeful that it'll be done by the end of this year.

Go ahead. Paige, is that uh the safe streets for all that transportation package that's waiting for because I know RTC applied for that um 8 million with us and with the other cities and we didn't get it. Um and the the report we got back was that most of it went to smaller asks that were mostly design. Um are we going to be in a better position being at the construction phase?

That is my understanding. Yes. And so this reauthorization bill will allow the ability to apply for those kind of grants again. And now that some of the planning grants have been completed, then more constructed grants should be more more uh likable, for lack of a better word to the federal government. All right, hearing no other questions. Paige, thank you for everything you're doing for us and and uh bringing our agendas back to Washington. We really do appreciate your thoroughess and professionalism. So, thank you. Look forward to meeting with you soon. Thank you.

All right. Up next, we have the uh street preservation program. Uh public works director Mark Hersik. Take it away. Good evening, council. Give me a second. I'll pull up my presentation. All right. So, tonight we're going to talk about the street preservation program for this year. Um, what I'm going to talk about is our street ratings, uh, which essentially talks about the roads conditions, how our project selected, uh, just a summary of the work we did in 2025, uh, what we're proposing for 2026, how we'll procure it, and then leave some time for questions. Um, just for a new council, typically I don't do the first two bullet points, but since we have new council members, I'll kind of go over that uh, just so you can understand how the process works. Uh so for our street ratings, so we rerate the streets every three years. Uh 2023 was the last time we did it, so that means we'll do it again this year. Um as of 2022, the city had about 88 miles of centerline miles of streets. Uh seven was arterials, about 17 in collectors, and then 63 miles of local streets. Overall, the city's PCI, and what PCI is, it's a visual way to rate the roads to tell you what their condition is. Uh so we were at a 72 which is in the low um low range of good. Um you can see the chart over on the right that kind of tell you where all the roads sat. Um as part of that plan, we come up with different funding scenarios just to see how much things would cost. Um there's kind of four typical scenarios that are run. There's what's called an unconstrained needs and that looks at if you had all the money in the world and you could spend it all on streets. What

that would look like. Um if we were able to do that, it would cost us 22 million over 5 years and that would raise our uh PCI by 11 points to an 83. Um the next one they look at is current funding. So that number was of uh 2023. Uh we'd have to do 1.2 million a year. Um, and at the end of the five years, we'd raise our PCI by a point. Um, but at that point, we would have about 16 million in deferred maintenance. Um, another option is increasing the PCI by five. That would have cost us 2 million a year. Um, that obviously would raise the PCI by five. And at the end of that, you'd have about 12 and a half in deferred maintenance. Um, and then the other is the do nothing option. Um, our PCI would have gone down eight points. we would had 20 million in deferred maintenance. Um, currently based on where we're at, we're about 11.3 in deferred maintenance. Um, our 2026 budget is about $9 million. Um, and then just something I always point out is the model is looking purely at roads. So, um, a lot of our treatments we have to replace the ADA ramps and that cost is not included in these numbers. Our project selected. Uh so first we look at the cost of different treatments. So on the low end you do crack sealing. On the high end you have to do full reconstruction. So we try to get into streets while they're still good. Do the lower end cost projects. Make sure those roads don't fall apart. And then as you get those preserved, you can move on to the bad roads and and fix them which cost way more. Um so everything gets put into a model. That model spits out a recommended treatment based on the budget and condition to maximize the PCI. Like I said, the strategy is to maintain the good roads and tackle bad roads after. Um staff uses that model as a base, but uh we max try to maximize

the budget. So we'll kind of pick and choose and then we field truth the model just to make sure everything's still uh the way it's calling it. So in 2025 um we did work in the southwest area of the city. Uh we essentially did a cape seal in Winchester Ranch and a portion of Horse Thief Canyon and then we did a slurry seal in the rest of Horse Thief Canyon. Uh as part of that we replaced approximately 50 ADA ramps. Uh so with all of that that was a little over a million dollars. Uh for 2026 uh first step is we're proposing the reconstruction projects that we've talked about. Uh so that would be northwest 20th from Onsorf to Maine, Southwest 20th from 6th to Scotton, uh Northeast Grace from 10th to Maine, and then Scotenway from 503 to Parkway. Um there's approximately 55 ramps that will get replaced as part of that, and the total reestimate is $8 million. Uh next up is Milanfill. Uh so selected five projects for that. Um so the portion of 20th that's getting reconstructed we're going to do on both sides of that. So main from main to sixth street and then Scott and way to eaten. So when all of the projects are done that full stretch will be completed. Uh we're proposing to do Eaton from the west city limits to approximately 20th Avenue. Will be a little bit short of that. Um part of that will get improved with the eaten project. So, we don't want to, you know, waste money and and replace something that's going to get replaced. Uh, just to be aware, there is a gap in that section that is not under the city's jurisdiction. So, uh, we'll talk to the county to see if they want to do that stretch while we're doing ours, but um, that part's not under our control. Uh, next up is First Way, uh, from 20th Avenue to 18th. That's the

road kind of over by Goodwill. Um, and then, uh, Salmon Creek Bridge on Grace. the um structure is concrete, but the top is asphalt and that's falling apart. So, uh we'll be mill filling that to take care of that. There's about eight ramps in that section and uh our estimates about 800 grand for that work. Uh so, summary of 2026, we have the two that I talked about and then there's 75,000 for crack sealing, 75,000 for replacing u markings and then the longline striping that we do with the county. So all in told just under $9 million for the year. Uh for procurement, uh we have interlocal contracts. So we hire Clark County to do the striping. So they'll do that again this year. Uh we look for shared and piggyback contracts. And in this case, um looks like there may be a crack seal contract out there. So if we can, we'll piggy back off of that one. And then uh for city procured, uh we'll do the reconstruction project. Uh we're going to look at bidding all of the four roads together but do them as a separate schedule so individual companies can get different sections. And my concern with pooling all thing together is if you you know an $8 million project knocks a bunch of companies out because they can't do it. But couple of the smaller roads you might be able to get a good contractor that can do it for cheaper. So trying to maximize the savings for that. And then the Milanfill uh will be included in the reconstruction bid in the proper location. So out on 20th where we're doing Millenfill, we'll include it with the 20th Avenue bid because of you know being in the same spot. So try to save money that way. Any questions?

I just have one question. Yeah. Um, actually, first, go ahead, Victoria. Why don't you take that first? You sure? Okay. I was just going to thank you for putting that presentation together. This is the first time I actually enjoyed the presentation. To be honest with you, when you're new on council, this stuff can be overwhelming, and I actually got all of that. So, thank you. You're welcome. Uh just for fun, Mark, what is the going rate for one ADA ramp? So last year's contract we replaced 50 and the overall contract was about 490,000. So we're about 10 a pop. 10,000 per ramp.

Yeah. And that includes all the there's traffic control and various things that go into it. But that's the number I've been using for our estimate based on that cost from last year. Well, hearing no other questions, Mark, thank you. Yeah, I really appreciate you putting that together and um you really help give guidance on how uh we should expect our roads to be maintained and how to stay on top of it and why we stay on top of the little ones before they become big ones. So, I appreciate that very much. Uh, Council Member McCord,

uh, Mark on the PCI, that's just a rating of every road. Do we ever uh put like for the average citizen, you travel more on arterials. So therefore, that that's why this council last year put that money in towards those arterials. We're probably not going to see that reflected in the PCI, but I think our citizens will potentially see the roads they travel more be better. So, is there any mechanism or any uh criteria metric uh that shows like propensity of travel? Yeah. So, the there's a little bit of that not not anywhere fully, but there's a little bit of that just because it looks at square footage of a road. So typically your higher traffic roads are going to have a little more square footage. So they count a little bit more towards that PCI. So you'll see it there. But um I think maybe you could look at the PCI but limit it to those type of streets and see where we went from, you know, if you're just looking purely at arterials. Where did we jump from arterial versus the whole city average the arterial average to that? I think that gives you a better read. But yeah, based on its an overall model, it doesn't people are going to fill it because it's going to affect everyone by fixing these roads. And you know, while it's important to do a subdivision, only the people that live there notice it. So this

right um I I would be very interested in that number of the PCI of arterials, all of them before this investment and after and maybe track that going forward. um just as a as a metric because for those of us that live off of 20th and haven't had any fillings replaced, it was it'll it'll be a a welcome addition. So, thank you for all your work on that. Yeah.

All right. All right. We're going to move on to the uh citizens communication portion of the meeting and I will open the meeting up for citizen communication. Individuals are limited to three minutes to provide comments. The total time for the public comments. I'm going to allow an extended over the 30 minutes based on the number that we have here. Um, but I will also say that if you don't plan on taking all three minutes, love it. Go ahead and keep it uh short if you can. Um, this is an opportunity to hear from members of the public in a limited public forum, not an opportunity for extended comments or dialogue. Please refrain from derogatory remarks, personal attacks, campaign speeches, and applause. Although the city council desires to allow public comment, the city's business must proceed in an orderly, timely manner. If your comments pertain to an item listed on the agenda as a public hearing, please reserve your testimony for the designated public hearing period. All comments should be directed to the mayor. The council shall not be able to respond to an individual comment and may refer citizens to a staff member for assistance. The city manager has placed her cards at the podium. Please feel free to take one if you would like to contact her with any questions. If you have any handouts, please hand them to the city clerk directly to the right of the podium. That's Liz over there. And thank you for understanding and participating in the council meeting this evening. Um Liz, do we have any uh members on Zoom that would like to provide public comment?

No, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Thank you. All right. First up, we have uh Jessica Cole. Hello council. My name is Jessica Cole. I wanted to address something that concerned me at the last council meeting and that's how the staff were treated. During the meeting, staff were publicly challenged on issues that should have been discussed privately and in advance, including questions directed to the finance director, the city clerk, and legal counsel without adequate time to respond. In each case, staff responded with professionalism and care. Unfortunately, that same professionalism was not shown to them. City staff implement the decisions this council of this council. They ensure legal compliance and they keep the city functioning. When concerns arise, they deserve to be addressed respectfully and through appropriate channels, not unexpectedly and publicly in ways that undermine their credibility or place them in an impossible position. Battleground has strong, capable staff, and they make this council look good. If staff are routinely subjected to public criticism or surprise accusations and unrealistic demands, we risk losing good employees and that harms the entire community. I urge the council to reflect on its conduct and to model the same professionalism and respect that staff consistently demonstrate. Leadership is not just about authority. It is about how you treat people, including those who do the work. Thank you.

Thank you, Jessica. Uh, next up, uh, Kate Lope. Reverend Kate Lope. Please feel free to correct me when you get up here if I butchered that. That last name is Lore. Kate Lore. Lure. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm here tonight to raise a concern about the lack of due process and transparency that occurred at the last council meeting held on January 20th. Because my time is limited, I will focus on one issue only and that is the decision to reappoint the legislative committee. I will leave my other concerns to others to address. Now, as I understand it, the current term of the legislative committee uh does not expire uh until December 31st. That means that there was nearly a full year remaining still uh on these terms and the decision to re to reappoint and structure the committee was taken in my opinion prematurely. In addition, the optics look bad, as you'll all see when you read the paper tomorrow. There's a couple of articles about th those optics. Whether the council technically has the authority to take such an action midterm is not the heart of my concern. Governance rules can be complex and ambiguous. What is clear and what is essential to public trust is that significant actions like what you did in the last meeting should never occur without prior notice to the public. Agenda setting exists for a reason. It allows residents, stakeholders, and those directly affected to understand what decisions are coming and then to um

pro to provide public comment. If an item of this significance without appears without warning, that opportunity is effectively lost. It is particularly troubling when it appears that some council members were aware of this plan in advance while the public was not, whether intended or not. that creates the appearance of decisions being coordinated outside of public view and that raises concerns about the Open Public Meetings Act, as I'm sure you understand. Just as importantly, it undermines confidence in this governing body's commitment to transparency. Now, council members McCoy and Bowman have built substantial legislative relationships on behalf of the city and they've done a great job. Any changes to the membership before their terms?

That is your time. Excuse me. He's up. Thank you. Thank you. K. All right. Two. Uh, next up is K. Rosco.

Good evening, mayor, uh, council members. I'm speaking to you tonight as someone who's been part of the battleground community for 20 years. the rage raised five kids here who all attended BG schools including CAM Academy and River Home Link. First and foremost, I want to thank everyone sitting on council and all the support staff here tonight for the work that you do for our city. I especially want to acknowledge and thank senior council members McCoy and Bowman for your long and tireless commitment to working for the people of Battleground across party lines and without a political agenda. The people of Battleground have greatly benefited from your tenures on council and the strong relationships you've developed with your constituents over the years. I happened to watch the recording of the most recent city council meeting two weeks ago now and I found myself feeling surprised and confused which turned to shock the more times I reviewed it. We may have more we may have philosophical differences about the wisdom of sumearily removing over a decade of combined experience lobbying an Olympiad between council members McCoy and Bowman. And that's okay to disagree about that and hope together that this action by council isn't going to cost the city valuable relationships and dollars. But what doesn't feel okay is the way that it was done. As councilors McCoy and Bowman both pointed out during the last meeting, important stakeholders, including council members, the city manager, and the general public, were not notified in advance per the agenda or otherwise that this move would be taking place, thus removing all opportunity, public comment, and legal review in advance of voting. This is undemocratic and violates the spirit and potentially the law of the open open public meetings act. I want to draw to attention draw

attention to a few technical points. The council approved a motion to amend the meeting agenda to open up all committee appointments not already assigned for 2026. That was the exact wording of the motion which does not include the legislative committee the appointments of which had already been assigned for the terms of the governance manual. And number two, the governance manual indicates that said legislative committee serves two-year terms while other in-house committee terms are expressly associated with the mayoral term per the governance manual. In addition, the surprise amendment to the agenda to defer ELTAC appointments, also without due notice of relevant notification to relevant stakeholders, created an unnecessary inconvenience and potential embarrassment for those appointees present at the meeting expected to be um approved. As was openly acknowledged by the mayor in the moment, I believe that this council owes those appointees a formal apology. Um, I'm also concerned about the tone and tenor of remarks made towards staff during the meeting that appeared to undermine or call into question their competence and experience which comes across as unprofessional and ungenerous behavior towards civil servants in a very public setting. Looks like I'm out of time. Um, thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next up is Michelle Black. Good evening. Uh thank you for allowing me to uh take the time to address all of you. Uh I too am here to express my disappointment and frustration regarding the council moving forward. with voting in new members of the legislative committee without this being on the agenda or giving the public an opportunity to make comments. It was clear to me that you weren't sure if this vote complied with the rules of the governance manual or required public comment. And you were even given a couple of viable options to either keep the current members on the committee until after the current legislative session or table the topic until this week's uh meeting. but instead you chose to move forward and ratify the vote to create the new committee. It was very apparent to me that some of you, particularly you, uh, Mr. Mayor, seemed really uncomfortable with the decision, yet you chose to do it anyway. As a battleground voter and in a time where people already have a distrust in government, moves like this make voters distrust our elected leaders even more, and that's really a shame. A very simple and more honest choice would have been to move the vote to the next meeting allowing transparency and public commentary. Um I really hope that next time you'll do better because we're in a climate where there's a lot of of division among the parties and I don't really see this as a left or right thing. I see it as public um the public's opportunity to make comments and the fact that you went ahead and you ratified this vote was really really disappointing. So, I hope next time that doesn't happen, but I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Michelle.

All right, next up, Alli Strapazon. My name is Ali Strappon. I live in Battleground City Limits. I am here tonight to express my extreme disappointment in the actions of the majority of this council last meeting causing my abrupt walk out. I was here to support my friend along with two others who were invited by mayor overhauser to receive his appointment to Eltac. Before that could happen, Miss Vale stating she takes her council role very seriously blindsided the appointees with a rash motion to move the appointments from the agenda just moments before they were scheduled to be appointed. She cited a possible past misunderstanding of the RCW regarding who is eligible, insinuating that at least one, if not all three, were ineligible. However, even by Miss Bale's interpretation of the RCW, which was not vetted by legal counsel prior prior to the meeting, all three appointees would have been considered eligible. I believe this action by Miss Bale and supported by all but council members McCoy and Bowman was more than just a waste of everybody's time. It was in disingenuous and certainly did not embody her self-declared purpose of uniting bridge building and relationship building. I expect better from elected uh officials. Please be better. Thank you.

Thank you, Ally. Up next, uh Neil Butler. Come on up, Neil. Um, it's just I guess it's just a public flogging. Um, I I echo all of those sentiments. Um, they were much more polite than I feel. Um, that meeting was reprehensible and inappropriate. It was disgusting the way that the council treated our our city officials. It was inappropriate the way that that meeting was handled. And there may have been inappropriate behavior by Miss Vale, Miss Mson, Miss Barrier, but ultimately, mayor, you are the one who who is in charge of the the STS and that you bear the responsibility for what happened in that meeting. And unfortunately, as as much as they were, you know, the the community was disrespected, the people who were who were initially to be appointed to the Eltech committee were disrespected. um and that our our city employees were disrespected in public that a private apology is not good enough. Um we expect more out of you. We expect you to do what you were elected to do and that's not to disrespect the voters and to treat this like some sort of game. It's not a game. It impacts how we live in our community and impacts what we do. when we expect you to do uh to do the right thing even when it's uncomfortable, even when it feels like you're unsure, there's always time. Nothing is so pressing that you're not able to think through things and the the apparent collusion between other counselors as they sat there and discussed this out of out of the meeting

and the ability to avoid open open meetings is is just upsetting. We expect more out of our council and we expect you to do better uh with that. Thank you. Thank you, Neil. Uh I'm going to apologize ahead of time for this one. Uh Chris Yeder Roza.

Uh good evening, Mayor, members of council. I appreciate I appreciate the opportunity to address you all this evening. I'm here to communicate my concerns regarding a gross lack of transparency related to the January 21st city council meeting, specifically the midterm reappointment of the lodging tax advisory committee. The current ELTAC terms were intended to run through 2026, appointing new committee members halfway through the current term and during an active state legislative session, a short session at that does not serve the city or its citizens which you were elected to represent. Acting on those appointments without including them on the meeting agenda as well as not providing any advanced public notice was unexpected and undermines public confidence in this city council. At the very least, this is about your process. And if I may quote a member of this council, serving in the best interest of the citizens of Battleground as a whole, as well as promises made to represent citizens truly, honestly, with integrity and moral character that will not be compromised. Those words ought to sound familiar, too, as they're also another direct quote by a member of this council. Um, these decisions break every single one of these promises. When significantly highly consequential actions occur without notice, the public loses the ability to follow along with and participate in its own governance. This action is also in direct conflict with battlegrounds own governance manual. Agendas exist in large part to inform your constituency what city council actions are forthcoming. When they don't, transparency suffers, confidence in council suffers, trust suffers. When they're pending motions that literally affect every citizen of Battleground, it should go without saying the council should get the opinions of citizens as opposed to obfuscating and introducing motions in a way that keeps everyone in the dark until it's too late to act. You must be able to see how this is highly suspicious. It is also very concerning when it appears that some council members had advanced awareness of the action while other members of council and the public did not. It certainly appears that the only people not taken by surprise were the council members involved in amending the meeting agenda at the very last minute and bringing these motions before this council. This creates the appearance of decisions being made outside of public awareness and without surveying those most affected by these actions. It also creates creates the appearance of some

council members flouting the Robert's rules of order with intent. Council members Troy McCoy and Shane Bowman have spent considerable time and effort establishing, building, and nurturing important relationships with both state and national legislators. There are no effective substitutes for these types of relationships. Councilors Bowman and McCoy have contributed much meaningful legislative work and changes affecting that work deserve open discussion. I implore the council to recommmit to transparency, honesty, integrity, and moral character. Your words. I ask the council to use the agenda as intended, provide clear and timely public notice, and allow public input before decisions are made. Your process should be reconsidered. City Council is intended to be apolitical during this time of unprecedented divisiveness. I beg this council to act in ways that help this community heal instead of exacerbating the problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, uh Eric Young. You Yeah, that that's got to be you. I might note I'm terrible at reading handwriting by the way.

Uh thanks council for letting me speak again. Uh I'm not here for the public flogging. Uh my uh goal basically is to re assert my uh uh concerns regarding the trailer issues, but we talked about at the the first city council meeting. I was not present for the last one. I'm I'm hoping that basically we get a resolution uh moving forward to basically kind of amendment issue that 400 of us were basically uh caught off guard with so that we can kind of get moving forward and hopefully be able to park our own uh stuff on our own uh property without basically being uh charged about $250 a day. I saw that it was on the list of things to be discussed with. I wasn't sure this is the right point where I'm going to be chat or chatting about it, but I am curious to hear basically what the process is going to be moving forward and what's going to possibly be able to, you know, get remedyed for that situation. I do appreciate the uh uh the stay for the uh penalties and everything that were that were taken into effect because it allows a lot of us to basically try to get some things done instead of basically having to eently either try to basically dispose of property or basically go place or put property on different areas or having to pay for storage. Hopefully this gets squared away so that way you know we can go back to just kind of living our lives having our own stuff on our own land. All right. Thanks.

Thank you, Eric. Uh, next up, John Polos.

Thank you very much for letting me speak, mayor, council, uh, staff and citizens. Um, 55 years out around Washington, not going anywhere. I'm here to help you. I am, um, tonight I'm going to discuss a regional issue that directly affects battlegrounds. Some of you know I I've worked on it. It's the I5 bridge, Columbia River crossing issue. I'm involved in it for one and only one reason. I'm trained to do it. I attended civil engineering school at Oregon State, Portland State University, graduating in the structural engineering branch. I studied under Professor Tom McKenzie, the Frank Lloyd Wright of bridge design. We're all saying, people are going around saying, "Well, how do we tear the AI5 bridge down? What do we replace it with?" blah blah blah. That's the wrong question. The right question is what is the best solution for interstate transportation in the Portland Vancouver corridor? The best answer would be more Nike Intel and Boeing jobs in Clark County so we don't have to use it as much, but we don't have that yet. So, I'm going to be discussing each of the issues and at the end I'll give you my uh engineering reasons for it. By the way, I'm also a registered professional engineer currently in the state of Washington. Um, first II bridge, it's a trust bridge, very strong. There's a debate in engineering whether it's going to last 50 or 100 more years. Don't tear it down. Do not rebuild it. That's my conclusion. Next item, light rail. And there's no engineering thing to support this. Looking at how it will affect me, I I am totally opposed to light rail coming into uh Vancouver. I see no real benefit to me in any way, but that's a personal

decision. Lastly, a lot of talk on a third bridge. A lot of people want to build it, which isn't too far from the 205 bridge. I've my solution. I've already designed the I305 bridge. I'll let the citizens look at it for a minute. It goes from Ridgefield to Scapus in three stages. Third stage ties into Wilsonville. First thing that'll happen is you'll pull all the Nike and Intel people off of the I5 bridge, lightening it up, pulling people off the 205 bridge, lightening it up. Later on, when the other two stages are met to Wilsonville, all the big trucks will be on it. So, the bridge really needs to be Ridgefield to Scapus. And I've laid it out here how we do it. Uh, back to the I5 bridge. There's a lot of different bridge. I'm done. Sorry. Thank you very much for listening to me. I really appreciate it.

Thank you, John. Okay, next up we have uh Mr. David Terry. Hate to return to the blogging, but here we go. I'm David Cherry and I'm a pretty enraged uh resident of Battleground. I'm here to offer the council some very heartfelt congratulations and specific specifically to our members who are currently serving as Republican PCOS for your failure to include my requested levy support resolution in this evening's agenda, thus choosing party politics over our local kids. It's truly a feat of leadership to take a nonpartisan seat on the city council and use it to execute a partisan agenda. Most people think local government is about fixing roads and supporting the community's health, but you've shown us the real priority, the keeping PCO street cred shiny by dumping on our school levy. Thank you so much for being so courageous in your silence. While every other district in Clark County recognizes that strong schools are the backbone of a strong economy, you've decided the battleground should be an island of secondass education. It's a bold marketing strategy for our city battleground. We have the lowest taxes because our kids have the fewest opportunities. I'm sure families that have to deal with the potential of 40 plus student classrooms and the loss of middle school sports are comforted by your ideological purity. It's inspiring to see that you stand firm against a resolution that would have cost the city exactly 0, but would have told our teachers and students that the city has their backs. Instead, you said a clear message to the 13,000 kids in this school district that they're a secondary concern compared to the party line. Well, is illustrated by

the mailer chalk full of misinformation also sent out by the Republican party. You make you made it very clear where your royalties loyalties lie and unfortunately for our families, it isn't with the people of battleground. This is just the latest and most impactful example of what count council member Bowman described in the reflector article today. I'd like to encourage both future and and current battleground voters to really take note of your priorities and considering who's taking care of us residents and who's taking care of their street cred. I want you to do a better job. Thank you very much.

Thank you, David. Uh just for clarification, we received that request yesterday, so we didn't have time to get that in. Uh next up, Win Gersuch. Come on up, Win. My name is Wing Gersuch and I came here because I pay for your property taxes to pay for your schools. And I've been going to the schoolboard meetings and I've heard a lot of stuff that I was appalled. And what amazes me is that because the grades are down, the teachers don't listen to the parents. And it's like parents don't have any rights. And this is this is absolutely outrageous. But one of the big things is is that they want this school bond to go through and most of the people in my neighborhood are not voting for it. And I hope that all of you wake up and not vote for it either because there's other things that they can cut. There was a teacher that that spoke to her third grade class praising that that um Charlie Kirk got killed and the parents went there and they said, you know, fire her. It's been how many months since he died? Since September. She's on full public um she gets full paycheck for the last how many months. When are they going to fire her? It's a process. What kind of process is that? You know, it's it's a waste of money to give them to um tax more tax dollars to spend it any way they want. There's no accountability for it. One of the things too is I showed them in September there was an article in the Epic Times and they were talking about transgender um and violence in the spotlight. There was a huge article, this is only one part of it which I'll put on public

record if you read the rest of it. It's two pages long about most of the school shooters are transgender period. you know, the the people who's trans and cut their body parts off and because of the hormones and all the other things, it makes them go crazy. And one of the things is is that your trans leader here, she's never taken her mask off in 5 years. Is is it a costume or is she afraid that she's going to get bugs from everybody else? I'd like to know. And I honestly think too is that maybe the trans should have their own school. There's plenty of teachers that don't believe in God. There's plenty of If this is a violent thing under diversity, equity, inclusion, and you want to protect the rest of the people in battleground, put them all in one school. They can, you know, color their hair, they can wear their flag every day, whatever they want to do. But the fact is is that we need protection. And if they're going to give them hormones and they're going to continue to take these shots, the shots right now are null and void. Our president signed a bill to um get out of the WHO the Worldwide Health Organization. So these uh COVID shots and stuff are not going to be mandatory. You don't have to take them. It's up to you. And even Melnik said it. It's between you and your doctor. But the doctor isn't going to tell you. They call blood clots. And there's things to get rid of blood clots is about frequencies. And this is something about putting these 5G towers that can make things a lot worse. But also too, you can use frequencies like tuning forks. There's all kinds of things you can do to

All right, that is your time. Thank you.

Next up, uh Darren Sundine or Sundine again. And I apologize uh if the pronunciation isn't great.

Spelled Sundine. It's pronounced Sundine. Doesn't matter. I'm here to quickly talk about the RV parking. Um the enforcement. There's a lot of hardworking families that have a travel trailer to take their family on a weekend excursion. There are a lot more cargo trailers, utility trailers, or just cars that are dilapidated in the driveways for many months if not years. Or what happened about uh code enforcement for basketball hoops, which I think is silly. I do not want our great police officers using their time to enforce to enforce these law these codes. In closing, this would cost a lot for the taxpayers that are already stressed out to the limit with taxes. There are many things we are as taxpayers should spend our money on. Thank you again, Darren.

Thank you, Dan. All right. Next up, uh Brian Leesque. Come on up.

Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll make this brief. Um, I just want to thank you on behalf of the rest of the citizens of Battleground for taking our concern seriously last week and actually uh I don't know if you suspended Robert's rules or orders or not, but you did the right thing in pausing the fee structure or whatever and looking into it. Um, and I know maybe you're not done. I appreciate you taking the time to get it right. Been on the books 25 years. Do what you got to do. Um, I would recommend you do something. Um, I would also in reading that on page 48 and 49, uh, my question, I'm not going to answer it now, but there's like the driveway and the yard. Um, is there like a yard, the driveway, and the little section on the side? My concern is for some of us that maybe don't have the funds to pave that little section. Can I not park on that? Is that not the driveway? Is that considered my yard? Um, so if you could take that into consideration and maybe check with some of the wording, but either ways, thank you for taking the time. And if it takes a while to figure it out, as long as we hold, you know, coming up with something, but thank you, Brian.

All right. Uh Chris Fletcher.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members, for talking and listening to us. I wanted to talk more about the trailer parking. When I was watching the presentation earlier today, it was talking about 427 homeowners in Battleground getting a letter and having to take care of our trailers or RVs or boats and things like that. Actually, I think that number is a lot higher than that. Um, there are more people that have been affected by that than the 427 that were mentioned in this presentation. I myself have have had to amend my property. I've had to move an air conditioner out of the way, which cost about $1,000 just to comply with putting my boat behind my driveway when it was parked in my driveway and it was totally fine for 20 plus years. Uh the other thing I wanted to make mention is in the talk that doc that um council member Ferrer had mentioned the complaintant how many of the complaints of that 427 house homeowners came from one person who was out of compliance. I do believe that there has been one person who who initiated all of these complaints that has been made mention when I discussed this with the city of Battleground prior to my compliance. So, I do appreciate that. Please review that. How many people will be affected by following the code enforcement and having to have financial investment in moving the the vehicles behind the garage. have had to pay for storage of vehicles that we have been in compliance with. I understand that the 1995 law talks about having it be behind the forward facing of the house. However, those homes built in 95 had real estate in order to make that compliance

possible. With the new construction and the new homes going into all over Battleground, that no longer is an option for many members of the community. And we do request that you consider some of the alternatives uh such as allowing us to park in our driveway as long as none of the vehicle is in the affecting the sidewalk. My boat was not affecting a sidewalk. It was parked on my sideyard on a gravel bed and I have had to move it after it had been living there 20 years. So, please review and consider the impact that this is going to have with the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. All right, that concludes our citizen communication and thank you. We got room for one for you, John. You bet. Come on up.

My name's John Edinga. been a citizen of this community for 50 years, give or take. Um, so first of all, council members, I would like to say congratulations on being here, but I'm ashamed of you guys. I really am. Last week, last meeting was a fiasco and get your act together. Learn your governance manual and get to know what it means. Okay, first and foremost, when it comes to I'm just going off of what people have said. Uh, when it comes to RVs, you got your work cut out for you and and it's time for an upgrade. This has actually been in what, 1995, I think the chief said. And so, it is time for a change. When it comes to I5, we don't need another bridge. We need jobs. So, work on that. Okay. When it comes to schools, support kids. All right? Support kids. They are the most valuable asset you will ever see and have. They are our future. And that's all I have.

Thank you, John. Thank you, John. All right. Now, that concludes our Thank you. citizens communication. We will uh move on to the consent agenda. Um, does any council member believe any items need to be withdrawn from the consent agenda? I'll move to approve the uh consent agenda as presented. All right, we have a motion and a second. Motion by council member Fer, second by council member McCoy. All those in favor? I.

Any oppose? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously. On to business. All right. I will bring up or introduce uh Police Chief Dennis Flynn one more time uh for the RV trailer. I've got your name here. I know. Go ahead, Chief. we had presented. Uh I guess it would be council's preference if you want us to reshow the PowerPoint or just give it just quick brief overview.

Yeah, I I I think it it would be good to just give a real brief overview. It's more of a allowing discussion on behalf of the

just very briefly for those that weren't here earlier. Um, as mentioned, we looked at the current uh code which goes back to 1995, had a brief um addition in 2004. Uh we've sampled the code policies uh that pertain to uh RV, boat and trailer parking in I believe it was seven or eight other agencies that all surround cities that all surround us and just basically presented all of that uh in a format for the council to look to see what they want to do. In essence, uh there's only several options that are really available. One of those is to leave it as is. Uh one of those is to consider uh allowing one of the vehicles to be parked in the driveway if the topography or the side of the yard does not allow for it. That is an option. Another option is to allow for it to be parked uh on a driveway or not uh or imperous surface. Uh those two seem to be the most common for the surrounding areas. And then there's a whole variety of other options that are available including uh allowing multiple vehicles. So I think just uh looking at what is out there certainly listening to to the concerns of our residents. I think that uh John probably said it best and got our work cut out. Uh and to just know that it does have a tremendous impact whatever we do on quite a few of our residents. Uh certainly the police department doesn't weigh in uh one way or the other. All our job will be is to enforce whatever the ordinances are and

then uh also take direction from council and city leadership as to what's they want done in those priorities.

Thank you, Chief. Uh I think um just to be clear as well uh as far as our job today as council is not to come up with a decision and have a motion and vote on it today, but merely give staff the direction to start to draft something that we can review. Um I would also like uh the weigh in from the additional two council members that are not here today as well, but this is definitely a a good time to have a discussion about this ordinance. So, uh, first up we have, uh, Council Member Munson. Go ahead.

So, I took some notes during our study session and I and I reflect on the many decades I've been here, um, with the way that the houses are built now with the restrictions that we're under from the county and the state having to provide density for population and for growth. I I reflect on a few things and that is for example my wife and I we moved we bought our first house here when we were in our 20s. We raised a family and as as you get older and you are able to acrue some of the nicer things in life you look at these lots that we have now and there's just not a means for people to be able to grow and do the fun things with their their family and their kids. Some of the other notes I took are, you know, there's different ordinances that as chief you reflected on, we're working through them. Um, but it seems that we're hyperfocused on this one right now. So, if we look at the cities in southwest Washington and their restrictions, we see that there's a lot of room for opportunity for people to store their RVs or their trailers or whatever their boats, but there's not a lot of opportunity for them to store it on their property. And so, as I look through these options that are presented to us and I think about the fact that these are people's property, it's not our property in the government. It's the people's property and we need to let them do what they they want to do. And I understand that that could open up the opportunity for what some might call blight, but it's still their property. I mean, they're held to the government standards. They got to pay property tax even after their mortgage is paid off. They have to have some semblance of their own freedom. So, as I work through this, I'm leaning towards option four and or five. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Mson.

Anyone else want to weigh in on the discussion on this?

Go ahead, Deputy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to say that I agree that um I think that we have a dichotomy that's extremely important in that we protect the rights of our citizens and their private property and allowing them to store their uh RVs and boats um on that property. And I also understand that um we also want to protect uh property costs. And so if we have a neighbor that has, you know, three or four um of these units in their yard and um in in various states of disrepair that could negatively affect the property value um of their neighbors. So I think that it is um extremely important that this is updated. Um I don't have an RV or a boat. I hope to someday have one or the other. um and my house doesn't have the ability to park one um in the backyard. We have large fencing all around our property. So, um I completely understand the need for this to be done and I'm thankful um I'm thankful to hear from all the community members. I think that there's been great information given and I appreciate uh Chief Dennis Flynn in an incredible presentation that was given to this council at 6 p.m. uh in a study session. really uh we were able to see a lot more and even prepared a large packet um of all of the other uh municipal codes for surrounding cities to really help us get this right. So, um I just let letting you all know how much we appreciate feedback and we are listening. We're here to help. Um and we want to make sure that this is done accurately and correctly. So, thank you for your grace and your patience while we navigate this process.

Yeah, jamming. Um, I'll just put my two cents on this. Uh, again to reiterate what uh deputy mayor just said. I mean, my home was built in the late 90s and our setbacks wouldn't allow more than probably a 21 ft RV to be parked in my driveway. Um, and we do have a little side area that we've paved, but even then, um, the width of the property, uh, could hinder that as well. Um, I am like I I'll be honest with you, I'm torn. I don't necessarily want to, in my opinion, take off all the guard rails and just have people parking three RVs in their front yard and, uh, blocking their entire home. um that I don't think is the intent of most of the people out here with their public comments and that wouldn't be mine as well. But for full transparency, uh years ago, I had a trailer that I parked in my driveway and I was in violation of this uh ordinance myself. Now, of course, yep, write it up, chief. Now, um again, we weren't necessarily enforcing that and I didn't uh bring any um complaints on behalf of that, but it it's tough when you're living in a a town that is um to Council Member Mson's point, the density is put upon us by the by the county and the state. And um so lot sizes are getting smaller, setbacks are getting shorter, and I mean we've even heard of uh issues with uh long bed pickups not being able to fit in somebody's driveway. Um and just for clarification, and Mark, not to put you on the spot, but what is and and you can get back to me on this. I don't want to necessarily put you on the spot, but what is the setback requirements in our code currently for builders? If you and if you don't know that, that'd be great to get the information later. But

yeah, why don't you keep talking and we'll look it up and we can Okay. I think it differs in each zone so we can get the chart.

Yeah, I'd be curious to have that information um based on what a boat trailer is or what an RV length is. Um, you know, it's tough because to somebody's point, uh, at the last meeting that this was brought up in public comment, we are, um, a beautiful city at the foothills of a beautiful area and recreation is something that's important to our community. And so, um, as much as I'd, you know, love to again just let the guardrails off, I think we have to find a balance here of what's going to work, keep our city beautiful and functioning and safe. Uh, not block uh, walkways or not have vehicles extended out into the road uh, to cause unsafe situations. I don't want kids running out into the road to avoid an RV and get hit by a car. But I also want to allow some freedom of your own property to to park an RV in your driveway if you so feel that that's the case or or the property does not allow for that on uh within our current ordinance. So um I'm definitely open to uh modification of our current ordinance. I'm not quite sure where I land on the language, but I do appreciate the great amount of uh effort that was put in by staff to give us these examples. And uh personally, just for me, I kind of like the little mix of uh probably Camas and Ridgefield to both allow these vehicles. Um but yeah, that's just my two cents. Uh Council Member McCoy, you want to weigh in on this?

Yeah, thank you. Um, I like the topography. Uh, I don't know if you'd call it exclusion or consideration. Uh, because that takes into the I think council's mentioned it several time about lots are getting smaller and smaller because they're getting more expensive. Uh, I'm not a fan of allowing the entire driveway to be taken up uh because then all the cars are on the streets. So then we have uh then the public street is your you know is not your parking lot either. We have maintenance issues when they sit there too long will cause some uh enforcement issues there. I think a compromise of one recreational vehicle in the driveway is is something that I would support. Um I believe we need to can take it one thing we have not taken into consideration is line of sight. I know the origin story of of this because it occurred. A neighbor let me know what was going on. And essentially the origin story is a neighbor almost got t-boned twice backing out of their driveway because they couldn't see and they they live on a corner or near a corner. And I'm not saying that, you know, I I struggle with that because I don't want to put our code enforcement officer in a subjective situation. this this ordinance needs to be clear. Our code enforcement officer needs to be able to drive by a driveway and tell right away whether it's an issue or not. So, we need to write this very clearly for both them and the citizens that it's very clear. Um so, and that's why I kind of hesitate to have two two I'll call them toys in the driveway because you're probably going to get into sight issues and then you're going to have the cars in the street. And to mayor's point about kids, um it's going to be really hard to see them if there's two cars in the street and two toys in the driveway. Um so that that's

my issue with that, but perhaps it can be written away to mitigate that orate that. Um but those are my concerns along that. I definitely in support of the topography exemption or allowance for the houses that just can't accommodate in the least uh any type of uh toy in the in the driveway. So, those are my thoughts and I don't know what that looks like as far as an ordinance or where rest of council sits on it, but that's where I'm at. Council member Fer. Thank you, Mayor. Um to your

point uh well sorry to council member McCoy's point um I agree that we should be I like that our code enforcement officer goes out there and um she should he or she should be able to just look and see if this is um breaking code or not because um my thought on that is if we if we were to write it in a way we're looking at some of these other ones that state that they can only park in the front if they don't have side or rear. Well, then that would make her or him, sorry. Um that would force the code um officer to um look into those, right? Have to I don't we have so many different um housings and uh diversity in our housing. So for some it might be very easy to look and and drive up and see that okay they don't have a side they don't have a backyard. Okay but what about the bigger one? So I agree that whatever we choose for our um the amendment to our um municipal code it should definitely be straightforward and easy on our officers to enforce those codes. Um, I am in favor um of allowing somebody to park in in their driveway and um so believing in private property rights as well. I don't like that currently as it is. We don't allow that especially since I I have one of those. How does that work? You know, um when you have driveways in the um in the front and or in the back, excuse me. Um, yeah, I would I'm trying to look at the options that are here before us, option three or four, and I'm having a hard time understanding the results are p. It looks like they're the same. So, um,

allowing it would be allowed in the yard. Mine just says driveway on both says results. This will allow one. Look, look to the left if it option four says front yard parking allowed. Option three says in the driveway. We break that up, right? Oh, I see it. Front yard parking. You're right. Option four allows for front yard parking and option three uh allows it only on a driveway. Okay. Which then that

Sorry, Rob, if you could. Not to complicate things for the public. All right. I don't set this up. Um but then I I think about um when the other uh other citizens talked about what is that pave pad, gravel bed, what is looking at definitions on what a driveway is. So things that or just I would the concern I would be looking at when we uh amend this ordinance.

So I know it's probably hard to read um from that monitor. Option one is leave current uh ordinance as is with no changes. Option two is to allow one RV boat trailer to be parked in the driveway if no side access available or not possible due to topography. Option three is allow one RV boat trailer to be parked in the driveway uh a Ridgefield or Vancouver type model. Option four is the front yard parking allowed for RV boat and trailer. And option five is allow multiple RV boat trailers to be parked driveway and or front yard. I So um thank you Rob. You're you're awesome. Um yeah, so what we're looking to do is kind of be able to give staff some consensus today on how we should have them start to put things together. Is there any options that anyone is favorable to more than others? That's I think what we want to hear.

Go ahead, Kristen.

I think it's clear that council is amable to a code change. I think that's fair. I think the question is one or more. That's a question I think we need to know. Um whether topography is something you want built in there that's conditional. So, in other words, if they currently park it on the side and they have access to that, they should do that versus bring it in front. And then I think um issues like it can't intrude into the public right away or obstruct sight. I mean, we probably need to write those um uh type of items in there. There was the question of whether you think it needs to be currently licensed if that's applicable. Um but I think at this point the main uh question is you remainable to changing the code. Is it just one versus more? We do have something in the code that defines driveway already. I think it's title 12. So we would probably tie it to a you know a legal driveway so that we don't have them maybe in the front yard. That would be something that council would need to consider. Council member Mson.

So, Miss Swanson, let's kind of unpack the front yard component here for a second. So, when we talk about front yard, we're not talking about just the strip in front of our porch. Is not the side front yard considered the front yard, too. So, if you have a driveway and you have a grassy area to say the left side of a house where you know there's a walkth through to get to the backyard and then your front yard is on the is this left side not considered the front yard as well. The reason why I'm d uh going through this question with you is and say somebody has a 26 foot RV, they cannot park it in their driveway because it'll be sticking out. But this other front yard, if you will, by definition, allows them to bring it in at a at an angle so that they aren't blocking the easement or the road. So that's what I'm getting. My question to you is is both sides of the driveway not considered the front yard.

I might let Mark answer this. There in our code, it defines what a driveway is, right? It's with it's material single family dwelling has one unless there's an exception for two. So I don't know I'm not really sure how to answer that. Yeah I I'll start. I think when they say driveway it means pave. So concrete asphalt pavers something like that. So when I hear front yard I consider the grass area or something like that. So I think if you're defining it as on the driveway it'd be some sort of approved paved surface.

Okay. So, council, this is this is the reason why I brought up four and five for me earlier is in four it says front yard parking allowed. Many of our houses out here have a grassy strip to one side or the other of the of the driveway. You know, you have what you might consider your front yard with your tree and your plants and all that stuff, but you still have a five or a 10 foot offset to the other side of the driveway. That part is considered the front yard. So, you know, by using option four, it gives that area for the larger RVs if they cannot back it straight in. They can put it at an angle. So, you know, for me, the the flexibility is not everybody can afford to get a permit and to pave that little area, but maybe they dig it out and they put their own gravel in, which does not need a permit if I if I'm wrong, correct me. but it allows them to make an improvement there so that they can put whether it's their boat or RV or whatever. So again, that's why I'm going with option four is that gives the homeowner the flexibility on their property to do what they need to do.

Thank you. Okay. Uh Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would say so um to the specific considerations that U. Manager Swanson's is asking for um I prefer option three um allowing one RV boat trailer to be parked in the driveway. Um I like topography considerations, but I feel like they complicate it. Um, so my personal viewpoint is that um, regardless of if they have space or access to the side of their home, um, my my option would be to still allow use of a legal driveway um, to park one RV, boat or trailer to the front um, so long as that it is not encroaching on public easements and rideaways and all of that. I think that we should also have language that allows for parking on the street for loading, unloading for whether we say 72 hours, whether we say, you know, seven days, uh, not to exceed, you know, 20 days in a in a year, something to that effect. Um, because I I think that that's going to be necessary. Um, I am not at all um unaggreeable to having multiple um multiple items on the property itself. if they had a way to contain one unit behind the front wall line of the home and then having a second unit in the driveway. So long as there's only one item in front of the front wall line and that item must be placed in a legal driveway. Um not a front yard. Um that's my viewpoint personally.

Council member McCoy.

Yeah, I I agree with most of that. Um uh I agree with what or I also understand what council Mson council council member Mson's saying. Uh for me the definition of sideyard is is that strip that you're talking about right? Whereas when I see front yard parking is allowed I'm seeing you know a boat in grass on you know on the front yard and and that's not acceptable to me personally and I think to most of our citizens. Um, so but I would be uh I think uh I was contradictory in my first statement and that I wanted it clear and I also said I was okay with topography. So u you convinced me on that. So I'm I'm fine with uh if there's an RV behind the fence and then another one in the driveway, I'm fine with language like that. Um I think that making sure the definition of uh to council Mson's point that the sideyard is defined if it's not because I mean I think that's how we all understand it. Um, I just, you know, you don't want in the in the front yard grass is how I think that's how I'm picturing. I I don't think that's is that's the intent, but how it's written on option four that I think that would be allowed. So, um, uh, yeah, those those are the big ones. And I I I still worry about, you know, what like a big airirstream or something that just goes right to the edge of that sidewalk. Um, and I worry if there's no sight line, and I'm picking on Airstreams, but there's several different ones, you know, that just have that 12 10 foot barrier of sight, and you have a little kid in a trike. So, I I I don't know. And I don't know how I don't know what the answer is. I'm just getting it out there for discussion. So, I don't know what the answer is there. Um, but yeah, I'm I'm fine with option two or three. Um, personally I could find

reasons to support those. And option four, if front yard was described as the the side, which kind of what I think council member Mson was kind of saying is is that side portion.

I think we can all agree from what I'm hearing is we don't want an RV or a boat parked across the front of the house in the grass. Yeah. In front of the porch. This does bring up a question in my mind though. I've seen properties that do have a little bit of width and they have a regular standard driveway in front of their garage and then off to the other side they have like a another driveway, but I don't necessarily know if it's cut into the curb to be an actual driveway, but it's just like some 2x4 is laid on the curb. People are pulling up over that. I think that would not classify as a driveway. Correct. already investigated this into what I've done at my house. You cannot have two driveways, one that's cut in and one that's so vote on that,

Mark. Yeah. So, our code has a driveway with you know, requirements. So there's a maximum driveway width you can have and that's the portion in the right of way. After you get behind the right ofway, you can have a wider driveway which is what you're talking about. Um so that would be you know I think the approved surface that we're talking about

sir I'm sorry it's not a public comment time. Our time is up. Thank you. Um, yeah. So, I I'm even open to more than one vehicle if one is behind um and they can still fit one reasonably into the driveway of actual p improved surface. That is something that some cities address. If it's one in the front, then it's like a maximum of three on a property. That's another consideration for council.

Yeah. So, like say they have a spot already that's in compliance with our current and it's behind the frontage of the home and then they park another one in the driveway. That's great because if you want to have an RV and a boat, who am I to say? But um I do agree with uh council member McCoy that the line of sight I think is something that we need to include in there and and how we deviate that to make it clear for enforcement is is something that I think would be worth looking at for sure just for public safety purposes. But um yeah I think is there any further direction you'd like from us on this? Is it clear as mud for you Chris? Will they be dead?

So, I don't know if counsel I think we get the gist of it. And if you wanted to give staff direction, we can certainly draft a a change, which is going to require a code change, a public hearing minimum. That's at least a month out if you wanted to call for that. I don't know if we're ready to do that or before I answer that question, Council Member Mson. Uh, so as a gentleman asked in the back, I was thinking about that. So, let's get on public record. Um, I we're going to keep a moratorum in place until we resolve this issue. Correct. Thank you. Yeah, I would say we don't. That was the motion. Yeah, that was the motion.

Yeah, until we've made a decision. There's going to continue to be a moratorum. uh on that. So, we won't make any more action on that until we've reviewed this further. But yeah, again, I would love to get the weigh in of the other council members as well, but I I think that yeah, let's move forward with that. Start drafting something and uh bring it back to us to take a look at. Um

just in general it'll cover any house within the city limits. Um yeah. Um yeah. So go ahead start drafting something up and bring back us take a look at for a second touch please. Thank you. Just I got one more. You had one more point. Go ahead.

Yeah. No. No. I just as you draft this up, can you please look at the definitions so that when we look at the front yard and the other front yard, let's kind of separate that. So when we're talking about the driveway and you got two different yards, right? They're both in front. Let's get some clarification and some definition behind that because again as we move forward and we look at if somebody has to park their RV at an angle and that is still defined as front yard then they would not be compliant. I want them to have the option to so if we could clear up the definition on that that I think yeah classify that as sideyard if it's not towards the front door side.

Yeah. Did we get any answer on the setbacks? Are you guys still looking that over? No, we got it. So, it's a 20 foot across the board garage setback. Um, and that's a minimum setback. So, home builders can make it larger, but you know, most home builders build the want to build as big a house as possible. So, it's typically a 20 foot. Thank you, Martin. All right, moving on. And uh administrative reports. Are there any administrative reports from staff this evening?

I don't have any this evening other than that groundhog saw shadow. So, we're in for winter for six more weeks. That's all. Get that guy out of here. Uh council communications. Are there any council member communications this evening? Uh, please use your queue here. Um, council member Ferrer, you are up.

Okay, I'll make you quick. You look like I didn't say nothing. Okay. Um, so, um, I would like to respectfully request, uh, that this council consider placing on the next agenda a resolution expressing opposition to proposed Washington state legislation that would impose a state income tax. I know that we don't have a lot of time and I know we've done it in the past here um in battleground just um doing a resolution that opposes the state income tax.

Could I I believe we already have that on the books. I believe we have that on the books already. Um that this city of Battleground is opposed to Yeah. Does it carry over? That's my thought cuz I know it was like what 22 72 staff I don't think it I don't think it expires is so then could we potentially update it and send it back out as for for new legislation thoughts on

I well I think we're we're we've already stated our stance on that as far as the resolution stands and unless we want to change the resolution Um, I don't know if it's necessarily needed updated. Um,

cuz I mean, is there because we have all new legisl I mean, not all new legislation, but we've got, you know, new representation up there. Are they going to be aware that, oh, the city of Battleground has back in 22 or whenever 2021, whenever it was, they voted and did a resolution. Is this going to be something versus I guess as would this council be um opposed if I were to print off this resolution and send it off to our representatives as a a reminder that hey would you please you know oppose this income tax when it comes through the the House and the Senate floor. Go ahead.

Is there a specific bill that's been dropped that pertains to this? Because I think a better way to do this is as a legislative committee, if you want to weigh in on a bill, pro or con, we could certainly do that. If there's a specific piece of legislation floating out there right now, it's probably a more impactful way to do it. Okay. So, wait till next week when it drops. You already have the number. Yeah, I was looking for it right before the meeting. I had like one hour and I trying to find it, but I remember resolution 21-07. 21007 resolution. I mean, you're looking for the Senate. Yeah, I was looking for the Senate and the You can find out

the House bill. Yeah, I was trying to get it before this meeting so I'd have that number ready for you guys. But I would love to talk further on this as legislative committee. We have the ability to speak on behalf of or in oppose of bills. Yeah, but when do we meet? We haven't even discussed that's like a quarterly or think it would be something we could do by email and have discussion on it. Okay. Okay. And um here we go. Pickle ball update. I love pickle ball and it's my new favorite sport. I'll see you down at Quantis Courts on Saturday. Let me know. Let me know.

Yeah. No, I just wanted to get an update on see Dan on that one. Do we have an update on that one? We're currently um we have a contract with a structural engineer who's evaluating whether the solutions we want to apply according to the sound engineer would actually be feasible because of the weight. So uh we've had him on board I know it was anywhere from 3 to 6 months to final completion and that would be applying the solution and I did update the neighbors with that uh via email.

Okay. Thank you. I was going to ask what's the time frame. So, thank you for already addressing that. Um, and then since we did the uh 2026, this board's reviewed and approved the 2026 legislative agenda this evening. Um, I just wanted to confirm that staff is moving forward with the booking for the necessary travel arrangements for the legislative committee to um for DC travel. The uh clerk requests clarification. My apologies, Council Member Ferrer. There was no motion made approving the FE federal legislative agenda. Is it the intention of this council to do so at this evening?

And I do apologize. Um I just I I thought with uh with legislative that it was one of our duties as legislative is that we're we're supposed to go up there represent our citizens at Battleground. So I do apologize. I didn't know there was supposed to be a motion. So Okay. Uh, so I'll I guess No, it is not the wish of the council to do that at this time. Um, but I do think we need to bring that up at one of the next meetings. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Liz. Um, Council Member McCoy.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I just like to speak to um a breach of protocol and during citizens comments. Um, I think having citizens call other citizens is a is a bar we should not cross. Um I I I know that other cities have had um citizens that are um sometimes like have issues with the rules and maybe like stretch the barriers and continue and and not that it came to this but like they've come to you know it's come to threats in other cities and I just wonder if and and they have essentially like a three strike policy or a warning or a um you know some sort of mechanism to that a citizen that continues to flaunt the rules that hey that's not how we want to operate. That's not how we want citizens treating other citizens. That's not our rules for public comments. Um some way some mechanism to communicate that uh to those problematic individuals. Thank you. Uh to that point, Council Member McCoy, I couldn't agree with you more. Uh, in the statements that I announced prior to citizen communication, I say please refrain from derogatory remarks, personal attacks, campaign speeches, and applause. I also state that all comments should be directed to the mayor. Um, and so I would be in favor of looking at creating some kind of u um, I don't know, three strike rule or just having people be on their best behavior while they're speaking in public comment. Again, I want to allow people to have their freedom of speech, but not to the effect of derogatory remarks towards another person. Um, I don't think that's in the spirit of battleground itself. Uh, so Um, Deputy Mayor Vale, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I just wanted to follow up um with staff just regarding the ELTAC uh committee membership if we had put that or were planning to put that on social media or on our website and allowing those openings to be uh community members or businesses to be able to apply for those. Were we So I guess I was unclear about the motion from last meeting. I thought we tabled the whole discussion until March 2nd. Were you also advocating then in the interim? Yes. So I apologize if my if my motion wasn't well stated at the meeting. Um the heart of my motion was just to allow time to be able to research to research and then if it was determined that others uh other businesses that people in the community are were able to apply for this um that we gave the opportunity to those businesses or those members to be able to take advantage and to be able to into in the interim time that they could apply for potential consideration um on the committee itself. Okay. Um, we can do that. We'll put a process and allow staff to just decide how long that or what that looks like, how long, and a deadline. And I guess I would seek input on when you would like to have those. Would it be by the March 2nd meeting? I think as long as we have time for Mayor Overholdzer to look and even the other council members to be able to see the applicants or those that are interested because I know the appointments will come from him. Um and so as long as there's sufficient time to do that I trust you guys are incredible. So I know that you know whatever time frame that you have whether it's 14 days or whatever you think is best I think we'll be fine as long as it's available

and the community can see it. Okay. Um, and then I also, so separately, I also wanted to thank every single member that came uh from the community that came today to be able to speak. Um, I appreciate hearing your comments. Even if I don't agree with all of them, you have an invitation to come here every single meeting and express your thoughts and your opinions. That's what this is for. And that's what the citizen portion, the citizen comments is for. And I do appreciate every single one of you that came and spent time and expressed uh your feelings and and your opinions. And I think it's really really important and I I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated them. All right, couple things. Lastly, Battleground 75th anniversary update uh is now reflective on the city of battleground.org website. uh kind of a big deal to be celebrating 75 years uh of an incorporated city. Um so if anybody wants any updates or get any information on that uh you can find it there. Um the other thing that I wanted to note is we do currently have a special election going on that ends on February 10th for Proposition 10 from the Battleground School District. Now, uh whether you're for or against that proposition, I would just urge you to get out and vote on that proposition. The uh voter turnout is abysmal. And uh if we truly want to have an effect on our community, we should be participating in our ability to vote as citizens. And that's something that I greatly appreciate the uh right to do. And I would urge anyone in battleground to take that same right or in the school district itself um to vote your voice for Prop 10 whether

opposed or in favor. All right. So, the next regular city council meeting will be held Tuesday, February 17th, uh due to the holiday of President's Day at 7 p.m. No study session is scheduled. This meeting is adjourned at 8:43 p.m.