City Council - Regular Meeting

things in Canada. 31st. He said Canada, but maybe it was on the way to the last floor. The time is 7 p.m. on September 8th, and I call this meeting of the Battleground City Council to order. Please stand, if you can, for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

All right.

Clerk, can you call roll, please?

Mayor Overholzer. Present. Deputy Mayor Vail. Present. Councilmember Kuypers. Present. Councilmember Munson.

Here.

Councilmember Ferrer.

Present.

And Councilmembers McCoy and Bowman are both absent this evening.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to move to excuse Councilmember McCoy and Councilmember Bowman.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Call for the vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. All right, we'll move on to summary reports and presentations. Councilmembers, do we have any reports? Yes. I have Council Member Munson, you're up.

Two of them. We just exited our second or third Budget Advisory Committee meeting tonight. Got some good information out of there. The second thing I'm going to have for council member reports is, council members, this is to advise the council that an ethics complaint has been filed concerning a member of the city council. The complaint has been received and will be reviewed in accordance with chapter 42.23 RCW, the city ethics code and applicable policies and procedures. Mayor, if you wouldn't mind setting a committee review meeting. You betcha.

More than happy to do that. All right, and we have Councilmember Kuipers.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. Just a quick update. The Governance Manual Review Committee has continued to meet. We will be meeting again this coming Thursday, day after tomorrow. And we continue to move along on the review of all the various segments. It's going to be a pretty heavy lift because there's a lot of substantive changes that we're looking at. We'll continue to update through biweeklies, but we will have the final draft for council to review all the recommendations and the changes at the end of, well, our target is December, but frankly, it's going to be a push to get it done. We have a lot to cover and we meet for an hour or so. That's the update.

Thank you, Council Member Kuipers. Any additional Council Member reports this evening? Hearing none, we will move on to the Mayor's report. I actually don't have anything to report on this evening. The one thing that I'll state is that I will be scheduling the ethics committee meeting. I'm not going to set the date and time here on the dais, but we'll get that scheduled with our ethics committee, which is Council Member Munson, myself, and Council Member Kuypers.

And I will get that done here soon.

So I don't know if I need to. Do I need to set a date from the dais for that?

No, Mr. Mayor.

OK. All right. And do we have any presentations this evening?

No?

Got blank on that one. Good. And we will move on to the agenda approval. Does any council member wish to amend the agenda this evening? Hearing none, I'll call for a motion.

I move to approve the meeting agenda as presented. Second. All right.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none, agenda is approved. Look at us. We're sailing away. All right. We'll move on to citizen communications. I will now open the meeting for citizen communications. At this time, as authorized under the council's adopted rules, the mayor may adjust both the individual speaking time and overall length of the constituent comments, period, to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of the meeting. Due to the number of individuals wishing to speak this evening, each speaker will have three minutes, and the total public comment period will last no more than 30 minutes. This portion of the meeting is a limited public forum to receive input from the public. It is not intended for dialogue with the council. To help maintain an orderly and efficient meeting, please avoid conduct that disrupts the proceedings. This includes speaking out of turn, exceeding the time limit, creating loud or coordinated demonstrations such as applause cheering jazz hands or other visible or audible interruptions calling out from the audience or otherwise preventing others from being heard while all viewpoints are protected under the first amendment obscene language derogatory remarks personal attacks or campaign speeches can create disturbances that interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting. Speakers are therefore asked to present their comments in a manner that allows the meeting to proceed efficiently and respectfully. Threatening behavior intimidation or any conduct that substantially interrupts, delays, or interferes with the meeting may result in removal from the chambers to protect the safety and order of the proceedings. If your remarks relate to an item scheduled for a public hearing, please wait to provide your comments during that designated hearing period. All comments should be directed to the mayor. The council may not be able to respond to individual comments and may refer citizens to a staff member for assistance. If due to time constraints, you are unable to provide verbal comment this evening, please submit written comments to the clerk's office with the title public comment for disbursement to council. The deputy city manager has placed his cards at the podium. Please feel free to take one if you would like to contact him with any questions. If you have printed materials to submit for the record, please hand them to the city clerk seated directly to the right of the podium. Thank you for your cooperation and participation in the council meeting this evening. And clerk, are there any members of the public on Zoom that wish to comment remotely?

No, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you very much. First up, we have Stephanie Adams.

Good evening, council members and staff.

I rise to voice my deep concern over the Christian nationalist steps that this council has recently taken. Governing a diverse city requires maturity, pluralism, and respect for the law. Unfortunately, recent actions by members of the council feel less like civic leadership and more like a middle school locker room. There's a very rigid us versus them type of mentality an obsession with dominance, and a refusal to tolerate the beautiful diversity of our community. When you use your public office to privilege one specific religious viewpoint, you treat everybody else as an outsider who doesn't belong. I would venture to guess that most of our citizens don't meet with your approval. I don't care about your vision for Battleground. The majority of us actually find it abhorrent. Our city is not a playground clique. We deserve mature leaders who represent all constituents, protect the separation of church and state, and focus on real issues rather than focusing on dividing us. Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie. Next up, Colleen Eubanks.

Good evening, council members, honorable mayor. You're all honorable. Thank you. I just want to say, first of all, thank you for what you are doing to help Battleground mobile home community. And we just thank you. I sent a public comment. for public disbursement that kind of gives a status as to where we're at right now. And we're in need of a few resources. So I would ask that you would consider those comments. They're very brief. And give consideration. And if you have any information, give me a call. I would really appreciate that. Again, thank you very much for all that you're doing.

Thank you, Colleen. Next up, Jessica Cole.

Hello, Council. I'm Jessica Cole. At the last Council meeting, there were not any Longview Councilors in attendance like we've seen repeatedly over the last several months. Unfortunately, there was a Kelso Council member here, and we have one from Kelso and Longview counselors represented here tonight. That Kelso counselor is frequently pictured with current and former Longview counselors who have attended our contentious meetings, including some involving firing Chris Swanson when she was Longview city manager and some who were here when Battleground City Council fired her. After the meeting, I watched the Kelso counselor talk in the city hall parking lot with counselors Ferrer, Munson and Deputy Mayor Vail. Ms. Vail continued talking to quite some time with the council counselor. When Dave Terry took a picture of them, Ms. Vail addressed us by name. And then when I looked over, it appeared as if she was recording with her phone. And I'm starting to wonder if being recorded by my own city counselors is going to become a regular thing. It is especially frustrating because Ms. Vale is my city councilor. Yeah, when I've tried to speak with her by phone, she told me she would only communicate with me in writing for transparency. Yet apparently lengthy parking lot conversations with an elected official from Kelso is different. Anyone can attend our public meetings, but Battleground has enough outside involvement and controversy. I'd rather see our councilors focus on Battleground city residents, battleground issues, and the work that you all were elected to do here. On that topic, over the last two weeks, I've been trying to get hold of the mayor by text, phone, and voicemail, but never received a response. And I just wanted to touch on some public things. Trent Richardson's memorial that happened recently, one of our local churches opened their doors to have that happen. So a lot of community and family and friends and teammates and classmates could come. And I'm just really appreciative for all that did, all people involved and the young adults that put on his memorial. Vigil earlier. There was a cool fly-in at the airport. I never heard of it. It was a second year. Thank you so much for everyone that let us hang out in your yard at the airport here in Battleground. National night out. Thank you to Lieutenant Keller for working around and getting it rescheduled because of the fires. And it was great to have at the new location between CAM Academy and Chief. And I really appreciate Alicia coordinating the historical walking tour with Clark County Historical Museum. It was really great. And just so you know, I might know something about Battleground that you all don't know now. So I'm willing to share. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jessica. Next up, David Terry.

David Terry, I'm a battleground resident. I wanted to just go over some of the greatest hits of this council since the mayor's taken the gavel in January 2026. We're through eight months of work now. Proclamation inconsistencies and favoritism allegations. Denial of a previously accepted proclamation, Mayor Overholtzer unilaterally declined to issue a June 2026 Pride Month proclamation, despite committee members submitting drafts nearly identical to other proclamations that have been accepted. perceived selective representation. The council's fast stocking of proclamations for the National Day of Prayer, support for federal immigration enforcement, nuclear families, and resolutions condemning Antiva. It's been a total waste of time. And one of those meetings cost us over $37,000, according to the assistant city manager at the time. Council meeting invocations at First Amendment friction. Introduction of meeting invocations. In August 2026, the council voted to institute formal prayer invocations at the beginning of council meetings. This has triggered immediately community protests, warnings from civil liberty-oriented people, and even her own clergy in this town. Seems crazy to me, but we're doing it anyway. The abrupt termination of city manager Chris Swanson. Special surprise meeting with 24 hours notice. The council voted four to three to terminate the city manager without cause. Just two days prior, the council completed an annual performance review, granting her a pay increase and positive feedback. This, again, makes no sense. I have no idea what the hell you people are thinking. Potential Open Meetings Act exposure. Opposing counselors and residents publicly questioned how the four vote block could be done with no meetings. I mean, this seems very suspicious to all of us out here. And that could cause more litigation. Significant financial liability by firing Chris without cause, the city triggered a contractual severance of 12 months pay, deferred compensation. And that's going to go get close to a half a million dollars by the time we take someone else. And this was all for the good of the city y'all voted for. I read in the paper that now the city's been notified of a pending lawsuit from our former city manager. So that could even drive the cost into the millions in either defense costs or court awarded costs. Now that's gonna be on your guys' tab. That's our tax money. We lost our, we said bye-bye to our legal representation. We said bye-bye to our lobbyists. We said bye-bye to our strategic planning consultant. I mean, it makes us look like we're not a good city to work with. And then I just want to say, are you guys going to start working for us? Are you going to just keep burning down our city? We cannot understand what the heck you're doing. Thank you.

Thank you, David. All right. That will conclude citizens communication. And we will move on to the consent agenda. Does any council member believe any items need to be withdrawn from the consent agenda this evening?

I'll make a motion to remove item M from the consent agenda and pass the rest of it.

Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second to remove M. All those in favor of removing M from the consent agenda? Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

We have one nay. Okay. And then we have Deputy Mayor Vail. So M is removed.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to make a motion to remove items I through L, but it appears there may have been a motion made to remove M and pass all remaining.

Okay.

Yeah, that happened.

The clerk, I heard a motion to remove item M, a second, And then a vote to remove item M, but not a approval of the remaining items on the consent calendar or agenda. So I believe you can continue. So we're still. Yes, sir.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you for the clarification. I would like to make a motion to remove items I, J, K, and L from the consent agenda.

I'll second that. All right, we have a motion and a second to remove I, J, K, and L. Just to clarify, you don't want H, which is also part of the grace? No. Okay. Make it sure.

I don't believe so. Is that?

No, just the items. Yeah, I through L, please. Okay.

Are we in discussion? We are in discussion. So just so I'm clear, we're going to remove I through L, but what about M?

M's already been removed. Okay, just making sure.

So if we're in discussion, why are we asking these to be removed?

I would like further consideration on each I through L to be discussed individually.

And I through L, I will be recusing myself from based on the right-of-way agreement. Okay. All right. All those in favor of removing I, J, K, and L from the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. And let's hear a motion to pass the remainder A through H. So moved. Second. We have a motion to pass the remainder of the consent agenda A through H. Do we have a second? Second. Oh, we got a second. Thank you. Council Member Kuypers. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. And should we consider I through L first or M and continue in the order of the removal?

In the order of removal.

Okay. So we will consider item M first. That is the interim city manager employment agreement. And let's hear discussion on that. Do we have legal online?

Hillary is there. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that.

I'm here.

Ms. Evans, a couple of questions on, well, I'm going to start with my first question. Looking at the contract that was presented to us, and excuse me for dragging this out a little bit, but I don't really have a whole lot of opportunity to reach out to you. as there's a chain of command and how we can communicate with you. One of the items on that contract offer was a contingency of time. Do you normally see in interim city manager contracts where the recipient of the contract is setting a definitive time to it or are they typically open-ended?

I've seen it done both ways. Certainly some people who take an interim job do not want to leave their full-time gig for an extended period of time. So it's usually the employee's choice if they're truly acting as interim and they don't want to abandon their duties in their full-time job. I've seen it before. It's not typical, it's not the usual, but usually people wanna be at the higher pay rate for as long as they can, but it can go both ways.

Mayor, I have another question, but I'll round table, wait my turn.

Thank you, Council Member Munson. Any further discussion from anyone? I have a question for Hillary as well. Hillary, you saw the original draft of the agreement, correct?

I did.

You did not.

No, I did. I believe I saw a version of it, yes.

Yeah, and were there any red line edits that you made as recommendations for that agreement?

It's possible. I don't remember. I can look it up and get back to you. You know, I've reviewed this as it's written and there's nothing that stands out to me as unusual. I'm scrolling through it now on my other screen. I don't remember if there was anything that I suggested that wasn't accepted.

Okay. Thank you. And Rob, can you offer any clarification on that?

About which question?

My question was legal had a chance to review that, correct? Yes. And were there any edits that you know of that were made to that recommended agreement?

Not that I recall. If there's one in particular you have in mind.

No, I'm just making sure that we had legal fully review it and that was your recollection.

Understood.

Thank you. Okay. We have Council Member Ferrer. You're up.

Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight. A couple hours sleep. Well, I had some concerns that I wanted to have addressed, and I don't know when would be the best time to talk about those concerns, considering, like you said, we don't have... and the ability to, you know, talk to legal or I'm used to us being in executive board sessions where we talk about us as a board. We talk about what are, you know, what we like, what we don't like, you know, before we come and just decide.

Well, I'll just clarify. I'll help to clarify this as much as possible. When I consulted our clerk, and legal about whether an executive session qualified for this. It did, but it only qualified on the competency and merit of the potential employee for the interim. It did not cover any kind of compensation or benefits or anything like that. That would need to happen in a public meeting. So just to help clarify. And if you need further clarification before you ask your question, you're more than welcome to consult Hillary are legal now. You're in a meeting to see if that direction can be given.

Well, because we just got done doing this with the Clark County Mosquito Board. And we did everything in executive session when we discussed contracts and if everybody on the board was accepted, you know, they accepted that. everything that was in the contract. That was our time to talk about it. We went and had a special meeting specifically for that. So this is just kind of weird to me. It makes me feel a little uncomfortable that we don't have the opportunity to talk, you know, openly, you know, and voice our concerns. Yeah. Yeah.

Legal, Hillary or Liz, either one, do you guys have any recommendations to offer on that as far as an executive session, whether it would, again, maybe you can help me recall.

Sure. There are very few exceptions to the OPMA, unfortunately. It's by design. You'll see a lot of councils in this awkward situation of discussing contract terms in open session. The only exceptions are is if you're worried about potential litigation resulting from one of these contract provisions, we could make the straight-faced argument that an executive session is warranted. Another thing is if you're reviewing performance of a current employee, so if You have concerns about the qualifications of your interim, certainly. And then just generally speaking, I don't know how you generally do it, but if you have reviewed the agenda and you have a concern with something on the agenda, you're always welcome to shoot me an email. And I don't know if you should go through Rob to do that, but certainly it's preferable to get these questions answered prior to open session in a one-on-one email or phone call with me. because that would retain the attorney-client privilege and potentially answer your concerns. So just for future reference. I know it doesn't help you now, but those are my thoughts.

I'm going to mirror what Council Member Ferrer stated as we've been instructed before that we don't have access to our previous legal team. If we have that ability and I could post some of my questions to her via email so I can have a better understanding, it would help me in my process, my thought process working through this.

Understood. Is there any further discussion on this? I have deputy mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As most of you know, we've had another candidate that's potentially interested or that is interested in the city manager position and is also interested in consideration potentially of the interim position. And so My thoughts would be before we enter into this contract, I would like more time to be able to speak with this individual and find out if that would be the direction that this council would like to take. I know that there was a vote that asked for a deputy city manager barrier to take this position. But if we have another candidate that's able to, this might also be preferable at this time.

so i wanted to just at least to bring that before council i think it's probably worth pointing out that we did have a motion and it passed i believe five to two uh to retain rob as an interim city manager pending agreed upon terms. And that is why we're looking at this now as we're reviewing this interim city manager employment agreement. So if we want to change that, that would probably require somebody rescinding their vote or reconsidering the motion. Again, terminology is lost on me on this one.

Liz, maybe help me out.

That would require us to make some kind of action. Otherwise, we have already had a motion. If I'm correct. Liz?

Yes. Just reviewing my notes, Mr. Mayor.

I think it'd be...

So... Either to rescind or to reconsider requires that a council member who voted on the prevailing side make that motion. Both require a second and can be made by any council member. A motion to rescind is out of order if the original vote has already led to an action or event that cannot be undone. A motion to reconsider may be made either during the same council meeting in which the original motion was decided or at the next council meeting. So it is likely that it would need to be a motion to rescind.

Thank you, clerk. Council Member Kuypers.

Thank you. I'm concerned about the direction that we're going here. I think that We have not taken the time as a council that we should take to evaluate where we are as a council and where we are as a leadership and where we are with our overall management of the city. We made a decision to we made we voted to bring Rob on as the interim, we approve that I think that we need some time to establish maybe a committee that's going to look at the hiring process. I'm happy to see that we have an applicant but we still need to we can't just throw somebody in into a position and then work as we've always worked. And I think that we need to have some time to give ourselves the ability to work through some things as a council, to have some conversations around priorities. And so that whomever we're bringing on in this next position as city manager is given a strong foundation to work from. They have set goals and they know where we want them to head. And we've not had that conversation yet. I think that... I think that Rob is doing a great job keeping us going as the interim and that we just need to continue that and give ourselves the time to go through whatever the process is going to be, whether we're going to move forward with hiring another company to help us with that, if we're going to do it internally, whatever. We haven't had a chance to have a conversation about what this is. So unless... The four of you have some ideas on what you want to do. I would like to be part of that conversation and just stabilize us a little bit before we start bringing in new people.

Thank you, Council Member Kuypers. Okay, so... We still have this agreement in front of us so any further discussion that we would like to have involving this agreement. Okay. Hearing none I would.

I would like to table it because to be able to it to the next meeting so i'm able to address my concerns with the Attorney. That's what I would be asking for.

Is that your motion?

Yeah, that would be my motion.

Just to clarify, we wouldn't want a table. I think we'd want to postpone.

Postpone? Is that the one that goes just to the next meeting? Because I just want to the next meeting.

Table is to the next meeting. Postpone is to allow for it to be even after the next meeting.

I was confused. I thought table was... indefinite unless you set a time and postpone was to the next meeting. My apologies. So, okay, we have a motion and a second to table the meeting or table this topic until the next meeting to give council time to communicate with our legal counsel on this agreement.

The clerk requests who was the second on that motion.

It was Council Member Munson. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed?

Nay.

Hearing the motion passes 3 to 1.

Can I just ask a question? Yeah. Oh, you look confused.

That would be 4 to 1?

It's 4 to 1.

I didn't vote. Oh.

Oh, you abstain?

I abstain.

This question is for Rob. How would be the best way you'd like me to do that? Should I go through you? Should I email the attorney my questions? Or what would you prefer, sir?

If you'd prefer to speak directly with Hillary and she's okay with that, I don't have a concern with it.

Okay, okay.

Hillary?

I said thumbs up from Hillary. She's got a thumbs up.

All good.

And if you guys need Hillary's contact information, we can have it shared with counsel.

Yeah, I'd like to get that, please.

I can share that with you.

Me as well.

Thank you, Rob. All right, now we will move on to review items I, J, K, and L. from the consent agenda for this, I will recuse myself. So do me a favor. Somebody run this meeting. Well, I think she might recuse herself as well. So Brian, do you mind running this? Sure. Pick a point on that and just stop on the question. Okay.

If I may interject, Mayor Overholzer, should both of you recuse, this item cannot actually be passed because there will not be a quorum present.

Well, then maybe we need to... Perhaps you... Well, first of all, I'd say it'd be good if all of our council members showed up to our meetings. But did you have something you wanted to say?

I do. I would just like to ask legal's input. I know that I want to be fully transparent as well with all decisions that are made. But my husband works for a company that's affiliated with these four I through L companies. These four property owners. And so just for the sake of transparency, I was planning to recuse myself, although at the same time, he's not in any position to be to gain anything financially, any any. promotions or anything else, the decision to accept or deny these would have no bearing on his employment. So we're completely separate. And so does legal advise that I would need to rescind myself in this particular situation, or am I able, because I can make a decision that is neutral, to remain at the meeting for these items?

So I don't have any of your... city-specific rules and procedures for council. But what I can say is when it comes to state law, you've probably all heard about this in training, but it was probably a while ago. You're prohibited from entering into a contract in which you have an interest. An interest is something that you personally would benefit for. If you look at RCW 4200, 23030, it does not apply to contracts where the officer has a relative unless you have an interest in the earnings of that. And if you did, there's a process that we would go through called a remote interest, which would determine whether or not you'd be able to recuse yourself and the contract could still proceed. But if that's not the case, Unless there's something specific to battleground, unless you guys have adopted a more strict set of rules for yourself than has the state, I think you're okay to proceed. But I love the transparency. I always like to put those things out in the record just so people know what's going on and then go ahead and vote if you like.

Thank you, Hillary.

Thank you.

Okay, so I will recuse myself from this discussion and vote, and I will leave it in the good hands of Deputy Mayor Vail. Thank you.

Thank you.

I did.

I switched seats just as Mayor Overholzer said I didn't have to, but I thought it would be embarrassing to go back to my own seat. Okay, so we're going to be discussing items I, J, K, and L, which is Southeast Grace Avenue Phase 2 Right-of-Way Purchase Approval, Battleground Main Property, item I. Item J, Southeast Grace Avenue Phase 2 Right-of-Way Purchase Approval, Battleground Property 10. Item K, Southeast Grace Avenue Phase 2 Right-of-Way Purchase Approval, Battleground Property 13. And Item L, Southeast Grace Avenue Phase 2 Right-of-Way Purchase Approval, Main Street Theater Restoration. Any discussion?

I've looked through it for the second time today. I don't have any heartburn with it.

I mean, I have questions, but I'm curious to know why you pulled them. Or is that the only reason why you pulled them?

Oh. Yep, that was the only reason. Yeah, so no further discussion. I will entertain a motion for approval.

So moved.

Seconded. So we have a motion from Council Member Ferrer and second from Council Member Kuipers. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes with four votes. Thank you.

scary back there to start like it kidding um all right so get down here we're through all the motions all right business uh clerk uh are there any communications submitted regarding business items that have not yet been provided to the council if so could you read those comments prior to council discussion none have been submitted mr mayor thank you All right. City Manager Executive Search Presentation. Introduce Deputy City Manager Rob Ferrier.

Thank you, Mr. and members of Council. At your last meeting on August 17, Council directed staff to obtain requests for proposals from executive search firms for the City Manager recruitment. Attached to the staff report on this matter are seven proposals we've received for that recruitment. There are multiple options that are available to the city council. For example, you could direct staff to contact one of the selected firms and move forward with obtaining an agreement for an executive search. Given the gravity and the importance of what your undertaking would be, you may decide to agendize it and add it to a further agenda at a future meeting for further discussion. Or you could take no action whatsoever. The proposals were attached, and if you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Tamara, our HR manager, is here as well, and just let us know if you have questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Well, it looks like we're entering into discussion on this. Councilmember Munson?

I'll keep it brief. Rob, I'd like to have more discussion in our biweeklies. I do have some concerns about hiring outside consultants. I would like to find out through the biweeklies what the temperature of the council is to see if Council Member Kuyper's brought up tonight being Thoughtful and thorough in what we discuss and how we move forward, whether we're going to do this internal or we're going to do this external. So I did see some of those. I saw the numbers that were in the packet and there's a pretty big disparity. Also, the locations of where these firms are at. So I just like to have more discussion with you to find out what your biweeklies are like with council, where they're at.

Okay. If the rest of the council members feel that same way, we'd be happy to put it on the next biweekly agenda and solicit input at that time. Any further discussion?

No, I agree with that.

I'll say something just real briefly. First of all, thank you, Tamara, for putting that all together, reaching out to the firms and consolidating the responses, putting that together, some very robust discussions. Feedback that we got, I was pleasantly surprised and pleased with seven firms coming back, all some proposals lengthy, by the way. And I did read through most of those. I feel like we have some pretty solid candidates for a recruiting firm available to us. I agree with that being said that we should run this through some biweekly for further discussion and, and council. I also, to be honest, wouldn't feel comfortable making a decision tonight on that based on our missing two of our council members in person tonight. And I think that is a big decision that everyone should have the chance to weigh in on. So. or at least have their piece set during biweekly so we can get a temperature. So I think a thumbs up will probably do to give direction to staff to go ahead and present that.

Thank you. Thank you, Rob.

All right. Next up, now we're getting into the meat here. Sidewalk maintenance presentation. Big stuff. I'd like to introduce Deputy City Manager Rob Ferrier and Public Works Director Mark Hersey. Take it away, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. At a prior meeting, the city council had requested staff to make a presentation on sidewalk maintenance here in Battleground, including an overview of relevant codes and operational practices. The city has a long history of requiring property owners to maintain sidewalks that are abutting their property. For example, Ordinance 95-769, which was adopted in 1995. included specific language that stated whenever any street or public way in battleground has been improved by the construction of a sidewalk along either side thereof, the duty, burden, and expense of the maintenance, cleaning, repair, and renewal of such sidewalk shall devolve upon the owner of the private property directly but in the sidewalk. Further, in RCW, that's the Prevised Code of Washington, This in the municipal code, we've codified portions of the RCW related sidewalk maintenance, specifically chapters 3568 and 3570, which authorize cities to assess the cost of repairing sidewalks on the abutting property owner. When you look at RCW, it describes the legal framework by which code cities, which includes the city of Battleground, may define obligations for sidewalk maintenance, specifically 3568010, which was first adopted by the state of Washington 80 years ago, almost, in 1949. It says that any city or town is authorized to construct, reconstruct, and repair sidewalks, gutters and curbs along and driveways across sidewalks, and to pay the cost thereof from any available funds or to require the abutting property owner to construct the improvements at owner's own cost or expense subject to limitations of RCW. Current practice here in the city has been to implement both BGMC, the municipal code and RCW chapters as they relate to maintenance of sidewalks. To that end, staff typically sends out a notice to the affected property owner regarding their responsibility to maintain damaged sidewalks. That includes a photograph of the damage. It also includes specs for repair of the work and a statement that they'd be required to get a permit from the city to repair the sidewalk, which is at no cost if I'm remembering that correctly. We have not followed through on that because of the concerns expressed by council members about this practice. And so this evening, we are asking council to provide staff with your guidance and your direction on how you would like us to address this moving forward. staff's opinion is that the model we have right now seems to work. And we would like to see it continue as is. But that's not our call.

That's your call.

And so we would leave it at that and open up from your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Rob. First up, we have Council Member Munson.

Well, thank you, Mayor. So, Rob, this just kind of repeat what I said when we were looking at code updates before. More specifically, in the northwest quadrant of our city, there was a period of time where there was a certain tree required by the city to the developer during the construction, and those trees are what has caused a lot of damage. Again, putting the burden on the a homeowner for something that they didn't have a choice of. The only choice they had was buy the house they could afford or don't buy the house they could afford. Um, I would be open to exploring some options for those property owners in some, some relief to get the concrete fixed, whether that comes from, you know, state grants, if they become available, um, Are they low-income families, senior citizens on fixed incomes? Where can some assistance come in to help impose that safety mechanism to get those sidewalks repaired? In a perfect world, if we weren't looking at that specific quadrant of our city and it was just that everything was done the right way, I would get more of an imposition on the code to if a property owner damaged it, you know, for whatever reason. I would get that, but there's a lot of houses over there that they didn't have a choice on that tree that got put in, but they got left with the benefit of it. So I'm all in favor of just leaving it as it is, but I would entertain some idea or some options if there was some kind of a relief for those homeowners to get that repaired, essentially out of no cost of their pocket.

Just so I understand, are you suggesting that we look to see if there's available funds from other sources that could then be tapped to help homeowners, property owners pay for that cost?

Yeah, I think I think if we're going to present that and you stated it very well, I'm stuttering here because I feel like I'm lack of sleep, too. But you stated it very well. I think there would be the contingencies, though, again, you know. Were you a property owner that bought during this time and this tree was planted and this is what's caused the uplift in the concrete? I wouldn't want to see resources just being handed out, you know, say somebody poured a RV pad and didn't follow it right and then damaged the concrete. That's not something I think that, you know, we should use the funds for, but... Again, I'll use my neighbor, for example. She had three of those trees on her property, and it was uplifting the concrete in those three spots. She's on a fixed income. She can't afford to have a contractor come in and repair that. So I would be interested to see what kind of funding ideas that you and the staff can come up with to look at some of that remedy. Other than that, I'd like to see it just stay how it is.

Council Member Kuypers. Thank you. So can I get clarification? Was this a specific tree that was planted that is no longer being planted? Okay. Because Mark, thank you, Mark. Yes.

Sorry, you can't hear my head rattle that is

So because I mean, obviously, in all the new subdivisions, there's trees planted, some of them are dying. You know, there's expectation that they be rectified. The HOA may or may not have any responsibility. You know, there's all these different situations. So I was just trying to understand where that was. I agree that if this was a specific tree planted, that obviously was going to be problematic. And we've got people who can't afford to take that on, then yes, if there's ways that we can provide any assistance. In general, I support the process. I don't see any reason to change what we're doing other than I support Council Member Munson's recommendation.

Thank you, Council Member Kuypers. Deputy Mayor Vail.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted to offer some transparency for public that's watching or those in the gallery. And please correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but my understanding is that there was a specific tree that was being planted and that there are collars that are put in the ground that help to prevent the tree roots from spreading now. And so when we have trees that are put in the ground we don't have um the same issue currently and so this was in the past a specific type of tree that's no longer being used so the neighborhoods that impact that are impacted negatively by this um are few and far between but it's still something that council is concerned about because we don't want people to be having to pay i mean tens of thousands of dollars possibly to fix concrete um

Yeah, so from the late 90s to, I'd say, the late 2000s, there was a specific tree that was required. And what you're talking about is the root barrier that was not a requirement. So nowadays, we have a large list that was specifically designed by a landscape architect that has expertise in this sort of thing. So they selected trees that are more... specific to small planterships like we have, plus we require the root barrier. And it's not to say you're not going to have an escaping route, you know, there are going to be one offs, but compared to where it's almost every tree in the area that Brian's talking about, you know, it's going to be very far and few between.

And just a quick follow-up question. I'm sure we do in our planning also have code or suggestions that state if those particular trees die, that they're replaced then with trees that do conform.

Yeah, any tree you replace, you have to replace with the current, and you have to do it the current standard. So you have to add the root barrier.

Perfect. Thank you.

Council Member Ferrer.

Now, the way the code is written is, this is in Chapter 3569 of RCW. It states whenever a portion not longer than one block in length of any street in any city is not improved by the construction of a sidewalk thereon, or the sidewalk thereon has become unfit or unsafe for purposes of public travel, and the city council of such city by resolution finds the improvement of such a portion of such street by the construction or reconstruction of sidewalk is necessary for public safety and convenience, the duty burden expense of constructing or reconstructing such sidewalk shall devolve upon the property directly abutting upon such portion as provided, except as a couple of call-outs. And one of those call-outs, Council Member Ferrer, is that an abutting property owner would not be charged with any cost of construction or reconstruction in excess of 50 percent of the valuation of such a budding property exclusive of the improvements thereon according to the valuation last placed upon it for the purposes of general taxation so what that means i read that and if i read this wrong hillary correct me if a property not the building located there on but the property itself is a set that say ten thousand dollars the maximum amount that can be assessed to the property will be half of that five thousand dollars

So that's the property alone, not the building.

The dirt, essentially, not the constructions of the improvements they're on.

Which is a lot better than I heard it in the beginning. I'm like, well, $500,000 house.

Yeah, typically, if you have a house like that at $500,000, the dirt itself might be only worth $100,000.

And the follow-up to that is it was the new language that we had discussed as council where we addressed those concerns prior to what everybody's mentioned to this evening on the dais is that there was liens on the property that you could do. But with the language as it is written now, can you still?

That can still happen. What will happen is if the city were to send out a notice to a property owner, And the property owner, for whatever reason, decided they didn't want to improve. They didn't want to reconstruct a sidewalk. Then the city could go in on its own dime, and it could do the improvements. And the cost related to that would be structured as a lien, which would be on the property. And so the city would not recoup those costs until the property changed hands at some point in the future.

Right, when they decide to send it.

And it would be a lien far down on the totem pole of liens, so to speak. And so it's a mechanism, it's a tool that the city could use to recoup its costs, but it doesn't guarantee that you're actually going to see money at the end of the day. Okay.

I will point out that for the city to repair a sidewalk is far more cost than it is for a homeowner to have a contractor.

Typically, yes.

A couple questions I have. I've waited nice and patiently because I... Mark, you might know this. You had mentioned the late 90s to the late 2000s is when those types of trees were put in without the root barrier. Do you know the date when the code was changed to add root barrier? Is it somewhere around the late 2000s?

I think it was after that, but we had the stretch where we had the economy tank. So while it wasn't a standard, there wasn't anything getting built either. So, um, that makes sense. I could find out the date. I don't have it off the top of my head.

Okay. Very good. Um, a couple of spitball ideas I have here. Um, and I, I'm asking this out loud, even though I probably already know the answer. Um, For like our downtown revitalization, we're offering a certain amount of money towards a new facade in conjunction with a business owner that wants to repair that facade, but there's quite a bit of paperwork that is involved and they have to use certain type of contractor, prevailing wage contractor, so that it falls under the city's guideline of use of a contractor, correct? Yeah. I'm wondering if we might be able to offer something to property owners in the same way that if they have a sidewalk repair that is needing to be done and it falls within the late 90s to late 2000s when these types of trees were put in. Could we offer that as some kind of fund to help fund that repair? Or what do you think, Megan?

Potentially, you could organize a program. You're able to help the poor and the infirm. And so if they met certain income thresholds that would classify them under that, there is a potential that we could do something like that. I know that there are other programs amongst the state and even other states that do have programs about sidewalks because this isn't This isn't just a battleground issue. It's a very prevalent issue across. So we can look and see what those programs look like and come back with some options. But that would be one just off my head that you could do easily. It does caveat it though, that $1 makes any project a public dollar. So it would fall with all of the same rules as if we were doing it, which brings in the prevailing wage and so forth. And don't think you'd have to go out to bid because it'd be under our threshold, but you would still have to do prevailing wage.

I mean, I think I would be curious in seeing what that would look like as far as a program for residents that fall under a certain threshold economically and what that would look like as far as a program. I do understand that, you know, if they're meeting a certain criteria that maybe there would be a certain amount of funds or some kind of sponsorship program like that potentially. I think that could be really beneficial. Council member Munson.

Mayor, I just wanted to show some support to your thought process on that. I just want to make sure that there's not going to be any perceivance of gifting of public funds, but I would like to see if after we work through budget this year and if, you know, Megan does a fantastic job as she always does, and we find some couch cushion money, especially for the low income people, For the low-income, fixed-income families, I'm looking at Google Street Maps right now because I can just think of a dozen of them where I know there's damage. I would support something like that. Maybe even so much as to go on income-based as well. If somebody has maybe a little more means, they can at least get a reduced rate if they're interested in fixing it.

Agreed.

All right, well, we've got some staff direction, I believe. Is there anybody else that'd like to comment on this?

If I may, just to confirm what I've heard. What I've heard is keep the program as it is, but come back with potential options programs that could help people who reduce their costs. Do I hear that correctly?

Yeah, that's one of the two options.

Yeah, whether it be, I think, Just to paraphrase, not to put words in your mouth, Council Member Munson was looking for outside grant funding, state or federal or something that would be a grant funding opportunity. I'm more talking about a city program that would help fund that as well.

Very well.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. I feel like we've wrapped that up nicely. We will move on to the Gordy-Jolma Family Natural Area. And I'd like to introduce Public Works Director Mark Kersig again.

Thank you, counsel. Give me one second. I can quick presentation to share. All right. I'm just going to quickly talk about the Gordy Jolma Family Natural Area Access Easement. So I'll give an introduction, talk about where we're talking about, what the county's specific request is, do a conclusion, and then some time for questions. So I'm sure you're all familiar with, but the county purchased the former Cedars Golf Course. They're working on a master plan for it. Essentially, it'll be a natural area with a bunch of walking trails, The creek will get kind of put back to its natural state. So a lot of those ponds that were built with the golf course will go away. And so that's kind of their overall plan. They're specifically talking to us about an access through the Cedars Landing subdivision. So that lies just north of the old golf course. And then you can see in the picture there, there's a little star. The city actually owns a stormwater facility there. And that's what we'll be talking about. So the county's request, they're requesting an access easement through city stormwater facility. You can see that the parcel we own is in blue, and then the area that they're talking about is highlighted in black. So it would just be along the path area of the stormwater facility. It wouldn't actually be the stormwater facility piece. Essentially the easements over areas that have already been paved and these areas are already used as pedestrian pathways. So there's a trail system through that subdivision and they would just be using a portion of that. So in conclusion, the county needs an easement from us to provide access to the Gordie Joma area. The area they're asking for is already used for pathways. And the county has made an offer to us for that easement. We'll discuss that in executive session. But any non-cost related questions, I want to make sure we talk about in an open meeting. So if you have any questions related to that, feel free to ask them now.

really just boils down to it's just providing access for that neighborhood to get into there correct not seeing anyone queue in i i just have one question do you foresee any adverse effects to our stormwater facility by the work the county is proposing to do

Now, as far as I know, they're generally just going to use what's there. I have not had Hillary review the easement yet, but I will have that done, assuming we want to move forward and make sure there's no impact to our access to the stormwater facility.

All right.

Thank you, Mark.

All right, moving on. We have ordinance number 2026-18, municipal code amendments. And I would like to introduce finance and information services director, Megan Lowry.

Good evening, council. Before you, you have the opportunity to consider the ordinance 2026-18, which would modify chapter 3.04 of our municipal code. We had originally established the economic stabilization fund and insurance fund back when we were in a recession and we wanted a separate fund for savings ultimately and while we're still being fiscally prudent it does create additional administrative burden and financial presentation issues so we are requesting to remove those two funds and fold those funds back into the general fund which then would just go towards our general fund reserve so at this time staff has requesting we set a public hearing for those code modifications

Very good. I would ask that Liz read the ordinance title, please.

Ordinance number 2026-18, an ordinance of the City of Battleground, Washington, repealing Battleground Municipal Code 3.04.010, Insurance Reserve Fund, repealing Battleground Municipal Code 3.04.050, Economic Stability Fund, directing a fund balance transfer and providing for severability and an effective date.

Thank you, clerk. All right, we have comment period discussion. I have Council Member Munson.

Thank you, Mayor. Megan, I don't want to speak on your behalf. I'm excited to see this before us, but you can maybe share, enlighten us, that by removing this fund, it takes that constraint and increases our reserve fund from... I don't have the numbers in my head right now. It increases it by what percentage again, roughly.

So what we currently have for our resolution related to the general fund reserve is 90 days. I believe we have had a request moving forward to have more of a target of 120 days. So going from 25% to 33% ultimately reserve. Cause again, an economic downturn you want to make sure you have sufficient funds to maintain operations so this just assists with that and maintaining that target so there will be a follow-up resolution that council can consider of adding the 120 days instead of the 90 days this is an optimal target for our general fund reserve okay thank you so mayor um just kind of a little bit on this

When we had our last big economic downturn, we didn't have enough reserves. And unfortunately, we lost some great staff members due to it. Megan, thank you for doing this. This is a pretty big deal, I think. This protects our staff in a way that it keeps the city moving fluidly in the event of any, the next economic downturn. I think it's very responsible, this council, to have those reserves set in place so that we can act accordingly when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Council Member Munson. Any further discussion on this? I'll just say I'm a big fan of Dave Ramsey, and an emergency fund is huge. And speaking from a city standpoint, 120 days. is something we can aspire to, but 90 days is great, but it's good to see the constraints come off of these funds and the administrative tasks that are involved with it. So I will call for a motion.

All right, Mayor, I'll move to set a public hearing for the next regular city council meeting of, well, not the next one, but October 5th, yeah. And October 5th, regular city council meeting regarding ordinance number 2026-18. 18. 18. Yeah, I said 18. Did I not?

My bad.

I was going to keep going.

I'm sorry. No, you go ahead. I'm reading down. You go ahead. OK. We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to Ordinance 2026-19, Municipal Code Amendments. And I'd like to introduce, again, Megan Lowery.

Thank you. So this code amendment is related to the adjustment of utility bills in Chapter 13.05.100. What this does is it modifies the language a little bit to remove the city manager's ultimate signing authority on any sort of utility bill adjustments, giving that to the finance director. So correcting that language as well as clarifying some language in our actual adjustment. It was written very specifically, which has caused some concerns with the auditor related to interpretation of what the original intent was of the leak adjustment. So this brings it forward to put the onus on the finance director for that and give some ability of working through that with residents. So with that, we would ask for a hearing to be set for October 5th.

Very good. Thank you, Megan. Any discussion on this? I think anything that gets us less scrutiny from the auditors is a good thing and makes it easier for people to get some relief on their utility bills that say their water main is leaking and they find it the hard way when you get the bill. Clerk, could you read the ordinance title, please?

Ordinance number 2026-19, an ordinance of the city of Battleground, Washington, amending Battleground Municipal Code section 13-05-100. Adjustment of utility bills and providing for severability and an effective date.

Thank you, Liz. And I will entertain a motion.

I'll move to set the public hearing for October 5th, 2026 to amend ordinance number 2026-19 municipal code amendments. Second.

All right. We have a motion and we have a second by Deputy Mayor Vail. Any discussion? Hearing none, call for the vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion passes. All right, onto administrative reports. Are there any administrative reports from staff this evening?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, but just very quickly. Last Tuesday, we had our first session of BGU, Battleground University. This is the fourth year that we've done this program here in Battleground. It's a full class. We have 25 students that are part of the class. And it provides our residents an opportunity to learn a little more about the ins and outs of municipal governance. The way you describe it is everything you want to know about government but were afraid to ask, taking some of the mystery out of City Hall. And so we will have classes roughly every two weeks during off-council weeks. So our next class will be next week. We'll be here in City Hall. And we'll talk about finance. And then after that, it'll be public works and then community development. And our last class, that'll get us into October, towards the end of October. And that'll be over at PD. And it'll be public safety. And so we'll have an opportunity for our students to see all the ins and outs of the police department, maybe get tased while they're at it, if they're interested in that kind of thing. And then our first meeting here in November, as long as you've attended four out of the five classes, you graduate. And so I encourage all of our students, and there's at least one student I see in the audience right now who happens to be one of my neighbors. And there's a former student I'm looking at right now who is a BGU grad. There's two BGU grads. I believe there's a BGU grad on the dais, as I recall. So it's pretty cool. And so if you'd like to come out and take a look and visit a class, you're more than welcome to. That concludes our report. Thank you.

Love it. BTU is awesome. Big fan. All right. We will move on to council communications. Are there any council member communications this evening? Council member Munson, you are up.

All right. So this is something I can speak near and dear to my heart to you. I'd like to congratulate Natalie Worthy in her appearance at Miss America. She represented our state well, she represented our county well, and she represented Battleground well. I would also like to note her director, Sherry, is fantastic at helping young women succeed in this program. Sherry's legacy is pretty robust when it comes to Clark County and specifically Battleground. Again, I would know. So I just want to congratulate Natalie and Sherry on their appearance this last weekend.

Very good. Not seeing any additional communications. I will just throw one out there. It's a little preliminary, maybe a cart before the horse. But congrats to Battleground PD for 100% compliance with the WASPC's reaccreditation process. I know they're still not quite through the gates yet. 100% compliance after they went through all of our process, procedures, interviewed our officers, and I'm pretty sure they're thorough. And just congratulations to the entire PD and everything they're doing down there. Job well done. All right. Now, I will announce it pursuant to RCW 42.30.1101B. The city council will enter an executive session to consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of price increase. The session will last 10 minutes, commencing at 8.20. to end at 8.30 with no action to follow. After the executive session, we'll call the regular meeting back to order.

Thanks, Arhat.

Thank you, Clerk. The next regular City Council meeting will be held on Monday, September 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m. No study session is currently scheduled. And I would like to adjourn at 8.30 p.m. Mayor Overposer, I believe. No, we already did both.

Oh. Yeah.

We asked Hillary. She said it was okay to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. And we're adjourned.