Council approves domestic violence ordinance, SRO contract renewal

Good evening. Welcome to the Orting City Council meeting for August the 26th, 2026. My name is Scott Drennen. I am the Mayor of the City of Orting, and I will be chairing this meeting of the Orting City Council. Meeting participation is both in person and virtual for Councilmembers, both in person and virtual. For Councilmembers participating through virtual attendance, please ensure you're attending from a private place, free of interruptions or distractions. This meeting is being held in person and through the platform Zoom. A link for virtual participation can be found on the agenda or on the City's website. We will start this meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Councilmember, Deputy Mayor Sproul.

I pledge allegiance to the Pledge of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madam Clerk, will you call the roll, please?

Councilmember Torres. Present. Councilmember Williams. Present. Councilmember Tracy. Present. Deputy Mayor Sproul. Present.

Councilmember Holland notified us he will be absent.

Councilmember Hogan. Present. Councilmember Reed. Present.

Roll is complete. We have a quorum.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion for Councilmember Holland.

Motion to be excused, Councilmember Holland.

Two.

Motion made by Councilmember Hogan. Seconded by Councilmember Tracy.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes.

Councilors will be recognized with a raise of their hands for motions to move, second, or comment in question. When speaking through the chair for questions or staff identified by position, this portion of the meeting is a study session and will have no motions made by Council and will serve as information and discussion, as a discussion meeting. Information will be presented to Council and the public to better understand only current events and activities in the cities, but to preview future potential agenda bills to be voted on at a later date in the Council meeting. The Council will have discussion following each presentation by staff and the opportunity to ask questions of the presenter. I will initially call on each Councilmember for questions and subsequent questions by raising hand and waiting for the chair to acknowledge. Audience members will not be able to participate in this portion of the meeting. Council discussion will be followed by action items moving the agenda bill to return to committee, move forward to the next study session for further discussion, or move to the committee of whole. It could also be added as a modification to the evening agenda in the new business. Starting our session this evening, we have AB 2699, Hazard Mitigation Plan, Police Chief Devin Corbele.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

This draft resolution is 2625, and it is regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan adoption. As you know, FEMA requires that cities who have emergency management responsibilities update their emergency management, I'm sorry, their hazard mitigation plan every five years. That was last done in 2020 and was due in 2025. That plan has finally been completed with help from Pierce County, our neighboring jurisdictions, and then each department within the city. That plan has been submitted to the state, who has approved it, as well as to the county. And it's gone to FEMA, and FEMA has approved it pending. It gets adopted by local jurisdictions, a governing body. And so that is why it's being presented to you here today. We are recommending that this be passed or adopted, simply because one of the requirements of obtaining emergency or reversal funding from FEMA is that you have a hazard mitigation plan that's current and approved by your government plan.

Thank you, Chief.

Questions or comments from Council?

Council Member Reed.

I was reading through the paperwork on that project, and there was quite a few names in there, contact people that were still from the previous administration. I don't know if you're going to go through that before you read some of it.

Sure. Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Mayor. Council Member Hogan.

I believe I read through it, too, and I think that was part of the old process. And at the end, it's all been updated to the new names. So I think that was from 20 – it's showing 2024 to start with, right, or whenever it was.

The copy that I have, at least in my pocket, is the current updated version.

With, yeah.

But, I mean, it actually shows the whole process. At the start, it had our old administration names, but now they're all fresh. Like, right, yours is all updated.

Correct. Yeah.

And just so I'm on the same page as Council Member Reed, do you have a page number that you can refer to that I can actually just to make sure that I'm getting the right page?

I'll refer it. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Sproul.

So, last time we talked, this thing is still in a draft, the resolution. Has the attorney looked at that, and we've got that updated now?

Nope.

No, not at this point. So it's been given to him. He's currently working on it, but he has not completed it.

Okay.

So hopefully by September 9th, we'll have that?

I hope, yes. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Tracy?

So we're just going to move that to the September 9th meeting, and then go from there.

That's what the recommendation is.

Yeah. Yeah.

Any other questions from Council?

Stand alone on the 9th, was it?

That's what I would put it as, because right now we don't have a resolution still in the

draft form.

So let's do that.

Yeah.

And then if you can't get it back in time, just take it off of the meeting.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Chief.

Next up, AB 26100,

school zone discussion.

Police Chief Devin Berlake.

So for this item, I don't have too much more to add to this. The mayor may have an update regarding the cost savings from the crosswalk, which I believe was still a question from our last meeting. But the desire moving forward would be to kind of clear up the confusion regarding school zone, no school zone, and then another school zone by just making it all one big, long school zone, or protected school walk zone, just simply because of the interface between vehicles on the state route, and then the trail and the students walking to school. When that school property is completed, the state route is essentially going to bisect. There's going to be schools on both sides of the property,

and there will be, it's

anticipated that there will be students crossing quite a bit, as well as walking parallel to the entire roadway. So in the best interest of the kids and to try to protect those kids, my recommendation at least would be, A, leave the current crosswalk at Lane Boulevard intact when the bridge is completed, and then B, start moving towards designating the entire route as a school zone or a

reduced speed zone.

And it would essentially change that small portion in the center of each main about Rocky Road and Whitehawk, which is currently 35 during school zone hours, and that would reduce that

portion to 20 as well, just to match everything else around it. Thank you, Chief.

So I'll kind of add to it before we go to comments. We had the opportunity to meet with Chief today, and I've been receiving citizen concerns coming to City Hall, and I'm sure that some of you may have as well, that there's a sense that they feel that with 11 speed changes as you go through town, and when you go into a 35 from a school zone to a 35 to have to reduce again, they feel that they're not being adequately prepared to drop down to that speed, to have 20 miles an hour to 35 to 20 miles an hour, which in many cases it's probably 40 miles an hour to 20 miles an hour for the speed zone. So some of the recommendations that in the meeting with Chief today, this administrator, myself, before school starts, we're going to get the trailer out with a signed notification of, you know, a real highly visible notification of entering the school zone area to alert people early on. But then I think that we need to make it a continuous speed from the point where it turns 20 miles an hour at the high school, all the way through to the point where the school zone ends. I think that it's those changes in speeds, which seems to be throwing people off. And then that's also being reflected as people come into the courts, because there are a number of people that are upset because they feel that they're being trapped into a speed zone. And our ultimate goal is to protect the kids and the safety of the kids. And I think that it would be more effective for us to have just one speed change to 20 miles an hour through the full zone from school to school and just maintain that speed. Anyway, so I'd entertain your thoughts on it. But that was just some of our conversation today based upon what people have been giving us feedback on.

Councilmember Tracy?

I agree definitely it should go down to 20 and stay at 20 all the way past the high school going in. I disagree with them saying that the speed changes up and down, up and down, because 11 times. Let's see, we go from 50 to 35 and then down to 20.

That's three times.

And then it doesn't go back up until you're way on the other side of town.

It goes to 30. So I disagree with that part.

No, I agreed with you until I went out and I verified it.

Yeah.

It went 30 from 45 to, what is it, 45 to 30 to 25 to 15 on the corners, two corners, three corners.

Suggestions.

And then you go through the portions of the town.

Is that correct, Chief?

I guess it just depends on what exact route you're taking. But if you go through the entire town, there's obviously many more speed changes than just from, you know, Williams to high school.

Yeah.

So we should, those sharp corners, maybe we ought to change them to 35. So we don't have the speed changes.

I was unaware of it myself. And it was an older gentleman who came in and he was really, I really felt for him. You know, he hadn't had a speeding ticket in 40 years. He was going six miles an hour over and received a ticket. And he made me aware of all of the speed changes. And he just was not prepared at that point when it dropped to 20 to slow down that quickly. And so his request to me was that, you know, we make it more consistent where the speed zone was. But, yeah, I thought the same as you.

Yeah.

I agree with that. I think it should be 20 instead of going back up again, then back down again when you get to the high school.

Yeah. Keep it all 20.

I mean, it's, traffic will probably flow better anyway.

Yeah. That's my opinion. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Pinsman Reed. I have a few comments.

We're going to move the school zone. We need to have better flashing lights, better signage to make people aware. We're not here to write tickets. We're here to protect the kids. I'd rather not see anybody get the ticket, but I wanted to slow down. A couple people have said, we need to leave the crosswalk in, where's that now?

Lane. At Lane.

If we're going to go with that scenario of, they're using that because they don't want to walk to the bridge, or they're not going to use the bridge anyway, we should put a crosswalk under the bridge, so the kids can walk across. We haven't got a fence there at the bottom of the sidewalk, so they're going to come out of that, they're going to come out of that development. If they don't want to use the bridge, they're going to walk across the street. So, if we're going to use that scenario, we should put them on the crosswalk area. Or, their parents should make them use the bridge that we paid $8 million to put in. If that's the bottom of the bridge, we must come out of that development. Keep the kids off the road, because we don't want them to cross it.

That's some thoughts I have on it. Thank you. That's Mr. Sproul.

You have a dover, Mr. Sproul.

Yeah, no, I agree. The 20 mile an hour should just be all the way from the high school, all the way down. And, I think we've already got flashing lights there, when the camera's on.

That's correct.

There's beacon lights at both ends currently. There's one set at the high school, and one set up at Lane. The plan would be to install, obtain and install, maybe up to four more along the route, to each direction, that would alert people, so if they come on offside streets, they know it's a reduced speed bill, regardless of where they come in on 162 from.

So, you put in more lights, not more cameras, right?

Correct, yeah. Okay.

More cameras, just the beams that say slow down, it's a reduced speed during this time.

Right.

And, I totally agree with keeping the crosswalk there. And, I don't think we have enough crosswalks.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Councilmember Therese?

This morning, I saw, I think it was, is Hallahoonie on the motorcycle?

Correct, yes. Okay.

I saw him this morning there at the school. And, I think that would be a good idea to have the motorcycle policeman right there,

during,

when school starts again. Right there by the gym, the old gym.

You're talking over by the high school?

Yes, at the high school. I think that's a perfect location for him to just, as traffic's movement,

to kind of,

people will see him and slow down and be aware of that 20 mile per hour, or 25, whatever it is, they're going to do.

But,

I think it's a good place to have him there at that time.

Councilmember Reed? Wait a minute. I didn't see your hand.

I didn't see your hand in the order. We still got too many people that haven't spoke that I know of, unless he's not going

to say. Okay, okay. Councilmember Williams?

I'm for it all being in one shot there. But, as long as we're talking about crosswalks, did we ever find out if we're eligible for any credit to keep that one?

Thank you for asking. So, we did look into that this last week. Administrator Wheaton reached out to the State Department of Transportation because they're ultimately the ones that will be dictating whether or not we can keep the sidewalk there

or not.

So, that's our first step is to receive feedback on that. And, where were you at with that?

I was going to reiterate what you said.

Oh, okay. Okay.

So, at this time, the person that we need to be in contact with was not in the office. I think he's out of office all week. And so, next week we'll have the opportunity to talk with them. And I did bring it to parametrics about that possibility. And everything's relying on what we get back from the State DOT.

Okay. Yep. Councilmember Hogan? Yeah,

I'd like to see it stay 20 from laying down to where the Texaco is. All the way through, it only makes sense. And, I mean, you're coming into town, Williams Boulevard, it's 35, not 50 when you're going through there, and then you're hitting the school zone and probably doing 40. So, I don't have a problem with where our speed limit signs are now. The other end of town was because the State asked us to lower that speed limit to consistent instead of 35, 30, 25.

They said to 30. Is that correct, Chief?

I believe on the other side, on the high school side, it's 20 at the school.

Right. And then 25.

But, I meant on the south end of town.

I'm sorry.

As you're coming into town from Orville Road, right, they changed to 45 from 50, and then we dropped ours to 35 or 30? It's weird, yeah. It's like that's kind of a weird drop there, and I think the 25 is way too late. It should be sooner as far as I'm concerned.

But, anyway,

no, I support it. I think, you know, the district's going to have to play a role in the parents, and if we think we're going to have kids jaywalking under the bridge, let's write some tickets and their parents can pay them. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilman Tracy.

So, when we first brought this up, it was because we wanted to see if the contractor was built into the bid to take it off, to get rid of the crosswalk. Did we find out if it was in the bid?

It is. It is. It is.

And that's where we talked about credit. If we leave, if we take it out and they do not have to remove it?

Yeah, we haven't pushed that yet, because we want to make sure that WASHDOT will allow

us to keep it. Oh, okay.

So, as soon as we get that, then we'll figure out the credit card. But, I think what we've surmised is that they're not going to charge us for the work.

So, that's what we'll push for. Actually, that's correct. Yeah.

There wouldn't be a credit. They just wouldn't charge us to not remove it.

Right. Okay. Okay. Okay, great. Deputy Mayor Sproul?

So, what's the $2,000 potential cost for?

I put that in there just because I obtained some quotes for those flashing beacons. If we were to purchase more, I put those in.

Oh, okay. Thank you. One other question. Customer Tracy. Quick.

If we're not adding any more cameras, then how are we going to control it? In other words, right now, it goes back up to 35. So, even with flashing lights, they're going to pick the speed up to 35. What's going to control that other than cameras?

Oh, you mean what's going to enforce that speed?

Yes.

So, in the north section, obviously, there's the schools on cameras. Those would enforce that portion. And then everything else from, you know, about, I'd say, White Hawk down to the high school and to Lieber would just be officers that would have to enforce that.

Okay.

So, we couldn't move one? Do you have to have two cameras at each location or one at each end?

It's completely up to the council.

We currently have one set, one school's own set at the north side. The way that the ordinance was written, it'll actually allow for another set to be installed by the high school, in front of the high school. It was decided not to do that one because the first one would probably be so effective that it would deter speed in that high school zone. But that is an option that can be explored if that's what the council would like to do.

Thank you. Council Member Reed.

Yeah, I think that's a long school zone, so I think we're going to have to have a whole lot more signage. Or, because we're not, I keep saying, we're not in the business to write tickets. We're in the business to slow the traffic down. And everybody's going to think, now that they've all got tickets out in that little section, they're going to be speeding once they pass those cameras.

Right.

But the goal would be to increase visibility that it is a school zone or a reduced speed zone by having additional flashing beacons or signage and then an aggressive social media campaign to educate folks that it would be changed.

So, putting, kind of a way of looking at it that I was thinking about is, when you put a crosswalk on a state highway that's 50 miles an hour, now we're all of a sudden slowing it down. It's kind of like, people say, couldn't they just move that deer crossing?

Do they all have to cross right here? The problem,

though, is the interface between high-speed vehicles from the state route and the children that are walking adjacent to that route.

That's what the deer think, too. So, when we're writing tickets in the school zone right now, I made a comment last time I was here. I was in a group of probably 35 cars. Have you, when you're looking at the cameras, have you ever counted what's the longest group of cars where everybody got a ticket?

I have not.

Might take a look at that. That would tell me to, leave me to believe that their signage is not enough. If there's, if there's 35 or 70 cars that have gotten a ticket in that one group of cars, I can't believe that they all said, I'm not going to slow down, or that they all saw the sign and did it anyway. So, something's wrong.

Are you looking for me to comment on that? Yeah. Yeah. Even are the council people. It's a study session.

I don't find any correlation between the number of cars that are being ticketed and the mindset of the drivers.

Okay.

I'm saying, it's, I'm saying that 35 or 70 drivers are not all going to drive into that school zone above the speed limit. If, if they were warned well enough, if you're just following the line of traffic, we're not getting their attention. That's what I'm trying to say.

Does that make more sense? I understand what you're saying.

I'm not saying that every driver is just saying, I'm going to drive anyway. They're not going to issue me a ticket, but that's not what they're thinking.

Right. Right.

I think there's so many factors that speculating on, on what drivers are thinking at the time isn't, isn't, uh, the best thing to do. But, um, I think that people like to keep up with traffic. Uh, oftentimes they'll just drive at the same speed as the person in front of them. Uh, sometimes folks are in a, in a, in a morning rush or just, there's a lot of folks that are trying to get to work on time.

Yeah.

I just, we're doing something wrong for writing 35, 70 or a hundred tickets. There's a steady line of traffic going through there.

Something's wrong. Something's not right yet.

I, I don't, I mean, I think the driver's doing stuff wrong.

They're going too fast.

The driver's doing, the driver's doing something wrong, but we've got a speed section there that I can't believe that that many people would not, somebody would not slow down in that line of traffic.

It's like 55 or 70 on the freeway. Guys do 80 on the freeway and there's no signage other than a speed limit sign, but they choose to go that way.

In the school zone, we're trying to save kids'

lives. Okay. Okay.

We're supposed to have a comment here.

Yeah. Okay.

Councilmember Tracy or Williams, do you want to counter?

I don't want to counter.

I wanna agree. Okay.

35 people out of 35 people, one or two don't care that everybody's going, they'll go slower and they'll hold the rest back.

But something's wrong.

You know, even on the freeway, people do 80, but you go two lanes over and someone's doing 50 or 55. I mean, out of 35 people, not 100% of them are going to do 35. Somebody's going to abide by the sign if they can read it.

So I could be off.

Maybe I'm wrong in saying 35 or 50 people or 75 or 100 people in a row are getting a ticket.

If I could just add that one more element here, which hasn't been considered yet, is the fact that a lot of these drivers are driving this route multiple times a day or just every day.

Right.

And so they know, they're familiar with the zone because they drive it every day. And these aren't a group of 35 folks that are just driving through the city for the first time ever.

No.

I'm saying we haven't got their attention, though. So, I mean, if we're going to do that, we should buy a lot more jaywalking tickets so we get their attention. If we're trying to save kids, what do we do?

Yeah. Great. Yeah.

I'm all for notifying folks in advance that this school zone is here and it's active. That's always been something that we try to do. If we need to be more aggressive with that, I'm more than happy to do that.

I think we need to be more aggressive with it.

Thank you, Councilman Reed.

Councilman Therese?

On a lighter note, I was driving through Georgia, east of Atlanta, and big old sign, school zone, speed limit 55.

School zone.

I got a picture of it. I told my wife, we got to get a picture of this because nobody's going to believe me. School zone, speed limit 55.

I take it that's not a motion?

No.

Oh, it's just a little story to add to that.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments from Council?

Okay.

We'll move on to something on a lighter note. School resource officer, AB 26103. Police chief, you're up again.

All right.

This is, we're seeking to renew the school resource officer contract with the school district. The contract actually expired in June of 2026, and we want to try to get this renewed before the start of the school year or shortly after, if possible. We met, City Administrator Wheaton and I met with the school district administration, and we all are comfortable with the current language in the contract, and Section 3 of that contract allows for one-year extensions, and so we're just asking for this contract to be extended another year to cover this upcoming school year.

Thank you. Question from Council? Deputy Mayor Strong?

Is the, what is that, Appendix A, the wages, is that still current, or does that need to be updated as well?

No, I believe we're going to keep everything.

Status quo. Okay. Any

other questions or comments?

Council member Hogan?

Can we move this as an item at the regular meeting? Is it on the agenda?

The next meeting? Tonight. Excuse me?

You can add it during the business meeting, yeah?

I would like to add it to tonight so that it's ready to go when school opens, right? They're opening on September 1st.

Okay.

We'll entertain that when we add the additions or modifications.

Okay, so I say something, or somebody says something.

Okay, thank you. Okay. No other questions?

I did have something I wanted to talk about this evening. Council Member Williams, I credit you for asking me about the timeline with the Headworks project, and how insensitive that actually is. And so I went back through, and I was able to get the timeline, some of the numbers from parametrics and from some of the numbers through our loan. I have a little packet where I put a summary on each of you here. And I'm going to read through this because I know that I'll miss something if I try to go off memory there. So the Water Resource Recovery Facility Headworks Upgrade is funded through a low-interest loan for the Public Works Board in the amount of $10 million. That interest rate is 1.39%, and it has to be substantially completed by May 1, 2028. The loan was originally approved for the solids upgrade in May of 20—excuse me—the loan was originally approved for the Worf solids upgrade in 2025. In May of 2026, the City requested that the approved loan be re-scoped for the solids upgrade to the Headworks project. Following the review, the State Public Works Board approved the change as the first phase of the City's planned WRRF improvements. Completion of the Headworks upgrade will position the City to apply for additional low-interest financing for the second phase of the Worf improvements for 2028. So this was originally—the loan was originally under the first upgrade for the solids plant, like, over a year ago in 2025. Then we went back, and we were able to get it re-scoped for this job here. But our timeline didn't change. So we lost one year, basically, of opportunity for it. So that kind of compressed our window for construction on it.

bidding,

award, construction, commissioning, and closeout within the loan requirements. The resulting schedule creates substantial risk that the project will not be completed within the required loan period. In addition, the loan requirements, head works upgrade is weather-sensitive. The treatment plant's plant flow currently passes through a single-channel head works, which limits the time available to perform certain construction activities. Much of the work must be completed during favorable weather conditions while maintaining continuous plant operation. The preferred construction window for most of work is May through September. This creates additional scheduling constraints because the design, permitting, and permitting, bidding, construction, and procurement process must be completed in advance of this window. So anyway, for the most part, we have a lot of the work has been performed by the on-call already, which would allow them to have that compressed engineering window to go forward with. So they have the engineering work done for the on-site station. They have the preliminary assessment work done for the head works channel. And then they also have the work for the telemetry SCADA upgrade with the control room up above. So there's already been a lot of that done. That's what gave them the advantage to be able to make that window within a four-month period. You still have, even with then, it's going to be really tight. I just kind of wanted to share that all with you. And the other part of it was last evening when we were talking about with our rate study, if you looked at scenario two, everything was dependent on this public works board loan because that 1.3% interest or 1.39 is like free money. It's really a good deal. And it was really good that we were able to get that back. But that's just the first loan. And in order for us to apply even for the second loan, we have to have this first loan used within its time period.

Councilman Williams?

So if we allowed parametrics to go ahead and engineer this,

then

because they engineered it, then would that disqualify them from actually doing the construction and having a different firm?

Well, we can go out for bid for the next portion of the construction management inspections,

all of that.

No, this would just be, they would just do the, they would do the engineering for the headworks under their on-call contract. They'd come before you with the scope of work and budget for just the engineering portion. You would still have that option to go out for an RFP when you get to the construction side of the project and everything.

So if,

what if we had them give us a budget and then when we got it, we didn't like it and it was way too high?

You could do that.

You could do that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

They could come before you. I just wanted to present to you all of the timeline facts.

Yeah.

So the next step would be, they would come before you with a scope and budget for the project for you to review. And at that time, you could make that decision at that point.

So we're looking,

that would actually be the September meeting when they would come.

Uh,

I believe it would be, uh, September 9th, he would present the scope and budget for it.

Oh, excuse me.

We, we could, we could actually, right now I show on here, going to the committee of whole discussion, but if you wanted to, it could come before you in the first meeting. I think the sooner, the better, uh, which would be more like September the 9th, but, or you could bring it to the committee of whole. Would you like to ask, um, engineer?

Yeah, uh,

we're sitting here throwing all these things out and he's sitting there going, wow, I'm going to get it done in a week.

Uh, okay.

What's this schedule look like for you as the engineer?

Uh, thank you. Uh, so, uh,

I think, uh, I have a good idea of the scope. I've outlined the scope just in preparation for this, get a better understanding of the project and helping with the amendment with commerce as well.

Um,

I, I think the September 16th committee of whole feels a little bit more feasible it's a large multi-discipline project to be honest. You know, you've got electrical, mechanical, civil process design associated with it and making sure we get all the, uh, components in coordination with city staff. Um, so there's the, the process is usually we develop a draft scope of work and budget, submit it to city staff, they per review and comment, and then we revise that and, you know, address that in hopefully one revision. So I'd like a few weeks to get through that process, uh, with city staff and to get it to you by the, uh, 16th study session.

So what about department of ecology?

Uh,

ecology is going to have to weigh in on this. So there's two components that ecology is going to require to modifications to your plant.

Um,

one's an engineering report. Um, so anything that falls under O and M is not, doesn't require an engineering report slash facility plan, uh, for ecology review. The component of headworks that will require it is that secondary channel. Um, and if we're selecting separate equipment, a different fine screen, which I believe the city would like to, you've got that current rotary screen that's exceeded design life, um, refurbishment of the existing channel and replacement of the influent pumps, provided we don't increase, increase capacity, which I don't think the city has a desire to or any justification to increase capacity or re-rate your plant at this point, that would fall under operations and maintenance, does not require ecology input. Lastly, the lab expansion would not either. Um, so they review and approve that component associated with headworks, secondary channel. And then as you're doing the design before you go to construction, they have to review and approve the engineering plants as well. So that will be built into our design schedule.

Um,

you think the September 16th, uh, meeting, you would have all the, everything that's needed.

Yeah. Yeah. To present. Yeah. Yes. That's all. Councilman Reed.

So do you think it's, it's doable to, to go forward and still get it done in time?

I think so.

It's going to be, uh, it's going to be a really compressed schedule, but engineer hunger for probably would be best answer that.

I think design is doable.

Um,

I think one thing that we're going to have to do is traditionally you would do a, um, you know, your engineering report and then get approval and then start design. I think you're going to run both of those parallel, which is okay. We'll coordinate that with ecology and given the limited scope of the headworks improvements. I see limited risk associated with that approach.

So your department of ecology can jump in there ahead of time.

Yeah. Yeah.

And they've been on site. They're aware of the needs for, uh, headworks improvements. Uh, they've been on plant on the grounds of the plant multiple times. They've seen the, uh, state of headworks and understand the, the need there.

So, um,

they're there to help us get things done and we rely on them for that.

The other question is the money.

Yeah.

Can you talk to the people who got the grant from?

Yeah. Yeah.

And they said no extension.

So we, we're, um, uh, when referred to, uh, Jerry Hungerford, but, um, we also have a second funding mechanism that would follow right after this to, to, that it's tied to. So, or that we would go to for the next phase, but, uh, you might be more familiar with that than I am.

Well, there's multiple funding, um,

options.

Obviously the $10 million here is to pay for this project, um, and is, uh, deadline of May 1st. I, I never want to say never on extensions, um, certainly a possibility, um, given that you've recently re-scoped the project, I would recommend that you make some progress before we go back and say, all right, we just re-scoped this. I, I, I sense that they had to burn a little political capital to get the extension. Um, they had to take it to their internal board for review and gave us a caution that we may not maintain the full 10 million. We were successful in doing so, um, so provided we're making progress, um, I'll say there might be a chance of an extension. I'm not, I can't promise that though.

So the next money that we're looking at won't be at 1.39%.

So, uh, they run the, this annually. So when we met with them on the re-scope, they encouraged us for future phases of the project to apply for it. Ecology's got money as well, um, grants and loan program, which is a great option for funding the project.

Yeah.

And so we were actually turned down this year by the Department of Ecology for funding. So this one, we're really excited to actually get this re-scoped, but the, it's a great opportunity, uh, to get that low interest right now.

So, uh,

and Jerry Hunterford, we were going to be applying in 2027 for the next batch for the 2028, or would it be 2828?

Whatever the city desires. Um, you know, I think that's a decision to make at the time based on plant, uh, plant needs progress, and as well as your rate decision. That you have before you, because that incorporates into your funding for, um, loans and grants.

So.

Any other questions?

Council?

So you, you, yeah, you, you had it in here as just, um, wanting to, to look at this, but where do you want to go with this?

Well,

if it's, if there's no motion to be made, it would be just that I would get on to the next committee of whole, the September 16th meeting for you to see the scope and budget. And that's, and you'd have the chance to look at it, uh, from the, the number of perspective from parametrics. So I wanted to just keep you guys informed so that as we move through this process with raptillus and the rates, um, you have that option to go forward with the on call on this. Uh, if we don't, then that's a different path, um, on the rate, on the rates, on the rate study, uh, they had scenario one for wastewater, which was going out for a bond later on or another form of finance. So, uh, this would allow us to take it forward, um, and you utilize the public works board loan.

And I understand that, but you brought this forward under just a, it's not an agenda bill.

It's nothing.

It's just, you brought it forward, but obviously you want us to approve it so that you can move forward. Are you just going to move it forward no matter what? And then on the 16th, we'd find out more or something.

I don't know.

This was just to, to inform you.

And then, um,

I'll request parametrics to present a scope and budget for it on September the 16th. And, uh, but it was just for, for all of you to have for information right now of, uh, uh, going forward with it.

So,

and then, then at that point it would go to committee of whole and then it'd go before a council meeting to be approved. If you were to go that route, it was just more information. I didn't have the information for, uh, council member Williams when he asked me the last time what the impact was on the schedule and on the dates. But then when I went back and started trying to put it all together, um, you can see that there just wasn't a whole lot of time for engineering, uh, to happen in there.

So.

So parametrics is going forward right now with a scope and budget, right? Is that what I'm hearing?

If that's the, the wish of the, of this body to go forward with that.

Yeah. Well, yeah.

See, that's why I'm confused a little bit.

I'm just confused. Okay. I'm sorry.

So are we going to vote on that or are we just going to say, go for it? Or I don't, I'm not sure where we're at in the procedure is what I'm asking. Um, and if, if they're going to do the scope and budget, that's fine. I mean, it's your decision, but, um, I, I appreciate the information, but I don't know what we're, or what I'm supposed to do.

Okay. I'll just. Fine. Great. I guess we're a read. Another question. Or the wrong question for JC.

Can we, can we, can we push the contract? The contractor give them a, a shorter timeframe to do? I mean, even if they work, even if they work some overtime in the job, if we're going to lose money out of that $10 million that we have at 1.39% maybe, can we, can we move this to, to push a little harder and get done a little faster?

Yeah. Yeah.

Like you said, there can be incentives in the contract to get done earlier.

You'll pay for them.

Um, one thing, so the, there's consequential damage, liquid data damages, things like that. Um, another option is early procurement of long lead equipment is something that a lot of, uh, municipal agencies have been doing right now is the, you know, if we know what equipment specifically the city wants, for example, the screens you select, we'll go through an alternatives analysis, select the screens,

um,

electrical components like electrical panels are long lead. And then the city can procure those ahead of time. We bake that in the contract documents and hand that over to the contractor. So that upfront ordering of all the materials is greatly reduced because they're here or there shortly after, um, and when they're ready for them.

Um,

so that's one thing we, as an industry have been doing to mitigate that after COVID electrical equipment, I mean, you're six months on some things.

Um,

and so those things we identify early, procure them under city funds and then hand them to the contractor helps cut down that construction window drastically.

Yeah.

So, uh, just to this, this is kind of a tricky situation. Uh, I'm looking just to see an overall desire from the council, because if, if, if, if I move it forward with parametrics presenting, it compromises them in the bid process. If we were to go out for an RFP. So if, if the council has no intentions of, of, of going with the on-call service, I don't want to, I don't want to compromise him through the RFP process. It is really what makes it kind of complicated.

Would that be correct? Yeah.

And it also delays your timeline.

So. Yeah.

So, uh, Councilman Hogan.

Yeah. Uh, yeah.

I'd like to go on call and let's get rolling on it. I, it's, we gotta get it done.

Yeah.

And like you say, later, if we find other stuff we can put out for bid, we can do that.

Right. Yeah. When we have time. Yeah.

And I, and like I mentioned, when he brings it before you, and if you decide that it's just too out of our range, you can still say no. I just, I just, I just didn't want to, uh, put him through this if it would make it, uh, something that the council always wanted to do.

Yeah. Yeah.

See, he'd say, yeah, go ahead. And then when you get all done, say, God, I didn't think it was going to be that much.

Yeah. Yeah.

You know, so I'd kind of like to know ahead of time.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So, I mean, you'll, you'll have that opportunity though, if, when that, when that gets to you, uh, at the committee of whole meeting.

Yeah. I mean, I,

again, I, I'm for it.

Okay.

I just, I, I, I wasn't sure if we're ever going to vote on it or not vote on it or whatever it was.

So. I appreciate it.

And it's, it's a tricky situation, but I think that, uh, you know, there's that urgency to take advantage of this loan. And so we'll, we'll bring it to the, uh, uh, committee of whole meeting in September and then present that scope.

And then the cost for you to see, is there anything attached to that loan?

In terms of, uh,

anything, uh, you know, have to buy American, do whatever, like we ran into Kansas street.

The, uh, you know, terms and agreement went to the mayor for a signature when we got the extension. Um, we'll review that, review that in detail and make sure any buying provisions, contracting provisions, you know, sometimes there's, well, there will be, um, prevailing wage, but sometimes there's additional wage laws in some of the funding as well.

So.

Just so we check all that. So we're not surprised when it comes down.

Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Thank you everyone.

So we'll bring that to the, uh, September committee of whole.

Thank you.

So this time we'll, we'll break for five minutes, return at six o'clock with the start of the business meeting.

Oh, yes. Mayor. Mayor,

I'd like to add Agenda Bill AB 26-103 to tonight's agenda. The Police Chief Gaberlick with the update in the contract for an SRO officer at the boarding school district.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Did I write the same right agenda bill?

I just want to double check. Are we adding it to consent or is it stand-alone?

No, let's make a stand-alone.

Please stand-alone. Mayor. Yes.

I'll need to double check the council adopted policies, but in the absence of a pre-existing authorization to add agenda items on a single council member's suggestion or request, there should be a motion and a second to amend the agenda.

Okay, thank you.

Do I have a motion and a second?

That was my motion to add.

Can I do that, Dan? Yep, yep.

Just say that was my motion.

That was my motion. Second. Very good.

The motion made by Council Member Hogan, seconded by Council Member Williams.

All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes.

Can I thank Dan? Yeah, I forgot about that.

Not a problem.

I was kind of pausing there.

Okay. Great save. All right. Thank you.

So we will move that under new business item E.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it again.

It'll be item E on our agenda this evening.

I-E. Yep. Yep. Okay.

This portion of the meeting is for public comments. It's an opportunity for the public to make comments to the Council on any matter of city business that is not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have any written comments submitted this evening to the Council?

We do not, Mayor.

Madam Clerk, did any person register to speak tonight on a matter not on the agenda?

I have supplied you with the write-up sheet, and we do not have anyone in attendance online

for a public comment. Okay, I see we have a couple people here.

Okay, first on our item, speakers this evening, is Ben Rubendez at 616 Harmon Way.

Gentlemen, I know there was a lot of conversation in regards with the school zone, extending it and all that good stuff, adding more signs, but there's only so much we can do about adding

signs.

Um, when I, when you come down from 162, the speed limit's 50 miles an hour, there's already a warning sign before you even approach Williams Boulevard saying it's going to turn 35 miles

an hour.

There's already a sign, there's already a speed limit posted that it's 35 miles before you

even cross Williams.

After Williams, there's already a sign saying speed limit's 35 miles an hour. There's only so many signs that you can still put up there, but ultimately it's still up to the drivers to follow the law and to pay attention to those signs. You can put all those signs up there about the school zone, but they're not, whether they follow it or not, it's going to be up to the driver. I mean, just before the camera was installed, chief, I don't know how many tickets you gave in the school zones that people are still not paying attention. Now it's just got more attention because people are getting more tickets because of those cameras. So that's the first thing, um, drivers need to follow the road. I've come down from 162, speed limit's 50, and I'm annoyed because the driver in front of me is going 40 miles an hour. I'm like 10 under the limit.

I get it.

He's still within the law, but I'm pretty annoyed because I'm like, Hey, I got somewhere to go, but the annoying part is as soon as we pass Williams, when the speed limit is 35, that same driver decides to go 45. And I know just by your reactions, you've all experienced the same thing.

Okay.

So yeah, there's only so much you can, so many signs you can put out there. Drivers got to follow the law. I mean, I'm all about the school safety.

Don't get me wrong. Council member.

I really don't want no kid to get hurt, but we got to remind the citizens here avoiding that are used to going 35 in that area that the speed limit is changing now. And what a better presence. And chief, I don't know if you can put like the first week, put just a squat car out there because that physical squat car will force people to slow down more than any camera signs or more than anything else. Me seeing a squat car, well, I'm going to slow down.

Okay.

That's just my personal opinion. And then after that, you got to let them, people get them tickets. They got to learn somehow. We got to hold each driver accountable.

That's the first thing.

Now, in something similar to that, I don't know if you guys remember last year during Halloween, we had an accident over on 162 in lane that a kid got hit. Now, if I remember correctly, it was really dark and raining that night. But you could have pushed that kid. I do remember him saying that they were pushing, I mean, not him directly, but what I did hear was that that kid did push those flashing lights. But it was still just so dark that the driver allegedly did not see him. I don't know the whole case, but I know it was really dark. And I know because I was there trick-or-treating with my kids. I'm hoping that you guys look forward into that. Now that Halloween this year does fall on a non-school night on a Saturday to see if you guys can light up Lane Boulevard and put a squad car out there that night just because I know there's probably going to be more kids present since it's not Thursday night, Halloween this year. It's actually Saturday night, so there's going to be more kids out there maybe staying out later since it's not a school night.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Apologize.

I didn't read the council public comment rule, so I'll read that before our next speaker this evening. Please begin by providing us with your name, general location of residence, in or inside or outside wording. If you ask a question at the council, the council rules don't allow for back-and-forth dialogue. This means that they will respond with silence. If action is requested, the chair will refer the matter to the appropriate administrative staff member or committee. If you'd like to be contacted, please check yes with your contact information on the sign-up sheet. You'll have three minutes to speak. You'll be given five minutes if you are speaking on behalf of an organization. At the end of your time, you will hear an alarm. Please use the alarm as a notification to finish your thoughts in a sentence or two. The chair will stop the comment if it extends beyond that time limit. So next on our right sign-in list is Melody Kinney.

Thank you, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Honorable Members of the City Council for giving me the opportunity to speak today regarding the flat-flop camera system approved under AB 2538 on May 29, 2024. I'm here to respectfully request that the council reopen AB 2438 for updated policy review. My request is based on new information that was not available at the time of the vote. When Flock presented to the city, the cameras were described as simple license plate readers with limited vehicle fingerprint technology, which we were told that the data retention was temporary and that personal identifying information was not collected. Since then, however, the systems have come under significant national scrutiny. There are now allegations of police misuse in more than a dozen states with over 100 documented cases, raising concerns about improper access, unauthorized tracking, and abuse of the system. In response, Flock has publicly stated that they will be implementing new safeguards. This alone shows the risks and realities of the technology that has changed since boarding adopted it. In speaking with many members of our community, I've heard serious Fourth Amendment concerns. Residents are worried about potential misuse, including stalking of ex-partners, manipulation of data, and unlawful search and seizure. While some residents support the cameras for crime-fighting purposes, more than half of the people I have spoken with are firmly opposed. And the divide is steep. I have found almost no middle ground.

Because of this,

I'm asking the Council to take a measured, responsible step. Temporarily suspend the use of Flock cameras, just as other cities have done, like Dayton, Ohio,

Lugerville, Texas,

Greer, South Carolina,

Palm Bay, Florida, Renton, Washington,

and as of today,

Tempe, Arizona.

A suspension would allow time for the manufacturer to release updated safeguards, the Council to review those changes, and the City to build strong transparency parent policy framework that protects residents' rights while supporting our police department. This request is not a criticism of the ordering police department. Our officers work hard to keep this community safe. My concern is that without updated policy and clear guardrails, tensions will continue to rise and officers may face backlash or vandalism that is not of their making. A temporary suspension protects both the public and our police while ensuring the technology is being used responsibly. I'm asking for a pause,

not a permanent ban,

so that ordering can move forward with clarity, accountability, and community trust. Thank you for your time, and again, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

I've had the opportunity to speak with the police chief, and this item will be on our September 16th Committee of Whole meeting to review and revisit and answer any concerns.

Thank you.

Next person on our list is Michelle Olson.

Okay, thank you. Okay.

Is there anyone else who would wish to speak to the council this evening?

Okay.

Seeing none, we will move on to the consent agenda. Claims voucher list dated August 26, 2026, council in the amount of $360,994.45, which includes voucher number 58,997 through 59045 and electronic fund transfers in the amount of $10,768.11 for a grand total of $371,762.56. Payroll voucher, electronic deposit transmissions in the amount of $241,787.42, for a grand total of $241,787.42 for the period covering August 1st through 15th, 2026.

Meeting minutes, council meetings,

May 27th, June 10th, August 12th, 2026. Council, do I hear a motion?

Make a motion to approve the consent agenda as prepared.

Second.

Motion made by Deputy Mayor Sproul, seconded by Council Member Therese. Questions or comments? All those in favor?

Aye. All those opposed?

Motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to new business this evening. AB 2672, surplus vehicle equipment.

Police Chief, Mr. Bailick. Thank you, Mayor.

This is a simple request to surplus some items that, some Taser 10 products,

or sorry, Taser 7 products,

that we are no longer using after our recent contract renewal with Axon for Taser 10 devices. So we're looking to surplus a total of,

I believe it was seven devices,

and we are looking for the authorization for the mayor to dispose of those via an auction in order to recover the costs from some of the money.

Thank you.

Council, do we have any questions for the Chief?

Did we get briefed during Cal on this?

Is that right?

You briefed us already on this.

Yeah. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Oh, Councilor W. Yeah,

I have a question for our attorney. This is still in a draft format for the resolution. Can we approve a draft format resolution?

You can. You could.

Because I don't know what's going to change after it becomes formal.

So the motion would be to approve the resolution as prepared without the watermark. And then the watermark draft would be removed, but the substance of the resolution would still be approved by Council, and then nothing else in the substance of the resolution can be changed.

I'm going to repeat that one more time.

Okay. Sure, sure. So, as you know,

resolution 2026-15 has a watermark, which is the gray text that is diagonal that says draft. From what I understand, Council is being asked to approve the resolution, where the substance of the resolution will be unchanged. And once Council approves that language, that's what matters. If the understanding, the motion would be to approve the resolution as prepared, but without the draft watermark, if that's what Council wants to do. So, yes, you can move forward tonight.

Okay, that would be my motion, what you said, to remove the draft from the resolution.

Okay,

motion made by Deputy Mayor Sprawl, seconded by Council Member Reed. Any comments or debate before we go to the vote? Okay, all those in favor?

Aye. All those opposed?

Motion passes. Next item on our list is AB 2673, exposing minor child to domestic violence. Police Chief Devin Gerbele.

Thank you, Council.

This agenda bill item seeks to criminalize the – create a new crime that criminalizes committing the crime of domestic violence in front of a minor child, which would be a gross misdemeanor. It is intended to protect children from emotional and psychological harm, deter domestic violence occurring around children, recognize children as secondary victims, promote safer family environments, and to support intervention by courts and child welfare systems. A few modifications have been made along the way. Since – during our meetings, our prior meetings, we have specifically defined terms such as intimate partner and immediate presence of – as well as the term domestic violence as well. So I will – I think I have everything that I've covered here, and I'll let you take it in here.

Thank you.

Council, any questions of the Chief?

Council Member Tracy.

So I read through this several times. Number one, is there a state law that precedes this, and we're just joining in on it, or is this our law here?

Sure. There's currently no state law that defines this as a crime. It's just up to the local municipalities to create and adopt of their own.

So I think we had somebody from Buckley that was here last, I don't know, a couple weeks ago and said – and I don't see Buckley on the list. So I think it's kind of strange she came up.

She was from Bonny Lake, and she's here tonight. So if we get a motion, I bet you somebody will get up and speak.

Okay, okay.

I thought it was Buckley, but I didn't see Buckley on there, so I apologize. Also in – down here where it says witnessed, up at the top, it talks about exposing my child domestic, yeah, commits a crime domestic. In the presence of – in the immediate presence of or is witnessed by the suspect or the victim's minor child and goes through all the stuff. But then down here it defines witness. Witnessed means the crime is seen, heard, or directly perceived in any other manner by the child in real time, regardless of the location of the child. I mean, I would think the location of the child would be pretty important. If the location of the child – you know, one of the parents tells the child to go to Jimmy's house and he's a block away, is he perceiving that the parents are now fighting or something? That bothers me a little bit when it says that he's considered a witness when he's not in the location.

So this was written to include situations, for example, if you had a remote session open and a child was on the other side, or the child's on the phone and overhearing the domestic violence occurring. So it was intended to cover a scenario such as that, even if the child was not physically at the house at the time it was occurring.

But is hearing it or whatever. He's perceived – the child is perceiving – I shouldn't say he. The child is perceiving that something's going on, whether there is something going on or not. But especially for a younger child, it bothers me a little bit. I know – and correct me if I'm wrong – when police officers are called to a domestic disturbance, somebody's going to jail or leaving that premise. The police don't leave and leave both of them there still.

The city attorney has raised his hand to write comment.

Attorney Dan Leight?

Yeah, I didn't want to interrupt, Counselor Tracy, but I – by all means, please finish your thought, Counselor. But I do have an answer.

I was hoping to – Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Okay.

I'm trying to remember the point you were making. Because it was – it is well taken that perceived – it does not mean that an assumption that mom and dad are getting into a physical fight. There is a necessary component of this crime, if counsel does choose to adopt it, in that there has to actually be domestic violence between the spouses or the intimate partners. It can't just simply be a child goes to a friend's house down the block and then hears about or assumes that mom and dad are getting into a physical fight. There actually has to be proof that domestic violence occurs. So if we pull up the proposed ordinance, and whenever you – whenever you have these crimes, if you'll look at subsection A, person commits the crime of exposing a minor child to domestic violence when he or she, think of these as pieces of a puzzle. These are called elements of a crime. And the absence of any element means the crime is not committed. So that first one is what is called an essential element of the crime. So there has to be the commission of a crime of domestic violence against a family or household member or intimate partner. So that is a necessary component. All this ordinance does is it creates a new class of victims. So I hope that answers your question and alleviates that concern, is that you cannot have this crime without the accompanying crime of domestic violence.

Well, I guess the point I was kind of making is at the time that this domestic disturbance is going on, I'm not sure – I mean, if this law is enacted, I'm not sure that it's going to cause either one of those people that are in the domestic disturbance to think, oh, I hope Billy's not watching because it's going to cost me another 30 days in jail or whatever. I think their mind is doing some other things at that time, and so they're not. So I'm not quite sure what this – because I would think it would be there to deter the domestic violence, especially in front of their kids. But I'm not – I don't, you know, get the correlation that they would be thinking I better not do it while the child's here. Let's send him down the block or whatever. And so I don't know if that's a deterrent like it's supposed to be, I would assume.

You know, one of the more important factors of this crime is that it actually classifies the children as a victim of domestic violence. You know, it recognizes that domestic violence that is occurring in front of them has detrimental impacts, and it allows them to be listed as a victim, which kind of allows some other things to happen after the incident has taken place, such as getting protection orders and things like that.

So up to this point, they weren't perceived as a victim?

No, no, technically not.

Because they weren't physically harmed or whatever at the time.

Correct,

they weren't the victim of an actual crime, and they weren't listed as a victim.

Okay. Okay. I like that's it. Okay. Councilmember Williams.

Weren't we going to have the prosecutor come speak or something?

She did. She was on the phone. All of that stuff. Two, when

you say the child was a victim, if they were truly the victim of the domestic violence,

then

this law wouldn't even be needed because they were already the victim of the domestic violence. Now, if there was no domestic violence that actually was convictable, but it might have been a little marginal, you could say the child's the victim, but nothing's going to happen because there's no domestic violence. So I'm just not sure where this thing goes.

Yeah, so I can comment on that.

So the, as counsel said, the initial crime of domestic violence has to occur first, at which point then that invokes the second crime to be available to be charged or added in as well,

which makes,

designates the child as the victim. If the first doesn't happen, then the second can't happen, and the child doesn't become a victim because the first didn't occur. Does that answer your question or am I?

Well,

yeah, in a perfect world, but if it wasn't marginal, but it wasn't convictable, the child could still be the victim, but nothing's ever happened because the first one wasn't convictable, so there is no second crime.

Right, right.

If it goes to court and the judge finds that the first initial charge of domestic violence between the adults, for example, it wasn't an assault and it wasn't domestic violence, then the second charge would automatically go away because it would be considered fruits of a poisonous tree or it can't happen because the first element was never met.

Okay. Councilman Reed?

Does this pertain only to physical violence?

Yes.

There has to be a crime of domestic violence that is an arrestable crime.

So, even though, if it doesn't get to physical violence, it's not domestic violence.

Let me correct myself here.

It doesn't always have to be physical violence.

It can be non-physical. It can be threats, for example, like death threats or threats that place somebody in a reasonable fear that they're going to be assaulted or injured, which is current state law.

Or the mother saying, you're going to leave, or the father saying, you're going to have to leave.

Does that count? I mean...

No, no, absolutely not.

No. Councilman Tracy?

So, protecting the child, that's what this is all about.

Mayor, point of order. Are we going to stay and each get a turn before someone speaks a second time?

Okay. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Rogan.

I want to make a motion to adopt Ordinance 2026-1164, an ordinance of the City of Ording, Washington, establishing a new crime for exposing a minor child to domestic violence and creating a new section in Chapter 6-5 of the Ording Municipal Code, recodifying Ording Municipal Code 6-5-6 to OMC 6-5-8, providing for its severe ability, authorizing corrections, and establishing an effective date.

Second.

And also work on breaking a witness who needs to be protected as a victim, and also work on breaking a cycle. Because when that witness sees what happens, it carries on.

Okay?

That's all I've got to say. I'm in total support of this.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Hogan. Any other? Councilman Torres.

So, the last couple of weeks, I have talked to at least 14, 15 people about this resolution, this ordinance. And they say, they asked me, is that a state law? I said, no, it's not a state law. And their comeback is, well, if the state legislature hasn't enacted on this or hasn't done anything about this, why is Ording doing this, if it's not a state law right now? So, they overwhelmingly, these 14 people that I talked to, they said, this is a bad law. So, I am going to vote against this law because of what the people commented to me. People here in Ording.

So, that's for now.

Any other comments from Council? At this time, I'd like to open it to audience comments before our vote comes before.

My name is Kay.

I live in High Cedars. I am a DV advocate for the city of Bonny Lake. And to me, the bottom line is these children that witness parents, a parent and a grandparent, abusing each other, hitting each other, it traumatizes them. They act out in school. They start, you know, hitting other children, their parents, because they feel it's okay. Some, and I don't know the percentage, they grow up and they abuse their significant others. This is, these kids need us to stand up for them. If we don't, who's going to? I don't understand if one of your children or one of your grandchildren witnessed their parents or anyone hitting somebody else. Is that something you want them to see? Do you want them, I mean, it's emotionally traumatic. They don't know how to, to work through that. You know, they need counseling. They need, you know, when they start acting out in school and nobody knows why. And also, the tool that it gives the prosecutor. And at least in Bonny Lake, the tool that it gives us is we can put in negotiations that they have to get help. As part of the, the negotiations, they have to go to DV MRT, which is moral recognition therapy, or they have to go get a DV eval and any follow-up treatment. So if during that eval, they don't see anything, they don't have to go any further. Um, I have sat in on a DV MRT and these people open up to each other because they're all in the same boat.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would wish to speak on this this evening?

I do believe in passing this forward. With all due respect, I know you said you talked to some people. I've seen all of these discussions, and this has given power to the prosecuting attorney to help them out in regards to a certain case by case. But don't forget that all this will still be discussed in court. You can put all these scenarios in here, but each defendant and the prosecuting attorney will have to fight that out in court. But we do need to give the prosecuting attorneys as much power as we can to defend for the kids, because that's what this is. And like I've heard this over and over and over, and I keep seeing this here, this is a secondary offense. This is just adding more ammunition. This is a secondary offense.

Okay?

I know this is not a state law, Council Member, but I'm not going to wait until the state makes a line in order for Ording to pass it. If we need to move the ball forward, let's do it here. Other cities are already doing it, and there's no state law on it. But there's no reason why we can't do it as well, too.

Thank you, Mr. Rennes.

Would anyone else wish to speak on this prior to a vote? We have a motion on the floor,

seconded.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Madam Clerk, we'll do a roll call.

Council Member Torres? No.

Council Member Williams?

Aye. Council Member Tracy? Aye. Deputy Mayor Sproul? Yes.

Council Member Hogan?

Yes.

Council Member Reed?

Yes. Right.

Motion passes 521.

Thank you.

Thank you for attending this evening. Next item on our agenda, AB 2692, Court Clerk Staffing Levels, City Administrator Ryan Wheaton.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. We talked about this recently, but here again to talk about the staffing needs. That our judge and court administrator have identified. Again, to remind you of what we discussed before, currently that staff is budgeted at $61,025. We're looking to increase that budget to $187,160. When we first started the speed safety camera program, we made an estimate about how much workload we're going to need. In addition to Kim and that department, we currently have two part-time staff members who are term limited. And after 60 days of that program being in place, we are now able to make some actual estimates based on the actual workload that we had. So we have discussed earlier this meeting about how much work is going on, not just in the field, but also every one of those people that gets a ticket has to deal with the court somehow, whether they're paying and we process it or they're showing up here in front of Judge Curry to speak their case. But we are looking to add a full-time person that would be permanent and also extend one of the part-time people that came on board to help out through the end of the year for some transition. In addition to that, we are going to continue to monitor. So we've also spoken about how we don't know what the future holds for how many tickets are going to be written. But we will certainly keep monitoring to find out if that is going to ebb and flow or if at some point we need to come back and adjust that downward. So not the last time you'll hear about staffing, but hopefully we get this to right the ship. And I should note that we have a pending retirement. So we're also hoping that this will help solidify things so that when we get someone new in that position next year, that we'll be able to keep this program moving at the speed that it is now.

Okay. Thank you.

Any questions of this administrator? Council Member Tracy.

So in all reality, we're just adding a half a person really after December of this year.

But the distinction is that it's permanent. So that other half is permanent.

Yes.

But a half is going away at the end of December. So really we're just adding a half a person, but it's permanent. And the other one's a half a position.

I believe, is she three quarters or a half? Are you talking about our court? She's full. No, the other.

Are you talking about the administrator?

Well, I think it was brought up, and correct me if I'm wrong, that they were asked if they wanted to be the full-time physician. And they didn't want that full-time physician.

That's correct.

They wanted to stay at their half.

So, yes, we have two halves.

Right. Right now. Right.

And then we have full-time, but then one of those halves is done at the end of the year.

And then we do have the HR director attending virtually who has additional information.

If we can have her speak quick to this. Human Research Director, Shana Ponsulman.

Hi, counsel.

I apologize. I am on vacation this week. But I just wanted to jump in and clarify a little bit of the current court staffing. Currently, we have a permanent part-time 0.5 staff and a 0.75 term limited staff. So, we're wanting to extend the 0.75 term limited staff to the end of the year and add on one full-time staff member that may be in the form of an actual full-time employee. It may be increasing the 0.5, the current 0.5 employee to 0.75 and adding a 0.75. But in total, the permanent ongoing FTE would be 1.5 total. However, that breaks down and adds, you know, into either 2.75s or a 0.5 and a full one. That's the ask for this current role for ongoing the rest of this year and into 2027.

Thank you.

Any questions of our Human Resource Director or City Ministry, Councilman Tracy?

I had a second one, but I got, you know, but go ahead. Nope.

I was just going to say a move to approve court clerk staffing changes as presented in AB 26-92, increasing regular court clerk staffing levels to 1.5 FTE and extending term limited photo enforcement clerk position to December 31, 2026.

Two.

A motion made and seconded. Any comments between Councilmembers?

Any other comments? Councilmember Tracy?

Second part of my question. That's about $120,000 more that's got to come out of the budget. And I know it was said that partial is coming through the funds from the Speed Zone cameras. Do we have any idea, and Shawna might be able to come up with that answer, or are you, Ryan? And how much of the percentage that we're thinking might come with that?

I'd prefer to the police chief.

I think it's all of it.

It's my understanding, yes, because it would be handling, unless that physician starts handling other stuff.

So we think that all of that's going to be covered, unless they go to something, start doing something.

It would be a large portion of it. It's difficult to say that it would be all of it, because they will assist in court on regular Tuesdays. Anybody that comes to the window that is not paying a traffic ticket, those kinds of hours would not be billable to the photo enforcement. But we anticipate a majority of those hours will be billable to the photo enforcement system, as that has been the largest impact of time thus far this year.

So the funds that won't be covered by that, where are they coming from? In other words, of $100,000 being covered by photo cameras, where's the $20,000 coming from? Are we just pulling out of the general fund, or what are we doing?

That would be a handy question.

I'm just curious.

It's budgeted, what we have.

I'm going to have to get back to get the specifics, but we are expecting that the vast majority, if not all of it, will come out of this. But to your point, it may not all, and I believe it would be general fund, but we will have to verify that.

I'll see you. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Reed?

Can we not just designate her to do that job only, instead of helping with the other stuff? I mean, it sounds like there's going to be a possibility. It's pretty darn close. There might even be the other people helping her out occasionally.

I think you're right, in terms of the actual workload.

That's right. I think we're...

I believe, now that I'm recalling, I believe Tammy was counting on using the public safety tax that was specifically set aside for handling the court system.

Oh. That was my public issue.

I believe it was in the agenda packet at one point as well.

I was pretty sure I heard him talking. Right now, the other ladies are helping, trying to help.

Everybody's trying to help. They don't... They can't keep up. Correct.

Deputy Mayor Sproul?

And, I mean, this person, we haven't even gone out to hire her yet.

We haven't even...

So, by the time we get this person on, maybe November, so we're talking two months of budget this year.

Yeah.

And it would be in the budget for next year, because you're already going to be thinking about this once we pass this. So, the only thing it's really going to affect that's not in the budget may be the last two months of this year by the time we get somebody hired and in place. So, I think it's going to be minimal impact to our current budget, and it will be in the budget for next year.

Okay. Council Member Hogan? Yeah.

I mean, like it says in here, clerk staffing levels to 1.5, and then extending the term limited photo enforcement clerk to position until December 31, 26. So, that gives us time to look at what's going to be in next year's budget, and exactly... And then we'll also have a clue with the photo enforcement cameras, you know, how much staffing is actually going to be needed, I believe.

Any other comments from Council?

No.

Any comments from the audience prior to a vote?

Madam Clerk,

motion was made by...

Motion was made by Council Member Williams and seconded by Council Member Hogan.

Okay. Great. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next item on our agenda this evening is AB 2659, Resolution 2623, Unified Regional Approach to Homelessness.

Deputy Mayor Sprawl.

So, I don't know how much I can really add on to what we discussed previously in the Committee of Whole. Again, the resolution is to allow us to work with the counties and other cities on homelessness. There is no monetary spending. Again, that will come in the ILA, and the figures that I showed in here are what might be in the ILA. And again, that will come to Council and have to be approved once those dollar figures are provided in the ILA. And if two months from now we elect to rescind this resolution, we can definitely do that too. So, if anything changes, if suddenly we're being greatly impacted by Parrish County and O'Calling and wanting us to do this or that, and it's just like, okay, wait a minute, this ain't working, we'll just rescind this thing.

So, thank you. Questions by Council?

Council Member Hogan?

Motion to approve Resolution No. 2026-23, expressing the City of Orting's intent and commitment to launch a unified regional approach to homelessness in collaboration with other Pierce County governments and identifying collaborative actions for the City of Orting to take while an interlocal agreement is in development.

I hear a second. Second.

Motion made by Council Member Hogan, seconded by Council Member Sproul. Any further comments from Council? Comments from the audience?

I just want to thank Deputy Mayor Sproul for all the work he's done in the past couple of years on this and working with other organizations to try to find a solution to what we're facing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hogan.

Okay. Any further comments? Okay.

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. All those opposed?

Motion passes.

Okay,

Madam Clerk, Attorney, do we have anything for the executive session this evening?

You do have 5.E due to the amendment to the agenda.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Thank you for the reminder.

Item E, AB 26, 100,

school zone. SRO. Oh, SRO. I'm sorry, school SRO. I'm sorry. Can I speak to it? You bet.

To allow the mayor of the city of Orting to enter into an interlocal agreement with Orting School District for SRO officer for the school year of 2026-2027.

Second.

Motion made by Council Member Hogan. Seconded by Council Member Williams. Any comments from Council? Any comments from the audience prior to the vote?

Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye.

All those opposed? Motion passes. Okay, we'll go back to the executive session. No executive session for this evening.

I have nothing.

I do have a question on the prior motion from Councilor Hogan. Is it the Council's desire, was it the intent to authorize the renewal that appears, I believe, on page 169 of the Council Pack-Up?

Yes, the extension of the, is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, I wanted to make sure that that was the Council's direction to move.

Okay.

That was my intentions, and I just tried to shorten it up.

Was that, I guess, from a head nod perspective, if Council can confirm that it's not just Councilor Hogan, it's everyone.

Okay. I see a thumbs up.

Thanks, Councilor Williams.

I appreciate it. Okay. No executive session.

I'm glad that we don't have an executive session, Mr. Hogan.

I'm in a bad time. I am. Motion to adjourn.

Okay, I have a motion on the floor for adjournment.

Second.

Seconded by Council Member Williams. Motion made by Council Member Hogan.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed?

Seeing none, motion passes.

Thank you. Meeting concluded. Thank you.