Observing Government

Work Sessions

Meeting info: Clark County Council Meetings | Clark County

Council Attendees: Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Will Fuentes, Matt Little, Michelle Belkot (largely off camera and failed to respond when called on at times).

Work Session 1

Comp Plan update Presentation Title (other docs at meeting info link above)

• Community Planning has been meeting with the cities monthly. Tribe also invited. Woodland is included because part of Woodland is in Clark County. (Cowlitz county doesn’t plan under the GMA).
• Including ‘what if’ scenarios for the Ag study.
• DEIS to be published October 1^st with 30-day comment period required. Extending to 60 days because Ag report coming out in the same timeframe, and public can ask for extension (so planning for that).
• Current schedule slide 3 – includes ag study-driven delay to June 2026.
• From Slide 6 on Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and related WAC (state code): “The county shall attempt to reach agreement with each city on the location of an urban growth area within which the city is located”. The county has increased the Vancouver UGA against their wishes in the past and has that in at least one of the maps this time around.
• Matt – re: UGA – are lands on a trajectory to have those services provided by the cities. Yes for every city but Vancouver. Have put those areas into urban holding until the cities are able to.
• Sue – Asks what agreements made with Vancouver? Engaged with Vancouver so that how county is developing UGA matches Vancouver. The agreement with Vancouver expired some years ago (Chris Cook).
• Wil – what does the process look like to renegotiate agreement? K Otto reminds that there was a work session with Vancouver about a month ago, staff directed to work with Vancouver on Annexation.
• Oliver – there is an optional element of the comp plan on Annexation.
• Ag Lands Study starts slide 9. Some what-ifs depending on results of study. Oliver is preparing the council for a load of work and decisions.
• A supplemental EIS could be required, causing further delays.
• Matt asks what would drive this. Answer: Any change.
• Could reallocate population growth (from Ridgefield & La Center) to other cities that can absorb them.
• Sue – all cities except La Center provided alternatives that don’t include resource lands. Staff: the Ridgefield one that didn’t include the Ag Lands was late and so not included in the DEIS. Some cities provided alternatives that exceed their allocations so something may need to be addressed there. This has been communicated to them. Sue asked for that info.
• Glen – talked to someone in Ridgefield who disagreed that they were over their allocation. Jose - They are double what they need in some instances. They are well over and they know that.
• Matt – How many extra months if there is an update to the EIS. Hard to say, up to 3 months. (pushing Comp Plan as late as September 2026)
• Oliver – at last meeting (9/4) there was extensive discussion of this. Ag lands that are dedesignated might not be what the cities are trying to incorporate.
• Slides on what if ag is dedesignated, and if ag land is found to meet the criteria as ag.
• Sue on the value of ag-20 even if it results in non-conforming lots (5 or 10 acre) – they can be aggregated later.
• Sue asks about rural capacity as there are lots already divided. Example 20 acre parcel zoned or divided into 4 lots, the model shows capacity for 3 more houses.
• Ag Study due 11/4. Council review 11/12.
• Glen – talking about alternatives that don’t require updated DEIS. Oliver talking about what they planned for versus what they are seeing happen in Vancouver UGA. Don’t want to re-open planning assumptions. Have responded to city’s concerns. Glen wants to understand why land was chosen or not. Sue supports more conversation about that. Wil supports, so there will be a work session.
• Open House comment Summary: 2025-open-house-comment-summary-v2.pdf
• Materials from the open houses in the meeting materials.

Work Session 2

2026 returning bills of interest. (Will Fuentes leaves meeting, returning for council time at 1:00)

• Presentation Title
• Full report: Presentation Title
• Asking for legislative support for Annexation ($$$), asking for more state support.
• State’s fiscal position is ‘very challenging’. Federal funding is about a quarter of state budget.
• HB 1058 – RR infrastructure B&O tax credits. County to stay neutral. Sue asked if this can benefit the County? Not sure. Glen wants to find out if BCYX will benefit.
• HB 1508 HB 1508 Washington State Legislature lets DNR buy more lands for trust for ‘ecosystem services’ (not logging). Sue calls on Belkot who then turns on her video and responds.
• HB 1593 – Forested lands in trust for child care. Another thing state should be funding but instead punting to timber sales. Is this new lands acquired or another category? Lands would be dedicated so this so mostly new lands, not sure if there will be a mechanism to convert existing lands.
• Matt – this is dangerous. Incents timber harvest. Refers to school funding from timber.
• Sue – supports child care but this creates an impossible conflict. Glen and Michelle agree.
• Tax on short term rentals for affordable housing. Watch, discussion of split county and state, and impact to people just renting out a room versus whole home in VRBO for example.
• Matt asking about some of the other bills that might come back (from the detailed doc that might come back).
• Councilors will go through the detailed report and tell Jordan what they are interested in following up on. Also want the lobbyist team to advise on budget issues they should track.
• Meeting with the legislative delegation to be scheduled.
• Legislative agenda to be developed later this year for short legislative session. Bills that cost money will probably die.

Work Session 3

Jail Market Survey – Public sentiment on funding voter support.

• PowerPoint Presentation
• Proposal to do surveys & Focus Groups – public sentiment, priorities, support.
• Sue speaks to how important this is.
• Matt talks about past failed initiatives and what was done and how effective was it. He mentioned Vancouver’s failed public safety initiatives last year, without noting that the County helped tank that. (because it didn’t address the costs to the county of additional staff in Vancouver)
• Otto will follow up as Vancouver got a lot of good information from that effort.
• Michelle asks if timing (when on what ballot) is included in the analysis? Yes.
• Sue asked about the time frame. Phase 2 info by January. 2Q2026 – council will make decision about what goes on the ballot, when.
• Will move forward.

Council Time

(All councilors present)

Amendments to agenda – remove 5.1 RR Crossing so they can notify interested constituents who may want to comment.

Public comment - Kimberly

Councilor Reports

• Matt: Ducks Unlimited (he’s a lobbyist for them) hosted a fishing event with legislators. Meeting after, included WDFW. Talked about hatchery funding in our region. Did that have anything to do with scientific debate hatchery vs. non-hatchery fish? No, strictly budget decision. Asked for costs to return the funding. Somewhere between 1 and 3 million. Sue would like to understand the hatchery vs not issue more.
• Michelle asked if this is not a conflict of interest between Matt’s Ducks Unlimited work and Council. Chris Cook: He did disclose so it was transparent. As of now just informing, if it comes to take action then need to discuss. Matt noted the request was not of interest to Ducks Unlimited (they are more about wetlands, not fish).
• Sue: Letters from community groups and individuals re: Planning Commission work session comments – insensitive re: historic racism, marginalized communities and questioning if should be in the Comp Plan. Not ascribing ill will or motives but these kind of comments can discourage participation. Referred to listening sessions that were done after a ‘there is no systemic racism in Clark county’ comment. (I believe that dates back to when Quiring was chair?) Encouraged people to go back and listen.
• Glen: Attended great NAACP panel on policing and court system last night.
• He got briefing from FBI (Bonneville). Wants to invite FBI to have it in public as a work shop. (They have talked to every councilor). Sue noted that the community members have asked for an opportunity to talk to council on Bonneville. Sue said on the other hand they could say that they’ve made a decision and leave it at that.
• Work Session w FBI – 3 yes. Work Session FBI and Community – fails. Glen – would like to have community work session but not WITH FBI. Will think about that and discuss next week. FBI gets a 30 minute work session. County still moving forward on termination.

Work Session Requests: County Manager evaluation process (30 minutes, on the 24^th, review draft), CREDC update, Clean water fee reduction for schools.

Sue asked about the Land and Jobs study CREDC is working on. Still in drafting.

All approved.

Policy Updates

• Resolution for Hunger Action Month – approved
• DNR trust land tour is Friday.

Executive Sessions: 3, one after action

Acronyms link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1px5oVxYkLWTB7_lMir6ACx6CJ1e-PMpQrXntJbdj3YI/edit?usp=sharing

Any questions or updates/adds send to Jackie at jmlane@msn.com