Observing Government

Link to materials: Clark County Council Meetings | Clark County

Observer: Jackie Lane

Work Sessions

Council attendees: Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, Matt Little

absent: Michelle Belkot (she left after Board of Health meeting).

Work Session: Development and Engineering Advisory Board (DEAB) annual update, 2026 work plan.

Report

• Review of 2025 activities. (see doc)
• A lot of activity around permit processes. Advocating for expedited review.
• Parks Plan: Advocating for ‘flexibility’ – let developers build parks in lieu of fees. (they do not have a history of doing a great job on this, as evidenced by a flooded playground that was the subject of an earlier council meeting and a lot of negative public comment).
• Talked about DEAB doing 3^rd party reviews to help people having challenges. Have done one. Staff lets applicant know that this is an avenue. Could be code interpretation, etc. The process includes preventing conflict of interest. They will get copy of the process to the council.
• Wil asked about item 5 a – legislation related to transit oriented development, parking requirements and development in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Here it applies to Vancouver. They submitted a letter re: comp plan, concerned about density.
• Glen asked about the legislation that was supposed to help Condos get developed (limits liability), unlikely to have a lot of impact, only applies to condos with 12 units or less. Small infill lots. Not a lot of properties.
• Glen reminds them that the county council does lobby the state on legislative priorities and to bring forward anything they want the council to consider.
• Wil asks why Oregon can do condos and Washington can’t. Response was that you need walkability to be viable. (Not sure I understood that one).
• 2026 plans: (see doc)
• Push for Park impact fee Credits if builder includes trails, parks, recreation areas, etc. Want included in updated parks plan. Would want park standards.
• Look at state law impacts. Hwy 99 Overlay code impacts.
• Road modifications a big issue. Want to work with staff earlier in the process because too much money is spent before they even know if a project is viable. Impacts infill, so a priority.
• Glen talks about homeowners and small contractor applicants who don’t know the code inside out, and the huge learning curve.
• Council discussion:
• Matt – reiterates call for ideas that they want county to lobby for. What can we as a council do?
• Land availability (Comp Plan).
• New state cabinet position re: housing. Interface w Lt. Governor Heck’s office re: state barriers to housing. Talks about Oregon (where everything is, evidently, beautiful for builders).
• Discussion of fragmentation of transportation system with increased development. 179^th as an example, sidewalks and roads built as stuff develops creating a patchwork.
• Discussion on how/why infill development is more complicated and more expensive. (DEAB really wants the Urban Growth Boundaries expanded for single family homes, for “affordability”). Discussion of density, sprawl.

Council Time

Council attendees: all present in person!

Public Comment: Sue tries and fails to keep them on topic.

• Kimberly
• Margeret Tweet re: C-Tran board member appointment. Ties to a 2022 position on IBR.

C-Tran Board Member: Wil nominates Glen, approved 4 to 1 (Michelle a no).

Tri Mountain Golf Course: clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2026-04/tri-mountain_0.pdf

• Current contract with management company ends in December. Options include: Can go to bid for a new management company, with different terms. Try again to sell with covenant to remain a golf course. Bring management services in house. Try to sell without covenant to remain a golf course. Use it for something else (gun range, park, Sheriff headquarters, Medical examiner office…). (See page 4). Different uses might require re-zone. Property is on municipal water and sewer now.
• Old appraisal assumed it would remain a golf course.
• Is not within a growth boundary.
• Shooting range concerns with residential nearby.
• Matt supports keeping it a golf course, it is an affordable course and a park.
• Last year ended negative 199K, prior years positive.
• Discussion of costs, including staff time.
• Current contract doesn’t incent the management company to drive in more business.
• Glen – I don’t want to keep owning the asset at a loss. Preferences, RFP first, then sale.
• Wil – Supports a golf course but county is not in a position to lose money on this.
• A longer term contract would be necessary for it to be worth investment by the management company.
• The county couldn’t bring in house as cheaply as someone else could.
• Sue talking about value as a park/open space.
• Direction for now to look at RFP for managing the golf course, different than current. What public access outside of golf could happen? Longer term look.

Proclamation requests. Fair Housing Act, Sikh Heritage Month. Both approved.

Councilor reports:

• Sue - CTran board meeting was missed because it conflicted with last night’s County Council meeting. The next one is May 5^th. So also a conflict, with a county council meeting. Will make what they can.
• Glen - Opioid abatement council reviewing funding requests. Attended a Civics Bee.

Work Session Requests – 3 – approved.

Executive Session Pending Litigation. On return, Wil moved to waive attorney client privilege and post a document for the 4/27 meeting (Comp Plan). Failed 2 to 3 – Sue and Wil yes; Michelle, Matt, Glen no.