Four people spoke to Dabbler forest and need to stop the clear cut, and thanking council for their efforts on this.
Two people spoke in support of keeping Tri-mountain golf course a public golf course.

Minor Corrections to minutes

Tri-Mountain Golf Course:

Cowlitz pulled out of purchasing it.
Financials (spreadsheet not linked in agenda), since county acquired (from port of Ridgefield).
Some years we make money, some years we lose money.
Irrigation company stopped doing irrigation business, so can’t get parts. Plan is to rip up half (9 holes) and replace, and retain parts for maintenance of the remaining 9 holes. (Creative thinking!)
Current operating contract runs through March. Ran through options to move forward. Renew contract (3 options presented), take in house, sell (as golf course or other use), sell to another government agency, RFP again for a buyer, keep for other non-golf use options.
Council questions:
Matt asked what does staff recommend. The 3^rd contract option. Good terms and gives county time to work on long term plan (through 2026)
Glen – Assumes that because the county owns the course it is more expensive to operate than if it were private (without evidence, just because government). Also contract option 3 with long term plan to sell it. If can’t find a buyer that will keep it a golf course, then sell as best use.
Matt – advocates for the people who golf (they have heard from a lot of people). Disagrees with Glen about county being less efficient (Thank you Matt). Give it 2 years and review.
Michelle: contract options C and new RFP? Hearing from constituents that they want it to stay a golf course.
Wil asked about closing the course off season. Would still need to maintain grounds. But people do play year round and people buy year round memberships.
Sue: thinks of it more as a park than a revenue generator. Asked about better deal on longer extension. The deals discussed are the options. Decreased fees would need a 10 year extension.
Decision today – pick a contract option to come back next Tuesday to buy time for long term decision. Option C it is.
Glen still talking about the option of it not remaining a golf course.

New Business:

Assigned fund balance. CLARK COUNTY
Final step of budget, what do to with available fund balance from last year.
Some stuff is automatic.
Recommendations For 2024, the Finance Director is recommending assigning the following amounts:

$15,300,000 for capital projects that were previously approved and are currently budgeted. This is less than prior years due to some projects being shifted to debt financing.
$19,000,000 for projects approved through the ARPA grant for which the funding was moved to the general fund through revenue recovery.
$13,956,769 for the amount used to balance the 2025 budget.

Sue: does this relieve pressure on 2026 budget. What is unassigned is available for future years.
Will be back Tuesday consent agenda

April 1 meeting moved to April 8, Wednesday meetings cancelled (spring break),

Councilor reports:

C-Tran meeting (Sue).
Motion to reconsider permissive O&M language for light rail was tabled, will come back in April.
It was Sue’s understanding that Council was clear on how Sue and Michelle should vote. Michelle did not follow that direction
Michelle saying she always was allowed to have her own position, represents HER DISTRICT not representing the council. Goes on about why her position on light rail is the right position.
Matt asks, and counsel answers – rules of procedure do not require councilors to represent the council position. Matt notes that the cities have that. Would take a public hearing to add to Rules of procedure. Counsel suggests wording could be such that following direction could be mandatory only if council gave direction.
Sue brings up that there was clear direction from the majority of the council on this at the 2/26 council meeting. That has not been done in the past (so that Michelle could vote how she wanted is because Council never asked different).
Wil says that as well. Michelle arguing. Note that she did NOT say anything about this in the 2/26 meeting. She hid her position, fully intending to go against the majority vote. Wow. Threatens other councilors with ‘serious repercussions’ for their positions.
Glen: Appreciates Michelles (past) representation of her views on C-Tran. Those seats don’t belong to a county district, they belong to the council as a whole. This isn’t about light rail or not light rail. When the council gives direction, it should be followed. If a councilor doesn’t want to represent the council as a whole, they should be relieved of their position on that committee.
Michelle continues to argue that she is right on light rail and right to speak against the will of the council.
Very messy public argument.
Wil notes that the city representatives voted as their councils directed them to.
Wil moves to remove Michelle from her position on the CTRAN board, Glen seconds. Passes 4-1.
Michelle asks for legal counsel and opinion since the bylaws don’t require her to represent council. Chris ‘cannot give an opinion at this time’.
Matt asks that they update bylaws. Look at other jurisdictions for language. Agreed.
Glen relates time when on WSAC that he came to council for direction on a bigger issue.
Matt asks what now for who replaces Michelle and who is new alternate. Wil primary, Matt alternate.
*** See additional information at bottom.

Work Session requests: DEAB annual work plan – approved.

Policy: Jordan Boege

Jordan has a letter from the Development Disability advisory board re: Medicaid cuts for council to sign off on. For congressional rep. Decide to wait to see how this plays out. Development disability advisory board will be staying on top of and keep council informed.
Discovery clean water alliance re: upgrades at Salmon Creek treatment plant, council support for their application for funds. Approved. (was discussed last week)
DNR meeting & Letter
Commissioner Upthegrove can meet sooner with Chair and one other councilor (not public, no notice requirement), and can’t discuss Dabbler (Court case). Future work session with full council public, but having trouble scheduling. The 2 councilor one can happen sooner.
Re: letter, Matt suggests holding on letter to see how court case goes. Wants public meeting, but not private meeting.
Sue mentions suggestion made in public comment re: conferring with Forester and Kevin Tyler (lands program) before meeting.
Decision: Hold off on the letter, proceed w private (Sue and Matt) and with public meeting as soon as they can.
Briefing on what does the County Forester do. Legacy lands program. What are the lands in our jurisdiction that are harvested, where does the money go, what is the rotation. Work session to happen before meeting with Upthegrove (DNR).
Request from the Vancouver Bee project for proclamation for Pollinator Week. Approved, will come back with it.
Past Resolutions on IBR are posted on web page. What to do? Leave as they provide information on how this has evolved. Sue suggests a new one from this council. No enthusiasm for a new resolution (divisiveness), so not at this time.
Bridge Shelter: Carillon (contractor managing Opioid funds) willing to update contract to manage this. Asking ok for Otto to sign amendment for this. Approved.
SB 5184 – minimum parking requirements in UGA, limits minimum parking space requirements. Does council have a position? Yes, Support.
Wil asked about SB 5696. Is still alive. Has to do with Mental Health Sales tax (would allow it to be used for the bridge shelter capital costs).

***From the Observer Corps

Here is the wording from the Clark County Charter in regards to Councilors representing the Council when serving on boards and commissions:

Clark County Charter Chapter 2.2 includes Council appointments to boards and commissions on which Councilors represent Clark County. Not themselves but the County. Which, per 2.2F, is abiding by action by a majority of councilors.
Rules of Procedure (also attached) Section C notes no singular member are to represent the county (council) or give the perception thereof unless authorized in advance by a vote of the council. This section was placed in the past so a member councilor doesn’t “go rogue” and vote counter to what was directed them to vote on a board or commission (such as C-TRAN Board).

And the council can vote to remove a member from a board or commission by a majority vote. Such as C-TRAN Board.

County Charter : Article 2 The Legislative Branch | Clark County

Rules of Procedure: SMSCOMM0124032714460 (page 5)

Return to Previous Page