Reviewed legal requirements/compliance
Slide 8 picture is Philbrook Farms (mentioned in yesterday’s council meeting) Water coming up into the playground from the underground storage facility that was improperly constructed by the developer. County stuck with the fix.
Review spending and funding
Discussion of how they select stormwater projects.
Will come back to Council for adoption of plan in November, after Planning Commission and DEAB (development and Engineering Advisory Board) see it.
Matt asked about Philbrook. The park is open during summer, closing during wet season. Studying to find cause, digging to locate stuff. Sue mentioned concerns from residents that same developer building next door. Discussion of code review and preventing this kind of problem. Glen chimes in about balancing so as not to make projects too expensive.

Work session #2: 2026 annual construction program (ACP) & 2026-2031 Transportation Improvement program (TIP)

101525-ws_tip_acp-presentation.pdf
Return November 4^th for adoption.
Funding sources slide 7
Slide 11 is all the projects driven by the urban holding lift at I-5 and 179^th. Matt asks about concurrency requirement. Sue notes that this is a larger topic as relates to the comp plan, and the council should understand this better. Chris Cook – it is a GMA requirement that in order to make an area urban you have to plan for and fund the infrastructure needed. Particularly Transportation. Discussion of concurrency, and the 179^th area. Ken states that he believes they are meeting concurrency but should have been more ahead of it.
Sue: 179^th is a case study in what not to do re: concurrency.
Reviewed projects completed in 2025
Council discussion
Discussion of county road work in Vancouver’s urban growth area that don’t meet city standards. One issue is lights. County doesn’t put in lights (unless required for safety), city does. If county doesn’t leave conduit in place city has to tear up streets to install lighting.
County and Vancouver staff working together on draft plan for moving towards annexation.
Sue asked what grant funding could be at risk if county out of compliance with GMA. As of now no risk to grants.
Discussion of risks to funding. Federal grants, future risk to road fund.
Matt asked if I-5 bridge project impacts county funds. Not directly.
The annual 1% (property tax increase) helps keep up with inflation.

Work Session #3: Draft 2026-2031 Capital Improvement plan – Parks and Nature Division & Lands Management Division

clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-10/101525-ws_2026-2031-parks-and-lands-cip-presentation.pdf
Come back to Council for adoption November 4^th.
Council discussion:
Matt brings up the health cost benefits of natural areas & parks.
PROST plan to be updated in 2026 (Parks Recreation Open Space and Trails). Will include a look at PIF districts. (Park Impact Fees).
Sue asked about lighting – lights at Curtan creek are fully hooded to protect from light pollution. New LED lights are very directional.
Sue noted that parks are very necessary in more densely populated areas. Refers to GMA & comp plan.

Council Time – All councilors attending

Public comment: Council had to recess due to a frequent speaker getting out of line and shouting. Another frequent caller is being nasty and off topic. The first one can be heard shouting from the back.

New Business:

Elder Justice Center (EJC) board assignments. Missed in the 2025 councilor assignments. Adding back. Need primary and alternates assigned. Next meeting is tomorrow – Need someone to attend, then do permanent assignments in January when they do all board assignments. Sue can make it tomorrow.
Youth Hope Month proclamation draft: PROCLAMATION FOR CRIME VICTIMS’ WEEK 2002 for November.

Policy Updates:

DNR Natural Conservation SWAP program. Jordan describing a property DNR owns that has some existing recreation and amenities, lightly timbered so lower timber values. Not in current line-up of sales, so there’d be time to find replacement forest land for the program (state would buy for DNR). Jordan displaying map -screenshot below, Larch Mountain. It would be kept in conservation trust status. Asking Council to send a letter to DNR recommending site. How it works: A DNR owned property that county wants to preserve is identified. A private property is identified (by who? I don’t know – guessing DNR) that the state would buy for DNR in trade. There is a (small) bucket of state funds available for this program.
Council discussion:

Matt supportive. Glen ‘doesn’t know enough’… Sue supportive. Asks how it was selected. The conservation community that’s been engaged in the DNR-county discussions re: recent timber sales looked for DNR lands considering carbon sequestration, recreation, not currently planned for sale and lower timber value. Matt (who was involved in the discussion): if we take more time to investigate, DNR might pick something for us. There is $10 million state money available so want to get on the list asap. Glen still waffling. Michelle agrees with Glen. Wil recognizes the sense of urgency, and the value for recreation. Delayed a week for Glen and Michelle.

2026 Legislative Priorities. Meetings w legislators scheduled.
County priorities and activities. Sue asks that BOH work on prenatal care be included.
23^rd and 30^th 9:00 for the one next week. Not sure if same, note sent to Jordan to find out
Agenda
Introductions
Presentation of county stuff
Discussion time

Executive session no after action.

Map of DNR land on Larch mountain the county aims to protect.

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

Return to Previous Page