Good evening and welcome
everyone. Calling to order
Clark County Council Tuesday,
July 21st, 2026. We're going to
start off with several
proclamation resolutions,
starting with Councilor Little
America. 250.
>> Alrighty. One of four here,
I think four of them. We're
doing alright. Whereas July 4th,
2026 marks the 250th
anniversary of the adoption of
the Declaration of Independence
in 1776 and the founding of the
United States of America. And
whereas, the Declaration of
Independence celebrates that,
we hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are
endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, and that to secure
these rights, governments are
instituted among men and women,
deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.
And whereas preserving,
studying, celebrating and
appreciating our shared history
helps strengthen communities as
we work together toward the
ideals of liberty and equality
embedded in the Declaration of
Independence. And whereas the
200th anniversary provides an
opportunity to celebrate and
recognize the significant
contributions Clark County
residents have made to local,
state and national history. And
Whereas, Clark County has
contributed proudly and
significantly to the history of
the United States of America
and the state of Washington for
more than 175 years now.
Therefore, we, the Clark County
Council, hereby hereby
celebrate 2026 as America 250
in Clark County and encourage
all residents to engage in
commemorative activities during
the United States
Semiquincentennial year of 2026
and reflect upon the
significance of this
commemoration and the role our
community and its diverse
people have played in the
history and development of the
United States of America.
Signed this 21st day of July
2026 by the Clark County
Council.
>> Thank you very much. Next up
is Volunteer Appreciation Month,
and Cyndie Gonzalez and Kaylee
McLaughlin. Burton from Public
Works will be accepting this.
So if you could come up. Okay,
this one, we're a few months
late on this one, but but it
still counts. Whereas April is
National Volunteer Month,
celebrated annually by federal,
state and local agencies and
nonprofit organizations. And
Clark County appreciates our
volunteers who work year round.
And. Whereas, Volunteer Month
is an opportunity to recognize
and thank volunteers who
strengthen our community
through their generous service
and. Whereas, volunteers are
essential to maintaining and
enhancing the beauty and
quality of our parks, public
lands, transportation corridors
and trails as the county's
population increases. And
Whereas, the Clark County
Public Works Volunteer program
engages the community in
meaningful volunteer
experiences that enhance and
protect community assets like
parks and roadways. And whereas,
in 2025, more than 1300
volunteers collected more than
5500 gallons of litter, picked
up more than 1,300 pounds of
pears on county properties for
donation to local food banks.
Painted the 400 foot long
Salmon Creek mural and made
dozens of other inspiring and
impactful contributions to
public spaces. And whereas
Clark County is fortunate to
have many organizations and
programs for residents to join
their neighbors in volunteering
and whereas, volunteers are
invaluable resource
collectively making a
difference and inspiring,
inspiring us all to give back
to the community. Now.
Therefore, we, the Clark County
Council, do hereby proclaim
July 2026. Well, I guess we
went from April to July here.
County Volunteer Appreciation
Month and encourage the
community to observe this month
by volunteering in service
projects throughout the county
and signed this 21st day of
July 2026. So. And I know, I
know we have some volunteers in
the community here that can
help celebrate this. So if
you'd like to say a few words,
>> Just thank you.
>> Okay. You're welcome. And
thank you. Okay, then the next
one up is Lake Appreciation
Month. Well, Councilor Young is
online and not feeling so well.
So Councilor Wil Fuentes will
be reading and it'll be
accepted by Adrian Mason,
executive director of Friends
of Vancouver Lake.
>> Welcome. Thank you for being
here, Ian. Well, this
proclamation is for the love of
lakes. And it goes. Whereas
Clark County has a number of
beloved lakes which are vital
public resources that support
recreation, habitat, wildlife,
public health, community
identity and quality of life.
And whereas July is recognized
nationally as Lake Appreciation
Month, a time to celebrate the
value of lakes, to encourage
stewardship of these important
natural resources. And. Whereas,
Vancouver Lake is one of Clark
County's most treasured natural
places and is a shoreline of
statewide significance under
Washington law is recognized as
an important public and
environmental resource for
present and future generations.
And Whereas, Vancouver Lake
belongs to the whole community
and serves people across Clark
County as a place of belonging,
a site to recreate, row, picnic
and experience the outdoors.
And. Whereas Vancouver Lake has
a long history of community
care, public investment and
collaborative planning,
including efforts by Clark
County and the City of
Vancouver, the Port of
Vancouver state agencies,
tribal representatives,
scientists, user groups,
community organizations, and
residents. And. Whereas caring
for Vancouver Lake requires
continued partnership,
education, stewardship, and a
shared commitment to keeping
this resource healthy,
accessible, and welcoming for
all. Now, therefore, the Clark
County Council does hereby
proclaim July 2026 as Lake
Appreciation Month in Clark
County and encourages all
residents to celebrate, enjoy,
protect, and steward Vancouver
Lake as an extraordinary
community resource for Clark
County today and generations to
come. Signed the 21st day of
July 2026 by all the entire
Council. Absolutely.
>> Don't give me a microphone.
We'll be here forever. I have
like 12 minutes, right? Just
kidding. Thank you. Councilor
Fuentes, Chair Marshall, the
rest of council. My name is
Adrian Mason, and I serve as
the executive director for
Friends of Vancouver Lake. I am
joined here this evening by
many of our board members who
all were Blue. I missed the
memo and were pink. We have
been working since 2017 to
ensure the lake and its
watershed is a place where
clean water, healthy ecosystems
and community well-being can
all flourish together.
Vancouver Lake is one of our
community's largest and most
valuable natural assets. The
lake covers approximately 2300
acres and provides space for
water, recreation, fishing,
bird watching, and spaces to
build real community. Our lake
has an Olympic distance rowing
course that attracts
competitors from across the
northwest and across the
country, and contributes nearly
$4 million annually to our
community. But limited water
circulation, nutrient pollution,
invasive milfoil and harmful
algae blooms continue to
threaten both water quality and
public access. The first two
phases of the Vancouver Lake
Management Plan have made
progress on these issues,
bringing us closer to a long
term solution for clean water.
We believe the future of
Vancouver Lake depends most on
community collaboration. No
single entity owns the entire
lake, and no single
organization can restore it
alone. We are deeply thankful
for the many partners and
supporters who continue to show
up for Vancouver Lake. That
includes you all here at the
county, especially Councilor
Young Devin, who's here this
evening, Ross with the parks as
well as our partners at the
Port of Vancouver, the City of
Vancouver, and our state and
federal legislators. Most of
all, we are grateful for the
community members who use,
enjoy, protect and love
Vancouver Lake as much as we do.
Their connection to the lake is
what gives this work its
meaning and our momentum. We
hope that all of you or those
listening at home this evening
may join us this Friday, July
24th in the spirit of Volunteer
Month, which it is now again
from 4 to 6 p.m. for a cleanup
at Vancouver Lake Park. We have
a job for everyone and every
ability, and we'd love to have
you. Thank you again for
recognizing Vancouver Lake and
caring for its future. We'll
see you all at the lake.
>> Thank you very much. And all
the friends. Then finally, as a
resolution advocating for light
rail transit to extend the
station at Evergreen Boulevard
and Councilor Fuentes will be
reading this.
>> Thank you, chair. As I
mentioned, this is not a
proclamation. It's it's a
resolution advocating for light
rail transit to extend to to a
station at Evergreen Boulevard
near Library Square. This
resolution number 2026-0701.
Whereas, Clark County remains
committed, a committed
supporter of the Interstate
five bridge replacement program.
And Whereas, in 2022, the City
of Vancouver and IBR Program
Partners approved a modified
locally preferred alternative
system that extended light rail
transit from Oregon, a station
at Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square. And whereas,
the City of Vancouver has
invested staff and consultant
resources to develop a concept,
plans for the area near the LRT
station and. Whereas. Vancouver.
With Washington State
Department of Transportation as
a Co-applicant, led a
successful application for $30
million in federal Reconnecting
Communities grant funding to
construct a lid over I-5 and
connecting with the station at
Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square. And whereas,
the Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square Station is a
planned multimodal hub that
connects LRT with C-TRAN local
and bus rapid transit systems,
and LRT connecting with the
rest of the county's public
transportation infrastructure
is crucial for the effective
functioning of public transit
in Clark County. And Whereas,
non transit vehicular analysis
conducted for IBR Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
accounts for dispersion of
traffic to and from the station
at Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square in a manner that
does not cause the city's
downtown local street system to
fail. And whereas, recent IBR
program analysis proposes the
LRT terminate at the Vancouver
Waterfront Station area rather
than near the planned station
at Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square. And whereas
that the IBR programs modified
locally preferred alternative
consists in part of new LRT
service with an interim minimum
operating segment. Northern
terminus immediately south of
Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square in Vancouver,
Washington. Now, therefore, be
it resolved by the Clark County
Council, the Clark County
Council strongly recommends
that LRT extend beyond the
planned waterfront station and
connect with C trans existing
and planned bus system at a
multimodal hub by Evergreen
Boulevard near Library Square.
To achieve the stated purpose
and needs of the IBR program
adopted at a regular meeting of
the Clark County Council this
21st day of July 2026 and
signed by the majority of the
Council.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
That concludes all the
proclamations and resolutions.
We'll move on to the. If you
could join me in standing for
the Pledge of Allegiance and
then continue standing for the
invocation that will be
provided by Alan Walter with
the countywide chaplaincy. I
pledge allegiance to the. Flag
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.
>> You are invited to join me
as I pray. Lord God, we honor
you as the creator of the
universe, the sustainer of life,
and the Redeemer of souls. And
we know that justice,
righteousness, and mercy flows
from your presence. And Lord,
we thank you for creating us
all equal, each in intrinsic
value. As our Founding Fathers
recognized. And also thank you
for the right to life and
liberty. And may we all
recognize that in this nation
and all the nations of the
world. And we ask for your
presence and your sovereign
oversight during this council
meeting. We thank you for our
county councilors. We ask that
you guide their decisions, give
them wisdom and discernment,
and may we all respect your
word and seek the highest good
for Clark County. And may we
all find peace with you and
peace with one another. In the
name of Jesus the Messiah. Amen.
>> Thank you very much for that.
Then let's move on to the
Council roll call.
>> Council young here.
>> Councilor Belkot present
Councilor Fuentes here.
Councilor Little here, and
Chair Marshall here. Thank you.
>> Are there any amendments to
the agenda?
>> I do have one this evening.
If we can remove consent number
19, this will come back in
August 19th.
>> Okay. Thank you. Moving on
to public hearing, Clark County
code 2.07.020. Ethics Review
Commission. Kathleen.
>> Yes. Thank you. Council. So
tonight I just wanted to go
over a proposed change in the
Ethics Review Commission code
language. Just as a reminder,
November 2021, the citizens
voted to add two sections to
the charter regarding Code of
Ethics and an Ethics Review
commission and Oversight office.
The council then adopted an
ordinance to Clark County Code
regarding ethics. One of the
sections of 2.07.020 states
that the Ethics Review
Commission is comprised of
three members appointed by the
County Manager and subject to
confirmation by the majority of
the Council. The request before
Council tonight is to adopt an
ordinance to update the code to
increase the number from 3 to 5,
to support the business
operations of the Commission.
And I will say that our current
Charter Review Commission has
reviewed and is supportive of
this requested change as well.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Okay. Are there any
questions from Council at this
moment before we open it up for
the public? Okay. Has anyone
signed up? Yes.
>> Chair, we have one person
signed up in the room, Carmen
de Lehan.
>> Yeah. Hi, I'm Carmen de
Lehan, also known as mellow. So
I have been to the charter
review and we have talked about
this and I do support making
five instead of three because,
you know, more eyes. You got to
look at something the better.
The only problem is what is
their capacity to enforce when
they know that there's been
violations? Because I filled
out ethical review reports and
they just pick and choose what
they want. They said that the
only thing they care about is
money. Well, when people are
lying about money all the time
and lying about people, it
shows you their character. And
just because they think it
doesn't involve money, it does.
The people I was complaining
about are in the position to
cost the county billions of
dollars. So what is the extent
of their capability of
punishing people that we can
prove are harming the public,
not only individually, but as a
whole on a monetary system,
because they don't seem to
understand debt. I don't know
what's so funny because I know
I've been lied to over and over
repeatedly by the city and the
county. So, I mean, what good
is this ethical thing? And it
even says, okay, so what was my
question? Oh yeah, what's the
criteria? What is our criteria
to be an ethical person to, to,
to review what I'm going to
file on everybody here because
I am, I was just waiting for
them to add more people because
I want to know, what's the
extent of your guys's
punishment going to be for not
listening to the people and for
abusing the handicapped? And I
do have video evidence of the
of the abuse I've gotten right
standing here. So where is the
punishment list for you guys?
That's what I want to know.
What is the extent of their
punishment on you or anybody?
Actually, in the city of
Vancouver who gets ethics filed
against them? Because like I
said, mine was thrown out
because they said, oh, it
doesn't involve money. Well,
money isn't everything. You
know, love makes the world go
around, not money. So how come
just because they think it
didn't involve money. Oh, we're
going to throw it out. No,
because that person is
ethically lying to get money.
And if one lie after another,
lie after another lie doesn't
pile up to make you see the
light, like I've told you
before, denial ain't just a
river in Egypt. It's the way
people live their lives.
Denying that even though the
government is spending
trillions of dollars, they
don't have it. So why don't you
look at the way they act
individually? For example, me
being removed for talking the
truth because I have been
ethically demolished by a lot
of people sitting up there that
can't be touched because who's
going to prosecute the
prosecutor? Who? The boss?
Because the boss can fire the
prosecutor. So it's really all
just rigged and fixed, and it's
all in the name of, oh, it
looks good to have a big
ethical people, but what can
you do about it? What are you
going to do about it? What are
you going to do when you find
all the ethical errors? What is
your capability of punishing
them, finding them or removing
them from office or even out of
the country?
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
anyone else?
>> We do have one caller online
chair okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Good evening, Kimberly
Goheen Elbon, thank you so much
for that prayer. Amen. So I'm
all for the Clark County
Charter to add section 8.12
Code of Ethics and section
eight. 18.13 Ethics Review
Commission and Oversight Office.
It's much needed and the Clark
County Council adopt the
ordinance number 2022-04-03.
Adding section 2.07.010, 2.0,
7.020 and 2.07.030 to the Clark
County Code and having five
ethics review commissions.
Commissioners is much needed. I
might add three. Three didn't
work because a lot of times
that I was listening there
might have only been one there.
I mean, and then they had to
put it off and it went off for
another couple of months. I'd
also like to see if the charter
review could also add to this
to have a monthly ethics review
commission, because frankly, I
think we're going to need it.
So I finally agree with this
that this will be beneficial to
further the public health,
safety and welfare. And I
strongly encourage the public
to be active in their local
government, as this commission
is responsible for hearing,
investigating and ruling on
complaints of violations of the
Code of Ethics, and I, for one,
will be actively holding our
government accountable to serve
the people under our great
Constitution. Again, if there
is a way that we could add
amend. So this is the public,
your boss. I'm going to ask for
an amendment that they have
monthly review, ethics review
commission meetings. And
because I'm hoping that the
people finally see that there
is a recourse that we can do
for government that has.
Actually trying to take over
the people. And so we're going
to have a little talk about the
Declaration of Independence,
that it goes on to state that
when a government engages in a
long train of abuses and
interpretations, it is not just
the people's right, but their
duty to throw off such
government and provide new
guards for their future
security, that whenever any
form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to
alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new government,
laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its
powers in such form as to them,
shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and
happiness. So, as the world is
trying to have a one World
government, we hear in America.
>> Thank you. Your time has
concluded. That concludes
public comment, chair.
>> Okay. Did you want to
comment on this item? Oh.
>> My comment is about the levy.
>> Oh, there'll be time for
that. Yeah, that'll be later.
Thanks. Okay. Council, do you
have any questions or comments?
Chair. Yes.
>> Yeah. I had a just a
logistical question. I noticed
the the.
>> Original three were
appointed with a one year term,
a two year term and a three
year term. And that's so that
you cycle people and you don't
have a lot of turnover in one
year. This this fourth and
fifth position would be three
year terms, both starting at
the same time, which I think
for my math would mean that
there's a 1212 month period
where there will be four of the
five turning over in the three
year period. And I'm just
curious if it would be better
to have one of the two new one
of the either the fourth or the
fifth have a two year term
instead of a three, so that
there's not so much turnover in
one year.
>> There would be three total,
not four, because all the first
three were all staggered. So
the last these two would be at
the same time. So there'll be
potentially three at the same
year, not four.
>> Yeah. Well, since it's June
30th. Oh will they all be
starting on June 30th. Then the
one year term, the two year
term and the three.
>> Year, they will be starting
after we do a recruitment and
do interviews and getting them
started for the final two. Yes.
>> Okay. It still feels like
there'll be a majority turning
over in one year of the three,
so there might be a better way
to do this. I don't know
thoughts.
>> Well, we've we do we've had
committees with high turnover.
Like all their positions were
turning over at the same time
or appointments all happening
at the same time. So it does
happen.
>> I think as long as we have
the recruitment out soon enough,
we shouldn't have an issue with
having the appointments made
prior to them expiring.
>> Okay, thank you for that.
Any other comments or questions,
chair? Yes, please go ahead.
>> How often does the ethics
Review Committee meet?
>> They have regular scheduled
meetings quarterly, but they
also do special meetings as
well.
>> Okay. And we've not started
the recruitment process. Is
that correct?
>> No.
>> We have.
>> We have to adopt this.
>> We adopt it. Okay. Correct.
I'd like to get ahead of things.
>> Thank you. Great. And I
would just note that this was a
recommendation from the Charter
Review Commission. And thank
you, County Manager, for
identifying that this is
something that we could just
take action on, or at least
take one measure off the ballot
this this fall. So, Councilor
Young, did you have anything to
add?
>> No, just I think this is a
good move and I appreciate the
work on moving it forward.
>> Great. With that then. Thank
you. I'll entertain a motion to
approve. And this is ordinance
number 20260702. And it'll be a
roll call vote.
>> Chair, I move to approve
ordinance number 2026-0702-02.
>> I second.
>> Great moved and thank it.
Seconded. Thank you. All those
in favor say I.
>> This would be a roll call.
>> Roll call. I even said that
automatic pilot here.
>> Councilor young. I councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I and chair
Marshall.
>> I motion carries. Thank you.
Okay. Moving on to the next
public hearing extension of
manifest error correction
period. And Michael Fish from
the assessor's office is here
to tell us about this.
>> All right. Good evening
councilors. I'm Michael Fish,
I'm the chief deputy assessor
and.
>> Hi. Good evening Council.
I'm Sarah Low and I'm the chief
deputy treasurer in the Clark
County Treasurer's office.
>> So we're here tonight to
present to you a request to
extend our time frame in which
we can issue make corrections
for manifest errors. So if you
want to move to the next slide,
our presentation tonight we're
going to do a quick overview
kind of a what are our value
corrections for our certified
values. What does that look
like. We're going to talk about
manifest errors specifically
what they are. We're going to
provide a little use case about
some experience that we had
this year. We're going to talk
about the impacts to the county,
our taxing districts as well as
property owners. And then we'll
make our requested action to
you and then leave a little
time for comments and questions.
So we can go ahead and hit the
next slide. So the assessor's
office, we process value
corrections to our certified
assessment roll all throughout
the year. And this is multiple
years. Statutorily, we can go
back three years and make
corrections. And we do these
for a lot of different things.
We have our mandated duties
that we can do corrections for
and administrative things. So
some of those things include
our senior property tax
exemptions, current use
deferrals, BOE board of
equalization, appeal decisions
for property values along with
the State Board of Tax Appeals.
And then we also do nonprofit
exemption determinations coming
from this Department of Revenue
at the state level. So those
are some things that we do
correct values for. And those
make up most of our changes to
values. If you want to go to
the next slide, one of the
specific kinds of error
corrections that we have is for
manifest errors. So those are
errors are really not tied to a
revaluation of the property.
They're more about clerical
errors. So if we did something
like apply the wrong level of
exemption for an application
for a senior, or if we had
incorrect property listings,
whether it's an outbuilding
that's no longer there, or if
we had the wrong square footage
on a property or duplicate
assessments. Those are the kind
of things that we classify as
manifest errors. And there is
specific type of change, right?
We can move to the next slide.
So as I mentioned, all of our
changes we can technically, we
can go back three years to make
these corrections. And
potentially if there's a value
change and a reduction of taxes,
we can apply those taxes or
issue refunds. Today. We're
kind of limited to that, to
that three years. So under
statute RCW W 8448065. You all
of you, the legislative
authority can enact an
ordinance that would allow us
to move past that three year
limitation and go out, and
we're going to request up to
six years for us to correct
these manifest errors and
potentially issue refunds. And
really, the key here is this
only in the case that we issue
a refund or there's a reduction
of taxes to the property owner,
it only works to the favor of
the property owners. Right. I
think we can go to the next
slide. So I mentioned a case
study. And this is really kind
of what got this thing moving
this year. And our elected
assessor and treasurer really
made a case for us to present
this to council. So we
identified a clerical error
earlier this year for a person
in the senior exemption program.
So the person had been in the
program since 2020 for 21 taxes.
They were applied for the
program. They own a five acre
parcel and it's zoned five
acres. And under the current
statute for that exemption
program, all five acres would
qualify for that exemption.
Unfortunately, at the time when
we processed it, we only
enrolled it with one acre for
the exemption. So when we found
out that information through
our review process, we
contacted the property owner,
went through the process to
generate the refunds for the
three years that we're
authorized to do so. We gave
refunds for 23, 24, and 25. The
property owner questioned why.
You know, I was in the program
since 21. Why didn't I get
those extra two years of
refunds? We explained the
process, the statutory
limitations, which is kind of
what brought us here today,
right? To say, well, there is a
remedy and it requires
legislative action by the
council. Next slide please. So
before we brought this to the
council, we wanted to make sure
we did our own due diligence to
make sure we had our heads
wrapped around what this meant.
We feel like the impacts to the
county and the taxing districts
is a pretty low risk. We
reviewed three full years of
corrections, so we went through
all our supplements for the 22
through 24, which is the tax
years 23, 24 and 25 reviewed
all those. We looked at the
changes that were made. Most
corrections happened just for a
single year. We had a smaller
subset that happened for two
years, and a limited to 28
corrections. That happened for
three years, multiple years. So
we didn't feel like there's a
huge financial risk involved in
opening this up and going out
from years four, five and six.
We also took this opportunity
to look at all the seniors in
program that are in that five
acre ownership. With the
applications we reviewed, all
those people that are in
program that have that acreage
that are zoned five acres. We
did find one more property
owner that we're going to
correct this for and issue
refunds back as far as is
allowed. And then we also
confirmed that any issue, any
refunds that are issued, even
though they're for multiple
past years, they would qualify
for us to go ahead and issue
the administrative refund
levies. So that makes taxing,
taxing districts whole for
those lost revenues in the
following tax collection year.
So again, low impact to the
county and the taxing districts.
Next slide please. I think the
really the important piece here
is really the impact to our
property, our property owners
and their taxes. The timeline,
as we mentioned, extending it
only works to their benefit. It
helps our property owners. It's
really the right thing to do.
The counties can't collect
additional taxes because we're
adding value to the role and
going back in arrears like that.
And again, the property owners
are made whole for any
potential county errors that
happened. Next slide please. So
really the formal request and
we've drafted an ordinance.
We've worked with the PAS
office assessor treasurer's
office. A lot of people and
people power went into this
work. So thank you to all of
them. So our office is request
your council approval to extend
the period for manifest errors
to be corrected from 3 to 6
years per the statute 8448065.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any questions from council at
this time? Yes. Go ahead.
>> Michael, you answered one of
my questions when you mentioned
the 28, you identified 28
errors. How many people total
are enrolled in this program
for the.
>> In the program, we have
about 9700 seniors and people
living with disabilities and
veterans.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And if there was discovered
an error that goes back further,
they they would be out of luck.
It will only be the six years.
>> It would only be the six
years. And the reason we picked
that time frame, I think
there's an administrative
burden to go back in time. But
really for our assessment cycle,
we inspect properties once
every six years for the senior
exemption program. We do
renewals within every six year
period to review the income,
make sure they still qualify
for program. That's when we put
eyes on things. So the six year
period kind of fit into our
assessment cycles and business
cases.
>> Thank you. Any other
questions from council? Okay.
Let's hear from the public. Has
anyone signed up?
>> Carmen de Lehan.
>> Hi, my name is Carmen de
Leon again Melo. And from my
understanding, fraud can be
punished indefinitely. There's
no statute of limitations and
other crimes have statute of
limitations. So how come giving
money back only has a limited
time offer? I mean, if you guys
have money for people for six,
five, whatever years, who's
keeping the interest off those
few thousand bucks? Who's who's
getting the interest? Are you
guys keeping that as
administration fees or are the
people getting it back that
have been overcharged? And
again, you're talking about
senior citizens, which gets me
because if they die, what do
you go looking around for their
grandchildren or children to
inherit this money that was
wrongfully taken from them or
mistakenly taken from them
because they have children who
would really appreciate that?
I'm sure. And I'm sure if
they're all seniors, maybe not
everybody last the whole six
years and the mistakes do. Let
me see. What else was it? Yeah,
3 to 5 years for the
inheritance and oh yeah, for
example, giving people back the
money is a must because in
India they took a poverty
stricken nation. A rich man
came and gave only $50 to each
family to see what they would
do. And they all started their
little businesses. And the
whole community was lifted up
by thousands because they went
and bought their little, you
know, in India you can haggle
and have, you know, little
Saturday markets and make your
money as little as $50, help
the whole community. So he got
paid back with interest. You
know, they bought shoeshine
kits because in other countries,
they shine your shoes, they do
things like that, or they sold
mangoes in the street or hot
dogs. And money can benefit
society, is what I'm saying.
And including people who you
cannot find. Maybe you need to
look for their inheritors
because we're talking acreage,
we're talking properties. And
not everybody's always paying
attention to what's going on.
So that's all I'm saying is
that six years is a joke. It
should go on indefinitely. I
mean, and older people have
paid taxes all their lives and
they shouldn't be taxed anymore
and should be given back as
much as they can. And if
they're not there, then their
kids should be because they
suffered without the money that
their parents didn't have to
spend on them. So yeah, give it
back to the people and stop
charging seniors, you know.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone
else in the room?
>> Nobody in the room. But we
do have a caller online.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Kimberly Gavenn Elbon
Mikella made quite a few good
points there, I might add. So
that does bring up some issues
for me as to are the clerks
signing this, which I think is
a wonderful thing, or is it the
citizens that are calling in
and asking for this because it
seems almost too good to be
true, right? I do receive and
have for the first time,
actually a senior exemption for
our property. The fact is, is
when people own their property,
they're still paying rent on it.
It's mind boggling. A lot of
people talk about it that the
property tax should be null and
void. Our government's too big,
and they definitely make a lot
of money on property taxes. So
maybe that'll be the next
agenda that we, the people, can
address. At least cutting the
property tax in half, if not
more. So again, it goes back to
some of us understanding that
the world wants to or the world
entities, I might say, want to
take down America. So you make
the people pay their taxes and
tax and tax and tax. I mean,
take a look at our state of
Washington. I used to say it
used to be a great state. And
here we are being taxed to
death. And so it's a mess. But
you know good job on this.
Let's take a have the citizens
since this is their government,
it's our government. Let's hold
them accountable. See what they
did do with the monies that
they've held. Maybe we should
be able to get a little portion
of that. Right. And the fact is,
is government wasn't supposed
to make a lot of money per se.
They're not to be become
wealthy. You serve the people.
And right now, I think a lot of
people are suffering. I know
they're losing their properties
and all that. So, you know, I
have a heart for that. I, I
can't get into it. I'm a little
under the weather right now,
but you serve the people and
that's a righteous duty. It's a
good thing. So let's hold each
other accountable. There you
see people as we the people
hold you accountable. Also,
it's for the good of the people.
And it's of course, a nation
under God. In Jesus name, Amen.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
anyone else?
>> Chair, that concludes public
comment.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any other questions or comments
from council or anything you'd
like to respond to? Okay, I'll
oh, I.
>> Did just want to add that
there is a bit of interest that
does come along with the
refunds, and it is spelled out
in statute, the amount of
interest that is associated
with the refund. So I just
wanted to make that clear.
>> Great. Thank you for that.
You're welcome. Okay. I'll
entertain a motion to approve.
And it's ordinance number
20260703. And it's a roll call
vote that I'll try to remember
that it's a roll call vote. So
moved, been moved. Is there a
second. Second moved and
seconded. Let's have the roll
call.
>> Councilor young Councilor
Belkot. I councilor Fuentes. I
councilor little. I inter
Marchel.
>> I thank you. Motion carries.
Thank you very much. Okay. That
brings us to open public
comment and which includes
public comment on the consent
and separate business items.
And just a reminder, you're
limited to three minutes. And
please keep your comments civil
and on county business.
>> Carmen de Lehan okay.
>> Yeah, this is Carmen de
Lehan. And it's my
understanding that it says
right here, open public comment.
Isn't that right? So you can
talk about anything without
getting in trouble. But you
know, I've gotten in trouble
before and yeah, open public
comment so you can talk about
anything you want except
threats of violence or
campaigning. Right? Okay.
Because I've, I've been
mistaken before and you shut me
down and I don't want to get
shut down again. Okay? I'm
making sure this is right. So
your proclamation of 250 years.
Great. But no fireworks sound.
That really sucks. Clark County
Appreciation Month, and I've
talked about it just a couple
seconds ago, how I've been
abused just for coming up here
in my my bone on bone knee. I
make the sacrifice to come here
and all I get is made fun of.
And people trying to trigger me
because they are bullies and
all bullies are cowards. So I
don't appreciate that because I
have volunteered my time here.
Maybe it's not signed up with
these people, but coming here
and speaking publicly is my way
of volunteering to the United
States of America under one
nation, under God. Anyways, the
Lake Appreciation Month. You
know, that would be great if
they had answered my calls
because I had ideas about
cooling off the lake with all
the algae that we cannot swim
in because it's so dirty. So
I'm surprised that there's a
Lake appreciation month because
I went and hunted them down,
trying to find out how to help
them fix the lake because like
I said, put ice icebergs in it,
bring them down the Columbia
River, drop some ice in the
lake. It would cool off and
kill the algae, but nobody
wants to listen to that. So
whatever. And the worst one
probably is this resolution. So
you guys are swearing to Clark
County that you're going to put
light rail in, despite them
voting it out since 1994. It's
a $3 billion project, you know,
nobody wants, and yet you just
proclaim that you're going to
put it over there by the
library so nobody can get food.
Nobody, nobody can go shopping
for food. It's totally you can
see the trains from here that
already go there. We do not
need light rail, period. The
voters of Clark County have
made it clear they don't want
light rail yet. You just made a
resolution promising them that
people. When are we going to
wake up and see that the
government isn't doing what we
want? They're doing the
opposite. You think it's funny?
You hide in a smile because I'm
not. I'm pretty disappointed.
And you know what I think of
you. So anyways, what else is
on here? Let me see. Oh yeah.
There is 29 items. 29 items. Is
that because the Tuesday
morning sessions have been shut
down because somebody's too
sleepy to show up? So it's all
been crammed into 29 items
today because we haven't had
any more Tuesday morning
meetings, because somebody was
Sleepy Joe over there and
mistakenly thought I was
obsessed with there. So, I mean,
I'm just I can't name names,
right? And you know what I'm
talking about. Who was sleepy?
And now we don't have no more
Tuesday meetings in the morning
only evening, accommodating the
sleepy head.
>> Okay, is there anyone else?
>> And Donna Lee.
>> Evening. Thank you all.
>> I'll push the button. Anne.
>> Thank you all for the work
that you do on behalf of the
county. Tonight I'm commenting
as co-founder of Clark County
Public Safety Alliance, a
movement of Clark County
residents, business owners and
neighborhood leaders that we
created in 2022 to support
public safety matters in our
community. For your separate
business agenda tonight, I now
advocate council approval of
two important resolutions for
propositions on this November's
ballot that are essential to
our public safety. They are in
the form of bonds and a levy
lid lift to pay for the
renovated jail, integrated
public safety staffing,
including for the jail and
sheriff's office and other
related essentials. As someone
who has monitored this process
closely now for a number of
years, I can assure the public
that these proposals are very
well thought out. The analysis
upon which they are founded is
sound. Long term, they will
decrease crime and give us a
more humane and safe community,
ultimately at lower cost. One
example, at a recent forum of
mental health advocates arguing
for the opening of the Brockman
facility, one parent explained
that her mentally ill loved one
had cycled through the entire
public safety system, including
the jail, nine times. And that
is expensive. Inhumane. So
tonight's vote is about
buildings, but it's also about
objectives, methods, visions,
and basically about people. So
I want to thank the council,
the county staff, the jail
staff, sheriff and other public
safety personnel for their
years of cooperative work to
bring us to the vote tonight.
Thank you.
>> Thank you and and thanks for
all your years of work on this
as well. Anyone else?
>> Paula Motschman, I'm so
sorry if I mispronounced that.
>> My name is Paula Mammon. I
live in unincorporated Clark
County. Thank you for allowing
me to speak. I'd like to begin
listing my concerns about the
use of illegal as well as legal
fireworks, by sharing a 14
second recording of what sounds
like warfare that we in Hazel
Dell had to listen to for hours
on the evening of July 4th. We
had to listen to this from 7
p.m. until 1 a.m. for days on
end, beginning the end of June,
until presently the
intermittent sounds and sights
from the Patriots still bombard
us. In addition to my recording,
I was going to bring in two
trash bags and one large box of
detritus left on the street
corner next to the apartment's
a few blocks from me. It sat
there for three days before I
picked it up. I'm sure you saw
the same garbage around town
left from people celebrating
their freedom. I have no doubt
it was worse in Hazel Dell,
because that is where the
revelers come to blow things up,
as it is in unincorporated
Clark County, fireworks harm
our well-being in a number of
ways. They traumatize people
with PTSD and PTSD. They
disrupt the sleep of medical
staff, first responders, people
recuperating from illness or
surgery, infants, the elderly,
and folks who just need to get
up to go to work the next day.
Even legal fireworks pose the
threat of danger. Over 30 grass
fires were reported on July 4th
alone. Livestock is traumatized.
Wildlife is traumatized, not to
mention people's pets. The
chemicals chemicals emitted
from fireworks affect air and
water quality. In my opinion,
the detonating of pipe bombs,
80s and hundreds IEDs and
altered fireworks before,
during and after the fourth is
malicious behavior. It has
nothing to do with celebrating
one's freedom. It is antisocial
behavior, pure and simple.
Isn't it true that your job as
council members is to help
maintain and improve the
quality of life in Clark County,
then enforce your ordinance.
Stop catering to adolescent
whims. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Patrick Locke.
>> Good evening Council. My
name is Patrick Locke. I am a
resident of Clark County and a
member of the Veterans Advisory
Board. Here on your separate
business, item number three. I
just wanted to reiterate this.
This is going up for a vote
tonight, I believe. Is that
correct or the levee? Okay. So
this is something, of course,
that we've talked about in work
sessions. And it's been an
issue that we've talked about
for quite a long time. And the
vote is supposed to be to put
this as a separate line item. I
just wanted to reiterate that
that's exactly what we're
talking about here. It says
defund the levee into their own
separate levees. Does that mean
that that's a separate line
item? Then can you confirm that
for me?
>> I believe they are.
>> Okay, then I'm just here to
support that and appreciate
your votes and taking care of
this issue. We have spent a
tremendous amount of time
working on that issue. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Margaret. Tweet.
>> Good evening. I appreciated
your proclamation regarding
America 250 and the consent of
the governed in 2012. Every
city in Clark County, plus
limited county areas allowed to
vote in the unusual C-TRAN
boundary, rejected the C-TRAN
ballot proposition to extend
Oregon's Trimet Max light rail
into Clark County over an I-5
bridge. In 2013. An advisory
vote to oppose any light rail
project in Clark County, unless
it is first supported by a
majority of voters in a county
wide vote of the people was
passed by 68% of voters. You
don't have the consent of the
governed. There has been no
vote. You do have a Clark
County resolution that states
you will oppose every light
rail project in Clark County,
unless it is first approved by
a majority of voters in a
county wide advisory vote. Of
the people. It's a dated 2022.
This resolution is posted at
the Clark County website and
should direct Clark County
policy decisions, yet has been
ignored by the council majority.
County Councilor Belkot from a
mostly county district two
supports a public vote on light
rail in accordance with the
current Clark County resolution.
When she was on the C-TRAN
board, she urged far less
costly bus and van service
using roads shared by all.
However, on March 12th, 2025,
councilors Jung Fuentes,
Marshall and Little voted to
remove Belkot from the C-TRAN
board and replaced her with
Councilor Fuentes, an ardent
light rail supporter from
County District three, mostly
in Vancouver, Vista. In 2025,
directed C-TRAN to change the
board composition to four
Vancouver C-TRAN board seats,
three Clark County and two for
the lesser cities. It's unfair
and robs district two and
district four in East County of
the representation we deserve
no taxation without
representation. All bear the
C-TRAN sales tax whenever they
shop in the C-TRAN district,
where retail outlets and
businesses are located, by
zoning the state Office of
Financial Management states the
population estimate 2025.
Unincorporated Clark County
245,750. Vancouver 205,100. All
citizens have a vote in the
Clark County Council. Most have
no vote in Vancouver. The
County Council should have
appointed the three county
seats to areas mostly outside
Vancouver. Since Vancouver just
got four out of nine seats on
the C-TRAN board, per the
Washdot directive. Instead,
County Council majority chose
Vancouver District one
Councilor Glenn Jung in over
Councilor Belkot district two
in a mostly county area.
>> Thank you for your testimony.
>> Thank you. Douglas. Tweet.
>> Thank you councilors.
Douglas. Tweet. Camas light
Rail continues to be a topic
here. And there's continuing to
be talk about expansion.
Recently there's been talk
about expanding light rail
throughout the Vancouver Urban
growth boundary. Surprise
surprise light rail is not key
to development and prosperity.
All we have to do is look to
Portland to see that. I'll
number points here. Ridership
is low. C-TRAN system wide
ridership is slowly increasing,
but it is not increasing across
the I-5 bridge or the I-25
bridge. It's been stagnant and
low. The route 60 bus is down
to 900 boardings today, meaning
about 450 people ride it. That
is the only route that is going
to go to max light rail, and
that's down 2 or 3 times from
before 2019. The express routes
to downtown Portland and to
OHSU were about 600 a day of
boardings. And these combined
across that I-5 bridge
ridership is half of what it
was in 2006, less than half.
Yet Eber in their forecast,
said it's going to magically go
up 20 times in another 20 years,
down by half in the last 20
years, up by 20 times in the
next 20 years. It's completely
ridiculous. And the I-25
express route also is half or
less of what it was pre-COVID.
I used to take that bus when I
was teaching at Portland State,
a physics class one summer.
People are simply not going to
downtown Portland to work like
they used to. If you take a
look, downtown Portland's
office vacancy rate is
currently about 30%. We. We
keep hearing about office
buildings being sold off. I
just read about one. In May,
$47 million tower sold for $11
million. How is that attractive
to any developer? That's what's
going on. Portland can't fix
pay to fix their potholes,
maintain their roads. Schools
are terrible and closing.
Tri-met ridership is down both
bus and light rail. Greg
Johnson, the. The former
director. Back
>> In December.
>> He was.
>> Asked last October at a
C-TRAN meeting about how are
your forecasts for Tri-met
light rail compared to the
reality. And he in December
wrote a letter saying the Max
orange line and Max green lines
were matched very well. Well,
that was maybe at best good for
one year when they were first
built. Now both are one third
of forecast ridership and the
green line is getting reduced
by half next month. So
basically, don't emulate
Portland. People live on this
side of the river for a reason.
Many have fled Portland for
Clark County. Don't turn us
into Portland. It's been a
disaster over there. People are
leaving Portland. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Gregory Smith, is that what
your name was? Larry. Larry.
Yes.
>> Hi. Council members, Larry
Smith. I'm here to back up
Patrick Locke and to support
veterans Levy. I'm retired 26
years in the Army. My terminal
assignment was Vancouver
Barracks before I started
working for the city. I have 12
years on city council, active
in the community, serving the
Veterans Advisory Board, also
served on the Historic Trust
and seven other organizations.
So I'm active in the in the
community because it's
important. You just got to
remember veterans are value
added to a community. You go to
any high school and you look at
some of the coaches out there,
they're veterans. You go to law
enforcement, say, how many cops
over here or army? Probably
military police. They come in
here. I've got several friends
that are in the Vancouver
Police Department who are
military veterans. I think it's
so important, especially right
now, if you think what's going
on in the world, we're at war
right now. We have 17 folks who
are killed in combat, and we
got to take care of them and
their families and so forth,
and reach out and making sure
that they are taken care of and
they get what they deserve.
Because you're not only dealing
with veterans, you're dealing
with veterans and their
families. And that's so
important. So I'm here just
just to emphasize, I know I'm
preaching to you, to a
gentleman generally talking
about veterans, but at the same
time, it's so important to
raise those issues up because,
you know, it's a matter of
priority. And I understand it
where the money goes back and
forth. But we got to take folks
who serve this country, put
their lives on the line and
their families. And it's so
important. We got about 35,000
veterans that live in Clark
County, and I know many of them
are very active and involved in
this community, and they love
the community. I'm here because
of two veterans, Royce Pollard,
Bob Knight, both commanded the
barracks. Royce was a mayor for
20 years. So important to
remember these folks and
remember their families and
making sure that the next
generation is taken care of.
Thank you. Council.
>> Thank you very much.
>> That's currently all that's
on the list. Is there anybody
that didn't get a chance to
sign up that would like to
speak during this time? Okay.
We do have one caller online.
>> Okay.
>> Caller you've been sent a
request to unmute. Please go
ahead and do so. State your
name for the record and go
ahead with your comment.
>> Again, Kimberly Gavenn Elbon.
Let's listen to the tweets and
thank you, Ann Donnelly. So I
consider it my right and duty
to stand against our local law
and justice system that has
taken on its own life and seems
to have a foundation of having
the love of money, which is the
root of all evil. Our judiciary
system, our prosecutorial
system, and our public defense
system is directly in violation
of human rights and
constitutional rights. I want
to draw your attention to a
profound systemic failure
occurring daily within our
local judicial system, one
fueled entirely by our hard
earned tax dollars. The United
States Constitution guarantees
the right to a 90 day speedy
trial and the right to
effective legal counsel. Yet in
Clark County, these rights are
being systematically eroded.
Our indigent defense system is
severely underfunded and
paralyzed. As a result,
individuals who are presumed
innocent are languishing behind
bars indefinitely. The court
continually and constantly
pushes back trials because the
defense cannot provide adequate
representation. These issues
are only the tip of the iceberg.
This is not a theoretical
crisis. This is happening right
now to my son, Cleghon
Rengulbai case number
24-1-02497-06. My son is facing
severe charges of assault in
the first degree and attempted
assault. He is falsely accused
and trapped in a system that
refuses to grant him a conflict.
Attorney from outside of the
county. His current public
defender will not withdraw from
the case. Shockingly, despite
the county's severe public
defense funding shortages and
lack of retaining attorneys, I
might add the head of the
Vancouver defender's office is
personally acting as an
assistant on his case.
Meanwhile, critical defense
motions are routinely dismissed
with bias and without a fair
hearing. I will add that the
Clark County Past Public
Director, Christopher Swabey,
is said to be on leave, but
when, in my opinion, is
actually being investigated. He
was involved in my son's case
and did not make a good faith
effort to find an out of county
conflict attorney. Therefore,
ignoring Judge Banfield's order
to do so. This is highly
troubled, troublesome, and goes
deep into the law and justice
system here locally. The
prosecution has a sworn oath to
maintain justice. Instead,
public funds are being used to
manufacture convictions and
keep an administration money
stream alive. Our tax dollars
could fund a fair, swift and
transparent justice system, not
an.
>> Okay. Thank you for your
comments.
>> That concludes public
comment, chair.
>> Okay. Let's move on then to
the consent agenda. We have
items one through 21 and item
19 has been removed. Would
anyone like to pull any of the
items?
>> I'll move approval of
consent agenda.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. So that
would be one through 21 minus
item 19. All those in favor say
I. I I. Okay. Motion carries.
Thank you very much. Takes care
a lot of a lot of our agenda.
Okay then separate business
items. Oh. Request for
resolution related to the jail
remodel and expansion. Yes.
Kathleen.
>> Thank you. Council. So I do
want to start by thanking all
of those who have been involved
with this process over the last
couple of years, reviewing the
current jail, which was built
in the 1980s. This
comprehensive review included,
but was not limited to, the
actual structure, the bed
capacity, the services, the
needs of services, safety needs
for those housed in the jail,
and those who work in the jail.
I also want to express my
appreciation to our community
members who participated in the
initial market analysis.
Through this important feedback,
we have been able to hone in on
our recommendation before
Council tonight and if approved
by council, the feedback will
also guide our future
communication and education
efforts as we move forward. As
a reminder, the law and justice
system is a system where all
parts need to function in order
for it to be successful. So
just for example, if we don't
have bed capacity in our jail,
the system fails. If we don't
have court staff to process,
the system will fail. So it is
a holistic system that we need
to ensure is set up for success.
Tonight is a significant
milestone in the jail project
that has been many years in the
making. The first request
before council tonight is to
approve to submit a proposition
to the voters on the November
ballot, requesting
authorization for the issuance
of general obligation bonds in
the principal amount not to
exceed just over 366 million
for public safety and criminal
justice infrastructure. We
heard from the public during
the initial market analysis,
which include concerns of the
current cost of living and tax
increases. Due to their
feedback, we are recommending
the partial build that has been
before council. This partial
build will satisfy the current
needs as well as many, many
years. So for the public, we
have a fire alarm, so we will
be pausing CVTV until we're
allowed back in the building.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay. Welcome back everyone.
Council is returned from our
fire drill, and I think where
we left off was separate
business item one related to a
bond for the jail remodel and
expansion. Go ahead.
>> So I'll just repeat the, the
prior point that I was, which
is the actual request before
council tonight, is approval to
submit a proposition to the
voters on the November ballot
requesting authorization for
the issuance of the general
obligation bonds in the
principal amount not to exceed
just over 366 million for
public safety and criminal
justice infrastructure. We
heard from the public during
the initial market analysis,
including the current cost of
living and tax increases. Due
to their feedback, we are
recommending the partial build.
The partial build will satisfy
the current needs as well as
many, many years, including
decades to come. More
specifically, this bond will
fund the following remodel and
expansion of the jail and
courtrooms. New or remodel
Sheriff's Office headquarters.
They're currently located in
the basement of the jail. This
has been reviewed by many
stakeholders, including but not
limited to, staff and elected
officials, the finance team,
internal services, the Law and
Justice Council, diverse
community stakeholders, and
bond council. As a kind
reminder, Clark County Council
has discussed this bond measure
multiple times over the past
few years and most recently
three meetings in June and July.
The team I know a lot of our
team members, most of them are
online, are here. 1st May be
held up a little bit right now,
but we're happy to answer any
questions that Council may have
at this time.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
summary. Are there any
questions that any on council
has? I was I wasn't quite sure
what was happening there. Yes.
Go ahead.
>> Sure. Yeah. I just want to
say this is a long time coming
and very supportive of this.
Public safety is bipartisan, as
we've heard. And this is
absolutely essential to our
community and the bond that
we're putting out. This is a
decision for the voters. We're
not making the decision today.
And the bond is the most
efficient way for us to put
this, get this funding with the
least cost to the voters. So
we're hoping the community will
support it. We're going to be
doing as much as we can, I
believe, to show the community
the needs of this jail. It's
not a, you know, a fancy
remodel. It's an essential
remodel to making sure that
people in the jail and the
staff are safe. And it's a
healthy environment for
everyone. And you can't do a
remodel of a jail without
having the staff. So that's why
we're doing the second lead
lift. And as Kathleen said, you
can't do it without the whole
system being whole. So we have
to support the sheriff and we
have to support the court
system. So we hope we can get
the support of the community on
this important vote.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there other
comments from any councilors
chair? Yes, please go ahead.
>> Just wanted to echo many of
Councilor Little's comments and
thank staff for a very long and
intense process. This has been
being talked and discussed
since my first day on council,
and it was long before that
that the initial discussions
had started. So just wanted to
thank everybody for getting us
to this point. And, you know,
just just want to encourage
folks if they really want to
see the need directly to reach
out and request a tour of the
jail, because it really is a
needed component for our entire
law and justice system in the
county. That's all I have to
say. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you. Anyone
else? Council. Belkot.
>> I have a comment. It was a
pleasure to be on the Jail
Committee remodel Committee. It
was great. All the work that we
did did lengthy reviews on all
the specs for the jail remodel,
which was very interesting. And
I just wanted to thank
legislative rep Stephanie
McClintock for getting us some
money for the jail, which was
much needed. And we appreciate
appreciate our legislative
Southwest Washington
legislative body supporting
this initiative. So thank you.
>> Thank you. Go ahead,
Councilor Fuentes.
>> I think that everything my
colleagues have said sums it up.
This is a long time coming. And,
and I yeah, yeah, it's it's
been in front of council for
quite some time now. So I'm
really, really excited to get
this in front of voters. And I
hope that they support it
because it's absolutely needed
to ensure that people that work
at the jail have a safe place
to work. And of course, you
know, the dignity of those that
are incarcerated. So looking
forward to November and see
what happens.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I would
just like to echo and agree
with everything that's been
said. It has been a very long
time for for Councilor Belkot
and I, our entire terms on the
council. And I know that
there's been past efforts that
haven't gotten as far as we are
today. So I'm very proud of the
work that has been done. I
think it's a.
>> Good, good.
>> Oh, no.
>> Okay. For the public, we
have another fire alarm going
off, so we'll pause.
>> And fire.
>> This webinar is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Okay. We thought we had a
fire alarm there. Well, we did,
but it's subsided. So I think
maybe I need to just keep my
comments really short so we can
vote on this. And I'll
entertain a motion to approve
authorizing the issuance of
general obligation bonds in the
principal amount not to exceed
$366,204,000.
>> I so move.
>> It's been moved, moved and
seconded. All those in favor
say I. I I okay, it's a major
milestone for us. And again, if
anyone in the public wants to
know more about this, we'll be
doing outreach. And I know the
jail is always you can always
reach out to the jail. If you
would like a tour. To learn
more about what is being
proposed. Okay. With that,
we'll move on to item two.
Request approval of a
resolution to submit a
proposition to the voters on
the November 26th ballot to
authorize a levy lid lift to
provide revenue for public
safety and criminal justice.
And Kathleen, could you
summarize this?
>> Yes. So this is the second
part of the bond. The bond is
the capital infrastructure. But
we still need to be able to
staff a larger jail. So this
levy would support jail staff
for the expanded jail,
additional sheriff deputies, as
well as all the law and justice
impacts of additional deputies.
Currently Arpa funded
prosecuting attorney staff.
There's four and other key law
and justice services. This has
again been reviewed by many
stakeholders, including staff,
elected officials, the finance
team, internal services
consultants, law and justice
counsel, and our diverse
community stakeholders. And
similar to the Bond County
Counsel has had several
discussions regarding this over
the years, including three in
the last month. And the team,
again, is here to answer any
questions on this. But it's
really the operational cost for
the jail. In addition to
additional law and justice
services such as sheriff's
office.
>> Could you touch on those
other departments that are
going to receive some funding
to support this?
>> Yes. So it'll be the courts
prosecuting attorney, public
defense, that's all. Again,
tied to the sheriff's office,
additional deputies. So
everybody part of that law and
justice system, again, to make
sure that we have a system
that's supported holistically
so we don't have a fracture in
that system.
>> Great. Thank you. And I
would just say that our
approach over the last three
and a half years has really to
be looked to, looking at the
jail as the service that it can
provide to reduce recidivism,
to address the needs of the
people who are incarcerated. So
if there's mental health or
addiction resources that are
needed, that we can provide
those and really get people
back on the right track. And
ultimately it will save dollars
and it will save people's lives.
So I wanted to get my comments
in before the fire alarm might
go off again. Any other
counselors like to say some
things? Okay. I'm not hearing
any counselor. Fuentes, did you
want to.
>> Say I was just ready to.
>> Okay. All right, all right.
And then the other thing I
wanted to mention is that I
think for all of us, we've
heard repeatedly in the
community the need for to
augment public safety. And, and
so I just say that we've heard
that and this will be
everyone's opportunity to
support that need. So with that,
I'll entertain a motion to
approve the levy lid lift to
provide revenue for public
safety and criminal justice
purposes.
>> I move to approve separate
business. Item number two.
>> A second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor say I. I I. I
motion carries. Thank you very
much. All right. Moving on to
public defense. And this is oh.
>> We have one more before
public defense. Number three.
>> Oh number three. Okay, I
crossed that off too soon. Okay.
Request approval. Oh, this is
what some people came in to
talk to us about. Sorry.
Request approval to to separate
out the veterans mental health
and development disabilities,
property tax levies from the
general fund and into their own
separate levies. Kathleen.
>> Yes. So this was one of the
items during the last
legislative session through
House Bill 2442, that
established new minimum rates
for the three subordinate
levies, and also allows
counties to move these levies
out from being a subordinate
levy from in the General fund,
the new minimum rate for all
the three equates to
approximately 4.25 million. If
council does not move to three
subordinate levies out, that
amount will continue to be
taken out of the general fund.
If the levies are separated,
the revenue will be collected
under the new property tax levy,
increasing the county's overall
tax rate by 3.62 $0.05 per
thousand dollars of assessed
value. Council did discuss this
during the June 10th work
session, where the majority of
the Council was supporting and
moving this to tonight's
meeting for your consideration,
and I believe we have our team
members from the assessor's
office who may still be with us
in the room. If there are any
specific questions on this item,
great.
>> Thank you. Are there any
questions of the assessor or.
>> Chair?
>> Go ahead.
>> Could you clarify the the
percentage that you said? For
the levy?
>> I don't believe I had a
percentage.
>> Okay. You said so many cents
per.
>> 3.62 $0.05 per.
>> What was it again.
>> 3.62 $0.05 per $1,000 of
assessed value.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Okay. At the
public comment has come and
gone. So this is a time for the
counselors if they have any any
comments? Council. Young.
>> Yes, I was just going to say
or ask if we could translate
that just for transparency into
dollars for the median
household or the median home
value.
>> Do we have that number?
>> I'm looking at the assessor.
I do have the total revenue
that will the 4.25 million
broken up into three
subordinate levies.
>> But I think that would be a
good piece of information to
share.
>> The 4.25 million. It's 1.3
million for the veterans, 1.5
for developmental disabilities
and 1.5 for the mental health
fund.
>> Thank you.
>> And then what does that
translate, though, in terms of
how much will the levy be? It's
three and 5/8 cents I think is
what you said. But how much is
that in dollars.
>> Yeah, I'm going to I think
our. People are are figuring
that out. Okay. Okay.
>> Okay. Well we well, let's
let them figure that out. Are
there any other comments or
questions from the council?
>> Just a quick comment that
I'm very supportive of moving
forward with this and wanted to
thank our local delegation. I
know that Representative Wiley
was active in this. I think
others were as well. And
getting the ability to do this.
This will be. This is a great
day for veterans in Clark
County.
>> Thank you for those comments.
There's still a little bit of
figuring going on. Did you have
any other questions? Oh, here.
Comes Michael.
>> All right. Good evening,
Michael Fish, Chief Deputy
Assessor So.
>> Thanks for sticking around.
>> Absolutely. The question on
the table was, can we
extrapolate this for a medium
priced home? Correct. Are we
talking just about the Veterans
Assistance Fund levy because we
gave a combined because this
impacts the Veterans Assistance
Fund, mental health, behavioral
health and developmental
disabilities.
>> I don't think we need to
have them separated. I think
the total cumulative impact
would be okay.
>> Yeah.
>> I'm seeing it's about $19
for a $500,000 house per year.
>> Okay. So in reality, in for
the average household, this
will be a new tax of $19 per
per year. Okay, okay.
>> It will because it otherwise
came out of the general fund.
>> No.
>> Okay. I think we have to
rely on staff to give us the
answer.
>> There already. Okay.
>> Let me just repeat my
question to you. So this will
be for the average household of
$500,000 home. This will be a
new tax of $19 per year.
>> That's correct. Based on a
median price home of $550,000,
with the statutorily required
levy rates, we're setting these
levies up independently of the
county general fund today. They
are part of the county general
fund. So that's the difference.
>> But for the average
household, there will be an
additional. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Kathleen, did you have
anything to add?
>> I think the only difference
is that same amount would
happen in the general fund. It
would just be reduced from the
general fund levy. So this is
just a it's separating out. So
you'll see it separately. But
yes, that's the $19 is the
average per year.
>> Which otherwise would have
been collected in the general
fund. So is it a Wasch.
>> It's not an extra.
>> This is important to my vote.
Yeah. I want to know if it's a
Wasch or it's $19 of more tax.
The average household.
>> That's really budget
decisions, right. Which you
guys will be coming back to
later this fall of how the
general fund is appropriated.
We're talking about
establishing the Levy's moving
forward so that they can be
levied separately and provide
more flexibility and decision
making for the council. When it
comes to budget choices.
>> Does that help?
>> I still can't tell if the
decision today alone will add a
new tax to the average
household that they otherwise
wouldn't already be paying
through the regular levy and
the general fund. Will it be a
new tax, or will it be a Wasch?
>> I'm getting a message from
the Budget Director that it is
an addition to the general fund,
because right now the general
fund would be reduced on what
county could use that on to pay
for the subordinate levies.
>> Okay. I think we have our
answer there. Any other
questions or comments, chair?
Yes, please go ahead.
>> I think it would be
important to bring some of the
information back that we had
the last time we touched on
this, which is that the
statutory requirement was
raised in terms of the amount
that's being funded. I, I don't
recall how much that was. So
the it would have created
additional strain, significant
strain on the general fund. The
only way that we could achieve
not not essentially putting
further strain on the general
fund would be to take this
action. The other thing that I
think is really critical that
this accomplishes is with it
being separate from the general
fund, there's no longer I mean,
the general fund is every
single year it's a battle.
There's so much pressure for
the for those funds. And this
would establish to where the
veterans, you know, wouldn't be
competing any longer for
general fund dollars. I think
it's a really important aspect
of this that needs to be
mentioned and thought about.
>> So to just summarize again,
I think Councilor Young, the
4.25 million is the new minimum
rate for all three. If that is
not a separate levy, that
amount will be reduced from
general fund.
>> And right now, how much
comes out of the general fund
to support these three?
>> I'm going off memory here,
but I think we're about 2.3
million for all three levies
combined.
>> Okay. So it's an additional
about 2 million.
>> That's accurate.
>> Okay. I think we've got it
figured. So it's an additional
2 million. Annually. And that
would be less than the $19 per
year. Just if we look at the
difference, I'm assuming. Okay.
All right. I think we got it.
Any other comments or questions
from council. I'll entertain a
motion to approve separating
these three levies. Separate
business item number three.
>> So moved.
>> Thank you. Moved, moved and
seconded. All those in favor
say I.
>> I.
>> I opposed no, no. Okay. Four
eyes one no motion carries.
Thank you, thank you. We're
moving on then to item four.
Public defense. And that's
April is going to present this
information related to public.
Defense.
>> Thank you counselor. April
1st, deputy County manager. The
request authorization for
County Manager to sign
amendments to the public
defense felony and district
court contracts for increased
compensation effective August
1st, 2026. Also request pre
approval to allocate the one
time funding from the General
Fund to support the contract
increases. So Public defense
has 12 felony contracts and
four district court contracts
for the calendar year of 2026.
Staff is requesting council
approval to increase the
compensation for felony and
district court contracts,
effective August 1st, and
authorize the county manager to
sign the amendments, which were
included in the staff report.
The felony contract
compensation has not increased
since 2022, and district court
contract compensation was
increased in 2026. But it's
still not competitive with
>> People in the city of
Vancouver. The proposed
contract increases allow Clark
County to be more competitive
locally, across and across the
state. So the total for the
requested contract increases is
a little over 291,000. Staff is
requesting pre-approval for
Council to allocate the one
time funding also from the
General fund.
>> Okay. But this will have an
ongoing cost.
>> I will be submitting the new
contract amount in the budget
proposal for 2027.
>> Great. Thank you. Any
comments or questions? Yes,
please go ahead.
>> I have a comment. So why
were the increase not
previously worked into the
previous contract like CPI
increases over the years?
>> I don't know.
>> Okay.
>> I can add these are one year
contracts which we're also
looking at moving forward. And
we've been told that it was not
necessarily supported to bring
something forward in years past.
But we are here today wanting
to take care of that issue.
>> Okay. And so this would
still be a one year contract.
>> This will just be from the
increase. The 200, a little
over 291,000 is just for August
through December of this year.
It's to attract more contracts.
And the increase I'll be asking
for the increase in the budget
for 2027. But I will actually
be also submitting for two year
contracts going forward.
>> Okay.
>> Go ahead.
>> Oh yeah. Just really quick
question and a really
clarification. This is to also
address challenges in securing
contractors because we're not
we've not been very competitive
in the past. Is that correct.
Correct.
>> Thank you. Out of anyone
that I've looked at, we were
not competitive with pricing.
>> Got it. Thank you.
>> I've also already had two
inquiries since this has been
on the council agenda.
>> So looking for employment.
>> Looking for having a
contract with. Okay.
>> Great great. Well could have
immediate effect. Okay. I think
this is very important. This is
a constitutional mandate that
we have to provide defense. We
know we've been struggling with
that. So I would be supportive.
Are are any other comments or
questions. And if not I'll
entertain a motion to approve
item four.
>> Motion to approve separate
business item number four.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. Moved
and seconded. All those in
favor, say I.
>> I.
>> I motion carries. Okay.
Moving on. Oh yes. Please go
ahead.
>> I'm sorry. Just real quickly.
>> I'm. What is the total. This
is the total dollar amount for
this annually is over 200,000,
correct?
>> Yes, 291. A little over
291,000 for the rest of this
year.
>> I just I just want to point
that out because later in the
year, we're going to get around
to the 1% conversation. And we
just spent a portion of that
essentially.
>> Good. Good point. Okay. Then
moving on to public Works,
Jenny Kocher is here to talk to
us about consulting services.
>> Good evening Council. The
item before you tonight is to
is a request to authorize the
County manager to execute a
contract for consulting
services with CLP ventures in
the amount of $109,000. Also,
to authorize the County Manager
to sign supplemental agreements,
if necessary, to extend the
duration of the original
agreement. So the item before
you tonight is to approve an
initiative for public Works,
comprehensive management and
leadership training, along with
the associated budget
appropriation required to
implement it. This initiative
reflects a strategic, proactive
investment in organizational
capacity. It will equip public
works managers with shared
expectations, consistent
practices, and practical skills
necessary to lead people,
manage performance, and support
succession planning. The
training provides a common
leadership framework designed
specifically for public works,
operational needs. Leadership
effectiveness has a direct
influence on employee
performance, productivity,
retention, customer service,
excuse me, and the overall
functioning of the organization.
Strengthening these these
capabilities is essential to
long term operational success
and is a strategic priority for
the department. The request
also has an additional
appropriation of $46,000, and
this appropriation is necessary
to provide the budget authority
needed for contract execution.
If approved, this will be
included in the fall
supplemental budget request.
Public works has partnered
closely with the Human
Resources Department on this
initiative since spring of 2025,
and as part of this agreement
to human Resources, staff
members will participate in and
audit the program at no cost to
the General Fund. The
investment supports consistent
managerial practice, improved
organizational effectiveness,
and prepares public works for
future workforce needs. And I'm
happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Are there any
questions? I would just note a
few years ago there was an
internal audit which occurs
throughout the various
departments, and there was
significant turnover in public
works. That was really
startling. And I think you need
to have this training to help
support and keep people
operating in a, in a, in a good
way in their department. So I'd
be very supportive of this.
Other comments. Is there a
motion?
>> Motion to approve separate
business item number five.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor, say I.
>> I.
>> I opposed no motion carries.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Item six. Paul Moran.
>> Paul Moran will be joining
us online. And I'm here in case
there's any any issues.
>> Good evening. Council. Paul
Moran, capital project manager
with Clark County Public Works.
I'm joined by Jeremy Provenza,
a Clark County engineer. The
county is seeking a qualified
consultant to lead the update
and overhaul of its Systemic
Safety Improvement Program and
Traffic Safety Management
program. The consultant will go
beyond revising existing
documents. The goal of this
proposal is to create a
functional, sustainable and
actionable safety program that
aligns with Wasch Dot's Highway
Safety Improvement program,
Target Zero, and the US
Department of Transportation
Safe Systems Approach
principles, and this positions
the county to secure and
implement safety funding
effectively. Clark County
Public Works solicited
proposals from qualified firms
to assist with updating and
improving two critical safety
planning documents. RFP 983
invited the consultant
community to propose
methodologies and strategies
that will not only update the
technical content of the
county's plans, but also
improve the county's ability to
prioritize, fund and deliver
transportation safety projects.
The consultant will provide a
comprehensive, scalable
framework to help the county
transition from planning to
implementation, while also
identifying internal process
improvements and resource needs.
As a result of the county's
proposal, review and interview
process, Kittleson and
Associates Incorporated was
selected as the most qualified
firm. Kittleson will develop a
proposed updated TSM P
Methodology Technical
Memorandum in line with the
assessment recommendations and
available data. This memorandum
will document a clear and
consistent descriptive crash
analysis, network screening and
prioritization process to
establish implementable safety
project concepts. Kittleson
will also update the CIP
methodologies to reflect
current best practices in
systemic safety analysis, as
well as alignment with Wasch,
Dot's Target Zero plan and
safety programs, as well as SSA
principles and Fhwa's recently
updated Systemic Safety User
Guide. We are requesting
council approval of additional
budget and authorization for
the County Manager to execute a
contract for Consultant
Services with Kittleson and
associates, incorporated in the
amount of $260,739. The 2026
Systemic Safety Improvement
Program and the Traffic Safety
Management Program update also
authorize the county manager to
sign supplemental agreements if
necessary, extending the
duration of the original
agreement, increasing the
contract amount by up to 10%.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Are there
any questions from council? I
noticed this falls within
existing budget capacity.
>> No, I believe it does have
some budget impacts.
>> Oh I'm sorry, it does have
some budget cut. Could you
describe that?
>> Sure. This will require
additional requests in the fall
supplemental budget. This would
be a one time operational cost.
I believe we are fairly later
in the year of 2026. So it
anticipates some of this
carrying over into 2027. I
don't know if Jeremy has
anything to add to that.
>> Good evening. Council.
Jeremy County Engineer yeah,
what I would add to that is
typically this is work that we
would do within our baseline
Controllables. It's just been a
uniquely busy year for our
transportation division with a
lot of competing priorities. So
we thought it would be prudent
to secure additional budget in
our operating baseline to
deliver this contract. And and
as Paul said, if it is approved
today, you will see a
corresponding request in the
fall supplemental.
>> Okay. Thank you. Other
questions or comments from.
>> Do we know staff? What
additional budget will be
required? In the fall.
>> At this time? No, it's hard
to say. The consultant gives,
you know, their budgeted
estimate and we hold them to
that number. If they do request
additional funding or the
project requires that, then
okay, the county manager, we
would request up to 10%. So
okay, so the additional 20.
Yeah.
>> Okay. 26,000. So so this
won't come back in front of
council unless it's above 10%
of what's currently being
budgeted.
>> Correct for your
consideration. But as part of
the budget process in the fall,
you'll see it as a previously
approved by council because
that's the technical approval.
>> Thank you.
>> Great. Other questions? If
not, I'll entertain a motion to
approve.
>> I'll move separate business
item number six.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
All those in favor say I. I I
motion carries Paul. It looks
wherever you are is really hot.
So it is. I hope you can find a
cool place.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Jeremy. Yep. You
bet.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, moving on to item
seven. And this is Ross Hoover
Professional Services agreement
with design workshops. So, Ross,
are you okay?
>> Thank you. Council. Yep.
Thank you. Chair. Yes. This is
a request to for approval
authorizing the county manager
to sign this professional
services agreement with Design
Workshop for planning and
outreach services to develop
the Parks System plan. And I'm
going to walk through a quick
deck. We did present a pretty
extensive overview last month
at a council work session, but
wanted to walk through this
deck quickly to answer any
questions you might have. So
really, the focus of this plan,
the purpose behind it, is to
meet our our growing
community's needs for parks,
recreation, open space and
trails. This is a requirement
per the the Clark County Comp
Plan and the Growth Management
Act. It's also the key document
required for state grant dollar
eligibility. Specifically,
within this planning work, we
will be addressing these key
challenges that are in front of
us. One increasing park demands,
evolving recreational trends,
climate impacts, land
acquisition needs, and
disparities in access
throughout the county to our
park system. Key bodies of work
will be including identifying
the needs and gaps within the
system specific amenities,
types of parks, trails. It's
also really focused on ensuring
that everybody has a voice in
this process. So that outreach
is really crucial. Part of this,
this planning, in that we'll be
developing a natural areas
acquisition plan, a regional
trail plan, and, and
redeveloping or redefining our
level of service goals for our
park system. The public
engagement and strategies are
really focused on engaging with
community groups throughout the
county and ensuring that
everybody has a has a seat at
the table. We'll be using a
variety of different methods to
ensure that that folks voices
are heard through the process,
really to understand what the
increased expectations are as
our as our county continues to
grow and to ensure that we're
building in improving
partnerships throughout the
county. A quick timeline. So we
we've already started
stakeholder identification and
outreach. We are. We will be
moving into in early August,
gathering community input. So
gathering community together
and listening and hearing what
folks are, are interested in,
in terms of the future of their
park system. We'll do a system
analysis and assessment, and
that'll be July 26th. So this
summer through next fall, we
will bring a plan, review and
finalization back to you in
different phases from March
through October of 27, with
anticipated council adoption of
November of 27. So that's a
really brief overview. As I
mentioned, we we did bring a
more extensive overview at the
work session last month. Really,
this is an opportunity for us
to identify what the future of
our parks, our trails, our
natural areas, and our level of
services and really provide a
clear pathway and plan for the
future of the county park
system.
>> Great. Thanks a lot, Ross.
Any questions?
>> I've got a question. What is
the the public engagement
element of this? Is that
engaging people that live near
parks with like future projects
in the park specific.
>> Yeah, specific projects, but
also on a larger kind of view
than that. What what are our
identifying our gaps, knowing
what our gaps are? Where
specifically are we going to
have need for parks
geographically and otherwise.
So we'll be soliciting feedback
through survey tools, through
focus groups, through one on
one conversations. We'll be
meeting with community groups,
with organizations,
neighborhood associations, to
hear what folks want to see out
of their park system.
>> Okay. Well, that also
include like engaging with the
parks board as well.
>> Parks advisory board will be,
will be very involved in this
process and will likely knowing
most of the members that serve
on that on that board, they
will likely show up at many of
the community gatherings and
opportunities for engagement.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there other
questions or comments from
Council Chair Councilor Young?
Yes, yes.
>> So I'm just looking at this.
So the 318,000 is coming from
1032, 30, 85. So the General
Fund and MPD, as well as
conservation futures.
>> Correct.
>> Can you kind of give a
breakdown of where or how you
know, how much is coming from
each individual fund?
>> Yeah. I don't have a
breakdown in front of me, but
what I can tell you is it's
proportionate to the, to the
specific work within those
areas. And so, so one of the,
one of the key bodies of work
for the conservation future
funds, the CFT fund is the
natural area acquisition
component of this planning work.
So that will be mostly funded
by that by that fund. It will
be broken down in the in the
budget request that will follow
the fall supplemental and the
27 budget.
>> Okay. And then what what
amounts coming out of the
general fund versus MPD dollars?
>> Yeah, I don't I don't have
the proportion in front of me
right now, but what I can tell
you is it will that budget
authorization will show up in
the fall, supplemental in the
27 budget. It'll be
proportionate to the to the
impact, right? So the so the
specific number of acres or the
population is sort of how we'll,
we'll adjust that the typical,
the typical share. The typical
split is a is a is a 70/30
split on on cost between MPD
and, and the regional or
general fund.
>> Okay. So it'll mirror
essentially the ratio that we
have currently funding.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other comments or
questions? I'll entertain a
motion to approve.
>> Motion to approve item
number seven.
>> Second. Moved and seconded.
All those in favor say I I I.
Okay, I believe that's everyone.
So motion carries. Thank you,
thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, here's our last item
on separate business. And
that's the Treasurer's office.
Omera and Sarah, can you walk
us through this? And Mark.
>> Good evening again,
counselors. Sarah Low, chief
Deputy treasurer. I am here
tonight with my colleagues, and
I'll go ahead and let them
introduce themselves.
>> Omera. I'm the finance and
investment manager in the
Treasurer's office.
>> Mark Gasque, the finance
director and the auditor's
office.
>> So we are here this evening
to request your approval of a
resolution authorizing an
Interfund loan from the One
Fund to the Elections Fund to
purchase two mail sorting
machines totaling $880,895.
This action implements the
financing approach already
previewed in Staff report
number 06726, which was
approved back on March 17th. So
why is this loan needed? The
elections department requires
modern mail sorting equipment
to support ballot processing
and operational efficiency. The
Elections Fund does not
currently have sufficient cash
on hand to fully fund the
purchase from the newly
established Keyra account,
which lives within that
elections fund and Interfund
loan is the most cost effective
financing method and avoids
external borrowing costs. The
loan's proposed structure in
terms are as follows. The loan
amount is just the total cost
of the equipment at $880,000,
809,000 $880,895. The lending
fund is REIT one. The borrowing
fund is the election fund. The
interest rate, which is
required by state accounting
rules, will be determined at
the loan execution date and
will be based on a market rate
of a five year Treasury. Note
that's really quite standard.
The Treasurer's Office will
manage the loan and ensure
compliance with Barr's
requirements. Payments will be
made in equal installments over
five years, and they will be
made out of the Cera account,
which I mentioned, with which
lives within the elections fund.
The account is projected to
generate $246,000 annually
starting in 2027, and that is
sufficient to cover the
scheduled payments we did
include. That early payoff
would be allowed if revenues
exceed projections, and the
council or the county manager
does approve. That would allow
us to avoid those interest
costs. And in terms of
financial capacity and
compliance, the One fund has a
really healthy fund balance
that is unallocated in the
amount of about 5.6 million as
of June 30th, and this is
within our fund balance policy
limits to support the loan. And
the loan complies with the
Washington State Auditor's Bars
manual. In all respects,
they're outlined in the
resolution that you have before
you, if approved, a 2026
supplemental budget request
will record the equipment
purchase in the elections fund
that will come from the
auditor's office. An annual
budget request will be
submitted for the interest
portion of the loan repayment
in 2027. We'll work with the
Budget Office on that. Our
office and the rate one
forecast will be updated to
reflect the repayment inflows
and the auditor's office, as
required by bars, will include
the annual loan status report
in their year end financial
report to council. This just
really ensures ongoing
visibility into the loan
performance and requirements.
So I will stop there and take
any questions.
>> Thank you. Are there any
questions from council? Yes. Go
ahead.
>> Yeah. Just a quick question.
So this is a loan pays interest
$112,000. So that just goes
back to read one fund. Correct.
>> That is correct.
>> What happens with that money.
>> It can just be
reappropriated to any other
expenses that are allowable
under REIT one.
>> Got it. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> We actually are paying
ourselves instead of paying a
bank for the interest. So it's
a good setup.
>> I want I want to thank the
Treasurer's office for figuring
these things out.
>> Thank Omera.
>> Amirah thank you, Councilor
Young.
>> Yeah, just a quick question.
I was curious, what is the
current balance in the Keyra
fund?
>> We may have that and.
>> I can get that to you.
Councilor. I, I don't know
exactly what the current
balance is. I know.
>> Because I don't.
>> They just started collecting
it this year, right? They just
started collecting it this year.
And the majority of that comes
at the end of the year when
they bill for the the two major
elections, which are which are
still coming.
>> Right. So we do have in here
that the mark is right. The
fund was established or the
account was established in 2025.
First collections are this year
in 2026. And we do have that
estimated average annual
revenues are going to be
approximately 245 000. So I
don't know what they are in
this current date, but we do
expect in this current year to
collect about 245,000 by year's
end.
>> Okay, great.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other
questions? If not, I'll
entertain a motion to approve.
>> Motion to approve separate
business item number eight.
>> Okay.
>> Second moved and seconded.
All in favor, say I. I I motion
carries. Okay. On to the county
manager's report.
>> I just wanted to remind
council that the fair is coming
up August 7th through the 16th.
Their mission is blast off to
fun. It says get ready to blast
off the fun with the fair
that's truly out of this world.
This year's celebration
launches fairgoers into a
galaxy of entertainment, food,
rides, and hands on space
adventures. So strap in! Your
summertime is about ready to
take off, and hopefully it
won't be as hot as it has been
tonight, right?
>> They've got some marketing
resources there, I think, to
come up with that. Okay. Thank
you for that. And our agenda is
completed. And without
objection, this meeting is
adjourned.