Is being recorded and
summarized.
>> Good morning everyone, and
welcome. Calling to order Clark
County Council Tuesday,
September 1st, 2026. If you'll
join me in standing for the
Pledge of Allegiance and then
remain standing for the
invocation, which will be
provided by Carmen de Lehan, 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.
>> Do you remember when we met?
That's the day I knew you were
my pet. I want to tell you how
much I love you. Come with me.
My. To see. See, Shomler. I
want to tell just how much.
>> So that's just a reminder.
In case everybody doesn't
understand that the love of God
is bigger than the sea. It's
bigger than the ocean. It's
infinite. It's actually, when
you read behind that, it says,
In God We Trust. And I would
hope that every single person
in this room would trust in God,
because he offers you a sea of
love, unconditional
understanding, growth, and an
opportunity to evolve and
embrace your mistakes. And out
of a society of millions,
hundreds of millions, billions
on the planet, we come together
in this room for the sole
purpose of bettering this Clark
County, and we ask God to put
his hands on everybody in
charge here to help them
illuminate their understanding
of humankind and embrace the
thought that love is all and
that all of us deserve to be
loved and compassionate with
each other. Because this world
has plenty of hate. Only the
devil rejoices in the suffering
and confusion of others. God
wants you to have enlightenment
in sentimiento understanding of
compassion. And that's all I
ask is for God to walk with me
and anybody else within the
sound of my voice, to welcome
God to walk with them also. God
bless you all.
>> Thank. Thank you. Carmen.
Okay, then, let's move on to
the roll call. Michelle.
Councilor here.
>> Councilor Belkot present
Councilor Fuentes here and
chair Marchel here. Councilor
little is out today, right?
>> Are there any amendments to
the agenda? None today. Thank
you. We'll move right on. We
have three public hearings. And
just a reminder for folks, the
public comment for each of
these hearings is on the topic
of each of those hearings.
There will be an opportunity
for open public comment where
you can speak more broadly to
anything related to the county.
So let's start with the 2026
mid-year budget supplemental is
there. Emily will come forward
and explain this to us. Thank
you.
>> Good morning Council. I'll
be providing some of the
information. But yes, Emily is
very important in this role as
our budget director and
everybody else who participated
in this process getting us to
this point. So just to a quick
summary, House Bill 2015, the
provided for a grant for law
and justice that resulted in
the Washington State Criminal
Justice Training Commission
establishing a $100 million
grant program, which is
available through the end of
June of 2028. This grant can be
used for hiring, retaining and
training law enforcement
personnel, peer counselors, and
behavioral health professionals
in a co-response role. The
first round the county was
successful in getting a grant
just less than $5 million. This
request before you provides the
appropriation authority for 14
additional FTE, including one
time start up costs and
operating expenses, more
specifically, in 2026. This is
a partial year, with the
anticipated start date in
August is just over 700,000,
and based on the parameters of
the grant, this grant will pay
for 75% of the costs through
the grant period, with the
county paying 25% of the cost,
which will be covered through
the new criminal justice sales
tax that Council has adopted
for 2027, it's about 1.8
million, with the same 7,525%
split. Additionally, just over
$1 million is allocated in one
time start up costs for
equipment, supplies, training
and overtime. When the grant
expires in 2028, the ongoing
expenditures will then shift to
the new criminal justice sales
tax. And if council recalls you
had prior discussions on all of
these starting in July of 2025
and actually have approved
staff reports in April and July
of 2026. In April, the
allocation was for 26 FTE in
the sheriff's office. That was
in 22 of them, which are sworn
personnel, 43 law and justice
impacts. That's for the courts,
the clerk, the jail, public
attorney and prosecution or
public defense. And that
covered that is the impact for
having additional deputies. And
then three central services,
which include HR, budget and
payroll. In July of 2026,
council accepted the grant
again totaling just under $5
million. And so 12 of the 26
sheriff's office personnel that
you've already approved. Will
is part of today's allocation,
ten will be added in 2026 and 2
in 2027, including the startup
cost and also including four
positions in the jail. So this
is really taking what you've
already approved and doing the
appropriations so that we can
get the technical piece done so
that the sheriff's office and
others can start hiring now and
this year, so that they have
that budget capacity. Happy to
answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Are there any
questions from council at this
time? Go ahead.
>> Just one question. I know
I'm curious if any form of like
an a percentage of the of this
grant is being used for admin
at all.
>> Let me take a look. I think
this is just for the 12 of the
26 Sheriff's office positions
and. Ten I think it's just
deputies at this point. And
then for. I would have to ask,
or maybe you have that
information.
>> Do you mean admin like
administrative staff or an
admin percentage to to manage
the.
>> Admin percentage, which is
often the process in grant?
>> I don't think so. But Diane
is here and she could probably
clarify that just for sure.
>> We do have and we do have
admin on the ongoing portion
for moving forward. I just
don't know if it's this year.
This year, okay, in this budget.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm Diane
Rathbun, I'm the grants program
manager in the auditor's office.
And yeah, indirect costs and
administrative costs were not
an allowed expense under this
grant.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Any other questions? If not,
we'll proceed to the public
hearing. And just a reminder,
you're limited to three minutes.
And please keep it on the topic
of the mid-year budget
supplemental. Has anyone signed.
>> Up? Carmen de Lehan.
>> Hi. Carmen de Lehan, also
known as Melo. So I read this
whole little thing and I am
looking at $100 million for a
new officers and such, and we
only grabbing ten. I think that
should be doubled or tripled
since we are the lowest per
capita of sheriffs for the
amount of people and all they
want to do is increase the
population, I think is what was
it like 20,000 new houses a
year? But how many cops, how
many new schools, how many new
hospitals you need to
accommodate the population, if
that's what you're counting on.
And this to me is low balling
it because you got 100 million.
That means they're not even
taking two. There's still 9800
million left to grab. So why
are you only asking for ten
when you can ask for 20 or 30
and send them out to the rest
of the state of Washington?
Because, I mean, yeah, we're
the lowest per capita, but
there's other places in the
state that need these officers.
And if we can train them in
this city or county, then we
should train them and send them
off. Because really to me. Ten
and then what is it? Four is
really low balling it. I mean,
you guys have so much
opportunity here to, to really
put this place in a safe
situation. Because right now,
when you call the police or you
call the sheriff, they don't
show up for three hours, but
this might actually solve that.
So I'm just saying double it,
triple it, and 100 million. I'd
say you should take about 50. I
mean, come on, step it up.
Thanks.
>> Thank you. Okay, so then
I'll turn back to the council.
Are there any further questions?
I know we've talked about this
for. Well, I think over a year.
And if there are no more
comments or questions, I'll
entertain a motion to approve.
>> Chair, I move to approve
resolution number 2026-09-02.
>> A second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor, say I aye aye
aye. Motion carries. Thank you
very much. Okay, moving on to
our next public hearing rules
and procedures. We're adopting
this a little late in the year,
but we had a few changes there.
So Kathleen, I'll turn it over
to you to summarize.
>> Thank you. I'll briefly go
through some of the information
that council's requested to
incorporate into the rules of
procedure. So if you could go
down to page five, the first
page is just the ordinance
updating the numbers. So under
page five, under chair, vice
chair, there was an edit under
B, and this just talks about
Robert's Rules of Order, that
in the event that there's a
conflict or a dispute regarding
process that well, we had a
capitalization in there,
including, but not limited to
recognizing a council member.
For a point of order. The
council will follow rules.
Robert. Rules of order, next
page. There's a new D and E.
The first one is regarding.
Council may remove other
councilors from their appointed
boards and commissions with a
simple majority vote. And then
the next one under that is the
council may direct an
individual councilor who is
appointed to a board and
commission on how to vote on
specific policy items with a
simple majority. The agenda.
Just. I know Council was
hearing from the public on some
of this and wanted to
incorporate some changes in the
agenda of having Pledge of
Allegiance first, followed by
the invocation and then moving
open public comment up prior to
public hearings. If we scroll
down the page nine, this is
regarding public comments and
reducing it to where it was
before, to hopefully make it a
little bit more concise and
clear about keeping comments
civil and related to county
business, and refraining from
statements that are disruptive,
conducting county business. And
it goes on. I'm not going to
read the whole thing, but it
was just taking that larger
paragraph, being more succinct
and providing that clarity for
council and the public. The
bottom of page ten. This is
amendments. This is a process
that Council adopted this last
year about amendments to agenda.
And so it's solidifying that
process in the rules of
procedure, about removing
agenda items that council or
the county manager can ask to
remove. The chair will ask if
there's any objections. If yes,
then the council will vote on
the action and then for adding
any council or the county
manager may ask to amend to add.
It needs to be time sensitive
in matter, which basically
means if we were doing it today,
that means it can't wait until
the next Tuesday meeting
because there is a time
sensitive. And again, the chair
will ask if there's any
objections and then if there
are, then the council would
take a vote under work sessions.
This was edited and added. I
think based on our last
discussion, councilor roll call
will be taken at the beginning
of each work session. And while
council meetings can be
attended in person or virtually
is preferred that councilors
attend work sessions in person
and when attending virtually,
it is preferred to have the
video camera on. So that is new
language based on your last
discussion. And then we go to
the page 18. Oh, you got there
quicker than me. This was under
violation of code and
professional conduct. This was
also updated based on your last
discussion. And I did I think
Councilor Young had brought up
about where to submit
complaints to. And so I did
find that there was already
language in here regarding
submitting complaints. So I
just added to it based on your
direction about submitted in
writing by a county councilor
to the County Council chair and
the county manager. So. And
then the last portion, which
I'm not going to read in detail
at all, but it's exhibit two.
And this is regarding Clark
County facility trespass policy.
So this provides the framework
in which council can follow if
a member of the public or
anybody in the room that's
being disruptive and causing an
issue with council continuing
your business, this provides
the process that Council has,
as well as like appeal
processes and what their rights
are, so that we have that
established. If in the event
that we need to address that,
and that is all the updates
before council.
>> Okay. Thank you. Does the
Council have any questions at
this time?
>> I have some comments.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> I'm just going to say that
it's apparent and obvious that
a lot of these changes,
specifically when it comes to
removing a councilor off of
boards and committees, has to
do with my removal off of
C-TRAN. This is eliminating us
representing our districts. So
if another councilor doesn't
like how someone votes, it
doesn't matter if we're
representing our districts
anymore. If they don't like it,
they can just remove you. This
is the style of the City of
Vancouver City Council. And to
me, this looks like we're just
copying every single thing that
we do. And I just this is so
wrong. And to me, it admits
that there was something wrong
with the removal of me from
C-TRAN. And this is I mean,
this to me just admits that
it's making right what you did
with removing me with the rules
and procedures, and that if you
just don't like somebody or
their opinion of another
councilor, you can just remove
them whenever you want.
>> Okay. Any other comments
from the council? Okay. With.
Oh yes, please go ahead.
>> I would just like to say
that I have never envisioned
any of the boards and
commissions that we have
assignments to as being
representative of a district.
It's representative of the
county as a whole. And that is,
I believe, what this language
ensures is that the body of the
board itself can ensure that
the county wide policy is moved
forward in in the instance
where, you know, an issue
becomes, you know, relevant
enough to where the county
wants to or the council wants
to weigh in.
>> I'll just say that the
county does not approve of
light rail. They vote against
it three times. So in that
instance, I did represent the
county with my vote.
>> Okay. Well, the topic that
will be voting on are the rules
and procedures, not on light
rail. And I would just add that
all of the cities, when it
comes to making decisions about
any issues related to C-TRAN,
follow the direction of their
council. So with that, let's
let's hear from the public on
this, on our rules and
procedures there. Any comments?
>> Carmen de Lehan.
>> Body time. Yeah, I go by
Mello, Carmen de Leon and
District choices. So if you're
in district one, I get it. You
guys do bussing and light rail.
You want that? Okay. But when
you're in district five, they
don't give a. So why should
they have to pay for it? Why
does somebody in Yacolt have to
pay taxes and or whatever and
get light rail put in? And yeah,
the reason that this is being
changed is because of that,
because that's why they have
per district votes. And that's
why there are five of you,
because each district has
different needs. The people by
the water are different than
the people over there out in
Yacolt living with the trees
and the bushes. So yeah, every
every district is different and
every vote should be according
to that party, that population
desire and the most nights.
What is it? Since 1994, 65%
have not wanted light rail. And
I was there that night that she
fought for her right. And I
watched in misery as she was
attacked verbally by yourself
and and the city of Vancouver
that, oh, we're you know, I
remember all very vividly all
of that day. And to see this,
this, this is really troubling
here because and this has even
thrown me off because it says
statutory amendment, a exhibit
to preference in CCC2 .09.0404
as adopted by the ordinance of
blah blah, blah, blah, blah.
Last sentence A is not to be
recorded in the Clark County
Code. So why did you even bring
it up if you're not going to
put it in the. I mean, this
just goes to show you how much
is really being hidden. And
this also says that as Clark
County, the Council of five
members and this and that about
the five members, because of
the amount of people. What year
was that implicated? Because
when I moved here in 1980, the
population was 4000. We're at,
what is it, 500,000? Half a
million. So how does this even
apply? It's not the same unit
of measure any given way. It's
not tripled or quadrupled. I
mean, how do you go from 40,000
to half a million and still
have the same rules apply? Here
it is. The council may remove
any councilor from their
council appointed board
commission with a simple
majority vote. Majority vote.
That's that's BS because the
people didn't ask for that. The
people didn't ask for for, for
example, Mister Young there to
come and do everything that
Yacolt needs done. It just
doesn't make sense. So to to
make this it's already it's
faded in here. I'm like, did
they already approve this?
Because you're just moving the
goalposts. You didn't like what
happened. So you're moving the
goalposts and you have to
accept you are not Vancouver.
This isn't Vancouver, this is
Clark County. Let's not forget
who's boss. She is 70 plus
years old. And any doctor will
tell you after age 65, you get
brain damage. The brain doesn't
function the same after 65. So
have I said it before? Who's
worse? The fool or the fool who
follows the fool? Because
that's what I'm looking at.
>> Okay, your time is up.
>> Thank you. That's all that's
signed up in the room. But we
do have a couple callers 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.
>> Hi there. Can you hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, this is Robbie
Anderson. I just want to remind
in particular all the
councilors, but Glen Yung that
as you sit there at the dais,
the chair that you're sitting
on the dais, the room,
everything is provided by the
county taxpayers and the voters.
So you own nothing. So you talk
about these, councilor, these
committee positions as if they
belong to you or the council.
They don't. They belong to the
voters. And this shift to
remove a precedent that
councilors could represent
their voters, their
constituents to then now
empowering the council is more
in line with how communists
rule. And and I know that might
sound shocking, but it's true
that a Communist rule takes
away power from the people, and
it empowers a council or a
committee. And that is what
you're doing in this. And it's
it's very sad that you don't
see that this the political
power is inherent in the people.
That's the Washington state
constitution. That's what it
says, not something I'm making
up. And this little rule change,
which that's what it appears to
be, has significant
implications because now, for
example, district five, you
would expect that, you know,
the district five
Representative Sue Marshall,
would be against light rail.
But that's not what has
happened here. She went into
action to preserve light rail.
And that's what sparked all of
this. And in a normal situation,
you would want district five
representative to do something
in in in support of their
voters. And now you're
centralizing power and taking
it away from the voters and and
you're giving it to yourself.
That is what you're doing with
this warped perspective that
somehow you own those committee
assignments, you don't own
anything. Mr. Young. You don't
own anything. The voters own it.
And you are just stewards of
what the voters want and
constituencies. And if you vote
for this, you are taking away
the voice of thousands of
voters who did vote for certain
issues and do want.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
one more.
>> Next caller? 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.
One more time.
>> Hello? Can you hear me?
>> Yes we can.
>> All right. Another another
Colete Bottomly resident.
Regarding these rules of
procedure, I object to your
prohibition on disparaging
remark having been prevented
from making remarks that were
related to county business.
Perhaps you thought they were
disparaging, but it's okay to
have a way to object to an
action, a program, a proposal,
and not being accused of being
disparaging and being shut off
from Crumlich and I have been
cut off by this county council
in making comments related to
the C-TRAN board regarding the
votes of the people. Clark
County voters rejected the
extension of light rail over
over the bridge, and
furthermore, they rejected any
light rail program. You have
neglected any rules of
procedure. You have a
resolution on the books still
posted at your website that's
been posted since 2022. It's
resolution 2022-07-14, and it
recognizes our vote. It. But
you are not recognizing them
according to this resolution on
your county website, the County
Council opposes every light
rail project in Clark County
unless it is first supported by
a majority of the voters in a
county wide advisory vote of
the people. Your procedures
allow you to neglect and oppose
and act in direct opposition to
your own resolution, and you're
doing nothing about that. You
have taken action against this
resolution and ignored it
completely, as well as our vote.
That is something that should
be corrected in the rules and
procedures. You should be
required to act in accordance
with the resolutions that have
been passed. If you don't
approve of a resolution, then
you have to go through the
procedure and the public
hearing to undo it. If that is
how adamant you are about
forcing light rail upon us,
regardless of our votes,
without scheduling any vote of
the people. As this resolution
on your website indicates, is
required in Clark County. So I
think you are having neglected
a very important point in your
rules of procedure that the
Clark County Council is
obligated to follow your own
resolution if you want to adopt
them or adopt a different
resolution, it must be done in
an open public process with an
open public hearing, with
proper notice to the public. So
the public.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
anyone else? No. Okay. All
right. Then back to counsel.
Are there any other comments or
questions related to our rules
and procedures? And if not.
>> Chair, just one comment.
Yeah. I just wanted to say that
I do agree with Mr. Anderson's
comments regarding the boards
and commission seats belonging
to the voters, but it belongs
to 100% of the voters, not 20.
If you have one individual
councilor representing one
district that is able to
unilaterally make the decision
and rebuke the majority of the
council, that is allowing 20%
of the voters to represent the
entire county, not 100%.
>> Okay. Thank you. If there
are no more comments, I'll
entertain a motion to approve
the rules and procedures. And
this is ordinance 2026-09-03.
And there's a roll call vote.
Is there a motion?
>> So moved.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
Second moved and seconded. Roll
call.
>> Vote counselor young. I
counselor Belkot. Nay counselor
Fuentes. I and chair Marchel I.
>> The motion carries. Thank
you. Then moving on to our
final public hearing, 2025
Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report or otherwise
known as capers. So I think
Michael Torres may be online.
And we have Rebecca Royce and
someone else. Okay. Please
brief us on this.
>> Good morning chair, Council,
County manager. I'm Michael
Torres, program manager at
Clark County Community Services.
I am joined by Rebecca Royce,
our program coordinator, who
oversees the Home Investment
Partnership Program and the
Community Development Block
Grant, or Cdbg. And Noreen
Ibrahim, our program assistant.
We are here to conduct a public
hearing to receive public
comment on the program. Year
2025 Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
Report for home and Cdbg prior
to having them submitted to the
US Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and to
receive input on needed
programs and projects in
communities throughout Clark
County. The caper, the five
year Consolidated plan and
annual Action Plans are posted
and available for review by the
public and notification for
requested public comments have
been published in the Columbian.
The Clark County Communications
news release on the county's
Facebook and LinkedIn social
media accounts posted on the
Community Services website and
emailed to a program
stakeholders list of over 400
recipients. To this point, no
public comment has been
received by our office on these
reports. I will now turn it
over to Rebecca Royce to
present.
>> Good Morning Council. So the
Community Development Block
Grant and Home Investment
Partnerships programs, or home
are two federal grant programs
administered by the US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, or HUD. These
programs provide annual
allocations to carry out
community development and
affordable housing improvements,
assist with economic
development activities, and
create or improve community
facilities and services. Cdbg
and home projects must meet
federal requirements and
program parameters set by HUD
and must be used to benefit
people with low to moderate
income, state and local
governments that receive Cdbg
and home funds are required to
provide HUD with a five year
consolidated Plan and annual
Action Plan and an annual
consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report, or the
caper. The council approved the
2025 2029 Consolidated Plan and
2025 Annual Action Plan on May
6th, 2025. The caper, which
does not require council
approval, describes program
activity which occurred during
the 2025 Action Plan Program
year, July 1st, 2025 through
June 30th, 2026. This is the
first year of the five year
consolidated plan. Today, we
are here to receive public
comments on the caper, as well
as public comments on needed
programs and projects and
communities throughout Clark
County outside Vancouver city
limits for consideration before
our next request for
application. The reason we are
focused on the needs outside
the city of Vancouver is that
Vancouver receives its own
allocation of Cdbg and home
funds, and we are required to
focus our funding in our
jurisdiction. Next slide please.
So overall, spending was up
nearly 220% from program year
2020 for home. ARP funds are
essentially spent out. There is
a small amount of
administrative funds remaining.
The Cdbg CV funds is the last
of the funds for that
allocation of fundings. Both of
those funds were additional
funds that we received during
Covid to do additional services.
Because of the pandemic, the
biggest impact that we received
for our spending over this year
was the over 200% increase in
spending in Cdbg funds. Cdbg
has a requirement that funds be
spent in a timely manner, which
is called a timeliness test
conducted on May 2nd of each
year. Jurisdictions that have
more than one and a half times
of their entitlement amount
available are considered
untimely. We have not met this
test for several years,
starting in the pandemic,
requiring additional reporting
to head on May 2nd, 2026. Our
Cdbg timeliness Timeliness test
was 1.48, bringing us back into
compliance. Staff would like to
thank our nonprofit and small
city partners for their hard
work to help us get the dollars
spent. Our departments, finance
staff and the auditor's office
for processing so many invoices
and immediate pays. It was a
lot of work and quite stressful,
but worth it. So we are now in
compliance with head for our
Community Development Block
grant funds. So as you can see
in the table, we spent nearly
$3 million in Community
development block grant funds
over this program year. You can
see that we spent $500 or the
remaining funds of our Cdbg CV
funds. We spent $1.2 million of
home investment partnerships
program funds and $1.1 million
of our home ARP funds for about
$5.3 million in program funds
over this program year. Next
slide. This slide is just takes
the information that we have
provided and puts it into a
slightly different context, and
describes it in a way that
shows the funding by category
of how we allocate the funds
out. We allocate the funds in
different categories, such as
public services. You'll see
there's no dollars spent this
year. Public services is a
brand new category for us that
we just started during this
consolidated plan year. The way
that the allocations work and
the way we have to show HUD how
we're spending our funds. We
did not solicit for public
services programs in time for
the actual program year. So
you'll see spending in that
category this next year. In the
housing category, we spent
nearly $4 million, and this
includes Cdbg and home funding
for public facility and
neighborhood improvement
projects. We spent almost
$400,000 under economic
development and home ownership
programs. We spent over
$400,000, and then there was
just over $500,000 for
administration of the programs.
There is a slight difference in
those amounts, because the $500
in Cdbg funds is not included
in this slide. Next slide. When
we presented our five year
consolidated plan for approval,
we showed the five year goals
that we had. And so we just
wanted to give you a comparison
of how we are doing so far this
first year. So the five year
goals there show 2000 people
will benefit from improvements
to the community and so on and
so forth. So this slide is just
giving you an idea of how we
are doing to meet those goals.
You'll see that we have zero
under the people will be
assisted by safety net and
services. That would be what
public services are. We have a
significant. Improvement or a
lot of people being served
under the business assistance
that we did not expect. So many
more people were being served.
We've already hit our five year
goals for that, so we will
definitely be seeing
significant business assistance
over the next five years. That
will be a much higher goal than
we had anticipated for our five
years. Next slide. The next few
slides will show the outcomes
by goal and indicator, along
with the amount of spending
during the program year. It is
important to note that outcomes
are only reported once the
program or project is completed,
while spending is reported
based on expenditures.
Expenditures for the program
year. This slide is a good
example. There are no outcomes
for rental units constructed.
However, 100% of the home ARP
funds are noted. Here are for
the construction of the Weaver
Creek Commons project, so there
are no units. However, the
funds have been expended. We
will be able to show the units
built when it's finished
construction at the end of 2027.
In this slide, you'll see that
homeowner housing added is from
our Proud Ground Partnership
and Evergreen Habitat for
humanity homeowner programs. So
they were able to add ten new
homeowner units into our
affordable homeowner portfolios
and then our housing units for
rental assistance under tenant
based rental assistance is
through partnerships with
lifeline, Connections Share and
Janus Youth Programs. Next
slide. Under our public
facilities and neighborhood
Improvements projects, the
Washougal Hamlet Park project,
which has been a multi-phase
project that was also mentioned
last year. This project is now
complete and included new
playground playground equipment,
a new full size basketball
court, improved dugouts, Ada
access and other improvements.
Next slide. Under our asset and
economic development outcomes,
we have provided a lot of
business assistance through
Hispanic Metropolitan Chamber
Business Assistance, Greater
Vancouver Chamber Business and
Fourth Plane Forward Business
Assistance. 168 businesses, low
and moderate income businesses.
They are microenterprise
assistance. So these are
businesses with five or fewer
employees who are the owners,
are low income received
assistance throughout the year.
Next slide. So those are all of
the outcomes that we had for
the funding year of 2025. We
wanted to make sure that
everyone was aware that the
next funding round is 20 for
program year 2027. Clark County
is always looking to get public
input on the needed programs
and projects within our
community. The next funding
round will be starting soon.
Applications will open on
October 1st. On the screen,
you'll see the important dates
to know that the applications
are opening on October 1st.
Applications will be due
December 4th of 2026. The
funding decisions are made by
the Urban County Policy Board
in March, and we will submit
our action plan to HUD by May
15th in 2027. At this time, we
have estimated funding that
will be available. We will not
know exact amounts until we are
closer to making the funding
decisions in March, or until
Congress makes entitlement
amounts available. We are
estimating at this time we will
have roughly $526,000 available
for public facility and
neighborhood improvement
projects, roughly $240,000
available for public service
programs, roughly $526,000
available for asset and
economic development programs,
and roughly $1 million
available for affordable
housing and homelessness
activities for just over $2.3
million. In our next request
for application round. Next
slide. It is important to HUD
that the community have the
opportunity to participate in
the planning and reporting of
activities funded with
Community Development Block
Grant and Home Investment
Partnerships program dollars.
To do this, staff published a
notice in the Columbia
newspaper on August 13th, 2026,
advertising this public hearing
and a 15 day public comment
period that closed at midnight
yesterday. The draft paper was
posted on the Clark County
website, and the newspaper
notice directed readers there
to review it. A news release
was published and available for
all local media to advertise as
they deemed appropriate. The
news release was also sent to a
stakeholder list of over 400
people from local government
offices, nonprofits, advisory
boards and interested community
members. Notice was also posted
on the county's social media
platforms, including Facebook
and LinkedIn. There were no
comments received during the 15
day public comment period. Any
comments received during
today's public hearing will be
reviewed and incorporated into
the caper. Next slide. And just
as a reminder, we are here
today to receive public
comments on the outcomes
described in the caper and to
get community's feedback on
needed projects and services
for consideration during our
future request for applications.
Next slide. Thank you. Any
questions from Council?
>> Thank you. Are there any
questions? Go ahead.
>> Have a question. I think you
mentioned there was something
about missing a deadline of
some sort or something.
>> Yes. So every year HUD does
a timeliness test for the
Community Development Block
grant funds. We receive an
entitlement amount
approximately $1.5 million each
year for Community Development
Block grant. So we cannot have
or we should not have one more
than 1.5 times that amount
available to us to spend.
Otherwise, we're considered
untimely. And with that, if
you're untimely for more than
two years, there's additional
reporting requirements and
there's extra monitoring and
things like that that HUD does
for you. During the pandemic,
almost every jurisdiction
became untimely, even up
through 2024, 65% of
jurisdictions were still
untimely. Last year, about 35%
of jurisdictions were still
untimely, including us. And
even this year, there were
several, many jurisdictions
still untimely. We were lucky
enough this year to finally
make that go back into being
timely. This was the first time
as a jurisdiction we had not
been untimely. I've been with
the county for 18 years, and so
it was a long and painful
process. But yes, we finally
got back and we planned not to
go back to being untimely again.
>> I this is Michael Torres,
and I will just add that the
reasons why so many local
jurisdictions became untimely
during the pandemic was the
slow down and the disruptions
of suppliers and providers and
construction made it very, very
difficult across the nation to
spend out funds. So Clark
County's untimely situation was
not reflective of any
programmatic mismanagement or
issues or negligence. And we've
been we've talked we've talked
through and planned out how to
go back into timeliness with
the Urban County Policy Board.
We've talked in previous capers
with the Council and have
really, as Rebecca mentioned,
worked very hard with our
service providers, with our
developers, with staff in the
local cities outside of the
city of Vancouver, throughout
the county, and with our own,
you know, with our own county
staff as well to, to make sure
this happen.
>> Thank you for that
clarification, Michael. Thank
you.
>> Chair.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
>> If I could just add to that
a heartfelt thanks to your team,
Noreen, Rebecca and Michael,
this has been a subject of
conversation. I've chaired the
Urban County Policy Board now
coming on four years. I cannot
believe it. It's insane how
fast time flies. But this has
been a subject of conversation
since day one, you know, and
and to echo Michael's comments,
this is not an issue of
administration or the county's
inability to process things
timely. This is a just simple
economic, regulatory, crazy
environment that we endured and
some projects that were worth
investing in that, you know,
things came up that were
anticipated in those projects
couldn't move forward. So those
dollars were allocated to a
project, but then went back
into the pool. And it just
makes it look like we're not
spending our money. And to kind
of sum up the, the, the
reasoning behind this is, you
know, the federal government
looks at it like, well, if you
can bank this money and then
you don't really need it, you
know, and that's the whole
purpose behind this timeliness
issue. But just wanted to thank
staff. I know that they worked
really hard. You could see it
in their in their faces and,
and the comments that they
would make during the meetings.
It was stressful for them this
entire process. And they did a
great job of getting us out of
it, even with some decisions
that came out of the urban
county, County Policy Board
that sometimes added and
contributed to the difficulty
and the challenge in becoming
timely. So great work to all of
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you for those comments.
Anything else from council
before we hear from the public?
Okay, let's hear from the
public. Has anyone signed up?
>> Carmen de Lehan.
>> Yeah, it's me again. Carmen
de Lehan go by mellow. So I'm
reading your wonderful five
year goals. 2000 people will
benefit from improvements in
the community and recreational
process. How wonderful a
thought. Unfortunately, I read
this 2025 actual rental units
constructed zero rental units
rehabilitated zero housing
owners. What is it? Homeowner
housing added ten. That's not
even 121 a month. I mean, come
on, not even one a month. It
says 2000 and you're not even
getting one a month. Okay,
rapid TB are a rapid housing
assistant. 50. Wow. So you help
50 homeless people out of the
thousands sleeping on tents.
You guys help 50 all year. Wow.
I'd like to say great, but this
is supposedly a you know, we're
supposed to be grading you on
it. I definitely give you guys
an F. So anyways, they have
these public hearings that you
say, and I've never seen one
public hearing where you guys
have said, oh, that makes sense.
We're going to reevaluate. You
do it just for show. You're
just following the rules of
procedure. You have to have
public input, but you're not
going to listen because 65% of
voters don't want light rail.
But screw them. You guys want
it. It's going to happen, right?
So I mean, public input is a
joke. And I say that from
experience, you know. So
anyways, let's see. And I
wanted to say that yeah. You
know why they want renters. Do
I have time for this? Okay, so
if I rent an apartment, the
owner makes the money, he pays
the taxes, he gives me water,
he gives me lights. But if I
own my own home, I pay taxes to
the government. I become a
forever renter to the
government I can't build, I
can't construct without asking
permission and getting a permit
and paying for it. In other
words, homeownership is a joke.
All you are is now in a
contract with the government
because you try being late on
your taxes and you see what
happens. You don't own nothing.
So anyways, I'm just saying
first time home buyer buyers.
Great. You get to be locked
into a contract till you die
and who cares? And this is
another troubling thing.
Administration 500 000. That's
half a million. And then what
is it. Neighborhood investments
three, 6636 whatever 100,000.
So you're spending more on
administration than on actual
people, the ten measly people
or whatever they got. I
calculate 60. So if your goal
was 2000, I'm thinking what 60?
Maybe let's give you 100.
That's still a failing grade.
And where this money is going
all to. Oh, administration. Gee
go figure. So anyways, sorry to
tell you, but you failed. And
when I look at it and there are
more empty houses than there
are homeless people. So why
don't y'all get busy with that?
>> Thank you, thank you.
>> That's all that signed up in
the room. We do have three
callers online.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> 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.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Please state your name
for the record and go ahead
with your comment.
>> Margaret. Tweet. So
regarding the Washougal Park,
the improvements are good.
However, the bathrooms are not
open sufficiently to
accommodate the use and that's
an important accessibility
issue. So I hope that can be
addressed. That's probably with
the city of Los Pagola again.
Regarding making improvements
to housing, I think it's
problematic if you improve
mobile home because those units
might go away. If if an
investor comes and buys out the
place, then maybe it's better
not to spend on mobile home
unit. For those that are senior
citizens in their home, the
county should have due
diligence to assess whether
that senior citizen can
continue to live in the home
prior to making any kind of
investment. I don't know if
that's a part of your program
or not, but it should be. If
there are any improvements made
to senior housing, that there
is a possibility that that
senior can continue to live in
the home and some kind of
assessment there prior to
investing a lot in in the
property. So and also, I think
Washougal really needs some low
income housing or housing for
homeless, as Ramras has kind of
pushed out the homeless
population, they seem to be
more in Washougal, and there
are really no, I don't know of
any facilities in Washougal,
any residential, any rentals
that are part of this program.
If there are great. If there
isn't, there really needs to be
in the Washougal area, some low
income housing, some rapid
housing, rapid rehousing
efforts in the East County
there. And that would be my
input for today. Thank you.
>> 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 morning, Kimberly
Gavenn Elbon. Yeah, I had an
eye appointment this morning,
so I was unable to attend. So
I'm really concerned about the
presenter stating that you put
an ad for the public to make
comments and there was no
comments received. I don't get
it. I don't necessarily blame
the public. Actually, they're
trying to survive this last six
years. But there's got to be
something done to get the
public involved more. I would
suggest not just writing it in
the Colombian. You need to, and
we've mentioned this before,
you need to put it into Clark
County today.com, and you need
to list it in the reflector.
Those are for those of us in
Clark County and then North
North Clark County as the
reflector. They're a very
patriotic paper, and we need
that to all of your ads go into
those three entities, not only
just the Colombian. So you need
you need to do that for the
public. I'm not the only one
that thinks that. So let's do
that. Carmen made a good point
that you're just and I've made
this point too. You're just
satisfying the OPMA but really,
don't give a crap about what we
have to say. So make a. Make
sure that you care what we have
to say. So I am a patriot and
deeply concerned taxpayer of
Clark County. Our local tax
dollars are limited, hard
earned resources meant to build
up, secure and sustain our
immediate community. I'm going
to add that I want dollars put
towards no spraying over Clark
County. There's constant
spraying going on. I feel the
effects. I know the insects
feel the effects. You are
allowing them to kill us. With
the spray over Clark County.
Stop the spray. I'm going to be
doing public records requests
as to anything that you've done
now for the last two years, for
concerned citizens that are
saying that nano toxins are
being sprayed over the Clark
County citizens here, and you
guys need to do something about
it. So I'm going to make sure
that you do every dollar we
bring into this county should
directly serve the people who
live, work and pay taxes here.
It should go towards paving our
roads, supporting our local
first responders, and funding
vital public infrastructure. In
other words, also, when the
next pandemic happens, you are
not to shut down anything
that's public. Don't shut down
our library that we pay for our
parks. Nothing you're not.
We're not going to be locked
down again for your agendas.
Instead, we are seeing hard
earned public funds diverted
into the administrative
machinery required to uphold a
sanctuary status. When we
prioritize, prioritized
bureaucratic compliance over
concrete community.
>> Okay, is there anyone else?
>> There's one more.
>> One more 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. Color. We can see that
you're unmuted. Please go ahead.
>> Robby Anderson.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes we can.
>> Yeah. So yeah, so I'm really
concerned. I have to be honest.
I've watched many a meetings
and presentations and I've
never seen anything so
incongruent ever. And that is,
is that we're talking about
homeless and housing. And the
county spent $5.3 million and
helped only 71 people. And I'm
curious what the the largest
number of 50 is for rapid
rehousing. What is that? Is
that like housing vouchers or
hotel vouchers? Is it what I
mean? And hopefully someone
will ask that question to give
clarity. But this is an
absolute failure. 71 this
breaks down if you look at the
total expenses or of revenue
spent. This breaks down to
$76,000 per person health and
whatever that means of I mean,
you could easily in fact, why
don't what I'm kind of being a
little joking here, but not
really. Why don't you go down
rent studios at the Vancouver
waterfront and you could you
could help 71 people. The
amount of money that's being
spent is wild on this. But this
is this is not special. The
Clark County, this is what
Housing First looks like
nationwide. This is no. You
should see what Portland is
spending, what Seattle is
spending. And these are the
kind of results. And so far I
just hear Glen Yung patting
everyone on the back. Great job,
great work. And I have no doubt
that there's great effort. But
it's for the bureaucracy. It's
it's what is the outcomes? You
have to look at the outcomes.
And the outcomes are terrible,
terrible. Even if you break it
down to just 4 million of the
housing cost, that comes down
to like $56,000 per person or
per unit that was assisted. And
what does that mean? And I
really hope that there'll be
some questions on this and say,
this is unacceptable. We have
to do better because we're
dealing with sons and daughters
who are on the street, who are
dealing with homelessness, and
it is a really terrible
situation. Yet when I hear this
report and hear the comment
that's not reflected, that's
the incongruency of this, is
this should not be accepted as
great job. This should be, hey,
let's fix all of this and let's
make our dollars count. But I'm
not hearing that kind of
language.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> That concludes public
comment, chair.
>> Okay, great. Then let's turn
back to is there anything that
you wanted to respond to
related to the public comments?
>> Yeah. So. Oh, go ahead,
Michael.
>> I will just say, and Rebecca,
if you go to the slide that has
the expenditures by category.
For a moment, and as, as she's
pulling that up, you know, I do
want to point out these
community Development block
grant and Home Investment
Partnership funds are generally
not used. And certainly during
this program year of 2025 for
services, they have primarily
been used for infrastructure
production, maintenance,
improving affordable housing,
stock, neighborhood
improvements and business
assistance. So if you take that
five, 5 million, $300,000 and
break it down by the small
number of people that have
received tenant based rental
assistance, a very specific
type of rental assistance that
is only a small slice of the
housing assistance that is
going out into the community.
That is not that $5 million is
not what is going out into
rental assistance. It's going
on to tenant based rental
assistance is going on to
housing construction. It's
going to neighborhood
improvements like the Hamlet
Park. It's going into a small
business assistance. So, you
know, I think that, you know, I
hope as people read the paper,
as they read the consolidated
plan, you know, there is an
understanding that we're
talking about one a, you know,
$5 million is a lot. It's
federal funds that the county
is receiving to be used in this
way or in these ways for the
benefit of low, medium income
people in our community. But
it's not the the big picture of
funding that's going into
safety net services and crisis
response services in the
community. And Rebecca, do you
want to say anything else?
>> Yeah. If you want to go
>> To slide six for talking
about the housing. There we go.
So when we're looking at the
amount spent and the outcomes
here, first, I just want to
remind everyone that the
significant amount of spending
for home ARP and half of the
home funding went into Weaver
Creek Commons, which is a brand
new 100 unit development where
we will not be reporting on the
housing units developed until
that is completed. When that is
completed, you will see actual
outcomes of 100 units. Although
we are only putting in around
$2.5 million and actually only
$1.5 million of home, home and
home ARP funding into this
project, it's a $42 million
development project where we
will be creating 100 units of
housing for households under
60% area median income,
including 16 units designated
for people exiting homelessness,
and ten units for households
with developmental disabilities.
So out of those hundred units,
there's 26 units that are being
set aside. Those units will be
reported in program year 2027.
So it will be a couple of years,
but our dollars have actually
been spent now. So we do have
to report that they have been
spent. And that's why those
dollars are showing for the
tenant based rental assistance
program, that's only about
$500,000 of the home funding
that is there being reported on
this slide to assist those 50
households in the Cdbg category.
That is what is supporting the
homeowner housing added for
those ten units and the
homeowner housing
rehabilitation units of 11
units. And also in those
amounts, there is includes the
administration funds for the
entire year to facilitate the
administration of all of the
funding that we do under those
categories. We recognize that
outcomes don't always look the
same because of the way we have
to report to head, and it can
be confusing, but we're happy
to answer any questions that
come along by council or the or
the public. Our information is
available and you can reach out
to us at any time.
>> Great. Thank you. Those are
important clarifications. And I
think in particular, Weaver
Creek, because we've discussed
that throughout the year and
important to use these funds to
leverage larger projects. So
great work on that. Any other
comments or questions from the
Council chair? Yes, please go
ahead.
>> Just would like to add a
little bit about process. We've
had a lot of comments about the
ability for people to
participate in this and the
decisions that are made. So the
Urban County Policy Board meets
periodically. It's once a month
during the season when we are
looking at, you know, grant
recommendations that we
ultimately send to the council
for approval. But each of our
meetings are online, they're
open to the public, and we have
public comment available at
those meetings. And then as
time progresses, it's important
to note that it's not the
county that is doing this work.
The Urban County Policy Board
is receiving applications from
people for this grant funding
and, you know, proposals that
they have for how it can be
spent. The board reviews those
applications, scores them and
works through them, and
ultimately makes a
recommendation to the county
council, which it comes forward
to the county council as a
whole for decision making. So
it's not the county that's
providing that work. It's it's
outside organizations, for
profit nonprofit. They all can
apply. So if if and I
understand, don't get me wrong,
I mean, I look at some of these
numbers and look at how
expensive it is to help on an
individual basis. And it and it
can be troubling at times. And
if folks have ideas and
recommendations for how the
federal money can be better
used in our community, we are
open to that. You can submit an
application for how that can,
you know, for grant funding,
you can participate in the
public comment times of our
meetings to help give the board
more information that might be
valuable in making their
decisions. So it is a very open
and public process that anyone
can be involved to any degree
to which they choose.
>> Great. Thank you very much.
I do have a couple of questions.
Is the city of Washougal
included on that board? Yes,
yes, yes. Okay. Because a
specific issue came up related
to Washougal. And are these
funds has there been any talk
or anticipated cuts from the
federal level or. So far, so
good. Every year. Okay. All
right. Well, you're in good
company. Let me just say that.
So thank you very much for your
work on this. Oh, just one more
question. Are the notices for
public input advertised in the
reflector Clark County today.
And I would just add the
messenger as far as outlets.
>> We provide them through the
county does the news release.
So they are put out for public
comment.
>> And it's up to those.
>> If they want to pick them up.
But we do not specifically
advertise or put a request to
advertise in those newspapers.
>> Okay. But so it's up to the
newspapers themselves whether
or not they're posting things.
Okay. And I would just say
really great work in the
timeliness issue. It wasn't
like it was a lot of hard work
on the part of everyone to work
through all of that. So just
know that's appreciated.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Yes, please go ahead.
>> Quick comment. Well, a
question and a comment. My
question is you mentioned
Washougal is on the Urban
Policy Board. But you also
mentioned earlier that the City
of Vancouver has its own Cdbg
program, so they don't
participate with the county in
seeking grants through Cdbg, is
that correct? That's correct.
And does Washougal have the
ability to or do they
participate in conjunction with
the county, or do they seek
grants on their own?
>> They participate as an urban.
There. So we are considered an
urban county, which includes
unincorporated Clark County,
which is why we have a
counselor that is part of the
board and then the mayors of
each of the small cities
outside of the city of
Vancouver. So that includes
Camas Washougal Center,
Ridgefield Battleground and the
town of Yacolt, the mayor or
their designated alternate
participate with the Urban
County Policy Board and
woodland. Sorry, I forgot
woodland.
>> So when we get granted these
dollars, these jurisdictions
also have access to to funding.
>> Yes. Specifically for the
public facility, neighborhood
improvement, which is what, how
we funded Washougal Park, the
Hamlet Park in Washougal or
Washougal and Camas and
Battleground own their own
community centers so we can do
work there. We cannot use Cdbg
funding for buildings for
general purpose of conducting
government business. So we
can't do things like that. But
when the street improvements,
parks, things like that, we
have done, and at our last
Urban County Policy Board
meeting, we actually presented
some information about how much
money we have spent within each
of the cities since the 2000.
>> So perfect. Thank you, and
thank you so much for the work
that you do. This is hard work
in ensuring that the community
members are being served with
federal dollars. And it's a
shame that year after year, the
Cdbg funding continues to get
cut, but keep on doing the work.
I've seen the work being done
on the ground through various
organizations, and I know it's
effective and it's a positive,
and we're seeing positive
outcomes in the community. So
thank you for that.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other comments or
questions? Oh yeah. Please go
ahead.
>> Hi, I'm Noreen Ibrahim, I'm
the program assistant. As
Michael had introduced me. I
just wanted to say, on the note
of Washougal Columbia nonprofit
housing did propose a senior
housing of 50 units in
Washougal. So we are looking at
low income in Washougal.
>> Great, great. That's that's
good to hear. All right. Unless
there are any other comments,
I'll entertain a motion to
approve.
>> So moved.
>> It's been moved. Is there a
second?
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor say I.
>> I I I.
>> Did you vote nay. Okay. All
those that are opposed. Thank
you. Okay, so three eyes, one
nay. Motion carries. Okay.
Thanks very much.
>> Thank you.
>> Chair. Thank you. Council.
>> Thank you. Okay. That
concludes all three public
hearings. We're moving on to
open public comment and public
comment on the consent and
separate business items. Is
there anyone who signed up in
the room?
>> Carmen de Lehan.
>> Yeah. Carmen de Lehan go by
Melo. And you know, I don't
like to waste a lot of time,
but I want to make sure this is
understandable. This is open
public comment. So I cannot be
silenced for stating a fact.
And the fact is that according
to the Koran do not seek peace
with infidels. Me by the way,
I'm an infidel. Behead them
when you catch them. If I told
you that you wouldn't let me
near your house, you would get
a restraining order on me. So
why are Muslims still being
allowed in this country? I have
begged a legislator to not
allow people with this
mentality. I need to kill
everybody who doesn't agree
with me. No no no no no no.
When you don't agree, you agree
to disagree. You learn from
each other. You don't behead
everybody who doesn't agree
with you. So I think it's a
public safety measure to ask
the legislator to exclude all
Muslims. Any visas to enter
this country. As you know, they
came to take over, not to
assimilate, not to pray to our
God, but to their whatever. So
anyways, I don't want to
dedicate more time to them. I
just want you to know that
according to everybody I've
talked to that are U.S.
citizens, we don't want Muslims
here. We don't want people to
come to this country and break
our laws and still.
>> Okay, Carmen, this is not
related to.
>> Any public comment.
>> This is not related. To any
county business.
>> So according to this Clark
County staff report, and all
these things go out and like
now they're mentioning other
things. Okay, so I saw the
Facebook for the city. It was
2000 people on it. And with the
Columbia newspaper, that's 4000.
That's 6000 people. Come on,
security. Are you going to are
you going to bum rush me, man?
Come on. You're afraid of me
now just for talking. Really?
Anyways, I'm just saying that
when you do these public
announcements, the public
obviously isn't getting it. And
that was part of my issue in
the first place when I first
came here. Maybe you're the
only one. Oh, you two are the
only ones who remember when I
first came here, what was the
first problem we had? You guys
gave a million extra dollars to
Comcast, and that did bother me
because I know that Comcast and
everything electronic is
brainwashed. And that's why
people aren't here, because
you've done a great job of
brainwashing them. Distract
them with sports, distract them
with clubs. Go dance, go sing.
Don't pay attention to all the
money that you guys are burning
and forcing light rail on
people by the billions and then
saying, we did our public duty.
We did our our staff reports
and our public notices. Yeah,
but out of a half a million
people, maybe 60, 70,000 are
getting these reports. So I see
a real lack of transparency
with what I'm saying is maybe
go on the TVs and make
commercials, because obviously
this just ain't cutting it.
>> Okay. Thank you for your
comments.
>> We 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.
Comment.
>> Good morning again, Kimberly
Goheen Elbon. So there are a
lot of important written
comments, some stating a
moratorium on development. This
aligns with my demand of a five
year no growth overlay over all
of Clark County as we try to.
Adjust to all the traffic, all
the cars that you're going to
be eliminating here in the
future, pollution, all that,
and you completely ignore the
fact that our resources of
water, land and air are
depleting and will not recover.
We're in big trouble here, and
you guys need to address that.
It won't recover with the
following of the sanctuary. GMA
and you must protect all
citizens here in Clark County.
This council opted into the GMA.
It's time to opt out and
protect the people. And not an
agenda that could care less
about our health and welfare.
The people do not want more
sprawl. As mentioned in another
written comment. Stop following
agendas that are dictating our
local governments and protect
the people and our land, air
and water, let alone our insect
population. I've said it before
there are no insects, very few,
and we need insects. If we
don't have them, we're going to
die eventually. So you know
that's coming and don't be
blind to it. I want to warn the
Clark County Law and Justice
Council that they are in
violation of the O. PMA, that's
the Open Public Meetings Act.
Everywhere I look, it is a law
that we, the people get to go
into that meeting. They have it
every month on a third Thursday,
I believe at 8 a.m. in the
morning, I will be attending.
I'm not going to say how or
what I'm going to do, but I
will be attending as the public
as it is my right. Stop
violating our Open Public
Meetings Act and our right to
attend that meeting. I'll say
this if you do disregard me
again, I'm going to consider
that you are being a secret
society and that cannot happen
here in our county as a.
Patriot and a God loving
individual, I'm going to demand
that we, the people get to go
into that meeting and listen to
what you're doing. If you hold
an executive meeting, then that
I can understand. I'll just sit
there and be quiet and you'll
carry on. But I am giving a
warning to the Law and Justice
Council now that Law and
Justice Council was mandated by
the State of Washington, and it
is an open public meeting, and
we can attend. And I'm
encouraging anybody that's
listening.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there
anyone else online chair?
>> There is one more.
>> One more. 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.
>> This is Rob Anderson again.
Can you hear me?
>> Yes we can.
>> Just going to give it a few
seconds to detox here. Last
comment. So I just want to
bring up the point that I know
that on the regarding the rules
and procedures. This was months
in the process, but yet for
some reason it was only added
to the agenda for the public
late Thursday. So if you're
wondering why there's so few
comments, it's because you give
only two business days. Think
about that. You've had months
to debate and talk about work
through rules and procedures,
which, as Sue Marshall alluded
to, is odd that it's September
1st, but yet only two business
days is given to the public for,
you know, public notice. That
is unacceptable. I think as you
look at the outcomes from the
housing presentation that was
just had, and having no public
comment, that should be
unacceptable. But unfortunately,
what happens is you look at it
and say, oh, well, we met the
requirement. So yeah, you met
the requirements for rules and
procedures. You've met the
requirements for the housing.
But look at the outcome. The
outcomes are people don't have
enough time to process to plan
to come on a 10 a.m. meeting
Tuesday. So I hope that you do
better. That to me, there's no
excuse why that was withheld.
The rules and procedures that
and you get the the outcomes
that that warrants, which is
hardly any. Regarding the
housing situation. Going back
to that, again, I hope that you
do not see that as a success. I
hope that you'll look at it and
say, we have to do better, but
that is what Housing First does.
These are the results that
Housing First provide in. There
will be maybe some changes a
couple years down the road, but
in. But there will also be
millions more dollars added to
it, and I hope that you take a
fresh look at that thing.
Priorities should change to a
reduction and recovery based
model. How much of that money
is for low or no barrier
housing? By the way, bill
equated to $4 million. So yes,
it wasn't the full 5.3, but it
was a large chunk. And.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> That concludes public
comment, chair.
>> Okay, then let's move on to
the consent agenda. Is there
any item any counselor would
like to pull? Okay. Seeing no
one wants to pull an item, I'll
entertain a motion to approve
items one through three.
>> So moved.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All
those in favor, say I. I I okay,
motion carries then on to
separate business auditor
public works related to a grant
submittal. So welcome. Tell us
all about it.
>> Good morning Council.
Jennifer Kocher for the record
Deputy director, public works
here today with Diane Rathburn
from auditor's office grant
program manager coordinator.
We're here today to seek
authorization to apply for
several grants to support
signage, outreach and education
related to e-bike and other
emerging mobility use in our
parks and public spaces. This
is a growing concern regionally,
particularly around safety and
appropriate use. In addition,
Council brought this up as an
emerging issue and requested a
work session just last month.
On August 5th. Our team has
been collaborating initially
with Clark County Sheriff's
Office. On. But additional work
remains, including updating our
code to align with state law
and developing consistent,
enforceable signage and
language. These grant
opportunities could help fund
the signage, outreach and
education components of that
work. And with that context,
I'd like to turn it over to
Diane for more details about
these grants we'd like to apply
for.
>> Yes. Thank you Jenny, our
like she said, our request
today is to submit different
applications on an ongoing
basis to different nonprofit
and philanthropic organizations
that we believe would be good
partners in promoting these
safety initiatives. And as long
as they fall under certain
categories, of course, they
need to allow local governments
like ourselves to apply. They
funded similar projects. We fit
into their priorities and have
a history of funding projects
in this area. So we've
identified a few of those, and
then and I will continue to do
so as we move along. Until that,
we've put together a 3 to 4
year budget. That's about
$120,000 total. The year one
budget is just over $68,000.
And these types of
organizations usually fund
between 1 to $50,000 each. So
it will require success with
more than just one application.
And so our plan is to
essentially scale the
activities that we are able to
fund based on how much funding
we're able to bring in. And,
and as we bring funding in, the
Autzen Foundation is one of
those organizations, and they
have pending deadlines in the
next couple of weeks. It is a
by invitation only. So we're
hoping that they will allow us
to. They typically only fund
small organizations, but they
allow local governments to
apply. So we're hopeful we'll
at least get an opportunity to
submit. But if not, we will
continue to pursue with some of
the other ones. Burlington
Northern is another one. Lowe's
also locally funds projects, so
organizations like that.
>> Great. Thank you. Are there
any questions from council? Go
ahead.
>> Thank you. Yes, chair. Thank
you. So really quick question.
So the applications for grants
that you'll be applying for
will be to address safety
issues on trails, county trails,
naturalized areas, parks. Right.
And over this summer, we've
seen an uptick in dangerous
usage of motor bikes or e-bikes
on public roads by our young
community members. I've seen it
every day, and they're not just
in neighborhood streets.
They're on major streets in the
city of Vancouver, particularly
in the area where I live now.
My question is, have you
identified any grants that
would allow us to ensure that
we're also educating the
general public, particularly
young community members and
their parents, for the safety
usage of these mobility
vehicles on public roads?
>> I believe that the outreach
activities will encompass
safety protocols for all usage,
but with a focus on the parks,
but it will encompass other
aspects as well.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.
>> Other questions? Go ahead
counselor.
>> Yes. What? I just may not be
in your wheelhouse, but thank
you. And thank you for bringing
this forward. By the way, yet
another grant that I'm sure we
probably would not have been
able to pursue without you
joining us. So thank you for
that work. But I am curious,
you know, the we have our, our,
our bicycle and pedestrian
advisory board, but we don't
have any advisory coming to the
county for micro and other
transportation options and not
asking you just kind of
something food for thought for
us on how we can fill that gap
because, and I do agree with
Councilor Fuentes question. You
know, I am a frequent writer of
an electric scooter. And and I
appreciate staff having fought
us for us. The document from
the sheriff's office on the use
of e-bikes and all those other
things, because quite frankly,
I didn't know those rules and
regulations. And I think things
like this, signage and parks
will help people understand,
you know, what, what that usage
is allowed. But I encourage us
to be, you know, open minded of
how we can provide access to
our parks for everyone. And so
just a simple sign, as you
enter the park, that gives you
your expectations for how you
can use your, your modes of
transportation, I think it will
be a good public benefit. Yes.
>> Kathleen, did you have a
comment?
>> I have a question, but I can
wait. If there's a comment with
Councilor Young.
>> I to respond to you. I, I
think there's a good deal of
coordination across the county.
I think the work session that
was requested will start
answering some of it. Again, my
understanding is we do have
some work to do to update our
local code to align with state
code. And depending on these
grants, some of this education
and outreach will fund those
activities. But again, this is
a developing, emerging issue.
Kadee.
>> Go ahead, Katie.
>> Thank you. Katie Jolma
Dayley a civil division. So it
is my recommendation to parks,
having reviewed the plethora of
ordinances and state laws that
are emerging on this issue,
that especially from the state,
it will continue to change. And
so instead of trying to
regulate each and every type of
individual electronic vehicle
and to decipher whether it has
pedals or no pedals or engine
capacity or, you know, like all
these different variables, my
recommendation for signage is
to keep it to speed limits.
That's something that everybody
can understand what that means
without having to know if
you're a 12 year old, whether
you have a 50 cc or a, you know,
75 or 125 cc, most kids don't
know that. Most parents don't
know that. And so we're taking
a little bit more of a broader
approach to begin this process.
This is somewhat tangential to
the grant program. And the for
those, you know, under the
restrictions of the grant. But
in a broader scope, I just
wanted to communicate with the
Council that I believe that
this will continue to change at
the state level. And so we
should, instead of taking a
more prescriptive approach,
take a little bit broader
approach when it comes to that
signage.
>> Go ahead. Councilor.
>> So for these signs are is
the plan to work with. So to
develop what the specifics of
the e-bike recommendations look
like, like.
>> Yes, there's detail work to
do. We need to ensure that the
signage is something that is
enforceable by Keesee.
>> So it's very difficult. I, I
had I have strong feelings
about the e-bikes, which I've
shared with the county manager.
I had a child that broke his
arm from being on one for a
minute and a half at the
beginning of the summer. And
then my oldest child, best
friend, just fell off his
e-bike and spent the day in the
hospital on Sunday all day. And
Keesee Essraa was on site and
asked him how fast his bike
went and he said, I don't know.
So it didn't get impounded. So
it's I, I struggle with these
children even being allowed to
operate these vehicles when
their brains aren't even fully
developed and they don't make
the best decisions on the
regular. So that's just my
$0.02.
>> Yeah. And we, we do have to
keep in mind as well. American
with Disabilities Act provision.
So we have we can't write
anything that is so
prescriptive that it would ban
someone from using a mobility
device for them under American
Disabilities Act. So there's a
tension there that we have to
find the right balance between
what those federal laws require,
but also keeping in mind public
safety, which, again, when you
get into the nitty gritty of
having to, you know, describe
each I mean, some of these are
unicycles, you know, there's
only one wheel on them and they
can get on. So my advice is to
take a broader approach to a
speed limit recommendation,
which most people can
appreciate, whether you're
going 5mph or 25mph in a park
system. And most people can
tell that, you know, visually
or by seeing that. So it's
something that most people are
more familiar with.
>> Go ahead chair.
>> Oh, shoot. I lost my train
of thought. It was about
motorized bikes, obviously.
Well, speed limits are fine,
right? But what I'm
understanding is that a lot of
the signage will be in specific
areas, right? County parks,
trails, natural areas. And I
don't know how often, you know,
individuals are riding e-bikes
or scooters or whatever in
these areas. But the biggest
concern, and I know this will
be addressed during the work
session, the biggest concern is
these motorized vehicles on
roads, on major roads, because
I've seen them on 112th Street
during rush hour. And these are
I mean, if I can tell from,
from from where I'm sitting in
my car, nine, ten year old kids,
you know, as one of the
councilors alluded, you know,
they're getting hurt. And I
think that's something that
will dig a little more into as
we get through work sessions
and we hear from states and,
you know, and other
jurisdictions what can
potentially be done to enforce
to ensure that these kids are
not on public roads? Because
that's that's my biggest
concern.
>> Yes. And the state statutes
are quite broad when it comes
to what is designated a road, a
private road, a Kaulen, you
know, what's county, what state?
It's pretty broad. And then
also under the statutes,
there's a differentiation
between whether it's a paved
trail or whether it's a non
paved trail. And so this is
where, you know, if we start
making signage for every
contingency, these things are
going to be as big as highway
signs. I'm being facetious, but
you get my point that we're
going to have to figure out and
through this, these grant
process, a, a way to do signage
that is clear to the public
that people can understand
whether you're a nine year old
or a 90 year old, and where it
applies on many different
services or applications
throughout our park system,
throughout the systems that
connect people to the parks as
well, because we want people to
travel to our parks, but we all
can. We can all see the dangers
in, you know, nine year olds
cruising at 35mph without
helmets or in traffic on these
vehicles essentially as well.
>> Okay, great. Thanks. Just
judging from our conversation,
it appears there's very much a
need for these for us to pursue
these grants. And we'll be
wrestling with the details of
what approach we want to take,
probably informed by some of
the grants if we're lucky
enough to get those. So thanks
very much for your presentation.
Any other questions? And if not,
I'll entertain a motion to
approve.
>> Motion to approve separate
business item number.
>> One. Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded.
All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I motion carries. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Council.
>> Okay, moving on to the next
item. Public works. And this is
our engineering maintenance and
monitoring agreement. So let's
see. We have Joel and Tina and
Katie remains. So please,
please tell us about this one.
>> Well good morning Council.
Joel Loescher, solid waste and
recycling division manager. And
I'm joined here by Katie Jolma,
deputy prosecuting attorney,
and Tina Kendall, solid waste
operations specialist, senior.
She's also the project manager
for the Leichner landfill.
Today, Solid Waste and
Recycling is requesting
authorization for the county
Manager to execute amendment
six to the SCS Engineers
Maintenance and Monitoring
Agreement, increasing the total
contract amount by 1,000,881
300. To align with the
previously approved annual
budget and project cost
adjustments, resulting in a
revised contract total. And
essentially, this is an
administrative adjustment, and
I, Tina, can give us some more
details if there's questions.
>> Okay. Are there any
questions? I don't see any
questions. Oh, there is a
question.
>> No question. I have a motion.
>> Okay. That's great. That was
my second. That was my next
question.
>> There we go.
>> So all those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I motion carries. Thank you.
Went ahead of me. Okay. County
manager's report.
>> I don't have anything.
>> Nothing to report. So we
completed our agenda. And
without objection this meeting
is adjourned. Thank you.