Presentation Title
Info on what different jurisdictions allow, data from prior year.
A “Fireworks only” call center opened 2022, has really helped. Staffed by volunteers.
Uniform dates and other rules across jurisdictions would be helpful.
Follow up info from a prior work session to be sent to council
There will be another briefing in 1^st Quarter, to be preceded by a conversation at a council time to define scope.
Matt wants data on what types of fireworks cause problems before they talk about restricting things (such as stuff that flies up in the air).
Battle Ground has a public fireworks on the 3^rd (thrown by a private company)
There is interest in a big public fireworks show like the one that used to be put on by the Historic ended due to Covid and funding issues). There was an attempt to do one at the fairgrounds, but it was cut short by a grass fire.

Work Session #2: DNR (Department of Natural Resource) presentation re: Aggregate.

10012025-ws_dnr-presentation-aggregate.pdf
Sue asked about one in Woodland. Woodland pit. Not a lot left there. SMO application submitted in 2021, was withdrawn after a DS (determination of significance).
A lot of former gravel mines have been built over – developers love them, easy to build on.
Washougal pit still working on gorge permit, but only about 3 years of rock remains.
All in all, there is not a lot of useable gravel left in the south side of the county.
Yacolt mountain is a huge high quality reserve. Maple pit (CC public works) for County projects only. Courtney rock serves north county only but not a lot left.
Talks about Chelatchie – Rock is really spotty, not much that is useful for asphalt. (this was the mining overlay request that got the county taken to court, and will require an environmental impact study (EIS) before a mining overlay can happen).
Lots of possible sources are in remote mountainous areas – incurring high mitigation and transportation costs. None of it is of amazing quality (may not be worth the EIS, transportation, and mitigation costs).
Active mines slide 5. A lot in reclamation. Also shows ag loading ports (pink), only one on our side of the river. Portland market is almost exclusively barged.
Notes that barging is the future of sand & gravel for the county.
He talked to PVJR - will take 10 years to develop terminal and then some. Mentions the concerns of neighbors up there.
Council discussion:
Matt mentions having another session including public works and industry reps. County use 5.1 million tons/year (Per some report but he thinks that is high). Another report had 1.4 million, probably more likely. Cost probably 15-20 ton plus transportation. Rail probably cheapest per ton if already built out, and proximate to need.
Chip seal rock can come from anywhere but has to be crushed to 3/8^th so can be expensive depending on the source.
Glen asked what is the county’s responsibility re: gravel under the GMA (growth management act). GMA doesn’t take into account environmental and transportation issues. Preserve good high quality rock. Converting good Agricultural lands to gravel problematic.
Clark County is a net importer of Sand and Gravel. Yacolt provides 80% of the hard rock to the county. It takes about a decade for a new source to become operational. County needs to get moving on identifying sources, but some types just aren’t here. We should increase barge capacity.
Glen states that the GMA requires each county to supply its own aggregate (that can’t be true cause not all counties have good gravel sources). DNR guy advocates for talking to the local industry people about where the gravel may be. Some lands that are designated for mining are nearly impossible to cost effectively mine. He gave an example of something with no roads that is surrounded by wetlands. Also, doing an EIS is expensive so only worth it for large high quality deposits. Glen asks if a study could be done to identify aggregate deposits and do overlays. Again suggests talking to the industry guys, they know a lot and will provide for free. Re: doing a study, drilling is expensive so not in a county’s budget. Mineral resource lands study could be useful.
Glen asks about lands that were removed from the mining overlay. Granite contact said that the quality of rock at Chelatchie was poor.
Sue asks about aggregate ports where are they getting ag? A lot from Multnomah county, and upstream in Washington. Permitting takes a decade for a barging port. Expanding Vancouver Port would be easier than a new one. Using Rail would incur costs to create offload facilities – 40 to 60 acre space.
Bo Stordahl said the rock at Chalatchie is junk. She asked about alternatives to rock. A Canadian company was doing solar power panels for roads. Keeps roads warm so not freezing. Not sure that is a near term cost effective solution. Old tires have some limited uses. Tires tend to catch fire when buried.
Asks for clarification that the GMA requires counties supply their own aggregate. Yes (so large counties don’t suck the aggregate out of surrounding counties. (note: this was contested by county counsel in Council Time)
Any future action requires a public hearing.

(Wil has to leave)

Work Session #3: Clean water fee reduction for Schools Presentation Title

Background and information about the program.
Program needs revision. Options presented start slide 21. Recommendation is to pause while they do some research.
Council discussion.
There is discussion about cost, cost shift to other customers, training and value of the program. Because 2 councilors are absent, Matt attempts to force program to continue while options and updates are explored, in spite of staff noting they do not have sufficient resource to do both. Counsel steps in. Chris Cook thinks it can be brought up again when more councilors are present. Right now the program is on hold. It was removed from code in 2024. So Matts ploy fails.
They agree that evaluation is appropriate. Putting off decision on pause for a future Wednesday
Glen brings up frustration with councilors not attending work sessions causing conflicts. Sue notes that part of the problem is that some councilors have other jobs and that maybe that is something the upcoming Charter Commission can address.

Council Time 10/01/25

Council Attendees: All

Public Comment of note. Keep it civil.

See also written comment posted here: 100125-ct-public-comments.pdf

5 about Camp Bonneville and concern about continued use by various law enforcement agencies.
One anti light rail.

Camp Bonneville current and future use by SWAT, ATF, Metro Explosives.

SWAT uses the shooting range
Simulation house for training
Another building for meetings.
ATF has a fenced area for 3 storage containers for blasting caps explosives and evidence.
Metro explosives disposal unit (MEDU) – training. Oregon and Vancouver, CCSO has a slot but is unfilled.
CCSO use not part of todays discussion, County manager is telling Council that any agreement w CCSO would not come to council because it is interdepartmental.
SWAT is made up of people from the county and some of the cities. Long description of what they do with many past incidences described. Re: Camp Bonneville – There is nowhere else to go. Sheriff talking about how important SWAT is, and the training. Moving will take time and be expensive. Open to discussion but need Bonneville for now. Willing to have conversations (work sessions) need time to find and build out another location.
Wil not supporting CCSO moving out any time soon. But also wants to see the camp used as per the conservation conveyance.
The State training center is 7 to 8 years away. The land hasn’t been donated yet.
CCSO and jail use the old English pit for shooting.
Matt asks about fees paid or due, and remediation from the other organizations.
ATF is just for storage, they pay a fee.
CCSO – no fee.
FBI did some maintenance on the property.
MEDU – haven’t use with high explosives in years (used to detonate suspected devices like pipe bombs). MEDU uses for training out of view of the public and secure.
Michelle – discussion of remediation by FBI. Is it up to the county to demand the FBI fulfill their obligation?
Staff – how does clean up work if CCSO still using? There is a timer on how long we can wait to hit the FBI up.
Sue – Asks if these uses are allowed by the agreement with the Army? The range was used by non-Army orgs before and was mentioned in docs throughout the transfer but might not be clear in the deed. Staff working with the Army to clarify.
Agreements: ATF (storage) would be its own agreement. MEDU – would have an agreement with signature pages for each entity within.
Have not gone through a public process on long term use of the camp. Ultimately these uses should be phased out as the public sees the camp as a park and natural area. Re: storage - questions ability to secure the site (given ammo theft recently). Need long term solutions. Keep contracts short.
Eventually direct staff to work on 2-year agreements, leave fee decisions to staff. Status quo pending new agreements. ATF, MEDU, SWAT.
When Camp Bonneville is released from clean-up requirements, then the public discussion on use starts.
Sheriff is cheerleader for the FBI “we have a good relationship with them and work together on a lot of things”. They (FBI) are coming to council on 10/22. Sue is still concerned about storage given the theft. Asks if they’ve made progress with their investigation. (no answer)
Will ask ATF and MEDU here along with the FBI on the 10/22^nd.

Proclamation request – Legacy Lands program 40h anniversary – approved. Working on celebration activities.

Councilor reports

Sue reminds council to contact Michelle (not Belkot) and their alternate if can’t make it to a board or commission meeting.
Matt – opportunity to work with DNR access to a $ 10 million climate fund to swap in private land. A specific property is proposed. Will send info to the rest of the council.
Kathleen notes that there is a procedure for adding things to the agenda. There has been a tendency to ask for approval of things (like above) during council comments, and the public does not have the opportunity to know it is coming and comment. Council agrees. Kathleen will get a procedure documented.

Work Session requests: None from staff.

Matt wants another on Aggregate. Kathleen will get info from one held with the industry a few years ago to the councilors. There is no urgency to include Aggregate in the GMA. Chris Cook (counsel) disagrees with the DNR guy (from morning work session) about what is in the statute re: GMA and aggregate. Thankfully an attempt to include aggregate study in this GMA loses and they will deal with it AFTER the comp plan. (Matt needs to get his work session requests on the agenda so the public is aware and can weigh in!)

Policy updates:

Legislative delegation briefing – there will 2: 10/23 & 10/30 (can’t get them all on one day).
Ctran – is working on their 20-year plan. The public can still view and comment via their comment portal.
Upcoming Timber sales:
The earlier pause is ending, sales that went through SEPA process are moving forward. Turnover auction 11/20^th. Board approval on 10/7. Dendriphobia – 12/2 to board, Jan 29 sale. Copperhead SEPA comment period starts today.
Sue asked about having a task force of junior taxing districts, asked Jordan to get info on what other counties do.

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

Return to Previous Page