Observing Government

Clark County Council -- Work Sessions

Link to materials: Clark County Council Meetings | Clark County

Observer: Jackie Lane

Council attendees: Sue Marshall, Wil Fuentes, Glen Yung (video off), Michelle Belkot, Matt Little.

Work Session 1: De-escalation training led by NAMI presentation. Followed by discussion of hypotheticals (such as racist and inappropriate comments and rants during public comment).

Work Session 2: Comp Plan update – Traffic (or Transportation) Impact Fees (TIFs)

• Presentation Title
• Sue notes that they are still calling this the 2025 comprehensive plan update (not 2026)
• TIFs attempt to offset the impact of new development on transportation capital costs, so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for new development.
• Sue asked about 179^th corridor. The fees were frozen in 2016 based on Developer Agreements (as the county did not have enough money to cover the cost of infrastructure when they did the ‘urban holding lift’ in that area). The money collected did not end up covering the actual costs (work is still in progress in that corridor).
• Discussion of TIF credits for developer improvements on their frontage.
• Matt – I want the public to understand what this fee is. What is this fee, who pays it, and how does it impact the cost of a home. The property owner (e.g. developer) pays. The number of trips added is part of the calculation. The manual has been reducing the number of trips per single family home from 10 to 9.09, based on the assumption that active transportation will be used and more people working from home. They use a national guidebook. April Furth chimes in, if not the developer, then the infrastructure costs would be paid by the taxpayers or service levels would degrade (that is, traffic delays would get worse).
• Discussion of what the county covers for filling in missing side walks and bike lanes left between developments.
• Sue asks about the $580 million deficit in the transportation capital plan (up from 2016, which was $100+ million). Options: create a traffic benefit area, raise taxes, reduce level of service. To be addressed after the comp plan is adopted. Sue asks about infrastructure costs for UGA expansion. County doesn’t cover that except for Vancouver (where the county approved development, and which is not growing this time around). The cities expanding would need to cover (La Center, Battle Ground, Camas, Ridgefield).
• Glen asks about the cumulative impact of increased traffic, school and fire district impact fees on the cost of housing. Oliver: there is no definitive evidence that fees are the cause of an increase in housing costs. He has looked at studies, none have been done specifically in Clark county. Glen refers to a study that estimates 83 cents of every dollar of fees is passed along (from a Seattle study, but he does not note the source or who funded it). Discussion of where Clark County lands compared to other Washington counties. BUT Clark is managing a much larger urban area than other counties (Vancouver unincorporated area).
• Sue – it is a question of who is going to pay.
• Glen is somehow tying homelessness to these fees. He is OK with commercial, noting they are ‘not necessarily things that are needed to live’ (grocery stores?).
• Michelle is concerned at how this burdens the builders of single family homes.
• Sue notes that state grant funding will be vulnerable if we are out of compliance with the GMA (cost $10 million lst time). There will be an impact, whether to the general population or to individual homes. (I hope people show up when this gets a public hearing – Planning Commission hearing is 8/20 @ 6:30 pm).

Clark County Council -- Council Time

• Transfer of legacy lands and park lands within LaCenter city limits.
• The County discovered (in 2022) that the city of La Center had built a gravel parking lot on county Legacy lands property, providing access to the river for swimming. When the county contacted the city of La Center, the city expressed interest in acquiring this and other properties, some within the city limits, others are outside.
• These have varying grant and/or covenant restrictions that would need to be kept with the property.
• Timing with the Parks system plan update that is being worked on now.
• There is a county trail adjoining one of the properties.
• La Center wants the land to bolster their parks system. Currently they are natural areas. (including a County parking lot for trail access).
• Ducks Unlimited has done conservation work there (organization Matt Little works for)
• Sue notes the location is important ‘beach scene’ for La Center – swimming and canoe/kayak access.
• Discussion of how to proceed. Is the parking lot compatible with legacy lands, is it permit-able (obviously La Center didn’t get a permit). The parking lot is on shoreland and so may not be consistent with that use.
• County needs to understand their own long term plans (Parks/legacy lands) and what is allowable (does the parking lot need to be removed/mitigated to be legal).
• Councilor reports
• Wil – CTRAN field trip with other elected officials (cities….).
• Matt – toured new Bridge Shelter
• Sue – also Landing Pad for people transitioning from the jail. 3-year pilot program, funded by mental health sales tax.
• Updating RCW 9A.42.100: Want to add Fentanyl to the list of drugs considered a crime of endangerment with a controlled substance (children). Lobby state & support legislation. Approved. This will come back via their legislative lobbying meetings later in the year.