[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6300001,"mediaKeyId","2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823","parentId",2494183,"title","Council hears legislative updates; agrees to support several funding requests and monitor a Growth Management Act bill","audioSeconds",723,"startMs",1828000,"endMs",2551000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823&start=1828&end=2551","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823/thumbnail_1828000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6300001/Clark-County/Washington/Council-hears-legislative-updates-agrees-to-support-several-funding-requests-and-monitor-a-Growth-Management-Act-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300001-75f0b38d13b82a955773aa2f2b47ff92/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933687&Signature=Msb0h6ybhacZ9GeWWC0W7uioSdIcAvMvxot37xhzjaXP4yyIqtnpIlNZqPo~xf4Qie6wSyFatgRtzVTnprOFhUKpczbH1P-8L8aZWYUppSQCIMrfdszAnnoCnEd4Gjp~8AS2DrtJ2s3RYUeaWJ~FcTn7av3Ol0BImmIs1oU~Mapb8aYMDHuoSPHJAJ09T2t0SopAJnT4UJCR~REr7miVDmBIXxv9OOMPxnIyhkyGEjIQ8r6sVH41MhNSiGuTxdnHUPlPox8X3U8y1epSkEDeJCd3StGwmda90au0c6sXIQKde78gqET1gDXrVcIImA5vCqNAYXCuOBOGU3FBBBXZsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clark County, WA","date","2025-02-27T00:00:00Z","article","Clark County staff provided a legislative update on several bills and funding requests and the council gave direction on how to proceed.

Jordan Bogie, senior policy analyst, said the eCityGov Alliance is requesting $2.7 million from the Washington State Department of Commerce to complete a permitting software modernization project; councilors gave consensus support to send a letter of support to the appropriate committee and to the county’s legislative delegation.

Bogie briefed the council on Senate Bill 5734 and House Bill 1958, a bill pair that would provide up to $1.6 billion in bonding authority to support design and construction of the Interstate 5 bridge replacement and would allow the bonds to be backed by tolls, state gas tax/vehicle fees, and ultimately the state’s full faith and credit. Council members indicated their support for the bill at the meeting.

Staff also discussed Senate Bill 5,696, which would explicitly clarify that mental-health sales tax funds can be used for construction of new facilities (the current language explicitly allows modifications of existing facilities but is less clear on new construction). Councilors discussed the bill and Councilor Belcott stated, “I’m gonna abstain from this,” when the item was raised; other councilors indicated support and asked staff to track the bill.

Finally, staff flagged House Bill 1135/Senate Bill 5197, a proposed change to Growth Management Act appeals that could alter the hearings board’s jurisdiction; county counsel Chris Cook warned the council that the change could open comprehensive-plan decisions to extended litigation beyond current time limits and create legal uncertainty, and councilors asked for more analysis before taking a position.

Ending

Council asked staff to draft the eCityGov Alliance support letter and to continue tracking all bills discussed; the council expressed support for the I-5 bridge bonding bill and asked for follow-up material on the Growth Management Act proposal before taking a formal position there.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2262025 Clark County Council Time","oneSentenceSummary","Councilors instructed staff to write a letter supporting an eCityGov Alliance funding request, indicated support for I-5 bridge bonding authority, voiced mixed views on a bill clarifying mental-health sales-tax use for new facility construction, and asked staff for more analysis on a Growth Management Act change proposal.","taxTitle","Clark County, Washington","taxId",2766,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6300003,"County council tells C TRAN to stay at the table on I-5 bridge funding but flags cost risks",413,3719000,4132000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823&start=3719&end=4132","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823/thumbnail_3719000.jpg","/articles/6300003/Clark-County/Washington/County-council-tells-C-TRAN-to-stay-at-the-table-on-I-5-bridge-funding-but-flags-cost-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300003-5283d0084d1d647d0278f758fc7458fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933687&Signature=hY6mb44kQ-4n39Xdb48rnmj1fogK3UxWnJBHCXzeftTS4K6Et7G1Etml5ZtPRgjP3v9j0KqdQzSpak~sdav9YEKjY7DDSUD4EXKsq~uOqftVKbnqhVnGfpX2dT2Yytw7IVlYR~B6F7ME2tt0DbQW~wfpW8n3h0mtuIQfGOZhdcpCXOf~tubnErTzx-dHwcE-xGVrSoO8QW--ex5AE0GgLl83pl7aZxqOQjl1hb~V8kW5UDPcsXgp-88uhSEwG39LfyB4a8rBbo3PwKipaq47OGYCov1VItFYlDj1M-JZrMiYHFzBP27KTIp-vQZWpH5q36bGcRHAIJyAu2eY6CtdSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clark County Councilors directed the county’s C TRAN representatives to remain engaged in interstate bridge (IBR) funding and negotiation, while voicing concern about potential Clark County taxpayer exposure if C TRAN helped pay operation-and-maintenance (O&M) costs for light rail.

Council Chair Marshall said the matter concerns whether C TRAN should have “permissive” language allowing the agency to participate in O&M funding for light rail. Mayor Anne McElerney Ogle, who spoke as a former C TRAN chair, reminded the council that the C TRAN board adopted the permissive language in November and that the board voted to reconsider the item in January; the board will again discuss it March 11. “It was adopted in November,” she said.

The issue matters because C TRAN board members were startled by updated O&M estimates that accompany the IBR project and because adopting a prohibition would, according to slides and testimony presented at the meeting, risk setting the project back years and potentially jeopardize federal and state grant agreements tied to the current preferred alternative.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized two points: they want C TRAN at the table for negotiations because the agency has technical expertise, and they do not want Clark County to unintentionally shoulder a disproportionate share of permanent O&M costs for an interstate transit system. Councilor Fuentes said keeping the permissive language “is just one incremental decision point” that preserves C TRAN’s ability to negotiate while the interagency process continues. Councilor Young summarized the risk–reward calculus: keeping permissive language lets the county participate now without obligating the county to pay a single, fixed sum immediately.

Several councilors pressed for additional safeguards and alternative funding sources. Councilor Belcott said he would support the November language “with grave concern” and urged clear deliberations at the March C TRAN meeting about what any commitment would obligate the agency to pay. Councilor Little said his primary worry is that a long-term commitment could consume a large share of C TRAN’s budget and constrain future local service expansion as the county grows.

County legal counsel Chris Cook and C TRAN advocates told the council that any final funding commitments would involve multiple agencies and, if a tax or direct funding increase were required, would go to voters or be subject to interagency agreements. As one adviser summarized: the decision about who ultimately pays would be made through the multi-agency negotiation and any local tax question would require voter approval.

The council instructed its C TRAN board representatives to: (a) remain at the negotiations and (b) advocate for Clark County safeguards and additional external funding sources. Councilors also asked staff to review prior county resolutions and share them with the council for possible updates prior to the next C TRAN meeting.

The C TRAN board is scheduled to reconsider the adopted November language at its March 11 meeting; councilors Belcott and Chair Marshall said they would convey the council’s position and concerns to the representatives who sit on C TRAN.

Ending

The county’s guidance is procedural: keep the agency at the table but do not accept open-ended exposure without clearer cost-sharing commitments. The March C TRAN meeting and subsequent interagency negotiations will shape whether permissive language becomes a path to binding Clark County obligations or remains a limited authorization to negotiate.","Clark County Councilors directed their C TRAN representatives to stay involved in interstate bridge funding talks after reviewing permissive language adopted by the C TRAN board that could let the agency help fund light-rail operation-and-maintenance, but they flagged concerns about potential local tax impacts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6300002,"Council to move forward with resolution allowing Vancouver Housing Authority to operate in unincorporated county",325,967000,1292000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823&start=967&end=1292","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823/thumbnail_967000.jpg","/articles/6300002/Clark-County/Washington/Council-to-move-forward-with-resolution-allowing-Vancouver-Housing-Authority-to-operate-in-unincorporated-county","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6300002-833bd826bc805f1951997b5e9699088f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933687&Signature=RoqHRTHT0exxeWoTnyGuOqM6SfRiZilCV11F0NTA2U0o9wuA2C8yvjt6VUAJdXpfxtVtgQ~Duy9jbz21VB9RwztXRO5ceKOVVDCrOzS10TxD5FlXSh9Ti~e4f~EMmrYJOek8djM0uvADGDGlkmzAAQdlC~muhAGylXfLqLdn4NQJ80jmziX-KT6gQOnn7ogiMNynQGbbU5yHJMauYKfwtn9v4FJ7sZbs1xzlgGITGA~XQiSZpRRDeW2O4ax58b-CKRyuNBHPm~FIEWUzceZiw7XF1Z8YDvJkvR0Sc6i9abNblmdw0-XQBJQjzX60JVjH9GmdVoPiOAcMc~IR2KpxoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clark County Councilors instructed staff to update and schedule a draft resolution that would grant the Vancouver Housing Authority (VHA) blanket authorization to operate in unincorporated Clark County without returning to council for project-by-project approval.

Jordan Bogie, senior policy analyst, told the council that state statute currently allows the Vancouver Housing Authority to operate in the City of Vancouver and within a five-mile radius outside city limits under RCW 35.82.070; VHA seeks a county resolution that would let the agency proceed within unincorporated county boundaries without seeking council approval for each project. Bogie said he contacted Andy Silver, VHA director, who was not aware of any time a VHA project had been blocked by the county; some projects have been denied by other jurisdictions.

Bogie described three reasons VHA requests blanket authorization: it lets the agency act quickly “at the speed of the market” when property opportunities arise; it avoids extra public processes that could jeopardize time-sensitive deals; and it could encourage smaller jurisdictions in the county to adopt similar resolutions.

Councilors expressed support and asked staff to revise the draft resolution and place it on an upcoming Tuesday meeting for formal council approval. Chair Marshall and multiple councilors voiced the same substantive view: removing a procedural barrier may help affordable-housing development in a tight market.

Ending

Staff will return an updated resolution for a formal vote at a future Tuesday meeting; no final vote occurred at the Feb. 26 council time session.","After staff briefed the council, members directed staff to update a draft resolution that would allow the Vancouver Housing Authority to operate in unincorporated Clark County without seeking case-by-case council approval and to schedule the item for a future Tuesday meeting.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6299997,"Public commenters urge alternatives to bridge shelter, question timber sales and stress need for voter input on light rail",344,110000,454000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823&start=110&end=454","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6299997/Clark-County/Washington/Public-commenters-urge-alternatives-to-bridge-shelter-question-timber-sales-and-stress-need-for-voter-input-on-light-rail","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6299997-cdd636de0b1b0adc5b67581a46e0c212/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933687&Signature=YpPTKmzDdjajA~edj902yFKuy07C5V~DpB054Be~zZ8pWnSU05OTOU~XIdWnv0Qv9lHCFKl9NebRdHMf8kf5B~~b3SBtxujFzTxmNnjDiUvqu~rzbHRAEHg0pAZg5K0e0JLHXTsCsL9TnPvX1Me6T23YApzvV9Vp8veSyLaUs3qMZRx6bRv3KoG3mr0e5FcIV8~p0T0uIyxBSm2NnZcC-YU4Zpb36iBIInInRYeLfm35wioNvkqPYU42kneM1njJAwyhSODbKnAtUKFSDE9bRRnkqTmOgP8ZAjAVPx0U9TCs5MykXRJ5OOCkmH2IGZidltiOKLl3I~b1RECYWnd~-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents used the council’s public-comment period to raise concerns about homelessness services, a proposed bridge shelter project, light rail, and state timber sales.

Carmen De Leon (who said she goes by Melo) criticized plans for a bridge shelter near Vancouver, argued the county should lease an existing nearby building rather than build a new shelter, and linked what she described as the county’s homelessness problem to drug use and border enforcement. De Leon said the county “used to be” able to repurpose nearby county buildings and questioned whether the proposed approach was financially prudent.

Teresa Hardy urged the council to press the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to pause sales of legacy forest lands and asked whether parcels could be swapped so that younger plantation lands would be harvested instead; Hardy said counties have a stake as trust beneficiaries and that some board members had asked to pause legacy land sales in December but were not supported.

Caller Margaret Sweet questioned whether voter approval is required to introduce light rail in Clark County, referencing a 2012 vote in which she said voters rejected light rail and citing RCW Chapter 81 as the governing statute. Sweet asked the council to obtain and publish ridership information for bridge crossings that would inform light-rail planning and asked staff to make presentation materials easier to view on CVTV.

Kimberly Goheen Elbon, dialing in during a memorial, urged councilors to “listen to the people” and to be transparent about timber sales and light-rail spending; she asked staff to report how much public money has been spent on light-rail planning and maps that she said voters have rebuked previously.

Ending

Public comments raised three main themes: (1) residents oppose the proposed bridge shelter siting and urged reuse of existing buildings; (2) community members requested a pause or swap option for legacy-timber sales and greater state-level engagement; and (3) commenters urged clearer public disclosure and voter processes around light rail and associated ridership/cost data. The council did not take action on these public comments during the Feb. 26 session.","Multiple members of the public criticized the proposed bridge shelter and light-rail proposals and raised concerns about state timber sales on legacy lands; commenters urged the council to pursue alternative shelter sites, question light-rail voter processes, and requested more transparency on timber-sale decisions.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6299999,"Council asks staff to study bonding vs grants for HB 1406 affordable housing funds",656,2943000,3599000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823&start=2943&end=3599","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2494183-5dff1bdca1184042bc88281a8724d823/thumbnail_2943000.jpg","/articles/6299999/Clark-County/Washington/Council-asks-staff-to-study-bonding-vs-grants-for-HB-1406-affordable-housing-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6299999-30209c4e6650856511c2f5b753afb2f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770933687&Signature=KThAZg09L7-uv8j2~QH7tiAJlqu32QW6NUq4VlKvY2X7KAVDmedFiQe5~ZvjM9fDruF2xMIGWqwcS9u7w1IFg3goUUguTtZl1hmN4jYwyyZtcZc8nUiTCRE7smYorRh~aqmcRNmACyEHnAix4fPW97bfD9yGMNg-cQhphkIYP-m2v5-yJAWYgOTatoq6wLLgdDB1g~XdfVax~qpAKaKm21tj3MHd3M~vU8rMSuoXrxWySZYpVwf1Go2MK4QG1VXhtlS8~eKseYumEd5cDpN5cnfzwQBM~LshKkGXOMgXkLnK6lxWYmWsvMk-s4lyqBAY3Oa1ekvFwBaIKfOiTIeSHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clark County Councilors asked staff to explore whether the county’s annual allocation from the state’s HB 1406 revenue-sharing program (commonly called the 14-06 fund) should continue to be awarded via ad-hoc council grants or be used as a revenue stream to support bonded financing that would leverage a larger pool of capital for affordable housing.

Jordan Bogie reviewed the program’s background: the state-authorized revenue sharing remits approximately $800,000 a year to Clark County under the statute for local affordable-housing use. Historically the council has allocated those dollars directly to individual projects on a case-by-case basis; staff have proposed an RFP process to widen access and formalize awards. Bogie also said some stakeholders have suggested the county could bond against the steady annual stream to raise a larger upfront capital amount, using the annual remittance to pay debt service.

Councilors supported further study. Councilor Young asked whether the funding is only tied to unincorporated areas; staff said the allocation mechanism allows jurisdictions to take increments and that the county currently receives the maximum increment available. Councilor Little and others asked staff to analyze tradeoffs: bonding could produce more capital for large developers but might shut out small nonprofit applicants; an RFP process could broaden access but yield smaller individual awards. Participants noted the tax sunsets 20 years after first imposition, so there is a finite revenue stream to consider when sizing bond debt.

The council gave staff consensus direction to research options, including potential RFP structures, bonding mechanics, administrative costs, programmatic equity, and estimated leverage amounts, and to return with recommendations.

Ending

Staff will return with a memo examining the feasibility, risks, and tradeoffs of bonding the HB 1406 stream versus continuing direct grant awards through an RFP process.","Council directed staff to explore options for using the county’s annual HB 1406 allocation (about $800,000/year) either as direct grants via RFP or as backing for bonds to leverage larger sums for affordable housing; staff will report back on mechanics, administration, and equity implications.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council hears legislative updates; agrees to support several funding requests and monitor a Growth Management Act bill

County council tells C TRAN to stay at the table on I-5 bridge funding but flags cost risks

Council to move forward with resolution allowing Vancouver Housing Authority to operate in unincorporated county

Public commenters urge alternatives to bridge shelter, question timber sales and stress need for voter input on light rail

Council asks staff to study bonding vs grants for HB 1406 affordable housing funds