Christine Cook, attorney presenting
Chris noted that the Council doesn’t fully follow Roberts…
Sue asked what recourse there is if someone disagrees, they can call point of order and once the chair recognizes them can explain. Chair decides. Roberts rules “is not intended to be the bible or the constitution”. Glen refers back to situation where the prior chair (Gary) cut him off and cut him off again when he tried to call point of order. Objective of Roberts rules it to keep things moving along but here the chair rules. Otto mentions that the Rules of Procedure refer to Roberts Rules for specific situations.
Sue suggests looking at Rules of Procedure (they all remember when the incident w Glen and Gary happened) and see if something can be updated (public hearing on those is still pending.
How council can take another look at a decision:
Motion for Reconsideration – At the same meeting where the decision was made (same day or continued hearing). Movant has to be someone who voted on the prevailing side.
Motion for renewal – doesn’t have to be the same meeting. Allowed because the ‘passage of time’ something has changed. Requires a second. Requires the same notice to the public as the original.
Can’t do multiple times, can’t renew a motion to reconsider, or a motion that failed for lack of a second, or to resolve something that was rejected by the chair.
Otto proposes wording change to Rules of Procedure to cover the earlier issue of disagreeing with the chair. Approved.

IBR & Light Rail O&M (operations and maintenance) Funding Update: Slide 1

Council requested this work session after the $20 million operations and maintenance costs came up at C-Tran meeting. Sue had wanted Tri-Met to participate, but they are not here today.
Originally, C-Tran was not providing any O&M funding other than security for stations over here. Amended language says C-Tran ‘may’ provide funding. Language change was a recommendation from the city of Vancouver. To be considered at the March meeting. 2 County Councilors will be voting members at that meeting (Sue and Michelle) based on guidance from the full County Council.
In order to get the federal grant to help pay for light rail from FTA (Federal Transit Authority), there is a lengthy process. Hoping for a 1 billion $ grant. It was noted that the new administration might change things.
FTA evaluates and rates the project, including ‘Local financial commitment’ and “project justification”.
Timeline – submit for rating late 2025 or early 2026
Sue asked about ‘economic development’ factor (see slide 9), which feeds the project justification. Didn’t really get an answer, but the economic development benefit of light rail is likely mostly to Vancouver.
Looking like the City of Vancouver wanted the verbiage change to improve the odds of the FTA funding light rail.
Light rail would be competing with C-Tran.
Cost framework slide 12, 13. Breakdown by C-Tran vs Tri-met slide 14.
Councilor questions about ridership projections.
C-Tran just about 100% ridership recovery to 2019 (pre-pandemic), some routes over.
Discussion of projected population growth (Clark County Comp plan calls for around 200K increase over 20 years). Discussion of cost considerations used.
Michelle asked about why so many (19) trains are added for the 1.9 mile extension – they have to look at impacts system wide.
Glen asks about 25% fare recovery #s. #’s will be reviewed before grant application.
The 19 new light rail vehicles are part of the capital costs, not the O&M (maintenance and operation of them is).
C-Tran sales tax funding overview. Starts slide 15.
C-Tran used to be county wide, but now just the cities and Vancouver UGA.
They are planning an increase in sales tax for existing services (they already have the authority to do this but had not used it yet). This $ is not planned for light rail.
Matt – Concerned because the voters will be asked to fund other needs (not mentioned – County and City public safety $s for expanded police/sheriff and support). Also, concern that C-Tran will be maxed out to what they can ask for (if the get a tax increase, they are tapped out and can’t ask for more later)
LRT Options slide 18. Could create a smaller sub-district for new sales tax.
Also pursuing funding from the state. That will be a tough call this year.
Matt – when is a final decision expected on light rail? Will it take up a lane or share?
Light rail would have its own separate lane (because it separates from the freeway once over the river), so eliminating light rail would not create another lane for cars.
All work being done is based on the assumption that it will be light rail. If that changes then additional work would be needed. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) included light rail. Would impact the funding that is available for the bridge.
Glen – up till now we’ve been told that C-Tran would operate their express buses at their cost, and Tri-met would operate light rail at their cost. Now that is changing. Concerned if voters vote against the sales tax needed.
Michelle asks if the council can encourage C-Tran being the local preferred alternative. Yes, jurisdictions can communicate to and/or work through the C-Tran board.
Wil clarifies that express buses currently aren’t ‘express’ as they are still in the same traffic as the rest of us. With the new bridge, there would be buses on shoulder for a bit but not past new infrastructure. Why keep running the buses if we have light rail? They terminate outside the light rail, so different service. People don’t want to have to transfer. Asked about outreach. Respond with lots of meetings, and so on. 3900 submittals on the DEIS, for example. Open houses.
Decision at March meeting will be on the language re: C-Tran O&M. Sue and Michelle will be representing the county at that C-Tran board meeting. The $20 million includes maintenance and inspection of the bridges on our side of the river. If Washington/Clark County are seen as not supporting light rail, could jeopardize the entire project. Michelle counters that the original language has been there since the start. IBR guy counters that that original language has been a concern at the federal level since the beginning. Sue says there need to be specific costs that need to be understood (not happy with the loose language).
Council discussion to guide Sue and Michelle at the March meeting. Glen concerned about using half of C-Trans Sales tax increase potential for 2 stations. Michelle against the new language. Glen – keep old language, we’re still in negotiations. Sue wants to get more info from Tri-met. Matt wants more discussion within the county council. Schedule another work session before the C-Tran March meeting. Sue advocating caution, don’t want to jeopardize the IBR project. Send questions to Otto by end of this week, include Tri-met in next session.

Council Time

Public Comment Agenda items only:

Carmen, Kimberly
BJ ? tri-mountain. Can’t hear very well. Seems to be against selling it.

Old Business

Tri-mountain golf course update
Prior council put up for bid, 2 from Cowlitz tribe. One didn’t promise to keep it a golf course past 5 years, so not meeting the terms of the RFP was not considered, the other was.
Started creating contract, Cowlitz asked permission to put it into land trust in the future. That could override the covenant to keep a golf course. Would want an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to keep it a golf course. Will draw up and come back to council.
There was a lot of discussion about the feasibility of keeping it owned by the county – it is not financially viable. Discussion of the zoning. Risk if put into the Land Trust vs. relying on the covenant. K Otto notes that the relationship with the tribe and the county is good and she trusts the tribe to keep it a golf course. (which begs the question why did they offer a couple million extra it the covenant could go away in 5 years?). Some history – how did the county acquire it in the first place (Because the Port of Ridgefield couldn’t make it work either).
Kevin – current contract language says “you will never try to put this into a land trust”.
Motion to move forward with negotiations, with restriction to not move into land trust. Passed.

Councilor Reports

Councilor reports. Opioid funding looking very good. Grants will be closer to $5 million (was $900K last time).

Policy updates:

Cowlitz Tribe Support letter: Microsoft Word - Letter - TTPSF Cowlitz Tribe - Clark County Council
Approved.
Comcast BEAD support letter: Microsoft Word - Letter - Comcast BEAD Application - Clark County Council
Approved.
America250
In 2026 the USA turns 250 years old. Looking for participation. There is no funding for this. Conversations will be ongoing.
2026 – US/Mexico/Canada hosting world cup.
Sue – is there a committee, someone spearheading? Not at this time. State has a website with resources, ideas. Look to committee, partners – Fort, Tribes….
America’s Field trip. Student engagement – artwork, essays, chance to win field trip. America250.org has info about this.

Legislative updates

HB1158 – highlighted by disabiliity advisory board, they are having a special meeting on this. https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=1158&Year=2025&Initiative=fals Concerns about losing local control. Moves to the state. No hearings scheduled yet. Just FYI at this point.
Sue asked if the legislative reports for the Monday meeting could get to councilors earlier.
City of Ridgefield – support for I-5 connector project (extend 219^th to the west and connect. Got some planning $ from the state. Draft letter. This is included in the regional transportation priorities the county agreed to.Approved.
Marie G-P visiting jail next Tuesday. Sue will join them. Does another councilor want to join? Wil (spoke first).

Work Session: City of Vancouver’s Bridge shelter project.

The link to the deck was posted after, so here it is: PowerPoint Presentation

Jamie Spinelli, Kevin Kerns from city.
Stats on sheltered vs. unsheltered.
Talked about the unsheltered count. They included people in jail who would have been unsheltered if not in jail (46).
35% of homeless in the county became homeless outside of Vancouver (mostly from elsewhere in Clark County), while 78% is in Vancouver.
98% meet HUDs definition of chronically homeless – over a year or often in past year, most with some sort of disability.
Matt asked of the people who became homeless outside of Vancouver, how many were from unincorporated. She’ll get him that number.
Track fire and police events related to unsheltered homelessness. 22% of patrol time, 12% of events. EMS & rescue and Fire – 2489 calls since 2/15/24. A lot are overdoses (noted that not all overdose calls are homeless).
Track deaths between the homeless memorials. Includes sheltered as well as unsheltered. 54 in last year but not complete yet. Overdoses are about half, mostly unsheltered.
Strategies to address:
Bridge shelters. Bridge folks to permanent shelter, not just warehouse them.
The longer someone is outside the harder it is to transition to inside.
Focus on chronic homelessness, Mental health.
Seeing increase in older people – fixed incomes priced out of housing.
Transition support – hospitals, treatment, jail, community court, etc.
Coordinated entry.
Who will be served? Reviews gaps and opportunities.
Goes through bridge shelter updates – steps completed.
Reviewed services and infrastructure to be provided.
Council questions:
Wil -asked what the ‘future needs’ number (150 being current). It will be phased, probably can’t do 150 right off the bat. So don’t have a number they will start with. Goal is 150.
Matt – what are our options to support this? Mental health sales tax process is annual, comes to council via budget process. Sue – some of those funds are obligated. Otto can provide that.
Michelle – what rehab services will be offered? Medication assisted treatment (which is actually starting now). What % of people at safe stays get treatment. Not everyone in those needs it. 40% are able to exit clean and sober. There will be onsite services at the bridge shelter. What are the standards for staying at the bridge shelter? Similar to safe stay. Held to behavioral standards….
Glen – if someone leaves for treatment will their space be held for them? Yes.
Can opioid funding be used? Otto – will have to look into that? There is an RFP process. Jamie – Vancouver is using part of their opioid funding for this.
Otto – it has been stated nobody with a criminal past will be allowed? No, nobody with a sexual criminal history will be allowed. It is very common for homeless to have criminal history and jail exits obviously will.
Otto mentioned jail work center has a commercial kitchen, wouldn’t be free but might be a resource.
What do you need now outside of the annual process. Don’t need cash now but commitment (February). They need to start designing the infrastructure based on what they can afford.
Discussion of the mental health sales tax budget
Sue asked how much? He can’t answer but needs to engage their finance team. Needs an idea of what the county can offer.
Discussion of mental health sales tax being used outside of the committee’s RFP process. Michelle is definitely against doing that. It does have to comply with the legal requirements for that tax.
Sue – we are sympathetic to your needs and want to help. We have some research to do on the use of funds. Asks them to think about what level of commitment they need, county will think about what might be available. Consider opioid funds.
$2 million would be significant.
Glen – have staff look into it, including working with Vancouver staff. Recommendation would be a one time thing.
Otto – do you want to hear from others who may be asking for mental health sales taxes.
Jordan B will be point of contact between Vancouver and County.

Executive session, after action – pending lawsuit (sounded like a civil suit settlement, death).

Return to Previous Page