[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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],{"_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",6094804,"mediaKeyId","2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473","parentId",2841909,"title","Votes at a glance: Clark County Council, March 26, 2025","audioSeconds",19,"startMs",2475000,"endMs",2494000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473&start=2475&end=2494","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473/thumbnail_2475000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6094804/Clark-County/Washington/Votes-at-a-glance-Clark-County-Council-March-26-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094804-e794c7a2a8c6d44d269f5501342347dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557705&Signature=f~~rR5IZWGqcSY7VeBslxUSVcwF1JBfBFcbNVXdkSBIMSSPOphxEJ40f1tWNEHS7Puvc~VE0gmLIqGEem7QO4tP5Vqi0aLLWS4yU43sw9En6bCmDaN73rguDmVEOID34zbFc5pPPOhjhtW1-p1oKLKeKgGDI~UJOnuZKu-T6q-mo7lF5UhY-WuPguS2kToFz7Eqm54E-z6Z5~EtKNXYnOdaMN7RdZCzMA~B7oVxd09LVzd251f1ZMJCnlaGka4-pirV73WP97ihYh3vHsgihb2EKTJjDm1fYpgqpUPcUrozmFGesPi2XFj~UWOw1KBGpGC24ufQYShPcv-UbBiDJQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clark County, WA","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","At its March 26 meeting, the Clark County Council recorded the following formal action:

- The council approved the minutes of the March 19, 2025 meeting. The chair asked for a motion to approve, a councilor moved and another seconded; members present responded “Aye” and the chair announced, “Motion carries.” The meeting record shows the minutes approval passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally was included in the transcript.

Other substantive agenda items — including direction to staff to proceed with repeal of the Cholachee Bluff Surface Mining Overlay and direction to proceed with the CDBG grant process for the Sea Mar building — were handled by council consensus or by staff direction requested and granted in the meeting. Those items did not record a roll-call vote at the March 26 meeting and are documented in the minutes as staff direction or consensus decisions.

Any formal ordinance adoptions, binding appointments, or final votes on repeals or sales will be recorded in subsequent council proceedings as the matters return from Planning Commission or after required public-comment and administrative steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clark County Council Time, March 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A single formal roll-call vote was recorded at the meeting: approval of the March 19, 2025 minutes. Other items were handled by council direction or consensus rather than formal roll-call votes.","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},6094809,"Residents urge reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to C TRAN board and oppose light rail during public comment",487,134000,621000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473&start=134&end=621","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6094809/Clark-County/Washington/Residents-urge-reinstatement-of-Councilor-Michelle-Belcott-to-C-TRAN-board-and-oppose-light-rail-during-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094809-7f8bad51ca8e860391bee83c7d1ee353/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557705&Signature=K7IjLzyVcK4q~r61jPsAgmMtCMMigT6Qw2ACF~-setnPCoVrHRi6hZZZ5dRBW-W6kBsYIZDvU5yOaGDnJpaXg4RjE4rMYIce6fJH-g~v0kLji1-orXSks-c-KKmGSSyCexSTyWccaj8maMDwhf26jiKug6A5e1ZpC5xhSr647yHrzmgrum9lmtlYtkRWMNa7ew5tXHeS3E31XN3pCBMpg0wiXoF-U5VEQ3EGw24KHENuw5XGdbRIFcqToHbqPpVxeKBpfPaLhy6tlqVDqXBmuJfctwqk7pEkGUNcCN4DB3-QqHIrFsrjf2ktim~tQKmB0bHZGLZYux5F7l2faB18lA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the March 26 public-comment period, more than a dozen residents addressed the Clark County Council to urge reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to the C TRAN board, to oppose light rail on the proposed I‑5 replacement bridge, and to raise procedural and legal complaints about the council’s recent actions.

Several callers said they were speaking for constituents who oppose bringing light rail to a new bridge across the Columbia River and argued Belcott’s vote reflected that public sentiment. Gerald Zenyuk said he polled constituents and found them “without exception” in favor of Belcott’s stance opposing light rail and tolling on a proposed third bridge. Melissa Parmeter told the council, “Michelle's position on TriMet operations and maintenance represents the majority of cities in Clark County,” and urged the council to reinstate her.

Other commenters raised legal and procedural objections. Rob Anderson said he filed a civil complaint in Skamania County alleging Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations by the council related to March decisions and said he also filed an ethics complaint and sent a letter to the sheriff’s office and prosecuting attorney asking for a criminal investigation. Anderson said the council “took final actions on March 12 without legal authority” and called for accountability.

Public commenters also criticized council procedures and attendance records. Teresa Hardy presented counts she said showed low attendance by the District 2 councilor at C TRAN and regional transportation meetings and asked staff to “fact check this count” and consider action or rule changes about attendance. Other speakers questioned ridership and cost estimates from transit planning documents and urged the council to demand updated data before supporting light rail.

Council staff and the chair noted that although agenda item 4.2 (boards and commissions) had been removed from the printed packet, the council allowed public comment on that item because it had been posted online; the chair said, “They showed up,” and allowed comments.

What this means: The public-comment period produced a concentrated expression of opposition to light rail and to recent council actions related to C TRAN representation. Commenters announced legal filings and ethics complaints; those filings are matters outside council deliberations and will follow their own procedural paths.

Ending: The public-comment record will be part of the administrative record for any board/commission actions and for future council consideration of related agenda items.","Dozens of residents used the public-comment period to demand reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to the C TRAN board, to oppose light rail on the I‑5 replacement bridge, and to allege Open Public Meetings Act and ethics concerns about council actions.",{"_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},6094813,"Clark County seeks council direction to pursue $200,000 CDBG grant and federal earmark requests for 701 E. Main (Sea Mar) building",2370,3032000,5402000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473&start=3032&end=5402","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473/thumbnail_3032000.jpg","/articles/6094813/Clark-County/Washington/Clark-County-seeks-council-direction-to-pursue-200000-CDBG-grant-and-federal-earmark-requests-for-701-E-Main-Sea-Mar-building","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094813-7c00508ac6067dad9291556b8a9cae80/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557705&Signature=RNV4DBnqD01GGUQQe8xLuawIRIExDobbwl9LxZVUCAz16RwSlkBK7VyjkwSIQyDP2CFzpBd6Zuh9YfjgVuSh1atQm7StsPBp3BuTqX2SUASoFkLgujka6AQeLY9b4o8EXztJm1OAkS~P9FQnbGEo83z1bkqvLk4xH47SBjbJ~cFs4Rdc48nv685a-1ODaMia18VL7Hq66ydTgF1XIECs1KA4oQvHrjEe2L8I9SR6x3EjRTcPuLAbBU4OYv5lMBKgH44Uu086PojKNzP~1zLWaapq85JkhIlXSLWrgGRSFBMXIYnaHTYpWcZQCY1LUmIDtRMdEF-3ox6TpbUv6Ai6cw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clark County staff on March 26 asked the county council for direction on a county-owned building at 701 East Main Street in Battle Ground that houses programs operated by Sea Mar Community Health Centers, and received council direction to move ahead with a short-term Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application and to pursue congressional directed spending for larger repairs.

Michelle Shister, director of Internal Services, told the council the county purchased the property in 1993 with CDBG funds and currently leases it to Sea Mar on a month-to-month basis. She said the county’s 2019 MENG facilities analysis estimated about $1,700,000 in repairs and maintenance would be needed between 2019 and 2029. Shister said the building serves 1,200 to 1,300 clients per month through WIC and maternity-support services.

On the grant question, Rebecca Royce, program coordinator in community services, explained HUD guidance: the county may, in limited circumstances, execute a special sale and transfer a CDBG-funded property to a nonprofit for $1, provided the buyer agrees to a covenant that the facility will serve low-income residents for a specified period. Royce said HUD indicated a five-year covenant is required as a minimum; money from any sale would return to the CDBG program and could not be retained by the county.

Shister described a separate, short-term funding prospect: county staff applied for up to $400,000 in CDBG funding and were told the project could be recommended for up to $200,000; that award is not final and would be subject to a 30-day public-comment period. Councilors asked whether $200,000 could address immediate priority repairs; staff said the roof would be the priority and estimated the roof at about $200,000.

Jordan Bogie, senior policy analyst, reported that staff had also discussed the building with congressional staff about pursuing congressionally directed spending (earmark) for a larger package of work. Bogie said Senator Patty Murray’s staff indicated the Sea Mar building would be a competitive candidate and that congressional directed spending requests typically fund projects in the $1 million to $2 million range — compatible with the $1.7 million estimate for the building. He cautioned that the federal budget process is uncertain and any earmark could be a year or longer away.

Council discussion and staff direction: Several councilors said they want to preserve the service in downtown Battle Ground and avoid disrupting Sea Mar’s operations. After discussion of the grant timeline, HUD restrictions and the potential for earmarks, the council gave staff direction to proceed with the CDBG application process (the recommended $200,000), to continue pursuing congressional directed spending requests with federal offices, and to keep exploring sale or transfer options — including the $1 special-sale option — while protecting continuity of service.

Staff cautioned about program timeliness and administrative impacts. Rebecca Royce told the council that if the county accepts CDBG funds and later changes course (for example, by selling the property rather than completing the improvements), the county would need to process a substantial amendment to its CDBG annual action plan and restart public comment procedures; that could lengthen timelines and affect the county’s CDBG timeliness metrics. Royce said program income from a fair-market sale would return to the CDBG program and could affect the county’s timeliness and cash-on-hand calculations used by HUD.

Other details in the record: the building has required maintenance tasks — roof, parking lot repairs, flooring, windows and doors, siding, gutters, lighting, bathroom repairs and future HVAC replacement. Current utilities collected from Sea Mar are nominal ($850–$900 per month), and the county spends approximately $5,000 per year on mandated maintenance items. Sea Mar has another location in Battle Ground but the downtown site is heavily used. Staff said Sea Mar is still considering whether it would accept a special $1 sale if offered.

Outcome and next steps: Councilors signaled majority support for pursuing the $200,000 CDBG recommendation and for moving ahead with congressional directed spending requests; staff will proceed with the CDBG public-comment timeline and keep the council informed. Staff will also follow up with Sea Mar and the City of Battle Ground about possible redevelopment interests and whether a longer covenant than five years could be negotiated.

Ending note: Councilors emphasized minimizing service disruption for Sea Mar clients while exploring funding and disposition options; staff will return to council as options and deadlines unfold.","Council authorized staff to pursue a $200,000 Community Development Block Grant application and to pursue congressional directed spending for larger repairs at the county-owned building used by Sea Mar in downtown Battle Ground; staff outlined sale rules under HUD and estimated $1.7 million in needed repairs over 20 years.",{"_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},6094818,"Clark County Council directs staff to pursue repeal of Cholachee Bluff surface-mining overlay after Court of Appeals ruling",1765,1235000,3000000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473&start=1235&end=3000","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2841909-b6558c8ae11bff13cd801bd38bdee473/thumbnail_1235000.jpg","/articles/6094818/Clark-County/Washington/Clark-County-Council-directs-staff-to-pursue-repeal-of-Cholachee-Bluff-surface-mining-overlay-after-Court-of-Appeals-ruling","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094818-9ab6d156d3c73453ea87cedf643fd577/orig.mp4?Expires=1770557705&Signature=G7SPFfuX1JhVmnSBUF6XsNxd9Afh9AWjkif8P0ZdRqS0dDjZsKPwd3wfFHaFL0KK96GsGUgyS-ihi-MxY02Q4AlPEdyGBYWZrgStC9Gx39D~hHJZuRO6DUSq8MeYG96JrLvca3ZgisetjvRZxyooY5a0uR4PIKnxmcmbkzu5qifi3YTZdLJ0MpukKqST4OL-ecAkJzIXRYxF8kUQEmVMClmikF8s4g61N-KxKDLGxMwbNRqW2ND1i1q~lEv1yKwASiH2Wz12JtafkkDJt8tEW0rmXPuSAQl6z7Z5q0STJfvKno7FmRH8BjJeJn6NYIDXecfoybtl8MRWvdsfJmfw2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clark County Council on March 26 directed staff to move forward with repealing the county's Cholachee Bluff Surface Mining Overlay after a Court of Appeals ruling that found the county out of compliance with the Growth Management Act.

The council’s action followed testimony from David McDonald, attorney for Friends of Clark County, who summarized the multi-year procedural history and appeals tied to Granite Construction’s 2021 application and subsequent SMO proceedings. McDonald told the council, “The SMO still has a valid order of invalidity,” and recapped earlier votes, Planning Commission actions and appeals dating to 2021 and 2022.

Why this matters: The Court of Appeals decision, issued March 10, 2025, affirmed a Growth Board finding that Clark County was not compliant; the county now faces limits on when and how it can accept new loan or grant applications until it achieves compliance. Legal counsel told the council there is an April 9 deadline if the county intends to seek further appellate review rather than repeal.

Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chris Cook summarized the immediate legal timeline, saying, “On April 9, if the county is to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling, that's the deadline.” That timeline helped shape councilors’ decision to pursue repeal rather than another appeal.

Council discussion and direction were brief but unanimous in tone. Councilor Little said he was “in my interest to try to get in compliance as soon as possible and not challenge it any further,” citing the risk to future funding opportunities. Councilor Young expressed concern that repealing the SMO could lead future applicants to submit less information for surface-mining requests, but said the time for further delay had passed. Councilor Balcott also said she supported moving to repeal and “come into compliance.”

Staff outlined next steps: planning staff will bring the repeal to the Planning Commission for a work session on April 3, 2025, followed by a Planning Commission hearing and a county-council hearing scheduled for April 17, 2025, with an accompanying staff report returned to the council after the Planning Commission step.

Details from the record: David McDonald reviewed the file dates the council heard: Granite Construction’s comprehensive plan and zoning map change application submitted in January 2021; a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued December 1, 2021; Planning Commission activity through late 2021 and early 2022; council hearings on March 15, 2022 (with votes reported as 2–1 but no action because three votes were required); and later council action on July 22, 2022. The Growth Management Hearing Board found the county noncompliant on March 23, 2023; the Court of Appeals affirmed on March 10, 2025.

Councilors asked staff whether the county already had lost funding because of the noncompliance; staff said the county had not yet lost loans or grants but that some loan applications are not eligible to be submitted while the county remains out of compliance. Staff reported the Clean Water Division indicated some deadlines extend to 2028, giving the county time to return to compliance for those particular funding streams.

What the council actually decided: The council gave direction to staff to proceed with the repeal process, move the matter to the Planning Commission work session on April 3, then the hearing on April 17, and to return a staff report following that work session. The council did not record a formal roll-call vote on repeal at the March 26 meeting; members signaled their support and indicated staff should proceed.

Next steps and potential consequences: Staff will prepare materials for the Planning Commission and the council; the county has until April 9 if it wants to file an appeal instead of repealing. If the county delays or materially changes course after accepting certain grants or selling property related to compliance, staff warned that program timeliness and eligibility for some federal programs could be affected.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who addressed the council on this agenda item during the March 26 meeting; the Planning Commission will hold additional public-record proceedings ahead of any final council decision.

Ending note: The Planning Commission work session on April 3 and the subsequent April 17 hearing will be the next formal public steps. Council staff said they will return a staff report to the council after Planning Commission deliberations.","Council members instructed staff to move forward with repealing the Cholachee Bluff Surface Mining Overlay (SMO) after a Court of Appeals decision found the county out of compliance; staff and legal counsel outlined timelines and planning-commission steps, including work session and hearing dates in April.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Clark County Council, March 26, 2025

Residents urge reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to C TRAN board and oppose light rail during public comment

Clark County seeks council direction to pursue $200,000 CDBG grant and federal earmark requests for 701 E. Main (Sea Mar) building

Clark County Council directs staff to pursue repeal of Cholachee Bluff surface-mining overlay after Court of Appeals ruling