Clark County board weighs sale, donation or retention of downtown Battle Ground WIC building
November 10, 2025 | Clark County, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Clark County’s Urban County Policy Board on Nov. 10 debated whether to sell a county-owned building used by Sea Mar’s WIC program in downtown Battle Ground, convey it to Sea Mar for $1 with a restricted-use covenant, or retain county ownership and pursue renovations.
The building at 701 East Main Street was purchased with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1993 and has been leased to the CMAR/Sea Mar WIC program since 2009. A county-commissioned 2019 MENG assessment estimated roughly $1,700,000 would be needed to bring the property up to current standards; Sea Mar’s senior vice president, Nick Ramirez, told the board his architect’s more recent review produces a similar $1,700,000 renovation estimate and that Sea Mar’s internal construction crew could perform phased work.
Why it matters: staff warned that options carry different programmatic consequences for the county’s CDBG timeliness (HUD’s required pace of spending). Michael Torres, the county’s program manager for community services, told the board HUD reviews the grantee’s account balance on May 2 each year; proceeds received after that date would not change a timeliness determination made on May 2. Selling the property at market value and receiving proceeds before May 2 could improve timeliness, while selling after that date would not. Using CDBG sale proceeds to purchase another building also carries the same program restrictions as the current property unless the county runs a public RFA that awards funds to a nonprofit purchaser.
What Sea Mar said: Nick Ramirez said Sea Mar could renovate the existing building and that its model now mixes in-person and virtual services. Ramirez told the board Sea Mar staff typically provide about 1,000 visits per month at the site (he later described roughly 60% of client contacts occurring by phone or telehealth), that roof repairs are an immediate priority, and that Sea Mar could seek state approval to move a WIC location but must follow distance/proximity restrictions for WIC offices.
What commenters and local leaders said: Several public commenters from Maddox and local residents described the building as dilapidated and argued downtown Main Street would benefit from redevelopment and more foot traffic. Councilor Victoria Ferrer (Battle Ground) said the city has an Old Town revitalization plan and noted local small-business owners support a market sale. Ferrer also said she will raise the matter at a City Council meeting on Nov. 17.
Staff options and constraints: Rebecca Royce (program coordinator, staff to the board) summarized three staff options presented in October: (1) sell the building to Sea Mar for $1 with a minimum five-year restricted-use covenant (no county investment required and limited immediate IOB effects on timeliness), (2) sell at fair market value through a county procurement process (would generate proceeds but likely affect the county’s CDBG timeliness), or (3) keep status quo (county retains ownership and funds the renovation, which staff said would trigger prevailing-wage costs and capital planning tradeoffs). Staff also confirmed that the county has $200,000 of PY2025 CDBG funds currently allocated to renovations at the site; those funds would be reallocated through the next RFA round if not used for the building.
Board direction: After extended discussion about funding, continuity of services, and potential buyers (Maddox expressed interest and indicated willingness to work with Sea Mar), the board asked staff and Sea Mar to explore whether Sea Mar could identify an alternative property or use sale proceeds and Sea Mar’s projected investment to secure an alternate site that meets WIC program requirements. Sea Mar said it would explore options but made no firm commitment to relocate. The board will revisit refined feasibility information at its next meeting in January.
Clarifying details: the county’s current assessed value for the property is roughly $467,000 (staff noted the land is assessed at about $98,000 and the building component at roughly $369,000) and an appraisal to set a market listing price would typically cost about $3,000. A $1.7 million congressionally directed spending recommendation from Sen. Murray was mentioned, but staff reminded the board those funds are contingent on Congressional appropriations and not guaranteed.
Next steps: staff will follow up with a market appraisal if requested, work with Sea Mar to assess relocation feasibility including required state approvals for WIC sites, and return with updated options for the board’s January meeting. The board approved only the October 13 minutes at this session; no final action was taken on the property during the Nov. 10 meeting.
The building at 701 East Main Street was purchased with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1993 and has been leased to the CMAR/Sea Mar WIC program since 2009. A county-commissioned 2019 MENG assessment estimated roughly $1,700,000 would be needed to bring the property up to current standards; Sea Mar’s senior vice president, Nick Ramirez, told the board his architect’s more recent review produces a similar $1,700,000 renovation estimate and that Sea Mar’s internal construction crew could perform phased work.
Why it matters: staff warned that options carry different programmatic consequences for the county’s CDBG timeliness (HUD’s required pace of spending). Michael Torres, the county’s program manager for community services, told the board HUD reviews the grantee’s account balance on May 2 each year; proceeds received after that date would not change a timeliness determination made on May 2. Selling the property at market value and receiving proceeds before May 2 could improve timeliness, while selling after that date would not. Using CDBG sale proceeds to purchase another building also carries the same program restrictions as the current property unless the county runs a public RFA that awards funds to a nonprofit purchaser.
What Sea Mar said: Nick Ramirez said Sea Mar could renovate the existing building and that its model now mixes in-person and virtual services. Ramirez told the board Sea Mar staff typically provide about 1,000 visits per month at the site (he later described roughly 60% of client contacts occurring by phone or telehealth), that roof repairs are an immediate priority, and that Sea Mar could seek state approval to move a WIC location but must follow distance/proximity restrictions for WIC offices.
What commenters and local leaders said: Several public commenters from Maddox and local residents described the building as dilapidated and argued downtown Main Street would benefit from redevelopment and more foot traffic. Councilor Victoria Ferrer (Battle Ground) said the city has an Old Town revitalization plan and noted local small-business owners support a market sale. Ferrer also said she will raise the matter at a City Council meeting on Nov. 17.
Staff options and constraints: Rebecca Royce (program coordinator, staff to the board) summarized three staff options presented in October: (1) sell the building to Sea Mar for $1 with a minimum five-year restricted-use covenant (no county investment required and limited immediate IOB effects on timeliness), (2) sell at fair market value through a county procurement process (would generate proceeds but likely affect the county’s CDBG timeliness), or (3) keep status quo (county retains ownership and funds the renovation, which staff said would trigger prevailing-wage costs and capital planning tradeoffs). Staff also confirmed that the county has $200,000 of PY2025 CDBG funds currently allocated to renovations at the site; those funds would be reallocated through the next RFA round if not used for the building.
Board direction: After extended discussion about funding, continuity of services, and potential buyers (Maddox expressed interest and indicated willingness to work with Sea Mar), the board asked staff and Sea Mar to explore whether Sea Mar could identify an alternative property or use sale proceeds and Sea Mar’s projected investment to secure an alternate site that meets WIC program requirements. Sea Mar said it would explore options but made no firm commitment to relocate. The board will revisit refined feasibility information at its next meeting in January.
Clarifying details: the county’s current assessed value for the property is roughly $467,000 (staff noted the land is assessed at about $98,000 and the building component at roughly $369,000) and an appraisal to set a market listing price would typically cost about $3,000. A $1.7 million congressionally directed spending recommendation from Sen. Murray was mentioned, but staff reminded the board those funds are contingent on Congressional appropriations and not guaranteed.
Next steps: staff will follow up with a market appraisal if requested, work with Sea Mar to assess relocation feasibility including required state approvals for WIC sites, and return with updated options for the board’s January meeting. The board approved only the October 13 minutes at this session; no final action was taken on the property during the Nov. 10 meeting.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Washington articles free in 2025
