Clark County’s Urban County Policy Board continued a months‑long discussion Jan. 12 over the fate of a county‑owned building in downtown Battle Ground that houses WIC and related services, asking Sea Mar Community Health Centers to return with concrete plans before the board makes a formal recommendation to Clark County Council.

Staff presented three options: sell the property to Sea Mar for $1 with a five‑year restricted‑use covenant, sell at fair market value, or keep the status quo. "Option 1 is to sell the building to Sea Mar for $1 with a 5 year minimum, restricted use covenant," Rebecca Royce, program coordinator for Clark County Community Services, told the board, noting a 2019 Meng report estimated roughly $1.7 million in needed repairs and that the parcel’s assessed value is $467,000.

Board members raised three primary concerns: keeping access to services in northern Clark County, aligning outcomes with the City of Battle Ground’s downtown revitalization plans, and the county’s CDBG timeliness obligations. County staff warned that receipts of program income before HUD’s May 2, 2026 timeliness review would risk the county’s timeliness status. "We absolutely do not want any program income coming in prior to 05/02/2026," a staff advisor said during the meeting.

Sea Mar representatives described the services they provide and the organization’s options. Nick Ramirez, who identified himself as Senior Vice President at Sea Mar (transcript: SeniorMar) Community Health Centers, said the Battleground site serves about 922 WIC clients and that roughly 70% of visits there are in person. Ramirez said Sea Mar can complete renovations at lower cost because of internal construction capacity and is open to relocation options, but any move of WIC services would require DSHS approval and Sea Mar could not commit to immediate purchase financing without additional detail and analysis.

Several board members, including Mayor Matt Cole and Councilor Victoria Ferrer (Battle Ground), said they favored selling at fair market value to support the city’s long‑range plan while protecting access to services. Council members stressed that program income from a market sale would have to flow back through a public application process and could not be earmarked directly for a single nonprofit without a competitive solicitation.

The board asked Sea Mar to return to the March meeting with three deliverables: a relocation plan that uses Sea Mar’s existing facilities to maintain service levels, a renovation plan and cost estimate if Sea Mar were to acquire the building, and an assessment of whether Sea Mar could provide upfront funding to purchase a new site. Staff also noted that the previously allocated $200,000 for building rehabilitation could be rescinded and added to the 2026 application pool while discussions continue.

Because the board will only make a recommendation to the County Council — which must make any final decision — members said they wanted more market data and a high likelihood of success on any option that could affect the county’s timeliness status before supporting a final recommendation.

The board scheduled a return to the topic at its March meeting to review Sea Mar’s materials and additional staff analysis.