Building_development + Cross_cutting

50:23 Wendy Cleveland, we've sent you a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so and go ahead with your comment. >> Hi, it's Wendy Cleveland. I'm calling in tonight to ask members of the council to pull separate business item two from the agenda for further consideration. It feels like this is a very important decision that has been tucked away into an exceedingly long list of items scheduled for approval in mass. The decision as to whether the current county manager stays in her role for another term seems to be something that should have been discussed even voted on by the council. If that discussion has indeed taken place, I would ask if that violates the Open Public Meetings Act. Shouldn't the public be aware of such decisions and possibly be given the opportunity for input? Was anyone in the room there tonight even aware of this item listed for approval in mass? I for one have questions. What was the process? Were there other applicants? Was the job listed publicly for the general public to be aware of the salary for the county manager is currently $238,880, but

51:22 will be increasing to 250,000 next year. Additionally, I'm asking for members of the council to pull consent agenda item number 24. Why is the council considering allocation of additional funds to the cleanup of Camp Bonneville when we still don't have a progress report from the last two years? The company doing the cleanup consulting work has already been given 100,000 a year ago and approval for an additional year for another one to 200,000 with nothing more to show for it than a feasibility study according to county staff last time I asked the same question. The BRAC agreement clearly states that no recreational use may take place on that property until which time that that cleanup is complete. Both the sheriff department and the FBI weren't using it under that header. The council voted to end the FBI contract, which they should, but left the sheriff department to continue its use while breaking the same part of the BRAC agreement that the FBI was. Now we hear there's even more money being allocated to the same property.

52:19 Finally, we will be talking more about the comp plan in the hearing next Monday at 4 PM, but before then, I just want to remind you that the property that you're considering expanding the UGA for in battleground bears further consideration. BG had around 100 acres left of Light Industrial within their city limits. They sold 60 of these acres to the same company as Maddox Industrial. That company has publicly stated that they plan to use those last precious 60 acres of Light Industrial zone land to build a church, a convention center, and a hotel. That is non-designated use of Light Industrial land that can only be allowed for the GMA in Washington state law if the city can show a surplus of industrial zone land. I don't think the BG has a surplus of industrial land because if they did, then why did they give the argument to the planning commission that they must be allocated 450 acres of what is wetlands and land with ag capability for Light Industrial?

53:13 BG said they needed it to meet the comp plan goal by 2045 of 7,500 new jobs. But I ask you, how many factories employing 500 workers a piece could they have fit on the same 60 acres within their already existing Light Industrial area? Thanks for your consideration. Thank you. And just to clarify, the employee agreement between Clark County and the county manager is on the, what is that called, separate business item number two, not the consent agenda. Is anyone else? Yeah, we have two. Okay. Julie Kep, we've sent you a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so and go ahead with your comment.

54:08 Julie, if you could unmute yourself. Okay, just mute her. Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so and state your name for the record.

54:35 Caller. Hi, good evening. Hopefully you can hear me. Yes, thank you. Yeah, it's Rob Anderson here, ringers of my demise. We're greatly exaggerated. And I'm speaking tonight to oppose the proposed employment agreement for county manager Otto that would raise her pay to $250,000 in 2027. Last fall, manager Otto stood before you and the public recommending a 1% property tax increase bank capacity telling us the county faced a structural deficit. And we needed to contribute more of our hard earned money to keep services running. Now, just a few months later, she's back asking you to shift some of that money into her own pocket with double digit raise on top of the 20% she already received a few years back.

55:33 So over $300,000 a year, that's with salary and benefits estimated. This isn't public service as we once understood it. Public servants used to accept lower pay than the private sector because they received outstanding retirement benefits and the rest of us mostly don't get. Now, some public servants want both while the public is stuck paying the bill. In 2022, the county manager made $180,000 and now it'll be 250,000 in 2027, a huge increase while Clark County residents have seen only 3%, 4% wage growth overall. Approve this and you send the message that the rules are different for the people at the top. Some of you say you're for affordability in the working class or underprivileged groups.

56:27 While you vote for this and raising taxes, vote after vote really shows your true values. I urge you to reject this agreement or at least just have an increase of 3% only, similar to most Clark County. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there anyone else? That concludes public comment. Thank you. Okay, let's move on then to the consent agenda. Are there any items? We have a long consent agenda. Are there any items anyone would like to pull? Councillor Young? Yes, Chair. I'd like to pull items 15, 21 and 24. Okay, 15, 24 and 25? Oh, 21 and 24.

57:20 Okay, anyone else? I would like to pull 5. Okay, any other pulls from the consent agenda? So I would entertain a motion then for consent agenda items 1 through 29 with the exception of 5, 15, 21 and 24. So moved. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Item 5. So this, I let folks know that I had some questions.

58:09 I just wanted to have a little more explanation of this item related to the amount that's to be used for the fund balance, from the fund balance to the 2026 operating budget. Maybe I've got that wrong, but if you could, I don't think the Council has heard about this. So, and the other two items that we have talked about, so if you could just brief us a bit. >> Thank you, Council. Mark Gasway, Clark County Finance Director with me is Mitchell Kelly. He is our reporting and analysis manager. Each year we come to the council to request the amount to assign. It's a designation within our financial statements that indicate that there is a specific amount that we are setting aside of our fund balance for a specific purpose.

59:04 And I'll turn the time over to Mitchell and he's going to explain the components that we are requesting to have assigned this year. >> Yes, Mitchell Kelly, reporting and analysis manager. So as discussed, we have identified budgeted capital projects that will continue on and that's the first item. The second item is for continuation of projects that were already approved by Council for the remaining ARPA funding. The final one is to be used to balance the fund balance for the 2026 budget. So we're designating or assigning that so we don't overspend our available cash or available fund balance and we're assigning it to cover what has been budgeted. >> And that fund comes, those funds come from? >> Our fund balance that's remaining. >> That's remaining, okay. >> That has been remaining over time.

1:00:04 So we have a fund balance that's a certain amount and we're just assigning this to cover what has been approved by council for 26. >> Okay, was this anticipated when we went through our budgeting? >> Yes. >> It was, okay, great, thanks. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from anyone? Okay, well I'll entertain a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> It's been moved, is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you very much. Okay, moving on then to 15, jail services. Yep, go ahead. >> Yes, Chair, thank you. And I see Director Shook online there.

1:00:58 What I would like to understand is just a little bit more background behind this.