Clark County Council

0:00 [ Music ] >> This webinar is being recorded and summarized. [ Music ] >> Today, June 16th, 2026, and we're going to start this evening with a couple of proclamations. The first one is Pollinator Week, read by Councillor Little, and accepted by Kyle Roslin from the Vancouver Bee Project. So, Kyle, yeah, you can come up. You'll have a chance to say a few words. >> Okay, yeah, I'm going to say something that you can add. I actually got to speak about pollinators

0:59 on the same day I was sworn in, so I feel very connected to this issue, love the bees. Whereas pollinator species such as birds, bees, butterflies, and other insects are vital partners of Clark County's farmers, gardeners, and naturalists in producing much of our food supply. And whereas pollination plays an essential role in the health of Clark County's forests, parks, and green spaces, which provide habitat for wildlife, maintain biodiversity, support recreational opportunities, and contribute to the ecological and economic vitality of our community. And whereas pollinator species contributes significantly to the environmental sustainability of Clark County by supporting healthy ecosystems that clean the air, stabilize soils, and protect water quality. And whereas Clark County is committed to promoting environmental stewardship and actively supports conservation efforts to enhance and protect pollinator habitats throughout our public lands,

1:59 urban gardens, and natural areas. And whereas Clark County has partnered with local organizations and community members to foster education, awareness, and action in support of pollinators and their critical role in our ecosystem. And whereas recognizing and supporting pollinators aligns with Clark County's vision of a sustainable and thriving community for all residents, now therefore we, the Clark County Council, do hereby proclaim the week of June 22nd through the 28th of '26 as Pollinator Week. Throughout Clark County, Washington, and urge all residents to acknowledge the indispensable contribution of pollinators and to participate in activities and initiatives that protect and sustain these essential species. Sign the 16th day of June, 2026, by the entire council. [ Applause ]

2:59 >> Thank you, Councilman Little and all council members. My name is Kyle Rosland, and I am the founder of the Vancouver Bee Project. And on behalf of our volunteers, partners, and community members, I would like to thank you for recognizing pollinators in Clark County through this proclamation. Pollinators are essential to healthy ecosystems, local agriculture, forests, parks, and the health of our community. And they support biodiversity and play a critical role in producing much of our food. Washington is home to more than 600 species of native bees. And thanks to the work of the Washington Bee Atlas, we now know there are at least 110 native bee species documented right here in Clark County. Clark County has incredible opportunities to lead on pollinator conservation. We've appreciated the conversations already happening with the county staff about creating and improving pollinator habitat in parks and public spaces. And we're excited to continue and build on those partnerships. Small actions can make a big difference.

3:57 And planting native flowers, reducing pesticide use, leaving native habitat, and protecting open spaces all help support pollinators in the ecosystems we depend on. While Clark County is not currently a Bee City USA community, we think it would be wonderful to see that happen. And in the future, and we would be excited to continue to have those conversations with you whenever we can. And I'd also like to invite the council, county staff, and the entire community to join us for the 2026 Vancouver Pollinator Festival this Saturday, June 20th from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Marshall Park. The festival is a free, family-friendly event taking place at multiple locations, including Marshall Park, Vida Elementary, Clark Public Utilities, and the Arts Hub. This year's festival features educational speakers, vendors, art, food, kids' activities, pollinator garden tours, a bee walk, and a keynote speaker from Doug Tallamy. So check out pollinatorfestival.org and plan your day.

4:55 The festival is a celebration of pollinators and community partnerships across the county, and we'd love to have you there. So thank you again for your support for pollinators and for this proclamation. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Thank you very much for your work, Kyle. Next up, it's Ride Transit Month, and Councillor Fuentes will be reading a proclamation, and accepting will be Leanne Carver, the CEO of C-TRAN. >> Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Leanne, for being here. As the Vice Chair of the C-TRAN Board of Directors, it's an honor to be able to read this proclamation for you. Whereas transit provides essential trips and valuable jobs across our communities, including for vulnerable populations, low-income residents, and people of color, and whereas C-TRAN has provided public

5:53 transportation in Clark County since 1981, today operating local, regional, and express fixed routes of bus services, CVAN, paratransit service, and the current on-demand service, and whereas on average, public transit provides more than 100 million passenger trips in Washington each year, including the nearly 25% of Washingtonians who cannot or do not drive and may rely on public transit. Locally, C-TRAN provides almost 5.3 million transit rides in 2025, which is a 6.3 increase over 2024. Whereas the Vine on Fourth Plain is the busiest C-TRAN route operating in the most diverse part of Clark County, in 2025, the Vine on Fourth Plain Boulevard carried 1.1 million passengers to work, school, and more to meet their daily needs. And whereas the Vine on Highway 99 construction is a $42 million investment with much of it paid for by state and federal grants,

6:50 a transit investment can yield almost 50,000 jobs for $1 billion invested and offers a 5 to 1 economic return. And whereas the Clark County Council appreciates and supports efforts to bolster the recruitment and retention of transit employees in Clark County, now, therefore, we the Clark County Council hereby proclaim the month of June 2026 as Ride Transit Month, signed the 16th day of June 2026 by the entire Clark County Council.

7:28 >> Thank you, Councilor Fuentes and Councilor Chair and the rest of the councilors for acknowledging Ride Transit Month as Council Member Fuentes has stated that it is-- transit makes an impact in the community and it is whether you're dependent or a choice rider, it does make services and accessibility for everyone to be able to live a life and a quality life. So, as we move forward with this month, if you have not rode transit or been on C-TRAN, I encourage you to get out and try it and not just for this month even this summer. We have-- there's plenty of events going on and that you can see how the C-TRAN bus system works and how easy it is to navigate. So, thank you again. [ Applause ] >> Thank you, Leanne. OK. Next, if people will join me in standing

8:26 for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for the invocation. Is Charles Harvey here by the way? OK. In lieu of the invocation, we'll have a moment of silence for the victims of the industrial accident at Longview for their families and their community who are still recovering. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

9:25 >> Thank you. OK. Let's move on with the roll call. Michelle? >> Councilor Young? >> Here. >> Councilor Belmont? >> Present. >> Councilor Fuentes? >> Here. >> Councilor Little? >> Present. >> And Chair Marshall? >> Here. >> We're all here. >> Thank you. Are there any amendments to the agenda? >> None today. >> No amendments. Then we'll move on to our public hearing amendments to pro bono meeting. >> Thank you. Move on to our public hearing amendments to portions of Clark County Stormwater Code and Stormwater Manual. And I think Devon and others will come forward. Thank you.

10:22 >> All right. Good evening, counselors. For the record, my name is Devon Rostfer and I'm the Clean Water Division Manager in Public Works. And for tonight's public hearing, we are requesting Clark County Council to consider adoption of the final proposed revisions to the 2026 Clark County Stormwater Code and Manual, which was first presented to council at a work session in January to introduce the project, followed by our most recent work session with council that we had on May 20th where we provided our final overview in preparation for this hearing tonight. On the next slide, just to go over our goals for our presentation today, we'll provide a high-level overview of our stormwater code and manual and its nexus with the county stormwater permit. We will also recap the public involvement process that was implemented to receive community input on the revisions and will conclude with a requested action for council

11:22 to adopt the revised 2026 Stormwater Code and Manual via ordinance, making the manual effective by the regulatory deadline of July 1st, 2026. And with that introduction, I will now hand it over to Trista Kobleski, who is a Senior Stormwater Planner with OTEC and our lead technical consultant on this project. >> Good afternoon, counselors. For the record, my name is Trista Kobleski, spelled K-O-B-L-U-S-K-I-E. As Devon mentioned, I'm a Senior Stormwater Planner with OTEC and the project manager for the Stormwater Code and Manual update. The update we're discussing today is pertinent to your phase one municipal stormwater permit, which gives conditions under which the county can discharge stormwater to waters of the United States and waters of the state. And one of those conditions is to have a stormwater program

12:18 such as this that regulates development and redevelopment and the stormwater actions that occur at that time. And your municipal stormwater system, called an MS4, which you see on the slide there, is the thing that is regulated by the permit. Next slide, please. So in Washington State, the Department of Ecology is the entity that issues these permits under the Clean Water Act, and it has these following requirements. You need to update your stormwater regulatory program every five to six years. The last major updates were in 2015 when you first adopted a standalone stormwater manual, and then in 2021. We would expect you to need to update it again in 2029 or 2030 at the next permit.

13:17 For this permit, the new standards need to be adopted by July 1, 2026 in order to remain compliant with your permit. So that date is approaching. And the main theme is that the stormwater standards you adopt need to be equivalent to the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, the 2024 edition. Next slide, please. So just to recap what the Clark County Stormwater Manual is, it consists of four books, plus an introduction. The first book is really about when stormwater requirements apply on development and redevelopment sites. So it has the applicability, the thresholds, and the submittal requirements. The second book is "Engineering in Nature." So it describes the design requirements and criteria

14:15 for the stormwater facilities that you select. The third book is about source control. So we want to prevent rainwater from coming in contact with pollutants in the first place. And that might be on existing sites throughout the county as well as on development sites. So this gives the county authority to look for source control measures in commercial, industrial, and multifamily sites. And then the fourth book is about operating and maintaining these systems. So what we are developing is a set of pipes, a set of facilities that will remain in the ground and in service for 50 to 70 years. We'll want to make sure that they are maintained and that the folks who are responsible for maintaining them have the resources or the knowledge to do that. And although it's not on the slide, I just want to mention some things that we have said in some of our past presentations, which

15:11 is beyond permit compliance, the stormwater manual is important. It protects water quality in streams. It limits damage to streams from additional impervious surfaces when development and redevelopment occurs. It reduces flooding and erosion. It reduces inconvenience of the citizens by having flooding. And it results in safer and more resilient infrastructure. So this is a protective measure. Next slide, please. The manual is adopted in county code. It's not completely standalone. It does contain a great deal of technical content. But because it's adopted into code via provisions in Title 40 and Title 13, it does get adopted by the county council. That's why this action requires a public hearing. So the sections that we propose to update

16:08 are Chapter 40.386, Stormwater and Erosion Control. This requires the stormwater and erosion control measures and to repeat some of the thresholds. And it talks about construction, development, and redevelopment. And then Chapter 1326A, Water Quality, is an environmental regulation that limits the discharge of pollutants. It will also be amended by the ordinance we are presenting today. And then Chapter 4100, General Provisions. And Chapter 4500, Overview of Procedures, have some small elements of the stormwater code in them as well, including some of the vesting language. Next slide, please. So what you'll see in your hearing packet tonight are all four of those code sections that I just listed off, both a strikeout and a clean version of the 2026 Clark County Stormwater

17:03 Manual for your review. I believe most of those are online, because it's 1,000 pages. So you will have had the chance. They've been published online for several weeks now. And I will now walk through how we engage staff. If we go to the next slide, please. Both staff and the community and the public during this update process. Next slide, please. Our process, including our public involvement schedule, was driven really by two key dates in your Phase 1 permit. The first date was in June of 2025, when the county was required to submit the first and most significant set of updates to the Washington Department of Ecology for their review. So Ecology has a set of mandated updates

18:01 and then requested to be able to review anything else that might be considered a significant update. So that really drove our early public involvement process, in which we engaged staff from numerous departments and DEIB quite extensively to look at the proposed changes and the mandated changes. And then the other key deadline is the one we are approaching now, which is the adoption date. So after Ecology reviewed the original submittal, we had some other changes to make. And we had a general public outreach, as well as additional contact with DEIB and the Clean Water Commission during that phase. And we have also talked to counsel a couple of times, as Devon mentioned, and had a hearing with the Commission. Next slide, please. I'd like to just review the public comment opportunities

19:01 that have been available during this process. Clean Water Commission and DEIB were consulted extensively. And I apologize for using DEIB without defining that-- Development Engineering and Advisory Board for the audience. Again, we consulted with DEIB extensively. We've had a general public comment this spring through the SEPA process. Determination of non-significance was issued by the county as part of the SEPA process-- State Environmental Policy Act. We had planning commission work session and a planning commission hearing, in which the planning commission did recommend to counsel that the proposed Clark County Storm Water Manual 2026 be adopted. Next slide, please. I wanted to really go over in detail how much we engaged DEIB.

19:58 We consistently spoke with them, mostly at their meetings. They have a monthly meeting. So that was another element in driving our schedule. But we began engaging DEIB in October of 2024. And this group is pretty immediately affected by any changes to the Clark County Storm Water Manual. So they are definitely invested in what we would be proposing. We met seven times with DEIB. And we also reached out directly to their members when we had public comment. We released an early draft of the entire manual in December of 2025. And we gave Clean Water Commission and DEIB an opportunity to comment then. And then we reached out to the DEIB members this spring when we had a general public review period of the full manual. Pardon me. Next slide, please.

20:55 So over the 18 months or so that we've been working on this, we've received comments from DEIB at meetings. And we incorporated many of their good thoughts into our proposals. When we had our preliminary public review in December of 2025, we received about 200 technical comments from the Clean Water Commission. Some of those will be saved for later. But we were able to incorporate about 60 of those comments into the proposal that you see in front of you today. During the general public comment period and the CEPA comment period, we had about 14 public comments and eight of those we incorporated back into the proposed manual. And then there were several questions at the council work session and the planning commission work session, which we answered either verbally or with a memo that came before you in May. Next slide, please. Sorry.

21:58 I am going to hand it over to Devon to talk about our other milestones. Thank you, Trista. So before concluding with our requested action, I do want to highlight some other important milestones in this process that got us here to today. This includes receiving that preliminary approval letter from Department of Ecology in December of 2025, as well as the final preliminary equivalency determination in March of 2026 that confirmed that the county's manual is equivalent to the state's Western Washington stormwater manual. We also submitted our Title 40 revisions to the Department of Commerce for review. And as stated previously, the manual went out for a CEPA determination of non-significance in May. And we did not receive any comments that required us to make any changes. I also want to acknowledge all that have been involved from the CEPA process to the public hearing notification process,

22:58 as well as our prosecuting attorneys who have been extensively involved throughout the review of this manual update, which brings us to our request today. So on the next slide, for today's hearing, we are requesting council to adopt ordinance number 2026-616 that revises portions of Clark County code chapters 40.100, general provisions, chapter 40.386, stormwater and erosion control, chapter 40.500, overview of procedures, and chapter 1326A, water quality, which makes the 2026 Clark County stormwater code and manual effective on July 1 of 2026. And with that, thank you for your time and for your engagement in this process. Thank you very much. I know this is a long, very technical process, so I appreciate it. And the council had several opportunities

23:55 for those presentations, so grateful. Any immediate questions from the council before we hear from the public? I have a question, Chair. Yes, go ahead. I see that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve this, so that's great. Was there any significant concerns from DEEP?

24:18 I would say we-- sorry about that. I think they've been supportive. They did give us several comments, two of the comments that we reversed two of our policy proposals in response to comments from DEEP. All right, thank you. Yes. Other questions? Yes, go ahead. Yeah, just a quick question. I know that you held some public forums as well, where people or community members were able to provide feedback and comments on the updates. Can you share some of those comments or concerns that some of our community members may have had? We did not have in-person public involvement, but the documents have been available on the website for a certain amount of time. We received similar comments, a low number of comments from the general public. It is pretty technical. We had a repeat comment from the general public

25:17 that was similar to one of the comments from DEEP, and that was about continuing to allow compost-amended vegetated filter strips for use on driveways in the rural area. So that was one of the general public comments and a comment from DEEP, and it was one of our policy reversals as a result of the public comment. In general, there were not other significant public comments. Thank you. I know this is a lot of work, 18 months working on this. It's very, very technical work. We appreciate DEEP's interest and the rest of the team for all the work that you've done. Thank you. What was the concern related to the compost-amended filters? What was the county's concern, or what was the public's concern? Either one. The county's concern is that in recent past history, it has appeared that many of them have been installed incorrectly when used on driveways in the rural area. And when installed incorrectly, they don't provide the water quality function

26:17 that they are intended to provide. So based on that lesson learned, we were attempting to protect water quality by disallowing their use in that particular scenario. The community's concern for that is that it's one of the few best management practices that is easy and effective to implement on development in the rural area, and removing that as an option would make it harder to develop homes in the rural area. So rather than removing it as an option, the county is electing to work on training and education about the correct installation of those practices so that they are installed correctly and provide the function that they're intended to provide. Great, thank you. And if you don't mind, what was the other concern that DEEP had that you took to heart? Yes. For that one, there was a proposal

27:15 to limit the placement of certain stormwater facilities, certain types of stormwater facilities, on individual residential lots within the urban area. And the impetus behind that was to protect those individual property owners from being responsible for maintaining facilities that serve multiple properties. The concern from the community and from DEEP was also that that limitation limited opportunities for developing housing in the urban area, and that was a concern. So we also had the prosecuting attorney involved in looking at the language for that, and it turned out it was not a viable prohibition anyway. And so we went back to the original language, which is that is allowed. Great. Sounds very thorough. Any other questions? Councilor Young, do you have anything? I do not. OK.

28:15 Well, then let's hear from the public. Has anyone signed up? And I just want to remind folks, this is a public hearing just on the stormwater code changes. Carmen De Leon. Hi, my name is Carmen De Leon, also known as Melo De Leon. And yeah, I looked at whatever they said to download and all this stuff online. And yeah, it's about, according to me, it's not 1,000 pages. It's 2,400 because there's four books with about 300 pages apiece, and the public gets this. Wow. Incredible. But I did find on pages 123 through about 130 in book number three, according to your Clark County Stormwater Manual,

29:14 them, that they have incorporated light rail. So for light rail washing vehicles, potential pollutant resources are from light rail vehicles, electrical and mechanical components, which include metal dust, hypo-whatever materials, and other kinds of light rail residue, and pollutants preferred by LRV wash facilities to remove any accumulated pollutants from these vehicles. So why is light rail snuck into all this? How come this is-- according to this, this is supposed to be every five to six years, and yet light rail is going to be done, they say the construction for the bridge is going to go continue until 2037. You think that's funny? 2037, and this is only a five year thing. So why is light rail tucked into all of this? You didn't mention that during the presentation, but you have all these pages on light rail,

30:14 washing the vehicles, and taking care of the special chemicals that it takes to take care of light rail vehicles, light rail elevated gateways. So you guys are going to fake it till you make it till you get this light rail in, like it or not, because the public-- oh, the public. So you say 14 members of the public. Wow. Out of 500,000 population, you got an entire 14 people to participate, apart from the people being paid, right? Because like I've said, over and over, when you have 500,000 people, it doesn't count when you publicize in just 30,000 publications. You know, like on Facebook, you guys have this Clark County Today, what do you have, 30,000 people? That does not even count as 1% of 500,000. So yeah, 14 people participated. Wow. You know, I've already said, do another work session where you can actually inform, what, at least 100,000 of 500,000?

31:13 Maybe just 100,000 instead of 30? Because 14 isn't cutting it, and I've already been illegally silenced for this kind of thing. So instead of thanking the public for showing up, you put out the minimal requests for public input. What an embarrassment. OK, is there anyone else? [INAUDIBLE] Oh, I'm sorry, that was the wrong hearing. Oh, thank you. Is there anybody-- that's the remaining of people in the room. We do have one caller online. OK. Caller, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so. State your name for the record and go ahead with your comment. Good evening, Kimberly Goge and Elvin. Oh, say right off the bat, I think that it should be legal for people, especially nowadays, now that we know the earth is hurt to death, that we are able to use bins or whatever water trap that we can get for rainwater.

32:13 Not that it's clean or not. It's not rainwater to catch. Also, I'm really concerned about spending millions and millions of dollars pre-light rail. And putting that in there did cost a lot of money, of hard earned tax dollar monies. But my main thrust here about this is to let people know that there is a deep government here. You're going to do what you're going to do. You're using tax hard earned tax dollars. Mellow made very good points about a lot of things that happening with our government. You sit there doing our business and you don't treat us like that. You treat us as if we're peons and we're not. We are the ones that pay your paycheck. We're the ones that elected you. And it seems like you just don't care. It's very obvious in the past what's been going on.

33:09 So I kind of was unable to hear that. My husband is driving right now. But you guys need to do better for our hard earned tax dollars and think these things through instead of going along with an agenda. Yes, state your point. Doesn't sound like this caller is speaking on the agenda item. It sounds like she's just got a gripe against local government. So-- Kimberly, if there's more you would like to say related to the stormwater permit, you're welcome to proceed. Otherwise, you can-- Well, thank you so much. And it doesn't surprise me that Will Fuentes interrupted with something stupid. But with that said, I was on task because you are the government, and you are putting forth this agenda. And what's wrong with me telling you that you might be doing it wrong? So get ready to get some fire and some-- Chair, point of order. What was it?

34:08 I don't think she realized what she's-- Kimberly, you can hold your comments for open public comment, and we could cut that off. Thank you. Anyone else? That concludes public comment, Chair. OK. Are there any further questions or comments from the council? And if not, I'll entertain a motion to approve ordinance-- oh, yes, go ahead, Councilor Young. Just a quick comment. I did want to thank staff for working hard on this. And I appreciate the conversations with Deeb and with the Planning Commission. And it makes me feel really good when I get a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission. It really says that the process went well, that input was considered, and changes were made to make the plan as good as it could possibly get. So just wanted to thank staff for the great job on this.

35:07 Thank you. OK, if no other comments or questions, I'll entertain a motion to approve ordinance number 2026-06-16. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. It's a roll call, Chair. Oh, roll call, that's right. Thank you. Councilor Young? Aye. Councilor Belcott? Aye. Councilor Fuentes? Aye. Councilor Little? Aye. And Chair Marshall? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. OK, now we're moving on to open public comment. Public comment on consent and separate business items. And just to remind folks, you're limited to three minutes. And according to our rules and procedures, comments should address county business

36:06 and not make statements on the private activities, lifestyles, or beliefs of others. This includes elected officials, staff, and members of the public. And it also includes any disruptive behavior, disparaging, or unreasonable behavior. You may be asked to stop. And it may result in the council taking a recess.

36:36 OK, I just got this note. If anyone is wearing any campaign items, they should remove those items. So we cannot have any electioneering in public facilities. So I'm not aware of anyone. But thank you, Councilor Young, for that note.

37:06 OK, let's move on with open public comments. G. Edward, is it Bruner? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you.

37:34 Thank you for allowing me to come forward. There we go. Thank you to the Clark County Council for letting me speak on this issue. And that's the library of the three contingencies that go together to make things work pretty darn well, amazingly so. One of the things that has troubled me after reading about these things is the person that is running for it from Skamania. It didn't seem that there was much preparation in deciding it was going to run. The word in his comments was, well, it was available. That's not a reason to do something, especially with a library. Libraries are so integral to the lives of every young person.

38:32 Child, student, K through 12, collegiate people, and to the population in general. The candidate's mission statement said, "I am committed to representing the district taxpayers." Another quote, "Nearly 50% of Skamania County voters disapproved voting against the most recent library levy." The first thing that strikes me is the idea of having nearly 50% doesn't win the race. So that means there are more people that didn't feel that way about it. They felt that libraries are integral to the lives of all people, not just students.

39:30 We think of that for students, young people, getting a chance to find their way through the old days card catalog, but now everything is sophisticated and on computers. And the second thing was that voting against the recent library level, I'm wondering where does the candidate respond to? Who are the people that he's trying to please? Who are the people that he feels are more important than spending money on things such as libraries? He does not support preschool children, school K through 12 students, and even the adult population living in his district of the three. 50% of the Clark County taxpayers know how integral libraries are to a person's learning.

40:30 Textpayers desire to have a library system that complements a person's learning experience. Libraries are full of books, of learning demand librarians who are the touchstone of the kids. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you.

40:53 Jake Osmas. [SIDE CONVERSATION] Hi. My name is Jake Osmas. I'm an employee of FVRL, Fort Vancouver Regional Library, for nine years. And I'm the chief shop steward of the union at WPEA, representing most of the frontline staff there within. I do not believe Richard Mayhart is fit to serve even a partial term on our board. Voters approve the levy. Board members should respect the outcome and provide stewardship and care to this fact, something Mayhart does not do in his intent letter, or statements about representing those less than 50% of a single county that didn't vote for it, or did vote for it. In addition to this, when questioned why he would want

41:52 to be on the board, he states because it was, quote, "available." He does not convey clear desire to serve the whole of his community across three counties, or seem to align with the library's intended goal. Back when board member Olga Hodges was voted in after attempting to destroy library property, the commissioners stated that they did not want to, quote, "blackball" someone with a different opinion, and that if she showed clear signs of agenda or bias, she would be recalled. Where is that recall? Current members Olga, Irina, Marie, and Christy have shown bias built on the back of hatred and vitriol. They did this when they removed language of equity, inclusion, and intellectual freedom without restriction and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money. If you ratify Mayhart to the board, you show clear bias and should be recalled as well. I ask you to be more competent than the board at FVRL, represent unbiased, and vote no on Mayhart. Do better than those that are already failing.

42:50 The bar has been low for far too long. Thank you. Cynthia Ernst. Thank you. Hi, my name is Cynthia Ernst. And I am also responding to my concern about Mr. Mayhart. In his letter of interest, he states that, "There are many ways people seek out library education and freedom. Libraries are one way, but not the only way. We need to respect and hear those who choose other ways and who vote against library funding, yet still must pay the taxes." My question is, if you are wanting

43:44 to be a member of the Board of Trustees whose mission is to support libraries, why would you say that you do not want to support libraries? And what is his intent? What does he mean to do for these people who did not support the libraries? Does he want to divert funds to other resources? I mean, I really would like to see clarification as to why he made the statement in his letter of interest. I have deep concern. The current board is very biased against freedom of reading. It is practicing censorship, and it is also showing a blatant disregard for due process. And I'm concerned that this person will also join those ranks. So I appreciate your listening, and have a good evening. Thank you. Carmen De Leon?

44:44 Yeah, Carmen De Leon again. I go by Mello. So I remember being here when you guys talk about the charter review and whether or not you should do it. And then you guys voted, yeah, you should do it. So now they've been doing it. And I went to some of their meetings, and a lot of their meetings were just on making more rules. So congratulations, they're making lots of rules. But it's been my understanding that you're not supposed to single people out. So out of 500,000 residents in Clark County, how come Will Fuentes singled me out, huh? It's really insulting to me, because I have requested his removal from this country, because he didn't want to do the Pledge of Allegiance, and he doesn't respect this country. No, he singled me out by name at the last charter review. So why does he single me out by name, and I can't single him out? Why is he abusing me? Why is he abusing me when I am just single?

45:42 OK, Carmen, I'm going to ask you to stop. I'm going to ask you to stop. I pointed out that he wants to end prayer. I'm talking about open public comment. You need to step back, Carmen. I have my minutes. I can change the subject. I won't talk about him anymore, OK? He can talk about me. I won't talk about him. All right, you did not follow the rules. You need to stop. [INAUDIBLE] OK, if you don't step back, the council will go into a recess. Why is open public comment? Is open public comment? I can't open the comment. You need to step back. Do you see that? [INAUDIBLE] OK, is there someone else who would like to speak? Do we have some security? Why can't I comment? I've moved. I've moved you from-- You're still talking, Carmen. I've moved, OK?

46:41 I've moved. I guess I'm about real quick, but he can talk about me. Should we take a-- Point of order. It was inappropriate. He told me that last time. He said, yo, mama, this is your moment. OK, we will take a five minute recess.

47:05 [MUSIC PLAYING] OK, council is back in order from our break. And we'll continue with open public comment.

47:35 [AUDIO OUT] From data analysis from the IBR's environmental impact statement, it's quite clear that two auxiliary lanes reduce congestion considerably better than one. And one really does nothing. If anything, it's worse. And to pay for it, we should eliminate light rail, and we'd be able to afford two lanes. So under the IBR's recommended design, they have one auxiliary lane in each direction. But it fails to meet a primary goal to reduce traffic congestion. This is after spending $13 to $15 billion, and things are worse than it is today. Another option that they actually analyze has two auxiliary lanes both ways, and that does significantly reduce congestion.

48:35 It's dramatic in the afternoon. Last Friday, the bi-state legislature committee met eight legislators on the Oregon side and the Washington side. It was a virtual meeting. And they were bringing up this repeatedly. Why only one lane? We want two. We've got freight. We've got concerns about that. So I've done an analysis, and I presented it at the bi-state. And I've got it-- unfortunately, I sent it in late, so it's not fused, rather visual. But I'll just describe it very quickly. So in their environmental impact statement, they described congestion in 2019, and they predicted 2045 congestion for both of their models. So I've compiled the data in their many thousands of pages into this table for comparison. In examining the table, you find that the two auxiliary lane design is better than the one auxiliary lane design

49:32 in every measure of congestion. And the one auxiliary lane is actually worse than it is now in most cases, rather considerably. The two auxiliary lanes in 2045 shows dramatic improvement over current conditions, and you can see how much it is. Yet they recommend the one auxiliary lane design. So one of the things they do to visualize this is they visualize speed for the two models. They have these complicated drawings where you have position along I-5 here, and horizontally, they've got time. And red is bad. I mean slow, slow, slow traffic. And this is in the morning. This is the one auxiliary lane design. If you have two auxiliary lanes, this is the one, this is the two, it's a little bit better in the morning. The morning is the biggest problem. But if you look at the afternoon, one auxiliary lane going north, this is all bottled up in Portland for the bridge. Two auxiliary lanes, no bottle up at all.

50:31 It's amazingly better. And so the conclusion is to cancel light rail entirely from the project, use the savings to build two auxiliary lanes in each direction instead. It makes a big difference, and IBR admits that they don't want to do it. Thank you. We received that information, so thank you. Thank you very much. Margaret Tweed?

50:55 Thank you. I'd also like to speak about the $3.5 billion light rail that the council majority supports. And I noted that in the proclamation, a vine bus extension was built for $42 million in contrast. So it's very much more costly than continuing the bus service like we have today. The project will consume 59 residential properties and 66 businesses. Those job losses are never discussed, but they're very real. In 2012, voters in the C-TRAN district rejected. Every city in Clark County rejected the ballot proposition to extend max light rail over an I-5 bridge. And in 2013, the entire county voted against light rail

51:55 unless it was approved in advance by a vote of the people. It has never been. I wanted to mention buses can run on shoulder or a dedicated lane at a small fraction of the cost. Currently, there is a single route, the Route 60, that would be replaced by light rail. They have average weekday boardings of just 900 people over 19 hours as the buses run AM to PM. This route would unnecessarily be replaced by light rail. It is completely unjustified based on the ridership. There are 143,400 vehicles needing a second auxiliary lane, but their needs are being ignored in favor of these 900 weekday boardings. TriMet has a history of over predicting light rail

52:54 ridership in the future, so their exaggerations about how many riders they believe may happen has never come true yet since they started their light rail programs. So why would we believe it today? We have to look at the reality of what is happening today, the cost of buses compared to light rail, millions compared to $3 and 1/2 billion, and understand that the vehicle traffic is the largest user group, carries freight. Roads are the lifeblood of our community. So please consider that as you continue to talk about this most largest transportation issue in our region, project in our region, $15.2 billion,

53:52 the entire project at this time. Thank you. Leah Percal. Hi, I'm Leah. I'm group here in Clark County, and I live here currently in the city of Vancouver. And I'm here and opposing the appointment for Richard Marr for the Fort Vancouver Library Board of Trustees. And the reason I'm asking that he not be approved is because we overwhelmingly voted to pass the levies, and it has come to my attention that he is one of those people who did not support the levies. Our libraries are very important to me. I've raised my children here. They were a valuable resource for my children. My son would not be who he is today if it wasn't for the library. The library doesn't only provide services for our children, but it also provides services for the unhoused, for our seniors. There's a lot of people that are low income right now

54:50 that can't afford the services that have internet in their homes. So I'm asking that you tonight vote no on appointing Richard Marr for Fort Vancouver Board of Libraries, Board of Trustees. Thank you. Marla Koch.

55:08 Good evening. I'm Marla Koch. I live in Counselor Belcott's district. I'm here to talk once again about the library. First of all, a public service announcement. Did you know that summer reading is for adults too? And if you sign up, you get this cool button that says, ask me what I'm reading. And you also get a coupon for a free book from the Friends of Library bookstore outside most of our branches, if not all. So it's really exciting to have seen the proclamation for C-TRAN because C-TRAN provides a public good. And the most heavily trafficked route is the one on Fourth Plain. I don't think that's a coincidence because that's where people who most rely on C-TRAN are most likely to live. So that's equity in action. And I'm still concerned about the direction of our library board because they struck the words equity and equitable from the five-year plan. And I listened to Richard Marr's interview with Skamenya County. And he said, equity is just a word. It has lots of definitions. It does not have lots of definitions.

56:07 It has a very specific definition. It is being fair, just, and impartial. It involves dealing with all parties evenly, often by accounting for individual circumstances or needs to ensure a fair outcome. They replaced equity with fair. The average home price in our library district is $400,000. My house is assessed higher than that. So to be fair, I could make the argument that I need a little bit more. Could I get some extended private hours? Do I get special coffee table books that are only available to people who pay more? Or I could make the counterargument that, no, if I can afford a house that costs more, then it's fair for me to pay more for my library because I can, because it's a public good, because it's for everybody. That's equity. That's not fair. So I'm concerned about the board's removal of equity, but mostly because a lot of people

57:07 came out and screamed in favor of equity, 91% of the comments, and then they voted against it. I'm also even more concerned about intellectual freedom. The current board tried to water down the definition of intellectual freedom in our five-year plan, but during the chaos of the voting, they lost that piece. But intellectual freedom in library world means the right of every individual to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas from all points of view without restriction or censorship. And one of the code of ethics for a library board member is to be prepared to support the efforts of library staff in resisting censorship. We had four board members fighting for censorship. So I'm concerned about those four board members, and I'm concerned about Richard Mayer also wanting to move toward censorship. In his interview, he also was quite pleased to say he owns hundreds, if not thousands, of books. He's not everybody. A lot of people in Skamania County

58:06 can't afford hundreds or thousands of books. That's what the library's for. Thank you so much. And thank you for your service. Thank you. That's all that we have signed up in the room, unless I've missed anybody. But we do have two online. Carla, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so, state your name for the record, and go ahead with your comment. Hello. Can you hear me OK? Yes, we can. OK, great. Thank you. My name is Deanna Catan. I am also speaking on the library board and hoping that you will vote no for Richard Mayer. I have previously emailed the council, and so I won't repeat all of those concerns that I have. But in response to some of the concerns from the community, I have heard the concerns of the council or some members

59:05 is that basically the repercussion of voting no and how that would affect our continued relationship with the other counties. And while I completely recognize that, and I think it's completely appropriate to work together to achieve a common goal, I'm concerned that the Skamania County Commission did not listen to their own voters who, by majority, by 50 plus percent, voted to approve the levy. And in doing so, they are choosing to put somebody in place who is not actually supporting the voters in the county. And while we cannot control what Skamania County Commission does, what we can control is what we do. And the overwhelming community support has been towards not approving Richard Mayer based on all of the concerns that the other commenters have just made.

1:00:04 And so I'm asking you, as we are your constituents, that you vote no. And that has been the overwhelming request for our county council. Thank you very much. Thank you. And again, Chair, we have one more. Carla, you've been sent a request to unmute. Please go ahead and do so, state your name for the record, and go ahead with your comment. Kimberly Goheen-Elbin again. Out of all respect and sincere question, did any of the C-TRAN rep there or the council, the county manager or clerk, ride the C-TRAN tonight? Well, I'm going to tell you one large piece of who I am and why I am an active Christian conservative patriot. When I woke up on the morning of November 4, 2020, when Joe Biden illegally stole the presidency, I cried like no other time in my life.

1:01:02 And it was then I truly believed that God, the creator of all, put me on fire. And what came to my spirit was threefold-- to stand as a patriot, to fulfill my oath of office in the military, to get my son's five children out of a corrupt Washington state CPS system, bring them and tens of thousands of other illegally taken children. My third duty was and is to bring the light of truth to the public about a law and justice system that is broken here in Clark County and does not follow the true meaning of what the Constitution means to the people who are having their constitutional rights blatantly violated by judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to the indigent. This is the case for my son, whom I've spoken on before many times. There's a total breakdown in his case. And the law and justice system hearing is consistently irreparably harming my son,

1:02:01 Cleve Goheen Ringo. And because also of bad media and character defamation, it is my duty and my right to advocate for him and others that cannot help themselves in a volatile court system here in Clark County. There's more to come, and I am on fire. And I will continue this good fight for a constitutional humane ending. With that said, I'm going to read something. It is a violation of the First Amendment right for a local government to adopt a policy that broadly bans the public from questioning or criticizing elected officials and their actions during public comment period. Under the First Amendment, government bodies established limited public forums when they opened the meetings to the public comments. The government can enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, but cannot ban specific viewpoints. Prohibiting citizens from criticizing or questioning

1:02:56 officials is inherently a ban on unsavored viewpoints, making it unconstitutional. In other words, you're violating the law, and I'm going to help Mello, a good patriot friend of mine. He's a Christian, and we are going to do something about the law and justice system. And it starts with you guys, and it's going to end with ending with a form of government that absolutely represents all people under the Constitution of the United States of America as our 250th year anniversary is coming. So all you did just now today, Will Fuentes. OK, thank you. Is there anyone else? That concludes public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to provide any comments that didn't have a chance to sign up? OK, thank you very much.

1:03:45 OK, so then that moves us on to the consent agenda 1 through 20. Is there anything that anyone would like to pull? Sure. Yes, go ahead. I'd like to pull item number 6, please. OK, thank you. Any other items? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve consent agenda 1 through 20 with the exception of item 6. Is there a motion? So moved. It's been moved. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. OK, let's go to item 6. Council Young, would you like to start? Yes, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to echo some of the comments

1:04:42 that I've heard in public comment today, as well as I have been getting a lot of emails on this particular issue. And I have to say that I do agree. I did review the application of-- and I apologize if I get his name wrong, but Mr. Mahar. And I did not get the feeling that he is very interested in being on the library board for purposes of furthering the mission of the library itself. It did really feel like it was just an opportunity that just kind of came forward, and that this would be something that he could spend his time on, which I appreciate people that are willing to spend their time in community service. But I will say that the people that I want to represent us on the library board, I want to see them as wholehearted advocates for the library system in a whole.

1:05:41 Their job is to further the mission of the library, to give access to folks in the community of all backgrounds, access to materials that they otherwise would not be able to have access to. And I want folks that are going to really respect that and push the mission of the library forward, let the voter themselves decide the level of funding that they're willing to do, the level of service. So for these reasons, I will be voting in opposition of the appointment for consent agenda item number six. OK, other councilors? Sure. Yes, go ahead. I guess since this is never-- we've never as a council individually-- or blocked an individual appointment of another county. Are there any legal precautions related to that?

1:06:34 Good evening, Amber Smith, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney for the council. With respect to the memorandum of understanding that exists between the three counties and the two participating cities, the language that exists inside that memorandum of understanding just indicates that the appointment of individually selected counties candidates is by an action of those commissions and councils. The language is not specific about it being unanimous or if it's by a majority. So with respect to this council, I do believe that this particular appointment has been already approved by Klickitat and also Skamenya counties. So if this council were to vote, no, it would be representative of their positions or potentially constituents positions. But I do not necessarily believe it

1:07:34 would have any legal impact with respect to the appointment moving forward by a majority. But they could-- so they could potentially leave the library board as members, correct? Ultimately, what it would be is with the approval or disapproval of the council tonight, there is already a majority of the counties that have already approved this appointed position. So it would be a reflective vote on your position and policy that way or the position that you would like to take on behalf of constituents. But whether this council approves or disapproves this appointment, a majority of the counties have already approved this appointment. I guess that's my concern is the majority of the counties have approved this appointment. It's us questioning them and the decisions that they've made. So that's my personal concern. - Thank you.

1:08:32 Other councilors? - Thank you. I share the sentiment and concern that a lot of our constituents, a lot of community members have who have spoken today, who have sent dozens of emails to oppose the appointment or the approval of this joint resolution to appoint John Mayer, I believe is how his last name is pronounced, to the Fort Vancouver Regional Library Board of Trustees. Like Councilor Young, I will also be opposing the approval of this resolution. So I guess the question does still stand. If the majority of this calendar decides not to approve this joint resolution, it sounds to me that because Klickitat and Skamania have already voted to appoint this candidate, that the appointment will still move forward. Is that correct? - That is correct. - Thank you. - OK, other comments? Councilor Little?

1:09:31 - Yeah. Well, I love our libraries. We use them quite a bit in my family. And they're essential to learning, I believe. I also have read that I have some concerns, some red flags with the language he was using and the answers he was providing. But also, I believe that we have a very high bar if we-- it's a high bar to override the decision of another elected body who chose-- who interviewed, which we did not, and appointed someone. And two of the counties have and have brought them to us to be the final decider here. But apparently, it's already been decided. This is a temporary position till the end of the year, so a few more months.

1:10:29 And then what happens on January 1? Do we do this again? - The other jurisdictions will go through their normal process as council does when you recommend your appointments. And then the joint resolution will come back to all the jurisdictions again. - OK. Well, then in that case, I would hesitate to take an action against another elected body that has deliberated on this, interviewed folks, and chosen their candidate. That's not to say that this discussion and the last discussion we had about this topic does not probably resonate with members of the board. And they know that the members of the community and all of us are watching in what they do and what decisions they make for the library. And if it gets to a certain--

1:11:25 if the actions are something that we need to take action on, then I'm sure we will revisit this issue. But I am not going to be voting against this decision tonight. - OK, thank you. I think that the concerns that the public has are real. And I think that we largely can see the direction things are going. I don't know if any censorship has occurred, but I believe that's where we're headed. And if that occurs, there'll probably be litigation. It'll cost a lot of money. It'll put the library in a real difficult position.

1:12:18 Now, I served with Richard Mahar for a couple of years. He served two terms as county commissioner for Skamania. And we both served on EMS District 1 together and on the Area Agency on Aging and Disabilities. He is fiscally conservative, but I think, just based on my experience with him as an individual, I don't see him as trying to pull some fast one. I think he was probably cavalier and pretty casual in his application and his interview. And given that it is a six-month assignment,

1:13:15 I think there'll be a chance for us to go back and revisit this. But all of that said, I think it would be very much worth our while as a council to look at the individual that we appointed to the library board and gather some data on their participation, the positions that they have taken, and consider whether or not we want to continue to support that individual in that position. So I don't know if we're going to be voting on that tonight, but that's what I would-- I think it behooves us. Maybe that's a Wednesday discussion on doing an evaluation of the person that we have selected. Because you can't always know in an interview or even with this application exactly how it's going to play out.

1:14:13 So I think it played out in a very different way than-- well, it was really the previous council that selected that individual. So I will be voting to let this one go through. OK. So is-- yes, go ahead. I'd like to make a motion that we decline the appointment of Mr. Mehar to the library board. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor, saying aye will mean you don't support them in this position. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion fails. OK. That takes care of 20 items.

1:15:11 Chair, I think you still need a motion to approve. Entertain-- go ahead. Chair Marshall, because it was pulled-- again, Amber Smith, pardon me, point of clarification. While there was one motion, you could still also entertain a motion on the floor to approve. This was on the consent agenda, and it was-- Oh, it's not by default. It's approved. We have to proactively-- So you had one motion entertained to deny or to not move forward with that one, but that does not negate the idea that there could also be entertained a motion to approve this consent agenda item. OK, I'll entertain a motion to approve this consent agenda item. Motion to approve consent agenda item number six. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. OK, thank you. Motion carries.

1:16:10 Thank you for that reminder. OK, moving on to separate business. Number one, internal services. Michelle Schuster. Maybe she's online. I am. Thank you. My camera does not appear to be working. Sorry about that. Good evening, counselors. Michelle Schuster, director of internal services. This staff report before you tonight requests council approval to allow the county manager to sign the state of Washington Department of Enterprise Services interagency agreement and any future amendments with DES. The purpose of this agreement is to allow the county select a commissioning vendor from DES's vendor list and to establish a vehicle for DES to provide commissioning oversight services for the jail work center medium security building project. DES will provide the following commissioning project

1:17:09 management services for the jail work center project for Clark County. They'll help assist the county in the selection of a building commissioning consultant from the list, manage the commissioning process, develop building commissioning scope of work with the county, negotiate the commissioning fees in conjunction with the county, attend building commissioning kickoff meeting, review and approve the commissioning plan, review functional performance test procedures, review commissioning findings, review and approve the final commissioning report, attend select commissioning meetings, review and approve commissioning agent invoice vouchers for payment, and review other services required to complete the oversight of the building commissioning project. Commissioning will ensure that the new jail work center's mechanical, electrical, security, and plumbing systems are installed and functioning as intended. The commissioning agent selected under this agreement will work on behalf of the county to make sure the contract and subcontractor is installed correctly and to optimize

1:18:09 the energy efficiency of these systems. They will help the county to identify any installation programming errors and recommend fixes and adjustments to the equipment. Commissioning will result in energy savings, improved equipment life, and fixing errors before we open the new building at the end of the year. Do you have any questions about this contract? Are there any questions from council? I just have a comment. This is exciting. So this is standard with construction. I'm very familiar with this. So I look forward to this happening. This is great. Thank you. Any other comments? OK. I guess I'll entertain a motion for the internal services request, item one. I second. Oh, you can make the motion. So moved. OK, is there a second? Second.

1:19:08 Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. OK, item two, public works. And that would be Jennifer Dan-- oh, no. Thank you for coming up. Good evening, council. Jeremy Provenzola, county engineer. I do have Jennifer Daniels with me online. She can speak to this request. We are asking council to authorize the county manager to accept on behalf of the county right of way acquisition and temporary construction easements for county road project. Good evening, council. Can you hear me OK? Yes, we can. Perfect. For the record, my name is Jennifer Daniel. I'm a rural property agent for public works. This request before you tonight seeks council approval authorizing the county manager to accept a warranty deed and temporary construction easement from Joey and Lorelei

1:20:08 Ricketts for the Northeast 179th Street intersection improvement project from Northeast 15th Avenue to Northeast 26th Avenue. The county needs to acquire a 30 to 35 foot strip of land or 9,253 square feet along the southerly boundary of the Ricketts property located just west of Northeast 26th Avenue and a 585 square foot temporary construction easement. Just compensation for the land, temporary construction easement and improvements being acquired was established by an independent appraiser in the amount of $134,700. Staff reached a negotiated settlement for an additional $8,300 for the land for a final compensation of $143,000. The project will improve Northeast 179th Street with the installation of two travel lanes, a center turn lane, right turn lanes in some locations, curbs, gutters, a joint use bike pedestrian path, and a roundabout at Northeast 15th Avenue.

1:21:07 Acceptance of conveyances for county road projects where the total compensation exceeds $100,000 requires council acceptance under Clark County code 2.33A.090 subsection I. Therefore, staff is requesting the council formally accept the warranty deed and temporary construction easement. This concludes my presentation today. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve separate business item number two. OK, second. Is there? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. OK, and then moving on to item three, Clark County Fleet Services Green Fleet Transition Policy. And Tyler Bennett, thanks for being here.

1:22:07 Good evening, council. For the record, my name is Tyler Bennett. I am the Fleet Services Division Manager for Clark County. Clark County's Green Transition Policy was created to align the county's vehicle operations with evolving state mandates that require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated adoption of zero and near zero emission technologies. These regulations, including Washington's adoption of the California vehicle emission standards and requirements for public fleets to transition to electricity or biofuels wherever practical, establish a clear direction for cleaner fleet operations. In response, Fleet Services developed a long-term phase strategy that balances environmental responsibility, operational needs, and fiscal sustainability by prioritizing right fleet sizing, life cycle

1:23:05 cost-based procurement, infrastructure readiness, and workforce development. This policy provides a structured roadmap through 2046 to systematically replace fossil-fueled only vehicles, expanding charging and fueling infrastructure, and ensure that the county services continue to be delivered efficiently while contributing to a broader climate and public health goals. Fleet Services is requesting council to approve and move forward with the implementation of the Clark County Fleet Services Green Transition Policy countywide. OK, thank you. Are there any questions from council? Go ahead. Councilor Lueb. No, thank you for this, and thank you for planning ahead. In order to meet our climate goals, we have to do these things. So thank you. Chair? Yes, please, go ahead. Yes, so thank you for this work. This is something I have been rooting for for quite some time

1:24:05 ever since I first joined the council. I will say, though, just looking through it, I'm curious whether the priorities-- are those in any particular order that are listed? The guiding principles? Yes. Just going to pull it up so that I don't-- no, they are not under any particular order. OK, all right. Just looking at this, I will say I'm a bit-- a little bit disappointed on the timeline. I feel like we could be pushing this forward a little bit more.

1:25:03 I understand the need for establishing baselines and being smart about this, for sure. But I think we could start our acquisitions prior to 2028. So maybe I'm reading this correctly. Maybe you will be starting right away on some of the acquisitions. I don't know if you could speak to that just a little bit. Yes, I can. So the timeline was developed to allow the technology to catch up with the operating profile that the county has. If you do look at the procurement policy, it does state that in 2026 that all procurements would consider a zero emissions vehicle first if it's available and we have the charging infrastructure or alternative fuel infrastructure in place. That is our biggest hurdle at the moment, is having the infrastructure in place

1:26:02 first before we purchase the vehicle to provide the service. So we need to be able to provide consistent fuel to make sure that we are continuing to provide our public service. OK, great. Thank you for that update. I feel like we are behind on this. And I don't fault staff. Don't get me wrong on this. I think we did not have a council that was supportive of this type of work. But it is frustrating to me because I know we've lost a lot of opportunity for infrastructure grants over the years that we could have benefited from. But I am excited to see this moving forward, very supportive of the plan. And I appreciate your work on this. Chair, I have a comment. Yes, please. I will say that I don't think any of us have been unsupportive of this. And these are state mandates that are allowing--

1:27:01 we've had lots of discussions with you about this-- that there's a criteria that's set to allow each county to have enough time to fiscally set up the infrastructure to allow for these things. And if we are afforded that time, then there's all these timelines that we have to meet. So we're not behind on anything. Matter of fact, we're just where everybody else is, as far as I know, as far as you've updated us in the past. So would you say that's about right? I will make a comment. Other plans that I've seen from other jurisdictions and other entities have a 2050 plan. So we are technically going to beat it by four years via the plan, as long as all of the technology is there, the funding is there. And that's one of our biggest concerns, is fiscal responsibility.

1:28:00 So we want to be able to do a phased approach, and then come back and make sure that what we're spending, dollar per carbon footprint, is actually doing the most benefit. Or would that funding of public dollars be best suited used in other areas, and not in our vehicle fleet? And I will just say, it would be nice if the state could kick in some money for all the counties. That would be nice. This is the first step. So this policy, having it approved, will allow us to start reaching out to state and federal grant programs, and non-federal or state. So there's a lot of private grants that are available. But we have to have a plan in place and approved to be able to put in our application for these. Thank you, Tyler. I appreciate that. OK, thank you for that clarification. Yes, go ahead, Councilor Young. If I could add, infrastructure is what makes it not cancel out.

1:28:56 If that infrastructure is there, EVs are so much cheaper to operate. And we could have been saving money for a long time with this. Again, I'm excited that we're at where we're at. I'm just frustrated that it hasn't happened sooner. Because the county really could have saved some considerable funds by not having to pay for fuel. Or I should say, by paying a lot less for fuel. We needed to have a plan, though. And that's what we're getting. Any other comments from council? Yes, go ahead. Yes, Chair. Thank you. Thank you for the work that you've done in this. I really appreciate it. I just wanted to point out, under section F, reporting and accountability, that there is flexibility. The policy will be reviewed and updated every five years, or as needed, based on technology advances or regulatory changes. This is fantastic, because electric fuel technology is advancing at a really rapid rate. And so allowing us that flexibility

1:29:55 to be able to change policy as needed is essential to ensure that we meet those objectives and goals. So thank you. Great, any other comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve item three. I motion to approve separate business item number three. Thank you. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good work. OK, on to item four, supplemental agreement, authorizing the county manager to sign with Apex Companies. For groundwater monitoring activities at Camp Bonneville. And Jenny and Kevin, welcome. Good evening. For the record, Kevin Tyler, Lands Management Division Manager with Clark County Public Works. And the request before you this evening

1:30:52 is to approve a supplemental agreement with Apex Companies, formerly PBS Engineering and Environmental, for groundwater monitoring activities at Camp Bonneville. It's an increase in the amount of $71,929 and change. And we anticipate this is the final amendment to the contract, which would essentially get us through to the end of the year. And I can't-- it's hard to talk about this contract without talking about the next item on the agenda, which is a contract with Moll Foster and Olongi for groundwater monitoring at Camp Bonneville. So essentially, this is the final amendment to the contract with Apex. And there's a little bit of an overlap with the next contract that you'll hopefully approve. And that is to get us to make sure that we have all of the groundwater monitoring

1:31:48 reports through the Department of Ecology review process and approved through essentially the second quarter of 2026, which we are currently in the middle of right now. And so the additional money is to essentially get Apex through that review process. I think when you initially scope a contract, you assume that you're going to submit a report to a regulatory agency. They're going to review it. You're going to make some edits. And you're going to send it back to them. And it's going to be approved and finalized. And I think what we've seen over the last year or so is that there's been a little bit more than anticipated changes and revisions made to these groundwater monitoring reports. And that's taking Apex more time and effort than essentially they were used to in the past with different regulatory agency staff involved.

1:32:47 So essentially, that's where we are. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. OK, are there any questions? We're talking about Camp Bonneville. And there's no questions. All right, then I'll entertain a motion to approve. Motion to approve separate business item number four. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. OK, moving right along to item five. Oh, and this is county manager execute professional services with Mall Foster and Alonghi for groundwater monitoring. Go ahead. That is correct. Thank you. And so this is a contract with Mall Foster and Alonghi for groundwater monitoring services in the amount of $847,667.

1:33:46 Mall Foster and Alonghi was selected as the most qualified consultant following a request for proposals process. And this is a two-year contract for groundwater monitoring services. And this is only the second consultant who has performed groundwater monitoring services at Camp Bonneville. So it's in the last 20 years. So it's kind of a big deal. And it's also an opportunity, I think, for a fresh set of eyes on the data. The contract also allows for an extension of the contract up to four years in two-year increments. And Mall Foster will perform those groundwater monitoring services for the next two years. Let's see, what else? It also includes some funding to allow them to get up to speed over the next six months and coordinate with APEX for a successful transition

1:34:44 and then to update the sampling and analysis plan and quality assurance project plan. Both of those are Department of Ecology requirements. And then I think the final thing I would say is that for both of these contracts, the work that's required to perform groundwater monitoring services is a requirement from Department of Ecology. And the funding is provided by the Department of Army. Great, that was going to be my question. So thanks for mentioning that. Are there any questions? Kevin, is that part of the BRAC settlement? Yes, it is. That's what I thought. OK, any other questions? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Motion to approve separate business item number five. Second. OK, moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you.

1:35:43 It's a long road we're going here with Camp Bonneville. OK, and then on to item six, 2026 budget approval to raise the budget for special purpose fund solid waste closure. Oh, we've got a whole team. I have Tina on my list. Good evening, Council. My name's Joelle Losher. I'm the Solid Waste and Recycling Division Manager for Clark County Public Works. I'm here with Michelle Jun, who's the Solid Waste Operations Manager, and also Tina Kendall, who's the Project Manager at Lechner Landfill. So we weren't sure what kind of questions you had. The ask of you all this evening, we're requesting Council to authorize an increase to the 2026 budget for the special purpose fund 6310, which is the solid waste closure fund. The increase would be by $740,000.

1:36:43 This would align the project costs in the 2026 Lechner Landfill revised environmental compliance budget and has been submitted for the 2026 fall supplemental budget request. So additionally, we're requesting Council's authorization for the County Manager to sign Amendment 5 to the SCS engineer's agreement for the 2026 budget and scope. Thank you.

1:37:16 Tina Kendall, for the record, just providing background information on Lechner Landfill. It is a closed landfill and has been closed since 1991, located in South Central Clark County and owned by the county since 2012. By consent decree between the Department of Ecology and Clark County, the county is responsible for the maintenance and operations of post-closure activities to ensure the health and safety of the public through regular monitoring of methane gas, emissions, and groundwater quality. Further background, on an annual basis, the Lechner Landfill oversight committee, which consists of county and city of Vancouver staff, approved the projected ongoing and one-time costs that also include the scope and budget of the SCS engineer's agreement. This year, the projected costs have exceeded the baseline budget by $740,000 due to various one-time projects.

1:38:13 And it includes projects that are within SCS engineers, as well as county. Any questions? Are there any questions? Go ahead. Yeah, I'm just curious, what is the lining underneath this landfill? This landfill, being an older landfill that dates back to the '40s, does not have a liner on the bottom, but it does have a liner on top, protecting from-- OK, so do we have monitoring pipes or something underneath that monitors whether it seeps into the groundwater? We do. We have groundwater monitoring wells that vary in feet from 20 to 30 all the way down to 100, 150. OK, and have we found any forever chemicals, sources from this landfill?

1:39:12 We monitor for other metals and other materials. And PFAS is one that we have not been mandated by the Department of Ecology to look for those. Now, we have had done one-time testings, but not regular monitoring for PFAS. OK, and will we continue the one-time monitoring? Because I know our community is very concerned about that. It's something that we are keeping abreast of as we hear information from the Department of Ecology. But at this point in time, we are not adding it to our regular monitoring. OK, if I was interested in trying to add that as a one-time test annually, how would I do that? I would take it back to the Landfill Oversight Committee, Lechner Landfill Oversight Committee, which

1:40:10 we do meet on a quarterly basis and discuss that because, of course, there is a cost to that. And in relation to this, we map out our budget for the year. And so it may be something that we would look out for in the future. OK, are there any other councilors interested in testing this? Sure. Yes, go ahead. I would be interested in having the experts look at this and see if there is-- I agree. I would like to feel confident that we're not contributing to this problem. And so I'm not going to say, yes, we need to do the testing. But I would like a conversation to take

1:41:06 place that looks at other similar landfills and researches. Is an old, unused landfill a potential high contributor to this problem? And if it is, then I would love for it to come back to us to look at that. Chair? Yes, go ahead. I would be interested in the cost first. And then since ecology isn't-- it's not on their radar as far as a major concern, I guess I would want to know why. So those two things I would want to know before we proceed. I know that. I know that you have an interest in that. And I totally get it. Is this near a drinking water well? I mean, to my knowledge, I don't think it is. We have been in touch with folks from the Vancouver Water District.

1:42:05 We've been in touch with the Water District, but it's been very surface level in terms of what research and testing that they are doing on the wells. So they have asked us what we have done, but they haven't asked us for additional testing or anything like that. I'd be curious what you are monitoring for. And if you don't have that list offhand, you could send it to us. Because I imagine if this has been operating since 1940, it's got everything in it. And we have so many stakeholder groups and so many different partners that we work with on this landfill. So like Tina mentioned, the city of Vancouver is on the Leichner Landfill Oversight Committee. With our transition from public health to public works, we're still kind of going through the administrative steps of trying to figure out who does what and re-establishing our charters, making sure the representatives are on the committee

1:43:01 as we've gone through several transitions that need to be. This request is also part of that administrative hurdle of trying to establish, OK, we go to the Leichner Landfill Committee, and then do we need to come to council? Do we go to budget? So there's all these separate steps in trying to identify what we did in public health. Do we need to do it slightly differently? And in terms of how we get our work done, as we look at what scope of work we want to do for 2027, we can absolutely bring that up with our engineers. We can talk about it when we meet quarterly with Ecology as well. We're frequently in discussion with solid waste enforcement with public health also. So we're not necessarily doing a lot of the monitoring, but we do talk-- I'm thinking of SWAPA as well. Yeah, I will note that we do get an annual report from our contractor, SES Engineers.

1:43:59 That includes all the groundwater monitoring levels, and there's nothing outside of those parameters, or at least above what we're looking for. So we're within the Ecology. Thank you for that. That's good to know. And so when did we start monitoring? I believe it was when the landfill closed, like in the early, mid '90s. Mid '90s. And we'll probably be monitoring until-- Well, right now we're in the 35th year of post-closure, and there's no end in sight. Is there any liability for the operators of the landfill?

1:44:45 To pay for the cleanup? Well, we are-- and Tina is in the midst of updating our disposal and sediment agreement and the consent decree with Ecology. So again, there's just a lot of administrative pieces of this work that I think once we get that dialed in, we'll have a clearer picture. This is part of that. In the past, we haven't come to Council for approval of the amendments of this. So we're like, all right, well, it's time to come talk about this book. Clearly we're interested. Yes, go ahead, Councilor. Yeah, and I'm going to support this item. But as you said, for planning for the future, I think it sounds like this Council would like to hear some of the questions that Councilor Belcott had. And what are the potential risks? Which chemicals could we look at? Why should we look at it? What would be the cost of looking at it? But yeah, if there's a way that you could bring that back to us. We'd be happy to bring our consultant and our team

1:45:45 to do a work session with our project plan for 2027, if that would be-- I don't know if it needs a whole work session. Or just an update. Sounds good. Or we can keep talking about. We're kind of packed on the work session. So if we're not doing a work session, is a written response to Council sufficient? Yeah, and then we could-- if it could help inform your decisions for next year, that would be great. Would you like to see the most current report that we have as well? Sure. Yeah. OK. Just a really quick question, Chair. Yes, please. Tina or anybody, when did it become standard procedure to put liners underneath landfills? Yeah. It's like Jeopardy of landfills. Yeah. I think as a college, you put that into place. I mean, I thought it was-- well, obviously after '91.

1:46:43 So it may actually have been late '90s or even early 2000s. But I'm sorry, I'll have to look back. No, no, no, it's OK. I think the Chair made a really good point that it's been operating since 1940, almost 100 years. And there hasn't been any issues yet. Not that we shouldn't be concerned. We get our drinking water from ground wells. So something to be concerned about. And then just very last question, I'm curious. So the current landfill, because I've never been out there, it is covered with a liner, correct? And how big of a landfill is this? Yeah, it's about 75 acres. That's significant. Yeah. So it's the area that's just east of-- well, it's 94th Avenue and then Northeast 99th Street. OK. And if you're familiar with Waste Connections of Washington-- I wish I was out there today this morning, as a matter of fact. OK. So it's the field right behind their building and property. Got it. OK. Thank you for that information. Great.

1:47:40 And the funding source for this, is it General Fund? No, we have a separate fund. So it's a 6310. It's a special reserve fund. So it's a financial assurance reserve fund, specifically for post-closure for Lechner. So no General Fund. OK. Great. All right, any other questions? This has been a good discussion. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I better make that motion. Separate business item, motion to improve separate business item number six. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. Motion carries. OK. Thank you very much. Great work. More to come. OK, now I think we have a series related to tax title parcel item 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

1:48:40 And we were briefed on this in our one-on-one, so appreciate that. So we're raring to go. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, Council. For the record, I'm Neil Heyer from the Treasurer's Office, and I'm joined by our Chief Deputy Sarah Lowe. So tonight, we are requesting Council approval of a resolution directing our office to conduct a public online auction for five tax title properties. The benefits of returning to private ownership in selling tax title properties is that one, it puts properties back on the tax roll and will generate tax revenue again. It reduces liability risks for the county. It reduces future maintenance expenses for the county. It also reduces staffing and resources

1:49:37 to address other inquiries and resolving issues related to tax title properties. So the fewer we have in our inventory, the less staff needed to do inquiries. So a little bit of background on tax title properties. So the treasurer is obligated by state law to proceed with tax foreclosure against real property parcels that have billings that are three years past due. And so the treasurer will hold a foreclosure auction. If it doesn't sell at this foreclosure auction, then the county, by law, acquires it in its inventory. And that transfers through a tax deed, so that's hence why they're called the tax title properties. So the county currently has 47 tax title properties in their inventory, with acquisitions dating back as far as 1978. So tax title properties have odd characteristics.

1:50:36 Usually they're very frequently small, oddly shaped, not really suitable for development. Or sometimes they overlap the practical boundaries of adjacent parcels. So because they're not desirable for sale, there's little demand at the point of the original tax sale. And they hence don't sell, and then the county acquires them. So the role of real property services in the past is that once the parcels have become tax title, real property services has been the primary contact for sale inquiries and bringing forth future sales to the council. As is in the case with this situation, they had received inquiries on many of the parcels that we are presenting tonight. And they've also done direct sale negotiations when possible under certain conditions by state statute.

1:51:35 So to go back a little bit, the most common way to sell these is through public auction. We would set-- the treasurer would actually perform that function. We would set the minimum property bid at the outstanding taxes, assessments, and fees and costs due at the time of the original auction, plus any additional costs that we might incur for this upcoming sale. The treasurer's office will be leading this process. And really, the auction allows for the most competitive bidding to determine ultimately what the value of these parcels are. There's also options for direct negotiation. However, those are limited by statutory guidelines. And because there's competitive bids or competitive interests in this, public auction is the most fair and equitable option to see what the value of these will be.

1:52:33 So both methods require council approval. And in instances, there's two properties in which they are located in city jurisdictions. We just have to provide notice that might give cities a chance to purchase them for affordable housing if they desire to do so. So all sale proceeds will go to the general fund. So the minimum bid that we collect will be paid just appropriately apportioned to the taxing districts. But anything surplus beyond is general fund revenue. So let's see. On the next slide, we can go through. We just have a really brief overview that you can see the maps of some of these parcels. This first parcel, it's located in Washougal.

1:53:31 And there was a competitive interest in this one. Let's see. And we'll go to the next slide. This parcel is not a piece of land. It's only a parking bay in a garage in a condominium unit. So the only thing that will be sold is the actual garage bay unit itself. We're offering this one because condo owners may be very interested in purchasing it as parking is difficult to do. It's good to have extra storage if you need. So next slide.

1:54:24 This is also a property that is located in Washougal and also has-- there had been some competitive interest in it. And next slide. Let's see. So this property, I believe, had come before council before. Let me see. We do have Laura Sly from Public Works, Real Property Services, to comment if she has any additional background on this parcel. I don't know if she's looking for a mute button. Oh, there she is. Good evening, counselors. This piece of property, or this acquisition, or this tax title parcel had been before council in 2023.

1:55:22 There was some competitive interest in this piece of property. And at the time, it was tabled to bring this back to public auction. And so this is where we're at now. Chair, I have a really quick question on this particular property. Can these-- I don't remember I asked this question. Can they be sold separately, or they have to be sold as a-- They are one tax law. OK. Yep. Thank you. Good question. And then next slide. And then this last one also had competitive interests in it as well. So three out of the five, or four out of the five had some level of competitive interest. And then we-- because we're doing one public auction that has a single storefront, but individual properties

1:56:21 that you can purchase individually, just in an attempt to relieve the inventory of tax title properties, we've also added that parking garage. Well, I thank you for the consideration. And yeah, I'll open the floor for any questions. OK, questions. Yes. Thank you for this. I just have a question about the order of these on our agenda. So like the last one that you just presented looked like it was 11, but the parcel number is 130, which is presented as the one that is on the Washougal River. So I'm a little confused which one is which. I think they were provided in numerical order for the council, but I think when they were added to the agenda, they were added in the opposite order. So our slide deck is in the opposite order.

1:57:19 Good eye. Go ahead, Councilor Fuentes. Can we move to approve all five of them at the same time? Yes. OK. So I move to approve separate business items 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I second. It's been moved and seconded. Are there any other questions or comments? Sure. Yes, go ahead. Just one real quick question. And I feel like this may be deja vu. I may have asked this in the past, but I don't recall. Like when we set like-- it shows like how much past-- basically it's what our tax loss was on the parcel. If we end up auctioning it off higher than that, did I hear you say that those proceeds go to the general fund? Correct. Yes, that's correct, Councilor.

1:58:18 OK, I'm just curious. Obviously, this is governed by state law, for sure. But if the parcel belonged to an individual, they failed to pay the taxes. And we take possession of the property. So we end up essentially taking ownership of the entire value of the property, even though they may have only owed a certain dollar amount. So we hold these in trust for the taxing districts. And if we do receive proceeds for the sale, the first reimbursement is the treasurer's office for their reimbursable costs. And then we would disburse a pro rata share to the taxing districts that did not get paid from the original sale. And then everything beyond that is just surplus for the county.

1:59:18 But does not go back to the individual that owned the property? That's correct. In this particular instance, because we are actually now the owners of the property, the county is now the owners of these tax title parcels. In a typical foreclosure situation, however, the surplus proceeds do go to the actual owner or heirs of the property, if there are any. That said, if no one comes forward within a three-year time frame, those monies are transferred to the general fund. So this is kind of a situation where they didn't sell an initial foreclosure. And so the county becomes the owner. And just to provide an additional little bit of context, we have 47 properties in tax title. And we have 200,000 total parcels.

2:00:15 So this is a minute fraction, really, of parcels. Most parcels that go to foreclosure, which annually we only take, typically, I would say, less than six to eight parcels to foreclosure. The last few years, with some COVID relief funds, we've taken zero parcels to foreclosure. We make every attempt to really keep homeowners in their homes. Because that's very challenging once folks are displaced. And so, yeah, those surplus proceeds, though, in a typical foreclosure situation, go to the homeowner or the heirs. These are unique circumstances. And we're now the owners. The county's the owner. I hope that answers your question, counselor. It helps, but I'm not quite there. I apologize. So if nobody comes forward within three years

2:01:12 of the foreclosure-- am I understanding that correctly? So if somebody owned the property, and then the county foreclosed, and within three years, we were able to sell the property, then the proceeds above what is owed to the various taxing districts would go to the original owner? So just to play this scenario out, if taxes were delinquent for three years on a parcel, and it was subject to foreclosure, we took all the appropriate actions, and it went to foreclosure. And let's say that taxes owing were $5,000, and we sold it for $100,000. The $5,000 would be disbursed to first the county treasurer's office to recover for fees. So maybe we get $1,000. And the remaining $4,000 would be going to all the taxing districts.

2:02:11 So some would go to the county, some would go to the schools, and the corresponding fire districts, school districts, and the like. The remaining $95,000 would then be available for the homeowner or for their heirs to come and claim as surplus proceeds. They have a three-year window by law by which to do so. And Neil, correct me at any point when I'm saying it incorrectly. But they have three years to come and claim those proceeds. If they do not come and claim those proceeds-- and there are circumstances where heirs can't be found, people have died, there have been fires, there's different situations where we have had difficulty locating heirs, but we do make every attempt-- then those proceeds go into the county's general fund. OK, and so these are instances where nobody has come forward for three years? No.

2:03:07 These are instances where the property went to foreclosure sale, and no one purchased the property for any amount of money. Like, no bids were received for this property. So $5,000 of taxes were owed on the property, and no one bid on it because it didn't have any desirable value for bidding. So essentially, the county, by default, became the owner. And it came off the tax roll, and we've been having it in trust ever since. OK, and then I'm assuming that there are certain requirements that have to be met for us to-- you know, we can't just kind of shelf the property, and three years goes by, and then we sell. I mean, we have a process that we have to go by, and we followed that process, I'm assuming. Yeah, and actually, I'll make maybe one bit of a distinction is that when it comes to the surplus funds that would go

2:04:07 back to the homeowner, the distinction is that during our initial foreclosure sale, we actually had a private individual purchase it. The county never actually takes ownership. The treasurer sells it to a private owner, but we hold the surplus funds for that foreclosed homeowner. In this scenario that we're speaking with for tax title properties tonight, this is an instance. No bidders. County has taken ownership. It is in the county's inventory. And then in these scenarios for these properties, that's where the surplus funds would essentially go back to the county, that the prior owner has no claim to it because we have foreclosed on that and now own it as part of our inventory. OK, very interesting. Thank you for that. The last question that I have is just very simple. How do we make the information known

2:05:06 about the availability for these properties? And the reason I'm thinking about that is groups like Community Roots, who might love one of these kind of weird properties. I don't know what our process is and what our level of outreach is, an attempt to reach nonprofits and other developers who are looking at affordable housing.

2:05:33 Well, I can speak to the treasurer's office would not perform outreach to tax title properties already in the county inventory. Laura, I'm not sure what Real Property Services has done to advertise. So we don't advertise for tax title parcels. There usually is interest generated by them contacting myself or someone in my staff. And then if we get competitive bidders or competitive interest, then we work with the treasurer's office. When it comes to properties that have been purchased with the road fund for the purposes of delivering capital projects, we have in the past, and it's probably been way before COVID, that we've actually had a public auction to surplus what is left over.

2:06:30 And what Public Works actually does surplus off is viable pieces of land. And right now, we are in the process, staff, and I'm working closely with the surveyor's office to be able to have records of survey, stake it, get these pieces of property ready for availability. There are some properties in Salmon Creek that-- and I can get you a list, Councilor Young-- of some parcels that have high density. I have reached out to the Vancouver Housing Authority to see, personally myself, to see if they were interested in that. And I just don't think it was in their budgeting cycle at the time. So I mean, as far as actively doing that, that's something that we have not done in Public Works yet. But it is on the horizon. We are working on this to hopefully get these off to auction.

2:07:28 I'm particularly interested in how successful the treasurer's office is on the tax title online auction. And if that is successful, I have a roadmap to move forward with this. OK, thank you for that information. I probably might reach out for a little bit more detailed information offline. OK. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions? And if not, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. OK, motion carries. That is 7, 8, 9, and 11. Is there a county manager report? I don't have anything tonight. Thank you. OK. Yes, thank you guys very much. No county manager report. We've completed our agenda. And without objection, the meeting is adjourned.