Clark County Council (08-18-26)

Clark County Council · Clark County, WA · 2026-08-18 · More Clark County, WA meetings · More Washington meetings

View original source →

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT ·

SOURCE TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is downloaded from the source you provided but we haven't reviewed it for accuracy. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record. You can also request an AI-transcription of the audio file with the button to the left.

[0:00] Recorded and summarized.

[0:17] >> Good evening and welcome.

[0:18] Calling to order the Clark

[0:20] County Council. Tuesday, Augus

[0:23] 18th, 2026. If you’ll join m

[0:26] in standing for the Pledge of

[0:27] Allegiance and then remain

[0:30] standing for the invocation

[0:31] that will be provided by Ale

[0:33] Carr from New Heights Church. I

[0:38] pledge allegiance to the flag

[0:40] of the United States of America

[0:43] and to the Republic for which

[0:44] it stands one nation under God

[0:48] indivisible, with liberty and

[0:50] justice for all.

[0:59] >> Good evening. I invite you

[1:01] to join me in this prayer.

[1:03] Father God, we humble ourselv

[1:05] before you as we gather this

[1:06] evening. We thank you for your

[1:08] countless blessings and

[1:09] gracious sacrifice of your Son

[1:11] Jesus. Lord, you know each and

[1:13] every heart in this room. I a

[1:15] for your help in aligning our

[1:16] hearts with your will for our

[1:18] community. I ask for your

[1:19] wisdom and guidance over the

[1:20] hearts and minds of those

[1:21] entrusted to serve and lead

[1:23] Clark County. I thank you for

[1:24] the institution of government

[1:26] you’ve given us. I pray that w

[1:27] would seek enacting statutes

[1:29] for our community that honors

[1:30] you and advances love for our

[1:32] neighbor. I thank you for

[1:34] growing in these City Council

[1:35] members a heart to serve our

[1:36] community and seek what is bes

[1:38] for them. I ask that Your Holy

[1:40] Spirit would govern and direct

[1:41] the hearts and minds of these

[1:42] leaders, and help them navigat

[1:44] the challenges that face our

[1:45] county. Today. We thank you f

[1:47] this opportunity to serve

[1:48] others, and I ask for your

[1:50] strength to be over us as we

[1:52] seek to align our actions in

[1:53] accordance with your goodness.

[1:54] We pray these things in your

[1:56] Son’s mighty name. Amen.

[2:03] >> Thank you very much. Let’s

[2:05] move on to the roll call.

[2:07] Michelle. Councilor Young here.

[2:13] Councilor Belkot present.

[2:15] >> Councilor Fuentes here.

[2:17] Councilor Little here, and

[2:19] Chair Marshall here.

[2:20] >> Thank you, thank you. Are

[2:22] there any amendments to the

[2:23] agenda?

[2:24] >> None. Tonight.

[2:25] >> Okay. Thank you. Then we’ll

[2:27] open public comment. And this

[2:28] is open public comment. And y

[2:31] can also comment on the conse

[2:33] and separate business items.

[2:35] And just a reminder, please

[2:37] keep your comments civil and

[2:39] related to county business a

[2:41] refrain from making any

[2:43] statements that are disruptive

[2:45] to conducting county business.

[2:48] >> Carmen de Lehan.

[2:54] >> Hello.

[2:56] >> Press the button.

[2:58] >> Yeah, I’m Carmen de Leon,

[2:59] also known as Melo. So I’m jus

[3:01] going to read this to you

[3:02] because I like it. It says

[3:04] Without God nothing in life

[3:05] makes sense. Spain’s coach

[3:08] confession of faith. And that’

[3:09] the people who just weren’t w

[3:11] the World Cup. FIFA thanking

[3:13] God. This one is just about a

[3:16] mother of a cheerleader and my

[3:18] son suffered two staying awake

[3:21] five days, which caused

[3:24] problems. And this girl and I

[3:26] say I’m lucky for the problems

[3:28] I got because this woman lost

[3:30] her daughter and these energy

[3:33] drinks can give them heart

[3:34] attacks with zero warnings. S

[3:37] I mean, like cigarettes have

[3:38] warnings, energy drinks need

[3:40] big warnings. And I see people

[3:42] all day just chugging them on

[3:44] down. And I’m just waiting for

[3:45] these 25 year olds to have

[3:47] heart attacks. Something needs

[3:49] to be done. Alcohol has a

[3:51] warning. You have to be a

[3:52] certain age. This should be

[3:54] like alcohol 21 and over. I

[3:56] mean, it’s no joke. So anyways

[3:59] according to these things here,

[4:01] changing subjects, if you don’t

[4:02] remember, the Tower of Babel

[4:04] was made to confuse their

[4:06] language. Let’s confuse them t

[4:07] make them weaker. And that’s

[4:10] what I see. All this

[4:11] translation business, you know,

[4:12] you can get translation

[4:14] services free on your phone.

[4:16] why are you paying for it? Why

[4:18] are you giving more money to

[4:19] disable people? Like I said

[4:22] repeatedly, the first thing my

[4:23] dad did when he came to this

[4:25] country was learn the language.

[4:27] He expected nothing in return.

[4:28] He said, I want to be respected

[4:30] I want to work. I’m going to

[4:32] speak English. In one year. He

[4:33] taught himself, what’s with

[4:35] everybody else who has free

[4:37] internet? We shouldn’t be

[4:38] paying a dime for translations.

[4:41] Okay, do I have time? What’s

[4:43] the next one? Oh, yeah. So

[4:45] garbage. I’d like to see an end

[4:47] by date because certain

[4:49] countries have when it comes t

[4:51] waste, they burn it all up and

[4:54] they have even run out of

[4:56] garbage. They’re buying

[4:57] importing garbage to burn and

[4:59] using the heat to whatever

[5:01] energy. So why can’t we do th

[5:03] We have mountains of garbage

[5:05] bigger than actual mountains o

[5:07] the east coast. I heard that

[5:09] some of the biggest mountains

[5:10] on the east coast are trash

[5:12] mountains, so I would love to

[5:14] see all that burnt to the

[5:15] ground and have an end by date

[5:17] And end by date would mean the

[5:19] end of garbage and where we

[5:20] would actually have to import

[5:22] it, where we’re actually

[5:23] recycling things. Which glass

[5:24] is so important to recycle?

[5:25] Because it doesn’t diminish, i

[5:27] keeps its size and strength.

[5:28] You can keep using it

[5:30] indefinitely, whereas other

[5:31] things, they keep getting

[5:31] smaller and smaller. You can

[5:33] only recycle paper so much. So

[5:35] I’m saying recycling and

[5:37] burning things, and I don’t

[5:38] know what methods these people

[5:40] are going to pitch to you, b

[5:42] certain countries, yeah, it w

[5:43] expensive to buy the machines,

[5:45] but generations later it was

[5:46] worth it because they’re having

[5:48] to buy garbage, not just creat

[5:49] it, they’re making something

[5:51] with it. You know, that’s what

[5:53] art is making something

[5:54] beautiful out of nothing. So

[5:55] maybe we can aspire to be lik

[5:57] that. Anyways. That’s it.

[5:59] >> Thank you. Is there anyone

[6:03] else in the room who would lik

[6:05] to speak.

[6:06] >> Theresa Hardy?

[6:12] >> I’m. Good evening. I’m sor

[6:13] I’m a little going to be a

[6:15] little disjointed, but we’re

[6:17] just beginning to kind of put

[6:18] the pieces together. The

[6:22] multifamily housing, sorry, th

[6:26] multifamily, residential,

[6:29] outdoor recreation area

[6:31] standards before 2022. July 5t

[6:35] 2022. April 1st was in

[6:38] management then, and there

[6:39] seemed to be some. That some

[6:44] developments were being

[6:45] approved, allowing them to

[6:46] combine landscaping and

[6:48] recreation, and some weren’t.

[6:49] And the interpretation was tha

[6:51] those two codes were separate

[6:53] 20% landscaping and and

[6:57] recreation. So the D brought i

[6:59] to the council on July 5th, the

[7:03] day after July 4th. And they

[7:06] wanted an interim ordinance.

[7:07] And that ordinance was passed.

[7:09] There was 100 signatures. It

[7:10] was raised to try and stop tha

[7:13] And because I was an interim

[7:15] ordinance, then it went back to

[7:17] what it was. But then D we

[7:18] think it was D pushed it

[7:20] through under the biannual. And

[7:24] it was then Brian Ng who was a

[7:26] planning commissioner, and he

[7:28] said that there were unintende

[7:34] unintended consequences,

[7:36] density implications. It was

[7:38] not a minor amendment, and it

[7:40] should be considered under

[7:42] policy. But Planning Commissio

[7:43] went ahead and approved it to

[7:46] move forward. And then it sort

[7:47] of fell between the cracks. And

[7:49] then it seemed to come back

[7:53] under. After you pass the

[7:54] middle housing option under the

[7:56] multifamily housing options.

[7:57] But you haven’t totally passed

[7:59] that yet. And then they were

[8:01] having meetings with Elizabeth

[8:04] Decker, looking at what this

[8:07] language should be. And those

[8:12] were done with the tech forum

[8:13] And at that time, the tech

[8:15] forum was debe developers and

[8:17] realtors. If you were a member

[8:18] of the public, you could join

[8:21] those meetings, but you weren’t

[8:23] allowed to say anything and y

[8:25] had to send in your comment.

[8:27] And now we are. It looks as

[8:30] it’s going forward in the

[8:32] hearing on the 20th, and it h

[8:37] totally changed. It is no

[8:40] longer multifamily, residential

[8:42] outdoor recreation areas. It

[8:46] now special use and standards.

[8:49] It’s it’s multifamily,

[8:51] residential amenity area

[8:54] standards. The landscaping

[8:55] seems to have dropped the the

[8:58] recreation part is changed. T

[9:00] all of the standards that wer

[9:03] expected under the multifamily

[9:06] recreation standards are have

[9:08] been diminished. So my time is

[9:12] up. It needs to be looked at.

[9:15] It shouldn’t go forward like.

[9:17] >> It is. It’s timely. So

[9:18] please, please come back or

[9:20] send us some information. Thank

[9:22] you.

[9:23] >> That seems to be all the

[9:24] people that we have signed up

[9:26] in the room. We do have one

[9:28] caller with their hand raised

[9:29] online. Great caller. You’ve

[9:30] been sent a request to unmute.

[9:32] Please go ahead and do so.

[9:33] State your name for the record

[9:34] and go ahead with your comment

[9:39] >> Good evening. This is

[9:40] Kimberly Goheen Elbon. I

[9:43] appreciate Melo speaking about

[9:44] God, and I’d like to say that

[9:47] part of our problem is taking

[9:48] God out of not only our schoo

[9:52] and that’s designed to have

[9:54] children. Rely actually grow u

[9:58] and rely on the government,

[10:01] which is wrong. But also you

[10:03] took God out of our judicial

[10:06] court system. And I have a

[10:09] definite problem, as you well

[10:10] know, with my son Cleve going

[10:12] Rengulbai being victimized by

[10:15] our very own Clark County

[10:17] judicial law and justice system

[10:19] here. I’m going to speak a

[10:20] little bit about your

[10:22] interpreter interpreters that

[10:23] you’re going to be paying a lot

[10:25] of money for at the cost

[10:27] increases result from multipl

[10:28] factors that include in-person

[10:30] assignments and increase of 8%

[10:32] in caseload and complexity of

[10:34] caseloads and increase in

[10:36] assignment complexity, such as

[10:39] transcriptions of body camera

[10:41] footage. These people are going

[10:42] to transcribe a camera footage

[10:46] It’s on the rise and becoming

[10:48] factor in an increase in

[10:50] service cost. Additionally,

[10:51] with fewer defense attorneys

[10:53] available for hearings, cases

[10:54] are taking longer to resolve,

[10:56] and defense counsel’s may have

[11:00] to be prioritized over the

[11:02] interpreter case to allow. S

[11:05] what I what I’ve seen when I

[11:06] sit in the court cases is, is

[11:08] there are a lot of illegal

[11:10] immigrants here. I don’t care

[11:12] what the mandates state that

[11:14] they need interpreters. The

[11:16] fact is, is we need to just

[11:19] ship them back home. I, I don’t

[11:21] know what else to say, but

[11:23] they’re they’re getting a

[11:24] better trial and more funding

[11:28] and responsibilities being

[11:31] taken than my own son. And I

[11:35] have a big problem with that.

[11:37] I’d like to also mention that

[11:38] I’ve received a letter from th

[11:40] ACLU of Washington State

[11:43] reprimanding our law and

[11:44] justice system, stating that

[11:46] they are holding people

[11:49] incarcerated with no attorney.

[11:50] And that is my son’s case. He’

[11:52] not only spent two years in

[11:54] jail, but now, come to find ou

[11:56] is going on his third week of

[11:57] no. No attorney, no, no public

[12:01] defender. That’s criminal. And

[12:04] the fact is, is when you do

[12:06] love God, we’re patient. We

[12:08] might suffer, but we give all

[12:09] glory to God and this will com

[12:11] to light. We are going to take

[12:12] care of Clark County’s law and

[12:14] justice system here. I have a

[12:16] real big issue with number six

[12:18] on your agenda, that you’re

[12:19] going to pass all of these,

[12:21] you’re going to pass, but the

[12:25] neuropathy pathology

[12:27] consultations were infant

[12:29] deaths. And with traumatic

[12:33] brain injury, where does an

[12:35] infant get traumatic brain

[12:36] injury that we have to, you

[12:38] know, get thousands of dollars

[12:39] to pay people to come in?

[12:41] >> Okay. Thank you.

[12:43] >> Chair, that concludes public

[12:45] comment.

[12:45] >> Okay, then let’s move on to

[12:48] the consent agenda. Would

[12:50] anyone like to pull one throu

[12:54] eight? Not hearing any. I’ll

[13:02] entertain a motion to approve

[13:03] the consent agenda. Items one

[13:05] through eight.

[13:06] >> So moved.

[13:07] >> Second, moved and seconded.

[13:09] All those in favor say I. I I

[13:11] I thank you. Motion carries.

[13:15] Then let’s move right on to

[13:17] separate business item number

[13:20] one, David Zimmerman and Mary

[13:23] Ann clear. Please come forwa

[13:32] or you can sit right up here.

[13:37] Welcome. Go ahead.

[13:47] >> Hello. Good evening, council

[13:49] members.

[13:54] >> I think it was working.

[13:59] >> Can you hear me now? Yes.

[14:00] Okay. Perfect. Almost felt li

[14:02] that was commercial. Good

[14:05] evening, Council members. My

[14:06] name is Mary Ann Clear. I’m a

[14:08] district court administrator

[14:10] and I am here to talk with y

[14:13] Item number one was to speak

[14:15] about the our request for

[14:18] additional funding for the

[14:20] interpreters. That is a

[14:22] mandated service that we are

[14:24] providing. And we had been

[14:27] looking at our projections.

[14:29] This is David Zimmerman. He is

[14:30] our finance manager, and we’ve

[14:33] been looking at our projections

[14:34] I’ve been at district court f

[14:35] about a month and a half now,

[14:37] going over our budget, spendin

[14:39] quite a bit of time with it,

[14:42] and wanted to make sure that w

[14:43] have enough money to provide

[14:46] interpreters throughout the

[14:47] rest of the year, because it i

[14:49] a mandated service, and this

[14:50] something that district court

[14:52] does for our criminal justice

[14:54] system. We do it not just for

[14:58] district court, but for

[14:59] Superior Court and several of

[15:01] our other partners. And you can

[15:06] see there is an increase in

[15:09] services. We did move with

[15:12] District court back in Februar

[15:14] over to an additional buildin

[15:17] We have interpreters who appea

[15:21] virtually. They also appear in

[15:23] person. Interpreters aren’t

[15:26] just with verbal, but we do

[15:28] have American Sign Language,

[15:31] and it is an important service

[15:33] that we provide for individual

[15:36] individuals. Our request is for

[15:42] $328,400 to finish out the res

[15:44] of the year.

[15:47] >> Great. Thank you. Was there

[15:48] anything you wanted to add?

[15:55] There you go.

[15:56] >> This is David Zimmerman,

[15:58] accounting services manager at

[16:00] District Court. We’ve built

[16:02] this projection on seeing a 3

[16:07] increase in service cost on a

[16:09] monthly basis, on a monthly

[16:10] average. And this is our

[16:12] projection for the end of 2026.

[16:16] >> Thank you. Are there any

[16:18] questions or comments from the

[16:19] council?

[16:19] >> I have a comment.

[16:21] >> Yes, please.

[16:21] >> Why the significant increase?

[16:24] Is it labor costs?

[16:28] >> We we’re operating out of

[16:30] two physical locations now. A

[16:32] it’s mainly the in person

[16:35] assignments. Interpreters are

[16:37] not. It’s not really possible

[16:42] for them to toggle between the

[16:44] two locations. So we’ve got

[16:46] district court assignments and

[16:47] then superior court assignments

[16:49] Superior court makes makes out

[16:51] about 32% of of our caseload.

[16:56] And juvenile court, which is

[16:57] one location before, when we

[17:00] were at the courthouse, when

[17:01] district court was at the

[17:02] courthouse, interpreters could

[17:04] toggle between assignments. Now

[17:06] we need in-person interpreters

[17:09] at one location and the other

[17:10] location that is contributed to

[17:12] a lot of the cost increase.

[17:15] >> Thank you.

[17:17] >> Other comments or questions

[17:20] I have a question. Was this

[17:22] partially grant funded in the

[17:24] past?

[17:25] >> No. This is something that

[17:28] because of ongoing increases i

[17:31] services with in terms of

[17:33] growing caseloads between case

[17:36] filings and this has been

[17:40] something I believe last year

[17:41] was an additional request that

[17:44] was made as well. This isn’t

[17:46] something that’s been grant

[17:48] funded. Typically, it’s just

[17:50] increase.

[17:51] >> Okay. And then I did have a

[17:53] question. I saw that we also

[17:54] provide this service for

[17:56] battleground and Kamea

[17:58] Washougal. And do they

[17:59] contribute to the cost of this

[18:01] service?

[18:02] >> Yes they do. And

[18:04] additionally, because we have

[18:07] an agreement with the

[18:09] Administrative Office of Courts

[18:11] and we meet specifications w

[18:15] a language access plan, and w

[18:17] have staff interpreters and we

[18:19] have some meetings. We meet

[18:22] their requirements in order t

[18:24] receive reimbursement for some

[18:25] of the services that we are

[18:27] providing.

[18:29] >> Great. Thank you. Okay. If

[18:31] there’s no further questions o

[18:33] comments, I’ll enter. Oh yes.

[18:35] Please go ahead, counselor.

[18:38] >> Sure. I have a question. And

[18:39] I think I asked this the last

[18:42] time I had you guys in front o

[18:44] us for a similar ask, but I’m

[18:46] going to ask again because

[18:48] things have changed. But with

[18:50] the technology that we have

[18:52] nowadays with, you know,

[18:54] instant translation, that is

[18:56] able to happen using AI, are w

[18:59] like waiting for the state to

[19:02] approve that? Or where are we

[19:03] at in terms of, you know, being

[19:05] able to use technology to

[19:08] address this issue?

[19:10] >> That’s an excellent questio

[19:12] counselor. We did. And I guess

[19:14] it also goes to the the

[19:16] question of there is some of

[19:19] this grant funded. We do have a

[19:22] small grant for these things

[19:25] that are called pocket talks,

[19:28] but they’re not something that

[19:29] we can use for court. So say if

[19:32] someone’s in trial, we can’t

[19:34] use this for, say, a five day

[19:36] trial in Superior Court. And

[19:39] it’s something that we can use

[19:40] say, if if we know what

[19:43] language somebody is using, but

[19:45] it’s also not something that w

[19:46] can use with American Sign

[19:48] Language. And that this isn’t

[19:52] an important obligation that we

[19:56] have, because it is a mandated

[19:58] service that is in our statute

[20:00] And so it is important for u

[20:04] to do so. I don’t know if that

[20:07] specifically addresses what you

[20:08] are looking for with respect t

[20:10] AI.

[20:12] >> Well.

[20:13] >> When you say we can’t, you

[20:15] know, is it because the

[20:18] technology is not there or is

[20:19] the technology is there and

[20:20] we’re just not legally able to

[20:22] use it?

[20:25] >> I am not specifically

[20:28] familiar with AI technology

[20:30] that would meet our statutory

[20:32] requirements.

[20:38] >> Okay. Thank you.

[20:40] >> Okay. If there’s no other

[20:43] questions or concerns, I’ll

[20:45] entertain a motion to approve

[20:48] >> So moved.

[20:49] >> Thank you. Second.

[20:50] >> Moved and seconded. All

[20:52] those in favor, say I. I I.

[20:56] thank you. Motion carries.

[20:57] Thanks very much.

[20:59] >> Yes. Thank you.

[21:02] >> Okay. I think you’re

[21:03] sticking around for the next

[21:04] item too. So yes. So this is

[21:09] the electronic monitoring. So

[21:10] please go ahead.

[21:12] >> Thank you. And I, I wanted

[21:14] to thank you. When Diane

[21:17] Rathburn was present in front

[21:19] of you on August 4th with a

[21:23] grant application request, I

[21:26] wanted to thank you, council

[21:27] members, for the permission to

[21:29] proceed with the application.

[21:31] The application was submitted

[21:33] and we are optimistically

[21:36] waiting to hear back. I spoke

[21:37] with Diane this morning, and w

[21:40] are hoping that within about a

[21:42] month and a half, we may hear

[21:44] back on the funding request

[21:46] that we’re hoping that we will

[21:48] be funded for this. On the

[21:53] possibility that we will not b

[21:55] funded. I believe. Council

[21:57] Member Fuentes, you had asked

[22:00] what would happen if we are n

[22:02] funded. Mr. Zimmerman had

[22:07] projected that we will run o

[22:09] of funding in October of this

[22:12] year, and. While the programs

[22:18] would still exist, the program

[22:21] would not be affordable for

[22:24] many individuals in our county,

[22:26] and that would mean that peo

[22:28] would remain in our facility,

[22:31] the Clark County Jail. And so

[22:36] there are several programs in

[22:39] our electronic monitoring

[22:41] programs. They are. Required.

[22:46] So when someone is sentenced o

[22:49] a DUI, there is a requirement

[22:52] for them to be able to be o

[22:57] electronic monitoring. And some

[22:59] of this funding goes towards

[23:01] that. And if some individuals

[23:04] are able to be out on

[23:05] electronic monitoring and

[23:07] transdermal, then that becomes

[23:11] a question of fairness. If s

[23:13] people are able to do that

[23:15] because they can afford it, an

[23:16] other people have to sit in th

[23:18] Clark County Jail because they

[23:19] are unable to afford that. So

[23:22] this this program actually

[23:24] allows all of those people to

[23:27] be monitored, to be home, to b

[23:29] working, and to be adequately

[23:32] monitored. This also funds the

[23:36] electronic monitoring with

[23:37] Victim Notification Technology

[23:40] Program, which is the GPS

[23:42] program that we are familiar

[23:44] with, as well as Scram and the

[23:49] urinalysis testing for those

[23:51] who are pretrial when that i

[23:53] ordered by the court as a

[23:56] pretrial condition of release.

[24:02] >> Okay. Thank you. Are there

[24:04] questions from the council

[24:05] chair?

[24:05] >> Do you have a really quick

[24:07] question? Thanks for

[24:08] remembering the conversation.

[24:10] You you mentioned that if. Wel

[24:13] first of all, when do we

[24:15] anticipate to hear about

[24:17] whether or not the grant was

[24:19] approved.

[24:20] >> In round one? We heard

[24:22] within two months. Okay. And

[24:24] it’s been a couple of weeks. S

[24:26] we’re hoping that within abou

[24:27] a month and a half, we would b

[24:29] able to hear, okay.

[24:30] >> So that will probably it’ll

[24:32] take us up to October, right?

[24:33] >> Yes. And should we be

[24:35] successful, then we would no

[24:37] longer need the funding.

[24:39] >> Okay. I we’re going to be

[24:40] successful. Right? I think yea

[24:42] I’m pretty sure you guys

[24:43] submitted an amazing grant. You

[24:44] mentioned that there are folks

[24:46] who can’t afford to pay for t

[24:49] monitoring services. If we

[24:50] don’t get approved for the

[24:52] grant, what is it cost for

[24:54] those who could afford it?

[24:55] What’s the daily cost?

[24:56] >> It depends on actually whi

[24:59] condition and which program

[25:01] they’re ordered. So it could

[25:03] $15 a day. It could be $21 a

[25:06] day. It depends on what is

[25:09] ordered. So whether that’s

[25:10] scram or GPS monitoring, it

[25:15] depends on the program.

[25:16] >> So a lot a lot cheaper than

[25:18] incarcerating somebody for

[25:20] almost $210 a day.

[25:21] >> Yeah. $216 a day.

[25:24] >> 216 okay, I was looking at

[25:25] the top one here. Oh, that was

[25:27] 2025. So inflation. 216. Gre

[25:29] Thank you.

[25:31] >> Other questions. Yes.

[25:33] Councilor young.

[25:36] >> Yes, thank you chair.

[25:38] Similar to my last question, I

[25:40] think the last time this came

[25:42] in front of us, we had a short

[25:44] discussion about how we are

[25:46] determining whether people can

[25:48] afford this on their own

[25:49] without. It or not. And if I

[25:53] remember correctly, I think you

[25:54] were maybe in process of

[25:58] developing a way to make sure

[26:02] or to can’t afford to comment

[26:05] on.

[26:07] >> Did you hear that question?

[26:08] Because I think he was asking

[26:10] about how do we how do we

[26:11] determine whether or not

[26:12] someone can afford it, whether

[26:14] or not there’s a financial need?

[26:18] >> That need, I believe, is

[26:19] based on whether or not someo

[26:21] is determined to be indigent,

[26:24] being indigent by the court.

[26:26] And one of the things that w

[26:30] wrote into our grant

[26:31] application is that we would b

[26:32] working with all of our

[26:33] partners. We’ve been focusing

[26:37] on in the last month and a hal

[26:39] since I have been here as the

[26:42] district court administrator,

[26:44] on being really collaborative

[26:45] with our partners and trying to

[26:46] figure out how can we look at

[26:49] our programs and best use our

[26:52] resources that are available,

[26:55] been working with Vancouver

[26:58] Police Department, who they’re

[27:00] working with. One of the

[27:01] programs, which is the MVNT o

[27:04] the electronic monitoring the

[27:05] GPS program. They did write a

[27:07] letter of support for the grant

[27:09] application and wanting to loo

[27:13] at. She’s offered to do some

[27:17] training or refresher training

[27:18] for the courts, and I know has

[27:20] already worked with the

[27:21] prosecuting attorney’s office

[27:23] in terms of how the programs

[27:25] work, really looking at how c

[27:28] we best use the resources and

[27:32] not overuse the resources, but

[27:36] use them the way they are

[27:37] intended and, and preserve our

[27:40] cost and the life of the

[27:42] program?

[27:44] >> That all sounds great. I wa

[27:46] wondering, I was wondering

[27:47] about that. So it’s the courts

[27:48] that decide whether or not

[27:49] someone is indigent, and do

[27:52] they base that on some data

[27:55] there?

[27:56] >> There is a form that is

[27:58] completed at the beginning of

[27:59] the hearing.

[28:00] >> Okay.

[28:00] >> Is it just self-declare?

[28:04] >> If people are just self

[28:05] declaring that they can’t

[28:06] afford this.

[28:08] >> I will say yes. There are

[28:10] specific questions that are

[28:12] asked and it’s based on the

[28:13] answers provided.

[28:15] >> Okay. And then I was, you

[28:17] know, I noticed that there’s

[28:18] been a sharp increase and, you

[28:21] know, how do you how do you

[28:23] account for that, that increas

[28:24] And I think this started as a

[28:26] grant funded program not too

[28:30] long. When did it start that

[28:32] were picking up the cost of

[28:35] this? So I think there was a

[28:37] time when we didn’t.

[28:40] >> That’s correct. We had

[28:42] various grants for various

[28:43] components of this program,

[28:45] some of them from the

[28:46] administrative office of the

[28:47] courts, others by the

[28:48] Washington Traffic Safety

[28:50] Commission. Both of those gra

[28:53] funding funded components have

[28:55] expired now, and the last one

[28:57] is expiring this October for

[29:00] the electronic monitoring for

[29:02] DOI, and that is provided by

[29:05] the Washington Traffic Safety

[29:07] Commission. And hence we

[29:09] projected out until the end of

[29:11] the year. There is not going t

[29:13] be any more funding for that

[29:15] component of the program. The

[29:17] other component of the program

[29:19] was GPS with victim

[29:20] notification, and a lot of tha

[29:22] was recommendations from the P

[29:25] office to. For for that part of

[29:33] monitoring.

[29:34] >> I can see where that would

[29:36] be really very important. Chair

[29:39] Yes. Go ahead.

[29:40] >> April 1st, for the record,

[29:41] Deputy County Manager. And I

[29:43] think that the program is only

[29:44] like three years old, and we

[29:46] were one of the first in the

[29:47] state to do it. And so I think

[29:49] the rapid increase is just

[29:51] recognizing, I mean, our courts,

[29:52] we all believe in it. The court

[29:55] systems, VPD, public defense

[29:58] and Pretrial District Court.

[30:01] >> That was my recollection t

[30:03] So I just wanted some

[30:05] confirmation. You know, I’m I

[30:08] appreciate that you’re looking

[30:10] internally to see if there’s

[30:12] ways to prioritize or how the

[30:14] system is working. And I would

[30:16] just request when you begin to

[30:18] figure that out, or if you hav

[30:20] recommendations, if you could

[30:21] share that with the Law and

[30:22] Justice Council or even, you

[30:24] know, kick it around with the

[30:25] Law and Justice Council to try

[30:27] to figure out how we can make

[30:30] this most efficient, because I

[30:32] see it as part of the justice

[30:34] part of law and justice. It’s

[30:36] critically important. Any other

[30:38] comments or questions from the

[30:40] Council?

[30:40] >> Just one really quick

[30:41] question, chair. The grant tha

[30:43] we’ve applied for that

[30:45] hopefully we get approved. For

[30:48] How long is the grant for year

[30:49] two? Three?

[30:50] >> It would fund us through

[30:52] June 30th of 2028.

[30:54] >> So a couple years. No, yea

[30:56] and a half. Yeah. Okay. Thank

[30:57] you.

[30:58] >> Great. Well, fingers crossed

[31:00] on that. If there’s no other

[31:02] questions or comments, I’ll

[31:03] entertain a motion to approve

[31:04] >> I move to approve separate

[31:06] business item number two.

[31:07] >> A second.

[31:08] >> Moved and seconded. All

[31:09] those in favor say I I I. Okay.

[31:13] Motion carries. Thank you very

[31:15] much.

[31:16] >> Thank you. Okay, let’s move

[31:19] on to item three public works

[31:22] Sterling and others. Thanks for

[31:30] being here. Okay. Please go

[31:44] ahead.

[31:46] >> Good evening, Council Chair

[31:47] councilors. For the record, my

[31:49] name is Tyler Bennett. I am th

[31:50] fleet manager here for Clark

[31:52] County. Here today. I have

[31:54] Sterling Kessler, the fleet

[31:55] program coordinator for

[31:57] acquisitions and disposals, who

[31:58] is going to present our request

[32:01] today.

[32:05] >> Hi. Good evening, Council

[32:07] chair and councilors. I’m

[32:09] Sterling Kessler, the fleet

[32:10] program coordinator for Clark

[32:11] County Public Works. Tonight,

[32:13] we are requesting that we get

[32:16] approval to preorder the

[32:18] replacement vehicles for the

[32:20] 2027 model year fleet services,

[32:23] reviews and analyzes assets

[32:25] managed within our air and our

[32:27] program to ensure compliance

[32:30] with the fleet utilization and

[32:33] replacement policy and

[32:35] determine when replacement is

[32:37] necessary. The attached list t

[32:39] this staff report identifies

[32:42] the vehicles and equipment tha

[32:43] we are planning to replace in

[32:46] 2027. This request comes

[32:50] through due to the fact that

[32:51] order windows for original

[32:53] equipment manufacturers open u

[32:55] at different times of the year

[32:57] and do not necessarily line up

[32:59] with our budget year starting

[33:01] January 1st. This has created

[33:03] problems in the past, procuring

[33:06] replacement equipment, causing

[33:08] the equipment that has been

[33:11] identified to be replaced to be

[33:13] in service longer, driving up

[33:15] maintenance costs, creating

[33:18] additional administrative

[33:21] burdens, tracking replacements

[33:24] that pass through the. The nex

[33:28] year’s. Fleet services as

[33:32] requesting approval to place

[33:34] the orders for these vehicles

[33:35] and equipment. Deliver. The

[33:38] delivery of these assets will

[33:40] occur after January 1st in 202

[33:46] >> Okay. Thank you. Are there

[33:48] any questions from Council? I

[33:53] don’t hear any questions or

[33:56] comments. If not, I’ll

[33:58] entertain a motion to approve.

[34:00] >> So move.

[34:01] >> It’s been moved. Second,

[34:03] moved and seconded. And all

[34:06] those in favor say I I I motio

[34:10] carries.

[34:10] >> Thank you. Okay. Moving on

[34:16] to and this is public works

[34:18] also. Professional consulting

[34:23] services related to regional

[34:24] solid waste system steering

[34:26] committee. Welcome.

[34:33] >> Good evening Council. I’m

[34:34] Joel Loescher. I’m the division

[34:36] manager for Clark County Publi

[34:37] Works. Today we’re requesting

[34:41] council approval for a

[34:42] professional consulting

[34:43] services agreement with HDR

[34:46] engineering to provide

[34:47] consulting, facilitation and

[34:49] technical support to the

[34:50] Regional Solid Waste System

[34:52] Steering Committee in

[34:53] evaluating regional governance,

[34:55] public ownership options and

[34:58] operational changes to the

[34:59] regional solid Waste System. So

[35:01] we came and did a work session

[35:02] in June to talk about the cost

[35:04] benefit analysis and what

[35:07] resulted in that study that w

[35:10] did was that we really neede

[35:11] to move forward in evaluating

[35:13] the governance structure for

[35:15] what a regional ownership would

[35:16] look like, and then factor int

[35:18] costs would follow that this

[35:20] work is going to this work was

[35:22] modeled after the discovery

[35:23] Clean Water Alliance formation

[35:25] And so when we did the RFP for

[35:28] this consultant contract, we

[35:30] borrowed the RFP from that

[35:33] discovery Clean Water Alliance

[35:35] work. And so we really modeled this off of

[35:38] the success of that alliance

[35:40] formation. And we’re going to

[35:41] look forward to moving into th

[35:44] discussions with the cities o

[35:47] how they envision the system.

[35:49] So I’m happy to answer any

[35:51] questions that you have.

[35:52] >> Okay. Any questions or

[35:54] comments? What would be the

[35:56] timeline?

[35:57] >> So this contract is for

[35:59] three years. Right now we

[36:01] really have to discuss with the

[36:02] cities what what availability

[36:05] they have. We’ve discussed

[36:07] maybe a compressed timeline

[36:08] where we just meet more

[36:10] frequently and get something,

[36:12] an MOU and an interlocal

[36:14] agreement started right away,

[36:16] or we might have to extend i

[36:17] out a year. It just depends o

[36:19] what everyone’s 2027 looks lik

[36:21] So we did the contract

[36:23] initially with the consultant

[36:24] for three years, but we’re ope

[36:27] to any, any number of options

[36:30] in terms of the timeline. We

[36:31] need to commit to some or s

[36:35] decision by December 31st, 202

[36:39] That’s that was committed to

[36:41] via interlocal agreements with

[36:42] all of the cities that we d

[36:44] during the solid waste

[36:46] management plan that we did

[36:48] last year.

[36:50] >> Okay.

[36:51] >> Just really quick question.

[36:52] So other jurisdictions have

[36:54] have had similar presentations

[36:56] in front of the council to

[36:58] discuss the potential future

[37:01] partnership of acquiring waste

[37:03] management. Is that correct?

[37:05] >> The transfer stations are

[37:06] owned currently by Waste

[37:07] Connections of Washington.

[37:08] >> Waste connections. Thank you

[37:09] Thank you. So but they are

[37:11] they’ve been in conversations.

[37:12] Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[37:13] >> We were just at battleground

[37:14] last night, in fact.

[37:15] >> Okay. Got it. Thank you.

[37:17] >> How how are those

[37:18] conversations been going? Is

[37:19] there an openness interest?

[37:20] >> I think there’s a varying

[37:23] level of interest. I think

[37:24] everyone’s excited about

[37:26] evaluating the options. I would

[37:28] say there’s a spectrum on

[37:30] interest in terms of, you know,

[37:33] just wanting to make sure tha

[37:34] the rates are going to remain

[37:36] stable and that there’s going

[37:37] to be some. I think the most

[37:39] exciting thing is just the

[37:40] opportunity to competitively

[37:42] bid for pricing. And so I thi

[37:44] everyone’s said that there’s an

[37:45] interest in that regard. And

[37:48] just any opportunity to, you

[37:50] know, have lower rates for

[37:52] residents and then, you know,

[37:53] better system outcomes, better

[37:57] opportunities to manage the

[37:58] system so that we can have mor

[38:00] control over the types of

[38:02] materials that are going

[38:03] through it.

[38:04] >> Great. Well, discovery,

[38:05] clean water is a good example

[38:07] to model after. Go ahead.

[38:11] >> Yeah. Just curious, how doe

[38:13] the regional governance

[38:15] structure work in other

[38:17] counties and how is the

[38:20] liability risk shared amongst

[38:22] the different jurisdictions?

[38:24] >> Washington has so many

[38:25] different examples. When we did

[38:27] our regional system study, w

[38:28] had J.R. Miller and Associate

[38:30] perform that study for us. The

[38:32] we did a presentation in 2023

[38:34] on that. There was pretty much

[38:37] four different models that wer

[38:39] referenced in that study. We

[38:43] went over each of them. But the

[38:45] model that the Discovery Clean

[38:46] Water Alliance uses is we’re

[38:49] not sure that we’re going to be

[38:50] exactly able to do that, which

[38:52] is a joint municipal utility

[38:55] services configuration. I think

[38:57] what we’re looking at is doing

[38:59] something with Interlocal

[39:00] Cooperation Act, which is wha

[39:04] other counties do in Washingto

[39:06] I think typically the county

[39:07] either owns or they have it.

[39:09] It’s either privately owned,

[39:11] and then if they own it,

[39:13] sometimes they contract out

[39:14] those services. In terms of a

[39:17] regional structure, there’s

[39:18] really nothing I don’t think

[39:20] that can compare. Maybe Metro

[39:23] over across the river is

[39:24] probably more similar. And whe

[39:26] we did the regional system

[39:28] study in terms of what the

[39:30] other cities kind of envisione

[39:32] there wasn’t anything that we

[39:34] could model that was an exact

[39:37] replica in Washington. We had

[39:39] some examples in California,

[39:41] but really we leaned on the

[39:43] Discovery Clean Water Alliance

[39:44] as that’s the vision that all

[39:45] of the cities and the county a

[39:47] the time really thought was

[39:48] what we wanted to do.

[39:51] >> Okay, thanks. And so the

[39:53] liability is shared amongst t

[39:55] jurisdictions. You know, do

[39:56] they get insurance jointly or

[39:58] how does that work?

[39:59] >> You know, it’s a good

[40:00] question. There’s so many

[40:04] different responses in the

[40:05] sense of if it’s a complete

[40:09] separate entity, the liability

[40:11] would fall to the entity.

[40:12] There’d be they’d have their

[40:13] own separate insurance, they’d

[40:14] have their own attorneys. So

[40:16] it’s just, it’s really going t

[40:17] we’re going to have to really

[40:19] lean on our legal services to

[40:20] decide like what that structure

[40:22] looks like.

[40:22] >> But our attorney is leaning.

[40:24] >> Yeah, I was going to say. To

[40:26] make.

[40:26] >> A comment, please go ahead,

[40:28] Amber.

[40:28] >> Thank you. Chair. Good

[40:29] evening Council. Amber Smith,

[40:30] Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting

[40:31] Attorney so with respect to

[40:33] these types of things and wit

[40:34] most of our agreements that we

[40:36] have with the county, when

[40:37] we’re dealing with inter local

[40:40] or kind of joint collaborative

[40:42] work, we often have language

[40:44] there about mutual

[40:46] indemnification. Washington

[40:48] state has proportional

[40:49] liability for a lot of things.

[40:51] So depending on the actors and

[40:54] whether or not we have sold

[40:55] negligence language, there’s a

[40:56] lot of opportunities

[40:58] contractually that we can do

[40:59] for liabilities to help reduc

[41:02] and also offset those maybe n

[41:05] necessarily eliminate, but mak

[41:07] sure that there’s language in

[41:08] there, that it’s proportional

[41:09] based on the parties.

[41:11] >> Okay. Thank you.

[41:14] >> Other comments or questions

[41:15] from council? Hearing none,

[41:20] I’ll entertain a motion to

[41:21] approve.

[41:24] >> I so move.

[41:26] >> Second moved and seconded

[41:28] for separate business item

[41:30] number four. All those in favor

[41:32] say I I I motion motion carri

[41:36] Thank you.

[41:37] >> Thank you counsel.

[41:38] >> Thanks a lot. Then moving

[41:40] to the Treasurer’s office

[41:43] mirror and Sarah who are coming

[41:46] forward. And Michelle is comin

[41:47] forward also the whole gang,

[41:51] the whole gang is here. That’s

[41:52] great. We’re glad to see you.

[41:58] >> Good evening Council Sarah

[42:00] Low, chief deputy treasurer in

[42:01] the Clark County Treasurer’s

[42:03] office. I am here tonight wit

[42:06] some colleagues on the dais

[42:08] here or on the table here.

[42:09] Michelle introduce themselves.

[42:11] >> Thank you. Michelle Schuste

[42:12] director of internal Services.

[42:15] >> And Omera. I’m the finance

[42:16] and investment manager in the

[42:18] Clark County Treasurer’s office.

[42:20] >> Thanks. And there’s also a

[42:21] couple of folks online. It

[42:24] looks like our financial

[42:26] advisor PFM is online. Is

[42:30] Maggie online? Just wanting to

[42:32] check and confirm. I can’t see

[42:34] everyone. Yes. Okay. Wonderful

[42:39] Thank you. Wonderful. So if

[42:40] there are any questions that

[42:42] come up for PFM, they’re onlin

[42:44] And then we have a couple o

[42:46] folks in the audience. Marc

[42:47] Gasque. And then our bond

[42:49] council is actually in person

[42:50] this evening. So Mark Gernhar

[42:52] from Foster Garvey. So Mark

[42:55] Gasque will also be coming up

[42:56] here to replace me for the

[42:58] slides. So thank you, Council

[43:00] We are here this evening to a

[43:02] for your approval of a

[43:04] resolution delegating the

[43:06] Treasurer’s Office authority t

[43:08] issue $44 million in bonds to

[43:12] execute several projects at the

[43:16] fairgrounds. We do have a short

[43:18] presentation for you this

[43:19] evening that just kind of

[43:20] explains the projects that will

[43:22] be funded with those bonds, t

[43:25] financing plan, and what

[43:27] exactly is in the resolution.

[43:29] The resolution that was poste

[43:31] originally has been amended.

[43:33] And so that is up for adoptio

[43:36] this evening. There are some

[43:37] just minor modifications to add

[43:39] the word fairgrounds to the

[43:42] resolution, so that it syncs u

[43:45] with our original agreement

[43:46] with the Public Facilities

[43:48] district. So with that, I am

[43:50] going to turn it over to my

[43:52] colleagues in the Treasurer’s

[43:53] office and internal services s

[43:54] they can go over the

[43:56] presentation for you this

[43:57] evening. Thank you.

[43:59] >> Thank you. You can go to the

[44:02] next slide. Thank you. Okay.

[44:08] Can you hear me? There we go.

[44:10] Okay. In this presentation

[44:13] we’ll review one the

[44:15] fairgrounds projects. There was

[44:16] some updated final cost to the

[44:18] second phase that Michelle is

[44:19] going to cover for those future

[44:22] projects. And we’ll also

[44:24] provide an overview of the

[44:25] resolution and the key details

[44:26] of the financing. And we’ll

[44:29] also go over the updated debt

[44:30] service projections with

[44:33] updated rates and including

[44:35] those updated costs as well for

[44:37] those future projects. And the

[44:39] the auditor’s office will cover

[44:40] the exhibit hall fund forecas

[44:43] We’ll also go over the debt

[44:44] issuance timeline. And then

[44:45] also just next steps in the

[44:47] financing proposal.

[44:52] >> The slide before you is the

[44:54] updated master plan project

[44:57] financing. And so when we had

[44:58] brought this to you before, w

[45:00] did not have the construction

[45:02] costs for the 2030 to 2032

[45:05] portion on there. And so sin

[45:07] then, we have fleshed out tho

[45:10] estimated costs and added them

[45:11] in. And we also added the bon

[45:13] issuance cost, which you’ll see

[45:14] at the bottom, which now gets

[45:16] us our new total of the 44

[45:18] million. Previously, what you

[45:19] had seen was just over the 3

[45:22] million, which included the the

[45:24] phase one bonding, the 2026 to

[45:27] 2029 plus the A and E force, o

[45:29] the phase two 2029 bonds. But

[45:32] now we’re coming back with it

[45:34] all wrapped together as one t

[45:36] get it into the bond resolutio

[45:44] >> Okay. And then just an

[45:45] overview of the resolution. As

[45:46] Sarah mentioned, we are

[45:48] requesting council approval to

[45:50] delegate authority to the

[45:51] Treasurer’s office to issue

[45:52] bonds up to 44 million to

[45:55] finance those projects that

[45:56] Michelle covered. This also

[45:58] allows us to do financing up

[46:00] a maximum term of 30 years.

[46:03] Typically, our debt policy is

[46:05] our standard term is 20 years

[46:07] unless there is compelling

[46:09] factors. One of the main

[46:10] advantages of doing a 30 year

[46:12] is really maximizing that sales

[46:14] tax credit that we receive f

[46:16] the state that will allow us t

[46:18] collect that sales tax credit

[46:20] through 2058. And also just to

[46:24] state debt is required to b

[46:26] outstanding on a public

[46:27] facility district in order to

[46:29] receive that sales tax credit.

[46:31] And the county only has one

[46:33] Ph.D, and that is that the

[46:34] fairgrounds. Other items in the

[46:37] resolution also include the

[46:39] interest rate parameters on o

[46:41] a tax exempt basis, it may not

[46:44] exceed 6%. And on a taxable

[46:46] basis, it may not exceed 7%. I

[46:50] also states that all bonds must

[46:51] be issued before December 31st

[46:54] 2029. And then just part of th

[46:56] process, the county will

[46:57] receive a credit ratings

[46:59] through Moody’s on this

[47:01] issuance and most likely again

[47:03] when we go out for issuance in

[47:05] 2029. The next couple of sli

[47:10] are updated. Debt service

[47:12] payments that PFM provided.

[47:14] This is, as of last week,

[47:16] August 13th with rates updated.

[47:18] It includes the 26 and the 202

[47:21] debt issuances. And I’ll just

[47:23] state for the 2029 interest

[47:25] rates, it is increased by 1%.

[47:28] This would put annual debt

[47:29] service payments starting in

[47:31] 2026 at about 1.9 million, and

[47:33] then increasing another 830,000

[47:37] in 2029 to about 2.7 annually,

[47:41] 2.7 million annually. And the

[47:43] next slide shows what that

[47:45] would look like at a 20 year

[47:47] term. While you can see the

[47:48] interest rate costs, we would

[47:51] save an interest rate cost. T

[47:52] interest rate is lower. Our

[47:54] annual debt service payment is

[47:55] much higher. That’s about 2.3

[47:57] million starting in 2026. And

[47:59] then bumping up about another 1

[48:01] million starting in 2029. I’ll

[48:06] also just state, too, that the

[48:08] county does have the option to

[48:09] refinance at a future date i

[48:11] rates lower. I know right now

[48:14] interest rates are a bit

[48:15] volatile, and like, I think we

[48:16] just had the highest 30 year

[48:19] Treasury yields are at the 30

[48:21] year Treasury is the highest

[48:22] it’s been, I think since 2007.

[48:25] So we are closely watching tha

[48:27] and monitoring that and working

[48:29] with our financial advisor.

[48:34] Next slide. I’ll hand it over

[48:37] to Mark.

[48:39] >> Excuse me. Mark Gasque,

[48:40] Clark County finance Director.

[48:42] I just want to just briefly

[48:45] explain the financial analysis

[48:47] that we did to determine

[48:49] whether we could afford to d

[48:51] the repayment on this debt. S

[48:53] what you have before you here

[48:55] is an example of the what we

[48:57] call the 1026 fund or the deb

[48:59] reserve fund. There are several

[49:01] funds associated with the

[49:02] fairgrounds, and this one is

[49:04] primarily focused on paying o

[49:08] the the outstanding bonds. And

[49:10] you can see the revenues coming

[49:11] in. The revenues from the Ph.D

[49:14] sales tax credit would be put

[49:16] into this fund, along with the

[49:19] revenue sources from the hotel

[49:20] motel tax. And then they would

[49:23] primarily be focused on payin

[49:25] off the existing bonds, as w

[49:27] as those new bonds that would

[49:28] be issued under this debt

[49:31] issuance. We also have some

[49:34] maintenance and operation

[49:36] expenses that we run through

[49:37] this fund as well. We recentl

[49:42] had council approve a fund

[49:44] balance policy for this fund

[49:46] under the current terms. Excus

[49:48] me, under the current terms

[49:50] that were discussing the 30

[49:52] year bond, you can see that as

[49:53] we go out six years, we do

[49:57] spend down that fund balance a

[49:58] little, actually quite a bit,

[50:01] but we still maintain our

[50:02] minimum fund balance and some

[50:04] extra at this point. And then

[50:07] if you go to the next slide.

[50:16] The next slide is an example

[50:19] what the difference would be

[50:20] between a 30 year issuance an

[50:22] a 20 year issuance. With the

[50:24] most recent rates that we have.

[50:27] This slide actually has been

[50:29] updated. But the outcome the

[50:32] the difference at the end of

[50:34] the life of the bonds is stil

[50:36] the same. There’s about a $34

[50:38] million increase by issuing t

[50:40] 30 year bonds, because we’re

[50:42] able to qualify for that sales

[50:45] tax credit for an additional

[50:47] ten years. And so although th

[50:50] the amount that would

[50:51] accumulate is, is lower than

[50:53] what this slide indicates, tha

[50:55] difference is still there. And

[50:57] so the recommendation right now

[50:59] is to maximize the the ability

[51:03] for the county to collect tha

[51:05] sales tax credit. So.

[51:12] >> And then this slide just

[51:13] goes over the proposed timelin

[51:15] and key dates. We are hoping

[51:16] receive council approval

[51:18] tonight on the for

[51:19] consideration on the resolutio

[51:22] August through October we will

[51:23] be working with Department of

[51:25] Commerce on a Ph.D feasibility

[51:27] review. The Washington State

[51:29] Department of Commerce does

[51:31] require an independent

[51:33] feasibility review for all

[51:34] public facility districts.

[51:36] These reviews ensure objective

[51:38] analysis of a project’s costs

[51:40] and expected revenues. They a

[51:43] required before issuing any new

[51:45] debt, so we would have this

[51:46] fully completed before we went

[51:48] out for the bonds during that

[51:50] same October or August through

[51:52] October time frame. We’re also

[51:53] going to be working on draftin

[51:55] the preliminary official

[51:56] statement and then October

[51:58] applying for the credit ratings

[51:59] with Moody’s. And then

[52:01] hopefully well receive the

[52:03] rating and finalize the

[52:04] official statement sometime

[52:05] between October and November

[52:07] with the final bond sale

[52:09] sometime in November and

[52:11] closing everything by the end

[52:12] of the year. So as far as next

[52:17] steps, as I mentioned, we are

[52:20] hoping to receive council

[52:21] approval on the resolution

[52:22] facilities and SMG will

[52:24] continue to work on the A and

[52:26] on the projects that are

[52:27] included in this proposal. Our

[52:29] office will continue working

[52:31] with PFM, our financial advisor

[52:33] and Foster Garvey, our bond

[52:35] counsel, who will assist

[52:36] throughout the process. We’ll

[52:39] also help facilitate an

[52:41] interlocal agreement for a

[52:42] feasibility review with the

[52:44] Ph.D and the Department of

[52:45] Commerce. Of course, we’ll kee

[52:48] council informed throughout th

[52:49] process, both of the

[52:51] feasibility study and that

[52:52] final report, but also with t

[52:54] bond closing for the 2026 and

[52:57] again in 2029. And a final step

[53:01] also, just making sure all the

[53:03] budget packages will be

[53:04] submitted this fall in

[53:05] alignment with these proposals.

[53:09] With that, I’ll ask if there’s

[53:11] any questions.

[53:12] >> Great. Thank you. I just

[53:14] want to thank you all. We all

[53:17] received individual one on

[53:19] several of you briefings, so

[53:21] that was very helpful. Any

[53:23] questions or comments from t

[53:25] council?

[53:26] >> I have a comment. Is, is

[53:27] Larry online? There was

[53:28] something that he said in

[53:30] particular during my one on one

[53:31] that I thought would be helpful

[53:33] for the public to know, and I

[53:35] cannot recall. Do you remember

[53:36] what Sarah?

[53:37] >> Oh, could you please come.

[53:39] Up or you could stand right

[53:41] there.

[53:41] >> I just thought it was a

[53:42] helpful comment.

[53:43] >> Good evening Council. Yes, I

[53:44] do actually remember that. And

[53:46] I think it’s in one of the

[53:47] slides. But and we did try to

[53:49] add it just that debt was

[53:51] required to receive the sales

[53:52] tax credit. We did think that

[53:54] was an important point. And so

[53:56] we did add it to the slides. I

[53:58] is actually a requirement to

[54:00] continue receiving that sales

[54:00] tax credit and to continue

[54:02] receiving it for the maximum

[54:03] amount of time of 30 years. A

[54:06] that’s why we wrote the

[54:07] resolution as we did.

[54:08] >> Thanks for the clarification

[54:10] >> You’re welcome.

[54:11] >> Thank you, thank you. And

[54:12] just to follow up, you

[54:13] mentioned that we only have the

[54:15] one Ph.D and that’s the Fair

[54:18] Fairgrounds. Is there any

[54:19] chance to get another Ph.D? Oh,

[54:24] there’s a nod in the audience.

[54:28] >> This is our bond council.

[54:30] >> Mark Gernhart with the

[54:31] Foster Garvey law firm in

[54:33] Seattle. Counties are allowed

[54:34] to create as many PhDs as they

[54:36] like.

[54:38] >> Okay.

[54:38] >> The sales tax credit window

[54:41] has closed. So if you create

[54:43] new Ph.D, you would not be

[54:45] eligible to receive that state

[54:46] sales tax credit. You could put

[54:48] before the voters a sales tax

[54:53] up to 0.2% on the ballot. And

[54:57] so that’s what we’re seeing

[54:59] happening around the state now

[55:00] >> Okay. That was kind of good

[55:01] news, bad news really quickly

[55:03] there. So thank thank you for

[55:05] clarifying that. Any other

[55:08] comments or concerns? Hearing

[55:12] none I’ll entertain a motion t

[55:13] approve.

[55:14] >> I so move.

[55:15] >> It’s been moved. Second

[55:17] moved and seconded. Thank you.

[55:18] All those in favor say I, I I

[55:22] okay, motion carries. Now

[55:25] moving on to our final item

[55:29] under this category, Internal

[55:33] Services. Michelle, you’re

[55:35] still here. And Ryan Bird is

[55:37] maybe is online or he. Maybe

[55:41] maybe okay, okay. Please go

[55:44] ahead. This is a fair master

[55:47] plan. Engineering and design

[55:50] services.

[55:50] >> Before we get started, if

[55:52] could clarify for the record

[55:53] that you’re passing the amended

[55:55] resolution.

[55:55] >> Oh, okay. And then I did

[55:57] have a question about that. We

[55:59] should say the resolution

[56:01] number probably as well. Or

[56:03] that’s.

[56:04] >> We.

[56:04] >> Can understood. But it’s

[56:06] it’s is it corrected or is it

[56:09] amended?

[56:09] >> It’s as amended.

[56:13] >> Would we need to pass the

[56:15] amendment?

[56:15] >> I would I would say it’s

[56:17] passed the resolution as

[56:19] amended.

[56:20] >> Amended?

[56:20] >> Yes. And the amendment you

[56:22] can see the change on your

[56:23] screen right now.

[56:24] >> Right. And just for the

[56:25] public, the amendment is really

[56:27] just correcting the language

[56:28] from event center to the

[56:30] fairgrounds to be consistent

[56:32] with other documents related to

[56:34] the fairgrounds. So let’s,

[56:38] let’s, let’s take that vote

[56:40] again. Is that what you’re

[56:42] looking for? So the motion

[56:43] would be approval of the

[56:47] amended resolution. And I’m

[56:49] just going to say it. 2020 608

[56:53] ten.

[56:54] >> I so move.

[56:55] >> Thank you.

[56:56] >> Second.

[56:56] >> Moved and seconded. All in

[56:58] favor. I, I I okay, thanks. All

[57:05] right then back to item six

[57:07] here internal Services.

[57:09] >> Thank you again. Michelle

[57:11] Schuster Director of Internal

[57:12] Services before you tonight.

[57:14] Now that you’ve proved the bon

[57:16] resolution moving forward, is

[57:18] staff report to ask for the

[57:20] architectural and engineering

[57:22] design services for the the

[57:25] fairgrounds projects on the

[57:26] master plan to be moved to thi

[57:29] bond. Currently we have three

[57:31] two approvals in the 2026

[57:34] annual budget for $1.7 million

[57:37] to start the A and E and a lot

[57:39] of these projects. But that was

[57:41] to be funded directly out of

[57:42] money coming from fund 1026,

[57:44] which is now where the bond

[57:45] debt will be paid from. And so

[57:47] we’re wanting to move these

[57:49] projects now and the other

[57:51] projects and have them funded

[57:52] against the bond in fund 302

[57:55] which is our Bonded Bonded

[57:58] Projects fund, where these

[58:00] projects will now reside. And

[58:01] so this is for approval of

[58:04] amendments 4 to 14, which

[58:06] covers all of the different

[58:08] projects you saw in the

[58:08] previous slides, and moving the

[58:12] expense for those into the

[58:14] bonded funds to be paid out of

[58:16] that. And because that hadn’t

[58:18] been approved in the original

[58:22] contract, we had gotten

[58:23] permission from the council for

[58:24] the county manager to sign

[58:26] amendments. But since we didn’

[58:27] have the funding set aside yet,

[58:29] we were bringing these back to

[58:31] you to get the approval to make

[58:32] sure that you were all right.

[58:34] With these amendments now going

[58:36] off the new bonded funding and

[58:38] total cost for these is. Is

[58:46] $4,676,001 plus other

[58:48] reimbursable expenses that are

[58:49] outlined in the original

[58:51] contract for a total not to

[58:53] exceed 4,914,000. So just abo

[58:57] 10% of the overall project

[58:59] budget. So. Any questions?

[59:04] >> Thank you. Are there any

[59:05] questions from Council? No

[59:10] questions. I’ll entertain a

[59:11] motion then to approve.

[59:13] >> Move separate business ite

[59:15] number six.

[59:16] >> Thank you.

[59:17] >> Moved and seconded. Thank

[59:19] you. All those in favor say I I

[59:21] I motion carries.

[59:23] >> Thank you.

[59:24] >> Thank you counselor young

[59:27] then that concludes that

[59:29] section. Let’s move on. County

[59:31] manager report. Do you have

[59:32] anything to report tonight?

[59:33] >> I don’t have anything

[59:35] tonight.

[59:35] >> Thank you. Okay. Well, there

[59:37] We’ve completed our meeting in

[59:39] one hour. I would just note