A desire for pragmatism and building relationships seems high on the agenda for four of the five Clark County council District 2 candidates.
They met jointly with The Columbian’s editorial board on Tuesday, the first time the candidates have faced off. Republican Julie Olson, independent Tanner Martin, and Democrats Chuck Green and Mike Pond weighed in on a number of issues, from improvements to Interstate 5 to the county’s growth management plan update.
Republican candidate Mary Benton did not attend, nor has she responded to The Columbian’s request for an interview.
All five are running for a new position created by a home-rule charter approved by Clark County voters last November. The district approximately covers Hazel Dell to the south and extends north and west to the county’s borders, ending just west of the Battle Ground city limits. It includes the cities of Ridgefield and La Center.
The five candidates will appear on the Aug. 4 primary ballot, and the top two finishers will advance to the Nov. 3 general election. Only registered voters in District 2 will vote in either election.
Fee waiver
The four candidates expressed concerns over a fee waiver program championed by current Republican Councilors David Madore and Tom Mielke that exempts nonresidential developers from paying building and traffic impact fees.
While proponents such as Madore claim the waiver has built thousands of jobs in Clark County, a 2015 report by the county Auditor’s Office was critical of the program, calling it ineffective and costly. It found that between June 2013 and November 2014, only 115 jobs were created, most in low-paying occupations.
Olson, who is semiretired after 28 years in sales and marketing for medical supply companies, said she’s in support of exploring programs that remove barriers to job growth. She added, however, that she wants the county to consider reasonable permit fees, while balancing the program so less tax burden falls on residential developers.
“We have our builders that are really supporting that community development department,” Olson said. “The end fund of that department is increasing, but it’s being increased on the backs of our residential builders.”
Green, a traffic engineer and project manager for C-Tran’s Bus Rapid Transit program, also said he’d like to reevaluate the fee waiver program. He pointed specifically to concerns that the program is building more retail jobs than family-wage jobs and may “drive the (county) road fund into the red.”
“I support a program targeted toward family-wage jobs,” Green said.
Martin, a robotics technician, agreed with Green, though he added concerns over catering to companies that had already planned to build. The Auditor’s Office report indicated that of the $7.8 million in construction projects that received fee waivers, between $4.6 million and $6.9 million would have happened anyway.
“We’re giving away free money,” Martin said.
Pond, who has worked on multiple Democratic political campaigns, said he “definitely supports reevaluation of the program,” which gives a “tax loophole” to big companies already planning to develop in Clark County.
Pond fell short of saying he wanted to throw the program out. He said he wanted to “move (the discussion) as far forward as possible to bringing that revenue back.”
Interstate 5 solutions
On improvements to the Interstate 5 corridor — the ultimate political litmus test in Clark County — three of the four candidates specified that they want to work more closely with Oregon partners to find collaborative solutions.
Olson suggested creating a 50-year bridge plan with a coalition of leaders from Washington and Oregon to “build priorities and benchmarks so, as demographics and priorities change, we have something in place.” She added that I-5 needs to be priority one, though she’s willing to consider additional crossings.
Green said his work as a transportation engineer has already allowed him to make connections with Portland leaders. Green said he was recently invited by Metro, the Portland area’s regional government, to speak about Bus Rapid Transit.
“While the county council has been figuratively burning bridges with the south side of the river, I have been maintaining those relationships,” he said.
Green said I-5 is the “backbone” of District 2 — if people aren’t commuting across the river, they’re commuting somewhere along it, he said — and needs to be the priority.
Pond agreed that improving I-5 needs to be the county’s No. 1 goal, but that it needs to approach the issue from a regional perspective.
“The current council is failing at being able to work across the river to build bridges, metaphorically,” Pond said.
Again, Martin agreed with Green, but added that he supports a third bridge, west of the freeway, connecting the ports of Vancouver and Portland.
Growth management
Green and Pond both said they wanted to throw out Madore’s controversial land-use proposal Alternative 4, which would reflect current lot sizes in rural areas while also enabling landowners to further subdivide their properties.
“I’m not in favor of Alt. 4,” Pond said. “I believe it’s taking us down a dangerous path toward sprawl.”
Pond also said the council should ask Gov. Jay Inslee for a deadline extension. The county growth plan must be finalized, submitted and approved by the state by June 30, 2016.
Green said he’d like to see the county adopt a “value-based plan,” inviting multiple land-use groups such as Clark County Citizens United and Friends of Clark County, as well as the cities, to contribute their ideas for growth management. Meanwhile, he said, the county should adopt Alternative 1, which will leave the county’s land-use rules as is, with the goal of adopting a new plan within the next two years.
Olson, hinting at Madore’s decision to write his own alternative to the comprehensive plan update, called “the process outside the typical process.” She said that she wants to wait to see the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
“Is Alt. 4 the answer? Most likely probably not,” she said. “But I’m willing to talk about what might be.”
Martin said that while planning staff should have handled the development of the Comprehensive Plan update differently, he would “be irate” if someone tried to dictate how he could use his land.
