John Blom and Eileen Quiring are scaling back their work in real estate. They’ve resigned their seats on the Clark County Planning Commission. Now they’re preparing to be sworn in as the newest members of the Clark County council.
For many, the election of the two Republicans to the county’s legislative body signals an end to an era of near constant squabbles between councilors Tom Mielke and David Madore and the rest of the council.
“I think with the two new board members, I view the county as hitting the reset button in terms of a lot of large policies,” said Jamie Howsley, government affairs director for both the Building Industry Association of Clark County and the Clark County Association of Realtors.
But the new council will face a wide range of issues in the fast-growing county, including congestion, lack of housing, an embattled growth plan and other issues. The Columbian interviewed a range of individuals to determine what issues the county will face in the coming year.
Some of these problems are experienced by Clark County residents daily. Others are looming and solutions are clear.
“The budget is going to be looming over all of this,” said Blom, referencing the county’s chronic shortfall of revenue to meet its growing expenses. “Especially capital facilities.”
At least for now, relationships between county councilors and staff will be collegial. Both Blom and Quiring have indicated a willingness to work with others.
“One hand cannot clap alone,” Quiring said.
Here are the five issues most likely to arise in the coming year.
1. Learning to play nice
In recent years, Clark County council meetings have been marked by drama, frayed relationships, contentious meetings, whistleblower complaints and lawsuits.
“The biggest challenge they will have is bringing back confidence in the county council,” said Vancouver City Councilmember Jack Burkman.
First elected as a county commissioner in 2012, David Madore championed waiving developer fees while also seeking to bring more transparency to spending and contracting. In recent years, Madore has been subject to a whistleblower complaint from Director of Community Planning Oliver Orjiako, alleging harassment from Madore. Orjiako also sued the county alleging it didn’t comply with the state Public Records Act in releasing texts from Madore’s cellphone.
Earlier this year, Councilor Tom Mielke filed a recall petition against a majority of the county council over an investigator hired to look into Orjiako’s allegations against Madore, the dissolution of the Environmental Services Department and other charges. Madore has filed a petition asking a judge to declare that the county’s prosecuting attorney’s office has become biased against the embattled councilor.
“Really, I’m looking forward to hopefully having some civilized, boring council meetings where business is handled without the interpersonal drama that’s taking away from a growing community,” said Chris Prothero, who has launched an anti-Madore political action committee called Reunite Clark County.
Madore lost his bid for re-election, and Mielke is retiring. They will be replaced by Blom and Quiring.
But the previous era of conflict will linger. Next month, a Superior Court judge will hear Madore’s petition, and the state Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit related to Mielke’s recall effort. State Sen. Don Benton, an ally of Madore and Mielke, has also filed a tort claim against the county alleging he was mistreated while overseeing the Department of Environmental Services.
“I’m really curious to see what kind of suits come out of the woodwork,” said Burkman. “Win or lose on those suits, attorneys are very expensive.”
County Chair Marc Boldt, no party preference, said there needs to be some disagreement, however, and that there needs to be a “good friction” between the council and the county manager.
2. Planning for Growth
Last year, a report from the state’s Office of Financial Management found that Clark County is the state’s second-fastest growing county, accounting for 10 percent of the state’s population growth in 2015. According to OFM forecasts, by the end of 2016, the county’s population will have swelled to 461,010 — 14 percent more than 10 years ago.
However, the county’s plan for future growth is tied up in a tug-of-war between two groups with very different visions for the county.
Over the summer, the county council passed its comprehensive plan, a document required by state law and intended to direct how and where the county grows. Just months after being approved, the plan was challenged before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board by Friends of Clark County and the Seattle-based environmental group Futurewise.
The two groups argued that the plan unnecessarily expanded the county’s urban growth boundary, removed agricultural land of “long-term commercial significance,” failed to protect groundwater, shrank forest and agricultural lots and didn’t provide for adequate funding to meet transportation needs. Heidi Owens, a board member of FOCC, said that much of the discussion concerning the plan has focused on whether it allows sprawl or should do more to facilitate dense development. But she said preserving the county’s agriculture is just as important.
“What is the community Clark County wants to be?” said Owens. “Do we want it to be a suburb of Portland, or do we want it to have some of its initial (agricultural) heritage?”
Clark County Citizens United, a rural landowners group, filed another challenge that argued the county didn’t have adequate public involvement, placed unlawful limits on rural development and didn’t take into account adequate population growth. Carol Levanen, secretary for CCCU, said that the comprehensive plan gives more consideration to “urban people” over “rural people.”
“People are moving into Clark County because of the qualify of life we have now,” she said. “But if this comprehensive plan is put into place, that’s going to change dramatically.”
In September, the growth management board ruled in favor of FOCC and Futurewise, but the county is appealing.
Boldt said that if the courts require the county to make significant changes, it could stall developments in rural areas.
There could be other deeper issues with the plan. The current plan anticipates that the county’s population will grow to 576,207 by 2035. Quiring said that number underestimates population growth; she said she would like to see the urban growth area slightly expanded to accommodate growth.
“There’s no quibbling that the right numbers weren’t used,” she said. “So obviously, I would like to see some changes made.”
3. Promoting housing
The county is currently experiencing a housing crunch, with a vacancy rate for the metropolitan area at 2.4 percent. Earlier this month, voters in Vancouver passed Proposition 1, which would direct $6 million a year to help fund low-income housing. But Howsley, who represents the local building and real estate industries, said that Proposition 1 seeks to address just a small slice of the problem.
He agrees that the comprehensive plan underestimates population growth. He said that more housing needs to be built to keep up with demand, but homebuilders are experiencing a labor shortage, which he said is a lingering effect of the Great Recession that ravaged the industry beginning in 2008.
“We’ve lost a whole generation of potential employees, and there’s a lot of people afraid to return to the industry,” he said.
Ron Arp, president of the economic development group Identity Clark County, said another challenge to building more housing is a lack of utility infrastructure.
Jerry Johnson, the managing principal of Johnson Economics, also said that financing for new housing is also a significant barrier.
“You can have enough space, but the issue is, are the lots truly available to develop in the next year or two?” he said.
Quiring said that she wants to slightly expand the urban growth boundary to allow more housing to be built. Blom has also called for streamlining the permitting process to allow more homes to be built.
4. Transportation
If you’ve ever driven in Clark County during rush hour, you’ve probably noticed some of the key findings from the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council’s most recent report on congestion.
The report found that in 2015, some 294,000 vehicles crossed the Interstate 5 and Interstate 205 bridges into Portland on an average day, a 7 percent increase from 2011.
“If you want to go to Portland, you have to schedule your whole day around it,” said county Councilor Jeanne Stewart. “It’s unpredictable, and unpredictable traffic time is not good for business.”
The report also identified five other corridors that have “significant congestion,” including state Highway 14, Mill Plain Boulevard and Main Street.
The county’s comprehensive plan also acknowledges a $158 million deficit over 20 years in funding transportation infrastructure.
RTC Executive Director Matt Ransom said that the Connecting Washington transportation funding packaged passed by the Legislature last year will direct money for local projects. But he said that larger projects such as the interchange near I-5 and 179th Street won’t be funded until after 2020. He said that there are currently efforts to convince lawmakers to fund these projects sooner.
Similarly, Arp said his group and others are encouraging conversations on finding solutions to congestion on I-5 and I-205.
Although the county council has limited influence on state funding for transportation projects, it is winding down a fee-waiver program, and that will generate more money for local infrastructure.
5. Finding Efficiencies
The county manager’s proposed budget for 2017-18 fills a $21.6 million hole with a mix of strategic cuts, tax increases and efficiencies that are expected to have minimal effects on county services.
That could change in the long term. The county is restricted from raising property taxes by more than 1 percent each year, and labor costs have outpaced the county’s ability to raise new revenue.
County Manager Mark McCauley said that for now the solution to the ongoing deficit is finding greater efficiencies and collaborations between county services and municipalities that cut down on costs. For instance, he said that counties and municipalities could centralize their IT infrastructure and save costs by eliminating any duplicative services.
“This would be a way to buy a decade or two or three,” he said. “So it’s a conversation we have to have.”
But in recent years, the movement hasn’t been toward consolidation of services between the county and municipalities. The Vancouver Police Department is ending a multi-million dollar contract with the county to provide records management. In 2013, Clark County and the city of Vancouver agreed to end a joint parks department. At the time, county officials expected the new arrangement to save money, but the decision is now coming into question.
“The dissolution (of the parks district) has cost Clark County government hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said Greg Kimsey, Clark County auditor.
McCauley said that after the budget is approved, the county should have large capital expenditures for software systems covered for now. But Kimsey said there are upcoming costs, such as new vote-counting machines that could cost a million dollars.
Boldt said there are plans for a conference on finding greater efficiencies between the county and municipalities in the coming spring. He said the big problem with reorganizing services is that it requires one jurisdiction to give up control. But, he added, “The public, they really don’t care who is mowing their lawn or doing a road or anything; they just want it done.”
