With the November election approaching, candidates for Clark County and state legislative offices faced questions about some of the most pressing issues facing Southwest Washington.
Candidates for Clark County Council District 5, Legislative District 20 Position 2 and Legislative District 18 Position 1 and 2 addressed taxes, growth, transportation, education, health care, water, data centers and other issues during a League of Women Voters of Clark County candidate forum on Thursday, Oct. 1, at the Ridgefield Community Library.
Candidates were given 60 seconds to respond to questions prepared by the League of Women Voters of Clark County before the order rotated. The event was held before a live audience and was also recorded for later broadcast.
McCoy, Silliman discuss growth, taxes and county government
Clark County Council District 5 candidates Troy McCoy and Peter Silliman closed Thursday’s forum by outlining their backgrounds and approaches to county government.
McCoy pointed to his more than 25 years living in Clark County, his experience raising two children in the Battle Ground Public Schools district and his ownership of small businesses in District 5. He also referenced his service on the Battle Ground City Council.
“We've done some great things, and I look forward to bringing that pragmatic problem-solving and leadership to the county,” McCoy said of his time on Battle Ground City Council.
Silliman highlighted his lifelong connection to Clark County, previous work as a policy analyst in the county council office and current service on the county’s Charter Review Board. He said he has helped propose charter amendments involving property taxes, budget transparency and county auditing authority.
The candidates differed in their assessments of the county’s comprehensive plan. Silliman said the process has become delayed because agricultural land questions are being addressed too late.
“The Clark County Comprehensive Plan, of course, driven by the state requirements under GMA, is a very complicated process,” Silliman said. “So it takes a county councilor that's willing to dig in, find the details, and understand the comprehensiveness of this process.”
McCoy also said the plan is not moving in the right direction, pointing to its delays and potential impacts on local projects.
“The short answer to your question is ‘no,’” McCoy said. “And that's because it's been delayed, and it's continuing to delay. And that's, quite frankly, just a lack of leadership.”
Taxes and county finances were another major topic. Silliman said residents are concerned about the cost of government, while McCoy said taxpayers are facing higher everyday expenses.
“I think people are tired of that. I think they're fiscally exhausted,” Silliman said. “My first concern is the citizen's budget.”
McCoy said the county should be cautious about raising taxes.
“I don't think there's a lot of room for tax increases in this,” McCoy said. “People can't do it.”
The candidates also discussed county parks. McCoy said population growth has increased demand while existing staffing and maintenance remain concerns. Silliman pointed to undeveloped Legacy Lands and said the county could expand recreational opportunities through trails, bike paths and public access while looking for ways to reduce acquisition costs.
On fireworks, Silliman opposed additional county restrictions, citing the rural nature of much of District 5 and established traditions. McCoy said he would favor asking county residents what regulations they want before taking action, noting that enforcement could become difficult without public support.
The candidates also disagreed over a proposed county charter amendment requiring four of five council members to approve a tax increase. McCoy said an 80% threshold was too high, adding that vote majority does not exist anywhere else, while Silliman, who said he helped sponsor the amendment, supported additional safeguards for property tax increases.
Orcutt, Jones focus on affordability, economy and state services
The first forum of the evening featured 20th Legislative District Position 2 incumbent Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt and Democrat challenger Evan Jones.
Orcutt has served in the Legislature for 25 years and has lived in the district for 36 years. He identified affordability as a primary concern. Jones, a former Army infantryman and current port commissioner in Longview, also pointed to affordability while emphasizing economic development.
Jones said he is “running as a service” and wants to focus on creating economic opportunities in the district.
“As Ed mentioned, affordability is a big problem around here, and I think a lot of that has to do with the lack of economic development, and that's what I'm looking to change,” Jones said.
The candidates were asked about a new tax on high earners and whether it could eventually lead to a broader state income tax.
Jones said he supports higher taxes on millionaires but has concerns about the structure of the current law.
“I absolutely support millionaires paying their fair share, and I don't feel that they currently are,” Jones said. “But I have very deep-seated concerns about the structure of the current law.”
Orcutt said he believes the threshold could eventually be lowered and argued that Washington voters have repeatedly rejected an income tax.
“I really believe that the overall intent is to have a graduated income tax at some point, even a flat tax,” Orcutt said. “Either way, it's not appropriate.”
Education was another area of agreement, with both candidates identifying it as a priority for public spending. Orcutt said K-12 education, assistance for the disabled community and helping low-income residents should be budget priorities.
“I think we need to be smarter with the way we budget,” Orcutt said. “And I think our budgets need to be smaller and more focused.”
Jones said education represents a significant return on public investment and also highlighted addiction services.
“You can't possibly find a better investment for a state to make in its own people,” Jones said of education.
Water availability and economic development also drew discussion. Jones said water rights need to be protected for agriculture while the state prepares for changing climate conditions. Orcutt discussed forest management practices designed to help retain snow and improve groundwater supplies.
The candidates also addressed data centers. Orcutt questioned whether more would locate in Washington after the Legislature removed a tax incentive. Jones said he is wary of statewide regulation that overrides local decision-making.
“I think that local municipalities have a good idea of what their needs are better than anybody in Olympia is going to have,” Jones said.
Transportation was another point of discussion. Jones said the decline in gas-tax revenue was foreseeable as electric vehicle use increased and cautioned against imposing multiple road-use taxes on drivers. Orcutt said Climate Commitment Act funds should be used for road maintenance and noted that electric vehicles pay higher registration fees intended in part to account for their lack of gas-tax payments.
Both candidates also said they support Washington’s vote-by-mail system, although Orcutt said he would maintain signature requirements and pursue additional verification measures.
Knott, McClintock discuss taxes, roads and state priorities
The first 18th Legislative District forum featured challenger Randi Knott, a Democrat, and incumbent Republican Rep. Stephanie McClintock, candidates for Position 1.
Knott described more than 30 years of experience working in and around government, including public information work with police and firefighters outside of Washington state. She said public service remains her motivation for seeking office. McClintock, seeking a third term, cited more than 30 years living in the district, involvement with local schools and previous service on a school board.
Communication with constituents was one early topic.
McClintock described town halls, constituent meetings and communication through her legislative office. Knott said she would make herself available by email, phone and text and emphasized her availability outside legislative sessions.
The candidates disagreed over the state’s new tax on high earners. Knott said she supports taxing ultrawealthy residents, particularly to support schools and other services, and added that the millionaire tax bill was “drafted very well.”
“I believe the ultra wealthy need to be taxed, especially in a time where our schools are not doing as well as they should and we need the funding,” Knott said.
McClintock said she opposed the tax, arguing that she believes its threshold could eventually be lowered.
“I oppose the income tax that we spent over 24 hours debating on the House floor when the Democrats brought that forward,” McClintock said. “To quote a couple of Democrats, it will be lowered.”
Transportation funding was another area of discussion. McClintock said transportation dollars should remain focused on transportation and that roads and bridges need greater attention.
“Our roads do not look good,” McClintock said. “And we've got a number of bridges that need work. And I think that we need to prioritize that.”
Knott also called for prioritizing road projects and examining additional revenue sources.
“We have a lot of opportunities we haven't touched yet, and we need to seriously look at them, and we need to stop delaying major projects that need doing so that they only become more expensive,” Knott said.
Health care and federal funding reductions were discussed as the candidates considered the state’s responsibility for health and social services. Knott said vulnerable residents should remain a priority and supported restoring Medicaid and Apple Health funding. McClintock said Washington should maximize available federal matching dollars and argued that Medicaid funding affects hospitals and lower-income residents.
On balancing the state budget, McClintock emphasized prioritization, including schools, special education, Medicaid and transportation. Knott proposed looking for alternative funding sources and pointed to Colorado’s approach to funding public school sports through professional sports teams. She also discussed services for people with developmental disabilities.
The candidates agreed that artificial intelligence presents questions better addressed at the federal level, although Knott said Washington could act temporarily to protect children if federal action does not occur. McClintock said differing state regulations create challenges for businesses operating across multiple states.
Both candidates supported Washington’s vote-by-mail system, with McClintock saying in-person voting could be offered as an additional option and Knott arguing the existing system is safe, secure and accessible.
Ley, Letinich debate growth, water and the economy
Eighteenth Legislative District Position 2 candidates incumbent Rep. John Ley, a Republican, and Deken Letinich, a Democrat, faced off in front of the live audience, with Ley unable to wear his “No Income Tax” tie at the forum table.
Letinich said he has spent his life in the 18th District and has worked as a union organizer advocating for working families. Ley highlighted his 11-and-a-half years in the Air Force, career in the airline industry and work as a reporter for an online news source before entering the Legislature.
Agricultural land and water rights were among the first major topics. Ley criticized what he described as the use of the Growth Management Act as a barrier to development and said the state should consider allowing smaller agricultural parcels.
“I think the best investment the state could make would be modifying the Growth Management Act to allow small families, smaller acreages, and we zone appropriately for agriculture, timber and growth,” Ley said.
Letinich agreed that water access is important for farmers and said the Legislature has a role in protecting agricultural water supplies.
“I think the easiest answer is, yeah, the Legislature should have a role in that,” Letinich said. “They should make sure that people have access to water to provide food.”
Both candidates identified K-12 education as a priority for state lottery proceeds. Letinich said education should come first while also supporting services for gambling addiction. Ley said the lottery represents only a small component of the state’s overall responsibility to fund schools.
“K-12 education is hugely important,” Ley said. “Nonetheless, educating our kids and funding it is the Legislature's job.”
The candidates also described different approaches to communicating with constituents. Ley pointed to his experience as a reporter and said he regularly uses videos, columns and meetings to communicate with residents. Letinich said he would make himself available through email, phone and text.
Data centers provided another point of discussion. Letinich said the state should require investments in communities where data centers use local resources.
“If we're going to allow somebody to come in and use our resources and our skilled-trained workforce to create this thing for them that will be the drain on our resources, there needs to be some type of reinvestment in the community,” Letinich said.
Ley said the state must weigh demands on power and other resources against potential jobs and economic development. He cited Quincy as an example of a community that has benefited from data-center development.
“There are demands on the power grid, there are demands on resources, but the state needs to decide whether we want to step forward and meet those demands and the needs of these businesses when they come and create jobs,” Ley said.
Federal funding reductions for health and social services also drew contrasting approaches. Ley pointed to reductions in Apple Health and DSHS funding and said state budget priorities should be reconsidered. Letinich said lawmakers must examine individual programs and their effects before deciding where to replace lost federal funding.
The candidates also differed over the state’s new tax on high earners. Letinich said he supports taxing income above $1 million while opposing any reduction of that threshold. Ley argued the tax could eventually be expanded to affect more Washington residents.
Transportation funding rounded out the discussion, with Ley pointing to the state’s gas tax and the need to prioritize roads and bridges. He also suggested directing sales tax collected on new vehicle purchases toward transportation.
