Future 42 Clark County, the local branch of the conservative nonprofit Project 42, released its scorecard Friday, May 1, evaluating the Clark County Council on five major issues: homelessness policy, property tax increases, the removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran board, debates over farmland and growth management, and light rail funding connected to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project.
The organization officially launched after a December kickoff event in Vancouver and describes its mission as supporting free markets, personal liberty and small government. Former Camas City Councilmember Leslie Lewallen has led the local chapter since its announcement in June last year.
“Our goal is to help educate voters, not only on important votes that might be coming up at the local level or state level, but also to educate voters on how their representatives have actually voted in the past,” Lewallen said. “The purpose is to give (voters) context so they can look at specific different votes and say, OK, here’s the vote, here’s how your representative voted, and it’s just there in black and white, so you can see it.”
The scorecard reviewed the council’s votes on all five topics. According to Lewallen, Future 42 has not taken formal positions on the agricultural lands debate or light rail funding, but the scorecard still categorizes councilors as either “in favor” or “against” the organization’s stance in each area.
As the first policy listed, the scorecard criticized the Clark County Council’s unanimous approval of the county’s 2025-2030 housing-first homelessness plan. Future 42 argued the approach favors housing before treatment or accountability requirements.
“Housing first has (been) proven not to work,” Lewallen argued. “If it had worked, it would have worked 20 years ago. We can’t build or spend our way out of this problem.”
Lewallen said she believes local governments should focus more on enforcement, addiction treatment and public safety measures for low-barrier shelter systems. When asked for examples of policies she supports for exiting people out of homelessness, Lewallen pointed to the Camas City Council’s unanimous approval of a camping ban during her time on the council.
“I was proud when I was on Camas City Council that we voted unanimously on some of the strictest camping bans,” Lewallen said. “I think that’s a good place to start.”
Lewallen also criticized what she described as permissive homelessness policies in Vancouver, specifically pointing to approaches she said fail to address addiction and public camping.
“Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle of Vancouver was caught on a hot mic, essentially blaming Camas for Vancouver’s homeless problem because of our camping ban,” she said. “That’s not why Vancouver has a homeless crisis. They have a homeless crisis because of Mayor Anne’s failed policies.”
Lewallen further critiqued harm reduction policies and some shelter models, arguing they allow continued drug use instead of helping people recover from addiction.
“I don’t think that giving crack pipes or, quote unquote, harm reduction paraphernalia helps anybody,” Lewallen said. “It keeps individuals stuck in a vicious cycle of hopelessness and despair.”
The scorecard’s release comes as homelessness continues to rise in Clark County. According to the Council for the Homeless, the county’s homeless population reached about 1,500 last year, nearly double the figure from a decade ago.
The scorecard also scrutinized the council’s approval of higher property tax collections for the 2026 budget, including increases for the general fund, roads, conservation, and parks.
“We want individuals to prosper, we want limited government, so any tax is going to raise a flag,” Lewallen said. “You have government officials who say we need to raise taxes for this purpose, and then those funds never go to that purpose.”
The council voted 4-1 to approve a 1% property tax levy for the 2026 budget, allowed by the state legislature, with Belkot as the sole dissenting vote. She was the only council member listed as supporting Future 42’s position on property tax increases.
The council also approved a 0.1% sales tax increase to support police services and unanimously authorized the hiring of 22 deputies in April. The tax increase, also allowable under state law, was not listed in the scorecard.
“I speak only for Clark County, but I think statewide … we’re in the negative when it comes to law enforcement officers per capita, and that’s definitely on Future 42’s radar,” Lewallen said. “Clark County Future 42, we (want to) make sure that our taxpayer funds are being spent in the wisest way possible, and … we support public safety.”
Another major focus of the scorecard centered on the removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board of Directors after she signaled opposition to Clark County paying future light rail operating and maintenance costs tied to the Interstate Bridge Replacement program.
Future 42’s scorecard highlighted a subsequent finding that the county violated the Open Public Meetings Act and county charter procedures during the process.
“I think you had several council members (who) decided that Michelle wasn’t suited to sit on the board, and they removed her, with no public notice, with no opportunity for public comment,” Lewallen said. “I think that was a travesty.”
Lewallen also argued that the larger C-Tran dispute showcased broader political tensions between Vancouver and smaller Clark County cities over future light-rail costs.
“I think the entire C-Tran situation is an example of political power plays,” she said.
After Belkot’s removal from the C-Tran board, smaller cities secured protections to prevent existing transit taxes from funding future light rail operations and maintenance. At the same time, Vancouver regained four board seats under the new structure, while the Clark County Council holds three and small cities share two. The board had previously approved equal representation among the three groups, prompting the Washington state Department of Transportation to threaten to withhold grants until Vancouver received more seats based on its population. The two votes were called a compromise by local officials.
Future 42 Clark County has not formally adopted a position on light rail funding, according to Lewallen. Belkot was the only council member listed as sharing the organization’s concerns about light rail. The scorecard notes that opponents cite cost uncertainty, ridership trends, and long-term operating obligations for the county.
The scorecard also addressed Clark County’s ongoing comprehensive growth management planning under Washington’s Growth Management Act, highlighting the debate amid preserving agricultural land and expanding housing and employment capacity.
In April, the council voted 3-2 to allow potential redesignation of some agricultural lands for further consideration as part of the county’s preferred comprehensive plan alternative. Though Future 42 has not formally adopted a public position on the agricultural land issue, the scorecard’s rankings suggest the organization favors growth-oriented policies supported by cities such as Ridgefield and La Center.
County Chair Sue Marshall and Council Member Wil Fuentes, the only two on the council who voted against including de-designating agricultural lands, were listed as not in favor of Future 42’s position on the policy. When asked about the Growth Management Act, Lewallen argued that the policy has artificially reduced the supply of land for housing in Washington state, driving up housing costs.
“I think we’re all in agreement that we need more housing in Washington state,” Lewallen said. “I think we can all agree that reducing regulations and permitting requirements would make that easier and more affordable for individuals.”
The scorecard’s release comes as Clark County Council seats 1, 2 and 5 enter a re-election cycle. Glen Yung (seat 1) and Belkot (seat 2) are seeking re-election in the upcoming primary, while County Chair Sue Marshall (district 5) does not plan to run.
Lewallen said the scorecards are intended primarily as a voter information tool ahead of future local elections.
“We’ve done the heavy lifting, and if people want to dig deeper, they can dig deeper, if people just (want to) go off of our scorecard and vote to re-elect certain folks or not,” Lewallen said. “That’s their decision.”
A separate scorecard evaluating the Vancouver City Council is also available. Readers can find more information at shorturl.at/OUBqu.
