Letter: Clark County 2027 – New leaders will inherit some very big decisions

Peter Bracchi calls for a publicly accessible transition report covering unresolved oversight, major spending, and long-term policy decisions crossing into 2027. Photo courtesy AI generated image courtesy Peter Bracchi

🎧 Clark County 2027: Who Inherits the Unfinished Work?

Peter Bracchi says the problems don’t leave when the people in the chairs do

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Clark County is heading toward 2027 with an unusual number of major changes converging at the same time. Three County Council seats — Districts 1, 2 and 5 — are up for election in 2026. Sue Marshall’s departure also means the council will have a new chair next year, selected by the councilors themselves. At the same time, longtime Public Health Director and Health Officer Dr. Alan Melnick has announced his retirement.

Peter Bracchi

Political and personnel changes are normal. What makes this transition different is the amount of unfinished work, major spending and long-term policy that will be sitting on the table when the new leadership arrives.

Consider just some of what Clark County and its residents are facing:

County leadership: Three council seats are being decided in 2026, followed by selection of a new council chair in January.
Public Health: The county must replace longtime leadership while unresolved questions involving Public Health oversight remain.
Bridge Shelter: Vancouver’s new 120-bed shelter is approaching operation, with Clark County financially involved and county residents expected to use some of its capacity.
Interstate Bridge and light rail: The I-5 replacement is moving toward construction, with billions of dollars involved and major questions involving tolling, local access, construction impacts and the proposed light-rail extension into Vancouver.
Public safety and criminal justice: Voters are being asked to consider up to $366.2 million in bonds for jail, courtroom and Sheriff’s Office projects, along with additional operating revenue for the criminal-justice system.
County government itself: The Charter Review Commission is considering changes to county government while elected officials continue dealing with homelessness, behavioral health, public safety and an annual county budget approaching $900 million.

None of these issues exists in isolation. They compete for money, management attention and public confidence, and many will extend well beyond the terms of the people making today’s decisions. That is why Clark County’s transition should involve more than simply changing the names on office doors.

What happens to the unfinished business?

Our experience seeking answers about Share’s food programs illustrates the problem.

For months, I have been asking Clark County Public Health questions about Share’s Donated Food Distributing Organization documentation, the authorization covering its food operations and the transportation and distribution of prepared food away from the Share House. County records produced this summer showed DFDO notifications from 2014, 2015 and 2017, but not the expected sequence of current annual documentation.

Then, in June 2026, Share submitted a DFDO notification using an older 2012 version of the form even though Public Health had a newer version available. We have asked whether the older submission was accepted, whether it was subsequently corrected and, more fundamentally, what authorization covers food being transported and distributed away from the Share House.

The 2026 Summer Meals program produced another set of questions. A public-records request seeking documentation of Public Health involvement produced no records showing a completed Public Health approval, food-safety review, transportation or temperature-control plan, or inspection before or during the early weeks of the program.

That does not prove the food was unsafe, and that is not the allegation. The issue is whether government can document what oversight occurred, who was responsible for it and what requirements applied. Those questions were raised while Melnick was still leading Public Health. His retirement should not require the public to begin the inquiry all over again with his successor.

The Bridge Shelter makes those answers more important

This becomes particularly relevant as Vancouver prepares to operate its new Bridge Shelter. Clark County has committed substantial funding to the project, county residents will use the facility, and the shelter will include food and supportive services.

If examining an existing program such as Share identifies weaknesses in authorization, documentation, food transportation or Public Health oversight, the sensible response isn’t to bury the problem. It is to determine what happened and make sure the lesson is incorporated into the next operation.

That is how oversight is supposed to work. The purpose isn’t simply to identify mistakes after they occur; it is to prevent government from repeating them.

The same principle applies to much bigger decisions

The Interstate Bridge Replacement Program makes the scale of the coming decisions dramatically larger. The first funded phase has about $5.7 billion committed, contractor procurement is moving forward, and major construction is expected to follow. The project also preserves space for light rail while additional funding is pursued for the extension into Vancouver.

Regardless of where someone stands on the bridge, tolling or light rail, the next County Council will be dealing with consequences that could last for decades.

The same is true of public safety. A proposed bond of up to $366.2 million would finance jail expansion and remodeling, additional courtrooms and a new Sheriff’s Office headquarters. A separate levy proposal would help pay for the personnel needed to operate the expanded criminal-justice system. Whether voters approve or reject those measures, the underlying issues involving jail capacity, prosecutors, defense attorneys, policing and public safety will still be waiting for county leaders in 2027.

Meanwhile, homelessness and behavioral-health programs continue expanding, taxpayers are being asked to support enormous commitments, and the Charter Review Commission is considering changes to the structure of county government itself.

There is a common thread running through all of this: decisions made today are increasingly becoming responsibilities somebody else will have to manage tomorrow.

Give the incoming leaders an unfinished-business list

Before the current leadership leaves, Clark County should prepare a publicly accessible transition report. It doesn’t need to become another expensive study. It could be remarkably straightforward.

For each major issue crossing into 2027, identify what has already been decided, what remains unresolved, how much money has been committed, what deadlines are approaching and who is responsible for the next decision. Pending investigations, unanswered public questions and outstanding reviews should be included rather than disappearing into departmental files.

Such a list should cover Public Health leadership and unresolved oversight matters, the Bridge Shelter, jail and public-safety funding, the I-5 bridge and light rail, homelessness and behavioral health, major budget commitments and whatever governmental changes voters approve through the Charter Review process.

Most importantly, there should be a clear handoff of responsibility.

Outgoing officials should finish what reasonably can be finished and document what cannot. Incoming officials should receive the records and understand what remains unresolved. The public should not have to reconstruct the history of an issue every time somebody retires, loses an election or moves to another position.

A new year shouldn’t mean starting over

Clark County may look considerably different when the new council organizes in January. New leadership can bring fresh ideas, different priorities and needed scrutiny. That can be healthy.

But there is a difference between starting fresh and starting over.

The people occupying the chairs may change. The I-5 bridge will still be there. The Bridge Shelter will still be operating. Public Health will still have responsibilities. The criminal-justice system will still need funding and management. Taxpayers will still be paying the bills. And unanswered questions will still deserve answers.

The measure of a successful transition isn’t how quickly the new people announce their priorities. It is also whether county government preserves accountability for the commitments and unresolved problems it already has.

The problems don’t leave when the people in the chairs do. Neither should accountability.

Peter Bracchi
Vancouver