After weeks of debate and pointed meetings with local city leaders, the Clark County Council voted 3-2 Tuesday, April 15, to reinstate a resource lands study that could open the door to urban growth area expansions.
The study — approved through a narrow split vote — will evaluate whether agricultural lands across the county be undesignated to allow for development. Councilors Michelle Belkot, Glen Yung and Matt Little voted in favor, as County Chair Sue Marshall and Councilor Wil Fuentes voted against the request for proposals (RFP).
Marshall said the move could jeopardize the county’s compliance with the state’s Growth Management Act, citing past losses in grant eligibility. Under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA), cities and the county must plan to have housing capacity for the next 20 years of anticipated growth by 2025. The council is currently working to repeal a 2023 mining overlay found out of compliance with state law, which has already affected eligibility for some grant funding.
“We’re currently out of compliance,” Marshall said. “We could have received $1.2 million, which maybe we’re still eligible for, but there’s a closing deadline on that coming up unless we come into compliance pretty soon. We lost $10 million last (comprehensive plan cycle). I think it puts the county at risk. I’m not willing to take that risk.”
Local cities push against repeal consideration
The council’s original decision to terminate the study, which was pushed forward in December 2024, came on March 5, with concerns over timing, budget constraints and legal vulnerability. At the time, County Manager Kathleen Otto said the scope of the work couldn’t realistically be completed in the proposed three-month window.
The study, budgeted at $300,000, is a key piece for any city requesting to expand its urban growth boundary onto agricultural, forest or mineral lands. Without it, those requests cannot legally be considered until the next comprehensive plan cycle, under state law.
The council considered reinstating the RFP during its Tuesday, April 15, meeting, following public pushback from city leaders in La Center and Ridgefield.
Under state law, cities must submit land use alternatives that plan for projected growth over the next 20 years.
After the county initially voted in December to proceed with a resource lands study, Ridgefield, La Center and Camas submitted proposals that would require reclassifying agricultural, forest or mineral lands to allow for residential, commercial or industrial development. A resource study is legally required before those proposals can move forward.
City leaders argued the land study is essential, saying many nearby agriculturally zoned areas are no longer actively used for farming and should be reviewed for possible inclusion in urban growth boundaries.
La Center Mayor Tom Strobehn said the city’s focus is on accommodating job growth, and other than two subarea plans in downtown and Timmen Landing, the city has exhausted all plans to accommodate over 3,000 anticipated jobs by 2045.
“La Center must expand its urban growth boundary to accommodate the 2045 allocated job population,” La Center Mayor Tom Strobehn told the council during public comment Monday. “At first glance, it appears there (are) plenty of buildable lands outside of the resource lands in West La Center. However, these lands are heavily constrained by topography and environmental constraints. Therefore, resource lands are needed for job allocations.”
Strobehn said much of the city’s other land is constrained by topography or environmental issues and cannot support new employment centers. He added that critical infrastructure limitations, such as the aging Lewis River Bridge, further limit the city’s development options.
Ridgefield Mayor Matt Cole echoed the concerns, saying the study is essential to future planning.
“I’m here today again to request that you proceed with the resource land study,” Cole said. “We want our local farms to thrive alongside a healthy economy that can support them.”
Ridgefield Councilor Clyde Burkle pointed to the consequences of inaction, referencing a January house fire during which residents waited 15 minutes for a fire engine. He identified a property outside of city limits, currently zoned agricultural, that could serve as a site for a new Clark-Cowlitz Fire Rescue station on the city’s east side. Ridgefield and CCFR are actively evaluating locations to improve emergency response times.
“If we could provide this property, which is not farmland, but is zoned farmland, and make it a fire station, the response time could have been less than five minutes,” Burkle said. “Would the home have been saved? I don’t know, but it would have made things much, much better.”
Council members deliberated for nearly two hours after public comment, hearing from city leaders and county staff to weigh their options. As discussed during the March 5 meeting, staff reiterated that completing the study in time to meet the state’s December deadline is unlikely.
Under the final approved vote, the county will issue an RFP for a consultant to complete the study and present findings to the council by Sept. 1.
“This is kind of a backup plan,” Yung said. “I hope that with working directly with the cities that we can come up with other solutions if possible.”
Marshall, who opposed the motion, is skeptical that a study completed in a few months would be sufficient.
“I remain concerned that this is still all couched in rush, rush, rush,” she said. “I think on the part of some that (believe) they’ll be successful in de-designating … we can’t know that until that study is done.”
If the study delays the comprehensive plan update beyond the state’s 2025 deadline, Clark County could again fall out of compliance and remain ineligible for millions of dollars in state funds.
