The City of La Center will spend nearly $90,000 more on its comprehensive plan update after delays and uncertainty surrounding Clark County’s agricultural lands study, a key factor in whether the city can pursue job-related growth under Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA).
Under the GMA, cities and counties must update their comprehensive plans by 2025 to accommodate 20 years of projected population and job growth. Cities are required to identify enough land for future housing and employment. Although the GMA does not require an agricultural lands study, state law prohibits cities from expanding urban growth boundaries onto designated resource lands, such as farmland, unless the county first reviews and potentially undesignates them.
Clark County originally approved the study in December 2024 but proposed a repeal in March, citing budget concerns and feasibility. That decision triggered backlash from local cities, including La Center, Ridgefield and Camas.
At a contentious county council meeting in April, city leaders urged the county to reinstate the study, warning that further delays could jeopardize their ability to plan for required jobs and population growth under state law.
La Center Mayor Tom Strobehn stressed at the time that the city had few remaining options for development.
“La Center must expand its urban growth boundary to accommodate the 2045 allocated job population,” Strobehn said during the April meeting. “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.”
Aside from two subarea plans in downtown and Timmen Landing, the city has little available land left for new employment centers. Wetlands, steep terrain and limited infrastructure, including the aging Lewis River Bridge, further restrict usable space.
The county council ultimately reversed course in mid-April with a 3-2 vote to proceed with the study, directing staff to complete it by Sept. 1.
Agricultural study expected to greatly delay completion of comprehensive plan
During a June 25 county council work session last week, staff informed councilors that the preferred consultant cannot meet that deadline. If a contract is approved on July 15, the study would not be completed until late November at the earliest, and possibly not until early 2026. That pushes the county’s comprehensive plan update timeline into an expected March or April 2026 date, according to Planning Director Oliver Orjiako, several months beyond the state’s 2025 deadline.
Councilor Wil Fuentes and Council Chair Sue Marshall both expressed concern over the potential new timeline. City staff have warned that a comprehensive plan delay could not only put the county’s plan out of compliance, but also risk its eligibility for state grant funding.
Fuentes suggested repealing the study considering the new anticipated timeline, but he and Marshall acknowledged the council did not have a majority to approve such a motion.
Delayed agricultural study brings greater costs to La Center
Later that same day, the La Center City Council voted unanimously to increase its contract with consultant WSP by $89,917, bringing the total to $331,415. The added work includes new planning analysis, extended coordination with the county and preparation for how the delayed study may affect La Center’s land use and capital facilities plans.
Mayor Strobehn called the extra cost “frustrating,” particularly since, in his view, it could have been avoided.
“It really does tick me off to even have to bring it to you,” he told the council. “But we have to pay for these people’s time.”
La Center Councilor Sean Boyle asked if the city could seek reimbursement for the added cost.
“I don’t know … if there is any legal recourse at that point. I would love to have the money reimbursed so that the residents of La Center aren’t paying out an extra (amount),” Strobehn said.
In a follow-up interview, Strobehn said the city’s financial burden was worsened by the county’s delay of the plan’s inclusion.
“This should have been done a year ago,” he said. “The planning commission should have pumped this through and the council should have went through it a year ago.”
He added that small cities such as La Center don’t have the financial flexibility to absorb last-minute planning costs the way larger cities can.
“If we’re being mandated that there’s going to be (growth), we don’t have a choice,” he said. “We have to plan for that future, and if you’re not planning, we’re in some serious trouble. The small cities are going to be the ones most impacted.”
Strobehn also criticized County Chair Marshall, saying she had previously toured La Center with him and expressed support, only to later question whether the study should continue.
“I brought Sue Marshall out to the city. We’ve been touring the city. I’ve walked her through the city,” Strobehn told The Reflector. “She was all for it, gung ho for it … but I interpret it now she was just pacifying me instead of being honest … I have a problem with that. Don’t pacify me. Be honest.”
“She wants no growth, no boundary exceptions, and she’s going every which way she can to win that fight,” he added.
Marshall did not immediately respond to The Reflector for comment.
The Clark County Council is expected to vote on the consultant contract on July 15.
