The Reflector
As 2025 comes to a close, The Reflector presses rewind on the top stories in north Clark and south Cowlitz counties over the course of the year.
Significant events happened each week of the year, but some stories spanned multiple months of coverage. In this year’s review, The Reflector staff took the time to highlight what we felt were the five most important stories that hit the headlines time after time this year.
Toward the end of 2024, a timber sale in the northeastern reaches of Clark County became one of the first big stories of 2025 shortly after the new year, as legal battles and back-and-forth points of emphasis surrounding the logging ensued. The Dabbler timber sale was mentioned 13 times in the headlines and was a talking point in three letters to the editor.
The phrase “Interstate Bridge Replacement” appeared over 20 times in stories in The Reflector this year. The struggle of the project played a huge part in 2025 as a consensus of bridge utilizers do not want light rail featured; Clark County Councilmember Michelle Belkot was axed from the C-Tran Board; a lawsuit was filed following that action; and now, closer to the new year, the longtime leader resigned and questions are left unanswered for a cost update for the project.
Another story that appeared in the press more than 20 times in 2025 was the lengthy process of updating Clark County’s comprehensive growth plan and the surrounding cities. An agricultural lands study increased the cost of the plan update and delayed completion of the overall comp plan.
Twice in 2025, voters gave a big “no” to a Battle Ground Public Schools Education Programs & Operations (EP&O) replacement levy, sending the school district into the shock of a double levy failure. A new superintendent has inherited the struggles of managing budget cuts and leading the district’s administration and board to a new levy proposal in February 2026.
And wrapping up our 2025 year in review is one city that made 104 appearances in 2025 to the news headlines: Woodland. Though on the lesser side of appearances made by a city in The Reflector, a lot of stuff happened, especially with the city council. It all started with former Mayor Will Finn on the hot seat for misusing funds, brought up by current Mayor Todd Dinehart. Next, the city council navigated the process to fund the city’s infrastructure for a better future. Questions arose after the handling of lodging tax funds and the closure of the tourism center, which were closely aligned. Lastly, a dispute over a city council member’s residency and the mayor’s office ended, as the council member is set to resign after the new year.
The Dabbler Debacle
To log or not to log?
Well, there was logging activity up at the Dabbler site. But getting to that point was quite a challenge, from sitting on wooden benches in courtrooms to numerous letters urging an outright ban on logging the legacy forest.
The timber sale consisted of 140 harvestable acres out of 156 in total, managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land is primarily covered by Douglas fir trees. The timber value was appraised at $3,141,000, but the American Forest Resource Council estimates the auction sale could reach a higher value. Through taxing districts, the sale could provide BGPS with an estimated $677,463 and $150,843 to North Country EMS, along with other beneficiaries.
Despite local beneficiaries receiving funds from the sale of DNR-managed timber, efforts are underway to block the sale and harvest. A total of 10,704 letters have been sent to DNR, with a goal of 12,800 on the Action Network website, due to the land overlapping with Northern spotted owl habitat.
The Friends of Clark County (FOCC) stepped in ahead of the sale.
Ann Foster, president of the FOCC and Climate Advisory Group member for Clark County, said the “business-as-usual sale of timber in legacy forests in Washington is an environmental violation in our book.”
Foster said the FOCC believes the evidence suggests Earth is near a tipping point at which humans must make choices to address global climate issues, including whether to clear-cut trees. She added that it is “striking and stunning” that DNR is proceeding with the auction of the timber in the Dabbler sale.
She said the FOCC still believes the timber industry is crucial and that a future without logging is not realistic, but the issue regarding the Dabbler timber sale is more about the type of forest the Dabbler land is.
Right at the very end of 2024, FOCC joined in on a lawsuit with Legacy Forest Defense Coalition (LFDC), jointly filed a lawsuit last week in Superior Court, alleging multiple violations by the Washington state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of the Forest Practices Act and its own Habitat Conservation Plan and Policy for Sustainable Forests regarding the Dabbler timber sale.
The Legacy Forest Defense Coalition and Friends of Clark County announced on Dec. 30 they filed a lawsuit challenging the Dabbler timber sale. Filed in Clark County Superior Court, the lawsuit alleges violations of state environmental laws and policies by DNR and seeks to prevent the destruction of “rare forest ecosystems vital to the region’s biodiversity and climate resilience,” a news release by the Friends of Clark County stated.
“The Dabbler timber sale targets forests that are over 120 years old, featuring diverse canopies and critical habitats for species like the Northern Spotted Owl,” LFDC Director Stephen Kropp said in the release. “Logging these forests violates DNR’s own policies, which require protection of older forests to achieve long-term conservation and biodiversity goals.”
According to a species map on eBird, managed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, there is no documentation of the Northern Spotted Owl among or within 20 miles of the Dabbler timber sale area between the years of 1900 and 2025.
The lawsuit sparked a significant back-and-forth.
Matt Comisky, the Washington state manager for the American Forest Resource Council, said he wished more people would consider what makes up the current stand of trees.
“Let’s just say, just because there’s 12 110-year-old trees scattered out across 90 acres doesn’t mean that’s high-quality Spotted owl habitat,” he said, hypothetically. “It means you have 12 trees that survived the last logging operation or survived the last windstorm or survived the last major wildfire that have now made it into this 65- to 80-year-old timber stand that’s now going to be logged.”
Comisky compared the issue to lawn care.
“It’s really no different than your lawn,” he said. “If you work really hard at taking all the weeds out, but you miss one or two dandelions, are those old-growth dandelions when you go to cut your lawn next time, or are they just the ones that you missed, and so they finally grew big enough that you could see them?”
The timber value was appraised at $3,141,000, but the American Forest Resource Council estimates the auction sale could reach a higher value.
The Dabbler Legacy Forest auction took place in January and fetched nearly 80% above its appraised value. Stimson Lumber Co., with multiple lumber yards in Oregon, won the auction with a bid of $5.2 million. From that, the Battle Ground Public Schools district would gain $1,013,411.17, Clark County Roads Department would gain $634,830.94, and North Country EMS would earn $225,644.77, among other beneficiaries, according to the American Forest Resource Council.
In February, opponents of the timber sale secured a small victory in Clark County Superior Court.
Clark County Superior Court Judge Derek Vanderwood issued the temporary restraining order on Wednesday, Feb. 26. The request was filed by the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition and the Friends of Clark County. The legal battle first began in December, just before Christmas, when the lawsuit was filed.
At the time of the hearing on Feb. 26, logging was taking place by Stimson Lumber Co.
The notice of legal appeal was first served to DNR on Dec. 30. Under the statute, DNR is required to provide the administrative record — documents about the sale from DNR and its board — within 30 days of the lawsuit being filed. Yet, the documents have not been provided as of the Feb. 26 court hearing.
“It does appear that logging has been initiated and is ongoing in the time period,” Vanderwood said.
As the administrative record had not yet been provided, Vanderwood said the case is challenging due to several legal issues.
Why would the administrative record be so important and also cause an issue, though? Alicia Leduc Montgomery, managing attorney for the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition and Friends of Clark County, previously told The Reflector that her office is unable to file its opening brief to begin the court’s decision-making, adding that the administrative record is evidence in the case. She said DNR has done this in previous instances, which has led to moot cases in some circumstances where DNR either revokes a timberland auction or the timber is harvested before a decision is made.
In just a month’s time, the sounds of logging equipment could restart after Clark County Superior Court Judge Derek Vanderwood denied the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition and Friends of Clark County’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday, March 28.
“Given the appellants’ burden and the applicable standard of review, the appellants have failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits,” Vanderwood said in his ruling. “DNR completed a detailed environmental checklist consistent with SEPA in assessing the proposed timber sale.”
The ruling by Vanderwood also lifted a temporary restraining order that Vanderwood had approved in February.
Woodland experiences a year of friction, transition
Woodland’s local government spent much of 2025 navigating internal strain while trying to keep routine business moving. The year unfolded through a series of disputes that revealed deeper tensions over leadership style, transparency and the city’s priorities, alongside quieter moments of change as new councilmembers prepared to take office.
The first major flashpoint came early in January, when a demand letter tied to a recent state audit landed squarely in the middle of a City Council meeting. The letter sought repayment of $580 from former Mayor Will Finn for what the city attorney described as “misused funds.” Mayor Todd Dinehart placed the letter in the public record during the Jan. 6 meeting, immediately drawing objections from some council members who questioned both the tone and the timing.
The state auditor’s report, dated Dec. 26, 2024, reviewed Woodland’s finances for 2023 and found that Finn had made nearly $4,000 in personal purchases on a city credit card over a roughly 20-month period. Most of those charges had already been flagged and repaid, leaving $580 outstanding. What the audit did not spell out were the specific transactions tied to that remaining balance, a gap that became the central issue for critics of the demand letter.
“I want it to be clear here, this is not a witch hunt. This is not a Todd Dinehart thing,” Dinehart said. “This is an audit that’s required, and I want people to know what we as a city and our employees are doing to correct the issues that are out there.”
Councilor Terry Hall led the pushback, arguing that including the letter in the mayor’s report could expose the city to legal risk. He questioned whether the accusation of misuse was adequately supported and warned against acting on what he described as conjecture. A motion to remove the letter from the agenda failed on a 4-3 vote, keeping the document in the public eye.
“When we make a conjecture like the auditor did that there was misappropriation of funds, we need to find out what that transaction was and if that is indeed true,” Hall said.
The debate widened as Councilor Douglas Friemark echoed concerns about language he felt crossed from repayment into accusation. While he did not dispute that money might be owed, he took issue with how the demand was framed.
“What I’m saying is we just opened the door to a heck of a legal suit for nothing else than slander, misrepresentation, because they use the words like ‘misuse’ and that’s calling him either a thief or that he did something illegal,” Friemark said. “I don’t doubt that he might have made mistakes. I don’t doubt that he owes us some money on it, but what I don’t like is the tone of the letter to him that accuses him of illegal activities, of intentionally doing something wrong. That’s where the mistake was made in my judgment.”
Public records released afterward filled in some of the missing details, showing that the $580 included purchases such as alcohol, which is prohibited under city policy, along with several charges from restaurants and convenience stores. Finn, however, said the process itself was flawed. He told the city, and later The Reflector, that he learned of the demand through social media and that the letter lacked the specificity he believed was necessary to justify repayment.
“As I read through the reports and letter linked on your agenda, I see no documentation as to what the $580 represents in the ‘demand letter’ except ‘misuse,’” Finn wrote. “It is vague, undetailed, and unsupported by any evidence. Was this a one-time charge or multiple charges? Who determined what was ‘misuse’ without an explanation?”
As the audit dispute simmered, another long-running issue came to a head later in the year when the Woodland Chamber of Commerce announced plans to close the city’s Visitor Center after more than three decades of operation. The decision followed a City Council vote to withhold lodging tax funds the Chamber said were essential to keeping the facility open.
Chamber leaders had requested at least $40,000 from the city, arguing that anything less would make the budget impossible to balance. Instead, councilmembers opted to split $50,000 in available lodging tax funds between the Visitor Center and Downtown Woodland Revitalization, a community event organizer. Despite repeated warnings, the split ultimately resulted in the Visitor Center receiving no funding after a key motion failed.
“As we have communicated publicly, that level of funding does not sustain the minimum operating capacity,” Chamber President Neil Butler said. “There are a number of things that we’ll need to do to take care of what that looks like in terms of winding it down, but effective Jan. 1, the site will be turned off.”
Butler stressed that the closure was not the end of the Chamber’s work, framing it instead as a shift in focus. He also raised legal questions about the council’s handling of the funds, urging caution before any funds were disbursed. City officials, including the city attorney, maintained that the process followed standard practice.
Tensions also flared during those discussions, with some councilmembers bristling at what they perceived as an ultimatum.
“After Neil Butler sat here and said without $40,000, it’s like telling us, ‘hey, we’re gonna shut down if you don’t give us what you want,’” Councilor Melissa Doughty said. “I don’t think we should be felt to have our hands tied and have to give it to them for them to operate.”
For Butler, the outcome carried consequences beyond the Chamber’s balance sheet. He warned that losing the Visitor Center would reduce Woodland’s ability to capture tourism traffic en route to Mount St. Helens.
“Without a Visitor Center, they’ll stop for gas or they’ll stop at the McDonald’s,” Butler said. “It’s unfortunate, but should things change and the city changes its mind, we’re willing to discuss.”
The year’s most personal and contentious chapter unfolded when Councilor Gabe Huston had a heated exchange with Dinehart during a Dec. 8 special meeting.
After Huston shared the concerns of his absence not being excused a week prior, reading aloud an email he had sent to councilors raising the issue, Mayor Dinehart referenced a long-running dispute over whether Huston resides within city limits. Dinehart has disputed Huston’s residency since late last year, and Huston has maintained his innocence.
Huston announced his resignation the week afterwards, effective Jan. 16.
In his resignation letter, Huston accused the mayor of creating a hostile environment that made continued service untenable. He described a pattern of disrespect that he said went beyond policy disagreements and into personal conduct.
“This decision is the result of repeated disrespect, intimidation and a toxic leadership environment created by the mayor,” Huston wrote. “His conduct has consistently undermined professionalism, collaboration and the ability of this council to function in the best interests of the community.”
The conflict traced back to questions raised months earlier about where Huston lived, an issue complicated by his health struggles as he underwent treatment for colon cancer. Huston said he maintained residency in Woodland, while Dinehart disputed that claim and at times raised it publicly, including during the Dec. 8 meeting that preceded the resignation.
Huston’s letter also alleged a lack of empathy from city leadership during his medical ordeal, a charge Dinehart declined to address publicly. The mayor said the cost of formally pursuing Huston’s removal over residency concerns would be too high for the city.
Amid the disputes and departures, Woodland also marked a moment of renewal as new and returning councilmembers were sworn in during a packed December meeting. Brittny Michaelson and Jennifer De Luz prepared to take their seats alongside reappointed members John “JJ” Burke, Melissa Doughty and Jason Friend.
Interstate Bridge Replacement Project faces mounting struggles
Few regional efforts generated as much sustained friction in 2025 as the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project. Once framed as a long-awaited fix for aging infrastructure, the project instead became a focal point for debates over cost, representation and trust, especially among Clark County’s smaller cities. As timelines slipped and estimates lagged behind inflation, skepticism hardened into open resistance from local officials who said they were being asked to shoulder risks without clear answers.
Concerns about the project’s financial reach here were highlighted early in the year during a presentation to the La Center City Council. While the tone of the exchange remained measured, frustration over the inclusion of light rail and its long-term costs was unmistakable. Councilmembers repeatedly questioned whether a multibillion-dollar bridge designed with three through lanes could realistically meet future demand or justify its price tag.
“I think you guys are building a bridge for yesterday, not tomorrow. Three lanes is ridiculous,” La Center Mayor Tom Strobehn said of the bridge’s draft design. “The worst part is we’re talking about $5 to $7 billion, and as we get construction going, we’re gonna need another bridge because by 2045, we have another 4.5 million people arriving within that time frame. There’s no way that’s gonna accommodate everything.”
Project representatives defended the design as safe and functional through at least 2045, pointing to auxiliary lanes and wider shoulders. That reassurance did little to calm fears in North Clark County, where leaders argued the benefits of light rail accrue primarily to Vancouver while costs would be spread countywide through taxes and tolls. Several councilmembers said they had never encountered grassroots support for light rail among their constituents.
“In 2012 and 2014, when it was put before the voters, it was voted down,” Councilor Myrna Leija said. “What people would like is a new bridge or a better-repaired bridge, a wider bridge. But the expense of this, and knowing that we most likely are gonna be taxed plus pay tolls, I haven’t talked to anyone that wants that.”
Polling data cited by IBR officials showed majority support for extending light rail across the bridge, but critics argued those numbers masked deep geographic divides. La Center leaders said surveys covering the entire region failed to capture rural perspectives and overstated enthusiasm north of Vancouver.
Tensions spilled into governance battles at C-Tran, the county’s public transportation agency and a key partner in the bridge project. In September, a coalition on the board successfully pushed to affirm a 3-3-3 board structure, giving equal representation to Vancouver, Clark County and the county’s smaller cities. The move defied guidance from the Washington State Department of Transportation, which warned the model could jeopardize future grant funding.
“The reason why this board has been assembled a year prior to when it is due to meet is a direct implication of those decisions that have been made,” Ridgefield Mayor Matt Cole said. “When decisions don’t go your way, you don’t change the rules of the game and change the makeup of the board to get it more favorable to your decision in the future.”
Supporters of the equal representation model argued it was the only way to prevent Vancouver from effectively controlling decisions about light rail funding. Opponents countered that noncompliance with state expectations could cost the agency millions. The vote passed anyway, locking in a standoff that would linger through the end of the year and bleed into courtrooms and committee meetings.
As governance fights dragged on, another problem loomed larger: no one could confidently say what the bridge would actually cost. By December, lawmakers from both Oregon and Washington were openly frustrated after a bi-state legislative meeting ended without the long-promised updated cost estimate. The most recent figure of $5 billion to $7.5 billion was already several years old and did not reflect inflation, rising labor costs or unresolved design questions.
“I was very disappointed we did not receive an updated cost estimate for the I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement Program,” Rep. John Ley of Vancouver said in a news release shortly after the meeting. “Both states are facing tight transportation budgets and difficult choices. We were promised updated costs, but none were provided today.”
Project staff attributed the delay to ongoing federal reviews, including a pending U.S. Coast Guard decision on whether the bridge must include a movable span, a determination that could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the total. Legislators and local officials, however, said the lack of concrete numbers made it nearly impossible to evaluate whether the project remained viable.
Battle Ground Mayor Troy McCoy said uncertainty around C-Tran’s financial obligations was becoming harder to ignore, while Strobehn noted the absence of updated projections only reinforced his doubts about the project’s management.
“It’s kind of astonishing that they don’t have updated projections on cost,” Strobehn said. “Every time I turn around, it’s a bigger and bigger number, and then nobody truly knows all the way from the cost of the construction to the tools.”
The bridge debate also became entangled with a high-profile dispute over representation and dissent throughout the year. In March, Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot was removed from the C-Tran Board after voting against language that left open the possibility of using local tax dollars for light rail operations tied to the bridge. Her removal, carried out without public discussion, intensified accusations that opposition voices were being sidelined.
Later in the year, a Skamania County Sheriff’s Office investigation concluded that Belkot’s removal was invalid under state law and county bylaws. The report recommended her reinstatement and the imposition of fines on four county officials, though those findings themselves carried no legal force. While the investigation was not the central driver of the bridge debate, detractors, including Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County, claimed it sharpened public focus on how aggressively the project’s backers were pursuing alignment.
Levy failures leave Battle Ground schools in survival mode
Battle Ground School District voters rejected a replacement levy twice, triggering a series of budget cuts that reshaped daily school life across the district. By summer, the message from voters was clear, but so were the costs. Into that reality stepped a new superintendent tasked with managing historic reductions while rebuilding trust and charting a path forward.
Shelly Whitten officially took over as superintendent in July, inheriting a district facing more than $14 million in cuts and the expiration of its education and operations levy at year-end. Whitten has worked in the district for nearly three decades, serving as a teacher, principal, and, for the last four years, the district’s deputy superintendent before being appointed superintendent.
“Never would have dreamed that I would have held this role, but here I am and here to do the best I can for our community,” Whitten said. “This levy is gonna have some impacts directly on students, and they’re gonna have some long-reaching impacts on kids.”
By August, the school board adopted a 2025–26 budget formalizing those impacts. The plan eliminated 116 full-time positions, split nearly evenly between certificated and classified staff, and cut or scaled back programs that had long been part of district life. Middle school sports were eliminated entirely. Free school supplies for primary students ended. Kindergarten Jump Start was cut. Instructional coaches and teacher librarians were removed, bus routes consolidated and new curriculum purchases suspended.
One of the most visible losses was athletics for middle school students, a decision Whitten said weighed heavily on district leaders.
“We had over 600 students participating in middle school sports this last year,” she said. “That’s a huge number. What that essentially means is those kids are not out in the neighborhoods doing things in the afternoons that maybe they shouldn’t be doing or (are) bored.”
Additional reductions were less visible but no less significant, including fewer nurses on campuses, reduced mental health support and larger class sizes. The ASPIRE magnet program, designed for students who thrive in smaller settings, was scaled back by eliminating its third-grade cohort and transportation services.
“We’ve really cut it back to as much basic programming as possible,” Whitten said. “What that means is the kids that need to be pushed and the students who need extra support, they’re not gonna have as much of that.”
District leaders emphasized that the $14.5 million gap could have been worse. One-time state funds, additional special education support and careful use of reserves reduced an earlier $20 million projection. Still, the long-term picture remained bleak. Chief Financial Officer Michelle Scott warned that without a new levy, the district would face a negative fund balance by 2026–27, triggering state intervention and another round of cuts exceeding $20 million.
That warning sharpened the conversation as the year wore on. By fall, Whitten and the school board openly acknowledged that the district was running out of room to maneuver. The current levy rate of about $2.14 per $1,000 in assessed property value was set to drop to roughly $0.45, making Battle Ground the only district in Southwest Washington without an operations levy.
“We know that this is a two-year problem,” Whitten said during a November work session. “If we can’t get this next levy try across the finish line, this will be a much longer problem for us, and we will be cutting more than $20 million.”
The board reviewed two levy options for a possible February 2026 ballot. One would stabilize current operations without restoring lost programs. The other would raise slightly more and allow limited restoration. Neither would return the district to its pre-levy-failure state, but leaders said the alternative was far worse.
“There are things on our list that I’m not sure that I can guarantee safe and secure buildings,” Whitten said. “I’m very worried about our district moving forward without passing a levy.”
Student representatives told the board that the loss of programs was already affecting attendance, engagement and how peers felt about school. Their comments reinforced what administrators had been hearing quietly for months.
“All these student programs affect so many things; absences, grades, even how students feel about school,” student representative Itzel Contreras Montiel said. “Why would they stay in our district if they’re still not having those opportunities?”
The district plans to seek a replacement EP&O levy at an initial estimated rate of $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed property value, with collections beginning in 2027 and running through 2030. The rate would not exceed the level approved by voters, even if property values rise. District leaders note that the proposal would fund core operations, including student safety, class sizes, special education services, counselors and mental health support, and updated curriculum.
Whitten said local school funding debates have increasingly been influenced by national political issues that do not reflect what is happening inside Battle Ground schools.
“We all want our kids to be successful, and we all want our kids to have every opportunity moving forward,” she said. “The only way that we can do that is when we put those partisan politics aside.”
Deputy Superintendent Lynnell Murray echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that public education is not a political issue.
“Our obligation is to provide each and every child a free and appropriate public education regardless of who they are or where they come from,” Murray said. “That is not political. That is our fundamental purpose.”
Whitten said student voices have been especially important following the double levy failure, with student board representatives gathering feedback from peers across the district about how the cuts are affecting school life, particularly the loss of middle school sports and extracurricular opportunities.
Looking ahead, Whitten warned that another failed levy could force the district to consider options once viewed as unthinkable, including school consolidations, furlough days and salary freezes.
“We would dramatically change the way in which we’re providing education for students,” she said. “We can’t not have kids safe in our schools.”
District leaders will host a public presentation on the proposed levy at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 14, at Battle Ground High School. As the February vote approaches, Whitten said the decision now rests with voters, who will determine whether the district stabilizes or continues deeper into cuts that directly affect students.
“This isn’t about weathering budget cuts,” she said. “It’s about what kind of schools we’re willing to provide for our kids moving forward.”
The growing pains of local comprehensive plan updates
For many Clark County residents, land use planning rarely breaks into daily conversation until it shows up in the form of construction, traffic or a packed public meeting. In 2025, growth planning moved squarely into the spotlight as cities across the county wrestled with state mandates, local priorities and a county-level delay that pushed nearly every timeline off track.
At the center of the year’s debate was Washington’s Growth Management Act, a state law that requires counties and cities to plan for 20 years of population and job growth. Under the act, local governments must regularly update their comprehensive plans, long-range policy documents that guide where housing, jobs, roads, utilities and parks will go. Those plans must align across jurisdictions, meaning cities often cannot move forward until the county does.
That structure collided with reality in Clark County this year. A delayed county comprehensive plan update, driven largely by the addition of a controversial agricultural lands study, sent ripple effects through local cities.
The most visible flashpoint occurred in La Center, where growth planning unfolded before standing-room-only crowds and raw public frustration. In June, the La Center City Council approved subarea plans for downtown and Timmen Landing, two major components of the city’s comprehensive plan update. The plans outline future land uses across roughly 250 acres, calling for a more walkable downtown core and higher-density housing in Timmen Landing, paired with transportation upgrades and environmental protections. Those plans are available at ci.lacenter.wa.us/community/timmen-landing-and-downtown-subarea-plans/.
The vote capped nearly two years of workshops, advisory committee meetings and surveys aimed at meeting state requirements. Yet many residents told the council they felt blindsided by the scope of the changes. The meeting itself was interrupted by outbursts, confusion over public comment rules and frustration that several council members were attending remotely.
“You’re not gonna talk about Timmen Landing or nothing. You’re gonna sit here and take all of our questions tonight,” Kimberlee Goheen Elbon shouted from the audience.
Other residents focused less on the process and more on the substance. Some warned that zoning changes could reduce property values or alter the character of the city. Others objected to a proposed roundabout near Timmen Landing, arguing it would create safety issues for freight and farm equipment.
“It essentially strips my land of development potential and market value,” landowner Carolyn Defoe said.
City officials defended the work, noting that growth pressures from nearby Ridgefield and state requirements left La Center with limited options. The council ultimately approved the plans on a 3-2 vote.
“Nothing ever stays the same, and La Center is not going to stay the same,” council member Melissa Fox said.
Behind the scenes, La Center’s biggest challenge was not the subarea plans themselves but the county-level decisions that would determine whether the city could expand its urban growth boundary for future jobs. La Center leaders have long argued that wetlands, steep terrain and aging infrastructure severely limit their remaining buildable land.
To meet state job growth targets, the city says it needs access to land currently designated as agricultural.
The agricultural lands study was added to Clark County’s individual comprehensive plan after city leaders from Ridgefield and La Center argued they could not request the reclassification of nearby agricultural parcels without a current countywide analysis.
The agricultural lands study is a countywide analysis used to determine which parcels should remain protected for farming and which could potentially be redesignated. Although not explicitly required by the Growth Management Act, the study became a prerequisite for cities seeking boundary changes.
When the county initially approved the study in late 2024 and then considered repealing it in early 2025 over cost and feasibility concerns, city leaders pushed back hard. In April, La Center and Ridgefield officials warned the county that abandoning the study would leave them unable to plan for required job growth.
“La Center must expand its urban growth boundary to accommodate the 2045 allocated job population,” Mayor Tom Strobehn told county councilors.
The county ultimately reversed course and moved forward with the study, but the timing proved costly. By summer, staff acknowledged the preferred consultant could not meet earlier deadlines, pushing completion of the study into late 2025 or early 2026. That delay, in turn, pushed the county’s comprehensive plan adoption well past the state’s 2025 deadline.
For La Center, the consequences were immediate. The city approved nearly $90,000 in additional consultant costs to keep its own plan viable while waiting on the county.
“It really does tick me off to even have to bring it to you,” Strobehn told the La Center City Council as it approved the increase. “But we have to pay for these people’s time.”
As the year wore on, the sense of being stuck in limbo only deepened. City officials were told they could not finalize their comprehensive plan until after the county released its environmental impact statement and completed the agricultural lands study. Even optimistic timelines showed La Center adopting its plan no earlier than spring or summer of 2026.
“We’re kind of at the mercy of the county right now,” consultant Alec Egurrola told the La Center City Council.
While La Center focused on preserving room for job growth near Interstate 5, other cities tracked the same county delays through their own lenses. Battle Ground, facing similar timing constraints, chose to move its comprehensive plan forward in draft form while acknowledging final adoption would wait until the county finished its work.
Battle Ground’s update centers on a strategic shift in its urban growth area. Rather than continuing to plan around Meadow Glade, an area city staff described as difficult to serve and largely residential, Battle Ground proposed expanding west into Dollars Corner. The area along state Route 502 offers employment opportunities and aligns with the city’s stated priority of job growth over additional housing.
“We won’t be formally adopting the plan in terms of an ordinance,” Planning Supervisor Sam Crummett told the Battle Ground City Council. “Ultimately, staff would like to get a motion from you to move this plan forward as drafted.”
The council unanimously agreed, positioning the city to act quickly once the county completes its plan. Under state law, the Dollars Corner expansion could eventually open the door to annexation if a majority of property owners choose to join the city.
Credit: Source link
