Oak Harbor council reviews comp plan housing targets, seeks interlocal agreement with Island County

Oak Harbor city staff and councilors discussed proposed policy changes to the city’s 2025 comprehensive plan at a Sept. 23 City Council workshop, focusing on a 1,333-unit shortfall in the Urban Growth Area allocation, ongoing talks with Island County and the state Department of Commerce, and the prospect of an Environmental Impact Statement that could extend the timeline into 2026.

The discussion matters because the comprehensive plan and any Urban Growth Area (UGA) decisions guide where the city and county expect future housing and infrastructure to be built; council members and staff said those decisions affect infrastructure responsibility, grant eligibility and how quickly new housing can be planned and permitted. Principal Planner Rajesh Kakkamak told the council that Island County’s current accounting shows the existing UGA target at 464 units and a resulting deficit of “about 1,333 units,” and that county planners have proposed removing that deficit from countywide planning policies because of infrastructure concerns.

Kakkamak said the city is continuing negotiations with Island County and the state Department of Commerce and is seeking council guidance on a multi-month review of policy elements. “What we’re looking for with the review of these policies over the next 3 months actually is to just give us your feedback and your comments generally on these policies,” he said, outlining a schedule that covers urban design, transportation, utilities, environment and capital facilities in September; parks, economic development, government services and climate resiliency in October; and land use, housing and the UGA in November. He said staff hopes to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in early December to review draft concepts and maps.

Mayor Ronnie Wright characterized the exchanges with the county as cooperative rather than adversarial. “There’s not so much contention. I know that’s what the paper wants to lead you to believe, but there’s not really that much contention,” he said, describing repeated meetings with Island County officials and the Department of Commerce. City Administrator Sabrina Combs told council the city and county are working in parallel to meet deadlines and to document how responsibilities for infrastructure in the UGA would be handled, and said staff has met with the Department of Commerce in recent weeks.

Council members pressed staff for details on timing and authority. Council member Ben Stuckey asked staff to summarize the core points of disagreement; Rajesh and staff explained that the county is concerned about infrastructure availability in the UGA and that an interlocal agreement (ILA) between the city and county is the tool typically used to define responsibilities for sewer, water and related facilities in UGA areas. Kakkamak said counties and cities statewide generally use such agreements to clarify who plans and pays for utilities when UGAs span jurisdictional lines.

Council members also discussed process speed and the possibility of an EIS. Kakkamak acknowledged the proposal to remove the 1,333 units from countywide planning policies would accelerate the county’s effort to meet a December 2025 deadline but said that the city is likely to extend into 2026 if an EIS is required. Multiple council members suggested arranging a policy-level meeting with county commissioners to resolve outstanding issues more directly.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the workshop. Staff stated they will continue negotiations with Island County and Department of Commerce staff, prepare draft interlocal language to clarify responsibilities for UGA infrastructure, and return with revised policy text and a proposed schedule. Kakkamak said the comments collected at the workshop will feed into a draft plan for further review by council and the Planning Commission.

Background details discussed in the workshop included references to Growth Management Act consistency, countywide planning policies, the departmental schedule for policy review over the next three months, and the possibility of conducting an EIS if the chosen approach requires broader environmental review. Planning Commission recommendations and earlier meetings with Island County were cited as part of the record.

Staff emphasized the discussion was advisory; council members asked staff to bring more precise draft language for any interlocal agreement and to be prepared to convene a joint policy meeting if needed. The council did not adopt any policy or vote on UGA boundary or allocation changes at the Sept. 23 workshop; staff said they will return with drafts and recommendations in the coming months.