Clark County Council Told Ag‑land Study Will Miss Sept. 1 Deadline; Staff to Negotiate With Top Consultant

Clark County staff told the council on June 25 that the county received four proposals for the Ag Land (AgLAN) study required as part of the comprehensive‑plan update, but that the top‑ranked firm has a schedule that extends past the council’s Sept. 1 completion direction.

“Based on our review internally, there was one proposal that rose to the top,” staff said during the meeting, adding that one proposal lacked required information and was not being considered. Staff told the council that if the top firm started work July 1, best‑case completion would be in October; because a contract will not be before the council until July 15, staff said the best‑case finish would be mid‑November. County planning staff estimated that slipping the Ag study would push completion of the overall comprehensive‑plan schedule into March or the first week of April 2026 in the county’s current modeling.

Planning director Oliver Jericho told the council, “My best guess… March or first week in April,” when asked how far the overall schedule could shift if the study runs late.

Why it matters: Clark County is among jurisdictions required to update local plans under the Growth Management Act; missing the county’s statutory deadline could lead the state’s Department of Commerce to classify the county’s plan as overdue. Legal counsel told the council there is uncertainty about how the Growth Management Hearings Board would respond if the county were appealed for missing the statutory deadline.

Cities and deadlines: Councilors raised concerns about how the delay would affect cities that rely on the county’s process; staff said Vancouver is preparing its own environmental review while other cities rely on the county. Staff said they will notify cities about the timeline and explained that the county, as lead agency, must complete a preferred alternative before final EIS work.

Council direction on consultant: After discussion, several councilors said they preferred quality over speed and were comfortable negotiating with the top‑ranked firm even if the study runs late. The chair asked for three councilors to agree to proceed; a councilor said, “I think you have four,” and staff confirmed they would begin negotiations with the top firm and bring a contract back on July 15 for council approval.

Formal votes at the meeting: The council approved minutes for the June 18, 2025 meeting during the June 25 session. The motion to approve the minutes was moved and seconded and carried after a voice vote; the meeting record shows the motion passed with council saying “Aye. Motion carries.”

What was not decided: The council did not adopt a motion to delay or cancel the AgLAN study; it directed staff to negotiate a contract with the top proposal and to return that contract on July 15. Staff also noted the SEPA public‑comment process could add an additional 30 days to the schedule if requested by the public.

Next steps: Staff will negotiate cost and schedule with the top‑ranked consultant, notify member cities about revised timelines, and return a proposed contract to the council on July 15. Staff also said it will communicate updated timing for the preferred‑alternative selection and subsequent EIS steps.