Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cities press for interlocal agreement linking UGA additions to a county TDR program
Summary
Representatives from Ridgefield, Camas and La Center urged Clark County to adopt an interlocal agreement (ILA) that would lock proposed urban growth boundary (UGA) additions into urban holding until a countywide transfer‑of‑development‑rights program is functioning and required credit transactions occur.
City officials from Ridgefield, Camas and La Center used the March 18 work session to describe a proposed interlocal agreement (ILA) intended to coordinate UGA expansions with a county TDR program.
Steve Stewart, Ridgefield’s city manager, walked the council through key ILA elements in a draft the cities have been developing. He said the ILA’s purpose is “to set up a program for transferring development rights from rural ag lands of long‑term commercial significance to urban lands that are needed for jobs and affordable housing.” The draft calls for urban holding overlays on any agricultural parcels the council considers for inclusion; those overlays would prevent development until (1) the parcels are annexed and (2) a TDR transaction for the associated credits has cleared.
Stewart described timing and safeguard provisions the cities seek: a two‑year target for the county to adopt a countywide TDR program once the ILA becomes effective; a 10‑year re‑evaluation clause that could remove lands from UGA status if credits are not transacted; and a city remedy allowing annexation if the county fails to meet deadlines (subject to negotiated appeal periods). Stewart said those protections are intended both to lock in a receiving‑site market and to ensure buyers exist before lands can be developed.
City officials framed the ILA as a way to align comp‑plan actions with conservation outcomes. A city representative told the council the three cities “have recognized a moment of opportunity” to accommodate growth while protecting agricultural lands, and Mayor Hogan, speaking for one city, said he had repeatedly sought a functioning TDR program and saw this as a chance to get a program in place.
Why it matters: The ILA approach attempts to thread state planning requirements, city interests, and agricultural protections into a single negotiated framework. The overlay + timed program adoption is intended to create buyers (receiving sites) and sellers (sending sites) simultaneously so a market can function rather than leaving designated lands immediately developable.
Open questions: Participants debated whether designation (de‑designation of agricultural land) must wait until a TDR program is proven. Planning and agricultural commissioners urged strict linkage or a moratorium; city staff and presenters said parallel processing (policy framework now, program details later) can preserve market opportunity for the receiving side. The ILA draft leaves several negotiable points: exact timeline triggers, remedies if the county misses deadlines, and the level of program detail to include up front.
What happens next: Councilors agreed to a targeted work session to review the city‑requested parcels and evaluation criteria and discussed scheduling a public hearing on the preferred comprehensive‑plan alternative. The ILA remains a draft and would require public hearings and final approval by both cities and the county to take effect.
