Riverview School District officials told the Duval City Council on Sept. 16 that the district’s 2025 Capital Facilities Plan projects flat to declining enrollment over the next several years and therefore would not produce an eligible impact-fee calculation for 2026. Misha Robertson, identified in the meeting as the district’s business-and-operations superintendent, presented the plan and said the school board adopted it on June 24.

The plan, prepared under the Washington State Growth Management Act and using demographic forecasts from Flow Analytics, estimates district enrollment at just under 3,000 students across six school sites serving Carnation, Duvall and unincorporated King County. The district’s elementary permanent capacity is listed at about 1,130 students, with a current head count just over that level (the presenter cited roughly 1,296 students). Middle- and high-school capacity figures were given as roughly 657 for the middle school (enrollment ~633 last year) and 808 at the high school (enrollment ~809 last year). The district uses portable classrooms at multiple campuses to manage shortfalls.

Why it matters: Washington law limits use of impact fees to funding new capacity needed to serve growth; fees cannot be used to pay for existing facility deficiencies. Robertson and the district’s contracted demographer concluded that projected enrollment declines and existing on-site capacity mean the district cannot show the sustained, capacity-driven growth required by statute to justify a fee. The presentation said the district therefore will not collect school impact fees for projects triggered by 2026 development.

District officials described the current highest capital priority as replacing the district’s middle school, which the district’s capital asset advisory and bond-planning committees recommended for replacement rather than renovation because of building condition, maintenance needs and security concerns. The district plans to present options to the school board in the coming months and is considering placing a bond measure on a future ballot to fund a rebuild; any bond would require board approval and voter ratification.

The presentation emphasized that impact fees typically contribute only a portion of a capacity project’s cost. Robertson said the district expects to revisit the capital facilities plan and eligibility for fees in 2026, when updated enrollment projections and housing-development data will be available.

Council members asked about the legal basis for the fee calculation and the role of housing and economic factors in the demographer’s forecast. Denise Stiparm, an attorney with SACALA Group who works with districts on capital facilities planning, explained the three-pronged eligibility test the district must meet: (1) show projected growth over the six-year planning period, (2) identify a capacity-related need to serve that growth, and (3) identify a project to address the growth. Stiparm said the district’s enrollment projection shows a decline overall and that even with the proposed middle-school project the district would still have capacity to serve new students entering from new homes, so the project did not generate an eligible fee calculation for this cycle.

Speakers and questions also touched on household composition and housing prices as contributors to lower student-per-home generation rates, and council members asked about whether recent local economic shifts (including layoffs in the technology sector) had been factored into the demographer’s work. Robertson said Flow Analytics had adjusted its projection after overestimating enrollment the prior year and that current figures were close to targets.

The district’s plan lists options for managing capacity in the near term, including continued use and replacement of portable classrooms at elementary campuses and reliance on bond or capital maintenance levies for larger projects. The presentation did not include a formal request for council action; it was an informational briefing to the council.