Woodland planning commission continues public hearing on school impact fee changes after residents question district math

The Woodland Planning Commission on Thursday continued a public hearing on Ordinance 15 79, which would amend Ordinance 14 31 and revise how school impact fees are calculated, after residents and commissioners raised questions about the school district's projections and the math behind its cost estimates.

Travis Goddard, Community Development Director for the City of Woodland, presented the methodology used by the school district and shown in the hearing packet, saying the district used a recent elementary design (Ridgefield Elementary) as a cost model, applied an estimated construction cost of about $600 per square foot, and included a land cost assumption of roughly $2,500,000 to derive a total capital cost figure used in the impact-fee formula. "My name is Travis Goddard. I'm the community development director for the city of Woodland," he told the commission before walking through the formula and the components that reduce the gross capital cost, including a 15% deduction for existing students and an anticipated 65% state construction match.

Resident and professional engineer Max Bonder, who identified himself as living in Woodland, told the commission he had reviewed the district's report and questioned why the fee calculations appear to be based on a 400-student school build-out when the district's five-year summary in the packet shows a projected shortfall of about 161 elementary seats by 2031. "I'm here just to question the mathematics," Bonder said in his testimony, arguing that impact fees should be tied to the incremental, demonstrated capacity shortfall rather than the school's full design capacity.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed staff on enrollment trends, the difference between design capacity and actual annual demand, and how projected housing growth in and around Woodland has been counted. Commissioners noted that Woodland has permitted a substantial number of lots and subdivisions in recent years (staff cited subdivisions such as Alder & Ash, Riverwalk and The Landing and enumerated permitted lots), but also that small-sample statistics make short-term projections in a small jurisdiction uncertain. Several speakers pointed to recent local enrollment declines and said the district's five-year tables show capacity adequacy in some years and only incremental deficiencies in others.

Because school-district representatives were at a contemporaneous school-board meeting and would be better positioned to answer detailed questions about assumptions and exhibits attached to the district's letter, Commissioner Whitney moved to continue the public hearing to a later meeting and place it at the end of the agenda to encourage district attendance. The commission agreed on a specific continuance date and time to be legally noticed (staff announced January 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the same meeting room) and voted to continue the hearing.

The commission asked staff to obtain the district's underlying data and to prepare a side-by-side explanation of the district's calculations, the city's interpretation, and the specific points where numbers differ. No ordinance amendment vote was taken at the meeting.

The continued hearing is scheduled for the commission's January meeting; staff will notify the school superintendent and provide the packet materials in advance so that district staff can respond to commissioners' and residents' questions.