Woodland council declines proposed large increase to school impact fees after public questions about formula

Woodland — Woodland City Council voted down Ordinance 15-79, a proposal to increase school impact fees, after a long public-comment period and debate over the formula used to calculate the new rates.

The ordinance, which would have amended the city's existing school-impact-fee ordinance (Ordinance 14-31) and implemented figures submitted by the Woodland School District, failed 2–5 on council roll call. Council members Dowdy and Friend voted in favor; Burke, Freymark, Houston, De Luce and Michaelson voted no.

Why it mattered: members of the public and several councilors said the school district’s calculations were not sufficiently documented at the time the council considered adopting the new rates. Daniel, a member of the public who reviewed the district’s materials, told the council, “the ordinance does not have a legal standing, because we haven't seen the formula.” He challenged the district’s assumption about housing growth and said the district’s capital plan data showed more available seats than proponents cited.

Developer and small-business concerns also featured in the discussion. Bobby Vickrey, who is seeking permits for a Paddle House Taproom and outdoor amphitheater in Woodland, said the transportation impact fee quoted to him — which he described as about $255,000 — made his project infeasible. “I'm worried about $255,000 for traffic impact,” Vickrey said, urging council to consider exemptions used by nearby jurisdictions.

City staff and legal counsel responded that the city’s role is largely ministerial: Emily (city staff/legal) said the calculation method is adopted in Woodland Municipal Code section 3.4.0.06 and explained that the school district produces a capital facilities plan and fee calculations that the city then processes and collects. “The school district is the one that has to approve exemptions,” she said, describing the city primarily as a pass-through collector that checks procedures and math.

Council debate centered on transparency and timing. Several councilors said they wanted the district to show the worksheet or algorithm used to reach the proposed fee numbers and asked for a workshop where the school district could walk through the math. One councilor said the planning commission had reviewed the matter twice and returned the recommendation unchanged, while others said more public clarity was necessary before changing fees that affect builders and homebuyers.

The ordinance would have raised single-family and multifamily fees substantially in some of the district’s published scenarios; public commenters and councilors cited examples in the packets showing increases from earlier proposals of roughly $1,200–$4,645 (single-family) and larger proportional jumps for multifamily units. Speakers suggested alternatives including phasing increases over multiple years, exemptions for downtown or small-business development, or asking voters to approve bond financing for school construction so costs would be spread across district taxpayers.

What happens next: Council did not adopt the ordinance. The presiding official committed to scheduling a workshop so the school district can present its capital facilities plan and demonstrate how the fee calculations were derived. Councilors also discussed possible code revisions to give the city clearer processes for considering exemptions and phased implementation.

The packet and public comments included references to state statute (chapter 82.02 RCW) and local code (Woodland Municipal Code 3.4.0.06); council members and staff noted that statutory and local-code provisions provide varying paths for exemptions and procedure. The council’s action leaves the current fee schedule in place for now.