Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory council hears permit surge and its implications for school districts
Summary
County planners told the Schools Advisory Council that 2025 saw sharp increases in multifamily permits in several districts and many units remain in construction or review; staff flagged how permit definitions and impact‑fee formulas affect reported totals and district planning.
Chair Marshall convened the Schools Advisory Council to consider 2025 housing-permit activity and what it means for local school districts. Richard Davio, a planner in Community Development, presented a district-by-district summary of new housing completed, in construction and in review across unincorporated Clark County.
Davio said the presentation used a set of permit definitions: “NHC is for new single family home construction, and that includes detached single family, townhomes on their separate lots, duplexes, and cottages on their separate lots,” and he explained MBH denotes manufactured homes, EDU/ADU accessory units, and MFM multifamily. He told the council that multifamily permits rose sharply in some urban areas, singling out Evergreen where he reported “274 in 2025” multifamily units and noted many more in construction or review that will increase totals.
Amy Wooten, a planner supporting the council, provided city-level counts for 2025 and early 2026. She said the City of Vancouver issued permits for 35 new single-family homes and 521 apartment units within the Vancouver School District boundary in 2025 and reported 407 single-family permits and 442 apartment permits within Evergreen’s boundary; several hundred units were listed as under construction or in review.
Councilors pressed staff on how in‑construction and in‑review figures relate to annual totals and on recent code changes. Davio explained that most in‑construction/review projects are counted in the year where activity occurs, but “sometimes we do get a couple leftovers” from prior years if permits are extended. He also reminded the group that a code amendment adopted in July 2025 added alternate methodologies for calculating the student factor for impact-fee rates, which he said gave districts “a little more flexibility” in that piece of the calculation and was included in a broader biannual code amendment.
Members asked for clearer, more comparable data from jurisdictions. Brett Blacksmith (Vancouver) and an online participant urged using GIS permit layers to map projects (for example along 179th) so the council and districts can see where development is concentrated. Amy Wooten said staff will attempt to standardize the format next year and follow up with jurisdictions that provided inconsistent data.
The council approved its meeting minutes by motion, moved by Ayla and seconded by Counselor Young, by voice acclimation earlier in the meeting. No formal votes on policy or fee changes were taken; staff identified follow-up actions including providing more standardized data and coordinating with districts on the county’s capital‑facilities review.
The advisory council plans to reconvene in the fall to discuss legislative priorities and expects related planning commission hearings in July on capital facilities and the comprehensive-plan schedule.
