Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Facilities Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett board hears draft capital plan and large projected impact‑fee increases
Summary
Board members reviewed the district’s draft 2026–2031 Capital Facilities Plan, including new student projections and an updated impact‑fee calculation that would substantially raise single‑family unit fees before the county’s 50% discount; staff said the plan will return for adoption after county review.
The Everett Public Schools Board of Directors on May 26 reviewed a draft Capital Facilities Plan that lays out enrollment projections, planned school projects through 2031 and an impact‑fee recalculation that would mark a significant rise in fees charged to new housing.
Darcy Walker, director of capital projects, told trustees the district’s consultant (Educational Data Solutions) projects roughly 20,500 students in the medium case by 2030 and about 21,260 by 2035. Walker said the plan uses updated student‑generation rates derived from 10 years of housing data and separates dwelling types (single‑family, townhouse/duplex, multifamily) to refine how many students are expected per new unit. “For single‑family detached, we’re looking at about a little over half a student generated per home,” Walker said.
Using those assumptions and current cost estimates, the analysis produced much higher impact‑fee calculations than the district’s present charges. Walker cited a draft figure for a three‑plus‑bedroom single‑family unit of roughly $22,781 per unit before the county’s 50% statutory discount; the district’s current single‑family fee shown in materials is about $12,556. Walker said the county’s choice of discount and the bond/levy tax rate used in the county’s formula can materially change the final amount.
Directors asked staff about methodology and equity questions. Director Herman asked whether Flow Analytics accounted for large multi‑bedroom apartment trends and location or income variations; Walker responded that Flow’s modeling includes those housing‑type variables and that the expanded dwelling‑type breakdown reflects recent changes in the housing stock. On county review, Walker said the county had already returned a limited set of comments and that some county choices (such as using the county’s bond/levy rates rather than the district’s anticipated rates) could increase the calculated fee.
Board members also raised the district’s eligibility for the state School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP). Walker said the district remains eligible for SCAP funding for remodeling and replacement but, under the current square‑footage metric, is not eligible for new elementary space despite having numerous portables in use: “It’s a very outdated metric,” a director said during the exchange.
Walker outlined next steps: the district will bring the draft back for board adoption on June 23, submit the plan to Snohomish County for review, and incorporate any county comments before final submission in August; new impact fees would go into effect January 1, 2027, for permits issued after that date.
Why it matters: Impact‑fee calculations affect development costs and school capital funding. Board members noted the fees account for only a modest share of capital revenue historically but said accuracy and defensibility of the methodology are important to avoid legal challenges and to align fees with community expectations.
The board did not vote on the plan at the meeting; Walker said staff would return with any revisions after county feedback.
