Woodland council hears lengthy debate as school district explains legally prescribed impact‑fee formula

Woodland city leaders spent most of a May 4 workshop wrestling with a proposed update to school impact fees after a school-district presentation that said the district's enrollment projections require new capacity within six years.

Leanne Bremer, the regional analyst who presented the district's capital facilities plan and impact‑fee calculation, told the council the formula is statutory: it uses enrollment projections, facility capacity, cost per student and expected public‑funding credits to calculate a per‑unit fee. Bremer said Woodland's projection shows elementary‑level growth that would likely require a new elementary school; because the district currently assumes little or no tax credit in the formula, the district's calculated fee is higher than it would be if a bond or levy were passed.

That explanation is at the center of the dispute: some residents and developers urged caution, noting statewide and local enrollment declines and arguing that existing fees could finance the district's stated $1 million CIP need. "If the fees remain as is, they will fully meet their CIP plan," said Max Bonder, a Woodland resident, urging the council not to raise fees without clearer evidence the new charge is required. Daniel Suarez, a local developer, questioned classroom counts and noted that portables are in place now; he said the district's plan does not account for the practical, current use of spaces.

Supporters of higher impact fees argued growth should pay for growth and warned that relying on portables is a short‑term fix. A resident who identified herself as "Miss H." said the capital facilities plan forecasts about 305 additional students over six years and that impact fees can reduce pressure on taxpayers and keep fifth graders in elementary schools. "Without adequate impact fees, the alternative is obvious: we raise taxes on existing residents or we push more students into portable classrooms," she said.

District representatives clarified several technical points during Q&A: portables on site are already in active use and some serve administrative or preschool needs; portables are treated as temporary and generally are not counted as permanent capacity in the district's planning calculations; the impact fee account held about $600,000 according to a public records note cited by a commenter, and a $266,000 portable purchase is expected to partly deplete that balance. Bremer and district staff also said that if the district later secures bond or levy funds, the ordinance requires the fee be recalculated downward to reflect those public funding credits.

Several council members pressed staff for practical options rather than only the district's statutory calculation. Multiple members endorsed the idea of a phased approach — for example, moving toward the statutory fee in increments — but asked that any phase‑in be justified with math linking remaining buildable lots and projected fee revenue rather than an arbitrary target. Staff agreed to work with the city attorney and the district to draft ordinance language for a phased approach and to return to council with options and numbers (staff suggested early June, if feasible).

The workshop made clear the technical constraints on fee setting (the city may set a fee lower than the statutory calculation but not higher) and the political tradeoffs (who pays: current taxpayers, future taxpayers via bond, or developers via permit fees). The council did not vote on the ordinance at the meeting; staff were directed to return with a set of options and the supporting math.