With a potential fourth elementary school on the horizon, the Woodland City Council again found itself weighing how to best implement a substantial set of recommended impact fee increases during a Tuesday, Feb. 17 workshop.
The workshop was held two days ahead of a planned revised recommendation from the planning commission to consider a phased-in approach requested by the council in January. No new fee proposal was formally discussed.
During a Jan. 21 meeting, the city council opted to send the planning commission’s recommended school impact fee increase back for further revision, with most council members saying the proposed jump was too steep to implement all at once.
The recommendation before the council, passed unanimously by the planning commission, would have raised school impact fees for new residential construction, increasing current rates of $5,900 for a single-family home, $5,900 for a multi-family residence, and $2,000 for an accessory dwelling unit to higher amounts. Under the proposal, single-family home fees would rise to $10,545.93, multi-family residence fees would increase to $13,664.57, and accessory dwelling unit fees would climb to $5,272.97.
Under state law, impact fees collected by the city are passed directly to the school district and must be used for capacity-related improvements. In the district’s capital facilities plan, officials project elementary schools will exceed capacity by 2031. The plan states the district will need to acquire property and construct a fourth elementary school and reconfigure grade levels to accommodate growth.
The estimated cost of a new elementary school is $31.8 million, including property acquisition, though a site has not been selected. The district has requested impact fee rates of $10,545.93 per single-family and $13,664.57 per multifamily unit.
During public comment, Woodland property owner Daniel Soare returned to the podium to expand on concerns he first raised in January about how higher impact fees could affect a planned 23-unit apartment project near a local primary school.
During public comment, Woodland property owner Daniel Soare, who spoke before the council on Jan. 21, returned to the podium to expand on concerns he first raised in January about how higher impact fees could affect a planned 23-unit apartment project near a local school. Soare said a large jump in impact fees would substantially lead to rent increases.
“Why increase all this stuff? All these impact fees, in my opinion, if you're looking for affordable housing, impact fees should be eliminated,” he said.
Tensions rose later in the workshop when Jennifer De Luz suggested that “key players” had attempted to push the higher fee through during prior school board discussions, including involvement from Mayor Todd Dinehart. Dinehart said as a property owner considering development, he would have no benefit from increasing impact fees.
“I don’t have a vote in this whole thing,” Dinehart said.
“I know but you have a lot of pull, don’t you,” De Luz responded.
“Not a bit at all. If you guys don't want to raise it, don't raise it. I'm okay with that,” Dinehart said.
“You have other people saying other things, Mr. Mayor,” De Luz replied.
“I'm okay with people saying other things. I mean, that's not what this is about here. I mean, all I'm trying to do is do what you all want. If you guys don't want to raise it, don't raise it,” Dinehart said.
Dinehart said his only involvement in the process is in conversations with city staff.
“But not behind closed doors and at school board meetings,” De Luz replied.
Dinehard denied De Luz’s assertion, including attending school board meetings. Following the back-and-forth between Mayor Dinehart and Councilor De Luz, Council member Brittny Michaelson reiterated her preference for a phased approach rather than implementing the full increase at once.
“I would like to have a modest increase for 2026 to not disturb or delay or interrupt any current projects that are underway and then put it out there that there will be a more substantial increase in 2027… We need to keep in mind that this bottom line will affect renters or buyers. So we need to be fair about that because that is a very expensive situation. It's a hot topic,” she said.
Council member Melissa Doughty said she was concerned about pushing the increase too far into the future, especially given construction trends and rising costs.
“I don't necessarily agree with the full amount, (but) maybe do it over two years time so that if half the houses are built next year, they're getting the second impact of it,” she said. “I don't want it pushed extremely far out that we're putting fees because just like our parks and stuff, when those are built, there's going to be very little left in our city and then we're going to have nothing coming in for years and years until they expand our boundaries to our city. And I think that would hurt our city.”
Council member Douglas Freimarck voiced support for adopting the planning commission’s recommendation as written.
The planning commission met Thursday, Feb. 19 and voted to send its original proposal back to the council, with one modification: single-bedroom accessory dwelling units would remain at $2,000 rather than increasing, with one commissioner dissenting.
The council is expected to take up the revised proposal at a future meeting.
