I'd like to call this hybrid
public hearing. Order for
Thursday, July 16th, 2026.
>> My name is Carl Johnson and
I'm the chairman of the Clark
County Planning Commission. The
role of the Planning Commission
is to review and analyze
comprehensive plan amendments,
zoning changes, and other land
related issues. We follow a
public process, including
holding hearings, during which
the public has an opportunity
to provide additional
perspectives of information and
legislative matters. The role
of the Planning Commission is
advisory. The County Council
will hold separate hearings,
consider our recommendation,
and then they will make a final
determination. The Planning
Commission will conduct a
public hearing tonight and take
testimony. All public comments
received before tonight's
hearing have been sent to the
PC members and entered into the
public record. County staff
will first present. Then the
Planning Commission can ask
questions. Next, we will invite
the applicants to speak. If
there is one. Then members of
the public who wish to provide
testimony. When we get to the
public comment portion of our
agenda, we will provide more
information on how to
participate both virtually and
in person. However, if you're
in person tonight and wish to
provide comment on the hearing
agenda item, please sign up via
the sign up sheets in the back
of the room. During public
testimony. You will be given
three minutes to speak and Mark
should be directed to the
Planning Commission only.
Please do not repeat testimony
that has already been provided.
The conclusion of the public
testimony staff and the
applicant may respond to the
comments, and the public
portion of the hearing will
then be closed. The Planning
Commission will then deliberate
and make recommendations to the
County Council for both virtual
and in-person members of the
Planning Commission and staff.
Please ensure that your
microphones are muted, muted
unless you are speaking.
Planning commissioners, when
you make a motion and or second
a motion, please state your
name for the court reporter.
Conflicts of interest. Do any
other planning commissioners
have any conflicts of interest
relating to tonight's hearing?
Hearing none, we will proceed
with a roll call and
introduction of any guests.
Jeff, can I get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Halbert here. Mark
Bergfeld here. Kyle Fadness
here. Ron Barca here. Jack.
Karen here. Alicia Montgomery
here. Carl Johnson here.
>> Next. We'll need approval
for the agenda for July 16th,
2026. Can we get a motion and a
second, please?
>> Commissioner Hobart, I
recommend that we approve the
agenda for July 16th, 2026.
>> Commissioner Bergthold, I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion. Jeff, can
we get a roll call, please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
Fadness I Ron Barca I Jack
Karen I Alicia Montgomery I
Carl Johnson. I seven zero
motion.
>> Motion passes. We're looking
for approval for minutes for
May 21st, 2026. Can I get a
motion and a second please.
>> Commissioner Fadness I moved
to approve the minutes for July
16th.
>> That check that that's May
21st.
>> Sorry about that. Yep. May
21st.
>> Commissioner Barca, I second
the motion.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Can we please get a
roll call.
>> Jeff Ryan Halbert. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness. I Ron
Barca. I Jack Karen I Alicia
Montgomery. I Carl Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes at this time.
This is communication from the
public public. And these are
items for that are not listed
on the agenda. Is there anybody
at this time either online or
in the room, that would like to
comment on something that is
not on the agenda?
>> Should I provide online
instructions?
>> Yeah, go ahead with that,
Jeff.
>> For attendees using their
computer or WebEx application,
if you would like to speak,
please use the Raise Hand icon
for attendees using the
Telephone Audio only option,
press star three on your
phone's number panel to raise
your hand. For those in person
that would like to provide
comment, please raise your hand.
Once acknowledged, you may come
to the microphone towards the
front of the room. Public
comments are limited to three
minutes per person in order to
accommodate all speakers. Again,
this portion of tonight's
hearing is only for items not
listed on tonight's agenda. We
will begin with those in the
hearing room who would like to
make a general comment. Please
raise your hand and the chair
will call on you to come up to
the front of to the microphone.
Please provide your first and
last name for the for the court
reporter. No raised hands. We
will now call on those people
on WebEx or the phone that have
raised their hand. For those
people using the telephone
option, press star six on your
phone's number panel to unmute
yourself. When it is your turn
to speak. No one raising their
hand online either.
>> Okay. With that said, we'll
now proceed to the public
hearing section. Reminders to
the public. If you're providing
public testimony in person,
please sign up on the sheet in
the back of the room. If you're
joining remotely once again, we
will provide you instructions
at the appropriate time. So
first up is CPZ202500004.
Evergreen School District
Capital Facilities Plan. Amy
Wooten is our presenter. Amy.
Yes.
>> Good evening. Planning
Commission members. For the
record, my name is Oliver
Orjiako, community planning
director. Before staff gives
the presentation, I would like
to just make a very quick
comment. We have five school
districts tonight and also I
believe, I believe, 4 or 5
districts, capital facilities
plan and the attendant impact
fees associated with each of
the capital facilities plan.
There are some school districts
that is not before you or are
not submitting their capital
facilities plan was reviewed, I
believe, two years ago or so.
And there are six year capital
facilities. Plan is still good.
So we are going to be focusing
on these five. And your
recommendation will be
forwarded on to the Council.
They may hold a hearing to
consider your recommendation
prior to the adoption of the
plan, or this will all be
included in the package for
their final hearing on the 2025
to 2045 periodic plan update.
With me this evening is Miss
Rebecca Ward, Palmerton, our
legal counsel. And we have Jose
Alvarez, land Use program
manager and staff. So I'll turn
it over to Amy Wooten, who will
be giving the presentation. But
we are here to answer any
question that you may have.
Thank you.
>> Oh, our monitors aren't
working up here. Okay. All
right. Thank you. Okay. Go
ahead.
>> Good evening, council
members.
>> One second. Amy. Hold on.
Okay. There we go. We got them.
We got them here. Go ahead. We
can start.
>> Good evening, Commission
members. For the record, my
name is Amy Wooten with
Community Planning. I'm joined
by Oliver Orjiako as he's
already introduced himself this
evening. And we will be
presenting the school district
capital facilities plans and
impact fee updates for you this
evening. Next screen. Thank you.
Each school district's proposal
is considered a separate docket
item that requires separate
deliberation and voting. We
plan to follow the order on the
agenda as listed on this slide.
For each hearing. Staff's
presentation will focus on
whether or not the school CFP
meets the criteria outlined in
County code. Staff will defer
background information about
what is happening in each
school district with regards to
student enrollment, facility
needs and financing mechanism
decisions to the school
districts. So after staff's
presentation, the school
district will have an
opportunity to summarize what
is going on in their district
will be able to answer specific
questions you have, such as
some items you may have raised
during the recent work session.
So staff will focus on codified
criteria. The school districts
can provide more context about
what is happening within each
district. Next slide. Next.
Great. Thank you. Jeff. This
table is being provided for
reference. You saw it at the
work session last week. It
hasn't changed. It summarizes
the existing and proposed
impact fee amounts for each of
the school districts, with
separate amounts for single
family and multi-family
dwellings. You may notice a
wide range in the proposed fee
amounts on this slide. Each
district has different facility
needs over the next six years,
and each district's capital
facilities plan provides the
background, information and
context behind these numbers.
Next slide. This slide is being
shared for reference only, so
that you can see impact fee
amounts for all districts in
the county. We will not be
discussing these school
district CFP today as they are
not being updated. Next slide
please. So we're starting our.
Hearings tonight with Evergreen
School District. It's docket
CPC 2025 0004 and is pertaining
to Evergreen School District
Capital Facilities Plan 2026
through 2022. The Evergreen
School District Board of
Directors has modified the
Capital Facilities Plan. This
district is requesting that
Clark County formally adopt the
plan by reference. In the 20
year Clark County Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan and
collect the recommended school
impact fees. The Growth
Management Act enables school
districts to develop capital
facilities, plans and impact
fee programs for new
residential developments in
order to offset the impacts of
growth on school facilities. It
further requires these plans
and programs be reviewed and
approved as part of the county
and City Comprehensive plans,
in which the school district is
based. The minimum requirements
of School Districts Capital
Facilities Plan are defined in
the Growth Management Act and
Clark County Code, a school
district requesting impact fees
shall submit to the county and
update at least every four
years a capital facilities plan
adopted by the School Board and
consisting of the following
elements a standards of service
description. An inventory of
existing facilities. A forecast
of future needs, proposed
locations and capacities of
expanded or new facilities, a
six year financing plans and
application of the impact fee
formula set out in Clark County.
Code section 40.620.040. As a
reminder, the financing plan
for school capital facilities
plans typically includes
multiple funding sources
depending on district
eligibility. Districts pay for
a portion of the cost of
capital facilities, with funds
provided by the State of
Washington through the Common
School Construction Fund. The
remaining capital expenses must
be raised locally, which is
typically done through the
passage of bond levies, which
raise the property taxes of all
residential property owners
within a particular district,
and or impact fees, which only
apply to new residential
construction within the
district. Next slide. There are
two criterion staff used to
evaluate a school district's
CFP criterion A is that in
updating capital facilities,
plans, policies and procedures,
the county must determine that
these updates are consistent
with applicable provisions of
the G, M, A and Wanke and
policies and and implementation
measures of the Comprehensive
Plan and in conformance with
purposes and intent of the
applicable Inter-jurisdictional
agreements. The staff report
that you received in your
packet walks through the
details of the applicable
provisions of this criterion.
In summary, staff found the CFP
includes the required elements
and information as mandated in
GMA and the Clark County
Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan. Staff found the future
needs outlined in the CFP are
consistent with G, M, A, and
the 2025 to 20 2045
Comprehensive Plan, staff found.
The financing plan outlined in
the CFP meets criterion A
because the financing plan has
declared that based on
enrollment, forecast, existing
capacity and the district's
educational standards, there is
no present need for new capital
facilities. Therefore, the plan
proposes impact fees of $0,
staff found. The financing plan
is consistent with GMA impact
fee related state statutes and
the 2025 to 2045 Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan. Based
on these findings, staff
concluded the proposal meets
criterion A. Next slide.
Criterion B relates to
reviewing school CFS in
accordance with the provisions
of Clark County Code, section
40.62.030 B where the code
specifies. The Planning
Commission shall consider
whether the district's
forecasting system for
enrollment projections appears
reasonable and reliable,
whether the anticipated level
of state and voter approved
funding appears reasonable and
historically reliable. Whether
the standard of service set by
the district is reasonably
consistent with standards set
by other school districts in
communities of similar
socioeconomic profile, and
whether the district
appropriately applied the
formula set out in Clark County,
code 40.630.040. The staff
report walks through the
findings on each of these items
and found that the district
enrollment projections, state
and voter approved funding all
appear reasonable and reliable.
Based on the approach outlined
in the CFP staff found the
standard of service for the
district is consistent with the
standard of service of other
Clark County school districts.
Staff also found that the CFP
proposes no new impact fees,
and therefore the application
of the impact fee formula in
Clark County. Code 40.62.040 is
not applicable. Based on these
findings, staff concluded the
proposal met criterion B. Next
slide please. The Evergreen
School District Board of
Directors adopted a modified
Capital Facilities plan on June
10th of 2025. A copy of the
updated plan with impact fee
calculations and resolution
number 2506 were provided in
your hearing materials as
exhibits B and A, respectively.
The School District Board of
Directors recommends that Clark
County formally adopt the plan
and collect impact fees as
indicated on the screen, which
is $0 for single family, $0 for
multifamily and $0 for ADUs.
Public comments were received
on this application, copies of
which were in your hearing
materials and as outlined in
the staff report, staff is
recommending approval of the
Modified Capital Facilities
Plan and proposed impact fees.
Based on the proposal meeting
all criteria. That concludes
staff presentation on this
request, and we're available to
answer questions. And we also
have representatives from the
school district if you have
questions for them.
>> Okay. Questions for staff on
evergreen. We're just just
evergreen alone.
>> This is Commissioner Barker
going through the presentation,
I noticed that they are very
similar from school district to
school district. On the
presentation. I didn't see any
of the presentations for any of
the school districts that you
disagreed with or denied that
they should go forward. I'm
wondering why we're going
through them individually in
this fashion, as opposed to
just working out the aspect of
whether we agree or disagree
with the proposals, is is there
a particular reason? Because I
guess, Amy, it's a very good
presentation, but I believe
they're all going to be very,
very similar. And I don't know
that we need to go through that
minutia with it. Unless there's
something that you believe we
should be deliberating
specifically on. So I guess
that's my question for you. Is
there is there something
specific in this presentation
that you desire us to
deliberate specifically
individually, as opposed to the
cluster that we have been
presented?
>> I this is Oliver Orjiako I.
The presentation will be
similar as she observed
Commissioner Ron Barker, I
think you will see that there
is variation based on the needs
of each of the school districts
and changes as a result to the
applicable impact fees. So it
will be proper and appropriate
to review them individually,
make a motion to accept what
the each of the School District
Board recommended. If you
disagree, you can make a
different findings and we will
take that on to the council.
That's why we are looking at
them individually because they.
Each one school district is
different and you could see the
relative impact of each of the
school district and their needs.
I don't want to jump, but you
can see Hawkinson, for example,
the existing fee and what
they're proposing and what the
change is. And similarly, the
center. So each each one, you
will see a difference based on
the adopted capital facilities
plan and their need. The reason
I'm raising that is because
each district is different and
the ability to pass bond or
levy also impacts how they look
at their capital facilities and
need. And if you decide to look
at them all and recommended
approval, we will accept that.
But I think it will be
preferable that you look at
them individually as question.
We have representative of the
school district here. So there
may be particular question to a
particular district and why the
difference in the assessment of
the impact fees they're using.
The same formula is not
different, but they are
arriving at different
conclusions based on whether
they have the capacity. In the
case of evergreen, for example,
I'm not speaking for them and I
believe that Lehan Bramel will,
but I know that they have been
successful in passing bond and
levies. They've used that to
modernize. Almost majority of
their school. Therefore, they
have the capacity. So that's
the reason why they're not
asking for increase in their
impact fee using the formula
when the need is in there. So
because they have the capacity
to accommodate any future
growth, you will recall
Commissioner Ron Baker a few
years ago, each of the school
district were it was like a mad
rush for portables. Some
schools have been very
successful in passing bond, and
we have still some, you know,
state funding issues when it
comes to education. I don't
want to, you know, belabor the
effort, but it's on you how you
want to proceed. Staff prefer
that you look at them
individually because there are
differences among the school
districts.
>> Okay. I understand your
explanation. I just without the
thought process that the staff
recommendation is no different
for each one, regardless of how
much they're asking for or not
asking for. Obviously, the
formula as applied do not raise
any red flags for you. And so I
guess I would put it to the
commissioners, at least in the
context of evergreen and
Washougal, where there's zero
proposed fees. I'd like to make
a motion that we just go ahead
and take those off of the
docket and be done with them,
and then we can look at the
other individual ones as the
desire of the council or
commission is.
>> So when you say take them
off the docket, you mean vote
for them.
>> Vote for them and be done
with it. Yeah.
>> We have a motion says voting
for evergreen, which has a zero
proposed fee and Washougal. Is
that correct? That's correct.
Both single and multiple family.
We have a oh oh.
>> So this is Jose Alvarez
community planning. As it's a
public hearing, you need to
have public testimony. So you
have to go through that for for
each each one individually.
That's why we set them up this
way.
>> Okay, so we'll start again.
Is there any more questions for
evergreen? Okay. With that.
With that said, we're now
public comment. Yes. Okay. Let
me get this thing under control
here. So now that we're done
with staff questions, bring it
back to us. And now I'll go to
public comment. Go ahead. I'm
sorry.
>> Sorry to jump again. Yeah.
Lehan Bremer representing all
the school districts this
evening. I might suggest that
the way I saw it working, I do
think you need to have a
decision on each each plan
individually. I don't really
think you need the same
presentation every 4 or 5 times.
So you can open up each each
hearing item individually,
maybe point out the impact fee
requests because they are
different for each one except
for evergreen and Anne
Washougal. And then take public
testimony and then vote. It
might speed it up a little bit,
but I don't I don't think
because the staff did such a
thorough job in their staff
report, going through each of
the criteria for the CFP that
they need to repeat that every
time. That's a suggestion.
>> So thank you.
>> Thank you. So on and on. I
don't want to repeat myself
five times either. So what I
will say for Evergreen School
District is similarly, what I
would say for the other school
districts is that we're
following the format of
previous capital facilities
plans that the county has
adopted since the mid 90s, and
we're applying the same formula.
And we are. So it's, it's it's
the same information, but
updated. And, and staff has
confirmed that we meet the
criteria. And I agree for
evergreen specifically, as been
said, they have capacity in
their current schools. They've
done a professional enrollment
forecast and and found that
their existing capacity can
handle growth in the next six
years. So that is why they
cannot collect impact fees. We
cannot demonstrate that new
growth and development will
have an impact on school
facilities. So that that is why
their fee will be going to zero.
And the other thing I wanted to
say is there was a question at
the work session about the
ratio between public funding
and impact fees. I provided
that information into the
record. Hope you all saw that.
And if you have questions on
that, I'm happy to answer. And
then we also answered a
question that came about
through public comment on
whether why aren't the other
school districts updating their
plans during this year? And we
addressed that to say that
we're really the four year
update is based on when the
county adopted the plan, not
when the school districts
adopted or their board made a
recommendation because the
board's recommendation on their
CFP is just sad. Just like your
recommendation to the council,
it's not a final action. It can
change between the time the
board makes a recommendation
and the county adopts the plan.
So we consider the county's
adoption, the date they become
effective, and when impact fees
are adjusted by code. So that
is the date we measure four
years from now. And so for the
other districts not before you
tonight, they're coming back to
you next year. In fact, all the
districts have to come back to
you next year because there's
been a change in state law that
requires impact fees to be
scaled to the size of a
dwelling, and the county has to
do that for their impact fees.
We have to do that for our
impact fee. So we're coming
back next year anyway.
>> Lehan will you do me a favor?
I'm going to consider that you
are the applicants presenter,
which just fixes it here. Would
you just stay up here? And then
what I'll do right now is I'm
going to now actually open the
hearing for public testimony.
Jeff, will you go through the
spiel here and then how we'll
address if there's anybody else
online or here officially. Now
we've asked questions. Sorry
for the confusion, Jeff.
>> Please note to be a party of
record, you must submit written
testimony before, during, or
prior to the close of tonight's
hearing or provide oral
testimony at the public hearing
or request in writing to be a
party of record. If written
comments were received prior to
July 16th, 2026, they were
submitted to the Planning
Commission members and posted
on the Planning Commission
website. Tonight's hearing is
being transcribed by a court
reporter, so please spell your
first and last name and speak
slowly. Public comment time is
limited to three minutes. We
will now begin with those
participants that have joined
remotely via computer or
telephone. Please raise your
virtual hand or press star
three on your telephone to let
us know. You would like to
provide comment. For those
using the telephone options,
press Star Star six on your
phone to unmute yourself. When
it is your turn to speak.
Anybody? Okay, we will now
begin with participants in the
hearing room. Was anybody
signed up to speak?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry, Lehan was the only
one.
>> That concludes public
comment.
>> Okay, so hearing no public
comment either online or in the
room, I'll bring it back now to
the commissioners. And we're
talking about evergreen. And I
think I will shrink these for
you is we'll try to just that
first part of these. You know,
that's the same. They're
redundant. But if you get to
the very end of these. The meat
of it will ask that information
be put forward on each one of
these. Since we have to go
through each one of them,
hopefully you don't have to go
through that first part unless
somebody officially tells me we
have to go through that first
part. So if we can just take
the proposal, the report
findings and the staff
recommendation on each of those,
I think that'll expedite this.
Is that good? And then Lehan,
if we have any questions,
because I do have some
questions on like the
differences and stuff like that.
So staff, is there any response
to the testimony that I've
heard? Any questions on
evergreen? Applicant there's
none. Okay. So with that said,
back to us for deliberations.
Any deliberations, any talk
between us? Okay. With
evergreen, considering that
I'll take a motion.
>> This is Ron. I'd like to
make a motion to approve the
evergreen proposed impact fees
as recommended by Staff.
>> Commissioner Halbert. I
second that motion.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Jeff, can you give us a
roll call, please?
>> Brian Howard.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld.
>> A.
>> Kyle Fadness. I Ron Barca. A
Jack. Karen I Alicia Montgomery.
I Carl Johnson. I seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Up next is
CPZ20250005. Hawkinson School
District capital facilities
plan. Amy I'm looking at page
12. Hopefully that's where
we're at.
>> Okay. If you could forward
the slides for me. We're
talking about Hawkinson. And
how about if we go to we're
considering Hawkinson CFP
against the same criteria that
we we we discussed for
evergreen. They did meet
criterion a. As we found that
their future needs and facility
locations would be consistent.
Switch to the next slide,
please. Jeff. Criterion B was
found to meet be met with this
CFP. The standard of service
for the district is consistent
with standard of service for
other. Clark County School
District, and it provided
district enrollment projections
and facility information that
staff found met criterion B,
they proposed impact fees based
on those findings that staff
found Met all criteria, and
they are requesting $15,174.54
for single family dwellings and
$1,720.12 for multi-family
dwellings. Public comment the
same public comment letter was
submitted for this application
that was submitted for
evergreen. Received the same
response from the district's
representative. And so our
recommendation, based on the
CFP that we received is
approval of the modified
Capital Facilities Plan and
proposed impact fees.
>> Is there any question for
staff on Hawkinson School
District.
>> This. Commissioner Harun, at
our work session, I had asked
specifically that you guys
could come and show us the the
formula and calculation and the
math behind that and how that
works. So I had a better
understanding of like, how it's
how that number is derived.
>> Okay.
>> So one of the. The letter
that we got from Lannen, which
was great. It seems. Yeah. So
I'm just trying to understand
how that, how that works. And
if it's when we talk about
proportionality, I would like
to understand. Take it like if
you have a thousand students, a
hundred of those students are
attributed to new growth. You
build a new facility for the
thousand students. The. The
proportionality is set based on
the new growth, the hundred
students. And then what
percentage of that is supposed
to be covered by impact fees?
Because it wouldn't be. It
wouldn't be established on the
entire project. It was just
replacement. So I guess my. Is
that correct? Okay.
>> Oops. So. Yeah. The button
one more time.
>> Is that working okay. Yeah.
Yes. So again, Lehan Bremer
representing Hockinson school
district. And I think I can
answer your question in
particular, this is a good
example to walk through the
formula. And I, and I don't
know if we have the formula
itself that on a slide, but
I'll do my best to do it
without that in front of us. So
there. The Hockinson School
district is in dire need of a
new elementary school. They're
basically at capacity at their
existing school. So their so
their plan plans for a brand
new elementary school. And
these days, new schools cost a
lot of money and in this case,
$50 million. So what we do to
make sure that the impact fee
is that that new development is
paying a proportionate share of
that $50 million school is we
determine how much of that
capacity of that new school,
which is 500 students, is
attributable to the growth we
expect over the next six years.
And in this case, it's 384
students are is the growth that
we'll expect in that six year
period. So we divide that
number into the to the $50
million cost to come up with a
a cost of the facility
attributable to growth. So
that's your top line number.
And then we divide that by the
number of students attributable
to growth to come up with a
cost per student number. And
then the formula just takes you
right through that. And then we
subtract from that number money
that we'll get from the state
match, and any taxes that will
go towards the the new school
to come to come up with the fee
that's charged to new
development. So we do we do
start with a number, a cost
that is that is scaled to what
we need to serve the new growth,
not just everybody who will be
going to that school.
>> So just work with me here.
So that just for my
understanding here. So the $50
million school. Yes, I know
it's like turning into portable
ville a little bit out there.
Yeah. And how many students
will that.
>> It'll be 500 students will
fit in that school.
>> So 500 students.
>> 384 from growth. Okay. And
then so it's about a $3,039
million school for the growth
portion.
>> Okay.
>> And that's what gets plugged
into the formula, not the full
50 million, right?
>> So it's what is that about
100 000 per student? Yeah. Is
that right?
>> I have it right here.
>> If you have 50 million.
>> Yeah.
>> 500.
>> 101,000 per student. And
then.
>> And then.
>> Subtract out.
>> Okay. And then so then you
times that by the the 365,
right. So 36 million attributed
to new growth. And then then
that proportion of that 36
million, what is the percentage
that you're looking to capture?
So it's at so it's at if it's a
$17,000 impact fee, right?
Something like that. What is
that or 16,000. So so we're
capturing of that 100,000 just
for simple, I know we can, you
know, get minutiae. So we're
capturing about 15% of that
impact in that per student. Yes.
And then the, the other thing,
okay, because it was a little
different, like, because what
you had proposed, like on your
letter was different. It was
like 4%.
>> I didn't do it quite that
way. I, I took the full cost of
the facility. And then how much
was going to be financed with
public funding and how much
with impact fees. But this is a
slight variation on your what I
put in.
>> I'm a simpleton.
>> No, but but you have it
right. So it's it really is
$100,000 per student to build
that school, to. Build a school.
Yeah. And, and, but we're not
charging $100,000 impact fee
because we can't. And so it's
there. And, and the other thing
I forgot to mention is it is a
big part of the formula is the
student generation rate. So
it's not, it's not four
students per house. It's, it's
some percent. It's, it's based
on data and, and.
>> Some, some houses will have
kids, some won't.
>> That's right. So there's
average student generation
factor. And that, that really
brings down that hundred
thousand dollar number when you
apply that.
>> And that's the formula
that's basically applied across
the board.
>> It's it hasn't changed in 30
years. Okay.
>> And that that helps me a
tremendous amount. Thank you.
Good.
>> Great explanation. Any other
questions for staff?
>> This is Commissioner
Bergfeld. Looking at that, I
would have expected single
family to be a lower rate than
multifamily, especially with an
elementary school, because you
have young families in
apartments, the can't afford
the house, so they've got more
kids. So this appears to be in
my gut feel backwards, but I'm
sure there's a formula reason
for that. There is.
>> That, yes. Well, and you
will find that when we get to
woodland, that's exactly what
you see. Because the according
to the demographics there,
there are more students
generated out of the
multifamily units. Hawkinson is
is a little hard because they
don't have that many apartments.
And so that's why you see a, I
think if you saw more
apartments, you'd see a higher
fee. But it's just, it's just
the math. That's just the way
it works out because they have
so few units.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> This Commissioner Vanise
Lehan, could you speak on how
the estimated construction cost
for the school was calculated?
Because, you know, looking at
some of the other capital
facilities plans you see with
LA center, they're about 25
million for 450 students, I
believe, and woodland was about
32 million for for 400 students.
So it seems like the the
estimated cost for the school
is, you know, quite a bit
higher than the other districts.
>> Yeah, that's a good question.
We we rely on the district
facilities folks to, to come up
with those numbers. And for
Hawkinson, fortunately or
unfortunately, they had to
calculate that amount for their
new school recently for a bond
measure that did not pass. So
these this was just based on
their their planned school and
how much it costs. So it was
just done internally at the
school district is how they
come up with those costs. And,
and I, I expect there's, I mean,
not every elementary school is
the same. And so there's just,
there's going to be variations.
But I understand your question
because it looks like a, a big
difference between them.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> So just this, Commissioner,
just to clarify that, because I
had missed that on the cost
differences. So we're looking
at anywhere between like 100,
the hawkinson's proposing
almost between 70 and 100% more
than the other school districts
for the same capacity for kids
when they have the exact same
building cost, exact same
requirements as, as any of the
other school districts, because
that's pretty dramatic and it's
something we certainly need to
look at.
>> Well. And if we look at
woodland, they're they're
building a 400 capacity school
at for 28.8 million. So it's
it's 100 student difference
there.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, I, I, I.
>> I'm a construction guy. I
know so. It seems. Yeah. So I
would, I mean, well, one of my
recommendations to councils
like that we get some clarity
on.
>> Excellent question. So for
definitely before we go to
council we'll pin that down.
Yeah.
>> Any other questions for
staff or Lehan. Okay. With that
said I'll bring it back to us.
Any discussion?
>> Commissioner Halbert? Hey
Jack, I maybe throw out that
land is different in
jurisdictions. The
infrastructure is substantially
different in every jurisdiction.
Their ability to connect to
public sewer may be, you know,
a mile away, whereas woodland
is just around the corner. So
we need to start looking at the
infrastructure costs, even
though the building costs may
be the same. But land and, and
utilities are substantially
different.
>> Commissioner Johnson, I do
think it would be interesting.
You said they're coming back in
a year. Is that correct? Yeah.
>> Yes. For all the districts
collecting impact fees, they
have to recalculate them.
>> So that would be a great
question to ask them is that
yes they're going to be
differences in costs obviously,
but. Where's that coming.
Because that really was my
question too. Like we're
bringing this data in and we're
assuming that good faith that
that is the correct data. But
we do have this thing here that
I did the same thing and I like
that. So my question was, next
time this comes before us, that
maybe that would be a little
bit clear because I think
you've explained this to me
about five times in past years
and I still go, well, I just
learned something. So I don't
know, that's just something off
the top. Any other comments or
discussion online? If not, I
would take a motion and a
second on Hawkinson School
District, if that's appropriate.
>> This Commissioner Halbert,
I'd make a recommendation that
we approve CP02025-00005
Hawkinson School District as
presented.
>> Mr. Commissioner Burke, I'll
second that.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Ryan.
>> Howard hi.
>> Mark Burget. I Kyle Fadness
nay. Ron Barca. I Jack. Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson I five two.
>> Motion passes. With that
said we will now move on to I
believe it's the center. Same
thing if we could. I'm just
looking at my pages here on
your deal. Quickly as we can
get to page 16.
>> Okay.
>> Which gets us to the the
meat and potatoes of the.
>> Okay, so.
>> The center.
>> For folks that we might have
online right now, we have on
the slide the location of LA
Center School District is
CPZ20250006. We are using the
same criteria A and B to
evaluate the C, F, P and
associated impact fees. The
staff report found future needs
and facility locations outlined
in the CFP to be consistent
with G, m a and the 2025 to
2045 Comprehensive Plan. They
found that we found the
financing plan outlined in the
CFP is made up of bond proceeds
and impact fees. We found the
financing plan to be consistent
with G. M a impact fee related
state statutes and the 2025 to
2045 Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan. So we
concluded it meets criterion A,
and if we could move forward to
slide 15, please. Staff found
that district enrollment
projections, state and voter
approved funding all appear
reasonable and reliable based
on the approach outlined in the
CFP, we found the standard of
service for the district to be
consistent with the standard of
service of other Clark County
school districts, and found the
district demonstrated
appropriately applying the
formula in Clark County Code.
So, based on these findings, we
found that the proposal met
criterion B. Next slide please.
The LA Center School District
Board of Directors adopted a
modified capital Facilities
plan on October 6th of 2025. We
provided copies of the plans
and the board. Special meeting
minutes for your evidence. They
are suggesting $7,536 for
single family dwellings and
$3,045.74 for multi-family
dwellings. We received a public
comment letter that we received
on the other proposals, and a
response from the school
districts representative, and
we are recommending approval of
the modified Capital Facilities
Plan and impact fees based on
consistency with all criteria.
That concludes staff's
presentation on this request.
>> Okay. Questions for staff or.
Yeah.
>> You're doing great.
>> I do have one quick thing.
So we talked about this a long
time ago that basically with
impact fees and property taxes
is the, is the cost of the
school and are we just doing
this that if there's more
impact fees, there would be
less because the cost of the
school is going to stay the
same, right? So it's not like I
just want to make sure because
I think that was when I had my
big moment last time. Wait a
minute. What we're doing is
we're, we're saying impact fees
are going to be more, which
would make the property tax on
that specific building less. Is
that correct?
>> Yes. They would size the
bond and levy to what they they
need to make up after the
forecasted impact fees.
>> Yeah. The debt it's going to
be the debt. It's going to be
the debt, but it's just where
we're getting it from. Right.
Okay. Yeah, I just thought that
was a clarifying point when I
saw it last time. No questions
from fellas off line there or
online.
>> This is Commissioner Fadness.
I just want to ask a quick
question. Lehan. I noticed that
the calculated single family
fee on this one was about
15,000. And the proposed is is
half. Could you speak on the
decision there?
>> Are you on.
>> Maybe that's getting a
little too far into into the
weeds, but I.
>> Yeah. So I had forgotten
about that. Thanks for pointing
that out. You know, each school
board looks at these fees and
they, they give thoughtful, you
know, give it a lot of thought
and whether they want want to
go up that high or not. And
they're cognizant of the impact
of these fees on the price of
housing. And in this particular
>> A school board was not
comfortable going to the
maximum that the that the the
formula yielded. So it was a
policy decision to recommend
less.
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just
trying to understand kind of
the balance there where, you
know, Carl says or pointed out
that, you know, since this
one's lower, I'm assuming then
that then that amount gets made
up on on property taxes, on
existing properties and new
properties, then. Correct.
>> That's right. And that's the
balance that the school board
has to wrestle with, honestly.
>> Good question.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other questions or
comments? Bringing it back to
us or discussion. With that
said, I would take a motion and
a second, if appropriate, for
LA Central School District.
>> This is Commissioner Fadness.
I move to approve the
recommended impact fee for LA
Center School District.
>> As Commissioner Bergthold.
I'll second that.
>> Jeff. We have a motion and a
second to approve the Center
School District Capital
Facilities Plan for 2026 to
2032. Can I get a roll call,
please?
>> Chair, we we do need to give
an opportunity for public
comment. For item.
>> Is there. Any buddy out
there? Is there anybody.
>> In here.
>> I'll give an opportunity for.
>> Sorry about that.
>> Thank you. So we'll begin
with those participants have
joined remotely via computer or
telephone. Please raise your
virtual hand or press star
three on your phone to let us
know if you would like to
provide comment. For those
using telephone option, please
press star six to unmute
yourself when it's your turn to
speak. Nobody online. And you
said there's nobody signed up
in the hearing room. Okay, so
that concludes public comment
for this item. All right. And
you said that.
>> Thank you. We have we have a
motion in a second. Can I get a
roll call?
>> All right.
>> Brian Halbert, I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Fadness. I Ron
Barca. I Jack Haroon. I Alicia
Montgomery. I Paul Johnson. I
seven zero.
>> Motion passes. Moving on to
our next school which will be.
Washougal staff report.
>> Thank you. I will open the
hearing for CPC 2025 0007. The
Washougal School District
Capital Facilities Plan for
2022 to 2027. As discussed
prior, the two criterion are A
and B staff found that this C,
F, P included all required CFP
elements and information as
adopted in the G, M, A, and
Clark County Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan. Staff
found the future needs and
facility locations outlined in
the CFP to be consistent with G.
M a and the 2025 2045
Comprehensive Plan, staff found.
Financing plan outlined in the
CFP meets criterion A because
the financing plan has declared
that based on enrollment,
forecast existing capacity in
the district's education
educational standards, there is
no present need for new capital
facilities. Therefore, the plan
proposes impact fees of $0.
Staff found the financing plan
to be consistent with GMA
impact fee related state
statutes and the G, M A, and
based on these findings
concluded, it meets criterion A.
We need. Slide 19, please.
Criterion B. Relates to
standard of service. Staff
found that the standard of
service for the district is
consistent with the standard of
service for other Clark County
school districts, staff found.
The school district
demonstrated appropriately
applying the formula in Clark
County code and based on these
findings, found the proposal to
meet criterion B. Next slide
please. The Washougal School
District Board of Directors
adopted a modified Capital
Facilities Plan June 10th of
2025. You have a copy of that
plan and the adopting board
minutes in your packet. They
are recommending $0 impact fees
for single family dwellings and
$0 for multi-family dwellings.
The same public comment letter
was submitted, and as outlined
in the staff report, we are
recommending approval of the
modified Capital Facilities
Plan and proposed impact fees
based on the proposal being
consistent with all criteria.
That concludes concludes my
presentation on this report.
>> Are there any questions for
staff on Washougal School
District Capital Facilities
Plan?
>> Just kind of out of
curiosity, did they recently
build out capacity or are they
just not growing and that they
haven't they haven't developed
any schools.
>> So yeah, this is a unique
one. And I wanted to speak to
it. They they have capacity.
They haven't recently built
anything that created capacity.
When we were before you three
years ago. The it, it is
essentially the same plan, but
we're updating it. The school
board decided to update it this
this year, even though they
didn't really have to, because
they will. And you'll note it's
for the same time period, 2022
to 2027. So they're coming back
next year to they wanted to
update it this year because
there was a reference to a
specific school site that they
were going to purchase in the
plan, and they needed to
correct that because they are
not purchasing that property,
they still need property
eventually for new schools. So
there's a, there's a line item
in the plan that that
anticipates that they'll at
some point purchase more
property. We just we're not
identifying it by site or
address. So that was a
correction. And it was also
important to the school board
that they include a section in
their plan about the 20 year
outlook. They wanted to signal
to their constituents that even
though they're not growing
right now and they have
capacity and but eventually
they will need new schools. And
so they wanted to add some
verbiage in their plan this
this year to signal that. So it
it really is it's not changing
dramatically from what you
adopted a couple years ago.
>> So could we anticipate then
like in the next six months,
like, or when the stuff changed,
that they'll come back because
they'll be identifying land
that they would need for future
growth kind of thing. Yeah. And
that's.
>> Maybe if they have, then,
then we will say, or if they've
purchased it because they, they
do have funds to purchase the
property. If they find a site
and then we will update that.
>> And is this always based on
a six year growth projection?
>> Yes.
>> So they're not allowed to.
To jump past that. Okay.
>> And because it gets more
speculative than. But they're
through this whole GMA update
process. As you well know,
there's a lot of growth
allocated to existing cities
and urban growth areas. So and
there is to the Washougal area.
So if that materializes faster
then they will they might be
able to demonstrate the need
for new facilities sooner. So
we will evaluate that next year
to see if that looks like it's
going to be on the in the next
six year horizon starting next
year.
>> Any other questions? Okay.
Any public comment?
>> Oh, again, put it out to
online. If you are interested
in providing comment online,
please raise your virtual hand
by pressing star six on your
phone. I'm sorry, by pressing
star three on your phone. Once
you have been called on, please
press star six to unmute
yourself. Nobody online, and
there's nobody in the hearing
room who's interested in
providing comments. So that
concludes public comment for
this item.
>> Okay. We now will close the
public hearing testimony part
is bring it back to us. Is
there any comments, questions,
discussion or I will take a
motion and a second.
>> As Commissioner Barker, I'd
like to go ahead and make a
motion for CPZ202500007
Washougal School District to
approve as staff recommended.
>> Is Commissioner Haroon. I'll
second it.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Can we get a roll call, please?
Jeff?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> I.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle Vanise.
I Ron Barker I Jack Haroon. I
Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I seven zero.
>> We have motion passes on
Washougal. We now move on to
CPZ20250008. Woodland School
District capital facilities
plan staff.
>> Thank you Mr. Johnson. So
we're we've got on the slide.
Woodland School district. We
can go to slide 22. We
evaluated the Woodland School
District against the same
criteria we used for the other
districts. A as it relates to
criterion, A staff found that
the CFP includes the required
elements and information as
mandated in G, M, A, and the
clerk. Clark County Growth
Management Plan. We found the
future needs and facility
locations outlined in the c p
to be consistent with G, m a
and the 2025 to 2045
Comprehensive Plan. We found
the financing plan outlined in
the C, f p to be made up of
general obligation bonds, state
construction funds and impact
fees, staff found. The
financing plan is consistent
with the GMA Impact Fee related
state statutes and the 2025 to
2045 Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan. Based on these
findings, staff conclude that
the proposal met criterion. A
next slide please. Staff
evaluated the plan against
criterion B and found that the
district enrollment projections,
state and voter approved
funding all appear reasonable
and reliable. Based on the
approach outlined in the CFP,
staff found the standard of
service for the district to be
consistent with the standard of
service of other Clark County
school districts, staff found.
The school district
demonstrated appropriately
applying the formula in Clark
County Code section 40 .62.040.
Based on the findings, staff
concluded the proposal met
criterion B. Next slide please.
The Woodland School District
Board of Directors adopted a
modified Capital Facilities
plan on August 14th of 2025. A
copy of which was included in
your packet, and they are
recommending the county
formally adopt the plan and the
associated impact fees on your
screen, which are $10,545.93
for single family dwellings,
$13,664.57 for multi-family
dwellings. The public comment
letter was also submitted for
this case and was forwarded to
you with your packet of
information and as outlined in
the staff report, staff is
recommending approval of the
Modified Capital Facilities
Plan and proposed impact fees.
Based on the proposal being
consistent with all criteria.
That concludes staff's
presentation on this last
request.
>> Questions for staff
regarding Woodland School
District Capital facilities
plan.
>> This is Commissioner Leduc
Montgomery. AM I. AM I
correctly understanding that
the school district was
allocating 100% of the new
growth of the cost to new
growth and none to like
existing deficiency or. I don't
know, like upgrade needs. And I
don't know if that's odd or not.
It just kind of if that's true,
it kind of struck me as odd to
say we need a completely new
school just because we have new
people coming in, as opposed to
maybe there's other factors
that then the growth kind of
puts it a little over the edge
or something to that effect.
>> So I'm sorry, could you
repeat your question? I'm not
sure I understood.
>> It, and I'm not. I just want
to make sure I'm understanding
correctly. Okay. Are they
allocating all of the cost of
the new development to new
growth as opposed to our
current facility is deficient
or has other upgrade needs. And
we therefore we need to
increase fees if that makes
sense.
>> So. Let me just check their
formula here. I don't seem to
have that formula. So and it
would be similar to Hawkinson.
Yeah. It appears that they are
that if they are right at
capacity right now in their
elementary school, then the
than the new school is, is
completely needed for the new
growth. So so the formula takes
that into account. Does that's
correct. Yeah.
>> Lehan. Lehan. Commissioner
Halbert here. I just wanted to
clarify is that $13,664 per
rental unit being built a
pretty substantial.
>> It is.
>> And for each apartment.
>> Again, it's a function of
the formula. We're. We're
plugging in the data and that's
what comes out. And. But I also
mention again that that will be
recalculated next year based on
the directive from the state
that they impact fees need to
be sized to the need to be
scaled to the size of the unit.
So that will come down.
>> Yeah, hopefully. Yeah.
>> So this will be a temporary
number.
>> Yeah. And are these
apartments and single families
or multi-family and single
families just in Clark County,
or are these also in Cowlitz
County.
>> Clark County, in the city of
woodland? We can't assess them
in Cowlitz County.
>> Okay. So only the portion of
woodland that is in Clark.
>> County, which is most of
where the growth is occurring
anyway, I, I'm not sure there's
much allocated to the Cowlitz
County.
>> So the new school then would
most likely be in Clark County.
These fees are being collected.
>> For in the city of woodland,
mostly.
>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
Thank you.
>> Any other comments?
>> Questions. Just to clarify
that. So this most of the City
of Woodland is in Cowlitz
County. Correct. And it's just
a little horseshoe portion that
around Horseshoe Lake, that is
Clark County, am.
>> I, I don't know where that
but but they can charge impact
fees throughout the city of
woodland.
>> They can't they can't even
even though. Yes. And then do
our the our county impact fees
reflected in as the city's
impact fees. If the city is in.
If most of the city is actually
not in Clark County.
>> The city has to adopt the.
The same capital facilities
plan and impact fee request. So
by separate action. So they.
They could decide to. In fact,
they they're in the process of
analyzing that right now. They
could decide to, to adopt the
same fee that's before you
tonight or something less so.
>> And my lack of understanding
how some of this stuff. Because
Cowlitz County isn't allowed to
charge impact fees. That's
correct. That's right. But a
city is allowed. So like the
city of Longview would be able
to charge impact fees.
>> No, it's because the city of
woodland in a partially in a
GMA county they can elect.
>> To oh, they have a they have
a loophole. Yes. Okay.
>> That's what I wanted to.
>> That's what I was trying to.
>> That's what I was getting
confused. Yeah.
>> They're in a portion of
woodland is in a a required a
GMA planning county. So the
city of woodland have always
been planning. This is Oliver
I've been planning along with
Clark County.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
>> May I ask that you guys
please speak one at a time?
Because I'm losing the ends of
what you guys are saying.
Talking over each other.
>> We'll do better, Cyndie.
>> Thank you.
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
I guess I need clarification on
what we just stated, that in
regards to this request, only
the portion of Clark County is
going to collect impact fees.
So these numbers are reflective
specifically on building
permits that are going to come
through the city. But on the
Clark County side and the
Cowlitz County side, which will
contribute children to it, has
no impact fees. Is that correct?
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> So you just just.
>> This is Oliver Orjiako.
Again, you have to look at the.
I believe, on the boundary of
the school district, which are.
Majority of that boundary is in
Clark County, I believe. I
don't think it's only the
Horseshoe Lake area. But you
are correct that. This impact
fee will be collected within
the boundary of the Woodland
School District in.
>> And excuse me, Miss
Commissioner Barker, just just
again for more clarification.
Then the portion of the
Woodland School District in
Clark County outside of the
city, is not going to have any
multifamily building, okay?
>> Because there is no
multifamily zoning.
>> And inside the city in the
Horseshoe District, I don't
believe there's any zoning for
multifamily building either. So
when we look at this number,
what was the school board
hoping to do? Are they hoping
to multiply this outside of the
Clark County area?
>> Yes. Liam Bremmer So they
the school board, we calculate
the fee for the district. And
so this true you you may not
collect this multifamily fee in
Clark County, but there will be
apartments in the city of
woodland, which. Is this the
same amount? If they if the
city adopts the same amount. So
the school board only. I guess
another way of saying is they
only calculate the fee, only
one fee for the whole district.
And they don't they don't
calculate it per per city or
per county.
>> Yeah.
>> So, so just to clarify the.
We could have a. $10,000 faces
because we're not going to know.
It doesn't look like there'll
be any multifamily. So $10,500
fee for single family in Clark
County. But the city of
woodland, they're not bound by
this number. Or is it just a
precedent setting or do they
can they go, we're going to
charge $3,000 per multifamily
and $3,000 for like they they
have that option. They're not
bound. That's correct. In that
reciprocity. They're not.
>> That's right.
>> They can split it up.
>> That's that's correct. And
so it's, it's ultimately the
jurisdictions call on what the
fee is. And each jurisdiction
has autonomy to decide what
that fee is. So the city of
Woodland could decide that, no,
they're not going to adopt
these same fees as the county
did. And and they have that
option.
>> Any other questions.
>> Just for a little bit of
clarification. Lehan Bramel is
correct. It has always been a
this is. Solevad. Orjiako
speaking has always been a
preference that the cities. Go
through their own hearing
process first. So we know what
they're going to be assessing.
Our goal is always to be
consistent where that is
possible. But Lehan is correct.
Miss Lehan Bramel is correct
that the jurisdiction in this
case the City of Woodland, can
decide to charge a much lower
fee. That's their call. Coming
to the boundary issue, when you
look at this is what I was
getting at earlier. When you
look at the other school
districts that are in the
county, evergreen overlaps,
Evergreen School District, some
portion are in the City of
Commerce, some portion are in
the city of Vancouver. We
charge the same fees. They
charge the same fee.
Battleground is the same. A
portion of battleground is all
the way to, I would say a
majority of battleground school
district is all in the county,
but the boundary of
battleground school district
extends all the way to. The 179
corridor. For example, you look
at Richfield School District,
it comes further south and
absorb the whole Clark County
Fair area and some portion of
179. We charge the same fee as
the city of Richfield. So
that's what I was saying
earlier, that we preferred the
cities because you wouldn't
want, unless you want to use a
policy approach where you want
to direct growth to some say
for a city, if you if the
impact fee is much lower,
developers can take advantage
of that. But that's not what we
are are offering preferred. We
want the fees to be consistent.
>> Any other questions for
staff or Lehan? Any. Well
before that, do we have anybody
online?
>> Just to quickly run for the
instructions? Again, those who
have joined remotely via
computer or phone, please raise
your virtual hand or press star
three on your phone to let us
know if you'd like to provide
comment. Nobody online and
still nobody in the hearing
room who would like to provide
comment. So that does conclude
public comment for this agenda
item.
>> Okay, bringing it back.
Hearing none, we'll bring it
back to the commissioners. Any
discussion and or a motion and
a second.
>> This Commissioner Ryan, I
think just for discussion
purposes, my my concern is the
jump in fees, especially with
the multifamily. In a place
that needs housing and that
will not be able to command
high rents that can create some
real barriers to, to housing.
And I think that that's
something to really think about.
So.
>> Any other questions or
comments or.
>> This is Commissioner Baka.
So Jack, going back to your
statement, are you saying that
you consider this too large?
>> Yeah, I would I would keep
it. I would keep it as, as is
just because that is not a
market that can absorb really
high costs. If I'm in downtown
Vancouver, I can absorb pretty
high costs because our housing
costs are what we're able to
sell houses for, what we're
able to rent apartments for.
When you look at the city of
woodland. It's it's just it's
just not there. It's just the
markets aren't there. The
housing costs aren't there. So
the cost to produce the house
and then what you can sell it
for, and especially if you want
apartments and some, you know,
you're starting to do some
smaller apartments that could
be really, really problematic.
And so I think it's, in my
opinion, I would vote no now
and then we'd look at it in six
months. When when they're
looking at, you know, the
reduced stuff. But I certainly
wouldn't want to kill somebody
project right now. That's
getting ready to build based on
a high, high impact fee,
especially on multifamily.
>> Okay. So does Commissioner
Barker, for my understanding,
then your seeing the single
family. Fee as high but
acceptable, but on the
multifamily is not acceptable.
>> I would, I would argue,
especially in that market, the
single family fee is is still
too high. I see we're looking
at all these fees because right
after this, we're going to have
a whole nother set of fees
coming up, right. And, and
these all of these fees are
really starting to stack heavy
on housing costs. And, and we,
we keep saying we have an
affordability crisis, but then
everybody's, you know, it keeps
adding up. And so. You know,
where's the line? And, and
that's kind of the. Yeah,
that's where I'm struggling. So.
>> Okay, it sounds like the
line is Cowlitz County.
>> Well, there's a.
>> I mean, there's, there's
difference. I mean, we were
going up to 7000 Woodland's
going up to 10,000 Lusine you
can get more for housing than
you can in woodland. And so,
you know, if you're, if I if
I'm looking at that, I mean,
the reality is I don't like any
of these fees, but, you know,
trying to balance the, you know,
balance of things. So.
>> Yeah, Commissioner Halbert
here. Well, it may work itself
out. If you can't afford to
build an apartment, you're not
going to have students that are
going to overwhelm the school
district either. So one way of
yeah, controlling what happens.
But I'm with you, Jack. And a
woodland provides a lot of
housing for the workforce. And
this is a substantial fee on a,
an apartment complex. So.
>> Any other questions or
comments?
>> Commissioner Montgomery, do
we have any sense on what the
fees on like a typical
apartment would get adjusted
down to in the next year? Do we
have to reopen up to ask
questions like that?
>> So. There's a consultant
that the school districts
collectively hired to, to come
up with a methodology for
complying with the new law and
how we're going to scale it to
either size of dwelling or
number of bedrooms. That's one
of the options that the statute
provides. And, and then it's so
it's not just half or three
quarters or a quarter. It's,
it's based on student
generation rates for related to
the size of the dwelling. So
it's, it's complicated. And,
and it's a long way of saying,
I don't know how, what those
numbers are going to look like
until we, we get those the
calculation figured out, first
of all, the methodology. And
then we have to calculate new
student generation rates. And
then we have to apply it to the
numbers in our capital
facilities plan. And so it's, I
just I couldn't even begin to
guess what that looks like.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Any other questions or
comments? Okay. Will we have a
motion or a second from anybody?
>> Yeah. Commissioner Halbert,
I'll make a motion to approve
CPZ2025-00008. Woodland School
District Capital Facilities
Plan as presented.
>> Do we have a second.
>> Commissioner Bergthold? I'll
second.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Halbert. I Mark
Provolt. I Kyle Fadness.
>> No.
>> Ron baka no. Jack. Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Montgomery no. Carl
Johnson yes. 3 to 4.
>> Motion fails. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Motion fails. Okay. With
that said, we are now done with
the school district. Is that
correct?
>> Oliver? That is correct.
We'll go into the fire
districts. Now.
>> I want to just give a quick
maybe a 4 or 5 minute break for
Cyndie right now, and then
we'll move right into the fire
and we'll get those guys done
and out of here. So take a five
minute break and come on back.
>> Okay?
>> Cyndie says she needs ten,
ten minutes. We're now moving
on to CPZ20250010. Fire
district number three capital
facilities plan. Bart catching.
Are you here? Bart yes you are
okay.
>> I'm. I have made log back
into my computer here, so I
have to get my phone to do the
dual authentication, but
Oliver's going to say something.
>> All right.
>> Yes. Good evening. Planning
Commission members. Oliver
Orjiako. I just want to make a
very quick remark because you
might say this is new. Yes,
this is new. The fire district
came to Clark County Council
and asked for the opportunity
to assess fire impact fee, and
the council granted that, if
you recall, you know, time
flies. But we came to the
Planning Commission through the
docket process and amended
title 40 to add opportunity to
the fire district to assess
fire impact fee. That ordinance,
I believe, was adopted by
council in 2000 2024. I don't
want to make any other comments.
The fire district, some of them
are here. They did appear
before the council and make the
plea because they're seeing
growth. Even though majority of
the fire districts are in the
rural area, they're seeing
growth just as it's occurring
in the urban area. Even though
we have put majority of the
growth in the urban area, and
there is a provision in the GMA
to minimize, not really
minimize, but look at the
growth that is occurring and
see how much growth you put in
the rural area because it
requires infrastructure.
Whether you're drawing,
building additional well or
drawing from existing water
resources and the
infrastructure there to support
growth in the rural area where
you do not provide other urban
levels of services. So there is
a difference in the number of
growth we put in the rural area.
But for some of these areas,
the based on the preferred plan
that you reviewed, we don't see
any significant change in the
rural zoning. However, there
are capacity in the rural area
that the need is there. The
fire district will speak when
it's their turn in terms of the
number of calls, the equipment
that they need things doesn't
remain the same. They are
physical buildings will require
expansion and all that stuff,
but I don't need to speak to
them. They have they are here
to speak on that. So but we'll
give the presentation in terms
of our review. You asked a lot
of questions about the formula.
We have followed that, so I'll
leave it up to bat. And we'll
we are here to answer questions
that as we can. Thank you.
>> Good evening commissioners.
Bart catching community
planning and happy to finally
be up here talking with you all
about this. I intend to follow
a similar approach that we
settled on for the last group
of hearings, in that we have to
gavel in and gavel out each one
of these. But the basic
framework of analysis from the
county's perspective is the
same. So I'll be a little more
detailed in my comments on this
first one, and then just hit
the highlights on the other
ones and leave the majority of
the time and energy for
question and answer. I will say
at the outset that I'm very
pleased and grateful that I
have two of the fire chiefs in
the room. I have Chris Drone
from district three and and and
David Russell from the newer
chief from district six in the
room. And then online I have
Gordon Chief Chief Gordon
Brooks from district ten and
John Nor from Clark Cowlitz,
and they are all available for
comments. And I would
definitely defer to them for
any technical questions outside
of the staff report. Thank you.
So without further ado, the
first one we're looking at,
we're just going in the order
numerical order. That's how we
put them on the the agenda for
you all. The CPC 2025 00010
district three Capital
facilities planning impact fees.
As Oliver mentioned, we're in a
slightly different situation
than the school districts in
that we don't have an existing
plan that we are asking to
amend and update. We are asking
that you you all provide a
recommendation on a new plan
that has been requested from
these four districts. They are
the four districts that have
chosen to move forward with
this since the 2024 adoption of
the. The code that allowed the
fire fees. So that that code is
found in. 46, 20, 060, and, and
various parts in that portion
chapter of the County
Development Code. If you could
scroll down Jeff to the. The
table for this district there
there we go. The the summary
table. So district three, just
to summarize real quick. So you
get a get oriented district
three covers 92mi². It serves a
population of approximately
46,000. The boundary includes
battleground and as well as the
communities of Hawkinson, brush,
Prairie, Hyson, Green Lake and
the surrounding areas. So they
are utilizing the formula that
was approved by County Council
and adopted in the county code
in 2020 for the. Using that.
That formula gets you these
numbers that they're requesting.
So this is the same that that
was presented to you all in the
work session of the staff
reports are the exact same. So
nothing has changed since our
discussion two weeks ago. The
proposed fees are in front of
you that the that the formula
generates based on the inputs
that the fire districts used in
their capital facilities. Plan
992 for single family. 505 for
a multifamily unit and
nonresidential construction per
square foot cost of $1.36. The.
The fire districts. Much like
the analysis for the school
districts, have to both meet G,
A and the comp plan. And then
once we establish that the. The
submitted plans meet that
threshold criteria, then we
move on to the development code
criteria, which was adopted as
part of that code update in
2024. We structured our staff
reports the same, as close as
we could to the school district
staff reports. Understanding
that this is still a different
set of fees with a different
formula, but we wanted
everybody to be looking at
roughly the same format of a
staff report. So therefore we
have what you'll see in these
staff reports is a is a
criterion a. So the so the big
first group that speaks to the
applicability or not, the
applicability, the whether the
plans have met the GMA criteria
for for capital facilities
plans and impact fees. And then
our comprehensive plan criteria.
And then once we establish
through our findings in the
staff report and we say yes to
that, then we move on to part B,
which is the more specific
section of 46, 2050 B, and the
four part analysis, the very
similar to what we were just
talking about with the schools.
So in without going through the,
the process of reading the
staff report back to you all
the general. The general thrust
for all of the districts and
starting with district three,
which this hearing is about, is
that staff found, as discussed
on three pages three and four
of the staff report. And this
is the same pagination for all
the staff reports. I believe
that the Fire Districts Capital
Facilities plan includes the
required elements and
information listed in the R, C,
W and wax sections and is
consistent with the land use
and capital facilities.
Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan. The details of those
findings are in the staff
report, and then the second
general criterion that the
plans must meet part B with
462050 B that A that the
district's forecast of future
needs appears reasonable. B
whether the anticipated level
of funding described in the
district's financing plan
appears reasonable and
historically reliable. C
whether the level of service
standards set by the district
are reasonably consistent with
the standards set by other
districts and communities of
similar socioeconomic profile,
and d whether the district
appropriately applied the
formula set out in 462060 and
again, as we discussed at the
work session, our findings on
those criteria and our
recommendation is that the
district's plans, as submitted
and starting with district
three here for this hearing, is
that they the plans do meet all
four of those criteria that the
Planning Commission is is
supposed to look at. And in
particular, I draw your
attention to the. The second
finding or the. Yeah, the third
finding them that all these
plans have a section in
referring to level of service.
And it's different than school
level of service. Obviously,
it's the fire response time and
that nature of level of service.
And all of these plans either
maintain or improve the level
of service based on if they
were able to. Generate these
fees and add them to their to
their overall financing of, of
their capital facilities, and
then they would be able to meet
their meet their standards that
they need to meet. So the
conclusion for section B,
criterion B is that also this
plan meets that. And so we
recommend that staff recommends.
The Planning Commission
recommends that to the Council
to approve proposed fire
district three capital
facilities plan impact fees of
99.92 for single family, 505
for multifamily and $1.36 per
square foot for non residential
development. That concludes my
brief comments. And again, we
have chief drone here who I
know would at least like a
short opportunity to speak to
you all and answer any
questions, but any questions
for me before we get to that.
>> Any questions for staff
chief. Do you want to you can
come up here if you want to and
sit up if you've got any
questions for you guys.
>> Sit down.
>> Yeah. Come on. Yeah. Come on.
Yeah, sure. Yeah. If so, is
there any questions. For either
the applicant or staff?
>> This this Commissioner
Haroon I'm just I'm going to
need somebody to kind of walk
me through kind of how the how
the formula works and then how
we get. 992 for a single family
residence versus 505 for
multifamily residence, if
that's based on what kind of
service, what kind of service
is provided and what's how, how
that's looked at, I guess so.
>> Can you hear me okay? Yes,
this is Chris drone fire chief,
fire district three. So the
question is, how do we
differentiate between single
family multifamily and the
formula? Or basically how does
the formula.
>> Basically walk me? If you
could just walk me through the
formula and how you come up
with.
>> Of course.
>> Yeah. So that, and then what
we're looking at, as far as I
know, the capital facilities is,
you know, for equipment. So and
it's kind of like this ongoing
equipment fund that we can that,
you know, that's different. So
it's buildings and equipment
building.
>> Yes. Yeah, yeah. Buildings.
>> And we're like schools. It's
buildings one time. And, and so
just kind of how that, how
that's looked at, I know like
versus service level because I
know what like 75% are medical
calls, maybe 25% is fire. And
so then I look at multifamily
residences of like, well, why
is it only 505? If 75% is
medical, it's not fire. So or
just, yeah, kind of rationale
on how the formula works and
what that looks like.
>> Yeah, I think I can help
with that. So, so originally
what we do is we look at what
our capital needs are for the,
the next 20 years. That
includes stations, apparatus,
facilities, and everything that
you see in our table here. We
then consult with the county
and in my case, the City of
Battle Ground to see what they
have planned for 20 years as
far as growth. So after
consulting with the county and
the city, we determined that
district three is looking at
40% growth in the next 20 years.
So we take that 40% and we
apply it in the formula. So if
you want to, I don't know if
you can see the formulas on
there, but so we take 40% of
the total amount and that's
attributed to new growth. So in
our case, we started with
32,000,040% of that 13 million.
Then what we do is we look at
the volume of response that we
have to those different land
use areas. So we have single
family, multifamily and
commercial, in our case, for
single family respond to single
family 64% of the time. So
their fees are a little bit
higher. Multifamily, it's 11%
of the time and commercial is
26% of the time. So we wanted
to be cognizant that each land
use type is paying their
appropriate share. And then I
think there was a question
about apparatus versus stations,
or.
>> So I think. My. The fire
impact fee is different in how
it can be utilized than any
other impact fee. So any other
income impact fee for the most
part is just it's a one time
capital use thing and it can't
be paid for old stuff. It's got
to be for new and for new, you
know, new capital facilities.
Fires is unique in that it can
be used for engines and like,
oh, I need a new engine so we
can still dip into that fund
versus an ongoing maintenance
thing. So you have, you have
the, the state law allows for
some pretty extraordinary
flexibility from an impact fee
standpoint. I guess my concern
there is it turns into a, a
slush fund to where it's, we're
taking impact fees and, and
then not collecting enough in
general revenue because people
don't want to pay more in taxes
to, you know, we've had trouble
with fire bonds. And, you know,
so I think that's, that's my
concern in that that's, that's,
that's just more of a policy
question on the county side,
you know, for the commissioners.
But yeah, so I think it is. I
think from a long term
standpoint, it's because we're
not dealing with a one time
purchase. Is it a moving target?
If that makes sense.
>> It's a rolling target. So
you know needs change right.
Growth changes. It goes up. It
goes down specifically with the
apparatus. I can tell you that
with growth you have more calls,
right? So you're you're running
the wheels off those things. We
have engines that, you know,
would have in the past lasted
30, 35 years. Now they have a
20 year lifespan just because
we're responding more and we're
responding more because we're
growing. So I think that's the
mindset of policy makers who
allowed apparatus to be part of
a capital plan and eligible for
impact fees. Speaking to going
to the voters, as you know, we
have the capacity to assess a
property tax levy and then ask
for a lift on that. So with
that, with Fire District three
and most of the fire districts,
we're in a position where we
use that to fund our
operational costs. And
specifically for us, that was
getting enough people to staff
the apparatus. Right. So our
goal is to have three people on
on each engine. So that was the
ask with the with the levy. I
don't know if that answered
your question or at least
addressed.
>> In what percentage of. If if
new growth requires one engine,
you know, $2 million or
whatever it is, what percentage
of of that are you trying to
capture from impact fees?
>> 40%, 40%. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> You probably answered this.
The 13 million. What is that
again?
>> That's yeah, that's 40%.
>> That's the 40%. Okay. That's
what I want to know. Yeah. Okay.
Any other questions? Comments?
>> This is Commissioner Barker.
I guess more in the context of
a comment, but nonresidential
buildings, I'm assuming we're
talking like commercial and ag
buildings, things of that
nature.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. $1.36 per square foot
seems like a very, very high
number when you think about the
size of many of the buildings
that are getting built for
commercial purposes, was there
other than the aspect that this
is what the formula rolls out,
was there any discussion about
what that does towards the
aspect of raising the cost on a
building, let's say 10,000ft²,
it's going to end up like
$13,000.
>> Yeah. For that to answer
your question, we we strictly
deferred to the math. So, I
mean, we're running to those
running calls to those
commercial businesses 26% of
the time. So we didn't want to,
to alter the math on that. But
I understand what you're saying.
>> It has there been any
discussion about the aspect of
trying to work out perhaps
mandatory sprinkling or
something of that nature to
drive down the number of calls?
>> Yes. So that's already in
our CW. It's not included in
our particular CFP, but for not
for commercial, but for single
family. If you do put in a
sprinkler system, then you only
pay the portion that's
attributed to the EMS side. So
you would get, in our case, a
16% discount for having that
that sprinkler system.
>> Okay. Yeah, I think Jack,
thinking about it, just the
aspect of single family
dwelling, putting in a
sprinkler system, it's probably
about 20 grand. Yeah.
>> It can. Yeah, it's been a
minute. So I put one. But 15 to
20 is is probably right.
>> Depending upon what water
source you have.
>> Yeah. There's a bunch of
factors.
>> Yeah, yeah. Because you got
to get the water pressure.
>> Yeah. And back to your point,
commissioner, I
>> I don't think I touched on
it. You know, primarily we do
run EMS calls, right? But. The
large expense is that
operational readiness component.
So we we can respond, right.
>> And we want you to respond
when we need you. So question
on the the 26% to commercial.
So I have some real questions.
Like when we look at we need a
manufacturing hub. We need a
new. You know, I know there's
some people like spanning out
in battleground, you know, some
manufacturing jobs and
different things. Is that 26%
of the time we're going to
those large like a large
warehouse facilities. I think
like somebody builds 100,000ft²
of, you know, light industrial
building, you know, are we
charging them $136,000 in fire
impact fee when it's warehouse
and it's, you know, or if it's
a storage unit facility or if
it's versus, you know, the
local Fred Meyer or the CVS and
the little stores where you
might be responding a lot more
because there's just the volume
of people. And then so is there
a consideration there? Because
it seems like it's all being
treated the same? Is it is it
the same?
>> There is consideration not
in this iteration. So to be
clear, this this one was
approved by our board in 2024
and then by the City of
Battleground. In December of
2024. They had a similar
comment. So we are looking at
separating some of those
commercial occupancies, some of
the assisted care gets lumped
in, right. The assisted living
facilities because it's not
multifamily, right. So that was
where I was leaning the most
was, see if we can carve that
out and see what that would do
to the commercial rate. So I
would recommend we do that
during periodic review, but
it's definitely on the table.
And something we have thought
about.
>> Why wouldn't we do that now?
I mean, if that's the I know we
have the proposal, but that's
kind of our job is to go, well,
if, you know, warehouse A
creates almost zero calls and
the assisted living creates 320
calls a year. Should they
should, you know, shouldn't we
treat those different and
shouldn't that shouldn't that
be part of the proposal brought
to us that we're kind of
segregating the, the actual
impact versus lumping in, you
know, because especially if
we're trying to promote job
growth, because our purview is
we're planning, right? So we're
looking at job growth and
housing and, you know,
everything. And so, so I get
concerned when we're, when we
just start lumping that in and,
and we're like, well, look, we
need a, a large manufacturing
facility, but then we're
starting to hammer them, you
know, versus small individual
stores that may have a higher
load and yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean, that is it's a
long analysis. I'm not trying
to make an excuse. That's
something that we can do. To
your point. Most of these
facilities are in the city of
battleground. My goal is to
keep fees consistent with the
city and the county. And once
that happens, then adjust both
of those at the same time. So
we're not looked at as the
county subsidizing the city or
vice versa with impact fees.
>> Any other questions? Online
call. Okay. Hearing none. Bring
it back. Do we have any buddy
online that speaks to this?
>> Going to give instructions
again just to give people
opportunity. Yeah. For those
online, if you're interested in
providing comment, please raise
your virtual hand or press star
three on your phone to let us
know you would like to provide
comment. Nobody has done so,
and still nobody in the hearing
room who is interested in
providing comment. So we'll go
ahead and close public comment
on this agenda item.
>> Okay. Comments. Public
comments closed. Let's bring it
back to us. Is there any
discussion? I know this is new
to us or questions to each
other.
>> This is Commissioner Fadness.
Yeah. I just kind of want to
echo what you know, Jack said
earlier, and I share the same
concerns with him where these
these fees and what they can be
used for are completely
different than the schools. You
know, looking through some of
them, I see a $90,000 pickup
truck and a $30,000 boat. And
to me, I do appreciate, you
know, all the work that the
districts have put into to
these plans. But to me, it
almost seems like a way to
skirt the democratic process of
going out to the voters for,
for bonds and levies, or I
should say, levy lifts and can
be used as kind of a slush fund
going forward. And so, you know,
just with the nature of what
these can be spent on, I don't
know if I can even recommend
any of them. Especially as Jack
mentioned, you know, we have
this affordability crisis and
this is just kind of one more
fee that we tack on one more
thing to make housing more
unaffordable. And, you know,
potentially kill jobs too, with
the high commercial fees here.
So that's just kind of my
comments on, on all of these
fees in general, not not just
this district.
>> Anybody else?
>> I think.
>> I have him spell his name,
please.
>> That was Commissioner
Fadness. FADNESS.
>> No, no, I'm sorry. That
person testifying drone.
>> Yes. It's d as in dog RONE.
>> I think for me, my biggest
my biggest heartburn is, is the
nonresidential construction and
that it it feels a little half
baked that it wasn't it wasn't
thoughtful enough. And quite
frankly, I expect more when
we're when we're putting real
money, real fees on our
community that I want to I want
a better analysis and a better
justification for it. So. Yeah,
that's because I just, I just
see it as like, somebody wants
to come in and do a 50,000
square foot warehouse and start
creating jobs. And we go,
here's a new bill for you. Even
though it's, you're not having
that kind of impact. It's not
the not the message I want to
send to our community. So I
think it, you know, not
completely opposed to it, but I
think it needs more work. So
that's where I'm at.
>> This is Commissioner
Bergthold, and I come from a
career not only in schools but
in fire, did some of these same
calculations, so I understand,
you know, the gist. Although
Washington does things
different than California, we
have the largest largest county
in the lower 48 states and a
county fire department. So as
you this is a hybrid. Just so
my fellow commissioners, the
schools basically talking
facilities. As Jack pointed out,
once you start rolling in
equipment and different
equipment is required for
different kinds of warehouse,
different kinds of goods, what
type of industry it is. It's
and nothing is cheap. If we
think the cars went up and the
price of pickup trucks, fire
trucks are just phenomenal.
Probably take the figure you
have in your mind and double it,
but it's it's a necessary evil.
If I can speak kind of on
behalf of the fire service and
trying to be proactive, which I,
I give all the chiefs that are
here tonight very a lot of
credit for doing that, trying
to stay ahead of the game. You
don't want to be on the back
end where well, you know, we
have reserve equipment just
wasn't up to the task and we've
had. It is you're kind of the
the tail of the dog. But when
things catch on fire,
explosions and stuff happens
and all of a sudden that tail
is blamed for a lot of stuff.
If you can't adequately take
care of it as you have taken
care of everything else in the
past. So you don't want to be,
you know, on the. Not prepared,
put it that way. So yeah, I
think from what I can see and,
you know, listening to the, the
conversation, there's probably,
you know, some refinements that
could be done and. You know, a
little bit in the delivery, but
just to give you a feel for
what they're dealing with and
trying to trying to plan ahead.
So you guys have a pretty good
idea of, you know, the timeline,
how much time it takes to plan
a building, especially a
commercial building, and
actually see it to where it's,
you know, commissioned and put
into use. It's about the same
length of time. If you order a
piece of apparatus, you better
start 2 to 3 years before and
hope that the manufacturer that
you're going to go to because
you want that engine, that they
have enough room, it's like,
you know, if you got to buy all
your planes from Boeing or
Airbus, you hope that somebody
hasn't put in an order for 200
planes and you're going to wait.
So anyway, I just want to give
fire credit. Thank you guys for
being there. And you know, it's
something we'll, we'll probably
wrestle with, but it's kind of
the nature of the beast. So I
just want to make that comment.
>> Any other comments?
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery, and I just want to
clarify my understanding on
this kind of back and forth.
The 26% on commercial is
because it was 20% of 26% of
the calls. Is that how that
number was calculated?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thanks. I just want to
confirm that.
>> Any other comments on.
>> Yeah, this is Commissioner
Barca. Based on what Mark said,
I think I want to be clear and
I believe this is the belief of
the of the commission
themselves. It isn't that we're
questioning the mission at all.
It's the aspect that this
portion of the cost of doing
business is just one of the
portions that we see on a
regular basis. Right. And so
sometimes we look at data and
it's very clear, sometimes it's
muddy and it makes it more
difficult to ascertain whether
the ask is well thought out and
clearly understood, or whether
it's a wish list of best
intentions. In this particular
case, I think as we see each
one of these fire districts
come forward, one of the things
I noticed is in the capital
facilities line items, it
doesn't appear that even the
terminology of what equipment
is being requested is the same,
or that there's been
consultation about what you
believe pricing should look
like. I think staff vehicles is
just like one example. It goes
from 60,000 to 95,000 or
something like that, depending
upon which fire district. There
may be specific needs at one
district has over another. But
it's difficult, I think, for us
to ascertain that when we see
this kind of fluctuation in
what we're dealing with. Also
the aspect of what we were
presented, and we're going to
get to the other districts I
know, but sprinkled or not
sprinkled, I think in the
pricing structure, I think
everybody, if you have a price
break or some differential
because of that, I think that's
really valuable for us to know
and understand. So before you
go to the county council, it
may be advisable to polish
these up a little bit and to
make sure that terminology
matches up and whatever you
have in the way of actual price
breaks or needs on a per square
foot basis or per dwelling
basis, it's noted in there. I
look at this and I say, okay,
these are needs that district
three has, and they believe
that each one of them is valid.
We have to take it back and
just say, you know, do we
believe that this will, in some
fashion impede the growth of
the commercial sector? And as I
think Jack alluded to, if all
commercial buildings are all
wrapped up together, we can
only look at it from the
standpoint of thinking all
commercial buildings are going
to be generating jobs, and they
have a a generalized value, as
opposed to the more specific,
the more granular you can get
for us, the easier it is for us
to understand the mission and
the impact of the particulars
that you're looking at. That's
my comments.
>> Any others? Just from my
take, I think we I'm kind of
with you, Ron. And part of what
you said, we see so much of
this stuff coming at us in this
plan. And I'm talking about the
growth plan and I have from the
state mandating us things that
I just go, great, why are we
even having to vote on it? The
other thing, climate, the
climate stuff, to me, it's been
a hard pill. And and we
consistently walk down this
path and we do what we have to
do. But when we get to
something in my mind, and this
is from a guy that grew up in
Paradise, California, when you
get it and it's the truth, you
know where you want to ask that
community right now, if you
don't know, it was gone, my my
high school gone. And those
people, it'd be like that. It
is not about and I agree with
you, it's not about the mission,
but I just think that when we
get to when we're when money is
coming up, and especially when
we've started out, this is the
first time we've seen these.
It's not like the schools. And
I would argue that the schools
should know better when they
send us stuff that isn't jiving.
This is the first time. All
right. I'll take it for what it
is. I have to trust them. I
live up in North County, you
know, that place could do what
Paradise did. And so therefore,
I am willing to say I'm going
to acquiesce to the
professionals and what they are
and what they do. Slush fund is
a kind of a brutal term in my
mind, because I don't think
we're just out buying things. I
think we're trying to do the
best we can and take our county
from the 20th century, right
now into the 21st century. And
I don't I don't like, you know,
if you look up at LA center,
the fire, the bond that's
coming up, I'm in ten district
ten, the school district, the
impact fees, build a house up
there now is going to get tough.
But I still believe the people
that should are. The groups
that should win out are the.
You can't go up there and just
willy nilly build the place out
as. Even in five minute
increments, acre increment and
then say, well, we don't have
roads, we don't have fire, we
don't have schools, but we have
all the climate change stuff,
right? Or whatever. That's my
bailiwick today, you know? So I
am very supportive of it. I
struggle with what, Jack.
Exactly. With what you said,
affordability. We're balancing
this. You know, right now the
prices of everything are here.
Income levels are here,
inflation is somewhere, and
we're all trying to catch us up.
But in the meantime, we have to
be responsible. So that's my
soapbox derby for the day. So
is there any questions or I'll
take a motion or in a second if
we have one.
>> This is Commissioner Bertha.
I'll make a motion to approve
the request of the fees for
fire district number three as
presented.
>> This is Commissioner
Montgomery, and I'll second
that.
>> We have a motion and a
second. With that said, Jeff,
can we get a roll call?
>> Brian Halbert,
>> I.
>> Mark Bergfeld.
>> I.
>> Kyle Faddis.
>> No.
>> Ron baka.
>> I'm going to say I. But I'm
very uncomfortable about the
nonresidential construction fee.
I.
>> Jack. Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes. Thank you
very much for coming and
staying so late.
>> Thanks for having me again.
Appreciate it.
>> Okay. Next up is CPC 2025. I
believe we're at Fire District
six. Is that correct? Come on
up.
>> Yeah.
>> Commissioners, this is Bart
catching. So Chief Drone has
been the standard bearer on
this project from the get go
and has been working tirelessly
and very supportive, both for
me in my learning process, but
also for the other fire
districts. So he's agreed to
stay and kind of be back up,
expert in waiting, especially
since for district six, we have
a relatively new chief. And so
if you guys are okay with that,
that's how I approach it.
>> Glad you're staying.
>> So okay.
>> I mean, we have the other we
have the other two chiefs on
the line as well to, to for
when we get to them coming up
here. Okay. So again.
>> Bart, one more thing before
you start this just for my, I
don't have a map in front of me,
just kind of letting us know
where, where, where the area
kind of generally.
>> Yeah.
>> But not specifically.
>> Yeah. And then the map that
I had at the work session, I
mean, we could pull that up,
but I have the descriptions, so
I intend to rattle that off for
each one, if that helps. And is
it helpful to have the
population served in that stuff?
I mean, yeah. Okay. All right,
all right. So next up, we are
talking about CPC 2025 00011
Fire District six Capital
facilities plan and impact fees.
As we as I stated at the outset,
I won't go through the criteria
in any great detail unless you
have a particular question. The
findings for both the large
criteria A that speaks to the R,
C, W, S and wax and the County
Comprehensive Plan. We found
that that was met the basic
threshold requirements. And
then in the criteria B, the
four part review for this group.
Again, very similar plan in
structure and approach. And so
we also found that this fire
district six meets meets that
criteria. And therefore we
recommend approval. Jeff if you
could scroll down just to the
little fee table there. Great.
So similar situation, slightly
different numbers, but same
formula, same approach for
district six here. Single
family 791 multi-family 563 per
unit. Nonresidential $0.91 per
square foot. The. This district
six is the. The district that
serves 37mi² and the
communities of Hazel, Dell,
Salmon Creek, Felida, Mount
Vista and part of the
fairgrounds area. This district
has a population that serves of
77,000 and. And growing. So a
lot of folks in district six,
even for a smaller geographic
area than some of the other
districts. Again, I would bring
your attention to the findings
in the latter section,
criterion B, when we talk about
the level of service, the the
level of service for fire
districts goes from rating of
one being the best to ten being
the worst. And this plan would
allow them to offer a overall
level of service of of three
and. And so that is very good
and very consistent. If if
they're able to maintain this
plan. Beyond that, I, I don't
have any particular details
that I think I would be able to
answer any better than the fire
chiefs. And so we recommend
approval, as with the other
other plans, and I'm happy to
answer questions or punt to our
to our Chiefs.
>> Questions for staff.
>> Sure. Commissioner Halbert,
what's the percentage of
breakdown for calls? Chief
drone had residential,
multifamily and commercial. Is
it the same breakdown? It seems
like there's more. Well, of
course you got Union Ridge, a
lot of commercial area there.
>> We do. And hello. Good
afternoon. My name is David
Russell. I'm the fire chief
with Clark County Fire District
six. And to give you guys a
little bit of context, I do
want to let you know I've been
fire chief for about four
months. I was not involved in
developing this capital
facilities plan. It was
developed under previous
district leadership and adopted
by our board. Before my tenure
as chief. My role today is to
try to answer any questions I
can as far as the call volume
and call slippage. We run about
13,000 calls a year in our
district. How these were
delineated with the
nonresidential, I would assume.
I think they were assisted with
the chief drones help as well.
So I believe they are the same
and he can jump in if he would
like to add any more. I was
taking good notes and listening
to your guys's concerns, and I
certainly commiserate with the
position that we're putting you
in. I would say many of the
mandates that you guys are
dealing with, the fire service
is feeling as well, you know,
to the extent of, you know,
putting putting elevators in a
two story fire station that is
mandated by federal law to, you
know, a $4 million ladder truck
to a, you know, over $1 million
fire engine. We get with our
service levels, we get about
seven years frontline out of a
fire engine before it has to be
moved into reserve status. We
can get about 15 to 16 years of
full service life because of
the miles we put on it. If you
drive through any of our
neighborhoods, you'll see our
crews out there every day
serving the public. It's a lot
of calls. We average about 35
calls a day. So this is a
revenue source that helps us
provide those services.
Obviously, we are trying to
address the growth in our area
with this, and this provides us
that opportunity. I certainly,
again, hear the commission as
they speak about the concern
with what we are able to spend
this on. I will also confirm,
as one of the commissioners did,
note, that there is no slush
fund in the fire service. I
really wish there was. We will
go out for every little lift
that we can when we. When we
have to, in order to keep the
lights on and keep the rigs
coming out when the. The
community calls us. So we are
in that position now. I guess.
I don't know if I completely
answered your question. I just
wanted to open with a statement
as I heard some of those
questions previously.
>> Yeah, thanks. Maybe if on
the screen they could put the
formula breakdown like, like we
saw for district three, that'd
be helpful.
>> Yeah, I'm.
>> Finding that might answer
the question.
>> Finding that page right now.
Bear with me, because I wasn't
exactly sure how this
conversation was going to go.
>> So while we're while.
>> We're waiting, I liked what
Commissioner Barker said to not
I know you guys are. This is
the first time we've run
through this. But his idea of
polishing up before the
decision makers, which will be
the Council get this and just
go, okay, look, here's the
things and this this is what
we're trying to do because I
think it's needed. I just, you
know, it's the first time. And
like I said, I, I, that was
interesting about the
nonresidential. And so I went,
oh, that's all. And then you
threw in the, the assisted
livings. And I'm like, oh boy,
you know, this is really got to
get parsed out. Obviously it's,
it's going to be. But I would
just encourage you to, to make
it clear, not that you didn't
do your best shot with what you
had.
>> So thank you for that
feedback. Yeah. A little more
background. This formula with
single family, multi
multifamily and commercial.
It's been in place since 99.
I'm not aware of any district
that has separated commercial
to that level, but I would like
to try. Yeah.
>> Well, and if I may, also
when you come back, because
then we'll have that one. And
if everything goes like it
normally goes here, they'll be
this one or whatever. But it's
better to go, okay, here's what
it really is. And so I think
your first trip out is just
trying to hone it down as tight
as you can to what it is. We
don't know, you know, or the
formula knows or somebody knows.
So.
>> This commissioner, just kind
of that you had mentioned that
there was a reduction on if
something was sprinkled or not
sprinkled, but it's not in any
of the proposals that we've
seen. District ten. District
ten. District ten. Yes. But you
had mentioned a 16% for the
battleground district that
there was a 16%, correct? Yes.
Right. But I didn't. Was that
in the documentation that was
provided?
>> No, that was left out of the
the CFP. So.
>> So so the challenge then
becomes I there may be even a
legality challenge because it's,
we're making a recommendation
to council that has to be
published. And it doesn't
include all the information
about the costs. Right. So, so
that there was no way outside
of you telling us there was no
way to know that there was a
16% reduction. So that actually
kind of, I think might violate
a law for public disclosure. So
some of that stuff gets
obviously really important from
a, you know, from that
standpoint. And again, I same
comments of, I mean, I like the
numbers, they're dropping a
little bit, but. But a
breakdown, you know, it doesn't
look like we'll get it this go.
But on how we want to look at
that. And some of that's a
policy decision. Like you have
a massive distribution center.
Do we want to charge them a big
fire impact fee or not charge
them a big fire impact fee?
Maybe we do because they don't
produce maybe necessarily the
jobs that we want. But but
that's a policy decision. But
from a fire service standpoint,
I think it would be valuable
information to have for for the
policy makers. Thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> Commissioner Montgomery,
kind of coming back to the
overarching issue of, you know,
planning for growth as part of
this comprehensive plan, I
noticed that you mentioned, you
know, locating a new fire
station 64 to help serve the
growth. And then you also
identified that some of the
existing service items weren't
quite meeting the goals of like
90%, like the turnout time or
first arriving unit. So I was
wondering if you could speak to
how these impact fees, I guess,
would address like, if they're
solely needed because there's
growth, or if it's because
there's certain service issues
already in place and just maybe
discuss some of that since
we're here talking about future
growth planning.
>> Yeah, there are, you know,
we at district six, we have a
few geographical challenges.
And so we currently don't meet
all of our benchmarks in
certain corners of our district.
Those corners include that area
of 1/79 and the kind of
northeastern corner of our
district. We do have great
mutual aid agreements. We
actually share a fire station
with Clark Cowlitz Fire and
Rescue at the West Precinct or
Public Safety Center on 1/79.
And we share that fire station
there, respond one third of the
time. Clark Cowlitz responds
another third or two thirds of
the time. Excuse me. As we
experience. That's our primary
growth corridor for Fire
district six, one of our
largest growth areas. And as we
see the infill, we are seeing
the impact of the call volume
in that area. And so we will
need eventually a fire station
on the east side of I-5 near
the 1/79 corridor. At some
point as growth continues.
>> Thank you.
>> So would.
>> You would you say the fees
are to help in addition to
future growth? Are they picking
up are we using it to kind of
backfill our lagging or our
underserviced area for what?
Like, are we backfilling a
little bit?
>> No, we we meet our we have a
nine minute standard in that
area. And we do meet the nine
minute standard. We don't meet
our best practice, which is a
six minute standard in that
area, which we would like to
meet. And as infill gets there
and as we kind of zone that as
urban in our response area,
which is kind of the majority
of the rest of our area, we
want to meet that six minute
standard. And so as the growth
in the infill continues in that
area, then we're going to need
an additional fire station.
>> Any other questions or
comments or a motion? I'll
check that. I got a gotta let
the people know.
>> So for those online, if you
are interested in providing
comment, please raise your
virtual hand or press star
three on your phone to let us
know you would like to provide
comment. Nobody is raising
their hand. Nobody in the
hearing room who would like to
provide comment either. So we
will close the public comment
for this agenda item as well.
>> Okay, with the public
comment portion closed, I will
bring it back for any
discussion.
>> Commissioner Parker, I'm
sorry. Go ahead. No, please.
>> No, I'm just going to point
out in the formula for
commercial district three
versus district ten. If I got
my numbers right, district
three was looking at two point
5,000,000 square foot of
commercial building. And in
district three. Sorry, I forget
this. Right. District six,
we're looking at 4.5 million
square feet. So, you know,
they're they're able to divide
their same capital by a lot
more square footage in their
future planning. So I think
that's one reason that their
number is looking better to us.
Yeah.
>> I'd like to make a motion
for CPC 2025 00011 Clark County
Fire District six that I moved
to follow staff recommendation
and approve.
>> Do we have a second?
>> Commissioner Hubbard? I'll
second that motion.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Halbert.
>> I.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I. Kyle
Fadness no. Ron Baka. I Jack.
Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia Duke Montgomery. I
Carl Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes. With that we
will move to CPC 202500010
weight check deck. I'm on the
wrong one. I'm let me get ten
out. I just repeated the same
one. Here we go. CPC
20250012012. Clark County Fire
District ten Capital Facilities
plan impact fees. Sorry, Bart.
Bart go ahead. Thank you very
much.
>> Thank you very much. Bart.
Catching again. And my part
will get quicker as we move
along here. So district ten for
CPC 2025 00012. Similar
analysis criterion A, criterion
B similar structure of the plan.
Staff found that it met all the.
The core criteria to recommend
approval. District ten is the.
The district in the North
County serves approximately
12,500 people but serves 85mi².
Includes Amboy, Fargher Lake,
green Mountain view. The. The
primary difference that we've
already alluded to in previous
discussions and what you'll see
as we scroll down to the grid
here or the table, is that
district ten chose to break out
their analysis in a more
nuanced way. It was their
prerogative to do so. And, and
we talked about this a little
bit in the work session. The
they not only broke out between
sprinkled and non sprinkled,
but also for the, the standard
formula approach. And then the
growth share method, the Chief
Brooks is on the line. He's
been monitoring. And so I'm
hoping that he is still there
and able to discuss his plan in
a little more detail. Beyond
that, I just think that I would
add that the comments that were
just being made about the
differences in population and
the types of buildings are very
much amplified with district
ten. And so you see numbers
that are quite a bit different
from the other districts, but
that's because they have a
different demographic and
totally different type of
construction that they're
seeing. With that, I don't have
anything to add other than we.
We also recommend approval with
this plan. Hearing all the
comments that have been made
thus far, and I'll answer any
questions I can, but we have
the two chiefs that have
already spoken sitting here
listening, and we have Chief
Brooks online. I'm hoping.
>> Chief Brooks, are you online?
>> Yes I am.
>> Oh, good. Thank you for
waiting. Appreciate it.
>> Wait until Chief North
speaks, too.
>> Oh, okay. Thanks. Let's see.
Do we have any questions for
staff?
>> This Commissioner Haroon
standard method versus growth
share method. What's the
difference? And because I
didn't quite understand the
difference. And then which one
is staff recommended.
>> I would ask the chief to
explain that because they're
responsible for the the math
and the analysis and their plan.
>> And I would actually prefer
to defer to Chief Drone. He has
a far better understanding of
this. Our plan was created
after theirs. So we had some
opportunity for to build on the
work that they had done. We
chose because our our numbers
are, are lower, much smaller
population. It was a little
easier to include this. And
unfortunately, I'm at a family
reunion in Southern Oregon that
was planned a year ago. So here
I am and don't have access to
all the documentation. And I
can't read the screen without
my glasses, and I don't. I'm
not sure if the the glare is
worse or or my blindness is
worse. So bear with me. The
different methods are based on
the, the, the changes in the
the demographic of our area.
And I think that, you know, we
are a. We're much different
than the other districts in
that. Until recently, we were
essentially an all volunteer
district. And as our call
volume has grown, we have not
been able to keep up with any
kind of reasonable response
with an all volunteer staff. So
it we are changing rapidly. I
hire I was hired in 98 to deal
with paperwork. We hired our
first career full time
firefighters in 2017. So
relatively new and I have hired
three times that many since
then. We are in the process of
having a new station designed
in the time period that we're
looking at. We've had about
four new single family
dwellings per year. A few years
ago, we had 29 permits in a
single year. And then as the
economy has changed, that
number has dropped off
drastically. That's, you know,
the just the, the reality of
our district. There has been no
multifamily permits issued and
no new commercial buildings
built in our district. But the,
the, the difference between
growth share and standard. I
really can't speak to. Exactly.
And, you know, I, I work, like
I say, with chief drone to, to
calculate those.
>> Chief John, can you explain
that?
>> Yes, this is chief drone. So
all of our methods save
district ten is the growth
share method. So what that does
when we're talking about the
response by land use, it also
incorporates the growth for
that type of land use be it
single family multifamily or
commercial into the the
response, those are factored in
together to make sure that one
isn't paying more than the
other should be. So.
>> Which one is being
recommended?
>> I can't speak for district
ten, but for the for the rest
of the districts, it's the the
growth share method that you'll
see in our CFPS.
>> Okay.
>> Any questions?
>> Bart catching here, chief.
Chief Brooks did did you have
did you want the entire table
adopted as your fees or were
you offering an alternative to
the commission?
>> So we had one of the members
of our Board of commissioners
recently built a home. He is
retired from federal service.
He's had property in the area
all his life, built a home, and
he was a little shocked by the
fact that he was paying school
impact fees. As someone that is
not his kids, his grandkids
don't live in our area and
don't use our schools. He lives
in a private road and he was
shocked that he was paying
county road fees, impact fees.
And so our preference would be
to use the less expensive. And
we just are really shocked by
the numbers that worked out
because we're such a small
district and our board of
commissioners would actually
they wanted to keep the
formulas intact in the fees,
but they wanted to take the
option of reduce our reducing
our fees by 50%. Just, you know,
yes, the a $15.2 million
building. These fees are a very,
very small drop in the bucket
of paying for that. But, you
know, this is a number that the
new resident is going to have
to amortize over the life of
their mortgage. So, you know,
we feel that in the time that
they're paying this, we are
also going to be collecting
bond funds and other fees for
them. So yeah, we would like to
take the, the standard method
and then reduce that by half to,
to include the to, to cover
those costs. And I've written a
letter and provided to staff
that states that.
>> Yes, that that letter came
in just this afternoon. It was
emailed to the Planning
Commission, and it's in the
record.
>> So they're going for the
standard.
>> So if we look at the
standard method, right, are we
saying those numbers are
reduced by half. Is that
correct or excuse me. The
growth share method is reduced
by half. Which one is reduced
by half.
>> No. The standard method
creates a lower fee and we
would prefer to do that.
>> And then you sent in the
letter today. Are you reducing
the standard method by half.
>> That is correct.
>> The method.
>> Is cheaper.
>> Well.
>> The title I'm looking.
>> On.
>> The standard method.
>> Are you talking about the
non sprinkler. The sprinkler.
>> You know.
>> This and oh no they're.
>> Both 163 versus 168 on the
single. 5560 that is cheaper on
the multi. But you're not going
to have very many multifamily
units.
>> If we don't have any as well.
>> So okay.
>> I'm just looking at my
screen here.
>> So. Okay.
>> But I think he's saying
there's not really going to be
the same type of growth in
multifamily or commercial. It's
going to be mostly single
family. And so it's cheapest
for single family under the
standard method. And then cut
the 163 in half. Is that
correct?
>> Straight 50% is what they
are proposing. And that's
within their prerogative to do
that is my understanding.
>> So for clarification, we're
talking about the standard
method. We cut that in half and
that is what is being asked of
us right now.
>> Yes, yes. And thank you for
talking it through with us. And
and Chief Brooks, just to
clarify, you would want both
the option of sprinkled in and
sprinkled because of your
district's. Rural, while
wildland urban interface issues
you want that included. So so
both sprinkled and non
sprinkled tables.
>> Yes, that is okay.
>> I just wanted to clarify
that for the record.
>> Sprinklers are huge and I
think we should do more as a
community to encourage that. I
put sprinklers in my house
myself and I guarantee I did
not spend anywhere near 200 $0,
but it is worth every penny.
You know you. It's just a
worthwhile safety feature for
our customers.
>> That's Commissioner
Berchtold and Chief I, I hear
what you're saying and I that's
a great thing to cut in half as
commission members. My what I'm
seeing is we've got printed,
you know, that was presented
the standard of the growth. You
know, those four tables, tables
right there. And that's what
the staff used to, you know,
identify the criteria, whether
it passed or failed. And we
don't have anything number wise
to pass. We have a concept to
pass. So I'll look to maybe
Carl Ron.
>> We I think we have a letter
that was submitted today. That,
that spoke to that. That's
correct. Right.
>> Does it have the numbers on
it.
>> Percentage. The percentage
50%. Yeah.
>> Do we want to do the math
really quick. Like I think the
first one would round up to
like $0.82.
>> Another option commissioners.
This is part is we could do the,
do the math and, and put it in
the recommendation. That would
be very quickly turned around.
That would just be mechanical.
So no discretion from your
motion.
>> Okay.
>> I'm just offering that as an
option.
>> So I just want to make sure
that we word it so that it's
actually feasible and, and, you
know, substantiated.
>> Yeah.
>> So this Commissioner Haroon,
we're looking at, well, I'm
looking at two things. We have
the standard and the growth
share and the numbers not on
the single family, but on the
multifamily. And the commercial
are pretty different between
the growth share and the
standard method. And then
subsequently, even if we're
taking those and reducing them
by 50%, we're still by far the
most expensive of any of the
proposals that we've seen. And
I. And what's that? No. Okay.
So, so so I don't know. I think
that's, that's, that's kind of
my. I mean, we're, we're still
at a pretty, pretty high
numbers. I think one of the
challenges, obviously when you
don't have scale, right, you
don't have the residences and
then you're in an area. Love my
district ten folks, but they're
probably a little more anti-tax
than my downtown Vancouver crew
down here. And, and so it gets
disproportionate where we're
seeing, you know, $4,500 impact
fees. Or now be 2400. But I
mean, the calculation puts it
at 4500, you know, so. Yeah.
>> If I may interject on the
same thing, can you explain why
they are higher like that, that
much higher?
>> I think if you go back and
look at the formulas, it's
solely based on how much you
you split that up amongst all
of the the population. It's
just right. We have the, the
very, the, the same types of
needs, you know, we have over
the 25 or 20 year life of the
comprehensive plan, we have a
need for a total of two
additional fire stations. And
our current main station needs
to be replaced. Part of that is,
you know, updating it to meet
current needs. But about a
third of that is attributable
to growth. And because you're
taking and you're splitting
that very large number up
amongst fewer people, it just
creates a larger per person ask.
>> Is the percentage the same?
What we're asking from the
development as the as the other
formulas that we've looked at.
>> I think is. Is 33%. Correct
me if I'm wrong, Gordon.
>> I believe it was 31%.
>> Okay.
>> That off the top of my head,
you know, it's been a couple of
years since we've. Is it.
>> 31% of the of the total cost
or is it 31% of the. Yeah. What
is.
>> 31% of the total cost is
borne by growth as off the top
of my head, you know.
>> And then do they is that a
31% like. And how much are we
anticipating the growth to be?
Is that is that a 10% growth of
the population? Yeah.
>> It's approximately 3.5% per
year. And that's traditional
call volume growth numbers for
us since we started tracking it.
When I started in 1988.
>> Do we have the copy of that
formula? Are you getting right
now?
>> Planning commissioners, this
is Solevad Orjiako. I think on
the capital facilities planned
at the district submitted, I
believe the Planning Commission
has a copy of that. If you look
on page 11 and we can put that
up, I think, yeah, you see the
total portion attributed to new
growth is 31%. So the shift is
are correct.
>> Okay. That makes sense. Any
other comments or questions?
Okay.
>> I, I do have a question. I
guess I want to come back to
you, Jack, about the idea that
you were thinking this is a
much higher fee, is that on a
per square foot basis that
you've decided that this was so
high?
>> Yeah. I mean, when we had if
we go back to the fee schedule,
I don't know if we can flip
that back up. There we go. So.
Under
>> Well, and this is kind of
where I get the growth share
method. And I wanted a better
understanding between the two
methods because they were
talking about having the
standard method versus the
growth method. And I just
didn't understand really what a
standard method was versus a
growth share. And that was kind
of one of my questions. And
then why? Because the grocery
method is, is less outside of,
outside of the single family,
okay. Except for the single
family, but it's significantly
less than commercial,
significantly less than
multifamily. And then. So I
guess I didn't understand the
two different methodologies and
then why we would just go to
the standard method. And you're,
you're having the multifamily,
but you're still at like 2400
on, on a multifamily and you're
still at buck 50, buck buck 60
a square foot on the commercial
buildings, right? AM I doing my
math right? And so. Yeah,
that's, I guess that's kind of
what I'm trying to understand
what, why we're looking at the
standard versus the growth
share, I think would be my
first question.
>> Frankly, I was looking at
again, thinking that my
district is substantially
single family homes. While we
do have some people that run
home based businesses, those
don't get charged impact fees
because they have an existing
family home, and then they add
a business in their barn. And
so they're the while they do
pay for permit fees, they don't
have an impact fee because it's
an existing occupancy at the
time. And so if you look at it,
we just aren't having the new
multifamily units, not
receiving those kinds of things
out there. And so, you know, I,
we want to do what we can to
reduce those costs. Like you
pointed out, our district is
more conservative than the rest
of the county. And that's a
fact of life. And so we want to
do what we can to match that.
You know, I personally am
leaning more conservatively. I
fit in out in Emili and that's
why I live there. And so, you
know, I understand I feel their
pain. This was something that
we discussed at length with our
staff. And, you know, they,
when we talked through it, we
reached begrudging agreement
that we should pursue impact
fees. The Board of
Commissioners looks at the
money and we look at what it's
going to cost, and we feel
compelled to get the people
that are moving into the
district to pay their fair
share. You know, I, I like I
said, southern Oregon right now,
my family has lived in this
area since the 1850s. I think
that it's important that, you
know, when new people come into
this area, they pay a fair
proportion of the
infrastructure that my family
built. Impact fees are very,
very small way to do that.
>> So chief, this is Chair
Johnson talk. I'm just for my
simple mind and I actually live
up with the same people you
live by. So if I take your
standard method and cut that in
half, that's what's that number
going to be. Oh, we'll do the,
we'll do the we'll do the
single family homes. Price per
square foot is $0.82. If we cut
it in half. If I go across and
I realize we're a different
district, but I'm just I'm
comparing three other districts
at single family residence of
791, 992 and 654. And so if I
take a unit price, that's what
I was trying to take the unit
price and cut that in half.
That's like 22000 and something
can can you tell me why those
are so different? I understand
we're in a different district,
but why are they so different?
>> Because you're spreading
that impact amongst far fewer
people.
>> So it is. It is and it's I
just so it is that that much of
a difference?
>> Yes. Okay. These numbers
worked out. They crunched out
through the formulas just based
sheerly on math.
>> Okay. One other question.
When you initially did this for
us and we went through a work
session with these numbers, and
then with your board, and then
you came back and it's 50% less.
How do we how do I come to
terms with all of a sudden it's
50% less. Why? Why were you
able to do that?
>> We're not able to. It's not
an ability thing. It's just a
choice. You know, we look at it
and we're we're trying to think
about the impact that it would
have been on us and be fair to
the new people coming in. They
shouldn't bear the sole cost
and they won't. But this gives
them a little bit to become new
into the community. And, you
know, we had talked earlier
about the affordable housing. I
believe that state code
actually addresses that, where
people that meet the the
standard for affordable housing.
And off the top of my head for
Clark County, that works out to
a home valued initial sale
price at under 450 000 for a
single family residence. There
is language in state code that
allows them to get a rebate for
that, and they can apply for
that within five years of
getting the house built.
>> At the same time. Are are
there's a bond up there.
There's a we're voting on a
bond up there. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. We're
asking, is that.
>> Is that an. And the things
that we saw here was that the
fire station we were talking
about in the $6 million, or was
that something separate?
>> Well, if you look at the
first line item when we
produced this in 2024, the
estimated cost of that station
was $12 million. So it has the
the estimates the building
environment has gone up
approximately 20%. Our current
estimate is 15.2. That works
out to fund that at about $0.45
per thousand.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And that is purely inflation.
Our costs of doing business. We
had we've acquired the property
over the last 20 years or so.
So that that's no property
acquisition. That is solely the
cost of designing and
constructing the building.
>> Okay. Thank you. Do we have
any other questions or comments?
>> Question for staff. Knowing
that the law changed and
there's allowable a to use in
the rural area, would these
impact fees be associated with
the building of an Adu?
>> Good question. I know that
the current county policy is to
reduce. Adu cause I believe
it's by 70%. Thereabouts. So if
this fee were to go in and.
Addressing that new bill,
Council have directed that we
do update our code post plan
adoption. So I don't know when
that will go into effect. So
when we when it goes into
effect and we the council still
maintains that 70% reduction
for Adu. I know that will be
applicable when someone comes
in for that.
>> Thank you. So comment for
the commission just using the
standard method with the 50%
reduction that was discussed.
Looking at the idea that I
believe the original number.
Looks like it was 2800 square
foot home, just dividing the
163 into the 4569. For the
purposes of getting something
baseline. If I use that same
2800 number for Fire district
three, that makes it $0.35 a
square foot compared to the 82.
If I look at. Ten. No, sorry,
district six, they're at $0.28
per square foot just to try and
keep apples to apples. This is
one of the things, gentlemen I
was trying to get at from the
standpoint of making it easy
for people to understand the
story. We can go with a lump
sum number for everybody or per
square foot number for
everybody. But I think in the
context of comparison, then
they're going to want to know
what size dwelling, you know,
are we kind of referring to
with the lump sum in reference
as an average? So I think based
on the location and the
difficulty of the terrain,
looking at also their call
volume looks like they're very
close to 70, 80% of medical for
long distances. It has the
appearance to me that. The
biggest opportunity for service
for this particular district is
in the concept of those same
types of numbers that we
discussed with district six,
and the idea of what's the
response time? This is the
level of service that I think
people understand and
appreciate in the concept of
what are we striving for?
What's the goal? So having
those numbers available, I
think is super helpful towards
the idea of selling the message
and what's going on. That all
being said, I guess what I see
is. It's not comparable from
the other districts, but
perhaps it's relatively fair
for the district. And that's my
that's my statement on this.
>> Yeah. This is Montgomery.
And that's kind of what I've
been grappling with is I
understand the numbers and
population and breaking out,
you know, service calls and
things. But how do you kind of
qualitatively measure, you know,
someone out in Schetky that is
facing wildfire risk versus,
you know, someone in Vancouver?
I don't think that's like more
of a risk, right? And then
needing to cover mileage. And
so I haven't seen clearly how
that gets grappled with other
than maybe through the
discussion in this, the
specific line item asks of what
the money's going to be spent
towards to facilitate that type
of service. But that is
something that, in my mind is
weighing towards voting to
approve the request. With the
50% reduction on residential
single family homes, because
there's just a different level
of risk and including waiting
for someone to get out to you.
Coming from Amboy, fortunately,
I live a block away, but many
people don't. And so it just
seems like that's a different
type. Like you're saying, Mr.
Baka Fair for this district,
but not every district is going
to have those same types of
issues.
>> Any other comments?
>> Just a clarification. So. Is
there a unit price? Are we
voting on a unit price or a
price per square foot? Was the
unit price just an example. And
it's just it's based on a price
per square foot. Because the
other districts are unit prices.
>> We can make the motion to do
it. However the motion needs to
be tailored. The biggest thing
I want to make sure was that we
read into the motion the 50%.
>> I understand that I just.
>> You could say it however you
want it. I mean, whatever.
>> I was, I'm trying to
understand like what they were
proposing. Like if they're like
a 10,000 square foot house
would be $4,500 or a 2800
square foot house would be
$4,500. Or do they want the
10,000 square foot house to be
$12,000? I that's I mean,
that's.
>> Well, we don't have we don't
have a a typical house. We do
have a price per square foot,
which would seem to be more
specific and exact. That's my
take.
>> I guess I'm asking the fire
chief, like, what were you guys
what was your thought there? Is
it is it a unit price or a
price per square foot?
>> To tell you the truth, two
years ago, it was a long time.
And and, you know, I, I truly
do not remember what it is
based on. Again, I would defer
to Chief Drone and see what the
way that how that is intended
or to staff, like I say, we we
went through this process. We
started more than two years ago,
and I really don't know, I.
>> This is Commissioner Leduc
Montgomery. I think if you run
the numbers like on growth
share method, the 4714 and then
the price per square foot of
1.68 works out to what a 2800
square foot home would be. So
maybe it's based on a 2800
square foot home. This is what
the total would be, and this is
what the price per foot is.
>> Right? I guess my
clarification, because it's
like I'm building a house, you
know, I have a barn or my shop
and we're price per square foot.
I'm, I'm at the counter with
county staff. And one staff
member is telling me it's based
on total square footage.
Another person's telling me
that it's based on on habitable
space. So I would like some
clarification on what we're
recommending.
>> Yeah, this is Chief Drone. I
completely understand I'm I'm
not exactly sure on on this
plan. I don't think I got to
see this particular page. Maybe
is the letter more specific
that, that he said.
>> No, that's not the letters
is just a 50% reduction in. I
would I just don't remember
what we did. I believe the 2800
square foot house is an example.
And the. The formula outputs a
price per square foot, but I
can't guarantee that that is
accurate.
>> I would. In my mind, I would
think the impact is based on
each individual structure, like
single family residence would
be a unit price. Multi-Family
would be a unit price because
typically commercial, I
understand where it's a square
footage price because you can
have a 500 square foot
commercial and a 10,000 or
100,000 square foot commercial.
Right? So that would make sense
to me that there's a price per
square foot for commercial and
unit prices on the homes, but
that. Yeah.
>> And I will, I will, I'm
sorry, chief drone again here.
If it's district ten. District
ten is intent to be in line
with the way the other
districts have proposed this.
It would be a unit price for
single and multi-family and a
per square foot price for
commercial.
>> If you would word your
motion to that, I would happily
accept it that way.
>> This is Oliver. I agree with
the chief. That's what I wanted
to add, that most of our prices
are on unit price, and we would
recommend assuming the Chief
Fire District ten agrees that
we live single family and
multi-family at the unit price
and for commercial group for
per square footage.
>> With a 50% reduction.
>> Yes.
>> That sounds perfectly
reasonable to me.
>> Any more discussion on this?
>> I just wanted to clarify. I
read the letter to mean a 50%
reduction on single family
units only. Is that correct or
is it?
>> I would hope that it it it
should.
>> Be applied to everything.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Do we have a oh.
>> At.
>> I'll put it to the those
online. If you're interested in
providing public comment,
please raise your virtual hand
or press star free on your
phone. Nobody is doing so, and
there's nobody in the hearing
room who is wishing to provide
public comment. So we'll go
ahead and close public comment
for this agenda item.
>> Moving forward with the
public comment part closed, I
would either any more
discussion or a motion and a
second for fire district ten
with a said changes.
>> Mr. chairman, Duke
Montgomery I move to approve
item CPZ2025-00012. Fire
district number ten capital
facilities plan. Adopting the
district's proposed standard
method calculations for fire
impact fees, both for no
sprinkler and with sprinkler on
the per unit price for single
family homes and multifamily
home units, and per square foot
for commercial buildings with a
50% discount applied to all
three of those as calculated in
the district submission.
>> This is Commissioner Bach. I
second that.
>> We have a motion in a second.
Jeff, can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Ryan Albert.
>> Hi.
>> Mark Bergfeld. I Kyle
Fadness.
>> No.
>> Ron.
>> Baka I Jack.
>> Karen.
>> No.
>> Alicia.
>> Montgomery I.
>> Carl Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes.
>> So we move on from ten fire
district ten. I got all my
paperwork mixed up here. We did
three right.
>> This will be clerk clerk
sorry.
>> Thank you. Okay. We're doing
next up Bart CPG 2025-00013.
Clark Cowlitz fire Rescue and
Capital Facilities plan. Is
there a chief on the line for
that?
>> Hopefully, John nor is still
online. Yep. I'm here.
>> Yeah.
>> Thanks.
>> Thanks for staying.
>> Yep, absolutely.
>> Thank you guys for staying.
>> So just taking our same
approach as before, the the
structure of the findings are
the same. The structure of the
district plan is very similar
to district three and district
six. And this is a Clark
Cowlitz, to remind you, is a
the district up for the center,
Ridgefield woodland. Also the
Cowlitz Reservation, meadow
Glade, charter Oak. Parts of
the fairgrounds. Duluth.
Dollars. Kriner. So a lot of a
lot of areas. And it serves a
population of. It's a size of
125mi². So that's the largest
of the districts. And it serves
51,000 at the time of writing
the the plan. Jeff, if you
could just scroll down to the,
the table on this one that they
took the simpler approach as
the other ones for as district
three and district six did,
you'll see the. The proposed
prices are 654 for single
family, 308 for multifamily,
and 63 per square foot for
commercial. So the lowest out
of all of them. Again, it's
just what the the formula
produced. And with that, I
would recommend approval as
stated in the staff report and
be open for any questions for
myself or chief.
>> Nor do we have any questions
for chief nor or. Staff.
>> This is Miss Montgomery, and
I was just wondering because I
saw, you know, again, looking
at some of the response times
and things that are being met
now, the performance now
compared to the 90% kind of
goal aspiration, is the impact
fee requested. You think
sufficient to close the gap
between the numbers that we are
seeing for current performance
and the aspirational goal.
>> It will help. It will help
in that. Part of it is, is this
is a 20 year. We try to look
out 20 years, and every few
years we got to go in and say,
okay, where are we at today
compared to where we were two
years ago or periodically, and
then where we're going to be 20
years from now. So yes, it, it
assists because it helps build
fire stations. So in the plan,
I propose a need for two fire
stations, one east of I-5, one
west of I-5. The one on the
east side is going to be
probably in the 15th year
because development will happen
more slowly there than it's
happening on the west side. And
one of the things to consider
also is the commissioners want
to charge the same fee across
the entire area. And so we have
three cities and a significant
portion of unincorporated
county in there. So the cities
have more growth, potentially
more growth, because they're
allowed to grow under under GMA
rules. However, we have a big
section at the southern end of
our district that is in the
Vancouver Urban growth boundary.
So it's allowed to develop even
though it's an unincorporated
county. So we have a lot of
development coming along the
I-5 along 179 to 219. And
that's a long answer to your
short question. Will this help
us meet our times? It will help
offset the cost of purchasing
more fire engines and building
two fire stations to be able to
meet the times.
>> This. Commissioner, does
your district cover the tribal
lands? Is that correct?
>> We. Yeah. It's a sovereign
nation. We have no ability to
tax them. We have a contract
with them. They pay $455,000 a
year for fire and emergency
medical service response there.
But they don't. And they have
gifted us things. They secured
a fire engine several years ago
through a federal grant that
was only open to tribes, and
they have gifted us three
ambulances, which was a
significant savings that we
would have had to purchase. And
so a savings to all the
taxpayers in the district.
>> Are you able to get full
cost recovery from servicing
the the tribal lands?
>> It it's very hard to
calculate because there is not
an assessed value on their
properties. And in the fire
service, we don't really build
it. We don't give you a cost
per call because there's a lot
of things that go into that.
Again, it's a negotiation with
them because. You take a 14
story hotel on the other side
of the freeway, and the county
is going to assess a value on
that. And we say we'd like to
collect $1.50 per thousand. And
we know exactly what the bill
is. We don't know the value of
their hotel because it's they
don't have to disclose it to us.
So it's a negotiation. And each
year when some new properties,
a new development comes on, we
come to a new price on that.
>> So I guess I guess the gist
of my question is like our, our
are these impact fees
subsidizing development on the,
the Cowlitz tribe.
>> So no, thank you. Thank you
for clarifying. We in our
contract with the tribe, every
year we come back and
renegotiate based on any new
properties that came on during
that time. So they pay a new
fee based on the new properties
that the new development that
happens on their properties. So
for example, they're doing some
remodeling inside. Even though
it's inside the building, it is
further development within the
structure. We'll come back and
say that's a new fee. So no, we
don't. This would not be
subsidizing their development.
>> Yeah, I think, I think just
for clarity, I think I think
you've answered it, but my fear
would be that we need an extra
fire engine to service the
Cowlitz tribe. However, the
only way to collect that is
through our impact fee
mechanism on on that. So I
wanted to make sure that our
impact fee calculation isn't
being encumbered or colored by
additional services provided to
the tribe.
>> It is not.
>> Any other questions? It's
getting. Let's bring public
comment into this. All right.
>> All right.
>> For those those online, if
you're interested in providing
public comment, please raise
your virtual hand or press star
for you on your phone to let us
know you would like to provide
public comment. Nobody is
expressing that. They would
like to provide public comment.
There's nobody in the hearing
room, so we'll go ahead and
close public comment for the
last agenda item.
>> Once again, with the public
part closed, I bring it back
for any discussion from the
Planning Commission.
>> As Commissioner Montgomery,
I think one thing that gives me
a little pause on this request,
compared to some of the others,
is just what is attributable to
new growth versus existing
deficiencies. But obviously,
Ridgefield is growing. There's
no question that there is
growth, but some of the growth
projections seem more
aggressive or the increase in
demand, plus the the gap
between how they're doing now
in calls for service or the
different measurements compared
to that 90% benchmark was
larger than some of the others.
But I think I'm still coming
down in favor of supporting,
you know, providing better
service because there's
obviously a growth demand in
that jurisdiction.
>> Just a brief comment. I have
no understanding whatsoever how
this district ended up with
Meadow Glade. How how could
something like that happen?
>> So the district. The
district.
>> Was formed in 1961. The city
of battleground was a very
small little spot on the map
back then, and the district
line basically goes along 179th
Avenue over to Salmon Creek and
follows Salmon Creek over to
100 northeast 132nd Street, and
then as the City of
Battleground annexed different
areas away, the district became
smaller, but so metal Glade, I
mean, district three and
district Keesee butted up
against each other. And the
city of battleground annexed
areas away. So that's how
Meadow Glade is all the way
over there. Those boundaries
were established 65 years ago.
>> Let's see if we can fix that.
>> I would love to see that's a
whole nother discussion. But in
my opinion, there's too many
fire departments and not enough
firefighters in this county. So
if we could find some way to
bring some departments together
at fewer have fewer chiefs and
more firefighters, it would
serve everyone better.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I would take a
motion, if that's appropriate.
>> Commissioner Bertholt, and
I'd like to make the motion
because Chief John, that's my
fire department. So yeah, I'd
make a motion that we approve
the capital facilities plan for
college. Clark College fire
rescue.
>> Commissioner Halbert. I'd
like to second that motion.
>> Jeff, we have a motion in a
second. Can we get a roll call,
please?
>> Brian Howard. I Mark
Bergfeld. I Kyle Vanise.
>> No.
>> Ron baka. I Jack Haroon no.
Alicia Montgomery. I Carl
Johnson. I five two.
>> Motion passes. Quick comment
chief Jerome, thank you for
staying for every and hearing
everything because it's new to
us. And you kind of got thrown
under the bus. And the other
thing is sometimes you guys I
know everyone you know when the
fires are there. And thank you
for your service. Thank you for
your service. But they don't
talk about much being at a
planning commission meeting at
10:00 at night. So thank you
for your service as it pertains
to what you did tonight.
Because it was it was an
education too. So I appreciate
it. Anytime you guys want to
come in and. Yeah, anytime.
>> So sir, can I make one
comment because I was not I
wasn't there. So I've got my
notebook in front of me. I've
made extensive notes of a lot
of what you were asking. And
because these plants need to be
updated periodically, I'm going
to work with Chief Drone Chief
Russell and Chief Brooks to say,
how can we put together better
plans that meet your needs as
well as the needs of our
community? So yeah, everybody
asks a lot of good questions
today, and this is new to us
also, and we just want to make
sure we're serving the
community. Right. And, but, but
can show why there's that need
and how this works. So thank
you for all the feedback you
guys gave us today also.
>> Yeah. Appreciate it. Thank
you.
>> Thank you chief.
>> Thank you chief. Thank you.
>> Commissioner, I just want to
say again thank you guys. You
know, there's there's nothing
like when we call 911 and
hearing that siren in the
distance, you know, it's it's
huge for us. I want you I want
you to understand that my no
votes aren't a no vote against
the fire district. If you put a
ballot in front of me for my
house taxes to for the new fire
engine, for the thing, I'll hit.
Yes. I just don't think this is
the right mechanism, because I
think there's a lot of other
implications. And I go policy
forever on how impact fees are,
you know, affecting the cost of
affordability. So so please
don't take that as a, not a not
a supporter of firefighters,
but it's a policy decision.
>> With that said, is there any
unfinished business, any new
business? Oliver.
>> Yes. Planning commissioners.
Let me ask Jeff to put up the
next schedule for you. Just as
an update, you may have
received individual emails from
Jeff about the upcoming work
sessions and hearings before
the Planning Commission. So. If
I'm not mistaken, I think you
have another work session. July
30th. And. Was it? Help me here
so that we can see when the
hearing begins. I believe
you're hearing begins August
6th here.
>> Work session and a hearing.
>> Yeah.
>> No, I don't think Jazette go
ahead. I'm not seeing it very
well. Go ahead.
>> Jose Alvarez, community
planning. So the hearing begins
August 20th. You have we have a
work session July 30th and then
August 6th. So materials will
be ready 15 days before. So the
August 5th and the hearing will
be August 20th. And then we
have deliberations for the
third. If we can't get through
in the one evening.
>> Okay.
>> Well, thank you guys for
doing everything. You're
keeping us straight. We're
trying to get through it and I
know it's been a portion. It is
what it is. Yep. So tonight was
a good one. With that said,
anything else for the good of
the order. All right. We're
adjourned.
>> Thank you