Lompoc council sharply narrows proposed development-impact fee schedule after weeks of debate

Lompoc — The Lompoc City Council voted unanimously Thursday to strip most proposed development-impact fees from a consultant draft and preserve only charges tied to law enforcement, fire suppression, library facilities and trash barrels while staff revises the nexus study.

The vote followed a three-hour public hearing and prolonged council debate over the consultant’s methodology, data sources and specific project cost lines. Council members, residents and the city’s consultants repeatedly clashed over how the study treated travel-distance assumptions, water-demand numbers and park acreage — and whether some large projects listed in the draft are realistic or legally defensible.

The council’s action directs staff to return with a revised resolution that removes most chapters of the draft nexus report and retains fees for law enforcement facilities and equipment, fire suppression and rescue facilities, library collections/facilities, and refuse barrels only. Councilmembers said those four items represent immediate capital costs most clearly tied to new development.

Why it matters

Development-impact fees (DIFs) are one-time charges intended to make sure new growth pays its share of capital infrastructure rather than shifting those costs to existing taxpayers. Lompoc’s draft nexus report, commissioned to update a 2003 study and to comply with state law (including AB 602), recommended higher maximum fees for many categories of infrastructure. Council members and members of the public said the consultant’s draft overstated or used inappropriate assumptions in several places, and that setting high fees now could discourage the small-scale infill projects the city needs to meet housing goals.

What consultants presented

Greg Brown of Revenue & Cost Specialists, who presented the study, described the standard five-step approach used for nexus reports: establish a land-use database, set current levels of service, project how new development will increase demand, identify the capital projects needed to maintain service levels, and distribute project costs to new development using legal “nexus” and rough-proportionality principles. Brown and his colleague Scott Thorpe cited recent state law and case law that shape allowable fee methodology, including AB 602 and court precedents on nexus and proportionality.

But council members and residents pushed back on specific inputs. They questioned the study’s use of San Diego regional travel-distance matrices (SANDAG) for circulation impacts in a two-mile city, the study’s water-demand figure (which a council member said was far larger than the city’s daily production), and discrepancies in park acreage and other land inventories compared with the city’s records. Several council members said the draft carried project lines for bridge and street expansions that have long been on planning maps but are not actually planned or fundable in the city’s near-term capital program.

Public comment and council concerns

Residents and local stakeholders urged the council to balance infrastructure funding needs against the risk that high fees will make projects infeasible. Speakers who said they represent local small developers and small-business interests told the council the draft fees would likely push development elsewhere and reduce long-term tax revenue, while advocates for public services said the city must protect existing residents from rising capital burdens caused by new growth.

Action taken

Councilmember Bridal moved to remove most fee chapters from the draft and retain only law-enforcement, fire, library and refuse-barrel fees; Councilmember Bridge seconded. After discussion the motion carried 5-0. The council directed staff to prepare a revised resolution and fee schedule reflecting that narrower set of fees and to return with it for adoption.

What the vote does and does not do

- The vote narrows the set of impact fees the city will pursue now; it does not set the final dollar amounts for those retained fees. Staff and consultants will produce a revised fee schedule and a new resolution for council approval. - The vote does not repeal the 2003 fee study; instead the council directed staff to prepare an updated resolution replacing the draft with a narrowed set of fees and to report back with legal and budgetary analysis. - Council members left open a path to revisit additional categories later if and when the city’s capital priorities, grants or demonstrated demand justify them.

Next steps

City staff and the consultant will produce a revised resolution and fee schedule for council consideration. Councilmembers asked staff to bring back comparison options (including phased or tiered approaches) and to explain the revenue trade-offs. The council’s motion required a revised resolution to be returned for formal action; staff indicated that work would be prepared for a future meeting agenda.

Ending

Council members said the decision reflects both concern about accuracy and a policy choice to avoid pricing small infill projects out of Lompoc while preserving targeted capital charges the city is most likely to need from new development. The council’s vote does not preclude future DIFs for other infrastructure if staff and council later conclude the nexus and public-policy case support them.