NAPA, Calif. — After a full public hearing that drew hundreds of residents and dozens of public comments, the Napa County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 21 amended the county’s proposed residential affordable‑housing impact fee schedule and approved a three‑year phase‑in of the increases.

The board’s action trims the immediate burden on homeowners and small developers by exempting new residential construction up to 2,500 square feet from the new fees, placing a mid tier for 2,501–3,500 square feet at a partial fee level, and applying the full recommended fee above 3,500 square feet with a three‑year escalation. The board also directed staff to return with a fee‑deferral option and other implementation details.

Why it mattered

County staff and an outside consultant testified that rising housing prices, slow wage growth and an eight‑year regional housing need allocation (RHNA) obligate local governments to increase revenue for subsidized housing. Jennifer Palmer, director of Napa County Housing & Community Services, explained the technical basis for the proposal: “The nexus study is a mathematical analysis of what it takes to live here compared to the wages,” she said, summarizing the consultants’ finding that the county’s maximum legally justified fee would be far higher than the current fee level because median home prices increased much faster than wages since the last fee study.

Nut graf: why the board acted

Supervisors said they were balancing two competing pressures: the county’s legal and policy responsibility to fund affordable housing sufficient to meet local and regional housing goals, and repeated testimony from local builders, tradespeople and residents who warned a sharp, immediate jump in fees would halt new construction and cost jobs. The board’s compromise—raising the exemption threshold to 2,500 square feet, creating a partial mid tier and phasing in the fee—was framed as an attempt to protect local construction activity while increasing funds for affordable housing over time.

What the hearing covered

The staff presentation and the consultant’s economic feasibility analysis ran more than an hour. Willdan Associates’ representatives described two methodologies they used to estimate what commercial and residential projects could reasonably bear: residual land value and total development cost. Those analyses produced the “maximum justifiable fee” — a legal ceiling the board cannot exceed without risking legal challenges — and a recommended range intended to protect development feasibility.

During public testimony, more than three dozen speakers addressed the board. Supporters of higher fees included residents who said subsidized affordable housing helps teachers, farmworkers, child‑care providers and public‑safety staff live near their jobs. “These fees are an investment in the stability and well‑being of our community,” said Gabriela Fernández, a Napa resident and community organizer, in a phone comment.

Opponents warned of immediate economic impacts if the board adopted the fee study’s higher figures without modification. Contractors and builders testified that many local projects already operate on very thin margins and that a sudden fee increase could pause or kill planned construction: “For small and mid‑sized builders like ours, a six‑figure increase isn’t a setback. It’s a complete knockout,” said Gianna Giovannoni, who described a family construction business. Builders and contractors urged a phased approach, fee deferrals and targeted exemptions to avoid killing jobs in the trades.

Board debate and the amendment

Supervisors spent several hours questioning staff and the consultant, and then moved to amend staff’s original recommendation. Supervisor Pedro Ramos moved to exempt new residential construction up to 2,500 square feet from the fee; set 2,501–3,500 square feet at 50% of the proposed level; and charge the full fee above 3,500 square feet, with a three‑year phase‑in. After discussion the board adopted that amendment (motion by Supervisor Ramos, seconded by Supervisor Manfry) and directed staff to return with an ordinance and implementation language, including a staff‑developed fee‑deferral program and further detail on timing and administrative process.

What was not decided

The board did not adopt the consultant’s full maximum fee level and did not finalize every administration detail for implementation. Supervisors requested staff return with ordinance language, a recommended effective date and mechanics for any fee‑deferral or in‑lieu program. Several supervisors also asked that staff monitor impacts and report back annually so the board can adjust fees if market conditions or housing production change.

Votes at a glance

- Affordable‑housing impact fee (residential): Board amended staff recommendation, exempted up to 2,500 sq ft, set 2,501–3,500 at 50%, >3,500 at 100% phased over three years; motion by Supervisor Pedro Ramos, second by Supervisor Manfry; outcome: approved (motion carried). Board directed staff to return with ordinance language, fee‑deferral program and timing details.

- Direction to staff: prepare implementation options and ordinance language, timed so the board can adopt an ordinance to meet a January/early‑year implementation window if desired; outcome: approved.

Context and next steps

Palmer told the board the county previously delayed a fee increase in order to await a planned Bay Area housing bond, which did not reach the ballot. In the absence of that regional revenue source, staff and the consultant said revised local fees are one tool—among federal and state funding and local financing tools—to produce the subsidies needed to build affordable units. The board set a timetable for staff to return with ordinance text and implementation options; staff said it would also provide an analysis of how the revised tiers would affect projects in the county’s unincorporated neighborhoods.

Ending

Supervisors and staff described the vote as a compromise intended to increase funds for affordable housing while seeking to avoid short‑term harm to local builders and workers. The board’s final ordinance and administrative rules will determine how quickly the higher fees take effect and what options builders or nonprofit housing developers may have to defer or mitigate payments.