Vacaville staff present options to lower proposed development impact fees; council to consider Sept. 23

City staff presented a set of options to city council at a public outreach meeting aimed at lowering the proposed development impact fees (DIF) and transportation impact fees (TIF), and asked for council direction ahead of a Sept. 23 study session.

The staff presentation summarized six proposed transportation-project rescopings, changes to the parks and recreation fee package and several policy options, including adopting a Quimby ordinance, targeted incentives for specific project types and timing of fee implementation. Aaron Morris, Director of New Development, said staff is recommending residential fees take effect July 1, 2026, and a three-year phased implementation for nonresidential fees beginning July 1, 2026. "Staff is recommending that the council direct implementation of the residential fees effective 07/01/2026," Morris said.

Why it matters: the staff options would reduce the amount of infrastructure the DIF and TIF must pay for now, lowering per-unit charges for new development while leaving larger or costly elements for later study or implementation. That could materially change costs for builders and the timing of projects that rely on DIF/TIF funding.

Staff described specific project rescopings that would reduce the TIF total and per-unit charges. Brian McLean, a staff presenter, summarized six transportation items that staff recommends as options for council consideration; examples included reducing the California Drive overcrossing from $16 million to $2.5 million (a $13.5 million reduction) and trimming Back Valley Parkway Extension from about $13.4 million to $2.5 million (about $11 million reduction). Staff said rescoping Midway Road would reduce its estimate from $60.7 million to $49 million, and the Nutri overcrossing would be reduced from $71.5 million to just under $10 million for this phase, with the remainder deferred for future council decision and further study.

On parks fees, staff proposed moving some of 14 added facilities from the 2025 DIF cycle to the next cycle, and separating a land-acquisition component into a Quimby-style approach. Presenters said those changes, if adopted, would reduce the parks portion of the DIF and lower the overall per-unit fee; staff reported the combined transportation and parks changes would cut roughly $10,000 per unit from the April draft fee levels and identified options that would further reduce parks fees by nearly $5,000 per EDU.

Developers and members of the building community voiced concerns that the proposed residential increase — described by participants as about 50% from current levels in staff materials — would sharply reduce permit activity. Tom, a local developer and longtime resident, said the jump could halt construction: "You might as well charge a million dollars a house because it's gonna have the same effect as a 50% increase," he said, adding that past large fee hikes in Vacaville led to precipitous drops in permit filings. Several developers asked staff to provide or consider an economic feasibility or sensitivity analysis showing how different fee levels would affect permit volume and revenue over time.

Other recurring public comments urged the city to work more closely with developers on turnkey parks and to provide clearer rules for fee credits when developers build public improvements. Staff said policy option 4 would create a turnkey-park program that spells out how credits would work for developer-built parks while ensuring the city still collects fees for facilities developers will not build.

Staff also asked for council direction on a Quimby ordinance to address parkland dedication through subdivision review rather than embedding a land-acquisition charge entirely in the DIF; Aaron Morris said that approach is consistent with the 2015 general plan and common practice among peer agencies. "Staff is seeking council direction to implement a Quimby ordinance that would require that parkland dedication be considered and incorporated in the subdivision process," Morris said.

No formal action or vote occurred at the outreach meeting. Staff said the options and any additional analysis will go to a Sept. 23 council study session; staff tentatively scheduled a council adoption hearing for Oct. 28, 2025. Presenters also noted an outstanding consultant analysis (EPS) and additional CFD (community facilities district) work that could affect final fee recommendations.

Developers urged staff to present an integrated package to council that includes DIF/TIF, CFDs and other charges so council can weigh all costs together. Chris Robles, speaking for members of the development community, recommended sensitivity studies tying fee scenarios to the city’s capital improvement program to show which projects would or would not be fundable under lower fee levels. "Taking a sensitivity analysis on fee generation and coupling that with your CIP should get you a project that likely will be supported by the development community," Robles said.

The public outreach meeting closed with staff committing to post materials online and to provide additional analysis to participants. City staff emphasized they are presenting options and seeking council direction rather than final fee decisions at this outreach session.