Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vacaville staff outline methodology for updated development impact fees; public meetings continued
Summary
City staff and consultants walked through Mitigation Fee Act methodology and showed draft per‑unit and per‑square‑foot examples; council was told the maximum justifiable fees will be presented with policy options on Sept. 23 and a final recommendation in October.
City staff and outside consultants presented an informational session on Aug. 12 describing how the City of Vacaville calculates development impact fees under California law and previewed draft fee calculations and a timetable for council consideration.
Public Works Director Brian McClain introduced the team and said the effort follows the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and the city's recent nexus study. Gwen Omens (special project coordinator) and Luke Folch of Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) explained the five-step approach staff uses to compute maximum justifiable fees: (1) identify capital improvements tied to city policies and master plans; (2) estimate costs; (3) determine how much of each improvement can be allocated to new development; (4) apportion costs to land uses; and (5) convert to per‑unit or per‑square‑foot fees.
The nut graf: Staff said the nexus study produces a maximum allowable fee; the city council may choose to set a lower fee and will review policy and project options on Sept. 23 before a wrap-up recommendation in October.
EPS presented examples showing how community-park costs and recreation-facility projects roll through the methodology. Using the example inputs shared in the presentation, staff illustrated a community-park fee that equated to about $3.00 per square foot for a typical single-family house and a multifamily per-unit figure in the example; recreation facilities produced a separate per‑square‑foot example after applying a proportional (30%) allocation of systemwide facility costs to new development.
Staff emphasized the difference between fee methodologies: some fees are tied directly to population and service standards (parks, police/fire staffing proxies) while others are project-based (facility lists from master plans). Omens said the draft calculations incorporate the city's 2020 base-year data used in the 2022 fee update and noted that updating the base year would require a more extensive study.
Public commenters included contractors who said they were not initially notified of a wells contract advertisement (applicants for Wells 18, 19 and 20) and a BIA representative who said the industry hired peer reviewers who preliminarily estimate the draft maximum fees may be overstated by roughly 36''37% and provided a letter to staff. Staff said they welcome the peer-review materials and will review them with the development community. McClain said the city will provide the council and the development community with the policy and project options in advance of the Sept. 23 meeting.
Staff outlined a tentative schedule: one more public session with developers on Aug. 25; a Sept. 23 council policy-and-project discussion; and a proposed final wrap-up and recommendation on Oct. 28. No fee ordinance or final fee schedule was adopted at the Aug. 12 meeting.
Ending: Councilmembers said they expect to see municipal comparisons and options that show the combined cost of local, school-district and other fees; staff said the next packet will include these comparisons and policy options for council direction.
