Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board corrects traffic‑impact study error, lowers proposed TIF increases and directs refunds where applicable
Summary
Supervisors accepted corrected growth allocations that reversed an earlier undercount for El Dorado Hills, directed staff to use a conservative offset scenario (scenario 2) for traffic impact fees and approved staff to return June 10 with a revised fee resolution; staff will track paid permits for any refunds.
The Board of Supervisors on May 20 reviewed a correction to the county’s traffic‑impact fee (TIF) update and directed staff to adopt a conservative offset approach that reduces fee increases for many development types.
County transportation staff said an error in the baseline development capacity allocation used in the December 2024 major TIF update had undercounted developable single‑family capacity in the El Dorado Hills community region. The problem—staff described it as a data processing mistake—caused some growth to be shifted uphill into other regions and produced higher fees in parts of the county.
DOT staff and the board’s consultant explained the correction increases available single‑family capacity in El Dorado Hills (a net upward revision) and reallocated growth fairly across the county’s traffic‑analysis zones. After the corrected allocations were calculated, staff presented three offset scenarios that use grant funding to reduce fees for residential and non‑residential development; staff recommended scenario 2, which applies targeted offsets to nonresidential fees and lowers residential fees in more rural Zone A. Supervisors approved staff’s recommendation and directed staff to return on June 10 with a revised resolution adopting the updated TIF schedule and related capital improvement program changes.
Staff said 49 building permits with paid TIFs have been issued since Feb. 1, 2025 (46 residential and three non‑residential). The department committed to identify any permits affected by the corrected schedule and to issue refunds for any difference between fees already paid and the revised fees adopted on June 10.
The hearing drew comments from home builders and business advocates who asked the county to ensure transparency, maintain predictable fees and consider how the program affects job‑housing balance and business attraction. Several public commenters urged lower fees in rural areas and questioned long‑term grant assumptions that lower the fee burden; DOT staff said grant assumptions will be revisited annually and that the county will monitor revenue and adjust the program as permitted.
The board directed staff to use scenario 2 offsets for the revised fee schedule and to return June 10 with the formal resolution for adoption and a list of permits that may require refunds.
