Vacaville study session spotlights proposed impact-fee hikes, developers and council press for updated traffic and project lists

Vacaville City Council held a staff-led study session on development impact fees in which developers, residents and council members pressed for more detail on a draft Nexus study that produces a “maximum possible” fee, possible fee increases by house size and the project list underpinning the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF).

The draft Nexus study and related materials posted on the city website set a theoretical ceiling for impact fees, staff said, and the council will later decide what portion, if any, of that ceiling to adopt. That approach prompted repeated appeals from participants to “take a step back,” update old traffic data and remove or re-evaluate projects they said are unlikely to be built.

Why it matters: The Nexus/impact-fee update would change the per-square-foot fee model used to calculate developer contributions for roads, parks, police, fire and other facilities. Several speakers said the proposed approach could raise fees by tens of thousands of dollars per home—particularly for smaller homes often targeted for workforce- or starter-housing—and could therefore discourage construction of those housing types.

At the meeting, a long-time local developer and frequent commenter, Richard (resident/developer), said he ran the draft numbers across a range of house sizes and concluded the proposed fee change could add roughly $25,000 on a 1,500-square-foot home and up to about $36,000 on some smaller homes under the study’s current assumptions. “On average, the fee increase ends up being about $32,000 a lot on what's a pretty darn small lot,” Richard said, urging staff and council to consider the real-world impact on affordability.

Several commenters argued the Nexus study relies on outdated traffic analysis. One participant noted the last citywide traffic study the city used was done in 2014 as part of the 2015 general plan update and said local travel patterns have changed because of COVID, remote work and online shopping. “We haven't had one in 11 years,” the commenter said, urging the city to commission a new traffic study before finalizing fee recommendations.

Developers and consultants also asked the city to re-evaluate several large projects included in the TIF list—specifically the California Drive extension to Lagoon Valley, Lagoon Valley projects, Midway Road widening, and added lanes on Leisure Town Road and Carroll Way—saying those items together accounted for roughly $100 million to $150 million in the draft totals (about 30% of what commenters called the current TIF total). One commenter said those items were reduced in a later analysis to roughly $31 million, and asked why the earlier figures were included.

Staff responded that the Nexus study and project list are being refined and that the number posted online represents the “maximum possible” fee the study can justify based on the current project reset and cost assumptions. A staff member (Annie, staff member) said the process is intentionally iterative: the city will present the consultant’s maximum number to council, then offer policy-level options for reducing the fee or phasing/targeting reductions, and council will decide what to adopt. “At the end of this, we will present to the council this is the maximum number that the next study can justify,” the staff member said.

Council member Socdive, speaking from the dais, said she supports clearer, realistic expectations for developers and the public and proposed a special session or a dedicated public meeting so council and stakeholders can dig into the technical details. Staff said they planned a fourth public meeting after posting updated materials and that people who subscribe to the city’s impact-fee web page will receive updates.

Speakers asked for more transparency about how the city is accounting for money already collected and how previously assessed fees have been spent. Commenters said some fees have been charged for decades and questioned why a fund balance appeared low or “zero” in earlier responses. Richard and others asked for a meeting with Laura (staff member) to review accounting details; staff said Laura would be back next week and the meeting would be scheduled.

Staff described additional policy tools council can use beyond setting the fee: targeted waivers, deferrals or fee reductions for projects that meet affordability goals, and phased implementation. Staff also said the city will publish FAQs on the web page and provide at least two weeks for the public to review new materials before the next meeting.

The study session did not include any council votes or final actions; staff and the consultant will return with updated data, a clarified project list and policy options before the council considers an ordinance to adopt fees.

Looking ahead: Staff said they will post revised materials and schedule a follow-up meeting; council and developers said they want an updated citywide traffic study and clearer accounting of existing fee revenues before any final decisions.