Vacaville staff outline proposed Development Impact Fee overhaul; transportation fee could rise roughly $11,000 per unit

Vacaville City staff and outside consultants presented a proposed update to the city’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program at a public stakeholder meeting, describing structural changes to charge many fees by square foot and technical calculations that — if council adopted maximum levels — would raise transportation fees by about $11,000 per housing unit and push combined fee increases to roughly $20,000 per unit before parks are added.

City staff and Tayfun Rice Evans, a consultant with Economic & Planning Systems, stressed the numbers shown in the presentation are “maximum potential” fees produced by the nexus analysis and that council can reduce or phase-in final fees. Rice Evans said the technical work ties service standards, improvement lists and cost estimates together and noted major cost drivers since the prior study in 2022, including supply-chain disruptions, labor shortages and higher bid prices.

The proposal includes two major structural changes: moving more fee categories to a strictly per-square-foot basis (as state law requires in some areas) and creating a lower per-square-foot transportation fee for attached single-family housing based on trip-rate differences. Rice Evans said sewer and water fee calculations showed roughly 20% increases in the consultant’s estimates, transportation about 70% higher in the maximum model, and several other categories — including police and fire — approaching near-doubling at the maximum levels.

Gwen (public works staff) gave examples of unit-cost increases used in the update, saying roadway excavation assumptions moved from about $40 per cubic yard to roughly $100 and earth import assumptions moved from about $50 to $150 per cubic yard. “I will provide a write up with all of the big costs,” she said, offering to post the unit-cost details on the project web page.

Staff emphasized the presentation does not set final rates and listed common policy options the council can use to reduce the calculated maximums: change service standards or remove lower-benefit projects from the improvement list; apply policy-based fee reductions (which would shift the funding gap to other revenue sources); or phase in fee increases over time to protect projects in the near-term pipeline. Staff said prior DIF changes included phase-in choices when the city adopted a fee schedule in 2022.

Several development representatives and builders pressed staff on detail and process. Questions focused on (1) whether local Vacaville project bids were used as unit-cost inputs and whether some large projects (for example, the Midway/Back Valley projects and Leisure Town Road widenings) had been evaluated at smaller scope alternatives; (2) when new fees would take effect for projects in the pipeline and whether building permits or complete applications would lock in rates; and (3) treatment of ADUs and EDU (equivalent dwelling unit) calculations. Staff responded that timing and transition details are policy choices for council and that SB 330 and state law generally lock fees at the date of a complete application for residential projects.

Staff said the next formal steps include continuing to accept public comments, publishing additional FAQs and documentation on the project web page, and briefing the City Council with an informational item scheduled for May 27. Staff said they expect to bring informational sessions to council in June, and that August was the earliest realistic date for council action on adopting new rates — but that schedule could change. Staff also committed to provide the development community with a clearer explanation and tabular examples that translate the proposed per-square-foot fees to common house sizes so builders can see breakeven points where smaller homes would pay lower fees.

The meeting also covered related topics the city will address separately: a 23‑recommendation report on development-review process improvements (staff proposed a separate follow-up meeting on that item) and clarifications about how credits and reimbursements work when developers build facilities that DIF would otherwise fund. Staff said where a developer constructs a facility, the developer is typically entitled to credits for the actual cost realized, and the DIF accounting uses a snapshot approach (account balances at the time of the update) when calculating fee needs and deficits for each fee category.

Participants asked for more transparent project-level accounting in the DIF materials: how in-progress projects are reflected in the project list and whether partially completed projects remain fully on the books until the next DIF update. Staff said they will add clarifying FAQs that explain when projects are removed from the DIF listing and how in‑process costs, loans and reimbursements are treated in the snapshot approach.

Staff posted additional informational documents and said they will continue to update the project web page. They said an upcoming meeting on May 20 will be kept on the calendar to accept questions but that staff will seek a later follow-up meeting date two weeks after parks cost information is posted so stakeholders have time to review the parks‑specific analysis.

For now, no final fee decisions or votes were taken at the meeting; staff repeatedly noted council, not staff, will adopt any ordinance changes and fee schedules.

Ending: Staff asked participants to review the posted FAQ and the Baker Tilly development-review recommendations and to send follow-up questions. Staff said they will publish unit-cost tables and examples (per‑square‑foot calculations for typical house sizes), post a schedule of upcoming council briefings and community meetings, and circulate an FAQ clarifying transition rules, SB 330 lock‑in dates and how credits are applied when developers provide facilities.