Galt council approves 24‑month infill and multifamily fee reductions; council limits multifamily benefit to rental projects

The Galt City Council unanimously approved a two‑year program on Feb. 3 to reduce certain development impact fees for qualifying infill and multifamily projects and to eliminate the policy document maintenance and recovery fee.

Assistant City Manager Amy Mendez presented the proposal, describing two tracks: an infill fee reduction for parcels under 10 acres or those surrounded by existing urban development, and a multifamily fee reduction intended for higher‑density projects. The program would cut traffic and recreation impact fees by 75% for qualifying projects and eliminate the policy document maintenance fee (described in the staff report as a charge based on valuation). Mendez provided examples showing the traffic fee for a single‑family dwelling falling from $17,142 to $4,285 and a multifamily per‑unit traffic fee from $11,973 to $2,993. She also showed a worked example where an Old Town 7‑unit apartment project's impact fees would fall from $310,385 to $216,911 (about a 30% reduction in total development impact fees).

Mendez said the program aims to bridge a financing gap that has stalled infill projects in Galt: she reported at least three stalled infill projects in Old Town, including a 7‑unit apartment. The proposed eligibility rules would limit qualifying infill parcels to under 10 acres and require previously developed urban surroundings (at least 75% of the parcel perimeter). Multifamily eligibility would exclude new single‑family detached units and targeted product types included duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, row houses, apartments and condominiums; staff said the council could refine whether the multifamily track should apply only to rental product.

Council discussion focused on several points: the definition and legal clarity of "townhome/row house," whether the 10‑acre threshold might allow larger developments to qualify, whether the fee reductions provided sufficient incentive for small infill projects, and which pass‑through fees (such as certain utility capacity or Measure A fees) could not be reduced. Councilmember Farmer moved to approve the program as presented and to modify the multifamily language so the multifamily fee reduction applies only to for‑rent projects; Councilmember Sandhu seconded. The motion passed on a 5–0 roll call.

Council requested a midterm status update; one councilmember asked that staff return in 12 months with progress reporting. Staff noted the fiscal impact will depend on how many qualifying projects apply; staff projected potential additional annual property tax revenue over time as vacant parcels develop, and said some fees (for example, fire and certain utility pass‑through fees) are not eligible for reduction.

The council's action preserves program guardrails staff proposed — acreage limits, zoning requirements and a prohibition on assessment or community facilities financing for projects that use the reduction — while adding the rental‑only clarification for the multifamily track.