City Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. I'd like to, call this meeting to order. This is the regular city council meeting for what is today? Tuesday, February 3. Do we have anything to report from closed session, mister Splendario?

Nothing to report tonight.

Thank you. Alright. Madam clerk, a roll call, please.

Vice mayor Reid. Here. Council member Pratt. Here. Council member Sandhu. Here. Council member Farmer. Here.

Mayor Rodriguez. Here. Would you all please stand and we, join us in a silent prayer? And then after the silent prayer, the troop five fifty five will present the flags and lead us in this flag salute. The United States Of America and to a republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Two. Color guard posts the colors. Color guard about face. Color guard, return to ranks. Caller guard dismissed.

Everyone may be seated. Thank you, troop five fifty five. It's always special when we have people to help lead us, and especially the youth. I love it. Tina, you want to read the replay statement?

This meeting of the Galt City Council is recorded with closed captioning. The recording will be cable cast on Metro Cable channel fourteen, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DIRECTV U verse cable systems. The recording will also be video streamed at metro14live.sackcounty.gov. Today's meeting replaced Friday, February 6 at 9AM and Saturday, February 7 at 9AM on Metro Cable channel fourteen. Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com/metrocablefourteen.

Thank you. Do we have any agenda additions or and or deletions or an approval?

I'll move to approve.

I'll second. All in favor? I think we can do that because we don't have to have a roll call, do we, Tina, for this? No. That's just if someone Okay.

Has any Okay. So we'll move on to the agenda, and we have presentations. And the first presentation is a certificate of recognition for chiratitis. And I'm gonna come down here, and if Kyra will meet me at that podium again. So I am excited tonight.

We have the privilege of recognizing one of our youth from our our city, miss Kyra Titus. Becoming she's become an Eagle Scout, so we're here to honor her for that. She had her own court of honor where all of the scouts were able to celebrate her, and now we as a city get to celebrate her. It becoming an Eagle Scout requires years of commitment, leadership, service, and follow through, and a lot of recognition. Only a small percentage of scouts ever reach this rank, and for young women, this achievement is still relatively new and incredibly rare.

Kyra is part of a very small group nationwide who have reached this level, and that alone makes tonight special. But Kyra didn't just reach Eagle Scout, she went above and beyond at every step. For her Eagle Scout project, Kyra designed and led the construction of a new arbor with seating, climbing grapevines, and garden elements for the Nicholas Dairy Project's school field trip program. She developed the design, presented it to organizations to the organization, secured buy in, and then took the initiative to raise funding for presenting her proposal by presenting her proposal to local organizations and businesses. She managed multiple teams, coordinated the work, and logged more than two hundred hours on that project alone, creating something that will benefit students for years to come.

Kyra completed her entire scouting journey from scout to eagle in just under six years. Along the way, she earned three bronze, two silver, and three gold eagle palms. She served in numerous leadership roles, including assistant patrol leader, patrol leader, senior patrol leader, order of the arrow unit representative, and junior assistant scoutmaster. She's earned more than a dozen scouting awards, attended numerous camps, logged nearly four hundred service hours. Spent one hundred and fourteen nights camping, hiked more than 115 miles.

I got nothing on her. And earned over 30 merit badges and some of them twice. That's not just participation. That's dedication. Kyra's accomplishments reflect perseverance, leadership, and genuine commitment to service, qualities that strengthen our community and inspire others to step up.

Kyra, on behalf of the city and the city council, it is my true honor to present you with the certificate of recognition in celebration of a job exceptionally well done, and we are proud of you, grateful for your service, and excited to see what you accomplish next. Thank you very much. Okay. And thank you for all those who support supported her parents and and the rest of the troop. We really appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay. We'll go on to our next item on the agenda, public comment. Tina?

Under government code section five four nine five four point three, members of the public may address the city council on non agenda items. The public comments section is for the city council to receive comments. Except for brief responses to questions, no discussion or action may be taken on any item that is not listed on the agenda. Please limit comments to a maximum of five minutes. Consistent with the city council procedural guidelines, the mayor reserves the right to shorten the time limit for speakers to ensure the efficient and timely completion of all city business on the agenda. First, we have Tara Wilson.

Good evening, members of the council. My name is Tara Wilson. For your consideration, my husband and I noticed that at Curlean Boulevard and Bezos Road, we saw a possible speeding going east. We would like you to consider a four way stop there. And then on another instance, we saw that there's a possibility that another four way stop should be considered.

Cost Road and Maria Way. And we would appreciate your consideration on these items. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Any other comments? Ken Lee.

Good evening, council members. I'm Ken Lee. I'm currently still living at Gott Place. The newly yellow painted C Street Island curbs are very helpful to our seniors. It's very helpful now we can see them, especially at night. Park and Rex did a good job painting it. Is there a commercial vehicle restrictions over 20 feet on parking in the streets and in shopping centers? It hinders safe pull out and pull in in the shopping centers when they stick out another four to eight feet. Plus, it's like a solid wall when you're parked in between two of them. There should be longer commercial spaces designated on the streets and in the shopping centers.

When I was in training for a commercial license, we were taught to take four spaces, especially when I was driving a bus. Because that way, everybody can get in and the vehicles can get in safely. So that's all I had to say today.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mary Beth Hospital?

Good evening. I am here tonight representing the Recycle Recognition Award for Cal Waste. I'm the Director of Brand and Outreach. And with me tonight, have Riley Govello. We are proud to recognize three outstanding businesses in the City Of Galt whose commitment to recycling environmental stewardship sets an example for our entire community. Each of these businesses has demonstrated leadership, innovation, and a genuine dedication to reducing waste and protecting our local environment. Their efforts also keep Galt cleaner, greener, and more sustainable for future generations.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you all for being here tonight. My name is Riley Govello. I'm a route supervisor for CalWaste. I oversee our day to day operations for our route trucks servicing the Galt community and beyond.

Tonight, I have the privilege of presenting the following businesses with the CalWaste 2025 recycle recognition award. The three candidates that we have have gone above and beyond in implementing effective recycling practices, educating employees, customers, and embracing a culture of sustainability here in Galt. Their actions reflect the values that we strive for to uphold as a city, responsibility, community pride, and forward thinking environmental care. So I know two of you are here tonight. If the other's here, please come forward to accept your award. Dry Creek Liquors, Pizza Guys, and Cordon Bleu. Thank you.

Can we get a picture with somebody from council and the recipients?

Sure. We

also want to let you know that the gentleman right here, remind me. Davis has brought pizza for everybody, so there's pizza in the back room.

Chris Frostman.

Good

evening, city council. Appreciate the opportunity. My concern is big brother and the flock system that's out there. And I'd like to hear some responses back from the city in regards to how we're monitoring who's accessing it. Those of you that may not be aware, city of Mountain View has discovered that the, feds are going in and using those cameras.

There's other people going in and utilizing those cameras on what we were promised when we originally launched the FLAC system, that it would be limited. Right now, with immigration side going the way it is, I don't feel comfortable having the feds having access to our citizens. And I think that our city should look at that. I don't know when the chief last looked at it. Mountain View is saying that they did not flip the switches to allow other people to go in and look at it.

Flock's system is saying that nothing, meaning more than likely, they've allowed the feds to come in and flip the switch. So for me, my concern is big brother. I do have a fear for it. The other side is I supported FLAC when it originally was launched just because of the limited access. And I'd like to ensure that the city of Galt is ensuring that it remains limited access. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Brosman. Number of public comment.

Madam mayor, may I offer a brief response?

Yes.

Today is the answer when I last looked at the system to verify nobody from federal government has access to our system. That's something each jurisdiction controls, and there is complete compliance with this program and how it operates.

That's we control it as as the city, we have control? Yes. Your confidence is 100% that we have control?

100%.

Thank you, chief.

No problem.

Okay. Item I, reports by city council members on regional boards, commissions, and committees. Mister vice mayor.

So I did attend my very first Sacramento Library Authority Board of Directors meeting. We appointed a new chair and a vice chair. I did not fill either spot. And they gave us the annual report. We approved that and then they gave us a little bit updates of objectives for the next fiscal year. And that was about it.

Mr. Pratton.

Let's see. I just had one that I attended January 22 was the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District meeting. Not a whole lot on the agenda. I think consent, three items, including some policy ups updates. They did a year end review, which I handed all the council members a copy of.

So it kinda shows what was accomplished last year with the Air District Board. And besides that, if anybody's got any questions or concerns or I think I've got one more book available if somebody wants a copy of it. That's all I have to report.

Thank you. Mr. Sandhu.

Thank you, miss. I just attended city of Galt public safety committee meeting on January 26. That meeting was very regular, but there is a couple agenda item I would like to highlight. Agenda number two, there was they said the review of shooting on January 2026. And I believe that case is still under investigation, whatever is add on the media, I think that's the latest investigation.

The other thing we discussed, a review of preliminary police tactics of 2025. And there is only two things I already asked chief, and he might be after I done, he might be both item. He might be can give us more information, whatever. And that's the only traffic stops. '20 23, there was a twenty five hundred forty three traffic stop, and 2024, 3955.

And 2025, 4685. But I ask chief if he can give us a kind of breakdown. When any police officers stop make a stop, they make a good judgment call, then what happened after that? What kind of so he will give us to the council in in future. The other thing on that report was collision.

In 2023, hundred and twenty six and twenty twenty four, eighty four collision and twenty twenty five, hundred and fourteen. A little bit increase is very basically same thing. And now I ask chief in these two agenda item if he can wanna add anything on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Farmer.

Yeah. Thank you, miss madam mayor. What was the what was the traffic stop number again?

4685. Last It's under 3955.

Yeah. So Well, I personally like hearing that. I think it's I appreciate the proactivity. We have a lot of complaints in the community about traffic issues, you know, speeding and things. So anytime I see an uptick in stops, I think it's probably a good thing.

Only thing I have to report is I went to the we had the got a youth commission meeting last night in these chambers, and we basically some of the highlights of that meeting were that we chose how much money the youth commission is going to allocate to give away in scholarships. We were told that we give away more money. The youth commission gave away more money in scholarships than anybody else did last year within Galt. I don't know who that included or what. So it was very positive.

Glad that the youth commission is becoming a prevalent organization in town. We got a great group of kids. We also talked about some fundraising. They're gonna be attending the Galt Saturday markets starting in March and through the through May, at least, for some fundraising ideas to be able to, you know, fund those scholarships and things like that. Other than that, I think that was pretty much all we covered. So thank you, madam mayor.

Thank you. I actually have nothing to report. Moving on to the information consent calendar. Do do we have any direction on anyone want to pull anything for the consent calendar.

I just had a quick question about j four. Could I just get the question and then we can do the whole consent in one shot? Or do we need to Trung, basically, just this is the the improvements at the crossing at Costa Road. So I know this has been in the works for a while. Right? Been talked about. The community asked about this. So and I apologize if this is in the staff report on this. I didn't see it. But So what kind of timeline are we looking at, we think, before this will get started?

So for this project, essentially, it's the design first and then the environmental clearance. And then we have to look for grants for the construction part of it.

Okay. So it's not funded yet then?

No, it's not

funded yet. Alright. I guess that's all I had. Thank you.

Okay. Do I need to read them first before we ask for public comment? Or can I

You can ask for it?

Okay. Is there any public comment? No. Okay. Okay. So I'm looking for a motion about item j one, receive and file warrants for period ending 01/20/2026. Number two, minutes of the regular meeting of 01/20/2026. Number three, gym equipment purchases and appropriation request. Number four, cost road improvements at UPRR crossing CIP five two three d budget update. I'll entertain a motion.

Moved. Second.

I just heard it from this direction. You okay. Moved by vice mayor Reid and seconded by mister Sandhu.

Roll call. Vice mayor Reid. Aye. Council member Pratton.

Aye.

Council member Sandhu. Aye. Council member Farmer.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye. Passes five zero. K. Item k, scheduled matters notice of public hearing. It looks like we have one. Second reading to adopt ordinance number twenty twenty six zero one, repealing and readopting chapter 15.28 of the Galt Municipal Code related relating to buildings and construction adopting the 2025 edition of the California Fire Code CEQA exempt under section one five zero six one b three. Miss Carloni.

Thank you. Good evening, counsel. This is the second reading to adopt our fire codes for 2025. And with the presentation tonight, I'd like to introduce Lance Ray, fire marshal with Consuminous Fire Department.

Thank you for having me. I will go as quick as I can in recognition of your busy schedule. So we go through this every three years. It is referred to as the adoption cycle. The fire code is one of nine primary codes in the state of California. So energy code, electrical code, the building code, which is multiple volumes. The fire code is the one that we handle at Kasumnes Fire. We develop this process starting typically in the July or July beforehand, and we work with our local developers, both our cities and the county, and we go through to take input and we'll present it to oh, I'm sorry. I think I have to turn it on. My apologies.

There we go. Why this is important is this is a three year process. So the fire code is developed at the international level. It's then given to the state of California who then brings it and makes amendments that are specific to the state of California for the hazards we face. And then we do that again at the local level, which is before you tonight is the local level.

What was adopted in December is the state level. So our local level has amendments that focus on hydrant spacing, access, things that are specific to a Central Valley community like Galt and the our ability to fight fire here. Talked briefly about the cycle. It is developed. It's called model code at the national level. The state will amend it. There's a lot of things in California that are unique to California, like seismic and other things, wildfire resiliency and others. That will be given to the local jurisdictions. Again, we started in July 2025. We take that information in.

We review it. We meet with the development community here in the jurisdictions, and then we bring forward the local reviews and amendments. The amendment that's before you tonight is very similar to the amendment that's been in place in this community for the last twenty years. We haven't made any significant changes. We've kept the same threshold for fire sprinklers, the things that are, I think, of most interest to our development community.

There are no significant changes there. I did briefly talk about the review process. What we will also do is we will meet with the fire departments in this county to make sure that we're as consistent as we can be so that if you're building homes in Galt or in Oak Grove or in Folsom or anywhere else, that they're very similar. So much of many of our standards are are the same, so that our home builders and others are familiar with our processes, familiar with the standards, and can kind of rely on that as they move forward with their projects. We did meet with the city.

We provided the code to them in September for initial review. Did not have significant comments from the industry working group, which is based in Elk Grove, but does include Galt developers as well, homebuilders specifically. The changes in this year's fire code are, like I said, relatively minor. There's some additional protection allowing engineers to do things that were not allowed previously or architects would have been required. There is some clarified language for occupancy and construction documents, and then they do coordination between the parts.

I mentioned that there are nine codes. Many of the things will overlap, like exiting is in the fire code and also in the building code, and they're now basically exactly the same. In our local code, it's mostly reformatting. We did adopt two new appendixes for things that are relatively new, trash recycling and haunted houses. We don't see a lot of that stuff, but we wanted to have some sort of standard in case we did.

And then the biggest change we made was in relation to the model home complexes. So we've heard from developers in our jurisdiction that there's a desire to start construction prior to permanent water being in place. So if they're building their streets, what will happen is typically the water lines go in, then the infrastructure over the top and the roads, but the water lines won't have been accepted. They'll be in the ground, but they're not chlorinated and other things. And so we did make an exception where temporary water can be used to start them at a home complex because those are typically don't have exposures.

They're out in middle of a field. There's not a chance that they're gonna go somewhere else. We don't have a real significant concern for that that fire. However, at the board of supervisors meeting at the January, the Building Industry of America did indicate that that was a significant concern for them. They do want to revert to the temporary water standards that are in the fire code, which is the state level.

Our amended section is a little bit more strict. And so the board of supervisors did push that back to the board of directors at Kasumnes, and they'll be addressing that at their next meeting, and I'm not sure what direction they're going to go. From my perspective, the requirement for water is significantly more important here in Galt than it would be in a county development because county developments typically are not tied into a water system. Construction of an ag barn or something like that doesn't carry the same significance as building a restaurant. Lastly, I wanted to bring to your attention AB one thirty, which was adopted and put into place on October 1, which restricts jurisdictions like the city of Galt and Kasumas Fire from putting any additional requirements on residential housing.

This is legislation that is intended to, give developers consistency, and each three year process used to require the developers to come back in and resubmit plans and update them to the new current code. This legislation was to ensure that they could continue to build off of the codes that had been adopted in, say, 2024 and move forward. It's a a pro housing amendment. We do not have anything proposed that would be a change. Everything, like I said, has been relatively consistent over the last twenty years. With that, we are asking for adoption of the 2025 fire code, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Counsel, any questions?

Yeah. Have a couple questions, sir. Thank you for the presentation. Regarding that AB one thirty, does that only pertaining to fire code?

It is not. It's a building on fire.

Really? Okay. That's interesting. And then my other question is, do you see anything you mentioned there wasn't any really significant changes, but do you do you guys see anything coming down the pipe in the future regarding? Because I always read about things and hear about fire concerns with the prevalence of electric cars and if these cars catch fire in the garage and that kind of stuff. I've heard people talking about maybe some building standards will start requiring like fireproofing on the drywall and the garages or things like that. Do you see anything coming down the pipe that's been discussed or chatted about that could become code?

I think most of it at this point is discussion. I haven't seen it yet. There is a significant push from legislation to make battery storage by right, So it's not as much a reviewed by fire in building. It's gonna be where if you if you check a certain number of boxes, you can put battery storage and solar in your home. As for electric vehicles, the construction right now, you have a firewall between the garage and the living space.

There's conversations about how we wire those in. Right now, they're wired in separately to the the panel. There could be additional disconnects and other things. Electric vehicles burn at the same percentage as gas vehicles in the garage. We like to go to those all the time. It's just that electric vehicles are harder to put out. They'll continue as if there's a chemical reaction. So a gas motor, you know, we get water on it, and it's gonna go out. An electric one's gonna continue. So there's some conversations about, you know, do you, like like you mentioned, make the garage even more of a firewall, but that hasn't happened yet.

And I think it is likely will be industry dictated through legislation to the local agencies.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Mhmm.

Anyone else?

Yes. I have a few question. One thing that's what we approved before is the state level, and now we adding the local requirement. And then you said there is not a significant change. What changes are from the state level, whatever we manually. Just give me a brief Sure. To the public.

So to be clear, the state level, we have significant changes from the state level. Those changes have been consistent as we've done this each of the last three, six, nine years. One of them is the fire sprinkler requirement in in the jurisdiction. So a building at 3,600 square feet would require fire sprinklers. In the state code, it's a little bit more flexible in that it goes by occupant load.

So like a restaurant A small restaurant's still gonna require fire sprinklers in the state code, but some of your industrial buildings that may be a little larger would be able to do other things. And so we have that flexibility in our code to use fire alarms and other things to keep the fire sprinkler requirement not there, but it's not by right. We're in the state code, it's by right. In the state code, it mentions access, and it talks about hose lay and the location for a building away from hydrants and things like that. Historically, in this community, we're less than the state maximum.

The state maximum will let you go to 500 feet. We're at 400 feet. That's a very commonplace in a developed city in in the Central Valley just for what we deal with. So those are kind of examples of what have been in place in this community since at least 2006.

You know, this, like, a minor change from the state to the local to what why the region we are doing because we wanna be more safety or what we wanna be the public or because we're to put a little bit more restriction on the builder, but another side's benefit is our community as a border. Second, what was the reason CHD wanna do that?

So the reason this is done is for the topographical and climate conditions in this region. So Galt is very hot in the summer, and we have high winds in the late fall. So that combination is something that we would be very concerned with. Right? Humboldt County doesn't have the same concerns.

Placer County may have more significant concerns. It's based on what we deal with. So the state minimum code is adopted in each jurisdiction, and the area really kind of focuses in on what they need to protect their communities. Historically, in this community, we have established a threshold for fire sprinklers, for fire alarm, act access. There's some provisions on that are established for consistency. It does give the authority to both your code enforcement officers and myself to enforce the code, things like that that have been clarified to be consistent with local policy. But generally, the bigger issues are consistent with the state code.

Alright. Then this is this code is the same you guys using in Algrove. Right? And you also mentioned in Folsom. Right?

It it's the code is the same in Elk Grove because that is the jurisdiction consumers are. Folsom has a similar code, but they adopt their own. Sac Metro has a similar code, but they adopt their own. Sac City has their own or is similar, but adopts their own.

So same thing as Metro Fire, they very much there is the same or there is difference?

They're relatively the same. They are the first agency that's dealing with the temporary water issue that I touched on. They're the first agency that has removed it. No other agency I'm aware of has removed it or uses it, but it's kind of a developing thing. Our agency is developing a standard we can give to the developers so we're on the same page.

Alright. Thank you. My last question is on the report. Environmental. Any future development project well under separate environmental review as required. What that mean?

Where are you referencing, sir?

I think you might be.

I can comment on that. So, basically, what we're trying to say is any future development project will be analyzed individually for their environmental impacts. So this fire code really does not have an impact on CEQUA, but each specific project will be analyzed independently later.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. And that's it. Thank

you. Mister Reed, mister Patton? Okay. I don't have any questions. So, we have to open the public comment or public hearing. Okay. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing at, 06:40. Do we have any public comments? No public comments. Does anyone in the public like to comment?

Okay. Seeing no comments, I'll go ahead and close the public comment at or public hearing at six forty and thirty seconds. Okay, counsel. What say you? I'll entertain a motion. Does anyone wanna make a motion regarding this subject?

I'll move to adopt it.

I'll second.

Okay. Moved by mister Reid and seconded by mister Pratton. Roll call. Vice mayor Reed.

Aye. Council member Pratton. Aye. Council member Sandhu. Aye. Council member Farmer.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez.

Aye. Motion passes five zero. K. On to the regular calendar. City manager's office. Temporary amendment to develop to development impact fee program for infill residential and multifamily developments. Miss Bendis.

Looks like why is she getting up to go talk over there?

Good evening, mayor, members of city council, Amy Mendez, assistant city manager. The item before you this evening is a proposed temporary infill residential and multifamily fee reduction. A little bit of background on this item and kind of how we got here. As you may recall, back in October 2025, the city council established a strategic plan objective to incentivize infill residential and multifamily development. Infill residential is often challenging in Galt due to a few factors, site constraints, and aging infrastructure is one.

Lots are typically smaller in scale and builders are less able to spread fixed development costs across multiple units resulting in lower revenue and really lower overall returns than larger greenfield sites. Multifamily projects face lower achievable rental rates than more urban markets which limits developers revenue potential to offset higher development costs. Multifamily projects are experiencing increased construction cost, higher interest rates, escalating regulatory and impact fee burdens, all of which have created a challenging environment for multifamily development. We've heard this message over and over from multifamily developers who have conducted feasibility in Galt. The community development director and I met yesterday with a multifamily developer and they're evaluating the site that they had previously evaluated and couldn't make the project pencil.

And so they're circling back, and this is a program that we had discussed with them, and I think it may help kind of bridge that gap. A number of infill developments are currently stalled in Galt due to high fees, unexpected costs, requirements to upgrade aging infrastructure. We have at least three projects that I'm aware of in the Old Town area right now, a seven unit apartment complex. There is a duplex and a single family house that are all stalled in the building department for these same factors. Several multi family developers have evaluated the feasibility of high density projects in Galt, but ultimately they have not been able to make these projects pencil, just as I mentioned a few minutes ago.

The last new apartment complex that was built in Galt was in 2008, and that was the Galt Place Senior Project, which was a subsidized redevelopment project. So it's been eighteen years or so since we've had an apartment complex constructed in Galt. Some of the benefits of infill and multifamily development. Infill and multifamily development provide a diversity of housing types and affordability levels for residents, including entry level for sale products and rental options. They expand housing options without sprawl in the community.

It's a more efficient use of existing infrastructure throughout the community. It strengthens existing neighborhoods, eliminates blight and property maintenance problems in the city, and increases neighborhood property values. It increases the city's property tax base, and it helps meet our regional housing needs allocation, which is associated with our housing element. What we are proposing is a twenty four month temporary reduction of certain impact fees to better reflect what infill and multifamily developers can feasibly pay. We're proposing to reduce the traffic impact fee, which is a development impact fee paid at the time of building permit by 75%, to reduce the recreation impact fee, which is also paid at the building permit by 75%, and to eliminate the policy document maintenance and recovery fee.

That's a fee that's typically collected to pay for studies and different things that the planning department would typically need to cover, the general plan being one of them. The proposed traffic impact fee reduction includes a reduction of 75%. As I mentioned, this chart here indicates what that reduction would entail. For a single family dwelling unit, the traffic fee is currently $17,142 and that would be reduced to $4,285 Similarly, on a multi family project, that would go from 11,973 per unit down to 2,993. The same for the recreation fee proposed a 75% reduction, which for a single family unit reduces from 8,009 per dwelling unit to 2,002.

And then for an apartment or Well, mostly for apartments, that would be reduced from 6,630 to 4,973. The policy document maintenance and recovery fee would be eliminated. That's typically based off evaluation of construction, and that is 0.0031¢ per dollar valuation. An example of a fee reduction, this is the seven unit apartment complex in the Old Town area. I borrowed this from the building department, which shows the total development impact fee.

This isn't the total building permit fee. This is just the impact fee portion, which would reduce the fee from 310,385 to $216,911 which equates to roughly a 30% decrease in the overall development impact fees. The policy document maintenance and recovery fee would be reduced from $4,830 to zero, and we would eliminate that on all of the qualifying projects. To qualify for the infill fee reduction, the property would must be less than 10 acres in size. It must have previously been developed for urban uses or adjoin parcels with urban uses on at least 75% of its perimeter.

The property must be zoned residential, commercial, mixed use, downtown commercial, downtown residential, or downtown mixed use. All of these provide for residential development. Some of them do require a conditional use permit such as a commercial zone. You can do residential development, but you would need a conditional use permit provided by the Planning Commission. This last point is important, I think, from the city's aspect.

When we are talking to developers, and one of the reasons we put this caveat in, every single new development in Galt right now has utilized a CFD or assessment district to finance infrastructure. And that has added an additional tax burden on the new property owners. Whoever buys the home is going to have to absorb that additional increase in property tax as a result. And so as part of this program, we are going to limit developers from utilizing any type of assessment, skip financing, or other on the project. So if they take advantage of the fee reduction, they would not be able to utilize the additional assessment district financing.

For multi family fee reduction, the property must be more than 10 acres, zoned multi family residential, commercial, or mixed use. The developer must be constructing duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, row houses, apartments, condominiums, and no single family detached housing would qualify. For sale units, the developer, again, may not utilize any type of assessment financing districts. However, if it's a rental project, we would allow for public infrastructure financing because the property owner ultimately pays that debt, which is not the renter per se. The fiscal impact for this program, obviously, the ultimate impact is dependent on the number and scale of infill and multifamily development projects that we permit over the next twenty four months.

There is a potential impact to the traffic and recreation funds. However, development typically utilizes existing roadway and park facilities without the need for new infrastructure. So there would be no new infrastructure effectively needed to be constructed as part of an infill or multifamily project. The last one is additional annual property tax revenue is anticipated as vacant and underutilized properties are developed within the community. This chart just shows a quick example of the increase in property tax that would be anticipated as part of a single family home that's developed versus a undeveloped residential lot, and then what we would collect on a 15 unit condo project on a three acre site versus an undeveloped three acre property in the community.

So for a single family development, we would see roughly 285% increase in the property tax received. And for the condo project, it would be a 614% increase. So the property tax increase obviously is a benefit to the community or to the city as these properties develop. In summary, the fee reduction would be for twenty four months for qualifying infill and multifamily residential development. It would include a 75% reduction of the traffic and recreation impact fees.

We would eliminate the policy document and maintenance and recovery fee. The program does meet a city council strategic plan objective, the general plan, and housing element policies as well. The potential impact on revenue generated in traffic and recreation funds would be seen. However, increase in property and annual property tax revenue to the city would also be anticipated. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions that you may have as it relates to this program. Okay, counsel. Any questions, initial questions?

Alright. I'll tee this up. I have several questions, but maybe I'll answer a couple and then I'll come back. So explain to me miss first of all, thanks for the presentation. Explain to me a little more detail.

I'm trying to grasp my head around the infill reduction versus the multifamily fee reduction. I get the difference is the acreage, but I'm I don't quite understand because it's not the the one that's labeled as infill. Isn't doesn't that also include or the or the first one is has some commercial included with in mixed use and stuff, whereas the second one is basically for living. Right? Is that the difference in the two?

And there would be some overlap, I would anticipate, depending on the type of project. But typically, the infill fee reduction, the acreage is the difference, but also the zoning requirements are different in addition to the single family development. So we would allow single family detached housing as part of the infill fee reduction. In comparison, the multi family would not allow single family detached.

So do we we know, miss Carloni, maybe you can answer this. Roughly, what is the size of the Libbey Ranch project?

It is roughly seven acres.

Seven acres. Okay. I feel like the intent of this is to like you stated in the beginning, the intent of this is to really incentivize the construction of some of the more challenging projects that we've been unable to get people to build, specifically apartments, multi you know, duplexes, things like that, things other than homes, in my opinion. That's what I I look at. I don't I don't think we have any problem with people building homes.

So a couple things that jump out of me that make me a little bit nervous in this is two things. One is the definition in the second page of townhomes. I would like to know what do we what what specifically is does is the definition of a townhome? Because I feel like that word in there could be very subjective. And then the other thing that would concern me is the sizes because on one hand, I feel like on the first page where it says 10 acres or less, I mean, obviously, so someone came along with, say, something like the Libbey Ranch project.

Or or let's not even say it's like Libbey Ranch. Let's say it's so let me try to figure out how to phrase this. The average lot size right now is probably we have some homes being built in some of our regular subdivisions that are probably, like, 5,000 something square feet. We have some smaller. So let's just use 5,000. So there's roughly how many square feet are in an acre? Like 78,000 or something like that? Charm.

40.

40.

40,000. Sorry. 40,000. 40 square feet. So roughly so you basically could build eight homes on an acre at at a 5,000 square foot, not including streets and all that, just roughly. Okay? So if you're saying that 10 acres or less, theoretically, somebody could come in and say, I'm just gonna build a regular subdivision that's gonna have 80 That to me doesn't excite me because I don't feel like that's not really the that's not really the product that we're looking to entice with the infill development. I just that's not really what I wanna, like, put the carrot out there for. I feel like I feel like that size is a little too big for kinda what we're doing. Now granted, I don't know if we have any infill property that meets the other criteria that you have that is even 10 acres.

I don't even think I can't even think of a 10 acre piece in town that's considered infill at this point. I don't know. But so that's one concern I have. Then on the other page, we have, you know, where it says more than 10 acres. So now we're talking, you know, somebody could come in and say, I wanna apply for the infill development fee reduction program, and I'm looking at a 25 acre partial to build say they're going to say, well, I'm going to do townhomes.

So somebody could come in and build something like the ones over behind Rite Aid. So they could say, well, these are townhomes in our opinion. And so they could build a 30 acre development of those. Could they not?

Correct. Correct.

So I mean, is that the but what I'm going back to is I don't feel like we're struggling to get that type of product to be built. And we're struggling is the duplexes and the apartments and those smaller things.

Well, this wouldn't be available for product single family detached under the multi family category. So technically, like Greenwood Cottages wouldn't because they're single family detached houses. So that wouldn't qualify. And to your point about the Lippie Ranch and the Sheffield property. This was crafted really for them to qualify under that infill. Those are true infill parcels. I mean, they're surrounded by development. They're within the community. They have infrastructure in the area. They're constrained with the size.

Lippie Ranch is on the railroad. There's some constraints to that, which is why it's taken so long to develop. The key there, though, for the infill piece and for that infill residential component has to do with the skip financing. Every new development has been utilizing public infrastructure financing. And so the Greenwood Cottages product has a 1.75 tax rate on their property tax bill.

Yeah. I I 100% agree that I I like that piece of it a lot because I feel like that not only is gonna be for me, I struggle with seeing how people can afford to buy those homes, But I think a lot of people I was just talking to real estate agents today, and and they told me that they are skeptical that the selling agents of some of these projects are even really forthcoming with that kind of stuff. Like, maybe it's in the print Mhmm. But who's reading, like, a 50 page know what I'm saying? So I worry about people getting caught up in those.

So I that I like the fact that we're gonna eliminate that kind of thing. But I just wanna make sure and I'll disagree with you on the Lippie Ranch project. I just wanna make sure that because I think there's a concern in the community that we won't we don't wanna incentivize general development. You know, you it's no secret that people of Galt don't like to see more sprawl houses. I mean, right now, we have so much little control over the the development of new subdivisions.

But we're trying to really hone in on getting that type of product that we really want. That's what we've been struggling at getting. Right? Up until recently, the 37 unit one that was approved, the apartment complex on Spawns Drive, we haven't been able, like you said, been able to get anything built since thousand eight. So if we're trying to, you know, zero in on that, I just wanna make sure that there's no language loopholes in here that's gonna allow somebody to come in and and do some run of the mill project like we're seeing built right now and and get this. Unless what you're saying is unless what you're telling me is we don't care that they do that because we're gonna try to eliminate that skip financing stuff. Is that what you're trying to say to me?

That was the whole purpose of including the 10 acre. Traditionally, you could shrink that size to let's say five acres, which would limit, I think, the properties that we would have that would qualify for the program and for us to be able to attract developers to some of those because you can't spread your costs amongst enough units to justify putting the infrastructure in or upgrading infrastructure. Of the Yeah. That seven unit apartment in downtown can't construct because they have to upgrade infrastructure. It doesn't fit the need for that project, and so it's very costly.

The Spons project, from what we understand, is going to sell. They got it entitled, they're going to sell it because it doesn't pencil at the end of the day. And so that's the reason that programs like this exist. A lot of cities utilize them. But that skip financing piece is a big one because there's not a single development in Galt that's under construction right now that has not utilized at least a 1.7%. That's where we've tried to cap it at. Every single development has utilized it. And it's that way through the entire region, through the entire state, just because costs are so high right now. Land costs are high, construction costs are high, you know, it's California. The environmental documents you have to put together, all the regulatory hoops that you have to jump through, it's very costly.

And that skip financing, bold financing, those are Liberty Ranch has a 1.9 tax rate.

Right. So what about the going back to the fees here. So you gave us an example of a seven unit apartment complex. Seven unit apartment complex would be squarely something that we would love to see build on, a you know, like where the JC Hall used to be or Correct. You know, that's what I'm giving as an example. These are these are derelict properties within the core of a community that are gonna just be vacant lots, you know, that have to be maintained by the city or whoever for decades if we can't get some built. So with this particular example, you're giving a seven unit apartment, you show but I see the majority of the lion's share, the fees are still there. Like, the governmental use fee, thousand, why would something like that not be able to be reduced?

We could. That's something we could add to it.

Because I feel We like can't so some of these smaller ones, I'd feel like I really want to make the carrot a lot bigger.

We cannot touch pass through fees. So like the fire fee can't be touched.

Measure A.

Measure A, our sewer water fees are based on capacity studies. Like, those can't be touched. The general government fee is about the only other one up there that we could arguably touch.

Okay. Alright. Well, I might have a couple more questions. I'm gonna let my other council members ask, but that's let me stew on those real quick.

Okay. Mister Reid?

I had mostly all the same concerns that councilman Farmer had, but I just after seeing all the numbers and correct me if my math is wrong, but I'm going through there, you know, evaluating the difference in the funding that we would get as opposed to the funding that we're going to get after this passes. And so for a multifamily home, we have the the difference of $89.79 for the impact fee. We have a difference of $49.73 for the park and recreation fee, and then the elimination of the policy document fee of $4,830 which comes out to 18,782. And then I look at the amount that is going to increase in the property taxes that we're going to bring in, which is a difference. It comes down to difference of $4,531, which would be we wouldn't recoup any of the fees that we lost for four years.

And it gets even worse when we start talking about the single family homes because it comes out to $23,000. And then the the increase for us is $780, then goes into possibly decades for us to get our money back. Is that right?

You know, I haven't checked your math, but I'll I'll go with it. So I'm I'm not sure the intent of the program is for the increased property tax to pay for the impact fee amounts that you would otherwise use. I think the intent of the impact fee is to basically energize these info properties that without some sort of incentive sit vacant. And the property sitting vacant actually cost you money. They cost you money in code enforcement, police activity, you know, and then really the blight on the city.

So there's numerous other reasons why you would want to incentivize the infill development. You know, it's smart growth. You don't wanna it's it's basically redevelopment in a sense versus brown or greenfield development. And I think that in a sense is the difference between, like, the multifamily program and the infill. The multifamily program can apply to some greenfield, but multifamily development in which we want.

So I would argue also, one final thing, that the infill fee development, like, we're already understanding that the properties are sitting vacant because they they don't pencil out for even someone who just wanted to live in the home, that they could be upside down after all their investment into the property, that you're you're gaining some economic advantage already just by developing the property. And then the indirect benefit of having more rooftops in the city that you normally wouldn't have. So there are just so many reasons why you would wanna do, you know, infill development. So this is just more or less an incentive program, not necessarily a payback based on your calculation. But I I I believe your figures.

You're pretty good at that.

Thank you.

And I I just wanted to echo what councilman Farmer said and that, you know, we have a lot of people in the community that, you know, are have a lot of harsh feelings against developers at this point right now with everything that we've went through. And so I don't want them to think that we're just sitting there, you know, trying to make it easier on them and make you know, not hold them to a certain standard and, you know, reducing the rules and all of this for them. We're if we pass this, we're doing it specifically to fill in those lots that no one else will fill in, you know, and and fill in those lots like the one that's next to Brewster's that's been vacant for a very long time. Right? And and so we're trying to do that to help boost the just the areas of the city that need it.

And it's not for those areas like Liberty Ranch or the areas that we're gonna extend for, you know, on that side of town.

Yeah. No. Agree.

And in my experience, there are two different kind of builders. You do have your major national home builders that basically go into the greenfield development and they're going, you know, and basically taking down hundreds of acres at a time to build multiple homes. And, you know, we've been pretty good at that. What we haven't been good at are the smaller hitting the more unique builder who specializes in infill and looks for the opportunity to do unique development that can work for both them and the city. So, I think the target group is different.

And I believe based on the rules that were, and again, size, that were were protected from, I think, the people that the community or the groups that the communities have angst with in the past.

Yep. I

don't have anything else.

Okay. Councilman Pratt Pratton.

Most of my questions were answered in our in our pre meeting meetings. You guys brought up some good points tonight. I'm supporting this. If we can go back to page three, I think it is benefits of infill. I think that there it is. So that really explains everything that that the city manager said and why I support this. So it it targets who we needed to target. It does exactly what council member Reid is worried about. It's protecting us, I think, for most of that. Something could happen, I suppose.

And definitely like the fact that you were able to put in the that they cannot do the additional assessment things in there. So that's all I have.

Councilman Sandhu.

Thank you. There is a few things. First of all, thank you for you bringing this agenda item. And I believe on this strategic plan, we all were council member here. We did discuss.

And since I see I'm living here in other council a long time, there is lot of small lots in this city and nobody wanna build it. And as the city manager said, when there's a vacant lot, what can happen at nighttime? Homeless over there. And what can happen is more police time and fire. Sometimes there is vacant land, people does not have, then it go to default, then fire department have to come down to take care of that grass.

And the reason, the other thing is small lots, why they not develop? As a developer, I have a little bit knowledge, that's why I'm sharing with my colleagues. If there's a traffic study, it's 20 acre, it's same price if you have a five acre. So it does not pencil out how they can develop. There's too much expensive.

So the reason I'm supporting this, I do understand mister Reid, as best interest to the city as my position do not lose any revenue. The reason we're putting the revenue in front, and as soon as that lot were developed, then you start. Even you cope with ten year, twenty year, you start the process. Otherwise, if that land is there, you now can get no property test, almost very few because the property cannot do appraisal unless there is a new development came up. So that my reason, I like to this city, you know, there is a lots out there, so they get the opportunity.

So this can be like in the benefit, why not be as you can see the benefit versus you lose impact fees versus what you get the revenue at right pay, but look at it. As soon as the process start, it's going to be five, ten, twenty year, you can get them. And that's why the reason I like to support this agenda. Want to thank you, Amy Mendez, to put this. Thank you.

You want to go ahead?

I have more questions, but Well, if got

I was just going to kind of piggyback a little bit off of what you said, and this is just out of clarity. Is there an actual legal definition of what a townhome is?

I

don't see one in our zoning code, but I'm sure there is a legal definition.

There is. I just had it.

I mean, that might help a piece, you know, or take a little bit of weight off that if if if our definitions are clear and so they can't jump, you know, put something in there. Well, I think too

We do.

If you do construct a townhome project, or detached, that's gonna depend on whether or not it's gonna qualify if it's a for sale project. If it's a for rent project, I would imagine that that would be something that would qualify regardless. Since they're tagged together, the townhomes and rowhouses, are they one and the same? We just call them differently? Or is there a different definition for those? I think they're similar. And I think townhomes can be attached or detached from what I understand. I'm letting Chris tell me from his Wikipedia search that he just did.

No, we're So we're I'm in the zoning code and we do have definitions for the different types of housing. So we do have multifamily dwelling definition. I'm not gonna bore you and read it at this point, but we have a townhome as well. Can you read the townhome? I'll do that Since you specifically asked for that one.

Yes, I will. Well, we have a townhouse, close enough. So means a condominium designed for occupancy by one family in a row of at least two such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside. No unit is located over another unit and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more common and fire resistant walls.

And a row house?

I don't know if we have that one, but.

Okay. And just legal wise

You could just say townhouses, for purposes of the program, are the same as row houses and define townhouses.

Just how I sticky the state is just want to make sure that we're doing it to keep us safe. And townhouse and townhome are going to be okay one and the same, or we need to change it to townhouse since that's what our

We should just define it in the program as we define it in our code.

Okay.

And we can call it townhouse, townhome, rowhouse, whatever we want to call it. We can just borrow that definition. Okay.

And we do not have a definition for rowhouse.

So my only other, well, I have a comment and another question. You know, we are very proud. I think all of us are very proud right now with the way Parks and Rec is going. Measure Q has been, you know, has been great. So that's my real only are we gonna take money? You know, now we're gonna start taking money away or not have it come in. So that those fees that are being talked about, is that the QMB fees? Is that or they have to pay fees. Right? That's a state thing. Right? So we still will be getting those type of fees that would accumulate for a future park. Right? So what fees exactly are we?

So, we do have a code requirement for new subdivision when they subdivide five acres per thousand residents. So we do the calculation based on the number of acreage that they're bringing in. And so QMB or yeah, is basically land dedication. So if they do not have the land dedication for a park, they pay the in lieu fee, which is the QMB. The recreation fee that is being requested to be reduced is for improvements to the park. So they're separate. One is land dedication. The other is obviously what you're putting on it.

So not because our biggest issue before in the past was maintenance. Right? We didn't have the money for maintenance. Is this gonna take away No. From that?

So both QMB fees and the impact fee is for, again, acquisition and development that is not intended for maintenance. So those fees are inappropriate for any type of maintenance activities. All maintenance activity comes from, you know, lighting and landscape districts, CFDs, and general fund.

And then one quick comment, and I I don't know. Can can we go to the slide that has the seven the apartment complex, the seven apartments or seven units? And I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but that's a $100,000. Are you telling me that a $100,000 is gonna make it pencil out and gonna be enough for them to do this project now? I think that the reduction in fees in addition to other programs that we have so we have a fee deferral program where we will collect security and allow developers to defer fees over a three year period.

So that helps you to get tenants to collect revenue so that there's more of an ability. But for a larger project, it's substantial. Well, can see for the larger project. But I'm thinking of those smaller, like the one over off of

7th Street.

Yeah. Well, the one over by the where Chris is gonna take responsibility for all the deaths of the children. Where's that one? 2nd Street. Street. 2nd. Yeah. I mean, because that's a seven unit one. Right?

Yeah.

That's the same one. They would be inclined to move forward because of this $100,000 Well, I mean, I don't know. We haven't had a conversation with them, but I think that this was just an example to show that we could market this, out to real estate agents, to property owners to let them know that this exists. And so I think every little bit helps as they're trying to piece together a project. Most of these seven unit apartment, the duplex, these are small property owners who are trained to do this on their own.

And so I think that the $100,000 probably would go to pay an architect or to pay for the remainder of their building permit fee. So would it bridge the gap necessarily? The other thing is banks do not like to pay impact fees. They don't like to pay building permit fees. And so that's one thing they can't finance typically. And so that is an important factor when you're kind of putting together your financing because the banks don't want to pay for financing of fees. Okay, that makes sense. Mr. Fermi?

I do agree with the mayor where I just I am worried that maybe the 100,000 isn't enough. It could be. That's why I look at the government fee and say, well, there's another $14 if we could chop that down a little bit too. But I understand the passer fees. I you mentioned some I don't see any in the presentation, but you did say something like there were some certain requirements that the particular piece of land had to have other things that it met, like it had to have something on the side. Can you go into that again? What was that?

For it to be considered infill, it needed So to have 75% at least 75% of the area surrounding the project would need to be developed.

Okay. Okay. That's what it was. I think I think what my concern is too is, again, I think with the size so based on what you told me with the building code, you know, to me, I I just have a hard time seeing the difference between a single family detached houses house and a townhome as you define townhome. To me, it almost sounds like the same thing.

They're both separated. One maybe I I so so what I worry about is I personally would not want this program to incentivize somebody coming in and building 20 acres of townhomes. Because to me, they're just gonna look like little houses. And I I get that, you know, maybe that's a product. I I don't know.

I mean, to me, there's a big difference between a townhome that's all connected where it's, like, almost kinda like a duplex. Family. As you know, we got into you know, I'm gonna go back to referring to the Summerfield thing. For those of you who are not aware, you know, a project that, in my opinion, is a tragedy. And there was this whole rigmarole around, you know, executive, this definite what does executive mean? So I feel like we're gonna get into that. We could get into that with a developer where they're like, well, these are not you know, ours qualifies because it's not a single detached house. It's a townhome. And then we get into that definition of a townhome versus a single detached. So for me, the whole thing right here where it says more than 10 acres, that scares the crap out of me.

I'm not gonna lie. Because I just think that's not really an infill project. That's that's that's over 10 acres. Again,

I don't

know that there's any piece of land that I can think of in my head right now, but there could be a piece of land that's that's developed on 70 you know, on three sides that's 30 acres that could could could fall into this.

We could change it to qualifying for only rental product, if that makes

it Yeah, more see, because I think, you know, what I think the public needs to remember here is that, you know, there's this buzzword in the state right now, affordable housing, right? To me, it's just a word. I mean, none of the housing they're building now to me seems affordable. But I feel like what we're trying to target with this program is really, truly affordable housing. A seven unit a seven unit duplex or a 37 unit apartment complex or a a a triplex, this is what I would constitute could is more is more in line with affordable housing than than than than than a 15 acre project of townhomes that are $400,000 apiece.

You see what saying? So for me, I'm trying to find some kind of language in there that that ensures the security of what this is intended to do and not be taken advantage of by

The multi family is meant to be a multi family development. Not necessarily infill, but trying to incentivize that apartment complex or the higher density product because that's what we cannot attract right now. Every single developer we've talked to said that it costs them $250,000 per door to build an apartment. One single apartment is $250,000 And they can't justify that with the rents that they can charge in Galt. And so this definitely helps because

So hold that thought real quick. I don't mean to interrupt you. What puzzles me is those say that and I hear that, but in every city that I drive around, I see apartments being built. I go down to Walmart in Lodi. When you go past Walmart in Lodi, there is just like apartments for like, you know, three or 400 yards. And my daughter moved into one in Folsom, it's a brand new complex, it's a huge sprawling complex, all brand new apartments. Why are they building them in these other cities, but we keep hearing in Galt that they don't pencil? I don't get that.

I think because they're closer to job centers. Galt just doesn't have the job force here locally where people have employment, whereas when you're in Lodi, you're closer to Stockton, which was a huge job generation component. Same with Elk Grove and with Sacramento. But I think too, the other thing is that nobody's willing to test the waters here. Nobody's willing to take the chance because Galt is such a small community, and we don't have there's no record of that happening. And so they can't justify the risk that they would be taking not knowing what the market is going to be able to absorb here.

Councilwoman Farmer, if I may add just, I'm gonna go to bat to kind of maybe edit this a little bit, but keep the type of product in that definition.

Okay, which idea?

So we do have a handful of like five acre partials, you know, that we had one developer just combined and was able to, we had to rezone to get density to get him to build, that they're really considered infill. We have a handful of them in the South Northeast area specific plan area where we're struggling getting traditional development there because in those acreage and with the infrastructure requirements, they cannot get their mass to get their basically investment, meet their investment opportunities. So those properties, I think, are ideal for, you know, like the multi family fee reduction and maybe we're calling it something wrong. Maybe, you know, it really obviously, it's more than multi family if, you know, condominiums and townhomes don't fit that definition.

Well, see for like for for

So but I feel I feel you're concerned about making sure that like something doesn't sneak in that is larger and you get one of the national home builders coming in Right. Taking advantage.

But on the flip side, I would like to point out, so for example, you know, on this one here, says no single family detached. Okay? But to be honest with you, you know, somebody came in and bought the lot over where the JC Hall used to be on the corner of of D And 5th Street. Right? And they wanted to build just a single family home on that. I would be like, great. Because it ain't that big. Yeah. Or build two smaller homes that were single family.

Understood.

That would be fine. So so then this program So the multi would takes that away.

But the input they would qualify for the infill fee reduction program.

It's separate.

Oh, because it's 10 acres or less than it oh, got you. Okay.

Alright. I think I think a big concern from what I'm hearing is making sure.

So so I yeah. So I think so think for me, and again, this is just what I'm suggesting here. For me for me I think for me to support this tonight, I think the first one, I I I'm okay with. I think the second one, I I would like to see some smaller cap on the size of the project. And and the townhome thing, I don't know. I just feel like the townhome and the no single family detached, I feel like you're just one and the same. I feel like you're contradictory figure. The the two the two definitions there, don't think are gonna be legally separated enough for us not to be able to I mean, from a legal standpoint, based on what he read, Frank, I mean, I I don't find a difference between a single family home and a townhome.

Isn't that different?

Your definition your definition required attached shared walls.

Yeah. Correct.

That's a big difference.

No. It said we're separated by a minimum common space. Didn't it say that?

No. Separated by a fire fireproof wall.

Oh, okay. My my my misunderstanding that I thought it said separated by so they are attached. Okay. So again, so I think really my only hang up is the size. I just because I think I just worry about, like, a bigger developer coming in. And and so that it that's a problem. And I would like to see the the government fee thing because I feel like if there's any other thing we could reduce down on that, it would be helpful. I do wanna remind I know there's some people in the audience that were concerned. You know, somebody can't just come in and I mean, if somebody wants to come in and do a rezone, I mean, it still has to go through planning. So if if there's a piece of land that's that's that's zoned agricultural or whatever.

Right? And somebody comes in and goes, oh, we wanna build, you know, take advantage of this. We wanna build apartment complex. That still has to go through planning to be rezoned. And rezoned rezoning something is still a power that we still have control of in the planning of changing rezones. That's that's one of the small that's one of the small things that we still do have a say in that we can stop a project. Am I wrong?

That's correct, right?

From a zoning standpoint,

correct?

Yeah. Mhmm.

Yeah. I don't know. That's my thoughts. I don't know. Does anybody have any? I just this is just my concern with the 10 acres or more. I just feel like it's an open it's just it could be such a huge area. I don't know. I don't know.

We do have the project that Jenny and I met with the developer on Monday. This is a project that needs to be rezoned. It's not I mean, it's the gateway to the city, and it looks like garbage because it's an industrial property that's being used for such. And so the request was that they would want to come in and rezone the property to do a mixed use or some type of higher density development, which would be a great reuse of that property. And so I'd hate to put a caveat in that says that you can't rezone the property and qualify because this would be a perfect opportunity for us to clean up an area.

Do we have any public comment on this? Maybe we need to go there. We do not. Okay.

So to be clear, someone couldn't come in couldn't come in under this program. How many the the Elliott the Elliott project over here on the back of Semi Horn Ranch. How big is that roughly? That housing area that they're doing? It's pretty large,

There's that's almost 400 homes.

Right. So but So somebody couldn't come in and build a product like that because those are single family detached houses, right? So they couldn't come in and do something like that.

And it's not the proper zoning from a multifamily standpoint.

Okay. Then But if someone it

meet the criteria of an infill.

But I'm using that piece of property because I feel like that piece of property kind of meets the criteria as an infill area, right? It kind of does. So let's say that that wasn't being built right now and that was open. So somebody could come in and what they probably could what they could do would be to do you know, let's say that's 30 acres. I don't know how big it is, but they could do 30 acres of townhomes theoretically. Right? That would qualify under this program. They just couldn't do detached houses.

No, because it's not the proper zoning. So they're the multifamily zoning that's required

Oh, because that property is already zoned and is zoned r one.

It's R2, I believe.

Or R2. Okay. I'm sorry. All right.

Yeah. So they're up against being in the right zone and then having the right product. And they would have to qualify under. And the Sinfel.

I'm not trying to make this difficult. I just I'm just nervous. I am I'm so gun shy after the whole thing with the Somerville and the definitions of how. So I I get that we we have clear definition in our building code about what our town. So I think we're safe on that, I think. Okay. And I don't have a problem with townhome. I feel like that's closer to a, you know, affordable. But, I mean, you mentioned something about you suggested possible something where you could say if it's a rental, like what what was your thought? Say that again.

Yeah. For the multifamily, if we wanna add that

it

would be only for rental product, we can do that.

For which one?

For the multifamily fee reduction. So if they're constructing duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, rowhomes, apartments

Yeah. Because I feel like how can somebody build a duplex, triplex, townhome, rowhouse, apartment, or condominium? They're not going to build those aren't things they're going to sell. Those are going to have to be rental products.

No, you can sell a townhome, and you can sell a condominium.

Oh, that's true. You could. Okay. That's true.

Elliot Ranch is 112 acres, roughly.

I don't know. Is anybody Is anybody tracking me on this? Or am I just

I understand your concern. I just think that we like we said, those definitions just need to be set in stone. I think that's what's going to protect us from the fear that you have from another big guy coming in. I personally am not against having a 10 to 20 acres of townhouses, to be honest with you. Some of those you know, they become their own community.

It's kind of like over at Parlin Oaks, although, you know, that's kind of what those are except for they are the single family homes. So I personally am okay with the over 10 acres. What I think of is that townhouse development that I'm sure the majority of the people in here don't even know exists because it just runs phenomenally is over there off of Vintage Oak, right? They're in Vintage Oak and Walnut. They're beautiful townhomes. I think they have are they two or four attached. I think they're back to back and two or three story. I can't remember. And it's a great little community with own private roads in there and an HOA. I don't know how many are in there.

And it's not a very big footprint. But if they're run correctly, they're nice communities. And you wouldn't even have any idea that they're not individually owned. I mean, actually, they are individually owned, but you wouldn't know that they were townhomes. So anyway, I am in favor of this. Do you have more?

Yeah. I I wanna make one more comment before you. So.

Well, I could suggest that it doesn't have to be passed tonight. I mean, if you need further study, I mean, this is when we're talking about word I mean, tonight, this is becoming a study session.

This is I mean, I'm only one person. I mean, this could be just like a four zero one landslide. So I'm only saying so so let's say that I'm going back to the so the the idea of this is to you know, we have these small pieces of property that are the challenges that don't pencil. But then at the same time, we have verbiage in here that says that you somebody could come in and do a 20 acre project. I don't see how a 20 acre project is gonna have a problem penciling because, I mean, with 20 acres, if you build townhomes and each townhome is 3,000 square feet, you can build 300 units.

I don't see how that's gonna be a problem penciling. That's the math I just did, basically, on 43 you know, so 200, 300 units. So I feel like I feel like I think my only hang up here is that 10 I think that the size of it. I think if we're really targeting those challenging smaller pieces, don't I think we should be looking at something that says minimum 10 acres.

And, Shannan, what do you think about the acreage wise? What you you think instead of what the acreage should be?

I mean, when

you said if I

said a challenging infill lot, what would you think of? Would you think of five acres, 10 acres? What would you what would come to mind?

You know, five. Small, right? Yeah.

Five acres or something like that. I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. Mean, somebody can make a motion. I I I don't know. I would support I will vote for a a motion that would be something where we tweak the amount, the size of it. Or or some verbiage that said rental property. I would go for either reduction in the size or something that says rental property only and not sale. I would if either one of those could be added A reduction of acres?

For the infill or multifamily?

For the No. For the multifamily. Because that's the one that has the this one has a cap of 10 acres or less. I think we're safe there. The other one's minimum 10 acres. So I feel like that's too big.

Amy, do you happen to know how big the lot is that Trail Ridge sits on?

It's probably like five acres. What

we can do if it makes things easier is we can bring back to council on a multifamily project for council approval as opposed to just approving it outright at staff level. Know, my concern is I understand that the hang up on the 10 acre component, but regardless of what the size of the property is, an apartment complex is not, we're just not going to attract them. I mean, we've spoken to dozens of developers on apartments. Anything high density for rent product, that's why the project on the corner of Walnut And Carillon didn't go through.

So based on what you're saying, so really and I would agree with you. So really what we're talking about here is we're talking about having some private developer come in and build a triplex or a couple duplexes or a seven a seven unit little unit on something in town that's probably five acres or six or seven acres. That's really what we're hoping to get with this product right here, right?

Well, that's

Because the apartment really is probably not going to be likely.

That's the infill component. So there's two components to the program. One would be infill and then one would be multi family. And the infill piece is exactly what you're talking about. So the smaller lots that are specific to whatever type development, we're trying to fill in the infill lots. And keep developers from utilizing skip financing. On the flip side is the multifamily, which is really a driver for the higher density apartment projects. If we can change the language to just make it for apartments

So let me ask you this. Or rental properties. I mean, I wanna get some of the goal lines. Let me ask you this, Amy. If you're if you're saying to me that this multi the multifamily, the infill, I think I would support that. On the multifamily, if you're saying that you're skeptical that that's gonna still entice an apartment combo, whatever, then what are we going then the second piece, what are we really trying to go after here with this? What's the target with this then?

High density for rent product.

So then okay. So if that's the case, if we added some verbiage in here that says for rent product.

Yeah. I think that would

be Well, I would support a motion to approve as is with the change that the multifamily have a language that says for rent product. I would support that. But you guys can make a motion for something different, and we can vote. It's a matter of I'm just saying this is that's what I'll say yes to. I like the first one. I think it's good.

Making a motion.

I'm making a motion to approve as presented with the exception of on the multifamily fee reduction, that there is verbiage that refers to it's a for rent product, not a for sale product on this second piece.

Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second or an alternate motion?

Yeah, or an alternate motion.

We'll make a motion. You make a motion?

I made a motion.

I'll do a second.

Okay. We have a motion. I'm not gonna repeat it. We have a motion on the floor.

I have one thing. I it it doesn't have to be included in the motion, but I I'd like to just put a request to the city manager and the assistant city manager that in twelve months from now, they come back to us and they give us basically an update on how this is going. Sure. Right? Any update on what

because this is only for twenty four months. Right? This will expire in twenty four months, and we'd have to come back and re up

this again. What I'm saying is halfway through, if the if the city can come back to the city council and give us an update on how it's That

I don't And if it's not going well, you could say, you know, it's not going well. We haven't anybody interested, but here's a couple other suggestions we thought we could tweak a color another fee or this or that in general, whatever.

I don't

think that has

to be

included in the motion.

Right? Mhmm. Is there a motion?

Okay, so we have a motion by Councilman Farmer to move ahead with the proposal, adding rental property only for the multifamily infill project.

And to be clear, it's not adding anything. It's making sure that for that product, is only

For the multifamily.

For the multifamily, it's only for rent products. Okay.

Okay. And then we had a second by Councilman Sandhu. So roll call, please.

Vice mayor Reid. Aye. Council member Pratton. Aye. Council member Sandhu. Aye. Council member Farmer.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez. Aye. Motion passed five zero. Thank you, miss Mendez.

Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. Community development department. Identify preferred model for the county wide homeless and housing system partnership.

Good evening, council mayor. Tonight's item is to identify the preferred model for the Countywide Homeless and Housing Partnership. The council first heard the presentation from the county back in September to learn about this potential opportunity to create more of a cohesive county wide board. In October, the county's consultants moderated a joint city and county meeting where at the time Mayor Farmer participated on behalf of Galt. Tonight I'd like to welcome Emily Halkin, the Director of Homeless Services for Sac County.

She's going to present more on the background and the consultant's recommendations for next steps. And after her presentation, we will be looking for a formal motion on preferred alternative and staff's recommendation being to support the county's recommended option. So I'll turn it over to Emily.

Great, thank you, Jenny, and thank you, mayor and members of City Council. As Jenny said, my name is Emily Halkin. I'm the director of the Department of Homeless Services and Housing with Sacramento County. With me today are county executive David Villanueva and deputy county executive Siobhan Qatari. We appreciate you guys giving us time.

It was great to be with you a few months ago, and I'm happy to be here to share our progress to date and and our recommendation as we move forward. So a little bit of background, which most of you, I think, will remember is that there was a report commissioned in 2023, as a matter of fact, by Sacramento Step Forward and the county. It followed some of the grand jury reports, which at that time were pretty public, but really it was more in recognition of the growing complexity of homelessness and housing funding, some frustrations or concerns we were hearing about the existing homeless policy council, and also really after seeing some of the positive impacts of the partnership agreement that the city of Sacramento and the county had entered into in 2022. So in, early twenty twenty five, the board of supervisors gave the county staff some explicit direction to hold a workshop with the board around homeless partnerships and governance, which we brought into public session in August. With the board's direction following that workshop in August 2025, We brought that model, which, if you recall, proposed developing a new board, which we called the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board to all the cities, including the city of Galt, in the months of September and October, ahead of the joint meeting that Jenny referred to late October.

Following that joint meeting and feedback we received both during that meeting and through the mosaic report, which I think many of you participated in, the county staff modified our recommendation. That modified recommendation was approved by the Board of Supervisors December. And again, staff were directed to come back to our city partners to elicit your input on the modified version. I do just want to note, and I'm going go through the modified version in just a minute, the main differences in our recommendation today versus the recommendation we brought to you late fall is that first, we recommend instead of creating a whole new board that we use the existing administrative infrastructure that currently exists in the continuum of care. This came out of the Mosaic report explicitly.

And secondly is that, if you recall, one of the tenets of the conversation we had late fall was really about the composition of membership, and at least many electeds in our region wanting it to have a vast majority of membership by elected officials. We heard pretty loudly from community members and others that they wanted to have more opportunities for community voices. So the new recommendation still maintains a majority elected officials, but presents options to engage community members differently. And while it's not shown on this slide, I do want to note that the Continuum of Care did take an even different model to the Continuum of Care Board in December, following the Board of Supervisors. It contemplated keeping the Continuum of Care separate from this body of elected officials.

That approval was not moved by the Continuum of Care, so at this point, we don't have there any official input from them. So this visual, which I believe is in your staff report as well, depicts the current model and really lifts us up hopefully to a 30,000 foot level. If you recall, the model or the visual we had back in October was a little bit more complex. We're really trying to keep it a little bit easier here. And what this is attempting to depict is sort of three modes of work that are in conversation here.

On the yellow column, or the column on the far left because the colors are a little difficult here, is really those functions that are pretty explicitly the role of the continuum of care. These are set in federal statute. We cannot change them. And they're pretty distinct. They operate the homeless management information system.

They administer the point in time count, which just happened last week. They administer the funding application on a yearly or biannual basis with the US government. And so those things are are pretty set. The middle column, which is green, and it's not showing up very well here, but I think in the printed version it's green, is really the the part of the work that I think is most in play here, and that we're having a lot of conversation around. And that is who in our community is responsible for developing a community wide strategy, setting goals for us across jurisdictional boundaries to prevent and end homelessness?

How are we setting targets, measuring ourselves against those targets, etcetera? And then the final column on the far right hand side, which I think is shown in blue in the printed version, is those things that are pretty explicitly held by jurisdictions: land use planning, entitling properties, zoning requirements, building requirements, and funding administration. Many jurisdictions have and maintain their own housing and homeless funding, and those fund flow through our budgets exclusively. So if you go down to the row, what I show here is the first row shows the current structure. Currently, the Continuum of Care Board is pretty separated from all of those other functions.

While recently they added four elected members, that was very recent, in the past two months. But historically, the COC Board has existed entirely of community volunteers, some staff of governmental organizations, I'm on it, and then interested members from the general public. And then the Board of Supervisors and all the city councils throughout the community are separately setting your own priorities, your own goals for your staff and your funding and your programs, and, of course, administering local funds, setting land use decisions. And so there is no formal relationship right now between what happens at the COC board and what happens in jurisdictions. This did come out in the October meeting, which I know Councilmember Farmer was at, and maybe some of you watched.

But one of the important sort of things here is the COC funding is about $40,000,000 annually into our community, potentially much less given some of the changes in the current federal administration, but currently about $40,000,000 But that represents, at max, about 10% of the total community investment in homelessness and housing, probably much more if we were to pull in a lot of the housing funds that flow through our communities. And so pulling the COC closer to the work happening in jurisdictions, we feel, is very important to integrate the the activities that they're doing with the activities that are happening in in local jurisdictions. So that's where we ended up with this recommended option, which is shown in the second row and is outlined in red. As I said, what we are recommending is take that existing COC board. It does exist in federal statute.

It has some pretty explicit requirements, but it also gives us a lot of latitude. I think one of the conversations we had when I was here a few months ago was around that latitude. What we are recommending is reconstituting that existing COC board, redeveloping their existing governance charter to such that the at least 51% of the membership of the COC board is elected officials from throughout the region. And then the balance of those members would be community decision makers. So it might be a leader in the chamber or an executive from one of the health systems or somebody from law enforcement leadership, so that we really can integrate the work that's happening in some of these system partners with the work that's happening in the homeless system of care.

And then therefore and this board would now become a Brown Act body, just like you are. Right now, the COC board is not Brown Act. So by having elected officials from each of the participating jurisdictions, and we would hope to have each participating jurisdiction have representation, you would then create a formal relationship between that COC board, who is now gonna do that bigger policy strategy setting, but they have a formal report back to their own elected body they sit on, the Board of Supervisors or a city council, really eliminating these sort of silos that we currently find ourselves in. So that is the option that the Board of Supervisors approved unanimously. However, we recognize that the only entity that can reconstitute the Continuum of Care is the Continuum of Care.

The Board of Supervisors nor any of the city councils can mandate or require that the Continuum of Care change in any way. The continuum of care itself has to select to change, to reconstitute, to amend its governance charter, etcetera. And at this point, they have not indicated exactly where they're at. So given that, our Board also approved us that should the COC Board not wish to participate in this collaborative model, that we would pursue the alternative option. The alternative option, unfortunately, keeps the COC Board separate, which we think is one of the problems currently that we're experiencing, but would allow us as elected or staff of electeds throughout the community to create a body, the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board or some other name, that would consist of those elected leaders to drive those policy conversations, strategic planning, and then create that that direct report back to the Board of Supervisors or the various city councils.

Our board did give us approval to pursue that alternative if the recommended cannot happen, but they were pretty direct that they really saw the value in consolidating into one entity and not having not maintaining multiple boards with various reporting requirements. Finally, on the bottom, I did just put for visual conversation the JPA board, the Board of Supervisors, remains opposed to a joint powers authority, but it is still in conversation, so I put it on here just to complete the visual. So next steps, as I said, we were directed to come to all of the cities to get input. Thus far, we have gone to the city Of Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and we go to Folsom next week. I can generally report back that the city of Sacramento, and I believe this might be in your staff report, the city of Sacramento directed their staff to pursue a joint powers authority.

So they did not really engage in the the recommendation recommended option that the county put forward. Thus far, the cities of Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove have approved the recommendation to work with the county on the collaborative model, and the city of Citrus Heights took a neutral stance. So pending the final input from yourself and from the city of Folsom next week, we would then request the continuum of care to agendize the same model and take an affirmative vote as to whether they want to participate or not. And then pending their input, as well as obviously interest from our remaining elected bodies, that we would work towards the reconstitution of that continuum of care board or the creation of that standalone homeless and housing board. I will stop there and see if there's any questions or if Jenny wanted to add anything else.

Great.

No. Okay.

So that concludes staff presentation.

Thank you. Does our staff have a recommendation?

Yes. The staff recommendation tonight is to approve to recommend the recommended option.

Okay. Thank you. Council?

Yeah. I'll jump in first since I was up there with Councilman Pratton. So, it's my understanding that throw the cities up I'm sorry. Can you go back to the previous slide? Yeah. So it's my understanding that the city of Sacramento City Council decided to go. They they didn't they weren't interested in the recommended option. They wanted to go with the JPA route. Rancho Cordova supported the recommendation. El Gross supported your recommendation. Citrus Heights is remaining neutral on it.

Yes. That's correct.

So you have a two one so far, and then you come to us, then Folsom.

Yes.

So the sense that I got from that meeting first of all, I think it was a huge step to do the meeting. I I think you get all these different people in the room, and you start, like, I think you're right. The problem is everything's everybody's working in this silo. Right? Everybody has different ideas. And also, the other problem is, too, that, you know, what the homeless problem in Galt is a lot different than the homeless problem in, say, Rancho Cordova. And the city council here looks at how we think we can address our problem differently than maybe Rancho Cordova. So there's all these differences of opinions and all that. So getting together was helpful because we can we kind of bounced ideas off that day, and there was a lot of discussions. But I feel like then there's this there's this big discussion like, well, how do we do this?

Right? It's like and I feel like the what the government's really good about doing is making things complicated. And so I'm I'm trying to figure out I I thought about this come before this meeting tonight, thinking, how do you minimize the amount of bureaucracy in place, right? Let me ask you this. Why do you think the continuation care board why do you think they're reluctant to reconstitute or whatever you reorganize? Why are they resistant to that, do you think?

I don't necessarily want to say they're resistant. They haven't formally agendized it. However, they have taken alternative models, like I said, that didn't pass. I think most of their concern comes out of having what they perceive as a reduction in community voice when you have a board that's majority elected officials.

Okay. So what's currently just for the sake of people who are in this room, if you may watch this meeting back, how are things compared to the models that we recommended, what's different about what's being done now that's different than that? Is it just that the continuation of care, are they still an advisory board now, and who do they report to? So what's different than up to this point, what you're recommending?

Sure. So currently, the Continuum of Care Board really has no formal report back mechanism to any elected body. I certainly sit on it, and I'm a staff member to the board, so but I I do share input, but there's no formal advisory role either way, right? The the Board of Supervisors also doesn't advise the COC board. And then similarly, regard so the COC does, the board of supervisors in each city council is sort of working on this diligently themselves.

We certainly work really closely with staff, and I don't want to to say that we're sort of in our own silos. And we do have ad hoc meetings. The meeting on the twenty eighth that you attended is certainly one of those, and there have been other ones. But what the recommended option would do was make a formalized structure where that meeting together, that collaboration happens on a consistent, open basis, and that then staff so underneath what in the recommended option, that COC board would be the decision makers. Underneath that would be a leadership group of staff, so perhaps myself and Jenny and our counterparts throughout the cities to to carry out the work of that COC board.

It might look different in Galt versus Rancho versus the county. Correct? But if we all shared if that board said, we wanna have a strategic goal that we see a reduction in the point in time count next time by 10%, then each of us could take that back and sort of work through our programs, what we can contribute, what it might mean. And so it really it creates a singular place where the work that's currently happening in sort of three or four different places is at least coordinated in a single place.

So what's missing now, just to make it super simple, is the arrows where it says advisory, that's kind of not in place right now?

It is not in any kind of formal way. Right?

Right. Okay. So in in the recommended option here, so the COC board would be the decision makers, and that board is made up, like you said, some elected officials, some community people, whatever. So they they make it they they basically discuss and come up with what they think. They decide that board decides what they want to recommend to the Board of Supervisors and all the different city councils. Right?

Maybe a little clear, because I appreciate So the COC board's authority is limited to the COC funds. We are not recommending, for example, taking funds out of the county's budget or the city's budget. They would be the decision makers on what currently the COC is decision makers on, which is a significant amount of money. And then they would be developing those sort of county county wide priorities and goals that

they Okay. So so hold on. Stop me there. So basically, what you're telling me is so what you're telling me is that even though they're an advisory to, in this hypothetical scenario, that there would be an advisory to the board of supervisors or the city council such as us, that really the COC board really is its own decision making entity over the funds that they currently are given.

And they have that today, but what happens right now is that's independent of any work happening at your council or the board or any other council.

Yeah. Well, so no offense, you know, to you because I know you're on the board. I I don't want to put this off off the wrong way. But, you know, there's a saying that, you know, doing something the same way the definition of insanity is doing something the same way and expecting a different result. Right?

Well, I feel like, you know, one thing that stood out at me I and don't remember what organization it was, so I apologize, but it was a certain organization that had been receiving significant amount of funds for several years. But yet, the consensus in the room was that the homeless crisis had not gotten better. And so the first thing that popped in my head was that saying that I just said, where it's like, we're we're we're we can't continue doing the same thing because that's not working. So we we need to change that up. So for me, so if we were to do the recommended model, is this so you guys as the we'll call you guys the experts.

Okay? So the continuation care board is made up of experts. They come up with some recommendations. They make their own decisions with the funding they have, but then you guy but then they come periodically ever so many get however often, two board of supervisors and the Gulf City Council say, here's some ideas we have. This is what we think would make blah blah blah. And then it would be up to us to implement your things on our own, or we could say, you, but no thank you. We think we got it from here, Or we could take your advice or whatever and do what with our own funds?

Is that No. So I apologize. So this even though it's called COC Board, it's completely reconstituted. So the seats like I currently hold a seat, I probably wouldn't have a seat. It would be elected officials along with some community decision makers. So the board is now made up of those people.

So it could be like Mr. Pratt and maybe his one he sits representing Galt on this board.

Right. Like you might on other advisory boards throughout the community. The library authority, I think you mentioned earlier. Right?

So then so then Galt so then not only does the Galt have a say, of course, what Galt does, but Galt also has a voice Exactly. To some extent in what's being done with the continuation care fund the funds that they're currently given. Is that what you're saying?

Exactly. Okay. And also setting sort of the broader priorities and policies that we as a community might want to strive towards. But yes.

Okay. So two things one more thing. So they are so the COC board would be a policymaker to some extent, because they have control over the funding that they're given.

Yes. And today they are as well. Part of their charge is not just administering COC funds, but they're also a recipient of the HAP funds, the state funds that currently the city of Sacramento gets, the county gets, and the COC gets. So they are setting policy right now related to that.

Okay. Has there been any discussion about what the makeup of that COC board would be? Because I remember there being a little bit of talk at the meeting that I was at, the summit, whatever you want to call it, where there was discussions like, well, you know, if Galt's homeless count is small, then we get one person. But the city of Sacramento, they should get, like, three or four people of their council members on there or they or whatever. And then, you know, so and so should get more. So what it ends up being is a little city like us really has no voice, because we have one person, and they have multiple people. So they're controlling the narrative.

Yeah. No. That certainly has come up in a lot of the communities. Staff is not is trying not to be prescriptive at this point, just saying at least half need to be elected officials, and there would be representation from each community. I think that also depends on how large. Like, now, the COC board is 33 members. I'd probably not recommend it be 33 members. But the concern that you lift up has been lifted up by some of the other suburban communities as well, and I think were we to move forward, we want to work with your staff on those governance charter documents that would lay out participation roles. But it is certainly something that's been brought up.

Okay. So for me personally, just to end my comments, I would support I would I skeptically support the recommended option. I mean, I just say skeptically because it's just I know it's a new thing. But the JPA thing to me just seems like bureaucracy to me. I don't know. I don't I don't like that idea. I think if the COC board was make up of was made up of of representatives from these cities, I think that is a significant change. And I think that would maybe be the change that would start making some sort of difference, you know, optimistically. So that's where my head's at in this thing.

Thank you.

What do you

guys think? But it would have to be equal representation, like you said before. Right? I would support it if that's the case. But like like you said, Sacramento does what Sacramento does. And if they're gonna try to push for more representation because they have more homeless people in Sacramento, then I'm not in support of it. Because that's exactly what's gonna happen is they're going to make the decisions, and then we're in a point where we just have to deal with it because we're just gold. Right? That's what's. And we're gonna have one representative as opposed to everyone else.

But at this point, we have no visibility of what that is. Right. Of what that makeup is. And that's a concern for me. Yeah. Don't disagree with that. I do like the fact that it's bringing in the Brown Act. Brown Act has good things, bad things, but I think that for me has always been important. The advisory part concerns me and the lack of not having the, you know, seeing what it looks like the board itself. But I am in support, I believe, of the recommended option because because I I think it is a step forward. It it may be exactly what you're saying there. Old mayor.

Un mayor. Yeah. Yeah.

This could easily look to the public like they're just doing something different. So two years from now, they can do something different and then do something different, it's all the same. But it is something different.

I mean, it's different.

Don't have enough history to know if this is the right answer or not. But I but I would I I agree with you a 100% on the JPA team. I'm not in support of JPA at all. So that would be what we have available to us is what I would recommend, is what I would vote on.

Councilman Sandhu?

Yeah. Just me, ma'am. That's the same thing. I'm, you know, listening these. This is very important. I know Sacramento, big population. It's recent that gives you example, I sit down five, six year on transportation. There is 17 member. There is, I believe, four from Sacramento, two or three from Elk Grove. And you usually you can say, but it's not say.

It's it's because they make a decision. There is a five member from one city, what they're gonna do, they're gonna do. The reality is they favor what is best for the city. There is certain thing like in homeless, it can be okay with the Sacramento, but it's not gonna be okay. For example, to homeless shelter. I give you the example. If they said every city have a homeless center, it's not be like this is very isolated city. Yes, Sacramento, it may be. I'm talking about the algorithm maybe. So that kind of thing I'm stuck with the representation.

And they they have to make some kind of everybody's opportunity to say something with the city equal opportunity. I don't know if we can get them or not, but I'm just stuck on that. If everybody recommend, I can recommend that, Sadler, but I still be kind of thinking kind of middle of that.

But I think, Paul, that's why it's important that that this new COC board would be advisory. So they could advise whatever they want, but if the city council of Galt says, well, we don't agree with that. We're not gonna put shelters or, you know, whatever. We still have that power to control our own.

Yes. And and we are not at this point contemplating a transfer of authority that you currently have. So land use decisions, you would currently have any budget. Now in the future, that could be a choice. I I have not heard interest at this point for the exact reasons you bring up.

Alright. So I will recommend with the on that recommended option.

That's precisely why I would no way support that JPA board by taking those. There is a reason why Galt and the surrounding area is filled, literally filled with group homes because we didn't have a voice back then. And we're the ones suffering through that and have to mitigate that, not the county, not City Of Sacramento that didn't want them in their borders, but pushed them down here. So that would 100% happen under a JPA board. I'm not convinced that that still won't happen under the recommended option, except for that we do still have a little bit of control over land use decisions.

And I don't know why anyone would want to give any more power to the state about their own land in their city. So that baffles me. I do have a couple of questions. The COC right now, they have this whatever money. With this money, if if they make these priority changes or, you know, they make some priority changes or whatever that, they recommend to the cities to to implement, Would is this going be another unfunded mandate, or is the COC going to be able to provide financial assistance for some of these things?

Yeah. I think it's a great question, because at the same time, COC funding, at the federal level, I would say, is at risk. COC funding that comes from the federal government is pretty prescriptive. And even though it is $40,000,000 and that's nothing to to yeah, it is something, for the most part, that represents the annual renewal demand. So most of that is continual funding of things that have been funded in years past, almost exclusively permanent housing.

That being said, the current federal administration is pointing to some pretty significant changes to both the funding amount and specifically for certain targeted states, as well as how that funding can be used. So as of right now, the most recent funding application that was released and then pulled back from the federal government suggested that we might only have a guarantee of about 12,000,000 of that 40,000,000. So long winded way to say is that the COC funding is pretty it's pretty prescriptive. There's not a lot of new things you can do with it. But what it would allow us to do is, you know, in times of challenges, hard decisions will have to be made, right?

If the COC funds are cut and programs have to be cut or changed or altered, I think having community voice at the table to make those really tough decisions is probably important. And potentially, are there ways we could backfill those funds or find other resources? But the COC funds would stay administered in this model. We're not recommending changing the administrative arm, which is currently Sacramento Steps Forward, so it'd still administer those grant dollars.

Grant dollars. Does the COC do they have a staff?

They do. So the lead age and it's organized differently everywhere, but in our community, Sacramento Steps Forward, who's a five zero one(three) nonprofit, is the lead agency. They have a staff a pretty significant staff that consists of grant administering staff, but they also have staff who do the data management, who run coordinated entry, which is the front door to most of our programs. They do other administrative stuff. They have, I believe, about 50 FTE. It's not not small.

They do a lot of emails.

Yes. I've noticed. And do they you talked about grants that they're distributing. Are they constantly seeking other funding outside of that federal funding?

Mhmm.

Yeah. That's a great question. So Sacramento steps forward, there's sort of two hats. In one hat, they are the COC lead agency, which is pretty prescriptive, but they're also a nonprofit. And so, yes, they have independently sought a few grants. They were the recipient of a Bezos grant a few years ago, about $4,000,000 to address family homelessness. But most of their activity is coming through governmental funds, either the federal government or, as I said, now they're a recipient of HAP funds from the state, and that's been for the past four or five years.

Okay. Well, answers my question. To me, that recommended option is the best option. I think I share the same feelings as everybody else, that the concern is that we need to have the equal voice at the table because

I think we need to have a voice. Yes. But, you know, not all these committees and commissions are set up that way. For instance, the the LAFCO, you know, we share with Citrus Heights. We're on two years. They're on two years. So

Same with transportation. You know,

I agree. It shouldn't be 33 people on this thing, but we I hope we would have a voice. I'm just saying it publicly.

And I'm happy when, I transmit my board report back of what all the city said. I'm happy to if the council, confirms that you are supportive of the staff rec rec recommendation, but really interested in representation that encompasses the unique needs of the smaller jurisdictions.

I have one more question. Sacramento Steps Forward, that was the organization I was trying to think of. So are you you're not associated with that organization?

I'm I mean, I'm not. No. I'm not an employee

of no.

And none of your constituents that are in here are associated with that? No. Oh, because that's the organization I was like and I don't remember what the figure was. It was like $40,000,000?

Yeah. That's the $40,000,000 COC dollars that I've been quoted.

Yeah. 40,000,000. So it was like $40,000,000 a year, and nothing's been changed. And now I just struggle with grasping that. Anyways, not gonna pick on them anymore. So moving forward, if you go to us, if we say, okay, we like the recommended option, then you go to Folsom and they say, so does it what happens then? Is it like, well, the majority says we wanna do this, or is it Sacramento because they didn't want to do it? They're like, no, we're not gonna participate, we're out. I mean, does it have to be everybody has to agree?

Right. At this point, the Board of Supervisors has not said it's all or nothing, and so I imagine we would go back to the board and say, Okay, five of the six cities were interested, or Citrus Heights was neutral. Okay. We would like to test the test where the COC is and ask them to formally agendize this. I I believe that's where the board would likely be.

Okay.

And we're continuing to work with the city of Sacramento as well on their direction. And just to your to your point, mayor not mayor. Sorry. Councilmember Farmer about Sacramento steps forward. One of we've heard concerns as well. They are the lead agency. We do work very, very closely with them and their staff. Currently, the COC board provides oversight of them. And so this would also allow not of their nonprofit and HR functions, right? They are a wholly independent nonprofit.

But in this formation, we believe there would be more of that oversight because the lead agency reports to the COC board. So if there's a concern about their performance or there's a concern about outcomes or grant management or anything like that, it's funneling through that COC board, which is independent of yourselves and our board of supervisors.

Because just just real quick, one thing that struck out me is there was, you know, $40,000,000, and then the the the the count they gave Sacramento County, which obviously could be off a little bit, but, you know, do simple math, and you're thinking that's, like, 50 or 60 or $70,000 per homeless person, but yet we haven't solved. And so that was just that's that's where I think about the bureaucracy, whereas where does that money actually go? Is it going through committees and this person and that, and then there's the administration costs and so on and so forth. And I just feel like we have this money, and it's not really doing anything. And that's why that's where the skepticism comes in. Right?

So And I think one of our hopes is that by elevating the COC board to persons like yourselves and others with sort of a lot more public accountability, that things like digging into the data and performance will be a little bit more public, right? We all I I get that too from my board. I'm expected to bring biannual reports to them and very transparent budgets and stuff. And so I don't I think this would would it wouldn't fix all the issues, but it would create a level, hopefully, of transparency that I I think I'm hearing you ask for.

Thank you. So I think we're

Do we need a motion or just a consensus? We have public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Public comment. Chris Frostman.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My challenge on the homeless is I think the state is recognizing that their golden egg is running out. They spent 20,000,000,000 billion dollars in the last five years, and they can't account for it. 20,000,000,000. I would think that we'd be able to see a lot of accounting for it, but the state doesn't do that.

Now what I'm seeing is coming down to the city level and going, okay. What can the city have called them? Well, you got $20,000,000,000 in the last five years. There's a lot of nonprofit stuff out there. And nonprofit, as most of you are aware, there's only nonprofit in that when they get to the bottom bottom line, they didn't make any money.

But there's an awful lot of people that are above that bottom bottom line that did make an awful lot of money. I'm for no more new taxes, no more spending on it until you can know or the government or the state can show me where that $20,000,000,000 went to. What did they achieve with $20,000,000,000? Billion. We're not talking 20,000,000. She's talking 20,000,000. We're talking the state says $20,000,000,000 that they can't account for. My god. I could have given everybody a house for $20,000,000,000 that's homeless. Of course, then we'd have a few more moving in.

I'd like to see the city of Stockton not dropping off people down in the city of Gaul. I'd like to see other people not busing, and they're homeless. We build it. They will come. I I have a lot of heart towards the homeless in that I don't think anyone should have to sleep out in the street on a cold night.

But I think we can build a shelter. We can put a shelter up. But then I I floated it out on Facebook. In reality, the feedback that I got was really if we build it, we're gonna end up with more. I think the last time I spoke with the chief, it was about 32 homeless in the city of Galt.

I don't know if that shrunk or done or gone down. I know the last time I heard daily talk, you know, it was we're not gonna do the housing first. You know? We're not looking to put them in a house and then try to get them correct. But I never really saw what the solution is there because we got a lot of homeless that psychiatric issues, drug issues.

Some of them just wanna live that way. They don't wanna give up their dog, whatever. I don't know that there's an easy solution, and I don't know that there will ever be an easy solution for solving homeless. I think the mom, the dad, the people that become hard times, we've got safety nets for most of those. And I don't think that's the homeless that we're facing.

I think, really, it's, unfortunately, the people that are bringing a lot of baggage along. But my hesitancy to the city of all, I mean, we're they're just approving, you know, going on a board or voting and saying, hey. This but I feel like I'm a fish being reeled in. You know? So I got a little lee, and I we got a little nibble six months ago because we all feel bad for the homeless.

So this is just another little reel reel with me and a little bit closer. Sooner or later, guys, they're gonna be coming to the city of Gault and saying, okay. Financially, what are you willing to step up and do? And, I'm not willing to do that until I can see your track record. I wanna be able to account for every damn penny that goes out, and, they're not being able to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Brosman. Okay. Do we need a consensus or an actual motion? Motion. Motion, please. Motion. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. And when

I'll move to approve as stated in the in the Agenda. In the agenda, which is to approve the recommended option.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Moved by Councilman Pratt and seconded by Councilman Farmer. Roll call.

Vice Mayor Reed. Aye. Councilmember Pratt. Aye. Councilmember Sandhu. Aye. Councilmember Farmer.

Aye.

Mayor Rodriguez.

Aye. Motion passes five zero. Alright. Moving right along. Do we have any communication? And do you have a city clerk's report? No. Comments by staff.

Parks and Rec Director Armando Solis.

Good evening, mayor and city council. I just wanted to bring to your attention that we have the Winter Bird Festival this this weekend at McCaffrey Middle School. There's gonna be quite a few of our presentations, workshops, and tours. We start we kicked off on the twenty ninth with our senior tour that was sponsored by the preserve. We're able to take out 20 of our seniors out to do a half mile walk on our on the trails out at the preserve.

And then everything else starts at 9AM on Saturday. I'd like to thank our sponsors, Consuminous River Preserve, Gault Joint Union Elementary School District, Cow Waste Recovery Systems, SMUD, California Rice Commission, Conservation Farms and Ranches, and Sacramento Audubon Society. So hopefully you guys can make it out this weekend.

Community development director, Jenny Carloni.

Good evening, council. I just wanted to inform you that next Thursday, February 12, the Planning Commission will consider the Galt Ranch development. That will include the tentative map, conditional use permits, master sign permits, and design guidelines. That meeting is at 6PM. Thank you.

And finally, Police Chief Brian Kalinowski.

Mayor and council, just to update you on the concept for the Galt Police Foundation. It's an item we've wanted to start in our organization, mirroring, like a lot of other police organizations, who try to have a nonprofit do some fundraising and support the department and or projects or programs within the department that perhaps maybe is not best suited by using taxpayer dollars and the like. And so we have a group of five individuals in the community. It's Heidi Brazil, Heather Farmer, Marissa Gonzalez, Craig Palmer, and Rich Lozano, who are going to serve as the first board members who are going to meet next week and elect officers, adopt the bylaws, and start to finish the actual nonprofit status. And so we look forward to having some community outreach and some opportunities for fundraising within the next year.

That's all I have. Thank you.

No further comments?

All right.

We'll go with comments by city council members. Mister Reed.

I'll start with we had a wonderful meeting with senator Nilo on Friday at the coffee shop. Myself, mayor Rodriguez, and councilman Farmer were there. A lot of people showed up from the community. I was impressed with that. He's very open with things that are going on at the state level, and he took and answered a lot of questions from the community, from the council members.

And I'll let him talk about his own question. But I I brought up to him about the forced housing from the state. What can the city do or what if there was anything at the state level that's on the horizon that is that we can do to start pushing back on the state on us having to have a certain amount of housing or availability of housing so that we can have some more local control on that. And he really didn't have an answer, but he tried his best. So I was just I was impressed to see how many people were out there.

I briefly stopped by the the senior bingo on Monday. I was also impressed with the amount of people that were there. That's it's nice to see that we have those kind of opportunities for our our senior members. And I'm looking forward to trying to attend the bird thing on Saturday around basketball. So we'll see how that works out. And that's it.

Councilman Pratton.

Not much to report out. I am looking forward to the Planning Commission meeting next week. I won't be able to be there, but I think it's gonna be a good one. So hopefully lots of people show up to voice their opinion. And thank you to the coffee shop for bringing Senator Nilo. I was not able to attend that one either. A lot of conflicts, but I'm glad that was that we do stuff like that.

Councilman Sandhu.

Yeah. Thank you for all the staff, their hard work. Thank you for the public comment, and thank you for the public come to this meeting. Thanks. So that's all.

Councilman Farmer.

Yeah. Well, thank the chamber for facilitating the senator for coming. All we did was just create, you know, hosted the venue. But yeah, it was great. Good turnout. People were asking lots of questions. There were some questions about the hypothetical gas tax, things like that. I did bring up looking for some sort of support with combating the illegal food vendors in town, which we've been struggling with. There was some comment from his staff that they could be helpful in any way. So I got an email from their staff.

So hopefully, you can try to use light, you know, utilize every tool in the shed we have to try to keep working on that. But I do appreciate, you know, our staff and code enforcement working hard on that issue too. Outside of that, I just wanted to thank Public Works. I believe you guys were

the ones responsible for, correct me

if I'm wrong, for the painting of the curbs and all the reflectors, installation, all that. You guys were super fast on doing that. Thank you so much for being so proactive in doing that. I drove through town and I was looking around. Was like, oh, wow, they're all I mean, every one of them. So it's been a safety concern in town. So I think it was well needed. So we appreciate that.

Councilman Farmer, really appreciate you saying that. We're a team here, so it doesn't really matter if it's Parks or us. But I'm really proud of our guys for doing that. And we are trying to be more of a proactive to address these issues out in the field.

Yeah. I mean, as the community gets more used to those things being there, it's going to, you know, it's going to be helpful. And then one other thing I just wanted to say, this is kind of directed towards, well, the staff in general, but mister Splendario and and chief Kalinowski and and the city manager. I saw a story online about, there was an incident with some e bikes that happened in Roseville. It was on channel three or something.

I forget. And basically, at end of the story, they were like, you know, so the the Roseville Police Department's gonna come do a presentation to the Roseville City Council to see what they can do about this this problem that's been rising with e bikes and stuff. And I was really proud to think that, you know, the city of Galt, you know, we already checked that box months ago. Know, we were proactive. You know, the the police department has been very proactive with education and their social media outreach.

Mister Spandario and staff, you know, we fast tracked our ordinance and all that. So I felt like we were so far ahead of the game, you know, compared to other cities who were trying to catch up on this issue. So I just wanna say thank you to you guys for that. And the last thing I just wanna mention is I know we've been asking about and I know it's coming up at some point, our little meeting where we're gonna be talking about, you know, digging into our design standards and all that stuff. Right?

Well, it's been floated to me that, hypothetically, and I'm just throwing this out there. I'm not looking for a yes or an answer, but that possibly would it would something like that, like a workshop, a joint workshop, obviously, would have to be a a a noticed meeting where the planning commission and the city council could sit around a large room, and we can collaborate together with ideas on what some of that would look like, and then staff could could take away from that and come back and work on it. I think that would be instead of doing stuff in a silo, that might be very more productive. Maybe something like we did with strategic planning or something. So anyways, just an idea.

Yeah. No. We we meet every Wednesday as a group with the directors, and we'll talk about putting that together Okay. Tomorrow.

That's all I have. Thanks.

Yeah. Just really quick. I also wanted to thank public works or parks or the city staff, we'll put it that way, for the curbs. I did happen to drive down Bassa when they were doing that far east East, the furthest east one. And that was dangerous.

I mean, had their orange vests on and everything, but 55, 65, 75 coming down there. I thought, gosh, these guys, we need a PD car out there or something to slow these guys down. So thank them for taking their putting their life before ours. I attended today with several staff members a presentation at Dry Creek Oaks. Although it was a wonderful presentation, it was not the presentation that Dry Creek Oaks folks were expecting, unfortunately.

And so they were throwing quite a few other questions at staff that were the staff hadn't prepared for. And I just have to report to everyone that staff did a phenomenal job answering what they could and doing what they could. And it got a little rough a little bit for a little bit. But, I mean, because people wanted answers, and that got tough. But so thanks, staff, who were all there.

Let's see. I'm really excited to hear about this Galt Police Foundation. So that's really exciting. I can't wait for that to get up and going. You know, I feel like over the last couple of years, again, I'll just harp on this, following the city for twenty years, I kind of feel like I've been in some of the trenches with with staffs and here. I just feel like we have grown up so much, and we are just making strides that and this is just a a product of that. It's just wonderful that we can make these steps. So very excited about that. And, yes, attended the Roger Nilo meeting or town hall or whatever they were calling it. It was great to see all those people there engaged.

It it just is good to see the city being engaged. You know, I wish more were here tonight, but I think we'll get there. And I do wanna put it out. I did get a text this morning that it sounds like Heath Flores or Assemblyman Flores office would like to also do something similar to what Roger Nilo did. So that will be good.

Heath Flores has been up here a couple of times, but, you know, at the very tip of his district. So it's hard for sometimes for our electeds to get get here. So it'd be great to to have him around too so everyone wait for that date to come out, hopefully, we can, talk to our assembly member as well. So if there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and close this meeting at 08:30.