Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, November 26, 2024

AGENDA

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
The Cotati City Council welcomes you to its meetings that are generally scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated.

City Council meeting agendas, minutes and recordings are posted on the City’s Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org. For questions about the agenda or to receive the City Council agenda by e-mail, contact the Deputy City Clerk at [email protected] or 707-665-3622.

Cotati City Council Meetings will be conducted in person in the Council Chamber. To guarantee your ability to participate, you must attend the meeting in person. As a courtesy to the public, the City allows citizens the opportunity to view and offer public comments virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing platform. Technical difficulties may occur that make the Zoom platform unavailable. If Zoom is unavailable, the meeting will continue. Participants considering using Zoom should consider attending in person, if they desire to ensure their ability to view the meeting and offer public comments.

Subject to the above disclaimer, Zoom Online video conferencing is available to watch or listen in the following ways:

1. Using the following online livestream meeting portal link: https://cotaticity.primegov.com/public/portal

2. Cable T.V. Broadcast, local channel 28
Members of the public can participate in the meeting online by clicking the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86325549914?pwd=tT2AM6niVnFxzvhdmtQkVSY9yfVh0l.1 If you do not have the ability to join online, but would like to participate in the meeting, you can call into the meeting using your telephone, by dialing one of the following numbers and entering the meeting credentials:

Webinar ID: 863 2554 9914 Passcode: 524513
+1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (346) 248-7799 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (301) 715-8592 or +1 (312) 626-6799 or +1 (929) 436-2866 Attendees may join the meeting any time after 5:45pm. Attendees will be muted until they are called upon for Public Comment. To make a public comment, use the “raise hand” icon on your smart device or desktop computer, or dial *9 if you are using just your telephone. Please listen carefully for the Mayor or City Clerk to address you by name (or phone number) and for the audible Zoom notification that you have been unmuted. Once you begin your public comment, your three minutes will begin.

If you would prefer to submit your public comment in writing, please email your comments to [email protected]. If you are commenting on a specific agenda item or items, please state the agenda item number(s) in the subject line of the email. All comments received via email will be provided to the City Council or Planning Commission in writing and included as part of the record of the meeting.

Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cotati City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

Disabled Accommodation: Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate formats to persons with disabilities as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the Deputy City Clerk at (707) 665-3622 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

Rules of Decorum: To avoid distraction, the following meeting etiquette shall be enforced. • Silence electronic devices, including cell phones.

Cotati City Council Packet November 26, 2024
• Audience members are advised to keep conversations to a minimum or conduct them outside the building. • Photographs or video recordings using tri-pods or other means that would be distracting are to be taken only from the designated media area. • The Presiding Officer shall request that the audience withhold expressions of support or opposition for speakers in the interest of time and to encourage the full expression of differing views. (City Council Policy 2023-01 III.B.1.) Public Comment (Action items): Public comment on any one agenda item where the City Council will be taking some action is limited to no more than three (3) minutes per person. Action items are typically designated on the agenda title.

Public Comment (Non-Action items): Public comment on non- action agenda items shall be received during the designated portion of the agenda.

Comments shall be limited to no more than three (3) minutes for all non-action agenda items.

Waiver Warning: If you challenge decisions/direction of the City Council of the City of Cotati in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cotati at, or prior to, the public hearing(s).

City Council meetings are conducted according to City Council Policy 2023-01: City Council Rules. This policy available for inspection in the online Meeting Portal at www.cotaticity.org and in the City Manager’s office located at 201 West Sierra Avenue, Cotati, California, during the City’s posted business hours.

Those wishing to address the Council are asked to complete a speaker card and give it to the City Clerk. When you are called, step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Persons wishing to address the Council are not required to identify themselves or complete a speaker card; (Gov’t. Code § 54953.3); however, this information assists the Mayor by ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and it assists the City Clerk in preparing the City Council meeting minutes.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Cotati recognizes that we’re on the ancestral lands of the Coastal Miwok, who are the original caretakers of this area. We respectfully acknowledge the Indigenous peoples who have been stewarding and maintaining a relationship on this land as knowledge keepers for millennia. This acknowledgement does not take the place of authentic relationships with Indigenous communities but serves as a gesture of respect to the land we are on.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED UNDER THIS

AGENDA (ACTION)
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING – NOV 12, 2024

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Meeting Orientation for New Attendees/Viewers. In conformance with the Brown Act and the adopted City Council Rules, the meeting agenda includes items labeled as Action Items, where the City Council may consider the item. If the City Council considers the item, citizens will be afforded the opportunity to provide comments relevant to the item being discussed. The meeting agenda also includes a Citizens Business item, which is the designated place on the agenda where citizens have the right to say whatever they wish. However, the Brown Act prohibits the City Council from taking action or considering any item that is not on this agenda, to ensure that other members of the community who wish to provide comment are notified in advance through a properly noticed meeting agenda.

B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the Cotati City Council Packet November 26, 2024
maintenance of our streets, parks, and public buildings. See details on the web at cotaticity.org C. Citizens interested in receiving City of Cotati community alerts via text or email are encouraged to enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.org, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.

D. Like always, we love to hear from you, so please feel free to contact the City at 707-792-4600 or [email protected]. If you have a non-emergency issue after normal business hours, you can contact us at 707-792-4611 and of course if you have an emergency, please contact 9-1-1. Continue to look for updates on the City's website and social media channels available on Facebook, Instagram, and CivicReady.

7. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
This item will only be opened for the public comment if the City Council proposes to take any action to modify this agenda.

8. CITIZEN BUSINESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS Any member of the public wishing to speak to the Council on any item(s) listed on the Consent Calendar or any matter(s) not listed on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council may do so at this time. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council is not allowed to consider issues or take action on any item not listed on the agenda. Pursuant to City Council Policy 2023-01, comments of any member of the public are normally restricted to a total of three (3) minutes in length per person for matters not on the agenda and a total of three (3) minutes per person in length for any and all items on the Consent Calendar. The Mayor may extend the time limit for a reasonable time where a disability accommodation has been requested. To facilitate public comment, the Deputy Clerk will alert speakers when there are thirty seconds remaining.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
A. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MOE

ENGINEERING INC FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN AND BIDDING ASSISTANCE SERVICES FOR THE CLASS 1 PATHWAYS MAINTENANCE PROJECT
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council approval by motion a Professional Service Agreement with Moe Engineering Inc for providing design services for the Class 1 Pathways Maintenance Project (Project) and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement.

B. SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND 17.32 DENSITY BONUSES OF THE COTATI

MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING

LAND USE AND POLICY AND TO CREATE THE COTATI DENSITY BONUS It is recommended by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission that the City Council conduct the second reading of the ordinance modifying Chapters 17.31 Affordable Housing and 17.32 Density Bonuses to improve consistency with state affordable housing law, create the Cotati Density Bonus and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy.

10. DIRECTION ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. RECOGNITION OF WALGREENS AND GRAYSON CHU, RECIPENT OF THE

EMPLOYERS BEST PRACTICES AWARD AND EMPLOYEE INITIATIVE AWARD

FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor by motion to send a letter from the City to Walgreens and Greyson Chu, congratulating and recognizing them for their awards and Cotati City Council Packet November 26, 2024
the employment practices and initiative that led to their recognition.

B. DISCUSSION OF ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFDS) It is recommended that the City Council discuss Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDS) and provide direction for staff to return with a proposal for an initial viability study at Strategic Planning.

12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

13. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS

14. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS

15. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

16. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before November 22, 2024. /s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk

MINUTES

JOINT MEETING OF THE COTATI CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO

THE FORMER COTATI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Council Chamber, City Hall 201 W. Sierra Avenue
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Sparks called the meeting to order at 6:00pm.

2. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Laura Sparks Mayor Present
Ben Ford Vice Mayor Present
Susan Harvey Councilmember Present
Sylvia Lemus Councilmember Present
Kathleen Rivers Councilmember Present
Staff Present: City Manager Damien O’Bid, City Attorney John Bakker, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Patterson, Director of Administrative Services Angela Courter, Director of Community Development Noah Housh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Craig Scott, Police Chief Chris Simmons, Planning Technician Eli Arreola

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING OF ALL

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES INTRODUCED AND/OR ADOPTED UNDER THIS

AGENDA (ACTION)
A. COTATI CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING – OCT 22, 2024 5 of 82 Cotati City Council Minutes November 12, 2024
RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sparks, Ford, Harvey, Lemus, Rivers
NAYS: None

B. Measure S supports police services, a variety of recreation programs for all ages, and the maintenance of our streets, parks, and public buildings. See details on the web at cotaticity.org C. Citizens interested in receiving City of Cotati community alerts via text or email are encouraged to enroll with CivicReady, by signing up on the City’s website, www.cotaticity.org, under the “How do I” link at the top of the homepage.

7. APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA (ACTION)
No changes.

No public comment.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
Councilmember Harvey announced that she was recusing herself from voting on the consent calendar item due to owning property near the project location. 6 of 82 Cotati City Council Minutes November 12, 2024
A. ACCEPTANCE OF THE REDWOOD DRIVE AND CYPRESS AVENUE PAVEMENT

REHABILITATION PROJECT
RESULT: Adopt [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Sylvia Lemus, Councilmember
AYES: Sparks, Ford, Lemus, Rivers
NAYS:

RECUSED:

None
Harvey

10. DIRECTION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
A. APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION TO APPROVE A

MINOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 680 EAST COTATI AVENUE
Presentation by Planning Technician Eli Arreola.

Councilmembers comment.

Mayor Sparks opened the public hearing, and the Council heard presentations from Dawna Gallagher representing the appellate, and Eric Lentz, representing T-Mobile, the applicant.

Public Comment:

Esmerelda Flores
Clint Weis of Cotati
Julia Hawkins of Cotati
Jill Seymour of Rohnert Park
Martha Glaser
Jennifer LaPorta
Sidnee Cox of Windsor
Cheryl Brinks
Joe Connolley
Tracy Levin
After public comment, Mayor Sparks closed the public hearing, re-opening several times for Council to ask clarifying questions of both the appellate and applicant.

The Council adopted the resolution denying the appeal, with an update to the finding of fact regarding back up power and fire safety, and added a requirement for the cell provider to take post installation field readings to verify the modeled EM transmissions in the FCC report. 7 of 82
Cotati City Council Minutes November 12, 2024
RESULT: Adopt [4 TO 0]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
AYES: Harvey, Ford, Lemus, Sparks
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Rivers
B. CONSIDERATION AND FIRST READING OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 17.32

DENSITY BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT

CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW AND POLICY AND CREATE THE

COTATI DENSITY BONUS
Presentation by Director of Community Development Noah Housh.

Councilmembers adopted the following edits to the draft “Cotati Density Bonus” language under CMC 17.32.030, Item E, to include the following:
- Add “proportionality” to the spread of affordable housing categories. - Remove the word “Council” from “City Council” to clarify that the City will grant the density bonus, regardless of which body at the City approves the project. - Allow up to 5 incentives, concessions or waivers, but limit the total project height to no greater than 10feet above the maximum height allowed in the base zoning district.

The City Council also provided direction to staff to return in 1 year (or sooner if needed) to assess if the Cotati Density Program is working as intended.

No public comment.

RESULT: Introduced [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
SECONDER: Laura Sparks, Mayor
AYES: Sparks, Ford, Harvey, Lemus, Rivers
NAYS: None

12. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
A. FEE DEFFERRAL AGREEMENT WITH NOEL AND LISA KIRBY OF DARHAL

DEVELOPMENTS LLC REQUESTING DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN PERMIT AND IMPACT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF 902 E. COTATI AVENUE Presentation by Director of Community Development Noah Housh.

Councilmembers comment.

No public comment.
8 of 82
Cotati City Council Minutes November 12, 2024
RESULT: Approve [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Susan Harvey, Councilmember
SECONDER: Ben Ford, Vice Mayor
AYES: Sparks, Ford, Harvey, Lemus, Rivers
NAYS: None

13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Report by City Manager Damien O’Bid.

14. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Councilmembers report out on local and regional events and meetings.

15. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-ACTION AGENDA ITEMS
Public Comment:

Laurie Alderman of Cotati

16. INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED

17. ADJOURNMENT
Certification of Posting of the Notice: I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Cotati and that I posted this notice on the City’s website, bulletin boards of City Hall, Veterans’ Memorial Building and the SMART Train Depot, on or before November 8, 2024. /s/ Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
9 of 82
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT

WITH MOE ENGINEERING INC FOR ENGINEERING

DESIGN AND BIDDING ASSISTANCE SERVICES FOR THE
CLASS 1 PATHWAYS MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Date: October 22, 2024
Written by: Henry Babits, Engineering Technician
Recommendation
It is recommended the City of Cotati City Council approval by motion a Professional Service Agreement with Moe Engineering Inc for complete design services for the Class 1 pathways maintenance project and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement.

Background
This project aims to maintain and repair Class 1 pathways. The Project includes the following pathway: Laguna de Santa Rosa trail between Gravenstein Way and E. Cotati Avenue.

Depending on available budget, Public Works will also perform spot repairs to Delano Park pathway.

Analysis/Discussion
Moe Engineering will provide engineering design services for the preparation of improvement plans and bid documents for the maintenance and restoration to portions of Cotati’s existing pathway system at the following location:

1. Laguna Pathway – Laguna De Santa Rosa trail between Gravenstein Way and E. Cotati Avenue.

This project involves asphalt surfacing along a portion of an existing pathway system in Cotati.

The purpose of the proposed asphalt surfacing is to provide a smooth all-weather pathway for use by the public. The existing asphalt pathway surfacing will be overlayed or reconstructed, 10 of 82
with shoulder backing adjacent to the pathway as site constraints allow. The asphalt pathway surface will be compliance with ADA standards and will include new garbage/recycling receptacles located so that the franchise waste hauler (Recology) and service them.

Financial Considerations
This project was included in the City’s FY 2024 Budget with an estimated total cost of $185,000.

Moe Engineering submitted a Cost Proposal for $45,057 for design and construction management. Staff requests a design contingency of $4,943, for a total not to exceed of $50,000, leaving $135,000 for construction.

Environmental Issues
This Project is Categorically Exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities as it is maintenance of existing facilities. 11 of 82

2950 Montecito Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 544 - 6274 FAX (707) 544 - 9086
November 20, 2024
Craig Scott, Director / City Engineer
Public Works & Engineering Department
City of Cotati
201 West Sierra Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
Subject: Cost Proposal for Professional Engineering Design Services for Class 1 Pathway Maintenance Project – FY 2024-2025
Craig Scott:

We are pleased to provide this proposal for engineering services for the subject project.

We understand the scope of work includes engineering design services for the preparation of improvement plans and bid documents for the maintenance and restoration to portions of Cotati’s existing pathway system at the following location:
• Laguna Pathway – Laguna De Santa Rosa trail between Gravenstein Way and E. Cotati Avenue
This project involves asphalt surfacing along a portion of an existing pathway system in Cotati. The purpose of the proposed asphalt surfacing is to provide a smooth all-weather pathway for use by the public. The existing asphalt pathway surfacing will be overlayed or reconstructed, with shoulder backing adjacent to the pathway as site constraints allow.

The asphalt pathway surface will have a design maximum cross slope of 1.5% for compliance with ADA standards. See the attached exhibit for the limits of the proposed pathway segment (location #1).

The construction is assumed to occur during spring of 2025. The fees for services included in this proposal are detailed in the attached Estimated Level of Effort spreadsheet and provided as separate tasks as follows:

Task 1 – Preliminary Scoping Budget $ 6,220.00
- Project Setup, management, coord. w/ City staff
- Scoping - thru completion, budget estimate - construction & overall project - Field review
- Meetings - up to 2 each
12 of 82
Proposal -Engineering Design Services for Class 1 Pathway Improvement Project – FY 2024-2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

November 2024
Task 2 – Design Development $ 4,446.00
- Compile mapping & record information
- Design coordination, receive comments, revisions
- Design Development Exhibit - project layout, critical issues details Task 3 – Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 60% Submittal $ 10,634.00 - Field Survey - pathway, existing site features as needed - Design Drawings - 60%
- Preliminary specifications - 60%
- Preliminary Engineering’s Estimate
Task 4 – Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 90% Submittal $ 6,380.00 - Meet w/ City staff - review 60% design comments
- Review/revise scope to meet project budget needs
- Design Drawings - 90%
- Preliminary specifications - 90%
- Update Engineer's Estimate
Task 5 – Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 100% Submittal $ 3,196.00 - Meet w/ City staff - review 90% design comments
- Design Drawings - 100%
- Specifications - 100%
- Final Engineer's Estimate
SUBTOTAL PS&E DESIGN TASKS $ 30,876.00
Task 6 – Bid Phase Services $ 3,872.00
- Respond to questions from contractors, prepare addenda as necessary - Bid Analysis / Award Recommendation

Task 7 – Construction Management & Inspection $ 8,588.00 - Attend Pre-Construction Conference
- Submittal Review - up to 5
- Respond to RFIs - up to 5
- Field Inspection & coord. w/ City staff
- Mileage & Reimbursables
13 of 82
Proposal -Engineering Design Services for Class 1 Pathway Improvement Project – FY 2024-2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

November 2024
Task 8 – Record Drawings $ 1,721.00
- Meet w/ project team to prepare record drawings
- Prepare Record Drawings (in a format acceptable to City) - using As-Builts prepared during construction
- Assemble & transmit CAD, PDF files to City
SUBTOTAL – BID PHASE/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $ 14,181.00 TOTAL ALL TASKS $45,057.00
We propose to provide the above Engineering Design, Bid Phase & Construction Management Services based on time and materials basis, pursuant to the attached Estimated Level of Effort and Fee Schedule, for an amount Not-to-Exceed of $45,057.00 The following items are specifically excluded from this proposal:
• Encroachment Permit Application for work City right-of-way. • Geotechnical Report, Soils Investigation, Soils Compaction Tests • Environmental compliance studies and technical memos. • Structural, Traffic, Electrical, Mechanical engineering services • Payment of any fees associated with the submittal or completion of this project.

If you have any questions or would like clarification of the proposed services, please feel free to call.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this proposal. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,
John L. Moe, PE
President, Moe Engineering, Inc.

Attachments:

Estimated Level of Effort
Moe Engineering Fee Schedule
Map exhibit of pathway locations
14 of 82
City of Cotati
Date:

Estimated Level of Effort
Category Principal Sr. Eng./LS Associate
Eng.

Assist. Eng. Eng. Tech Task Project
Rate $ 246.00 $ 215.00 $ 185.00 $ 166.00 $ 153.00 Amount Total Task 1 - Preliminary Scoping Budget

1.1 Project Setup, management, coord. w/ City staff
regarding maintenance options, design, CAD/GIS file
management
Hours 2 2 4
Amount $ 492.00 $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,586.00

1.2 Scoping - thru completion, budget estimate -
construction & overall project Hours
2 2 4
Amount $ 492.00 $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,586.00

1.3 Field review Hours 4 4
Amount $ - $ 860.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,524.00

1.4 Meetings - up to 2 each Hours 4 4
Amount $ - $ 860.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,524.00
Subtotal Task 1 $ 6 ,220.00
Task 2 - Design Development

2.1 Compile mapping & record information Hours 2 2
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 332.00 $ - $ 762.00

2.2 Design coordination, receive comments, revisions Hours 2 4 Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00

2.3 Design Development Exhibit - project layout, critical issues details Hours 1 2 6 6
Amount $ 246.00 $ 430.00 $ 996.00 $ 918.00 $ 2 ,590.00
Subtotal Task 2 $ 4 ,446.00
Task 3 - Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 60% Submittal

3.1 Field Survey - Paths, ramps, layout as needed Hours 1 4 4 Amount $ 246.00 $ 860.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,770.00

3.2 Design Drawings - 60% Hours 1 4 24
Amount $ 246.00 $ 860.00 $ 3 ,984.00 - $ $ 5 ,090.00

3.3 Preliminary specifications - 60% Hours 1 4 6
Amount $ 246.00 $ 860.00 $ 996.00 $ - $ 2 ,102.00

3.4 Preliminary Engineer's Estimate Hours 1 2 6
Amount $ 246.00 $ 430.00 $ 996.00 $ - $ 1 ,672.00
Subtotal Task 3 $ 10,634.00
Task 4 - Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 90% Submittal

4.1 Meet w/ City staff - review 60% design comments Hours 2 4 Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00

4.2 Review/revise scope to meet project budget needs Hours 1 2 4 Amount $ 246.00 $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,340.00

4.3 Design Drawings - 90% Hours 2 8
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 1,328.00 $ - $ 1 ,758.00

4.4 Preliminary specifications - 90% Hours 2 4
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00

4.5 Updated Engineer's Estimate Hours 2 4
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00
Subtotal Task 4 $ 6 ,380.00
Task 5 - Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) - 100% Submittal - Final

5.1 Meet w/ City staff - review 90% design comments Hours 1 2 2 Amount $ 246.00 $ 430.00 $ 332.00 $ - $ 1 ,008.00

5.2 Design Drawings - 100% Hours 2 4
Amount -$ 430.00$ 664.00$ -$ 1,094.00$

5.3 Final specifications - 100% Hours 1 2
Amount -$ 215.00$ 332.00$ -$ 547.00$

5.4 Final Engineer's Estimate Hours 1 2
Amount -$ 215.00$ 332.00$ -$ 547.00$
Subtotal Task 5 3,196.00$
TOTAL - PS&E: $ 30,876.00
Labor Cost
Moe Engineering, Inc.
11/20/2024
Job No. 2024-012 Class 1 Pathway Maintenance Project

Page 1 of 2 ends

Estimated Level of Effort - Class 1 Pathway Maintenance - Cotati Rev 11-20-2024.xlsx 11/20/2024 15 of 82
Task 6 - Bid Phase Services

6.1 Respond to questions from contractors, prepare addenda as necessary
Hours 1 4 8
Amount $ 246.00 $ 860.00 $ 1 ,328.00 - $ $ 2 ,434.00

6.2 Bid Analysis / Award Recommendation Hours 1 4 2
Amount $ 246.00 $ 860.00 $ 332.00 $ - $ 1 ,438.00
Subtotal Task 6 $ 3 ,872.00
Task 7 - Construction Management & Inspection

7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Conference Hours 1 2 4
Amount $ 246.00 $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,340.00

7.2 Submittal Review - up to 5 Hours 2 4
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00

7.3 Respond to RFIs - up to 5 Hours 2 4
Amount $ - $ 430.00 $ 664.00 $ - $ 1 ,094.00

7.4 Field Inspection & coord. w/ City staff Hours 4 20
(assume 2 weeks at 10 hrs/wk) Amount $ - $ 860.00 $ 3 ,700.00 $ - $ - $ 4 ,560.00

7.5 Mileage & Reimbursables Hours
Amount $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500.00
Subtotal Task 7 $ 8 ,588.00
Task 8 - Record Drawings

8.1 Meet w/ project team to prepare record drawings Hours 1 1 Amount $ - $ 215.00 $ 166.00 $ - $ 381.00

8.2 Prepare Record Drawings (in a format acceptable to City) - using As-Builts prepared during construction Hours 1 1 2 Amount $ 246.00 $ 215.00 $ 332.00 $ - $ 793.00

8.3 Assemble & transmit CAD, GIS, PDF files to City Hours 1 2 Amount -$ 215.00$ 332.00$ -$ 547.00$
Subtotal Task 8 1,721.00$
TOTAL - Bid Phase/Design Services During Construction/Record Drawings: $ 14,181.00 Total - All Tasks $ 45,057.00

Page 2 of 2 ends

Estimated Level of Effort - Class 1 Pathway Maintenance - Cotati Rev 11-20-2024.xlsx 11/20/2024 16 of 82

FEE SCHEDULE
Effective 2024
=============================================================== Principal $246.00/hour
Senior Engineer $215.00/hour
Land Surveyor $215.00/hour
Associate Engineer/Inspector $185.00/hour
Assistant Engineer $166.00/hour
Engineering/Survey Technician $153.00/hour
Drafting Technician $135.00/hour
Administrative Support $ 93.00/hour
Field Survey Crew (2-person) $369.00/hour
All charges and fees including subconsultant fees, cost of prints, copies, travel, telephone toll charges and other non-labor related expenses paid by this firm to others on behalf of the client shall be billed at the cost of the charge or fee plus 15% handling and accounting fee. All invoices are due within 30 days of the date of the invoice.

Annual rate escalation will be calculated at 3% on a calendar-year basis. 17 of 82
18 of 82
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: CONSENT CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND 17.32

DENSITY BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO

IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND

USE AND POLICY AND TO CREATE THE COTATI DENSITY
BONUS
Date: November 26, 2024
Written by: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development Recommendation
It is recommended by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission that the City Council conduct the second reading of the ordinance modifying Chapters 17.31 Affordable Housing and 17.32 Density Bonuses to improve consistency with state affordable housing law, create the Cotati Density Bonus and implement the CIty’s Local Preference Policy.

Background
On November 12, 2024, the City Council reviewed the draft proposal, provided direction to staff regarding some minor modifications to the Cotati Density Bonus and voted unanimously to introduce and conduct the first reading of the ordinance.

Analysis/Discussion
All analysis of the proposed changes is included in the November 12, 2024, staff report. In summary, The City Council adopted the following edits to the draft “Cotati Density Bonus” language under CMC 17.32.030, Item E, to include the following:
• Add “proportionality” to the spread of affordable housing categories. • Remove the word “Council” from “City Council” to clarify that the City will grant the density bonus, regardless of which body at the City approves the project. • Allow up to 5 incentives, concessions or waivers, but limit the total project height to no 19 of 82
greater than 10feet above the maximum height allowed in the base zoning district.

The City Council also provided direction to staff to return in 1 year (or sooner if needed) to assess if the Cotati Density Program is working as intended.

This report and all supporting materials are available on the City website at:
https://cotaticity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=6743 Financial Considerations
All analysis of the proposed changes is included in the November 12, 2024, staff report.

Environmental Issues
All analysis of the proposed changes is included in the November 12, 2024, staff report. 20 of 82
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI AMENDING CHAPTER 17.31 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND 17.32 DENSITY

BONUSES OF THE COTATI MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY

WITH CHANGES IN STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, CREATE A COTATI SPECIFIC DENSITY BONUSE AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S LOCAL

PREFERENCE POLICY
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the Cotati City Council adopted its updated General Plan (Resolution No. 2015-12), which identifies the City’s vision for the future and provides a framework to guide decisions on growth and development consistent with the quality of life desired by Cotati citizens. On March 24, 2015, the Cotati City Council also certified the City of Cotati General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which reviewed potentially significant environmental effects resulting from the plan’s implantation and developed measures and policies to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Cotati City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the General Plan (“Housing Element”), which includes goals and policies related to housing, including establishment of objective design standards for multifamily plex and single family housing, and facilitation of increased housing development; and
WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the Cotati Municipal Code is to codify mandates in state law and set the standards for implementation of said mandates in order to ensure consistent implementation of the law in Cotati; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Cotati held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed ordinance adopting amendments to update the Cotati municipal code to meet the changes in state density bonus regulations, create a Cotati Density Bonus and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy. After receiving the staff report, reviewing a presentation from the Planning Division, and considering all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the Ordinance, the Planning Commission voted to approve a resolution recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, based on the record, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning code amendments are consistent with and facilitate the General Plan.

WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City Council of the City of Cotati held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance to establish amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law, establish local density bonus allowances and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy, received the staff report, reviewed a presentation from the Planning Division, and considered all oral and written comments submitted to the City regarding the Ordinance prior to voting to introduce the Ordinance.

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2024, the City Council conducted the second reading of the Ordinance establishing amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish 21 of 82 consistency with state density bonus law, establish local density bonus allowances and implement the City’s Local Preference Policy, among other changes to local housing policy to implement Housing Element programs and policies.

NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Recitals.

The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the findings herein.

SECTION 2: Record
The Record of Proceedings (“Record”) upon which the City Council makes its decision includes, but is not limited to: 1) the 2015 General Plan, 2) the FEIR certified for the 2015 General Plan, 3) the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update adopted by the City Council in 2023, 4) the Mitigated Negative Declaration certified for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, 5) all staff reports, City files and records, and other documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City Council related to adoption of the amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law and create expanded local density bonus allowances.

SECTION 3: General Plan Consistency
The Council of the City of Cotati does hereby find that the amendments to Title 17 (Land Use) of the Cotati Municipal Code to establish consistency with state density bonus law and establish local density bonus allowances, as set forth in this Ordinance, are in the best interest of the City in that they will further established goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including the Housing Element, to expand housing opportunities, conserve resources, and use land appropriately.

Specifically, the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.31 Affordable Housing Requirement and Chapter

17.32 Density Bonuses implement the below referenced Housing Element and General Plan policies in that they will help to ensure consistency in the implementation of affordable housing requirements; allowing additional density in density bonus projects will increase incentives for in-fill development and provide additional residential units in close proximity to local amenities and employment opportunities; the changes will support increased compact development and housing near local employment and supporting the use of alternative transportation methods; and the updated language will further encourage mixed use and transit oriented development through clarifying the increased allowable density, including around the Hub and major corridors.

Program 1-5: Preservation of Affordable Housing: To Facilitate the preservation of deed restricted and other existing affordable housing, and protect residents from displacement, the City will continue to monitor affordable housing developments, facilitate the acquisition of expiring properties and conduct outreach to property owners.

Program 1-8: Residential Building Decarbonization: Continue to permit and encourage mixed uses and higher densities on in-fill and vacant sites in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) with public serving facilities, such as medical clinics, schools, and grocery stores, to discourage sprawl and encourage short vehicle trips and/or alternative forms of transportation.

Program 3-1: Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: Amend the City’s Zoning Code to use the maximum parking requirements in Government Code Section 65915 (State Density Bonus) for all multifamily projects 22 of 82 without the need for any developer request by December 2023.

In addition, these amendments are consistent with and implement the following General Plan policies and programs in that they will increase the allowable density of residential development; put these additional units within closer proximity to multi-modal transportation infrastructure and support the development of mixed use projects by allowing additional density increase beyond those allowed at the state level:

Policy CON 2.1: Improve air quality through continuing to require a compact development pattern that focuses growth in and around existing urbanized areas, locating new housing near places of employment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and requiring projects to mitigate significant air quality impacts.

Policy LU 2.5: Locate medium and higher density housing within easy walking or bicycling distance of public facilities, services, transit, and major employers.

Policy LU 2.10: Encourage mixed-use, pedestrian-, and transit-oriented development, with a focus on the Hub and major corridors.

SECTION 4: Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

In conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Cotati Land Use Code related to density bonus are consistent with and implement the goals, policies, and objectives of the 2015 General Plan, the 6th Cycle Housing Element and state density bonus law and therefore finds that these proposed revisions conform to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which provides a streamlined review of the environmental impacts of the project by tiering from the program level analysis prepared for the Cotati General Plan and its certified EIR, and other previously completed environmental analysis.

The Council further finds that all adopted mitigating General Plan policies, mitigation measures identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR and Housing Element Mitigated Negative Declaration will address any potential environmental impacts of the proposed code changes. Further, these changes are being mandated by updates to state density bonus law and future project-specific environmental analysis of any housing development proposed under the amended Code will be required and will allow project-specific impacts not previously identified or anticipated to be addressed.

SECTION 5: Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.31 is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 17.31

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Sections:

17.31.010 Purpose.

17.31.020 Applicability.

17.31.030 Exemptions.

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

17.31.060 Alternatives.

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

17.31.100 Rental units.
23 of 82

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

17.31.120 Affordable housing trust fund.

17.31.130 Enforcement.

17.31.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

A. Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within city as mandated by Government Code Section 65580, State Density Bonus Law, and the City’s housing element, et seq.;
B. Offset the demand on housing created by new development, and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new development by protecting the economic diversity of the city’s housing stock, reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts, promoting jobs/housing balance and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region; C. Implement the policies of the housing element of the general plan. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.020 Applicability.

A. Inclusionary Requirement. Each residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide at least fifteen percent of the total units as inclusionary units restricted for occupancy by moderate-, lowor very low-income households. The number of inclusionary units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of tentative or parcel map approval, or, for developments not processing a map, prior to issuance of a building permit typically as a component of discretionary review and approval. If a change in the project design changes the total number of units, the number of inclusionary units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project.

1. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this section, any additional units authorized as a density bonus in compliance with state density bonus law and/or Chapter 17.32 (Density Bonuses) of this title will not be counted in determining the required number of inclusionary units. In determining the number of whole inclusionary units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. The remaining portion of a fraction rounded down will off-set its impacts through the payment of the in-lieu fee for the remaining portion of the unit.

2. Limitations on Occupancy. Projects constructing affordable housing units shall seek to distribute portions of the below market rate units across income levels, at a ratio based on the City’s unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

B. Minimum Requirements. The requirements of this chapter are minimum and maximum requirements, although nothing in this chapter limits the ability of State density bonus law or a person to waive their rights or voluntarily undertake greater obligations than those imposed by this chapter. (Ord. 854 § 2 (part), 2015; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.030 Exemptions.

The requirements of this chapter do not apply to:
24 of 82
A. The reconstruction of a structure that has been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature, provided that reconstruction does not increase the number of residential units; B. A development that already has more units that qualify as affordable to moderate-, low- and very lowincome households than this chapter requires; C. Housing constructed by other government agencies; or D. An accessory dwelling unit. (Ord. 893 § 7, 2020; Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.040 Standards for inclusionary units.

Each inclusionary unit built in compliance with this chapter shall comply with to the following standards:

A. Location of Inclusionary Units. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, inclusionary units shall be dispersed throughout a residential development.

B. Design. Inclusionary units shall be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market-rate units. Inclusionary units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than market-rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. The number of bedrooms shall be the same as those in the market-rate units, except that if the market-rate units provide more than four bedrooms, the inclusionary units need not provide more than four bedrooms.

C. Timing of Construction. All inclusionary units shall be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of market-rate units or development. In phased developments, inclusionary units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the residential development, provided that the last inclusionary unit in the project shall be constructed before the last market-rate unit.

D. Duration of Affordability Requirement. Inclusionary units produced in compliance with this chapter shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the units were designated, for a minimum of fifty-five years from the date of first occupancy for rental units, and for a minimum of fifty-five years from the date of each sale of any affordable unit for owner-occupied units. (Additional affordability requirements may apply in compliance with State Redevelopment and/or density bonus law (Health and Safety Code Section 33413(c)). (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.050 In-lieu fees.

A residential development of nine or fewer units may comply with the requirements of this chapter by paying an in-lieu fee as established by council resolution, as it may be amended from time to time. The council may annually review the fee and may, based on the review, adjust the fee. For any annual period during which the council does not review the fee authorized by this subsection, fee amounts will be adjusted once by the city manager based on the Construction Cost Index. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.060 Alternatives.

A. Developer Proposal. A developer may propose an alternative means of compliance in an affordable housing plan as provided in Section 17.31.070(B) of this chapter as follows:
25 of 82

1. Off-Site Construction. Units may be constructed off-site if the inclusionary units will be located an area where, based on the availability of affordable housing, the council finds that the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development.

2. Land Dedication. In lieu of building inclusionary units, a developer may choose to dedicate land to the city suitable for the construction of inclusionary units that the council reasonably determines to be of equivalent or greater value than is produced by applying the inclusionary obligation.

3. Combination. The council may accept any combination of on-site construction, off-site construction, in-lieu fees and land dedication that at least equal the cost of providing inclusionary units on-site as would otherwise be required by this chapter. The value of a proposed land dedication shall be determined by an appraiser appointed by the city.

B. Discretion. The council may approve, conditionally approve, or reject any alternative proposed by a developer as part of an affordable housing plan. Any approval or conditional approval shall be based on a finding that the purposes of this chapter would be better served by implementation of the proposed alternatives. In determining whether the purposes of this chapter would be better served under the proposed alternative, the council should consider:

1. Whether implementation of an alternative would overly concentrate inclusionary units within any specific area and, if so, must reject the alternative unless the undesirable concentration of inclusionary units is offset by other identified benefits that flow from implementation of the alternative in issue; and

2. The extent to which other factors affect the feasibility of prompt construction of the inclusionary units on the property, such as costs and delays, the need for an appraisal, site design, zoning, infrastructure, clear title, grading and environmental review. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.070 Compliance procedures.

A. General. Approval of an inclusionary housing plan and implementation of a city-approved inclusionary housing agreement is a condition of any tentative map, parcel map, discretionary approval or building permit for any development for which this chapter applies. This section does not apply to an exempt project, or to a project where the requirements of the chapter are satisfied by payment of a fee in compliance with Section 17.31.050 (In-lieu fees) of this chapter.

B. Inclusionary Housing Plan. No application for a tentative map, parcel map, discretionary approval or building permit to which this chapter applies is complete until an inclusionary housing plan is submitted with the application. At any time during the review process, the city may require from the developer additional information reasonably necessary to clarify and supplement the application or determine the consistency of the proposed inclusionary housing plan with the requirements of state density bonus law and/or this chapter. The inclusionary housing plan must include:

1. The location, structure (attached, semi-attached, or detached), whether for sale or rental, size of the proposed market-rate and inclusionary units, and the basis for calculating the number of inclusionary units;

2. A floor or site plan showing the location of the inclusionary units;

3. The income levels to which each inclusionary unit will be made affordable; 26 of 82

4. For phased development, a phasing plan that provides for the timely development of the number of inclusionary units proportionate to each proposed phase of development as required by Section 17.31.040(C) of this chapter;

5. Any alternative means designated in Section 17.31.060(A) proposed for the development along with information necessary to support the findings required by Section 17.31.060(B) of this chapter for approval of the alternatives; and

6. Any other information reasonably requested by the city to assist with evaluation of the plan in compliance with the standards of this chapter.

C. Inclusionary Housing Agreement. The inclusionary housing agreement shall use the form provided by the city. The contents of the agreement may vary depending on the manner in which the provisions of this chapter are satisfied for a particular development. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall include, at minimum, the following:

1. Description of the development, including whether the inclusionary units will be rented or owner-occupied;

2. The number, size and location of very low-, low- or moderate-income units;

3. Provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal or rental restrictions;

4. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective resident households for income eligibility; and

5. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this chapter.

D. Recording of Agreement. Each inclusionary housing agreement shall be recorded against owneroccupied inclusionary units and residential projects containing rental inclusionary units, as applicable.

Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and/or other documents acceptable to the city shall also be recorded against owner-occupied inclusionary units. In cases where the requirements of this chapter are satisfied through the development of off-site units, the inclusionary housing agreement shall simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off-site units are to be developed. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.080 Eligibility for occupying inclusionary units.

A. General Eligibility. No household may occupy an inclusionary unit unless the city or its designee has approved the household’s eligibility, or has failed to make a determination of eligibility within the time or other limits provided by an inclusionary housing agreement or resale restriction. If the city or its designee maintains a list or identifies eligible households, initial and subsequent occupants will be selected first from the list of identified households, to the maximum extent possible, in compliance with any rules approved by the city, including the City’s Local Preference Policy.

B. Occupancy. A household who occupies a rental inclusionary unit or purchases an inclusionary unit shall occupy the unit as a principal residence. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

C. Local Preference. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7061 and Housing Element Program 4- 1, and assuming all other factors being equal, priority for available below market rate housing units shall be extended to people that: 1. Currently live or work in the City of Cotati; 2. Have children who 27 of 82 attend a school within the Rancho Cotati School District; 3. Are members of a local Native American Tribe, including the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR); or 4. Are an employee of Sonoma State University, over other persons to rent or purchase deed-restricted affordable housing units, in the order of priority with which the categories are listed.

17.31.090 Owner-occupied units.

A. Initial Sales Price. The initial sales price of the inclusionary unit must be set so that the eligible household will pay an affordable ownership cost.

B. Transfer. Renewed restrictions will be entered into on each change of ownership, with a fifty-five year renewal term, upon transfer of an owner-occupied inclusionary unit prior to the expiration of the previous affordability period.

C. Resale. The maximum sales price permitted on resale of an inclusionary unit designated for owneroccupancy shall be the initial purchase price, increased by the rate of increase of area median income (of the appropriate income category) during the seller’s ownership.

To the extent authorized in any resale restrictions or operative inclusionary housing agreement, sellers may recover at time of sale the market value of capital improvements made by the seller and the seller’s necessary and usual costs of sale, and may authorize an increase in the maximum allowable sales price to achieve such recovery.

D. Change in Title. The following requirements apply in the event of a change in circumstance, including death, marriage, and divorce, that may occur prior to the expiration of the required affordability period:

1. Upon the death of one of the owners, title in the property may transfer to the surviving joint tenant, tenant in common, or community property holder, without respect to the income eligibility of the household.

2. Upon the death of a sole owner or all owners, and inheritance of the inclusionary unit by a non-income-eligible inheritee, there will be a one-year compassion period between the time when the estate is settled and the time when the property must be sold to an income-eligible household. A noneligible inheritee may request and the council may waive this requirement on the basis of hardships specified by the council. Alternatively, the council may authorize their continued ownership with the unit rented at an affordable rate to an eligible household for the remainder of the affordability restriction period. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.100 Rental units.

A. Eligibility of Tenants. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall be responsible for certifying the income of the tenant to the director at the time of initial rental, and annually thereafter. This shall be completed by viewing acceptable documentation, including income tax statements or a W-2 for the previous calendar year, and submitting, on a form approved by the city, a certification that the tenant qualifies as an income-eligible household.

B. Selection of Tenants. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall fill vacant units by either:

1. Selecting income-eligible households themselves, as long as the owner complies with the publication requirements in subsection C of this section;

2. Selecting income-eligible households from the city’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 28 of 82
Waiting List available from the department.

C. Publication of Availability of Units. Whenever an inclusionary unit becomes available, the owner shall publish notices of the availability of inclusionary units via email to the City’s “Housing Interest List”; and in newspapers circulated widely in the city, including newspapers that reach minority communities. The notice should briefly explain what inclusionary housing is, state the applicable income requirements, indicate where applications are available, state when the application period opens and closes, and provide a telephone number and email for questions. Applications may require the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; the number of persons to occupy the household; household income; information regarding the City’s Local Preference policy and any other information relevant to determine whether the applicant is eligible to occupy an inclusionary unit. The owner shall submit proof of publication to the director.

D. Notification to City. Whenever an inclusionary unit becomes available, the owner shall immediately notify the director in writing.

E. Subsequent Rental to Income-Eligible Tenant. The owner of rental inclusionary units shall apply the same rental terms and conditions to tenants of inclusionary units as are applied to all other tenants, except as otherwise required to comply with this chapter (i.e., rent levels, occupancy restrictions and income requirements) and/or government subsidy programs. Discrimination based on subsidies received by the prospective tenant is prohibited.

F. Changes in Tenant Income. If after moving into an inclusionary unit the tenant’s income eventually exceeds the income limit for that unit, the tenant may remain in the unit (the “original unit”) as directed below:

1. If the tenant’s income does not exceed the income limits of other inclusionary units in the residential development, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit at the tenant’s new applicable affordable housing income category rental rate, as long as the next vacant unit is redesignated for the same lower income category applicable to the original unit. If the owner does not want to redesignate the next vacant unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If during the year, an inclusionary unit becomes available and the tenant meets the income eligibility for that unit, the owner shall provide the tenant with the opportunity to submit an application for that unit.

2. If there are no units designated for a higher income category within the residential development that may be substituted for the original unit, the tenant shall be given one year’s notice to vacate the unit. If within that year, another unit in the residential development is vacated, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit and raise the tenant’s rent to market rate and designate the newly vacated unit for the original unit at the applicable affordable housing cost. Unless the tenants household situation has changed, the newly vacated unit must be comparable in size (i.e., number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, etc.) and location (i.e., comparable floor, comparable view, etc.) as the original unit. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.110 Adjustments, waivers.

The requirements of this chapter may be adjusted or waived in extreme cases if the developer demonstrates to the council by the presentation of substantial evidence that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions and/or in keeping with the allowances of state and local density bonus law.

A. Timing. To receive an adjustment or waiver, the developer must make a showing when applying for a 29 of 82 first approval for the residential development, and/or as part of any appeal that the city provides as part of the process for the first approval.

B. Considerations. In making a determination on an application to adjust or waive the requirements of this chapter, the council may assume each of the following when applicable:

1. That the developer is subject to the inclusionary housing requirement or in-lieu fee;

2. The extent to which the developer will benefit from inclusionary incentives and how density bonus law directs the approval of such allowances;

3. That the developer will be obligated to provide the most economical inclusionary units feasible in terms of construction, design, location and tenure; and

4. That the developer may obtain other housing subsidies where such funds are reasonably available.

C. Decision and Further Appeal. The council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, will determine the application and issue a written decision.

D. Modification of Plan. If the council, upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the city attorney, determines that the application of the provisions of this chapter lacks a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed residential project and the requirements of this chapter, or that applying the requirement of this chapter would take property in violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions or density bonus law, the inclusionary housing plan shall be modified, adjusted or waived to reduce the obligations under this chapter to the extent necessary to avoid an unlawful result. If the council determines that no violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions would occur through application of this chapter, the requirements of this chapter remain applicable. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.115 Nonresidential affordable housing linkage requirements.

A. Applicability and Requirements. Unless otherwise exempt under subsection B of this section, any person who constructs new or expanded nonresidential development, shall contribute to the city’s affordable housing program through one or more of the following three methods:

1. On-Site Construction of the Required Affordable Units. Provide the required affordable unit(s) onsite, pursuant to subsection C of this section as allowed by the underlying zoning district (i.e., mixed use, live/work); or

2. Payment of In-Lieu Fee. Pay a fee in lieu of the construction of the required affordable units pursuant to subsection E of this section; or

3. Alternative Equivalent Actions. Perform an alternative equivalent action pursuant to subsection F of this section, which may be allowed to fulfill the affordable housing requirements of this section if approved by the city council, at its sole discretion.

B. Exempt Projects. The affordable housing requirements of this section shall not apply to the following exempt projects:

1. Project with vested rights. A project that demonstrates a vested right to proceed without complying with this section;
30 of 82

2. Public and nonprofit projects. Public projects and nonprofit projects which provide a public benefit to the community;

3. Small projects and additions. Small projects and additions of less than two thousand square feet in total gross floor area;

4. Floor Area Discount. The requirements of this section shall not apply to the first two thousand square feet of nonresidential floor area in all new developments;

5. Structures destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe. Repair, reconstruction or replacement of a legal nonresidential structure that is destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe, provided that a building permit for repair, reconstruction or replacement has been issued and construction begun within five years of destruction;

6. Nonresidential replacements or remodels. Remodels or replacements to existing, legal structures that do not result in the creation of additional floor area;

7. Projects that clearly do not contribute to the demand for affordable housing, such as unmanned utility structures and parking garages.

C. Number of Affordable Units Required. An affordable housing unit requirement is established for nonresidential development in accordance with the following Table 1:

Table 1
Type of Nonresidential Development
Number1 of Affordable Housing Units
Required per 1,000 Square Feet of Floor
Area2
Industry, Manufacturing and Processing, Wholesaling .06 Recreation, Education and Public Assembly .05
Retail Trade .09
Services – Business, Financial, Professional .05
Services – General .05
Transportation, Communications and Infrastructure .05
Notes:
1 All fractional units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2 For purposes of this table, the floor area excludes all garage areas permanently allocated for employee or customer vehicle parking.

1. Level of Affordability Required. At least one-third of the total number of required affordable units shall be provided as affordable to very low-income households. The remaining affordable units may be provided as affordable to households with low incomes. If the number of required affordable units is an odd number, the number of units affordable to low-income households may be one greater than the number affordable to very low-income households, so long as at least one very low-income unit is provided.

2. Mixed Use and Live Work Projects. In any project including a mix of residential and 31 of 82 nonresidential development, including but not limited to mixed use and live work projects, the required affordable units required pursuant to this chapter shall be calculated based upon the nonresidential square footage of the development and shall be required in addition to the inclusionary housing obligations for the residential portion of the development as required by Section 17.31.020.

D. Fractional Units. If calculating the number of units required by this section results in a fractional unit requirement, the applicant may satisfy that fractional unit requirement by:

1. Constructing an additional affordable unit; or

2. Paying an in-lieu fee in compliance with subsection E of this section (Workforce Housing In-Lieu Fee); or

3. Performing an alternative equivalent action approved by the city council in compliance with subsection F of this section (Alternative Equivalent Actions).

E. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. An applicant may choose to pay a fee in lieu of providing the affordable housing units required by this section.

1. Determination of Fee. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be established by resolution of the city council. Thereafter, beginning on January 1, 2008, the fee shall be increased or decreased annually by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index for the prior year, as reflected in the third quarter Engineering News Record published in November of each year. The in-lieu fee shall be automatically adjusted, and a new schedule published by the director of planning on January 1st of each year. This adjustment will offset the effects of inflation related to construction cost increases or deflation-related cost decreases. If the Construction Cost Index is discontinued, the director shall use a comparable index for determining the changes in the median home costs for Sonoma County. The fee shall be periodically reviewed and updated at least every two years to reflect any changes in the funding gap for a low-income household.

2. Timing of Payment. The in-lieu fee shall be calculated at the time of building permit application. The fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit for each nonresidential project, unless proof is provided that the required affordable housing unit units will be constructed on-site or that an alternative equivalent action was previously approved in accordance with subsection F of this section. If the units are to be constructed on or off-site, the affordable housing agreement shall specify the timing of construction of the affordable housing units and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit for the project.

3. In-Lieu Fee Fund. In-lieu fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the city’s affordable housing fund and may be used for the purposes set forth in Section 17.31.120.

17.31.117Alternative Equivalent Actions.

The city council may, at its sole discretion, approve an alternative equivalent action to the provision of the affordable units on-site or payment of the in-lieu fee, as follows:

1. Scope of Alternative Proposals. Proposals for an alternative equivalent action may include:
32 of 82
a. The dedication of vacant land (see subsection (F)(5) of this section, Standards for Land Dedications); or
b. The construction of affordable rental or ownership units on another site within the city; c. Employer-based programs providing direct subsidy to qualified employees, including mortgage buy-downs or rental assistance that provides long-term affordability.

2. Content of Proposal. A proposal for an equivalent alternative action shall show how the requested alternative action will further affordable housing opportunities in the city to an equal or greater extent than the actual provision of the affordable housing units on site in compliance with subsection C of this section (Number of Affordable Units Required), or payment of the in-lieu housing fee in compliance with subsection E of this section (Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee).

3. Review and Approval. Only the city council can approve an equivalent alternative action under this section. A proposal for an alternative equivalent action may be approved by the city council only if the council finds that the alternative action will further affordable housing opportunities in the city to an equal or greater extent than the construction of the required affordable units as part of the project or payment of the in-lieu housing fee.

4. Performance of Alternative Action. After approval by the city council of a proposal for an alternative action, entitlements for that alternative action must be processed concurrent with the market-rate projects. If the alternative action includes construction of affordable units on another site or the acquisition and enforcement of rental/sales price restrictions on existing market rate units, an affordable housing agreement in the city’s standard form as approved by the city attorney shall be recorded for each of those units prior to recordation of any final map for, or issuance of any building permit within, the market-rate project, and the affordable units shall be constructed or acquired concurrent with, or before, the construction of the market rate project.

5. Standards for Land Dedications.
a. Offers of Dedication. An applicant who proposes to dedicate land located within city in lieu of constructing the affordable units required by this section shall offer such land dedication as a part of the initial application for project approval. The applicant’s offer shall describe the site, shall offer it for dedication at no cost to the city, and shall include a site plan illustrating the feasibility of locating and constructing the number of required affordable units for which the applicant is requesting in-lieu credit. b. Site Suitability and Appraisal.
i. The applicant shall provide a site suitability analysis which demonstrates that the land proposed for dedication is suitable for the development of affordable housing in terms of size, location, general plan land use designation, zoning, availability of services, proximity to public transit, adjacent land uses, access to streets and walkways, physical characteristics and configuration, and other relevant planning criteria. Staff shall evaluate the site suitability analysis, identify the site’s projected unit capacity, and recommend to the city council whether the site should be accepted or conditionally accepted. An environmental evaluation may be required as a part of the site suitability analysis. 33 of 82 ii. The applicant shall provide an appraisal of the land proposed for dedication. The appraisal shall be prepared by a qualified land appraiser and shall conform to the “Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice” as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
iii. All staff costs associated with the determination of site suitability, and all expenses incurred to determine legal status of site, to perform environmental assessments and to obtain an appraisal, shall be borne by the applicant. c. Number of Units Credited to Dedication of Land. Following review of the appraisal and site suitability analysis, the city shall determine the number of required affordable housing units for which the applicant will receive credit upon dedication of the site.
i. The city will offer to credit the applicant for the land dedication only to the extent that the appraised value of the land to be dedicated equals the full development cost of providing the required affordable units, including both land costs and construction costs.
ii. If the appraised value of the land is less than the total projected development cost for the number of affordable units required, the applicant will be credited with only the number of affordable units for which development costs are covered by the value of the land.
iii. The applicant shall agree to provide any remaining affordable units required by this section on the project site, or to pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining number of required units.
d. Procedure for Acceptance of Site. The city shall not accept an offer of dedication nor approve the proposed nonresidential project until such time as the conditions of acceptance of the land, if any, have been completed by the applicant. The city’s formal acceptance of the offer of dedication shall take place concurrently with its approval of the nonresidential project. The grant deed dedicating the site to the city, or to a developer of affordable housing approved by the city, shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit within the nonresidential project. (Ord. 782 § 4 Exh. A, 2006).

17.31.120 Affordable housing fund.

A. Fund Established. There is established a separate affordable housing fund (“fund”). This fund shall receive all fees contributed under Sections 17.31.050 (In-lieu fees) and 17.31.060 (Alternatives) of this chapter, and may also receive moneys from other sources.

B. Purpose and Limitations. Moneys deposited in the fund must be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, and very low-income households in the city. Moneys may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this section.

C. Administration. The fund shall be administered by the city manager with the approval of the council.

The city manager may develop procedures to implement the purposes of the fund consistent with the requirements of this chapter and any adopted budget of the city.

D. Expenditures. Fund moneys shall be used in compliance with the housing element, redevelopment 34 of 82 plan, or subsequent plan adopted by the council to construct, rehabilitate or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, pre-home ownership co-investment, predevelopment loan funds, low-income preservation programs, participation leases or other public-private partnership arrangements. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.

E. City Manager’s Annual Report. The city manager shall report to the council and commission on the status of activities undertaken with the fund in compliance with Government Code Section 66006(b). The report shall include a statement of income, expenses, disbursements and other uses of the fund. The report should also state the number and type of inclusionary units constructed or assisted during that year and the amount of assistance. The report will evaluate the efficiency of this chapter in mitigating city’s shortage of affordable housing and recommend any changes to this chapter necessary to carry out its purposes, including any adjustments to the number of units to be required. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

17.31.130 Enforcement.

A. Penalty for Violation. It is a misdemeanor to violate any provision of this chapter. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is also a misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an affordable unit under this chapter at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this chapter or to sell or rent an affordable unit to a household not qualified under this chapter. It is further a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete information to the city or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.

B. Legal Action. The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, including:

1. Actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval;

2. Actions to recover from any violator of this chapter civil fines, restitution to prevent unjust enrichment from a violation of this chapter, and/or enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees;

3. Eviction or foreclosure; and

4. Any other appropriate action for injunctive relief or damages. Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not excuse any person, owner, household or other party from the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 766 § 2 Exh. A (part), 2004).

SECTION 6: Amendment to the Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.32 Section 17.32.030 Allowed Density Bonuses is amended to add a new Section E. Cotati Density Bonus (as written below) and renumber the remaining F-I:

E. Cotati Density Bonus. For projects providing twenty-five percent of the proposed units as affordable housing at income levels spread across very low-, low- and moderate-income categories proportionally based on the City’s remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or the affordable housing priorities of the City; and evenly distributed throughout the project site; and which comply with the City’s Objective Design Standards, the City shall grant up to one-hundred percent residential density bonus. 35 of 82 Such projects shall be entitled to receive a maximum of five (5) incentives, concessions or waivers from development standards as defined by state density bonus law (in total) but in no case shall such a waiver grant a height increase greater than 10-feet above the maximum height allowed within the base zoning district.

Construction and severability.

It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Cotati to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law, and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intent. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Cotati hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 7: Effective date.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption pursuant to the California Government Code.

SECTION 8: Publication. The city clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published and/or posted as required in Section 36933 of the California Government Code.

Approved:

Mayor
Attest:

Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:

John Bakker, City Attorney
This document is a true and correct copy of Ordinance Number and has been published or posted pursuant to law. California Government Code § 40806 Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
36 of 82
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR CALENDAR (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: RECOGNITION OF WALGREENS AND GRAYSON CHU,

RECIPENT OF THE EMPLOYERS BEST PRACTICES AWARD

AND EMPLOYEE INITIATIVE AWARD FOR PEOPLE WITH

DISABILITIES
Date: November 26, 2024
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor by motion to send a letter from the City to Walgreens and Greyson Chu, congratulating and recognizing them for their awards and the employment practices and initiative that led to their recognition.

Background
At the City Council meeting on October 8, 2024, the City Council recognized October as ”National Disability Employment Awareness Month” with a proclamation that was received by staff from Becoming Independent, a local nonprofit community benefit organization supporting the full spectrum of needs for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in the North Bay.

On October 30, 2024, the local office of the State Department of Rehabilitation with Becoming Independent, hosted an annual awards event recognizing "individuals employed, community advocated for individuals with disabilities and employers who provide employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities.“ Mayors Sparks and other Sonoma County mayors were invited to the awards event.

Analysis/Discussion
37 of 82
Financial Considerations
At the October 30. 2024 awards event, Walgreens in Cotati, represented by the store manager Candice White, was awarded the ”Employer Best Practices Award” for being an excellent employer for people with disabilities. In addition, one of the employees at our local Walgreens, Grayson Chu, was also recognized with the ”Employee Initiative Award”.

As cited in the awards nomination (attached), ”Walgreens has been outstanding in supporting participants from the Student Services Program. Over the year, Walgreens has welcomed 10 participants into work experiences and hired one. Participants have enjoyed working at Walgreens and have successfully performed the tasks. Much of that success has been that Candice White, Store Manager, has been an excellent support and advocate for young people with disabilities. She is very tuned in to their strengths, abilities, and makes appropriate adjustments to accommodate their disabilities and learning styles. The training is presented in tiers allowing for independence and individual growth and scales back on tasks returning the participant to basic tasks and repetition to allow more time for learning and mastering the task.

Participants are also provided with opportunity to learn leadership and teamwork skills.” Environmental Issues
Not applicable.
38 of 82
View results
Anonymous 142:00
Time to complete
18 Respondent

1. Nominator (Your Name) *
Sandra Aguayo

2. Your Phone Number *
(707) 576-2257

3. Your Email Address *
[email protected]

4. Name of Business Being Nominated: *
Walgreens (Cotati)

5. Business Street Address *
7800 Old Redwood Hwy

6. Business City *
Cotati, CA 94931

7. Business Point of Contact Name *
Candice White

8. Business Point of Contact Title *
Store Manager
8/6/24, 9:45 AM Sonoma County Mayors' Committee Employer Best Practices Nomination https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=VHDtGZedx0OSsWeBtrlbaN7YrRNCW0BAiQ2mMm… 1/3 39 of 82

9. Point of Contact Phone Number *
(707) 795-6014

10. Point of Contact Email *
Email Not Available
What about this business made you choose to nominate them for the Employer Best Practices Award? Example: I chose to nominate (Business Name) because they have hired 4 individuals who I know need special accommodation.

Better Example: I chose to nominate (Business Name) because they have hired 4 individuals who I know need special accommodation. Specifically by modifying job duties.

Best Example:
(Business Name) is an exceptional community employer that successfully uses natural supports to help employees with disabilities succeed. Since 2007, (Business Name) has carved out special positions for employees with disabilities, adjusting job duties and work schedules to meet employees' needs while still getting the job done. *

11. Walgreens has been outstanding in supporting participants from the Student Services Program. Over the year, Walgreens has welcomed 10 participants into work experiences; and hired one. Participants have enjoyed working at Walgreens and have successfully performed the tasks. Much of that success has been that Candice White, Store Manager, has been an excellent to support and advocate for young people with disabilities. She is very tuned in to their strengths, abilities, and makes appropriate adjustments to accommodate their disabilities and learning styles. The training is presented in tiers allowing for independence and individual growth; and scales back on tasks returning the participant to basic tasks and repetition to allow more time for learning and mastering the task.

Participants are also provided with opportunity to learn leadership and teamwork skills.

Please describe any specific policies and practices of this employer which set an example for hiring individuals with disabilities.

Example: (Business Name) has modified job duties to allow individuals who sustain a disability to remain in their current position or has moved employees into new positions which they can perform. *

12. One policy that Walgreens has in place is to have all trainees begin with basic tasks on the salesfloor to learn the store operations and provide exposure to the general public. Through observation, Candice has been able to identify participants who demonstrate customer service skills and she makes adjustment to provide advancement opportunities into a more customer oriented role. She listens to participants' interests and allows room for growth in the areas they have desire to learn, but they all start with the basics where they work in a team effort and learn take direction from other leadership. While Student Services participants do not operate an actual cash register per Walgreens policies, for those interested in learning the task, Candice provides opportunities for participants to shadow cashiers and also provides simulated cash handling tasks so participants have the opportunity to learn how to count money using "play money". She has found that pairing participant with her cashiering staff and exposing participants to simulated cash management opportunities helps allay anxiety and develop confidence some participants.

What barriers or obstacles has this business overcome to support individuals with disabilities? Example: (Business Name) invested in sit/stand desk to allow individuals with back injuries to promote comfort and health on the job. *

13. Many of the participants at Walgreens are high functioning so physical disabilities have been absent, but Walgreens has been sensitive to accommodating other disabilities such as learning disabilities by providing individualized training through demonstration and then allowing the participant to demonstrate the task to ensure instructions were understood. Walgreens store manager, while advocating for people with disabilities and supporting self-expression, also encourages professionalism at all levels within the store; and some of the participants have had to learn through experience how to approach and respond to leadership appropriately with respect and professionalism - the soft skills. 8/6/24, 9:45 AM Sonoma County Mayors' Committee Employer Best Practices Nomination https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=VHDtGZedx0OSsWeBtrlbaN7YrRNCW0BAiQ2mMm… 2/3 40 of 82
What has this business done to partner with or outreach to agencies supporting the hiring of individuals with disabilities? Example: (Business Name) has worked with Department of Rehabilitation and North Bay Regional Center to seek out employees with disabilities to fill current openings. *

14. Walgreens, an advocate for individuals with disabilities, has been a really strong and exceptional partner with Department of Rehabilitation to make work experiences for youth possible. They believe in the well-being of people and hired a participant whose plans to pursue postsecondary education, came to halt and the participant became the primary caregiver to a family member diagnosed with cancer. Walgreens was able to offer a work schedule that also accommodated the participant's caregiving commitment. Walgreens encourages youth/young adults to apply for open positions when they become available.

15. Is there any other information that you would like to share? 8/6/24, 9:45 AM Sonoma County Mayors' Committee Employer Best Practices Nomination https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id=VHDtGZedx0OSsWeBtrlbaN7YrRNCW0BAiQ2mMm… 3/3 41 of 82
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: DISCUSSION OF ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE

FINANCING DISTRICTS (EIFDS)
Date: November 26, 2024
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council discuss Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDS) and provide direction for staff to return with a proposal for an initial viability study at Strategic Planning.

Background
In 2011, the State was faced with a dire budget situation, including struggling to meet constitutionally required funding for schools, which is largely funded through local property tax (since Proposition 13) as well as State General Fund contributions. To lessen the State General Fund burden, the California legislature enacted ABx1 26, which dissolved all 400 redevelopment agencies in California, effective February 1, 2012. Statewide, this resulted in a massive redirection of property taxes from cities to schools and other local taxing entities. In Cotati, a significant portion of the City’s budget was funded through redevelopment activities. This, in combination with the recession, this resulted in layoffs of 28% of the City staff and 14% salary cuts for the remaining staff, ceasing closing the recreation department, pausing all infrastructure programs and other severe austerity measures across the board. Since that time, Cotati voters approved a local sales tax and a local cannabis business tax; the City updated fees to be current, aggressively pursued grants and continues to focus services and infrastructure to core areas of responsibility to ensure fiscal sustainability with what continues to be a very lean General Fund.

The City has also unwound all former redevelopment activities but is continuing to make payments on the bonds issued for the construction of the Police Station. Once this bond is paid off, the successor agency will be formally closed.

In the aftermath of ABx1 26, one of the ways that the State Legislature tried to address the budget fallout for cities was to create a new tool called an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing 42 of 82
District (EIFD) in 2014. As discussed more in the Analysis section of this staff report, EIFDs are a way for multiple taxing entities to share some portion of future property tax growth to develop infrastructure that will provide common benefit.

Recently, the Sonoma County Board of Directors adopted a policy on EIFDs (see attached), which has allowed cities to explore this mechanism more seriously. At this time, the City of Santa Rosa is well into developing a Downtown EIFD to enable County contributions to infrastructure improvements in the downtown Santa Rosa area (see attached County Board of Supervisors Item). This will, in turn, increase property values and economic activity, resulting in elevated property taxes for both the City and the County and revenue for the City to provide improved services and infrastructure.

The City of Sebastopol is also exploring EIFDs but is early in the process. The City of Sonoma is just starting the process.

Analysis/Discussion
An Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, or EIFD, is a type of special financing district that uses a portion of property tax increment revenues generated by community growth from a specifically defined area to finance public infrastructure and economic development projects of community-wide significance. EIFDs impose no new taxes, nor does it result in any new taxes or fees to property owners. Property tax increment revenues are derived by using a portion of the tax increment generated by the existing 1% ad valorem property tax. EIFDs are prohibited from using increments from educational agencies, such as the Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District.

Once a District is formed, the EIFD allows for a reallocation of a portion of future property taxes (the tax increment) to a separate account to be used to pay for infrastructure improvements that benefit a designated area. The “baseline property value” for all properties within the District would be set, or frozen, at that year’s appraised value. Tax increment revenue is generated from the “captured appraised value” (the difference between the baseline value and the annually updated appraised value). A pre-designated percentage of this revenue establishes the fund that is administered by a Public Financing Authority (PFA) to be used for public infrastructure and community benefiting projects.
43 of 82
If Cotati were to form an EIFD, the most likely partner would be the County of Sonoma, and as affected taxing entities, the City would be required to create a PFA. PFA’s membership must consist of a majority of members from the legislative bodies of the participating entities, and a minimum of 2 members of the public chosen by the legislative bodies. Boards typically consist of an odd number of representatives, so the PFA might consist of 2 Cotati Councilmembers, 1 or 2 members from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and 2 or 3 members of the public.

The PFA would authorize, develop, and eventually implement the Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP), which is the investment plan of the EIFD. In essence, the PFA oversees EIFD finances and activities.

The PFA may decide to sell bonds when sufficient property tax increment has accrued to support the debt service. In this way, bonds are secured only by the tax increment generated within the District, NOT by the City’s or County’s General Funds. Bonds may not be sold until after some development has occurred and tax increment is generated, hence EIFDs are often used as a reimbursement mechanism. EIFDs have a lifespan of up to 45 years after the first bond is issued.

Infrastructure projects that provide community-wide benefit and have a useful life of at least 15 years are eligible to be funded by EIFDs. Examples of eligible projects include:
• Roads, highways, streets/streetscapes, parking facilities, and transit facilities • Affordable housing
• Internet access services
• Childcare facilities
• Libraries
• Parks, open space, and recreational facilities,
• Improvements related to fighting climate change
44 of 82
• Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation • Transit priority facilities
• Sewer, reclamation, and water facilities
• Solid waste facilities
• Flood control facilities, retention bases, and drainage channels In practice, the project(s) should facilitate community development and increase property values and economic activity in the long term to induce the County or other taxing entities to participate and provide a benefit to the City. In Cotati, the recommended areas for the EIFD are roughly the Priority Development Areas (Highway 116 corridor, Downtown, and potentially the Santero Plan Area). Each of these areas have significant infrastructure needs to facilitate future development.

If the City Council would like to explore EIFDs further, it is recommended that staff return with a proposal for an initial viability study at Strategic Planning.

Financial Considerations
The City of Cotati gets about 10% of the 1% Ad Valorum property tax. In other words, if a property has an assessed taxable value of $500,000, the annual property tax (1%) will be $5,000 and the City’s share of that will be $500 per year.

The primary entities receiving portions of the 1% Ad Valorum property tax are the County of Sonoma (20%) and the Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District (28%). Given the relatively minor amounts of property tax going to other taxing entities, lack of policies in this area, and the state prohibition on sharing future tax revenue with schools, the only viable partner for an EIFD is the County of Sonoma. The property apportionment graph is attached.

The primary benefit of EIFD’s is that the City could use a portion of the County’s property tax revenue growth for a defined period of time to assist in funding infrastructure in Cotati that facilitates development in underdeveloped portions of the community. This in turn will ultimately increase property values and the resulting property tax revenues for the City and the County. For the City, the primary benefit is community development and economic growth, realized through sales taxes, as the City’s share of property taxes is relatively low.

During the life of the EIFD, the main drawback for the City is that a portion of the City’s future property tax revenue growth will be directed into the EIFD for specific projects rather than available in the General Fund for general governmental purposes. If the EIFD project is not a catalyst project, it may be a poor tradeoff, as the funds are spent but there is no corresponding additional growth in property taxes. If the project does catalyze growth, there would be additional growth in property taxes and increased economic activity, which may make this a good trade off.

The main costs are the costs of establishing an EIFD, staff costs managing the Public Financing Authority, and if bonds are issued, the costs of the bonding (which would be paid by the EIFD).

An initial study of the viability of an EIFD would cost $30,000. If the EIFD were to be developed and formed, the total costs (including the initial $30,000) are expected to be no more 45 of 82
than $120,000 in total.

The on-going costs of managing the PFA would primarily be staff time for initial meetings that would likely drop to semi-annual or annual once the EIFD is established. If bonds are issued, there would be bonding costs, as well as annual reporting costs. The costs of these can ultimately be funded through the EIFD, if it is established. However, depending on the timing of development in the EIFD area(s), revenue growth may be slow initially, which is why it is often a reimbursement arrangement in the early years. Therefore, bonding may not be feasible/recommended until enough revenue comes in the EIFD to cover the annual principal and debt service.

Based on the County’s analysis of Santa Rosa’s EIFD, it is expected that if the County were to participate in an EIFD with Cotati, they would only contribute up to 30% of their tax increment to meet their fiscal and policy goals. The City could choose to contribute any portion of our property tax increment, provided it at least matches the County contribution (per the County EIFD policy).

The County Assessor normally enrolls new property tax values at the end of the calendar year for the next year’s tax roll. Increases in property taxes are based on completed building improvements (typically occupancy), so any developments that get occupancy prior to around December will have that increased value enrolled into the following year’s tax roll.

Environmental Issues
Where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review.

This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.
46 of 82
County Administrator’s Office Financial Policy February 2024

Page 1 of 2 ends

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Policy
Introduction
On September 24, 2014, the governor approved Senate Bill 628, which authorized the formation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). EIFDs were proposed as an alternative development tool following the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies in 2012.

An EIFD is a tax increment financing district that allows one or more taxing entities to secure a portion of property tax increment revenues from a specifically defined area, to finance a broad range of public infrastructure and economic development projects of community-wide significance. An EIFD does not impose new taxes or any fees on property owners.

The County's participation in an EIFD is voluntary and requires Board approval. All requests for the County to participate in an EFID must be submitted to the County Administrator and the County’s Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector for preliminary review to ensure they meet the minimum requirements below to be considered by the Board of Supervisors.

Purpose
This policy establishes the minimum requirements for the County’s participation in an EIFD with one or more taxing entities. Because Cities and Counties are the only taxing entities that can create an EIFD, this policy assumes that a City is requesting the County’s participation in an EIFD. However, special districts may participate in an EIFD with the County and the County may form an EIFD as the sole property tax increment contributor.

The purpose of the policy is to protect the County’s interests, to provide guidance to staff evaluating proposals requesting County participation in an EIFD, and to ensure fiscal due diligence prior to a staff recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to participate in an EIFD.

Minimum Requirements

1. The City’s contribution of property tax increment as a percentage must be greater than or equal to the County’s property tax increment contribution.

2. The County will not contribute 100 percent of its property tax increment.

3. A fiscal analysis must be conducted by the City and must demonstrate a positive net impact to the County General Fund that is attributable to the tax revenue generated from the proposed EIFD and should account for avoided costs resulting from EIFD-funded projects.

4. In addition to supporting economic development, projects in the proposed EIFD must align with established Board strategic priorities in one or more of the following areas: a) affordable housing, b) climate adaptation and resilience, c) transit-oriented development, d) active transportation, or e) advancing racial and social equity. 47 of 82
County Administrator’s Office Financial Policy February 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

5. An EIFD proposal must be consistent with Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (Section 53398.5 - 53398.88), which authorizes the formation of EIFDs.

Revisions to the Policy
The Board may revise this EIFD policy to include requirements for fiscal analysis, proposal standards, community engagement, or other requirements. 48 of 82

COUNTY OF SONOMA

SUMMARY REPORT
575 ADMINISTRATION
DRIVE, ROOM 102A
SANTA ROSA, CA 95403
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024
To: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): County Administrator’s Office Staff Name and Phone Number: Christel Querijero, (707) 565-2431 Vote Requirement: Majority
Supervisorial District(s): Countywide
Title:

Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Recommended Action:

A) Provide input to staff, if any, as to projects that should or should not be included in a Draft Santa Rosa EIFD Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP).

B) Receive an assessment of the City of Santa Rosa Draft County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the proposed Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

C) Consider and approve the County Contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD.

Executive Summary:

Through this item, staff seeks the Board’s input on projects and project categories that the City of Santa Rosa has proposed to include in the Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP) that will be submitted by the Santa Rosa EIFD Public Finance Authority (PFA) at a future date for the Board’s consideration.

The Board is also receiving both the City’s Draft County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) and the County EIFD Consultant’s assessment of this FIA. With this assessment, the Board may consider and approve a County contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD. The Board’s input on projects and a decision on County contribution will provide the Santa Rosa EIFD Public Financing Authority with key information needed to move forward with developing a draft Santa Rosa EIFD IFP.

Discussion:

Background
Senate Bill 628 (2014) authorized the formation of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs). EIFD legislation is codified in California Government Code sections 53398.50-53398.88 (EIFD Law). EIFDs replace the former Redevelopment Agencies that were disbanded in 2012 due to state budget challenges.

An EIFD is a type of special tax increment financing (TIF) district that uses a portion of property tax increment revenues generated by the established 1% of assessed property value tax rate under Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (Prop 13). The EIFD model relies on tax revenue increments generated by growth

Page 1 of 6 ends

49 of 82
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024
from within the boundaries of a proposed area.

On April 25, 2023, the City of Santa Rosa Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to establish the City of Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (Downtown Business Corridor), which is required to create a Public Financing Authority to serve as the governing body. Because the City and the County are the primary taxing entities within the boundary of the proposed EIFD area, the City has requested the County to join and serve on the governing board.

On July 17, 2023, the Board appointed Chris Coursey and David Rabbitt to the Public Financing Authority (PFA) established by the City of Santa Rosa. This Board action did not constitute an agreement to forgo future property tax growth. In order to guide the County’s participation in EIFD proposals, on February 23, 2024, the Board approved an EIFD Policy to establish the minimum requirements for the County to consider committing future tax revenue growth through an EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan when requested by another taxing entity (Attachment A).

Proposed Santa Rosa EIFD Project Categories
On April 30, 2024, the Board held a workshop at which City of Santa Rosa (City) staff, along with the City’s EIFD consultant, DTA Consultants, presented an overview of the proposed EIFD. City staff also presented general information about the EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan, the investment plan that must be approved by the PFA, and each taxing entity represented on the PFA.

City staff also shared with the Board potential public infrastructure projects that may be proposed for the Santa Rosa EIFD. Project categories included: improving connectivity between Downtown and Railroad Square, improving and making more accessible existing public space (Comstock Mall), beautification of existing public right-of-way, affordable housing development, and large-scale development projects such as a conference center. A link to the April 30, 2024 Board item and materials can be found here <https://sonomacounty.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6646039&GUID=3E5ADBBC-9AA6-4DB2-9BC7-A57CAF88D896> .

County EIFD Consulting Services Agreement
To support the County’s evaluation of EIFD proposals received thus far and the City of Santa Rosa’s EIFD proposal, staff requested bids from firms that specialize in special tax districts, including EIFDs. Staff received four proposals and selected Kosmont Companies based on their experience working with California jurisdictions on EIFDs, the quality of their work products, broad scope of advisory services. The contract with Kosmont Companies was executed under the department head delegated authority on May 1, 2024, and is effective for a three-year term at a cost not to exceed $50,000.

Consultant Analysis of Draft Santa Rosa EIFD Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) Per the Board’s EIFD Policy (attachment A), a fiscal analysis must be conducted by the City and must demonstrate a positive net impact to the County General Fund that is attributable to the tax revenue increment generated from the proposed EIFD.

Page 2 of 6 ends

50 of 82
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024
In July, at the County’s request, City staff shared a draft Santa Rosa EIFD County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA).

See attachment B. The draft County FIA was prepared by the City’s EIFD consultant, DTA Consultants, in June 2023. Note the enclosed FIA memo to the County is dated July 5, 2024. The draft County FIA is based on fiscal year 2022-2023 County budget information and assumes a County contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD of 50% of the County’s share of the growth in property tax revenue increment.

Kosmont, the County’s EIFD consultant, assessed DTA Consultants FIA. Kosmont’s full assessment of the FIA is included as Attachment C. Their higher-level findings are summarized below.

1. Projects to be Funded by the EIFD
In other EIFDs across the State, the level of specificity and detail on potential projects to be funded has varied highly at the formation stage. Kosmont has found that EIFD infrastructure financing plans have benefitted from flexibility, particularly given the long-term (40+ year) nature of EIFDs and the inherent nature of tax increment to need time to “ramp up” before there are significant revenues to expend.

It is difficult in most circumstances to exactly define the projects and their corresponding costs at the time of district formation. A more feasible approach has been to keep the project list more inclusive.

Kosmont recommends prioritizing the types of projects that the City and County want to see funded first.

However, most important is that the City or County be explicit about which projects each entity does NOT want to see on the list of potential projects to be funded (i.e., eliminate the non-starters).

2. Inflationary Baseline Discussion
Kosmont has evaluated the “inflationary baseline” concept for other EIFDs in the State. This is a concept whereby the County General Fund retains all property tax revenue growth within the EIFD boundary within a certain percentage growth range (e.g., 4% year-over-year growth), and only revenue growth above that inflationary baseline would be available to the EIFD at the determined percentage allocation (e.g., 25% or 50%).

This approach presents significant issues from a public finance underwriting perspective, due to the volatility of the resulting tax increment revenue stream (i.e., high variation in available revenues year to year and a debt issuance that would be hard to structure and not be appealing to municipal bond buyers). Kosmont does not recommend this approach.

3. Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA)
Kosmont noted that while some assumptions in the City’s DTA FIA could be considered aggressive, others could be considered conservative. A fiscally conservative interpretation to the approach in the analysis would be that the aggressive assumptions may outweigh those that are more conservative.

Overall, the analysis as presented “cuts it very close” for the County General Fund. At $214,126 net fiscal surplus based on a X-year period with annual Property Tax General Fund? revenues of $2.8 million and

Page 3 of 6 ends

51 of 82
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024
annual General Fund? expenditures of $2.6 million, the resulting 1.08 revenue-expenditure ratio is does not leave much room or “fiscal safety buffer” for the County to achieve a positive General Fund return on investment, especially if reality does not exactly follow projections, which is usually the case.

Recommendation on County Contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD Should the Board approve a contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD, Kosmont recommends an allocation percentage to the EIFD of 25% to 30%. A percentage allocation in this range would provide the County a “fiscal buffer” that aligns with the “inflationary baseline” concerns that the Board raised in earlier discussions while still supporting a County position as an active economic development partner to the City. It also considers the County’s financial policy for long range planning for fiscal year 2024-2025:

In order to avoid significant increases in deferred maintenance costs for County facilities, the Board of Supervisors will appropriate, forty percent (40%) of all new property tax growth, which is above the percentage growth assumed in the Adopted budget - to the Capital Projects Budget to be used towards addressing deferred maintenance of County facilities.

This means that initial budgeted growth would be divided between the County General Fund and the EIFD, while any subsequent growth would be divided between the EIFD, the General Fund, and the County Center Modernization Fund. So, for example, should the Board choose to commit 25% of growth to the EIFD, budgeted growth in this area would go 25% to the EIFD and 75% to the General Fund. Any additional growth above budget would go 25% to the EIFD, 30% County Center Modernization, and 45% General Fund.

A 25% to 30% range acknowledges that while a higher County allocation percentage such as 45%-50% may get the County closer to matching the City allocation percentage, the higher percentage does not account for the fact that the City will be a larger beneficiary of other significant revenues, such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax, while the County must still provide costly municipal mandated services countywide and to all incorporated and unincorporated residents that cities do not provide (e.g., health / human services, courts / probation / public defender / district attorney / detention). This range closely aligns with what Counties such as Los Angeles (20%-35%), Riverside (20%-25%), Madera (25%), and San Joaquin (20%-35%) have adopted, particularly in City/County partnership scenarios.

Next Steps
Staff seeks Board input on projects or project categories that should or should not be included (“non-starters”) in the Santa Rosa EIFD Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP) that will be considered by the Board for approval. This input and the Board’s decision on a County contribution towards the EIFD are needed for the Santa Rosa EIFD PFA government entity to move forward with developing a draft IFP and establish a timeline for public hearings and the formal City/County decisions needed.

Should the Board provide this input today, the City’s preliminary timeframe for next actions below, could be implemented.

ACTION TIMEFRAME

1. City/County identify projects to be funded by EIFD and percentage of tax increment allocated to EIFD
August-September 2024?

2. Introduction of draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) at Public Financing Authority (PFA) public meeting
IFP must be posted 10 days prior to
meeting December 2024

Page 4 of 6 ends

52 of 82
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024

ACTION TIMEFRAME

1. City/County identify projects to be funded by EIFD and percentage of tax increment allocated to EIFD
August-September 2024?

2. Introduction of draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) at Public Financing Authority (PFA) public meeting
IFP must be posted 10 days prior to
meeting December 2024

3. PFA Public Hearings (receive comments and modify, reject or accept IFP)
First quarter of 2025

4. City Council and Board of Supervisors (accept or reject IFP) • April/May of 2025

5. PFA approves IFP and adopts Resolution of Formation • June of 2025 Strategic Plan:

N/A
Racial Equity:

Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit? No
Prior Board Actions:

April 30, 2024 - Board workshop to hear City of Santa Rosa proposed Santa Rosa EIFD project categories February 23, 2024 - Board approved an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Policy July 17, 2023 - Board appointed Supervisor Coursey and Supervisor Rabbitt to the Santa Rosa Downtown Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Public Financing Authority

FISCAL SUMMARY
Expenditures FY24-25
Adopted
FY25-26
Projected
FY26-27
Projected
Budgeted Expenses
Additional Appropriation Requested
Total Expenditures
Funding Sources
General Fund/WA GF
State/Federal
Fees/Other
Use of Fund Balance
General Fund Contingencies
Total Sources
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:

None. If the Board approves a contribution, today’s discussion will inform the Santa Rosa EIFD draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) that will be prepared for the Santa Rosa EIFD Public Financing Authority.

The draft IFP will include updated and more detailed projections of the fiscal impact to the County general fund. Any fiscal impact would be realized only if the Board approves the IFP and the Santa Rosa EIFD is formally established. Based on current timelines, FY 2024-25 would be the base year, and so impacts would

Page 5 of 6 ends

53 of 82
Agenda Date: 8/20/2024
be felt beginning in FY 2025-26.

Staffing Impacts:

Position Title (Payroll Classification) Monthly Salary Range (A-I Step)
Additions
(Number)
Deletions
(Number)
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):

There are no staffing impacts for this item.

Attachments:

Attachment A - County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Policy Attachment B- DTA Draft Santa Rosa EIFD County Fiscal Impact Analysis Attachment C - Kosmont Memo - Assessment of Draft Santa Rosa EIFD County Fiscal Impact Analysis Presentation
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:

None.

Page 6 of 6 ends

54 of 82
2 Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District County Contribution Discussion
August 20, 2024
55 of 82
3 Recommended Actions

1. Provide input, if any, to staff as to projects that should not or should not be included in a Draft Santa Rosa EIFD Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP).

2. Receive an assessment of the City of Santa Rosa Draft County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the proposed Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

3. Consider and approve a County Contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD. 56 of 82
4 l) Projects to, be fun,ded b'Y the EIF,D
- Long-term districts with ,slow ramp-11:p, need fbr flexibility, eliminate non-starters, then focus on "prioritization1"
2) Ftscal impact analysis an,d County allocation
- Critical p,ath item, informs CO'unty percentage all,ocation, :boundary, and p,rojects to be funded - County typically does not allocate more dollars than City - Draft fiscal impact analysis at 50% allocation does not provi,de sig,nificant fiscal buffer (and inclu,de,s County allocation, of Successor A,gency resid,ual revenues) - Kosmont su,gg,ests range o:f 25%-30% to achieve buffer and eq,uivale,nt of inflationary baselin,e, acknowle,dges deferred mainten,ance p,olicy, aligns with othe,r City/County partnerships 3) Inflationary ,baseline dis,cussio,n
Ill Public finance underwriting considerations
o,~ia
57 of 82
5 Tax R.evenue
Allocation to EIFD
City 50%
·County25%
City 50%
C,ounty50%
JO-Years
City$ 16M
County$9M
Total $25M
City$ 16M
County $ISM
Total $.J4M
45-Years
City $45M
County $2.SM
Total $70M
City$45M
County $50M
Total $94M
58 of 82
6 EIFD: Potential Project List
City County Private
Project Type Amount Property Property Property
Railroad Square/Downtown Connectivity $22,000,000
Reprogra mming and Activation of Comstock Ma II $7,000,000 Activation and Beautification of Existing Right of Way $7,000,000 Affordable Housing $,9,000,000
Total $45,000,000
Redevelopment of Fa irgrounds (mu lt iple uses) TBD
Conference, Performing Arts or Entertainment Ctr. TBD
59 of 82
7 EIFD: Next S eps

1. ,C'ity/County identify· projects to be funded by EIFD and per,centage of tax increment .allocated to EIFD

2. lnt1roduction o,f d1raft Infrastructure !Financing P'lan (IFP) at Public Financing Authority (PFA) public meeting
• If P must be posted 10 days prior to meeting
• December 2024

3. PFA Public Hearings (receive c10 1mments and modify, reject o,r ai,ccept IFP) • First quarter of 2.025

4. ,C'ity· Council and Board of Supervisors (accept or reject IFP) • April/Mlay of 2.025

5. PFA a1pproves IIFP a1nd .adopts Re,solution of Formatio1n • June of 2025
60 of 82
8 Recommended Actions

1. Provide input, if any, to staff as to projects that should not or should not be included in a Draft Santa Rosa EIFD Infrastructure Finance Plan (IFP).

2. Receive an assessment of the City of Santa Rosa Draft County Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the proposed Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

3. Consider and approve a County Contribution to the Santa Rosa EIFD. 8 61 of 82
dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
To:

From:

Subject:

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
July 5, 2024
Gabe Osborn, Economic Development Deputy Director
David Taussig, Jerry Wen, and Leni Zarate, OTA
Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Reflecting the Impacts of Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to the County of Sonoma General Fund
Please note that this memorandum, originally prepared on June 20, 2023, is based on the County's Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget information. It has not been updated to reflect any changes since June 20, 2023, including but not limited updated development projections and County budget information, or the most recent Census data available.

OTA has been engaged by the City of Santa Rosa ("City") to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis ("FIA") for the County of Sonoma (the "County") to fulfill the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.63 et seq. (the "EIFD Law") related to the formation of the Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (the "EIFD" or the "District"). Specifically, the objective of this analysis is to evaluate the recurring fiscal impacts of the loss of a portion of County's General Fund revenues generated by the Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor (the "SRDBC") due to the apportionment of 50% of its future property tax increment to the proposed EIFD.

Description of SRDBC
SRDBC encompasses approximately 308.017 gross acres, which are comprised of 917 parcels in the City of Santa Rosa. The EIFD itself consists of parcels generally located South of West College Avenue, West of Brookwood Drive, North of Maple Avenue and East of Wilson Street characterized by Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.

The EIFD itself consists of developed parcels within SRDBC, as well as undeveloped parcels that can potentially be developed for either residential or non-residential uses. As listed below in Table 1 and discussed in more detail in the following section of this FIA, the City anticipates that at the end of the EIFD term, the proposed EIFD will include residential uses with total assessed valuation of $1,090,165,723 and non-residential uses with total assessed valuation of $2,969,190,700. Current valuations of those land uses, as presented in 2023 dollars in Table 1, are derived using an assumed discount factor of two percent (2%) to compensate for the impacts of inflation that were inherently reflected in the escalations of the EIFD-wide assessed valuations utilized for the bonding capacity analysis included in this IFP. This discounting was necessary for this fiscal analysis because the cost of services were all stated in 2023 dollars and DT A needed to maintain consistency between the revenue and cost components of this analysis. As a result, the total projected residential dwelling unit ("DU") and non-residential building square footage ("BSF") valuations listed in Table 1 are estimated based on current valuation metrics.

Newport Beach I San Jose I San Francisco I Riverside I Dallas I Houston I Raleigh I Tampa dta
www.FinanceDTA.com
To:

From:

Subject:

Newport Beach I San Jose I San Francisco I Riverside I Dallas I Houston I Raleigh I Tampa

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
July 5, 2024
To:

From:

Subject:

Gabe Osborn, Economic Development Deputy Director
David Taussig, Jerry Wen, and Leni Zarate, OTA
Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis of Reflecting the Impacts of Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to the County of Sonoma General Fund
Please note that this memorandum, originally prepared on June 20, 2023, is based on the County's Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget information. It has not been updated to reflect any changes since June 20, 2023, including but not limited updated development projections and County budget information, or the most recent Census data available.

The EIFD itself consists of developed parcels within SRDBC, as well as undeveloped parcels that can potentially be developed for either residential or non-residential uses. As listed below in Table 1 and discussed in more detail in the following section of this FIA, the City anticipates that at the end of the EIFD term, the proposed EIFD will include residential uses with total assessed valuation of $1,090,165,723 and non-residential uses with total assessed valuation of $2,969,190,700. Current valuations of those land uses, as presented in 2023 dollars in Table 1, are derived using an assumed discount factor of two percent (2%) to compensate for the impacts of inflation that were inherently reflected in the escalations of the EIFD-wide assessed valuations utilized for the bonding capacity analysis included in this IFP. This discounting was necessary for this fiscal analysis because the cost of services were all stated in 2023 dollars and OTA needed to maintain consistency between the revenue and cost components of this analysis. As a result, the total projected residential dwelling unit ("DU") and non-residential building square footage ("BSF") valuations listed in Table 1 are estimated based on current valuation metrics.

Newport Beach I San Jose I San Francisco I Riverside I Dallas I Houston I Raleigh I Tampa 62 of 82
Table 1: SRDBC Private Development Within Boundaries of EIFD T l V l . Current Valuation (2023$) Total Res.
ota a uat1on at DU I
Land Use the End of the Per Res. DU I s
EIFD T Total Non-Res. Non-Res.
erm BSF BSF
Projected Residential Uses $1,090,165,723 $456,126,144 $200,000 2,281 Projected Non-residential Uses $2,969,190,700 $1,242,311,582 $225 5,521,385 Grand Total $4,059,356,423 $1,698,437,725 NA NA
Analytic Methodology
Notably, only recurring County revenues and costs were evaluated in this analysis. Costs that are considered non-recurring, such as capital expenditures, are excluded because new development is generally required to construct its own new capital improvements, such as roads or parks, or to pay Development Impact Fees ("DIFs") that enable the County or some other developer to construct these improvements. As these are "one-time" costs that will not recur, there is no expectation that new development will need to pay for these capital expenditures a second time. Similarly, revenues that are considered to be non-recurring, such as DIFs paid by developers, are also excluded from the model. In sum, the model reflects the estimated recurring annual fiscal deficit or surplus to the County's General Fund that will result from the development of the EIFD.

The FIA utilizes two specific methods of analysis; the Per Capita/Multiplier Approach and the Case Study Approach. The primary Multiplier Methodology used is the Per Capita/Persons Served Methodology, which recognizes the fact that the exact relationship of service demands and revenue generating potential between residents and employees is difficult to quantify. The "Persons Served" population for this FIA is assumed to be comprised of all residents plus 50% of the employees working in the Unincorporated County, which is a common fiscal assumption utilized in quantifying the impact of a new development on the need for services in a given service area. This standard is an outgrowth of the theoretical eight hours per day than an employee works in a jurisdiction versus the sixteen waking hours per day that a resident spends living within that jurisdiction.

The Per Capita/Multiplier Methodology involves calculating the average revenues/costs per Capita/Persons Served throughout the entire Unincorporated County utilizing the fiscal year ("FY") 2022-2023 County Budget and applying these revenue/cost factors to the numbers of Persons Served that are anticipated to reside or work within the SRDBC. The primary challenge in evaluating the County budget for the average cost calculation is to assess whether the County is providing a specific service on a Countywide basis, or only on an Unincorporated County basis. For services that are provided on a Countywide basis, such as health services and the court system, the County's costs per Person Served within the SRDBC are based on the total costs of the County expended on Persons Served throughout the entire County. On the other hand, services that are provided only in the Unincorporated County, such as sheriff and fire protection expenditures, are excluded from the analysis because the County won't be providing these services to the SRDBC because it is entirely located within incorporated Santa Rosa ..

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 2 Table 1: SRDBC Private Development Within Boundaries of EIFD T l V l . Current Valuation (2023$) Total Res.
ota a uat1on at DU I
Land Use the End of the Per Res. DU I s
EIFD T Total Non-Res. Non-Res.
erm BSF BSF
Projected Residential Uses $1,090,165,723 $456,126,144 $200,000 2,281 Projected Non-residential Uses $2,969,190,700 $1,242,311,582 $225 5,521,385 Grand Total $4,059,356,423 $1,698,437,725 NA NA
Analytic Methodology
Notably, only recurring County revenues and costs were evaluated in this analysis. Costs that are considered non-recurring, such as capital expenditures, are excluded because new development is generally required to construct its own new capital improvements, such as roads or parks, or to pay Development Impact Fees ("DIFs") that enable the County or some other developer to construct these improvements. As these are "one-time" costs that will not recur, there is no expectation that new development will need to pay for these capital expenditures a second time. Similarly, revenues that are considered to be non-recurring, such as DIFs paid by developers, are also excluded from the model. In sum, the model reflects the estimated recurring annual fiscal deficit or surplus to the County's General Fund that will result from the development of the EIFD.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 2 Table 1: SRDBC Private Development Within Boundaries of EIFD Land Use
Projected Residential Uses
Projected Non-residential Uses
Grand Total
Total Valuation at
the End of the
EIFDTerm
$1,090,165,723
$2,969,190,700
$4,059,356.423
Current Valuation (2023$)
Per Res. DU /
Total Non-Res.

BSF
$456,126,144 $200,000
$1,242,311,582 $225
$1,698,437,725 NA
Total Res.

DUs/
Non-Res.

BSF
2,281
5,521,385
NA
Analytic Methodology
Notably, only recurring County revenues and costs were evaluated in this analysis. Costs that are considered non-recurring, such as capital expenditures, are excluded because new development is generally required to construct its own new capital improvements, such as roads or parks, or to pay Development Impact Fees ("DIFs") that enable the County or some other developer to construct these improvements. As these are "one-time" costs that will not recur, there is no expectation that new development will need to pay for these capital expenditures a second time. Similarly, revenues that are considered to be non-recurring, such as DIFs paid by developers, are also excluded from the model. In sum, the model reflects the estimated recurring annual fiscal deficit or surplus to the County's General Fund that will result from the development of the EIFD.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20,102
Fiscal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC EIFD to the County's General Fund Today's Date July 5, 2024 2 63 of 82
Major Assumptions
DT A chose its analytical assumptions for its FIA in accordance with industry standards and documents those assumptions carefully. The following list explains how the major assumptions employed in the FIA were derived:
■ Discounting Revenues: As listed in Attachment 1-A, OTA conservatively assumed that non-tax General Fund revenues are deemed to be static, i.e., these revenues are not expected to increase with new development.
■ Discounting Expenditures: Certain service costs are not expected to increase one-toone with new development. Thus, a 15% discount rate is applied to all other NonGeneral Government expenditures provided on a Countywide basis, as reflected in Attachment 1-B. In addition, the marginal increase in the general government overhead costs associated with the additional non-general government expenditures incurred by new development is assumed to be 75%, which means a 25% discount was applied to these overhead costs, as listed in Attachment 1-G. ■ Total Valuation at the end of EIFD term: The total valuation of residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $1.09 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $179.5 million and an assumed four percent (4%) annual increase due to the combined effect of new development, the sales of existing development, and the two percent (2%) annual valuation escalator authorized by Proposition 13 throughout the term of the EIFD. In contrast, OTA conservatively applied a three percent (3%) annual increase in estimating the total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term. The rationale for assuming a slightly lower annual valuation escalator is that non-residential property has a lower turnover rate than residential property, in conjunction with the City's projection that most of the new developments in SRDBC will be of residential land uses. The total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $2.97 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $762.3 million and a three percent (3%) annual increase, resulting in the total valuation of $4.06 billion for the SRDBC. ■ Tax Sharing (Secured Property Taxes): Property tax revenue estimates for the County are based on apportionment factors provided by the County Auditor-Controller.

Property tax revenues are projected based on the County's estimated share of the general 1% property tax levy. Total secured property tax revenues received by the County from the proposed Projects will equal approximately 19.83% of the basic 1% (Proposition 13) property tax levy from the Tax Rate Areas ("TRAs") encompassing SRDBC. Please note that the gross tax increment, as calculated by the County AuditorController, has been reduced to account for the projected Education Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF") property tax shifts.
■ Persons per Household: Pursuant to Report E-5 (Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2023, with 2010 Benchmark) dated January 1, 2023, and published by Demographic Research Unit of the California Department of Finance, the estimated persons per household is 2.516 for the City as of January 1, 2023. Based on this assumption, SRDBC is anticipated to comprise a total of 5,739 residents at the end of the EIFD term.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 3 Major Assumptions
DT A chose its analytical assumptions for its FIA in accordance with industry standards and documents those assumptions carefully. The following list explains how the major assumptions employed in the FIA were derived:
■ Discounting Revenues: As listed in Attachment 1-A, OTA conservatively assumed that non-tax General Fund revenues are deemed to be static, i.e., these revenues are not expected to increase with new development.
■ Discounting Expenditures: Certain service costs are not expected to increase one-toone with new development. Thus, a 15% discount rate is applied to all other NonGeneral Government expenditures provided on a Countywide basis, as reflected in Attachment 1-B. In addition, the marginal increase in the general government overhead costs associated with the additional non-general government expenditures incurred by new development is assumed to be 75%, which means a 25% discount was applied to these overhead costs, as listed in Attachment 1-G. ■ Total Valuation at the end of EIFD term: The total valuation of residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $1.09 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $179.5 million and an assumed four percent (4%) annual increase due to the combined effect of new development, the sales of existing development, and the two percent (2%) annual valuation escalator authorized by Proposition 13 throughout the term of the EIFD. In contrast, OTA conservatively applied a three percent (3%) annual increase in estimating the total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term. The rationale for assuming a slightly lower annual valuation escalator is that non-residential property has a lower turnover rate than residential property, in conjunction with the City's projection that most of the new developments in SRDBC will be of residential land uses. The total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $2.97 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $762.3 million and a three percent (3%) annual increase, resulting in the total valuation of $4.06 billion for the SRDBC. ■ Tax Sharing (Secured Property Taxes): Property tax revenue estimates for the County are based on apportionment factors provided by the County Auditor-Controller.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 3 Major Assumptions
OTA chose its analytical assumptions for its FIA in accordance with industry standards and documents those assumptions carefully. The following list explains how the major assumptions employed in the FIA were derived:
■ Discounting Revenues: As listed in Attachment 1-A, OTA conservatively assumed that non-tax General Fund revenues are deemed to be static, i.e., these revenues are not expected to increase with new development.
■ Discounting Expenditures: Certain service costs are not expected to increase one-toone with new development. Thus, a 15% discount rate is applied to all other NonGeneral Government expenditures provided on a Countywide basis, as reflected in Attachment 1-B. In addition, the marginal increase in the general government overhead costs associated with the additional non-general government expenditures incurred by new development is assumed to be 75%, which means a 25% discount was applied to these overhead costs, as listed in Attachment 1-G. ■ Total Valuation at the end of EIFD term: The total valuation of residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $1.09 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $179.5 million and an assumed four percent (4%) annual increase due to the combined effect of new development, the sales of existing development, and the two percent (2%) annual valuation escalator authorized by Proposition 13 throughout the term of the EIFD. In contrast, OTA conservatively applied a three percent (3%) annual increase in estimating the total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term. The rationale for assuming a slightly lower annual valuation escalator is that non-residential property has a lower turnover rate than residential property, in conjunction with the City's projection that most of the new developments in SRDBC will be of residential land uses. The total valuation of non-residential land uses at the end of the 45-year EIFD term is estimated at $2.97 billion based on the current assessed valuation of $762.3 million and a three percent (3%) annual increase, resulting in the total valuation of $4.06 billion for the SRDBC. • Tax Sharing (Secured Property Taxes): Property tax revenue estimates for the County are based on apportionment factors provided by the County Auditor-Controller.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20,102
Fisral Impact Report Renecling the Impac/s of SRDBC EIFD to /he Counly's Genernl Fund Today's Dale July 5, 202 3 64 of 82
■ Direct Employees: OTA estimated the number of direct employees generated by the non-residential development in SRDBC based upon an average number of Square Feet per Employee ("SF/E"). Pursuant to City data, the average SF/E within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area is estimated at 614 square per employee based on 8,432 jobs and 5,176,748 BSF of non-residential land use space. Based on this estimated SF/E, the non-residential development in SRDBC is anticipated to generate a total of 8,992 direct employees at the end of EIFD term.

County General Fund - Net Fiscal Impact Summary
As reflected in Table 2 below, the positive net fiscal impact of SRDBC, given the approval of the EIFD, is estimated to be $214,126 at the end of EIFD term in 2023 dollars, based on $3,577,104 in fiscal revenues, $2,612,721 in fiscal costs, and the proposed EIFD property tax share equal to $750,258 (reflecting 50% of the net incremental secured property tax revenues of $1,500,515). It is assumed that the County will retain its 2% administration fees, totaling $30,010, from the $750,258 gross increments pledged to the EIFD. The County will remit the remaining amount to the EIFD.

Table 2: General Fund Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions for SRDBC at the End of EIFD Term Fiscal Impact Category Amount/Ratio
Gross Recurring General Fund Revenues $3,577,104
Less: EIFD property tax and in-lieu VLF share ($750,258) Net Recurring General Fund Revenues $2,826,847
Recurring General Fund Expenditures $2,612,721
Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $214,126 Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.08
A more detailed breakdown of the revenues and costs in 2023 dollars is listed in Table 3 below.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 4 ■ Direct Employees: OTA estimated the number of direct employees generated by the non-residential development in SRDBC based upon an average number of Square Feet per Employee ("SF/E"). Pursuant to City data, the average SF/E within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area is estimated at 614 square per employee based on 8,432 jobs and 5,176,748 BSF of non-residential land use space. Based on this estimated SF/E, the non-residential development in SRDBC is anticipated to generate a total of 8,992 direct employees at the end of EIFD term.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 4 • Direct Employees: OTA estimated the number of direct employees generated by the non-residential development in SRDBC based upon an average number of Square Feet per Employee ("SF/E"). Pursuant to City data, the average SF/E within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area is estimated at 614 square per employee based on 8,432 jobs and 5,176,748 BSF of non-residential land use space. Based on this estimated SF/E, the non-residential development in SRDBC is anticipated to generate a total of 8,992 direct employees at the end of EIFD term.

Table 2: General Fund Net Fiscal Impact Conclusions for SRDBC at the End of EIFD Term Fiscal Impact Category Amount/Ratio I
Gross Recurring General Fund Revenues $3,577,104
Less: £IFD property tax and in-lieu VLF share ($750,258) Net Recurring General Fund Revenues $2,826,847
Recurring General Fund Expenditures $2,612,721
Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $214,126 Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.08
A more detailed breakdown of the revenues and costs in 2023 dollars is listed in Table 3 below.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20,102
Fiscal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC £!FD to the County's General Fund Today's Date July 5, 2024 4 65 of 82
Table 3: General Fund Net Fiscal Impact Summary for SRDBC at the End of EIFD Term Rect.ming General Fund Revenues (1)
Secured Property Tax $2,617,780
Unsecured Property Tax $148,050
Property Transfer Tax $59,251
Investment Income $1,766
Subtotal $2,826,847
Rect.ming General Fund Expenditures (2)
Court Support/Grand Jury $116,879
Department of Health Services $109,305
District Attorney $251,770
Emergency Management $34,491
Human Services $357,903
Agricultural Commissioner $30,294
Probation $464,240
Public Defender $165,186
Regional Parks $61,305
UC Cooperative Extension $15,454
Employee Programs $60,896
Deferred Maintenance Fund $284,930
Capital Proj ect Plan Contribution $70,516
Water Security Fund $64,068
Road Operations and Pavement Program $193,638
General Government $331,846
Subtotal $2,612,721
Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit} $214,126 Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.08
NOTES:
111 Please see Attachments 1-D and 1-E for the derivation of these calculations. 121 Please see Attachments 1-F and 1-G for the derivation of these calculations. * All figures subject to rounding

92.60%

5.24%

2.10%

0.06%
100.00%

4.47%

4.18%

9.64%

1.32%

13.70%

1.16%

17.77%

6.32%

2.35%

0.59%

2.33%

10.91%

2.70%

2.45%

7.41%

12.70%
100.00%
NA
NA
As reflected in Figure 1 below, the largest projected County General Fund revenue source attributable to SRDBC at the end of the EIFD term is secured property taxes (92.60%).

Conversely, the largest projected County General Fund expenditures will be for probation (17.77%), human services (13.70%), and deferred maintenance (10.91%), as depicted in Figure 2 below.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ S Table 3: General Fund Net Fiscal Impact Summary for SRDBC at the End of EIFD Term Rect.ming General Fund Revenues (1)
Secured Property Tax $2,617,780
Unsecured Property Tax $148,050
Property Transfer Tax $59,251
Investment Income $1,766
Subtotal $2,826,847
Rect.ming General Fund Expenditures (2)
Court Support/Grand Jury $116,879
Department of Health Services $109,305
District Attorney $251,770
Emergency Management $34,491
Human Services $357,903
Agricultural Commissioner $30,294
Probation $464,240
Public Defender $165,186
Regional Parks $61,305
UC Cooperative Extension $15,454
Employee Programs $60,896
Deferred Maintenance Fund $284,930
Capital Proj ect Plan Contribution $70,516
Water Security Fund $64,068
Road Operations and Pavement Program $193,638
General Government $331,846
Subtotal $2,612,721
Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit} $214,126 Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.08
NOTES:
111 Please see Attachments 1-D and 1-E for the derivation of these calculations. 121 Please see Attachments 1-F and 1-G for the derivation of these calculations. * All figures subject to rounding

92.60%

5.24%

2.10%

0.06%
100.00%

4.47%

4.18%

9.64%

1.32%

13.70%

1.16%

17.77%

6.32%

2.35%

0.59%

2.33%

10.91%

2.70%

2.45%

7.41%

12.70%
100.00%
NA
NA
As reflected in Figure 1 below, the largest projected County General Fund revenue source attributable to SRDBC at the end of the EIFD term is secured property taxes (92.60%).

Conversely, the largest projected County General Fund expenditures will be for probation (17.77%), human services (13.70%), and deferred maintenance (10.91%), as depicted in Figure 2 below.

92.60%

5.24%

2.10%

0.06%
100.00%

4.47%

4.18%

9.64%

1.32%

13.70%

1.16%

17.77%

6.32%

2.35%

0.59%

2.33%

10.91%

2.70%

2.45%

7.41%

12.70%
100.00%
NA
NA
As reflected in Figure 1 below, the largest projected County General Fund revenue source attributable to SRDBC at the end of the EIFD term is secured property taxes (92.60%).

Conversely, the largest projected County General Fund expenditures will be for probation (17.77%), human services (13.70%), and deferred maintenance (10.91%), as depicted in Figure 2 below.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ S Table 3: General Fund Net Fiscal Impact Summary for SRDBC at the End of EIFD Term Fiscal Impact Category Amount
- . - - - - - - ' - ·--- -
Secured Property Tax $2,617,780
Unsecured Property Tax $148,050
Property Transfer Tax $59,251
Investment Income $1,766
Subtotal $2,826,847
General Fund (2)
Court Support/Grand Jury $116,879
Department of Health SeTVices $109,305
District Attorney $251,770
Emergency Management $34,491
Human SeTVices $357,903
Agricultural Commissioner $30,294
Probation $464,240
Public Defender $165,186
Regional Parks $61,305
UC Cooperative Extension $15,454
Employee Programs $60,896
Deferred Maintenance Fund $284,930
Capital Project Plan Contribution $70,516
Water Security Fund $64,068
Road Operations and Pavement Program $193,638
General Government $331,846
Subtotal $2,612,721
Net Fiscal.._..

Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $214,126 Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.08
PeTcent of Total

92.60%

5.24%

2.10%

0.06%
100.00%

4.47%

4.18%

9.64%

1.32%

13.70%

1.16%

17.77%

6.32%

2.35%

0.59%

2.33%

10.91%

2.70%

2.45%

7.41%

12.70%
100.00%
NA
NA
NOTES:
(1) Please see Attachments 1-D and 1-E for the derivation of these calculations. 121 Please see Attachments 1-F and 1-G for the derivation of these calculations. * All figures subject to rounding
As reflected in Figure 1 below, the largest projected County General Fund revenue source attributable to SRDBC at the end of the EIFD term is secured property taxes (92.60%).

Conversely, the largest projected County General Fund expenditures will be for probation (17.77%), human services (13.70%), and deferred maintenance (10.91%), as depicted in Figure 2 below.

City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20,1
02 Fisral Impact Report Renecling the Impac/s of SRDBC EIFD to /he Counly's Genernl Fund Today's Dale July S, 202 S
66 of 82
Figure 1: Recurring General Fund Revenues at the End of EIFD Term Secured
Investment
Income--
$1,766
Property Tax
---- $2,617,780

92.60%
O.OG% Property
Transfer Tax
$59,251

2.10%
Unsecured
Property Tax
$148,050

5.24%
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term Human
Services
$357,903
Agricultural Probation
Commissioner $464,240
Public
Defender
$165,186

6.32%
$30,294 17.77%

13.70%
Emergency
Management
$34,491

1.32%
District Attorney
$251,770

9.64%
4 .18%
Court
Support/Grand
Jury
$116,879

4.47%
General
Government
$331,846

12.70%
Regional
Parks
$61,305

2.35%
UC Cooperative Extension
$15,454

0.59%
Employee Programs
$60,896

2.33%
Deferred Maintenance Fund
~ - $284,930

10.91%
, --------Capital Project Plan Contribution
~ $70,516

2.70%
Water Security Fund
$64,068

2.45%
Road Operations and Pavement
Program
$193,638

7.41%
If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

92.60%
O.OG% Property
Transfer Tax
$59,251

2.10%
Unsecured
Property Tax
$148,050

5.24%
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term Human
Services
$357,903
Agricultural Probation
Commissioner $464,240
Public
Defender
$165,186

6.32%
$30,294 17.77%

13.70%
Emergency
Management
$34,491

1.32%
District Attorney
$251,770

9.64%
4 .18%
Court
Support/Grand
Jury
$116,879

4.47%
General
Government
$331,846

12.70%
Regional
Parks
$61,305

2.35%
UC Cooperative Extension
$15,454

0.59%
Employee Programs
$60,896

2.33%
Deferred Maintenance Fund
~ - $284,930

10.91%
, --------Capital Project Plan Contribution
~ $70,516

2.70%
Water Security Fund
$64,068

2.45%
Road Operations and Pavement
Program
$193,638

7.41%
If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

92.60%
O.OG% Property
Transfer Tax
$59,251

2.10%
Unsecured
Property Tax
$148,050

5.24%
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term Human
Services
$357,903
Agricultural Probation
Commissioner $464,240
Public
Defender
$165,186

6.32%
$30,294 17.77%

13.70%
Emergency
Management
$34,491

1.32%
District Attorney
$251,770

9.64%
4 .18%
Court
Support/Grand
Jury
$116,879

4.47%
General
Government
$331,846

12.70%
Regional
Parks
$61,305

2.35%
UC Cooperative Extension
$15,454

0.59%
Employee Programs
$60,896

2.33%
Deferred Maintenance Fund
~ - $284,930

10.91%
, --------Capital Project Plan Contribution
~ $70,516

2.70%
Water Security Fund
$64,068

2.45%
Road Operations and Pavement
Program
$193,638

7.41%
If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

92.60%
O.OG% Property
Transfer Tax
$59,251

2.10%
Unsecured
Property Tax
$148,050

5.24%
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term Human
Services
$357,903
Agricultural Probation
Commissioner $464,240
Public
Defender
$165,186

6.32%
$30,294 17.77%

13.70%
Emergency
Management
$34,491

1.32%
District Attorney
$251,770

9.64%
4 .18%
Court
Support/Grand
Jury
$116,879

4.47%
General
Government
$331,846

12.70%
Regional
Parks
$61,305

2.35%
UC Cooperative Extension
$15,454

0.59%
Employee Programs
$60,896

2.33%
Deferred Maintenance Fund
~ - $284,930

10.91%
, --------Capital Project Plan Contribution
~ $70,516

2.70%
Water Security Fund
$64,068

2.45%
Road Operations and Pavement
Program
$193,638

7.41%
If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

92.60%
O.OG% Property
Transfer Tax
$59,251

2.10%
Unsecured
Property Tax
$148,050

5.24%
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term Human
Services
$357,903
Agricultural Probation
Commissioner $464,240
Public
Defender
$165,186

6.32%
$30,294 17.77%

13.70%
Emergency
Management
$34,491

1.32%
District Attorney
$251,770

9.64%
4 .18%
Court
Support/Grand
Jury
$116,879

4.47%
General
Government
$331,846

12.70%
Regional
Parks
$61,305

2.35%
UC Cooperative Extension
$15,454

0.59%
Employee Programs
$60,896

2.33%
Deferred Maintenance Fund
~ - $284,930

10.91%
, --------Capital Project Plan Contribution
~ $70,516

2.70%
Water Security Fund
$64,068

2.45%
Road Operations and Pavement
Program
$193,638

7.41%
If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

1. Attachment 1 - FIA for Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor EIFD City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20;JOi
~seal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC eIFD to the County's Genernl Fund Today's Date July 5, 202/ 6 Figure 1: Recurring General Fund Revenues at the End of EIFD Term Secured
Figure 2: Recurring General Fund Expenditures at the End of EIFD Term If you have any further questions regarding this Executive Summary or the attached analysis, please feel free to contact us at (800) 969-4DTA.

Enclosures:

1. Attachment 1 - FIA for Santa Rosa Downtown Business Corridor EIFD City of Santa Rosa Original date prepared June 20,102
Fisral Impact Report Renecling the Impac/s of SRDBC EIFD to /he Counly's Genernl Fund Today's Dale July 5, 2024 6 67 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Santa Rosa
Fiscal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC EIFD to County's General Fund

FIA FOR SANTA ROSA

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS

CORRIDOR EIFD
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Santa Rosa
Fiscal Impact Report Reflecting the Impacts of SRDBC EIFD to County's General Fund � FIA FOR SANTA ROSA

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS

CORRIDOR EIFD
68 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-A
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

COUNTY OF SONOMA GENERAL FUND REVENUES (BY TYPE)
Demographics and Other Data
A Countywide
2023 Estimated Population 111
2023 Estimated Employees 121
2023 Persons Served Population [31
B Unincorporated
2023 Estimated Population 111
2023 Estimated Employees 121
2023 Persons Served Population [31
478,174
241,500
598,924
130,991
52,700
157,341
111 California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2023. 121 California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), April 2023 - Preliminary.
[31 Assumes population plus 50% of employees.

II Recurring County General Fund Revenue Sources (by Type) Total Revenue Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Revenue Type Revenues Type Jurisdiction Basis Fiscal Impact
Discount Revenue
Factor -------------------------------------------------------- Tax Revenue Persons Served $0.00
Property Taxes $294,578,277 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Sales and Use Taxes $25,723,283 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Teeter Prop Tax Penalties $7,607,587 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA RDA $10,000,000 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Property Tax Admin Fees $2,850,000 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $1,205,706 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Property Transfer Taxes $7,973,454 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Transient Occupancy Taxes $6,072,275 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Franchise Fees $3,400,000 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Interest Income $3,167,330 Recurring NA Case Study NA NA Tribal Mitigation Reimbursement $1,485,262 Recurring NA NA NA NA Reinvestment and Revitalization Fund $8,482,877 Recurring NA NA NA NA Federal Geothermal $1,800,000 Recurring NA NA NA NA
Other Government Agencies $354,000 Recurring NA NA NA NA Countywide Cost Allocation Plan $12,571,809 Recurring NA NA NA NA Other/ Miscellaneous $550,703 Recurring NA NA NA NA
Total Recurring Revenues $387,822,563 NA NA NA NA NA
ATTACHMENT 1-A
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

COUNTY OF SONOMA GENERAL FUND REVENUES (BY TYPE)
Demographics and Other Data
A Countywide
2023 Estimated Population 111
2023 Estimated Employees 121
2023 Persons Served Population [31
B Unincorporated
2023 Estimated Population 111
2023 Estimated Employees 121
2023 Persons Served Population [31
No1e.s.. No1e.s..:.
478,174
241,500
598,924
130,991
52,700
157,341
111 California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2023. 121 California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), April 2023 - Preliminary.
[31 Assumes population plus 50% of employees.

II Recurring County General Fund Revenue Sources (by Type) ■ Total I Revenue Type Revenues
Tax Revenue
Property Taxes $294,578,277
Sales and Use Taxes $25,723,283
Teeter Prop Tax Penalties $7,607,587
RDA $10,000,000
Property Tax Admin Fees $2,850,000
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $1,205,706
Property Transfer Taxes $7,973,454
Transient Occupancy Taxes $6,072,275
Franchise Fees $3,400,000
Interest Income $3,167,330
Tribal Mitigation Reimbursement $1,485,262
Reinvestment and Revitalization Fund $8,482,877
Federal Geothermal $1,800,000
Other Government Agencies $354,000
Countywide Cost Allocation Plan $12,571,809
Other / Miscellaneous $550,703
Total Recurring Revenues $387,822,563
Revenue I: Ftscal Impact
Type Jurisdiction
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Countywide
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Countywide
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring Unincorporated
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
Recurring NA
NA NA
Fiscal Impact
Basts
Persons Served
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Persons Served
Case Study
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I- I
; Fiscal Impact
Discount Revenue
FactOT
$0.00
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
100% $0.00
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
69 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-B
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

COUNTY OF SONOMA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (BY TYPE)
Demographics and Other Data
Countywjde
2023 Estimated Population (11
2023 Estimated Employees (21
2023 Persons Served Population (31
Unincorporated
2023 Estimated Population (11
2023 Estimated Employees 121
2023 Persons Served Population (31
Notes;_
478,174
241,500
598,924
130,991
52,700
157,341
[11 California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2023. [21 California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP), April 2023 - Preliminary.
[31 Assumes population plus 50% of employees.

II Recurring County General Fund Expenditures (by Type) Total Expenditure Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Expenditure Type Expenditures Type Jurisdiction Basis Fiscal Impact
Discount Expenditure
Factor --------------------------------------------------------- General Government
County Administrator/Board of Supervisors $10,868,868 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA County Counsel $1,050 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA General Services $19,876,505 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Human Resources $10,338,776 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review $2,020,415 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Information Systems $1,553,883 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Office of Equity $958,318 Recurring Unincorporated Case Study NA NA Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector $6,421,842 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Clerk-Recorder-Assessor $14,801,496 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Board of Supervisors Contingency $4,583,709 Recurring Countywide Case Study NA NA Non-General Government
Court Support/Grand Jury $9,118,429 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $11.42 Department of Health Services $8,532,651 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $10.68 District Attorney $19,642,153 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $24.60 Emergency Management $2,691,759 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $3.37 Human Services $27,923,634 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $34.97 Agricultural Commissioner $2,362,106 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $2.96 Permit Sonoma $4,660,645 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Probation $36,226,832 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $45.36 Public Defender $12,888,613 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $16.14 Regional Parks $4,786,172 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $5.99 Sheriff's Office $103,660,198 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Transportation & Public Works $23,320 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 UC Cooperative Extension $1,206,214 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $1.51 Fire $1,500,000 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Community Development Commission $4,225,119 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Employee Programs $4,753,048 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $5.95 Deferred Maintenance Fund $22,233,597 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $27.84 Capital Project Plan Contribution $5,500,000 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $6.89 Funding for Specific Programs $15,002,556 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 City of Santa Rosa Annexation $1,462,000 Non-Recurring NA NA NA NA Community Infrastructure Project Fund $10,000,000 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Water Security Fund $5,000,000 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $6.26 Reinvestment & Revitalization Fund $10,000,000 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Road Operations and Pavement Program $15,112,536 Recurring Countywide Persons Served 25% $18.92 Non-Departmental $7,174,635 Recurring Unincorporated Persons Served 100% $0.00 Pension Obligation Bond 2003B Interest $537,600 Recurring NA NA NA NA Future Needs/Reserves $31,968,692 Non-Recurring Countywide Persons Served 100% $0.00 Total Recurring Expenditures $439,617,371 NA NA NA NA NA I
ATTACHMENT 1-B
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

II Recurring County General Fund Expenditures (by Type) General Government
County Administrator/Board of Supervisors
County Counsel
General Services
Human Resources
Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review
Information Systems
Office of Equity
Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector
Clerk-Recorder-Assessor
Board of Supervisors Contingency
Non-General Government
Court Support/Grand Jury
Department of Health Services
District Attorney
Emergency Management
Human Services
Agricultural Commissioner
Permit Sonoma
Probation
Public Defender
Regional Parks
Sheriff's Office
Transportation & Public Works
UC Cooperative Extension
Fire
Community Development Commission
Employee Programs
Deferred Maintenance Fund
Capital Project Plan Contribution
Funding for Specific Programs
City of Santa Rosa Annexation
Community Infrastructure Project Fund
Water Security Fund
Reinvestment & Revitalization Fund
Road Operations and Pavement Program
Non-Departmental
Pension Obligation Bond 2003B Interest
Future Needs/Reserves
Total
Expenditures
$10,868,868
$1,050
$19,876,505
$10,338,776
$2,020,415
$1,553,883
$958,318
$6,421,842
$14,801,496
$4,583,709
$9,118,429
$8,532,651
$19,642,153
$2,691,759
$27,923,634
$2,362,106
$4,660,645
$36,226,832
$12,888,613
$4,786,172
$103,660,198
$23,320
$1,206,214
$1,500,000
$4,225,119
$4,753,048
$22,233,597
$5,500,000
$15,002,556
$1,462,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,112,536
$7,174,635
$537,600
$31,968,692
$439,617,371
,yp,,
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Non-Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Recurring
Non-Recurring
NA
Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact D' t
F
�
Jurisdiction Basis 1Scoun
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Unincorporated Case Study NA
Unincorporated Case Study NA
Unincorporated Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Case Study NA
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%

NA NA NA
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%
Countywide Persons Served 25%
Unincorporated Persons Served 100%

NA NA NA
Countywide Persons Served 100%

NA NA NA
Fac.tOT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$11.42
$10.68
$24.60
$3.37
$34.97
$2.96
$0.00
$45.36
$16.14
$5.99
$0.00
$0.00
$1.51
$0.00
$0.00
$5.95
$27.84
$6.89
$0.00
NA
$0.00
$6.26
$0.00
$18.92
$0.00
NA
$0.00
NA
70 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-C
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY
Future Land Use Data {At the end of EIFD Tenn)
I Developable Land Use Description
A Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses 111
B Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses 121
I Residential Land Use Population
A Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
Demographic Data
II Non-Residential Land Use Employee Generation
A Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses
Population and Employees {Calculations)
I Projected Residential Population
A Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
II Projected Direct Employees
A Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses
Population and Employees {Totals)
I Total Projected Residential Population
II Total Projected Direct Employees [5]
III Total Persons Served Population
NOTES:

Number of Units
2,281
Building Sq. Ft.
5,521,385
Persons per Household 131

2.516
Sq. Ft. per Direct Employee 141
614
Residential Population
5,739
Total Direct Employees
8,992
At the end of EIFD Term
5,739
8,992
10,235
[1] Estimated based on the total projected valuation of $456,126,144 (2023$) and the average 2022-23 assessed valuation of $200,000 per residential unit within the EIFD. 121 Estimated based on the total projected valuation of $1,242,311,582 (2023$) and the average 2022-23 assessed valuation of $225.00 per non-residential buidling sq. ft. within the EIFD [3]
[4]
[5]
*
California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2023.

Based on the estimated 5,176,748 sq. ft. of non-residential land use space and 8,432 jobs within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area.

An employee is typically assumed to be equivalent to 50% of a resident given they would spend only eight active hours in the EIFD per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours per day.

All figures subject to rounding
ATTACHMENT 1-C
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

Number of Units
2,281
Building Sq. Ft.
5,521,385
Persons per Household 131

Based on the estimated 5,176,748 sq. ft. of non-residential land use space and 8,432 jobs within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area.

An employee is typically assumed to be equivalent to 50% of a resident given they would spend only eight active hours in the EIFD per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours per day.

All figures subject to rounding
ATTACHMENT 1-C
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

2.516
Sq. Ft. per Direct Employee 141
614
[ Population and Employees {Calculations)
I Projected Residential Population
A Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
II Projected Direct Employees
A Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses
[ Population and Employees {Totals)
Residential Population
5,739
Total Direct Employees
8,992
At the end of EIFD Term
I Total Projected Residential Population
II Total Projected Direct Employees [5]
III Total Persons Served Population
NOTES:
5,739
8,992
10,235
[1] Estimated based on the total projected valuation of $456,126,144 (2023$) and the average 2022-23 assessed valuation of $200,000 per residential unit within the EIFD. 121 Estimated based on the total projected valuation of $1,242,311,582 (2023$) and the average 2022-23 assessed valuation of $225.00 per non-residential buidling sq. ft. within the EIFD [3]
[4]
[5]
*
California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2023.

Based on the estimated 5,176,748 sq. ft. of non-residential land use space and 8,432 jobs within the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area.

An employee is typically assumed to be equivalent to 50% of a resident given they would spend only eight active hours in the EIFD per day versus a resident who is active for 16 hours per day.

All figures subject to rounding
1 J
7 71 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-D
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
General Property Tax Assumptions
Property Tax Allocation (as a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy) 11] A Category / Code
County of Sonoma
Total
Allocated to County 121

19.830200%

19.830200%
Assessed Valuation Assumptions (3)
Projected Residential Land Uses
A Residential Land Uses
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value [3]
II Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
A Non-Residential Land Uses
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value 141
III Total Land Use Net Taxable Value
End of EIFD Term
$456,126,144
End of EIFD Term
$1,242,311,582
$1,698,437,725
Other Property Tax Revenue Assumptions
Unsecured Property Taxes - Assumptions
A Unsecured Taxes as a% of Secured 151
Residential Property
Non-Residential Property
II Property Tax Transfer - Assumptions
A Turnover Rate 161
Residential Property
Non-Residential Property
B Other Assumptions
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value 171
Property Transfer Tax Passed Through to County of Sonoma (8)

2.75%

5.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.11%

50.00%
Fiscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Tenn)
Fiscal Impact Category
A Secured Property Tax
A.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
A.2 Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses
B Unsecured Property Tax

8.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses

8.2 Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Non-Residential Land Uses
C Property Transfer Tax
C.1 Projected Residential Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
C.2 Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
End of EIFD Term
$904,508
End of EIFD Term
$2,463,529
End of EIFD Term
$24,874
End of EIFD Term
$123,176
End of EIFD Term
$25,087
End of EIFD Term
72 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-D
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
Non-Residential Land Uses
II Gross Property Tax Revenues
III Property Tax Revenues to EIFD
County Admin Fee 19]
Secured Property Tax Increment 110]
IV Net Property Tax Revenues
NOTES·
$34,164
$3,575,338
End of EIFD Term
$0
($750,258)
$2,825,081
11] Based on "General Fund" levy for Tax Rate Area (TRA). Data provided by the County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller Office.

TRA allocations adjusted for ERAF. Note, figure does not include non-General Funds. 12] Post-ERAF rates based on the average of the fiscal year 2022-23 rates applicable to the TRAs in the EIFD Boundary.

Source: County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller Office.
131 Represents an estimated assessed valuation in 2023 dollars based on the projected assessed valuation of $1,090,165,723 at the end of the EIFD term and an assumed discount rate of 2%. 141 Represents an estimated assessed valuation in 2023 dollars based on the projected assessed valuation of $2,969,190,700 at the end of the EIFD term and an assumed discount rate of 2%. 151 Based on typical OTA baseline assumptions.
161 Based on typical OTA baseline assumptions.
171 Source: California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901, et seq.; 181 City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code §3-20.020 and County of Sonoma Code of Ordinance §12-23. 191 Assumes the County Admin Fee will be payable from the EIFD tax increments. 1101 Equals to 50% of the secured property tax and VLF increments. * All figures subject to rounding
ATTACHMENT 1-D
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
Non-Residential Land Uses
II Gross Property Tax Revenues
III Property Tax Revenues to EIFD
County Admin Fee 19]
Secured Property Tax Increment 110]
IV Net Property Tax Revenues
$34,164
$3,575,338
End of EIFD Term
$0
($750,258)
$2,825,081
NOTES·
11] Based on "General Fund" levy for Tax Rate Area (TRA). Data provided by the County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller Office.

Source: County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller Office.
131 Represents an estimated assessed valuation in 2023 dollars based on the projected assessed valuation of $1,090,165,723 at the end of the EIFD term and an assumed discount rate of 2%. 141 Represents an estimated assessed valuation in 2023 dollars based on the projected assessed valuation of $2,969,190,700 at the end of the EIFD term and an assumed discount rate of 2%. 151 Based on typical OTA baseline assumptions.
161 Based on typical OTA baseline assumptions.
171 Source: California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901, et seq.; 181 City of Santa Rosa Municipal Code §3-20.020 and County of Sonoma Code of Ordinance §12-23. 191 Assumes the County Admin Fee will be payable from the EIFD tax increments. 1101 Equals to 50% of the secured property tax and VLF increments. * All figures subject to rounding
73 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-E
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES ANALYSIS
Investment Income Assumptions
Investment Period for Recurring Non-Interest General Fund Revenues (Months) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Rate of Return [11
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Percentage of Earnings Cost 111 Fiscal Impact Calculation (At the encl of EIFD Term)
Fiscal Impact Category
Total Property Tax Revenues (Attachment 1-D)
II Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment III Plus: Investment Income (Less Earnings Cost)
IV Total Recurring General Fund Revenues
NOTES·
[1)
*
Estimate. Subject to change.

All figures subject to rounding
1 1.50%

50.00%
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$2,825,081
$2,825,081
$1,766
$2,826,847
ATTACHMENT 1-E
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES ANALYSIS
C Aiiumpti
Investment Income Assumptions
Investment Period for Recurring Non-Interest General Fund Revenues (Months) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Rate of Return [11
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Percentage of Earnings Cost 111 1 1.50%

50.00%
Fiscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Tenn)
Fiscal Impact Category
Total Property Tax Revenues (Attachment 1-D)
II Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment III Plus: Investment Income (Less Earnings Cost)
IV Total Recurring General Fund Revenues
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$2,825,081
$2,825,081
$1,766
$2,826,847
NOTES·
[1)
*
Estimate. Subject to change.

All figures subject to rounding
J
74 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-F
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

MULTIPLIER EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
Multiplier Expenditure Assumptions
I Expenditure Category Multiplier Factor [11
Court Support/Grand Jury $11.42
Department of Health Services $10.68
District Attorney $24.60
Emergency Management $3.37
Human Services $34.97
Agricultural Commissioner $2.96
Probation $45.36
Public Defender $16.14
Regional Parks $5.99
UC Cooperative Extension $1.51
Employee Programs $5.95
Deferred Maintenance Fund $27.84
Capital Project Plan Contribution $6.89
Water Security Fund $6.26
Road Operations and Pavement Program $18.92
Ftscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Term)
Fiscal Impact Category
Court Support/Grand Jury
Department of Health Services
District Attorney
Emergency Management
Human Services
Agricultural Commissioner
Probation
Public Defender
Regional Parks
UC Cooperative Extension
Employee Programs
Deferred Maintenance Fund
Capital Project Plan Contribution
Water Security Fund
Road Operations and Pavement Program
II Total Multiplier Expenditures
NOTES:
[11 Source: County of Sonoma Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23. * All figures subject to rounding
Expenditure Projection Basis
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$116,879
$109,305
$251,770
$34,491
$357,903
$30,294
$464,240
$165,186
$61,305
$15,454
$60,896
$284,930
$70,516
$64,068
$193,638
$2,280,875
ATTACHMENT 1-F
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

MULTIPLIER EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
Multiplier Expenditure Assumptions
I Expenditure Category Multiplier Factor [11
Court Support/Grand Jury $11.42
Department of Health Services $10.68
District Attorney $24.60
Emergency Management $3.37
Human Services $34.97
Agricultural Commissioner $2.96
Probation $45.36
Public Defender $16.14
Regional Parks $5.99
UC Cooperative Extension $1.51
Employee Programs $5.95
Deferred Maintenance Fund $27.84
Capital Project Plan Contribution $6.89
Water Security Fund $6.26
Road Operations and Pavement Program $18.92
Expenditure Projection Basis
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Persons Served
Ftscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Term)
Fiscal Impact Category
Court Support/Grand Jury
Department of Health Services
District Attorney
Emergency Management
Human Services
Agricultural Commissioner
Probation
Public Defender
Regional Parks
UC Cooperative Extension
Employee Programs
Deferred Maintenance Fund
Capital Project Plan Contribution
Water Security Fund
Road Operations and Pavement Program
II Total Multiplier Expenditures
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$116,879
$109,305
$251,770
$34,491
$357,903
$30,294
$464,240
$165,186
$61,305
$15,454
$60,896
$284,930
$70,516
$64,068
$193,638
$2,280,875
J
NOTES:
[11 Source: County of Sonoma Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23. * All figures subject to rounding
75 of 82
ATTACHMENT 1-G
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
Assumptions
General Government Overhead Expenditures
Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures
(excluding General Government Overhead) [11
Recurring General Government Overhead Expenditures
(as a % of Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures) [21 Marginal Increase in General Government Costs
Ftscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Term)
I Fiscal Impact Category
Total Multiplier Expenditures (Attachment 1-J)
II Projected Recurring General Fund Expenditures
III Plus: General Government Costs
IV Total Recurring Expenditures
NOTES:
[11 Based on County of Sonoma Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23. $368,192,509

19.4%
75%
Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$2,280,875
$2,280,875
$331,846
$2,612,721
[21 General Government Overhead Expenditures defined as costs for Legislative, Administration, Finance, Development Services, and other General Government. * All figures subject to rounding
ATTACHMENT 1-G
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: SANTA ROSA EIFD (DOWNTOWN BUSINESS CORRIDOR)

19.4%
75%
I Fiscal Impact Category
Ftscal Impact Calculation (At the end of EIFD Term)
Total Multiplier Expenditures (Attachment 1-J)
II Projected Recurring General Fund Expenditures
III Plus: General Government Costs
IV Total Recurring Expenditures
NOTES:
[11 Based on County of Sonoma Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Annual Fiscal Impact Amount
$2,280,875
$2,280,875
$331,846
$2,612,721
[21 General Government Overhead Expenditures defined as costs for Legislative, Administration, Finance, Development Services, and other General Government. * All figures subject to rounding
l
76 of 82
Kosmont Companies
Mailing Address: 1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd., #382 (424) 297-1070 Physical Address: 2301 Rosecrans Ave, Ste. 4140 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 www.kosmont.com El Segundo, CA 90245 Memorandum
To: County of Sonoma
Christel Querijero, Deputy County Administrator
From: Kosmont Companies
Joseph Dieguez, Senior Vice President
Fernando Sanchez, Vice President
Date: August 5, 2024
RE: Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Partnership Considerations
I. BACKGROUND
Kosmont Companies (“Kosmont”) was tasked by the County of Sonoma (“County”) to evaluate the request from the City of Santa Rosa (“City”) for the County’s participation in an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) within the City. Kosmont’s review has most recently focused on three aspects for the County’s consideration as discussed further in this high-level memorandum:

1. Discussion of a potential “inflationary baseline” approach for the County’s tax increment allocation

2. Review of a County General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis as required by the County’s EIFD Participation Policy

3. Evaluation of the potential projects that could be funded by the EIFD.

I. INFLATIONARY BASELINE DISCUSSION
In listening to prior Board meetings regarding the EIFD and subsequently discussing with County staff, Kosmont is aware of the potential desire of a County tax increment allocation model that includes an “inflationary baseline”, whereby the County General Fund retains all property tax revenue growth within the EIFD boundary within a certain percentage growth range (e.g., 4% year-over-year growth), and only revenue growth above that inflationary baseline would be available to the EIFD at the determined percentage allocation (e.g., 25% or 50%).

Kosmont has evaluated this proposed approach in other jurisdictions, and the primary issue raised by Kosmont is related to underwriting from a public finance perspective. The 4% floating baseline 77 of 82
County of Sonoma
Santa Rosa EIFD Partnership Considerations
August 5, 2024
Kosmont Companies 2 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
inherently means that the EIFD would only get a percentage of “whatever is left over” above the floating baseline. This stipulates that the “leftover” revenue stream could conceivably be zero in some years, and much greater in other years. This level of volatility presents a significant issue, particularly since EIFDs are a novel public financing tool, and the most acceptable bond payment structure from the municipal bond market perspective would be “level debt service” (i.e., the annual debt service would be very similar every year throughout the bond term, such as 30 years). Such a level, reliable payment structure would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve when utilizing the inflationary baseline approach.

Kosmont’s suggestion is for the County to adopt a lower percentage allocation (e.g., 25% instead of 50%) in order to achieve an equivalent level of General Fund protection, because that reduced percentage is at least predictable from a municipal underwriter’s or bond-buyer’s perspective. EIFDs are typically meant to facilitate debt issuances, or at least provide for the option of debt issuance, and the inflationary baseline all but eliminates this option.

II. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COUNTY ALLOCATION
Kosmont and County staff agreed that the County General Fund Fiscal Impact Analysis is an essential critical path item, because this analysis informs the percentage allocation that the County can “afford” to allocate, which may in turn inform the list of potential projects that end up on the list (i.e., “what can the EIFD afford to fund”).

The City’s EIFD consultants will ultimately need certainty on district boundary, County percentage allocation, and other terms before the Fiscal Impact Analysis can be finalized, but in order to facilitate progress, County staff and Kosmont requested that the City’s consultants share a “preliminary draft” of a County General Fund Fiscal Impact with two alternative “placeholder” scenarios for County participation: 25% allocation and 50% allocation. Kosmont suggested the 25% allocation scenario, because the City’s proposal of 50% allocation implies that the County will allocate more dollars to the EIFD than the City, which is not consistent with other City/County EIFD partnerships across the State.

In July 2024, City staff was able to provide County staff and Kosmont with a draft County Fiscal Impact Analysis that was completed by the City’s consultants in late 2023 but not distributed due to lack of certainty around the County’s acceptable level of allocation. The analysis assumed a 50% allocation from the County, including the County’s allocation of Successor Agency residual revenues from within the EIFD boundary. Kosmont has reviewed the analysis in detail and has provided County staff with a summary of findings. At a high level, Kosmont found that the analysis made some assumptions that could be considered aggressive and other assumptions that could be considered conservative. 78 of 82
County of Sonoma
Santa Rosa EIFD Partnership Considerations
August 5, 2024
Kosmont Companies 3 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Examples of assumptions that could be considered aggressive:
a) Static representation of county revenues and expenditures: As County revenues and expenditures are shown at buildout and stabilization of new development within the EIFD boundary, this point-in-time representation of the revenue/expenditure profile essentially assumes equivalent annual growth / escalation rates for County revenues and expenditures.

A more conservative approach could assume all or some categories of County expenditures growing at a faster rate than County revenues.
b) County expenditure categories and discounts in Attachment 1-B: This is an area where there is much room for subjectivity. Discounts are meant to represent economies of scales and acknowledgement that certain costs are not 100% variable (i.e., some costs are fixed).

Ultimately, the County’s Chief Financial Officer would need to be satisfied with the treatment of the different categories. As an example, Kosmont observed an assumption that Sheriff’s Office costs are 100% allocated to unincorporated jurisdiction and thus not showing an increased cost as a result of future development within the EIFD. Kosmont often finds that there are services provided by a sheriff’s office, such as detention services, that also apply in incorporated jurisdictions, and so we would expect that a minority share of this relatively larger expenditure category would still apply.
c) General government expenditures are estimated as a share of non-general government expenditures, which is typical. However, general government expenditures are discounted at 25% beyond the discounts already applied to the non-general government categories (i.e., discount on top of discount).

Examples of assumptions that could be considered conservative:
a) Low valuations assumed at $200,000 per unit and $225 per non-residential square feet: These seem to be based on existing averages, which usually do not accurately represent new development valuations.
b) Fiscal revenues focus only on property tax and a small amount of new investment income (not including other potential revenues, such as court fines, public safety sales tax, etc.). c) Property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF) does not seem to be evaluated, which would accrue to the benefit of the County General Fund, since these revenues are not proposed to be allocated to the EIFD.
d) Similarly to how Kosmont could point out that some of the County expenditures are being too highly discounted (to acknowledge fixed costs), arguments can be made that other categories could be more highly discounted.

Overall, Kosmont suggests that a fiscally conservative approach is to interpret that the aggressive assumptions noted above may outweigh the conservative assumptions noted above. 79 of 82
County of Sonoma
Santa Rosa EIFD Partnership Considerations
August 5, 2024
Kosmont Companies 4 | Page
(424) 297-1070
www.kosmont.com
Ultimately, the County Fiscal Impact Analysis at the 50% allocation level resulted in a narrowly positive impact on the County General Fund. At $214,126 net fiscal surplus based on annual revenues of approximately $2.8 million and annual expenditures of approximately $2.6 million, the resulting 1.08 revenue-to-expenditure ratio is very tight and does not leave significant “safety buffer” for the County to achieve a positive General Fund “return on investment”, if reality does not exactly follow projections, which seldom occurs.

In order to accommodate a “fiscal buffer” for the County and more closely align to the hypothetical “inflationary baseline” that was discussed in previous meetings, and to acknowledge the County’s existing policy of setting aside a portion of growth above budget assumptions for deferred infrastructure maintenance, all while still supporting a County position as an active economic development partner to the City, Kosmont would suggest that the Board consider an allocation percentage of 25% to 30%. This range more closely aligns with what Counties such as Los Angeles (20%-35%), Riverside (20%-25%), Madera (25%), and San Joaquin (20%-35%) have adopted, particularly in City/County partnership scenarios.

This range acknowledges that, while higher county allocation percentages such as 45%-50% may get a county closer to matching the city allocation percentage, such high percentages do not account for the fact that cities will be a larger beneficiary of other significant revenues, such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax, while the county must still provide costly municipal services that cities do not provide (e.g., health / human services, courts / probation / public defender / district attorney).

III. PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED BY THE EIFD
In Kosmont’s experience with formation and implementation of other EIFDs across the State, the level of specificity and detail on potential projects to be funded has varied highly at the formation stage.

Kosmont has found that EIFD infrastructure financing plans have benefitted from flexibility, particularly given the long-term (40+ year) nature of EIFDs and the inherent nature of tax increment to need time to “ramp up” before there is significant revenue to expend.

It is Kosmont’s experience that it is difficult in most circumstances to exactly define the projects and their corresponding costs at the time of district formation. Kosmont’s suggested approach has been to keep the project list more inclusive, “prioritize” the projects that the City and County want to see funded first, but very importantly, be very clear explicitly about which projects the City or County do NOT want to see on the list of potential projects to be funded (i.e., eliminate the non-starters). 80 of 82

! " #$%
&'

&

&(
)
*#

#%&

) ,&

-
.

) /

&0
&

1
#
#

(

22 $1
3"

4

)

))

&51-6
&4&
(
!!! $1
3"

4&

3
(
&

3
(
! $1
3"

41

"
( 8
3&

9 &

9
&

)"
:&

(&

)

! "#"$%&'%
" ()*+

,$- , .
%/! "
"%&0,,$"$%

1"2 .$

! "# $

-
,

(7
**))/
+
-

)
81 of 82
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council
Subject: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED Date: November 26, 2024
Written by: Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.

Pursuant to City Council Policy 2023-01: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.

1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the Deputy City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.

2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.

City Council Policy 2023-01 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.org or by request from the Deputy City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected]. 82 of 82

Cotati City CouncilNovember 26, 2024

Cotati City Council
November 26, 2024