Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: REVIEW FISCAL YEAR WORKPLAN PRIORITY
Date: May 12, 2026
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review the updated strategic project priorities and provide direction to staff on updates/changes to current and FY 26/27 priorities, as necessary.
Background
For the first time, the City adopted a two-year budget, covering the years of fiscal 2025-26 and 2026-27. This was done to provide a longer look at City priorities and finances. Prior to adopting the two year budget, the City Council reviewed strategic priorities and projects over the budget period. As priorities change, projects get completed and estimated budgets become actuals, it is timely to review both the budget and the priorities prior to heading into fiscal year 2026-27.
The initial review of projects and priorities occurred at the City Council meeting on February 10, 2026. After discussion, the City Council directed Staff to come back at a future meeting with options to finish projects already started and then propose priority of remaining projects with available staff/resources. This was due to estimated staff time to complete priorities that exceeded budgeted staffing levels. The City Council also requested that the Downtown Parking Study be included as a project.
Analysis/Discussion
Following the City Council meeting, staff reconfirmed the scopes of the projects and estimated hours while also evaluating a realistic path forward to complete the listed projects.
Day To Day Summary
The summary of routine time for each department is attached. In line with the methodology used in prior years, the tasks and effective Full Time Equivalent (FTE) values are directly from the time accounting system, in this case over the period of February 6, 2025-February 6, 2026.
While some activities, such as building permit issuance, City capital projects and private development review can vary from year to year, they are included in routine time for the departments as they will always occur, regardless of other city priorities. One-time non-capital City projects are excluded from this summary to provide an estimate of staff capacity for additional “discretionary“ projects. This year, in additional to the budgeted FTE, the summary also includes ”Effective Actual FTE (Average, Prior 3 Years)”. Generally, this is an indication of actual staffing levels as compared to available budget allocation. In most cases, the number is less than Budgeted FTE because there was a departmental vacancy of some type during the year.
In the case of the City Manager’s department, the Effective Actual is larger than the budgeted FTE due to additional time worked.
Strategic Priorities
When evaluating the projects, staff refined the time estimates as well as the project list to remove older projects (prior FY) and clarify the existing projects, as needed. After evaluating the priorities, staff believe that the lists are achievable as all departments are within less than 1 FTE of the estimated work effort. This is considering some caveats:
• The work effort estimates are based on prior experience, but they are still estimates. • Projects tend to move at different speeds due to factors outside our control, which often plays a role in project timing.
• The FTE summaries for year 1 and year 2 are calculated by priority. In other words, all priority 1 projects are rolled up into the FY 25-26 summary and priority 2&3 are rolled up into FY 26-27. As can be seen by the estimated completion date, some Priority 1 projects will carry into FY 26-27, so some of that time and work effort will actually occur in next fiscal year.
As requested by the City Council, staff added a downtown parking study into the FY 26-27 workplan.
Financial Considerations
There are no direction financial implications of approving the strategic priorities. However, some projects will require assistance from consultants, which does have budget impacts.
However, these will be included in the amended budget that will be brought back to the City Council in June.
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.