Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, June 23, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Her historical involvement, institutional knowledge, and unique qualifications make Stone Creek Consulting the only practicable source for the required services. The proposed scope of work includes assisting with the Annual Storm Water Report, developing sediment reduction and monitoring plans, supporting staff training, and providing cost-recoverable private development site inspections.

Because of these factors, Stone Creek Consulting qualifies as a sole source provider under the City’s procurement policy. Competitive bidding is not required due to the absence of viable alternatives that could match the consultant’s background, prior work for the City, and expertise in this specialized regulatory area.

Financial Considerations
The proposed FY 2026/27 agreement totals $65,800. Of the total agreement, $16,250 is allocated for construction site inspections, which will be fully reimbursed through private development fees.

Importantly, securing a new consultant to perform these services would likely be more costly and inefficient, as the time required to become familiar with the City’s unique MS4 compliance obligations, historical data, and systems would significantly delay progress and reduce effectiveness. The technical and regulatory complexity of this work makes continuity a cost effective and operationally prudent choice.

Procurement Policy Reference
Per the City’s Professional Services Procurement Policy, contracts estimated at or above $25,000 should typically involve a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a minimum of three proposals unless specific justification supports an alternative approach. The policy states: "Contracts for Professional Services estimated to cost more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.01) will generally be awarded pursuant to the following guidelines; however, it is recognized that the City's need for consultant services will vary from situation to situation, and accordingly, flexibility will be provided in determining the appropriate evaluation and selection process to be used in each specific circumstance."
The policy allows for selection based on factors beyond cost, including demonstrated competence, understanding of the work, relevant experience, and responsiveness. Given Stone Creek Consulting’s unique qualifications, extensive knowledge of the City’s stormwater program, and proven track record, proceeding without soliciting additional proposals is justified and in line with the policy's intent.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City proceed with contracting Stone Creek Consulting as a sole source provider for stormwater compliance support services under the MS4 permit, based on both their qualifications and the City’s procurement guidelines. 144 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARINGS (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT,

CONFIRM THE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND ANNUAL

ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS, AND LEVYING AND

COLLECTION OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE

COTATI LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27.

Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Craig A. Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council of the City of Cotati adopt a resolution approving the Annual Engineer's Report, confirming the assessment diagram and annual assessment amounts, and authorizing the levying and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 for the Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).

Background
Ten separate Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Landscaping and Lighting Act”) to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments. The FY17/18 annual assessment process consolidated the ten Districts into one District to simplify the process and reduce administration costs. This item is the third of the three anticipated Council meetings for this year’s assessment process.

Analysis/Discussion
The Landscaping and Lighting Act requires that the City undertake certain proceedings for any fiscal year in which assessments are to be levied and collected. On March 10, 2026, the City Council began the required annual proceedings for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year by appointing the City Engineer as Engineer of Work and directing the preparation of the Engineer’s Report. The 145 of 462
Draft Engineer’s Report was prepared and filed in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act and was presented to the City Council for their consideration on June 9, 2026. At that time, the City Council preliminary approved the Engineer’s Report, adopted a Resolution of Intent to levy and collect the annual assessments and set the date of the public protest hearing.

The requisite hearing notice has been given pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22626. This is the third of three City Council meetings for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments.

The Council is to conduct a public hearing and may then authorize the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The assessments cannot be increased above those stated in the Resolution of Intent adopted June 9, 2026.

Financial Considerations
All costs associated with these annual proceedings and the annual operation, maintenance and administration of the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District are intended to be recovered from the annual assessments levied on the properties within the District. It may be necessary to have a loan from the City’s General Fund if improvements or repairs become necessary, but it is the intent that these borrowed funds be paid back through zone revenue over time. In some cases, an annual subsidy from the City’s General Fund is necessary to cover the maintenance expenses. Annual subsidies are provided for Zones 2, 4, and 5.

Annual assessments are to remain at previous year’s levels for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 ($158.00, $40.00, $290.00 ($435.00 for triplex), $32.00, $36.74, and $133.50, respectively). The Zone 7 assessment is proposed to increase from $292.20 to $307.68. The Zone 8 assessment is proposed to increase from $584.20 to $642.62. The Zone 9 assessment is proposed to decrease from $313.50 to $311.50. The Zone 10 assessment is proposed to increase from $478.74 to $502.64. The maximum assessments for zones 7, 8, 9 and 10 were adjusted by the ratio of the January 2026 Construction Cost Index for San Francisco to the CCI for the closest month to when those Zones were formed (consistent with provisions in the resolutions forming those respective Zones) and multiplied by the original assessment. Year over year, the CCI decreased 0,6 percent and, therefore, the maximum assessment amounts were reduced by this amount.

Environmental Issues
The actions to approve the Engineer’s Report, approve the action to levy and collect annual assessment for FY 26/27, confirm the assessment diagrams and annual assessment amounts, and approve the increase of the maximum potential assessments in accordance with the CCI for San Francisco for Zones 7, 8, 9, and 10 for the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required. 146 of 462
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI APPROVING

THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT

DIAGRAM AND THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS, AND LEVYING AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 FOR THE

CITY OF COTATI LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR ZONES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 (PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972)
WHEREAS, ten separate Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment Districts within the City (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Act”) to levy and collect assessments under the Act to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments; and
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 17/18, as part of the annual assessment process, the ten individual districts were consolidated into one district with each of the original districts becoming independent “Zones” within the single district; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to levy and collect assessments within the Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District, during Fiscal Year 2026-27, and the lands to be assessed are located in the City of Cotati, Sonoma County; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution appointing the City Engineer as the Engineer of Work, directing the preparation and filing of the annual FY 2026-27 Engineer’s Report, and describing the potential changes to the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to levy and collect assessments, preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report for FY 26-27, and set the date of the public hearing pursuant to Section 22624 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, the Zone numbers and corresponding names are as follows: Zone 1 – Valparaiso, Zone 2 – Quail Hollow, Zone 3 – Sommers, Zone 4 – Macklin, Zone 5 – Sierra Meadows, Zone 6 – Oak Knolls, Zone 7 – Garden Gate, Zone 8 – Park Meadows, Zone 9 – Santero Way, Zone 10 – Altman Acres; and
WHEREAS, for Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the actual proposed FY 2026-27 annual assessments to levy and collect are proposed to stay the same as that assessed FY 2025-26; and WHEREAS, for Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10, the FY 2026-27, maximum annual assessments were adjusted by the allowable Construction Cost Index for San Francisco extending back to the formation of the District; and
147 of 462
WHEREAS, for Zone 7, the actual proposed FY 2026-27 annual assessment, per equivalent single family dwelling unit, to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $15.48 from FY 2025- 26; and
WHEREAS, for Zone 8, the actual proposed FY 2026-27 annual assessment, per equivalent single family dwelling unit, to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $58.42 from FY 2025- 26; and
WHEREAS, for Zone 9, the actual proposed FY 2026-27 annual assessment, per equivalent single family dwelling unit, to levy and collect is proposed to decrease by $2.00 from FY 2025- 26; and
WHEREAS, for Zone 10, the actual proposed FY 2026-27 annual assessment, per equivalent single family dwelling unit, to levy and collect is proposed to increase by $23.90 from FY 2025- 26; and
WHEREAS, for FY 2026-27 the actual annual assessments proposed to be levied and collected are: $158.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 1, $40.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 2, $290.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 3, $32.00 per unit for all properties within Zone 4, $36.74 per unit for all properties within Zone 5, $133.50 per unit for all properties within Zone 6, $307.68 per unit for all properties within Zone 7 (+5.3%), $642.62 per unit for all properties within Zone 8 (+10%), $311.50 per unit for all properties within Zone 9 (-0.6%), and $502.64 per ESD unit for all properties within Zone 10 (+5%); and WHEREAS, the requisite notice of the public hearing was given pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22626; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on June 23, 2026, at which time all oral statements and written protests were duly considered.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution; and

2. The Annual FY 2026-2027 Engineer’s Report is hereby approved as filed; and

3. The assessment diagrams and assessment amounts as set forth in the FY 2026-27 Engineer’s Report and any amendments incorporated at the City Council’s direction are confirmed, and the City is hereby authorized to levy and collect the annual assessments set forth in said report for FY 2026-27; and

4. To take inflation into account, the estimated maximum annual assessment for Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall be adjusted by the ratio of the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI) at the closest month when the respective Districts were formed to January 1, 2026, multiplied by the initial assessment; and

5. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Sections 22620 et al. of the California Streets and Highways Code and shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 148 of 462
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on June 23, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
149 of 462
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 scheduled for June 23rd, 2026 at or after 6:00 p.m.

Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Cotati will hold a public protest hearing regarding this Assessment concerning the Annual Engineer’s Report for the City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District (Assessment District) and the proposed budget for the 10 individual Zones in the Assessment District.

The public hearing for the Assessment Districts is being conducted pursuant to Section 22620 et. seq. of the Streets and Highways code.

The Assessment District funds the maintenance of portions of the public landscaping in 10 Zones that include parts of the following developments: Valparaiso Vista, Quail Hollow IV, Sommers, Macklin Phase I, Sierra Meadows, Oak Knoll, Garden Gate, Park Meadows, Santero Way, and Altman Acres as outlined within the Engineers Reports. The Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments for Zones 1 through 6 are proposed to remain at the same amounts as were assessed in Fiscal Year 2025-26, and the assessment for Zone 7, 8, and 10 are proposed to be increased by $15.48, $58.42, and $23.90 per year, respectively, and Zone 9 is to decrease by $2.00. These are all below the maximum allowable assessment based on an annual adjustment based on the San Francisco Construction Cost Index.

A public protest hearing will be held at the day and time provided in the title above.

The meeting will be conducted in person at the Council Chambers at 201 W Sierra Ave and virtually through Zoom Online video conferencing with instructions on the City’s website cotaticity.gov
Contact Craig Scott, City Engineer at (707) 665-3620, or [email protected], or by mail to 201 W Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931 for additional information.

ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to send written comments to Craig Scott no later than the hearing date and/or be present to comment orally on this issue.

DATE POSTED: Craig Scott
On or before City Engineer
June 12, 2026 City of Cotati
Pub: June 12, 2026
The Community Voice

WAIVER WARNING

IF YOU CHALLENGE THESE ISSUES IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF COTATI AT, OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
150 of 462
DRAFT Annual Engineer's Report
City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2026-2027
June 2026
Prepared By:

Craig A. Scott, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 151 of 462
FY 2026-27
City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits, as directed by the City Council on March 10, 2026, the enclosed Engineer’s Report on June 9, 2026.

By:__________________________________________
Craig A. Scott, PE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Diagrams thereto attached was filed with the City on June 9, 2026.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California
By:___________________________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Diagrams thereto attached was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Cotati, California, on the 23rd day of June, 2026.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California

By:___________________________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Roll and the Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Sonoma on the ___day of _, 2026.

Damien O’Bid, City Manager, City of Cotati
Sonoma County, California

By:___________________________________________
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 152 of 462
3 FY 2026-2027 ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF COTATI LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972)
FY 2026-2027 Annual Assessment
Craig A. Scott, Engineer of Work for the City of Cotati Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District, City of Cotati, Sonoma County, California, prepares this annual Engineer’s Report, as directed by the City Council of the City of Cotati, pursuant to Section 22620 of the Streets & Highways Code (Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972) for the Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Background
The ten Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (“Districts”) were initially formed by the City from 1989 to 2003 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“Landscaping and Lighting Act”) to pay for costs associated with maintaining landscaping and streetlights within developments. Fiscal Year 2017-18’s annual assessment process was combined with the action of consolidating the ten District’s into one District to simplify the process and reduce administration costs. The City now has a single District with ten individual “Zones” each having retained their identical and separate characteristics.

The ten zones consist of the following subdivisions: Valparaiso Vista (Zone 1), Quail Hollow IV (Zone 2), Sommers (Zone 3), Macklin I (Zone 4), Sierra Meadows (Zone 5), Oak Knolls (Zone 6), Garden Gate (Zone 7), Park Meadows (Zone 8), Santero Way Developments (Zone 9), and Altman Acres (Zone 10). Under California State law, the City is required to hold a public hearing annually to set the assessment rates for the following year for each assessment zone.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972, an annual Engineer’s Report must be prepared and filed with the City to levy and collect assessments on any following fiscal year. Annually, the City Council directs the City Engineer to prepare and file the Engineer’s Report on the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District to establish assessment zone rates. Once the preliminary Engineer’s Report has been filed, the City Council can then adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy and collect annual assessments for FY 2026-27, then preliminarily approves the filed annual Engineer’s Report and sets the time and date of the public protest hearing. The Engineer’s Report outlines the proposed budgets, assessments, improvements, and changes to the zones within the Assessment District. These budgets/costs are updated with each subsequent annual Engineer’s Reports as required by the 1972 Act.

To take annual inflation into account, four of the assessment zones have an inflation adjuster (Zones 7, 8, 9 and 10). The inflation adjuster used is the San Francisco Construction Cost Index (CCI). The SF CCI for January 2026 is 15383.70 which is a 0.6% reduction from January 2025 value of 15478.32. A zone’s maximum assessment is calculated by dividing the January 2026 CCI by the CCI at the time the Assessment Zone was formed and is the most that can be charged without holding a protest vote. An annual CCI adjustment to the annual assessment is not mandatory. If the annual Engineer’s Report recommends any adjustment up to the maximum assessment, notices are not required to be sent nor shall a vote be required. If, however, the annual Engineer’s Report recommends any adjustment that exceeds the Zone’s maximum assessment, noticing and/or voting shall be required in accordance with the provisions applicable to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218. The maximum assessments for the four zones that have CCI adjustments are shown in the following table.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 153 of 462
4 Table 1
Zone Initiated CCI SF at Date Zone
was Initiated Multiplier
Initial
Assessment
per Unit
Maximum
Assessment
7 02/14/2001 7399.07 2.079 $148.00 $307.69
8 10/13/1999 6816.7 2.568 $354.43 $910.18
9 10/09/2002 7644.46 2.012 $154.82 $311.50
10 10/09/2002 7644.46 2.012 $333.78 $671.56
The table below summarizes the proposed FY 2026-2027 assessments to levy and collect for each of the ten zones.

Table 2
Zone Assessment Zone Name FY 25/26 Annual
Assessment
Current
Maximum Annual
Assessment*
Proposed
Assessment to
Levy Per ESD
1 Valparaiso Vista $158.00 $158.00 $158.00
2 Quail Hollow IV $40.00 $40.00 $40.00
3 Sommers $290.00 $290.00 $290.00
4 Macklin Phase 1 $32.00 $32.00 $32.00
5 Sierra Meadows $36.74 $36.74 $36.74
6 Oak Knoll $133.50 $133.50 $133.50
7 Garden Gate $292.20 $307.69 $307.68
8 Park Meadows $584.20 $804.91 $642.62
9 Santero Way $313.50 $311.50 $311.50
10 Altman Acres $478.74 $675.90 $502.64
*Only Assessment Zones 7, 8, 9, and 10 allow for inflationary adjustment (Consumer Price Index for San Francisco).

The original landscaping and lighting improvements within all 10 Zones of the Assessment District are completed and have been accepted by the City. The proposed changes, budgets and assessments for FY 2026-2027 are included in the description of each zone below. See ‘Attachment A, Method of Apportionment of Assessment’ of this report for a detailed description of the apportionment methodology for each zone. The FY 24/25 actuals are the actual revenues and expenses for the complete fiscal year. The FY 26/27 estimated values are derived by using actual expenses through the most current data available at the time this report was drafted, then extending the expenses to June 30 using a prorated estimate. FY 26/27 revenues and expenses are projected values based on prior years and expected cost increases due to inflation and planned maintenance and capital expenses.

Attachment A is a statement of the method used by the Engineer of work to determine the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel within the assessment district.

Attachment B contains the assessment diagrams (maps) showing all the parcels of real property within the boundaries of the 10 assessment zones. The APNs are shown in the assessor’s maps available at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office.

Attachment C contains descriptions of any improvement plans that may be needed for the installation of any Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 154 of 462
5 improvements identified in the report. If plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the plans and specifications of this engineer’s report are included in it by reference.

Zone 1: Valparaiso Vista
Background
On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-35, approving the Engineer’s Report, and on June 26, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-38, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Valparaiso Vista Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

This zone includes 7,416 square feet of landscape area and five LED, 120-volt, 100-watt lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the City performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds monthly. The City fertilizes and structural prunes on a yearly basis. Streetlights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $2,390.

Zone 1 Valparaiso Vista FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $954.55 $1,480.00 $1,625.00
Contract Services $330.00 $360.00 $400.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Investment Expenses $40.85 $10.00 $5.00
Annual Zone Administration $334.19 $350.00 $360.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,659.59 $2,200.00 $2,390.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $2,370.00 $2,370.00 $2,370.00
Assessment Interest $317.11 $280.00 $100.00
Total Revenue $2,687.11 $2,650.00 $2,470.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $6,087.67 $6,537.67 Estimated Assessment Revenue $2,650.00 $2,470.00
Estimated Expenses $2,200.00 $2,390.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $6,537.67 $6,617.67 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $2,370.00.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be divided equally among all of the individual parcels within the assessment zone. A Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 155 of 462
6 more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Fifteen (15) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-400-051 $158.00
2 144-400-052 $158.00
3 144-400-053 $158.00
4 144-400-054 $158.00
5 144-400-055 $158.00
6 144-400-056 $158.00
7 144-400-057 $158.00
8 144-400-058 $158.00
9 144-400-059 $158.00
10 144-400-060 $158.00
11 144-400-061 $158.00
12 144-400-062 $158.00
13 144-400-063 $158.00
14 144-400-064 $158.00
15 144-400-065 $158.00
Total Annual Assessment $2,370.00
Zone 2: Quail Hollow IV
Background
On February 28, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 509 granting tentative approval for the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. Condition No. 11 of said Ordinance requires that a source of maintenance funding shall be provided for the landscaping to be placed between the back of sidewalk and property line fence along Myrtle Avenue. Then, on December 12, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-62, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Quail Hollow IV Subdivision Landscaping Maintenance Assessment Zone confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscaping within Myrtle Avenue Right-of-Way and the curve return portion of the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Aguirre Way Right-ofWay of Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. The funds are to be used solely for maintenance of landscaping within the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision. There are no lights to be maintained within this Zone.

City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance within the Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis. The City fertilizes the zone and structurally prunes on a yearly basis.

In FY 18/19, the City performed routine maintenance and replanted missing or damaged plants. In Fiscal Year 21/22 the City removed and replaced the sidewalk in two places which were damaged by tree roots. After consulting with the LLAD residents, the City removed the redwood trees that caused the damage The LLAD continues to have insufficient funds for capital projects as well as routine maintenance and, therefore, the Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 156 of 462
7 work was completed from a loan to the LLAD from the City’s General Fund. The annual GF Loan amount is projected to increase again in FY26/27 due to increased water costs. The Zone’s revenues comprise less than half the projected expenses.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The actual base maintenance cost for this Zone in FY 21/22 increased from prior years due to the need to irrigate the newly installed landscaping. This increased expense is reflected in the utilities line item below and is not sustainable. Therefore, an annual subsidy from the City’s General Fund will be needed to fill the revenue shortfall. In 22/23, the City cleared the prior General Fund loan balance of $45,951 with a one-time subsidy payment. Much of the amount was due to the Myrtle Avenue landscape project, completed in 2016, and the sidewalk repairs and tree removals completed in 2021/22. Contract services dropped in FY24/25 as the City noticed the area was not being maintained and stopped paying the landscape contractor until the maintenance resumed. Staff met with the contractor who recognized this and committed to resuming maintenance. City crews replaced mulch in FY25/26.

The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $2,690.

Zone 2 Quail Hollow IV FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $1,460.52 $1,520.00 $1,620.00
Contract Services $264 $290.00 $310.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $46.50 $1,720.00 $400.00
Investment Expenses $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $690.63 $325.00 $360.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $2,461.65 $3,855.00 $2,690.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Subsidy $1,221.65 $2,615.00 $1,450.00
Total Assessment $1,240.00 $1,240.00 $1,240.00
Assessment Interest $0 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $2,461.65 $3,855.00 $2,690.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $0.00 $0.00 Estimated Assessment Revenue $1,240.00 $1,240.00
Estimated Expenses $3,855.00 $2,690.00
General Fund Subsidy $2,615.00 $1,450.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $0.00 $0.00 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $1,240.

Zone 2 has an annual need for a General Fund subsidy as the water irrigation, maintenance and LLAD administration expenses exceed the zone's assessment revenue.

At present, this zone is not expected to be self-sufficient without an increase in the annual assessment which Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 157 of 462
8 requires approval by the majority of the owners of the assessed lots, or cessation of maintenance of the streetscape along Myrtle Avenue. Without an approved increase of the annual assessment, and with continued maintenance of the streetscape, this Zone will continue to receive a General Fund loan annually.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be divided equally among all of the individual parcels within the assessment zone. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Thirty-one (31) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 046-610-017 $40.00
2 046-610-018 $40.00
3 046-610-019 $40.00
4 046-610-020 $40.00
5 046-610-021 $40.00
6 046-610-022 $40.00
7 046-610-023 $40.00
8 046-610-024 $40.00
9 046-610-025 $40.00
10 046-610-026 $40.00
11 046-610-027 $40.00
12 046-610-028 $40.00
13 046-610-029 $40.00
14 046-610-030 $40.00
15 046-610-031 $40.00
16 046-610-032 $40.00
17 046-610-033 $40.00
18 046-610-034 $40.00
19 046-610-035 $40.00
20 046-610-036 $40.00
21 046-610-037 $40.00
22 046-610-038 $40.00
23 046-610-039 $40.00
24 046-610-040 $40.00
25 046-610-041 $40.00
26 046-610-042 $40.00
27 046-610-043 $40.00
28 046-610-044 $40.00
29 046-610-045 $40.00
30 046-610-046 $40.00
31 046-610-047 $40.00
Total Annual Assessment $1,240.00
Zone 3: Sommers
Background
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 158 of 462
9 On March 28, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-11, approving the Engineer’s Report, and on March 28, 1989, adopted Resolution No. 89-11, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Sommers Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of Landscaping and Lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Sommers Subdivision. The funds are to be used solely for maintenance of landscaping and lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Sommers Subdivision.

This Zone includes six driveway lights and 3,047 square feet of fronting La Salle Avenue landscaping. City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis.

The City fertilizes and structurally prunes on a yearly basis as well as places mulch as needed in planter area.

Driveway lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. The City installed ADA compliant curb ramps on either side of the subdivision’s driveway in FY 19/20.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $1,850.

Zone 3: Sommers FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Materials and Supplies $10.93 $0.00 $0.00
Utility Charges $870.85 $914.00 $1,000.00
Contract Services $275.00 $300.00 $300.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $368.00 $190.00 $390.00
Investment Expenses $113.23 $10.00 $10.00
Annual Zone Administration $178.22 $80.00 $150.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,816.23 $1,494.00 $1,850.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $2,465.00 $2,465.00 $2,465.00
Assessment Interest $869.22 $780.00 $650.00
Total Revenue $3,334.22 $3,245.00 $3,115.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $17,114.54 $18,865.54 Estimated Assessment Revenue $3,245.00 $3,115.00
Estimated Expenses $1,494.00 $1,850.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $18,865.54 $20,130.54 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $2,465.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be assessed at $290.00 per parcel with duplex per year and $435.00 per parcel with Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 159 of 462
10 triplex per year. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Eight (8) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-282-020 $290.00
2 144-282-021 $290.00
3 144-282-022 $290.00
4 144-282-023 $290.00
5 - Triplex 144-282-024 $435.00
6 144-282-025 $290.00
7 144-282-026 $290.00
8 144-282-027 $290.00
Total Annual Assessment $2,465.00
Zone 4: Macklin
Background
On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-34 initiating proceedings to establish the Macklin Subdivision Phase I Landscape Maintenance Assessment Zone, in accordance with the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. On June 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-34, approving the Engineer's Report, and on June 26, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-37, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Macklin Subdivision Phase I Landscape Maintenance Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way of the Macklin Subdivision Phase I. The funds are to be used solely for landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way of the Macklin Subdivision Phase I.

This zone includes 1,170 square feet of landscaping. City crews and its landscape contractor provide landscape maintenance for this zone within the City Right-of-Way. On a weekly basis the contractor performs general clean-up of the area and prunes and weeds on a monthly basis. The City fertilizes and structurally prunes on a yearly basis. The landscape contract services is lower in FY24/25 because the landscapes were not being maintained and the City stopped payment. Contract maintenance resumed in FY25/26 and is expected to continue in 26/27. The City may competitively bid for landscape maintenance contract services in FY26/27 which may result in higher costs but would be for improved service. City crews replaced the mulch in FY25/26.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $1,390.00.

Zone 4: Macklin FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $6.51 $120.00 $130.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 160 of 462
11 Contract Services $330.00 $360.00 $360.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $0.00 $3,000.00 $500.00
Investment Expenses $0 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $868.88 $385.00 $400.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,205.39 $3,865.00 $1,390.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Subsidy $0 $2,617.00 $142.00
Total Assessment $1,248.00 $1,248.00 $1,248.00
Assessment Interest $0 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $1,248.00 $1,400.00 $1,390.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $0.00 $0.00 Estimated Assessment Revenue $1,248.00 $1,248.00
Estimated Expenses $3,865.00 $1,390.00
General Fund Subsidy $2,617.00 $142.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $0.00 $0.00 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $1,248.00.

Assessment Spread
Thirty-nine (39) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 046-620-001 $32.00
2 046-620-002 $32.00
3 046-620-003 $32.00
4 046-620-004 $32.00
5 046-620-005 $32.00
6 046-620-006 $32.00
7 046-620-007 $32.00
8 046-620-008 $32.00
9 046-620-009 $32.00
10 046-620-010 $32.00
11 046-620-011 $32.00
12 046-620-012 $32.00
13 046-620-013 $32.00
14 046-620-014 $32.00
15 046-620-015 $32.00
16 046-620-016 $32.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 161 of 462
12 17 046-620-017 $32.00
18 046-620-018 $32.00
19 046-620-019 $32.00
20 046-620-020 $32.00
21 046-620-021 $32.00
22 046-620-022 $32.00
23 046-620-023 $32.00
24 046-620-024 $32.00
25 046-620-025 $32.00
26 046-620-026 $32.00
27 046-620-027 $32.00
28 046-620-028 $32.00
29 046-620-029 $32.00
30 046-620-030 $32.00
31 046-620-031 $32.00
32 046-620-032 $32.00
33 046-620-033 $32.00
34 046-620-034 $32.00
35 046-620-035 $32.00
36 046-620-036 $32.00
37 046-620-037 $32.00
38 046-620-038 $32.00
39 046-620-039 $32.00
Total Annual Assessment $1,248.00
Zone 5: Sierra Meadows Subdivision
Background
On September 11, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-66 approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Sierra Meadows Subdivision Lighting Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of lighting in the Sierra Meadows Subdivision City Right-of-Way. The funds are to be used for electrical costs and incidental expenses associated with street lighting within the Sierra Meadows Subdivision City Right-of-Way. There is no landscaping in this Zone.

This Zone includes six LED 120-volt, 700-watt lights and three LED, 120-volt, 100-watt lights. Streetlights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed.

The reserves were depleted in FY 17/18 and a General Fund loan of $308.00 was needed to keep the reserves from being negative. With minimal maintenance efforts and no emergency expenditures, the zone paid back the General Fund in FY 18/19. The Zone paid down a General Fund loan in FY24/25 $145.55 and another $310.27 in FY25/26. The Zone’s reserve has been gradually building up FY25/26 and is projected to add again to the reserve in FY26/27.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 162 of 462
13 Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The estimated annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $610.

Zone 5: Sierra Meadows FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $270.00 $270.00 $290.00
Contract Services $0 $0.00 $0.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Investment Expenses $0.02 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $686.74 $300.00 $320.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $145.55 $310.27 $0.00
Total Expenses $1,102.29 $880.27 $610.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $1,102.20 $1,102.20 $1,102.20
Assessment Interest $0.09 $2.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $1,102.29 $1,104.20 $1,102.20
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $0.00 $223.93 Estimated Assessment Revenue $1,104.20 $1,102.20
Estimated Expenses $880.27 $610.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $223.93 $716.13 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $1,102.20.

Assessment Spread
Thirty (30) parcels in assessment area

Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-730-001 $36.74
2 144-730-002 $36.74
3 144-730-003 $36.74
4 144-730-004 $36.74
5 144-730-005 $36.74
6 144-730-006 $36.74
7 144-730-007 $36.74
8 144-730-008 $36.74
9 144-730-009 $36.74
10 144-730-010 $36.74
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 163 of 462
14 11 144-730-011 $36.74
12 144-730-012 $36.74
13 144-730-013 $36.74
14 144-730-014 $36.74
15 144-730-015 $36.74
16 144-730-016 $36.74
17 144-730-017 $36.74
18 144-730-018 $36.74
19 144-730-019 $36.74
20 144-730-020 $36.74
21 144-730-021 $36.74
22 144-730-022 $36.74
23 144-730-023 $36.74
24 144-730-024 $36.74
25 144-730-025 $36.74
26 144-730-026 $36.74
27 144-730-029 $36.74
28 144-730-031 $36.74
29 144-730-032 $36.74
30 144-730-033 $36.74
Total Annual Assessment $1,102.20
Zone 6: Oak Knoll Subdivision
Background
On March 11, 1998, the City Council of the City of Cotati, California, adopted Resolution No. 98-14 initiating proceedings to levy an annual assessment for the landscaping and lighting improvements of the City of Cotati Oak Knoll Subdivision Landscape and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District, Sonoma County, California (“Assessment District”), pursuant to the provisions of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). On June 23, 1999, the City Council adopted resolution 99-37 approving the Engineer’s Report, ordering the formation of the City of Cotati Oak Knoll Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Assessment District confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of an assessment.

On April 9, 1997, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 97-22 granting tentative approval for the Oak Knoll Subdivision. Condition No. 2 of the Resolution requires a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Oak Knoll Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on March 25, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-21 forming the Landscaping and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District for the Oak Knoll Subdivision.

All individual lots within the boundary of Oak Knoll Subdivision shall be included within the assessment zone, except for all dedicated public streets and Parcel “A” as shown upon the recorded map of Oak Knoll Subdivision.

This Zone includes five streetlights, LED, 120-volt, 100-watt diffuser bulbs.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 164 of 462
15 The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning. High pressure sodium streetlights were replaced with energy efficient LED’s in FY 15/16 and these expenses were charged to the zone in FY 16/17. Additionally, streetlights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. The landscape contractor failed to maintain the area for much of FY24/25 and the City stopped payment. The City met with the contractor in the Spring of 2025, and was assured maintenance work would resume.

The City solicited quotes in 2023 for landscape remediation including weeding, removal of dead and diseased trees, pruning, and irrigation repair. However, the costs exceeded the fund balance. With an adequate fund balance, the City will revisit having the remediation work done. In FY24/25, two dead trees were removed along Christenson Lane. Future work includes mulching the streetscapes and pruning the large oak trees in the Christenson Court island. No work besides minimal maintenance was performed in FY25/26.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $2,304.

Zone 6: Oak Knoll FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $519.91 $565.00 $600.00
Contract Services $550.00 $600.00 $600.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $918.00 $700.00 $700.00
Investment Expenses $152.63 $14.00 $14.00
Annual Zone Administration $534.75 $350.00 $390.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $2,675.29 $2,229.00 $2,304

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $3,204.00 $3,204.00 $3,204.00
Assessment Interest $1,163.22 $1,049.00 $900.00
Total Revenue $4,367.22 $4,253.00 $4,104.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $23,209.45 $25,233.45 Estimated Assessment Revenue $4,253.00 $4,104.00
Estimated Expenses $2,229.00 $2,304.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $25,233.45 $27,033.45 The total proposed assessment for FY 2026-2027 is $3,204.00.

Method of Assessment Spread
The parcels within the Oak Knoll Subdivision receive special benefits of well-maintained public landscaped areas and streetlights. These special benefits include enhanced neighborhood identity and quality of life, as Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 165 of 462
16 well as a sense of community along with increased property values. Based on the foregoing, each of the individual parcels within the assessment zone, will be assessed an amount equal to 1/24th of the total assessment since they receive equal share of the special benefits mentioned above. Parcel “A” is a driveway serving lots 7, 8, 9, and 10. As Parcel “A” does not receive any of the special benefits, it is not assessed.

Assessment Spread
Twenty-four (24) parcels in assessment area

Lot No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 144-340-028 $133.50
2 144-340-029 $133.50
3 144-340-030 $133.50
4 144-340-031 $133.50
5 144-340-032 $133.50
6 144-340-033 $133.50
7 144-340-034 $133.50
8 144-340-035 $133.50
9 144-340-036 $133.50
10 144-340-037 $133.50
11 144-340-038 $133.50
12 144-340-039 $133.50
13 144-340-040 $133.50
14 144-340-041 $133.50
15 144-340-042 $133.50
16 144-340-043 $133.50
17 144-340-044 $133.50
18 144-340-045 $133.50
19 144-340-046 $133.50
20 144-340-047 $133.50
21 144-340-048 $133.50
22 144-340-049 $133.50
23 144-340-050 $133.50
24 144-340-051 $133.50
Total Annual Assessment $3,204.00
Zone 7: Garden Gate
Background
On February 14, 2001, the City Council of the City of Cotati Adopted Resolution No. 01-10 initiating proceedings to establish the Garden Gate Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Assessment Zone, in accordance with the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. Then, on April 11, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-28 forming the Landscaping and Street Light Maintenance Assessment District for the Garden Gate Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscape and lighting in the Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 166 of 462
17 Garden Gate Subdivision Right-of-Way. The funds are to be used for electrical, landscape and incidental expenses associated with street lighting as well as Parcel A & B Landscape Maintenance within the Garden Gate Subdivision.

This Zone includes a total landscaping area for Parcel A & B of 2,900 square feet and five LED, 120 volt, 70 watt lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including general weekly clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning.

Street lights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. In FY21/22 one leaning tree was removed and two trees were topped for safety as they were close to a house. New mulch was applied, trees trimmed, and a blanket for the backflow device were completed in FY24/25. Routine maintenance was performed in FY25/26.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the lighting and Parcels A & B landscaping for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $5,130.

Zone 7: Garden Gate FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $834.20 $1,360.00 $1,495.00
Contract Services $2,679.00 $3,114.00 $3,425.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Investment Expenses $90.34 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $334.19 $198.00 $210.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $3,937.73 $4,672.00 $5,130.00

Zone Reserve Used $0 $0.00 $214.80
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $4,174.50 $4,383.00 $4,615.20
Assessment Interest $666.22 $521.00 $300.00
Total Revenue $4,840.72 $4,904.00 $4,915.20
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $13,434.67 $13,666.67 Estimated Assessment Revenue $4,904.00 $4,915.20
Estimated Expenses $4,672.00 $5,130.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $13,666.67 $13,451.87 The total proposed assessment for FY 26-27 is $4,615.20. Which is a 5.3% increase over FY 25-26.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be divided equally among all of the individual parcels within the Assessment Zone. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 167 of 462
18 Assessment Spread
Fifteen (15) parcels in assessment area
Lot
No.

Assessor's Parcel
Number
Annual
Charge
1 144-720-042 $307.68
2 144-720-043 $307.68
3 144-720-044 $307.68
4 144-720-045 $307.68
5 144-720-046 $307.68
6 144-720-047 $307.68
7 144-720-048 $307.68
8 144-720-049 $307.68
9 144-720-050 $307.68
10 144-720-051 $307.68
11 144-720-052 $307.68
12 144-720-053 $307.68
13 144-720-058 $307.68
14 144-720-059 $307.68
15 144-720-060 $307.68
Total Annual Assessment $4,615.20
Zone 8: Park Meadows
Background
On October 13, 1999, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 99-72 granting tentative approval for the Park Meadows Subdivision. Condition No. 43 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way of the Park Meadows Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on April 11, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-30 forming the landscaping and street light maintenance assessment district for the Park Meadows Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The Zone consists of landscaping and street lighting within the City Right-of-Way and Parcel "A" of the Park Meadows Subdivision.

This Zone includes 38,475 square feet of landscape area and sixteen 120-volt, 70-watt high pressure streetlights. Up until FY 18/19, this Zone had eleven lights, however five of the lights installed as part of the City-Wide Lighting Project are within this Zone and their installation and ongoing maintenance costs are charged to this Zone.

Streetlights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. The City installed five lights along pathways in this zone in FY 18/19 for a total cost of $30,000. Capital Projects were completed in FY 21-22 Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 168 of 462
19 consist of improving the pathway from McGinnis Circle to the Laguna De Santa Rosa bridge, the pathway to Marsh Way, and repairs to the split rail fence. This work extended into FY22-23. Work in FY24/25 included removal of 2 maple trees which were splitting and recommended for removal by an arborist. Other trees are in similar condition, and the City expects to have them removed also. The landscaping and irrigation system needs remediation. However, the reserves are depleted, and this work will be planned for several years out once the reserves are replenished. Routine maintenance was performed in FY25/26.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the fiscal year 2026-2027 is $20,617.

Zone 8: Park Meadows FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $5,267.15 $6,655.00 $7,320.00
Contract Services $9,090.00 $10,552.00 $9,337.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00
City Labor $637.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Investment Expenses $4.56 $0.00 $0.00
Annual Zone Administration $868.88 $620.00 $960.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $15,863.03 $17,827.00 $20,617.00

Zone Reserve Used $0 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $18,917.60 $19,862.80 $25,062.18
Assessment Interest $92.70 $17.00 $50.00
Total Revenue $19,010.30 $19,879.80 $25,112.18
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2024-25 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $847.87 $2,900.67 Estimated Assessment Revenue $19,879.80 $25,112.18
Estimated Expenses $17,827.00 $20,617.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $2,900.67 $10,022.18 The total proposed assessment for FY 26-27 is $25,062.18. Which is a 10% increase over FY 25-

26. Method of Assessment Spread
The parcels within the Park Meadow Subdivision will receive special benefits of well-maintained public landscaped areas and streetlights. These special benefits include enhanced neighborhood identity and quality of life, as well as a sense of community along with increased property values. Based on the foregoing, each of the individual parcels within the assessment zone will be assessed in an amount equal to 1/39th of the total assessment since they receive equal share of the special benefits mentioned above. Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" are open space areas; therefore, they are not assessed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 169 of 462
20 Assessment Spread
Thirty-nine (39) parcels in Assessment Area
Lot
No.

Assessor's Parcel
Number
Annual
Charge
1 144-740-001 $642.62 2 144-740-002 $642.62 3 144-740-003 $642.62 4 144-740-004 $642.62 5 144-740-005 $642.62 6 144-740-006 $642.62 7 144-740-007 $642.62 8 144-740-008 $642.62 9 144-740-009 $642.62 10 144-740-010 $642.62
11 144-740-011 $642.62
12 144-740-012 $642.62
13 144-740-013 $642.62
14 144-740-014 $642.62
20 144-740-020 $642.62
21 144-740-021 $642.62
22 144-740-022 $642.62
23 144-740-023 $642.62
24 144-740-024 $642.62
25 144-740-025 $642.62
26 144-740-026 $642.62
27 144-740-027 $642.62
28 144-740-028 $642.62
29 144-740-029 $642.62
30 144-740-030 $642.62
31 144-740-031 $642.62
32 144-740-032 $642.62
33 144-740-033 $642.62
34 144-740-034 $642.62
35 144-740-035 $642.62
36 144-740-036 $642.62
Lands of Dluzak
37 144-740-046 $642.62
38 144-740-047 $642.62
39 144-740-048 $642.62
Total Annual Assessment $25,062.18
Zone 9: Santero Way
Background
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 170 of 462
21 On October 9, 2002, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 02-91 granting tentative approval for the Santero Way Developments. Condition No. 59 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the Cotati Station Phase I Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on July 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-58 forming the landscaping and street light maintenance assessment district for the Santero Way Subdivision, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of an assessment.

The purpose of the assessment is to generate funds for the maintenance of landscape and lighting within the City Right-of-Way in the Santero Way Developments. The funds are to be used for electrical power, landscape maintenance, water, and park furniture maintenance. Additionally, the funds are used for incidental expenses associated with public street lighting and landscape maintenance of the public park within the Santero Way Developments.

This Zone includes 31,000 square feet of landscape area including the Santero Way Park and seventeen LED, 120 volt, 70 watt street lights.

The City provides contract landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly lawn mowing, edging, and general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization and structural pruning.

Contract services for routine maintenance totaled $9,336 in FY21/22 and is expected to increase with some measure of inflation. This leaves just under $4,000 for other expenses including utility charges, City labor and administration. These expenses totaled $6,585 in FY20/21. Therefore, there is a systemic operating deficit for this Zone. Adding to the deficit, expenses were incurred in FY20/21 and FY21/22 beyond routine maintenance and required drawing down reserves. The expenses beyond routine maintenance in FY20/21 consisted of 1) mulch replacement along the Santero Way Streetscape ($5,815), 2) Irrigation repairs and tune up and electrical repair and turf repair ($965). Additional repairs and replacements in FY21/22 through April 2022, consisted of 1) removing and replacing a tree that was damaged in a windstorm ($2,271), and 2) irrigation and leak repairs ($270). The increase in water utility costs and watering that was above normal resulted in a significant increase in the utility charges in FY24/25. Additionally, up to a dozen trees were trimmed back by City personnel which resulted in additional charges to the Zone in FY24/25 and the reserves became negative for the first time since the Zone was formed. Reserves became positive in FY25/26 due mainly to a 33% assessment increase.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $20,211.

Zone 9: Santero Way FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $7,255.98 $5,656.00 $6,200.00
Contract Services $12,982.00 $11,906.00 $13,096.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $3,708.00 $191.00 $0.00
Materials and Equipment $723.02 $0.00 $0.00
Investment Expenses $6.86 $0.00 $0.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 171 of 462
22 Annual Zone Administration $1,559.46 $881.00 $915.00 General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $26,235.32 $18,634.00 $20,211.00

Zone Reserve Used $0 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $10,150.69 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $16,075.20 $21,945.00 $21,805.00
Assessment Interest $9.43 $0.00 $0.00
Total Revenue $26,235.32 $21,945.00 $21,805.00
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $1,928.66 $5,239.66 Estimated Assessment Revenue $21,945.00 $21,805.00
Estimated Expenses $18,634.00 $20,211.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $5,239.66 $6,833.66 The total proposed assessment for FY 26-27 is $21,805.00. Which is a 0.6% reduction from FY 25-

26. This is a result of the San Franscisco Construction Cost Index having decreased 0.6% January 2026 compared to January 2025.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be equally divided among the seventy (70) dwelling units. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Seventy (70) parcels in assessment area
Lot No. Assessor's
Parcel Number
Annual
Charge
1 144-770-001 $311.50
2 144-770-002 $311.50
3 144-770-003 $311.50
4 144-770-004 $311.50
5 144-770-005 $311.50
6 144-770-006 $311.50
7 144-770-007 $311.50
8 144-770-008 $311.50
9 144-770-009 $311.50
10 144-770-010 $311.50
11 144-770-011 $311.50
12 144-770-012 $311.50
13 144-770-013 $311.50
14 144-770-014 $311.50
15 144-770-015 $311.50
16 144-770-016 $311.50
17 144-770-017 $311.50
18 144-770-018 $311.50
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 172 of 462
23 19 144-770-019 $311.50
20 144-770-020 $311.50
21 144-770-021 $311.50
22 144-770-022 $311.50
23 144-770-023 $311.50
24 144-770-024 $311.50
25 144-770-025 $311.50
27 144-770-027 $311.50
28 144-770-028 $311.50
29 144-770-029 $311.50
30 144-770-030 $311.50
31 144-770-031 $311.50
32 144-770-032 $311.50
33 144-770-033 $311.50
34 144-770-034 $311.50
35 144-770-035 $311.50
36 144-770-036 $311.50
37 144-770-037 $311.50
38 144-770-038 $311.50
39 144-770-039 $311.50
40 144-770-040 $311.50
41 144-770-041 $311.50
42 144-770-042 $311.50
43 144-770-043 $311.50
44 144-770-044 $311.50
45 144-770-045 $311.50
46 144-770-046 $311.50
47 144-770-047 $311.50
48 144-770-048 $311.50
50 144-770-050 $311.50
CAP 1A 144-770-051 $311.50
CAP 1B 144-770-052 $311.50
CAP 2A 144-770-053 $311.50
CAP 2B 144-770-054 $311.50
CAP 3A 144-770-055 $311.50
CAP 3B 144-770-056 $311.50
CAP 4A 144-770-057 $311.50
CAP 4B 144-770-058 $311.50
CAP 5A 144-770-059 $311.50
CAP 5B 144-770-060 $311.50
CAP 6A 144-770-061 $311.50
CAP 6B 144-770-062 $311.50
CAP 7A 144-770-063 $311.50
CAP 7B 144-770-064 $311.50
CAP 8A 144-770-065 $311.50
CAP 8B 144-770-066 $311.50
CAP 9A 144-770-067 $311.50
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 173 of 462
24 CAP 9B 144-770-068 $311.50
CAP 10A 144-770-069 $311.50
CAP 10B 144-770-070 $311.50
Total Annual Assessment $21,805.00
Zone 10: Altman Acres
Background
On October 9, 2002, the City Council of the City of Cotati adopted Resolution No. 02-91 granting tentative approval for the Altman Acres Subdivision. Condition No. 59 of said Resolution requires that a landscape and street light maintenance assessment Zone be formed to provide funds for the maintenance of landscaping and street lighting within the Altman Acres Subdivision, in accordance with the provision of Streets and Highways Code, Section 22500, et seq. (the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Then, on October 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-94 forming the Altman Acres Subdivision.

The Zone is maintaining landscaping and lighting in the Altman Acres Subdivision City Right-of-Way and along Old Redwood Highway Right-of-Way fronting Lots 1 through 7. All funds shall be used for electrical, landscape, and incidental expenses within the Altman Acres Subdivision.

This Zone includes 11,750 square feet of landscape area and five LED, 120-volt, 100 watt street lights.

The City provides landscape maintenance within the City Right-of-Way for this Zone including weekly general clean-up of the area, monthly pruning and weed control, and annual fertilization structural pruning, and irrigation tuneup. Streetlights are inspected once per month and repaired as needed. Street landscape remediation improvements were completed in FY22/23. A 5 percent increase in the assessment is proposed for continued landscaping effort and building the reserve for plant replacement and irrigation repairs anticipated to be needed in the next several years.

Projected Costs of Assessment Zone
The projected annual cost of maintaining the landscaping and lighting for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 is $5,767.

Zone 10: Altman Acres FY 24/25
Actuals
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27
Projected
Utility Charges $1,763.62 $1,355.00 $1,490.00
Contract Services $2,454.00 $3,434.60 $3,777.00
Capital Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
City Labor $416.50 $600.00 $0.00
Investment Expenses $59.34 $52.33 $50.00
Annual Zone Administration $311.88 $400.00 $450.00
General Fund Loan Repayment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Expenses $5,005.34 $5,841.93 $5,767.00

Zone Reserve Used $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
General Fund Loan $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total Assessment $6,383.44 $6,702.36 $7,036.96
Assessment Interest $424.63 $635.00 $600.00
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 174 of 462
25 Total Revenue $6,808.07 $7,337.36 $7,636.96
Estimated Fund Balance FY 2025-26 (Est.) FY 2026-2027 (Proj.) Estimated Starting Reserve Fund Balance July 1 $8,263.76 $9,759.19 Estimated Assessment Revenue $7,337.36 $7,636.96
Estimated Expenses $5,841.93 $5,767.00
General Fund Subsidy $0.00 $0.00
Estimated Ending Reserve Fund Balance June 30 $9,759.19 $11,629.15 The total proposed assessment for FY 26-27 is $7,036.96. Which is a 5% increase over FY 25-26.

Method of Assessment Spread
The assessment shall be equally divided among the fourteen (14) dwelling units. A more detailed description of the method of apportionment is in Attachment A.

Assessment Spread
Fourteen (14) parcels in assessment area
Lot
No. Assessor's Parcel Number Annual Charge
1 046-640-001 $502.64
2 046-640-002 $502.64
3 046-640-003 $502.64
4 046-640-004 $502.64
5 046-640-005 $502.64
6 046-640-006 $502.64
7 046-640-007 $502.64
8 046-640-008 $502.64
9 046-640-009 $502.64
10 046-640-010 $502.64
11 046-640-011 $502.64
12 046-640-012 $502.64
13 046-640-013 $502.64
14 046-640-014 $502.64
Total Annual Assessment $7,036.96
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 175 of 462
26 ENGINEER’S REPORT ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Method of Apportionment of Assessment - A statement of the method used by Engineer of Work to determine the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel within the Assessment District.

Attachment B - Assessment Diagrams – An Assessment Diagram (maps) showing all of the parcels of real property within the boundaries of the ten Assessment Zones. The A.P.N.’s are shown in the Assessor’s Maps available at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office.

Attachment C - Improvement Plans – This portion of the Engineer’s Report describes any improvement plans that may be needed for the installation of the improvements. If plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the plans and specifications are part of this Engineer’s Report and are included in it by reference.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 176 of 462

ATTACHMENT A

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
The following is a brief description of the manner in which the annual assessment has been apportioned to each parcel within the Assessment Zones:

Each parcel within each of the zones of the Assessment District receives a direct special benefit from improvement covered by this assessment as follows:

Valparaiso Vista Zone 1 - Zone 1 includes the maintenance of 7,416 square feet of landscaping along Redwood Highway and Valparaiso Avenue and five street lights within the development. The parcels within this zone receive a direct special benefit from these amenities that are an asset to the values of the homes.

Quail Hollow IV Zone 2 - Zone 2 funds the annual costs associated with the operation and maintenance of Quail Hollow, the back-on landscaping along portions of Myrtle Avenue. Additionally, maintenance of the landscaping provides a direct benefit for the parcels as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Sommers Zone 3 - The related Assessment Zone improvements in Zone 3 include six driveway lights. Additionally, the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Macklin Zone 4 - The related improvements in Zone 4 includes 1,170 square feet of “back-on” landscaping along Myrtle Avenue. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping, as maintaining the landscaping adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Sierra Meadows Zone 5 - The related improvements in Zone 5 include nine street lights within the development. Residents within this zone directly benefit from the lighting, as maintaining the lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial lighting features specific to residents within this zone.

Oak Knoll Zone 6 - The related improvements in Zone 6 include the island landscape maintenance on Christensen Court and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Garden Gate Zone 7 - The related improvements in Zone 7 include 2,900 square feet of “back-on” landscape along a portion of East Cotati Avenue and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 177 of 462
specific to residents within this zone.

Park Meadows Zone 8 - The improvements in Zone 8 include 38,475 square feet of “back-on” landscape along a portion of East Cotati Avenue and eleven street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Santero Way Zone 9 - The improvements in Zone 9 include a 31,000 square feet landscaped park and seventeen street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

Altman Acres Zone 10 - The improvements in Zone 10 include a 11,750 square feet landscaped area along Old Redwood Hwy and five street lights. Residents within this zone directly benefit from maintenance of the landscaping and lighting, as maintaining the landscaping and lighting adds to property values and provides beneficial landscape features specific to residents within this zone.

The method of apportionment (spread) equates all parcels in Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 and 10 within the boundaries of the Assessment Zone to an Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling (ESD) unit use, or portion thereof. The following basic use units reflect the relative benefit accruing to parcels of land within a City of Cotati Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Zone:

1. Single dwelling parcel 1 unit

2. Multiple dwelling unit parcel 1 unit per dwelling

Once the total number of ESD units is determined for each of the Zones, the total number of ESD units within each Zone shall be divided into each respective Zone’s operation and maintenance expenses for the upcoming fiscal year (see Part B). This will result in the proposed annual assessment per ESD for the upcoming fiscal year. The annual assessment per ESD shall be multiplied by the total use units established for each parcel, or portion thereof, to determine the proposed total annual assessment for each parcel within each Zone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Annual assessments are apportioned in this manner due to the relative benefit of the improvements to each of the parcels within each separate Zone. Since the improvements are easily accessible to all the parcels within each Zone, the level of benefit is equally spread to each parcel.

Although Section 22663 of the Streets and Highways Code typically requires that public property Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 178 of 462
not be assessed, Article XIII, Section 4(a) of Proposition 218 now requires that public agencies shall not be exempt from assessment. However, the creek area, wetlands and public rights-of-way and easements within various Zones preclude construction of structures for other uses that conflict with the allowable zoning of these areas. Therefore, these publicly owned areas without a dwelling and used exclusively for greenbelt, or open space, or the common area of any planned unit development, receive no special benefit and do not receive an annual assessment.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 179 of 462

ATTACHMENT B

ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS
Attached are the Assessment Diagrams (Maps) for the ten Assessment Zones. Please note the lines and dimensions of each parcel, as well as the distinctive Assessor’s Parcel Number, are shown on the Assessor's Maps for the City of Cotati available at the County of Sonoma Assessor's Office. The attached pages also provide the reference to the appropriate Assessor Books at the County of Sonoma Assessor’s Office for the respective subdivisions in each of the ten Zones.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 180 of 462
Zone 1 - Valparaiso:

Lots 51 through 65 (15 total) and associated right-of –way street frontages lying within the Valparaiso Vista PUD Subdivision filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 144 of Maps, Page 40.

Zone 2 - Quail Hollow:

Lots 17-47 (31 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Quail Hollow IV Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 46 of Maps, Page 61.

Zone 3 - Sommers:

Lots 20-27 (8 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within The Sommer Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in book 144 of Maps, Pages 28.

Zone 4 - Macklin:

Lots 1-39 (39 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within Macklin Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 46 of Maps, Page 62.

Zone 5 - Sierra Meadows:

Lots 1-26, 29, and 31-33 (30 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Sierra Meadow Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page 73.

Zone 6 - Oak Knoll:

Lots 1-26, 29, and 31-33 (30 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Oak Knoll Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page34.

Zone 7 - Garden Gate:

Lots 42-53, 58-60 (15 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Garden Gate Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page72.

Zone 8 - Park Meadows:

All the land lying within the Park Meadows Subdivision, filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 144 of Maps, Page47.

Zone 9 - Santero Way:

The boundary of the Santero Way Developments Landscape and Lighting Assessment Zone coincides with the exterior boundaries of the Cotati Station Subdivision, Phase 1, recorded in Book 654 at Pages 44 through 49, Sonoma County Records. All individual Lots 1-50 and twenty (20) Condominium units Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 181 of 462
within the boundaries of the Cotati Station Subdivision, Phase 1 (for a total of 70 dwelling units) are included in the assessment Zone.

Zone 10 - Altman Acres:

Lots 1-14 (14 total) and associated right-of-way street frontages lying within the Altman Acres Subdivision are filed in the recorder’s office of the County of Sonoma in Book 46 of Maps, Pages 64.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 182 of 462
Attachment B continued
Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F

ATTACHMENT C

IMPROVEMENT PLANS
If improvement plans exist, they are filed with the City Clerk. Although separately bound, the improvement plans are part of this Engineer’s Report and are included in it by reference.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2A16BF5F-ECCF-8692-8066-92FADA7FCB5F 196 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: PUBLIC HEARING (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO THE

OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING CHARGES AND
LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Craig Scott, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to receive all oral and written protests to the outstanding backflow testing charges and adopt a resolution the outstanding backflow testing charges and levying of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Background
The City of Cotati (City) is required by State law to ensure all backflow devices in the water distribution system are tested annually. The City established backflow testing requirements with Ordinance No. 773. This Ordinance transferred the responsibility for testing and associated costs from the City of Cotati to the property owner and also allowed levying of assessment of outstanding backflow charges onto their property taxes. Under California State law, the City is required to hold a public hearing annually to set the assessment rates for the following year for each outstanding backflow testing charge.

At the City Council meeting on June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution setting June 23, 2026 as a public hearing to receive all oral and written protests to the outstanding backflow testing charges and, if approved, place the assessments on the property tax rolls.

Analysis/Discussion
The City notifies all property owners annually of the need for testing and certification of their backflow devices. A portion of the property owners conduct their own testing, and submit the certifications to the City. Other property owners rely on the City to conduct the testing and certification. Following testing, any necessary repairs, and certification, the City invoices the 197 of 462
property owner for the cost of the service. The City will then send two additional notices to pay, if the initial invoice is not paid.

Most property owners pay the City in a timely manner. However, some are not responsive to requests for payment, and did not submit payment for services performed during calendar year 2025. These properties are listed in the attached resolution. In this case, because the City is required to incur the cost of holding a public hearing and place these delinquent charges on the property tax assessment, the City also charges these remaining accounts administrative fees and penalties.

Adoption of the attached resolution will establish the Fiscal Year 2026-27 assessments for the outstanding backflow testing charges and direct placement of said assessments on the property tax rolls..

Financial Considerations
The costs of backflow testing, including administrative fees and penalties, will be assessed to the owners of the property for which the testing was performed.

Environmental Issues
The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15378 on the grounds that this action is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as the action proposed is setting a public hearing date to receive protests related to the assessment for outstanding backflow testing charges 198 of 462
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI

CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO RECEIVE ALL ORAL AND

WRITTEN PROTESTS TO THE OUTSTANDING BACKFLOW TESTING
CHARGES AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 773 adopted on May 25, 2005 added Chapter 13.20 regarding backflow testing expenses being considered a lien upon property; and WHEREAS, some property owners have not been responsive to requests for payment and did not submit payment for services performed during calendar year 2025; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Cotati an itemized report showing outstanding backflow testing charges identified below; and WHEREAS, California State law requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to establish the outstanding backflow testing charges and direct levying of assessments thereof; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cotati has conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive all oral or written protests to the amounts of the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 assessments which are listed within Exhibit A by parcel number and hereby approves said assessments and directs the City Clerk to work with the County Assessor to place said assessment on the property tax rolls.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on June 23, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
199 of 462
Exhibit "A"
APN Outstanding Charges
046-640-017-000 133.95
144-301-017-000 133.95
144-301-015-000 133.95
144-301-014-000 133.95
144-301-013-000 133.95
144-522-006-000 133.95
144-620-004-000 133.95
144-292-076-000 133.95
144-292-063-000 267.90
144-292-057-000 133.95
144-292-055-000 133.95
144-292-062-000 133.95
144-292-040-000 133.95
144-292-038-000 133.95
144-292-036-000 133.95
144-292-034-000 133.95
144-292-027-000 133.95
144-292-030-000 133.95
144-780-048-000 133.95
144-360-033-000 133.95
144-282-014-000 133.95
144-282-012-000 133.95
144-810-016-000 133.95
144-770-009-000 133.95
144-770-054-000 133.95
144-770-017-000 133.95
144-770-019-000 133.95
144-770-053-000 133.95
144-770-012-000 133.95
144-770-027-000 133.95
144-770-037-000 133.95
144-770-066-000 133.95
144-770-043-000 133.95
144-770-047-000 133.95
144-770-049-000 133.95
144-600-001-000 267.90
144-450-089-000 133.95
144-450-077-000 133.95
144-450-055-000 133.95
144-450-051-000 133.95
144-450-048-000 133.95
144-470-013-000 133.95
144-430-008-000 133.95
144-440-024-000 133.95
144-730-031-000 133.95
144-650-025-000 133.95
144-070-021-000 133.95
144-070-018-000 267.90
144-070-031-000 133.95
144-100-003-000 133.95
046-073-006-000 535.80
800-061-618-000 578.95
046-111-022-000 133.95
046-111-041-000 267.90
046-286-022-000 133.95
144-010-029-000 433.95
144-010-052-000 133.95
144-770-072-000 1339.50
144-550-001-000 267.90
144-400-049-000 133.95
Grand Total 11,059.15 200 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM AN ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT (EIFD);

ESTABLISH THE COTATI EIFD PUBLIC FINANCE

AUTHORITY
Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution declaring its intention to establish the Cotati Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and establishing the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) and authorizing the City Manager to proceed to Phase 3 (Implementation) of the EIFD feasibility study.

Background
As a result of the elimination of redevelopment agencies in California, the City of Cotati (“City”) lost a tax increment financing (TIF) tool to invest in public facilities supporting the development of communities. In 2014, SB 628 created a new tax increment financing tool called the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). The original legislation has been amended to modify the EIFD formation procedural requirements and requirements to issue bonds to finance infrastructure.

On November 18, 2025, the City Council authorized entering into an agreement with Kosmont to evaluate the feasibility of an enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) in a joint study with the City of Rohnert Park. The initial authorization included proceeding up to Phase 2, if the EIFD appeared to be promising. The scope of work is broken into three phases, as follows:
• Phase 1: Initial Feasibility Analysis
• Phase 2: Fiscal Impact Analysis and Pursuit of Taxing Entity Partnership • Phase 3: Implementation
On April 28, 2026, the City Council received a presentation following the completion of Phase 1 201 of 462
on the potential district boundary, initial feasibility analysis, as well as the summary of initial discussions with the County.

Currently, the Sonoma County and City of Santa Rosa EIFD is the only district in the county.

However, in addition to the potential Cotati & Rohnert Park EIFDs, there is a West County EIFD that is significantly advanced and other conversations about EIFDs in Cloverdale, the City of Sonoma and potentially the City of Sebastopol. Given this, there was a desire to generally understand the impact of EIFDs to the County more broadly as these potentially proliferate in Sonoma County. In addition, specific feedback for our proposed EIFD included:
• Projects should catalyze or accelerate development, such that there is a clear nexus to increasing property values. Projects such as beautification or trail projects were cited as inappropriate for EIFDs, as the connection to improved property values is weak at best in the view of the County.
• Although the County has an EIFD policy, to determine their percent commitment to the EIFD, they will need to see the Fiscal Impact Report. Per policy, the County will not commit more than the City, by percent.
• They may need to get a third-party review of the Fiscal Impact Report. It is uncertain at this time, but would have scheduled implications if the County ultimately determines that they want a third-party review.
• Our schedule to get this done by December 2026 was aggressive in the view of the County.

At this time, the City has concluded Phase 2 of the feasibility analysis. The fiscal analysis that is attached is the primary work product from Phase 2. The remaining phase is Phase 3, Implementation, as described below.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
EIFDs aid cities in funding public facilities and other public investments to foster future development and increase property values. By capturing tax increment revenue generated within the district as new development occurs and property values increase over time, similar to a redevelopment project area, a portion of tax increment revenue is redirected from participating taxing entities to the EIFD. Importantly, the establishment of EIFDs does not increase property taxes or any other taxes for landowners within or outside the EIFD boundaries.

The following chart illustrates how tax TIF captures that new revenue from new development into the EIFD (note these dollars are for illustrative purposes only):
202 of 462
For this feasibility study, the City has been evaluating the use of an EIFD to facilitate economic development in the Gravenstein Corridor and Downtown / Cotati Depot Priority Development Areas (PDAs) via investment into critical infrastructure. To date, staff and consultants for Kosmont Companies have prepared detailed analysis and conducted initial outreach to the County regarding a potential partnership in an EIFD, as discussed previously.

Analysis/Discussion
The Fiscal Analysis summarizes the anticipated impact of the EIFD on the City’s General Fund over time. Essentially, the model uses the City’s current development pipeline and assumes that residential, commercial and industrial space is built and comes on-line in a linear fashion over the next 10 years. These are projects that have all been approved, but not yet built. Additionally, as new development comes on-line, assumed levels of new revenue and new service costs are modeled to get the ”net” revenue from new projects.

For the purposes of the Fiscal Analysis, it was assumed that the City is using 50% of the incremental increases in property tax revenue, as well as 50% of new motor vehicle in-lieu (of property tax) revenue and dedicating it to the EIFD. Additionally, the model assumes 33% of the County’s incremental increases in property tax revenue would be dedicated to the EIFD. This is significantly less than the City’s percent contribution (to comply with the County policy), but is close to the dollar contribution of the City and maintains positive net revenue for the County.

It is also worth pointing out that in initial models, even assuming 0% of the City’s tax increment is dedicated to the EIFD, future net revenue was negative. This was due to the service costs of new housing (expense) and the services Community Facilities District (CFD) revenue was not fully accounted for, clearly illustrating the importance of requiring new housing to annex into the CFD. The City currently requires this for discretionary projects, but a future item is anticipated to clarify the need for ministerial projects, given the rapid changes in state law. 203 of 462
The Fiscal Analysis indicates that future City revenue, with the CFD, will continue to grow at the same rate or faster than future service costs with a 50% tax increment contribution to the EIFD.

Although this results in lower total General Fund revenue, it allows for a significant increase in infrastructure funding, including participation from the County, that would otherwise not be available to the City. Many of the planned park and street projects would likely be funded by the City‘s General Fund, so it can be viewed as an enhanced infrastructure fund, moving some or all of the financial obligation for these projects out of the General Fund (or other funds) and into the EIFD, managed by the PFA.

Adoption of the City Council’s Resolution of Intention provides for the following:

1. Preliminary boundaries of the EIFD. The proposed EIFD boundaries are noted in color in Exhibit A of the Resolution of Intention. Though the exact boundaries of the EIFD are subject to further review and refinement as the formation process continues, the current boundary totals approximately 162 acres (approximately

13.5% of the City) within City limits and an additional approximately 45 acres outside of the City limits that would only be considered if the County of Sonoma (County) were to eventually agree to partner with the City on the EIFD.

2. The public facilities and development proposed to be financed by the EIFD.

The activities listed under the Resolution of Intention include all eligible activities under the EIFD legislation and are listed in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention (more specific projects will be delineated in the required Infrastructure Financing Plan prior to district formation). Discussions so far at the staff level have identified the following examples of potential projects to be funded:
▪ Water and sewer (e.g., Downtown sewer trunk main, Well #4, additional water storage tanks)
▪ Roadway improvements (e.g., Highway 116, Old Redwood Highway, East Cotati Avenue)
▪ La Plaza Park and adjacent roadway
▪ Downtown parking improvements
▪ Alder Avenue roadway improvements in the unincorporated area (in the scenario of County partnership).

3. Use of Incremental Tax Revenue. The Resolution of Intention anticipates that a portion (not all) of the City’s future property tax increment revenue generated within the EIFD will be allocated to the EIFD. The exact amounts will be determined in future resolutions adopted by the City Council. To move forward with the formation of the EIFD, staff recommend that it be conditioned on the County also electing to participate in the EIFD, in which case, a portion of the County’s property tax increment revenue would also be allocated to the EIFD.

4. Establishes a Public Financing Authority to serve as the governing board of the EIFD. Assuming County participation in the EIFD, the PFA membership would be proposed as two members of the City Council, one County Supervisor, one member of the public appointed by the City Council and one member of the 204 of 462
public appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. EIFD law requires that the majority of the PFA are either City Councilmembers or County Supervisors, and there must be at least two members of the public on the PFA. An alternate PFA board member will also be appointed to represent the City Council in the absence of a regular member. No action is recommended on appointments at this time, subject to the County electing to participate.

5. Sets a time and place for the first public hearing on the EIFD to be conducted by the Public Financing Authority. The first public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 10, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 201 W. Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931. Again, this would be subject to the County committing to participate. If the County delays the commitment, this date would be postponed or if there is no commitment, ultimately canceled.

Approval of the Resolution of Intention is intended to show a commitment to the County and request their participation. If the County commits to participate, city staff would schedule a future agenda item where the City Council would move forward with appointments to the PFA.

This would also lead to a series of activities that will take place over the following several months, primarily by the PFA Board. The following schedule outlines the various key tasks and milestones in the formation process. As the following proposed schedule indicates, the final City Council approvals would follow later in calendar year 2026. These timeframes may ultimately slide to ensure coordination with the County’s adoption schedule.

Task Target Date Notes
Initial meeting of Public
Financing Authority (PFA)
August 2026 PFA will review the EIFD, potentially
adopt bylaws, direct the preparation of the
draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
PFA meets to review draft
IFP
October 2026
City Council considers
resolution approving the IFP
and allocation of property tax
increment
October /
November 2026
(If the County participates)
County Board of Supervisors
considers resolution
approving the IFP and
allocation of property tax
increment
October /
November 2026
PFA holds Public Hearing #1 November 2026 Additional comments taken; PFA takes action to modify or reject IFP, or
otherwise proceed to Public Hearing #2
PFA holds Public Hearing #2
and Protest Proceeding
December 2026 If majority protest exists – PFA takes
action to terminate EIFD. If no majority
protest, PFA can propose adoption of the
205 of 462
IFP and formation of the EIFD
Staff files EIFD with State
Board of Equalization (BOE)
December 2026
The IFP referenced in the timeline above becomes the roadmap for the work to be accomplished by the EIFD. The IFP will analyze the tax increment anticipated to be generated by the properties in the EIFD boundary, consider the cost of various infrastructure options to be considered for investment, evaluate the bonding capacity created by the tax increment generated, estimated general fund fiscal impacts, and provide a plan for how the EIFD will capture tax increment to fund infrastructure investments. The IFP contents would be provided in draft format to the public, PFA, and City Council in accordance with the schedule above.

Public information is an important part of the EIFD formation process. A web page would be developed that would serve as a resource to interested stakeholders throughout the formation process. Landowners and residents within the EIFD boundaries would also receive mailed notifications of public meetings and hearings throughout the formation process, and public hearings would additionally be advertised via local newspaper. In the event of a majority protest by property owners or residents within the boundaries, the district formation proceedings would be discontinued.

Financial Considerations
There is no immediate fiscal impact for establishing the Cotati EIFD or PFA. If ultimately established, formation costs could be recovered, and the EIFD would create the opportunity to use tax increment financing to fund targeted infrastructure investments in the City. Further information regarding fiscal impact will be analyzed as part of the development of the IFP, which will be presented to the PFA and City Council as noted in the timeline above. However, the initial fiscal impact analysis indicates a net positive impact at an assumed 50% contribution to the EIFD, likely the highest percent that will be considered. The fiscal analysis also indicates the importance of the service Community Facilities District in supporting the General Fund as new housing is added to the community, which would otherwise be negative - even with no funding transferred to the EIFD due to the services demand created by the new housing.

In the adopted FY 25-26 budget, the City Council authorized $100,000 from the General Fund (101-11-80187). The City has entered into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Rohnert Park to reimburse the City for 50% of the consulting costs for the feasibility study. The phase budgets are as follows (for the formation of two separate districts [Cotati and Rohnert Park]):

Phase Total Budget Cost to Date
(Invoiced through April 2026)
Status
1 & 2 $ 88,320 $54,639 Complete
Pending Final Invoices
3 $ 97,020 $ 0 Pending
Totals $185,340 $54,639
If the City Council elects to continue with Phase 3, the total cost to the City, assuming Rohnert 206 of 462
Park participation in Phase 3, will be no more than $92,670, which is less than the budgeted amount. If Rohnert Park does not participate in Phase 3, the total cost to the City may be up to $140,000. At this time, Rohnert Park staff are anticipating to also recommend moving to implementation (Phase 3) at an upcoming City Council meeting. Given that the anticipated total is under the budgeted amount, no budget adjustment is necessary.

Environmental Issues
The City Council’s adoption of the Resolution of Intention and establishment of the PFA are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they are actions solely related to the creation of a government funding mechanism and the administrative or organizational activities of the City. Therefore, these actions do not constitute a “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5). Neither of these actions could result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to any specific project(s) that could be funded by the EIFD. As a separate and independent ground, these actions are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they will have a significant effect on the environment. However, future actions (such as the approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.
207 of 462
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE COTATI

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT TO

FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, ACQUISITION, AND/OR

MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES,

INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION AND/OR REMEDIATION OF LAND
FOR SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING A
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN

OTHER ACTIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, SB 628, effective as of January 1, 2015, allows a city or county to create a separate government entity known as an “Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” (EIFD) within a defined area to finance certain infrastructure projects with community-wide benefits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2.99 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 53398.50) (the "EIFD Law"), the City Council of the City of Cotati ("Council") is authorized to initiate the process to establish an EIFD; and, WHEREAS, EIFDs are financed through tax increment generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within a designated district boundary. There are no new taxes or impacts to the property owner within an established EIFD; and, WHEREAS, EIFD tax increment may be used to pay for a variety of public facilities and other projects authorized by the EIFD Law within the established EIFD boundaries or outside of the established EIFD boundaries if there is a tangible connection to the work of the EIFD, including but not limited to infrastructure such as roads, utilities, streetscapes, parks and public recreation, or other community facilities. Affordable housing, including affordable senior housing, is also an eligible activity; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in partnership with the City of Rohnert Park, retained Kosmont Companies as a consultant through a competitive procurement process to prepare an evaluation of EIFD implementation feasibility, which has now completed Phases 1 and 2, indicating that moving forward with the contemplated EIFD would have net positive effects for both the City and the County; and,
WHEREAS, the prerequisites set forth in Government Code Section 53398.54 have been complied with prior to the City initiating the creation of or participating in the governance of the EIFD, and the City will provide the required certification to the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) in accordance with the EIFD Law; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed boundaries of the Cotati EIFD are identified on Exhibit A entitled "Proposed Cotati EIFD Boundary", a copy which is on file in the office of the City Clerk; and,
208 of 462
WHEREAS, the EIFD will be governed by a Public Financing Authority ("PFA") board which will be responsible for implementing the Infrastructure Financing Plan for the EIFD ("IFP"), and the PFA is required to be established by the City Council at the same time that the Council adopts its intention to form the proposed EIFD; and
WHEREAS, this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as an action solely related to financing and is not in-and-of itself a “project” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378) since it does not result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to fund any specific projects through the EIFD. However, future actions (such as the funding and/or approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Cotati proposes and intends to cause the establishment of an EIFD under the provisions of the EIFD Law.

Section 2. The name proposed for the EIFD shall be the “Cotati Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.”
Section 3. The proposed boundaries of the EIFD are as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, which are preliminarily approved and on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. The types of public facilities and development proposed to be financed or assisted by the EIFD pursuant to the EIFD Law are those listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 5. The City Council hereby finds that the EIFD is necessary for the area within the boundaries of the EIFD and the City. The City Council's stated goals for the EIFD are to create a means by which to assist in the provision of public facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to, promote economic development of, and enhance quality of life within, the boundaries of the EIFD or the surrounding community.

Section 6. The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the EIFD Law and if approved by resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68, incremental property tax revenue from the City of Cotati and some or all other affected taxing entities within the EIFD may be used to finance the activities described in Section 4 and listed on Exhibit B. The incremental property tax financing will be described in an IFP to be prepared for approval by the PFA, the City Council, and the legislative bodies of all participating taxing entities under EIFD Law.

Section 7. The City or County of Sonoma may allocate tax revenues derived from local sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use 209 of 462
Tax Law (Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) or transactions and use taxes imposed in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) to the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.75.5, if applicable. The City Council does not intend to contribute sales and use taxes or transactions and use taxes to the EIFD Section 8. The City Council hereby establishes the “Public Financing Authority of the Cotati Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District” to serve as the governing board of the EIFD:

A. The PFA membership shall be comprised of two members of the City Council, one member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”), one member of the public appointed by the City Council, and one member of the public appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Members shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing legislative bodies and shall serve until their successor assumes office.

B. The City Council further declares that, pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.51.1, should another taxing entity agree to participate as a taxing entity, then the PFA membership shall be modified in accordance with Government Code Section 53398.51.1.

C. The legislative body of each participating taxing entity may appoint one of its members to be an alternate member of the PFA board who may serve and vote in place of a member who is absent or disqualifies themselves from participating in a meeting of the PFA.

D. The members are subject to compliance with the EIFD Law and all applicable ethics laws, including Article 2.4 (commencing with Section 53234) of Chapter 2 of the Government Code.

E. The City Council, and the governing bodies of any other participating entities shall comply with Government Code Section 54974.

Section 8. The City Council hereby sets the time and place for a public hearing of the PFA regarding the proposed EIFD and IFP, to be held on November 10, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall Council Chambers, 201 W. Sierra Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931.

Section 9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.60, the City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the PFA and each owner of land (as defined in the EIFD Law), or alternatively with respect to the owners of land may mail a 210 of 462
single-page notice of intention identified in Government Code Section 53398.60(b), within the EIFD and to each affected taxing entity (as defined in the EIFD Law). In addition, the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the public hearing to be published not less than once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City. The notice shall state that the EIFD will be used to finance public works, briefly describe the facilities, briefly describe the proposed financial arrangements, including the proposed commitment of incremental tax revenue, describe the boundaries of the proposed EIFD and state the day, hour, and place, when and where any persons having any objections to the proposed IFP, or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings, may appear before the PFA and object to the adoption of the proposed IFP.

Section 10. The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Cotati (Successor Agency) has received a finding of completion, as specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 34179.7.

Section 11. In accordance with Government Code Section 53398.54, the City certifies to the DOF and to the PFA that no former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Cotati (Former RDA) assets that are the subject of litigation involving the State of California, where the City or the Successor Agency are a named plaintiff, have been or will be used to benefit any efforts of the EIFD unless the litigation and all possible appeals have been resolved in a court of law. The City Clerk is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to provide or make this certification to the DOF within 10 days after the City Council’s action to participate in the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68 or the City Council’s action to form the EIFD pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.69, by delivery of a copy of the appropriate Resolution or signing a separate certification, if and as required by the DOF.

Section 12. The State Controller has completed its review as specified in California Health and Safety Code Section 34167.5 of asset transfers between the Former RDA, the City or any other public agency. The Successor Agency and the City have complied with all of the State Controller's findings and orders stemming from such review.

Section 13. This Resolution in no way obligates the PFA to establish any EIFD and it is the intent of the City Council to not mail notices to property owners or publish public notices (Section 9) until after the County has committed to joining the EIFD.

Section 14. If any section, subsection, phrase or clause of this Resolution is for any reason found to be invalid, such section, subsection, phrase or clause shall be severed from, and shall not affect the validity of, all remaining portions of this Resolution that can be given effect without the severed portion.

Section 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 16. The City Manager, or designee, are hereby authorized and directed to take all 211 of 462
actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution, including proceeding with Phase 3 (Implementation) of the EIFD Feasibility Study, in coordination with the County commitment to join the EIFD.

Section 17. The City Clerk of the City of Cotati shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on June 23, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
212 of 462

EXHIBIT A
Draft Cotati Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Boundaries Proposed EIFD parcels are highlighted in color above and total approximately 207 acres (approximately 162 acres within the City and approximately 45 acres in unincorporated County jurisdiction that would only be considered if the County of Sonoma were to participate in the EIFD). Cotati City boundaries are noted for reference only. 213 of 462

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF COTATI

ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT (EIFD)

LIST OF AUTHORIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Cotati EIFD may finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, or rehabilitation of any real tangible property with an estimated useful life of 15 years or longer which are public capital facilities or other projects of community-wide significance that provide significant benefits to the EIFD or the surrounding community. The EIFD may also finance the ongoing or capitalized costs to maintain public capital facilities financed in whole or in part by the EIFD. Facilities funded may be located outside the boundaries of the EIFD, as long as they have a tangible connection to the work of the EIFD as detailed in the infrastructure financing plan. The EIFD may also finance the planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of property. The EIFD may finance costs described in Government Code Sections [53398.52 [list of eligible improvements]] and 53398.56 [replacement housing and relocation obligations if required by actions of EIFD]. Projects financed by the EIFD may include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
• Affordable housing as authorized under the EIFD Law;
• Highways, interchanges, and ramps;
• Bridges;
• Arterial streets;
• Parking facilities;
• Parks, recreational facilities, and open space;
• Sewage treatment and water reclamation plants and interceptor pipes; • Facilities for the collection and treatment of water for urban uses; • Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste, including transfer stations and vehicles;
• Storm water conveyance and collection facilities;
• Flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channels; • Child care facilities;
• Libraries;
• Broadband and telecommunications infrastructure;
• Sidewalks and streetscape improvements;
• Bicycle lanes and paths;
• Public art;
• Corporation yards;
• Police facilities;
214 of 462
• Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation; • Projects that implement a sustainable communities strategy and transit priority projects; • Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use; • Acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial structures by the small business occupant of such structures, if such acquisition, construction, or repair is for purposes of fostering economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and of ensuring the long-term economic sustainability of small businesses;
• Projects that enable communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including, but not limited to, higher average temperatures, decreased air and water quality, the spread of infectious and vector-borne diseases, other public health impacts, extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and drought; • Facilities in which nonprofit community organizations provide health, youth, homeless, and social services.

Other Expenses
In addition to the direct costs of the above facilities, other incidental expenses as authorized by the EIFD Law, including, but not limited to, the cost of environmental evaluation and environmental remediation; engineering and surveying; construction staking; utility relocation and demolition costs incidental to the construction of the facilities; costs of project/construction management; costs (including the costs of legal services) associated with the creation of the EIFD; costs of issuance of bonds or other debt of the EIFD or of any other public agency for authorized facilities and payment of debt service thereon; financing costs of improvements incurred by developers until reimbursement from the EIFD; costs incurred by the County or the EIFD in connection with the division of taxes pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.75; or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the EIFD; reimbursements to other areas for facilities serving the EIFD; and any other expenses incidental to the formation and implementation of the EIFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities.
215 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Overview of Fiscal Impacts Key Land Use Assumptions (Over 10+ Years) Year 10
Snapshot
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Cotati Residential 675 DU
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of EIFD Allocation) $1,810,250 $146,591,500 $58,428,200 Commercial / Retail 21,774 SF Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $1,690,600 $139,854,100 $55,579,900 Hotel 0 rooms Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $119,650 $6,737,400 $2,848,300 County of Sonoma
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of EIFD Allocation) $709,700 $58,690,600 $23,324,700 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $697,800 $57,726,100 $22,941,200 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to County $11,900 $964,500 $383,500 Reference: Other County Sales Tax Revenues $411,400 $34,026,300 $13,522,500 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2026 dollars
Project Component
June 2026 Page 1 of 19
216 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to City
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 55
2031 2036 2046 2056 2066 2076 2081
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value @

3.0%
City of Cotati Revenues
Property Tax $154,600 $358,500 $481,800 $647,500 $870,186 $1,169,457 $1,355,721 3.0% $29,651,900 $11,784,200 Property Tax Allocation to EIFD @ 50% ($77,300) ($179,300) ($240,900) ($323,800) ($435,160) ($584,819) $0 3.0% ($14,827,400) ($5,892,500) Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $91,000 $211,000 $283,600 $381,100 $512,167 $688,309 $797,939 3.0% $17,452,800 $6,936,200 Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF Allocation to EIFD @ 50% ($22,750) ($52,750) ($70,900) ($95,275) ($128,042) ($172,077) $0 3.0% ($4,363,200) ($1,734,000) Property Transfer Tax $5,100 $11,900 $16,000 $21,400 $28,760 $38,651 $44,807 3.0% $980,900 $390,000 Sales and Use Tax - Direct - Bradley Burns $40,600 $94,200 $126,600 $170,100 $228,600 $307,220 $356,152 3.0% $7,789,400 $3,095,600 Sales Tax - Direct - Measure S $33,100 $76,800 $103,200 $138,700 $186,401 $250,508 $290,407 3.0% $6,352,000 $2,524,400 Sales and Use Tax - Indirect - Bradley Burns $56,100 $130,000 $174,700 $234,700 $315,417 $423,894 $491,410 3.0% $10,749,000 $4,272,000 Sales Tax - Indirect - Measure S $45,700 $106,000 $142,500 $191,500 $257,360 $345,870 $400,958 3.0% $8,769,000 $3,484,800 Other Tax $67,800 $157,200 $211,200 $283,900 $381,538 $512,755 $594,424 3.0% $13,000,500 $5,166,500 License and Franchise $87,300 $202,400 $272,000 $365,600 $491,336 $660,314 $765,485 3.0% $16,742,100 $6,653,600 Rents $12,100 $28,100 $37,700 $50,700 $68,137 $91,570 $106,155 3.0% $2,321,400 $922,500 Other Revenues $24,800 $57,500 $77,200 $103,800 $139,499 $187,474 $217,334 3.0% $4,753,300 $1,889,000 Charges for Services $35,500 $82,400 $110,700 $148,800 $199,975 $268,749 $311,554 3.0% $6,814,300 $2,708,100 Transfers In + Reimbursements (less CFD) $23,500 $54,500 $73,200 $98,400 $132,241 $177,721 $206,028 3.0% $4,506,500 $1,791,000 Transfer in from Services CFD 2017-01 $213,700 $471,800 $575,100 $772,886 $1,038,695 $1,395,919 $1,618,252 3.0% $35,899,000 $14,436,800 Estimated Total Revenues $790,850 $1,810,250 $2,373,700 $3,190,011 $4,287,108 $5,761,515 $7,556,625 $146,591,500 $58,428,200 City of Cotati Expenditures
City Council $1,800 $4,200 $5,700 $7,700 $10,348 $13,907 $16,122 3.0% $351,800 $139,700 City Manager $10,800 $24,900 $33,500 $45,100 $60,611 $81,456 $94,429 3.0% $2,064,600 $820,400 Administrative Services $5,500 $12,800 $17,200 $23,200 $31,179 $41,902 $48,576 3.0% $1,061,600 $421,700 Community Development $23,800 $55,300 $74,300 $99,800 $134,123 $180,250 $208,959 3.0% $4,570,700 $1,816,500 Public Works - Engineering $15,100 $34,900 $46,900 $63,100 $84,801 $113,966 $132,117 3.0% $2,888,900 $1,148,000 Public Works - Streets $47,800 $110,800 $148,900 $200,100 $268,918 $361,403 $418,965 3.0% $9,164,200 $3,642,100 Public Works - Storm Water Mgnt. $8,400 $19,400 $26,100 $35,100 $47,171 $63,395 $73,492 3.0% $1,607,300 $638,800 Public Works - Govt. Buildings $17,000 $39,500 $53,100 $71,400 $95,956 $128,956 $149,496 3.0% $3,269,300 $1,299,100 Public Works - Parks $43,300 $100,300 $134,800 $181,200 $243,518 $327,267 $379,393 3.0% $8,298,000 $3,297,800 Police $484,000 $1,122,200 $1,508,200 $2,026,900 $2,723,984 $3,660,807 $4,243,878 3.0% $92,820,100 $36,888,200 Recreation $46,800 $108,500 $145,900 $196,000 $263,408 $353,998 $410,380 3.0% $8,976,500 $3,567,500 Code Compliance $24,900 $57,800 $77,700 $104,400 $140,305 $188,558 $218,590 3.0% $4,781,100 $1,900,100 Estimated Total Expenditures $729,200 $1,690,600 $2,272,300 $3,054,000 $4,104,321 $5,515,864 $6,394,398 $139,854,100 $55,579,900 Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact $61,650 $119,650 $101,400 $136,011 $182,788 $245,652 $1,162,227 $6,737,400 $2,848,300 Revenue / Cost Ratio 1.08 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.18 1.05 1.05 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2026 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
June 2026 Page 2 of 19
217 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to County
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 Year 55
2031 2036 2046 2056 2066 2076 2081
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value @

3.0%
County of Sonoma Revenues
Property Tax - Sonoma County General Fund $291,000 $674,700 $906,700 $1,218,600 $1,637,696 $2,200,927 $2,551,478 3.0% $55,804,600 $22,177,600 Property Tax - County Allocation to EIFD @ 33% ($96,000) ($222,600) ($299,200) ($402,100) ($540,389) ($726,237) $0 3.0% ($18,414,200) ($7,318,200) Property Tax in Lieu of MVLF $106,000 $245,700 $330,200 $443,700 $596,296 $801,372 $929,009 3.0% $20,319,300 $8,075,300 Property Transfer Tax $5,100 $11,900 $16,000 $21,400 $28,760 $38,651 $44,807 3.0% $980,900 $390,000 Estimated County Revenues $306,100 $709,700 $953,700 $1,281,600 $1,722,363 $2,314,712 $3,525,294 $58,690,600 $23,324,700 County of Sonoma Expenditures
Agricultural Commissioner $2,300 $5,300 $7,100 $9,500 $12,767 $17,158 $19,891 3.0% $435,700 $173,300 Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector $5,500 $12,700 $17,000 $22,900 $30,776 $41,360 $47,948 3.0% $1,048,700 $416,800 Clerk Recorder Assessor $13,500 $31,200 $41,900 $56,300 $75,662 $101,684 $117,880 3.0% $2,578,900 $1,025,000 CAO / Board of Supervisors $11,600 $27,000 $36,200 $48,700 $65,449 $87,958 $101,967 3.0% $2,229,800 $886,200 Court Support / Grand Jury $11,600 $26,900 $36,200 $48,600 $65,314 $87,777 $101,758 3.0% $2,226,200 $884,900 Department of Health Services $16,200 $37,600 $50,500 $67,900 $91,252 $122,635 $142,168 3.0% $3,109,000 $1,235,500 District Attorney's Office $17,700 $41,100 $55,300 $74,300 $99,853 $134,194 $155,568 3.0% $3,402,100 $1,351,900 Emergency Management $4,500 $10,400 $14,000 $18,800 $25,266 $33,955 $39,363 3.0% $860,500 $341,900 Human Resources $11,500 $26,700 $35,900 $48,300 $64,911 $87,235 $101,129 3.0% $2,211,700 $878,900 Human Services $42,600 $98,700 $132,700 $178,300 $239,620 $322,030 $373,321 3.0% $8,165,100 $3,245,000 Information Systems $1,300 $3,000 $4,100 $5,500 $7,392 $9,934 $11,516 3.0% $251,700 $100,000 Probation $47,800 $110,800 $148,900 $200,100 $268,918 $361,403 $418,965 3.0% $9,164,000 $3,642,000 Public Defender $19,100 $44,300 $59,500 $80,000 $107,513 $144,489 $167,502 3.0% $3,663,300 $1,455,800 Regional Parks $8,900 $20,500 $27,600 $37,100 $49,859 $67,007 $77,679 3.0% $1,698,700 $675,000 Sheriff's Office - Detention [2] $56,900 $131,900 $177,200 $238,200 $320,121 $430,216 $498,738 3.0% $10,907,200 $4,334,600 UC Cooperative Extension $1,100 $2,600 $3,600 $4,800 $6,451 $8,669 $10,050 3.0% $219,300 $87,100 Board General Fund Contingency $7,500 $17,400 $23,400 $31,400 $42,199 $56,712 $65,745 3.0% $1,438,200 $571,600 Set Asides for Future Needs $15,900 $36,800 $49,500 $66,500 $89,370 $120,106 $139,236 3.0% $3,044,500 $1,209,800 Employee Programs $4,600 $10,700 $14,400 $19,400 $26,072 $35,039 $40,619 3.0% $887,700 $352,700 General Fund Reserves $1,000 $2,200 $3,000 $4,000 $5,376 $7,224 $8,375 3.0% $183,800 $73,200 Estimated County Expenditures $301,100 $697,800 $938,000 $1,260,600 $1,694,141 $2,276,784 $2,639,416 $57,726,100 $22,941,200 Estimated County Net Fiscal Impact $5,000 $11,900 $15,700 $21,000 $28,222 $37,928 $885,877 $964,500 $383,500 General Fund Revenue / Expenditure Ratio 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.34 1.02 1.02 Reference: Restricted Sales Tax Revenues
Transportation (Rev and Tax Code Section 7203.1) $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Library Maint. Rest. Enhancement (Measure Y) $9,841 $22,902 $30,704 $41,242 $55,426 $74,487 $86,351 3.0% $1,889,200 $750,900 Parks & Safety TT (Measure M - Parks) $9,841 $22,902 $30,704 $41,242 $55,426 $74,487 $86,351 3.0% $1,889,200 $750,900 Mental Health & Homeless Services (SOMT) $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Transportation Authority (Measure M-Streets) $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Fire Protection / Emerg. Response (Measure H) $39,465 $91,407 $122,816 $165,067 $221,837 $298,130 $345,614 3.0% $7,560,000 $3,004,700 Child Care, Education and Healthcare (Measure I) $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Fractional Code - SMART $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Agricultural Preserv. & Open Space District (SAPD) $19,683 $45,703 $61,408 $82,584 $110,985 $149,155 $172,912 3.0% $3,781,300 $1,502,700 Total County Sales Taxes $177,200 $411,400 $552,700 $743,100 $998,600 $1,342,000 $1,555,800 $34,026,300 $13,522,500 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure [1] Sheriff - Law Enforcement includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures [2] Sheriff - Detention includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures Values in 2026 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
June 2026 Page 3 of 19
218 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Project Description
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Project Component 2031 2036 2046
Residential - For Sale 24 DU 47 DU 47 DU
Residential - Rental 253 DU 505 DU 505 DU
Residential - Affordable 62 DU 123 DU 123 DU
Total Residential Dwelling Units 338 DU 675 DU 675 DU
Commercial / Retail 10,887 SF 21,774 SF 21,774 SF
Total Non-Residential SF 10,887 SF 21,774 SF 21,774 SF
Annual Escalation Factor 3.0% 1.16 1.34 1.81
Estimated A/V - Residential - For Sale $695K Per Unit $18,933,844 $43,899,029 $58,996,623 Estimated A/V - Residential - Rental $425K Per Unit $124,404,599 $288,438,053 $387,636,624 Estimated A/V - Residential - Affordable $0K Per Unit $0 $0 $0 Estimated A/V - Commercial / Retail $395 PSF $4,985,302 $11,558,662 $15,533,875 Total Estimated Assessed Value $148,323,745 $343,895,743 $462,167,122 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
June 2026 Page 4 of 19
219 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Project Employment and Occupants
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Project Component 2031 2036 2046
Residential - For Sale 24 DU 47 DU 47 DU
Residential - Rental 253 DU 505 DU 505 DU
Residential - Affordable 62 DU 123 DU 123 DU
Commercial / Retail 10,887 SF 21,774 SF 21,774 SF
Estimated # Employees (FTE)
Residential - For Sale 0 DU / emp 0 0 0
Residential - Rental 50 DU / emp 5 10 10
Residential - Affordable 50 DU / emp 1 2 2
Commercial / Retail 400 SF / emp 27 54 54
Total Estimated # Employees (FTE) 33 67 67
Occupied Dwelling Units 95% 321 DU 641 DU 641 DU
Residents 2.50 per DU 802 1,603 1,603
Employees Weighted at 50% 50% 17 33 33
Total Service Population (Residents + Empl.) 818 1,637 1,637 Occupied Hotel Rooms 70% 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Hotel Guests 1.5 per room 0 0 0
Notes:

Average household size reflects City average household size and anticipated residential product mix Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
June 2026 Page 5 of 19
220 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Property Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
Estimated Assessed Value - Residential $143,338,443 $332,337,081 $446,633,247 Estimated Assessed Value - Non-Residential $4,985,302 $11,558,662 $15,533,875 Total Estimated Assessed Value $148,323,745 $343,895,743 $462,167,122 Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $1,483,237 $3,438,957 $4,621,671 Estimated Unsecured Property Tax as % of Secured Non-Residential Value 10.00% $4,985 $11,559 $15,534 Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $1,488,223 $3,450,516 $4,637,205 Average Distributions to Taxing Entities
City of Cotati General Fund 10.39% $154,600 $358,500 $481,800 City Allocation to EIFD @ 50% (5.20%) ($77,300) ($179,300) ($240,900) Net Property Tax to City 5.20% $77,300 $179,200 $240,900 Sonoma County General Fund 19.55% $291,000 $674,700 $906,700 County Allocation to EIFD @ 33% (6.45%) ($96,000) ($222,600) ($299,200) Net Sonoma County Distributions 13.10% $195,000 $452,100 $607,500 Notes:

General levy distributions weighted average of targeted opportunity site tax rate areas (TRAs) Does not include property tax overrides above 1% general levy Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Sonoma County Auditor-Controller (2026)
June 2026 Page 6 of 19
221 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) Total AV within CITY $1,516,154,657
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $930,357
Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $614
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2027 2031 2036 2046
Estimated Project Assessed Value $26,356,745 $148,323,745 $343,895,743 $462,167,122 Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $16,200 $91,000 $211,000 $283,600 City Allocation to EIFD ($4,050) ($22,750) ($52,750) ($70,900) Net Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $12,150 $68,250 $158,250 $212,700 Total AV within COUNTY $122,937,401,999
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $87,824,862
Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $714
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2027 2031 2036 2046
Estimated Project Assessed Value $26,356,745 $148,323,745 $343,895,743 $462,167,122 Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to County $18,800 $106,000 $245,700 $330,200 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Sonoma County Auditor-Controller (2026)
June 2026 Page 7 of 19
222 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Property Transfer Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
Estimated Assessed Value - For Sale Residential $18,933,844 $43,899,029 $58,996,623 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred - For Sale Residential $2,840,077 $6,584,854 $8,849,494 Estimated Assessed Value - Other $129,389,901 $299,996,715 $403,170,499 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred - Other $6,469,495 $14,999,836 $20,158,525 Estimated Value of Property Transferred - Total $9,309,572 $21,584,690 $29,008,018 Total Transfer Tax $1.10 per $1,000 $10,200 $23,700 $31,900 Transfer Tax to City $0.55 per $1,000 $5,100 $11,900 $16,000 Transfer Tax to County $0.55 per $1,000 $5,100 $11,900 $16,000 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: Sonoma County Auditor-Controller (2026)
June 2026 Page 8 of 19
223 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Sales Tax - Direct
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Project Component 2031 2036 2046
Commercial / Retail 10,887 SF 21,774 SF 21,774 SF
Percent Taxable Sales-Generating 75% 8,165 SF 16,331 SF 16,331 SF Estimated Taxable Sales $350 PSF $3,313,017 $7,681,389 $10,323,145 Sales Tax to City (Bradley-Burns) 1.00% $33,130 $76,814 $103,231 Use Tax as % of Sales Tax (Bradley-Burns) 22.6% $7,487 $17,360 $23,330 Sales and Use Tax to City - Direct $40,600 $94,200 $126,600 Measure S Sales Tax 1.00% $33,100 $76,800 $103,200
Reference: County Sales Taxes
Transportation (Rev and Tax Code Section 7203.1 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808 Library Maint. Rest. Enhancement (Measure Y) 0.125% $4,141 $9,602 $12,904 Parks & Safety TT (Measure M - Parks) 0.125% $4,141 $9,602 $12,904 Mental Health & Homeless Services (SOMT) 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808 Transportation Authority (Measure M-Streets) 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808 Fire Protection / Emerg. Response (Measure H) 0.500% $16,565 $38,407 $51,616 Child Care, Education and Healthcare (Measure I) 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808 Fractional Code - SMART 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808
Agricultural Preserv. & Open Space District (SAPD 0.250% $8,283 $19,203 $25,808 Sales Tax to County - Direct 2.250% $74,500 $172,800 $232,300 Notes:

Taxable sales PSF factor escalated 3% annually
Use tax as a percentage of sales is based on actual Cotati allocations from State and County pools as a percentage of direct sales tax Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

June 2026 Page 9 of 19
224 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Sales Tax - Indirect
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
Estimated # Employees 33 67 67
Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / Empl. Near Work $5,565 $6,451 $8,669 Estimated Employee Taxable Retail Spending $186,397 $432,171 $580,802 Estimated # Occupied Dwelling Units 321 DU 641 DU 641 DU Estimated Annual Taxable Retail Spending / HH $39,085 $45,310 $60,893 Estimated Resident Taxable Retail Spending $12,531,670 $29,055,279 $39,047,866 Estimated Capture within City 35.0% $4,386,084 $10,169,348 $13,666,753 Total Estimated Indirect Taxable Sales $4,572,482 $10,601,519 $14,247,555 Sales Tax to City (Bradley-Burns) 1.00% $45,725 $106,015 $142,476 Use Tax as % of Sales Tax (Bradley-Burns) 22.6% $10,334 $23,959 $32,199 Sales and Use Tax to City - Indirect $56,100 $130,000 $174,700 Measure S Sales Tax 1.00% $45,700 $106,000 $142,500
Reference: County Sales Taxes
Transportation (Rev and Tax Code Section 7203.1) 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600 Library Maint. Rest. Enhancement (Measure Y) 0.125% $5,700 $13,300 $17,800 Parks & Safety TT (Measure M - Parks) 0.125% $5,700 $13,300 $17,800 Mental Health & Homeless Services (SOMT) 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600 Transportation Authority (Measure M-Streets) 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600 Fire Protection / Emerg. Response (Measure H) 0.500% $22,900 $53,000 $71,200 Child Care, Education and Healthcare (Measure I) 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600 Fractional Code - SMART 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600
Agricultural Preserv. & Open Space District (SAPD) 0.250% $11,400 $26,500 $35,600 Sales Tax to County - Indirect 2.250% $102,700 $238,600 $320,400 Notes:

Employee spending estimates based on "Office Worker Retail Spending Patterns: A Downtown and Suburban Area Study," ICSC (2004).

Household spending based on average houshold income within City.

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

June 2026 Page 10 of 19
225 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Community Facilities District (CFD) Revenues
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
"Single Family Units" per CFD Definition 26 DU 52 DU 52 DU "Multifamily Units" per CFD Definition 312 DU 623 DU 623 DU CFD Special Tax Rates - Anticipated Levied Rates
Single Family Residences $914.40 $1,009.57 $1,230.66
Multifamily Residences $609.60 $673.05 $820.45
CFD Special Tax Revenues
Single Family Residences $23,774 $52,497 $63,994
Multifamily Residences $189,892 $419,312 $511,138
Total CFD Special Tax $213,700 $471,800 $575,100
Notes:

Assumes 100% transfer to General Fund
Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2026 dollars
Source: City of Cotati 2026/2027 CFD Rate Schedule (assumes 2% annual rate escalation) June 2026 Page 11 of 19
226 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
City Service Population
City Population 7,290
City Employment Base 3,002
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 1,501
Total City Service Population 8,791
Source: CA Department of Finance, US Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies June 2026 Page 12 of 19
227 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
City Multipler Revenue and Expenditure Factors
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Budget Category
Adopted City
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant City
Population /
Factor
Percent
Fixed
Per Capita
Factor
Annual
Escalation 2031 2036 2046
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $2,168,480 Evaluated Separately
Sales Tax $5,777,360 Evaluated Separately
Other Tax $837,575 Service Population 8,791 25% $71.46 3.0% $82.84 $96.03 $129.06 License and Franchise $809,010 Service Population 8,791 0% $92.03 3.0% $106.68 $123.68 $166.21 Other Agency $231,541 N/A
Rents $149,550 Service Population 8,791 25% $12.76 3.0% $14.79 $17.15 $23.04 Other Revenues $306,294 Service Population 8,791 25% $26.13 3.0% $30.29 $35.12 $47.20 Charges for Services $658,550 Service Population 8,791 50% $37.46 3.0% $43.42 $50.34 $67.65 Contributions $35,500 N/A
Transfers In + Reimbursements (less CFD) $217,807 Service Population 8,791 0% $24.78 3.0% $28.72 $33.30 $44.75 Interfund Loan Payments $155,742 N/A
Total Selected Revenues $11,347,409 $264.61
General Fund Operating Expenditures
City Council $169,710 Service Population 8,791 90% $1.93 3.0% $2.24 $2.59 $3.49 City Manager $997,205 Service Population 8,791 90% $11.34 3.0% $13.15 $15.24 $20.49 Administrative Services $512,701 Service Population 8,791 90% $5.83 3.0% $6.76 $7.84 $10.53 Non-Departmental $0 N/A
Community Development $883,668 Service Population 8,791 75% $25.13 3.0% $29.13 $33.77 $45.39 Public Works - Engineering $186,095 Service Population 8,791 25% $15.88 3.0% $18.41 $21.34 $28.67 Public Works - Streets $590,555 Service Population 8,791 25% $50.38 3.0% $58.41 $67.71 $91.00 Public Works - Storm Water Mgnt. $103,567 Service Population 8,791 25% $8.84 3.0% $10.24 $11.87 $15.96 Public Works - Govt. Buildings $315,988 Service Population 8,791 50% $17.97 3.0% $20.83 $24.15 $32.46 Public Works - Parks $452,662 Residents 7,290 25% $46.57 3.0% $53.99 $62.59 $84.11 Police $4,983,781 Service Population 8,791 10% $510.23 3.0% $591.49 $685.70 $921.53 Recreation $489,721 Residents 7,290 25% $50.38 3.0% $58.41 $67.71 $91.00 Code Compliance $308,112 Service Population 8,791 25% $26.29 3.0% $30.47 $35.33 $47.48 Veronda Falletti Ranch $254,405 N/A
Total Selected Expenditures $10,248,170 $770.77
Notes:

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: City of Cotati 2025-2026 Mid-Cycle Budget
June 2026 Page 13 of 19
228 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
City Multipler Revenues and Expenditures
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
Estimated # Residents 802 1,603 1,603
Estimated # Employees 33 67 67
Total Project Service Population 818 1,637 1,637
Budget Category 2031 2036 2046
Revenues
Other Tax $67,800 $157,200 $211,200
License and Franchise $87,300 $202,400 $272,000
Other Agency $0 $0 $0
Rents $12,100 $28,100 $37,700
Other Revenues $24,800 $57,500 $77,200
Charges for Services $35,500 $82,400 $110,700
Contributions $0 $0 $0
Transfers In + Reimbursements (less CFD) $23,500 $54,500 $73,200 Interfund Loan Payments $0 $0 $0
Total Multiplier Revenues $251,000 $582,100 $782,000
Expenditures
City Council $1,800 $4,200 $5,700
City Manager $10,800 $24,900 $33,500
Administrative Services $5,500 $12,800 $17,200
Non-Departmental $0 $0 $0
Community Development $23,800 $55,300 $74,300
Public Works - Engineering $15,100 $34,900 $46,900
Public Works - Streets $47,800 $110,800 $148,900
Public Works - Storm Water Mgnt. $8,400 $19,400 $26,100 Public Works - Govt. Buildings $17,000 $39,500 $53,100
Public Works - Parks $43,300 $100,300 $134,800
Police $484,000 $1,122,200 $1,508,200
Recreation $46,800 $108,500 $145,900
Code Compliance $24,900 $57,800 $77,700
Veronda Falletti Ranch $0 $0 $0
Total Multiplier Expenditures $729,200 $1,690,600 $2,272,300 Notes:

Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: City of Cotati 2025-2026 Mid-Cycle Budget
June 2026 Page 14 of 19
229 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
County Service Population
County Population (Incorporated and unincorporated) 482,848 County Employment Base (Incorporated and unincorporated) 200,159 Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 100,080
Total County Service Population (Incorp. + Uninc.) 582,928 County Population - Unincorporated Only 130,801
County Employment Base - Unincorporated Only 54,222
Employee Weighting for Service Population 0.5
Weighted # Employees 27,111
Total County Service Population - Unincorporated Only 157,912 County unincorporated employment base estimated based on ratio of unincorporated residential population to total County population Source: CA Department of Finance, US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (2024) June 2026 Page 15 of 19
230 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
County Multipler Revenue and Expenditure Factors - Net County Cost Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Budget Category
Adopted County
Budget Allocation Basis
Relevant
County
Population
Percent
Fixed
Per Capita
Factor
Annual
Escalation 2031 2036 2046
Primary Expenditures - General Fund Contributions
Departments
Agricultural Commissioner $2,801,515 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $2.40 3.0% $2.79 $3.23 $4.34 Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector $6,718,638 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $5.76 3.0% $6.68 $7.74 $10.41 Clerk Recorder Assessor $16,532,028 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $14.18 3.0% $16.44 $19.06 $25.61 CAO / Board of Supervisors $14,285,940 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $12.25 3.0% $14.21 $16.47 $22.13 County Counsel $1,032 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $0.00 3.0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Court Support / Grand Jury $9,516,438 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $12.24 3.0% $14.19 $16.45 $22.11 Department of Health Services $11,230,336 Countywide Residents 482,848 25% $17.44 3.0% $20.22 $23.44 $31.51 District Attorney's Office $21,800,295 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $18.70 3.0% $21.68 $25.13 $33.77 Emergency Management $3,671,510 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $4.72 3.0% $5.48 $6.35 $8.53 General Services $0 N/A
Human Resources $14,172,836 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $12.16 3.0% $14.09 $16.34 $21.96 Human Services $29,498,786 Countywide Residents 482,848 25% $45.82 3.0% $53.12 $61.58 $82.76 Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review $2,409,477 N/A - Unincorporated Information Systems $1,616,613 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $1.39 3.0% $1.61 $1.86 $2.50 Office of Equity $2,106,205 N/A - Unincorporated
Permit Sonoma $5,913,577 N/A - Unincorporated
Probation $39,156,359 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $50.38 3.0% $58.40 $67.71 $90.99 Public Defender $15,649,038 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $20.13 3.0% $23.34 $27.06 $36.36 Regional Parks $5,112,485 Countywide Residents 482,848 10% $9.53 3.0% $11.05 $12.81 $17.21 Sheriff's Office - Law Enforcement [1] $69,208,778 N/A - Unincorporated Sheriff's Office - Detention [2] $46,595,114 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $59.95 3.0% $69.50 $80.57 $108.28 Transportation & Public Works $22,633,941 N/A - Unincorporated UC Cooperative Extension $1,401,159 Countywide Service Population 582,928 50% $1.20 3.0% $1.39 $1.62 $2.17 Subtotal for Departments $342,032,100
Programs / Initiatives
Board General Fund Contingency $6,148,786 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $7.91 3.0% $9.17 $10.63 $14.29 Funding for Specific Programs $30,204,658 N/A - Unincorporated Set Asides for Future Needs $13,002,985 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $16.73 3.0% $19.39 $22.48 $30.22 Funding for Anticipated Cost Increases $0 N/A
Fire Services $1,500,000 N/A - Unincorporated
Capital Project Plan Contribution $5,500,000 N/A - Unincorporated County Mondernization Fund $18,121,144 N/A - Unincorporated City of Santa Rosa Annexation $1,462,000 N/A
Community Development Commission $1,694,580 N/A - Unincorporated Employee Programs $3,788,925 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $4.87 3.0% $5.65 $6.55 $8.80 Non-Departmental County Expenses $2,716,900 N/A - Unincorporated General Fund Reserves $788,794 Countywide Service Population 582,928 25% $1.01 3.0% $1.18 $1.36 $1.83 FEMA Audit Reserve $1,066,000 N/A
Community Infrastructure Project Fund $0 N/A
Reinvestment & Revitalization Fund $13,100,000 N/A - Unincorporated Roads: Operations MOE $5,436,365 N/A - Unincorporated
Roads: Pavement Preservation $10,753,833 N/A - Unincorporated Roads: One-Time Contribution $0 N/A
Subtotal for Programs / Initiatives $115,284,970
Total County General Fund Contributions $457,317,070
Notes:
[1] Sheriff - Law Enforcement includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures [2] Sheriff - Detention includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: County of Sonoma 2024-2025 Adopted Budget
June 2026 Page 16 of 19
231 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
County Multipler Revenues and Expenditures
Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
2031 2036 2046
Estimated # Residents 802 1,603 1,603
Estimated # Employees 33 67 67
Total Project Service Population 818 1,637 1,637
Budget Category 2031 2036 2046
Primary Expenditures - Net County Cost
Departments
Agricultural Commissioner $2,300 $5,300 $7,100
Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector $5,500 $12,700 $17,000 Clerk Recorder Assessor $13,500 $31,200 $41,900
CAO / Board of Supervisors $11,600 $27,000 $36,200
County Counsel $0 $0 $0
Court Support / Grand Jury $11,600 $26,900 $36,200
Department of Health Services $16,200 $37,600 $50,500
District Attorney's Office $17,700 $41,100 $55,300
Emergency Management $4,500 $10,400 $14,000
General Services $0 $0 $0
Human Resources $11,500 $26,700 $35,900
Human Services $42,600 $98,700 $132,700
Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review $0 $0 $0
Information Systems $1,300 $3,000 $4,100
Office of Equity $0 $0 $0
Permit Sonoma $0 $0 $0
Probation $47,800 $110,800 $148,900
Public Defender $19,100 $44,300 $59,500
Regional Parks $8,900 $20,500 $27,600
Sheriff's Office - Law Enforcement [1] $0 $0 $0
Sheriff's Office - Detention [2] $56,900 $131,900 $177,200 Transportation & Public Works $0 $0 $0
UC Cooperative Extension $1,100 $2,600 $3,600
Subtotal for Departments $272,100 $630,700 $847,700
Programs / Initiatives
Board General Fund Contingency $7,500 $17,400 $23,400
Funding for Specific Programs $0 $0 $0
Set Asides for Future Needs $15,900 $36,800 $49,500
Funding for Anticipated Cost Increases $0 $0 $0
Fire Services $0 $0 $0
Capital Project Plan Contribution $0 $0 $0
County Mondernization Fund $0 $0 $0
City of Santa Rosa Annexation $0 $0 $0
Community Development Commission $0 $0 $0
Employee Programs $4,600 $10,700 $14,400
Non-Departmental County Expenses $0 $0 $0
General Fund Reserves $1,000 $2,200 $3,000
FEMA Audit Reserve $0 $0 $0
Community Infrastructure Project Fund $0 $0 $0
Reinvestment & Revitalization Fund $0 $0 $0
Roads: Operations MOE $0 $0 $0
Roads: Pavement Preservation $0 $0 $0
Roads: One-Time Contribution $0 $0 $0
Subtotal for Programs / Initiatives $29,000 $67,100 $90,300 Total Primary Expenditures $301,100 $697,800 $938,000
Notes:
[1] Sheriff - Law Enforcement includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures [2] Sheriff - Detention includes proportional share of Executive Management and Administration and Telecommunications expenditures Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate.

Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2026 dollars.

Source: County of Sonoma 2024-2025 Adopted Budget
June 2026 Page 17 of 19
232 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
IMPLAN Inputs
Construction Inputs
Industry NAICS Category
Approximate Inputs
(Industry Spending)
52 - Construction of new single-family residential structures $28,404,348 53 - Construction of new multifamily residential structures $266,900,000 50 - Construction of new commercial structures, including farm structures $8,600,730 Ongoing Operation Inputs
Industry NAICS Category
Approximate Inputs
(Employment Change)
395 - Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers 54 Jobs
489 - Hotels and motels, including casino hotels 0 Jobs 458 - Services to buildings 13 Jobs
June 2026 Page 18 of 19
233 of 462
City of Cotati EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT
Summary of IMPLAN Economic Benefits
Economic Benefits from Construction (One-Time / Short-Term) Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 1,383 $128,360,338 $303,905,078
Indirect 281 $21,554,788 $67,618,950
Induced 433 $27,814,902 $82,372,222
Total Countywide 2,098 $177,730,028 $453,896,250
Estimated City Capture 1,419 $130,828,823 $311,404,636
Economic Benefits from Ongoing Operation (Annual)
Employment Labor Income Economic Output
Direct (On-Site) 67 $3,674,083 $9,639,016
Indirect 11 $793,899 $2,003,250
Induced 12 $789,596 $2,338,067
Total Countywide 90 $5,257,578 $13,980,334
Estimated City Capture 68 $3,753,258 $9,856,082
Notes
100% of direct benefits estimated to be captured on-site within the City. 5% of indirect and induced benefits estimated to be captured off-site within the City.

Estimated ongoing benefits upon build-out and stabilization.

June 2026 Page 19 of 19
234 of 462
Prepared by:

Kosmont Companies
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
Analysis Summary
Presentation to City Council for
Consideration of Resolution of Intention
June 23, 2026
235 of 462
Background
2 • The City of Cotati is evaluating the use of one or more special purpose financing district(s) to capture value from potential new development to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities (e.g., water, sewer, roadway capacity, flood control)
• Among financing district alternatives, the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) tool appears to have most relevance
• Financing capacity is estimated to range of up to ~$25M in present-value terms • While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Sonoma would further improve financial feasibility • In addition to the financing district funding capacity, the district would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants • Subject to feedback from City Council, immediate next steps could include discussions with the County to confirm potential partnership and City Council consideration of a non-bonding Resolution of Intention 236 of 462
3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
$0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
Years from District Formation
Note: Illustrative.

What is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – Not a New Tax
Baseline Property Value at District Formation
All Property Tax Stays with General Fund
New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Some Portion of Property Tax Available to TIF District, Remainder Stays with General Fund
Assessed
Property Value
within District
New Total
Value After
TIF District
All Property
Tax Goes to
General Fund
237 of 462
EIFD Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
4 45 years from first bond issuance
Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
Long Term
Districts
Mandatory public hearings for formation with protest opportunity; no public vote
Governance
Eligible facilities with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance
Approvals
Eligible
Projects
238 of 462
Eligible Projects
Partial List
5 Roadway / Parking / Transit
Brownfield Remediation
Storm / Flood / Public Facilities Parks / Open Space / Recreation Libraries & Childcare Facilities Affordable Housing
Broadband Small Business /
Nonprofit Facilities
Wildfire Prevention / Other
Climate Change Response
239 of 462
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing Financing Districts? Communicating in a Digital World
6 1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements

2. Ability to attract additional funds / other public money (“OPM”) – tax increment from other entities (county, special districts), federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for transit-oriented development, water, housing, parks, remediation)
240 of 462
TIF Districts in Progress
Statewide
Fully Formed In Formation Process Under Evaluation
Jurisdiction Purpose
Artesia + L.A. County Transportation and affordable housing Barstow Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Brentwood Housing, employment, and transit-supportive infrastructure Buena Park Mall reimagination, tourism-supportive infrastructure Calipatria (CRD) Economic and climate resilience infrastructure Carson + L.A. County Remediation, affordable housing, recreation Covina Downtown housing and blended use supportive infrastructure Downey + L.A. County Transit-oriented development, affordable housing Fresno Downtown, housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Humboldt County Coastal mixed-use and energy supportive infrastructure Inglewood + L.A. County (CRD) Transportation and affordable housing Imperial County Renewable energy, housing and infrastructure La Verne + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Lakewood + L.A. County Mall reimagination, smart streets, affordable housing Long Beach Economic empowerment and affordable housing
Los Angeles (Palisades, Downtown, other) Affordable housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Los Angeles County Santa Monica Mountains Wildfire Recovery and Rebuild Los Angeles County West Carson Housing / bio-science / tech infrastructure Madera County (3 Districts) Water, sewer, roads and other housing infrastructure Modesto + Stanislaus County Downtown, housing, and recreation infrastructure Mount Shasta Rural brownfield mixed-use infrastructure
Napa Downtown, housing, tourism supportive infrastructure Norwalk + L.A. County Affordable housing and infrastructure Ontario Airport-related, blended use, infrastructure
Palmdale + L.A. County Housing, blended use, transit infrastructure Pittsburg Housing, commercial, and tech park infrastructure Placentia + Orange County Housing and TOD infrastructure Rancho Cucamonga Blended use and connectivity infrastructure Redlands Education related blended use, mall reimagination Redondo Beach + L.A. County Parks / open space, recreation infrastructure Riverside County Thousand Palms Housing, hospitality, medical supportive infrastructure Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Industrial / commercial supportive infrastructure Salinas Water, sewer, and other housing supportive infrastructure Sanger Commercial, hospitality, supportive infrastructure Santa Cruz Downtown, blended use, and climate resilience infrastructure Santa Fe Springs + L.A. County Housing and transit-oriented development infrastructure Santa Rosa + County of Sonoma Downtown investment, affordable housing, aging infrastructure Scotts Valley + Scotts Valley Fire + County of Santa Cruz Housing and mixed-use supportive infrastructure, fire facilities Sebastopol + County of Sonoma Housing, flood control, library, civic facilities Sonoma County West (Unincorporated) Housing, flood control, sewer, fire facilities Yucaipa Housing and commercial infrastructure
241 of 462
8 Source: Sonoma County Auditor-Controller (2026)
Potential Financing District Boundary
Cotati
• Gravenstein Corridor and Downtown
/ Cotati Depot Priority Development
Areas (PDAs)
• Approx. 162 acres (~13.5% of City)
• $219M in existing assessed value
(~14.1% of Citywide value)
• ~0.2% of Countywide value
• For potential County uninc. area:
- Commercial / industrial area in
need of Alder Ave improvements
- Approx. 45 acres
- Approx. $6M in existing value 242 of 462
9 a) Water and sewer (e.g., Downtown sewer trunk main, Well #4, additional water storage tanks)
b) Roadway improvements (e.g., Highway 116, Old Redwood Highway, East Cotati Avenue)
c) La Plaza Park and adjacent roadway
d) Downtown parking improvements
e) Alder Avenue roadway improvements in unincorporated area Example Potential Investments
to Receive TIF District Funding – Cotati
243 of 462
10 Development Pipeline – Major Projects
Sources: Cotati Development Pipeline Tracker (2026)
a) Cotati Station
b) Cotati Village 1
c) Cotati Village 2
d) Pink Viking (Flahavan Estates)
e) Redwood Row
f) La Plaza Village - 8150 La Plaza
g) 120 E. Cotati Ave
h) Lund Hill Lots
244 of 462
11 Development Assumptions with Study Area – Cotati
Absorption Assumed over ~10-15 Years
Note: AV at buildout values in current 2026 dollars
Sources: Cotati Development Pipeline Tracker (2026), Santero Specific Plan (2025), Transit Oriented Community (TOC) Zoning (2025), CoStar (2026) Area # SF or Units Estimated
AV Factor
Estimated
Total AV at Buildout
Residential – For-Sale 47 units $695K per unit $33 million Residential – Rental 505 units $425K per unit $215 million Residential – Affordable 123 units property tax exempt $0 Commercial / Retail 21,774 SF $395 PSF $9 million
Total New Development Assumed within Study Area $256 million 245 of 462
City

10.4%
County
Other / School Entities 19.7%
(not eligible)

69.9%
12 • Primary non-school recipients and potential contributors of property tax are the City and County
• City share varies by area and averages ~10.4% of every $1 collected in property taxes within the study area
– City additionally receives equivalent of ~6.0% of property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF), also
available to TIF district
• County General Fund share averages ~19.7%
– County additionally receives property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to district, but not incorporated into this analysis to be conservative
• School-related entities cannot participate
As counties tend to rely more heavily on property tax revenue sources generated by new development within incorporated jurisdictions, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is not reasonable to assume allocation of property tax in lieu of MVLF by the County. As cities benefit from additional non-property tax revenue sources (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy tax) from new development, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is reasonable for cities to consider contributing property tax in lieu of MVLF.

Tax Rate Area (TRA) weighted average distributions for Study Area shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.

Parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Areas are subject to RPTTF revenue flow until expiration of ROPS obligations (2035 for Cotati).

Source: Sonoma County Auditor Controller (2026)
Property Tax Revenues Available to Financing District
Cotati
Property Tax Distribution
+ City MVLF of 6.0 = 16.4%
246 of 462
Sonoma County EIFD Participation Policy
13 Property Tax Increment:
• City share contributed  County share contributed
• County contributes less than 100% of its share

Fiscal Analysis: Positive net impact to County General Fund  Board Priorities: Supports affordable housing, climate adaptation and resilience, transitoriented development, active transportation, and/or advancing racial and social equity  247 of 462
14 City allocation includes allocation from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu. County allocation does not include MVLF in-lieu. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for district. “Year 5 means fifth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor.

Revenue and Bonding Capacity Scenarios
Cotati
Revenue
Allocation Scenario
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
50-Year
Present-Value
@ 3%
Discount Rate
50-Year
Nominal
Total
A) City 25% + County $ Match
(21% of County share) $1,061,000 $4,050,000 $14,162,000 $35,834,000 B) City 25% + County 25%
(percentage match)
$1,238,000 $4,534,000 $15,618,000 $39,518,000
C) City 50% + County 33%
(supported by City and County General Fund fiscal
impact analysis)
$2,432,000 $7,799,000 $25,431,000 $64,348,000
248 of 462
15 Financing Districts work better with a Multi-Agency Partnership & Attract Other Funding
Other Public Sources
§ Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC,CERF)
§ Prop 4 climate funding
§ Prop 68 parks & open space grants
§ Prop 1 water/sewer funds
§ Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
§ Federal EDA / DOT / EPA funding
§ Federal ARPA, Invest Act, IIJ Act
Other Private Sources
§ Development Agreement / impact fees
§ Benefit assessments (e.g., contribution from
CFD)
§ Statewide Community Infrastructure Program
(SCIP) pooled financing
§ Private investment
• Ideal strategy includes City and County partnership
• District which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • Districts explicitly increase scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC) 249 of 462
Public Agency and Community Return on Investment
16 * Construction job-years, where one job-year is defined as one year of employment for one individual • Housing: 670+ units
• Economic revitalization, addressing critical infrastructure needs • Job creation, wages:
§ 2,098 temporary construction-related jobs* in City and County, ~$178M related new wage income § 90 permanent jobs in the City and County, related ~$5M in new annual wage income • Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues for taxing entities:
§ $2.8 million in present-value fiscal benefit for City general fund over 50 years, net of tax increment contribution to TIF district and net of estimated fiscal expenditures (50% City TIF allocation scenario) § $384,000 in present-value fiscal benefit for County general fund over 50 years, net of tax increment contribution to TIF district and net of estimated fiscal expenditures (33% County TIF allocation scenario) § $13.5 million in new County sales tax funding for transportation, library, parks, mental health, homelessness, fire protection, emergency response, child care and other non-General Fund services over 50 years • Attract other funding not otherwise available for projects within the community 250 of 462 17 Estimated Fiscal Impacts by Agency
Within City of Cotati
Note: Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure.

Source: Kosmont Companies (2026)
Annual
@ Year 10
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Cotati
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of 50% EIFD Allocation) $1,810,250 $146,591,500 $58,428,200 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $1,690,600 $139,854,100 $55,579,900 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $119,650 $6,737,400 $2,848,300 County of Sonoma
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of 33% EIFD Allocation) $709,700 $58,690,600 $23,324,700 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $697,800 $57,726,100 $22,941,200 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to County $11,900 $964,500 $383,500 Reference: Other County Sales Tax Revenues $411,400 $34,026,300 $13,522,500 251 of 462
18 Illustrative TIF District Formation Schedule
§ Tax increment allocation begins fiscal year following district formation § Debt issuance, if desired, would occur after a stabilized level of tax increment has been established (may be 3-5 years) Target Date Task
Dec 2025 – June 2026
a) Conduct outreach/discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors, other relevant stakeholders
b) Final determination of district boundaries, eligible projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board June / July 2026 c) Participating taxing agencies adopt Resolution(s) of Intention (ROI) and formally establish PFA August 2026 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) September 2026 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities, City Council, County Board of Supervisors October 2026 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners Oct / Nov 2026 g) City Council/legislative bodies of other affected taxing entity contributing increment adopt resolution(s) approving IFP November 2026 h) PFA holds first public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP (at least 30 days after “f”)
December 2026 i) PFA holds second public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the district by resolution (at least 30 days after “h”) 252 of 462
19 Potential Next Steps
• Address questions, receive feedback from City Council • City Council consideration of a non-binding Resolution of Intention • Consideration of Council appointments to the EIFD Public Financing Authority (two councilmembers, one alternate councilmember, member of the public to be appointed in the future) • Consideration by County Board of Supervisors of a Resolution of Intention to partner with City • Preparation of required Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), required public meetings, hearings, and noticing, with potential EIFD formation by end of 2026 / early 2027 253 of 462
20 THANK YOU
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Ph: (424) 297-1070 | Fax: (424) 286-4632
www.kosmont.com
254 of 462
Disclaimer
21 The high-level analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.

Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the Client and public agencies are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.

Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Financial Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB. 255 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: COTATI EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION (CEA) MEMORANDUM

OF UNDERSTANDING
Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amended memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the Cotati Employees Association (CEA) and authorizing the City Manager to sign the MOU.

Background
The Cotati Employees Association (CEA) is the labor bargaining group representing most the non-supervisory administrative and public works staff at the City of Cotati. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) is the labor agreement that defines many of the terms of employment, in addition to the City-wide Personnel Rules. The current CEA MOU expires on June 30, 2026.

Analysis/Discussion
The attached CEA MOU includes the following revisions:
• 5-year agreement.
• 2.5% per year cost of living allowance for years 1-3, 2% for years 4-5. • Re-opener on salary only at the end of year 3.
• Select job classifications (Senior Planner, Recreation Coordinator, Management Analyst, Senior Management Analyst) receive an equity increase split over the first 2 years of the MOU to bring them to the market median based on total compensation. • Standby time for public works field staff increased from $85/day to $150/day. Standby time only applicable to weekend coverage inclusive of extended weekends due to holidays. After hours on weekdays will remain on the call back list rotation. • Increase in the annual shoe reimbursement allowance from Public Works field staff and 256 of 462
the engineer from up to $250/year to $350/year.
• Removal of the belt in the uniform reimbursement allowance, now provided by the City with other elements of the Public Works field staff uniform. Laundering allowance of $5/pay period removed and shifted to a commitment by the City to add a washing machine at the Corp Yard.
• A potential 6-month pilot program at City Hall to expand open hours for the public through lunch time (noon to 1 pm)
• Ability for public works field staff to request an advance for the cost of a commercial drivers license, subject to repayment if they do not pass the exam. • Addition of bilingual pay (Spanish) of $150/month for proficient and $300/month for advanced. Access to this pay subject to City need and standardized testing.

The revisions also include general clean up language to ensure that the MOU is aligned with the latest statutory requirements. All changes are attached in redline/strikeout for ease of reference.

If approved, this will establish a long-term agreement with the CEA that is good for both the employees and the City. The agreement is in line with comparable agreements in the labor market. Longer term agreements provide the City with more certainty around personnel costs in future years.

Financial Considerations
In FY 26-27, the cost is estimated to not exceed $52.9k. The cumulative cost over the five-year term, including all direct and indirect costs, is estimated at $670,000, subject to unknowns such as future health care premiums and salary changes that may occur in year 3, subject to a compensation study and future MOU negotiations. Depending on personnel allocations, this cost is spread across different funds (General Fund, Enterprise Funds, etc.).

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.

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COTATI EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (CEA) FROM JULY 1, 2026- JUNE 30, 2031 WHEREAS, the Cotati Municipal Code and Personnel Rules empower the City Council to establish a compensation plan covering all classes of positions; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s representative has met and conferred in good faith with representatives of CEA, resulting in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) effective July 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the MOU attached to this resolution as Exhibit “A” is appropriate and reasonable for the designated group; and WHEREAS, the action of approving an MOU does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the MOU attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby superseded; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the MOU attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on June 23, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
258 of 462
259 of 462
260 of 462
261 of 462
262 of 462
263 of 462
264 of 462
265 of 462
266 of 462
267 of 462
268 of 462
269 of 462
270 of 462
271 of 462
272 of 462
273 of 462
274 of 462
275 of 462
276 of 462
277 of 462
278 of 462
279 of 462
280 of 462
281 of 462
282 of 462
283 of 462
284 of 462
285 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: JOINING COALITION TO SUPPORT TORT REFORM
Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City joining Cal Cities, CIRA and a coalition of California public agencies advocating for tort reform legislation aimed at reducing escalating public agency liability costs and preserving taxpayer resources for essential public services and infrastructure.

Background
Lawsuits and liability claims against California public entities are skyrocketing, resulting in a rapidly increasing redirection of public funds from services and infrastructure to paying insurance premiums and settlements. According to the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJAPA), payments for large claims over $1 million have nearly quadrupled since 2018-19 and are projected to triple again by 2026-27.

As a result of this unsustainable increase in costs and diversion of taxpayer funds, a coalition of public agencies is forming to petition the State Legislature to introduce legislation to fix this problem.

Analysis/Discussion
The City of Cotati (City), belongs to a self-insurance risk pool called the California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA). CIRA is a non-profit joint powers authority that represents over 60 cities and special districts in California. Recently, CIRA updated their strategic plan, with nearly all members prioritizing tort reform as the highest priority for CIRA to address. This was borne primarily out of a collective frustration with exponentially increasing insurance rates, which are a direct result of the current statutory framework in California that encourages expensive settlements to avoid litigation and face the potential of uncapped multi286 of 462 million dollar jury verdicts that public agencies must pay, even if found only 1% responsible.

This has resulted in an unsustainable re-direction of taxpayer funds away from services and infrastructure to fund settlements and plaintiffs' attorneys. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are conservatively estimated to now receive over $500 million annually in taxpayer funds in California.

In addition to CIRA, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) has also joined a coalition urging the State Legislature to pass tort reform legislation. Many associations and individual agencies have already signed on, with their logos appearing on the letterhead. The legislative process is moving quickly, so Cal Cities is encouraging interested cities to respond with an email confirming interest, as well as the city logo. The most up-to-date version of the coalition letter is attached.

Financial Considerations
As described in prior budget study sessions, the City has experienced a large increase in insurance premiums, primarily due to the aforementioned market dynamics. Over the past 10 years, the City’s $11M General Fund has experienced a dramatic increase in insurance costs from around $100k per year to now over $800,000 per year. This means that the City now has at least $700,000 less funding each year for services to the community or infrastructure, such as roads or parks. This same story is playing out in other communities across the state.

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 action 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.
287 of 462
288 of 462
pg 1
Date: June 5, 2026
To: Members, California State Legislature
Urgent Need for Comprehensive Tort Reform to Protect California Taxpayers, Survivors, and Essential Public Services
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we urge the Legislature to enact meaningful tort reform for civil actions against public entities. New data released by the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) confirms what our members have been warning lawmakers about for years: public-entity liability costs have tripled in the last seven years, now exceeding $7 billion in known exposure. Costs are on pace to grow another 70 percent by 2027–28. The fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, the structure of liability is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers, and the consequences are now measured in billions of dollars diverted away from classrooms, fire stations, roads, mental health services, and the essential programs Californians depend on every day.

Our organizations share a deep and unwavering commitment to ensuring that survivors of harm receive justice, support, and meaningful compensation. California’s public agencies are not asking for insulation from accountability. We do not seek to deny survivors their day in court. Instead, we seek to fix a system that, as currently structured, transfers enormous wealth to plaintiffs’ law firms and threatens the financial solvency of the very public agencies tasked with protecting and serving our vulnerable community members. The longer the Legislature waits, the more public services will be cut, the more agencies will face insolvency.

The Path Forward. We urge the Legislature to advance a comprehensive tort reform package for civil actions against public entities that, at minimum, includes the following:
• Defined benefits including caps on damages in civil actions against public entities, ensuring survivors and other injured parties are made whole while preserving the capacity to deliver essential public services.
• Proportional (several) liability for economic damages in civil actions against public entities, so that taxpayers pay only for the share of harm actually attributable to the public agency. This way the perpetrators bear the cost of their own conduct and not taxpayers.
• Heightened evidentiary and procedural standards for claims where witnesses, records, and evidence archives are absent or insufficient to assign culpability.

Why are Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Being Diverted from Essential Services? AB 218 (Gonzalez, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2019) related to childhood sexual assault is one stark driver, but it is not the only one. Across the spectrum of civil litigation against public entities — from premises liability to dangerous conditions — plaintiffs’ firms are increasingly targeting governmental defendants precisely because they are perceived as having the deepest pockets. The result is an unreasonable transfer of public resources to private wealth that the Legislature has both the power and the responsibility to address
289 of 462
pg 2
How Are Claims Against Public Entities Funded? Most cities, counties, special districts, and school districts in California do not purchase liability coverage from traditional commercial insurance carriers because it is either too expensive, does not provide sufficient coverage, or is simply not offered. Instead, they self-fund their liability coverage or they collectively pool risk through Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), which are not insurance companies with large capital reserves. Every selffunded claim, including those paid out of a JPA, comes from taxpayer-funded member contributions paid by cities, counties, schools, and other public agencies from the same general fund dollars that pay for police officers, firefighters, teachers, road crews, and homelessness response.

When a JPA pays out claims of magnitude, every member agency in that pool feels it through higher premiums, the potential need for special assessments, reduced coverage limits, and/or increasingly, the inability to obtain coverage at all. Public agencies that have never had a single AB 218 claim filed against them are facing double-digit premium increases. For schools, this means Proposition 98 education dollars intended to support today’s students are paying for decades-old liabilities. Even for cities and counties that have few claims filed against them it means delaying critical infrastructure maintenance and reducing local government’s ability to provide socialsafety-net services to the most vulnerable Californians.

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Are on Track to Profit Over Half a Billion Taxpayer Dollars Every Year. In civil actions against public entities, plaintiffs’ counsel commonly recover contingency fees of 40 percent or more of the gross judgment or settlement. Even using a conservative 30 percent contingency assumption, estimated plaintiff attorney fees in actions against California public entities have climbed to over $500 million annually. In many individual cases, attorney fees approach 50 percent of the taxpayer-funded settlement or award. That means that for every $10 million paid by a city, county, JPA, or school district, as much as $4 to $5 million is paid to a private law firm. It does not go to the survivor, nor does it go to mental health services, prevention or victim assistance, or back to the taxpayers who funded the payment. Plaintiffs’ firms are, in many cases, the single largest beneficiaries of the current system.

Caps on Damages Are Essential to Preserve Public Services and Solvency. Support for meaningful tort reform must include caps on damages in actions against public entities. Without such caps, the cascading effects of recent legislation will only worsen, and the very real threat of insolvency among California’s public agencies, already materializing in some regions, will only accelerate.

California already imposes reasonable limits in medical malpractice cases under MICRA, recognizing the public interest in such restrictions. The same principle should apply when taxpayer dollars are the source of the payment.

Public Entities Should Pay in Proportion to Their Actual Fault — Not for the Crimes of Others.

Under California’s current liability structure, a public entity found just one percent at fault can be ordered to pay the entirety of a plaintiff’s economic damages — even when the overwhelming majority of fault lies with a criminal actor who has no assets to satisfy a judgment.

The result is morally indefensible: perpetrators escape financial accountability for their conduct, while taxpayers — through their cities, counties, transit agencies, and school districts — are forced to pay for the harm that resulted. It allows perpetrators to walk away while public services are gutted to satisfy awards for conduct the public entity did not commit. The Legislature must restore proportional (several) liability for economic damages in actions against public entities, so that they are responsible only for the share of harm attributable to the public agency’s own conduct.

Survivors Deserve Their Day in Court, and Public Entities Deserve a Meaningful Opportunity to Defend. Restoring balance to AB 218 claims involving decades-old conduct does not require closing 290 of 462
pg 3
the courthouse door to survivors. Rather, it requires recognizing that, after decades have passed, the records and witnesses needed to fairly adjudicate a claim are often incomplete or simply gone.

For claims involving conduct that occurred decades ago, we urge the Legislature to restore balance by reinstating a prior-knowledge requirement, paired with a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Prior to AB 218, California law permitted survivors to bring claims against public entities outside the statute of limitations, when a plaintiff could show the entity "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct" by the perpetrator and failed to implement reasonable safeguards. That framework provided a meaningful path to justice for survivors with evidence of institutional culpability while also protecting taxpayers from liability for conduct the public entity had no realistic means to anticipate, prevent, or now defend against.

Our coalition stands ready to work with the Legislature, the Administration, and the survivor community to craft a balanced, durable solution so that necessary action can be taken now.

Detailed findings and supporting data are available in CAJPA’s recent report, Protecting Public Funds:

The Rising Cost of Claims Against California Public Entities. Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or to discuss specific legislative vehicles.

Sincerely,
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) City of Eastvale
City of Chico
City of Fairfield
City of Dunsmuir
City of Oroville
City of Vacaville
City of Placerville
City of Shasta Lake
City of Mt. Shasta
City of Marysville, Yuba County
City of Colton
City of Jurupa Valley
La Mesa Spring Valley Schools
City of Live Oak
City of La Mirada
City of Bellflower
Northern California Schools Insurance Group
ABC Unified School District
Wheatland Union High School District
Brett Harte Union High School District
Sebastopol Charter
Redwood Empire Schools Insurance Group (RESIG)
NorCal Cities Self-Insurance Fund
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
Sonoma Charter School
Santa Rosa City Schools
Huntington Beach City School District
California School Boards Association (CSBA)
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) 291 of 462
pg 4
Kern County Superintendent of Schools (KCSOS)
Sebastopol Independent Charter School
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA) California Intergovernmental Risk Authority (CIRA)
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA)
California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
California LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) The Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts (CARPD) Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF)
Butte Schools Self Funded Programs
Oroville Union High School District
Schools Insurance Authority (SIA)
Schools Insurance Group
Tuolumne JPA
292 of 462
Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: FINANCIAL POLICIES UPDATE
Date: June 23, 2026
Written by: Angela Courter, Director of Administrative Services Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the updated comprehensive City of Cotati Financial Principles and Policies.

Background
Financial policies are essential and central to a strategic, long-term approach to the fiscal management of the City by the elected officials and staff. Financial policies also create and define a shared understanding of how the City will develop its financial practices and manage its resources to provide the best value to the community and provide structure, boundaries and limits on the actions City staff may take. The Financial Principles and Policies provide critical guidelines for the following critical financial activities:
• Financial Reporting and Budgeting Policies
• Fiscal Resiliency Policies
• Revenues Control and Management Policies
• Expenditure and Purchasing Policies
• Credit Card Management Policies
• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policies
• Capital Assets Policies
• Grant Management Policy
• Investment Management Policies
• Debt Management Policies
• Unfunded Pension Liability Policies
Additionally on January 27, 2026 City Council reviewed the draft Cyber Security and Data Protection Policy. The presented policy has been incorporated within these financial policies and updated based on comments received during the meeting as well as additional information 293 of 462
received following the meeting.

Furthermore, on January 28, 2020, the City Council adopted the Discontinuation of Residential Water Service Policy which was intended to implement requirements set forth by SB 998 (Dodd): Urban and Community Water Systems. This policy is required to be translated into four additional languages beyond English and Spanish including Chinese (Mandarin), Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese plus any language spoken by at least 10 percent (10%) of people within the City. As this policy has not been updated, staff have reviewed the policy and identified items for clarification and consistency.

Analysis/Discussion
The policies are updated periodically but are designed with a long-term perspective and provide the basic framework and road map for addressing a wide variety of financial and economic conditions that the City will encounter, as well as support long-term planning and enhance the City’s effectiveness in implementing long-term strategies to deliver efficient services to the public.

The overall formatting of the document was updated to simplify language as well as implement a fully digitized document that permits direct translation to over 100 languages via google translate. Additionally, to clarify the policy and ensure consistency with updated accounting best practices or state law, the following sections are proposed for changes:

Expenditure and Purchasing Policy Purchasing Limits (page 29) • Update the City Employee limit to $2,000 from $1,000 as the cost of goods, services, and travel continues to increase.
• Updated Department Head limit to $8,000 from $5,000 as this the cost of goods and services continue to increase, and this amount has not been revised to date. • Purchase of Inventory, Materials. Supplies, Equipment, & Non-Professional Services (page 30)
• Reclassify Minor Purchases as purchases of less than $10,000, Other than Minor to Purchases as amounts between $10,000 and $50,000, and Significant Purchases as greater than $50,000. Costs of goods and materials have continued to increase, and additional formal quotes are not always available or are cost prohibitive to obtain.

Capital Asset Policies General Information (page 59)
Revised to add additional best practices from GFOA as follows:
• Establish minimum cost and useful-life based thresholds to avoid the cost of capitalizing immaterial items
• Performing the recommended periodic review of capitalization thresholds Grants Management Policy Pass-Through Grants (page 76)
• Move section under general information on page 72 to be more consistent with the purpose and steps of proceeding with a grant.
294 of 462
Investment
• Authorized and Suitable Investments and Summary of Maximum Percentage Limits, by Instrument.
• Update language on Time Deposits or Placement Service Deposits based on updated state law that extended the 50% maximum to January 1, 2031.
• Added two new investment options available under state law that were previously excluded, Medium-Term Corporate Notes and Municipal Bonds.

Cyber Security and Data Protection Policy (pages 118-124) • Fully incorporated into financial policies and procedures for the first year.

Discontinuation of Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy (Pages 125-133) • Overall update to language to make consistent and clear throughout to make policy and procedures clearer for utility customers going forward.

City Staff will continue to review City financial policies for updates on best practices.

Financial Considerations
There is no direct fiscal impact on the City resulting from the adoption of these policies. There maybe be additional staff time required in the development or updating of related procedures that support the policy. This year there was additional time required to move the policy document from a grouping of word documents to a single document that was available for translation within the website and for print using existing software used by the city for our budget and the capital project plans.

Environmental Issues
The action of adopting Financial Principles and Policies does not constitute a project as defined by California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.
295 of 462
RESOLUTION NO. (XX)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COTATI

ADOPTING UPDATED CONSOLIDATED CITY OF COTATI FINANCIAL

POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that sound financial policies are essential to maintaining the City's fiscal stability, accountability, transparency, and long-term financial sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the City's Financial Principles and Policies establish guidelines and best practices for financial reporting, budgeting, investments, debt management, purchasing, grants management, capital assets, fiscal resiliency, and other key financial activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed a draft Cyber Security and Data Protection Policy on January 27, 2026, and directed staff to incorporate the policy into the City's Financial Principles and Policies; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the Financial Principles and Policies and recommends updates to reflect current best practices, changes in state law, operational needs, and improved document accessibility and usability; and
WHEREAS, staff has also reviewed and updated the Discontinuation of Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy to improve clarity, consistency, and continued compliance with applicable requirements.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cotati rescinds resolution 2025-25 (prior year adoption of the financial policies) in its entirety, and hereby adopts the updated Financial Principles and Policies, including the Cyber Security and Data Protection Policy and revised Discontinuation of Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy.

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cotati held on June 23, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

Approved:___________________________
Mayor
Attest:______________________________
Kevin Patterson, City Clerk
296 of 462
Approved as to form:______________________________
City Attorney
297 of 462

298 of 462

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview 5
Guiding Financial Principles, Summary of Policies, Review & Approval 6 Financial Reporting & Budgeting Policies 7
Purpose of Fin. Reporting and Budgeting Policies 8
Description of Funds and Accounting Methods 9
Financial Reporting Policies 11
Budgetary Policies 13
Fiscal Resilience Policies 15
Policy, Objectives & Scope 16
Regular Evaluation 17
Steps to Address Shortfalls 19
Review and Approval - Fiscal Resilience Policies 22
Revenues Controls and Management Policies 23
Policy & Purpose 24
Revenues Management 25
Revenues Controls 26
Expenditure Planning and Purchasing Policies 27
Purpose, Scope & Definitions 28
Provisions / Procedures, and Purchasing Limits 29
Purchases Generally 30
Annual and Multi-Year Agreements 32
Exemptions for Bid Requirements 33
Federal Procurement Policy 34
Cooperative Purchasing, Local Vendor Preference, and Environmentally Preferable Purc 35 Public Project Contracts 36
Insurance and Bonds 37
Credit Card Management Policies 38
Purpose, Policy and Responsibilities 39
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policies 41
Purpose and Definitions 42
Strategies For Implementation 47
Recordkeeping Responsibilities 54
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Responsibilities 55 Implementation, Program Evaluation, and Exceptions 56
Effective Dates 57
Capital Assets Policies 58
General Information and Definitions 59
Capital Asset Overview 60
Useful Life Ranges and Budgetary Control 61
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures 62 Additional Capital Asset Issues 68
Grant Management Policy 70
Grant Management Overview and Purpose 71 299 of 462
Defining A Grant and General Information 72
Pre-Application Evaluation 73
Grant Cycle 74
Recordkeeping and Reporting 75
Pass-Through Grants 76
Roles and Responsibilities 77
Investment Management Policies 78
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms 79
Prudence 84
Objectives 85
Delegation of Authority and Ethics & Conflicts of Interest 86 Authorized Dealers and Institutions 87
Authorized and Suitable Investments 88
Review of Investment Portfolio 91
Investment Pools / Money Market Funds 92
Collateralization 93
Safekeeping and Custody, Diversification, and Maximum Maturities 94 Internal Controls 95
Performance Standards 96
Reporting 97
Investment Policy Adoption 98
Debt Management Policy 99
Policy Purpose 100
Purposes for Which Debt May Be Issued 101
Types of Debt 102
Relationship of Debt to Capital Improvement Program and Budget 103 Policy Goals Related to Planning Goals and Objectives 104 Internal Control Procedures 105
Unfunded Pension Liability Policies 106
Purpose and Policy Goals & Objectives 107
Background and Discussion 108
Funding Level Objective 110
Establishment and Operation of a Pension Rate Stabilization Fund. 113 Operation of the Pension Rate Stabilization Fund 115
Fiscal Hardship, Fiscal Transparency& Reporting, and Annual Budgeting 116 Review of Policy 117
Cybersecurity and Data Protection Policy 118
Purpose and Scope, Roles and Responsibilities 119
Acceptable Use of Technology, and Use of AI and Emerging Technologies 120 Data Protection and Security Requirements, and Public Records Compliance 121 Incident Response and Reporting 122
Training and Awareness, and Enforcement 123
Enforcement 124
Discontinuation of Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy 125 Purpose, Policy, and General Provision 126
Delinquent Accounts 127
Additional Notifications 129
Reconnection of Water Service 130
Returned Checks 131
300 of 462
Disputed Bills 132
Translation 133
301 of 462
Overview Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 5 1 302 of 462
Summary of Comments on ClearGov | Documents
Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:00 PM 303 of 462
Guiding Financial Principles, Summary of Policies, Review & Approval Table of Contents

Page 6 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
304 of 462
Page: 6
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:14 PM Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:20 PM Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:24 PM Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:28 PM Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:34 PM Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:39 PM Number: 7 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:43 PM Number: 8 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:48 PM Number: 9 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:51 PM Number: 10 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:56 PM Number: 11 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:39:59 PM Number: 12 Author: ACourter Subject: Underline Date: 6/17/2026 3:40:08 PM 305 of 462
Financial Reporting & Budgeting Policies Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 7 306 of 462
Purpose of Fin. Reporting and Budgeting Policies Table of Contents

Page 8 ends

307 of 462
Description of Funds and Accounting Methods Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 9 308 of 462
Description of Funds and Accounting Methods Table of Contents

Page 10 ends

309 of 462
Financial Reporting Policies Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 11 310 of 462
Financial Reporting Policies Table of Contents

Page 12 ends

311 of 462
Budgetary Policies Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 13 312 of 462
Budgetary Policies Table of Contents

Page 14 ends

313 of 462
Fiscal Resilience Policies Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 15 314 of 462
Policy, Objectives & Scope Table of Contents

Page 16 ends

315 of 462
Regular Evaluation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 17 316 of 462
Regular Evaluation Table of Contents

Page 18 ends

317 of 462
Steps to Address Shortfalls Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 19 318 of 462
Steps to Address Shortfalls Table of Contents

Page 20 ends

319 of 462
Steps to Address Shortfalls Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 21 320 of 462
Review and Approval - Fiscal Resilience Policies Table of Contents

Page 22 ends

Remove as included for all
policies in Outlook Section.
1 2
321 of 462
Page: 22
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 3:42:13 PM Remove as included for all policies in Outlook Section.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:41:39 PM 322 of 462
Revenues Controls and Management Policies Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 23 323 of 462
Policy & Purpose Table of Contents

Page 24 ends

324 of 462
Revenues Management Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 25 325 of 462
Revenues Controls Table of Contents

Page 26 ends

326 of 462
Expenditure Planning and Purchasing Policies Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 27 327 of 462
Purpose, Scope & Definitions Table of Contents

Page 28 ends

328 of 462
Provisions / Procedures, and Purchasing Limits Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 29 1 2
3 4
329 of 462
Page: 29
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:52:42 PM Credit Card Management Policies
Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:52:51 PM $2,000
Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:53:03 PM $8,000
Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:53:17 PM 330 of 462
Purchases Generally Table of Contents

Page 30 ends

1 2
3 4
56 7
331 of 462
Page: 30
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:56:31 PM ten thousand ($10,000)
Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:57:03 PM ten thousand ($10,000.01)
Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:57:22 PM fifty thousand ($50,000.00)
Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:57:40 PM fifty thousand ($50,000.01)
Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:57:55 PM Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Highlight Date: 6/17/2026 3:57:47 PM Number: 7 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 3:58:35 PM the City's IT services provider
332 of 462
Purchases Generally Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 31 333 of 462
Annual and Multi-Year Agreements Table of Contents

Page 32 ends

334 of 462
Exemptions for Bid Requirements Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 33 335 of 462
Federal Procurement Policy Table of Contents

Page 34 ends

336 of 462
Cooperative Purchasing, Local Vendor Preference, and Environmentally Preferable Table of Contents Purchasing
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 35 337 of 462
Public Project Contracts Table of Contents

Page 36 ends

338 of 462
Table of Contents Insurance and Bonds
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 37 339 of 462
Credit Card Management Policies Table of Contents

Page 38 ends

340 of 462
Purpose, Policy and Responsibilities Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 39 341 of 462
Purpose, Policy and Responsibilities Table of Contents

Page 40 ends

342 of 462
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policies Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 41 343 of 462
Purpose and Definitions Table of Contents

Page 42 ends

344 of 462
Purpose and Definitions Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 43 345 of 462
Purpose and Definitions Table of Contents

Page 44 ends

346 of 462
Purpose and Definitions Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 45 347 of 462
Purpose and Definitions Table of Contents

Page 46 ends

348 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 47 349 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents

Page 48 ends

350 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 49 351 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents

Page 50 ends

352 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 51 353 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents

Page 52 ends

354 of 462
Strategies For Implementation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 53 355 of 462
Recordkeeping Responsibilities Table of Contents

Page 54 ends

356 of 462
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Responsibilities Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 55 357 of 462
Table of Contents Implementation, Program Evaluation, and Exceptions

Page 56 ends

358 of 462
Effective Dates Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 57 Remove as included for all
policies in Outlook Section.
1 2
359 of 462
Page: 57
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 3:59:58 PM Remove as included for all policies in Outlook Section.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 3:59:30 PM 360 of 462
Capital Assets Policies Table of Contents

Page 58 ends

361 of 462
General Information and Definitions Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 59 1 2
362 of 462
Page: 59
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:01:51 PM $10,000
Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:01:23 PM Add the following additional criteria: - Establish minimum cost and useful-life based thresholds to avoid the cost of capitalizing immaterial items;
- Governments should perform a periodic review of their capitalization thresholds; 363 of 462
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati
Capital Asset Overview
1 364 of 462
Page: 60
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:05:52 PM below
365 of 462
Useful Life Ranges and Budgetary Control Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 61 366 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents

Page 62 ends

367 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 63 368 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents

Page 64 ends

369 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 65 370 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents

Page 66 ends

371 of 462
Definitions of Capital Asset Classes and Acquisition Procedures Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 67 372 of 462
Additional Capital Asset Issues Table of Contents

Page 68 ends

373 of 462
Additional Capital Asset Issues Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 69 374 of 462
Grant Management Policy Table of Contents

Page 70 ends

375 of 462
Grant Management Overview and Purpose Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 71 376 of 462
Defining A Grant and General Information Table of Contents

Page 72 ends

377 of 462
Pre-Application Evaluation Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 73 378 of 462
Grant Cycle Table of Contents

Page 74 ends

379 of 462
Recordkeeping and Reporting Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 75 380 of 462
Pass-Through Grants Table of Contents

Page 76 ends

To add claritypropose moving
this section to page
72 under General
Information.
1 2
381 of 462
Page: 76
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Rectangle Date: 6/17/2026 4:07:12 PM Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:08:24 PM To add clarity- propose moving this section to page 72 under General Information. 382 of 462
Roles and Responsibilities Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 77 383 of 462
Table of Contents Investment Management Policies

Page 78 ends

384 of 462
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 79 385 of 462
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms Table of Contents

Page 80 ends

386 of 462
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 81 387 of 462
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms Table of Contents

Page 82 ends

388 of 462
Policy, Scope, and Glossary of Terms Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 83 389 of 462
Prudence Table of Contents

Page 84 ends

390 of 462
Objectives Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 85 391 of 462
Delegation of Authority and Ethics & Confl Table of Contents icts of Interest

Page 86 ends

392 of 462
Authorized Dealers and Institutions Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 87 393 of 462
Authorized and Suitable Investments Table of Contents

Page 88 ends

394 of 462
Authorized and Suitable Investments Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 89 Add two additional investment types to be consistent with state law and expand availability of investments with same risk but potentially slightly higher returns at times.

Medium-Term Corporate Notes
.

The City may invest in medium-term corporate notes issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States, as authorized by California Government Code Section 53601(k).
.

Eligible securities shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO).

Investments in medium-term corporate notes shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the City's investment portfolio, and no more than five percent (5%) of the portfolio may be invested in the securities of any one issuer. The maximum remaining maturity of any medium-term corporate note shall not exceed five (5) years.
.

Municipal Bonds
.

The City may invest in bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a local agency within the State of California, including bonds payable solely out of revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by the local agency or by a department, board, agency, or authority of the local agency, as authorized by California Government Code Section 53601(a).
.

Eligible securities shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). Investments in municipal bonds shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the City's investment portfolio, and no more than five percent (5%) of the portfolio may be invested in securities issued by any one issuer, excluding obligations of the City. The maximum remaining maturity of any municipal bond investment shall not exceed five (5) years.
1 2
395 of 462
Page: 89
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:11:40 PM Add two additional investment types to be consistent with state law and expand availability of investments with same risk but potentially slightly higher returns at times.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:11:22 PM Medium-Term Corporate Notes
.

Eligible securities shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO).

Municipal Bonds
.

Eligible securities shall be rated in a rating category of "A" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO). Investments in municipal bonds shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the City's investment portfolio, and no more than five percent (5%) of the portfolio may be invested in securities issued by any one issuer, excluding obligations of the City. The maximum remaining maturity of any municipal bond investment shall not exceed five (5) years.
396 of 462
Authorized and Suitable Investments Table of Contents

Page 90 ends

Add new investments at page 89 to table. 1
397 of 462
Page: 90
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:12:14 PM Add new investments at page 89 to table.
398 of 462
Review of Investment Portfolio Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 91 399 of 462
Table of Contents Investment Pools / Money Market Funds

Page 92 ends

400 of 462
Collateralization Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 93 401 of 462
Safekeeping and Custody, Diversifi Table of Contents cation, and Maximum Maturities

Page 94 ends

402 of 462
Table of Contents Internal Controls
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 95 403 of 462
Performance Standards Table of Contents

Page 96 ends

404 of 462
Reporting Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 97 405 of 462
Table of Contents Investment Policy Adoption

Page 98 ends

Remove as included for all
policies in Outlook Section.
1 2
406 of 462
Page: 98
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:13:16 PM Remove as included for all policies in Outlook Section.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 4:12:53 PM 407 of 462
Debt Management Policy Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 99 408 of 462
Policy Purpose Table of Contents

Page 100 ends

409 of 462
Purposes for Which Debt May Be Issued Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 101 410 of 462
Table of Contents Types of Debt

Page 102 ends

411 of 462
Relationship of Debt to Capital Improvement Program and Budget Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 103 412 of 462
Policy Goals Related to Planning Goals and Objectives Table of Contents

Page 104 ends

413 of 462
Table of Contents Internal Control Procedures
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 105 414 of 462
Unfunded Pension Liability Policies Table of Contents

Page 106 ends

415 of 462
Purpose and Policy Goals & Objectives Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 107 416 of 462
Background and Discussion Table of Contents

Page 108 ends

417 of 462
Background and Discussion Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 109 418 of 462
Funding Level Objective Table of Contents

Page 110 ends

419 of 462
Funding Level Objective Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 111 420 of 462
Funding Level Objective Table of Contents

Page 112 ends

421 of 462
Establishment and Operation of a Pension Rate Stabilization Fund. Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 113 422 of 462
Establishment and Operation of a Pension Rate Stabilization Fund. Table of Contents

Page 114 ends

423 of 462
Operation of the Pension Rate Stabilization Fund Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 115 424 of 462
Fiscal Hardship, Fiscal Transparency& Reporting, and Annual Budgeting Table of Contents

Page 116 ends

425 of 462
Review of Policy Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 117 Remove as included for all
policies in Outlook Section.
1 2
426 of 462
Page: 117
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:14:09 PM Remove as included for all policies in Outlook Section.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 4:14:04 PM 427 of 462
Cybersecurity and Data Protection Policy Table of Contents

Page 118 ends

428 of 462
Purpose and Scope, Roles and Responsibilities Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 119 429 of 462
Acceptable Use of Technology, and Use of AI and Emerging Technologies Table of Contents

Page 120 ends

430 of 462
Data Protection and Security Requirements, and Public Records Compliance Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 121 431 of 462
Table of Contents Incident Response and Reporting

Page 122 ends

432 of 462
Table of Contents Training and Awareness, and Enforcement City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 123 433 of 462
Enforcement Table of Contents

Page 124 ends

434 of 462
Discontinuation of Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy Table of Contents City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 125 435 of 462
Purpose, Policy, and General Provision Table of Contents

Page 126 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
436 of 462
Page: 126
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:16:16 PM This policy describes the process when a City water utility bill is not paid on time (becomes delinquent).

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:16:47 PM outlines
Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:17:39 PM Discontinuation of water service for nonpayment is the final step in the collection process and will only occur after the account holder has been properly notified and all other reasonable options have been exhausted.

Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:18:25 PM A late fee will be assessed on any bill that remains unpaid after 30 days. Late fee amounts are listed in the Master Fee Schedule, available on the City's website at cotaticity.gov. This fee will not apply if the account holder of record has already been granted an extension or payment arrangement.

Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:18:56 PM The City will make a reasonable effort to contact the occupant at the service address to provide notice of a delinquent balance and pending disconnection, as described in this Policy.

Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:19:33 PM Account holders of record whose water service has been disconnected may contact the City by phone or in person to arrange reconnection.

Reconnection requires payment of all delinquent charges, administrative fees, and any other applicable charges. 437 of 462
Delinquent Accounts Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 127 1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 438 of 462
Page: 127
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:20:51 PM If a water utility bill is not paid by the close of business on the 30th day after it is issued, a late fee will be assessed as listed in the Master Fee Schedule.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:21:49 PM The past due notice will include a deadline by which the account holder of record must pay in full or set up a payment arrangement to avoid additional fees and possible disconnection.

Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:22:13 PM The City will waive one late fee per twelve (12) month period upon request from the account holder of record.

Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:22:32 PM account holder of record
Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:23:12 PM account holder
Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:24:53 PM account holder of record
Number: 7 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:25:12 PM account holder of record
Number: 8 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:26:14 PM Financial Hardship
439 of 462
Delinquent Accounts Table of Contents

Page 128 ends

Revise to add clarity.

Amortization Plans
An amortization plan is a written payment arrangement that allows an account holder with a delinquent utility balance to pay the outstanding amount over time while maintaining water service. Amortization plans are intended to provide customers with a reasonable opportunity to resolve past-due charges while remaining current on ongoing utility service charges.

1. Any payment arrangement that extends repayment of delinquent charges beyond the current billing period shall be considered an amortization plan. All amortization plans must be documented in writing and signed by the account holder of record.

2. The amortization plan shall establish a repayment schedule that amortizes the delinquent balance over a period requested by the account holder of record and approved by the City. The repayment period shall not exceed twelve (12) months from the effective date of the approved amortization plan.

3. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the amortized installment amount shall be included as a separate line item on the account holder's regular utility bill. Installment payments shall be due on the same date as the regular utility bill and shall be paid in addition to all current utility charges.

4. The account holder of record must remain current on all charges that accrue after the amortization plan is established and must make all required installment payments in accordance with the approved repayment schedule.

5. If the account holder of record is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner shall be required before an amortization plan may be approved. Additionally, the term of the amortization plan shall not extend beyond the expiration date of the applicable lease or rental agreement.

6. While an amortization plan is in effect, the account holder of record may not request an additional amortization plan for subsequently incurred delinquent charges.

Upon default, the City shall issue a written notice of disconnection to the service address no fewer than seven (7) business days prior to the discontinuation of water service. 1 2
3 440 of 462
Page: 128
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:28:43 PM Revise to add clarity.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:28:30 PM Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:38:04 PM Amortization Plans
An amortization plan is a written payment arrangement that allows an account holder with a delinquent utility balance to pay the outstanding amount over time while maintaining water service. Amortization plans are intended to provide customers with a reasonable opportunity to resolve past-due charges while remaining current on ongoing utility service charges.

6. While an amortization plan is in effect, the account holder of record may not request an additional amortization plan for subsequently incurred delinquent charges.

7. Failure to comply with the terms of an amortization plan, including failure to make installment payments or failure to remain current on ongoing utility charges, shall constitute a default under the plan. Upon default, the City shall issue a written notice of disconnection to the service address no fewer than seven (7) business days prior to the discontinuation of water service. 441 of 462
Additional Notifi Table of Contents cations
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 129 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
442 of 462
Page: 129
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:38:58 PM the account has been delinquent for at least sixty (60) days.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:39:33 PM If the mailing address differs from the service address, Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:40:21 PM Deadline to pay or set up payment arrangement to avoid disconnection.

Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:40:41 PM How to apply for an amortization plan.

Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:40:58 PM How to dispute or appeal a bill
Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:41:17 PM , email address,
Number: 7 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:42:12 PM account holder of record
Number: 8 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:41:45 PM will
443 of 462
Reconnection of Water Service Table of Contents

Page 130 ends

1 2
444 of 462
Page: 130
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:42:30 PM To reconnect water service that has been disconnected for nonpayment, the account holder of record must pay all delinquent charges and fees.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:43:49 PM closed Fridays,
445 of 462
‐
‐
Returned Checks Table of Contents
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 131 1 2
3 4
5 6
446 of 462
Page: 131
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:44:56 PM account holder of record's
Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:45:34 PM account holder of record
Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:45:55 PM If the account is less than 60 days delinquent at the time of the returned payment, the notice will state the amount owed and the deadline to pay to avoid additional fees.

Number: 4 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:46:13 PM If the account is more than 60 days delinquent at the time of the returned payment, an additional late fee will be assessed and a seven (7) day notice of possible disconnection will be issued to the account holder of record.

Number: 5 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:46:21 PM account holder of record
Number: 6 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:46:55 PM account holder of record
447 of 462
Disputed Bills Table of Contents

Page 132 ends

1 448 of 462
Page: 132
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:47:10 PM check
449 of 462
Table of Contents Translation
City Financial Principles & Policies | City of Cotati Page 133 Including policies in cleargov document allows for automatic translation to over 100 languages.

Will continue to retain printable versions in required
languages of this policy directly on the website.
1 2
3 450 of 462
Page: 133
Number: 1 Author: ACourter Subject: Text Box Date: 6/17/2026 4:50:07 PM Including policies in cleargov document allows for automatic translation to over 100 languages.

Will continue to retain printable versions in required languages of this policy directly on the website.

Number: 2 Author: ACourter Subject: Inserted Text Date: 6/17/2026 4:47:40 PM cotaticity.gov
Number: 3 Author: ACourter Subject: Cross-Out Date: 6/17/2026 4:47:47 PM 451 of 462
Financial Principles &
Policies Update
Including Cyber Security & Data Protection Policy
and Utility Billing Policy Updates
Angela Courter
Director of Administrative Services
June 23, 2026
452 of 462

PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL POLICIES
Why Do Financial Policies Matter?
• Establish financial governance framework
• Support long-term fiscal sustainability
• Promote accountability and transparency
• Guide staff decision-making
• Ensure consistency across City operations
453 of 462
Key Policy Area Updates
• Expenditure & Purchasing Policies
• Capital Asset Policies
• Grant Management Policy
• Investment Management Policies
• Cyber Security & Data Protection Policy
• Utility Billing / Water Service Policy
Overall continued improvements for consistency and readability. 454 of 462
Expenditure
& Purchasing
Updates
Employee authority: From $1,000 to $2,000
Department Head authority: From $5,000 to $8,000
Updated purchasing categories:
• Minor Purchases: Less than $10,000
• Other Purchases: $10,000–$50,000
• Significant Purchases: Greater than $50,000
455 of 462

CAPITAL ASSETS & GRANTS
Best Practices Updates
Capital Assets
• Added GFOA best practices
• Periodic review of
capitalization thresholds
• Focus on materiality and
useful life
Grant Management
• Reorganized pass-through
grant section
• Improved policy flow and
readability
456 of 462
Investment
Policy
Changes
• Updated Time Deposit Language
• Reflects updated State law
• Added Investments:
• Medium-Term Corporate Notes
• Municipal Bonds
457 of 462
Cyber Security & Data Protection Policy
• Incorporated into Financial Policies
• Establishes cybersecurity responsibilities
• Addresses data protection requirements
• Includes responsible use of AI technologies
• Supports ongoing risk management efforts
458 of 462
Water Service for Nonpayment Policy Updates
Originally adopted January 2020
Implements SB 998 requirements
Updated for:
• Clarity
• Consistency
• Customer understanding
• Supports digital translation capabilities
459 of 462
City
Benefits
• Aligns with current best practices
• Reflects operational realities
• Improves readability and accessibility
• Enhances cybersecurity governance
• Maintains compliance with state law
• Supports long-term fiscal sustainability
460 of 462
Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution:
• Approving updated Financial Principles & Policies
• Incorporating the Cyber Security & Data Protection Policy • Incorporating and revising the Discontinuation of
Residential Water Service for Nonpayment Policy
Questions?
461 of 462
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: June 23, 2026
Written by: Kevin Patterson, 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 2025-03: 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 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 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 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 2025-03 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.gov or by request from the City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected]. 462 of 462

Cotati City CouncilJune 23, 2026

Cotati City Council
June 23, 2026