2015 Fiscal Impact Study-Final — Cotati City Council, October 13, 2026

& Associates, Inc.

DAVID

TAUSSIG
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Urban Economics
Clean Energy Bonds
Newport Beach
San Francisco
San Jose
Riverside
Dallas

FISCAL IMPACT STUDY

COTATI, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 16, 2015

FISCAL IMPACT STUDY

COTATI, CALIFORNIA
Prepared By
David Taussig & Associates, Inc.
2250 Hyde Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... I SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING FISCAL REVENUES AND COSTS...........................3 SECTION 3. FISCAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................11

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Fiscal Impact Model
Appendix B: Downtown Specific Plan
Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. PURPOSE OF STUDY
The objective of this Fiscal Impact Study (the “Study”) is to analyze the fiscal impacts of new development on the City of Cotati (the “City”). In an effort to standardize the analysis, David Taussig & Associates (“DTA”) has evaluated the Downtown Specific Plan (the “Project”) as a sample development because it is reflective of the trends in, and vision for, the City. Additionally, DTA selected the Project as it has been fully reviewed and analyzed by City staff and City Council, thus its parameters and data are well verified and documented. As follows, the Study analyzes the recurring fiscal impacts of the Project’s development on the City General Fund.

II. TYPES OF FISCAL IMPACTS TO CITY OF COTATI EVALUATED IN THE STUDY The purpose of the fiscal analysis component of this Study is to estimate the net fiscal impacts of the Project’s proposed development on the City General Fund. The fiscal impacts identified in this Study include recurring municipal revenues and costs to the City General Fund that result from the land use scenario analyzed. City General Fund revenues are generated from a variety of revenue sources, including property taxes, sales taxes, fees, and fines. Costs to the City General Fund are associated with a variety of services, such as police protection, public works maintenance, and general government services.

III. DESCRIPTION OF DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
The sample development, in this case the Downtown Specific Plan, involves 59.5 acres that are generally bounded by Highway US 101, northern City limits, Arthur Street, and Page Street. The plan-boundary includes the areas commonly referred to as “downtown,” La Plaza Park, and Old Redwood Highway (see Appendix B). At build-out, the Project will be comprised of 331 apartment units and 237,050 square feet of commercial space that includes retail, office, and restaurant uses. The Downtown Specific Plan implements a variety of goals and policies in the Cotati General Plan by providing a renewed vision and standards for the continuing enhancement of the downtown area, some of which include: maintaining historic character while improving the walking and bicycling system; housing design that accommodates a diversity of income levels; and prioritizing sustainable development that is both energy efficient and resource conscious.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSIS RELATED TO PROJECT
Following are the major conclusions related to the fiscal impacts of the Project:

A. FISCAL IMPACTS
As reflected in Table A below, the Net Fiscal Impact on the City General Fund is estimated to be an annual deficit of $161,277, based on $821,590 in fiscal revenues and $660,313 in fiscal costs.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page II

TABLE A

To the extent that this fiscal deficit impacts the City’s ability to provide services at expected levels, another revenue source may need to be made available.

DTA recommends establishing a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) for public services that will generate an average of $600 per residential unit to cover the projected annual General Fund shortfall created by the Project’s residential component. This recommendation is made all the more relevant by the struggling markets for retail and office space in Cotati (as reflected by high vacancy rates) – this fact will likely encourage new development to prefer selecting residential development in lieu of nonresidential development in the coming years.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Fiscal Impact Study (the “Study”) is to analyze the fiscal impacts of new development on the City of Cotati (the “City”). In an effort to standardize the analysis, David Taussig & Associates (“DTA”) has evaluated the Downtown Specific Plan (the “Project”) as a sample development because it is reflective of the trends in, and vision for, the City. Additionally, DTA selected the Project as it has been fully reviewed and analyzed by City staff and City Council, thus its parameters and data are well verified and documented. As follows, the Study analyzes the recurring fiscal impacts of the Project’s development on the City General Fund.

I. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impacts arising from a land development plan can be broadly categorized as one of two types: one-time impacts or recurring impacts. Each of these broad types may, in turn, be divided into a revenue component and a cost component. For purposes of this Study, it has been assumed that one-time revenues would directly offset one-time costs; thus, the fiscal impacts considered in this Study focus on ongoing, or recurring, fiscal impacts of the Project on the City General Fund.

To the extent that revenues are generated outside of the City’s General Fund (e.g., special district revenues) or costs are incurred by the City outside of the General Fund (e.g., costs financed through a special district), they are not directly included within this fiscal analysis.

The fiscal impacts projected for the Study are based generally on the Multiplier Methodology. The primary Multiplier Methodology used to project the fiscal impacts in this Study was the Per Capita-Employee (“Persons Served”) Methodology. The Persons Served Methodology considers the fact that the exact relationship of service demands and revenue-generating potential between residents and employees is difficult to measure. Thus, utilizing a service population, or Persons Served population, comprised of all residents and 50% of employees is common fiscal practice, and suggests that a resident generally has twice the fiscal impact of an employee. This methodology involves calculating the average City-wide revenues/costs per Persons Served, utilizing the fiscal year (“FY”) 2014-2015 City budget, and applying these revenue/cost factors to the specific number of Persons Served projected for the Project.

DTA also used a Per Employee Methodology in the Study to project recurring fiscal factors based on employment only, such as business receipts and business license tax revenues. Similar to the Persons Served Methodology discussed above, the Per Employee Methodology involves calculating the average City-wide revenues/costs per employee, utilizing the FY 2014-2015 City budget, and applying these factors to the specific number of employees projected under the given scenario.

While most recurring revenues analyzed in the Study are projected using the Multiplier Methodology, some major revenue sources, including property taxes and sales taxes, are calculated using a Case Study Methodology that involves calculating the marginal revenues to be specifically generated by a particular land use, instead of applying an average City-wide revenue factor. For purposes of the Study, all recurring revenues and costs are stated in constant (un-inflated) 2015 Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 2
dollars, based on the assumption that the relative impacts of inflation in future years will be the same for both of these fiscal impact categories.

II. LIMITATIONS
A. ACCURACY OF INFORMATION
The fiscal model in the Study contains an analysis of revenues, costs, and impacts to the City resulting from the Project. This model is based on both (i) information provided to DTA by the City staff and (ii) certain DTA assumptions taken from DTA’s municipal cost database, as compiled by DTA from previous impact studies prepared by the firm. The sources of information and basis of the estimates calculated in the Study are stated herein. While DTA is confident that the sources of information are reliable, DTA does not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accuracy of such information. The analysis of fiscal impacts contained in this report is not considered to be a “financial forecast” or a “financial projection” as technically defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word “projection” used within this report relates to broad expectations of future events or market conditions. Since the analyses contained herein are based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DTA cannot represent that such estimates will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from these projections stated throughout the Study.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 3
SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS The following section presents the recurring revenue and cost impacts to the City General Fund and the methodology and assumptions utilized in the Study to project these impacts. Detailed numerical analyses of the revenue and cost impacts subsequently discussed in this section are contained in Appendix A.

I. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING REVENUES
CASE STUDY METHOD:

A. PROPERTY TAXES – SECURED AND UNSECURED
Property tax revenues are conservatively projected based on the City’s estimated share of the general 1% property tax levy. Total secured property tax revenues received by the City from the land uses will equal approximately 12.36% of the basic 1% property tax levy from the Tax Rate Areas (“TRAs”) encompassing the Project. Please note that the gross tax increment, as calculated by the Sonoma County (the “County”) Auditor-Controller, has been reduced to account for the projected Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) property tax shifts. Please refer to Table 2A below and Exhibit 4 of Appendix A for details regarding the secured and unsecured property tax assumptions utilized in the fiscal impact analysis.

Unsecured property taxes are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured by real estate.

Examples of unsecured property includes trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, and mobile homes on leased land. In generating the fiscal impact models for this Study, DTA has assumed that unsecured property values average 2.75% of the secured value for residential land uses, and 10.00% of the secured value for non-residential land uses.

B. PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
Per California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901, et seq. and the Cotati Municipal Code §3.08.020, sales of real property are taxed by the County at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of property value, whereas for property located in the City, the property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City receiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property sale or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. Per typical baseline assumptions, DTA assumes that residential development changes ownership at an average rate of 10% per year and that non-residential development changes ownership at an average rate of 5% per year, and that continuing liens and encumbrances are insignificant.

C. PROPERTY TAX IN-LIEU OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
The passage of Proposition 1A in California in 2004 enacted a constitutional amendment that introduced a new methodology to calculate property taxes in-lieu of VLF. Per California Revenue and Taxation Code §97.70, the property tax in-lieu of VLF amount now grows in proportion to the growth rate of gross assessed valuation in a city or county. Property taxes in-lieu of VLF revenues Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 4
are projected to grow with the change in the City-wide gross assessed valuation of taxable property from the prior fiscal year. Property tax in-lieu of VLF revenues constitute an addition to other property tax apportionments and were calculated for purposes of this Study at $0.67 per $1,000 increase in assessed valuation on a City-wide basis. Please refer to Table 2A below and Exhibit 4 of Appendix A for details regarding the property tax assumptions utilized in the fiscal impact analysis.

TABLE 2A – PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
Property Tax Assumptions
Property Tax
Valuation Per Unit
Secured Property Tax – Net Apportionment Factor to the City of Cotati as a Fraction of 1.0% Property Tax Rate (Net of ERAF) Unsecured Property Tax – Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured Property Value
$265,000

12.36%

2.75% - Residential

10.00% - Non-Residential
Property Transfer Tax
Residential Property Turnover Rate
Non-Residential Property Turnover Rate
Transfer Tax as a % of Price
Property Transfer Tax Passed Through to City

10.00%

5.00%

0.11%

50.00%
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF
City of Cotati – Total Assessed Value (FY 2013-14)
City of Cotati – VLF Prop. Tax In-Lieu Revenues (FY 2014-15) VLF Property Tax In-Lieu per $1,000 Assessed Value
$793,206,819
$531,233
$0.67
D. MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES
(I). BACKGROUND
Prior to June 1, 2004, the Motor Vehicle License Fee (“VLF”) tax rate was equal to 2.00% of the value of a vehicle, with 0.65% paid by the vehicle owner and an additional 1.35% supplemented with a backfill from the State General Fund. A large portion of those funds was allocated to cities (42.50%) and counties (42.50%) based on population, while newly-incorporated cities received an additional population subvention based on three (3) times the number of registered voters for the first seven (7) years after incorporation.

As discussed earlier, in 2004, the VLF allocation was altered. The California Legislature implemented the “VLF Swap” in which the VLF was lowered to 0.65%. The resultant loss of city revenue was swapped with an augmentation of property tax, termed property tax in-lieu of VLF.

These amounts grow annually based on the annual increase in assessed value within each respective jurisdiction (again, see above).

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 5
(II). SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING (“SLESF”) AND OTHER STATE

LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
As a part of the 2009 state budget agreement, a number of law enforcement grant programs previously funded by the state general fund were instead funded in FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 by a temporary 0.15% state VLF increase, which ended on June 30, 2011. The additional 0.15% VLF rate was intended to generate around $500 million annually – the tax generated $414 million in FY 2009-10 and $442 million in FY 2010-11.
(III). SENATE BILL (SB) 89 - FEES SHIFTED TO FUND STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
SB89, signed in 2010 by Governor Brown, effectively eliminated the 0.65% VLF revenue that was being allocated as a general fund revenue source to California cities. Provisions in SB89 shifted hundreds of millions of VLF revenues to fund the state law enforcement grants beginning FY 2011-12. The SB89 plan operated as follows:
 The “Vehicle License Registration Fee” was increased by $12 to produce approximately $300 million in FY 2011-12. This fee funded state DMV vehicle license registration operations, thereby “freeing up” $300 million of VLF revenue that had been used to fund DMV operations. This money was transferred to a new Local Law Enforcement Services Account (“LLESA)” to fund the law enforcement grants.  In addition, beginning July 1, 2011, SB89 transferred the remaining VLF revenue (after the Local Revenue Fund allocation for county health and welfare programs) previously allocated to cities and counties to the LLESA.

SB89 took $130 million of city general revenue and shifted it to save state law enforcement grant programs. Less than $100 million of these grant funds have or will come back to cities, earmarked for police services. But these funds will likely continue to be offset by the loss of city VLF.

Therefore, VLF (as opposed to property tax in-lieu of VLF) revenue was not analyzed as a Project revenue source in this Study.

E. SALES AND USE TAXES
Direct sales tax revenues are generated by retail sales from businesses within City limits, with

2.00% of taxable sales receipts passed through to the City due to Measure G, which was passed in June 2014. Exhibit 5 of Appendix A reflects taxable sales receipts per square foot for each onsite non-residential land use type, based on data from the Urban Land Institute’s Dollars & Cents of Shopping Projects publication and total taxable sales receipts for the Project, based on information provided by the City.

Indirect sales tax revenues, as also summarized in Exhibit 5 of Appendix A, are generated by the purchases made by the Project’s residents and employees within the City. Based on studies Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 6
outlined in the International Council of Shopping Centers’ Office Worker Local Retail Spending Patterns, DTA assumed that each on-site employee spends nearly $4,554 annually within the City.

TABLE 2B – SALES TAX ASSUMPTIONS
Sales Tax Assumptions
% Sales Tax Passed Through to City of Cotati [1] 2.00%
Local Employee Spending (Annual) $4,554
Capture Rate of Employee Spending (within City) 25%
Displacement Rate (of existing taxable sales within City) 20% Taxable Sales per Square Foot – Retail $175
Taxable Sales per Square Foot – Restaurant $250
[1] Includes Measure G charge of additional 1.00%, passed June 2014, effective October 1, 2014.

F. INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES
Investment Income revenues are generated by the increase in General Fund Revenues resulting from the Project. This increase reflects growth in the following revenue categories: property taxes, sales taxes, and multiplier revenues (as discussed below).

Revenues from this source are estimated by multiplying the Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment of $817,543 by the estimated Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) investment fund rate of return of approximately 1.0% by the LAIF Percentage of Earnings Cost factor of 50%. This calculation results in estimated Investment Income (less Earnings Cost) of $4,047 (which when added to $817,543 equals $821,590). LAIF factors are determined quarterly by the California State Treasurer whose office governs the investment of revenues by municipalities.

Please refer to Table 2C below and Exhibit 6 of Appendix A for details regarding the investment income assumptions utilized in the fiscal impact analysis.

TABLE 2C – INVESTMENT INCOME ASSUMPTIONS
Investment Income Assumptions
Investment Period for Recurring Non-Interest General Fund Revenues 12 Months Estimated Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Rate of Return 1.00% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Percentage of Earnings 50% Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment $817,543 Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 7
MULTIPLIER METHOD:

G. BUSINESS LICENSES
Business Licenses are based on the City’s collection of fees for various types of permits and community programs. Revenues are forecasted using a Per Employee Multiplier Method that results in a total multiplier of $23.90 per Employee.

H. FRANCHISE FEES
Franchise Taxes, including Cable TV, Electric, Gas, Garbage, etc., were forecasted at $37.52 per Persons Served using the Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method. Please note that this revenue multiplier has been reduced by 25% to account for only the portion of these revenues that is expected to be variable with population and employee growth in the City.

I. USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY (NON-INTEREST REVENUES)
Use of Money and Property Revenues, including Facility and Park Rentals, were forecasted at $8.67 per Persons Served using the Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method.

J. LICENSES, PERMITS, CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Licenses and Permits are based on the City’s collection of fees for various types of permits and community programs. Furthermore, charges for services include fees related to Plan Checks, Building Inspections, and similar City services and activities. Revenues were projected at $17.09 per Persons Served, based on the Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method. Please note that this revenue multiplier has likewise been reduced by 25% to account for only the portion of these revenues that is expected to be variable with population and employee growth in the City.

K. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Intergovernmental Revenues are forecasted using a Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method that results in a total multiplier of $3.49 per Persons Served. Please note that this revenue multiplier has been reduced by 50% to account for only the portion of these revenues that is expected to be variable with population and employee growth in the City.

L. MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES
Finally, Miscellaneous Revenues, including Weed Abatement, Damage to City Property, and Reimbursements, were projected at $4.94 per Persons Served utilizing the Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method. Please note that this revenue multiplier has also been reduced by 50% to account for only the portion of these revenues that is expected to be variable with population and employee growth in the City.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 8
TABLE 2D – OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUES (MULTIPLIER METHOD) Category Amount Methodology
Business Licenses $23.90 Per Employee
Franchises $37.52 Persons Served, plus 25% Discount
Use of Money and Property $8.67 Persons Served
Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $17.09 Persons Served, plus 25% Discount Intergovernmental Revenues $3.49 Persons Served, plus 50% Discount Miscellaneous Revenues $4.94 Persons Served, plus 50% Discount Please refer to Exhibit 7 of Appendix A for more details on the case study assumptions and revenue multipliers utilized in the Study.

II. ANALYSIS OF RECURRING COSTS
CASE STUDY METHOD:

A. INFRASTRUCTURE
The Project will require the construction of new infrastructure to be ultimately owned by the City and maintained by the City’s General Fund. At this time, it is estimated that these public infrastructure improvements will consist of 5.8 lane miles of roadway, six (6) signalized intersections, five (5) streetlights, 2.1 acres of parks, eight-hundred (800) parking spaces, and 2.2 acres of medians and parkways.

These improvements were multiplied by estimated annual cost figures for each category derived from the DTA Public Works Database, resulting in annual Infrastructure and Parks Maintenance costs of $161,215.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 9
TABLE 2E – INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS (CASE STUDY METHOD) Infrastructure to be
Maintained by City General Fund Cost Per Unit
Lane Miles of Roadway $7,834
Signalized Intersections $4,938
Streetlights $126
Acres of Parks $10,955
Acres of Medians & Parkways $14,953
Parking Spaces $12
B. PUBLIC SAFETY
Public safety services include those costs associated with Law Enforcement and Patrol, Administration, Traffic Enforcement, Crime Prevention, Emergency Response, and Community Services. Police Protection services will be provided to the Project by the City of Cotati’s Police Department.

Based on the City’s General Plan, the City’s target level of service is 2.30 sworn officers per 1,000 residents at an estimated annual cost of $150,000 per officer, including support staff. Thus, based on an expected residential population of 808, approximately two (2) additional officers would be required to service the Project’s residents. Therefore, including support staff, Police Protection costs for the Project as a whole are projected at $278,865 per year at buildout.

C. GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS
General Government costs are projected at a marginal rate of 17.88% of the City General Fund recurring costs, based on the assumption that the FY 2014-2015 General Government expenditures, equaling $1.6 million, will remain at the same relative proportion of the FY 2014- 2015 City General Fund non-governmental expenditures of approximately $4.4 million in future years. The current percentage of General Government expenditures to City General Fund nongovernmental expenditures is approximately 35.8%; however, these General Government costs are not expected to increase on a one-for-one basis as a result of the land use development depicted in this Study. Therefore, this Study assumes that General Government costs increase at an estimated marginal rate of 50%, or 17.88%, of the existing General Government cost overhead rate. This approach results in annual General Government costs of $100,178.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 10
MULTIPLIER METHOD:

D. ENGINEERING
Engineering costs relate to the issuance of permits for and inspection of construction and private development projects in the City and were forecasted at $22.91 per Persons Served using the Per Capita-Employee-Multiplier Method.

E. COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Community Development and Economic Development costs were forecasted at $63.12 per Persons Served based on the Per Capita-Employee Multiplier Method.

F. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES
Miscellaneous Expenditures were projected at $19.66 per Persons Served utilizing the Per CapitaEmployee Multiplier Method.

TABLE 2F – OTHER GENERAL FUND COSTS (MULTIPLIER METHOD) Category Amount Methodology
Engineering $22.91 Persons Served
Community/Economic Development $63.12 Persons Served
Miscellaneous $19.66 Persons Served
Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 11
SECTION 3 FISCAL IMPACTS
I. TOTAL RECURRING REVENUES: CITY OF COTATI
Total recurring revenues to the City equal approximately $821,590 per year. As illustrated in Table 3A below, the largest percentage of revenue is attributed to direct sales tax (55.4%), property tax revenues (secured and unsecured) (17.1% of total), and property tax in lieu of VLF revenues (8.9%), together constituting approximately 81.4% of total recurring revenues to the City General Fund. Exhibits 1-7 of Appendix A provide additional details about all recurring revenues and the assumptions used in their derivation.

TABLE 3A

RECURRING FISCAL REVENUES (CITY GENERAL FUND)
Category Amount Percent*
Direct Sales Tax $455,136 55.4%
Secured Property Tax $134,738 16.4%
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee $73,034 8.9% Indirect Sales Tax $46,493 5.7%
Franchises $42,619 5.2%
Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $19,413 2.4%
Business Licenses $15,660 1.9%
Use of Money $9,848 1.2%
Unsecured Property Tax $5,616 0.7%
Other/Miscellaneous Revenues $5,611 0.7%
Property Transfer Tax $5,411 0.7%
Investment Income $4,047 0.5%
Intergovernmental Revenues $3,964 0.5%
Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees $0 0.0%
Total Revenues $821,590 100.0%
*Numbers may not sum due to rounding
II. TOTAL RECURRING SERVICES COSTS: CITY OF COTATI
As illustrated in Table 3B below, total annual recurring costs to the City are estimated at $660,313 per year. A majority of the costs are estimated to result from Police Expenditures. Exhibits 2 and 8-11 of Appendix A provide additional details about all recurring costs and the assumptions used in their derivation.

Fiscal Impact Study January 16, 2015
City of Cotati Page 12
TABLE 3B

RECURRING FISCAL COSTS (CITY GENERAL FUND)
Category Amount Percent*
Police/Code Enforcement $278,865 42.2%
Infrastructure Maintenance $161,215 24.4%
General Government $100,178 15.2%
Community/Economic Development $71,699 10.9%
Public Works – Engineering $26,024 3.9%
Other/Miscellaneous $22,332 3.4%
Total Costs $660,313 100.00%
*Numbers may not sum due to rounding
III. OVERALL NET FISCAL IMPACT TO THE CITY OF COTATI
As shown in Table 3C below, the overall fiscal impact to the City as a result of revenues generated by the Project is a recurring annual fiscal surplus of $161,277 based on the generation of $821,590 in recurring annual revenues and $660,313 in recurring annual costs. Annual revenues are projected to equal 1.24 times the associated City General Fund costs. A summary of the overall fiscal impacts to the City is provided in Exhibit 12 of Appendix A.

TABLE 3C

NET FISCAL IMPACT (CITY GENERAL FUND)
Category Amount
Total Recurring Revenues $821,590
Total Recurring Costs ($660,313)
Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) $161,277
Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) per Residential Unit ($616.60) Annual Recurring Surplus/(Deficit) per Non-Residential Sq. Ft. $1.54 It is important to note that the residential component of the Project will ultimately result in an increased demand for public services to the City that will only be partially offset by additional Project fiscal revenues generated by that residential component. To the extent that this fiscal deficit impacts the City’s ability to provide services at expected levels, another revenue source may need to be made available. DTA recommends establishing a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) for public services that will generate an average of $600 per residential unit to cover the projected annual General Fund shortfall created by the Project’s residential component. This recommendation is made all the more relevant by the struggling markets for retail and office space in Cotati (as reflected by high vacancy rates) – this fact will likely encourage new development to prefer selecting purely residential development in the coming years. http://localhost:9010/resources/Clients/Cotati/FIR (2014)/Fiscal Impact Study v. 5.docx

APPENDIX A

FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
EXHIBIT A-1

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

CITY GENERAL FUND REVENUES (BY TYPE)
I. Demographics and Other Data
2014 Estimated City Population [1] 7,288
2014 Estimated Employees in City [2] 3,431
2014 Persons Served Population [3] 9,004
Notes:
[1] California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2014. [2] Employment Development Department, City of Cotati employment estimate (4th quarter 2013). [4] Certain revenues are not expected to increase one-to-one with the new development. A discount was applied to reflect the estimated ratio of fixed revenues to variable revenues and/or one-time to recurring revenues.

II. City Revenue Sources (by Type)
Revenue Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact
Revenue Type Total Revenues Type Basis Discount [4] Revenue Factor Tax Revenue $4,343,074 Persons Served $0.00
Property Tax $786,927 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Sales Tax $1,832,538 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Property Transfer Tax $25,300 Recurring Case Study 0% NA Measure A and Use Tax $1,698,309 Recurring Case Study 0% NA Business Licenses $82,000 Recurring Per Employee 0% $23.90 Franchise Fees $450,400 Recurring Persons Served 25% $37.52 Interest Income $10,000 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Use of Money and Property $78,100 Recurring Persons Served 0% $8.67 Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $205,200 Recurring Persons Served 25% $17.09 VLF/Property Tax Compensation $531,233 Recurring Case Study 0% NA Intergovernmental $62,900 Recurring Persons Served 50% $3.49 Net Transfers In $0 Non-Recurring NA 0% NA
Other / Miscellaneous $89,000 Recurring Persons Served 50% $4.94 Total Recurring Revenues $5,851,907
[3] Assumes City population plus 50% of employees.

EXHIBIT A-2

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

CITY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (BY TYPE)
I. Demographics and Other Data
2014 Estimated City Population [1] 7,288
2014 Estimated Employees in City [2] 3,431
2014 Persons Served Population [3] 9,004
Notes:
[1] California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2014. [2] Employment Development Department, City of Cotati employment estimate (4th quarter 2013). [3] Assumes City population plus 50% of employees.
[4] Certain revenues are not expected to increase one-to-one with the new development. A discount was applied to reflect the estimated ratio of fixed revenues to variable revenues and/or one-time to recurring revenues.

II. City Expenditures (by Type)
Fiscal Impact
Expenditure Type Total Expenditures Revenue Type Fiscal Impact Basis Discount [4] Revenue Factor

GENERAL GOVERNMENT
City Council $71,650 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
City Manager $360,700 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Administration $240,400 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Legal $195,000 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Non-Departmental $645,550 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Public Info Services $51,000 Recurring Case Study 0% NA

NON-GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Police Department $2,820,300 Recurring Case Study 0% NA Engineering $206,250 Recurring Persons Served 0% $22.91 Community/Economic Development $568,325 Recurring Persons Served 0% $63.12 Street Maintenance $380,900 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Park Maintenance $220,550 Recurring Case Study 0% NA
Other Maintenance/Miscellaneous $177,000 Recurring Persons Served 0% $19.66 Total Recurring Expenditures $5,937,625
EXHIBIT A-3

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY

FUTURE LAND USE DATA
I. Developable Land Use Description
A. Residential Land Uses Number of Units [1]
Single Family Detached 0
Apartments/Condos 331
Townhomes 0
B. Commercial Land Uses Sq. Ft. [1]
Retail 94,820
Office 94,820
Restaurant 47,410

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
II. Demographics
A. Residential Land Use Population Persons per Household [2] Persons per Household 2.44
B. Non-Residential Land Use Employee Generation
Commercial Land Uses Sq. Ft. per Employee [3]
Retail 400
Office 325
Restaurant 375

POPULATION AND EMPLOYEES (CALCULATIONS)
III. Residential Land Use Type Number of Units Residential Population Single Family Detached 0 0
Apartments/Condos 331 808
Townhomes 0 0
IV. Non-Residential Land Use Type Sq. Ft. Total Direct Employees Retail 94,820 237
Office 94,820 292
Restaurant 47,410 126

POPULATION AND EMPLOYEES (TOTALS)
V. Total Projected Residential Population 808
VI. Total Projected Direct Employees 655
VII. Total Persons Served Population 1,136
NOTES:
[1] Source: City of Cotati.
[2] California Department of Finance, Housing and Population Information, January 1, 2014. [3] Source: DTA Public Works Database.
* All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-4

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS

GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
I. Property Tax Allocation (as a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy) Category / Code General Fund [1]
City of Cotati [2] 0.12355680

12.36%
II. Homeowner's Exemption
Homeowner's Exemption (Annually) $7,000
Percent of Sale Units Taking Homeowner's Exemption [3] 90%

ASSESSED VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS
III. Assessed Valuation - Projected Land Uses
Residential Land Uses
A. Single-Family Detached Units
Number of Units [4] 0
Estimated Sales Price per Unit [5] NA
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value (Includes Estimated Takedown from Homeowner's Exemptions) $0 B. Apartments/Condos
Number of Units [4] 331
Estimated Sales Price per Unit [5] $265,000
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $87,715,000
C. Townhomes
Number of Units [4] 0
Estimated Sales Price per Unit [5] NA
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $0
Non-Residential Land Uses
D. Retail
Estimated Number of Sq. Ft. [4] 94,820
Estimated Valuation per Sq. Ft. [5] $90
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $8,533,800
E. Office
Estimated Number of Sq. Ft. [4] 94,820
Estimated Valuation per Sq. Ft. [5] $90
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $8,533,800
F. Restaurant
Estimated Number of Sq. Ft. [4] 47,410
Estimated Valuation per Sq. Ft. [5] $90
Total Estimated Net Taxable Value $4,266,900
G. Total Land Use Net Taxable Value (Includes Takeout from Homeowner's Exemption) $109,049,500 Residential $87,715,000
Non-Residential $21,334,500
EXHIBIT A-4

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS

OTHER PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
IV. Unsecured Property Taxes - Assumptions [6]
Residential
Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured 2.75%
Non-Residential
Unsecured Taxes as a % of Secured 10.00%
V. Property Tax Transfer - Assumptions [7]
Residential Property Turnover Rate 10.00%
Non-Residential Property Turnover Rate 5.00%
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value 0.11%
Property Transfer Tax Passed Through to City of Cotati 50.00% VI. Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees - Assumptions
Vehicle Licensing Fees per Capita NA
VII. Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee - Assumptions Total City of Cotati Gross Assessed Value [8] $793,206,819 City of Cotati Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [9] $531,233 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Increase per $1,000 Assessed Value $0.67 Fiscal Impact Calculation
VIII. Fiscal Impact Category Fiscal Impact Amount
A. Secured Property Tax
Residential Land Uses
Single-Family Detached $0
Apartments/Condos $108,378
Townhomes $0
Non-Residential Land Uses
Commercial Land Uses
Retail & Restaurant $15,816
Office $10,544
B. Unsecured Property Tax
Residential Land Uses
Single-Family Detached $0
Apartments/Condos $2,980
Townhomes $0
Non-Residential Land Uses
Commercial Land Uses
Retail & Restaurant $1,582
Office $1,054
EXHIBIT A-4

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
C. Property Transfer Tax
Residential Land Uses
Single-Family Detached $0
Apartments/Condos $4,824
Townhomes $0
Non-Residential Land Uses
Commercial Land Uses
Retail & Restaurant $352
Office $235
D. Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees [10] $0
E. Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee [11]
Projected Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses $73,034 Residential $58,745
Non-Residential (Retail, Office, and Restaurant) $14,288 Total Property Tax Revenues $218,799
Residential $174,927
Non-Residential $43,871
NOTES:
[1] Based on "General Fund" levy for Tax Rate Area (TRA). Data provided by the County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office.

TRA allocations adjusted for ERAF. Note, figure does not include non-General Funds. [2] Post ERAF rates based on the weighted average of the rates applicable to the TRAs in the Project. [3] Estimate, subject to change.
[4] Please see Exhibit A-3. Subject to change.
[5] Estimated prices based on examination of current for-sale listings for newly constructed dwelling units in the City of Cotati. [6] Based on typical DTA baseline assumptions.
[7] Source: California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901, et seq.; Cotati Municipal Code §3.08.020. [8] Source: California Local Government Finance Almanac; Fiscal Year 2013-14, City of Cotati total assessed value. [9] Source: City of Cotati Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014-2015. [10] City of Cotati no longer receiving motor vehicle licensing fees. [11] Property Tax in-lieu of Vehicle Licensing Fees applies to incremental property value. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-5

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS

INDIRECT SALES TAX ASSUMPTIONS
I. Residential Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions
A. Mortgage Assumptions
Projected Residential Units
Single-Family Residential and Multi-family
Projected Sales Price per Unit $265,000
Average Mortgage (20% Down Payment) [1] $212,000
Annual Mortgage Payment (8% for 30 Years) [2] $18,667
Additional Annual Taxes & Insurance (2.00%) $5,300
B. Disposable Income Assumptions
Projected Residential Units
Single-Family Residential and Multi-family
Average Household Income (3:1 Income to Household Payment Ratio) [1] $71,900.91 Retail Taxable Expenditures (as a % of Disposable Income) [3] 26.53% C. Other Indirect Sales Tax Assumptions
Employees (annual spending per employee) [4] $4,554
Retail Taxable Sales Capture
City of Cotati Retail Taxable Purchase Capture [5] 25%
Other Sales Tax Assumptions
% to the City of Cotati [6] 2.00%

DIRECT SALES TAX ASSUMPTIONS
II. Non-Residential Direct Sales Tax Assumptions
A. Taxable Sales per Sq. Ft. [7]
Non-Residential
Retail $175
Office $0
Restaurant $250
B. Displaced Taxable Sales
Displaced Existing Taxable Sales within the City of Cotati [8] 20%

FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION
III. Fiscal Impact Category Fiscal Impact Amount
A. Indirect Sales Tax
Projected Residential Land Uses
Single-Family Residential and Multi-family $31,573
Employee Taxable Sales $14,920
B. Direct Sales Tax [7]
Projected Non-Residential Land Uses
Commercial Land Uses
Retail $265,496
Office $0
Restaurant $189,640
Total Sales Tax Revenues $501,629
Residential $31,573
Non-Residential $470,056
NOTES:
[1] DTA estimates. Subject to change.
[2] DTA estimate. Annual payment includes principal, interest, property taxes, and homeowner's insurance. [3] Source: BOE 2008 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
[4] Source: "Office Worker Retail Spending Patterns: A Downtown and Suburban Area Study," ICSC (2004). Adjusted for inflation assuming 3% annual inflation rate. [5] Estimate, subject to change.
[6] Source: Cotati Municipal Code §3.05.050. Includes Measure G charge of additional 1.00%, passed June 2014, effective October 1, 2014. [7] Based on the median sales per sq. ft. figure for retail centers as outlined in "Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers" (2008) published by the Urban Land Institute. [8] Estimate, subject to change.
* All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-6

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

INVESTMENT INCOME REVENUES ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTIONS
I. Investment Income Assumptions
Investment Period for Recurring Non-Interest General Fund Revenues 12 Months Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Rate of Return [1] 1.0% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Percentage of Earnings Cost [2] 50.00%

FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION
II. Fiscal Impact Category
Residential
Fiscal Impact
Non-Residential
Fiscal Impact (Employees) Fiscal Impact Amount
Total Property Tax Revenues (Exhibit 4) $174,927 $43,871 $218,799 Total Sales Tax Revenues (Exhibit 5) $31,573 $470,056 $501,629 Total Multiplier Revenues (Exhibit 7) $57,963 $39,152 $97,115 Projected Recurring General Fund Revenues Available for Investment $264,463 $553,079 $817,543 Plus: Investment Income (Less Earnings Cost) $1,309 $2,738 $4,047 Total Recurring General Fund Revenues $265,772 $555,817 $821,590 NOTES:
[1] Estimate, subject to change.
[2] Assumed Administrative Earnings Costs. Subject to change. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-7

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

MULTIPLIER REVENUE SOURCES ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTIONS
I. Multiplier Revenues
Revenue Category Multiplier Factor [1] Revenue Projection Basis Business Licenses $23.90 Per Employee
Franchise Fees $37.52 Persons Served
Use of Money and Property $8.67 Persons Served
Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $17.09 Persons Served Intergovernmental $3.49 Persons Served
Other / Miscellaneous $4.94 Persons Served

FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION
II. Fiscal Impact Category
Residential
Fiscal Impact
Non-Residential
Fiscal Impact (Employees) Fiscal Impact Amount
Business Licenses $0 $15,660 $15,660
Franchise Fees $30,327 $12,292 $42,619
Use of Money and Property $7,008 $2,840 $9,848
Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $13,814 $5,599 $19,413 Intergovernmental $2,821 $1,143 $3,964
Other / Miscellaneous $3,993 $1,618 $5,611
Total Multiplier Revenues $57,963 $39,152 $97,115
NOTES:
[1] Based on City of Cotati Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014-2015. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-8

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

MULTIPLIER EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTIONS
I. Multiplier Expenditures
Expenditure Category Multiplier Factor [1] Expenditure Projection Basis Police Department NA Case Study
Engineering $22.91 Persons Served
Community/Economic Development $63.12 Persons Served
Other Maintenance/Miscellaneous $19.66 Persons Served

FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION
II. Fiscal Impact Category
Residential
Fiscal Impact
Non-Residential
Fiscal Impact (Employees) Fiscal Impact Amount
Police Department $0 $0 $0
Engineering $18,518 $7,506 $26,024
Community/Economic Development $51,020 $20,679 $71,699
Other Maintenance/Miscellaneous $15,891 $6,441 $22,332
Total Multiplier Expenditures $85,429 $34,626 $120,055
NOTES:
[1] Based on City of Cotati Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014-2015. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-9

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC SAFETY CASE STUDY EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS

POLICE PROTECTION COSTS
I. Assumptions
Cost per Sworn Officer
Cost per Sworn Police Officer [1] $150,000
Officers per 1,000 Residents Target [2] 2.30
Police Force
Land Use Type Residential Population Officers per 1,000 Residents Additional City Officers Single Family Detached 0 2.30 0.000
Apartments/Condos 808 2.30 1.859
Townhomes 0 2.30 0.000
TOTAL 808 N/A 1.859
II. Percentage Attributed to City Land Uses
% of Persons Total Project Police Costs Total Costs
Demographic Type Served Population (Additional Officers x Cost per Officer) Attributed to Land Use Residential 71% $278,864 $198,435
Non-Residential (Employees) 29% $278,864 $80,430
TOTAL 100% N/A $278,865
Total Police Protection Costs $278,865
Notes:
[1] Based on City of Cotati Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014-2015. [2] Proposed level of service target based on City General Plan Update (September 2011), page 5-3. *All figures subject to rounding*
EXHIBIT A-10

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

CASE STUDY EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS
Infrastructure & Parks Maintenance Costs
I. Estimated Additional Infrastructure Requirements [1] Fiscal Impact Amount Estimated Lane Miles of Roadway 5.8
Estimated Number of Signalized Intersections 6
Estimated Number of Streetlights 163
Estimated Acres of Parks 2.1
Estimated Acres of Medians & Parkways 2.2
Estimated Acres of Open Space/Slopes 0.0
Estimated Acres of Basin 0.0
Estimated Mileage of Storm Drains 0.0
Estimated Parking Spaces 800
Estimated Mileage of Sidewalks/Trails 0.0
II. Estimated Annual Costs [2]
Roadway Maintenance Costs per Lane Mile $7,834
Traffic Signal Maintenance per Intersection $4,938
Street Light Maintenance per Light $126
Park Maintenance Costs per Acre $10,955
Median and Parkway Maintenance Cost per Acre $14,953
Open Space/Slope Maintenance per Acre $517
Basin/Lake Maintenance per Acre $5,164
Storm Drain Maintenance Per Mile $1,177
Parking Space Sweeping per Space $12
Sidewalk/Trail Mileage per Lineal Mile $3,497
Residential Non-Residential
Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact (Employees)
71% 29%
III. Estimated Annual Infrastructure Maintenance
Roadways $32,250 $13,071 $45,321
Signalized Intersections $21,083 $8,545 $29,628
Street Lights $14,562 $5,902 $20,465
Parks $16,348 $6,626 $22,974
Medians/Parkways $23,644 $9,583 $33,227
Open Space $0 $0 $0
Basin $0 $0 $0
Storm Drains $0 $0 $0
Parking Spaces $6,831 $2,769 $9,600
Sidewalks/Trails $0 $0 $0
Total Infrastructure & Parks Maintenance Costs $114,718 $46,497 $161,215 NOTES:
[1] Source: City of Cotati. Subject to change.
[2] Based on data obtained from the DTA Public Works database, in concert with research from the Engineering News-Record. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-11

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTIONS
Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures (excluding General Government Overhead) [1] $4,373,325 Recurring General Government Overhead Expenditures (as a % of Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures) [2] 35.8% Marginal Increase in General Government Costs 50%

FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION
I. Fiscal Impact Category
Residential
Fiscal Impact
Non-Residential
Fiscal Impact (Employees) Fiscal Impact Amount
Total Multiplier Expenditures (Exhibit 8) $85,429 $34,626 $120,055 Total Police Expenditures (Exhibit 9) $198,435 $80,430 $278,865 Total Infrastructure Expenditures (Exhibit 10) $114,718 $46,497 $161,215 Projected Recurring General Fund Expenditures $398,582 $161,553 $560,135 Plus: General Government Costs $71,285 $28,893 $100,178 Total Recurring Expenditures $469,867 $190,446 $660,313 NOTES:
[1] Based on City of Cotati Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2014-2015. [2] General Government Overhead Expenditures defined as costs for City Council, City Manager, Legal, etc. * All figures subject to rounding
EXHIBIT A-12

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

NET FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY
RECURRING GENERAL FUND REVENUES [1] AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL Secured Property Tax $134,738 16.4%
Residential $108,378 13.2%
Non-Residential $26,360 3.2%
Unsecured Property Tax $5,616 0.7%
Residential $2,980 0.4%
Non-Residential $2,636 0.3%
Property Transfer Tax $5,411 0.7%
Residential $4,824 0.6%
Non-Residential $587 0.1%
Motor Vehicle Licensing Fees $0 0.0%
Residential $0 0.0%
Non-Residential $0 0.0%
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee $73,034 8.9% Residential $58,745 7.2%
Non-Residential $14,288 1.7%
Direct Sales Tax $455,136 55.4%
Residential $0 0.0%
Non-Residential $455,136 55.4%
Indirect Sales Tax $46,493 5.7%
Residential $31,573 3.8%
Non-Residential $14,920 1.8%
Business Licenses $15,660 1.9%
Residential $0 0.0%
Non-Residential $15,660 1.9%
Franchise Fees $42,619 5.2%
Residential $30,327 3.7%
Non-Residential $12,292 1.5%
Use of Money and Property $9,848 1.2%
Residential $7,008 0.9%
Non-Residential $2,840 0.3%
Licenses, Permits, Charges for Services $19,413 2.4%
Residential $13,814 1.7%
Non-Residential $5,599 0.7%
Intergovernmental $3,964 0.5%
Residential $2,821 0.3%
Non-Residential $1,143 0.1%
Other / Miscellaneous $5,611 0.7%
Residential $3,993 0.5%
Non-Residential $1,618 0.2%
Investment Income $4,047 0.5%
Residential $1,309 0.2%
Non-Residential $2,738 0.3%
Total Recurring General Fund Revenues $821,590 100%
Residential $265,772 32%
Non-Residential $555,817 68%
EXHIBIT A-12

COTATI, CALIFORNIA

NET FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY
RECURRING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES [2] AMOUNT PERCENT OF TOTAL Police Department $278,865 42.2%
Residential $198,435 30.1%
Non-Residential $80,430 12.2%
Engineering $26,024 3.9%
Residential $18,518 2.8%
Non-Residential $7,506 1.1%
Community/Economic Development $71,699 10.9%
Residential $51,020 7.7%
Non-Residential $20,679 3.1%
Other Maintenance/Miscellaneous $22,332 3.4%
Residential $15,891 2.4%
Non-Residential $6,441 1.0%
General Government $100,178 15.2%
Residential $71,285 10.8%
Non-Residential $28,893 4.4%
Infrastructure & Parks Maintenance Costs $161,215 24.4% Residential $114,718 17.4%
Non-Residential $46,497 7.0%
Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures $660,313 100% Residential $469,867 71%
Non-Residential $190,446 29%

NET FISCAL IMPACT
Total Annual Recurring General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $161,277 Residential ($204,095)
Non-Residential $365,371
Total Annual Revenue/Expenditure Ratio 1.24
Residential 0.57
Non-Residential 2.92
Total Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)
Residential (per Unit) ($616.60)
Non-Residential (per Sq. Ft.) $1.54
NOTES:
[1] Please see Exhibits 4-7 for the derivation of these calculations. [2] Please see Exhibits 8-11 for the derivation of these calculations. * All figures subject to rounding

APPENDIX B

DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN

Cotati City CouncilOctober 13, 2026

Cotati City Council
October 13, 2026