Prepared by:
Kosmont Companies
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District
Feasibility Analysis Summary
Special City Council Meeting Presentation
January 26, 2026
Background and Summary
2 • The City of San Pablo is evaluating the use of a special purpose financing district such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development across the City to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities • Tax increment financing (TIF) capacity is estimated to range of up to $117M over time • In addition to the TIF funding capacity, the district would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants
• While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Contra Costa would further improve financial feasibility
• Subject to further review and feedback from City staff, immediate next steps could include City Councilmember briefings and/or discussion with the County regarding potential partnership FY 2025-27 Council Priority Workplan
3 An EIFD, as a new economic development tool, would be consistent with current policy objectives in the adopted FY 2025-27 Council Priority Workplan (effective April 7, 2025) including, but not limited to, the following:
• Policy #301.3: Promote housing production to meet RHNA requirements (2023-2031) • Policy #309: Support implementation of certified Housing Element update and Housing Action Plan • Policy #400: Diversify revenue stream using new emerging technologies • Policy #402: Find creative ways of attracting new business and economic investment • Policy #403: Create a long-term, sustainable economic sustainability plan for mitigating economic impacts from competing native gaming casino projects (i.E. Vallejo casino) • Policy #405: Explore and sustain new revenue enhancements to the City’s General Fund 4 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Years from District Formation
Note: Illustrative. Conservative 2% growth of existing assessed value (A/V) shown; does not include mark-to-market increases associated with property sales.
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
Boundaries
New Total
Value After
TIF District
All Property
Tax Goes to
General Fund
EIFD Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
5 45 years from first bond issuance
Long Term
Districts
Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP)
Governance
Mandatory public hearings for formation with protest opportunity; no public vote
Approvals
Any property with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance
Eligible
Projects
Types of Projects TIF Districts Can Fund
Partial List
6 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
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing Financing Districts? 7 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)
Districts in Progress Statewide
(Partial List of EIFDs/CRDs/CRIAs)
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 (EIFD + CRD) 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 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
Report Card on City / County / Special District TIF Partnerships 9 1. Placentia + Orange County
2. La Verne + Los Angeles County
3. Palmdale + Los Angeles County
4. Carson + Los Angeles County
5. Rancho Cucamonga + Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
6. Lakewood + Los Angeles County
7. Stockton + Lathrop + Manteca + San Joaquin County
8. Gonzales + Monterey County
9. Santa Rosa + Sonoma County
10. Norwalk + Los Angeles County
Example Case Study:
City of La Verne + County of Los Angeles TOD EIFD Initial Investments 10 TOD Infrastructure, E and 2nd Street Roadway and
Streetscape Improvements (funded 2022)
Potential TIF District Boundary
Citywide
11 • City can choose to include the entire City
within a TIF district
• Approx. 1,683 acres (2.6 square miles)
• Approx. $2.8 billion in existing assessed
value
• Boundary can be refined / reduced
throughout evaluation and formation
process
• Also have ability to carve out “project
areas” within a larger financing district
boundary, where revenue allocation can
be customized by area
Source: Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller (2025)
12 a) Affordable Housing
b) A.I. supportive technology / Expanded fiber investment c) City Facilities
d) Lighting and Landscaping (Supplant GF Subsidy to LLAD) e) Road and Bridge Improvements
Example Potential City Investments to Receive TIF District Funding 13 • Primary non-school recipients and potential
contributors of property tax are City and County
• City share varies by area and ranges between 6%
and 10% of every $1 collected in property taxes
City additionally receives equivalent of ~13% of property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF), also
available to TIF district
• County General Fund share varies by area and
averages in the 12% to 13% range of each $1
County additionally receives property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to TIF 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.
Parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Areas are subject to RPTTF revenue flow until expiration of ROPS obligations (2031 for San Pablo).
Source: Contra Costa County Auditor Controller (2025)
Property Tax Revenues Available to EIFD
Property Tax Distribution (Example Tax Rate Area 11-001) WEST CC UNIFIED 28.99%
CONTRA COSTA FIRE 20.25%
COUNTY GENERAL 12.66%
CITY OF SAN PABLO 9.91%
K-12 SCHOOLS ERAF 7.61%
ALA CO CO TRANSIT 1 4.84%
CO CO COMM COLLEGE 4.05%
EAST BAY REGNL PK 2.63%
WEST CO WASTEWATER 1.79%
WCC HLTHCARE DIST 1.34%
EAST BAY MUD 1.31%
COUNTY LIBRARY 1.31%
CO SUPT SCHOOLS 1.16%
COMM COLLEGE ERAF 1.13%
BART 0.55%
BAY AREA AIR MGMNT 0.16%
C C FLOOD CONTROL 0.15%
CO CO MOSQUITO ABA 0.14%
CO WATER AGENCY 0.03%
TOTAL 100.00%
Contra Costa County Cities’ Assessed Value Roll
FY 2025-26 (Total: $290.66B; +4.18%)
14 Source: Contra Costa County Auditor Controller (2026) CITY TAX BASE GAIN/LOSS %
1) San Pablo $ 2,724,329,866 +$149,639,530 +5.81%
2). El Cerrito $ 6,386,549,998 +$310,563,495 +5.11%
3). Danville $18,938,039,051 + $950,425,740 +5.28%
4). LaFayette $12,352,721,584 +$568,490,450 +4.82%
5). Antioch $16,316,558,190 +$733,415,895 +4.70%
6). Oakley $ 7,565,710,918 +$337,629,731 +4.67%
7). San Ramon $29,601,175,045 +$1,265,494,028 +4.46%
8). Moraga $ 6,031,606,857 +$248,522,918 +4.29%
9). Pleasant Hill $ 8,809,441,374 +$356,049,938 +4.21% 10). Martinez $ 8,465,476,230 +$341,753,160 +4.20%
11). Orinda $ 10,143,170,421 +$404,555,561 +4.15%
CITY TAX BASE GAIN/LOSS %
12). Walnut Creek $25,906,087,012 +$1,007,450,961 +4.04% 13). Brentwood $14,683,238,758 +$557,300,585 +3.94%
14). Richmond $20,628,351,809 +$704,515,958 +3.53%
15). Pinole $3,428,506,204 +$116,523,036 +3.51%
16). Clayton $3,052,324,254 +$97,278,146 +3.29%
17). Hercules $5,030,175,520 +$155,259,511 +3.18%
18). Concord $23,171,135,135 +$697,317,125 +3.10%
19). Pittsburg $10,593,540,003 +$303,527,600 +2.96%
Source: Contra Costa County Assessor 2025-26 Assessment Roll Report Contra Costa County TIF Policy
Sample of Key Provisions
15 County contribution will be no more than City contribution and no more than 50% of County share Contribution will be no longer than 25 years
Support of County objectives (e.g., workforce development, transportation improvements, homeless prevention, sustainability)
Residential must include 20% to 50% or more affordable housing component Positive County General Fund fiscal impact
No support of eminent domain
Source: Contra Costa County EIFD Participation Policy (2022) 16 Assumes annual assessed value growth in the 3% to 5% range (higher in near term consistent with historical growth within the City, lower in longer term to be conservative) 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 TIF 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.
TIF Revenue and Bonding Capacity Scenarios
TIF 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 15% $1,774,000 $5,742,000 $22,569,000 $57,573,000 B) City 25% $3,398,000 $10,012,000 $37,615,000 $95,954,000 C) City 35% $5,022,000 $14,281,000 $52,661,000 $134,336,000 D) City 50% $7,458,000 $20,686,000 $75,230,000 $191,909,000 E) City 15% + County 15% $3,136,000 $9,323,000 $35,187,000 $89,762,000 F) City 25% + County 25% $5,668,000 $15,980,000 $58,646,000 $149,603,000 G) City 35% + County 35% $8,199,000 $22,636,000 $82,104,000 $209,444,000 H) City 50% + County 50% $11,997,000 $32,621,000 $117,291,000 $299,206,000 17 TIF works better with a City/County Partnership
+ Attract Other Funding (e.g., Grants)
Other Public Sources
Cap-and-Trade / HCD & SGC grant
/ loan programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC)
Prop 4 climate funding
Prop 68 parks & open space grants
Prop1 water/sewer funds
Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
Federal EDA / DOT / EPA
Federal IRA and IIJA direct funds
Other Private Sources
Development Agreement / impact fees
Special tax or benefit assessment district (e.g.,
CFD)
Private investment
Private tax credits available through IRA and
IIJA for climate investments
• Preferred strategy includes City and County partnership seeking 3rd party funding augmentation • TIF Districts which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • TIF explicitly increases scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC) Public Agency and Community Return on Investment
18 • Housing / Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) implementation • Job creation, wages from new economic development
• Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues for City and other taxing entities • Attract other funding not otherwise available for projects within the community 19 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
Nov 2025 – Mar 2026
a) Conduct outreach/discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors, other relevant stakeholders
b) Final determination of boundaries, targeted projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board composition (completion of “feasibility analysis” stage of work)
April-May 2026 c) City Council / Board of Supervisors consider Resolution(s) of Intention (ROI) and formally establish PFA June 2026 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) July 2026 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities, City Council, County Board of Supervisors August 2026 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners September 2026 g) City Council / Board of Supervisors consider resolution(s) approving IFP October 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”)
November 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”) 20 EDHPM Standing Committee Recommendation (12/10/25)
to City Council:
1. Receive presentation; and
2. Recommend a Policy Recommendation to the FY 2025-27 Council Priority Workplan (under Major Policy Goal:
Focus on Economic Development and Fiscal Diversification) to proceed with adding: “Explore feasibility and implementation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) as an economic development tool to capture value from potential new development across the City to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities.”; and
3. Direct City Manager / Kosmont Consultant Team to finalize the feasibility analysis (Phase I), and upon completion, recommend proceeding with implementation (Phase II), with a one-time funding allocation of $79,000 from FY 2025-26 GFDR (Fund 110) Operating Reserve; and
4. Schedule a Council Study Session for further City Council review/feedback on progress & implementation; and
5. Recommend future City Council consideration of a non-binding Resolution of Intention and/or explore discussion with Contra Costa County regarding potential partnership. 21 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
Disclaimer
22 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.
APPENDIX
23 TIF District Alternatives
24 Climate
Resilience
District
(CRD)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
District
(EIFD)
Community
Revitalization
and
Investment
Authority
(CRIA)
SB 782
Disaster
Recovery
District
(DRD)
AB 1445 Downtown
Revitalization and
Economic Recovery
Financing District
(DRERFD)
The New TIF District in Town – CRDs
SB 852 Creates Climate Resilience Districts
Communicating in a Digital World
25 Purpose Allows city, county, special district, or combination of entities to form a Climate Resilience District, which can fund projects to mitigate climate change.
Powers
Broad financing powers, including the power to tax, with voter approval (and use of property tax share, with affected agency consent)
• Taxing power
– can levy a benefit assessment, special tax, property-related fee, or other service charge / fee
• Other funds – can apply for and receive federal / state grants, receive gifts / grants / allocations from public and private entities
• Bonds – TIF, can issue revenue bonds, incur general obligation bonds • Administration – powers needed to administer district, like hiring staff Eligible
Projects
Wide range of eligible projects, including:
• Sea Level Rise / Flooding – sea level rise, sea walls, wetlands restoration, erosion control, levies, structure elevation / relocation, flood easements
• Extreme Weather – facilities / improvements for extreme heat, extreme cold, rain / snow • Wildfire – fire breaks, prescribed burning, structure hardening, vegetation control • Drought – land repurposing, groundwater replenishment, groundwater storage 26 CRD versus EIFD
Sample of Key Differences
Climate
Resilience
Districts (CRD)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing Districts
(EIFD)Both CRD
and EIFD
• Can fund operating costs, in
addition to capital and
maintenance costs
• Authority to levy a special
tax or special assessment
(similar to CFDs), in
addition to tax increment
financing (TIF) authority
• Authority to hire staff
• Can fund non-climate
resilience projects, such as
affordable housing
• Can fund climate
resilience
infrastructure,
including capital
and maintenance
costs
• Tax increment
financing (TIF)
authority
27 TIF Today versus Former Redevelopment Agencies
Sample of Differences
Former RDAs EIFDs / CRDs / CRIAs
Eligible Use of Funds • Infrastructure and affordable housing • Mixed-income housing
• Land clearing and parcel assembly
• Tax and other private business /
developer subsidies
• Public infrastructure (e.g., roads, flood
control, open space, utilities)
• Public facilities
• Affordable housing
Eminent Domain /
Condemnation
• Allowed • Not allowed
Eligible Areas • Must qualify as “blighted” • No “blight” finding required Governance • City Council or County Board
• School entity participation
• Public Financing Authority including
Public Members (no school entities)
Formation • Vote of governing body • 3 public hearings, majority protest opportunity from landowners and
registered voters within district
TIF as a Component of the Economic Development and
Public Financing Toolkit
Communicating in a Digital World
28 • There are advantages / disadvantages to TIF compared to other mechanisms, such as general obligation (GO) bonds, lease revenue bonds / COPs, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) financing, assessment districts, and other tools
• Advantages of TIF include no encumbrance of existing city/county resources, can attract tax increment contributions from other taxing entities, increased priority for grant funding, ability to demonstrate commitment to multiple infrastructure (and/or affordable housing) projects to catalyze private sector development, capacity to fund maintenance, no additional taxes to property owners / residents / businesses, and ease of voter approval • Disadvantages of TIF include lack of comparable financings thus far, statutory vs. constitutional authority to issue debt, and subordination to redevelopment successor agency obligations • Complementary Tool: TIF should not be considered a replacement for other useful financing mechanisms, but rather a complementary tool; other jurisdictions have been successful in utilizing TIF as well as
other tools for different projects within the same community Comparison of TIF and Other Tools
Communicating in a Digital World
29 District Type Description Revenue
Source
Approval
Structure
Use of
Funds
TIF (e.g., EIFD, CRD,
CRIA, IFD, IRFD)
Incremental property tax
revenues from new
development used to fund
local infrastructure.
Max term is 45 years from
approval to issue debt.
Incremental (new development)
property tax revenues (incl.
VLF) – does not increase taxes
District formation – No vote, but
majority protest opportunity by
landowners and registered
voters
Bond issuance – None
• Infrastructure of regional or
communitywide significance
• Maintenance
• Affordable housing
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District (CFD)
and/or Assessment
District
Additional assessment or
“special tax” used to fund
infrastructure / services that
benefit property.
Max term is 40 years from
date of debt issuance.
New property assessment or
tax – appears as separate line
item on tax bill
District formation – 2/3 vote of
landowners or registered voters
in district*
Bond issuance – vote of elected
body (City)
• Infrastructure capital
expenditures of benefit to
landowners
• Maintenance
• Public services (e.g. safety,
programs)
General Obligation Voter-approved debt that is
repaid with “override” to 1%
tax levy; City-wide
Direct property tax levied on all
properties at same millage rate
2/3 vote of registered voters in
entire City
• In accordance with bond
plebiscite
Lease Revenue / COPs General Fund-supported
borrowing, generally utilizing
City-owned assets to be
leased and leased back
General Fund (or other legally
available revenues as
determined by City)
Vote of elected body (City) • In accordance with bond
authorization
Potential funding strategy can utilize MULTIPLE mechanisms * For CFD formation, a vote of registered voters within the district boundary is required if 12 or more registered voters live therein (otherwise a vote of landowners prorated by acreage).