To: Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): County Executive’s Office
Staff Name and Phone Number: David Guhin and Christel Querijero, 707-565-2431
Vote Requirement: 4/5th
Supervisorial District(s): Countywide
Title:
Title
West Sonoma County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Infrastructure (EIFD) Financing Plan, Update on Other EIFD Exploration, and General Fund Impacts of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
A) Adopt a Resolution approving the West Sonoma County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Infrastructure Financing Plan and the allocation of a portion of the County incremental tax revenue to the West Sonoma County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.
B) Authorize the County Executive Officer to certify to the Department of Finance certain information prior to participation in the EIFD, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53398.54.
C) Receive an analysis of the impact of County participation in current and potential future EIFDs on the County General Fund, and a report of other financing options for infrastructure projects.
D) Consider the City of Cotati (Cotati) request for the County’s participation in the Cotati EIFD and, if approved, direct staff on next steps:
i) Engage a consultant to assess the EIFD fiscal impact analysis submitted by the City of Cotati, consistent with the County’s EIFD policy.
ii) Appoint a Supervisor to the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA).
iii) Proceed with process to identify a Public Member of the Cotati EIFD PFA.
E) Authorize $75,000 from District Formation Funds for consultation on EIFD technical matters, programmatic support, tax increment analysis, and related services.
F) Adopt a Budget Resolution Authorizing a Budgetary Adjustment to the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Adopted Budget In The Amount Of $75,000. (Attachment E) (4/5th Vote Required)
G) Consider directing staff to revise the County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Policy to include requirements for establishing a County-only EIFD and any other updates.
end
Executive Summary:
This item recommends the Board adopt a resolution to approve the West Sonoma County EIFD (WSC-EIFD) Final Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), and the allocation of a portion of County incremental tax revenue to the WSC-EIFD. It also seeks Board authorization for the County Executive Officer to certify to the Department of Finance certain information prior to participation in the WSC-EIFD, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53398.54.
The Board is also being asked to consider the City of Cotati’s request for the County to participate in the proposed Cotati EIFD. If the Board chooses to move forward with exploring County participation in the Cotati EIFD, staff seeks funding to engage an EIFD consultant to assess Cotati’s EIFD fiscal impact analysis, and direction as to the appointments of a Supervisor and Public Member to the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority.
Additionally, at your Board’s request, this item also includes an analysis of the impact of County participation in current and potential future EIFDs on the County General Fund, and a report of other financing options for infrastructure projects.
Finally, the Board may consider directing staff to revise the existing County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Policy, which contemplates a City requesting County participation in an EIFD, to also include requirements for establishing a County-only EIFD and any other updates.
Discussion:
EIFD Law
An Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) is a type of special purpose financing district that utilizes a portion of incremental property tax revenues from new development and property value growth in a specifically defined area to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance (e.g., infrastructure, public amenities).
Senate Bill 628 (2014) authorized the formation of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs). EIFD legislation is codified in California Government Code section 53398.50, et. seq. (EIFD Law). EIFDs were created as a replacement for the former Redevelopment Agencies that were disbanded in 2012 due to state budget challenges. An EIFD is a type of special tax increment financing district that uses a portion of property tax increment (growth) revenues generated by the established 1% of assessed property value tax rate under Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution (Prop 13).
The EIFD model relies on tax revenue increments voluntarily committed by entities such as counties, cities, or special districts within the geographic boundaries of a proposed area. Educational agencies are not permitted to participate. The tax increment growth is determined from the base year of the EIFD, which is the fiscal year in which the EIFD is formally established (Base Year). EIFDs do not impose new taxes or raise tax rates. Eligible projects may include public infrastructure, transportation improvements, water and sewer facilities, parks, flood protection, affordable housing, and other facilities of communitywide significance.
West Sonoma County EIFD
The County first engaged in West Sonoma County EIFD (WSC-EIFD) exploration after January 23, 2024 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6484841&GUID=676D8C24-DB67-459F-A99E-E6CFA6AA8684>, when the Board approved a $50,000 grant agreement with the City of Sebastopol (City) from District 5 Community Infrastructure Funds for the City to engage a consultant to evaluate the feasibility of an EIFD that encompassed both the City and unincorporated West County. On February 11, 2025 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7129386&GUID=1433730C-1F0B-4AC2-BFD9-D6122B7CD7A0>, the Board approved $7,500 from District Formation Funds for Kosmont Companies (Kosmont), an EIFD consultant, to develop a preliminary WSC-EIFD fiscal impact analysis related to the unincorporated West County areas only. On June 3, 2025 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7412794&GUID=B3A1CD8A-01F3-44D1-9D46-C88FD584D972>, the Board received Kosmont’s preliminary WSC-EIFD feasibility analysis and directed staff to return to the Board with the final analysis. On October 14, 2025 <https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7694811&GUID=A7B0C478-74E0-4525-A463-5FE0F79D8571>, the Board adopted a Resolution of Intention to initiate the establishment of the unincorporated WSC-EIFD and to establish the WSC-EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA), the governing body of the WSC-EIFD.
Public Financing Authority Meetings
At the PFA’s first meeting on February 25, 2026 <https://sonomacounty.gov/financing-authority-meeting-february-25-2026>, the PFA ordered the preparation of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) as required by EIFD Law. The IFP is the legal document that governs the EIFD and guides the use of incremental tax revenues over the life of the EIFD. The IFP must be approved by the Board of Supervisors and adopted by the PFA prior to WSC-EIFD formation.
On May 27, 2026 <https://sonomacounty.gov/financing-authority-meeting-may-27-2026>, the PFA held a public meeting to introduce the draft IFP, hear a presentation on the draft IFP, provide input, and receive public comment. Consultants and staff presented the Draft IFP and responded to PFA member questions. No action was taken. PFA members requested modifications to the Draft IFP and directed staff to incorporate changes into the Final IFP. (Attachment A) The revisions include adding water infrastructure as an eligible project category, subject to a 10 percent program allocation cap; adding energy infrastructure, including microgrid and related power infrastructure, as an eligible project category; and increasing the emphasis on affordable housing within the project prioritization framework to reflect the PFA's desire to elevate affordable housing as a higher program priority. These modifications have been incorporated into the Final IFP and are identified in Attachment A, including corresponding page references.
On July 13, 2026 <https://sonomacounty.gov/financing-authority-meeting-july-13-2026>, the PFA held the first of two required public hearings. The purpose of the first PFA public hearing on the IFP was to consider modification or rejection of the IFP based on comments received during any portion of the formation process thus far, or otherwise take no action and continue with the formation process. Public notices regarding the WSC-EIFD have been mailed, information was posted on a dedicated website, and notices were also published in the newspaper, as required by law, to provide notice to property owners and residents within the EIFD.
The second public hearing on the IFP is scheduled for August 12, 2026 <https://sonomacounty.gov/financing-authority-meeting-august-12-2026>. At that public hearing, if there is no protest proceeding as defined within EIFD law, then the PFA can adopt a resolution adopting the IFP and officially forming the WSC-EIFD. However, prior to the PFA adopting the resolution to adopt the IFP, the Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of an entity that is contributing tax increment, must adopt a resolution approving the IFP.
Next Steps for the West Sonoma County EIFD
Should the Board approve the Final IFP, staff recommends the Board adopt the Resolution approving the Final IFP for the WSC-EIFD, including the 25% property tax increment allocation set forth therein. (Attachment B) With this approval, next steps include the following:
§ Pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.54, the County must certify, within 10 days of the Board’s action to participate in the WSC-EIFD, to the Department of Finance and Public Financing Authority that no former redevelopment agency assets that are the subject of litigation involving the state, if the city or county, the successor agency, or the designated local authority are a named plaintiff, have been or will be used to benefit any efforts of an enhanced infrastructure financing district formed under applicable government code (Attachment C).
§ The Public Financing Authority holds the second required public hearing, currently scheduled for August 12, 2026, to adopt the IFP and Resolution of Formation of the West Sonoma County Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District.
§ Before December 1, 2026, the County files the jurisdictional boundary change for the WSC-EIFD with the California State Board of Equalization to capture FY 2025-2026 as the base year and allocation of tax increment beginning in FY 2027-2028.
§ County tax increment distributions are expected to begin July 1, 2027. Please see Fiscal Summary below for details on the full fiscal impact to the County during the term of the EIFD and the estimated potential positive impact.
Information about the WSC-EIFD has been posted on a dedicated website <https://sonomacounty.gov/administrative-support-and-fiscal-services/county-executives-office/strategic-initiatives/west-sonoma-county-enhanced-infrastructure-financing-district>.
Other Infrastructure Financing Options
At the Board's request, staff prepared an overview of financing mechanisms that may be available to support public infrastructure investment outside of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD). Attachment D provides a general overview of financing mechanisms authorized under California law that may be used to support transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, flood control facilities, parks, libraries, public facilities, climate resilience projects, and other public improvements.
|
Financing Category |
Primary Revenue Source |
Typical Use |
Key Consideration |
|
Financing Districts |
Assessments, special taxes, fees, charges |
Infrastructure and services within a defined area |
Formation process required and may require voter approval or an Engineer’s Report |
|
Debt Financing |
Bonds, Lease payments, repayment source for bonds, dedicated taxes |
Major capital projects |
Creates long-term repayment obligations; generally, require either voter approval or pledged assets |
|
Short-Term Financing |
Anticipated revenues or grants |
Cash flow and project timing needs |
Temporary financing, not permanent funding |
|
Grants |
State and federal funding programs |
Broad range of infrastructure projects |
Competitive and not guaranteed |
Generally, four categories of financing mechanisms are available to local governments that can be summarized as: district-based financing tools, debt financing, short-term financing, and grants. The following is a high-level overview of each financing mechanism. Whether a particular financing mechanism is appropriate for a certain project will need to be evaluated on a case-by case-basis.
District-based financing tools include Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts (CFDs or Mello-Roos Districts), Community Services Districts (CSDs), County Service Areas (CSAs), and Special Road Maintenance Districts. These mechanisms generally generate revenue through assessments, special taxes, service charges, or other locally authorized funding sources and may be used to finance infrastructure improvements or ongoing services within defined geographic areas.
Debt financing mechanisms that may be available to support capital projects include General Obligation (GO) bond financing, Certificates of Participation (COPs), lease-revenue bonds, California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) financing, and financing supported by dedicated revenue sources. These tools may provide access to capital for infrastructure investments but generally require an identified repayment source and may create long-term financial obligations.
Short-term financing mechanisms may be used to address timing differences between project expenditures and anticipated revenues, including Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs), Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs), and revolving credit facilities.
State and federal grants remain an important component of infrastructure financing because they can reduce reliance on local revenues and debt financing. Sonoma County Public Infrastructure has successfully secured grant funding for a variety of projects, including transportation infrastructure, emergency resiliency facilities, library improvements, and public building upgrades. Current and recent examples include the Asti Bridge Project, Community Emergency Resiliency Centers, Guerneville Library Improvements, Cloverdale Veterans Building Improvements, Petaluma Hill Road Bike Lane Project, and the Moorland-Bellevue Safe Routes to School Project.
No single financing mechanism is appropriate for all infrastructure projects. The suitability of a financing tool depends on project characteristics, available revenues, geographic considerations, voter approval requirements, legal constraints, and long-term fiscal impacts. In many cases, infrastructure projects rely on a combination of local financing tools, debt financing, and grant funding.
Financing mechanisms that rely on borrowing or the pledge of future revenues may affect the County's future borrowing capacity and financial flexibility. Any future consideration of a financing mechanism would require project-specific evaluation of revenue sources, affordability, debt service obligations, legal requirements, and policy objectives. Attachment D provides additional information on these and other infrastructure financing mechanisms.
Cumulative General Fund Impact of EIFDs
The Board requested an analysis of the cumulative impacts of EIFDs on the County General Fund to understand the level of General Fund commitment relative to projected property-tax growth. Staff’s analysis does not evaluate whether any single EIFD is worthwhile; it evaluates the implications of dedicating a share of future County General Fund property-tax growth through a portfolio of EIFD scenarios. A key fiscal question is how much future flexibility the County would trade for a dedicated infrastructure funding source.
Model Assumptions
Staff developed a simple model to estimate the portion of future General Fund property-tax growth that would be dedicated to infrastructure in active, proposed, and potential EIFD areas. For purposes of interpreting the summary results, key assumptions are as follows:
1. Base Year: FY 2025-26 as the base year
2. County Contribution: 25% of County General Fund property-tax increment from within the boundaries of the EIFD, net of the County’s mandatory contribution to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), in each scenario.
3. Time Period and Discount Rate: General Fund commitment measured over a 50-year period, with present-value amounts calculated using a 3% discount rate.
4. % of Total County Assessed Value of Current and Contemplated EIFD Scenarios: Total EIFD areas represent approximately 13.7% of countywide total assessed value, with breakdown for each scenario as follows: Santa Rosa EIFD (1.0%), West County EIFD (6.0%), Unincorporated Sonoma Valley (1.4%), City of Sonoma (3.8%), Cotati/Rohnert Park (0.9%), City of Sebastopol (0.6%).
5. Property Tax Revenue Growth: 3% annual growth in assessed value and property-tax revenue
6. General Fund Expenditure Growth: 3.2% annual growth
Analysis
This analysis serves as a cumulative exposure screen, not an approval analysis for every EIFD, since some areas have adopted or defined boundaries while others are preliminary or whole-city assumptions. In that context, the modeled results show the scale of the long-term commitment, how that commitment grows as additional EIFDs are added, and the trade-off between dedicating future growth for infrastructure and preserving flexible General Fund dollars for baseline services, reserves, emergencies, and future policy choices.
Under the full combined scenario for all current and contemplated EIFD scenarios, EIFD areas represent 13.7% of countywide assessed value. The combined commitment of future County General Fund revenue dedicated to EIFDs is estimated at $639.4 million over 50 years, or $233.9 million in present-value terms. The 50-year total reflects the nominal amount of future revenue that would be set aside over the life of the commitments. The table below shows the percentage of assessed value (AV) for each EIFD scenario, the status of each scenario, and the cumulative increment to the EIFD scenarios.
Cumulative Increment to EIFDs at end of Years 10 and 50
|
EIFD Scenario |
Status |
Share of Countywide Assessed Value of EIFD Area |
Cumulative Increment at Year 10 |
Cumulative Increment at Year 50 |
Present Value @ 3% Year 50 |
% of Total County Increment |
|
Santa Rosa |
Fully formed |
1.0% |
$0.5 M |
$39.2 M |
$13.8 M |
0.19% |
|
West County |
Formation pending |
6.0% |
$8.4 M |
$307.3 M |
$112.7 M |
1.50% |
|
Unincorporated Sonoma Valley |
In discussion |
1.4% |
$2.0 M |
$71.7 M |
$26.30 M |
0.35% |
|
City of Sonoma |
In discussion |
3.8% |
$4.1 M |
$151.8 M |
$55.66 M |
0.74% |
|
City of Cotati |
Council approved Resolution of Intent |
0.2% |
$0.2M |
$9.1M |
$3.35M |
0.04% |
|
City of Rohnert Park |
Initial conversations |
0.7% |
$1.1 M |
$41.1 M |
$15.09 M |
0.16% |
|
Sebastopol |
Previous discussion, but on hold |
0.6% |
$0.8 M |
$28.2 M |
$10.34 M |
0.14% |
|
TOTAL |
|
13.7% |
$16.9 M |
$639.4 M |
$233.9 M |
3.12% |
The most useful affordability signal is the share of future growth being committed. Relative to projected growth, the full scenario would commit approximately 3.12% of future County property-tax increment. By Year 50, the annual set-aside reaches 2.17% of projected County General Fund property-tax revenue estimated at $1.508 billion, and 0.77% of modeled General Fund expenditures in that year, estimated at $4.34 billion.
While this suggests that the portfolio is manageable in broad percentage terms, the commitment is not cost-free. The percentage does not define the General Fund outlook by itself; however, it is large enough to affect budget capacity in future years, particularly when ongoing revenues are needed to maintain current services, add staffing, rebuild reserves, respond to emergencies, or absorb cost increases.
The fiscal effect increases over time. The table below shows annual tax increment to EIFDs in Years 10 and 50 for each area. The annual set-aside for all areas is estimated at $3.35 million in Year 10 and $32.7 million in Year 50. Because property-tax increment compounds over time, the budgetary impact may be limited in the early years but becomes more visible as assessed value growth accumulates.
Annual Tax Increment to EIFDs in Years 10 and 50
|
EIFD Area |
Share of Countywide Assessed Value in EIFD Areas |
Year 10 |
Year 50 |
|
Santa Rosa |
1.0% |
$0.23 M |
$2.00 M |
|
West County |
6.0% |
$1.60 M |
$15.71 M |
|
Unincorporated Sonoma Valley |
1.4% |
$0.37 M |
$3.67 M |
|
City of Sonoma |
3.8% |
$0.79 M |
$7.76 M |
|
City of Cotati |
0.2% |
$0.05M |
$0.47M |
|
City of Rohnert Park |
0.9% |
$0.17 M |
$1.64 M |
|
City of Sebastopol |
0.6% |
$0.15 M |
$1.44 M |
|
TOTAL |
13.7% |
$3.35 M |
$32.7 M |
The cumulative General Fund impact analysis offers an opportunity for the Board to consider revisions to the County’s EIFD Policy (Attachment E). Options for revision could include:
• Require proposed EIFDs be evaluated against a portfolio-level limit, such as share of future County increment, Year 50 annual exposure, and share of projected General Fund expenditures.
• Establish a contribution limit or maximum participation percentage.
• Require cumulative exposure to be updated before adding new EIFDs or changing County participation terms.
• Require staff to identify whether the commitment could conflict with reserve policy, structural balance, or known baseline service pressures.
The possible policy revisions could give the Board a consistent way to test cumulative exposure before additional future General Fund growth is pledged.
Other EIFD Exploration
City of Cotati
On April 1, 2026, Councilmembers and staff from the City of Cotati (Cotati) and the City of Rohnert Park (Rohnert Park) met with the County to share their interest in seeking the County’s participation in a multi-jurisdiction EIFD. Cotati and Rohnert Park staff shared a preliminary feasibility analysis including potential EIFD boundaries and projects.
On June 23, 2026, the Cotati City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intention to establish the Cotati EIFD and the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA). On July 13, 2026, Cotati and Rohnert Park staff met with County Executive’s Office staff to provide an update, specifically that the Cities are not pursuing a joint EIFD but will seek the County’s participation in separate EIFDs. Cotati has submitted the fiscal impact analysis required by the County’s EIFD policy. If the Board approves County participation, the Cotati’s interests are to capture FY 26-27 as the base year and to formally establish the Cotati EIFD by March 2027.
Staff seeks the Board’s input and direction on next steps, specifically to engage a consultant to independently assess Cotati’s EIFD fiscal impact analysis and to provide resource capacity for other anticipated EIFD consulting needs. If approved, staff recommends the Board adopt a budget resolution (Attachment E) to appropriate $75,000 from District Formation Funds for these EIFD consulting services.
Should the Board choose to move forward with Cotati EIFD exploration, staff also recommends the Board appoint a Supervisor to the Cotati EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) and direct staff to proceed with the process to appoint the County’s public member to the Cotati EIFD PFA. If the Board approves moving forward, staff will work with Cotati City staff to develop a timeline and next steps.
City of Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park staff anticipates its Council will consider adopting a resolution to establish the Rohnert Park EIFD and the Rohnert Park EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) by the end of October and expects to submit the associated fiscal impact analysis shortly thereafter for Board consideration. When received, CEO staff will bring an item to the Board with recommended actions similar to today’s actions related to the Cotati EIFD: direction and funding to independently assess the City’s EIFD fiscal impact analysis, Board Supervisor and public member PFA appointment, and defining next steps.
Sonoma Valley
EIFD exploration in Sonoma Valley began early in 2024 by then District 1 Supervisor Gorin. CEO staff presented a brief overview of EIFDs to the Sonoma City Council on August 7, 2024. In late August 2024, staff conducted an informal solicitation process to procure the services of an EIFD consultant, funded with District 1 funds previously allocated by the Board from District Formation funds. The current contract expires December 31, 2026.
The County’s EIFD consultant presented a more detailed overview to the City Council on August 20, 2025. County and City staff have since had multiple discussions to inform the consultant’s preliminary feasibility analysis and potential EIFD boundaries. Discussions are ongoing and the analysis has not yet been presented to the City Council.
City of Sebastopol
Exploration of a Sebastopol/County EIFD began on January 23, 2024. The Board received an update on this exploration on February 11, 2025. At the June 3, 2025 update to the Board, staff shared that Sebastopol/County discussions pivoted to two separate EIFDs, one focused only on unincorporated areas in West Sonoma County. After this update, County staff were informed that Sebastopol was pausing its exploration to address other City priorities, though the Council approved a resolution of intention to establish the Sebastopol EIFD on December 2, 2025.
On August 4, 2026, the Council approved a consulting agreement for financing district advisory services to re-start its EIFD exploration process. The City is considering a change to the Sebastopol EIFD boundaries that includes County unincorporated areas. If an updated fiscal impact analysis is submitted, CEO staff will coordinate with the City Manager on next steps.
City of Cloverdale
At the time of writing Supervisor Gore and CEO staff are scheduled to meet with Cloverdale Mayor Brian Wheeler and City Manager Kevin Thompson to discuss EIFD possibilities for Cloverdale and the County. At the Supervisor’s request, staff initiated an RFI process to identify an EIFD consultant to support further exploration. The consulting services contract will be funded by District 4 funds previously approved by the Board.
Strategic Plan:
N/A
Racial Equity:
Was this item identified as an opportunity to apply the Racial Equity Toolkit?
No
Prior Board Actions:
April 14, 2026 - Board received a preview of the Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD; provided direction to staff on the Draft Infrastructure Financing Plan; adopted the Resolution approving the Conflict of Interest Code for the Public Financing Authority of the West Sonoma County EIFD; authorized $75,000 from District Formation Funds for the required notifications to property owners and residents within the West Sonoma County EIFD and state Board of Equalization filing package, if the EIFD is fully formed; and adopted a budget resolution authorizing a budgetary adjustment to the FY 25-26 in the amount of $50,000.
October 14, 2025 - Board received the final fiscal impact analysis for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD (WSC-EIFD), adopted a Resolution of Intention to establish the WSC-EIFD and the Public Financing Authority, and funding to support establishing the WSC-EIFD.
June 3, 2025 - Board received a preliminary West Sonoma County EIFD feasibility analysis and directed staff to return with a final analysis.
February 11, 2025 - Board received an update on City/County EIFD discussions and approved funding for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for the proposed West Sonoma County EIFD.
January 23, 2024 - Board approved a $50,000 grant agreement with the City of Sebastopol for consulting services to evaluate the feasibility of an EIFD encompassing the City and unincorporated West County.
Fiscal Summary
|
Expenditures |
FY26-27 Adopted |
FY27-28 Projected |
FY28-29 Projected |
|
Budgeted Expenses |
|
|
|
|
Additional Appropriation Requested |
$75,000 |
|
|
|
Total Expenditures |
$75,000 |
|
|
|
Funding Sources |
|
|
|
|
General Fund/WA GF |
|
|
|
|
State/Federal |
|
|
|
|
Fees/Other |
|
|
|
|
Use of Fund Balance/District Formation |
$75,000 |
|
|
|
General Fund Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
Total Sources |
$75,000 |
|
|
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
The current unallocated fund balance of the District Formation Fund is approximately $645,000.
If the West Sonoma County EIFD IFP is approved by the Board and the IFP subsequently adopted by the PFA and the EIFD created, the total number of tax dollars that may be allocated to the District (by the County, as the only affected taxing entity) shall not exceed $400,000,000 (nominal dollars) over the District lifetime. This cap is intended to provide capacity for future financings in a scenario where actual revenues exceed projections. This includes the County’s incremental standard “AB8” property tax (general fund apportionment), but not the County’s incremental property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF).
The West Sonoma County EIFD fiscal impact analysis to the County General Fund is described in detail in the Final IFP (Attachment A). Over 50 years, District activity will generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $26.3 million for the County on a present value basis. The analysis is based on assumed new development, including limited new hospitality and commercial development, which would be expected to generate hotel transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax, and other new fiscal revenues.
Ongoing administration costs are estimated in the range of $25,000 to $40,000, with expectations that such costs would increase with inflation during the EIFD lifetime. Administration costs refer to the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the West Sonoma County EIFD, including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing annual tax increment revenues and preparing the required annual reporting; the costs of allocation tax increment revenues; the costs to the West Sonoma County EIFD, or any designee thereof in complying with disclosure requirements; and the costs associated with preparing required disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the West Sonoma County EIFD. Administration costs shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the County for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees or any other expenses incidental to the implementation of the West Sonoma County EIFD.
|
Staffing Impacts: |
|
|
|
|
Position Title (Payroll Classification) |
Monthly Salary Range (A-I Step) |
Additions (Number) |
Deletions (Number) |
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
None
Attachments:
A. West Sonoma County EIFD Final Infrastructure Financing Plan
B. Resolution to Approve the West Sonoma County EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan and the Allocation of the County Incremental Tax Revenue to the West Sonoma County EIFD
C. Government Code Section 53398.54 Certification Letter by the County of Sonoma
D. Alternative Infrastructure Financing Mechanisms
E. Budget Resolution
F. County EIFD Policy
G. Presentation
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board: