Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board, city and consultants continue work on Downtown Santa Rosa EIFD plan; first public hearing set for May 8
Summary
County and city staff described a draft Infrastructure Financing Plan for a Downtown Santa Rosa EIFD and sought board input on project priorities, tax-increment share and governance before formal public hearings begin May 8.
County and City of Santa Rosa staff and consultants on April 22 presented a working draft of the Downtown Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) and solicited the Board's input before the public-financing-authority (PFA) begins formal hearings.
The city and the county have proposed public-private financing to support catalytic downtown projects ' performing arts, sports and entertainment, and other investments ' plus a commitment to affordable-housing set-asides. The draft IFP proposes dedicating a portion of incremental property tax growth (50% of standard tax increment from the city and 25% from the county were discussed) to the EIFD over a 45-year period, with percentage caps and a maximum revenue projection included in the plan. The city's draft also envisions that some property-tax-in-lieu of vehicle-license-fee (VLF) revenues would be applied to the EIFD from the city side.
Presenters said that the IFP intentionally kept broad categories for eligible projects, but that the city is proposing to remove a standalone conference center from the project list and fold streetscaping into a narrower "placemaking" category while reducing its proposed share to around 10% should that contingency be needed. County staff and the PFA public members said they want emphasis on catalytic projects that spur private investment and asked for clearer text that would require the city and PFA to demonstrate a tangible benefit before committing EIFD funds to projects, including any projects located outside the EIFD boundary.
On governance, the consultants described standard practice: the PFA has authority to issue bonds and manage the EIFD; the city added a proposed requirement that city council authorize bonds. County public-financing-authority members said because EIFD debt is not a county liability, the full Board ' rather than the auditors or staff ' need not approve bond issuances; instead, staff-to-staff review with the county auditor-controller on financing terms was recommended.
The PFA will vote to accept or reject the draft IFP at its first public hearing on May 8; if accepted, the PFA's final public hearing and separate Board of Supervisors and Santa Rosa City Council actions will follow. County staff indicated they will revise the IFP to incorporate the board's direction, including clarifying language about project evaluation and reporting. The item did not require a Board vote; supervisors serving on the PFA said their participation on that body and the requirement for annual reporting provide county oversight.
Why it matters: The EIFD would capture future growth in property-tax revenues within and (in some cases) adjacent to a Downtown Santa Rosa boundary to finance public infrastructure intended to catalyze private development; it could generate bonds and pay-as-you-go revenue for multi-decade projects.
What happens next: The PFA will hold its first public hearing May 8; the draft IFP will be revised to reflect county and city comments; the County Board and Santa Rosa City Council are scheduled to act in early June during the statutory window for establishing the EIFD base year.
