Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cotati receives clean FY2024–25 audit; residents raise budget and code‑enforcement concerns
Summary
An independent audit of Cotati’s FY2024–25 financial statements returned an unmodified (clean) opinion; auditors reported no material weaknesses. Public commenters reiterated longstanding allegations about code‑enforcement practices and questioned whether disputed costs are visible in the budget.
The Cotati City Council received and filed the City’s audited comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, after an independent auditor delivered an unmodified opinion. Sheldon Chavan of Chavan & Associates told the council the audit contained “no exceptions in the audit opinions,” characterizing the engagement as a “clean audit” and noting it was the firm’s first year as Cotati’s auditor.
Neil Tomlinson, senior accountant for the city, introduced the report and said the audit included a popular annual financial report prepared in English and Spanish. Chavan summarized the audit scope, the four‑phase audit process and key figures: interest earnings of $350,000 for business‑type activities, combined net pension liabilities of $5,600,000, and an unrestricted net position of more than $3,000,000 as of June 30, 2025. He said the audit provides reasonable—though not absolute—assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement.
Council members asked clarifying questions about the popular annual financial report (PAFR) and noted typographical errors in the Spanish version. Vice Mayor Lemus requested corrections to Spanish‑language typos; staff said the PAFR circulated was effectively a draft and that corrections would be made.
During public comment, former councilman George Berich alleged a long‑running “code enforcement” scandal and accused city officials and contractors of misconduct. A Zoom commenter identified as Laurie repeated concerns about ongoing hearings and disputed billings, saying the clean audit “doesn’t tell the real story” about service levels or where money has been spent. Council members did not dispute the public accusations during the meeting; they accepted the audit report and moved on to the next agenda item.
The council formally recorded receipt of the reports; no additional audit‑related motions were taken. The audit and the city’s PAFR are available in the agenda packet for further review, and staff said follow‑up work could be requested if the council desired additional information.
