Residents accuse Cotati officials of selective code enforcement as council approves minor budget amendment

Several Cotati residents used public comment at the city council meeting to renew long-running complaints about the city’s code-enforcement practices and to challenge city legal spending, while the council voted to amend the fiscal-year budget.

George Barich, introduced himself as a former Cotati councilman and repeatedly criticized the city’s code-enforcement process, saying it had become “a no win for the accused” and calling the system “corruption, not about compliance.” He described a multiyear dispute over fines and administrative fees and alleged inconsistent enforcement and procedural problems in informal hearings.

Other speakers raised related concerns. A commenter who identified herself as Miss Alderman said the accessible door and ramp at City Hall remain noncompliant and described a history of litigation and efforts to improve public comment procedures. Another speaker cited the California Public Records Act and said he repeatedly requested the contract between the city’s hearing officer and staff, claiming he could not obtain a copy and asserting the lack of transparent contracting for prosecution of code cases.

Speakers pointed to increased legal spending in the city budget, questioned payments to outside counsel, and cited specific dollar figures mentioned during public comment (a cited administrative cost total of roughly $291,000 and a stated $70,000 increase to a contract for prosecution). Council members did not debate the factual merits of individual legal allegations during public comment, but the city attorney responded later in the meeting that approving the budget amendments would not, in their view, create an additional mechanism for liability.

After the midyear financial presentation, Vice Mayor Harvey moved to adopt a resolution amending the FY 2526 operating budget to reflect updated revenue and expenditure adjustments; the motion was seconded and the transcript records the vote as 'Aye' with the motion passing. Several public-commenters said the budget amendment would be used to cover legal fees and urged greater transparency and prior authorization for such expenses.

The council did not take separate action on the public complaints about the code-enforcement process during the meeting beyond verbal responses and the budget vote. Speakers said they intend to continue pursuing records and, if necessary, legal remedies.

What happens next: the budget amendment was adopted; residents who raised records and enforcement concerns said they will continue to request documentation and consider outside remedies. The council indicated staff would provide requested follow-up on records and ADA-access issues where feasible.