Citizen Portal
Sign In

Cotati adopts midyear budget adjustments amid public outcry over code-enforcement legal costs

Cotati City Council (joint meeting with successor agency to the former Cotati Community Redevelopment Agency) · February 11, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council approved a resolution amending the FY25–26 operating budget after a staff midyear report. Public commenters raised repeated allegations about prolonged code enforcement cases, high outside legal bills, and alleged procedural problems; the city attorney said approving the amendments does not in itself create new legal liability.

The Cotati City Council voted to adopt a resolution amending the FY2526 operating budget to reflect updated revenue projections and expenditure adjustments after a midyear budget-to-actuals presentation.

Finance staff told the council that through Dec. 31, 2025 citywide revenues were about 48% of budget and expenditures about 46%, with the general fund operating revenues at roughly 41.3% of budget at midyear. Staff proposed modest adjustments including a reduction in sales tax expectations of about $92,000 and modest increases to projected community development and investment earnings. Staff also identified timing-driven variances across funds but recommended targeted budget amendments to keep overall spending aligned with resources.

During public comment and follow-up, several residents raised long-running concerns about the citys handling of code enforcement cases and outside legal billing. Former councilman George Barich and other speakers alleged unjustified fines, lack of transparency over contracts with outside counsel (naming Redwood Public Law and hearing officer arrangements), and claimed excessive legal costs tied to a multi-year enforcement matter. One commenter referenced the California Public Records Act and said they had not been able to obtain copies of contracts they requested.

City staff and the city attorney responded to council questions about whether approving the budget amendments would expose the city to additional liability; the city attorney stated there was no known mechanism by which the minor budget amendments themselves created new legal liability. After discussion, Vice Mayor Harvey moved to adopt the resolution and a colleague seconded; the council approved the budget amendment by voice vote.

The budget resolution updates revenue and expenditure assumptions and authorizes the city to proceed with the targeted adjustments described in the staff report. Several public commenters said they intend to pursue additional legal and administrative remedies related to specific enforcement matters; council members asked staff to review ADA access concerns and to follow up where appropriate.

Next steps: staff will implement the midyear adjustments and return quarterly updates. Public records requests and contract documentation issues raised during comment were noted for staff follow-up.