Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sonoma County board authorizes next steps on West Sonoma enhanced infrastructure financing district
Summary
After a multi‑hour presentation and public comment, the Board of Supervisors voted to move forward with formation work for a West Sonoma enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD), directing staff to allocate consultant funds and continue the feasibility process while preserving off‑ramps and public review steps.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors voted to advance the West Sonoma County enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) formation process after a detailed fiscal‑impact briefing from county staff and consultant Cosmont.
Deputy County Administrator Crystal Carriharo and Cosmont senior vice president Joe Dieguez told the board the proposal centers on a roughly 50,000‑acre boundary in unincorporated West County and examines a range of revenue‑allocation scenarios, with an early planning range of 20–25% of the county’s future property‑tax share potentially being available for EIFD financing. Dieguez said the consultant’s analysis shows a present‑value funding capacity in the tens of millions and estimated a net positive general fund impact of about $26 million over a 50‑year modeling horizon under the presentation’s accelerated scenario.
“We are calling a range of 20 to 25% of the county’s future share as potentially feasible,” Dieguez told the board, and he cautioned that the estimate depends on several assumptions — notably new hospitality and residential development that would drive assessed‑value growth.
Board members and members of the public pressed staff on administrative costs, timing and the sensitivity of the forecast to a large hotel assumption. County staff acknowledged early years can see a large share of revenues eaten by start‑up administrative costs — potentially as much as half in the first year in conservative scenarios — before settling toward a long‑term administrative share in the low‑teens of revenues as the district matures.
Carriharo emphasized that the board would not be locking in the percentage or projects today; the action before the board was nonbinding direction to continue the formation process, prepare draft plans, and make limited consultant funding available. The staff recommendation included authorizing $140,000 in district‑formation funds to retain consulting services for EIFD plan preparation and budgeting a 4/5ths vote item to move those funds from the current budget if the board elects to proceed.
After public comment that ranged from support for new financing tools to concerns about boundaries, precedent and community input, the board voted to proceed with the next steps in the EIFD process, including further technical work on boundaries, revenue allocation and project eligibility and outreach back to West County communities. The board instructed staff to return with refined materials and noted there are procedural off‑ramps if later analysis shows the district would not be fiscally prudent.
What happens next: staff will draft an infrastructure financing plan and related documents, refine boundary alternatives and revenue scenarios, and pursue public‑financing authority formation steps if the board continues to support the effort. Any final decision to allocate a specific percentage of property‑tax increment or to adopt an infrastructure financing plan would require subsequent public hearings and board ratification.
