The Sonoma City Council took steps at its meeting on Wednesday to take away some of the uncertainty around how much money they give to local non-profits – at least those that fulfill critical parks and recreation needs.
“I think this a vast improvement,” said councilmember Steve Barbose.
Nearly every year for the past 20 years, local non-profits have lined up before the Sonoma City Council in hopes of receiving a community activity grant. The pot of grant money is based on whether there is any extra general fund revenue at the end of the year so it fluctuates drastically. Furthermore, the council decides funding from year to year so a non-profit might get $10,000 one year and none the next.
“The process has been painful,” said councilmember Joanne Sanders, who formed the subcommittee that developed the new proposal.
The action at won’t completely do away with the uncertainty of the process. However, “core” or “Tier 1” programs will be considered at the start of the budget cycle alongside regular city departments.
The idea behind the funding is that in a small city like Sonoma such community organizations can provide services at a better price than would a city Parks and Recreation Department with significant overhead. The Tier 1 community partners provide activities like after-school recreational and summer programs, senior services and environmental education programs. To that end, the council has historically funded Vintage House, the Boys and Girls Club, and the Sonoma Community Center.
Non-profits that provide services outside those areas can apply for the community activity grants. Those will still be given out at the end of the fiscal year, but the Community Services and Environment Commission would have oversight. The CSEC would receive the applications for funding, and hold a public meeting to determine which programs to be funded and at what amount.
The subcommittee also floated idea of creating upping the transient occupany tax (TOT) to create a new funding source. They discussed it extensively, but decided it was beyond the purview of the group.
The subcommittee included Councilmembers Sanders and Ken Brown; City Manager Linda Kelly; Lori Norton, Deputy County Administrator; Dave Pier, executive director of the Boys and Girls Clubs; Kathy Swett, executive director of Sonoma Community Center; and community members Janet Church and Whitney Evans.
Council notes
Surplus property disposal
The council passed an ordinance allowing the city manager to dispose of surplus city property without getting council approval on each occasion unless the property is valued over $25,000. Barbose joked that Linda Kelly would henceforth be the “surplus property czar.”
Legislators, give yourselves an IOU!
A proposal to send a strongly-worded letter to state legislators telling them to stop taking state monies in the form of their personal paychecks until the budget is resolved failed by a 2-3 vote.
“If they’re going to ask the state employees to take IOUs, they better be ready to take them themselves,” said Barbose, who proposed the agenda item.
Barbose and Brown voted in favor of sending the letter. Sanders and Aug Sebastiani argued that this was not a productive use of staff time, regardless of sentiment.
Laurie Gallian also voted against the measure, arguing that the situation has reached a point where this won’t be effective. She said a letter to the effect should be sent by every resident in Sonoma and encouraged everyone to pressure their legislators individually.
Exploring historic preservation easement for Sonoma Community Center
The city council has been trying to figure out how to help the Sonoma Community Center maintain the historic building using redevelopment funds. As a temporary measure, at the meeting on Dec. 17, the council voted to enter into a short-term historic preservation easement – $50,000 in fiscal year 2008-2009 and another $50,000 in fiscal year 2009-2010.
Barbose had stated at a previous meeting that a short-term conservation easement doesn’t make sense to him because it doesn’t protect the historic property in perpetuity. He joined a committee to look at the issue and to see if there was a feasible way to pay for a long-term conservation easement.
He opined that any city money paid for a historic conservation easement should be used exclusively for the upkeep of the building. The idea was not well-received by the other committee members. However, councilmembers Gallian and Brown were convinced by Barbose’s argument and agreed that the money should be limited to paying for building improvement and maintenance. Sanders and Sebastiani had to recuse themselves from discussion because their houses are located so close the community center.
The only other way the redevelopment money can be used is for economic development.
Brown would also encourage the community center to aggressively explore other economic partnerships as well, such as renting the building. The community center received over $100,000 a year from Presentation School when it was leasing space there.
Vacation rentals: under the radar
The council discussed the issue of vacation rentals in the city – that is to say whether there is an issue. Councilmember Barbose brought up the item for discussion.
The City of Sonoma has more stringent requirements on rentals than the county since passing an ordinance in 1999. There are currently 38 vacation rentals in city limits, most in the historic district. Twenty-six were grandfathered in and 12 have been approved by the Planning Commission since 1999. The rentals can only be located in the commerical and mixed-use zones. There are also special guidelines in place allowing for the rental of historically significant properties
Owners much have a business license and pay TOT to the city. They also must obtain a use permit from the Planning Commission.
The TOT from vacation rentals was just $66,509 in 2008, 2.63 percent of the total revenue the city received.
In 2008, the police department logged four calls for services at vacation rentals. Two were parties, the others were for vandalism, presumably committed by the renters.
Several community members spoke up both against and in favor of the vacation rentals.
Barbose concluded by saying he would like to see a minimum stay and a sharper scrutiny of the historic value of the properties and the economic justification for historic re-use. The council directed staff to look at the issue.
