At its regular meeting on Wednesday evening, the Sonoma City Council considered a variety of topics. Council member August Sebastiani was absent.
City revenues down, but still solid
“The city remains solvent,” was the report from Carol Giovannato, assistant city manager.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) has traditionally been the largest source of funds for the city, but following a decline that in December was some 20 percent below the December 2007 levels, property tax has been the top revenue stream. Giovannato said it looks like the mortgage crisis won’t really be felt until 2010 or 2011, after reassessments take place, especially related to foreclosures. Within the city, there are 12 properties in pre-foreclosure, plus eight properties that are bank-owned and nine that are at foreclosure auction..
Sales tax collections for the fiscal year are higher than the year before, though Giovannato said that January collections were lower than the same month last year by about $30,000.
The downturn in construction has already hit city coffers, as builders and other construction trade companies are not all renewing licenses. Giovannato recognized some other “economic casualties” – revenues the city had budgeted that won’t come in that high. Building-related revenues, for instance, were budgeted at $350,000, but at mid-year, just 28 percent of that had been received. Only 11 percent of budgeted engineering fees had been collected at mid-year and 17 percent of anticipated real estate transfer tax revenues.
The impact of the state budget is still unknown, although one impact will be sorely felt – the state’s one-time raid on redevelopment funds that took $395,000 from the City of Sonoma. Giovannato said she doesn’t anticipate ever getting that money back.
Given the uncertain economic times, city staff recommended that in the next budget cycle, the council approve a one-year budget rather than a two-year plan.
Council favors mandatory green building ordinance
The city council voiced support for a mandatory green building ordinance on Wednesday night and called for a public hearing on the program. The draft is modeled after a similar program in Santa Rosa and was compiled by a subcommittee over the past 18 months. The date and location of the hearing are to be determined.
The ordinance would apply to the construction and replacement of all new residential buildings with a floor area more than 500 sq. ft and new non-residential buildings with a floor area of at least 5,000 sq. ft. “This is an incredible document,” said council member Laurie Gallian. “This is something that puts us in the lead again.”
“When we embarked on this as a city council, it was a voluntary program,” said council member Joanne Sanders. “We got it over to the mandatory column, but it enables people to go green without a lot of extra costs and with flexibility. Having done a small green building myself, I know it costs a lot of money.”
The costs to the city would be covered by increased fees. The initial cost to owners for implementation and verification is expected to run from 0.5 to 2 percent of the construction costs. The increase for new non-residential buildings may run 3 to 10 percent of the total construction cost. Upfront costs are often off-set by reduced operational costs over the life of the building.
The program does not require the buildings to be LEED-certified nor GreenPoint Rated, but must meet requirements for a certain number of points under those programs. Verification would be carried out by certified private inspectors. LEED is a certification program through the US Green Building Council and the GreenPoint system is administered through Build It Green.
The ordinance would not apply to schools, mobile homes and hospitals, which the city does not regulate. Cotati, Windsor, Novato, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol already have mandatory green building programs.
Ready for the water shortage: Water ordinance outlines approach
The city council took a first step toward preparing for water rationing by unanimously passing a water ordinance. The Sonoma County Water Agency has said it may cut water supply by 30 percent to lower river users like Sonoma and by up to 50 percent to users further up north. Those cuts would take place in late March or April. The severity would depend somewhat on rainfall until then.
City Engineer Toni Bertolero presented the draft ordinance, which outlines four conservation stages based on the amount of SCWA delivery reduction:
Stage 1, voluntary conservation, would go into effect when SCWA delivery is reduced by up to 15 percent. The city would request that customers not waste water, inspect their irrigation systems and schedule irrigation when evaporation losses are minimized.
If SCWA cuts delivery by up to 25 percent, the city would go into Stage 2 and would not allow customers to fill swimming pools, have water for fountains, or irrigate at other than set times.
Stage 3 kicks in when the SCWA cuts supply by up to 40 percent and enters into mandatory compliance. The city would further reduce watering of athletic fields and parks and no longer permit non-commercial washing of vehicles, among other actions.
Stage 4 follows a supply cut of more than 40 percent and would include water rationing based on a plan establishing allotments, surcharges, excess use fees and penalties. There would be no new water connections or agreements and the plan may include temporary service interruptions. The city may also look at “drought pricing” – increasing the price of water if households exceed a certain per person limit. Another component is assessing groundwater supply so the city can pump more water from its four wells during drought periods.
The council also discussed how to better utilize dry wells and rainwater collection systems. There are some difficulties in implementing rainwater collection in a town like Sonoma because there is no rainfall during much of the year. That means that people need substantial tanks to meet water needs over the course of the year, and tanks can be expensive and may not be feasible on small lots.
Sheriff presents community crime survey
The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department recently hired a consultant to survey the community on crime concerns, which it has periodically done over the last decade. The City of Sonoma was included for the first time this year. In April, the Results Group mailed out 6,750 surveys in both Spanish and English to city residents. The return rate was 22 percent. Of the respondents, 94.9 percent feel safe or very safe in the community and 87.3 percent rated the overall performance of the sheriff’s department as good or excellent.
About 15 percent of respondents said they were victims of a crime, but did not report it. Reasons cited were language barrier, “wouldn’t make a difference,” suspect retaliation, and too busy.
Of those who called the police department, 93.4 percent were satisfied or very satisfied. Of people who had direct contact with an officer, the number one reason for dissatisfaction was that they felt the officer didn’t do enough. The top crime concerns of respondents mirrored those at the county level, with gangs, violent crime, drugs and theft topping the list.
Sonoma Police Chief Bret Sackett said one statistic he’d like to improve was that just 21 percent of respondents knew the name of an officer working in the community. Sackett said he’s very committed to community policing. “A survey is only good if you can improve. I think the community SCOPE program will be a great help. We also need to look at customer service to make sure people are comfortable calling us. I think we have a pretty good ear on the community and I’m happy with the results.”
