Serving on Sonoma’s City Council has always, basically, been a volunteer job. In practical terms, this has meant that those who could share their time in service to the City while working, or those who have retired and could afford to volunteer, have customarily taken on the job. This is predictable in a community with an older demographic.
City Council pay once was zero, and it was not until the late 1990s that a $300-a-month stipend was established. Health insurance has been offered and paid for by the City for many years. Many Council members have donated their stipend to nonprofits, or simply refused it. A salary was never viewed as instrumental to attracting candidates, nor was it an incentive to serve in office.
Recently, the current City Council voted to raise the monthly stipend to $950, a 300 percent-plus increase. The logic of the four members of the Council who approved the raise (Mayor Wellander did not) was that a higher monthly salary would attract people who could otherwise not afford to spend their time serving on the City Council. Our concern is that it won’t, and the recent nomination period for the next election proves it.
Two sitting Council members will be reappointed because nobody else submitted nomination papers. In the remaining district, three people are competing for a seat. Only one, Julian Mackie, is part of a younger demographic. None of these candidates need the stipend, and all live in the higher-income district on the east side of the City. So much for economic diversity.
But there is another reason why raising City Council pay now is wrong. The City of Sonoma is two years behind in completing its outside financial audits. Moreover, a new City Manager has yet to be appointed, which is also true of a Finance Director.
Outside audits are required to ensure that the financial statements and balance sheet of the City are accurate. Until audits are complete, exactly how much money the City has available is unknown. Auditors often require changes and adjustments to financials of the many funds the City maintains for its operations. Sometimes those adjustments are considerable.
For example, in the mid-1990s the auditors required the City to write-off a half-million dollar debt to the General Fund from the Cemetery Fund, explaining that the Cemetery Fund would never have the wherewithal to repay it. Suddenly, the City’s General Fund was a half-million smaller. Another audit discovered that the City had broken some bond covenants, a serious finding with potential legal consequences.
The City of Sonoma is in tenuous financial condition, which the interim City Manager has affirmed. The financial environment is changing, and previously dependable sources of revenue – like sales taxes – are not as dependable any more. To balance the budget, the City has raised the sales tax twice over the past few years. That can’t continue forever.
There is no greater City Council responsibility than to safeguard the community’s money. It is irresponsible to increase spending without knowing the precise financial condition of the City. Audits are time-consuming, and once begun, completing two of them will take the better part of one year. No new spending should be approved until that’s done, least of all, increasing Council pay.
Be First to Comment