Sonoma dissolves housing authority, cedes $6.6 million in property

In the name of a streamlined and more efficient regional system, the Sonoma City Council voted to complete the dissolution of its redevelopment agency by transferring its housing assets to a countywide agency.

Monday’s 3-2 vote surrenders to the Housing Authority of the County of Sonoma three properties currently owned by the city: 20269 Broadway, a site purchased for $3.2 million with the intent to develop low income housing; the 34-unit Village Green II apartments on Fourth Street West; and a vacant parcel at 650 West Spain.

The city paid a total of $6.6 million for the properties.

If the city kept ownership, it would have been free to sell any property, but would be bound to reinvest the proceeds back into its housing element.

In its capacity as the housing authority the city spent about $250,000 annually in staff, fees, services and related costs. A large percentage of that will disappear, but so too the funding, which came from dedicated tax revenue.

Sacramento will now recover those tax dollars directly, the result of legislation that forced the dissolution of 400 redevelopment agencies statewide.

The city will still be responsible for certain housing-related expenses; City Manager Linda Kelly said that figure is as yet undetermined. “These are uncharted waters,” she said.

The council had the choice of retaining the land and its role as the local housing authority, but would have had to fund the effort out of the city’s general fund.

Because under the current statutes the city would not receive an ongoing annual dedicated funding source for housing programs and projects, Kelly recommended the council “decline to retain” the housing function.

“We are going to have to shrink government,” said Councilmember Tom Rouse, who said the consolidation would help streamline the process for low-income applicants.

Eight other cities in Sonoma County have voted to retain their housing elements. But Kathleen Kane, executive director of the County Housing Authority, said Sonoma’s decision to dissolve was the right choice.

Kane said that without funding to maintain and administer them, the Sonoma properties would soon become liabilities. Her office, though also facing cuts, “has the expertise” to take over the responsibilities. Most of Sonoma’s housing projects have received money through her agency, she said.

Councilmembers Laurie Gallian and Steve Barbose opposed the decision, citing a preference for local control.

“I want to maintain control of our assets,” Barbose said. Finding a non-profit to take over
Village Green, which is the category’s biggest expense, would leave the city with two vacant properties, he said. “That’s not a big drain.”

Gallian asked Kane how much input the city would have in any future development of the surrendered properties. “We work in close communication with cities,” Hill said. “We don’t work unilaterally.” Still, her agency will seek input, “but is not bound by it.”

Any projects would be subject to city zoning rules, design review and other regulations, confirmed City Attorney Jeffrey Walter.

Councilmember Ken Brown said he has confidence in the countywide agency. “I’m ready to move into the future,” he said. “I don’t see us doing this alone. Getting out of this business is the way we need to go.”

Mayor Joanne Sanders likened the move to outsourcing. “We do it with police and fire departments, why not housing?” Consolidation will create a “one-stop shop” of experts that will be more efficient than an overworked Sonoma City Hall staff “that wears too many hats,” she said.

Kelly said it was an opportunity to regionalize services where there already is some overlap.
“Citizens will be better served by one agency,” Sanders said. “We need to get more people into housing they can afford. That was the intention of buying the property in the first place.”