City to review partnership with Visitors Bureau

Council to discuss merits of $100K contract; termination not likely|

Supporters of the Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau likely have their “heads resting easier in beds” following Monday’s special meeting of the Sonoma City Council, as a request to reconsider and possibly terminate the city’s contract with the bureau was met with a tepid response from the majority of council members.

The “special” meeting – called for Aug. 14 by Mayor Rachel Hundley in order to keep wheels of city governance moving during the summer doldrums – included a request by Councilmember Amy Harrington that the council consider agendizing for a future meeting the review of the city’s agreement with the Visitors Bureau, which provides $100,000 to the bureau from the city’s general fund. Part of that discussion, according to the city staff report, would be the possible termination of the contract and reallocation of the $100,000 to other city priorities.

The City Council had in 2016 renewed its contract with the Visitors Bureau for another three years, but the deal allows for the contract to be terminated with 90 days notice. Harrington said that, with an upcoming report on the state of the Tourism Improvement District set for later this month, it would be an appropriate time to consider whether the city’s “subsidizing” of the Visitors Bureau still made fiscal sense, or whether the $100,000 from the general fund could be better spent on other city needs.

Several members of the community took time during the public comment period of the meeting to weigh in on whether such a discussion should take place.

Jonny Westom, director of the Visitors Bureau, asked the council not to agendize the discussion, saying that if the bureau’s contract with the city were to be terminated visitor services would be negatively affected and the location of the Visitors Bureau, which rents the Carnegie Building on the Plaza from the city, would be in doubt.

Longtime Visitors Bureau board member Bill Blum, manager of MacArthur Place hotel and spa on MacArthur Street, described the possible demise of the city-bureau partnership as potentially “devastating to the city.” He said the 30-year relationship the bureau has enjoyed with the City of Sonoma is something of which he is “most proud” as a member and resident.

Visitors Bureau board president Gary Saperstein said the SVVB is a “vital part of the community.”

“We are here for the local businesses to help them succeed day by day, month by month, year by year,” said Saperstein.

Former Visitors Bureau director Wendy Peterson was perhaps the bureau’s most eloquent voice that evening when she described the partnership as “enduring and endearing.”

“This is working,” said Peterson. “This is part of why Sonoma is different than any other town, any other destination.”

Still, not everyone was as enamored with the contract as it stands.

Sonoma resident George Thompson said the Visitors Bureau’s role is two things: they “(coordinate) the collection of information and they disseminate it.”

“I’m a small business owner and I don’t see (the termination of the contract) hurting (small business) at all,” said Thompson, adding that he sees it as helping residents.

Added Thompson: “I always tell my friends to stay in Petaluma at the Motel 6.”

Commenters David Eichar, Patricia Cullinan and Len Clary voiced similar opinions that, since several community members and at least one council member are interested in a renewed discussion about the Visitors Bureau contract, then the council should be open to holding such a discussion.

On the other hand, commenter James Cribb, who is also the chair of the Planning Commission, addressed Harrington directly, rhetorically asking why she is “so intent on doing damage to small business in town.”

Cribb noted the council’s expressed goal of finding a happy balance in town between tourism and residents and said, “The only balance I’ve heard is taking things away.”

Councilmember David Cook didn’t express any particular views about the Visitors Bureau contract, per se, but said he’d support agendizing a discussion about it. “All we’re doing is taking a look at something,” said Cook. “Every contract we’re in will probably be reviewed this year.”

Mayor Hundley said she was wary of putting the fate of the contract on the table, but wasn’t averse to discussing its merits. “It’s important to start talking about this,” she said. “Going into our next budget (we need to) get a better understanding of our relationship with the Visitors Bureau.”

Councilmembers Gary Edwards and Madolyn Agrimonti, meanwhile, didn’t see a review of the current contract as a priority. “This economy has always been a tourist economy,” said Edwards. “We can’t shed this – we own this economy… we need to take a step back and fulfill our commitment.”

Harrington stressed that her interest in agendizing a discussion of the contract isn’t a criticism of the Visitors Bureau, but “a question of fiscal priorities.”

“Is it fiscally appropriate for the city to subsidize the Visitors Bureau?” asked Harrington. “Is it more fair that we spend the money on the Visitors Bureau” than other priorities that the city has neglected.

In the end, Harrington’s motion to agendize a review and possible termination of the City’s contract with the Visitors Bureau failed to gain traction with the rest of the council.

However, Cook’s subsequent motion to schedule a discussion of the City’s contract with the Visitors Bureau after the Visitors Bureau has finalized and presented its annual report to the city on Aug. 21 was approved 3-2, with Edwards and Agrimonti voting nay.

Email Jason at jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.