By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Santa Rosa’s City Council is planning to tackle some thorny issues in the next two years, including the annexation of Roseland, requiring labor agreements on public projects and relaxing the city’s medicinal marijuana ordinance.

The council this week wrapped up its effort to set goals for the next two years, giving council members, particularly new ones, the chance to add issues to the long list of council priorities.

The former Albertsons supermarket sits empty in the heart of the Roseland business district

In addition to supporting long-running goals such as the reunification of Old Courthouse Square and gang-prevention efforts, council members added a number of new issues they felt should be “strategic objectives” for the city.

The one that got the most support from the public was the annexation of Roseland, the 400-acre county island in southwest Santa Rosa that many now say finally must be annexed into the city.

Resident Bill Haluzak told the council that it is ridiculous to have one side of Hughes Avenue in the city and the other in the county.

“Everyone’s just jammed up with the fact that half of it’s in the city, half of it’s in the county,” Haluzak said. “We need some real direction.”

Even vocal opponents of annexation say they have had a change of heart.

“I support annexation of Roseland. Twenty years ago, I didn’t,” said Duane DeWitt, who said he organized opposition to annexation in 1995 and again in 2005.

That effort petered out when the economy tanked in 2008. But there is renewed interest on the council in revisiting the issue. Gary Wysocky pushed for Roseland to be specifically named, instead of a more general goal of supporting annexation of all county islands in the city.

But city officials cautioned the task won’t be easy or inexpensive.

“Roseland is a very large, complex project that will, if it comes to fruition, go over a number of years, not just a couple years,” City Manager Kathy Millison said.

The effort is so complicated and potentially costly that Chuck Regalia, director of community development, said it will take a year to even put together a plan.

“I want to organize the city’s thinking on what we have to do to consider an annexation of that magnitude,” Regalia said.

The council agreed that Regalia should return by next April with a plan that includes cost estimates for annexation.

Another issue certain to stir controversy involves the adoption of two measures opposed by the building industry. One is requiring development projects to conduct community-impact reports, which cities including Petaluma require, but Santa Rosa does not.

Tony White, a member of the Living Wage Coalition, urged the council to consider adopting such reports, known as CIRs. He noted that when the city considers annexing Roseland, it will undoubtedly examine the social, economic and political impacts on the entire city of such a move.

“Why shouldn’t major construction projects of a certain size also be held to the same scrutiny?” White asked.

A report on CIRs is due in December.

In the other construction issue, Vice Mayor Erin Carlstrom proposed exploring whether project labor agreements were something the city should support. She suggested holding a study session on them by 2015.

Carlstrom is a former member of the Accountable Development Coalition, which advocates for such agreements. They generally require union rules, benefits and oversight for all workers on larger construction projects.

The county considered requiring such agreements for all county projects over $25 million, but the effort fell short last fall. Critics say they drive up costs, cause delays and exclude nonunion contractors.

Keith Woods, chief executive officer of the North Coast Builders Exchange, has been a sharp critic of such agreements for years. He questioned why the council would consider them at all, especially as part of its goal of promoting a sustainable economy.

“In terms of being good for contractors and the general public, your taxpayers, they are not good at all,” Woods said.

Council members were all over the board on the issue. Jake Ours said he’s long been against project labor agreements. Robin Swinth said she has higher priorities, like the budget and pensions. And Ernesto Olivares, who when he endorsed Carlstrom during the election agreed to consider supporting them, said he’s willing to listen.

“I would like to hear what they have to say,” Olivares said.

Another issue that received significant public support was revisiting the city’s restrictions on medicinal marijuana dispensaries. Craig Litwin, former mayor of Sebastopol, urged the council to lift the patient cap on dispensaries and loosen restrictions on business hours.

Carlstrom urged revisiting the ordinance more quickly, pushing it up from June 2014 to January.

She called for the Medicinal Marijuana Committee to reconvene and volunteered to serve on it. She said the committee’s work “is all but done” and it just needs to renew and formalize its recommendations.

Other issues added to the list of council priorities include: ensuring safe access to future SMART stations; increasing enforcement of trash and graffiti rules; strengthening local purchasing preferences; developing a funding plan to address various ongoing fiscal headaches, including unfunded pension liabilities, the expiration of Measure P’s sales-tax increase and the ever-increasing funding requirements in Measure O.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater.

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The state political watchdog agency Thursday fined two recently retired Santa Rosa parks and recreation department officials for accepting thousands of dollars in free golf rounds, lessons and merchandise discounts from the operator of the city-owned Bennett Valley Golf Club.

As expected, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission voted 4-0 to approve a $6,500 fine for former department director Marc Richardson and a $3,000 fine for former parks development manager Rich Hovden.

Bennett Valley Golf Course.

Both men had struck settlement agreements with the agency. Neither appeared at the hearing, but afterward Richardson issued a written statement.

“I apologize for what happened,” Richardson wrote. “I didn’t realize the trouble my actions caused at the time and should have; however, looking back I can see the violations and accept responsibility.”

Richardson retired in December after 27 years with the city. Hovden retired in February after 41 years with the city. Their departures followed an investigation by City Manager Kathy Millison prompted by an anonymous letter pointing out that Richardson golfed at the course nearly every Saturday and never appeared to pay.

“If this is true, it just doesn’t seem right, since he must have a pretty good salary with the City, and the rest of us, who are probably not as fortunate, always have to pay, and have seen the fees go up a lot lately,” states the letter, signed only by “Golfer.”

The city hired a private investigator, whose report confirmed that Richardson and Hovden had been accepting the free course access and other gifts for years from course operator Bob Borowicz.

The city asserts the entire report is a secret document, citing an exemption to the state’s public record act for “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Both men repaid Borowicz in December and retired shortly thereafter. Richardson repaid $5,324, and Hovden repaid $4,479.

Since neither had disclosed the gifts as required on state financial disclosure forms, both were required to file amendments listing all the gifts. City Clerk Terri Griffin alerted the FPPC’s enforcement division to the potential violations. The amended filings formed the basis of the FPPC’s charges.

Richardson faced three charges. One was failing to disclose gifts over $50, which is required for all top city officials. He was fined $1,000 for it.

He also was fined for accepting gifts over the annual limit, which was $390 in 2007 and 2008 and $420 for 2009 to 2012.

The FPPC noted that in the year ending June 12, 2012, Richardson accepted $1,496 in gifts from Borowicz and was fined $2,000.

The most serious offense was the conflict-of-interest accusation. The FPPC noted that Richardson was receiving the free golf and other gifts from Borowicz during the time that Richardson negotiated a 10-year contract with Borowicz. He also negotiated an amendment to the contract increasing green fees in June of 2012, according to the FPPC.

Richardson told the FPPC he believed the two actions saved the city $1.6 million and that he “did not consider free course access a gift given his supervisory responsibilities” in the department. For this charge, Richardson was fined $3,500.

In his statement, Richardson also cited the savings to the city.

“I do want folks to know that the contracts we negotiated with the golf course operator were reductions to his compensation for course maintenance that saved the city $1.6 million,” Richardson wrote. “At this juncture I have made my amends, paid the fine and will count my blessing and move forward.”

Hovden was charged with failing to report gifts over $50, for which he was fined $1,000, and for exceeding the annual gift limit for four years, for which the fine was $2,000.

He, too, told FPPC officials that he did not consider the free golf, cart access, driving range access and merchandie discounts to be gifts because the course is city-owned and under the management of his department.

In its decision, the FPPC stressed the need for accurate reporting of such gifts.

“Failure to report all required information … deprives the public of important information about a public official’s economic interests and it has the potential to conceal conflicts of interest,” the FPPC said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater.

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Windsor on Wednesday became the first city to join the Sonoma Clean Power Authority, created as an alternative to PG&E to provide a greener product at competitive, if not cheaper rates.

On a 3-2 vote, the Town Council adopted a resolution to join the county in the program that allows local governments to consolidate buying power and sell electricity to a local customer base.

“I’ve been waiting for this day for a very long time,” Councilwoman Debora Fudge said, adding that Sonoma Clean Power will provide residents a choice, go further in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provide jobs to boost the local economy.

“It’s a way to make a big difference,” she said noting that the program intends to start with power that is 33 percent from renewable sources, a greater proportion than PG&E’s 20 percent.

The divided council vote came at the urging of more than a dozen speakers, including climate protection advocates, business owners, residents and county supervisors Mike McGuire and Efren Carrillo.

“By breaking the (PG&E) monopoly this will introduce competition where there has been none,” McGuire told the Town Council.

He said the county has completed a “significant amount of due diligence” over the past two years, including focus groups and market surveys to measure demand prior to deciding to launch the program and ask cities to join in.

But he acknowledged doubts persist, including some cities that have heard the county sales pitch, but not immediately signed on.

“This is a bold proposition and there is some fear and uncertainty,” McGuire said.

“I invite you to join in what could be a clean energy future,” Carrillo told the Windsor Council. “It can be something that transforms what this county looks like when it comes to local power and choice.”

Fudge, a retired PG&E employee, was joined in the majority Wednesday by council members Sam Salmon and Bruce Okrepkie who emphasized the alternative it will provide residents and businesses, who can still “opt out” if they wish and keep PG&E as their utility.

But Mayor Robin Goble and Councilman Steve Allen had doubts about the county program and voted again the resolution.

“There needs to be a stronger, fleshed-out business model before I choose to commit,” Goble said, adding that she would like to see it in existence for a year before deciding.

Allen said competition usually brings lower rates, but the county power agency has not been able to assure a decrease. Instead, it projects residential rates in 2014 would be 1.8 percent lower to 1 percent higher than PG&E’s and for commercial customers 3 percent lower to 0.5 percent higher.

“There’s a lot of things I like about this program. I still have some concerns,” said Allen. He questioned the fact that residents and businesses would have to opt out of the program if they wished to stay with PG&E.

He also had questions about how truly green Sonoma Clean Power will be if it intends initially, at least, to purchase “renewable energy credits,” or power from distant wind or solar farms, for example, that does not actually involve physically moving the electricity across state lines.

On the other hand, Allen also expressed concern that Sonoma Clean Power could cause the proliferation of solar panels in agricultural zones in the county, with vineyards “wiped out by a sea of photovoltaics.”

But Okrepkie said everyone wants the ability to choose, whether it be a supermarket, gas station or utility.

And despite council members receiving numerous emails both for and against joining the county power agency, he said “those who are so adamantly against didn’t show up tonight. That definitely bothers me.”

Woody Hastings, a manager with the Santa Rosa-based Climate Protection Campaign, noted that in 2010, 70 percent of Sonoma County voters were against Proposition 16, the PG&E-backed initiative that would have denied community choice aggregators such as Sonoma Clean Power.

“It paved the way to make this choice,” he told council members, adding that Marin County operates a program along with its cities.

Deputy County Counsel Steve Shupe said the $180 million that is now paid to PG&E in Sonoma County would no longer go to that company’s shareholders. Instead, net revenues from Sonoma Clean Power can be used to reduce rates or for ancillary programs, he said.

Shupe acknowledged risks, but said they are “minor and small,” such as misjudging power needs and or potentially committing to purchases that are not competitive.

The county has narrowed the list of potential power suppliers to four companies.

Even if Sonoma Clean Power failed, Shupe said customers could return to PG&E.

Under the new enterprise, PG&E would continue to provide all electricity delivery, repair and billing services.

You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 521-5214 or clark.mason@pressdemocrat.com

By DEREK MOORE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A new Sonoma organization describing itself as a broad citizens group opposed to a voter initiative to cap hotel development is getting its seed money from the developer whose controversial project could be blocked by the proposed ballot measure.

Nancy Simpson, the campaign coordinator for Protect Sonoma, which is being formed as a political action committee, said the ballot measure is not needed because the city already has adequate controls on hotel development. “This is not about any particular project,” Simpson said. “This is about Sonoma as a whole.”

The revised plan for Chateau Sonoma Hotel & Spa. Key changes include shrinking the total project by 7,000-square feet, removing the Lynch building from the project and including one restaurant instead of three.

She acknowledged, however, that Darius Anderson and his firm, Kenwood Investments, are paying her to manage the organization. Anderson is the developer of a proposed 59-room hotel near the city Plaza that has become a flashpoint in the debate over hotel development.

Neither Anderson nor Kenwood Investments was identified in last week’s press release announcing the new committee and its members, nor are they referenced on the group’s website or Facebook page.

“This is seed money to start a group that was starting anyway,” said Simpson, co-owner of a wine consulting business. She would not disclose her compensation or the amount of Anderson’s contribution.

Neither Anderson nor Bill Hooper, the investment firm’s president, returned calls seeking comment this week. Anderson also is a principal of Sonoma Media Investments, which owns The Press Democrat.

The proposed ballot measure would cap any new hotel, or expansion of an existing one, at 25 rooms unless the city’s hotel occupancy rate over the previous calendar year exceeded 80 percent. In 2012, the rate was just under 65 percent.

Simpson, who is Sonoma Valley’s designee to the county Landmarks Commission, said residents already have a say about what kind of hotel development they want in town. “We have a process in place that evaluates every project that comes into the city of Sonoma on a case-by-case basis. It’s based on the general plan,” she said.

Other critics have said the measure would stymie economic growth in Sonoma and result in a de facto ban on most hotels by setting an impossibly high occupancy standard.

Sonoma has never experienced an annualized occupancy rate of 80 percent, according to City Manager Carol Giovanatto. She cited a national travel survey that found only three U.S. locales have achieved that rate — San Francisco, New York City and Waikiki Beach.

The initiative effort is driven by a group called Preserving Sonoma, which is led by Larry Barnett, a former bed-and-breakfast owner and mayor of the city.

He said Wednesday that Preserving Sonoma has gathered about 600 signatures in support of the ballot measure. That’s about half the number of registered voters’ signatures needed to qualify the measure for a special election.

Barnett said disclosure that Kenwood Investments is assisting the opposition group “furthers my opinion that this really doesn’t represent a true grass-roots effort if it’s being funded by someone who is building a hotel that is outside the size and scale of what is being contemplated for our initiative.”

Barnett described Preserving Sonoma as a “100 percent genuine grass-roots group” that has no paid staff.

Campaign finance reports filed with the city show that Barnett loaned the group $20,000.

Barnett said the group also has taken in about $4,000 in donations, the largest of which — $1,000 — was contributed by Sonoma psychologist Barbara Sachs-Senn, reports show.

“Quote, progress happens, but I’d rather it be slow than too fast,” Sachs-Senn said. “It bothers me every time I want to cross the Plaza now and there’s so much traffic at times, especially between Whole Foods and the Bank of America.”

Barnett said Preserving Sonoma owes the San Francisco law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger about $35,000 for legal services related to the drafting of the proposed hotel ordinance.

The retired innkeeper and web designer said he expects he’ll have to loan the campaign an additional $15,000 of his own money to cover that expense.

“I hope to get some of that back, but if not, it’s for a good cause,” Barnett said.

Barnett said he has received no funding from Sonoma lodging owners.

“Not even a dollar,” he said.

Simpson said she submitted paperwork to the California Secretary of State to register Protect Sonoma, which is required before the committee can start to solicit donations. The group’s full name is Protect Sonoma: Sonomans for a Sustainable Future.

State campaign laws generally don’t require a developer to disclose his role with a PAC, other than if he or she were to contribute to the committee, according to Tara Stock, a spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, called Anderson’s involvement with the committee a potentially risky move that could alienate some Sonoma voters.

Anderson is a Sacramento lobbyist in addition to his work with Kenwood Investments.

“You don’t want there to be an appearance that you are directly funding a spokesperson or a campaign against something,” McCuan said.

But McCuan said Protect Sonoma gives Anderson a platform to mount an opposition campaign, which he said usually are successful in contested local ballot measures.

“It’s easier to block, than it is to propose and pass,” he said.

Barnett alleged that the Protect Sonoma name was deliberately selected by initiative opponents to create confusion on the issue.

Simpson denied that.

“I don’t think it’s that similar,” she said of the group’s name.

Protect Sonoma’s initial members are: Jeff Bundschu, Saul Gropman, Jean Arnold, Chip Allen, Gary Saperstein, Ethel and Gene Daly, Steve Burns, Gary Magnani, Mark Danon, Dana Adams, Lisa Cavalli, Tina Shone, Nancy Cline and Mike Marino.

You can reach Staff Writer Derek Moore at 521-5336 or derek.moore@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @deadline derek.

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A judge on Wednesday refused to block construction of three new storage silos at a Santa Rosa asphalt plant.

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elliot Daum denied a request by neighbors to halt construction of the 82-foot-high silos at the BoDean asphalt plant north of Railroad Square.

Bodean Company plant operator Anthony Boyle runs the batch plant from the control room on Monday, April 23, 2012. (Christopher Chung / PD)

The judge ruled Citizens for Safe Neighborhoods failed to show that halting work on the silos was in the public interest. He noted that BoDean has the right to move forward with its project while the group’s lawsuit is pending, albeit at the company’s own risk.

The neighborhood group is suing BoDean and the City of Santa Rosa, whose City Council narrowly approved the project in April, in an effort to force more environmental study of the $2 million project.

Neighbors have raised a number of health and land-use concerns about the project, which they characterize as a significant expansion of the Maxwell Drive plant. They worry about increased noise, traffic and emissions, and argue the City Council should never have exempted the project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The company denies the three silos and related equipment would expand the plant’s capacity. It says the upgrades would help it operate more efficiently and will lower greenhouse gas emissions.

BoDean general manager Bill Williams said the company has spent nearly $500,000 preparing the site for the new silos. It expects to have the new equipment up and running by July.

The neighborhood group had argued the project would “irreparably damage the environment” if allowed to be constructed. Allen Thomas, a vocal opponent of the project, said the group decided not to challenge the judge’s ruling because its lawsuit is set for trial in August.

“We are confident we will prevail in August,” Thomas said.

But the judge doesn’t sound convinced, finding in his ruling that the group “failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.”

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The mayor of Santa Rosa has called for a financial audit of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department in the wake of what he called “disquieting” revelations about the department’s budget.

“I’d like to see the city manager do a complete audit our parks and recreation finances,” Mayor Scott Bartley said during the Tuesday City Council meeting.

He said “prudence dictates” the review given questions that came up during last week’s budget presentation that showed “funding going from place to place.”

Bennett Valley Golf Course.

Bartley did not mention the recent revelation that two recently retired department managers are set to be fined Thursday by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report thousands of dollars in free golf, cart usage, lessons and merchandise discounts over several years from the operator of the city-owned Bennett Valley Golf Course.

Marc Richardson, director of the department until his retirement in December, is facing a $6,500 fine, while Rich Hovden, parks development manager until he left in February, is facing a $3,000 fine.

After an independent investigation confirmed the undisclosed gifts, the two men repaid golf course operator Bob Borowicz a total of $9,365 in December. After retiring, each amended several years of financial disclosures, triggering the FPPC investigation and proposed fines.

Richardson’s proposed fine is steeper because he is also accused of having a conflict of interest when he negotiated Borowicz’ contract while receiving gifts from him.

Councilman Gary Wysocky agreed that further investigation needs to be done. But instead of a general department audit, he proposed focusing on operations of the golf course, which already has been the subject of an outside review recently disclosed by Assistant City Manager Jennifer Phillips.

“An audit does not give you absolute assurance that you have found everything, especially when there are cases of collusion,” said Wysocky, a certified public accountant.

Instead, he said the review of the golf course operations, which was completed in March by Sirrius Golf Advisors of Jacksonville, Fla., should be the immediate focus.

“There are some tremendous issues that were raised,” Wysocky said.

The 95-page report said the course is generally well run but is losing money largely because of more than $400,000 in bond payments related to the construction of $9.6 million clubhouse and pro shop, which opened in 2007.

But it also noted what it called several poor accounting practices, such as not having individual cashiers responsible for their own cash drawers and allowing annual pass holders to pay in installments.

One of the issues noted as a “red flag” regarded how rainchecks were granted to golfers.

“The issue is that there were a considerable number of rainchecks issued in months when there was no rain,” the report found.

Another “red flag” item noted that while the city is supposed to receive 15 percent of revenue from golf lessons, it was receiving none.

Phillips has stressed that the accuracy of the report cannot be assumed until she has a chance to meet with Borowicz, which she said she planned to do this week.

But Bartley said he is more concerned about the budget issues that were raised last week when Phillips, who has been the interim director since Richardson’s departure, outlined other financial issues. “I’m more concerned from a budget standpoint with numbers moving around in that department,” Bartley said.

Last week, Bartley expressed concern about the irrigation budget for the department being $200,000 short, requiring the city to increase it by that amount next year.

“Where did that money come from if we were off by a couple hundreds thousands dollars?” Bartley asked Phillips. “We don’t have a printing press in the basement.”

Phillips said the department had previously used “unexpended funds” within the department to pay those costs.

Another issue was the status of the repair of the fish fountain in Prince Memorial Park, which was shut down by state health regulators for failing to have the proper filtration system.

“We budgeted money to fix it. Where is that money?” Bartley asked.

Phillips replied that the water feature needs more than just a filter, and actually needs bathrooms to be constructed nearby. Given the city’s lack of funds to either build or maintain new restrooms there, the department decided to leave the fountain off. It instead spent the money budgeted for the fix on other maintenance priorities in the department, Phillips said last week.

On Tuesday, City Manager Kathy Millison did not exactly commit to a full audit of the department. Instead, she said she would provide the council with “actual expenditures compared to budget” in the hopes of answering council members’ questions.

Regarding the golf course, Millison said it was important to first meet with Borowicz to go over the the operational review.

“If that doesn’t answer our questions adequately, then we can go further into formal auditing,” Millison said.

Council members pressed Millison to return within 30 days with a report, but she couldn’t guarantee much additional detail by then, agreeing to return as quickly as possible.

“We understand the urgency and the importance of having some discussion on the council,” she said.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @citybeater

By JEREMY HAY
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Third District Supervisor Shirlee Zane aimed high at the Rohnert Park City Council on Tuesday, as the political campaign to convince cities to join the county’s public power agency continued.

“I invite you to join us in a revolution,” Zane said to the council, urging them to climb aboard an effort meant to displace PG&E as the county’s principle power supplier.

“We are going to introduce competition where there has been none,” Zane said. She left others to tout the focus on renewable energy sources that Sonoma Clean Power’s supporters say is one of its chief attractions.

Instead, she concentrated her remarks on the marketplace.

“This is about capitalism,” Zane said. “This is about choice.”

Rohnert Park was the third city on the county’s Clean Power roadshow to convince cities to take part. Its council members asked cautious questions, their positions on the plan not discernible.

“What are the issues if three or four cities decline to join?” Councilman Amy Ahanotu said.

“It’s not going to hurt the program,” said Cordel Stillman, deputy chief engineer of the county Water Agency, which is presenting the plan to the cities.

Councilman Jake Mackenzie wanted to know if the four power companies from whom the county is considering buying electricity are bound by the pricing they’ve offered.

No, said Stillman. But once negotiations begin, he said, prices may even improve as the companies jockey for the contract.

“We anticipate they will sharpen their pencils and come back with something even better,” Stillman said.

Councilwoman Gina Belforte asked why profits should be ploughed into local energy projects, an option many supporters favor, rather than used to lower customer costs.

“Why not give that money back to ratepayers?” Belforte said.

“That’s an option” for the Clean Power board to decide, Stillman said. Such policy is not decided yet, he said, a not-incidental pitch to the city to join and gain a voice in shaping it.

Both Sebastopol and Cloverdale have declined to commit to joining in the agency, though Sebastopol officials were far warmer to the plan.

The participation of Santa Rosa, with 34.7 percent of PG&E power customers, is the key to the Clean Power program. But county officials want as many cities as possible to buy in before they start final negotiations with providers in July. Rohnert Park has 8.5 percent of the county’s power customers.

“We really need Rohnert Park and our other cities to join us,” 5th District Supervisor Efren Carrillo said. “It really is going to take the embrace of our local government partners.”

Monthly bills in the first year for residential customers could range from 1.8 percent less to 1.1 percent more, Stillman said.

For commercial customers such as restaurant, large convenience or retail stores, the monthly bill could be 3.1 percent less to 0.5 percent more, he said.

PG&E would continue to handle transmission, billing, metering, customer service and grid repair. Healdsburg is not part of the plan because it has its own municipal utility.

You can reach Staff Writer Jeremy Hay at 521-5212 or jeremy.hay@pressdemocrat.com.

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County supervisors were told Tuesday that they could have $24.4 million in property tax revenue available through mid-2017 to complete former county redevelopment projects and programs.

The amount would cover costs for the county’s top four former redevelopment projects, including the Highway 12 street and sidewalks improvements north of Sonoma and the proposed residential and commercial complex on an abandoned shopping center in Santa Rosa’s Roseland neighborhood.

Supervisors said the projections added a welcome bit of good news to an ongoing redevelopment fight with the state that had left the projects in limbo.

The old Albertson’s Supermarket in Roseland. (Kent Porter / The Press Democrat)

Supervisor Susan Gorin, who represents Sonoma Valley, called it a “light at the end of the tunnel” for the Highway 12 upgrades, begun in 2009.

“It looks like we might have a way forward to fund and complete that desperately needed infrastructure project,” Gorin said.

About $11 million of the five-year funding will be available starting in July. The Board of Supervisors is set to make decisions on how to allocate the funds in budget hearings next month.

The money comes from two kinds of sources: cash from the former county and city redevelopment agencies that has been redistributed to local government entities under the February 2012 state dissolution of redevelopment; and current and future county tax receipts that previously had been diverted to redevelopment agencies.

Altogether, county government is set to get about $30 million over the next five years from the redistribution. About $24.4 million would flow to the General Fund and about $5.6 million would go to other county entities, including the Water Agency and a network of service areas.

The General Fund money is discretionary, meaning it could be tapped by the board for other purposes.

But on Tuesday, the board added to a policy set last year dedicating the former redevelopment dollars to completion of priority projects once overseen by its redevelopment agency.

“Some would argue that these are dollars that could be going to other things,” said Supervisor Efren Carrillo, who represents the former Russian River and Roseland redevelopment areas. “We’re reiterating the importance of carrying out these projects.”

The Highway 12 and Roseland projects long have been first in line for the funding. Together, they account for about $11.9 million of the five-year projected funding.

The other two priority projects are a proposed Guerneville homeless shelter, with an estimated $900,000 cost for land and construction, and a $1.2 million feasibility study on a wastewater treatment solution for the Monte Rio area.

Katrina Thurman, executive director of West County Community Services, said the Guerneville homeless shelter has been on the drawing board since 2008.

“I can’t tell you how excited and grateful I am to see that (on the funding list),” Thurman said.

Depending on a number of factors, about $10 million could be left over for annual support for commercial business rehabilitation loans, housing assistance programs and non-profit social service efforts.

The total funding pool could ultimately be larger after the county and city redevelopment agencies evaluate and divest their real estate holdings, a mandatory process that is just beginning.

County officials said they intend to hold on to the Roseland property and other critical real estate. That stance mirrors their current court fight to hold onto about $6.7 million in funding for the Highway 12 and Roseland projects. The county’s lawsuit against the state — one of several dozen brought by counties and cities throughout the state seeking to hold on to former redevelopment money — is set for an Aug. 9 hearing in Sacramento County Superior Court.

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT