By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Santa Rosa plans to refinance about $35 million in pension bonds in an effort to control costs and prevent the city credit rating from slipping further.

By locking in historically low interest rates and spending about $4 million to pay down debt, the city expects to save about $870,000 in today’s dollars over the next 12 years, according to Chief Financial Officer Lawrence Chiu.

“This will help preserve the city’s credit rating,” Chiu told the City Council on Tuesday.

Credit ratings agency Moody’s has twice reduced the Santa Rosa’s credit rating on the bonds out of concern over the pension debt of cities throughout the state.

In June 2003, Santa Rosa sold $50.7 million in bonds to finance the increased costs associated with more generous pension benefits for its workers.

The proceeds from the bonds were paid to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The idea was that the city could save money by financing the cost of the increased benefits with bonds that paid a lower interest rate than what CalPERS would have charged the city.

Today, $38.3 million in principal is outstanding on the bonds with a maturity date of 2025. Some of the bonds have a fixed rate and some have a variable rate. Because current rates are low and are expected to rise in coming years as the economy improves, the city’s financial advisers recommend that city refinance the bonds now.

The city isn’t extending the term of the bonds, but rather is committed to paying them off by 2025.

“We want to pay this off on schedule,” City Manager Kathy Millison said.

Another reason to move away from the variable-rate bonds is that it is becoming harder and more expensive for the city to find banks willing to guarantee the bonds through something called irrevocable letters of credit. The city’s current letter of credit with Wells Fargo Bank expires in 2014. Fixed-rate bonds require no such letters.

Much of the savings will come from lower rates. The city currently is paying about 1.1 percent on its variable-rate bonds, but that is expected to rise to an average of 3.6 percent for the remaining 12 years of the debt. Its fixed-rate bonds are rising to 4.9 percent in 2014 and 5.4 percent in 2019.

The city expects to get a new fixed rate of about 4.3 percent when it sells the new bonds later this summer.

Additional savings will come from paying down the principal by $4 million. The city had been planning to set up something it called a “pension stabilization fund” with a recent $1.6 million settlement with Sonoma County over property tax administrative fees.

But it changed gears after it recently received higher pension cost estimates from CalPERS for the 2015-16 year. It decided instead to put that settlement money, plus an additional $2.4 million, toward the extra principal payment.

Some council members wondered whether some of that cash might be better spent fixing streets, given how much repair costs increase once the pavement deteriorates past a certain point. But Millison said she was convinced that paying down and refinancing the debt is the wisest option.

“We think this is the better investment in terms of helping the city better manage its cash flow for the general fund,” Millison said.

The measure passed 7-0.

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

By KEVIN McCALLUM & BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County’s two largest cities appeared headed down divergent energy paths Tuesday, with Santa Rosa vowing to move swiftly toward a decision on whether to join the Sonoma Clean Power Authority the day after Petaluma delayed a decision until at least September.

Santa Rosa City Council members expressed both strong support and deep reservations about the proposal, but all agreed to try hard to make up their minds one way or another by the impending June 30 deadline or shortly thereafter.

“I love the concept. I want it to work, but I’ve got to make sure it’s right for our city, and I’m not there yet,” Councilman Jake Ours said.

The council decided to convene its three-member subcommittee in coming weeks to get answers to myriad questions it has about the plan’s governance, rates, green energy mix, and impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It proposed another full public hearing on the issue in late June.

Mayor Scott Bartley said the city would “move as fast as we can move,” but warned that pressure on it to act quickly was like “pushing on string, and that doesn’t work.”

The call for quick action follows a unanimous move Monday by the Petaluma City Council to further study the proposal, effectively putting off any decision until after the county’s June 30 deadline and possibly until next year. The county’s second-largest city joins Cloverdale, its smallest, which also decided to sit on the sidelines for now.

“It may be that there’s a better path for Petaluma,” Mayor David Glass said Tuesday.

So far, Windsor is the only city to formally join the power agency. Rohnert Park and Sebastopol could join in a second round of hearings next month. Cotati’s first presentation in the current series is today, while Sonoma’s council takes up the issue June 3.

The creation of a public power agency is intended to supplant PG&E as the county’s primary source of electricity and offer a greener energy portfolio, with sources including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric projects.

The agency intends to start with power that is 33 percent from renewable sources, a greater proportion than PG&E’s 20 percent.

County officials estimate that in 2014, Sonoma Clean Power rates for residential customers 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.

It was difficult to read the leanings of many Santa Rosa council members Tuesday. All said they wanted the agency to work, but they also voiced a litany of questions they wanted answered before they could fully support it.

But at least two council members said that if Santa Rosa didn’t participate, it wouldn’t have a seat at the table of the Joint Powers Authority and therefore couldn’t influence the policies that might affect it if it joined later.

“A lot of these decisions have been made without us, and rather than letting more of them be made without us, I’d like to see us hop on that train before it goes by us too much further,” Erin Carlstrom said to a round of applause from a chamber packed mostly with supporters.

First District Supervisor Shirlee Zane kicked off the afternoon session with an impassioned plea for political courage. She invoked Monday’s horrific tornado in Oklahoma as yet another sign that climate change is happening and local jurisdictions need to take bold action before it’s too late.

Anticipating the barrage of highly detailed questions that followed, Zane urged council members to remain focused on the bigger picture.

“We need to stop quibbling over 1 or 3 percent rates and remember that this earth will be inherited by our children,” Zane said. “This is about leadership.”

She appealed directly to Carlstrom, who is several months pregnant, as an example of someone who should act with the future in mind.

“It’s always nice to call out the pregnant lady, because you do reflect our children,” Zane said.

But Kathy Millison outlined the complexity of the decision facing the council. She noted that it needs to make a decision not only on behalf of the city’s residents, but on behalf of the city budget. In 2012, the city government itself used 40 million kilowatts of energy, costing taxpayers and ratepayers $5.6 million, Millison said. With 791 separate PG&E meters paying 20 different rates, figuring out the budget implications for the city is daunting, she said.

Several speakers pointed out that Sonoma County’s 70 percent opposition to Proposition 16 in 2010 was a virtual mandate from voters to support the new power authority. Resident Ben Zolno, who worked against the PG&E-backed proposition to require a two-thirds public vote to join so-called Community Choice Aggregation programs, called Santa Rosa’s support crucial.

“Without Santa Rosa as part of this, Sonoma Clean Power is either really weak or it’s dead,” Zolno said.

He stressed that the city’s participation would give the fledgling agency significantly more leverage in negotiating contracts with potential power suppliers. Santa Rosa accounts for nearly 35 percent of PG&E-supplied power in Sonoma County.

One of the few critics of the plan was Novato resident Jim Phelps, an engineer who said he opted out of Marin County’s power authority and questions its legitimacy.

Phelps singled out the agency’s reliance on renewable energy certificates to achieve its 33 percent green power goal. The agency says roughly half of its renewable supply will come from energy credits that some critics say amount to greenwashing, allowing a user to claim renewable sources while actually getting conventional power from the grid.

Phelps held up a plastic cup full of dirty water and likened it to brown power. Then took a white paper receipt, which he said was, in essence, all a renewable energy credit is. He said the claim that such certificates ensure the production of green energy was “patently false.” He then wrapped the receipt around the cup and said “Voila! Instant green energy that your constituents will buy, and they won’t know it.”

He then held the cup up to the council and said: “This is clean water. Who’d like a drink?”

Following the hearing, Cordel Stillman, deputy chief engineer for the county Water Agency and the lead staff member on the proposal, said he was pleased with the support the council members showed and said their numerous questions were easily answerable.

The detail of the questions showed they are on board with the concept, and are now “in the weeds” working out the details, which Stillman said was promising.

Petaluma appears to be much more wary of the county plan.

The city’s discussion kicked off Monday with a presentation by Supervisor David Rabbitt, the south county representative and a former Petaluma councilman. Rabbitt, the only county board member to vote against the power plan launch this year, said he had wanted more time to study and develop the plan. Several Petaluma council members echoed him with their own comments.

“There’s no urgency because the county already has the go-ahead to meet their capacity in the first year,” said Glass, the mayor.

Petaluma council members voiced concern especially about the sway that the county and Santa Rosa — the two biggest power users — would hold on the agency’s governing entity, the Sonoma Clean Power Authority.

Councilwoman Teresa Barrett questioned whether the city might partner instead with Marin County’s public power program, launched three years ago. The program recently expanded to serve customers in the Contra Costa County city of Richmond.

That possibility and other questions will be the focus of a staff report that is set to take at least three months to compete. Glass was adamant in an interview Tuesday that a closer look was better for Petaluma.

“We’re going to continue to investigate our options and explore possibilities,” he said, brushing aside questions about possible political blowback from the county and the powerful coalition of business and environmental interests pushing the proposal.

“That’s not my worry,” he said. “My worry is to get the very best deal for the people of Petaluma, period.”

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Jim Leddy, Sonoma County’s community and government affairs manager, has been hired by Mono County as its top administrative officer.

Leddy, 45, a former candidate for the state Assembly and Santa Rosa schools trustee, has been Sonoma County’s chief spokesman and government relations official since 2008. He was recently promoted to deputy county administrator. His 2012 pay was $154,916.

Jim Leddy.

He is set to start work in Mono County on June 10. His annual salary will be $160,000, according to a Mono County announcement. His last day of work for Sonoma County is June 7.

“It’s an incredible opportunity to work for another great organization and live in another beautiful part of California,” said Leddy, a Monte Rio native.

Mono County, centered in Bridgeport, takes in the Eastern Sierra near Mammoth Lakes and stretches to the Nevada border. It has a total population of 14,200 and a county government yearly budget of $71 million, with 305 full-time positions.

Leddy was executive director of the Napa County Planning and Transportation Agency from 2006 to 2008. He was a Santa Rosa city schools trustee from 2001 to 2008 and ran for the state Assembly in 2004.

From 1993 to 1998 he was a field representative for then-state Sen. Mike Thompson. He served as district director for then-state Sen. Wes Chesbro from 1998 to 2006.

Write your own caption …

Every week, we’ll post a new cartoon on Watch Sonoma County and invite you to write the caption. Enter the contest by posting your caption below. Vote for your favorite by clicking “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” on each entry.

PD staff will select several winners and publish them every Friday on the Forum page in the Empire News section. Want a shot? Leave your real name and your email address for verification.

The cartoons are drawn by Gary Varvel, who has served as political cartoonist for the Indianapolis Star since 1994.

Click here to see last week’s winners

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

With four cities down and four to go, Sonoma County officials this week enter the second half of their roadshow to convince cities to take part in the county’s planned public power agency.

The presentations are intended to tout benefits and answer questions about the effort to displace Pacific Gas and Electric Co. with an alternative that offers a higher share of energy from renewable sources.

Sonoma County supervisors have voted to launch the agency on Jan. 1 encompassing — at a minimum — the unincorporated areas of the county.

So far, they’ve successfully enlisted one city — Windsor — while two others, Rohnert Park and Sebastopol, could decide to join next month. The Cloverdale City Council has decided the city will sit on the sidelines for now.

Next up are the two largest cities, Santa Rosa and Petaluma, which together account for nearly 48 percent of the electricity use in the county. Alone, Santa Rosa’s share is nearly 35 percent.

The public presentation before the Petaluma City Council is Monday evening and Santa Rosa council members are to hear the issue Tuesday afternoon.

Participation by the cities — and power bills from their residents and businesses — are a key if not critical part of the county’s plan, which aims to serve 80 percent of PG&E’s local customers. The higher the participation — customers would be allowed to opt out and stick with PG&E — the sooner the program will have a positive cash flow and be able to plow money back into rate stabilization, energy efficiency programs and local generation projects.

“You work with the revenues you generate,” said Cordel Stillman, deputy chief engineer for the county Water Agency and the lead staff member on the proposal. Without Santa Rosa and Petaluma, he said, “we may not be able to do things we would have been able to do with all of the cities’ participation.”

Santa Rosa and Petaluma also would add political momentum to the program, which is set to begin serving homes and businesses Jan. 1. County officials and supporters insist it would be viable without urban customers, but they want all cities, and especially the biggest ones, onboard.

“We can have this going without any of the cities, but that’s not what we want,” said Ann Hancock, executive director of the Climate Protection Campaign, the main advocacy group behind the power proposal. “We’re looking for a nod from all of them, and we’re putting a lot of work into Santa Rosa.”

Supporters, including environmental and business leaders, have been lobbying council members heavily in recent weeks, honing a message that focuses on consumer choice, shrinking the county’s carbon footprint and the promise of economic development through construction of local energy projects.

They’ve sent out notices that signal they intend to pack council chambers this week.

Opponents, including fiscal watchdogs and critics of government, argue that many of the touted benefits could be illusory. In emails and newspaper opinion pieces, they have been getting their points across, too.

The tug-of-war means the proposal could face a stiff challenge in the remaining cities. After the presentations in Petaluma and Santa Rosa, the roadshow rolls on to Cotati on Wednesday and Sonoma on June 3.

Some city officials have been vocal about their desire to see final numbers on customer rates and greenhouse gas emissions before they sign on.

Those answers are not expected prior to a county-imposed decision deadline of June 30, leaving some officials saying the process is being rushed.

“I think it’s going too fast,” said Santa Rosa Councilman Jake Ours, who has served on a public-private steering committee providing input on the plan. “We’re not going to have time to make a decent decision.”

County officials have begun negotiations with a final group of four companies competing for the initial energy supply contract. They’ve also begun a search for an interim chief executive to lead the power program and started work on a branding and public relations campaign.

In the meantime, they have reiterated initial figures they say would make the program competitive if not cheaper than PG&E and immediately greener, drawing 33 percent of power from renewable sources such as solar and wind versus the 20 percent portfolio projected for PG&E next year.

Program skeptics have questioned those numbers, disputing especially the emissions comparison because about half the public power would initially come from renewable energy credits packaged with conventional power sources, a tool they deride as “greenwashing.”

But city officials have focused most on the rate implications, both for their residents and businesses and for City Hall.

In Santa Rosa, the county’s largest city with almost 170,000 residents and 97,360 electrical meters, city government is the biggest power user, with more than 700 PG&E accounts.

Some of those accounts, such as the city’s wastewater treatment plant on Llano Road, pay wholesale power rates that are “dirt cheap,” Ours said, while others pay far higher rates.

That’s why the initial rate range provided by the county is insufficient to help the city understand implications for its bottom line, Ours said.

“I think everyone in the city wants it to work, but we don’t know how it’s going to work,” he said. “The devil is in the details.”

Supporters cheered Windsor’s decision last week to formally join the county power agency. The move gives them a seat on its governing authority, alongside county representatives. The entity is designed to have nine voting members — one from each of the eight participating cities, plus the county.

Healdsburg is not a candidate for the system because it already has a municipal power agency.

County officials have touted that seat at the table in their pitch to cities.

But the bigger cities, especially, have lingering questions about governance, including how much sway they would have on the authority board.

“I don’t want to be taking part in something that hasn’t had all the wrinkles run out,” said Petaluma Mayor David Glass, discussing a number of questions he has about the program. “The prudent thing is to wait and see how it plays out.”

Politics could be a significant factor in the larger cities’ decisions. Support for the power venture now cuts across the county’s main camps, shaped by environmental and business interests that commonly duel over elected seats in Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

But that assessment made one politician uneasy last week.

“We need to spend less time on politics and handicapping whether a city is going to come on board or not,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire, one of the four-member majority that last month backed the program’s launch for the unincorporated area; Supervisor David Rabbitt was the lone no vote.

Politics, McGuire said, should take a back seat to the program’s business plan, which he repeatedly called “solid.”

“There’s no doubt we’d want Santa Rosa and Petaluma to join now,” he said. “But because we have this solid business plan, if they join later, we’d welcome them.”

Staff Writer Kevin McCallum contributed to this report. You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.

By CLARK MASON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Healdsburg soon will reap extra revenue from a half-cent sales tax increase approved by voters. But how should that million bucks or so be spent?

The answer from a survey of residents was overwhelmingly clear: fix the streets.

Taking direction from the 428 responses in the survey, City Council members agreed last week to spend half the new revenue on street maintenance.

Fixing potholes, repaving roads and constructing sidewalks rose to the top of the suggestions from citizens.

Downtown Healdsburg (PD FILE)

“It was the resounding response we got not just in the survey but (in) conversations with people,” Mayor Susan Jones said.

Public Works Director Mike Kirn said that Healdsburg’s 45 miles of streets are considered to be in good condition overall. But some are in poor to very poor shape.

“We do have some that are in worse shape than others,” he said.

He said the city currently spends about $200,000 annually on streets, but there is a $10 million backlog of maintenance.

In a survey, almost nine out of 10 respondents favored spending some of the new tax money on roads or sidewalks.

Asked how much of each dollar should pay for streets, the weighted average was 44 cents, according to Kirn.

Healdsburg voters in November approved Measure V, the half-cent sales tax increase to help bolster the city’s general fund.

The increase, which is good for 10 years, took effect April 1 and raised the sales tax in Healdsburg to 8.75 percent.

In promoting the measure, city officials said the extra revenue would be spent according to City Council funding priorities including public safety, street and sidewalk repair, economic development and deferred maintenance of city facilities such as the senior center, Villa Chanticleer and the library.

Jones said the proceeds from Measure V won’t be spent until the 2014-15 fiscal year, even though the council has decided now that half should go to streets.

“Over the next several months, public works will put together a plan on what streets are in most need of being repaired,” Jones said. “They’ll bring that to the council with estimates of what it will cost, and we will decide on direction.”

Along with half for streets, council members tentatively decided that 20 percent of the new tax revenue should go to police and fire, 20 percent to economic development, and 10 percent to deferred maintenance of public buildings.

Councilman Gary Plass said the economic development could be a $200,000 annual subsidy of the the Chamber of Commerce.

The city previous funneled redevelopment money to the chamber for its programs before the state eliminated that source.

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

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.