By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma will be sending a letter to President Obama urging him to oppose a controversial oil pipeline, an action authorized by the City Council Monday night.

By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma appears to be the latest city on track to reject joining the Sonoma County Clean Power Authority after a divided City Council on Monday all but turned out the lights on the idea.

Sonoma still could become the second city, along with Windsor, to support the county’s vision of supplanting PG&E as the county’s chief supplier of electricity and provide a greener energy portfolio.

But that would require Sonoma Mayor Ken Brown to have a change of heart and fall in with Councilman Steve Barbose and Tom Rouse, who Monday supported the city joining the power authority.

“I’m ready to vote no,” Brown said.

County officials on Monday again lobbied the city to join the power plan, touting it as a greener option than what PG&E currently offers and another energy choice for residents.

So far only the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, representing the unincorporated areas, and the Windsor Town Council have voted to join the launch of the agency. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the power sold by PG&E in Sonoma County.

Deputy County Counsel Steve Shupe, speaking to the Sonoma council Monday, attributed the lukewarm reception to a variety of factors, including that people are making “it more complicated than it really is” and “ongoing hostility and tension between the cities and the county.”

Rouse said Sonoma could “be skeptical and play the safe route” or do as he advocated and join the power authority.

Councilman David Cook, however, expressed concerns about the county’s opt-out plan for customers who don’t like the program and government getting into private enterprise. He voted against the resolution to join the power authority. Councilwoman Laurie Gallian recused herself because her husband works for PG&E.

Under the county’s energy plan, new customers will be able to opt out of the program without a fee two months before their accounts are switched and two months after. If they choose to go back to PG&E after two months, there will be a $5 fee for residential customers, $25 for commercial accounts.

Under both plans PG&E would continue to handle transmission, billing, metering, customer service and grid repair.

Brown, who touted his environmental record, told county officials Monday they had not done enough outreach on the power program. He said he wanted to wait and see what Santa Rosa does before he finalized his decision and also hear from Sonoma County Conservation Action.

“I would like to have a vote of confidence from conservation action,” the mayor said.

The council on Monday initially failed to muster the three votes necessary to take action on the resolution to join the power authority after Brown abstained on the measure.

On a revote at Barbose’s request, the mayor joined clean power supporters on the council to introduce the ordinance, which theoretically keeps the city on track to meet the county’s deadline for initially joining the power authority.

Brown demurred after Monday’s meeting when he was asked if his comments were to be construed that he will not support the power resolution when presumably it comes up for a final vote at the council’s July 1 meeting.

He said only that people “are going to try to convince” him to change his mind.

Sonoma’s consideration came three days after county and Santa Rosa city officials struck a deal to allow Santa Rosa to make its decision on July 9. City leaders had asked for more time to independently study the proposal.

That extension, in turn, has led to a change of plans by at least one other city. Sebastopol city administrators Tuesday are set to propose delaying their city council’s decision, initially set for June 25.

Santa Rosa’s revised timeline and ongoing revisions to the power agency’s joint-powers agreement were the chief reasons for the recommended postponement, said Larry McGlaughlin, Sebastopol’s city manager and attorney. “It’s hard to say we don’t have enough information on something and then vote on it,” McGlaughlin said. A new date is likely to be set for early July, McLaughlin said.

Geof Syphers, a county consultant for the power plan, said county officials discussed the reshuffling of decision dates Monday and decided that all other cities would have the same leeway as Santa Rosa, making July 9 “the real deadline.”

The date is tied to a July 15 delivery of power supply data to contractors for their final bids.

“All the cities certainly have access to that extension that Santa Rosa was granted,” Syphers said. “But it was also decided that no further extensions make sense.”

Windsor is the only other city to have joined the county power agency. It was formed for customers in the unincorporated area by the Board of Supervisors in April.

Of the remaining cities, besides Santa Rosa, only Cotati is yet to make its decision. Cloverdale and Rohnert Park voted to hold off on joining in the first year while Petaluma has postponed any vote until at least September to allow city staff to study the proposal.

Cotati city leaders said Monday they intend to stick to their plans for a June 26 vote. Cotati Mayor Mark Landman, however, suggested support could rest on a key change that smaller cities have requested on a voting issue related to governance of the power authority’s board.

The change smaller cities have sought would prevent the county and Santa Rosa — representing the largest areas of power use and more than two-thirds of the potential weighted voting shares — from changing the agency’s joint powers agreement without also having the support of a simple majority of cities.

“We were very clear that was a big concern to us,” said Landman.

Syphers, the county consultant, said the requested change has been put on the power authority’s agenda for its first general meeting, next Tuesday, at the Board of Supervisors chambers.

Staff Writer Brett Wilkison contributed to this story.

By LORI A. CARTER

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Nonprofit agencies asked the city to allow a fifth day of fireworks sales leading up to July Fourth, saying they are at a competitive disadvantage because Rohnert Park allows one more day of sales.

Richard Sharke of the nonprofit McDowell Drug Task Force said his group makes $36,000 annually with a fireworks booth, less than it would with another day.

But Petaluman Sheri Cardo urged the council to pay attention to the danger demonstrated by Monday’s fire that edged precipitously close to several homes and pastures northwest of city limits.

“This region is bone dry right now — bone dry,” she said.

Around 3:30 p.m., fire blackened about 19 acres along Thompson Lane between Skillman Lane and Magnolia Avenue. Several ranch buildings were destroyed, and nervous residents packed up their vehicles with pets and treasured possessions to evacuate.

In 2009, in response to fire officials’ concerns, the city reduced the number of days state-mandated “safe and sane” fireworks could be sold, from 6½ to 4. The city also reduced the number of days they can be used to one day, only on the holiday.

Nonprofit agencies in Petaluma and other cities operate fireworks booths to raise money, often as the main fundraiser.

If the council wanted to allow an extra day for this year’s sales, it would have had to pass an emergency ordinance, which would have required a special meeting next week, and a unanimous vote that the move was necessary to preserve the “public peace, health or safety.”

Mayor David Glass said he wouldn’t support an additional day of sales, which nixed any need for a formal vote.

Other council members said they would support allowing another day of sales, done in conjunction with other changes to city ordinances governing their sales. Those issues are expected to return in time for next year’s holiday.

You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Santa Rosa City Council, enjoying slightly improved revenues from a modest economic recovery, this week will consider a budget representing the largest boost in city spending since the recession-era slashing began.

City Manager Kathy Millison’s proposed $340 million budget would be a 9 percent increase over the current year and would include hiring the equivalent of 22 new full-time positions, including police officers, fire fighters, wastewater workers and financial analysts.

In her letter to the council, Millison said the $29 million in additional spending is needed to invest in infrastructure and fill “critical needs” the city faces as a result of years of cuts. She also stressed that while budget had stabilized, rising costs made it necessary for the city to find ways to provide “service levels that are more acceptable to the community’s needs and expectations.”

When the nearly $50 million in capital improvement projects are removed — many of them funded by water and sewer ratepayers — Millison said the operating expenditures increase would be 4 percent over current year.

“It’s good to be in an era of stability in terms of our budget,” Mayor Scott Bartley said. “We’re not on fire, but we’re modestly up.”

Bartley said the new positions have been “pretty carefully considered.”

“We’re adding them back in where we cut too far before,” Bartley said.

The police and fire departments, which benefit from a dedicated ¼-percent sales tax known as Measure O, are set to receive the majority of the new staffing, though not all of it will increase their budgets.

The Police Department budget woukld increase 2.4 percent next year, to $45.5 million. The department is proposing to spend an additional $700,000 for 6.5 new fulltime positions, including sworn officers and civilians, to bring it closer to the baseline established by Measure O.

That increase was hotly debated in a previous budget session and likely will be so again this week.

The Fire Department budget is decreasing by 3 percent to $33.3 million, but only because a two-year $2.5 million federal grant to fund nine firefighters was accounted for in the current fiscal year. The new budget adds six new firefighters, but their costs are to be covered by a resulting reduction in overtime. Other factors include an increase in health insurance costs due to the expiration of employee contributions and $300,000 toward the construction of the future Fountaingrove fire station.

One of the main drivers of the cost increases is that city employees, who in prior years agreed to concessions such as unpaid furloughs and higher pension contributions, have not agreed to continue such reductions, increasing the city’s salary and benefit costs next year by $1.6 million.

The Parks and Recreation Department budget is going up 3.4 percent to $19.8 million. The increases includes $212,000 to manage new facilities such as the Pearson Senior Wing of the Finley Community Center and $200,000 to more accurately reflect the parks irrigation budget.

That budget likely will get continued scrutiny. Councilman Gary Wysocky noted that he and his colleagues have yet to receive a report on the operations of the Bennett Valley Golf Course, which is on track to lose $262,000 next year.

“How can we provide guidance if we don’t know if that’s a viable operation?” Wysocky said.

The budget does not include an increase in park maintenance staff, which some council members have said they would like to see.

The budget calls for a 2 percent increase in Transportation and Public Works Department spending, to $48 million. That reflects a 5 percent reduction in bus routes, completion of the revamped transit mall, reorganization of the engineering teams and $3 million more toward street improvement projects.

The Utilities Department budget would climb 17 percent to $143.5 million, due largely to the increasing cost of water, large capital improvement needs and the addition of seven new positions, including a lab analyst, maintenance worker and communications coordinator.

Though on a smaller scale, many administrative departments are seeing increases, as well.The Community Development Department is planning for a 12 percent budget increase, to $4.3 million. Increases include a new employee in the code enforcement department and reclassification of a city planner.

The City Manager’s budget is increasing by 67 percent, to $2.8 million, largely due to the movement of the gang prevention and intervention services staff into the department and out of parks and recreation.

The Information Technology Department is increasing 18 percent to $5.9 million, mostly from the addition of three new employees and a new computer replacement program.

The Housing Authority budget is tacking on 5 percent because of an increase in the number of people who qualify for housing-voucher programs.

The Finance Department is also ringing up a 5 percent increase to $9 million, due in part to the additional of a financial analyst and reclassification of three other employees.

Not all departments will see increases, however.

The budget for the city’s former Redevelopment Agency continues to shrink, losing 21 percent to $4.7 million as the state continues to restrict the former agency to repaying debt.

The City Council budget is decreasing by 31 percent to $694,000, largely because 2013-14 is a non-election year.

Budgets for the City Attorney and Economic Development and Housing and are basically unchanged at $2.1 million and $7.7 million respectively.

The hearing starts after the regular 4 p.m. council meeting Tuesday and is set to continue at 9 a.m. Wednesday and Thursday if necessary.

By CLARK MASON

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Healdsburg City Council on Monday approved a temporary contract with Sonoma County to take over responsibility for animal control, prompted by

Healdsburg Animal Shelter office manager Caroline Marker, left, and volunteers Sandra Dunn, Sue Archer and James Backus, check out Backus’ dog, Sergio, who was adopted from the shelter two years ago, in Healdsburg on Monday, June 17, 2013. (CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/ PD)

the imminent closure of the independently-run Healdsburg Animal Shelter.

The six-month agreement with Sonoma County Animal Care and Control was hurriedly put together in the face of the sudden announcement last week of the closing of the 53-year-old, non- profit shelter, which experienced a drop in contributions after a myriad of controversies that included the inability to complete a partially built $3.5 million facility.

The council heard from about a dozen speakers Monday night including shelter volunteers who said they were saddened, angered and worried for the fate of the animals in Healdsburg as a result of the loss of the local shelter.

“It’s gone. We are fools to let it go,” said longtime volunteer Robin See. “I feel shame for Healdsburg.”

She said the animal shelter “was a very special place. We should all feel responsible.”

Others worried that unwanted dogs and cats will be abandoned by people who won’t drive to the county shelter in Santa Rosa to drop them off.

“Animals will be left by the side of the road,” said Jennifer Cadd, a volunteer at the shelter who has fostered more than two dozen kittens and adopted a dog from the shelter.

But city officials praised the county for its willingness to step into the gap until the city can craft requests for proposals from other animal welfare groups to possibly take over animal services in Healdsburg.

And council members held out hope that a local shelter of some kind will be re-established even though the current building, which is owned by the city, is considered obsolete and in poor condition.

Councilman Jim Wood said the community should be able to maintain its own shelter, but acknowledged he doesn’t know how that will happen. “I hope from the ashes of this meltdown a new group arises to take it on,” he said.

“It’s just a matter of time before people in Healdsburg come together and find a solution for a new animal shelter,” said Councilman Shaun McCaffery.

“It’s going to be difficult moving forward but we will,” said Mayor Susan Jones, who adopted a dog from the shelter. “This short term contract will get us to the next step.”

Under the $58,000, six-month contract approved 3-0 Monday, the county will be responsible for animal control, handling strays, vicious, injured and unwanted animals.

The Healdsburg Police Department will take over the annual licensing of animals.

“We want to ensure a seamless transition. We want to give animals coming into Animal Care and Control the highest care possible,” North County Supervisor Mike McGuire told the council.

He said the county also welcomed participation from various groups that have offered to help, including the Sonoma Humane Society, which will take in animals on Sundays and Mondays when the county shelter is closed.

Rita Scardaci, who oversees animal control services for the county, noted the county recently struck an agreement with the Humane Society to help ease overcrowding and handle adoptions to avoid healthy animals being euthanized.

The Healdsburg shelter technically remains open through Saturday, but all the animals that were there have been taken to other shelters or rescue organizations.

“We are here. We no longer have animals,” office manager Caroline Marker said Monday.

About 40 dogs and cats were parceled out last week to the Humane Society, Rohnert Park and Petaluma shelters, and Green Dog Rescue Project, according to Marker.

She said the staff at Healdsburg Animal Shelter was packing and cleaning, “getting ready to turn the building over to the city.”

She said other non-profit animal welfare groups were invited to help themselves to supplies, crate kennels, cat cages, blankets and remaining animal food.

Marker said the shelter was also open in case any strays or owner-surrendered animals were brought in. She said they would be transferred to the Humane Society.

The closing of the Healdsburg Animal Shelter comes following a series of setbacks that resulted in a loss of community confidence and a drop-off in large donations that it depends on for survival.

The organization with nine full time employees, had an approximate $500,000 annual budget, with less than a quarter of that derived from its contract with the city for animal control services.

A new 7,500-square-foot building sits nearly complete on Westside Road across from the existing facility, mired in an extensive lawsuit over design and construction defects and complicated by the bankruptcy of the general contractor.

There was also rapid turnover on the board staff, with four executive directors serving over five years.

What will happen to the squat cinder block structure that has served as a shelter since 1960 is also uncertain.

City Manager Marjie Pettus said the building is in extremely poor condition, but it is too soon to say what will happen to it. She said its fate could be determined following an evaluation of the adjacent city corporation yard and facility issues that need to be addressed.

By DEREK MOORE

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

The Sonoma City Council, which two weeks ago took a controversial stand in support of an embattled oyster company in Marin County, is diving head first

Sonoma Plaza (PD FILE, 2004)

again into a national debate that extends well outside city limits.

Mayor Ken Brown will seek council support Monday to send an official letter to President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asking them to deny permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would convey oil products from Canada southward to the Gulf of Mexico.

Brown’s draft letter states that the 2,000-mile pipeline represents a potential threat to “pristine wildland areas” and could have a “devastating effect on the global climate” from increased carbon dioxide emissions.

“I think it’s an environmental disaster waiting to happen,” Brown said Friday.

Brown two weeks ago gained unanimous council support for a resolution backing the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. in its legal battle to continue operating in a federally protected wetland in Marin County.

Environmental groups that were angered by that decision now accuse Brown of hypocrisy with his stance against the pipeline. Councilman Steve Barbose, who agreed to co-sponsor putting the mayor’s proposed letter on Monday’s agenda, did not return a message Friday seeking comment.

“If the reason they’re supporting these resolutions is to protect the environment, they failed with the oyster resolution,” said Neal Desai with the National Parks Conservation Association. “It sets a bad policy precedent for national parks, and facilitates the kind of environmental degradation they’re concerned with with the Keystone project.”

Under the Energy Production and Project Delivery Act of 2013 proposed by Congressional Republicans, permits for the Keystone XL pipeline would be expedited, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would be opened to gas and oil development and the oyster company’s lease would be extended for at least 10 years.

Desai said the legislation is an attempt to circumvent policies governing commercial uses in national parks and in protected wildland areas.

“That is exactly why an oyster permit extension is in a massive energy bill. Oysters don’t produce energy,” Desai said.

Brown, however, said he had not considered whether he was advocating contradictory positions with regard to the oyster company and oil pipeline.

“I’m not a complicated person,” he said.

Two weeks ago, he and council members mainly cited the oyster company as a producer of locally sourced food and as a jobs creator in their support of the resolution backing the company.

Daniel Kessler, a spokesman for 350.org, an environmental group focused on climate concerns, said Friday he considers the oyster company and pipeline to be separate issues.

He said it is “wonderful” that Sonoma is considering taking a stand against the pipeline, calling it an example of “real leadership at the local level.”

Some on the Sonoma council have not favored the city tackling such issues, including Councilman David Cook, who at the June 3 meeting said he came around to supporting the oyster company resolution only after he was convinced it represented a local issue.

Brown on Friday said he considers such issues to be part of the council’s “job” in a city he called a “bedrock of democracy.”

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

On Twitter @deadlinederek.

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

In a closely watched case across California, the state Supreme Court has left in place a ruling that allows a home health care worker to sue Sonoma County for wages that her disabled client did not pay her.

The key issue was whether Sonoma County could be considered a “joint employer” of the caretaker and therefore responsible for her unpaid wages.

A lower court ruling left that question in the hands of a jury, prompting an appeal from the county. A statewide organization of counties and the state Attorney General’s Office joined the county in asking the high court to review the case. It turned down the request Wednesday.

The three-year-old case has drawn wide notice because it could allow an untold number of caretakers to pursue similar claims against counties for unpaid wages.

The statewide In-Home Supportive Services program, administered by counties and funded by state and federal dollars, pays nearly 360,000 workers to care for about 450,000 low-income, ill and disabled residents.

Advocates for home health care workers contend that thousands of the caretakers have been cheated out of their wages. But because attempts to reclaim that money from clients often are fruitless, some caretakers have turned to counties for their lost wages.

The lawsuit filed against Sonoma County by Adelina Guerrero emerged as a test case to see whether such claims could go forward.

Guerrero said she logged nearly 600 hours of work over four months in 2008 and 2009 helping Alejandra Buenrostro with personal care, housekeeping and other services. But she was never paid, she claimed.

Guerrero’s attorneys said Buenrostro submitted the time sheets to the county and collected Guerrero’s paychecks, totaling $10,300. Including penalties, the suit seeks approximately $20,000 from the county. Guerrero has also sued Buenrostro.

The county argued it wasn’t Guerrero’s employer because it was not involved in hiring or supervising her work.

But Guerrero’s attorneys, from California Rural Legal Assistance, argued that the county’s administrative role, including its say on her total work hours, constituted enough control over her post to be deemed an employer.

The case is now headed back to Sonoma County Superior Court, with a status hearing set for Aug. 6.

(You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.)

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Petaluma City Council members will tackle a half-dozen potentially thorny issues at their meeting Monday night, including adding another day of fireworks sales in July.

The council also is scheduled to make several appointments to various city boards, including the Planning Commission, which has been a politically charged effort in years past.

Other issues that could spark controversy: a revived effort to allow freeway-facing signs on businesses adjacent to Highway 101; an appeal by Target of its liquor license rejection; and changes to the city’s zoning guidelines around the train station.

The council will also consider a request to sign a letter supporting a national tax on fossil fuels and a report on how a nonprofit agency is running Petaluma’s animal shelter after taking over last year from the city.

This is the second year that local nonprofit agencies have asked the city to allow a fifth day of fireworks sales, saying they are at a competitive disadvantage because Rohnert Park allows one more day of sales. Nonprofit agencies operate fireworks booths to raise money, often as the main fund-raiser of the year.

Last year, city staff members advised the city it was too late to change. Although it is also last-minute this year, the council agreed to consider the request.

If the council were to allow an extra day, it would have to pass a new city ordinance on an urgency basis, which would require a special meeting, likely next week, and unanimous agreement by the council that the move is necessary to preserve the “public peace, health or safety.”

The council is also set to make a series of votes appointing applicants for several volunteer city boards, including the Planning Commission. While most won’t generate controversy, the Planning Commission choices could.

Four years ago, a previous council combined two planning and design review boards into one, resulting in a Planning Commission that sought tighter restrictions on growth and greater control over development proposals.

Seventeen applicants have applied for four Planning Commission seats. The appointments could create a wholesale turnover similar to the 2009 conversion.

Only one of three commissioners, Chairwoman Jennifer Pierre, reapplied for reappointment for another four-year position. Alicia Kae Herries resigned and Dennis Elias and Melissa Abercrombie aren’t seeking reappointment.

Commissioners Ray Johnson, Bill Wolpert and City Council liaison Kathy Miller will remain on the board. Wolpert is considered progressive, while Johnson and Miller more welcoming of development.

Other applicants include former Councilwoman Tiffany Renée, J.T. Wick, Richard Marzo, former planner Terry Kosewic, Houston Porter, Blake Hooper, Daryl Johnson, Roger Leventhal, Jasper Lewis-Gehring, Heather Mackin, Manuel Mendes, Sharel McVey, Robert Mohit, Eric Patterson, David Powers and Jocelyn Yeh Lin.

The application can be viewed on the city’s website, www.cityofpetaluma.net.

The meeting begins at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 11 English St.

(You can reach Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com.)

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County officials have given Santa Rosa a little more time to decide whether to join the launch of its fledgling public power agency, defusing what had become a tense political standoff over the timing of the high-stakes decision.

Mayor Scott Bartley said Friday morning that after speaking with supervisors Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo, he had agreed to hold a vote on the issue at the City Council’s July 9 meeting.

“We’ve got virtually a month and that should be enough time to answer the questions we have to make this decision,” Bartley said.

He had previously said there was no way Santa Rosa could meet the June 30 deadline set by the Sonoma Clean Power Authority, insisting council members needed more time to analyze the proposal.

County officials, meanwhile, stressed that rising costs meant delays much beyond the deadline risked the power authority’s ability to negotiate the lowest rates for participants in the first year, something they couldn’t justify without a clearer timeline from the city.

But on Friday morning Bartley and Zane confirmed the compromise.

“I am delighted,” Zane said. “I’ve been talking extensively to our leaders in Santa Rosa in the last day or so and I want to commend them for taking a leadership role.”

The deal ensures the City Council will make a timely decision on whether to switch 97,000 accounts in the city from Pacific Gas & Electric to the new agency in phases beginning in 2014.

New customers will be able to opt out of the program without a fee two months before their accounts are switched and two months after. If they choose to go back to PG&E after two months, there will be a $5 fee for residential customers, $25 for commercial accounts.

Santa Rosa’s decision to hire two independent consultants to help it answer legal and technical questions about the possible pitfalls of the program complicated the effort to set a decision date.

The city has yet to hire the technical consultant, and Bartley had said the city couldn’t agree to a specific decision date until it knew how long it would take for the consultant to complete their work.

But on Friday, Bartley said several factors helped lead to the agreement. He said county officials clarified that they needed to know whether Santa Rosa was on board before July 15 because that’s a key deadline for the authority to give power suppliers participation data to allow them to finalize their bids.

Another was that Vice Mayor Erin Carlstrom is out of town on July 16, and there is no council meeting the following week, Bartley said.

Finally, Bartley said he’s hopeful that the technical consultant can be hired and working by next week, and that the answers the council needs should take “hours, not weeks” to get, he said.

That’s partly due to the realization that many of the technical questions council members have involve whether the city government should allow its 700 various electricity accounts to switch to Sonoma Clean Power or remain with PG&E. But those decisions do not have to be made until the fall under the current timeline, he said.

Sonoma Clean Power advocates say the program will deliver a cleaner mix of power than PG&E at competitive rates, break the utility’s monopoly in the region’s power market, and create local jobs.

PG&E would continue to handle transmission, billing, metering, customer service and grid repair. The initial rollout in 2014 is only set to reach about 10,000 meters, but within three years, the plan envisions serving up to 80 percent of PG&E’s customers in the county, about 220,000 meters.

Critics question whether the power sources will truly be “green,” whether ratepayers will be adequately protected and whether the government should be getting into the power business at all.

So far only the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, representing the unincorporated areas, and the Windsor Town Council have voted to join the launch of the agency. Together, they account for about 40 percent of the power sold by PG&E in Sonoma County.

While the authority was projecting that it would be able to offer comparable rates and cleaner power than PG&E with the unincorporated areas alone, the addition of Santa Rosa, which accounts for 35 percent of the power sold by PG&E in the county, would help the authority negotiate lower rates, Zane said.

“We think that’s going to make those bidders sharpen their pencils, and that’s good news,” Zane said.

Bartley would not predict how the council will vote on July 9, noting that he and other council members still have significant questions.

Councilman Gary Wysocky is pushing for several modifications to the joint powers agreement — essentially the agency’s constitution — including stronger protections for ratepayers, a commitment to no nuclear power and a restriction or elimination of the authority’s powers of eminent domain.

He also argues that Santa Rosa, which could in theory end up with more than one-third of the power, shouldn’t be given what would effectively be veto power over decisions requiring a two-thirds majority of the board members.

“We already have more power than them, we shouldn’t have absolute power,” Wysocky said.

Councilwoman Julie Combs, who has called the authority a “blue sky opportunity for our city,” has expressed concern that the council wasn’t moving quickly enough to meet the county deadline, risking missing the first year and the chance to get the lowest rates. On Tuesday, she proposed setting a council vote for July 9, but was rebuffed.

Combs said Friday she was “really pleasantly surprised” by the deal.

“I’m glad he’s found a way to expedite the process,” she said.

The council member with perhaps the longest list of questions is Robin Swinth, an engineer and the council’s newest member. She sits on the council subcommittee exploring the issue, and has said she continues to have questions about the potential liability to the city, the impact on the city’s own accounts, how much credit the city will get for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and what types of power projects will be funded locally.

Even so, Swinth and fellow subcommittee member Jake Ours made remarks Tuesday that hinted they were becoming more comfortable with the concept.

“I do think there is an opportunity to do something here,” Swinth said.

“I continue to be more satisfied as we go into it,” Ours said.

Whether such proposed changes to the JPA can be made before the July 9 is unclear. Zane said the time to make changes is after the cities join. But she acknowledged some revisions to the JPA may come forward at the authority’s first public meeting on June 25. A closed session to interview candidates for the interim chief executive post is set for June 21.

Wysocky has argued that the changes need to be made before the city signs up, not after.

But many of the changes Combs and Wysocky are pursuing are issues of board policy, not items to be enshrined in the JPA said Geof Syphers, one of the energy consultants working to establish the power authority.

Even if it was appropriate, there is no practical way to make such substantive changes to the JPA because there is no time to do so before other cities vote on it, Syphers said.

While much discussion lies ahead, Zane said overall it seems to her that Santa Rosa is inching closer to joining.

“I have every bit of confidence that in the end the leaders of Santa Rosa will give their residents that choice, because this is about consumer choice,” she said.

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

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County government and its largest group of public safety workers have reached a tentative agreement on a new labor contract.

The deal, involving the 470-member Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association, is the first reached with rank-and-file public safety employees under the county’s recent bid to curb rising pension costs and reduce total compensation.

Sonoma County Jail.

The deal covers correctional deputies and counselors, probation officers, park rangers, emergency dispatchers, fire inspectors and some investigative posts.

Kimber Williams, SCLEA’s president, said the proposed contract achieved savings for the county while remaining “fair” to the group’s members.

The association announced the deal on its website Thursday and set a ratification vote for Monday.

“The county was clear it was concessions bargaining and ongoing savings that were the focus,” Williams said.

She voiced confidence that employees would approve the deal, though sources in the bargaining unit have suggested it faces what is likely to be a tight vote.

County officials declined to discuss the agreement this week, wary of interfering with or influencing the vote. They said the deal was consistent with a contract reached earlier this year with the county’s largest labor union and recent deals with top officials and a small group of law enforcement managers.

Negotiations between the two sides began in July and the group’s contract expired in November.

The new contract, as summarized by the law enforcement association, would achieve savings for taxpayers through a package of concessions that includes a schedule change designed to reduce overtime, a continued salary freeze through October 2014, and the reduction or elimination of some wage premiums offered for dozens of different posts, skills and duties.

The premium pay can add up to 17 percent on hourly rates for some off-hour shifts and an average of more than $1,100, or 1.2 percent, to final pension-eligible compensation for county public safety workers, county pension records show. Public safety unions have strongly guarded the extra pay over the years while county supervisors signaled last year they wanted many categories eliminated.

The proposal would only do away with three categories, those going to offsite probation officers and gang and drug task force members, according to the labor group’s summary. It would change all continuing premiums to ensure only hours worked — not vacation or sick time — qualify for wage enhancement.

It would shift some county pension costs to employees and eliminate other types of pension-eligible pay, erasing most pension spiking opportunities. It would also eliminate, at least for the contract period, county payments into deferred compensation retirement accounts.

County officials declined to estimate savings from the concessions. The target in negotiations with most rank-and-file groups has been 3 percent. SCLEA members account for approximately $69.3 million of the county’s total salary and benefit costs, now at about $492 million a year.

To offset some of the compensation cuts, employees are set to receive a 1 percent salary increase in October 2014 and a 2 percent bump in August 2015. The agreement would expire Dec. 1, 2015.

The employees would also receive county-paid contributions into new health reimbursement accounts, starting at $300 a month for a family plan.

The bargaining unit would get four additional vacation hours a year, a benefit not extended so far to other workers. But the law enforcement group is not in line for a set of one-time cash payments used to offset cuts for other workers, according to the contract summary.

Other sweeteners include an increase in equipment vouchers for some posts and language that would restore county deferred compensation payments after the contract expires.

The deal likely signals the county’s current negotiating approach with other public safety groups, including those representing deputy sheriffs and sheriff’s office managers.

The county’s chief aim in contract talks has been to reduce taxpayer costs for employee pensions. Since 2000, those costs, including annual payments on pension bonds, are up more than 400 percent.

If SCLEA members approve the deal Monday, county officials said they would provide both the agreement and an analysis of its terms before a Board of Supervisors vote, tentatively set for June 25.

You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.