Candidates for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Third District, Voice Their Views.
When Sonoma County’s Third District Supervisor, Tim Smith, retires at the end of this year, it will mark 20 years in his current position—and 32 years in public service. His retirement opens up a seat that oversees Sonoma County’s most concentrated business district. Naturally, NorthBay biz decided to get the full scoop on who might fill that position.
We contacted candidates Veronica Jacobi, Shirlee Zane, Sharon Wright and Tim Smith (same name, different guy) and asked them a series of questions that came from local business people as well as our editorial offices. We also gathered three of the four candidates (due to our extended lead time for printing, we were unable to include Veronica Jacobi, who entered the race a bit later than the other candidates) for a roundtable discussion of the current issues facing Sonoma County and the North Bay as a whole.
Moving on
When exiting Supervisor Tim Smith first joined the Board in 1989, he says, he wanted to solve every problem: transportation, human services, what government ought to be and so on. “I was interested in infrastructure—fixing roads and such—but it became apparent early on that health and human services were equally, if not more, important,” he says. “I’ve tried my best to ensure that, when people are desperate and need help, they get it. It takes a lot of work, and there are a lot of steps. You grow into the role [of being a supervisor].”
“It’ll be important to work with the criminal justice system to reverse the trend of jails housing people with drug and alcohol and mental problems. The county has adopted a strategic plan this past year; one arm is criminal justice. Do we really want to spend our money on jails? Most people would say no.”
His advice for his successor: “I’d encourage them to not have preconceived notions of what the job is. It can be a challenge to weave your way through the political process to make things happen. The person needs to be able to make good decisions, to lead and to help inform the public why certain decisions are being made. He or she also needs to be an advocate—go to Sacramento and Washington, D.C. on behalf of Sonoma County.”
Candidate snapshots
These are the statements of qualification that each candidate filed with the registrar of voters when they entered the Race for Third.
Shirlee Zane: My long experience advocating on behalf of seniors, the disabled and disenfranchised makes me uniquely suited to be your supervisor. I have a history of getting things done. In nine years as CEO of Council on Aging, I’ve raised millions for services such as Meals on Wheels and a state-of-the-art kitchen to serve in times of disaster. My 25 years in health and human services offers new leadership for a healthy, sustainable Sonoma County.
I will fight for health access for all. We cannot have any more hospital operators putting profits before the health of our population and must restore recent cuts to mental health funding.
We must combat global warming through alternative, locally controlled energy, green jobs and strict emissions control. We must expand public transit, including the SMART train and bicycle lanes for livable communities. I’m proud to have created the Take Back the Streets march and rally to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Our county faces many challenges, from health care to crime prevention, restoring our aquifiers, preserving our open space and forests and finding alternative energy solutions.
Tim Smith: As supervisor, I’ll work on your behalf to improve our local economy through fiscally responsible decision-making based upon our shared values; the environment to protect our natural resources for a sustainable future; and equity to assure social justice for all within our diverse society.
Experience has prepared me for the challenges facing us. As a mayor and councilmember, I’ve represented you on numerous regional boards and committees, which include: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Advisory Committee; Chair of Sonoma County Waste Management Agency; President of Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund; and Association of Bay Area Governments Representative to the San Francisco Estuary Project.
I’ll continue to work on your behalf to assure we have clean water, open space protection, crime prevention, responsible energy use, sensible transportation policies, climate protection, affordable housing, living wages and health care services available for all.
Community involvement, independent leadership and elective experience all provide a solid foundation for me to serve as your supervisor. Working together, we can assure a better future for all of us throughout Sonoma County.
Sharon Wright: As your supervisor I’ll get things done. That’s been my record as Santa Rosa councilmember, mayor, county planning commissioner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission member, California Coastal Commission alternate, SMART board member and director on many nonprofit boards. I authored the urban growth boundaries initiative; helped secure millions of dollars for Sonoma County transportation projects; helped raise $16 million for a new cardiac care facility; started the first Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force in Sonoma County; created new facilities and programs for teens; made neighborhood policing a reality; and brought environmentally sensitive businesses with well-paying jobs to the county. I initiated programs that protect our seniors living on fixed incomes and in mobile homes.
We face challenging times. Now is the time to address our challenges in a collaborative, innovative manner and make the necessary tough, fiscally responsible decisions. That is my record and will be my commitment to you as your supervisor.
Your welfare and your concerns will always be my first priority. Therefore, I’ll focus on gangs, crime, water, roads, health care delivery—especially mental health—climate protection and creating well-paying jobs while, at the same time, protecting Sonoma County’s environment.
Veronica Jacobi: I’m running for supervisor to create a safe, healthy and sustainable Sonoma County.
I bring more than 17 years of local experience to the Board of Supervisors as a Santa Rosa city councilwoman, Sonoma County Human Services commissioner, Sierra Club Executive Committee member, Sonoma County Water Coalition cofounder and Sonoma County Conservation Council vice-chair. I serve on the following Santa Rosa committees: Gang Prevention Task Force; Environmental; Waterways; and Board of Public Utilities Liaison.
For 28 years as a mechanical engineer (graduate of UCLA), I’ve specialized in energy and environmental management for the Environmental Protection Agency, PG&E and my own energy conservation consulting firm. I’m uniquely qualified to analyze our resource challenges and offer solutions to our limited water supply, improving air/water quality, curbing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving agriculture/greenbelts.
My priorities are growing a green local economy; reducing crime/gangs; increasing affordable housing; improving public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle options; expanding alliances of business, government and community groups to solve traffic; planning, health care and education challenges.
As a mother, former foster parent, former caregiver for my grandfather with Alzheimer’s, bilingual daughter of an immigrant and cofounder of Sonoma County’s Special Olympics soccer, I understand life’s diversity. I pledge to represent all our citizens.
A closer look
What follows is a compilation of some of the questions we posed to the candidates, both separately and during our roundtable discussion.
“What do you propose to do to help Santa Rosa attract new business tenants and homeowners to its downtown areas (including Railroad Square)?”
—Dennis H. Verity, VP of wealth managment at Smith Barney in Santa Rosa
Shirlee Zane: We could offer tax breaks, a certification program for green businesses and streamlined permit procedures for clean, local serving businesses that pay a living wage. By creating communities with smart growth around public transit hubs, we’ll automatically attract business and new residences.
We can attract more residents to downtown if there are services within walking distance, such as affordable grocery stores. Many people actually prefer to live in closely knit neighborhoods where they’re known. Density housing in affordable, friendly and safe downtown neighborhoods can provide this.
Tim Smith: The City of Santa Rosa has the primary oversight role for development of its downtown, including Railroad Square, and its jurisdiction must be respected. As supervisor, I’d help Santa Rosa encourage its city-centered development.
I support urban growth boundaries, including community separators. They provide a foundation for the success of urban infill that’s designed to encourage walking and biking rather than motorized traffic.
Availability of potable water and the innovative use of recycled water are critical to attracting and retaining businesses, as well as for supporting both current and future residents’ housing needs.
Implicit in this question is another: How well does the County of Sonoma work with local jurisdictions such as Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park? Cooperation needs to be improved, and the recently adopted County of Sonoma Strategic Plan admits to that. To address that, if elected, I’ve made arrrangements to have regular meetings at the Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park city halls to meet with council members, staff and constituents.
Sharon Wright: We have areas in our communities that have been identified as “opportunity sites” for both housing and Class A commercial development. We should adopt policies and take actions that will send a positive message to potential investors.
I think the project that will go the farthest toward revitalizing downtown Santa Rosa, especially Railroad Square, is the development of the SMART site. As a transit-oriented development site, it can and should be the model for smart growth.
As supervisor, I’ll work not only with the City of Santa Rosa but with all the cities along the rail line. I’ll engage the Economic Development Board to help define a combined vision and identify the obstacles and opportunities related to making that vision a reality.
Veronica Jacobi: I’ve advocated for higher-density, affordable housing in the Santa Rosa downtown area. This area is near a public transportation hub and the future SMART train, which I strongly support and am working to help pass. Downtown and Railroad Square are ideal locations for sustainable development. I’ve also set a high priority on the development of local green businesses. Such development will help protect the local economy in the face of the national economic downturn while providing well-paying jobs and addressing our environmental problems.
“Since 2000, Sonoma County has lagged behind California and the United States in personal income growth. What ideas do you have to attract and retain employers that pay higher wages?”
—Peter O’Brien, Orion Partners in Santa Rosa
Shirlee Zane: If we encourage green building and green industries, we can become a magnet for employers to locate here. But we need to set a standard for good paying jobs in clean industries that serve our local community. Energy costs will continue to soar, and if businesses know their energy costs will be substantially lower in Sonoma County, they’ll want to take up residence here.
We need to establish discussions with large employers that have set up shop elsewhere due to prohibitive costs. While we can’t control costs like workers compensation, there are other ways we can retain them, such as waiving certain fees or providing financial incentives for paying living wages.
Affordable housing is a huge component of attracting and retaining businesses. The county should work with the cities to provide streamlined permit procedures and other incentives to developers who build affordable and green housing.
We also need to support and encourage startups and small businesses. Keeping the money here in the county is important in terms of economic growth.
Tim Smith: A critical component to the attraction and retention of employers is having appropriate space to house their businesses and an educated workforce available for employment.
The Rohnert Park Community Development Commission, upon which I serve as a commissioner, made a significant investment in the Sonoma Mountain Village business cluster, which is an “incubator” designed to assist startup businesses with significant potential for growth. Where there were empty buildings with no jobs only a few years ago, there are now significant employment opportunities.
In addition to that, Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College are underappreciated assets. Their success in education and research enhances the likelihood that employers able to offer high wages will locate here. The Economic Development Board of Sonoma County has and must continue to provide the readily accessible economic data and planning tools that will help both current employers and those considering Sonoma County as a location to grow their businesses in a sustainable manner.
Sharon Wright: The current Board of Supervisors recently convened the Sonoma County Innovation Council, charged with identifying opportunities and challenges facing us as we work toward a vibrant economy. As supervisor, I’ll wholeheartedly support their efforts.
I agree we’re at a crossroads, and to keep our competitive edge, we’ll need to be purposeful and strategic. A steady influx of skilled workers that can support our key economic clusters is essential. As supervisor, I’ll encourage partnerships with local school districts, Santa Rosa Junior College, Sonoma State University and local industries. I believe creative educational training initiatives, like those offered at Roseland University Prep, will set us apart and make us much more competitive.
When I was on the City Council and served as mayor, we made at least two visits to local businesses per month; we got to know their needs, both short- and long-term, and were able to proactively work with them on issues before they became problems. We were able to keep several businesses in Santa Rosa by establishing first-time home buyer programs for employees, finding sites for expansion, issuing Industrial Development Bonds, identifying ancillary support services and encouraging incubator business sites. We became their partner and, as a result, saved or created hundreds of jobs.
It’s also important to mention the importance of restoring air service to Sonoma County. In the year that Horizon has operated, airport activity has generated $45 million in tourism dollars and created more than 100 new jobs.
Veronica Jacobi: I support the goals of the Living Wage Coalition and other organizations that strive to raise the wages of working Sonoma County residents. I’m a small business owner, and I’ll work with local business groups to grow our local economy. Locally owned businesses should thrive in a green business climate, and the board should help cultivate one here. I support the SMART train and other green economy initiatives. They’ll bring outside money to our county and help raise our standard of living. Green jobs are a necessary stimulus for our local economy. As we embrace this market niche, we’ll attract employers that pay higher wages.
What are your ideas for easing the 101 commute and upgrading our local roads and highways?
Shirlee Zane: I support the SMART train as well as increased bus and vanpool options. We need more bike lanes to offer alternatives to the private automobile. As for local roads, we need to budget for maintenance and aggressively seek matching federal funding.
We could substantially improve public transit use by increasing and adjusting fixed routes to make them more convenient. Right now, only 2 percent of our citizens use public transportation. I’d make it a goal to increase from 2 percent to 20 percent in the next 10 years. Portland, Ore., and Boulder, Colo., have added lines and oriented fixed routes to make them more efficient and convenient.
By simply reducing the car ridership by .3, we can dissolve congestion on Highway 101. We need to develop a state-of-the-art rideshare program. Cambridge, Mass., has a software program people can use for ride sharing.
Tim Smith: I supported Measure M and am very grateful that the voters of Sonoma County understood the wisdom of becoming a “self-help” jurisdiction, which enables us to obtain significant funds to match those we raise locally. Work is ongoing on Highway 101, which, as each phase is completed, will significantly ease congestion.
However, even three lanes in each direction won’t eliminate congestion unless we adopt other approaches. These include better planning to encourage more walking and bicycle use; support of freight rail service to reduce reliance upon trucks for delivery of goods; approval of SMART; development of multimodal transportation hubs; and improvement of roads, especially those that parallel and intersect 101. I’ve already participated in regional transportation policy-making, and I look forward to continuing in that capacity as supervisor.
Sharon Wright: In 2004, the voters of Sonoma County passed Measure M, a $0.25 sales tax to address transportation needs throughout the county. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority developed a very specific plan as to how the money would be spent: 40 percent of the funds are earmarked for widening Highway 101; 20 percent for local streets and roads projects; and the balance for public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects, SMART and administration.
Santa Rosa City Bus and Sonoma County Transit have roughly an 18 percent fare box recovery rate. In other words, they only receive 18 percent of operating costs from their riders—the rest is subsidized by federal dollars. The irony is that there seems to be adequate available Transportation Development Act money to buy buses but limited money for operation. That’s what we’re faced with regarding SMART. We need to pass a sales tax to subsidize the operation of the train—and that’s millions of dollars per year. The funds for improving the tracks and buying the train have been secured.
Currently, all phases of the Highway 101 widening project have been funded. The good news is, we’re well on our way to a long-term solution that will significantly improve congestion. The bad news is, we have to endure traffic and congestion that’s agonizing and frustrating.
Aside from the public projects, I believe we should continue to monitor our commute patterns and commuter demographics. That will give us the information we need to develop incentive programs for using public transit, bicycling or carpooling. Reward programs for employers that implement flexible work schedules, telecommuting policies and carpooling should be encouraged.
As supervisor, I’ll encourage investment in new, state-of-the-art technologies that will move traffic more efficiently. In addition, I’d leverage the money we do have for additional funding from state and federal agencies.
Currently, Sonoma County is rated as having the second worst roads in the Bay Area. As supervisor, I’d request an annual “report card” from Public Works that would rate the current condition of our streets and roads and provide an honest estimate of the cost if the needed repairs are deferred. It’s better to spend $1 today than $100 down the road.
Veronica Jacobi: Some of the most important issues Sonoma County needs to address are decreasing traffic congestion and pollution and improving our public transportation system. That’s why I’m a strong supporter of the 2008 SMART train campaign, carpools, live-work neighborhoods and improving bicycle trails and traffic lanes. Studies have shown that if we can reduce just 10 percent of our congestion, it would dramatically decrease the time the remaining drivers have to sit in traffic.
We should also resurface roadways rather than waiting too long and having to rebuild them. It costs approximately seven times more to rebuild than to resurface.
“What role do you feel the county should take in helping fill the gaps in health care for our community?”
—Kris Wilson, manager of campaign and major gifts for St. Joseph’s Health System
Shirlee Zane: The county has a legal obligation to care for the indigent. We can’t afford to eliminate inpatient mental health services, because we’ll pay for it through the incarceration of the mentally ill. State proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, lets the county provide funding to nonprofits to enhance and increase outpatient mental health services, but inpatient services are also needed.
The county should commit to specific health objectives for our community, including reducing obesity; increasing access to healthy, affordable food in impoverished neighborhoods; reducing injury; ensuring 100 percent access to primary, specialty and mental health services for MediCal and uninsured patients; as well as addressing the social determinants of health like improving graduation rates from high school, living wages and so on; and then support these goals through both reallocated and new funding sources.
We need to reprioritize health and human services so there’s consistent funding to improve access, quality and service.
Tim Smith: Together with various nonprofits, many of which it supports with significant funding, the county already is the gap-filler in health care for Sonoma County. Ultimately, we need health care services that are available for all. I’ve worked diligently at the state level with to improve the affordability and availability of coverage.
Sharon Wright: We’re facing a very serious shortage of general practice physicians. In fact, as of [March 2008], there are no general practice physicians in Sonoma County outside the Kaiser system who are accepting new patients. Because of the high cost of living in Sonoma County, coupled with the low rate of MediCal reimbursements, we haven’t had a new family practice physician locate in Santa Rosa in the last three years. I believe local governments should work with the medical community—and other community-based organizations—to identify incentives and programs that will attract new health care professionals to Sonoma County.
The lack of essential mental health care is one of the most glaring “gaps” in our county’s health care system. We’re spending an inordinate amount of money in our county jail, but it shouldn’t be the default care facility for the mentally ill. As supervisor, my priority will be the redistribution of funds back into those institutions that can effectively and efficiently treat our mentally ill.
Veronica Jacobi: Our tax revenue will go much farther based on the advantages of universal, single-payer comprehensive health care at the state level; among Sonoma County governments, the county, cities and Office of Education will save millions of dollars, with rough estimates ranging as high as $20 million per year. Small business owners will be freed from the burden of having to pay for and administer employee health benefits—including for themselves. By solving the health care problem, small businesses will no longer get stopped by unreasonable and unpredictable health care costs, thus helping to re-energize our economy. I’ll lead a local effort to lobby the governor to sign this legislation when it crosses his desk again.
Our county decided more than 10 years ago to privatize public health. We’ve seen the problems of private companies that need to make a profit while minimally providing for the common good. Providing a healthy community isn’t currently a strong part of their mandate. If such private health care providers wish to do business in Sonoma County, we as a board should make it clear that they must address all of our county’s critical health needs. Contracts and obligations must be thorough, clear and enforceable.
I’d also look to our neighboring county boards for support on this issue, since these large health corporations can play one county against another when seeking locations to deliver their services. Health care isn’t just a Sonoma County problem; it’s a state and regional problem that needs to be solved in partnership with county and state allies. I’d take the lead in reaching out to our neighbors to meet these challenges head on.
What are your thoughts on crime prevention?
Shirlee Zane: Crime is a huge concern, because of the growth in gangs. We need to have a really good and comprehensive approach. I worked with gang kids in South Central Los Angeles and Humboldt Park, so I have some ideas about programs that work—and those that don’t. You have to go back to the family and empowerment: Kids join gangs because it’s the only way they can feel empowered. So let’s provide them with jobs. Let’s get trade and union jobs into the schools and give them options.
Tim Smith: Crime is an issue of concern for our nation, state and county. Victims of crime need to be acknowledged as courageous survivors and have appropriate services available. To reduce crime in our communities, we must take a multifaceted approach that embraces prevention, intervention and detention. Santa Rosa voters recognized this by their support of Measure O to better fund the public safety services of fire and police and establish gang prevention and intervention services. The county needs to continue its holistic approach of providing funding for mental health care and substance abuse rehabilitation services, together with judicial programs such as Mental Health Court and Drug Court. While necessary far too often, detention is the most expensive approach to crime, with “up-stream” investment in prevention and intervention services being far more desirable for both outcomes and costs.
Sharon Wright: Without question, we’re all concerned about crime, gangs and drugs. We’ve been overrun with gangs, and it’s a real challenge. In 1997, 17 percent of the jail inmates were gang members. In 2007, that number had grown to more than 30 percent.
I was at the North County Detention Facility recently, the lower security location near the airport. I was impressed to learn about the myriad programs available at that facility—programs that let inmates earn their GED and learn skills that will serve them when they’re released. The inmate services coordinator and her staff have developed a partnership with Sonoma County Office of Education [SCOE] that should be a model. SCOE provides teachers for inmate classes and, in return, receives average daily attendance money from the state, which offsets the cost of the teachers. Programs like that, with little to no financial impact on the general fund and which aid inmate rehabilitation, demonstrate the kind of creative partnerships we need to encourage.
Veronica Jacobi: I advocate a two-pronged solution: First, remove the criminals from our communities; second, support effective, community-based programs to work with young people who may be targeted by gangs and individuals with mental health and/or addiction challenges who aren’t getting the treatment they need.
I support our police and prosecutors, as they do the necessary work to remove criminals from our communities. Their effectiveness is vital to our safety. I, along with many Sonoma County residents, are heartbroken over the use of force we’ve seen recently to solve problems that might have been solved earlier had they been addressed by fully supported drop-in crisis centers or addiction recovery services.
Cuts to our area’s mental health and crisis centers have resulted in people who are suffering and to families not knowing where to turn. Additionally, our peace officers need to be better trained and equipped to handle the variety of situations they now face.
I also support funding for local, community-based programs that address the needs of at-risk youth, mental health and addiction concerns. As a member of the Santa Rosa Gang Prevention Task Force, I helped our city reach out to our various communities and for the first time include the most diverse and widest reaching invitation to youth neighborhood leaders in our prevention efforts.
Finally, Sonoma County’s mental health and addiction recovery support system is being abandoned by the state and federal governments. Without funding, this support network will wither and die. This must be stopped and reversed.
These issues affect all of us. As supervisor, I want to change the conversation from “us vs. them” to “How do we, as a community, best solve these problems?”
“There have been several local City Councils that have taken votes on national issues in recent years, including the Santa Rosa City Council, which voted recently to support the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. My question is this: Do you think it’s appropriate for local elected officials, including the County Board of Supervisors, to take positions on national issues when they were primarily elected to address local issues? If you do think it’s appropriate, why?”
—Keith Woods, of North Coast Builders Exchange
Shirlee Zane: While the board should certainly concentrate on local issues, it’s important to weigh in on issues of regional and national concern, especially when the higher authorities aren’t taking care of business.
Because what happens on the national level affects us locally, as well as the pressure that cities and counties can bring to bear on important national issues, I’d be open to bringing these issues forth for discussion and potential action.
Tim Smith: Of course local officials may take positions on national issues individually. However, it’s my belief that local officials are primarily elected for service in helping to solve local challenges. Therefore, unless a national issue has a clear nexus to the local governmental role being served by the local elected official, such issues are better addressed directly to federal officials.
Sharon Wright: In my opinion, we should avoid discussions that aren’t pertinent to the immediate problems before us as a county. As supervisor, I’ll make every effort to stay on point and on task and leave such deliberations to the elected bodies whose responsibility it is to address such issues.
Veronica Jacobi: We live in a representative democracy, and it’s our duty to pass on to state and national government what our constituents are requesting.
What the future holds
Obviously, these are only a few of the many subjects we could have covered in this article. But we hope we’ve provided you with some insight regarding the candidates’ views.
Current Supervisor Tim Smith says, “It’s been 32 years since I started this incredible journey in public service. But now there are things I’d like to do on the outside.
“It’s time to let someone else have a crack at it. This is an extraordinary opportunity people have given me. I’m confident whomever replaces me will also realize that’s the case.”
So, which of these candidates will help shape Sonoma County’s future? It’s up to you to decide.
