Disclaimer-I am not stating anybody’s opinion other than my own in this column. This is not an ECA position. It is a John Bly opinion that I hope you find provocative.

This is not a political Soapbox. I just found the decision by Southwest Airlines to be so refreshing, I had to talk about it. As we all know, everyone has been impacted by Covid-arguably, none more severely than the airline carriers. Part of what has been on the negotiating table between the Dems and GOP, has been another stimulus package that would have had major support to those airline carriers. For whatever reason, the two parties have not been able to get the stimulus package out. So, the airline companies, who have been publicly telling us that dire decisions are about to be made, have to act.

Both United Airlines and American Airlines warned over the summer that they would start furloughing thousands of workers on October 1 if that date passed without an extension of the federal aid to airlines that the government approved in April. That date has passed. No extension of federal aid to airlines has happened.

Now, you might support the idea of another airline aid package, and you might not.

But at Southwest, which lost $17 million each day during the third quarter, when revenue dropped 70 percent, CEO Gary Kelly did something a bit different. To read the article on what Gary Kelly proposed instead of layoffs and furloughs, click on the link here—

This week, Kelly recorded a video for employees in which he said Southwest will continue its streak of not having had layoffs or furloughs for its entire corporate history, at least until the end of the year.

After that, however, while Kelly would of course welcome federal aid, he said he’s no longer counting on the government. Instead, he wants Southwest to cut its own corners.

He’s starting with himself: Kelly says he’ll go without a salary until the end of 2021, and that other senior executives will take a 20 percent pay cut during that time.

Other non-union employees will see a pay cut of 10 percent, starting on January 1.

As a result, Kelly promised, there would be no layoffs through the end of 2021, for any non-union employees — and their salaries will “snap back” — meaning regain the 10 percent pay cut — after one year.

Now, comes the sticky point: Kelly said he’ll also be asking unions to match the pay cuts.

“My goal has been, and it remains, no furloughs,” Kelly said in the video. “If we fail to reach agreement on reasonable concessions quickly, that will have to be the last resort.”

Making this announcement, and basically putting the ball in the unions’ court, is an interesting move. Both of the unions representing Southwest Airlines flight attendants and pilots poured cold water on the idea of voluntary cuts.

The flight attendants union sent a statement saying that it had “made it clear to the company in previous conversations that our members are not interested in making concessions to a contract that took decades to obtain.”

And, the union representing pilots told The Wall Street Journal it had agreed to hold discussions with the company, but also told members in a letter: “Agreeing to discussions is very different than agreeing to concessions.”

So, what happens next? I guess it’s likely one of three things.

First, if the unions agree to the cuts, there are no layoffs, and Kelly keeps Southwest’s streak going.

Second, if the unions won’t agree to the cuts, Kelly moves ahead with furloughs — but he’s basically put the onus on the unions for the losses.

Finally, if somehow Washington does come to the rescue with a stimulus package after all, regardless of what the unions do, then Kelly is off the hook again–as the whole issue becomes moot, at least for now.

I’ve been wondering since the start of the pandemic which is the smarter course for companies facing temporary tough times–cut staff or ask everyone to take a pay cut to save jobs.

I think it’s one of the toughest decisions any business owner has to face, especially now. This hits pretty darn close to home as Mary and I have taken pay cuts rather than cut our job altogether and hope we come back to the ECA sometime in the future. We are very thankful to all of you who have responded to our “ASK” and helped out the ECA during these tough times where we have not been able to hold paying events. You all are the BEST!

Back to leadership strategies- What is the right way to do things?

Altruistically, it seems pay cuts might be best, but that happens to fly in the face of advice that Harvard Business School professor Christopher Stanton and some of his colleagues gave a few years ago. They say lay people off instead of cutting salaries; otherwise you risk your top performers moving on, leaving you with a demoralized workforce that sticks around only because they can’t get better offers elsewhere.

Of course, these aren’t normal times. So, if those are the normal rules, maybe they don’t apply.

So how do you feel about the two strategies? One is to have massive layoffs/furloughs, and the other is to ask for pay cuts but don’t ask your employees to take a pay cut without the top “brass” taking a pay cut as well.

I personally had to do this when I owned Kirkwood Bly back in the day. My experience is that when you take the pay cut in order to save someone’s job, that breeds one heckuva lot more loyalty than laying them off. What I totally disagree with is the union’s response that seems to say, “we are not going to accept any concessions”. That makes no sense to me. It is clear to me, that the CEO at Southwest cares more about those employee jobs than the unions do that represent them.

There you have it. An opinion piece that is mine, not the ECA’s. I do not pretend to speak for all of the ECA members with this Soapbox. Just speaking for me and I hope you find this provocative and you can examine your own firm and ask yourself what would you do?

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

********************************************************************************************************************

SUMMARY OF WHAT AND WHO ECA Endorses!!!!

Cotati: ECA Endorses Ben Ford, Laura Sparks, Susan Harvey

Petaluma: ECA Endorses Kathy Miller, and Mike Healy

Rohnert Park: ECA Endorses Jake Mackenzie

Sonoma: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Sonoma.

Sebastopol: ECA Endorses Diana Rich, and Evert Fernandez

Santa Rosa: ECA Endorses Jack Tibbetts, Chris Rogers, Jorge Inocencio, and Eric Christensen

Windsor: ECA Endorses Dominic Foppoli for Mayor

Healdsburg: ECA Endorses David Hagele, Ariel Kelly, and David Jones

Cloverdale: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Cloverdale.

State Ballot Measures:

ECA voted to OPPOSE California Ballot Measure Prop 15

Local Ballot Measures: 

ECA voted to ENDORSE Sonoma County Measure DD 

ECA voted to OPPOSE Sonoma County Measure O, County of Sonoma, Mental Health, Addiction and Homeless Services Measure Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

ECA voted to OPPOSE City of Santa Rosa’s Measure Q, City of Santa Rosa, Sales Tax Extension

ECA voted to take no position on any other State or Local Ballot Measures

Bits and Pieces:

The website for Measure DD has recently been revised. It is up and running and we would appreciate you visiting the site, endorsing the Measure, and sharing the messaging on social media. www.gosonomaact.com

Sign locations: The Yes on DD Campaign, needs sign locations to mount “Yes on DD, Keep Us Moving” on private property. Specifically, frontages along Highway 101, Highway 12, and Lakeville Highway are desired. I know some of you have property along these roads. If you contact me, I will give you the information on where the signs are now. There are 4’x8’ signs available and 3’x5’ signs available. We did not make any small front yard signs. All signs are currently stored at Operating Engineers Offices in Rohnert Park. We ask that you pick up the signs, let me know how many you picked up, and where your sign locations are that you are mounting them at. If you have no means to pick the signs up and mount them, I can make arrangements to do that for you. Please help us help you!!

So far, I have heard from Ghilotti Brothers, Ghilotti Construction, Mark Soiland, Aaron Sykes, and Erik Fowler who have provided sign locations. We would like to hear from some others!!

Funding: The Campaign could use some funding. We have commitments or checks in hand from the ECA, Ghilotti Construction, Vulcan/Shamrock, BoDean, BKF, Operating Engineers Local 3, Ghilotti Brothers, Soiland Company, Inc., and the Sonoma County Alliance.

We have endorsements from many folks including, but not limited to: The ECA, the Sonoma County Alliance, the Operating Engineers Local 3, the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, Friends of Smart, the Petaluma Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Press Democrat Editorial Board (their article is included here–)

This Measure is such a big help to our ECA members and working families. Please take the time to read up on the Measure on the website www.gosonomaact.com and help “Keep Us Moving”!

SUMMARY OF WHAT AND WHO ECA Endorses!!!!

Cotati: ECA Endorses Ben Ford, Laura Sparks, Susan Harvey

Petaluma: ECA Endorses Kathy Miller, and Mike Healy

Rohnert Park: ECA Endorses Jake Mackenzie

Sonoma: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Sonoma.

Sebastopol: ECA Endorses Diana Rich, and Evert Fernandez

Santa Rosa: ECA Endorses Jack Tibbetts, Chris Rogers, Jorge Inocencio, and Eric Christensen

Windsor: ECA Endorses Dominic Foppoli for Mayor

Healdsburg: ECA Endorses David Hagele, Ariel Kelly, and David Jones

Cloverdale: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Cloverdale.

State Ballot Measures:

ECA voted to OPPOSE California Ballot Measure Prop 15

Local Ballot Measures: 

ECA voted to ENDORSE Sonoma County Measure DD 

ECA voted to OPPOSE Sonoma County Measure O, County of Sonoma, Mental Health, Addiction and Homeless Services Measure Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

ECA voted to OPPOSE City of Santa Rosa’s Measure Q, City of Santa Rosa, Sales Tax Extension

ECA voted to take no position on any other State or Local Ballot Measures

Bits and Pieces:

The website for Measure DD has recently been revised. It is up and running and we would appreciate you visiting the site, endorsing the Measure, and sharing the messaging on social media. www.gosonomaact.com

Sign locations: The Yes on DD Campaign, needs sign locations to mount “Yes on DD, Keep Us Moving” on private property. Specifically, frontages along Highway 101, Highway 12, and Lakeville Highway are desired. I know some of you have property along these roads. If you contact me, I will give you the information on where the signs are now. There are 4’x8’ signs available and 3’x5’ signs available. We did not make any small front yard signs. All signs are currently stored at Operating Engineers Offices in Rohnert Park. We ask that you pick up the signs, let me know how many you picked up, and where your sign locations are that you are mounting them at. If you have no means to pick the signs up and mount them, I can make arrangements to do that for you. Please help us help you!!

So far, I have heard from Ghilotti Brothers, Ghilotti Construction, Mark Soiland, Aaron Sykes, and Erik Fowler who have provided sign locations. We would like to hear from some others!!

Funding: The Campaign could use some funding. We have commitments or checks in hand from the ECA, Ghilotti Construction, Vulcan/Shamrock, BoDean, BKF, Operating Engineers Local 3, Ghilotti Brothers, Soiland Company, Inc., and the Sonoma County Alliance.

We have endorsements from many folks including, but not limited to: The ECA, the Sonoma County Alliance, the Operating Engineers Local 3, the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, Friends of Smart, the Petaluma Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Press Democrat Editorial Board (their article is included here–)

This Measure is such a big help to our ECA members and working families. Please take the time to read up on the Measure on the website www.gosonomaact.com and help “Keep Us Moving”!

It has come to my attention that there are disparities in getting paid by different agencies in Sonoma County and in Marin and other Counties. Rather than have individual issues addressed by the ECA, where we try and discuss the protocol of each agency in dealing with a specific contractor or supplier of services, it may be time for a more “global” approach. The intent of a global approach is to collaborate with the agencies, not criticize them. The underlying consideration going in to the process is that there should be clear rules, mostly the same from agency to agency, and the vendors (us) should be able to depend on a specific time line of receiving payment IF WE HAVE DONE THE PROTOCOL/PROCESS CORRECTLY FROM OUR END. I believe that agencies want to be a preferred vendor, and if they have adequate protection in safeguarding their progress payments, they will want to be considered fair and efficient in their handling of monthly progress payment applications. As a former Contractor, I was acutely aware of who was difficult to deal with in their arguing/debating over minor items like “materials on hand but not installed”, what % of mobilization was reasonable to be paid, counting the number of manholes installed, and submission of certified payroll by all subs and by prime contractor in a timely manner. If we did all those things correctly, why could we not see a very quick turnaround in our payment application vs some arbitrary waiting period of up to 60 days sometimes?

Here is an idea for a more global approach:

1. Research the protocol of each major agency in our geographical area. That would be, at a minimum, 13 Marin County Cities, 9 Sonoma County Cities, and several in Napa, Mendo, and Lake Counties as well. This is daunting. I think I would recommend starting with four entities to see how it goes-Sonoma County, City of Santa Rosa, City of Rohnert Park, and the City of Petaluma to start with.
2. Ask our membership to chime in on the agencies they have experience with. Some will be good, some not so good. All of the opinions from our members will be their perspective, not the perspective of the awarding agency. All of the opinions would be protected so the agency would not know where or who they came from, and I would demand the opinions be constructive rather than just a “whine session”.
3. Try to schedule several Zoom meeting/workshops with the stated intended outcome to be a more uniform means of submitting, processing and receiving progress payments by contractors and suppliers. These sessions would be give and take and I would expect the outcome would be very constructive.
4. Collaboration, cooperation, and honestly looking in the mirror would have to be done by both sides. Contractors and suppliers must recognize that some protocols are important to the awarding agency, and the awarding agencies must recognize they need to remove ambiguous or confusing procedures and all we are asking for is a fair and dependable time line if we “toe the line”.

What do you think fellow ECA Members? If you would participate in this endeavor, please contact me and I will start working on it. If you think it is a waste of your valuable time, tell me and I will “stand down”. If you think it is important to get paid in a timely manner, then let’s do something so you can get paid when you are “Working for A Livin”.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

********************************************************************************************************************

SUMMARY OF WHAT AND WHO ECA Endorses!!!!

Cotati: ECA Endorses Ben Ford, Laura Sparks, Susan Harvey

Petaluma: ECA Endorses Kathy Miller, and Mike Healy

Rohnert Park: ECA Endorses Jake Mackenzie

Sonoma: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Sonoma.

Sebastopol: ECA Endorses Diana Rich, and Evert Fernandez

Santa Rosa: ECA Endorses Jack Tibbetts, Chris Rogers, Jorge Inocencio, and Eric Christensen

Windsor: ECA Endorses Dominic Foppoli for Mayor

Healdsburg: ECA Endorses David Hagele, Ariel Kelly, and David Jones

Cloverdale: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Cloverdale.

State Ballot Measures:

ECA voted to OPPOSE California Ballot Measure Prop 15

Local Ballot Measures: 

ECA voted to ENDORSE Sonoma County Measure DD 

ECA voted to OPPOSE Sonoma County Measure O, County of Sonoma, Mental Health, Addiction and Homeless Services Measure Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

ECA voted to OPPOSE City of Santa Rosa’s Measure Q, City of Santa Rosa, Sales Tax Extension

ECA voted to take no position on any other State or Local Ballot Measures

Bits and Pieces:

The website for Measure DD is up and running and we would appreciate you visiting the site, endorsing the Measure, and sharing the messaging on social media. www.gosonomaact.com

Sign locations: The Yes on DD Campaign, needs sign locations to mount “Yes on DD, Keep Us Moving” on private property. Specifically, frontages along Highway 101, Highway 12, and Lakeville Highway are desired. I know some of you have property along these roads. If you contact me, I will give you the information on where the signs are now. There are 4’x8’ signs available and 3’x5’ signs available. We did not make any small front yard signs. All signs are currently stored at Operating Engineers Offices in Rohnert Park. We ask that you pick up the signs, let me know how many you picked up, and where your sign locations are that you are mounting them at. If you have no means to pick the signs up and mount them, I can make arrangements to do that for you. Please help us help you!!

So far, I have heard from Ghilotti Brothers, Ghilotti Construction, Mark Soiland, and Erik Fowler who have provided sign locations. We would like to hear from some others!!

Funding: The Campaign could use some funding. We have commitments or checks in hand from the ECA, Operating Engineers Local 3, Ghilotti Brothers, Soiland Company, Inc., and the Sonoma County Alliance.

We have endorsements from many folks including, but not limited to: The ECA, the Sonoma County Alliance, the Operating Engineers Local 3, the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, Friends of Smart, the Petaluma Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Press Democrat Editorial Board (their article is included here–)

This Measure is such a big help to our ECA members and working families. Please take the time to read up on the Measure on the website www.gosonomaact.com and help “Keep Us Moving”!

*********************************************************************************************************************

Eric Christensen is running for City of Santa Rosa Council. Eric would be the first businessperson to serve on the City Council for many years. He owns his own business, it is local, and he needs our help. The ECA has teamed up with several other organizations to hold a drive through event to help Eric out. Please take a moment to read the attached Flyer and take the additional time to support a true business friendly candidate!!!

Tackling our wildfire defenses is not a simple or easy task. I have been participating in several discussions over the past several weeks as to what, or how, the ECA should do to participate. Some would think this is outside our purvey, but I believe we have a unique perspective on at least some of the tactics that could be used in the future. Parmeter Paving (not an ECA Member-they used to be!), demonstrated in the Walbridge fire what local resources can do to support and assist CalFire in defending homes and businesses from a wildfire. I heard they mobilized some 14 bulldozers and cut firebreaks around homes and the town of Cazadero using their local knowledge of the old logging trails and roads that have existed in that wild and steep area. They were obviously successful in their defending their homes and town. So, can we learn from this example? I believe we can, and we should utilize our considerable resources within the ECA to assist public entities in defending against future wildfires. Part of that defense could be mobilizing as Parmeter did, and the first step in that is to get your company and equipment registered with CalFire so you can get approval to work with CalFire and even submit for reimbursement should the emergency declaration be applied where FEMA gets involved.

Some other thoughts on strengthening our defenses:

1. We need to get rid of some of the fuel in the forests. Controlled burn is an option, as is doing emergency timber harvesting as part of the emergency declaration of our area. Why that declaration is important is because it could mitigate or eliminate much of the environmental roadblocks to removing selected trees and cleaning up potential fuel on the forest floors. If timber harvesting can be done ahead of the destruction of the wildfires, there might be a market for the undamaged trees harvested that could help or wholly pay for that harvesting. Wouldn’t that be cool? We might be able to take care of our own lumber needs without importing from Canada!!
2. We have local control over a lot of Open Space. How about we work with the Open Space district and cut selected fire breaks into strategic ridgetops or along roads in order to provide firefighters a better chance of stopping a wildfire from getting into areas of dense habitation? Cutting a wider fire break and maintenance of same could be done with one-time funds from the PG & E settlement and then putting a permanent budget amount in each year for maintenance of those fire breaks.
3. Let’s hold the County to their duty to do vegetation management along our unincorporated roads. I heard from several residents in the Walbridge fire zone who said they were doing their part for vegetation management, but they had not seen any effort done by the County for several years. Again, one-time dollars from the PG & E settlement with some accountability for future budget expenditures could help solve this problem. I certainly would highly recommend the County outsource the vegetation management work rather than self-perform that work.
4. I like the concept I included in a Newsletter several weeks ago (offered by Rohnert Park TPW) to use PG & E one time funds to buy seven specialized fire trucks that can access narrower roads than the regular fire engines. Buy them and deploy them in high risk areas.
5. Is it time to bury some transmission lines that are along ridge tops that make them susceptible to high winds causing line arcs and sparking fires?  This is expensive but it is well worth doing in small stretches. How to eat an elephant? Small but continuous bites!
6. It is high time our community work closely with emergency services personnel in collaborating on these ideas and others to prevent or at least strengthen our defenses from these catastrophic wildfires that have dominated us for the past three or four years.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

********************************************************************************************************************

SUMMARY OF WHAT AND WHO ECA Endorses!!!!

Cotati: ECA Endorses Ben Ford, Laura Sparks, Susan Harvey

Petaluma: ECA Endorses Kathy Miller, and Mike Healy

Rohnert Park: ECA Endorses Jake Mackenzie

Sonoma: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Sonoma.

Sebastopol: ECA Endorses Diana Rich, and Evert Fernandez

Santa Rosa: ECA Endorses Jack Tibbetts, Chris Rogers, Jorge Inocencio, and Eric Christensen

Windsor: ECA Endorses Dominic Foppoli for Mayor

Healdsburg: ECA Endorses David Hagele, Ariel Kelly, and David Jones

Cloverdale: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Cloverdale.

State Ballot Measures:

ECA voted to OPPOSE California Ballot Measure Prop 15

Local Ballot Measures: 

ECA voted to ENDORSE Sonoma County Measure DD 

ECA voted to OPPOSE Sonoma County Measure O, County of Sonoma, Mental Health, Addiction and Homeless Services Measure Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

ECA voted to OPPOSE City of Santa Rosa’s Measure Q, City of Santa Rosa, Sales Tax Extension

ECA voted to take no position on any other State or Local Ballot Measures

Bits and Pieces:

The website for Measure DD is up and running and we would appreciate you visiting the site, endorsing the Measure, and sharing the messaging on social media. www.gosonomaact.com

Sign locations: The Yes on DD Campaign, needs sign locations to mount “Yes on DD, Keep Us Moving” on private property. Specifically, frontages along Highway 101, Highway 12, and Lakeville Highway are desired. I know some of you have property along these roads. If you contact me, I can ensure you get a sign delivered to a location you would like.

So far, I have heard from Ghilotti Brothers, Ghilotti Construction, and Erik Fowler who have provided sign locations. Signs will be delivered late Friday if you want any of them to put up on your property.

Santa Rosa – Is wrapping up their Annual Slurry Seal pavement treatment to maintain neighborhood streets. | See the map

Cloverdale – Pedestrian safety improvements for areas on South Cloverdale Blvd. happening through 10/6. | Learn more

I wanted to take a moment to inform the ECA membership of the process we take to find, work with, interview, educate, and finally choose whether to endorse and/or donate money and resources to their campaign to get them elected. The Board of Directors listened to the recommendations by the Government Affairs Committee (Jeff Okrepkie, Art Deicke, Dale Mahoney, Dave Weller, and newest ECA member Ross Liscum). The Board voted unanimously on the slate of candidates, on whether to support or oppose or take no position on candidates/local ballot measures/State ballot measures, and the Board voted unanimously on the amounts of dollars to contribute and to which candidate. Since the PAC is funded by all of you, (the ECA PAC has over $23,000 in it now, and with all of the campaign checks approved by the Board on 9-15-20, we will spend $4,500 to candidates, and $7,500 to Measure DD, for a total of $12,000 which is about half of our existing balance in our PAC Account. I think it only fair to inform you of the process, what we are looking for in candidates, and to allow you. So, if you will indulge me—

The ECA asks no candidate to sign any sort of “pledge”. In fact, we have a policy that basically says if a candidate reveals that he/she has in fact pledged to support ANY special interest group by virtue of signing a pledge to vote on a future issue in any preconditioned way, the ECA will take that into account in considering to endorse that candidate. That’s a long-winded way of saying “pledging your vote is wrong”.

Also, the candidates we interview are from the County of Sonoma and from the nine cities in Sonoma County. I have, in the past, also interviewed candidates in Marin County and will continue to do so as time allows, but it is a time consuming proposition and the ECA would really like to find someone within the ECA that lives/works in Napa, Marin, and Mendocino Counties that would be willing to help me out and conduct the interviews. If we could do that, we could expand our Government Affairs impact dramatically. But, for now, we primarily focus on Sonoma County. We also do not take positions on school boards, Federal ballot measures or candidates, and rarely take a stance on State ballot measures (although we chose to take a position on the State Prop 15 which you will see).

The process: The ECA’s Government Affairs Committee works with several other Associations (all of which do campaign contributions) to discuss, coordinate, and jointly interview candidates each election cycle).  The Associations that have participated in the past were NORBAR, Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, North Coast Builders Exchange, North Bay Leadership Council, Sonoma County Alliance, and the Farm Bureau. This year, only four of those participated jointly (ECA, NORBAR, NCBE, to a very minor degree the North Bay Leadership Council, and as an observer only, the Sonoma County Alliance).

A Questionnaire (the ECA Government Affairs Committee has an opportunity to shape and ask questions that are important to our members on this questionnaire, as are the other groups participating), and invitation to interview is sent out to each City/Town Council candidate once the filing deadline is closed (usually early August for a November ballot date). The Questionnaire can be sent to you if you just ask Mary or me to do so.

The candidate chooses to fill out and accept the invitation to interview with the groups in one efficient session, or not. This year, invites and questionnaires were sent out to 52 candidates that filed, and 32 of them accepted the invitation and interviewed and filled out the questionnaire. The ECA GAC reviews the questionnaire before the interview schedule (interviews were scheduled for two days August 19th and 20^th, and each interview is 30 minutes long. One of the Executive Directors of the four groups acts as the mediator for the interviews and each of our groups have between 1-4 of our members that participate in the process. We inform the candidate that each group is acting individually to determine whether to endorse or not, and that we are not recording the interviews so they can feel free to speak without reservation. We introduce all the participants on the Zoom call so the candidate knows who they are speaking to, then we give the candidate 2 minutes to express why they are running, then we go into Q & A that generally centers on their questionnaire responses and allows for some education about issues that seems to be needed based upon their answers. We stress that we are there as resources not just now, but throughout the campaign and if they are successful, we encourage them to contact us and ask us questions while they are in office so they can better understand the issues they are asked to vote on. It is a really effective process to establish a relationship with new candidates, and it is an effective way to recognize when the candidates have zero clue about certain issues (like inclusionary housing fees, project labor agreements, public pension liabilities, homelessness, etc.). The four groups work well and respectfully, and the candidates generally appreciate how civil and respectful the process is.

What the ECA looked for in a candidate this year:

1. Will they do the work, read up on the issues, and vote to support the majority of their constituents regardless of special interest pressure?
2. Do they support continued funding of transportation and utility infrastructure work?
3. Do they believe in funding for homeless that primarily focuses on the more recent “homeless by circumstance” population rather than the group that is “homeless by choice”?
4. Do they believe in working with private businesses and association groups to collaborate on true public/private projects that streamline projects that benefit the community?
5. Are they in favor of fair and open competition for all qualified workers/contractors/suppliers that are funded by public monies?
6. Do they have a clear grasp of what is important to their constituents?
7. Are they supportive of removing obstacles to building more housing in all categories, not just subsidized (affordable) housing?
8. Do they support and believe that landlords have the right to evict tenants for valid reasons?
9. Do they support rent control?
10. IS their City attracting enough business and quality jobs?
11. Do they support either of the County tax measures (Mental Health or the Transportation Measure DD)?

There are other issues, but these are the main ones that seem to get the most attention. Based on their positions and answers to these issues (and again, we will provide you with their questionnaire if you simply ask us-we can email them to you), here are the summaries of who we endorsed:

Cotati: ECA Endorses Ben Ford (new candidate, Planning Commission background), Laura Sparks (new candidate, no experience in public office at all), Susan Harvey (incumbent Cotati Council Person, she is endorsed by the entire Cotati City Council, and although she does not score on all ECA issues, she is a backer of transportation and utility infrastructure work and has a history of supporting ECA type projects).

ECA did not vote to give any of these endorsed candidates any money.

Petaluma: ECA Endorses Kathy Miller (incumbent, big backer of transportation initiatives, and a friend to ECA), Mike Healy (incumbent, backer of transportation initiatives and utility work initiatives, and a backer of the ECA). Gabe Kearney declined to fill out the questionnaire and interview with us, so we chose to not endorse him.

ECA did vote to donate $200 each to Kathy Miller and Mike Healy

Rohnert Park: ECA Endorses Jake Mackenzie in District 4. ECA chose no candidate in the other two District races District 1 and District 3 (District 3 has Gerard Guidice running against incumbent Joe Callinan-ECA declined to endorse a candidate in this race because we could not agree).

ECA did not vote to give Jake any dollars as he stated he did not want any money contributions.

Sonoma: ECA did not endorse any candidate in Sonoma. This is due to the poor quality of candidates as relates to ECA important issues.

Sebastopol: ECA Endorses Diana Rich (new candidate, no political experience, but endorsed by all three incumbents whose terms are not up-that was very impressive to us), and Evert Fernandez (Planning Commission veteran and well known to several of our Engineers and Contractors with a good reputation for being a problem solver).

ECA voted to donate $300 each to Diana and Evert’s campaign.

Santa Rosa: ECA Endorses Jack Tibbetts (incumbent District 3, although Jack has a different view on Homeless issues than the ECA, he backs us up on infrastructure issues so we decided to endorse, no dollars), Chris Rogers District 5 (incumbent-Chris was not endorsed by ECA 4 years ago, but has sat down with me several times and we work well together on many important issues-his competition was impressive, Azmina Hanna, but the Committee and I were convinced by Chris reversing his positions from 4 years ago on PLA’s and funding infrastructure), Jorge Inocencio District 1 (Jorge is a new candidate and his questionnaire shows he sees most issues as does the ECA, and he was willing to take my call on Monday and discuss issues for about an hour on the phone, Jorge is new to politics, an electrical engineer, smart as heck, and willing to listen and knows he needs to learn a bunch-my kind of candidate!), Eric Christensen District 7 (new candidate, owns the building ECA is in, and I actually reached out to Eric about 3-4 years ago to try and get him interested in running, the homeless RV park in front of our building convinced him to finally run and he needs our help as his opponent has backing of organized labor, teachers, and SEIU as well as well known “left leaning” electeds).

ECA voted to donate $500 each to Chris Rogers, Jorge Inocencio, and Eric Christensen, no $’s to Jack Tibbetts.

Windsor: ECA Endorses Dominic Foppoli for Mayor (incumbent, current Mayor, and a decent friend to the ECA issues in the past and seemingly in the future-endorsing Dominic is a lot about not endorsing his main competition-Sam Salmon, who is definitely no friend to ECA issues), the ECA declined to endorse either Jeff Leasure or Deb Fudge because there was not agreement.

ECA voted to donate $500 to Dominic Foppoli’s campaign.

Healdsburg: ECA Endorses David Hagele (incumbent, and the highest rated candidate of all of them in my estimation as he sides with the ECA on every important issue, is a veteran on the Council with several other incumbents leaving the Council and not running we need a steady “friend” on that Council), Ariel Kelly (new candidate, head of a nonprofit called Corizon in Healdsburg, very left leaning but absolutely brilliant, energetic, and should side with us on the more important issues facing Healdsburg such as housing and infrastructure), and David Jones (new candidate, from the Planning Commission, and he seems a very steady and moderate candidate who sides with the ECA on most issues).

ECA voted to donate $500 each to David Hagele, David Jones, and Ariel Kelley.

Cloverdale: ECA decided to sit out the Cloverdale race due to candidates that were not aligned with our values.

State Ballot Measures:

ECA voted to take no position on all State Ballot Measures but one. Prop 15 INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

ECA voted to Oppose State Prop 15.

Local Ballot Measures: 

ECA previously voted previously to support and endorse Sonoma County Measure DD, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Go Sonoma Act.

This is the Measure that would continue Measure M and the ¼ cent sales tax from 2025 to 2045.

ECA voted to contribute $7,500 to this Measure.

There is a lot of misleading and outright false narrative coming from opponents to the Measure DD but the ECA is convinced we are on the correct side on this one. Not only does this tax not hit anybody’s wallet until April of 2025, Measure M has a 16 year track record of being managed by Sonoma County Transportation Authority who has secured matching funds from other funding agencies to the tune of 5:1 thereby making this the best deal going! The estimated $16-18 million dollars this would generate for road repairs, bike paths, and pedestrian paths would employ a lot of ECA people! Because of the wildfires of 2020, Measure DD is also very timely in helping to find alternative means of transportation that will reduce GHG’s and negate transportation impacts to global warming.

ECA voted to oppose the Sonoma County Measure O, County of Sonoma, Mental Health, Addiction and Homeless Services Measure Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance

ECA voted to take no position on any other local ballot measure except the City of Santa Rosa’s Measure Q, City of Santa Rosa, Sales Tax Extension. ECA opposes City of Santa Rosa Measure Q because the City continues to spend money without conscience and whenever they find themselves in a pinch, they default to asking for another tax measure to bail themselves out. The ECA believes the City of Santa Rosa needs to live within their means.

******************************************************************************************************************

Bits and Pieces:

The website for Measure DD is up and running and we would appreciate you visiting the site, endorsing the Measure, and sharing the messaging on social media. www.gosonomaact.com

Thumbs Down Award: The group that includes NCBE, Santa Rosa Metro, the Farm Bureau, and North Bay Leadership Council, wrote a Rebuttal to the Ballot Measure DD and had to correct their false statements. Because of campaign laws that govern when Rebuttal arguments have to be submitted and how one can change them, a lawsuit needed to be filed in order to correct their Rebuttal argument for the ballot.

Sign locations: The Yes on DD Campaign, needs sign locations to mount “Yes on DD, Keep Us Moving” on private property. Specifically, frontages along Highway 101, Highway 12, and Lakeville Highway are desired. I know some of you have property along these roads. Can you please contact me with permission to have a crew mount a sign where you approve, and we will also take the sign down after November 3.

Finally, the ECA urges you to help Eric Christensen out by going to his webpage and endorsing him. If you can see fit to contribute some dollars, please do so. Eric would be a much-needed addition to the Santa Rosa City Council as he would be the ONLY ONE that is an actual businessman/woman on that Council. He knows what you go through and he needs support. Please go to www.ericforsantarosa.com and learn more on how to help an actual business man to good for the City of Santa Rosa!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors have been meeting, discussing, playing poker, and deciding on how to jam 20 gallons of spending into a 10-gallon hat for weeks now. This week, those “discussions” went into overdrive and decisions started to be made on Wednesday, September 9 as to how to spend more than they have.

There are two good Press Democrat articles depicting the maneuvering-the first is from Tuesday’s meeting and can be found here

The Board of Supervisors is not scheduled to determine how to spend the once in a lifetime $149 million PG & E settlement dollars from the 2017 and 2019 fires. And yet, on Wednesday, they decided to preempt the PG & E spending discussion and dip into that tempting $149 million pile of “found money”. Here is the Press Democrat article from Thursday morning regarding the decisions made at the Wednesday BOS meeting: Click here

Look-I am never in favor of promoting layoffs.  However, we are in the middle of a freaking pandemic. Certainly most of our firms have suffered either layoffs, cuts to take home pay, or postponing equipment fleet updates or other major outlays of cash since Covid-19 threw our world into an upside down/inside out new reality. Yet here is the biggest employer in the County, bragging about avoiding any layoffs.

Hmmm.

Excuse the hell out of me, but I would have thought the PG & E money might have been put to better use in strengthening our fire avoidance system by smart and logical vegetation management, some new equipment that could mobilize swiftly to contain lightning strikes or faulty electrical transmission lines, or burying some transmission lines in the highest risk areas. Silly me. Certainly the damage caused by the fires, estimated at $50 million, will be taken care of next month when they decide how to spend the rest of the $149 million (now less $26 million to help keep layoffs from happening).

Let me ask you-even in the most efficient times you can remember, when everyone of your co workers were operating at full throttle and there did not seem to be any wasted motions in your company, even then, I bet you could have found 2-5% of the workforce could have been laid off and others pick up the slack. 5% layoff of County workforce would be around 210 workers. The County could outsource that work, could lay it off onto other workers, or just not address some of the less “right now” work in order to cut some staff.

But here we are, opening the PD and seeing happy results that the County was able to avoid laying off ANYBODY. This being done by tapping the one-time windfall money and recognizing that there is a $30 million annual shortfall going forward. Huh?

Winners? The 210 County workers that probably should have been cut.

Losers? Go look in the mirror.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Nobody is pretending that the Walbridge Fire is as devastating to structures as the Nuns/Tubbs or even the Kincade fires. Yet there is considerable damage to our roads, trees, and power and cable lines due to the fire.

As a Member Benefit, the ECA has remained in close contact with the County of Sonoma during the Walbridge Fire. We wanted the emergency personnel to be able to do their jobs, and we offered support if needed, that would not interfere with the front line CalFire workers.

Subsequently, as the County opened their Local Assistance office last week, I was asked to submit the ECA firms that have indicated they would be willing to, and capable of, providing assistance as the County starts the cleanup and reconstruct of damaged facilities. There will also be a lot of work done to protect our watershed that burned as that threatens the drinking water supply for hundreds of thousands of residents.

I will be reaching out to Sonoma County Water Agency, Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works, and Tennis Wick at the Permit and Resource Department, to schedule a Zoom webinar to provide our members with information as to potential for upcoming work due to the fires as well as resulting from the PG & E settlement that the County has received and is determining how to spend it. This Zoom webinar will be especially geared towards suppliers, contractors, and service firms that support infrastructure reconstruct and erosion control as well as soils testing and power line repairs. Please consider being the “Platinum Sponsor” for this event, as we will only have one Platinum Sponsor and the first company that wants that will get it at $2500 and unlimited access for your firm to the Webinar. We will be charging $50 for this Zoom webinar for ECA Members, and $100 for all others.

All attendees will receive a raffle ticket to win a prize. Once you register, Mary will send you your ticket number

We will be scheduling this meeting for the end of this month. The Zoom webinar will be held from 4:00pm to 5:30pm. Zoom instructions will be delivered upon your RSVP to Mary via email at Mary@nceca.org.

As I mentioned, the ECA provides a list of our members who would like to be considered by victims of fires or floods when they need to cleanup or repair the damage from these natural disasters. He list of those that responded after the Kincade fire (list is available by clicking here—-) and submit it to the Supervisors for use at their Local Assistance Center which opened this last Saturday in Guerneville. They also use it with Chris Godley and the Emergency Services group with the Sonoma County group and folks that need help, including sometimes CalFire themselves, will call members directly for assistance. We believe this is a great membership benefit as it directly opens the door for project work for the members on the list. It also is a great tool for recruiting new members as just being on that list is reason enough to join the ECA. If you are not listed, please email mary@nceca.org and she will include you.

Just another “Return on Investment” for your ECA membership folks!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Update on The Measure DD Campaign:

I have reached out to several ECA members for help in trying to mount a campaign. We need some dollars people! I do want to thank Ghilotti Brothers Inc. for stepping up and offering financial assistance, strategy assistance, and the offer of equipment and manpower to set up message boards around the County in strategic locales to promote the benefits of what Measure M tax dollars has meant to our roads and our communities.

There are several groups that have united to try to kill all of the sales tax measures on the 2020 ballot. Including Measure DD, which is the one that would help so many of our members. Let me just remind everyone of the main difference between Measure DD and the other sales tax measures:

1. You know exactly what the tax dollars have been spent on for the past 16 years, and you can go to the SCTA website to see where the dollars would be spent on what projects should DD pass. No guesswork as to where the dollars go!!
2. Measure DD is the only tax measure that has a 16 year track record of getting matching funds for our County rather than the other 24 Counties that compete for those matching funds by virtue of being a “self-taxed” County. The SCTA has 16 years of doing this and has maintained a 5:1 matching grant/fund ratio. Ask any other tax measure if they can make $1 turn into $5!!!
3. Measure DD will not cost taxpayers one dollar out of their wallets until 2025. By then, we should be recovered from the Pandemic economy we are in now. So NOW IS EXACTLY THE RIGHT TIME TO NOT TAX YOU!

I have spoken this week to the Press Democrat Editorial Board, to the Sonoma County Alliance General Membership Meeting, and Friday will speak to the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce Advocacy Group to seek endorsements and support for this much needed measure. I stress the economic boost it will give our industry, and I stress how generous our industry has been to be helping the community and charities over the last few decades. The message resonates with most people who actually listen to the facts, and do not fall into the false narrative that the opponents are dishing out. Here are two false narratives that the “moratorium group” would have you believe:

101. “Measure DD is not a reauthorization because it is completely different than Measure M-they say Measure M spent 80% of its tax revenue on widening Highway 101. They say the Measure DD is only spending 40% on road reconstruction”. Fake News-Measure M spent 40% on widening Highway 101 and Measure DD is allocating 65% for road reconstruction.
102. “Measure DD will bankrupt a lot of people and businesses because it hits us during the pandemic”. False. First, the Measure DD does not go into effect until 2025-well after the pandemic. Secondly, the average paid by the ¼ cent sales tax is $58/year. Exactly who would that bankrupt?

Know the facts. If you would like a fact sheet to distribute to your workers with their paychecks, please let me know and I will send you one.

I do not pretend that the following article may not fit everybody’s business, but I know this Covid-19 stuff is getting all of us down a bit. So I wanted to provide a few ideas that may help spark an idea within your own company culture that might work to boost morale. I know if I am feeling it, some others are too. So, take it or leave it-here are some Team Building Morale boosters for the Covid-19 era:

How Companies Can Keep Employee Morale High During the Pandemic

1. Don’t Overwhelm Employees

Research shows that employees feel overwhelmed and unproductive amidst the uncertain climate of the business world. With new pressures and anxieties weighing down on employees, it can be tougher than ever for workers to accomplish basic tasks. (Heck, we’re lucky if we remember what day it is).

Make sure you’re not overwhelming your employees by asking them to accomplish more than their regular workload. In fact, if you can remove some of their workload, you should.

Consider implementing technology that can assist your employees by removing some of their daily tasks. Automation software like robotic process automation (RPA) can integrate with any existing business platform, to automate repetitive tasks.

With this technology, your employees will have less tedious busywork to do on a daily basis. This gives employees more time to focus on important, cognitive work while taking off some of the pressure. For more helpful software solutions that can improve the lives and productivity of teams that are working remotely, check out this list.

2. Keep Your Company Connected

The shift to remote work can leave employees feeling isolated due to the lack of human interaction they would normally experience in-office. The best way to combat feelings of isolation and increase morale is by keeping employees connected. Make communication easy by setting up video conferencing and instant messaging platforms across your company (that is, if you don’t Slack everything already).

Video Conferencing 

Video conferencing platforms like Zoom, Skype, and even FaceTime are awesome mediums for face-to-face interactions between coworkers. Whether it’s from a computer or smartphone, employees can hold virtual meetings, meet up for coffee, or even have a remote happy hour to increase engagement.

Seeing coworkers and talking through daily projects and activities makes employees feel connected. Nothing like hopping on a quick video call to talk through a work-related problem, only to end the call with a conversation about fighting the horde at Costco or a rant about the annoying habits of your quarantine buddy (aka your spouse).

No matter what size your company is or how big your budget, there are a variety of affordable and free video conferencing options available. Figure out your company’s video conferencing needs and you’ll nail down the best technology for your employees.

Instant Messaging

There are tons of messaging systems to choose from to create groups or channels where employees can chat about their work, social life, and personal interests. You might be overwhelmed by the options. Just look for something that lets team members share funny videos, relatable stories, uplifting articles, and the latest memes about hand sanitizer (it’s funny until we realize this is our reality). It could be just the distraction they need to boost morale and productivity.

Distractions and productivity? Sounds counterintuitive, right?

Here’s the thing: when employees build strong relationships with their coworkers, feelings of seclusion diminish and comradery grows. If employees feel like they’re a part of a team, they’ll be more committed to producing good work and helping your company succeed.

We’re moving away from Ford’s assembly lines and we’ve figured out that a little levity never hurt anyone. In fact, it can be just the reset you need to max out productivity. Now’s the time to integrate the technology necessary to ensure that your employees feel connected and engaged.

3. Make Work Fun

Whatever business you’re in or work your employees are tasked with, there are plenty of ways to make work more enjoyable for everyone involved. When work is fun, employees are happier with their daily routines (who knew?). Here are a few easy tricks to make remote work more enjoyable and to boost employee happiness across the company.

Gamification

Have you heard of gamification? It’s essentially a way to make normal business tasks seem like fun games for employees to play. The more engaging and fun the tasks seem, the more employees will want to complete them. Some ways you can try gamification at your company include:

Remote Power Hours

Set aside time on the calendar to all join and work on the same task or project. See who can get the most work done in a single hour. Get everyone together, shut off all other communication and distractions, and let the power hour begin.

Trivia Challenges

See who knows the most about the company history, business goals, or product. Do trivia daily or weekly to spark engagement and interest across the company.

Friendly Competitions

Set up friendly competitions to see who hits goals or gets the most work completed in a week. There are many ways to set up healthy competition at your company. Just make sure that remote games and activities are interactive and involved. You can even include prizes like e-gift cards to encourage participation!

Themed Workdays

Themed workdays can be as involved as your company is comfortable with. Set up casual Fridays or costume contests on the last workday of the month. This can be done both in-office and in a remote work environment. Plus, no excuses like “I forgot my costume at home.”

Imagine joining your team video call and seeing coworkers dressed as their favorite celebs or in full Jersey Shore attire, bump-its and all. (Joe Exotic is so hot right now.) Yeah, you’ll feel a little silly, but themed workdays are an easy way to boost employee morale and get everyone excited to go to work.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, taking steps to boost employee morale will help all of your workers feel happier and more engaged with their work. Putting some of these ideas to work can help keep employee morale high, even during the most difficult times.

Ask yourself: what could I do today to boost my employees’ morale? Then, ask your employees what they’d like to see implemented. Your team knows what works best for them and they’ll be happy to get a real say in the matter.

With the current pandemic, having some fun and slowing down can seem antithetical to keeping your business afloat. But your employees are the backbone of your company, and you’ll thank yourself in the long run.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

First and foremost-I hope you all are safe, and your property is not being too terribly impacted by the lightning caused fire crisis that we are experiencing. We hope for cooler weather, winds to lay down, and some air and land resources to spell the firefighters that are doing 72 hour shifts in tough terrain and hot weather.

Since yesterday morning, myself, Art Deicke, Dale Mahoney and Ross Liscum (newest ECA Member!), have been interviewing candidates for the nine Cities in Sonoma County. It continues today, but we have a 30-minute break, so I am doing the Newsletter in record time!

One obvious issue that has come up universal to all candidates, is the tough financial position these cities find themselves in due to Covid 19, mismanagement of assets, and the ever-increasing burden of public pension liability. It is killing their budgets. In Petaluma, we are being told by candidates that if voters do not pass a 1 percent general sales tax measure in November, that Petaluma will probably seek bankruptcy protection in 2-3 years. One of the main reasons given was public employee pension costs.

The Town of Windsor is in much better fiscal shape regarding public pension liability due to the fact that they outsourced their safety contracts to the County. That decision many years ago looks brilliant at this point. So I decided to bring up a 10-13 year old idea that former Supervisor Efren Carrillo and I discussed regarding outsourcing the road crews that the County (and I am expanding the concept to the nine cities) has within their staff. I want to draft and push a proposal to the nine cities and to Sonoma County (if successful, perhaps expand the concept to Marin and Napa and Mendo Counties in the future) that they do away with having their own road crews and outsource those jobs to our contractors who can do the work more efficiently and without the huge pension obligation that the County and the cities have by having employees do that work. So far, the concept is meeting with encouragement back to me. So, I am going to try out some early ideas in this Soapbox and invite your constructive critique and ideas.

The general idea is simple. Get the County to not replace their equipment over the next few years, and get the County to transfer as many of the road crew employees into other departments or allow ECA firms to hire those employees directly so nobody loses a paycheck. The non-replacement of equipment can fit the concept of departments cutting costs, and the attrition of employees will save the County big dollars for the future payment of pensions and health care costs over an employee’s retirement years.

Always-the devil is in the details. Some of the questions I am certain could come up:

1. How does the County take care of emergency work without a crew? Answer-they have some of you guys on a retainer basis with rates already written into the contract.
2. What sort of equipment and equipment life expectancy are we talking about for the County fleet of equipment? I do not know.
3. How does the County cover more remote areas of the County that might need immediate crew time? I am not certain, but I believe it can be worked out with the companies that contract with the County to provide that work on retainer basis.
4. Can the contract encompass other emergency work like flood cleanup, fire debris cleanup, water trucks and fuel tenders for fire support, etc. etc.? Hell yes. Why not? Makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry-I just used up my break time and have to get back to interviews.

How you like me now?

Yesterday, the good folks at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors held a preliminary public meeting on ways to spend the $149 million “windfall” from the PG & E Settlement from the 2017 fires and the 2019 Fire. Although the ECA did write a letter to Chair Gorin and the other Supes, I do not believe they received any other letters from ECA members. It’s not too late!

One of the “truths” that I have learned in my 10 plus years of being at the helm of the ECA, is that participation and working on issues with County/City staff is the way to foster relationships, and the way to have influence. So, if you want to get millions more for roads, please help yourself by writing to the Supes.

As I listened to the Supervisors yesterday (Tuesday, August 11), discuss the terrible fires and the subsequent damage done by them, I could not help but be reminded by the many heroes the ECA firms had step up to help. Many of you can recall a video that the ECA and Sound Ideas put together to honor those heroes two years ago. I have included the link here for you to watch if you choose—

So, what is next? Did we miss out on being able to influence how the $149 million is to be spent? The answer is no-not yet. There are several “buckets” that the Supes are looking at applying those funds to:

1. Unmet Needs Bucket-

This is the obvious place that is the most easily understood, and easily seen need for funding. Roads, bridges, guardrails, culverts were all damaged during the firestorms, and not all of those got repaired. After the fires, damage occurred to all of those same items due to heavier than normal debris hauling loads passing from the fire zones to the recycling and landfills. And finally, after the debris was hauled off, the subsequent rebuilding of houses/businesses/utilities put an already compromised infrastructure into “crumble mode”. Part of the “Unmet Needs Bucket” is also to repair our natural resources that have been compromised-slope protection for waterways, trees, and other vegetation damaged in parks and open spaces

The amount that is estimated for this bucket’s needs is estimated to be at least $50 million.

2. The County spent over $26 million on staffing and other emergency labor/material/equipment in dealing with the fires that has not been reimbursed. It seems prudent that the County would pay itself back first so their Reserves are fully funded for the next unforeseen disaster that might come along.

3. The other “bucket” is far more complex than the first two. This “bucket” that is being considered and discussed includes everything from hardening infrastructure to withstand another firestorm, adding redundancy and resiliency to our ability to communicate during an earthquake/fire/flood, burying some power lines in exposed areas that we now are aware of, and helping businesses get back up on their economic feet after the damaging last three years that has hurt them so badly.

To these very worthwhile “buckets” the Supes are considering and discussing, I would add another one. We need to consider funding a “resource support” team that can be called upon to provide local labor, equipment, and materials to augment CalFire and the other first responders. We all know someone who simply went into their yards (with their owner’s permission, of course), and drove a water truck up to the fire trucks and made themselves useful hauling water to the pumper truck crews. Or they watered down areas in front of or on the sides of approaching flames. Or they provided dozers and cut in fire breaks. I think the County should fund some sort of more structured effort to have equipment and manpower ready to be assigned during the next disaster.

I am sure you all have your own thoughts about what could be useful from the lessons learned so we do not suffer so much damage to our community and businesses during the next disaster. Why not take the time to talk amongst your own firm, and put your thoughts into words and send the Supervisors a note on how you think this one-time money should be spent?

Rest assured, there are other folks doing just that right now. As I have said before, if you want to influence, you need to roll up your sleeves and do the work-and that work, right now, is to write to your Supervisor before September 6, 2020, and let them know how you want them to spend these one time funds.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Recent news stories in the local newspapers, local newsletters and local radio stations, focused on several business groups who took a stand to oppose all sales tax measures in 2020. The ECA did not unify with our friends in the other three organizations because our Board did not believe all sales tax measures are equal in nature. The ECA and its membership and the community, have greatly benefitted from Measure M over the last 16 years. Thousands of local jobs were enabled by the funding from Measure M, and mostly local companies and local workers were able to perform the myriad of projects funded in part, or wholly, by Measure M. Projects that included Highway 101 widening, bridge replacements, street repairs/signalization upgrade/sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement/road drainage improvements/and many other transportation “fixes” in the nine Sonoma County cities as well as in the 1384 miles of unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. While those funds were efficiently utilized, Sonoma County continued to spend more than $11 million on road repair out of their General Fund dollars so they would not totally rely on Measure M sales tax revenues to fund road repairs that were underfunded for decades.

Sometimes it is better to present the facts and let folks decide for themselves. There is so much division and heated, passionate opinions on “to tax or not to tax” these days, let’s just calmly look at how our Sonoma County roads get repaired from a funding perspective.

From the Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works Website:

Funding Sources

Gas Tax

When the state gas tax was enacted in 1923, it raised enough money to cover both Corrective Maintenance (patching potholes, clearing culverts, etc.) and Pavement Preservation (resurfacing roads). However, due to factors like stagnant funding and more cars using less gallons, the gas tax now only covers a portion of Corrective Maintenance and leaves no funding for Pavement Preservation in Sonoma County.

Last Fiscal Year, the State allocated about $10 Million for Sonoma County’s 1,380 miles of roads. In the late hours of Thursday April 6th, the California Legislature passed SB1, which will begin to address the legacy of underfunded infrastructure in California. 

SB1 will more than double the amount of State funding Sonoma County receives for roads, raising our total state revenue to about $23 Million when the bill is fully phased. SB1 will be phased in over a period of a few years, with new funds likely starting late in 2017. We appreciate your support and patience as we work to improve Sonoma County Roads. 

Issues and Challenges

Over time, with efficiency standards increasing, the amount of fuel consumed per mile driven is declining. This is good for emissions and the environment, but not good for road funding. As fuel consumption and gas tax revenue go down, the amount of wear and tear on roads remains constant.

Sonoma County faces further challenges. The amount allocated to a municipality for road funding is based on the number of road miles it maintains and the number of vehicles registered in that municipality. Since it has a high number of road miles and a relatively low number of registered vehicles, it receives less funding for maintenance per road mile than other Bay Area counties.

Measure M

Passed by the voters in November 2004, the Traffic Relief Act for Sonoma County (Measure M) continues to deliver multi-modal transportation improvements throughout the county. The Act provides for a ¼ cent sales tax to be used to maintain local streets, fix potholes, accelerate the widening of Highway 101 for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, improve local street operations, restore and enhance transit services, support the development of passenger rail service, and build safe bicycle and pedestrian routes. The funds are dedicated towards the specific programs and projects specified in the Expenditure Plan. *

Read more about Measure M

*Excerpt taken from the  Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Measure M Annual Report

Federal Funding

The Federal Highway Trust Fund is a transportation fund that receives money from a federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel, as well as other related excise taxes. It currently has two accounts: The Highway Account, which funds road construction, and a smaller ‘Mass Transit Account’ which supports mass transit.

Federal Highway funding is only available for roads that are classified as either Arterial or Major Collector. These are typically the higher-volume, higher-capacity roads. Local and residential roads are not eligible.

Read More About Functional Classification of Roads

See Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund

Local Discretionary Funds

The Department of Transportation & Public Works is responsible for maintaining about 1,379 miles of roads outside of cities in Sonoma County. It would cost $58 million every year for 10 years to bring these roads to a level where they can be maintained at a lower cost through best management practices. Sonoma County is not alone, it would cost $7 billion every year for 10 years to bring all local roads in California into this condition.

While our funding woes are not unique and must be addressed at a state-wide level, we have taken unprecedented steps to fix our roads. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors dedicates over $11 million each year to Pavement Preservation and committed an additional $13 million in one-time funds in 2015. Sonoma County and San Francisco dedicate the most discretionary General Fund money to Pavement Preservation out of all the Counties in California.

Other Facts:

*Whether Measure M is reauthorized by the voters or not, the “other” taxes we pay in fuel excise taxes and sales taxes will continue to be paid by taxpayers.

*If Measure M is not passed and “reappears” in 2022, Sonoma County WILL NOT get matching funds generated by the taxes paid in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 because those funds only go to “self-help” jurisdictions. Bottom line-we would keep paying and get nothing for it if Measure M is not reauthorized in 2020 and goes to voters again in 2022.

*If Measure M is passed, taxpayers will not be paying any new taxes until January 2025.

And-I will leave it right there—

That’s all folks,

John Bly