New supes support casino advisory measure

<p>The two newly elected members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors support putting a casino advisory measure on an upcoming, countywide ballot, but a continuing member who supported such a measure last year no longer does.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane support such a measure, but Mike Kerns does not.</p><p>“At this point, I would not support putting it on a ballot,” Kerns said. “The county unemployment rate his risen and the county budget is really hurting: We’ve had to lay off people, and have asked all county departments to make a 5 percent cut, and might need to ask them to make one or two more 5 percent cuts.</p><p>“And I can’t see the wisdom of putting a measure on a ballot that has no legal impact.”</p><p>He added that his position could change if the state Legislature passes Assemblymember Jared Huffman’s forthcoming bill requiring either local voter approval of casinos or an intergovernmental agreement between the state and the immediate area involved to offset environmental impacts.</p><p>“Then, an advisory measure would carry some weight. It would mean something,” Kerns said.</p><p>Last year, Kerns, along with former Supervisor Mike Reilly, supported putting such a measure on a countywide ballot, but another vote was needed, and the other supervisors — Valerie Brown, Paul Kelley and Tim Smith — did not. </p><p>The seats of Kerns and Kelley were not up for a vote in the Nov. 4 general election, but the other three seats were. Before the election, the Stop the 101 Casino coalition, at the urging of Petaluma Councilmember Mike Healy, asked the final six candidates for board seats to take a pledge that if elected, they would support putting a casino advisory measure on a future ballot.</p><p>Zane, who was elected in the 3rd District, signed the pledge. Brown, who was reelected in the 1st District, and Efren Carrillo, who was newly elected in the 5th District, did not sign the pledge.</p><p>But Carrillo told the Argus-Courier on Monday that he supports putting a casino advisory measure on a ballot.</p><p>“I support it as well, either in the next general election or in a special election,” Carrillo said. “The first step would be to have a discussion with my colleagues. I don’t know if we have a consensus yet.”</p><p>All of the previous and current board members are opposed to the building of the proposed Rohnert Park casino, but differ on whether an advisory measure should be placed on a ballot. </p><p>Last year, proponents of the measure claimed that a strong vote against establishing additional casinos in Sonoma County could add some weight in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s negotiations with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which is partnering with Station Casinos to build the Rohnert Park casino. Opponents contended that the measure wouldn’t be legally binding, that it already is clear that most Sonoma County residents don’t want another casino built and that it would be too expensive to put on a ballot.</p><p>An election is scheduled for May 19, but ballot measures need to be approved 88 days in advance, so the deadline already has passed for a casino measure to be included. The board of supervisors could arrange for a special election on Nov. 3, but this would cost an estimated $2.50 to $3.50 per registered voter, or between $632,500 and $885,000, said Janice Atkinson, the clerk, recorder and assessor for Sonoma County.</p><p>A measure also could be placed on the planned June 10, 2010 ballot, and this would cost approximately 25 cents to 50 cents per registered voter, or between $63,000 and $126,000.</p><p>“The cost of putting a measure on a ballot depends on how much verbiage it contains, and how long the arguments for and against it are, as well as if the measure ‘kicks’ the ballot onto another card,” Atkinson said.</p><p>Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors has sent a critical review of the environmental impact study on the proposed Rohnert Park casino to the National Indian Gaming Commission.</p><p>“Our county counsel and planning staff made a lot of comments on the EIS, and brought them to the board for our approval,” said Kerns. “We feel that the EIS is grossly inadequate because many impacts are not addressed or properly mitigated.</p><p>“We’re concerned about water, sewer and traffic problems, among other things.”</p><p>Kerns said that he has no idea when the NIGC will respond to the criticisms.</p><p>“But I hope they will do more studies, and if the impacts can’t be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, I hope they won’t approve the project,” he said.</p><p>(Contact Dan Johnson at dan.johnson@arguscourier.com)</p>