3 Windsor Town Council members report contributions from developers

The developers behind the $100 million mixed-use commercial and residential project taking shape just north of Windsor’s Town Green have stirred controversy with their willingness to infuse cash into the campaign coffers of council members who are expected to vote on the next phase of the project.

All told, the developers, their family members and associates have spent more than $84,000 over the past year supporting three of the five council members who will decide if the residential phase of the project, called Bell Village, will advance.

Newly elected Councilman Dominic Foppoli reported nearly $24,000 in donations from roughly a dozen Bell Village developers and family members, on his way to raising more than $46,000 in November’s election, an apparent record for a Windsor council race.

Newly elected Councilman Mark Millan also reported two separate $1,000 donations from two of the Southern California developers working on Bell Village.

Veteran Councilwoman Deb Fudge, meanwhile, either received or benefited indirectly from substantial donations by the project developers during her failed run last year for a seat on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. Contributions to her campaign from the developers and their associates totaled more than $38,000. An additional $20,000 went to an independent expenditure group that backed her against her rival, James Gore.

The contributions have raised the eyebrows of two fellow Windsor council members - Sam Salmon and Mayor Bruce Okrepkie, neither of whom have accepted money from the developers.

Okrepkie, who last year voiced concern about the hefty donations to Fudge, expressed similar reservations recently about the money given to Foppoli, saying it cast “a shadow” on his participation in the Bell Village deliberations.

“Hopefully it won’t sway them or their votes,” he said, adding that it’s up to council members to decide “who they can take money from and who they can’t. That’s their prerogative.”

The donations poured in last year in the run-up to a crucial period for the project.

Construction began last summer on the commercial phase, which includes an Oliver’s Market, offices and a restaurant. But the latest residential plans, which now call for 387 townhomes instead of the “stacked” apartments once proposed, need final approval from the Town Council before they can move forward.

A purchase deal between developers involving the residential phase also is contingent on that approval, according to the Southern California developer now spearheading the housing project.

Foppoli and Millan, both former planning commissioners who were elected in November, defended the contributions they received as necessary to get their message across to voters and gain name recognition.

“It’s an unfortunate part of the campaign process, because it’s expensive to run for office, even in a small town like Windsor,” Millan said.

Foppoli said, “I didn’t have an issue taking money from most people who would want to contribute. I don’t think it affects my judgment at all.”

Fudge, who during her supervisorial bid faced questions from critics about the campaign funding from Bell Village developers, brushed off the suggestion that it was to influence her stance on the housing phase. She said she supports the switch to townhomes, which she sees as more family-friendly and befitting the nearby Town Green, but said she would be pushing for other amenities, including community gardens, a dog park and a playground.

“I’m not granting any favors,” Fudge said. “They’ve never come to me and put any pressure on me in any way.”

Bell Village is expected to come before the council again within a few months.

Robert Bisno, the Southern California developer who is planning to build the Bell Village housing, defended the political contributions he and his partners made and countered suggestions they could sway Town Council members in their votes.

“If a politician doesn’t like the project, it’s been my experience that politician will call balls and strikes as he or she sees it,” said Bisno, a West Hollywood-based developer whose political spending in other California cities considering his projects has drawn scrutiny from critics. He, his partners - developers Dan Palmer and Cary Bren - and their family members accounted for $10,200 in donations to Foppoli, the $2,000 donated to Millan and the $20,000 in funding for the independent group backing Fudge.

The remainder of donations - $13,750 to Foppoli and all $38,584 donated directly to Fudge’s campaign - came from Santa Rosa developer Bill Gallaher, the managing director of Oakmont Senior Living, which is building the commercial phase of Bell Village, as well as from Gallaher’s family members and associates in his business.

Oakmont Senior Living sold its interest in the residential phase of Bell Village before it broke ground last year. Gallaher could not be reached Friday for comment.

The Fair Political Practices Commission says that campaign contributions in and of themselves are not considered a conflict of interest, as long as they are reported properly and are within local spending limits.

“Conflict-of-interest regulations are designed to try to ensure that public officials vote only in the public interest, and not for anything that would provide them a material, financial improvement to their personal (benefit) or business,” FPPC spokesman Jay Wierenga said.

He noted political contributions from developers are common in city and county races where public officials are voting on subdivisions, shopping centers and other projects.

“There is a fundamental debate that goes on, from the local level to the national level, and where do you draw the line?” he said, adding that the purpose of campaign reports is to provide transparency.

That way, he said the public can see who is funding campaigns “and hold public elected officials accountable for things that may cross the line.”

In its ethics training courses, the FPPC advises elected officials to ponder whether to accept campaign contributions from those who are likely to appear before them.

“Will the public be concerned that your decision is motivated by the fact that the applicant is a campaign contributor as opposed to the public’s best interest?” the FPPC asks in its section dealing with campaign contributions.

Longtime Town Councilman Sam Salmon said the developer contributions may be legal, but he believes they pose a “personal conflict” for Foppoli, who he singled out because - unlike Fudge - he accepted them while running for the Windsor council.

“Those are large contributions,” he said. “Political contributions is how you establish relationships. Those (contributions) are pretty significant and tied directly to at least one or two projects.”

The contributions have fueled arguments made by opponents of Bell Village, who say the campaign money at the least creates the perception that the builders are trying to win support for their project.

“Bisno is a developer with a reputation for contributions to the Town Council when he wants to get something done,” said Ben Bainbridge, a retired airline pilot and Town Green resident who believes Bell Village is too dense and “will change the small-town feel for the worse.”

Bisno, who has four decades in the development business and a hand in 85 buildings or residential projects in 40 cities, acknowledged that contributions help developers get heard.

“If you call out of the blue, you never get an appointment,” he said, “but if you make a contribution you get a say.”

But he said a political contribution carries no guarantee. “If it’s a lousy project it will suffer the fate it should,” he said. Bisno also is developing the planned 360-unit Windsor Mill apartment complex just south of the Town Green. Revisions to the project would also need council approval.

Bisno said his campaign support for Foppoli reflected his belief that the 32-year-old winery and craft brewery owner represents the type of “young, assertive leadership” that Windsor needs.

Foppoli, in an interview this month, said he has not given “carte blanche” to the Bell Village developers.

“I didn’t do what they wanted to do at the last meeting,” he said noting that he insisted in the Town Council’s Feb. 25 discussion that developers modify their proposed Bell Village layout to satisfy police and fire department concerns about security issues and overly constrictive streets that make it difficult for emergency vehicle access.

He said he also suggested some changes - adding balconies, for example - and wanted to see a dog park added to Bell Village.

“If I was bought and paid for by the development group, I would have greenlighted what they wanted and that didn’t happen,” Foppoli said.

He said he believes developers gave to his campaign because he is a small-business owner and they know he will support business.

“If something is going to be built in Windsor, I’d rather the money and resources go to make it as nice as possible, rather than go through a lengthy bureaucratic process,” Foppoli said, adding he also wants to make certain new development adds value and character to Windsor.

Millan said the two $1,000 contributions he got from Bell Village developers came unsolicited through his campaign website before he ever met or spoke with any of them. Millan said it won’t affect how he analyzes, or votes on, Bell Village.

“I don’t think it in any way impinges on the decision-making process or evaluating process at all - not for me personally whatsoever,” he said. “I’m not affected by the contributions. I’m more interested in what people think in our community.”

But Millan acknowledged he returned a $1,000 check from Bisno because of the controversy sparked last summer by Bisno’s contribution to the independent group supporting Fudge for supervisor. She lost in November to Gore.

“At the time there was a big flare-up over Deb Fudge contributions. I felt uncomfortable taking a contribution at that time,” Millan said.

Fudge said the questions being raised again now are “politically motivated.”

“It’s really sad to me that these political daggers are still thrown after an election is over,” Fudge said.

Fudge said she checked with the town attorney about abstaining from voting on the project and was told she did not need to. In addition, she said it should have been clear to anyone at the last meeting, on Feb. 25, that she stood firm about the developers’ need to provide better public safety access.

She said her relationship with Gallaher was one of “mutual respect,” developed over her nearly two decades in public office.

She said she was unaware the sale of the residential project to Bisno and his partners was contingent upon the changes being approved - a detail Bisno confirmed in an interview this month - but that she trusts and believes Bill Gallaher’s contributions reflect his commitment to doing business in Windsor long term.

“They are part of the community now,” she said.

Staff Writers Kevin McCallum and Angela Hart contributed to this report.