‘Living wage’ proposals debated in Sonoma County

During the first public forum last week in the race for 4th District Sonoma County supervisor, former White House appointee James Gore - who is running against longtime Windsor Councilwoman Deb Fudge - floated the idea of a living-wage ordinance when asked what he would do to address a widening income gap.

“What will you do to create higher-paying jobs in Sonoma County, with wages that match the high cost of housing here?” the moderator asked both candidates at the Wednesday event.

Gore, who gave his response first, linked job creation and housing availability to the potential introduction of a living-wage ordinance that would set minimum pay to keep pace with the rising cost of living for the poorest workers in the county. A Press Democrat article published the next day about the forum reported that Gore supported a proposed living-wage ordinance.

Gore said his stance on the idea, however, was mischaracterized in the article.

“I did not say outright that I supported a living-wage ordinance,” Gore said in an email Thursday morning. “Rather, I said I supported the idea of a living wage and the discussion that is taking place.” He declined to elaborate.

Fudge at the forum said she would support a living-wage ordinance, adding during a follow-up interview Thursday that she supports it for county employees and county-affiliated workers - including seasonal employees at the county fair, in-home health care providers and any contractor doing business with the county.

Fudge went further, saying she has attempted to persuade her colleagues on the Windsor Town Council to consider adopting a similar proposal for the town.

“We talked about this years ago in Windsor but there weren’t three votes,” Fudge said. “I’ve always supported a living-wage ordinance for the county. I personally connect with people who do really hard work and only earn minimum wage. It’s just not enough.”

The discussion comes as income inequality has become a major political talking point nationwide, especially for Democrats, who along with labor advocates have made a concerted push to raise the minimum wage at the federal and state level.

Supporters say a pay boost for low-wage workers could help address a host of economic pressures - chief among them income stagnation and soaring housing and health care costs - that have pushed thousands into persistent poverty in the county.

One in eight Sonoma County residents now live below the poverty line, according to a county report released in May called the “Portrait of Sonoma County.”

But some say a living-wage ordinance could lead to a reduction in jobs.

“A living-wage ordinance at the local level could create distortions in the labor market,” said Jonathan Coe, president of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, saying that’s one problem he’s heard from economists. “This could drive workers into the county with the higher wage, and create challenges throughout the area, so I would rather see it done at the state or federal level,”

The Santa Rosa Chamber has not taken a position on proposals in Sonoma County.

A local expert agreed, adding that a living-wage ordinance could halt hiring or lead to company layoffs.

“A living wage could increase the cost of doing business, slowing job growth and leading businesses to pass the costs to consumers,” said Robert Eyler, director of the Center for Regional Economic Analysis at Sonoma State University. “That’s not as easy with governments. What they could do if the cost of labor rises is implement a new tax or raise fees it charges for services.”

Debate about how to act on the wage issue in the county has been complicated somewhat by the emergence of two competing living-wage proposals.

Sonoma County this summer launched efforts that could lead to a living-wage ordinance. In June, the Board of Supervisors approved an $88,470 contract for an Oakland-based group, Blue Sky Consulting, to study how much a living-wage ordinance would cost, and how many county employees and affiliated workers it would apply to.

Already, three cities in Sonoma County - Sonoma, Sebastopol and Petaluma - have enacted living-wage ordinances.

Meanwhile, a separate proposal was unveiled at a press conference earlier this month by the nonprofit North Bay Jobs with Justice, a group comprised of labor, environmental and community groups. It would institute a $15-per-hour living-wage ordinance for the lowest-wage earners who are employed by companies or agencies associated with county government.

A fiscal assessment commissioned by the nonprofit tallied 5,000 workers who would be covered by pay increases at a cost of about $12 million annually in county general fund money. The largest group of affected workers - 3,800 in-home care providers - currently earn $11.65 an hour. They have lobbied for years, both in contract talks and in public demonstrations at the Board of Supervisors, for pay closer to $15 an hour.

The state’s current minimum wage, $9 an hour, is set to rise to $10 by 2016. Local governments can set higher pay levels in their jurisdictions. Several cities have recently taken that step, including Los Angeles, where City Council members last week endorsed a minimum hourly wage of $15.37 for workers at large hotels. San Francisco voters will vote on a $15 minimum wage in November.

Living-wage ordinances are similar to minimum wage laws in that they set a baseline amount workers must be paid, but differ because wages are tailored to meet a specific community’s cost of living - taking into account how much local housing and child care costs, for example, as well as other factors such as local taxes.

“There are many ways to address income inequality,” said Marty Bennett, co-chairman of North Bay Jobs with Justice. “We think the best practice is to focus on the living-wage ordinance.”

Fudge said the issue is important to her. She said she watched in-home nurses care for her ailing grandmother for years in her Sonoma home, first for two hours a day, then four hours a day, then finally around the clock until her mother passed away.

“Those people allowed her to stay in her home. I’ve seen how hard they work.” Fudge said. “So when I think about a living wage I picture those workers.”

Peter Rumble, a county spokesman, affirmed that there are thousands of people who stand to gain higher wages if a living-wage ordinance is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

At present, he said, the county is in the process of identifying exactly how many workers would be affected, and how much an ordinance would cost. He called the fact-finding more “rigorous” than the nonprofit group’s assessment.

“We’re surveying all county contracts so we know how many contractors we have, what they’re paid, and what the fiscal impact would be,” said Rumble, a deputy county administrator. “We’re using data to do our analysis.”

Bennett said he hopes to incorporate his group’s ideas into the county consultants’ final report, slated to go before supervisors in November.

Supervisors earlier this year said they supported the concept of a living wage, but said the county must take into account other factors that lead to income disparity. No member of the current board has fully endorsed a specific living-wage ordinance.

“Working families are continuing to struggle coming out of this recession,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire. “The Board of Supervisors should take up an ordinance focused on the four areas highlighted by the Portrait of Sonoma - the issue of wage, educational achievement, access to health care and middle-class housing.”

Supervisor Efren Carrillo said any solution should be data-driven and analyze the root economic problems people face.

“I am supportive of fair and equitable wages for all employees, and that could include a living-wage concept,” Carrillo said. “But if we are going to spend additional funds we have to find the best investment.”

Board Chairman David Rabbitt echoed that thought, saying the county needed to be cautious about how it allocated taxpayer funds toward any proposed ordinance. Rabbitt suggested the $12 million cost of the proposal from North Bay Jobs with Justice was far out of the county’s financial reach.

“Where are we going to find that?” he said.

Supervisors Shirlee Zane and Susan Gorin said they were both in favor of an ordinance setting basic pay standards.

“Between wages and housing costs in Sonoma County, it seems impossible to be able to maintain housing stability while earning less than a living wage,” Zane said.

You can reach Staff Writer ?Angela Hart at 526-8503 or ?angela.hart@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @ahartreports.