Amador County – A new law ensures affordable health insurance coverage for children, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and enrollment is now open.

Assemblywoman Alyson Huber in a release Wednesday said she “wants to make sure parents know about a critical open enrollment period occurring right now for children with pre-existing conditions that ends on March 1.” During the open enrollment period, parents can sign up for more affordable health insurance for their children.

She said: “As a result of the federal health care reform,” children “with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage – they also cannot be charged rates that are more than double the rates of healthy kids.”

Huber said “parents of healthy children without insurance should also sign their kids up,” otherwise they may be subject to a 20 percent surcharge on their insurance rates for a full year.

She said: “Allowing children with pre-existing conditions to get health coverage is a positive change in our health care system.”

Huber said: “The law allows kids to receive the health care they need, at a price their parents can afford,” and “if parents don’t act by March 1, coverage for their kids could be significantly more expensive.”

Last year, California Assembly Bill 2244 was passed and signed into law to implement this component of federal health care reform in California, Huber said. The new law has been in effect since Jan. 1, and it “gives California children access to affordable care by ensuring that certain children cannot be denied coverage or priced out of the market. It also prohibits insurers that sell individual market policies in California from refusing to sell or renew coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

Parents should be aware of a number of important educational resources on how to obtain health coverage for children during and after the open enrollment period. Parents are encouraged to check the website of the California Department of Insurance to find fact sheets on how to insure their children.

For info, call CDI at 1-800-927-HELP or the state health insurance hotline at 1-888-466-2219.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – Local business organizations are slated to meet today, that is Thursday, Feb. 10, in Jackson and Sutter Creek.

The Jackson Revitalization Committee meets at 6 p.m. today at the Jackson Civic Center at 33 Broadway.

The committee set goals for completing three projects this year, including new gateway signage, a creek-walk project connecting the city’s parking lot next to Mel & Faye’s with the south end of Main Street (under Highway 49/88) and placement of historic information plaques on buildings in the downtown area.

Another item on the agenda is a request from the Central Sierra Resource Conservation & Development Council to gather information for possible future uses of the old Amador County court house.

The committee meets the second Thursday of every month, and the public is welcomed and encouraged to attend.

The Sutter Creek Business & Professional Association meets at 5:30 p.m. today feb. 10 at “Cinque”, the Serra Fina wine tasting room, on Main Street.

It is the Sutter Creek Merchants general meeting, and will include complimentary finger food and wine tasting. Wine by the glass will be available for purchase.

The Sutter Creek Business & Professional Association owns the website, SutterCreek.org, and it hosts a golf tournament annually, among its regular events and activities.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors in late January discussed the budget deficit of La Mel Heights Improvement District and directed staff to do further study, hearing that La Mel Heights subdivision has “two wells that serve 59 customers and has been operating at a loss.”

AWA General Manager Gene Mancebo said in 2007 the AWA “built a new well and tank and improved the La Mel Heights distribution system,” said. “AWA obtained a $350,000 Rural Utility Services grant” through the USDA, “and made a loan to the district for the improvements, but debt service and the community’s small customer base have contributed to an annual budget deficit of about $33,000.”

In 2009, rate increases were proposed, and were protested by most customers. “Since then, AWA staff has held meetings and responded to a lengthy list of questions from La Mel Heights property owners,” Mancebo said.

Options for board consideration ranged from consolidation with the Amador Water System to minimal rate increases, “but with drastic operational cuts.” They also considered “abandonment of the system by AWA.”

Jackie Vaughn, a La Mel Heights resident, told the Board that “people are waiting for the Agency to come up with a solution.” She said: “Give us some documentation, present it to the homeowners, and get a decision from them as soon as possible. Time is of the essence, interest costs are mounting, and if something breaks down, what are we going to do?”

AWA Financial Services Manager Michael Lee told the Board that AWA could absorb the La Mel Heights budget deficit, which represents less than one percent of the Amador Water System budget.

The AWA board directed staff attorney Steve Kronick to research “legal questions surrounding the consolidation option.” Staff was also directed to prepare financial plans for different scenarios, including a minimal rate increase to get the La Mel system out of the red with no reserves, the minimum increase to run in the black and build up a small reserve, and options for consolidation. A meeting in La Mel Heights will be scheduled to present the information to property owners as soon as possible.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors at the end of January approved staff work to finish an application for a $2 million grant to build a small diameter water pipeline in the former Amador Canal, to serve about 100 customers.

The AWA board approved spending engineering staff time to provide additional information to complete an application for a Proposition 50 Small Community Water Systems Facilities grant. The grant would reduce the financial impact on customers for placing a small diameter pipeline along the Amador Canal from Lake Tabeaud to New York Ranch Reservoir, Mancebo said, “the last major step in completing the Amador Transmission Pipeline.”

That final step would continue to provide water to about 100 customers. The Board vote was 4-1 with District 4 Director Robert Manassero opposed.

Also at the Jan. 28 meeting, the AWA directors unanimously approved filling the controller position left open by retiring controller Ann Barre. Directors discussed changing the benefit package for the new hire was agreed it would take too long, since a new benefits package would have to go through employee negotiations, and a controller was needed as soon as possible. Directors also sent the issue of employee compensation for new hires and existing staff to the Agency Personnel Committee.

The board next meets 9 a.m. Thursday, and will discuss a budget review of the quarter ending Dec. 31, 2010. They will also look at the status of budget reductions and cost savings, and review cash flow projections and the status of capital projects. The board will also see a review of budget variances, and a report on actual versus budgeted salaries.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – A Sacramento nonprofit organization said the governor’s budget proposal to eliminate 100 percent of annual funding for California fairs puts 29 California fairs at risk of closure, and could threaten $126 million in annual tax revenue to the state general fund.

Stephen Chambers of the California Fairs Alliance said the governor’s plan was expected to cost the General Fund $57.4 million in lost annual income: “The fair network generates more than $126 million in direct tax income for the state every year. That represents nearly a four-to-one return on the state’s overall $32 million investment.” He said “the budget plan actually dries up an income stream that flows to the state from California fairs.”

The proposal “could drive 29 fairs completely out of business, including dozens of primarily rural fairs,” Chambers said: “This would result in a major economic ripple effect by killing jobs and related economic activities.”

The CFA anticipates “the state’s direct return on its investment to fairs to top $150 million in 2011 plus the added benefit of more than 30,000 full-time job equivalents. That income, those jobs and the future of 29 fairgrounds will be in serious jeopardy in 2012 unless we find alternatives to the Governor’s proposal.”

Chambers said California fair officials have contacted Governor Brown’s office and legislators, to explore ways to trim fair funding and provide alternative funding mechanisms that won’t compromise the ability of fairgrounds to generate revenue for state and local governments.

“We are hopeful that with a more strategic combination of budget reductions, as well as greater local control and flexibility, we will be able to protect the fair network and increase income to state and local governments,” Chambers said. He said a “more thoughtful plan will ensure the survival of the thousands of small businesses and nonprofits that rely on fairs and fairgrounds in California.”

The California Fairs Alliance will be presenting its concerns and proposing alternative solutions during the legislative budget hearings this week.

CFA noted that the financial impact of California fairgrounds is well documented by the state, in a recent report, “California Fairs: Statewide Economic Impacts.” The report found economic contributions of fairs in the state to be significant, including: $2.8 billion in consumer spending, $855 million in income, 25,000 full-time jobs and $126 million in state and local taxes.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Ione Police Department on Monday made a drug-related arrest for methamphetamine possession and transportation, and also apprehended a Sacramento man wanted on multiple charges in Sacramento County.

Chief Michael Johnson said IPD continues its “drug campaign” with an arrest early Monday. He said a “suspicious vehicle in a residential area of the Ione community prompted the Ione Police Department to investigate the circumstances, which led to the arrest of two subjects.”

Ione police were on routine patrol at about 2 a.m. Monday “when they discovered a parked, occupied vehicle in an unusual location within a residential district,” Johnson said. “Officers contacted the occupants and obtained their identification.” In inquiry through dispatch returned saying that one of the subjects was wanted for “multiple outstanding no bail” warrants, leading to the arrest of 26-year-old Dejuan Williams of Sacramento. Williams was immediately placed in custody.

Further investigation into the incident led to the arrest of 21-year-old Sara Curry of Ione, for possession and transportation of methamphetamine, Johnson said. “IPD officers recovered controlled substances from Curry’s person and from a container within the vehicle,” and “Curry was placed in custody.”

Both Williams and Curry were booked into the Amador County Jail. Johnson said “Williams will be extradited to Sacramento County to answer for his outstanding warrant wants.” Curry will face felony drug charges in the Amador Superior Court system.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Plymouth City Council hear a city budget history Thursday, and could officially end “phase 1” its sewer upgrade.

City Manager Jeff Gardner, also the city finance director, will give a “review of historical revenue/expenditure cash flow data for all city funds.” He will address city council questions as they arise throughout the review. Gardner will also be “highlighting significant cash flow events impacting different funds in the city on an annual basis from 2003-2004 to 2009-2010.” Gardner, the interim city manager, has been the city’s finance director for more than 20 years.

The council could also discuss recent correspondence from the State Board of Equalization. The Board sent a notice to city and county finance officials Jan. 19 with regard to the “estimated statewide growth rates,” to assist in coming budget preparations.

The council could also move toward making changes to the city’s tree cutting law. The agenda includes review, discussion and potential direction to staff to “make possible changes to the tree ordinance correcting a discrepancy in the wording making it cheaper to residents to remove trees and pay a fine in lieu of working with city staff regarding any tree situation.”

Mayor Greg Baldwin requested the issue be addressed, and in a previous meeting has compared the city’s fines to those levied in Sacramento.

The council will also consider bids for the city sewer plant on Old Sacramento Road, and may hear from Public Works Director Selby Beck. The city is seeking bids for the installation of a new water well that would feed water to the headwaters at the sewer plant.

City Development Coordinator Richard Prima is also scheduled to give two presentations. One will give information on the street maintenance project which is using Proposition 1B funding. The council is expected to be asked to prioritize what streets are to be included, after discussion.

Prima will also lead the city council in a review of the wastewater treatment plant’s “phase 1” upgrade using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. The council will be asked to consider a resolution that would indicate a “notice of completion” for the project.

A closed session is scheduled for after the regular meeting, as a conference with real property negotiators regarding the Arroyo Ditch and related water rights.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador County Board of Supervisors was expected to approve a letter today to send to Senator Ted Gaines (R-District 10) asking that he support reenactment of a “gas tax swap” that could have the affect of reducing road operations and maintenance fund in Amador County by millions of dollars.

Supervisor Chairman John Plasse, in a draft letter to be considered today said supervisors are “extremely concerned with the likely ramifications if the Legislature does not take steps to reenact the gas tax swap in light of the recently passed Proposition 22 and Proposition 26,” in the November 2010 general election.

Regional Council of Rural Counties Legislative Advocate Paul A. Smith summarized the resulting issue in a Jan. 11 letter to the RCRC board of directors, saying the state Legislature on a “majority vote” passed a “very complex scheme known as the Gas Tax Swap.” Statewide voters last November repealed the changes in a move that would “greatly impact the current configuration of transportation funding” in California.

Proposition 22 limits the use of “Highway User Tax Account” funds for “bond debt and General Fund relief as required in the Swap.” Smith said: “More importantly, Proposition 26 invalidates the majority vote replacement taxes approved in the Swap. Without legislative reenactment of the Swap, these replacement taxes will be invalidated in November 2011.” Without reenacting the Gas Tax Swap, it would leave California “transportation funding severely reduced by approximately $2.5 billion annually.”

Smith said reenactment of the Swap requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, “which means that Republicans will need to support the reenactment even though there was not one single Republican vote for the Swap last year.”

Smith requested that each “RCRC member county endorse the legislation which reenacts the Gas Tax Swap,” and member Supervisor Boards identify at-risk projects and personnel. Plasse in the draft letter said the Amador County Roads & Public Works Department would face a 15 percent budget reduction of $1 million, and Amador Regional Transit System would have to cut $180,000, without reenactment of the Gas Tax Swap. Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director Charles Field in a Jan. 25 memo said it “could also impact gas tax revenues to the cities.”

ACTC could lose $1.76 million a year in State Transportation Improvement Program funding, Field said, and it could lose state money spent in Amador County by Caltrans on maintenance and operations. Statewide, that would be about $200 million, if there was a “failure to reestablish the Gas Tax Swap.”

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Foothill Conservancy argued in Sacramento Superior Court Friday in its suit seeking to stop expansion of Pardee Lake, and now must wait up to 90 days for a ruling.

Chris Wright, executive director of the Foothill Conservancy said the judge “seemed to favor most of our key points,” the primary one being that East Bay Municipal Utility District needs to do an Environmental Impact Report on its “2040 Water Supply Management Plan.”

When a lot of Foothill Conservancy’s points were made, the judge “seemed to nod and concur,” Wright said, although he admitted that it was “sort of conjecture on my part. I could be reading his body language entirely wrong.”

Attorneys for both sides spoke and answered the judge’s questions over a couple of hours. Foothill Conservancy argued that if East Bay MUD was building a dam on the Mokelumne River, it should make an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on that project. He said East Bay MUD argued that it did not need to do an EIR because the plan was “some kind of theoretical project” that they may never build.

Wright said East Bay MUD a few years ago “did a really poor EIR” on a plan to expand Pardee Lake by building up its dam. The EIR “found significant impacts, and suggested some mitigation” in the region, but “they left it out of this, and we have no idea why.” He thought the judge would include the old EIR in considering other documents in the suit.

If the ruling requires the EIR, “they would have to go back and redo the analysis,” and take it back to the East Bay MUD board of directors for a vote, Wright said, then Amador and Calaveras County residents would get to comment.

Wright said Contra Costa Water District is expanding capacity at Los Vaqueros Dam and asked East Bay MUD to be a partner in the project, but East Bay MUD declined. The “off-stream reservoir” at Los Vaqueros would have “a lot fewer impacts” and is “on the other side of the Delta,” Wright said, and their decision to decline “should definitely be reevaluated.”

The judge has up to 90 days from the Feb. 4 hearing to make a ruling. Wright said Foothill Conservancy feels pretty confident about its case, and while awaiting the ruling they will continue to pursue “Wild & Scenic” legislation for the Mokelumne River. He said they have support of three Calaveras County Supervisors on that issue, but none of the Amador County Supervisors support it. He said 1,800 residents and 100 businesses in Amador County do support the designation and 5,000 people overall have signed up in support.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council heard and approved an annual report for the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee program on Monday, which showed funding going into the program totaled about $100,000 in the last year, down from about $1 million or more countywide in better times.

Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director Charles Field said the total of $143,000 that went into the fee program, from builder mitigation fees, included about $43,000 in interest earned, meaning the program only took in $100,000 among its county-wide members through building fees. He told the council that the amount was down from more than $1 million taken in through the program in some years.

Field said the report for fiscal year 2009-2010 was an annual report required by law. He said the report showed that Sutter Creek owed $400,000 in funding loaned within the program for road work.

Field said there is no new recommendation, with the exception” being “to pay back those loans.” He said there were “no fee increases” recommended “at this time or foreseen for next year.”

The Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program oversight committee recommended that the program’s “nexus be amended to reflect actual traffic numbers in this county, instead of national averages.” Field said they also want to work on simplifying the program.

Field requested a $9,000 reimbursement from Sutter Creek to ACTC for its share of the nexus study, and the council approved that with a resolution, also approving the annual report.

He also reported that the California Transportation Commission had OK’d a grant written by Dokken Engineering for the road alignment project at Bowers Drive and Prospect Drive, “but the state probably will not have bonds issued until next fall, which means we might miss the construction season.”

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.