Tom
LAFCO tells Ione to sign agreement with County before annexation continues
Mayor Skip
Schaufel, a LAFCO board member, said commissioners, “at least three of them …
had absolutely no intention to move forward,” and “just flat didn’t have any
understanding.”
City
Planner Christopher Jordan said Plymouth City Councilman Jon Colburn asked for
an updated Municipal Services Review. Ione City Manager Kim Kerr said “no
specific reason” was given for the request.
Councilwoman
Andrea Bonham said the law does not require an agreement.
Kerr said
she was “very mad” at the meeting, and was surprised supervisors led the
stoppage. LAFCO also told her it will now do its own notification, after a
non-notification complaint, meaning the city must now pay twice for
notification.
Kerr said
if they try to get an agreement with the county, it “may not be to the level we
went to before,” which “was an attempt to try and address some of the concerns
that we might face moving forward.” Part of the agreement sought to require the
county to have certain zoning within the city’s “Sphere of Influence.”
Story by
Niello campaign makes whistle stop in Jackson
Supes respond to findings in 2009-10 Grand Jury Report
After some
revision, the board gave approval to an agenda item outlining responses to the
jury’s findings. Each finding includes a response from the department head and the
supervisors.
In his
response, Animal Control Director John Vail disagreed with four of the jury’s
findings.
The Grand Jury said “in cases of stray or
wandering animals and nuisance complaints…adequate documentation of dates and
times is needed to identify habitual offenders.” The report said offenses must
be witnessed by an ACAC Officer. Vail disagreed partially with this finding,
writing in response that not all offenses must be witnessed by an ACAC Officer,
and some reports may first be filed with the District Attorney.
The Grand
Jury also said many of the department’s policies have been modified and are not
contained in writing in the agreements at the General Services Administration
office. Vail disagreed, writing the “agreements have not been modified,” but
“some agreements may be expired and do need to be renegotiated.”
The report
said County leash laws are defined by California Government Code” and “ACAC can
only seize or impound a dog or issue citations if a dog is on property other
than that owned by its owner or the person who has the right to control the
dog.” Vail said California Government Code “does not define County leash laws,”
but “does prescribe actions that may or may not be taken by Animal Control
Officers.”
Jon
Hopkins, General Services Administration Director, said he agrees with some of
the findings, but he has seen “many Grand Jury reports” over the years and they
are “not always accurate.”
Martha
Shaver,
Supervisors
agreed with all of the responses made by Vail.
The Grand
Jury also found some services provided by the Amador County Detention Facility
to be inadequate because of overcrowding, a lack of proper funding and
antiquated equipment. Most findings on this and other departments were
positive.
In a letter
of response to Judge Susan Harlan, who oversaw the grand jurors, Chairman Brian
Oneto said “the report reflects a tremendous amount of effort on behalf of the
grand jurors.”
Supervisors
unanimously approved their response to the findings.
Supervisors
John Plasse and Ted Novelli were absent.
Story by
Sutter Creek eases sign ordinance after pol sign pulled
Amador
County – The Sutter Creek City Council voted 4-0 with one abstention Monday to
give acting City Manager Sean Rabe the power to enforce or not enforce the
city’s sign ordinance, after complaints that the Sutter Creek Police Department
removed political signs from downtown sidewalks last week.
All of the
signs removed promoted Councilwoman Linda Rianda’s reelection, and were removed
from planter boxes on
One woman
during public comment asked how a complaint by Bart Weatherly, also a candidate
in the Sutter Creek City Council race, could lead to such quick action to
remove the signs. Rabe said he was absent and getting his wisdom teeth pulled
when the complaint came in, saying Rianda’s signs were in the city right-of-way.
The officer on duty asked city staff’s opinion, and determined a city
right-of-way was not a proper place for the signs.
Rabe said
he and City Attorney Derek Cole found First Amendment issues with the city sign
ordinance, and asked the council to “direct staff to suspend enforcement of
that ordinance.” The council agreed, also allowing for removal of signs for
public safety reasons, and from all city property. The council gave the city
manager sole power to remove signs.
Rianda
asked for clarification on whether the sidewalks were city property, and said
she did not intend to put her signs on city property. She asked that if the
signs could be left in the planters if they don’t impede the right-of-way.
Rabe said planters on
Cole said
the only way the city can restrict signs is to outlaw all signs, or issue
encroachment permits. He said the city sign ordinance limiting signs to 2- by
2-foot at residences “violates the First Amendment,” which guarantees freedom
of speech.
Councilman
Pat Crosby said they should follow Caltrans’ lead, regulating all signs with
encroachment permits. He said he did not see a First Amendment issue.
Councilwoman
Sandra Anderson said signs were not always placed by the candidate. And she
disagreed with encroachment permitting, saying: “Let’s not do what Caltrans
does.”
Planning
Commissioner Robin Peters said the commission had the same conversation a week
ago, and he urged the city council to bring the city sign ordinance “into the
modern era.” He said the best idea would be to not enforce the ordinance until
after the November 2nd election, then readdress the issue without
the pressure of politics.
Story by
Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.