Tom

Amador County – Sutter Creek released on Monday a final draft of its response to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Report, with many agreements, but also some disagreements. The draft was written by Mayor Pro Tempore Tim Murphy, acting City Manager Sean Rabe and city attorney Derek Cole. The response agrees with the bulk of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations, many of which have been initiated. The draft will be considered by the city council in a special meeting 7 p.m. Monday (August 30th). The response is due September 1st. The draft points out what it calls an error in the Grand Jury Report introduction, which said the “City Council should have been aware of the issues and taken action prior to the start of this investigation.” The response said: “This implies that if it were not for the Grand Jury Report many of these issues would never have been revealed or corrected.” The response calls that “incorrect, especially regarding the Finance, Administration and Personnel section of the report,” saying that the “city council has taken very significant actions to correct many of these issues long before they were referred to the Grand Jury.” Some were handled in 2008 and others in 2009, the response said, and the public may not have been aware, “since many of the actions were part of confidential personnel performance discussions. However, the city council’s efforts to address these issues are a matter of public record which the Grand Jury should have considered prior to beginning their investigation.” The draft response lists a disagreement with the Grand Jury recommendation to have the city finance director answer directly to the city council, rather than the city manager, saying that “could undermine the city manager’s ability to control this key aspect of their job responsibilities.” The response also rejects the recommendation that the city “renegotiate contracts so that only the employer’s portion” of retirement and Social Security are paid by the city. The response calls it a matter for the “collective bargaining process rather than the Grand Jury.” The response also criticizes part of a final recommendation that urges citizens to “become actively involved with the city council.” The city draft response said: “Active participation by the public is critical to the local democratic process,” but the “closing sentiment” urging that the public “help city government avoid defaulting to continued mismanagement,” was “an unwarranted insult and below the professional standard expected of a Grand Jury recommendation.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in Local

Wednesday, 25 August 2010 08:28

PG&E seeks funding to study pumped hydro facility for Mokelumne River

Amador County - Pacific Gas and Electric Company has submitted a request to California regulators for funding a study on the feasibility of building a pumped hydro facility in the Mokelumne River watershed in Amador County. The utility is asking regulators to spend close to $33.5 million on the study of the project, which would also pay for exploring other potential sites like the Kings River watershed in Fresno County. In a press release, PG&E said the facility would generate between 400 megawatts and 1,200 megawatts. Referred to by the company as the Mokelumne River project, the plan includes the connection of existing reservoirs and the possible construction of a new reservoir to be built on or nearby Cole Creek at a total estimated price tag of $2.5 billion. The power would be transferred throughout the state. A pumped hydro storage system generates electricity by releasing water from one reservoir into another one downstream, pushing it through a series of turbines along the way. The water is pumped uphill during off-peak times and released during peak times. Despite the many alternative forms of electricity generation available, pumped hydro is considered more reliable and faster, with the ability to create a large power output in a short period of time. If this project is eventually approved, it will become the seventh hydro power system in the state. At least 3 other plants are currently proposed throughout California. PG&E says the permitting process alone could take 6 years to complete. PG&E’s plan is the latest attempt by a major utility to utilize the Mokelumne River to serve the demands of its growing customer base. Last spring, a large group of area citizens and the vast majority of local elected officials expressed outrage and disapproval at the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s proposal to expand the Pardee Reservoir by 2040, which would flood miles of the Mokelumne River in order to provide additional water capacity to millions of customers in the east bay. That plan was eventually approved by the EBMUD board, despite overwhelming opposition from over 50 elected officials, government agencies, political groups, NGOs, and conservation and fishing organizations. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in Local

Wednesday, 25 August 2010 08:25

Attorney says litigation premature as Plymouth returns to casino, Final EIS

Amador County – The Plymouth City Council had litigation on its agenda Monday afternoon, but never went into closed session to discuss it. The council held a special meeting to discuss the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians’ fee to trust request for a casino, but only moved to answer the FEIS. The council directed staff to write a comment letter. City Attorney Mike Dean said it mostly would note that past comments by the city and others remain to be answered. He said they must also point out how the Bureau of Indian Affairs is “flat wrong” in failing to acknowledge the change in legal status of the tribe in the last year. Councilman Jon Colburn took offense to the FEIS calling the city a “cooperating agency” in the fee-to-trust issue. Councilman Greg Baldwin recognized that the past city council approved a Municipal Services Agreement with the tribe for its casino. Colburn said it was hard to see why the tribe would not give an extension for the city to look at a 1,500-page document they took 4 years to produce. Dean said “they haven’t approved the document either,” and “they could send you another 1,500-page document tomorrow.” Dean said the tribe may be sending through the project FEIS “just in case Congress finds a way to take action the tribe seeks.” Gary Colburn said the FEIS should note city losses of houses, jobs and revenue, and the “city needs the casino more now than when this began.” Butch Cranford said the FEIS had been called ambiguous, misleading and false by U.S. Solicitor General David Burnhardt in January 2009, who reversed a previous land opinion. Cranford said “our comments on the fee-to-trust application have not been answered to this day,” and “this is about following the law,” seeing whether BIA and the National Indian Gaming Commission acted on the FEIS in accordance with law. If not, he urged the city to file a lawsuit, which he expected would cost about $250,000. Dean said that would probably be the cost, but it could be shared by multiple plaintiffs. Dean said it was “premature to initiate litigation,” and recommended studying comments on the FEIS. Fordyce asked if they should speak with the tribe. She had heard they “wanted to get the ball rolling,” before the FEIS came out, and she wasn’t sure if the “solicitor general” had been overruled. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in Local

Wednesday, 25 August 2010 08:23

State budget delays could impact road project funding

California – Caltrans announced earlier this month that delays in approval of a state budget for the next fiscal year will have huge impacts on funding for new and existing transportation projects throughout the state. As of now, it looks at though Amador County road projects will remain unaffected, but the delays could stop at least $262 million dollars for projects in our district (District 10) that are either awaiting allocated funds, under construction, or contingent upon the 2010 Budget Act. This includes $112 for roadway rehabilitation on Interstate 5 and Highway 99 in Sacramento County, $108 million for rehabilitation of Interstate’s 5 and 80 in Sacramento County, $20 million for partially completed bridge replacement on Highway 99 in Merced, $17 million for partially completed reconstruction of Highway 99 in Ceres, and $5 million for a roadway rehabilitation project on Route 4 within District 10. Although there is no financial impact in Amador County, Charles Field, Executive Director of the Amador County Transportation Commission, said there will be an indirect effect on local projects in the works. “Funding cutbacks would impact Caltrans ability to have all the resources and staff people it needs to help deliver projects on schedule,” said Field. “Caltrans is on 4 hour furlough weeks, and the new District 10 director who we would appeal to is going to work for Contra Costa County now,” he added. Field said all of this create a “ripple effect,” and small, rural county projects receive less attention. “Should the Budget Impasse continue through the end of August 2010, transportation fund cash balances may be depleted, resulting in potential suspension of ongoing construction projects,” said Cindy McKim, Director of Caltrans. Her concerns were outlined in a letter to Dale Bonner, Secretary of California’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. McKim wrote that during the 2008/09 fiscal year budget impasse, “payments for over 96,000 invoices were delayed resulting in more than $215,000 in penalties.” She said, “State tax revenue is impacted by delaying income to construction contractors and their employees” and project suspensions result in penalty payments to contractors and increased project costs. Caltrans currently has funding for transportation projects worth over $2.1 billion that are contingent on the approval of the state budget, and another $900 million in new contracts to construction firms and $9.5 billion of current construction that may be delayed. “Without a budget and the uncertainty of available cash for contracts after September, the department will not be awarding new contracts,” said McKim. “This impasse will cause a delay in new construction starts and delay the creation or saving of jobs.” Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in State