Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council earlier this month put off a second reading of an amendment to its development agreement with Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort, in part to avoid unnecessary legal fees. The item was briefly discussed, then the council voted 4-1 to follow City Attorney Dennis Crabb’s recommendation to table the second reading until after the June 8th election. Crabb listed options of proceeding with a second reading and dealing with legal challenges that may arise; or, the council could “drop the ordinance (to amend the agreement) and accomplish the same purpose through an operating memorandum as authorized in the approved agreement.” Councilman Pat Crosby said he would “like to see the council vote on it, so people can see where the council stands.” Mayor Gary Wooten said it would be better to avoid unnecessary legal costs. The council voted 4-1 to continue the second reading of the ordinance until the council meets after the election. Mayor Pro Tempore Tim Murphy dissented. The ordinance reading was continued to June 21st, after the June 8th referendum titled “Measure N,” which will allow registered voters in Sutter Creek to decide whether the city council’s approval of ordinances related to Gold Rush will be upheld. The decision on the second reading of the amendment ordinance “was continued from the last council meeting based upon an objection filed a few minutes before the meeting by the attorney for the local environmental group,” Crabb said. The filing said “that since a referendum measure has been filed an amendment to the development agreement cannot be processed until the referendum is decided.” Crabb said “on its face, the argument has merit, but is contradicted by the specific facts in this case.” He said the “proposed amendment does not make a material change to the already approved agreement or create any rights not already conveyed.” The agreement would charge fees for golf course related sales that were not taxed by the city. Crabb said it would presumably increase revenues from Gold Rush to the city “if the project is approved in the referendum.” Crabb said “while that debate might be of esoteric interest to the attorneys involved it has little or nothing to do with the realities.” He said if the “council decision is upheld in the referendum the objection fails. If the council decision is not upheld the entire development agreement is set aside.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.-
font size
decrease font size
increase font size
Amador County – The Sutter Creek City Council earlier this month put off a second reading of an amendment to its development agreement with Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort, in part to avoid unnecessary legal fees. The item was briefly discussed, then the council voted 4-1 to follow City Attorney Dennis Crabb’s recommendation to table the second reading until after the June 8th election. Crabb listed options of proceeding with a second reading and dealing with legal challenges that may arise; or, the council could “drop the ordinance (to amend the agreement) and accomplish the same purpose through an operating memorandum as authorized in the approved agreement.” Councilman Pat Crosby said he would “like to see the council vote on it, so people can see where the council stands.” Mayor Gary Wooten said it would be better to avoid unnecessary legal costs. The council voted 4-1 to continue the second reading of the ordinance until the council meets after the election. Mayor Pro Tempore Tim Murphy dissented. The ordinance reading was continued to June 21st, after the June 8th referendum titled “Measure N,” which will allow registered voters in Sutter Creek to decide whether the city council’s approval of ordinances related to Gold Rush will be upheld. The decision on the second reading of the amendment ordinance “was continued from the last council meeting based upon an objection filed a few minutes before the meeting by the attorney for the local environmental group,” Crabb said. The filing said “that since a referendum measure has been filed an amendment to the development agreement cannot be processed until the referendum is decided.” Crabb said “on its face, the argument has merit, but is contradicted by the specific facts in this case.” He said the “proposed amendment does not make a material change to the already approved agreement or create any rights not already conveyed.” The agreement would charge fees for golf course related sales that were not taxed by the city. Crabb said it would presumably increase revenues from Gold Rush to the city “if the project is approved in the referendum.” Crabb said “while that debate might be of esoteric interest to the attorneys involved it has little or nothing to do with the realities.” He said if the “council decision is upheld in the referendum the objection fails. If the council decision is not upheld the entire development agreement is set aside.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published in
News Archive
Latest from Tom
- Richard Forster previews this week's Amador County Board of Supervisors meeting with host, Tom Slivick. (2 of 2)
- Richard Forster on TSPN TV News December 7, 2015 (1 of 2)
- Ebbetts Pass (State Route 4) Closed for Winter
- State HWY 89 Closed for the Winter
- Richard Forster on TSPN TV News November 23, 2015 (2 of 2)
