Amador County – The Jackson Rancheria this week announced the return of its annual Holiday Hay Rides at the Jackson Rancheria Casino, Hotel & Conference Center. Rancheria publicist Carol Cook said the Holiday Hay Rides are a great way to “Celebrate the holidays Rancheria Style. Jackson Rancheria Casino, she said, is “offering one of the most popular local holiday traditions in Amador County, the annual free Holiday Hay Rides.” The Hay Rides feature a festive ride around the extraordinarily decorated Rancheria, which will glow with more than 2 million lights. After that comes a visit with Santa Claus for children and refreshments for everyone. Cook said this year the rides will be offered 5-8 p.m. Monday through Thursday, December 7th through December 17th, beginning and ending at the Jackson Rancheria Fire Station on Dalton Road. Cook said parking for the Hay Rid is available in Lot Number 6, across Dalton Road from the firehouse. She said attendees should dress warmly and bring their cameras because it is a great family photo opportunity. The Rancheria will also be collecting toys for the annual Jackson Rancheria & Amador County Sheriff's Office Christmas Toy Drive. For more information, call (800) 822-WINN or visit www.JacksonCasino.com. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County - The Amador Fire Protection Authority last week approved a formula for the distribution of funding collected through Measure M, a ½ cent sales tax measure intended to support struggling fire districts in Amador County. The formula is based on figures from the California Department of Finance and divides money collected through Measure M between the AFPD, Jackson, Ione, Sutter Creek, Lockwood and Jackson Valley fire districts based on call volume and population. Some money will also come from Prop 172, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment approved in 1993 that created a ½ cent sales tax to help fund public safety agencies statewide. During last Thursday’s meeting, AFPA board member Connie Gonsalves said there is currently around $1 million in Measure M and Prop 172 funding in an account through the auditor’s office. County Administrative Officer Terri Daly said the formula is an important step because “there are a lot of rumors going around that the county has misappropriated Measure M funds.” Funding distribution scenarios included in the formula are based on dollar amounts between $1.7 million and $2.7 million, but Daly said “these aren’t what we expected because the economy has gone south.” CAL FIRE Battalion Chief Brian Kirk said “it is important to establish an objective criteria so we can measure” what each district will receive. AFPA members voiced concerns over the accuracy of aspects of the formula, such as population figures, and how that will affect funding distribution. Board members agreed with fellow member Jake Herfel, who said there are “probably errors with (the formula) but for now, at least to keep the process going, we can go with this.” There are still unanswered questions as to what the needs of each fire district are. Herfel said it is important to “press upon our (fire) chiefs to be at these meetings…and participate (in the discussion).” The board unanimously approved a motion by board member Hal Gamble to distribute funding based on the formula. County Auditor Joe Lowe said the item will be added to the December 1st Board of Supervisors agenda for final approval. The Measure M ½ cent sales tax increase was part of the November 4, 2008 ballot and was passed by voters with 69 percent approval. It is intended to support the first publicly funded fire program in Amador County. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Administrative Committee discussed on Monday the best scenario through which to apply traffic mitigation fees for a Carl’s Jr. fast-food restaurant proposed for construction in the Martell shopping center. Frank Oley of Oley & Associates was present to represent the interests of the restaurant. In a letter previously submitted to the Public Works department, Oley said “the existing method of determining traffic mitigation fees for a fast food restaurant is not consistent with actual traffic mitigation.” He said “this will place a heavy burden on all but the largest fast food traffic generators.” Roger Stuart of the Public Works Agency said Oley & Associates originally approached his agency with the restaurant proposal last summer when the traffic mitigation fees were around $144,000 per year. Since that time the fee has increased to approximately $266,000, or what Stuart called “a huge jump.” He said the fee determination is based on numbers from the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual. Oley said these numbers are inaccurate because they are based on fast-food restaurants with more frequent traffic in large metropolitan areas. The current traffic mitigation fees for fast food restaurants with a drive thru are $554 per trip. In his letter, Oley said “the current fee matrix does not differentiate between restaurants with low, moderate or high sales volumes.” He said there are a “number of reasons” traffic mitigation fees should be applied differently to Carl’s Jr. He said the business “won’t serve as many because the cost of the product is a little bit higher” and the business’ location within the shopping center means it would not have “immediate and direct access to a public roadway.” Oley said that under current standards, “it will take several years of non-profit just to pay the traffic impact fees.” He said he is “not asking for forgiveness of the fees, only that the county revisit these fees.” Supervisors Ted Novelli and Brian Oneto, who represent to Board of Supervisors on the committee, said Oley’s request to revisit the fee structure was reasonable. The committee instructed Stuart to add another category to the traffic mitigation fee structure for fast-food restaurant developments with lesser trips. The item will be added to the December 8th Board of Supervisors agenda for approval. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors voted unanimously Thursday to sign a letter critical of the Association of California Water Agencies Board of Directors in its decision to support San Joaquin Delta water legislation. The AWA board voted 5-0 to authorize Board President Terence Moore to sign a coalition letter that criticizes the California Water Agencies board for its 18-11 vote November 1st vote to support the Delta legislation backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that includes building a peripheral water pipeline to take northern state water around the Delta southern counties. AWA Human Resources Representative Karen Gish said Moore’s signature makes AWA “a co-signer with other members of ACWA, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Gish did not know how many other co-signers would sign the letter, which was addressed to the Association of California Water Agencies board. She said the letter is against the fact that the ACWA board took action outside of its own power and also violated its own policy that ACWA “normally does not take a position on legislation when its members disagree.” The letter noted its signers “represent numerous long-standing members” of ACWA who express “extreme disappointment with the action … to support the Delta legislative package.” The letter notes that during the meeting, “it was not clear what was included in the legislative package that ACWA staff was recommending be approved.” At the meeting, “many ACWA members, including municipal and agricultural agencies in several ACWA regions, continued to have significant concerns about the impacts of the legislation on upstream water supplies and water rights, and many of them opposed the legislation.” The letter said the “Delta legislative package was inconsistent with ACWA’s Board-approved Delta principles,” and “supporting the legislation would violate the Board-approved policy that ACWA does not take a position on legislation on which its members disagree.” The ACWA Board voted 18-11 to support the Delta legislation. The letter said many ACWA member signees “have decided to withhold payment of their 2010 ACWA dues, and many are evaluating whether to renew their ACWA membership.” The letter notes that support affects some member agencies’ abilities to amend the legislation to support their water rights. It says that ACWA “cannot and must not take a position on legislation that benefits some members and harms other members.” The letter asks for insuring interests in all member of ACWA in a way that “does no harm to the legitimate rights of its individual members,” and asks for time at the next ACWA board meeting to discuss the issue in an open forum. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Ione City Council heard a report on a search for a new city engineering firm last week and also discussed the city’s wastewater recycling options. City Manager Kim Kerr said last Tuesday that she had spoken with 10 firms about requests for proposals for the city engineering position. Inquiries included questions, such as whether the position would include being a water engineer, and Kerr said it did not. She said she sent information to clarify the requests and expected duties, which included telling the firms that they would be working with the city planner on California Environmental Quality Act issues. Kerr said the position in Ione is being looked at “by some big firms working around the state,” including at least one that would move an office into town and pay someone in the city rent for office space. Kerr said the next steps included narrowing down the candidates to those who would come for interviews and make proposals to the city council. Mayor Lee Ard asked Kerr that when she returned, if she could include what the city paid in the last 2 years for engineering, “so that they can compare that with the what we expect we will be spending with these new folks.” Ard said he was mainly interested in what went to City Engineer Roark Weber. In her city manager’s report, Kerr told the council she attended last week’s Amador County Joint Water Committee, made up of 2 members each of the Amador County Board of Supervisors and the Amador Water Agency board of directors. She said it seemed like the committee was “trying to decide what their role is,” and they met for 2-and-a-half hours but really didn’t “do anything in-depth.” Sutter Creek resident Ed Arata gave a presentation during the meeting, promoting a regional approach to wastewater treatment solutions. Kerr noted that Amador County does not handle wastewater treatment, and she questioned why the regional approach seems to leave out 3 jurisdictions. She said there is some differing “philosophy” involved. Kerr also noted that Ione held its wastewater master plan public meetings, and if people did not attend, they should “not come tell us that we need to do something.” Arata in an October letter to Ione and other organizations said “based on recent exploratory talks with local wastewater engineers, the consensus is that a regional wastewater plan must be developed that includes Amador City, Sutter Creek, Martell, Jackson and Ione.” Arata said he believed Ione needs Amador Regional Sanitation Authority “water into the future.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County - The Amador Fire Protection Authority last week approved a formula for the distribution of funding collected through Measure M, a ½ cent sales tax measure intended to support struggling fire districts in Amador County. The formula is based on figures from the California Department of Finance and divides money collected through Measure M between the AFPD, Jackson, Ione, Sutter Creek, Lockwood and Jackson Valley fire districts based on call volume and population. Some money will also come from Prop 172, a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment approved in 1993 that created a ½ cent sales tax to help fund public safety agencies statewide. During last Thursday’s meeting, AFPA board member Connie Gonsalves said there is currently around $1 million in Measure M and Prop 172 funding in an account through the auditor’s office. County Administrative Officer Terri Daly said the formula is an important step because “there are a lot of rumors going around that the county has misappropriated Measure M funds.” Funding distribution scenarios included in the formula are based on dollar amounts between $1.7 million and $2.7 million, but Daly said “these aren’t what we expected because the economy has gone south.” CAL FIRE Battalion Chief Brian Kirk said “it is important to establish an objective criteria so we can measure” what each district will receive. AFPA members voiced concerns over the accuracy of aspects of the formula, such as population figures, and how that will affect funding distribution. Board members agreed with fellow member Jake Herfel, who said there are “probably errors with (the formula) but for now, at least to keep the process going, we can go with this.” There are still unanswered questions as to what the needs of each fire district are. Herfel said it is important to “press upon our (fire) chiefs to be at these meetings…and participate (in the discussion).” The board unanimously approved a motion by board member Hal Gamble to distribute funding based on the formula. County Auditor Joe Lowe said the item will be added to the December 1st Board of Supervisors agenda for final approval. The Measure M ½ cent sales tax increase was part of the November 4, 2008 ballot and was passed by voters with 69 percent approval. It is intended to support the first publicly funded fire program in Amador County. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors voted unanimously Thursday to sign a letter critical of the Association of California Water Agencies Board of Directors in its decision to support San Joaquin Delta water legislation. The AWA board voted 5-0 to authorize Board President Terence Moore to sign a coalition letter that criticizes the California Water Agencies board for its 18-11 vote November 1st vote to support the Delta legislation backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that includes building a peripheral water pipeline to take northern state water around the Delta southern counties. AWA Human Resources Representative Karen Gish said Moore’s signature makes AWA “a co-signer with other members of ACWA, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Gish did not know how many other co-signers would sign the letter, which was addressed to the Association of California Water Agencies board. She said the letter is against the fact that the ACWA board took action outside of its own power and also violated its own policy that ACWA “normally does not take a position on legislation when its members disagree.” The letter noted its signers “represent numerous long-standing members” of ACWA who express “extreme disappointment with the action … to support the Delta legislative package.” The letter notes that during the meeting, “it was not clear what was included in the legislative package that ACWA staff was recommending be approved.” At the meeting, “many ACWA members, including municipal and agricultural agencies in several ACWA regions, continued to have significant concerns about the impacts of the legislation on upstream water supplies and water rights, and many of them opposed the legislation.” The letter said the “Delta legislative package was inconsistent with ACWA’s Board-approved Delta principles,” and “supporting the legislation would violate the Board-approved policy that ACWA does not take a position on legislation on which its members disagree.” The ACWA Board voted 18-11 to support the Delta legislation. The letter said many ACWA member signees “have decided to withhold payment of their 2010 ACWA dues, and many are evaluating whether to renew their ACWA membership.” The letter notes that support affects some member agencies’ abilities to amend the legislation to support their water rights. It says that ACWA “cannot and must not take a position on legislation that benefits some members and harms other members.” The letter asks for insuring interests in all member of ACWA in a way that “does no harm to the legitimate rights of its individual members,” and asks for time at the next ACWA board meeting to discuss the issue in an open forum. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Administrative Committee discussed on Monday the best scenario through which to apply traffic mitigation fees for a Carl’s Jr. fast-food restaurant proposed for construction in the Martell shopping center. Frank Oley of Oley & Associates was present to represent the interests of the restaurant. In a letter previously submitted to the Public Works department, Oley said “the existing method of determining traffic mitigation fees for a fast food restaurant is not consistent with actual traffic mitigation.” He said “this will place a heavy burden on all but the largest fast food traffic generators.” Roger Stuart of the Public Works Agency said Oley & Associates originally approached his agency with the restaurant proposal last summer when the traffic mitigation fees were around $144,000 per year. Since that time the fee has increased to approximately $266,000, or what Stuart called “a huge jump.” He said the fee determination is based on numbers from the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual. Oley said these numbers are inaccurate because they are based on fast-food restaurants with more frequent traffic in large metropolitan areas. The current traffic mitigation fees for fast food restaurants with a drive thru are $554 per trip. In his letter, Oley said “the current fee matrix does not differentiate between restaurants with low, moderate or high sales volumes.” He said there are a “number of reasons” traffic mitigation fees should be applied differently to Carl’s Jr. He said the business “won’t serve as many because the cost of the product is a little bit higher” and the business’ location within the shopping center means it would not have “immediate and direct access to a public roadway.” Oley said that under current standards, “it will take several years of non-profit just to pay the traffic impact fees.” He said he is “not asking for forgiveness of the fees, only that the county revisit these fees.” Supervisors Ted Novelli and Brian Oneto, who represent to Board of Supervisors on the committee, said Oley’s request to revisit the fee structure was reasonable. The committee instructed Stuart to add another category to the traffic mitigation fee structure for fast-food restaurant developments with lesser trips. The item will be added to the December 8th Board of Supervisors agenda for approval. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The Ione City Council heard a report on a search for a new city engineering firm last week and also discussed the city’s wastewater recycling options. City Manager Kim Kerr said last Tuesday that she had spoken with 10 firms about requests for proposals for the city engineering position. Inquiries included questions, such as whether the position would include being a water engineer, and Kerr said it did not. She said she sent information to clarify the requests and expected duties, which included telling the firms that they would be working with the city planner on California Environmental Quality Act issues. Kerr said the position in Ione is being looked at “by some big firms working around the state,” including at least one that would move an office into town and pay someone in the city rent for office space. Kerr said the next steps included narrowing down the candidates to those who would come for interviews and make proposals to the city council. Mayor Lee Ard asked Kerr that when she returned, if she could include what the city paid in the last 2 years for engineering, “so that they can compare that with the what we expect we will be spending with these new folks.” Ard said he was mainly interested in what went to City Engineer Roark Weber. In her city manager’s report, Kerr told the council she attended last week’s Amador County Joint Water Committee, made up of 2 members each of the Amador County Board of Supervisors and the Amador Water Agency board of directors. She said it seemed like the committee was “trying to decide what their role is,” and they met for 2-and-a-half hours but really didn’t “do anything in-depth.” Sutter Creek resident Ed Arata gave a presentation during the meeting, promoting a regional approach to wastewater treatment solutions. Kerr noted that Amador County does not handle wastewater treatment, and she questioned why the regional approach seems to leave out 3 jurisdictions. She said there is some differing “philosophy” involved. Kerr also noted that Ione held its wastewater master plan public meetings, and if people did not attend, they should “not come tell us that we need to do something.” Arata in an October letter to Ione and other organizations said “based on recent exploratory talks with local wastewater engineers, the consensus is that a regional wastewater plan must be developed that includes Amador City, Sutter Creek, Martell, Jackson and Ione.” Arata said he believed Ione needs Amador Regional Sanitation Authority “water into the future.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Amador County – The nonprofit Foothill Conservancy filed a lawsuit in Amador County Superior Court Thursday seeking to stop the expansion of the Pardee Reservoir, being pursued by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Foothill Conservancy Executive Director Chris Wright announced the lawsuit in a release November 18th. The suit seeks “to protect the Mokelumne River from the proposed expansion of Pardee Reservoir” in Amador County, a project that is included in the East Bay MUD “2040 water plan.” The suit was filed jointly with two other organizations, including California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, whose Executive Director Bill Jennings called East Bay MUD “a municipal vampire” that has “spurned reasonable alternatives that would have assured its customers of a reliable water supply.” The other plaintiff is Friends of the River. John Tinkl of the Calaveras Community Action Project said a new Pardee Dam “would be a disaster for the region's recreation, economy and scenic beauty,” and it “flies in the face of other options that could meet potential water needs but not harm” the region. Wright said the suit “is only the second lawsuit Foothill Conservancy has filed in its 20-year history.” He said it “is such an important issue, and people care so much about this river,” they had to do it, and hoped “people who care about the Mokelumne will donate to help cover (their) legal expenses.” Wright said the “lawsuit seeks to overturn the Environmental Impact Report on which the water plan and reservoir expansion are based.” He said the EIR included “one expansion option that would flood the entire Middle Bar reach of the Mokelumne River and up to a mile of the Electra Run above Highway 49.” Wright said the East Bay utility’s board voted October 13th to approve the 2040 Plan, which “retained 4 alternatives for a new Pardee Dam, 3 of which would destroy the Middle Bar reach and historic 1912 Middle Bar Bridge.” Wright said the Mokelumne River, which feeds Pardee Reservoir, “is not the property of East Bay MUD, and they are not above the law.” He said the EIR “doesn’t comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” by “failing to adequately analyze and mitigate the impacts on Amador and Calaveras counties from the new Pardee Dam.” The case also alleges East Bay MUD “inadequately responded to concerns” and ignored testimony from public hearings in Sutter Creek, San Andreas and Oakland. The suit asks the court to set aside approval of the 2040 water plan. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.