Tuesday, 25 May 2010 07:33

AWA Deadlocks On Will-Serve Fee Action

slide3-_awa_deadlocks_on_will-serve_fee_action.pngAmador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors deadlocked 2-2 last week on peripheral action on a proposed ordinance that would change “will-serve” fees. The board in its meeting 2 weeks ago had discussed an ordinance that would change the will-serve policy, and agreed to “memorialize” a flawed draft ordinance at that meeting by reading it into the record, while also setting a workshop on the ordinance for this week. The vote last Thursday would have made all pending will-serve applications subject to the new policy, if and when a new policy ordinance was approved by the board. Agency attorney Steve Kronick reportedly left the earlier meeting without knowing the board’s ability to pass the peripheral action. Later, he recommended wording for a motion, which would “apply to any application for a conditional will-serve commitment pending as of the date of the motion or thereafter and any new application for such a commitment submitted on or after such date.” Director Terence Moore said Kronick found flaws in the draft ordinance, and making the peripheral action would “just be compounding our errors.” Moore said: “I think we need to have a workshop before we make any changes to the ordinance.” The board on May 13th discussed ordinance changes and agreed to set a will-serve ordinance workshop this Wednesday, from 9 a.m. to noon. Director Gary Thomas said after changes were discussed, the topic was exhausted and the workshop was set, then people interested in the subject left. Thomas said the board later resumed discussion on the ordinance, leading to reading the draft changes into record, which he called an “injustice” to people who were interested in the issue. One was Rob Aragon of Ione Villages 1 LLC. He said during public comment last week that the board appeared to have stopped talking about the will-serve issue at the May 13th meeting, then discussion ensued on the topic after a break. He said “maybe it meets the legal test but it doesn’t meet the moral test,” and he said it was not an example of “transparency” in government. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.