Tom

Friday, 11 June 2010 06:11

AWA Moves Toward 5% Up-Front Will-Serve Fees

Amador County – The Amador Water Agency board of directors voted 3-2 toward charging a 5 percent of developer fees up-front fee to issue a conditional will-serve, directing staff to revise an ordinance to change the fee policy. The board in late May had voted 3-2 to remove any up-front fees, after an original draft of the proposed ordinance would have charged 10 percent at the time of signing up for the will-serve. Gary Thomas was the only AWA director to vote for both, siding with Don Cooper and Terence Moore on May 27th to direct staff to remove the 10 percent. Then on Thursday (June 10th), Thomas said he would “vote for a compromise,” approving the 5 percent fee, to be prepared by agency attorney Steve Kronick. Thomas voted with President Bill Condrashoff and Vice President Debbie Dunn to make the change, which also would include making the up-front 5 percent non-refundable, and earmarking it to be used for “more global” improvements to benefit all customers in an area, said General Manager Gene Mancebo. Moore said “I have no intention of voting for ‘no growth,’ ” and he would not hesitate to call anyone who voted for it a “no-growth-er.” He said it would only have the effect of making developers move on to another county, or hold their request for a conditional will-serve until the last minute. The draft ordinance also set time periods for fee installment payments for the will-serve, including a 10 percent fee to renew a conditional will-serve. Thomas asked about the letter to the board saying Ione Villages was not being given its will-serve commitments, after 4 months. Kronick said “the agency is within his rules” and he was not worried about it. He said a 60-day time period would end June 15th to give those commitments. Moore asked if the letter was correct in alleging that the fees violated state law. Kronick said the letter referred to an improper code section, while another section “specifically says” that law “does not apply to water and sewer capacity fees.” He said developers seem to think the agency is increasing its participation fees, but it is not, “it only has to do with the timing of payments.” Condrashoff urged bringing back his original 10 percent up-front fees, say it would make up for years of stranded assets, including 600 “free” will-serve commitments in the Central Amador Water Project area, and 1,400 total around the county. He said the uncollected fees of $9,000 to $10,000 each would amount to about $14 million. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in Water

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:24

State Assembly Passes Governmental Reform Measures

Amador County – The California State Assembly last week, on an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, passed two far reaching governmental reform measures authored by Assemblymember Alyson Huber. The legislation if implemented will push government to identify waste, duplication and inefficiencies in state departments and agencies. AB 1659 and AB 2130 create a process to conduct, comprehensive and regular review of the state’s many boards, commissions, agencies and departments. “For many years the legislature and the Governor have created governmental entities that were designed to solve particular problems,” Huber said. “I think the time has come for us to review each of these bureaucracies, keep the ones that work and eliminate those that have outlived their usefulness. This will ensure taxpayers that their money is being spent wisely.” AB 1659 would take existing legislative resources and re-direct them to the Joint Sunset Review Committee which would conduct a comprehensive analysis of state government agencies to determine if the agency is still necessary, should be reorganized or is cost effective. In order to compel action on recommendations, it is the intent that automatic sunset dates would be established for entities scheduled for review. Prior to the committee’s recommendation each agency scheduled for sunset would be required to submit a report to the committee. Then, the committee would take public testimony and evaluate the agency prior to the agency’s scheduled sunset. AB 2130 serves as starting point to define which government entities will be subject to the Committee established by AB 1659 and sets the sunset timetable for the first years of reviews. Democratic Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Republican Assemblymember Roger Niello are co-authors of both bills. As far back as 1989, the Little Hoover Commission issued a report, entitled Boards and Commissions: California's Hidden Government, which found that, “California's multi-level, complex governmental structure today includes more than 400 boards, commissions, authorities, associations, councils and committees. These plural bodies operate to a large degree autonomously and outside of the normal checks and balances of representative government.” The Commission concluded that “the state's boards, commissions and similar bodies are proliferating without adequate evaluation of need, effectiveness and efficiency.” Huber said that she is very encouraged by the bipartisan support that her measures have received stating, “It is our duty to spend the public’s money wisely and I hope my legislation is the start to implementing an improved system of common sense governmental oversight.” This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in News Archive

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:23

Historical Society to Celebrate County Founding Date

Amador County - Amador County Historical Society members and the general public are invited to celebrate the founding date of Amador County (June 14, 1854) with a gala picnic on the grounds of the Amador County Museum, 225 Church St., Jackson, 11:30 a.m., Saturday, June 19. Festivities will include comments from county supervisors and other local dignitaries. Historical Society President Larry Cenotto, who was involved in the organization of the county’s Sesquicentennial events, will give a brief talk about the division of Calaveras County and the formation of Amador County. He will also offer an overview of the Society’s progress on various preservation fronts. A box lunch at $7 each, catered by Motherlode Market, is included. RSVP with choices and checks payable to the Historical Society by June 10. Send checks to Georgia Fox, P.O. Box 846, Sutter Creek, CA 95685. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in News Archive

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:27

Jackson Tables Redevelopment Area Project

Amador County - The Jackson City Council on Monday reviewed a report on the feasibility of adopting a redevelopment area, but opted against the project until the local investment climate improves to the point where there is strong demand for future development. According to a memo from representatives of Fraser & Associates and Urban Futures, Inc., the two companies hired by the city to create the analysis, the feasibility of creating such a project was based on whether there is sufficient blight within the study area of the City according to the basic definitions of blighting conditions laid out in California Community Redevelopment Law. “A study area was identified following a block-by-block field survey of older commercial, industrial and residential areas in the City,” said the memo. In their report, the two redevelopment and planning companies determined redevelopment project feasibility based upon a “five-part test.” This determination takes into account whether an area is urbanized, whether it has “prevalent physical and economic blight,” whether that blight causes “ a lack of proper utilization of the area,” whether that improper utilization burdens the community, and whether the burden cannot be reversed by private enterprises or the City acting alone without the help of a redevelopment agency. A financial analysis was then “undertaken to determine whether the area could generate enough tax increment to fund in whole or part a successful redevelopment program.” The companies determined that a “redevelopment project area would have only limited resources and growth potential at the present time.” Project consultants from both companies were in attendance and recommended delaying formation of the project until the local investment climate improves. The council unanimously chose to follow the recommendation of both the consultants and City Manager Mike Daly to defer approval. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in News Archive

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:28

Protect Sutter Creek Will Not Sue Over Measure N Loss

Amador County – Protect Historic Sutter Creek hinted at legal questions in voter registries this week, but said the Measure N vote outcome, if lost by the group, would not face a legal challenge. Bart Weatherly, head of Protect Historic Sutter Creek, said his group never wanted to stop Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort. They just wanted a smaller project than its 1,300-plus single-family homes. Weatherly said: “Even the Yes On N people in their heart of hearts wanted a smaller project. I talk to them all the time. They are my friends and neighbors.” He said they were not given another option and felt that “it was all or nothing.” They wanted the project’s benefits, so they gave the project support. Weatherly said if his No On Measure N side eventually loses, “Protect Historic Sutter Creek has no intention of filing a lawsuit,” but “that doesn’t speak for other groups out there.” He said they “are just thankful that the people of Sutter Creek got a chance to vote on this issue.” The weeks leading up to the election included allegations by a Jackson business owner that someone from the Protect Historic Sutter Creek group was harassing her voting eligibility in the June 8th election. A list reportedly named registrants with questionable eligibility. Weatherly said: “We do not have that list. At one time we turned it in to (Registrar Sheldon) Johnson.” Weatherly said “we’re not going to pursue any of that” at the moment. He said he would not tell the names that were on the list, and he criticized a newspaper article on the subject, saying it started as “story about possible illegal voter registration and it went to a story of alleged harassment on our end.” Weatherly said: “We never harassed anyone.” The group has 70-80 people who are loosely in group, who would help put stamps on fliers. Then there is the core group of roughly 25, who came up with the information for the fliers. They expected a larger margin, and had tried to estimate people’s votes leading up to the election day, to help direct flier campaigns. They rated people on a 1-5 scale. The 1-2 rated people supported Gold Rush, those rated a 3 were undecided, and those rated 4-5 were supporters of the No vote. Weatherly said they “had a rough idea of the 4s and 5s out there, just like we had a rough idea of the 1s and 2s.” He said he thought more people supported it than had admitted. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in News Archive

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:30

Sutter Creek's Remaining Ballots to Be Counted Monday

Amador County – The remaining ballots for the Tuesday (June 8th) Sutter Creek election – including the Measure N question – will be counted Monday, according to the measure’s chief opponent. Sutter Creek firefighter Bart Weatherly said Wednesday that he has been told by the election department that the counting of the remaining provisional and absentee ballots was scheduled to start 9 a.m. Monday (June 14th) in the Amador County Elections Office, and will be open to the public. Weatherly said he is “very optimistic about our chances of prevailing,” even though “we know that an 8-vote margin is very slim.” But he thinks his group, “Protect Historic Sutter Creek” has the votes to win. Supporters of Yes On Measure N reportedly also like their chances and think they have the votes to win. Tuesday’s vote was a city-wide measure that would affirm or revoke Sutter Creek City Council actions that approved the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort project. Gold Rush project manager Bill Bunce did not immediately return a request for comment. Supporter, Mayor Gary Wooten also did not return a call asking for comment. Weatherly said “we all know there’s going to be a recount,” due to the margin of less than 1 percent between the vote totals. Weatherly said he had visions of a high 80% voter turnout, but it was only 68.4 percent, when counting stopped Tuesday night. There still remain some ballots to be counted, in absentee and provisional ballots. He said: “Maybe I just live too close to this.” He said “Sutter Creek Partners outspent us 33 to 1,” according to finance records filed at city hall. No On N “spent $5,000 as of Thursday” (June 3rd). His wife Pam, the group’s treasurer filled out the form, which must list donations and expenditures. He said Sutter Creek Partners spent $126,000, with another estimated $16,000 in the final week to 10 days, and “had no donations.” Protect Historic Sutter Creek collected about $5,000, most in donations in the 20- to 100-dollar range. Weatherly said the Elections office let them know about the recount, and they plan to have someone from their team attending. The office did not say how many ballots were left to count, but he thinks “it’s going to be roughly 100.” He said the real issue was that “people in Sutter Creek got a chance to vote on something that will impact heir lives.” Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in News Archive

Thursday, 10 June 2010 06:34