Friday, July 09, 2010
By Jerry Budrick
Sutter Creek residents were upset at Tuesday night's city council meeting after they weren't allowed to discuss the council's responses to the grand jury report.
The 2009-10 Amador County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, released on June 22, identified five areas of concern in the city of Sutter Creek and published the findings and recommendations that resulted from investigation by special committees into these areas. The concerns centered around: finance, administration and policy; the sanitary sewer management plan; the wastewater treatment plant; the police department; and animal issues within city limits.
In the grand jury's introduction to the Sutter Creek section of its report, it stated that the Sutter Creek City Council should have been aware of the issues and taken action prior to the start of the grand jury's investigation, while simultaneously acknowledging that the city had already taken steps toward rectifying some of the troubling situations.
What followed were 23 pages of facts, findings and recommendations from the grand jury to the city. Each of the five sections also included a statement specifically informing the city that a response is required within 90 days after release of the final report.
As an initial step in the process of responding to the grand jury, the council had placed Item No. 3 on its agenda for Tuesday night's meeting, titled "2009-10 Amador County Grand Jury Responses," intending to establish a committee to draft the required responses. The subtitle for the agenda item, "Assign responsibility for preparing draft written responses to the report of the Amador County Grand Jury, dated June 29, 2010," went largely unnoticed. Public perception of the agenda item appeared to differ radically from the intent of the council.
Early in the meeting, Sutter Creek City Councilmember Pat Crosby informed the public that there would be no discussion of the responses from the city during Item No. 3, inasmuch as the council would not be discussing the responses, only the committee formation. Crosby's statement effectively opened the floodgates for public comment during Item No. 2 on the agenda, "Public Matters Not On The Agenda," and members of the public provided nearly an hour's worth of comment on the grand jury report. Those comments occasionally drifted into somewhat heated exchanges between residents and council members.
"Several people in the audience were upset that they would not be allowed to comment on the report during the agenda item for the responses," said Acting Sutter Creek City Manager Sean Rabe.
In a later statement, Rabe said, "The city fully understands the frustration felt by the community regarding the issues raised in the report. As the council and the grand jury said, the city has been making significant gains in resolving the issues raised in the report. I only ask that the public be patient until the draft responses come to the full council - and public - for review and consideration."
In other business, the council voted, 4-0, with councilmember Linda Rianda absent, to adopt a preliminary budget that included a General Fund deficit of $60,000, considerably reduced from an earlier estimate of $300,000. The reduced deficit, in turn, is fully expected to be erased through what city staff has termed, "ongoing employee negotiations and other cost-cutting measures."
Included in the approved preliminary budget is full funding of the Amador County Recreation Agency's request for $14,000, which represents Sutter Creek's contribution to the agency for the coming fiscal year. "The council felt the services ACRA provided were important to the city and noted that ACRA's other member jurisdictions should consider fully funding the agency as well," Rabe said.
http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/newsview.asp?c=271784
No comments:
Post a Comment