[Sonoma County] Letter to the editor: Grand Jury thanks

EDITOR: We want to thank the press of Sonoma County for their support of the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury. The recent plea to the citizens of Sonoma County to apply for service with the Grand Jury met with “astounding” success. It was a hasty campaign, waged in November, and only through the press; over two dozen Sonoma County publications helped by printing letters or flyers. We are grateful.

December 6, 2018

Sonoma West Times & News

By Peter Andrews, President, Sonoma County Grand Jury Association

[Monterey County] Proposal for MPC trustee leadership training draws criticism as new members join board.

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report recommendation with respect to school board member training.

Shortly after the election of two new trustees to the Monterey Peninsula College board on Nov. 6, Trustee Loren Steck thought it would be a good idea to promote board member training to understand the complexities of good governance. He was inspired in part by a 2018 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury report recommending K-12 school board members receive more specialized training to quell district troubles.

“Our college has a lot of problems and we need effective trustees,” Steck says.

He made the recommendation to the MPC Board of Trustees on Nov. 28 – two weeks before trustees-elect Yuri Anderson and Natalia Molina are to be sworn in – requiring that all trustees complete training through the Excellence in Trusteeship program by the Community College League before they are eligible to serve as chair or vice chair of the board. He thought it was an “innocuous” proposal, something meant to help the college long-term.

Instead, criticism was sharp and swift. “Jim Crow laws” was one comparison made to the board that day, by MPC political science and ethnic studies instructor David Serena, referring to the “separate but equal” standard meant to segregate black people. Serena says he found it “suspicious” the proposal came as two women of color were about to join the board. (Anderson is biracial, African American and Caucasian, and Molina is the first Latina elected to the board since the college was founded in 1947.)

“The timing of it doesn’t have the best optics,” Molina agrees. “Here Yuri and I are the first women of color to serve on the board, and the people of our districts voted us in. They didn’t say, you can’t serve as an officer until you complete this training.”

She calls the proposal the “antithesis of the spirit of diversity and inclusion, which is why our leadership and our unique background is so needed.” She points out no other local colleges have a similar requirement for board members to serve in board leadership roles.

The Community College League training program can take up to two years to complete, with most participants taking about a year, according to Carmen Sandoval, the League’s director of education services and leadership development. It includes eight areas of study, including college accreditation, student success, ethics and the Brown Act. It costs $295, paid for by the college.

During the Nov. 28 board meeting, Anderson said the proposal seemed “heavy-handed and patriarchal.” Political science instructor and MPC Teachers Association President Lauren Blanchard called it “undemocratic,” saying it supplants the will of the voters.

Trustee Rick Johnson said he could not support the proposal as written, but thought a suggestion by Anderson to change the wording to “enrolled in training” instead of “completed” was acceptable. The board agreed to look at the wording and bring it back to a future meeting, as early as Dec. 12. The December meeting is traditionally when the board votes in its new chair and vice chair for the coming year.

December 6, 2008

Monterey County Weekly

By Pam Marino

[Santa Clara County] Palo Alto backs creation of housing 'subregion'

Group would allow Santa Clara County cities to negotiate with each other and the county on housing obligations

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

By a unanimous vote, the Palo Alto City Council approved a resolution that authorizes the city to work with the Cities Association of Santa Clara County to form new housing "subregions" at its Dec. 3, 2018 meeting. Weekly file photo.

Palo Alto signaled its support this week for joining other cities in Santa Clara County in forming a new "subregion" to collectively tackle the regional housing challenge.

Once formed, the subregion would allow local governments to redistribute the housing allocations that each receives annually under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Palo Alto, like many other cities in the county, has consistently fallen short of its RHNA target, a trend that was highlighted in a Santa Clara County Grand Jury report in June.

The creation of "subregions" is one of the grand jury's recommendations for boosting the county's housing stock. Under the system it proposals, cities where land is particularly expensive — including Palo Alto — would be able to transfer some of their obligations to lower-cost communities. The grand jury also recommended that the shift in allocations would be accompanied by financial contributions from high- to low-cost cities, money that would go toward "improving streets, schools, safety, public transportation and other services," according to the report.

"Sub-regions offer promise of encouraging more BMR (below-market-rate) housing," the report states. "A sub-region gives cities more control and flexibility to meet their RHNA housing goals by sharing the burden with adjacent cities."

The concept isn't new. Subregions already exist in three Northern California counties: San Mateo, Napa and Solano. In each case, every city in the county participated in the subregion, according to a report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment. And in recent years, with the housing shortage intensifying, local officials throughout Santa Clara County have been considering following suit. Since the grand jury report has come out, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has been surveying cities to see whether they would like to join such a group.

The resolution that the City Council approved on Monday by a unanimous vote does not specify which cities would be in the subregion and does not lay out the rules for how the shift in allocations would be negotiated. Rather, by expressing the city's support, the council endorsed a process in which the Cities Association would create the allocation process for each participating city for the next RHNA cycle in 2020.

The resolution also authorizes incoming City Manager Ed Shikada to work with the Cities Association to form the subregion, which includes developing a work plan, a budget and a schedule of actions "leading to the countywide, self-administration of the housing needs allocation process."

The council approved the resolution on Monday night on its consent calendar, without any dissent or debate. At a prior hearing in September, the council pushed back against some of the grand jury's recommendations but generally agreed that a subregion is an idea worth exploring further.

Councilman Tom DuBois and Councilman Greg Scharff both voiced their support for creating a subregion, which Scharff said would give cities a forum to both talk about allocations and to share best practices for creating housing.

"I think it's really important for the region to be able to speak with one voice when they wish to," Scharff said. "I think it also provides a great opportunity for discussions between cities."

December 5, 2018

Palo Alto Online

By Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Weekly

[Sacramento County] Sacramento County Grand Jury: How Does It Work?

This is a link to a video with court personnel with respect to grand juror recruitment for 2019-20. https://fox40.com/2018/12/05/sacramento-county-grand-jury-how-does-it-work/

December 5, 2018

Fox 40

[Kern County] ‘Best Tasting Water in California' has arsenic problem, Grand Jury finds, and that's just the beginning

A Kern County Grand Jury has given a water district on the eastern edge of the county 120 days to correct severe inadequacies in its business practices or it will be placed in receivership through the State Water Resources Control Board.

From leaks, to handshake deals, to members of the Board of Directors displaying a “lack of knowledge” of the responsibilities of their positions, the Grand Jury found a litany of problems with the Rand Communities Water District, which oversees water services for Randsburg, Johannesburg and Red Mountain, three former mining towns south of Ridgecrest that still attract occasional hikers and gold miners.

The three towns have a combined population of less than 400 according to the 2010 census, and are listed as ghost towns on some websites.

Although the district won the “Best Tasting Water in California” award in 2017 from the California Rural Water Association, it has fallen on hard times.

Multiple members of the community alleged to the grand jury that the water district engaged in cronyism, nepotism and inept business practices. The allegations initiated the grand jury’s investigation.

Members of the grand jury visited Randsburg on three separate occasions to interview residents, business owners, board members and employees of the water district among others.

The grand jury’s findings did not paint a pretty picture of the water district.

Of 13 miles of pipeline surveyed, leaks due to poor maintenance and aging resulted in 43 percent water loss equating to $24,224 in lost revenue, the report said.

The report stated that levels of arsenic in the water occasionally rose above state requirements.

Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water can cause cancer and skin lesions according to the World Health Organization.

A state grant of $3.2 million has been available for four years for the water district to modernize its system and fix the arsenic problem, but board members were unaware of the grant’s existence.

The state water board has been holding the money for use in the Rand Communities, the report said, waiting to be contacted by a member of the water district.

“Board members displayed a lack of knowledge about RCWD operations and the financial requirements necessary to conduct business on a day to day basis,” the report said.

One board member went so far as to “proudly” inform the grand jury, “I don’t have a meter and never receive a water bill because I take water from friends and neighbors.”

Board members also granted performance bonuses, arbitrary salary increases and offered benefit packages to employees without reviewing financial records, the report said.

Numerous other instances of improper business practices were noted in the report.

If the water district is placed in receivership, the State Water Resources Control Board could take control and force the district to make changes.

A representative of the water district said the Board of Directors would discuss the report at a meeting next week.

December 5, 2018

The Bakersfield Californian

By Sam Morgen

[Kern County] Rand Water District is a circus, Grand Jury reports

The residents of Randsburg, Red Mountain and Johannesburg forwarded a citizen’s complaint to Kern County’s Grand Jury, accusing RCWD of cronyism, nepotism and inept business practices – and the Grand Jury agreed.

After allegations were posted on social media and complaints were made to Kern County in late August about stolen water meters, a computer and thousands of dollars, the Grand Jury started investigating the claims.

Debbie Jones, who is now the RCWD office manager, is one of the residents that filed a complaint with Kern County Controller’s office.

The Grand Jury conducted a thorough investigation over three visits and published its findings in an 11-page report released on Tuesday.

The document titled “Award Winning Water Right Down the ‘Proverbial’ Drain,” details years of money mismanagement, poor business practices, and missing documents.

In March 2018, a commissioned water consultant was hired to review the overall operation efficiency of the District. The Grand Jury interviewed with the consultant, who abruptly quit after a couple of weeks, saying he “found the District to be a circus” and that, “he wanted no part of it.”

The financing and accounting section of the report showed a continuous decline in revenue from 2016-2018 and that the RDWD has relied on grants to stay solvent.

During this time, board members did not review the District’s financial records and approved performance bonuses and benefit packages to employees, adding to the deficit.

This section of the document also points out that no one on the board has inquired about a $3.2 million grant that was made available to them, money what was supposed to go towards repairs for the system’s deteriorating infrastructure.

From 2016-2018, the Grand Jury found that there were documents that had been removed, and that records were sparse and improperly filed.

Jones confirmed this in August when she was temporary office help, before she was officially hired. “All the paper records for everything in 2017 are gone,” Jones said. Employee records were also missing from this time.

Out of the records that the RDWD did have, the Grand Jury found that there were duplicates and that scanned documents did not match check registers and invoices.

During one of the board meetings, a member boasted to the committee and said, “I don’t have a meter and never receive a water bill because I take water from friends and neighbors”. The Grand Jury found and confirmed that billing records support this claim.

Another issue that the Grand Jury noted was that the prior General Manager would routinely partake in “handshake deals” for outside water sales. These sales have no outside records and there is no way to track the revenue or water sold during these transactions.

The RCWD was found to be in violation of the Brown Act, because board members were conducting business outside of public board meetings. There was another incident in October, where the board members did not give 24 hours notice before holding a meeting.

“The issues will be addressed and fixed during the next board meeting,” Jones said. The next board meeting will be held on Dec. 12.

The RCWD must develop a working relationship within the next 60 days, must respond to the presiding judge of the case within 90 days, and meet all recommendations listed in the report within 120 days.

Should RCWD not meet the requirements, they will be placed in receivership through the State Water Resources Control Board.

December 5, 2018

Ridgecrest Daily Independent

By Lauren Jennings

[Monterey County] Pacific Grove’s American Tin Cannery has another suitor

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

PACIFIC GROVE — A hotel might take the place of the beleaguered American Tin Cannery Outlets in Pacific Grove after all.

Comstock, a residential and commercial development company with properties in both Southern and Northern California, has expressed potential plans to build a hotel on the site at 125 Ocean View Blvd.

While the developer has not officially submitted project plans to the city yet, it is taking steps forward with a hotel project in mind, according to Pacific Grove City Manager Ben Harvey.

“The city has been meeting with a potential applicant for the site,” said Harvey, noting the applicant’s name was Comstock Development and that any deal was very preliminary at this point. “They have been doing their due diligence to make sure that this is worth pursuing.”

Harvey continued, “At this point we don’t have an application for a project yet.”

That’s while Mike Zimmerman, president of Cannery Row Company, the owner of the property, said at this point a long-term lease with the company had not been signed.

“Until they clear the due diligence period, there isn’t anything,” said Zimmerman. “At this point, it’s kind of like kicking tires.”

David Stoldt, general manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District confirmed meeting with Comstock when the development company was seeking verification of the Tin Cannery’s water allocation.

“We affirmed that we would review the project under special circumstances, which means the approach to design and building would incorporate water-saving features that would allow us to approve the project based on the onsite credits we have,” said Stoldt, who also noted that the District would review the proposal if it shows the quantity of water is less than or equal to the available onsite credit.

“Then later, we would review the actual result once the project is complete to ensure compliance,” he added.

In February 2017  the permit for the previously proposed Project Bella expired.

Then in September of this year, a Monterey County civil grand jury report investigating why the 160-room hotel development failed to become a reality and found the project cost the city $100,000 in unpaid reimbursement fees.

Now, Harvey said he’s hopeful that this developer might have the right project in mind.

“While we’re very excited about the prospect we don’t have an application in process yet,” said Harvey. “We’re hopeful that an application will come forward. We’re impressed with what we’ve leaned about Comstock and their potential vision for the site as a hotel but it’s very preliminary at this point.”

December 3, 2018

Monterey County Herald

By Carly Mayberry

[Butte County] Rebuild Paradise? Since 1999, 13 large wildfires burned in the footprint of the Camp Fire

The town’s topography, climate and history leaves it vulnerable

Blog note: this article is one of many published throughout the state about the recent Camp Fire and the 2009 Butte County Grand Jury’s warning about government's response to such fires.

Chris Folkman deals in catastrophic risk. As a disaster analyst, he builds models that simulate wildfires. So as he watched the horrific headlines of the Camp Fire unfold last month, he began researching and creating a map of the region’s fire history.

What he found left him speechless. Since 1999, 13 large wildfires had burned within the footprint of the Camp Fire’s 153,000-acre scar.

The history of fire in this dry, blustery region of Northern California has added emphasis to a difficult question raised by the destruction of last month’s historic blaze: Should Paradise be rebuilt?

Repeat natural disasters haven’t stopped human habitation in the past. Despite the deadly October 2017 Tubbs Fire in Sonoma County, whose footprint almost mimics the 1964 Hanley Fire, rebuilding efforts are underway in Santa Rosa. New Orleans resurfaced after Hurricane Katrina. And so on.

But whether we should live in such disaster-prone areas is the billion-dollar question — or $7.5 billion to $10 billion question, if you consider Folkman’s estimates on insured losses so far from the Camp Fire. The blaze that decimated the Gold Country town of Paradise killed at least 88 people and destroyed more than 14,000 homes and businesses, both records for California.

“I think there needs to be a frank conversation about rebuilding and fire resilience,” said Folkman, a disaster analyst with RMS. “The good news is there are measures to be taken to make a house less susceptible to a wildfire. In the end, we have to face the fact that the climate is changing and a lot of houses are built in dangerous areas.”

Stay or go?

For a decade, Cindy Hoover has feared the Jarbo Gap winds. Ever since she plopped her fish in a mason jar and sat in gridlock as she tried to evacuate Paradise during the 2008 Humboldt Fire — which started east of Chico and eventually destroyed 87 homes — Hoover would pack her bags and have her keys, water and dog leash sitting on the counter when the winds started whistling.

“For 10 years I tortured myself with anticipation of what had just happened on Nov. 8,” said Hoover, who escaped the Camp Fire with her husband. “I escaped effortlessly only because I was ready, I always watched the weather, the wind and slept with my windows open smelling for the smell of burning vegetation.”

The couple lost their house, and she’s not sure she will return after 45 years.

“I want to live in Paradise. It’s my home but I cannot live in a community that Paradise has become,” Hoover said. “This fire wasn’t a case of protecting homes, it didn’t have a chance.”

Casey Taylor does not share Hoover’s doubts. As a Paradise native, she can’t imagine living anywhere else than where her three-bedroom home built in the 1970s once stood. The executive director of Achieve Charter School already has contacted her insurance company and is receiving temporary housing help.

“I know our town leaders personally and they were committed to revitalizing Paradise before the fire, and even more now, to bring it back better than ever,” she said.

Cal Fire historical data shows that 42 fires larger than 300 acres have burned within the Camp Fire footprint since 1914. By sheer luck, the town of Paradise had largely been spared widespread destruction despite a century of close calls.

The Camp Fire was the eighth blaze Linda Luck has had to flee in California, including two others in Paradise, but it hasn’t scared her away. Her Grinding Rock Way home, built of cinder block and a tile roof, is damaged but still standing.

“Would I go back? Yes,” Luck said. “My husband built that house.”

She’s heard from neighbors who won’t be joining her; at one meeting, only seven of 60 residents said they’d return to Paradise.

“I’m hearing that from a lot of my friends. It terrorized them,” she said.

Wildland interface

Sixty percent of new homes built in California, Washington and Oregon since 1990 have been developed in what’s known as the Wildland Urban Interface, according to Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based group that created the Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire program. Folkman said that includes intermix — where vegetation and houses intermingle, such as in Paradise, and interface, where a concentration of houses abuts a forest or chaparral.

“The interface is really susceptible to very large losses because there tends to be a big cluster of houses,” Folkman said. “At the same time, it’s an extremely desirable place to live … it’s picturesque.”

Kelly Pohl, a Headwaters researcher, said Folkman’s map provides important information for communities that have been hit repeatedly by fire. Planners should consider that when asking whether there are certain areas people should not live.

“These recent disasters are really begging that question, and the answer probably is yes. There’s probably areas not safe in relation to wildfires,” Pohl said, referring to the historical map of fires in the Paradise area. “I think that’s all really important information for communities to look at when deciding where to allow homes.”

That being said, such communities can be rebuilt much more safely and resistant to fire by designing subdivisions with good escape routes, fuel breaks and fire-resistant materials and design features, she said. A Headwaters study released Tuesday found negligible cost differences in adding wildfire-resistant materials and design features to homes.

Such measures are all the more critical as climate change extends fire seasons and brings less rain and drier vegetation. Burned acres per wildfire has doubled since the 1990s, and the fire season in the West averages 84 days longer than the 1970s, according to Headwaters.

Recurring debate

The debate over whether it is safe to rebuild is not a new one for Butte County.

Over the summer of 2008, the Humboldt, Lightning and other fires burned about 100,000 acres in the Paradise region, more than 400 homes were lost or damaged and two people died. It could have been much worse, and it prompted the Butte County civil grand jury to issue a report.

“By some miracle, the Humboldt Fire incident did not cross the West Branch of the Feather River,” the jury reported. “Had this occurred, property damage could have been huge and thousands of lives could have been threatened in Paradise and the Upper Ridge.”

The panel recommended a moratorium on home building in fire-prone areas and specifically cited the general plan’s forecasting of 3,400 additional units, or about 15,000 people, in “foothill fire-prone areas,” including a 330-house development, which would have placed the homes on the canyon rim.

But in September 2009, the Butte County Board of Supervisors replied to the grand jury’s recommendation, calling it “not reasonable.” The supervisors noted building code improvements and fire prevention requirements for new housing.

Such land-use questions are being asked across the country and particularly in California, Oregon and Washington, where 84 percent of the wildland urban interface is undeveloped, according to Headwaters.

Butte County supervisor Doug Teeter — who lost his Paradise home to the Camp Fire, along with the homes of his mother and sister — wasn’t on the board when it rebuffed the grand jury report but said his community is safe to rebuild.

“Absolutely, it’s a ridge. I feel it’s defendable and the reconstruction will be to modern building standards,” Teeter said, adding the historical fire map is misleading as many of the fires listed burned in uninhabited areas. “When Paradise gets rebuilt, it’s going to have different standards. It’s got to have that.”

Paradise Mayor Jody Jones, who also lost her home, said Paradise has grown responsibly, mostly rural residential homes on large lots, not large subdivisions.

“They didn’t abandon New Orleans after Katrina, they’re not abandoning Hawaii although there’s a volcano going off, they’re not abandoning San Francisco despite the earthquake dangers,” she said. “Anywhere you go, there’s some risk of a natural disaster.

“We’re not going to abandon our town.”

December 2, 2008

The Mercury News (also published in the Chico Enterprise-Record)

By Matthias Gafni

[Napa County] Napa County to consider paying Tuteur's grand jury defense bill of $80,000

Napa County proposes to pay up to $80,000 to cover legal costs for Assessor John Tuteur’s defense against charges brought up by the 2017-18 Napa County Grand Jury.

The Attorney General’s office failed to find sufficient evidence to prosecute “willful or corrupt misconduct” charges that could have removed Tuteur from office. Napa County Superior Court on Nov. 14 dismissed the case.

“It is in the county’s interest to defend its employees acting in good faith in the course and scope of their employment against claims that cannot stand up in court,” a county report said.

Napa County could reimburse Tuteur for “reasonable legal defense costs against allegations that are within the scope of his employment and in his capacity as Assessor-Recorder-County Clerk.”

The Napa County Board of Supervisors will consider the matter when it meets at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the county administration center, 1195 Third St. The proposal is on the consent calendar, which is reserved for routine items that might be passed without discussion.

“I undertook the initial defense against the unfounded accusation with the understanding that when exonerated, I would be eligible for reimbursement from the county,” Tuteur said on Friday.

Tuteur hired Barth & Daley LLP to defend himself in the grand jury case. To date, the expenses are $66,917. The $80,000 maximum would cover this bill and remaining expenses that arise, a county report said.

One possible source of further expenses could be an appeal filed by the grand jury in the First District Court of Appeal to avoid releasing investigative materials related to the Tuteur charges. The court dismissed this case on Nov. 27, the county report said.

Another could be the grand jury’s order for a civil suit against Tuteur for failure to pay back taxes, an allegation that was also part of the dismissed ”willful or corrupt misconduct” case. That order is being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office and state Board of Equalization, a county report said.

The grand jury in the “willful or corrupt misconduct” case made four charges against Tuteur.

One charge arose from a 2008 Assessor’s Office error on how much tax Tuteur should pay for property that included a cell tower lease. The office discovered the error in 2016. The grand jury said Tuteur failed to pay $20,000 in back property taxes.

Tuteur’s defense said the Assessor’s Office chief appraiser finished resolving the complicated matter this year after consulting with the state Board of Equalization. Tuteur owes $1,453 in back taxes and has begun making payments.

Three other charges involved how Tuteur administers the state’s Williamson Act locally. Napa County is among the California counties that choose to offer tax breaks for agricultural land if the owner agrees to keep the land in agriculture for at least 10 years.

December 2, 2018

Napa Valley Register

By Barry Eberling

[Tuolumne County] Sonora officials to consider seeking extension to deadline for TCEDA decision

Blog note: this article is the latest on the subject, referencing a grand jury report.

The Sonora City Council will consider asking for an additional three months to make a decision on whether the city should stay a part of the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority.

A proposed resolution drafted by City Attorney Douglas White will be presented to the council at a public meeting Monday evening that would ask for a one-time modification to the terms of the joint powers agreement between the city and county that created the TCEDA in 2008.

“Unless we provide notice more than 180 days before the start of the next fiscal year, we’re obligated to continue participating in the next fiscal year,” said City Administrator Tim Miller. “So we must decide before the end of the calendar, unless that term of the agreement is changed.”

Under the terms of the agreement, the city and county are required to each fund a share of the TCEDA’s annual budget. The city’s share is 23 percent, while the county’s is 77 percent.

About $103,000 of the TCEDA’s $460,000 for the past two fiscal years has come from the city’s General Fund, which pays for most core services like police, fire, public works, and employee salaries and benefits.

The proposed resolution would formally ask the county to reduce the amount of time the city is required to give notice if it wants to stop funding the TCEDA from at least 180 days to 90 days before the start of the next fiscal year on July 1.

That would give the city until the end of March to make a decision if the county Board of Supervisors approves the request.

A major reason the council wants more time is because the TCEDA is undergoing independent audits of its finances and management practices, both of which were the result of potential concerns described by the Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury in its latest annual report.

Miller said he and White were informed by county officials recently that the financial audit is expected to be completed at the end of the month, while the management audit is expected to be completed by the end of January.

“I think the results of those audits would be appropriate for the council to consider if they want to continue being part of the TCEDA,” he said. “They will either confirm or reject the grand jury’s findings, there may be some new findings, and there may be some recommendations for the TCEDA board to consider.”

The TCEDA and its governing board would effectively be dissolved if the city chooses to break from the JPA with the county.

Some council members asked city staff at a public meeting on Nov. 19 to come back with some possible options for how economic development could be done in house if they choose to sever the ties with the TCEDA.

Miller has in turn compiled some information for the council to consider that includes suggestions from the California Association for Local Economic Development regarding performance measures and metrics, the TCEDA’s current work plan and annual report, strategic action plans on economic development from Mariposa and Stanislaus, and other business consulting services available through the Valley Sierra Small Business Development Center and Sierra Business Council.

“For the most part, we’re just providing information to the council,” Miller said.

A concern noted by both the grand jury and some members of the council is a lack of measures to gauge the TCEDA’s performance over the years.

Some examples of possible performance measures suggested by CALED include annual capital dollars invested in municipal infrastructure, number of building permits issued, capital investments per job, amount of tax collected by industry, and net job growth, among many others.

The Mariposa County Economic Vitality Strategy lists a number of goals with specific objectives and actions to accomplish them.

The plan also includes economic indicators that should be monitored to evaluate the county’s progress, such as labor market information from the California Employment Development Department, tourism data from Dean Runyan Associates, commercial and industrial real-estate information from the county’s building department and local brokers, and retail sales and growth data from the California Retail Survey and California Board of Equalization.

It also recommends tracking the number of businesses visited and assisted, new businesses formed or attracted, full-time and part-time jobs gained or lost due to business expansion, contraction, closure, and retention, business licenses issued and conducting an annual survey of businesses to get feedback on how the county services and other factors are affecting the business climate.

One of the potential concerns identified by the jury was the TCEDA’s lack of recordkeeping and transparency when it comes to the assistance it has provided to businesses over the years.

Information on the past and current assistance TCEDA has provided to businesses was also at the heart of lawsuit that was filed in early June by Ken Perkins, of Sonora, who has urged the council to back out of the partnership before the audits are completed.

Perkins’ lawsuit ultimately led to the TCEDA releasing what records it has on the projects it’s working on or has worked on, though it was limited to several heavily redacted spreadsheets that listed projects by industry type and included estimates on capital investment and jobs created by each.

The two sides have since settled the lawsuit after the documents were released, with the TCEDA agreeing to pay Perkins’ attorney fees totaling about $7,200. It also racked up additional costs exceeding $16,500 from outside attorneys hired to defend the agency.

Also at Monday’s meeting, the council will consider introducing an ordinance that would amend existing zoning laws to allow microbreweries in certain non-residential areas.

Approval of the ordinance is required before Thomas Silva, the new owner of the Lighthouse Deli in downtown Sonora, can move forward with his plans to add a microbrewery to the restaurant.

The Sonora Planning Commission swiftly gave its endorsement to approve the ordinance at a meeting on Nov. 13.

If the council approves the ordinance, the commission will consider approving a conditional use permit for Silva’s proposed project at a meeting on Dec. 10.

November 30, 2018

The Union Democrat

By Alex MacLean