Amador County Business Council has new executive director

Today, I learned that the Amador County Business Council has a new executive director, Kevin Walker. Until recently, Walker worked for subdivision developer JTS. He may still be working for them.

I have asked an ACBC officer where Walker lives and whether he still works for JTS. No reply yet (the former ACBC ED was from Stockton).

JTS owns the Castle Oaks Golf Course subdivision in Ione, and its principal has been sued by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court trustee in relation to a huge Ponzi scheme that defrauded a number of investors. JTS is also developing the old Greilich Ranch outside Plymouth into a wedding venue with exclusive vineyard homesites, called Rancho Victoria. It's near the intersection of Highways 49 and 16. Walker has been the project manager.

In 2014, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control board ordered JTS to perform a technical report for Rancho Victoria. Neighbors and a state investigation had earlier reported and documented sediment from the project flowing into and polluting local streams and creeks. The developers had  mass-graded large hillsides in the summer and fall with few provisions for erosion control from the winter rains.

 Here's page one of that letter.

As I have said for years, the ACBC is a "pay to play" organization that's largely a front for the construction and development industry. And now they're being led by a guy who's directly from that industry.

That's not all, though. Back in the summer, the "Friends of Agribusiness" set up a political action committee to help re-elect incumbent county supervisors. Walker was one of the largest donors, making a $2,000 donation to pay for polls and mailers for incumbent supervisors Richard Forster and Louis Boitano.  Here's what radio station KVGC had to say about that. 

If you don't think big-money developers are attempting to shape our county's future, I would urge you to stop and think again.

And then there's the recently released special grand jury investigation report, which makes three of our sitting supervisors appear to be either incompetent or corrupt. Perhaps I'll find time to write about that soon, too.

Who says life in Amador County is dull?

Do planning and public participation count? Maybe not in Amador County

When is a plan not a plan? Does public investment in project planning matter when one elected official doesn’t like the result? Does more than a decade of citizen participation in a local planning process count for anything? What should a public official do when he votes with all of his fellow board members on an issue and later has a change of heart? These questions and more came to mind this week as I learned about certain events related to the Pine Grove Corridor Improvement Project.

It takes a little time to explain, so bear with me …

For more than a decade, the Pine Grove Corridor Improvement Project has been a local transportation improvement priority. Pine Grove has serious issues with traffic congestion, safety and smooth traffic operations (left turns, stops, etc). As someone who often drives this section of Highway 88, I can vouch for this myself. We once had to wait for 100 cars returning from Kirkwood to pass before we could turn left. A friend walking across the highway at night was killed by a car. For many of us, this is a personal issue that affects our daily lives, not simply a matter of moving money around on a spreadsheet.  

The Pine Grove project was a priority in the 1996-97 Amador County Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. It’s the top priority project in the current plan, which was adopted in 2004. It’s also the top priority project in the draft update of the regional plan developed by a committee that included city and county officials as well as local citizens, including me. 

Work on the Pine Grove project itself began in 2002. Since then, the Amador County Transportation Commission has spent or obligated $1.8 million to develop a proposal the Pine Grove community could accept that would address well-documented safety, congestion and operations issues. Citizens have spent countless hours in public meetings discussing and analyzing project alternatives, with a great deal of ACTC staff support. Now there’s an agreed-upon design for the improvements and the project is $700,000 under budget and ahead of schedule (how rare is that?). It’s ready for the next step.

The ACTC voted to take that step on October 24. That morning, the commission voted unanimously to submit a funding request to the state to provide funds for the two steps needed to create a shovel-ready (“shelf ready” in ACTC jargon) Pine Grove project: construction-level design (plans, specifications and estimates) and purchasing needed right-of-way.

The funds would come from Amador County’s share of the Regional Improvement Program funds, part of a chunk of money available under the State Transportation Improvement Program. There’s money there for us, but only if the ACTC requests it every two years, and only for projects that are a priority in the approved regional transportation improvement plan.

ACTC must make the request by December 15. If they don’t request  the funds, that money will not be available to the county for any project for five years. Five years.  

The ACTC staff made persuasive points in its October 24 staff report:  If the next two steps are not completed soon, the Pine Grove project likely would never be built. They also pointed out that moving quickly to a shovel-ready state could reduce overall costs and make the project more competitive for various state and federal funds.  They showed two construction funding options to the commissioners, but the ACTC has not yet committed to fund construction of the project, or decided how to pay for it. According to ACTC staff, there are many options available and the project is highly competitive for a number of different pots of money.

The ACTC voted unanimously to request the funds and put them to the Pine Grove project, with the goal of having it shovel ready by fiscal year 2019-20 or later in 2020. Moving forward seemed like a done deed.

But that was last month, before Jackson-area Supervisor John Plasse began a campaign to change the ACTC vote (unanimous, as you’ll recall). He mentioned it in the Upcountry Community Council meeting (and those people are none too happy about it). He lobbied members of the Jackson Revitalization Committee. Soon after, the Amador County Business Council voted to urge the ACTC to reconsider its decision and wrote

a letter to that effect.

Now the reconsideration question is on the agenda for the next ACTC meeting, which will be held on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving, starting at 9 a.m. It’s a wonderful time to get the public to a meeting, don’t you think?

If the ACTC votes to reconsider its earlier decision and fails to act by the December 15 deadline, Amador County will lose those funds for five years. They would not be available for any other projects in the county.

Alternatively, ACTC could send its draft 2014 transportation plan update to the state, showing five years of project funding. Since Pine Grove is still the number one priority in the plan, it would still be the funding priority. So that makes no sense. At least not to me. And the draft plan is just that – a draft. It hasn’t been through a single public hearing, environmental review, or adoption by the ACTC.

If the ACTC submits the full transportation plan for funding, it could later change the priorities and effectively kill the Pine Grove project.  Perhaps that’s Supervisor Plasse’s goal. After all, he has been heard making disparaging comments about the project and calling it the “Pine Grove Beautification Project.” Never mind the pedestrian, school, and driver safety issues, folks – it’s all to gussy up the town.

I hope the ACTC commissioners will reject Supervisor’s Plasse’s rear-guard action. But if his motion succeeds and there’s a new discussion, they should ask him to present hard data, including traffic counts and accident data, to show why the Pine Grove project should not be the county’s funding priority. They should ask him to explain why he is willing to disregard the millions of dollars and years of time invested in the Pine Grove Corridor Project as well as the results. They should ask him how they can again ask any member of the public to participate in a planning process when their time and effort is apparently meaningless. They should point out that Pine Grove is the top project in the draft transportation plan update. And they should note that getting the Pine Grove project in ready-to-build state is not the same as funding its construction, that many construction-financing options exist, and that other projects can and will move forward at the same time.

But truly, they should simply reject the pressure to reconsider their unanimous vote and move on. No single elected official should be able to throw an entire planning process out the window, even if he can bring the “powers that be” along to lobby with him.  And the fact is, he can’t – unless he gets other commissioners to vote with him.

Let’s hope they stand strong, support their plan and project investment to date, keep faith with the public, and move the Pine Grove project along the road to construction.  

Amador supervisors' funding for economic development

In case you missed the news, the Amador Business Council has approached the Amador County Board of Supervisors about contributing funds to a new economic development corporation. Never mind there's already an EDC in the county. The supervisors have asked the groups to try to resolve their differences and come back to discuss the funding request.

Meanwhile, I decided to weigh in on the subject with the supervisors, for what little my opinion is worth. We'll see how many of them respond to me or even acknowledge receiving my note. Want to make bets?

Here's what I e-mailed them yesterday:

Dear Chairman Plasse and Members of the Board:

I am writing as a private citizen and a county taxpayer, not as a representative of any group.

I strongly support community and government investment in local economic development. However, I do not support the County of Amador simply giving money to groups that come and ask for it without an objective, criteria-based look at their accomplishments and qualifications. The process should be open to any organization or economic development firm that is interested and able to provide the needed service so that the public is assured its money will be well spent.

Consequently, I would suggest that rather than give money to the Amador Business Council for a new economic development corporation, the county should take the more usual, professional governmental approach: Issue a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications and see who applies. The ABC, if interested, can then compete with others who may be as well or better qualified to spend taxpayer dollars in a productive, accountable way.

Before you issue the RFP or RFQ, CAO Chuck Iley, who I gather has extensive experience in contracting, could then work with the appropriate committee and then the full board to develop a set of criteria that would be used to review the submittals and choose the most qualified applicant with the best proposal. I would suggest that those criteria include a demonstrated record of success in economic development, as measured by jobs created, taxable sales increased, increased value of commodities produced, increased value of nonresidential construction, decreased unemployment, wages increased, percentage of new businesses surviving more than two years, poverty levels declining, percentage of employees in family wage jobs increasing, and other objective measures. The proposal should clearly lay out the expected results from the funding, using similar benchmarks so that you can hold the recipient accountable for the funds invested.

If you use an RFP rather than an RFQ, one of the scoring criteria should be the demonstrated success of the applicant.

Using a process of this type, you can select the most qualified applicant and best proposal, and the public can be better assured of getting results for our tax dollars. If the recipient doesn't perform, you can choose not to fund them in the future.

You might also consider setting up an economic development ad hoc committee that includes members of the public to assist with this process. If you do, I recommend that you include people from the full range of local economic sectors to ensure a balanced view. The committee could also benefit from the perspective of agencies like A-TCAA and Job Connection.

If local business owners want to contribute money toward economic development, they would still be free to pledge their funds as they have done with the ABC proposal.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Best regards,
Katherine K. Evatt
Volcano

Economic element to be discussed

Last fall, the county supervisors decided to add an optional economic element to the update of the county general plan. Among other things, the element will address the role of agriculture in the local economy.

The first public meeting to discuss the draft policies in the element will be held on Tuesday, February 17, from 9:30 to noon.

Notice that the meeting will be held on a weekday, during the day. When the board of supervisors limited the economic element committee members to business and agriculture groups, the supervisors said the public can comment at the public meetings. But if you have a business to run during the day, or a job to go to, guess what? Apparently you are out of luck.

I guess you can submit written comments, but that's not the same as being in the room to hear the discussion.

I've asked the county planning staff three questions about the draft economic element:

• When will the draft policies be available for public review?
• If people have ideas for policies, to whom should they send them and by what date?
• Will there be any review meetings held in the evening when working people can attend?

No response so far.

It still annoys me that the Amador County Business Council was asked to participate on the committee. This is a pay-to-play organization, whose board members have paid either $1,000 or $2,500 to belong. The group has no history in the county, no track record, and no regular members other than the ones who've paid the big bucks -- at least none that I know of. But apparently, forking out money to pay a consultant to represent your interest is all it takes for county recognition and a seat at the table, at least if you're among the county's business elite.

The timing of the meeting and shape of the committee send an interesting message to the public. Affluent business owners get a seat at the table while working people can't even get in the room.

Ain't democracy grand?

For background information on the county's economy, see the Meeting 15 information on this county planning department page.

Still no answer

I still don't have an answer to the chicken-and-egg question I posed last month -- whether Jim Conklin of the Amador County Business Council came to local business people to organize them or whether they sought him out. Jack Mitchell never replied to my queries.

I did learn a little more, though. Conklin's Amador group will have a 10-member board. He's asking groups to pay $2,500 for a seat on it. The council will also have 25 general members, who must pay $1,000 to participate. Direction is set by the board but must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the 35 members. Conklin gets all the money.

So Conklin, who already heads at least three other groups of this type in other counties, will be paid $50,000 by local people -- money that could be going to the Amador Council of Tourism, the Amador Economic Development Corporation, or other organizations already working on building a stronger local economy. Nice gig.

What's he going to do for that money? I guess you have to join the group, or watch the news, to find out. Since he's already been to the planning commission and supervisors on matters related to the general plan update, perhaps we'll see him at the Gold Rush hearings this summer.

Chicken and egg question

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the new Amador (or Amador County) Business Council, a group that seems to be newly active in the general plan update.

As I noted in that post, the group is led by a gentleman named Jim Conklin, who's from Stockton. Best I can figure, he goes around to different counties setting up these "business councils." Local business people evidently pay him to represent them in the public arena.

A quick online search shows that Conklin has headed groups like this in Santa Cruz, San Benito, San Joaquin and most recently, Calaveras. And now he's here, too.


I nearly crashed a meeting of the group earlier this month, but decided to go upcountry that afternoon instead. Better to enjoy the mountains and flowers than show up where you're not expected and probably not too welcome.

But I'm still curious. Did the folks involved in Amador contact Conklin and ask for help, or did he approach them? And if they're really concerned about the big picture for our county's future, why not form a group like Sacramento's diverse Valley Vision instead of another "business" organization?

Twice now, I've sent e-mails to Amador Ledger Dispatch Publisher Jack Mitchell asking the Conklin chicken-and-egg question and mentioning Valley Vision.

He hasn't responded.

New "business council" forming

Word is there's a new organization forming in the county, the "Amador Business Council." There's not much publicly available on the group yet, but from what I've seen so far, the organizing personnel seem to have a great deal of overlap with the executive council of the Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, those fine folks who call smart growth advocates Fascists on their website and offended the General Plan Advisory Committee by using the term enviro-Nazi at the final GPAC meeting.

Maybe the businessmen associated with that group are trying to develop a more moderate, civil public face. After all, smart-growth people do spend money locally.

Rumor has it that the group is being "facilitated" by a consultant, Jim Conklin, who has done similar work in other counties. Here's what I found about him on the Internet:

• Conklin lives (or at least used to live) in Stockton.
• He's the former (or current?) executive director of the Santa Cruz Business Council. There are various posts about this group online. Widening Highway 1 seems to be one of their big causes.
• He's started similar councils in a variety of places.
  

I truly wonder whether we really need another "business" organization in this county. I do think we could use a comprehensive, broad-based group like Valley Vision. That group's board of directors represents a community cross-section with an in-depth understanding of what the Sacramento region needs to thrive in the future. It even includes (gasp) environmentalists.

One thing I find interesting about groups that purport to organize "leaders" in our community is how they tend to exclude people who don't agree with them because they don't consider those people to be leaders. We'll see if this group follows that pattern or can reach beyond it.

Here's the only thing about the group posted on the Internet so far, in Rosalee Pryor-Escamilla's response to the campaign questions posed by the Ledger Dispatch.

Stay tuned for more.