📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Amador County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

Planning & Environment Committee Ttrraannssppaarreennccyy Aanndd Ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonnss Iinn Cciivviicc

Published: June 16, 2014 12 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 11 findings

F1 Page 118
The public had ample opportunities to attend open and publicly agendized meetings where important decisions were being made, voice their concerns, and make suggestions about various aspects of the streetscape project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 119
The public is encouraged to attend Council and other public meetings to become involved and to avoid missing out on decisions that affect the city. (Findings 1, 2, 5)
F2 Page 118
Several public hearings and open meetings were conducted for public input to influence decisions made, but no consensus was reached regarding benches, hardscape, street light placement, etc.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 118
There were several design engineers’ drawings and specifications of the proposed bridge and downtown Amador City available for public view in the City Hall.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 118
After reviewing the plans located at the back of the City Clerk’s Office, the Grand Jury found that the streetscape items built conformed to the plans.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 118
Agendas are publicly displayed in 3 locations in conformance with the Brown Act.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 118
Minutes from Council meetings are inadequate. The Public Hearing sections of the Council meetings are not complete and persons who speak and subjects discussed are not included in the minutes. Motions made and votes identified, including the number of abstentions, are not noted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 119
The Council should improve the minutes of Council meetings and should develop written backup material for oral presentations of standing committees. A good example of well documented minutes can be found on the Amador County Board of Supervisors’ website. (Finding 6)
F7 Page 118
The Council assigned several committees and liaisons over an extended period of time to address various aspects of the bridge replacement projects including streetscape. There was no formal communication between groups and no standing meetings scheduled, agendized, or publicly noticed. ____________________________________________________________ { 116 }
Related Recommendations (4)
R3
Page 119
The Council must maintain positive working relationships with the community. (Findings 7, 11)
R4
Page 119
To facilitate transparency and open government, minutes and packet materials should be available on the City’s internet website and to attendees at the Council meetings. (Findings 7,11)
R5
Page 119
For any continuing or new projects, the Council should make a formal standing committee that will address the specific project and be properly agendized and publicly noticed. (Finding 7)
R6
Page 119
The Standing Committees should prepare formal written reports and presentations to the Council every month until the projects are completed. This will allow for public review and involvement. (Findings 7,11)
F8 Page 119
Important decisions made during the period between 2009 and the completion of the projects was made in a legal manner.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 119
While Ordinance 169 was in place, the Council bypassed the DRC approval requirement when it authorized the Mayor or designees to develop and approve task orders and work orders in project design without returning to the Council for approval.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 119
The Council gave authority to 2 Council members to develop work assignments and to authorize the work based on dollar limits.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 119
The Council, by allowing 1 or 2 persons the authority to approve work on major projects without full Council disclosure and public discussion, violated the principle of open government and caused distrust among the citizens.
No recommendations for this finding