The Gold Rush project has left the Sutter Creek Planning Commission and now goes to the City Council for final review. The Planning Commission was not allowed to look at the fiscal impacts of the project on the City and citizens, so it is now up to the Council to take on this job.

Many citizens have been impressed with several points related to Gold Rush. These are:

1) a paid, full-time Fire Department

2) improved sewage treatment plant

3) public service benefits for Sutter Creek without increasing taxes on existing Sutter Creek residents

These come from the Gold Rush web page and literature:

"Development of the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort will provide important public service benefits for Sutter Creek without increasing taxes on existing Sutter Creek Residents. These include a paid, full-time Fire Department; significant contributions to new school facilities and improved sewage treatment plant; bicycle and hiking trails, golf course, parks and tennis courts; and numerous local employment opportunities."

The City Council is now charged to fully mitigate the fiscal impacts as part of the approval process for Gold Rush. The two main points of the City's General Plan that apply are #3 and #4:

3 - To assure that public services and facilities continue to be adequate,

4 - To assure that costs of providing services and public facilities do not become an over-burden to the city and its citizens

Many citizens are excited that Gold Rush will provide a paid, full-time Fire Department. I have objected to this statement for several years as it is misleading, but Gold Rush has refused to change it. Like Measure M that recently passed in Amador County, the funding from Gold Rush will provide a core of firefighters (3 or 4 people in a station) that will need to be backed up by volunteers. Volunteers will be needed into the distant future. A fully staffed fire department like you find in Sacramento is not coming with Gold Rush.

Much of the fiscal discussion related to Gold Rush is based on upgrading the city's sewer plant to tertiary level; other options for dealing with our wastewater are being downplayed or ignored. Gold Rush needs tertiary water more than the citizens of Sutter Creek. They can initially obtain raw water from AWA for their golf course, but in time they will need tertiary water from Sutter Creek. Let's not be blinded by the fact that Gold Rush is improving sewer treatment, this is a two way street that will benefit both Gold Rush and Sutter Creek.

The city has initiated two studies related to growth to determine the impact on city services and facilities, and then developed methods and fees for addressing these impacts. These are a good start, but they appear to have some calculation problems and they do not place any up-front burden on the developer to provide the needed infrastructure. Since Gold Rush Ranch is by far the largest project being considered by the City, the developer should build the needed police station, fire station, etc. in a timely manner as the project develops and then be reimbursed for these from the impact fees generated by their project. Under the present proposals there will not be sufficient funds to construct the needed facilities until the project reaches near full build-out. The building and funding of these facilities, in a timely manner, should not be placed on the City of Sutter Creek. Gold Rush is skirting its fiscal promise. The studies that have been done need to be reviewed and revised so that they adequately fund the needed infrastructure, in a timely manner, and long-term funding of City staff.

The City of Sutter Creek must follow the ACTC guidance in regards to the traffic mitigation fees required for Gold Rush. Without these fees being applied equally countywide our traffic situation will gridlock. Gold Rush must meet its fiscal promise.

I do not totally oppose Gold Rush. I am asking that the City Council have the wherewithal to comply with the General Plan and that the citizens of Sutter Creek not be burdened with costs imposed by growth.

If the fiscal impacts cannot be fully mitigated, options for down-sizing the project should be considered or the project must be denied.