Please attend – Dixon Ranch at BOS on 2-14-17 at 2:00 pm

Forwarded from the Green Valley Alliance:

Dear Green Valley corridor residents and supporters:

Please attend this critical meeting of the Board for the final vote on Dixon Ranch. Help show Supervisors that the proposed density increase on this site is unacceptable. If this project & its 605 homes is news to you, visit the GVA page,, then:

  • Call the Supervisors to express your concerns: If you or friends in Dist 4 voted for Supervisor Ranalli, please remind him of his campaign promise, memorialized in the 9/18/14 Shingle Springs Community Alliance questionnaire and reiterated on his campaign website:


Call him and ask if you can count on him Feb 14th to retain the designated land use of the Dixon Ranch site as Low Density Residential.

Contact info for Board of Supervisors:
1. John Hidahl, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650,
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651,
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652,
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513,
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577,
Clerk of the Board:

  •  Visit the new Facebook page ‘Stop Dixon Ranch’ (, to share information and connect with others who oppose the project. Please use your social media skills to help spread the word.

February 14th – yep, Valentine’s Day- if approved, this project will set a precedent for other proposals attempting to upzone lower density land and ignore voter approved Measure E. Don’t let this happen. We don’t say this often, but if you are able, take the afternoon off and be there to hold our electeds accountable. Mark your calendars now: 2pm Tues Feb 14th, 2850 Fairlane Ct Bldg C, Placerville

Ellen Van Dyke for Green Valley Alliance



Take Action – Millions at Stake on 12-28-16 BOS Agenda

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016, the Board of Supervisors will decide whether or not to sign documents to receive a loan of approximately $57,000,000 from the USDA to build a new Sheriff’s facility on Missouri Flat Road.

Here is a link to agenda item and documents:

While it is clear that the current Sheriff’s facility is in need of repair and/or replacement, the magnitude of this loan, in addition to other County infrastructure projects, has the potential to create a situation where the County’s expenses will outweigh its revenues.

Here are snippets from the Chief Administrative Officer’s Report:


On October 6, 2016, due to concerns arising from the new Sheriff’s facility, Save Our County sent a letter to Doug Colucci, Area Specialist of Rural Development for the USDA.  Those concerns include:

  • The County’s potential violation of the California Constitution due to the proposed indebtedness exceeding revenues (Article XVI, Section 18)
  • The potential for additional costs of road infrastructure required to accommodate the new location on Missouri Flat Road
  • The obvious disqualification because the County’s population exceeds 20,000
  • The potential for additional costs to clean up the former Superfund site
  • The concern for public safety by locating to a new site on a congested road that is distant from the highway corridor, and more.

The complete document submitted to the USDA is available here:  comments-regarding-sheriffs-complex

If any of these items concern you, please contact Doug Colucci, Area Specialist of Rural Development for the USDA at:, 916-212-5088

Additionally, you may want to attend the Board meeting or contact the Supervisors.  However, based on the Board’s past actions and lack of response, we encourage you to contact the USDA.

To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject:  USDA Loan, 12-28-16 Agenda Item #2, File #16-0398

Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 10:00 am
Board of Supervisors – temporary location
2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville



Attend Board Meeting to Stop Property Tax Giveaway

UPDATE:  More detailed data was provided and used to tabulate the following projections of lost revenue:

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
As the number of Prop 90 recipients increases each year, the annual amount of lost revenue also increases.
Prop 90 Annual Calculation
The County staff report states that each Prop 90 recipient receives between $2,500 and $3,000 savings per year.


On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 3:00 pm, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will review whether or not they will extend Prop 90, which is a tax-break incentive for senior citizens to move into El Dorado County.  Prop 90 allows homeowners to transfer their tax base value when selling their house in the Bay Area and Southern California, which significantly lowers their property taxes on the house they subsequently purchase in El Dorado County.

Former Chief Administrative Officers have advised the Supervisors to reject Prop 90 because of the lost revenues to the County;  however, past Boards of Supervisors have extended Prop 90 due to pressure from the El Dorado County Association of Realtors.

Statements from the Chief Administrative Officer and Assessor from a 1989 memorandum:

Upon review of the proposition (copy attached) and material submitted by County Assessor John Thorne, I can see no value for El Dorado County in opting into the program authorized by Proposition 90. Not only is there no benefit to El Dorado County, the program would actually place a disservice on those citizens who currently own homes in the county and would exacerbate the inequity of property taxes already occurring in El Dorado County and the remainder of California. If adopted, the effect of such an ordinance in El Dorado County would be to reduce property tax revenues with no correlating reduction in demand for services from those citizens moving into our communities.

As you can see, it appears that counties such as ours would suffer a considerable economical loss, as the majority of people coming into our county are from more costly areas within the state.

Here are diagrams showing the calculations of lost revenue to El Dorado County due to Prop 90:

Prop 90 Annual Calculation
Lost revenue calculation per house, per year
Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
Cumulative lost revenue calculation

The above calculations were made from information in staff reports from the El Dorado County website:

2014 Report by El Dorado County Assessor Karl Weiland
2016 Report by Director of Economic Development Jeff McLaughlin

Please attend the public hearing to voice your concerns about extending Prop 90.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
330 Fair Lane, Building A
Placerville, CA 95667

To send in your comments via email, send to:

Supervisor Mikulaco <>,
Supervisor Frentzen <>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <>,
Supervisor Novasel <>,
Clerk of the Board <>

Subject: Prop 90, File #09-0992, Agenda Item #52

Harassment, Political Corruption, Eminent Domain and Governmental Abuse of Power

David vs Goliath case: A young family is claiming they are the victims of the latest “abuse of power” scandal by El Dorado County — the Goliath trying to take away their property.

Bruce and Claudia Wade, a family with two young children, purchased a property by the river 14 years ago and lived there in harmony for 7 years. That changed when El Dorado County purchased adjoining property and allowed the American River Conservancy (ARC), who has been squatting on the property, to harass the Wades. At first everything seemed fine, the Wades were in talks with the County (department directors and Board of Supervisor members) about a land swap that would work out for both parties. The County also said that they would do something about the harassment by ARC. But then this solution was put on hold due to changes at County management and staff at the County and then was dropped altogether as problems mounted.

The County started demanding unrestricted access to the Wade’s property. This allowed strangers to walk around the property and scare their two young children. Fearing for their family’s safety they did what any parent would do to protect their children, they tried to restrict access – and that is when their nightmare got worse. The Wade family has documentation that they have been harassed by the ARC. The family has been unjustly accused of crimes and visitors to their home were turned away or force to pay at the ARC kiosk to enter the property. Profanities were commonly used to try to bully them – even in front of their young children. The County allowed ARC to install surveillance cameras that were aimed directly at their property, taking pictures of their young children, a clear invasion of privacy.

When the Wades tried to protect themselves from this bullying they found out the only way they could do that was to sue for harassment. The County struck back and counter-sued. In proceeding with this counter-suit, the County didn’t follow guidelines of disclosure necessary to spend public funds. The County is now throwing everything they can into this lawsuit to discredit the Wades and cover up their actions.

The Wades are struggling to juggle the cost of home ownership with their mounting legal costs, their pockets are not deep. In fact, when they first moved to the property they lived for 12 years in a mobile home, while they built their house piece by piece to make their dream of home ownership a reality.

Now the County is threatening to take all that away. Even though the previously agreed upon land swap with the County makes more sense long term, the County has spent over $150,000 to date and is trying to use Eminent Domain in order to take the land away. The County is using taxpayer money, which they allocated illegally, to wage this war to bankrupt the Wades. The Wades are wondering: “What can we do? We are just a small family trying to live peacefully in the home we worked hard to build with our own hands. It’s really sad to think our own tax dollars are being used against us and for no good reason. We have a solution, developed by previous County engineers and County directors; it doesn’t have to come to this.”

Ask yourselves, should this be the role of government?

The lawsuit (Case number: PC20120264) is scheduled to begin on November 9, 2015 at the Cameron Park Courthouse. The Wades are urging your help: spread the word, show up to court, and call your supervisor to tell them to stop this action.

This has happened to other families in the county, however the Wades are one of the few speaking up. The Wades are in the process of establishing a Government Anti-Bullying Campaign Fund to spread the word and provide financial aid for those who don’t have the resources to defend themselves against government tyranny. For further information, you can e-mail the Wades at

Take Action – EID election cycle on County agenda 4-14-15

The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) Board of Directors has voted to change their election cycle and give themselves an extra year in office.  Whether or not you agree with changing the election cycle, it is unacceptable for any Board to add an extra year to their term in office for any reason.   This was approved with a 3-2 vote of the EID Board of Directors.  The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors must also approve the change, which is why it is on the 4-14-15 agenda.

It is very deceitful that such an important item is on the Supervisors’ Consent calendar.  All items on the Consent calendar are approved without discussion, unless one of the Supervisors pulls it off of Consent and onto the regular agenda.

2014 was a very contentious year for the EID board as it wrestled with drought conditions and various water rate issues. These issues are going to become even more contentious as the drought continues and Governor Brown continues to burden local agencies with new, restrictive regulations.

It’s shameful that the EID board has chosen to prevent voters from exercising their rights at the ballot box in 2015 during this time of water crisis in California.

Please call and email the Board of Supervisors and ask them to deny the request to give each of the EID Directors another year in office without a vote of the ratepayers.

If you are available, please attend the meeting:
Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at approximately 9:00am (time is uncertain)
330 Fair Lane, Building A
Placerville, CA 95667

Here is a sample email for you to use and customize with your concerns:

To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>

Subject:  4-14-15 BOS Agenda, Item #7, File #15-0406

Dear Board of Supervisors:

Please deny the request to adopt Resolution 062-2015 to change the EID election cycle.  It is unethical for any Board to vote themselves an extra year in office.


[Your name, town or address]

Here is the contact information for making phone calls:

Contact info for Board of Supervisors:
1. Ron Mikulaco, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650,
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651,
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652,
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513,
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577,
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Item Comments, Clerk of the Board:

Take Action – Send email to Supervisors regarding 3/17 Board meeting in El Dorado Hills

Below is an email letter sent to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors by Citizens for Sensible Development in El Dorado Hills.

We encourage El Dorado Hills residents to also send an email to the Board of Supervisors.  Feel free to use the email below and personalize it to express your concerns to the Board of Supervisors.

To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>

Subject: Request for agenda items on March 17, 2015 BOS meeting

Dear Board of Supervisors:

Please include the following topics for discussion at the March 17 Board meeting:

1) Capital Southeast Connector

  • Explain the project, the traffic and other impacts it will have on El Dorado Hills and associated financial obligations

2) The amending of the El Dorado County General Plan

  • Why is the current plan being amended?
  • Why do we have a General Plan if you do not follow it?

3) Crime and gang activity in the El Dorado Hills area.

  • We need more Deputy coverage

I am also requesting that the topics be assigned specific times on the agenda so that I can schedule my day to attend.


[Your name, town or address]


If you would prefer to make phone calls, here is the contact information:

Contact info for Board of Supervisors:
1. Ron Mikulaco, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650,
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651,
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652,
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513,
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577,
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Item Comments, Clerk of the Board:


, Mountain Democrat
From page A5 | December 29, 2014 |


Last Tuesday, Kirk Smith accused the Board of Supervisors of putting the cart before the horse by moving prematurely on a contentious courthouse land swap with the Briggs Family Trust prior to the state completing its EIR. Other proposed courthouse site alternatives exist; however, your supervisors have a clairvoyant crystal ball allowing them to magically predict the outcome of the state’s future site selection. Supervisor Ron Briggs recused himself while whining he has nothing to do with his father’s Ray Lawyer Commercial Subdivision, where the county/state plans to build a courthouse. Ron let most of his speculative parcels surrounding the future courthouse go into foreclosure last year. Both Briggs have their houses up for sale; Ron’s is in foreclosure.

Why would the county split off a portion of the jail property at 300 Forni and swap it prematurely with an inferior, lower-value, landlocked parcel deep in the proposed Briggs subdivision? That’s a secret backroom decision made by the board recently in closed session with Ron. With John Briggs’ land option quickly expiring on Dec. 18 and his son, Supervisor Ron Briggs, soon exiting the board, the Briggs family is desperate for a government-funded bailout that doesn’t raise too much public scrutiny — a deal with no apparent dollars passing hands on the surface.

The public was easily bamboozled by an agenda item with no millions attached to it disguised as “Boring Land Swap” — yawn! Then Board Chair Norma “Cha Cha Cha” Santiago strategically sized up the small crowd and sneakily changed the hearing time of this contentious agenda item from its scheduled 4 p.m. afternoon time to 9:30 in the morning, 6.5 hours earlier, thereby short circuiting any detractors planning to show up and speak against this shady deal at 4 p.m. Santiago was previously scolded in a letter from the State AOC on Oct. 7, 2010 for favoring only one courthouse site — the Briggs site.

By swapping for a landlocked lot at the back of Briggs subdivision, the county/state is now committing to spending millions of your tax dollars to build the massive subdivision infrastructure, frontage and off-site improvements benefitting John Briggs’ subdivision, as well as tens of millions of Highway 50 and Forni Road improvements, something Briggs couldn’t afford on his own. When the county has completed building the infrastructure, Briggs will merely record his final map, sell his six remaining commercial lots and reap the multimillion dollar reward — thank you taxpayers!

It becomes a massive transfer of taxpayer wealth from the county/state into John Briggs’ pockets. The devil is in the details as the millions being spent come later, as referenced in the county’s Aug. 28, 2012, letter to the state Office of the Courts where the county discusses spending millions of dollars on the road and infrastructure to build the Briggs Subdivision.

Sue Taylor accused the board of the Courthouse project being driven by recently fired CAO Terri Daly and how the board illegally approved the extension of the Briggs land option last year without the necessary four-fifths vote. She also accused the county of not following its own development rules and allowing 85 percent of the site to be graded, causing massive visual blight not addressed in the county and state’s EIR.

The county is prematurely pushing one project alternative in the EIR to benefit the Briggs family and Smith accused the board of having the final verdict before the trial. The site has no approved site plan, no EIR, nor financing approval from the state, and the site must still be approved by several state agencies. The county should have waited for a complete EIR.

To summarize a previous speech given by Mr. Smith to the board, “You knew it was wrong and you did it anyway.” Taxpayers should not be funding a Briggs family bailout. We know what happens when you build a courthouse on a poor and morally corrupt foundation.

Diamond Springs