El Dorado County Grand Jury
2008-2009
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (18)
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury has come to the conclusion that the County has been operating for several years with an “obsolete government philosophy”. Investigations by the Grand Jury found few, if any, progressive innovations in county departmental operations. Previous Grand Juries have focused on personnel turnover, deficient operations in many departments, and too much supervisory control by the Board of Supervisors over day-to- day operational issues in county government. In its recap of Grand Jury reports over the last five plus years, the same question arose time after time: “why is there no improvement in El Dorado County operations?” During its interviews with elected officials, department heads, county counsel, management and a large number of county employees, the same theme seemed to come 2 into focus. Change was slow and too little. Progress was always just around the corner. Why the large number of turnover amongst department heads? Why such little change and progress over many years when problems had been identified, but left uncorrected? The Grand Jury took a close look at the Charter and determined that this document in the past fifteen years stood in the way of progress and failed in its mission to guide the county to better and more efficient government. It has, in effect, become the county’s “Achilles heel”. The Grand Jury surmised that the Charter impedes progress and in fact contributes little to the promises that were made to the voters when enacted in 1994. The cumbersome and costly compliance with Charter enforcement runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. The enactment and delays encountered because of the County Charter has significantly contributed to a large increase in the cost of county government. The commissions, boards and charter procedures costs runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Collectively these costs amount to an estimated $1,000,000 per year. The uncontrolled costs of the Charter are a clear waste of taxpayer money. If the Charter were in fact a significant policy document that meaningfully guided El Dorado County’s course, the hidden cost of the Charter would be a reasonable tradeoff. However, the Charter typically addresses insignificant issues or makes insignificant clarifications. The El Dorado County Charter contains approximately seventeen references and/or deferrals to General Law. In fact, a line-by-line comparison of the El Dorado County Charter and the enormous body of state law governing counties reveals only minor differences between the Charter and General Law. Moreover, of the nineteen amendments that have occurred since the adoption of the Charter, ten of those have been simply adoptions of references to general law and became inoperative due to changes in state law and outdated timeframes, or corrected outdated wording and references. Many of the more “substantive” amendments such as term limits for supervisors, or Sheriff salaries, could be addressed outside of the Charter through general law if voters so choose. It is very questionable whether such a large amount of time and resources should be devoted to something that provides such little tangible benefit. The Charter has not delivered on its promise to enhance local control or make the county government more efficient. On the contrary, it appears to be a cumbersome self- sustaining administrative document that only adds unnecessary bureaucratic requirements to county government. Weighing the benefits against the burdens, it appears that the El Dorado County Charter is more burdensome than it is beneficial.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends to the Charter Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the revocation of the Charter be placed on the ballot for a decision by the voters at the next election. In the event that the El Dorado County Charter is not revoked, then the following analysis and recommendations for amending the Charter follows: Article II – Board of Supervisors Section 203: Filling of Vacancies Section 203 states: “Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of supervisor, the unexpired term shall be filled by election. If the vacancy occurs more than 90 days but less than 120 days before a scheduled primary, general, or special election, involving the district in which the vacancy has occurred, then the election to fill the vacancy shall be consolidated within the scheduled election. If the vacancy occurs more than 120 or less than 90 days before scheduled primary, general, or special election involving the district in which the vacancy has occurred, then the vacancy shall be filled at a special election, called by the Board of Supervisors to take place not less than 90 nor more than 120 days after the vacancy occurs. The special election shall be conducted in accord with the provisions of general state law regarding special elections. The candidate with the highest number of votes shall be elected to fill the unexpired term.” Government Code §25060: Filling of Vacancies It states: “Whenever a vacancy occurs in any board of supervisors, the Governor shall fill the vacancy. The appointee shall hold office until the election and qualification of his successor.” Charter section 203 remains one of the key differences between the County’s Charter and general law. It requires a special election to fill an unexpected vacancy and that individual holds the office until the next election for that seat. In the past the Board of Supervisors has not called a special election within the required time frame, leaving a four person Board of Supervisors. This makes it difficult to reach a majority decision, and leaves the district in which the vacancy occurs without representation. Special county elections are costly, estimated costs between $35,000 to $45,000. The Charter direction to hold a special election to fill a vacancy on the Board of Supervisors has not always been followed in El Dorado County. In early 2006 a supervisor seemingly abdicated his office but made no formal declaration of resignation. In July 2006 the Board of Supervisors made an unprecedented move and declared the office vacant under Government Code 1770(g). In order to fill the vacant office, the Board should have called a special election. However, 2006 was an election year and there were already candidates vying to win the seat in the General Election scheduled for November. A costly special election would have resulted in the winner filling the supervisory seat for a few months before the winner of the November election was sworn into office. Consequently, the Board of Supervisors opted to disregard the Charter requirement and did not call a special election. Although the Charter does allow a significant deviation from the General Law in this regard, it is not clear that the special election requirement has turned out to be a benefit above General Law. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this portion of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. To alleviate the cost and time lag of replacing a Board Member the Grand Jury recommends the following language: Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of Supervisor, the unexpired term shall be filled by the remaining Supervisors within thirty- days. If the Supervisors do not select a replacement, the Governor shall make an appointment after the vacancy occurs per Government Code §25060. Article 11 – Board of Supervisors Section 202: Term of Offices Section 202 states: “The term of office of supervisor is four years. Board members shall be limited to two consecutive terms. No person elected supervisor may serve as such for more than two successive four-year terms. Any person elected to the office of supervisor to complete in excess of two years of a four-year term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served one full term upon the expiration of that term. No person having served two successive four year terms may serve as a supervisor until at least four years after the expiration of the second successive term in office. Any supervisor who resigns with less than two full years remaining until the expiration of the term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served a full four year term. The above shall not disqualify any person from running for election to the Board of Supervisors for any term or terms that are not successive. The term of office commences at noon on the first Monday after the January 1st succeeding their election. The supervisor for each of the First, Second and Third districts shall be elected in 1996. The supervisor for each of the Fourth and Fifth districts shall be elected in 1994.” Government Code §25000 (a) It states: “Each county shall have a board of supervisors consisting of five members. Not more that three members shall be elected at the same general election. If the terms of office of more than three members of the board expire at the same time, at the first regular meeting after January 1st following their election the members so elected shall so classify themselves by lot that three members shall serve for four years and two for two years. Thereafter the term of each member shall be four years.” 5 Government Code §25000 (b) It states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board of supervisors of any general law or charter county may adopt or the residents of the county may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the board of supervisors may serve on the Board of Supervisors. Any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the board of supervisors may serve on the board of supervisors shall apply prospectively only and not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the county at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal.” RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. Term limits create an experience drain and allow for lack of continuity of County governance. None of the above listed government codes affects other elected El Dorado County officials. No elected officials in El Dorado County, besides the County Supervisors whom are elected, have term limits. The Grand Jury recommends that the County abides by Government Code §25000 (a)(b) and eliminate term limits for County Supervisors. Article III – Chief Administrative Officer Section 301: Chief Administrative Officer Section 301 states: “The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County”. Other pertinent sections in the Charter in reference to the CAO’s position are Sections 302, Appointment and Removal; Section 303, Compensation; Section 304, Duties. Section 304: Duties Section 304 states: “The Chief Administrative Officer shall be responsible to the Board Of Supervisors for the proper and efficient administration of such of the affairs of the county as are or hereafter may be placed in the charge of the Chief Administrative Officer, pursuant to the provisions of the Charter, or of any ordinance, resolution or order of the Board of Supervisors. In addition to other powers and duties herein provided, the Chief Administrative Officer shall have the duty and power to: a) Coordinate the work of all offices and departments, both elective and appointive, and devise a way and means to achieve efficiency and economy in all county operations. b) Formulate and present to the Board plans to implement policies and accomplish goals established by the Board. The CAO has assigned responsibilities by the Charter which include Para. C - Budgets, Para. D - Administration of the budget, Para. E - Provides analysis of county programs, Para. F - Implement accountability systems for county money and property, Para. G - Work with other government agencies such as federal, state, regional and local, Para. H - On an annual basis reviews and appraises performances of appointment department heads except county counsel, and Para. I - Coordinate publication of the County long-range fiscal plan and the annual statement of goals.” Based on interviews and information received from department heads, elected county officials and county employees, the Grant Jury found that the office of the CAO is perceived as an administrative function only. Interviews with former and current supervisors indicate strong support that the CAO function needs to be upgraded in stature. Under the Charter, this requires approval from the voters. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section of the Charter needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. The Grand Jury recommends upgrading the status and responsibilities of this function to CEO. The position should be given the authority and responsibility it is designed to perform. The duties of the CAO have not kept up with the growth and change in government in El Dorado County. The Board of Supervisors should be a policy decision- making body. The CEO office should be responsible for the day-to-day management of the county. The Grand Jury recommends that the CEO serve at the will of the supervisors. Except for the purpose of obtaining information, the members of the Board of Supervisors shall deal solely and directly through the CEO’s office with all county departments. Article IV – Department Heads, Boards and Commissions Section 402: Elected Department Heads Section 402 states: “The following departments heads shall be elected: (a) Assessor, (b) Auditor/controller, (c) District Attorney, (d) Recorder/Clerk, (e) Sheriff/Coroner/Public Administrator, (f) Surveyor, (g) Treasurer/Tax Collector. The term of office of all elected officers is four years. However, there are no term limits for these elected department officers.” Under authority of Penal Code §928, the Grand Jury may recommend and initiate the following: “Every Grand Jury may investigate and report upon the needs of all county officers in the county, including the abolition or creation of offices and the equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of several offices. Such investigation and report shall be conducted selectively each year. The Grand Jury shall cause a copy of such report to be transmitted to each member of the Board of Supervisors of the County”. California Constitution, Article XI §1 (b) provides for county powers to elect as a minimum: (a) Assessor, (b) District Attorney, and (c) Sheriff. All other elected officers are listed in the Charter or in government code §24000. The Board of Supervisors is elected by district. Other elected officials are elected in county wide elections. Evidence provided to the Grand Jury indicated that this has created political difficulties for the Board of Supervisors’ ability to bring changes and control the county’s management structure. It has decreased efficiency and raised the cost of operating in the county. Elected officials are not evaluated. There is no check and balance system to evaluate them, except by the voters. This inequity in the election process, per the County Charter, raises questions for effective county government. There is, according to testimony, a serious movement by those elected department officials to block any change to the present election structure in the county. To balance the effectiveness of elected officials with no term limits vs. those elected officials with term and district boundary limits, serious questions are raised regarding the overall effectiveness of the current charter provisions. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. To eliminate inequities, and generate cost savings, the Grand Jury recommends that the following action be enacted under the authority of Government Codes §24300 and §24300.5. Create a position of Financial Officer, to serve as Financial Officer of County government reporting to the CEO’s office. The position would also supervise the following appointed positions of Treasurer and Tax Collector. The positions of Surveyor, Public Administrator, Recorder, County Clerk and Coroner should be changed to appointed positions and report to the CEO’s office or another administrative county entity. The function of Auditor/Controller should remain an elected position and supervise all financial transactions and financial compliance in the county. Under this recommendation the following positions will continue to be elected: Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, Assessor, District Attorney and Auditor/Controller. Article IV – Department Heads, Boards and Commissions Section 404: Appointed Department Heads Section 404 states: “The position of department head shall be designated by ordinance. Department heads serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority, the Board of Supervisors. Department heads shall have and may delegate the power to appoint, supervise, suspend and remove all persons employed in their departments subject to the provisions of Article V of this charter.” 8 RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to upgrade the CAO’s position to CEO. The appointed department heads should serve at the pleasure of the CEO and not report to the Board of Supervisors. The CEO should have the authority to hire, discipline, adjust salaries, and terminate those department heads according to County human resource policies and in accordance with the needs of the County. Article V – Sheriff’s Salary Limitation Section 504: Sheriff’s Salary Limitation Section 504 states: “The Sheriff’s Salary initiative, commonly known as Measure A, and passed by the voters at a general election on November 7, 1972, is hereby repealed. The Board of Supervisors shall, at least annually determine the existing average salaries for the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol for each class of position employed by said agencies. Effective on the first day of January of each year after this charter provision first becomes effective, the Board of Supervisors shall adjust and determine that the average salary for each class of position as set forth herein be at least equal to the average of the salaries for the comparable positions in the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. As used herein, the term ‘comparable class of position’ shall mean a group of positions substantially similar with respect to qualifications or duties or responsibilities using the following positions as guidelines: Undersheriff, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Deputy Sheriff, and Clerk. The provisions of this section shall prevail over any otherwise conflicting provisions of the Charter or general law which may relate to salaries of county officers or employees who are not elected by popular vote.” Under the present structure there is no fiscal accountability. It abdicates the control and responsibility of elected El Dorado County Supervisors to negotiate and effectively control expenditures and budgets of the Sheriff’s Department employees. This year, as other employees were being terminated due to the County’s budget shortfall, the raises in the Sheriff’s Department drew much attention from area media. Just weeks after the County eliminated ninety positions across multiple departments; many Sheriff’s Department employees were granted raises. This Charter provision has enshrined automatic spending over which the Board of Supervisors has no control. Section 504 of the Charter indexes El Dorado County Sheriff employee salaries to the average of the salaries for comparable positions in the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, Amador County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. This section actually repealed a 1972 Measure known then as Sheriff Salary Initiative, and was adopted into the Charter. Consequently, each year salaries (and all subsequent benefit costs) must be adjusted according to the Charter. As one Sacramento area television station reported, “neither the county supervisors nor any administrator can stop (the pay hikes), even in these tough economic times”. The County can only plan to fund the automatic salary increases within its annual budget. The County budgets $500,000 each year to account for the increase. The Charter dictates that the raises become effective on the first of January each year. The actual amount of the increase varies from year to year. In December 2008 the estimated annual cost to provide the automatic increase was $589,000 for the raise that took effect January 1, 2009. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section needs to be amended if the Charter is not revoked in its entirety. This is a very costly and unpredictable section in the Charter from the taxpayer point of view. It would be unconscionable if this section in the Charter remains in effect. Eliminating this provision of the Charter will return financial accountability for Sheriff Department salaries back under County control and not under other jurisdictions. Article VI – Finance Section 602: Contract Administration Section 602 states: “The Board of Supervisors shall not authorize the payment of money or other compensation for the performance of any service or function by a private entity except pursuant to a written contract meeting all legal requirements for county contracts as established by the Board of Supervisors. Each contract shall identify the county officer or employees with responsibility for administering the contract”. Section 602 of the Charter has significantly increased costs to the County. The contract administration process creates several inefficiencies. The major problem with this section is the requirement to have a “written contract meeting all legal requirements for county contracts as established by the Board of Supervisors” for “any service or function”. Since the definition of “service or function” is not specific in the Charter, any activity that could be construed as a service or function requires a full written contract. The Charter provides no flexibility. For example, if a department receives a state grant to provide educational items and the vendor charges an artwork fee to inscribe the items with the county logo, instead of a simple purchase order, a full written contract is required. Other simple purchases that could trigger the written contract requirement include minor rental fees for tanks used to store purchased oxygen gas. Although the County could simply issue a purchase order for the oxygen itself, the tank rental fee is a “service” which requires a written contract. Simple equipment repair jobs also require full contracts instead of purchase orders. In addition, under state law a written contract meeting legal requirement is one that is signed by both parties. This can add lengthy delays in executing contracts because vendors often do not understand why the County insists on a full 10 contract or the corporate officer signature required on some contracts which are difficult to acquire. In some cases vendors simply refuse to sign the contracts. Another hurdle is the requirement for each contract to “identify the county officer or employee with responsibility for administering the contract.” The Charter does not provide a definition of “administering the contract” so this requirement is interpreted differently among departments. For example, some departments always specify the department head as the contract administrator while others denote specific employees. Consequently, if something does go wrong with the contract this Charter section does little to increase accountability because it is not clear who is actually responsible for the contract. County department’s management, County Counsel officers and county departments’ staffs spend huge amounts of time and subsequently county funds on executing Charter required written contracts. It is questionable whether this section in the Charter is required for simple purchases that have minimal risks. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the Charter be revoked. However, this section should be amended in the event the Charter is not revoked it is entirety. This section of the Charter does not make fiscal sense. Although the intent may be sound, the procedures and execution per the Charter has not worked as intended and is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in cumbersome bureaucratic paperwork. This makes the County very inefficient in purchasing and executing contracts. The reputation of the County with outside vendors is one of inefficiency and very difficult to deal with. There is no reason to keep this section in the Charter and it should be revoked. Conclusion: The 2008-2009 Grand Jury states the following: During its investigation the 2008-2009 Grand Jury discovered that the El Dorado County Charter is one of the least read documents in the County and in County Government. The Grand Jury interviewed many directors, supervisors and county employees. Many had not read nor had any idea what was in the Charter. Interviews and discussions with employees made it clear that the Charter is not effective. Because of the Charter provisions, change is difficult to achieve. The Charter is typically reviewed or changed every five years. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that the Charter has not been effective for the past fifteen years. The Charter Commission should seriously investigate the Charter shortcomings and make its recommendations strongly but fairly to the Board of Supervisors. There are articles in the Charter that are not enforced or that have created difficulties. The Charter is, and has been, an ineffective instrument for County Government. The Charter Commission has a serious mission to recommend changes that could have a profound effect in county government structure and operations. Government in El Dorado County 11 could and should be made more effective and cost efficient. This Grand Jury respects the difficulties faced by the Charter Review Commission and its tasks. For the past fifteen years the County has operated under a Charter form of government and it has not improved County governing functions. If the Charter is revoked, the next fifteen years should lead El Dorado County to a better and more effective County government under General Law. RESPONSES None required 12
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The compensation identified above is outside the bounds of California Law. GVFPD Board authorization was neither sought nor given prior to commencement of the work by Rogers or Cleaver, and there was no pre-existing agreement to pay for that work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Directors Rogers and Cleaver return to the District the money paid to them for their work on District files.
F2:
The $4,018.00 sum paid to former Director Norma Cleaver was an unlawful payment and is money due the District and/or El Dorado County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Garden Valley Fire Protection District take steps to recover the funds unlawfully paid to Directors Rogers and Cleaver.
F3:
The $5,798.00 sum paid to former Director Robert Rogers was an unlawful payment, and is money due the District and/or El Dorado County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
CA Penal Code section 932 provides that a Grand Jury may order the District Attorney to institute suit to recover money that may be due to the County. Accordingly, The 2008/2009 Grand Jury has filed with the Court an ORDER directing Vern Pierson, District Attorney for the County of El Dorado to file an action to recover the $5,798.00 improperly paid to Robert Rogers, former director Garden Valley Fire Protection District and to recover the $4,018.00 improperly paid to Norma Cleaver, former director Garden Valley Fire Protection District.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Furthermore, any taxpayer in the District may file a lawsuit to recover the funds unlawfully paid by the District. RESPONSES No responses are required to this report. This is a true cert~f~ecdo py of the record if it bears the seal, Imprinted In purple ink, the &ale of Issuance and an orlginal agnature. EL DORADO CO. SUPERIOR CT. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA M AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO In Re the matter of: ) No. \ The 2008/2009 El Dorado County Grand Jury It is hereby ordered by the 200812009 El Dorado County Grand Jury under the authority conferred by Penal Code section 932 that the District Attorney of El Dorado County institute a suit to recover money that is due from former board members of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District Robert S. Rogers and Norma Cleaver as the result of payments to them which were made in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of California, as set forth in the report of the 200812009 Grand Jury issued in regard to this topic. JW ax aooq Dated: Certified as an official Order of the 200812009 El Dorado County Grand Jury B Grand Jury -1- ORDER OF 200812009 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Road repair CSD's obtain most of their funds through special assessments previously approved by the district property owners and included as a separate item in their property tax bill. Annual funds accumulate over years and are held by the County Treasurer. The reserve funds are available to hire a contractor to provide road repairs when needed. Typically in a district, a repair project does not occur every year.
F2:
Road repair CSD's could opt to become Zones of Benefit under CSA #9, but this would necessitate paying fees for County DOT services. Department of Transportation charges hourly rates for time spent assisting ZOB's, and the Auditor- Controller charges one percent of the annual budget for providing financial services. While these fees may be reasonable, road repair CSD budgets on average are considerably smaller than ZOB budgets. 3
F3:
Road repair districts have limited technical expertise and may have limited understanding of State rules. Roads in their districts are legal public roads and rules must be followed that are not required for private roads in gated communities. Typical problems encountered are: creating or obtaining adequate specifications for road maintenance and drainage construction projects, drafting the scope of work for projects, seeking bids and selecting contractors, inspecting and approving work, and maintaining acceptable financial documentation.
F4:
Road repair district directors will benefit from more job training. The Department of Transportation provides annual training classes for ZOB advisory committee members that would be very useful to road repair district directors and could be provided to them at negligible incremental cost.
F5:
Very recently, the DOT prepared a prototype handbook (“Zone of Benefit Advisory Committee Manual”) for advisory committee members. This Manual includes information on: ethics, the open meeting law (The California Brown Act), road maintenance and repair (engineering) guidelines, contracting and purchasing, insurance, volunteer work procedures, and budget preparation. This Manual is an excellent product, put together from existing information at DOT in a very short period of time. The Department of Transportation is commended for this effort. This Manual would also be very useful to board directors of road repair districts.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Department of Transportation should invite road repair district directors to its annual training sessions held for Zones of Benefit advisory committee members, and do so on a continuing basis.
R2:
The County should publish the “Zone of Benefit Advisory Committee Manual” and make it available, free of charge, to every road repair district director. As soon as possible, this Manual should also be provided through the internet. This will allow easy upgrading by the Department of Transportation and ready access of the latest upgrade by users. Hard copy Manuals should continue to be published.
R3:
The Manual published by the Department of Transportation should also include the following: A. A section listing contacts, with phone numbers, email addresses and mail addresses, where users can obtain information about sourcing licensed contractors; this listing should include the Builders Exchange of El Dorado County. B.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The refuse picked up by the Clean Tahoe Program is deposited at the STR company transfer station in the City of South Lake Tahoe. There, the refuse is processed, with some of it recycled. The Clean Tahoe Program is charged for this at standard rates for this service.
F2:
South Tahoe Refuse is capable and willing to assume the operations of the Clean Tahoe Program if asked by the City and County to do so. However, it has been reluctant to initiate this change because it does not wish to appear hostile to the Clean Tahoe Program.
F3:
Because of its franchise agreements, the rates charged for STR services are controlled by the City and County. Consequently, the transfer of the complete operations of the Clean Tahoe Program to STR could be accomplished easily and without requiring a competitive bid process. 6
F4:
During 2003, STR was provided a copy of the FY 2002/03 Clean Tahoe Budget and asked to review the budget for opportunities for cost savings if STR were operating the Clean Tahoe Program. After doing a line-by-line assessment of each cost item, STR estimated that it could reduce the annual cost by $49,720. Details of this assessment are shown in a spreadsheet that is Exhibit A. South Tahoe Refuse management expressed to the Grand Jury that it believes this estimate is still reasonable.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City and County should seek a capable public or private organization to provide, at less cost, the services now provided by the Clean Tahoe Program.
R2:
Savings that may be realized by the City and County replacing the Clean Tahoe Program with a new service provider should be passed to the property owners by reducing their property tax assessments.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Either a fire protection district or LAFCO can initiate a consolidation study including a cost/benefit analysis. LAFCO has been reluctant to aggressively pursue consolidation of fire protection districts, waiting instead for one or more of them to initiate movement toward consolidation.
F2:
There is often institutional resistance to changing the status quo of an organization. Consolidation and reorganization are likely to lead to elimination of redundant positions, which typically will not be well received by current employees. Should consolidation occur, these difficulties can be ameliorated by a) selecting at least one director from the district to be a director of the new district, and b) continuing former district volunteer firefighter associations, such as was done with the mergers to form the El Dorado County FPD. 8
F3:
The County Board of Supervisors supplements revenues for six FPDs on the County west slope and two small districts providing fire protection in the Tahoe Basin, Fallen Leaf Lake CSD and the Meeks Bay FPD. This is a subsidy by the County at large to these particular fire districts. These subsidies raise a fairness issue for taxpayers outside these districts who are supporting their own fire protection district through various taxes while also contributing, through the County’s General fund, an extra amount of money to these subsidized districts.
F4:
All of the subsidized FPDs receive “special taxes” and/or “special assessments” except Pioneer FPD. These funds are not considered when the subsidy calculation is made. These special funds have been previously authorized on a continuing basis by an election of property owners within the districts. Special taxes require a vote of 2/3 of the property parcel owners. Special assessments are “fire suppression assessments,” which are allowed under State law and require only a property parcel vote of 50 percent plus one. 9
F5:
The tax revenues for FY 2006/07 for the West Slope FPDs are summarized in Exhibit B. The tax revenues for each district, including special taxes and special assessments, are combined in one column. Note that all but Pioneer FPD and Latrobe FPD receive tax revenues exceeding 13 percent of their tax base, and all but Pioneer FPD have total funding including the County Supplemental Contribution that exceeds 13 percent of their tax base. With the exception of Pioneer FPD and Latrobe FPD, the County supplemental is much smaller than the other tax revenue received by the subsidized districts.
F6:
With advance notification, the Board of Supervisors can discontinue these subsidies. The County has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize them, preferably without degrading fire protection capabilities. Elimination of the subsidies would require these fire protection districts to either find other sources of revenue in a similar amount, or find equivalent budget savings that would not degrade fire protection capability.
F7:
Consolidation of the six West Slope subsidized fire districts, and especially mergers into the three financially stronger fire districts on the West Slope, should allow elimination of the fire chiefs and other administrative positions in the subsidized districts. The potential personnel savings that could result are shown in Exhibit C, where the administrative personnel costs for each fire district are shown in column L, with a total amount of $944,084. The County supplemental contributions for these fire districts are shown in column M, and the total amount is similar to the total administrative personnel costs shown in column L.
F8:
If supplemental payments to the six West Slope fire protection districts are eliminated, the savings to the County general fund will be recurrent, rather than one-time. Over ten years and with an annual increase of 9 percent, the SAVINGS will amount to $14,018,235. If supplemental payments to all eight subsidized fire districts are eliminated, the SAVINGS over ten years will amount to $19,665,148.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should discontinue the “Supplemental Funding Agreement for Rural Districts for Enhanced Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services” as it pertains to the following six fire protection districts: Pioneer, Rescue, Garden Valley, Mosquito, Georgetown, and Latrobe.
R2:
LAFCO and the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should actively encourage consolidation or merger agreements between these presently subsidized fire protection districts and any of the following fire protection districts: El Dorado County Fire Protection District, Diamond Springs-El Dorado Fire Protection District, and El Dorado Hills County Water District. 10 11
R3:
The boards of directors of the following nine fire protection districts should make a good faith effort to reach consolidation agreements: Rescue, Pioneer, Mosquito,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
In 2006, the school received modernization funding that was used to build a new gymnasium and science building, along with athletic field upgrades. Additional modernization will occur this summer, to include restroom and classroom improvements, as well as reconfiguration of administrative space. In addition to the modernization project and American Disabilities Act upgrades, the school has continued to improve the facility resulting in a safe and healthy social interaction space. The school has shown growth of 56 Academic Performance Index points in the past two years bringing their score up to 767.
F2:
There have been no reported Williams Act violations (The Williams Act of 2004 provides standards for school facilities). Restrooms were clean and well maintained. There were no safety infractions noted. Evacuation maps were posted by doorways. Ceilings, walls and fences were in good repair; fire extinguishers have been inspected regularly; fire drills are performed monthly; hallways and fields were in excellent condition.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The door between Building C’s ground level lobby and courtroom should be locked so that all people entering the court would need to pass through the entrance that is controlled by the bailiff.
R2:
In looking at longer term building needs and uses, the Board of Supervisors should consider dedicating Building C to only court activities, or include only those other county departments that would not need access to the building during non-court hours. This would allow for securing the entire building, providing enhanced security to all employees and participants in any court proceedings.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The jail is well maintained, having addressed past Grand Jury concerns regarding maintenance issues.
F2:
The jail staff is committed to public safety and the secure incarceration of
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The number of correctional officers needed to cover all shifts is 34.
F2:
There is no dedicated general service worker for the facility. It was noted that the facility has been on a waiting list for needed repairs for two years.
F3:
The staff provides many opportunities and programs for inmates to improve their skills as contributing members of society, i.e. BRIDGE, TOPS, GED, culinary arts, counseling, and the Tahoe Mentor Program.
F4:
During the recent Angora Fire, the staff and inmates provided additional resources and comfort to the South Lake Tahoe community as well as to fire and law enforcement agencies.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors provide funding to adequately staff the jail and to provide needed maintenance within the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
R2:
It is recommended that one maintenance worker from General Services be dedicated to the South Lake Tahoe Jail in order to make necessary decisions, provide preventative maintenance and complete critical work in a timely manner.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The facility was generally in excellent condition with three exceptions which have been approved for remediation through the current capital improvement plan. The three areas which need renovation are: A. The recreation area - the top of the walls of the area is open to the outside and therefore extremely cold during the winter months. B. A pass-through window needs repair. C. An acoustic problem (vibration noise) in the classroom needs repair.
F2:
Staffing can be a problem due to the high cost of either living locally or commuting.
F3:
All probation and education staff is dedicated to increasing a young person's ability to succeed in his/her environment. Programs are in place to educate, 15 support, and promote youthful offenders and their families in effective rehabilitation information and strategies. These programs include the Challenge Program, the Ranch Program, counseling programs, mental health programs, and many vocational programs.
F4:
There have been no fights in three years.
F5:
The concern for the health of at-risk youngsters incarcerated in a juvenile correctional facility has been thoroughly reviewed. The Grand Jury finds that the probation staff and the educational staff have gone above and beyond what is required. In addition to sending for and receiving complete school records (including proof of immunization) within 24 hours of intake, the probation staff has also initiated a more effective health review upon in-take.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
It is recommended that the capital improvement plan be implemented this fiscal year in order to remedy the facility issues which pose health and security risks.
R2:
It is recommended that the probation department study salaries to include possible "hardship" clauses in order to improve staffing.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Staff crowding, which hampers maximum efficiency, is the most significant problem. Indications of space limitations are: • Closets have been turned into offices • Inadequate space for secure evidence storage • No room for a forensic lab • No space for a conference room • No privacy for citizens when reporting crimes • Insufficient parking space • Shortage of employee lockers
F2:
In spite of the space problem that currently exists, the Sheriff’s Department is commended for efficiently utilizing its current 13,000 square foot facility. At the time of the inspection, the facility was clean and safety regulations were generally being followed. Due to the age of construction, the building is not totally compliant with the American Disabilities Act. Areas noted as requiring immediate attention due to health and safety concerns are: • Cluttered hallways in the evidence area (creating a potential egress problem) • Asphalt repair needed in the parking lot • Payroll administrative area does not have proper evacuation signs posted 28
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
It is recommended that the three areas listed in finding # 2 above be remedied immediately.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The sheriff's facilities upgrade is already in the El Dorado County capital improvement program, indicating a new main facility in Placerville, and sub- station in El Dorado Hills. This Grand Jury, however, agrees with the sheriff's current recommendation identified in the background section of this report, specifically a new main facility in El Dorado Hills, and converting the current main facility in Placerville for use as a sub-station.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Lack of evacuation maps in many classrooms and labs (Williams Act violation – FIT #7-c)
F2:
Emergency exits blocked by equipment (Williams Act violation – FIT #7- c)
F3:
Lack of maximum occupancy signs (Forum Room)
F4:
Exercise mats outside of the gym entry doors creating a tripping hazard (Williams Act violation – FIT #14-a)
F5:
Wood planks in front of the gym with no safety signs or barriers (Williams Act violation – FIT #14-a)
F6:
Stained ceiling tiles (Williams Act violation – FIT # 4-d, #5-d)
F7:
No soap in the girls’ restroom in the gym (Williams Act violation – FIT #11-c)
F8:
Damaged walls could be repaired with spackle and paint (Williams Act violation – FIT #4-a, #5-b, #6-a, #9-b)
F9:
Excessive debris on the grounds (Williams Act violation – FIT #15-a) 21
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
It is recommended that El Dorado High School administration promptly correct all noted conditions.
R2:
It is recommended that the administration improve its maintenance/custodial program to more effectively utilize existing staff to ensure that all areas of plant maintenance are consistently monitored and managed effectively.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The kitchen range hood remains out of compliance. It was first identified in the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Report. It does not meet fire code requirements (Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations – National Fire Protection Agency). It has been mentioned in every Grand Jury Report since with no action.
F2:
The facility, built in 1967, fails to be in full compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). However, all visitors’ areas are in compliance. Currently there are no inmates or staff that require special considerations. The State-approved renovation contract which was funded in July 2007 will provide all ADA public access items. This violation has been identified in Grand Jury Reports 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.
F3:
The fan vents in the bathrooms in the housing areas do not work and grout needs replacing.
F4:
The aged evaporative coolers in the living areas do not provide adequate cooling.
F5:
There is no academic component as part of the inmates’ training and rehabilitation program. 18
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Given that the kitchen hood was first identified seven years ago as not meeting fire code regulations, the Grand Jury recommends that it be repaired immediately.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends correction of the following items to be completed within the 2008-2009 fiscal year: • Bathrooms • Evaporative coolers • All ADA requirements
R3:
An academic component should be added to the educational program (i.e., General Education Development, California High School Proficiency Exam).
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
No evidence of wrong doing was uncovered regarding the expenditure of MLUSD funds.
F2:
Mother Lode Union School District is commended for taking a politically and financially aggressive approach to improving the educational practices in their district.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Other than fire drills and drop drills, not all school sites practice with regularity (a minimum of annually) crisis management procedures that include evacuations. Some schools stated they do “round table” practices, as opposed to actually conducting a physical practice. Some sites stated they did not want to scare the students, so, therefore, do not have practices. One school stated that they do summer practices that do not include the children.
F2:
No evidence was found that schools include parents or the community in an educational component to inform them about the crisis plan adopted by the district and site.
F3:
Although considered a work in progress, the Office of Emergency Services has not actually walked the grounds of every school site. Therefore, OES does not have a digital image of the sites not visited, nor indication of possible unique or special needs in their BowMac computer system should a crisis occur. Also in progress is the development of live school-site images which can be viewed in law enforcement vehicles - to be used as events are unfolding and as units are rushing to the scene.
F4:
Not all schools have conducted, or been a part of, an integrated evacuation which includes OES and/or other response units.
F5:
Neither OES nor EDCOE keeps records of site visits by OES with regard to training for crisis management. 5
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In order to alleviate natural parental panic that arises when parents are separated from their children during perceived danger, it is recommended that OES and EDCOE collaborate on the creation of a video, presented by the Sheriff and the Superintendent of Schools. It is further recommended that the video be completed and ready to share with parents by the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The DVD and related printed material would outline generic safety plans as well as law enforcement codes designed to protect not only the victims, but also concerned and well-meaning parents/community members. It is also strongly recommended that the video be a mandated parent presentation in all schools, to be viewed as school sites see most efficient, i.e. Back to School Night, district web-sites, CDs included in Parent Handbooks, etc.
R2:
As another educational effort designed to further alleviate parental panic both before and during an incident, the Grand Jury recommends that every Parent Handbook include a section on Emergency Crisis Management which informs parents of the school plan should an incident occur. This book would be on hand as a ready reference in time of need.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that at least one full evacuation and practice of the REDI II emergency plan – a system which applies the Incident Commander concept providing for multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary coordination and cooperation, and which also allows school leaders the ability to network with emergency response teams – be conducted annually at each site. The practice should include all staff and students as well as OES and/or other emergency response units.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that OES survey and photograph the physical grounds of every school site – to be included in their BowMac emergency database (software used by law enforcement). Also included in this information would be any unique and possibly problematic features which would require additional support or resources, i.e. ingress and egress.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that both OES and EDCOE, as well as individual school sites and districts, keep emergency response records that include dates of training and practice - to be maintained and supervised by EDCOE.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Foul odor when entering building from parking lot
F2:
No designated break room
F3:
Inadequate heating and air conditioning system
F4:
Loose and stained ceiling tiles
F5:
No alternate evacuation route on third floor
F6:
Single pane windows in some areas
F7:
Badly deteriorated exterior, i.e. paint, wood, stucco
F8:
Shortage of parking in winter
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports, not grand jury reports or responses.