El Dorado County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Of 58 counties, only 14 Grand Juries responded to our letter.
F2:
Of 14 counties who responded, 7 county Grand Jury budgets were decreased, 4 remained the same, and 3 budgets were increased.
F3:
Of 13 counties who responded, 2 county Grand Juries are likely to overspend, 4 are likely to meet their budget, and 7 are likely to under spend their budget.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The five City of South Lake Tahoe Council Members are paid $452/month. With health insurance, retirement benefits and expenses, the total cost equates to $201,000 annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that South Lake Tahoe City Council and Manager should perform a city services review by comparing the actual cost of city services versus the cost of the county absorbing these services.
F2:
The South Lake Tahoe City Clerk’s Office, which exists to serve the City Council, has an annual budget of $332,252.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that South Lake Tahoe City Council and Manager make the results of the city services review available for public comment.
F3:
The cities of South Lake Tahoe and Placerville have combined police budgets of over $3 million. Administrative costs would be reduced and/or eliminated if the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department were to oversee law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that Placerville City Council and Manager should perform a city services review by comparing the actual cost of city services versus the cost of the county absorbing these services. 68
F4:
The combined budgets of the two cities is over $50 million. The County of El Dorado maintains duplicate departments with existing offices in Placerville and South Lake Tahoe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that Placerville City Council and Manager make the results of the city services review available for public comment.
F5:
There would be substantial cost savings with consolidation of city and county services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors collaborate with the City Councils and Managers of South Lake Tahoe and Placerville and El Dorado County Department Heads in order to discuss the benefits of consolidation of city and county services
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
The 2011-2012 Grand Jury recommends that the 2012-2013 Grand Jury continue the investigation to discuss the benefits of consolidation of city and county services. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: 2012-2013 Grand Jury El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Placerville City Council Placerville City Manager South Lake Tahoe City Council South Lake Tahoe City Manager 69
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Procedures on how to file a complaint are the same county-wide. (Attachment 5) 2. California Education Code §35294.2 requires schools to have a bully policy in place. (Attachment 3) 3. Schools within the PUSD do not have a complaint form in their handbooks; however, it is available on the district website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD develop a complaint form to specifically address bullying and harassment. This form should be available in both the Student Handbook and on the district website.
F2:
The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD implement yearly employee training on bully prevention and conflict resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD implement yearly employee training on bully prevention and conflict resolution.
F3:
The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD employees be properly trained on when and how to report inappropriate conduct, bullying or harassment, as directed in AR4158.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD employees be properly trained on when and how to report inappropriate conduct, bullying or harassment, as directed in AR4158.
F4:
PUSD uses the Williams Uniform Complaint Form to address all complaints; however, this form does not address bullying or harassment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends adding a definition of bullying to the Policy for Prevention of Bullying. Responses Responses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Office of Education Placerville Union School District 12 (Attachment 1) Placerville Union SD | 4000 | AR 4158, 4258,4358 Personnel Employee Security An employee may use reasonable and necessary force for his/her self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property; to quell a disturbance threatening physical injury to others; or to obtain possession of weapons or other dangerous objects within the control of a student. (Education Code 44807, 49001) (cf. 5131.7 - Weapons and Dangerous Instruments) (cf. 5144 - Discipline) Employees shall promptly report to the principal or other immediate supervisor any attack, assault, or physical threat made against them by a student. Both the employee and the principal or other immediate supervisor shall promptly report such instances to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. (Education Code 44014) In addition, employees shall promptly report to the principal or supervisor, and may report to law enforcement, any attack, assault, or threat made against them on school grounds by any other individual. (cf. 3515.2 - Disruptions) Reports of attack, assault, or threat shall be forwarded immediately to the Superintendent or designee. (cf. 3320 - Claims and Actions Against the District) (cf. 3515.4 - Recovery for Property Loss or Damage) (cf. 3530 - Risk Management/Insurance) Notice Regarding Student Offenses Committed While Under School Jurisdiction The Superintendent or designee shall inform the teacher(s) of each student who has engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of, any act during the previous three school years which could constitute grounds for suspension or expulsion under Education Code 48900, with the exception of the possession or use of tobacco products, or Education Code 48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.4, or 48900.7. This information shall be based upon district records maintained in the ordinary course of business or records received from a law enforcement agency. (Education Code 49079) 13 (cf. 5125 - Student Records) (cf. 5144.1 - Suspension and Expulsion/Due Process) Upon receiving a transfer student's record regarding acts committed by the student that resulted in his/her suspension or expulsion, the Superintendent or designee shall inform the student's teacher(s) that the student was suspended or expelled from his/her former district and of the act that resulted in the suspension or expulsion. (Education Code 48201) Information received by teacher(s) shall be received in confidence for the limited purpose for which it was provided and shall not be further disseminated by the teacher. (Education Code 49079) Notice Regarding Student Offenses Committed While Outside School Jurisdiction When informed by the court that a minor student has been found by a court to have committed any felony or any misdemeanor involving curfew, gambling, alcohol, drugs, tobacco products, carrying of weapons, a sex offense listed in Penal Code 290, assault or battery, larceny, vandalism, or graffiti, the Superintendent or designee shall so inform the school principal. (Welfare and Institutions Code 827) The principal shall disseminate this information to any counselor who directly supervises or reports on the student's behavior or progress. The principal also may inform any teacher or administrator he/she thinks may need the information so as to work with the student appropriately, avoid being needlessly vulnerable, or protect others from vulnerability. (Welfare and Institutions Code 827) Any court-initiated information that a teacher, counselor, or administrator receives shall be kept confidential and used only to rehabilitate the student and protect other students and staff. The information shall be further disseminated only when communication with the student, parent/guardian, law enforcement staff, and probation officer is necessary to rehabilitate the student or to protect students and staff. (Welfare and Institutions Code 827) When a student is removed from school as a result of his/her offense, the Superintendent shall hold the court's information in a separate confidential file until the student is returned to the district. If the student is returned to a different district, the Superintendent shall transmit the information provided by the student's parole or probation officer to the superintendent of the new district of attendance. (Welfare and Institutions Code 827) Any confidential file of court-initiated information shall be kept until the student becomes 15, graduates from high school, or is released from juvenile court jurisdiction, whichever occurs first, and shall then be destroyed. (Welfare and Institutions Code 827) Procedures to Maintain Confidentiality of Student Offenses 14 In order to maintain confidentiality when providing information about student offenses to counselors and teachers of classes/programs to which a student is assigned, the principal or designee shall send the staff member a written notification that one of his/her students has committed an offense that requires his/her review of a student's file in the school office. This notice shall not name or otherwise identify the student. The staff member shall be asked to initial the notification and return it to the principal or designee. The staff member shall also initial the student's file when reviewing it in the school office. Once the district has made a good faith effort to comply with the notification requirement of Education Code 49079 and Welfare and Institutions Code 827, an employee's failure to review the file constitutes district compliance with the requirement to provide notice to the teacher. Regulation PLACERVILLE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT approved: October 19, 2011 Placerville, California 15 (Attachment 3) Sample Policies Model policies on the prevention of bullying and on conflict resolution that were developed by the California Department of Education as resources to help California schools address these vital school safety concerns. To assure that California schools act promptly to resolve disputes, taunting, harassment, or bullying that could result in violence, the Legislature and the Governor enacted Assembly Bill 79 (Chapter 646, Statutes of 2001). This bill amends Education Code Section 35294.2 to include subdivision (g): "The State Department of Education shall develop model policies on the prevention of bullying and on conflict resolution and make the model policies available to school districts. A school district may adopt one or both of these policies for incorporation into its school safety plan." The California Department of Education developed the following policies as resources to help California schools address these vital school safety concerns. School districts may adapt these policies to local needs and are encouraged to include: Examples of strategies used in their schools for promoting positive behavior being practiced by its school community, Training conducted for teachers and staff about how to appropriately intervene in a dispute, including expectations from adults who observe a dispute or act of taunting, harassment, or bullying, Conflict resolution or peer mediation training provided to students and expectations of students who observe disputes that could lead to violence, including identifying the person(s) to be contacted if needed. Sample Policy for Bullying Prevention The _______________ School District believes that all students have a right to a safe and healthy school environment. The district, schools, and community have an obligation to promote mutual respect, tolerance, and acceptance. The _____________ School District will not tolerate behavior that infringes on the safety of any student. A student shall not intimidate or harass another student through words or actions. Such behavior includes: direct physical contact, such as hitting or shoving; verbal assaults, such as teasing or name-calling; and social isolation or manipulation. The _____________ School District expects students and/or staff to immediately report incidents of bullying to the principal or designee. Staff are expected to immediately intervene when they see a bullying incident occur. Each complaint of bullying should be promptly investigated. This policy applies to students on school grounds, while traveling to and from school or a school-sponsored activity, during the lunch period, whether on or off campus, and during a school-sponsored activity. To ensure bullying does not occur on school campuses, the _________________ School District will provide staff development training in bullying prevention and cultivate acceptance and understanding in all students and staff to build each school's capacity to maintain a safe and healthy learning environment 17 Teachers should discuss this policy with their students in age-appropriate ways and should assure them that they need not endure any form of bullying. Students who bully are in violation of this policy and are subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Each school will adopt a Student Code of Conduct to be followed by every student while on school grounds, or when traveling to and from school or a school-sponsored activity, and during lunch period, whether on or off campus. The Student Code of Conduct includes, but is not limited to: Any student who engages in bullying may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Students are expected to immediately report incidents of bullying to the principal or designee. Students can rely on staff to promptly investigate each complaint of bullying in a thorough and confidential manner. If the complainant student or the parent of the student feels that appropriate resolution of the investigation or complaint has not been reached, the student or the parent of the student should contact the principal or the Office of Student Services. The school system prohibits retaliatory behavior against any complainant or any participant in the complaint process. The procedures for intervening in bullying behavior include, but are not limited, to the following: All staff, students and their parents will receive a summary of this policy prohibiting bullying: at the beginning of the school year, as part of the student handbook and/or information packet, as part of new student orientation, and as part of the school system's notification to parents. The school will make reasonable efforts to keep a report of bullying and the results of investigation confidential. Staff are expected to immediately intervene when they see a bullying incident occur. People witnessing or experiencing bullying are encouraged to report the incident; such reporting will not reflect on the victim or witnesses in any way. Sample Policy for Conflict Resolution The _________________ School District believes that all students have a right to a safe and healthy school environment. Part of a healthy environment is the freedom to openly disagree. With this freedom comes the responsibility to discuss and resolve disagreements with respect for the rights and opinions of others. To prevent conflict, each school within the _______________ School District will incorporate conflict resolution education and problem solving techniques into the curriculum and campus programs. This is an important step in promoting respect and acceptance, developing new ways of communicating, understanding, and accepting differing values and cultures within the school community and helps ensure a safe and healthy learning environment The _______________ School District will provide training to develop the knowledge, attitudes, and skills students need to choose alternatives to self-destructive, violent behavior and dissolve interpersonal and intergroup conflict. Each school will adopt a Student Code of Conduct to be followed by every student while on school grounds, when traveling to and from school or a school-sponsored activity, and during lunch period, whether on or off campus. The Student Code of Conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: Students are to resolve their disputes without resorting to violence. Students, especially those trained in conflict resolution and peer mediation, are encouraged to help fellow students resolve problems peaceably. Students can rely on staff trained in conflict resolution and peer mediation strategies to intervene in any dispute likely to result in violence. Students needing help in resolving a disagreement, or students observing conflict may contact an adult or peer mediators (give location where listing of designated staff and students is posted). Students involved in a dispute will be referred to a conflict resolution or peer mediation session with trained adult or peer mediators. Staff and mediators will keep the discussions confidential. Conflict resolution procedures shall not supplant the authority of staff to act to prevent violence, ensure campus safety, maintain order, and discipline students. PLACERVILLE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY FOR PREVENTION OF BULLYING The Placerville Union School District believes that all students have a right to a safe and healthy school environment. The district, schools, and community have an obligation to promote mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance. The Placerville Union School District will not tolerate behavior that infringes on the safety of any student. A student shall not intimidate or harass another student through words or actions. Such behavior includes direct physical contact, such as hitting or shoving; verbal assaults, such as teasing or name-calling; and social isolation or manipulation. The Placerville Union School District expects students and/ or staff to immediately report incidents of bullying to the principal or designee. Staff members are expected to immediately intervene when they see a bullying incident. Each complaint of bullying should be promptly investigated. This policy applies to students on school grounds, while they are traveling to and from school or a school-sponsored activity off-site, during the lunch period whether on or off campus, and during a school-sponsored activity. To ensure bullying does not occur on school campuses, the Placerville Union School District will provide staff development training in prevention of bullying and cultivate acceptance and understanding in all students and staff to develop each school’s ability to maintain a safe and healthy learning environment. Teachers should discuss this policy with students in ways appropriate to their ages and should assure them that they need not endure any form of bullying. Students who bully are in violation of this policy and are subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. Each school will adopt a Student Code of Conduct to be followed by every student while he or she is on school grounds, when traveling to and from school or a school-sponsored activity, and during lunch period, whether on or off campus. The Student Code of Conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following actions and consequences: • Any student who engages in bullying shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. • Students are expected to immediately report incidents of bullying to the principal or designee. • Students can rely on staff to promptly investigate each complaint of bullying in a thorough and confidential manner. If the complainant student or the parent of the student believes that the investigation or complaint was not resolved appropriately, the student or the parent of the student should contact the principal or the school office. The school system prohibits retaliatory behavior against any complainant or any participant in the complaint process. The procedures for intervening in bullying behavior include, but are not limited to, the following: • All staff, students, and parents will receive a summary of the policy prohibiting bullying at the beginning of the school year, as part of the student handbook and/or information packet, as part of new student orientation, and as part of the school system’s notification to parents. • The school will make reasonable efforts to keep confidential a report of bullying and the results of the investigation. • Staff members are expected to immediately intervene when they see a bullying incident occur. • People witnessing or experiencing bullying are encouraged to report the incident; such reporting will not reflect on the victim or witnesses in any way. Allwork/bullying policy 10/15/08 Placerville Union SD Exhibit 1312.4 WILLIAMS UNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCEDURES COMPLAINT FORM: WILLIAMS UNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCEDURES Education Code 35186 creates a procedure for the filing of complaints concerning deficiencies related to instructional materials, conditions of facilities that are not maintained in a clean or safe manner or in good repair, teacher vacancy or misassignment. The complaint and response are public documents as provided by law. Complaints may be filed anonymously. However, if you wish to receive a response to your complaint, you must provide the contact information below. Response requested? ___Yes ___ No Contact Information: Name: __________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________ Phone Number: Day: _____________________ Evening: _____________________ E-mail address, if any: _____________________ Location of the problem that is the subject of this complaint: School: _____________________ Course title/grade level and teacher name: _____________________ Room number/name of room/location of facility: _____________________ Date problem was observed: _____________________ Only the following issues may be the subject of this complaint process. If you wish to complain about an issue not specified below, please use the appropriate district complaint procedure. Specific issue(s) of the complaint: (Please check all that apply. A complaint may contain more than one allegation.)
F5:
PUSD Administrative Regulation 4158 requires district employees to report anyone treating a child inappropriately.
F6:
Employees receive training every two years on sexual harassment in the workplace. They do not currently receive ongoing training in bully prevention. The students sign an anti- bully pledge every year. (Attachment 1) 7. The bully policy only covers student to student bullying. It does not cover adult to student, adult to adult, or student to adult bullying or harassment. (Attachment 4) 8. The Policy for Prevention of Bullying does not include a definition of bullying. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that PUSD develop a complaint form to specifically address bullying and harassment. This form should be available in both the Student Handbook and on the district website.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Departments within El Dorado County have the ability to approve smaller contracts without a bid process, and do so on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the El Dorado County Charter to include ‘services’ under Article 6, Section 601, when purchases are made for the county.
F2:
Department Heads frequently contract with businesses from outside El Dorado County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that all county contracts be awarded to vendors within El Dorado County as long as they meet the requirements and unless it is found that that type of business does not exist in the county. Responses Responses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Office El Dorado County Department of Transportation 76
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Members of the 2011-2012 El Dorado County Grand Jury inspected the Placerville Juvenile Hall, Placerville County Jail, South Lake Tahoe Jail, South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center and Growlersburg Conservation Camp.
F2:
Interviews were conducted with staff at the facilities and a thorough inspection of each facility was completed.
F3:
All facilities were found to be clean, safe and well managed.
F4:
Detainees at each location had ready access to medical care.
F5:
There was a process in place for addressing detainee grievances.
F6:
At South Lake Tahoe Jail, there was an uncompleted remodel of a steel door frame, which dates back to 2009.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Fee waivers, when requested, may be granted for building permits, encroachment permits, variances, zone reclassifications, administrative permits, or use permits. 45 2. Board of Supervisors Policy B-2 authorizes the Chief Administrative Officer to waive fees according to the established procedure and must report said waivers to the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The El Dorado County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors review Board of Supervisors Policy B-2 (last updated in 1989), and should consider updating the policy to include situations such as theft or other criminal acts of an item which requires permitting.
F3:
The following are current acceptable reasons to apply for a fee waiver: extreme financial hardship, delayed actions caused by the county, a facility or project proposed by a non-profit or special district which will provide a public benefit, there is no actual cost to the county, the project is an emergency project carried out by a public agency, or a project which is carried out by a private agency to address life threatening and/or public safety issues.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The El Dorado County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors develop a procedure which outlines how Development Services and the Chief Administrative Office handle fee waivers. Responses Responses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Office El Dorado County Development Services 46
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
F2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
F3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. v RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected. Public Agencies The governing body of any public agency (also referring to a department) must respond within 90 days from the release of the report to the public. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court as indicated in the Response Section of each report. Elective Officers or Agency Head All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond within 60 days of the release of the report to the public. Responses must be sent to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, as specified in the Response Section of each report, with a copy to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report is in violation of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action. Such action is likely to include further investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. The current Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court: Presiding Judge Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Department 3 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that your responses be sent in an original “word” file, or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please e-mail to the Grand jury at: scadmin@eldoradocourt.org. Thank you. vi Estimated Economic Impact Report 2011-2012 Grand Jury 001 - El Dorado County Policies and Procedures There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 002 - Placerville Union School District Business Practices There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 003 - El Dorado County Business License Ordinance There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially receive revenues in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 004 - Department of Transportation – Financial Management There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 005 - California Grand Jury Budgets There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 006 - Fee Waivers – Iron Gate There are negative estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially lose revenues in the thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 007 - El Dorado County Detention Facilities There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 008 - South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 009 - Sheriff’s Department Incentive Pay – (Diploma Gate) Follow-Up There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $23,353.11 by following the recommendations in this report. 010 - Consolidation of City and County Services There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. The City of Placerville and the City of South Lake Tahoe could potentially save millions of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. vii 011 - Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $22,000 by following the recommendations in this report. 012 - Placerville Police Investigative Policy There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 013 - El Dorado County Contracts There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. Grand Jury There are positive estimated financial impacts. The Grand Jury applied for an Air Quality Resources Grant and was awarded $14,719.00 with the possibility of additional funds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total estimated financial impact from Grand Jury Final Report: El Dorado County: Actual: $45,353.11 Estimated: $250,000.00 City of Placerville: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 City of South Lake Tahoe: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 Grand Jury: Actual: $14,719.00 Estimated: $500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Created by: Ryan Donner 2012 viii -001 1 Placerville Union School District - Policies and Procedures GJ-11-002 10 El Dorado County Business License Ordinance GJ-11-003 23 Department of Transportation - Financial Management GJ-11-004 33 California Grand Jury Budgets GJ-11-005 36 Fee Waivers - Iron Gate GJ-11-006 45 El Dorado County Detention Facilities GJ-11-007 50 South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena GJ-11-008 52 Sheriff’s Department - Incentive Pay (Diploma Gate) Follow Up GJ-11-009 65 Consolidation of City and County Services GJ-11-010 67 Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds GJ-11-011 70 Placerville Police Investigative Policies GJ-11-012 73 El Dorado County Contracts GJ-11-013 75 Index Title Page # Grand Jury Report Index by Group 78 Grand Jury Report Index by Year 83
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
R2:
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. v RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected. Public Agencies The governing body of any public agency (also referring to a department) must respond within 90 days from the release of the report to the public. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court as indicated in the Response Section of each report. Elective Officers or Agency Head All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond within 60 days of the release of the report to the public. Responses must be sent to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, as specified in the Response Section of each report, with a copy to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report is in violation of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action. Such action is likely to include further investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. The current Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court: Presiding Judge Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Department 3 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that your responses be sent in an original “word” file, or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please e-mail to the Grand jury at: scadmin@eldoradocourt.org. Thank you. vi Estimated Economic Impact Report 2011-2012 Grand Jury 001 - El Dorado County Policies and Procedures There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 002 - Placerville Union School District Business Practices There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 003 - El Dorado County Business License Ordinance There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially receive revenues in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 004 - Department of Transportation – Financial Management There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 005 - California Grand Jury Budgets There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 006 - Fee Waivers – Iron Gate There are negative estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially lose revenues in the thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 007 - El Dorado County Detention Facilities There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 008 - South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 009 - Sheriff’s Department Incentive Pay – (Diploma Gate) Follow-Up There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $23,353.11 by following the recommendations in this report. 010 - Consolidation of City and County Services There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. The City of Placerville and the City of South Lake Tahoe could potentially save millions of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. vii 011 - Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $22,000 by following the recommendations in this report. 012 - Placerville Police Investigative Policy There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 013 - El Dorado County Contracts There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. Grand Jury There are positive estimated financial impacts. The Grand Jury applied for an Air Quality Resources Grant and was awarded $14,719.00 with the possibility of additional funds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total estimated financial impact from Grand Jury Final Report: El Dorado County: Actual: $45,353.11 Estimated: $250,000.00 City of Placerville: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 City of South Lake Tahoe: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 Grand Jury: Actual: $14,719.00 Estimated: $500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Created by: Ryan Donner 2012 viii -001 1 Placerville Union School District - Policies and Procedures GJ-11-002 10 El Dorado County Business License Ordinance GJ-11-003 23 Department of Transportation - Financial Management GJ-11-004 33 California Grand Jury Budgets GJ-11-005 36 Fee Waivers - Iron Gate GJ-11-006 45 El Dorado County Detention Facilities GJ-11-007 50 South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena GJ-11-008 52 Sheriff’s Department - Incentive Pay (Diploma Gate) Follow Up GJ-11-009 65 Consolidation of City and County Services GJ-11-010 67 Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds GJ-11-011 70 Placerville Police Investigative Policies GJ-11-012 73 El Dorado County Contracts GJ-11-013 75 Index Title Page # Grand Jury Report Index by Group 78 Grand Jury Report Index by Year 83 -001 Reason for Report A recommendation was made by the 2010-2011 El Dorado County Grand Jury that the 2011-2012 El Dorado County Grand Jury consider investigating El Dorado County Counsel’s preparation of contracts entered into by the Board of Supervisors.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Information Technologies respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Probation Department respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Procurement and Support Services respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Public Defender respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Auditor/Controller El Dorado County Assessor El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Office El Dorado County Counsel’s Office El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office El Dorado County Information Technologies El Dorado County Probation Department El Dorado County Procurement and Support Services El Dorado County Public Defender El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department 5 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page Number: C-17 1 of 1 PROCUREMENT POLICY Date Adopted: Revised Date: 10/11/2006 2/5/2008
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector publish a list of businesses that are not operating with a current Business License monthly on the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s website and in other public media. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Building Department El Dorado County Environmental Management Department El Dorado County Fire Protection Districts El Dorado County Planning Department El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department El Dorado County Treasurer/Tax Collector 27 DEPARTMENTS THAT RESPNDED IN PHONE RESPONSES WRITING. ATTACHMENT i El Dorado County Business License Utilization Survey The purpose of this document is to identify what departments use the Treasurer/Tax Collector's "Business License - Active List". Information provided by each Department. COULD DEPARTMENT PERFORM DEPARTMENTS CURRENT USER LIST? COULD USE LIST? IMPORTANT WITHOUT IT? Agriculture Yes Yes SOMEWHAT Without it would be difficult. List is very helpful to obtain owner names and to meet Constitutional requirements. Without it would be difficult. List used to meet Constitutional requirements and as a Assessor Yes yes EXTREMELY method of discovering businesses not required to report to Assessor. Without it would be more expensive, labor intensive, and time consumenng. Auditor/Controller CAO Child Support Services Yes Yes Yes Yes. List used for collection of money due parents and the collection of debts owed to Country and Courts. County Counsel Development Services No Without it would be difficult and cause considerable extra work. Used for fraud cases, District Attorney Yes yes EXTREMELY locating witnesses or victims criminal cases, workers comp cases, welfare fraud cases, contractor cases. Lack of reprt translates into more costs. DOT Elections No No Yes Environmental Management Yes Extremely No Health Services No No No Yes Human Resources No No No yes Human Services No No No Yes Information Technologies Library No No Yes Public Defender Without it would be difficult. Information is extremely valuable in our collaboration with Surveyor Yes Yes Extremely Developmental Services re address assignments for Suites/Units and Commercial Buildings. Recorder Clerk No No No Treasurer/Tax Collector Yes Extremely Creator of the list Sheriff Yes yes Somewhat Use to verify Business Licenses Veterans Affairs No No No -004 Reason for Report The Grand Jury is charged by law to identify inefficiencies in government. A water and sewer invoice was submitted to the County Department of Transportation (DOT), in the amount of $208,759.57, which was extremely high for a 60 day billing cycle.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The current Business License Ordinance (Chapter 5.08) has not been properly administered by the authorized authorities who oversee the ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update the Business License Ordinance for better enforcement and compliance with the county’s needs, as reflected in Attachment 1.
F2:
In March of 2012, the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Department stated that non- compliance is only 10%. In the fall of 2011, the Grand Jury discovered that there is approximately 50% non-compliance with the ordinance by businesses and organizations that are required to have a Business License.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector update the Business License Application Form TC120. The following changes should be made: a. Update “clearance (if applicable)” - The signee’s Employee Identification Number should also be written as verification. 25 b. Update “Exemption A” - Agriculture exemptions do not apply if products are repurposed. c. Update “Note 2” - Ordinance Code 5.04.040 states that businesses within the city limits require a County Business License if those businesses solicit orders or deliver merchandise to the unincorporated area of the county.
F3:
The Business License Complaint was received by the Grand Jury in September of 2011. The Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Department began verifying Business Licenses in roughly November or December of 2011. Through the verification process, they now have a list of businesses that do not have a Business License.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department utilize the Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (S.T.A.R.) to assist in enforcement of the Ordinance.
F4:
The Business License fee is intended to cover the cost of processing the form pursuant to 5.16.010 of the Business Taxes, Licenses & Regulations Ordinance Code.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should implement a computer program that will verify issues at the initiation of the application process (Examples: check correct zoning for type of business by verifying parcel number, check for past due taxes, and check State Board of Equalization).
F5:
The Assessor’s Office uses Business Licenses to determine who shall pay business property taxes, and in their opinion, there is no better method available to determine who shall pay. 24 6. The majority of the Board of Supervisors indicated that the Business License Ordinance is an ineffective and/or inefficient way to regulate businesses in the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should maintain appropriate staffing to manage the Business License Ordinance.
F6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should ensure personnel involved in the Business License process be properly trained in all requirements of the Business License Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should ensure personnel involved in the Business License process be properly trained in all requirements of the Business License Ordinance.
F7:
Businesses exempt from a Business License include: Agriculture, Employment, Public Agencies, Charities, Religious, Charitable and non-profit organizations, Newspapers, and Fair Concessions. (Chapter 5.08.070) 8. When an agricultural item is repurposed, the business is no longer exempt from requiring a Business License. (Example: As soon as a winery crushes their grapes, they are no longer exempt from a Business License.) 9. Multiple businesses at the same location owned by the same person(s) require only one Business License under one of the business names.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Business License Ordinance should require businesses, even when owned by the same person at the same location, to obtain a separate Business License.
F8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should share the list of businesses that do not have a Business License with other departments that utilize the “Business License-Active List.” 9. The Grand Jury recommends that all County Departments required to sign off on the Business License Application should enact a time study that will look into the actual cost of issuing the Business License.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should share the list of businesses that do not have a Business License with other departments that utilize the “Business License-Active List.”
F10:
Businesses in the City of Placerville and the City of South Lake Tahoe are required to have a County Business License if they solicit business outside of the city limits. (Chapter 5.04.040) 11. The Grand Jury sent a survey on the use of the “Business License – Active List” by county departments. Many county departments use the list of businesses. (Attachment 1) 12. Of eight similar sized counties, the highest Business License cost is Humboldt County at $294 per license annually plus a percentage of gross income. The lowest cost per license is El Dorado County at $32 per license annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector should have a copy of all the membership lists for Chambers of Commerce and other business related organizations within the County. Those lists should be compared annually to the “Business License – Active List.”
F13:
The Coloma-Lotus, El Dorado County, El Dorado Hills, Georgetown Divide, Shingle Springs-Cameron Park, and South Lake Tahoe Chambers of Commerce were cooperative in helping the Grand Jury review their membership lists. The Pollock Pines-Camino Chamber of Commerce did not comply with the Grand Jury’s request.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that all County Departments required to sign off on the Business License Application should enact a time study that will look into the actual cost of issuing the Business License.
R11:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector publish a list of businesses that are not operating with a current Business License monthly on the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s website and in other public media. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to the: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Building Department El Dorado County Environmental Management Department El Dorado County Fire Protection Districts El Dorado County Planning Department El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department El Dorado County Treasurer/Tax Collector 27 DEPARTMENTS THAT RESPNDED IN PHONE RESPONSES WRITING. ATTACHMENT i El Dorado County Business License Utilization Survey The purpose of this document is to identify what departments use the Treasurer/Tax Collector's "Business License - Active List". Information provided by each Department. COULD DEPARTMENT PERFORM DEPARTMENTS CURRENT USER LIST? COULD USE LIST? IMPORTANT WITHOUT IT? Agriculture Yes Yes SOMEWHAT Without it would be difficult. List is very helpful to obtain owner names and to meet Constitutional requirements. Without it would be difficult. List used to meet Constitutional requirements and as a Assessor Yes yes EXTREMELY method of discovering businesses not required to report to Assessor. Without it would be more expensive, labor intensive, and time consumenng. Auditor/Controller CAO Child Support Services Yes Yes Yes Yes. List used for collection of money due parents and the collection of debts owed to Country and Courts. County Counsel Development Services No Without it would be difficult and cause considerable extra work. Used for fraud cases, District Attorney Yes yes EXTREMELY locating witnesses or victims criminal cases, workers comp cases, welfare fraud cases, contractor cases. Lack of reprt translates into more costs. DOT Elections No No Yes Environmental Management Yes Extremely No Health Services No No No Yes Human Resources No No No yes Human Services No No No Yes Information Technologies Library No No Yes Public Defender Without it would be difficult. Information is extremely valuable in our collaboration with Surveyor Yes Yes Extremely Developmental Services re address assignments for Suites/Units and Commercial Buildings. Recorder Clerk No No No Treasurer/Tax Collector Yes Extremely Creator of the list Sheriff Yes yes Somewhat Use to verify Business Licenses Veterans Affairs No No No
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The complaint, filed with the Placerville Police Department on September 1, 2011, is not complete. The referrals to appropriate agencies are also not complete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Placerville Police Department follow through with appropriate protocol to finalize this investigation.
F2:
At the time the report was filed there was only one officer on duty. 73 3. The officer on duty did not follow Placerville Police Department protocol in dealing with sexual assault victims; additionally, it was determined that the officer involved lacked sensitivity during the interview.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Placerville Police Department officers and personnel receive training in sensitivity and sexual assault procedures and protocol.
F4:
The Placerville Police Department did not update the victim on her case leaving her frustrated and confused.
F5:
The Placerville Police Department is conducting an administrative investigation into the officer’s actions.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Placerville Police Department forward the results of their internal administrative investigation to the Grand Jury. Responses Responses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office Placerville Police Department 74
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
California Proposition 218 has clarified that the governing body cannot overrule the property owner vote. Once an assessment is created it may be repealed or reduced by popular vote.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe and the JPA hold a special election to allow property owners who voted for a publicly financed Ice Arena (whose proceeds were to be placed in the General Fund), to change this vote to a publicly financed Ice Arena (whose majority proceeds are to provide income to a private contractor).
F2:
On September 19, 2000, voters approved Measure S, authorizing the issuance of tax free bonds, in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000, to finance the acquisition, construction, equipping and improvement of certain public recreational facilities and certain improvements to be owned by the City and the Resort Improvement District (collectively, the "Facilities") and the levy of the special tax. The bonds are paid by a Special Tax levy terminating in fiscal year 2030-31.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the South Lake Tahoe City Council members and South Lake Tahoe City employees include dates when signing City documents.
F3:
The South Lake Tahoe City Council created the illusion of taxpayer approval on this special tax without voter approval by converting the tax status of the tax free bonds to taxable bonds and converting the public facility to a private facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council members should acknowledge and respond to all e-mails personally addressed to …@cityofslt.us.
F4:
South Lake Tahoe City Council members do not consistently attach a date to their signatures when signing documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the JPA staff inform the JPA Board of Directors of all bond issues when they arise.
F5:
By failing to respond to their email communications, the South Lake Tahoe City Council hampered the Grand Jury’s investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the South Lake Tahoe City Council establish an objective approach to stipulating when outside counsel will be consulted when constructing a contract. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors South Lake Tahoe City Council South Lake Tahoe City Manager South Lake Tahoe Recreation Facilities Joint Powers Authority 54 (Attachment 3) California Proposition 218 RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT SECTION 1. TITLE. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ''Right to Vote on Taxes Act." SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent. SECTION 3. VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES. Article XIII C is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE XIII C SECTION 1. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) ''General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (b) ''Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity. (c) ''Special district" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. (d) ''Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund. SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution: (a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is 58 imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b). (d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two- thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article II, the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives. SECTION 4. ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY RELATED FEE REFORM. Article XIII D is added to the California Constitution to read: ARTICLE XIII D SECTION 1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIII C shall be construed to: (a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge. (b) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development. (c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes. SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article: (a) ''Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII C. (b) ''Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency 59 for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. ''Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, ''special assessment," ''benefit assessment," ''maintenance assessment" and ''special assessment tax." (c) ''Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency. (d) ''District" means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service. (e) ''Fee" or ''charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service. (f) ''Maintenance and operation expenses" means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement. (g) ''Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fee, or charge in question. (h) ''Property-related service" means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership. (i) ''Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute ''special benefit." SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except: (1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIII A. (2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A. (3) Assessments as provided by this article. (4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. (b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership. SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel 60 shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. (c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed. (d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment. (e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. (f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the 61 public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question. (g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e). SEC. 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4: (a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. (c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States. (d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4. SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. (a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee 62 or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge. (2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge. (b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements: (1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4. (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article. (c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two- thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of 63 elections under this subdivision. (d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section. SECTION 5. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent. SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this act, or part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable. 64
F6:
The JPA staff alerted the South Lake Tahoe City Attorney that the contract the City was considering was possibly not compliant to the non-taxable bond, which was confirmed by outside JPA counsel on August 19, 2011. JPA staff did not alert the JPA Board about this matter until after the signing of the agreement on August 23, 2011.
F7:
The City of South Lake Tahoe Council and Staff failed to contact outside counsel on bond issues when constructing the South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena Management and Operations Agreement. Recommendations 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe and the JPA hold a special election to allow property owners who voted for a publicly financed Ice Arena (whose proceeds were to be placed in the General Fund), to change this vote to a publicly financed Ice Arena (whose majority proceeds are to provide income to a private contractor).
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The expenditures by Pioneer Fire Protection District to the consultants and associate, performed after the ballot certification are in violation of California Government Code §54964 (Unlawful Expenditure in Support of Ballot Measure) and California Government Code §8314 (Unlawful Use of State Resources).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury orders that the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office institute suit to recover the $10,000 already paid to the local consultant firm.
F2:
Under Penal Code §932 the Grand Jury can order the District Attorney of the county to review the work done, determine the amount and value of work preformed prior to certification and to recover any money that was charged or expended for work after that date. Those funds request or charged for work after certification are in the Grand Jury’s judgment is not to be paid or if paid to be returned to the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that El Dorado County and/or Pioneer Fire Protection District not pay the additional $12,000 to the local consultant until an audit is made of allowable versus illegal payments. Responses Responses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Auditor/Controller El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office El Dorado County Elections Department Pioneer Fire Protection District Approved by: Presiding Judge, Suzanne N. Kingsbury and Supervising Judge, Steven C. Bailey. 72
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
EID misread El Dorado County’s Government Center water meter, forwarding a $208,759.57 bill for payment.
F2:
DOT worked with EID and the City of Placerville to check the consumption of each account. The meter was electronically verified on several occasions and alleged to be accurate.
F3:
On May 2, 2011, the DOT Director signed and submitted the above claim for payment. This claim represented an 800% increase in services from the previous year.
F4:
As a result of the Auditor/Controller’s persistence, the meters were read manually. Due to the discovery of an error this resulted in a $130,000 credit to the county.
F5:
The acting DOT Director is in the process of modifying the department’s Invoice Processing Flowchart.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Department of Transportation continue their efforts to modify the DOT Invoice Processing Flowchart.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the DOT Director submit the modified Invoice Processing Flowchart to the Grand Jury and the Auditor/Controller upon completion. Responses Responses to both numbered findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 96150 This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Auditor/Controller El Dorado County Chief Administrative Office El Dorado County Department of Transportation Eldorado Irrigation District 34 (Attachment 1) DOT Invoice Processing Flowchart 35
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department Code of Ethics states in part “I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all…” and “Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life...” 2. One of the five Sheriff’s Department Officers paid back 59% of the pay increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury Orders the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office institute suit pursuant to Penal Code §932, to recover the $23,353.11.
F2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Human Resources Department readjust CalPERS pursuant to the Grand Jury’s order.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Human Resources Department readjust CalPERS pursuant to the Grand Jury’s order.
F3:
One of the five Sheriff’s Department Officers paid back 67% of the pay increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff’s Department conduct regular reviews of their Code of Ethics and employ methods to constantly remind the staff of this required higher standard of ethics. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office El Dorado County Human Resources El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department 66
F4:
Three of the five Sheriff’s Department Officers paid back 100% of the pay increases.
F5:
California Code of Civil Procedure §338 (C)(5)(d) states “Within three years: An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” 6. A total of $23,353.11 is due to the County of El Dorado.