El Dorado County Grand Jury
2013-2014
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 (23)
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
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. 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: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org. Thank you. -2014 Final Report iv
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that, since his employment with the Facilities Department, Chuck Harrell has not participated in heating and air conditioning contracts and has been specifically excluded from that process. Further, the Facilities Department has not entered into a contract with Comfort King since Mr. Harrell has been employed there. Comfort King has not and has vowed not to bid on any contracts with the County as long as Mr. Harrell is both an employee of the County and an officer of that company.
F2:
None of the allegations within the reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
F3:
Mr. Harrell does keep his contracting license with Comfort King and is listed as an officer of that Company, although he has not done any work for the company. Because of these facts, the Grand Jury understands that there can be the appearance of impropriety.
F4:
When patients are released from PHUF, there is a shortage of transitional housing destinations
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Facilities Department enter into an agreement with Comfort King that they not bid or procure any contract with the county while Mr. Harrell is an employee of the county and has any association with the company. That agreement should be done in writing and filed with the County. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Facilities Department and the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R2:
Investigate staff turnover rates; review adjacent area compensation levels and other retention tools as needed.
R3:
County Health and Human Services should focus on providing local placement, in the form of board and care residences, for patients in need of further supervision after being discharged from PUHF. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations to 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 addressed to the El Dorado Department of Health and Human Services for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org -09 REASON FOR REPORT A citizen complaint of alleged county fiscal negligence as well as ongoing media attention prompted the El Dorado County Grand Jury to investigate and assess the status of the county’s animal control shelter facility. The investigation led the Grand Jury to review the current county real estate acquisition and leasing process. SUMMARY The 2006 animal control site purchase and development plan decisions resulted in wasted public funds. New focus and procedures initiated by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) have the potential for more professionally qualified individuals and a more responsive facilities function in the county. The new animal control facility is an example of the effectiveness of those new procedures in that it will open this fall on-time and on-budget and at a reasonable cost to tax-payers. ACTIONS Documents reviewed: o Purchase contract County/Shinn Ranch dated May 9, 2006 o Purchase contract for current project dated December 12, 2012 o County Facilities Division planning grids, and lease schedules. o County Procedures o County BOS Records The complainant and associated witnesses were interviewed. Current and former employees of Department of Transportation, Facilities Division, Procurements and Contracts Division, Chief Administrative Office (CAO) and Surveyor’s Department were interviewed. The new animal control site and building were inspected. The Grand Jury made inquiries as to the practices in other California counties regarding leases and acquisitions.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
When grading work is done in El Dorado County and no permit is obtained and no permit fee paid, and the county is made aware of the work being done before the work is complete, the county will issue a stop work order.
F2:
When work improperly continues after issuance of a stop work order or if work is completed before a stop work order is issued, no enforcement action is taken.
F3:
Only payment of a permit fee triggers inspection of grading work performed.
F4:
Grading work performed where no permit fee is paid is not inspected.
F5:
El Dorado County does not enforce its Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Whether or not the Ordinance is amended, the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance should be enforced. RESPONSES Responses to both 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
F6:
The County’s failure to enforce its Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance encourages illegal grading to the detriment of other property owners and residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Whether or not the Ordinance is amended, the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance should be enforced. RESPONSES Responses to both 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should review the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and determine whether the Ordinance imposes overly burdensome requirements for rural access roads.
R2:
If the Board of Supervisors determines the requirements for grading of rural access roads are overly burdensome, it should amend the Ordinance to define appropriate requirements for the grading of those roads.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Non-paved private roads are notoriously deficient in meeting any standard. Situations like described here are opportunities to bring them to present day standards through a permitting process that embraces those standards.
F2:
The lack of information and plans by both the permit applicant and the Planning department make it impossible to validate the complainant’s claim. However, the Grand Jury does find that the Planning and Building Departments were deficient in their analysis of the scope of work for the project, acquisition and inspection of documents germane to the permit and subsequent inspections.
F3:
There was no evidence that the Development Services Department verified the existence of the easement and the permit applicant’s legal right to grade it at all, in any manner. Coupled with the improper parcel numbers referenced above the permit should not have been issued.
F4:
The permit was for roadway repairs and culvert installation, yet there was no inspection of culverts, but merely an inspection of rough grading, erosion control and a final inspection. Further, the Grand Jury finds that Development Services did not properly administer the County Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, and should have neither issued the permit nor inspected the work.
F5:
The El Dorado County Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance is Chapter 15.14 of the County Code. It is the law of El Dorado County. Public officials failed to follow the provisions of the Grading Ordinance; they failed to follow the law.
F6:
There was insufficient communication and interaction between the Development Services and Air Quality Management departments.
F7:
DOT was unable to recover the cost of cleaning up the washout. It did not have any record that it was actually done.
F8:
All County permit fees paid were later refunded by Board of Supervisors agenda item 11-1161 without explanation.
F9:
The El Dorado County Grading Ordinance may put undue burden on simple maintenance of rural roads when strict adherence to the Ordinance is practiced.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the administrative authority over the issuance of grading permits in Resolution 048-2007 be revised. The investigation of this complaint indicates that Development Services was not capable of properly administering the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Ordinance in this case. The Administration of the Grading Ordinance defined by Resolution 048-2007 should be revised to transfer administration under the headings Encroachments and General Grading from Development Services to the Department of Transportation. The Administration defined in heading Residential Grading should remain with Development Services.
R2:
The Planning and Building Departments should exercise increased due diligence in the processing of permit applications, analysis of the project and acquisition and inspection of documents.
R3:
The LMIS system should be improved to provide automatic notifications of one department’s activity that affect another department’s actions.
R4:
The County Grading Policy should be evaluated and possibly changed to provide a well-defined, yet less onerous and more permissive permitting process for simple maintenance of rural roads. RESPONSES Responses to both 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENTS [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachments ] El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item 11-1161 El Dorado County Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 15.14) El Dorado County Grading Design Manual
R5:
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENT [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachment ] El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office – Vehicle Abatement Program -14
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The complainants’ properties are flooded from runoff when there is substantial rain; causing erosion on their properties.
F2:
The internal and external drainage analysis of the Granada Heights revised subdivision was flawed. The County should not have approved this revised subdivision.
F3:
Deficiencies in County record keeping prevented County staff from locating the drainage plan for Granada Heights. Staff relied on an as built subdivision plan showing a drainage swale that, in fact, did not exist, leading to a claim against the wrong property owner. That property owner was forced to hire an attorney to defend against the mistaken claim.
F4:
The County illegally permitted the installation of a retaining wall and alteration of a drainage swale without requiring the analysis and plans required by its own regulations.
F5:
The County has admitted that the velocity of the water in the altered drainage swale and improper sizing of a pipe in an EID easement have contributed to the drainage, flooding, and erosion problems.
F6:
The County has the authority to remediate the harm done to the complainants and others similarly affected. The El Dorado County FINAL Revised Grading Ordinance, 2-5-07, Section 15.14.410, Corrective work, subsection A., Abatement of unlawfully created conditions allows the director to … order County workers or contractors to immediately enter private property to conduct work necessary to abate hazards to public health and safety such as: a. The alteration of drainage patterns that has caused, or has the potential to cause, flooding of or siltation upon any downstream property… It further states
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should analyze, or cause to have analyzed, the existing drainage of Granada Court, Granada Heights and surrounding properties and any drainage methods and devices within public right-of-way and private and public easements to determine their adequacy to properly convey storm runoff sufficiently to avert flooding and erosion of private property. Upon completion of such analysis, the county should install corrective measures in the public right of way and private and public easements to correct any deficiencies.
R2:
The Director of Development Services should require County employees to apply the requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
R3:
Prior to issuance of any permit, the County should thoroughly analyze the impacts on drainage by requiring the applicant to adhere to the specific requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
R4:
If it is determined that application of the Grading Ordinance in some cases is particularly onerous to some property owners, the Director of Development Services should study such cases and, with input from stakeholders, recommend appropriate exemptions.
R5:
The County should more aggressively implement the provisions of the Grading Ordinance cited above to restore properties to the condition existing before illegal grading and construction occurred and bill the landowner, lessee or licensee for costs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors is the policy making body for El Dorado County.
F2:
The proliferation of elected officials in El Dorado County compromises the performance of both the CAO and the Board of Supervisors itself resulting in ongoing inefficiency, loss of employee morale and failed programs and purchases.
F3:
When individual members of the Board of Supervisors focus on the day-to-day administration of County functions they are unable to focus on necessary long range planning.
F4:
Failure of the members of the Board of Supervisors to focus on their responsibility for the County’s vision and major policies brings disrespect for those policies and confusion for the staff and public.
F5:
Involvement by individual members of the Board of Supervisors in the day-to-day administration of County functions results in chaos, confusion, and poor morale among employees.
F6:
When non-elected department heads believe they report to the members of the Board of Supervisors and not to the Chief Administrative Officer, the ability of the CAO to perform the duties assigned to her is compromised and inefficiency is multiplied.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Charter should be amended to provide for the election of only those officials mandated by the California Constitution.
R2:
The Charter should be amended to clearly define and eliminate any ambiguity in the delineation of functions between the Board of Supervisors and the Chief Administrative Officer. The Board of Supervisors is the governing board of the County with responsibility for all policy decisions including adopting the budget for the County. The Chief Administrative Officer serves at the pleasure of the Board and is responsible for implementing the Board’s policies. All county employees should be hired by and report to the CAO. ATTACHMENT [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachment ] Draft of the recommended changes to the Charter RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R3:
Whether or not the Ordinance is amended, the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance should be enforced.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The unpermitted grading spread toxic limestone waste over the site causing dangerously high levels of pH in surrounding tributaries. DRAFT 5
F2:
Toxic limestone waste continues to flow into adjacent waterways. Nobody is doing anything to stop it. Not the owner, not the County and not the State.
F3:
The property along with several adjacent parcels have become the site of two important County projects: Diamond Dorado Parkway and Diamond Dorado Retail Center.
F4:
El Dorado County has executed and recorded two CONSENT TO MAKING OF IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION, where it appears the owners have offered part of the property to the County without charge for rights-of-way for a portion of the Parkway. The offer can be accepted by the County until 5/25/2025.
F5:
The County did not enforce the Grading Ordinance, Title 15.14 of the County Code. It is the law. The law was not enforced.
F6:
It would be completely irresponsible of the County to allow the Diamond Dorado Parkway project to proceed without ensuring that all environmental issues and mitigations have been resolved.
F7:
Section 15.14.410 of the Grading Ordinance is an extremely valuable tool to enforce proper grading of property. It should be used.
F8:
It is somewhat disquieting that enforcement compliance can be predicated by payment of fines and fees by the offending party, particularly when environmental concerns are paramount.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that El Dorado County immediately review whether spending public monies for the planning, engineering or improvements for Diamond Dorado Projects is wise given environmental concerns.
R2:
The County should engage an environmental consultant to measure the impacts of existing grading upon dispersal of limestone waste in consideration of up to date reports and water samples from State agencies including the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game.
R3:
The County should ensure that all environmental issues and mitigations have been resolved before continuing with the development of the Diamond Dorado Parkway and the Diamond Dorado Retail Center.
R4:
Property owners adjacent to the Project or in the vicinity of the Diamond Lime Plane should be advised of the existing contaminations.
R5:
Planning Services and DOT should explore using County Grading, Erosion, And Sediment Control Ordinance Section 15.14.410 to achieve prudent results.
R6:
The County should enforce the provisions of the Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance, Chapter 15.14 of the County Code. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with DRAFT 5 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENTS [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachments ] DFG Lindeman Violation Notice DFG Notice of Violation to District Attorney
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The complainants’ properties are flooded from runoff when there is substantial rain; causing erosion on their properties.
F2:
The internal and external drainage analysis of the Granada Heights revised subdivision was flawed. The County should not have approved this revised subdivision.
F3:
Deficiencies in County record keeping prevented County staff from locating the drainage plan for Granada Heights. Staff relied on an as built subdivision plan showing a drainage swale that, in fact, did not exist, leading to a claim against the wrong property owner. That property owner was forced to hire an attorney to defend against the mistaken claim.
F4:
The County illegally permitted the installation of a retaining wall and alteration of a drainage swale without requiring the analysis and plans required by its own regulations.
F5:
The County has admitted that the velocity of the water in the altered drainage swale and improper sizing of a pipe in an EID easement have contributed to the drainage, flooding, and erosion problems.
F6:
The County has the authority to remediate the harm done to the complainants and others similarly affected. The El Dorado County FINAL Revised Grading Ordinance, 2-5-07, Section 15.14.410, Corrective work, subsection A., Abatement of unlawfully created conditions allows the director to … order County workers or contractors to immediately enter private property to conduct work necessary to abate hazards to public health and safety such as: a. The alteration of drainage patterns that has caused, or has the potential to cause, flooding of or siltation upon any downstream property… It further states
F7:
DOT was unable to recover the cost of cleaning up the washout. It did not have any record that it was actually done.
F8:
All County permit fees paid were later refunded by Board of Supervisors agenda item 11-1161 without explanation.
F9:
The El Dorado County Grading Ordinance may put undue burden on simple maintenance of rural roads when strict adherence to the Ordinance is practiced.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County should analyze, or cause to have analyzed, the existing drainage of Granada Court, Granada Heights and surrounding properties and any drainage methods and devices within public right-of-way and private and public easements to determine their adequacy to properly convey storm runoff sufficiently to avert flooding and erosion of private property. Upon completion of such analysis, the county should install corrective measures in the public right of way and private and public easements to correct any deficiencies.
R2:
The Director of Development Services should require County employees to apply the requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
R3:
Prior to issuance of any permit, the County should thoroughly analyze the impacts on drainage by requiring the applicant to adhere to the specific requirements of the Grading Ordinance.
R4:
If it is determined that application of the Grading Ordinance in some cases is particularly onerous to some property owners, the Director of Development Services should study such cases and, with input from stakeholders, recommend appropriate exemptions.
R5:
The County should more aggressively implement the provisions of the Grading Ordinance cited above to restore properties to the condition existing before illegal grading and construction occurred and bill the landowner, lessee or licensee for costs. RESPONSES Responses to both 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R6:
The County should enforce the provisions of the Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance, Chapter 15.14 of the County Code. RESPONSES Responses to both 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, Development Services Department and Department of Transportation. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENTS [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachments ] DFG Lindeman Violation Notice DFG Notice of Violation to District Attorney -17 REASON FOR REPORT Two property owners adjacent to the Granada Heights subdivision in Cameron Park complained that each time there is substantial rain, their properties are heavily flooded and eroded. They assert the flooding is a result of: (1) installation of an apparent speed bump by the Granada Heights Homeowners Association (HOA) which actually diverts storm water runoff to a drainage swale that was not originally designed to handle it; and (2) enlargement of a side yard and alteration of the same drainage swale by a property owner uphill of the complainants that was approved by the HOA and the County. The alteration changed the swale, a rock lined ditch, into a concrete sidewalk that greatly reduced the storm water capacity while increasing its velocity. SUMMARY The investigation revealed many incidents that ultimately contributed to the complaint. The complainants had every expectation that the County would assist in solving the significant drainage problems the County created when failing to thoroughly review either the original drainage design for Granada Heights or its alteration by the HOA and a property owner. To the complainants’ surprise, and significant cost, the County denied any responsibility for the problem, putting the burden of correcting it on the property owners, despite the County’s failure to correctly administer the County Code. In reality, the County failed to protect neighboring property owners from the increased storm water flows by allowing them to happen and continued to deny relief assistance of any kind due to their flawed record keeping.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The cliques that currently exist exacerbate an already toxic environment.
F2:
Unfair discipline, undeserved job promotions, making employees feel badly about their performance, harsh criticism and relegation to a shunned status is construed as bullying and harassment. It should not exist for many reasons, both legal and moral.
F3:
It seems incomprehensible that working from the office is preferred to working in the field.
F4:
The supervisor/manager to worker ratio appears out of balance.
F5:
The Grand Jury is hopeful that the new Chief will come to understand the dysfunction in the South Lake Tahoe office and will institute changes that result in positive results.
F6:
The only financial interest Harris may have had in sales to the District after he became Chief were those that might accrue in the future from his continued relationship with Kenwood. These are both speculative and de minimis.
F7:
Gareth Harris, acting as Tamalpais Emergency Services, did not violate Government Code § 1090 when he sold radios and equipment to the District.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Eliminating the cliques should be an absolute priority.
R2:
Communication should be encouraged and open without recrimination, so that all employees feel vested in the entire workings of the office and department.
R3:
The existing dysfunction does not exist by happenstance. The skills of all current supervisors and managers should be intensively reviewed. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 and the El Dorado County Probation Department. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Having just been refurbished, the building is in excellent condition, although its unusual architectural design does not facilitate easy accessibility throughout the structure.
F2:
A new well-equipped community activity center has been established for adult clients.
F3:
There is a confidentiality issue in that some of the areas where service providers and patients discuss issues and treatment are not sufficiently soundproofed.
F4:
There is no interior access between floors one and two. Programs for adults are on the lower floor, and parents and children are seen on the upper floor. However, staff has to go outdoors to access one floor to the other; walking across the parking lot or using the uncovered exterior stairway.
F5:
Since there are separate entrances for both the adult programs on the lower floor, and the juvenile programs on the second floor, the facility has been certified as ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.
F6:
The parking capacity at the facility (which was not adequate at the time of our visit) has now been increased to fit the building’s use needs.
F7:
Outdoor direction signs at the facility are nonexistent.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Soundproof the areas in the building where service providers interact with clients.
R2:
Install outdoor direction signs so clients can easily determine where to park and access the proper segment of the building.
R3:
Cover the exterior stairway to ameliorate safety concerns in inclement weather.
R4:
After this department has been in this new space for six months, investigate the need and feasibility of creating an interior stairway/elevator for interior access between floors one and two. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations to 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 addressed to the El Dorado Department of Health and Human Services for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The facility appears to be well managed. The engaging program manager is well informed regarding all aspects of this facility.
F2:
Per staff comments, nurse and especially psychiatrist retention has been a problem due to compensation differentials across the region.
F3:
An additional psychiatrist has recently been added for a full day on Fridays, as well as another doctor 2-4 hours during the week.
F4:
When patients are released from PHUF, there is a shortage of transitional housing destinations
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The recently increased physician time with patients should be maintained.
R2:
Investigate staff turnover rates; review adjacent area compensation levels and other retention tools as needed.
R3:
County Health and Human Services should focus on providing local placement, in the form of board and care residences, for patients in need of further supervision after being discharged from PUHF. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations to 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 addressed to the El Dorado Department of Health and Human Services for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R10-13:
days at the facility before being discharged. At the time of discharge patients are referred to the Placerville out-patient facility, or if deemed necessary, to involuntary residential facilities. Otherwise, they are returned to health facilities in their original counties of residence. The Medical Director is a full-time psychiatrist who sees patients every week in individual sessions that last up to 30 minutes. Staff includes a program director, program coordinator, 8 full-time and 3 part- time nurses, 2 therapy clinicians, a cook assisted by nine para-professional mental health assistants who work on a rotating part-time basis, and 2 office administrators. Twenty-four hour staff coverage is needed. Programs include group therapy, creative arts, coping skills, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. FINDINGS 1. The facility appears to be well managed. The engaging program manager is well informed regarding all aspects of this facility. 2. Per staff comments, nurse and especially psychiatrist retention has been a problem due to compensation differentials across the region. 3. An additional psychiatrist has recently been added for a full day on Fridays, as well as another doctor 2-4 hours during the week. 4. When patients are released from PHUF, there is a shortage of transitional housing destinations RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The recently increased physician time with patients should be maintained. 2. Investigate staff turnover rates; review adjacent area compensation levels and other retention tools as needed. 3. County Health and Human Services should focus on providing local placement, in the form of board and care residences, for patients in need of further supervision after being discharged from PUHF. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations to 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 addressed to the El Dorado Department of Health and Human Services for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Permit fees were required and paid for a Grading Permit and asbestos mitigation. The Board authorized reimbursement of the already paid fees. They were subsequently reimbursed.
F2:
Permit fees were required for a wheel chair ramp to be added to a home after the owner’s teenage son was critically injured. The Board authorized waiver of these fees.
F3:
The Board has approved waiver of permit fees for owners of property burned in the Angora fire of
F4:
The Grand Jury found no evidence that the Board sought out or provided relief to others in similar circumstances for grading of property, property lost in fire or the remodeling of a home made necessary by a family member’s critical injury.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that reimbursement of these fees was a gift of public funds in violation of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
F6:
The parking capacity at the facility (which was not adequate at the time of our visit) has now been increased to fit the building’s use needs.
F7:
Outdoor direction signs at the facility are nonexistent.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors no longer waive or reimburse permit fees unless they are specifically allowed by a Board Policy, California Constitution or State statute. Waving fees in an ad hoc manner gives the impression of collusion and favoritism. RESPONSES Responses to both 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. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R2:
Install outdoor direction signs so clients can easily determine where to park and access the proper segment of the building.
R3:
Cover the exterior stairway to ameliorate safety concerns in inclement weather.
R4:
After this department has been in this new space for six months, investigate the need and feasibility of creating an interior stairway/elevator for interior access between floors one and two. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations to 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 addressed to the El Dorado Department of Health and Human Services for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org -08 REASON FOR REPORT There have been frequent news stories during the past several years that have caused concern regarding the lack of treatment and housing for mentally ill people in the United States. Members of this Grand Jury wanted to identify the types of programs and facilities available in this county for individuals manifesting signs of mental illness.
R10-13:
days at the facility before being discharged. At the time of discharge patients are referred to the Placerville out-patient facility, or if deemed necessary, to involuntary residential facilities. Otherwise, they are returned to health facilities in their original counties of residence. The Medical Director is a full-time psychiatrist who sees patients every week in individual sessions that last up to 30 minutes. Staff includes a program director, program coordinator, 8 full-time and 3 part- time nurses, 2 therapy clinicians, a cook assisted by nine para-professional mental health assistants who work on a rotating part-time basis, and 2 office administrators. Twenty-four hour staff coverage is needed. Programs include group therapy, creative arts, coping skills, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Permit fees were required and paid for a Grading Permit and asbestos mitigation. The Board authorized reimbursement of the already paid fees. They were subsequently reimbursed.
F2:
Permit fees were required for a wheel chair ramp to be added to a home after the owner’s teenage son was critically injured. The Board authorized waiver of these fees.
F3:
The Board has approved waiver of permit fees for owners of property burned in the Angora fire of
F4:
The Grand Jury found no evidence that the Board sought out or provided relief to others in similar circumstances for grading of property, property lost in fire or the remodeling of a home made necessary by a family member’s critical injury.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that reimbursement of these fees was a gift of public funds in violation of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
F6:
This facility prepares inmates for life after incarceration. This includes teaching skills in carpentry, mechanics, lumber milling and firefighting.
F7:
Recreational time is supported by the above mentioned wood working and mechanics shops, an arts and craft area, library, and physical fitness area.
F8:
Growlersburg operates an 18-wheeler “mobile kitchen” for use at fire sites. It is capable of providing up to 5,000 meals per day.
F9:
The facility has a family-friendly area for inmates’ families to visit during times when inmates are not out on fire suppression activities. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS Given the many inmate programs and opportunities and the good morale at Growlersburg, we consider this facility deserving of a commendation for excellent management.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors no longer waive or reimburse permit fees unless they are specifically allowed by a Board Policy, California Constitution or State statute. Waving fees in an ad hoc manner gives the impression of collusion and favoritism. RESPONSES Responses to both 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. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
R2:
The surface of the south exercise area at the Placerville facility should be repaired and an overhead cover installed.
R3:
A “sally port” (separate entrance for new wards) should be added to the Placerville facility. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 addressed to the El Dorado County Sheriff for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org -04 REASON FOR REPORT Each year, the grand jury is mandated by California Penal Code §919(b) to “inquire into the conditions and management of the public prisons within the county.”
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The CDCR staff and Cal Fire staff at Growlersburg appear to interact well with each other and do a good job managing Growlersburg Conservation Camp.
F2:
Although built in 1967, this facility has been well maintained.
F3:
The jury members observed good morale at Growlersburg Fire Camp based on positive comments from several inmates.
F4:
This facility is reasonably self-sufficient. The inmates manage kitchen and laundry services, as well as most repair and maintenance issues. This facility has an on-site garden, which produces over 3,000 pounds of produce each year for camp consumption.
F5:
We were served the same food as the inmates, and found it quite satisfactory.
F6:
This facility prepares inmates for life after incarceration. This includes teaching skills in carpentry, mechanics, lumber milling and firefighting.
F7:
Recreational time is supported by the above mentioned wood working and mechanics shops, an arts and craft area, library, and physical fitness area.
F8:
Growlersburg operates an 18-wheeler “mobile kitchen” for use at fire sites. It is capable of providing up to 5,000 meals per day.
F9:
The facility has a family-friendly area for inmates’ families to visit during times when inmates are not out on fire suppression activities. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS Given the many inmate programs and opportunities and the good morale at Growlersburg, we consider this facility deserving of a commendation for excellent management.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
At some point in time, in spite of the excellent maintenance, this facility will need to be replaced with modern buildings.
R2:
Additional physical fitness equipment is needed. Citizen donations are allowed and encouraged.
R3:
This facility needs a new “cryovac” (food sealing) machine to better service their off-site firefighting food provision role. Responses Responses to both 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 Cal Fire, and CDCR, as well as the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Staff at both jails identified several negative impacts to inmate populations due to California AB 109.
F2:
In spite of their ages, both facilities appeared to be clean and well maintained.
F3:
Both jails appeared to be well managed and staff morale seemed to be good.
F4:
Staff indicated that maintaining adequate female staff has been a problem at both jails, but recent aggressive recruitment efforts have been effective in alleviating that problem.
F5:
Staff reported that turnover has been a problem at the South Lake Tahoe Jail and to a lesser degree in Placerville.
F6:
Staff commented that inmates with mental health issues, as well as older and homeless inmates, are an ongoing problem. One staff comment was that jails have become a repository for people with mental health issues.
F7:
Several inmate programs are offered, including substance abuse, life skills, culinary arts (to include state culinary certification), GED education, and religious services.
F8:
Medical services are out-sourced to the California Forensic Medical Group. 9. 15% of meals are special diets (religious, diabetic, vegetarian, etc.).
F10:
Staff at the Placerville facility reported that an additional room where attorneys can meet confidentially with clients is needed because of the lengthy time attorneys must wait to use current rooms. It was noted that the pass-through slot in the existing attorney rooms were quite small (only 4 or 5 pages at a time), and often adds much time to a visit as the transfer of paper back and forth does not easily accommodate typical paperwork. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS As noted in Finding #1, the implementation of AB 109 has created several negative impacts to inmate populations at both of our jails. Since these problems are serious, and affect other county departments including Probation and Sheriff, they will be specifically addressed in a separate grand jury report to be released later this year focusing on how AB 109 has affected our county. Based on our inspections of both facilities, we commend the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office under the command of Cpt. Peshon for hiring very competent leaders and staff. Our two County Jails are well maintained and operated.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Because of their ages, both Placerville and South Lake Tahoe jails should be evaluated for replacement and/or refurbishment.
R2:
Reasons for staff turnover at both facilities should be evaluated, and consideration given to adjacent region’s salary ranges as well as other retention tools.
R3:
An advisory team including the Sheriff’s Office, county mental health professionals, and other incarceration experts should be formed to make recommendations to improve the care, treatment and housing of mentally ill inmates.
R4:
Search for a better process for attorney/client paperwork transfer (perhaps in a manner similar to regular mail) to alleviate the attorney wait times. This may eliminate the need for an additional attorney room. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 addressed to the El Dorado County Sheriff for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Both facilities appeared to be well maintained.
F2:
Both facilities appeared to be well managed.
F3:
The kitchen areas were sanitary, and the menus indicate a variety of well-balanced meals.
F4:
We observed an abundance of programs for the wards, including substance abuse, life skills, work skills, aggression replacement training, goal setting, and a couple of girls only programs.
F5:
We were told that the local community is involved in providing bible study and church services. The Juvenile Services Council conducts various activities and parties monthly, especially during holidays.
F6:
Both facilities operate a school program with one principal who oversees Placerville and South Lake Tahoe teachers on staff. The curriculum is tied in to public schools, but specific needs of each ward are incorporated into the study plan. School is in session every weekday for all wards even if incarcerated for only one day.
F7:
Maintaining adequate female staff had been a problem, primarily at the South Lake Tahoe facility. Recent aggressive recruitment efforts have been effective in mitigating that problem.
F8:
In the Placerville facility, the south exercise area is not used due to drainage problems. There are cracks in the asphalt, the surface is uneven, and it is not covered. This causes the usable north area to be over-crowded.
F9:
The Placerville facility does not have a “sally port” (separate entrance for new wards). The public front door of the building is the only accommodation for all entrants. This lack of a separate entrance for new wards creates potential confidentiality and safety concerns. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS We were impressed with the school principal and program manager. We commend the El Dorado County Probation Department for its wide array of schooling and behavior programs for the wards. We liked their stated goal for the kids: “Don’t Come Back”!
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Because of its age, the Placerville facility should be evaluated for replacement or extensive refurbishment.
R2:
The surface of the south exercise area at the Placerville facility should be repaired and an overhead cover installed.
R3:
A “sally port” (separate entrance for new wards) should be added to the Placerville facility. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 addressed to the El Dorado County Sheriff for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The cost of replacing the track and football fields with synthetic all-weather materials at El Dorado, Oak Ridge, Ponderosa, and Union Mine high schools was $10,018,000.
F2:
At Ponderosa high school, the Grand Jury observed two rows of depressions on the football field’s surface running the length of the field. These depressions are located near the middle of the field and parallel to the hash marks.
F3:
The other football field installed by the same contractor, Roebbelen Construction, was within speci- fied limits.
F4:
Roebbelen representatives stated that the standard variance for artificial turf installation is 1/4” to level. Measurements were taken of the football field’s depressions and it was found that the west hash mark depression has a variance up to 7/8”. The east hash mark depression is slightly less, but still outside of the 1/4” variance in many places.
F5:
The Superintendent stated the new field is better than the old grass field and that it would cost too much to fix the depressions. In a follow-up email, the Superintendent wrote that Ponderosa’s foot- ball field is inspected each year by the artificial turf’s company representatives, FieldTurf Company. The FieldTurf Company is aware of the depressions and has indicated that the depressions have not affected the field’s warranty.
F6:
A member of the EDUHSD Board stated that the Board was advised of these depressions only after the initiation of this Grand Jury investigation. However, the Grand Jury learned that the district was notified three years ago about the field’s depressions during the installation of artificial turf at Pon- derosa’s football field. At that time mitigation efforts were undertaken to address depressions that developed in the field’s drainage trenches. The mitigation work that was done was to remove the existing crushed rock to a depth of 6” from all drainage trenches and replace it with larger 3/4” crushed angular rock. The construction plans for Ponderosa’s football field showed that the drain- age trenches are 24” in depth.
F7:
Ponderosa High School staff indicated that students have tripped while using the field during school hours. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS Measure Q bond monies totaling $10,018,000 were spent for the replacement of the track and football fields at the EDUHSD four high schools. Unfortunately, the depressions in the surface of the Ponderosa football field are a constant reminder to the taxpayers that they are paying for a potentially dangerous football field and nothing has been done to make it right. The Grand Jury is concerned about the field’s condition, as it presents a significant safety and liability issue to the school district and its taxpayers. As time passes, the depth of these depressions in the foot- ball field may increase and create an even larger safety and liability issue.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the EDUHS District arrange a meeting within sixty (60) days from the publication of this report. Representatives from all involved parties are to work out a remediation action plan to fix the field depressions. This meeting should include at least the following parties: • Roebbelen Construction, Project General Contractor • Beales & Alliance, Project Architects • Joe Vicini, Inc., Project Grading Contractor • FieldTurf Company, Turf Installation Contractor • Representatives from Ponderosa High School, and EDUHSD
R2:
The Grand Jury expects that within 60 days of the meeting the EDUHSD will report back to the Grand Jury with a plan including accountable parties, deadline dates and status update.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the cost of this repair work not be paid with Measure Q monies, nor borne by the EDUHSD and its taxpayers.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that EDUHSD adopt a policy to ensure that completed capital projects are reviewed for proper standards and contract compliance. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Union High School District Board for their review and response. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENT [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachment ] El Dorado Union High School District 6/30/2013 Consolidated Expenditure Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
F2:
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
F3:
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
F4:
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
F5:
Property owners felt law enforcement and county personnel treated them unfairly by giving notice that their vehicles were public nuisances.
F6:
Those individuals who did not voluntarily take care of their vehicles by moving or removing them generally did not request a hearing within the 10 day time period allowed and no hearing was held.
F7:
Ten days to request a hearing is insufficient in a rural county where many people receive their mail at a Post Office Box.
F8:
The $100 hearing fee charged by the Sheriff’s Office is not authorized by law and may be so large as to inhibit the property owner’s ability or desire to request a hearing.
F9:
Having one individual act as the Vehicle Abatement Officer for ten years has contributed to suspicions surrounding the program. Changing Vehicle Abatement personnel more frequently would improve warrant preparation and relations with property owners.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
R2:
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
R3:
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
R4:
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
R5:
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENT [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachment ] El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office – Vehicle Abatement Program
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The agreement was entered into as a supplement to earlier agreements between SMUD and the County in 1957 and 1961 regarding the use and operation of the Upper American River Project (UARP) for electric power and water.
F2:
In 2005, SMUD had to be re-licensed by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) to continue operating in the UARP. Under the agreement, SMUD obtained assurances that the County and certain water agencies and districts within the County would not object to the re-licensing. SMUD would continue to plan the building of the Iowa Hill Pumped Storage project.
F3:
The County was, and is, to receive from SMUD certain different amounts of money pursuant to the agreement. The monies agreed to are as follows: $2,600,000, payable in two installments; the second installment to be paid not later than August 1, 2012 (already paid) $590,000 per year after issuance of the new license (already paid). $250,000 upon SMUD issuing a “Notice of Intention to Proceed” with the Iowa Hill project. $50,000 per year after the issuance of the “Notice to Proceed.” An amount not to exceed $2,000,000 for socioeconomic impacts of the building of the Iowa Hill project; such money not to be paid prior to construction.
F4:
The County has received payments under items 3a and 3b above, but as SMUD has not issued a Notice of Intention to Proceed with the Iowa Hill Development, no funds have been paid under items 3c, 3d, and 3e.
F5:
The agreement describes, relative to items 3 and 4 above, to whom and on what such monies should be spent. Section 4.4 of the contract addresses those issues with the following language: “SMUD’s payment as described in Section 4.3 are to be utilized by the County in order to minimize, avoid, or mitigate socioeconomic impacts attributable to the construction of the Iowa Hill Development within those areas of the County affected by such construction. The determination of which specific uses of payments by SMUD under Article IV and consistent with the limitations of the Section are to be made by the County in its sole discretion.” EVALUATION OF FINDINGS Because the monies under items 3c and 3d have not yet been paid, but presumably will be paid, the Grand Jury believes it is important to render its opinion as to the meaning of the quoted contract language above to help avoid confusion after the project has been constructed and the socioeconomic impact monies are to be distributed. The Grand Jury understands that all sentences within a contract have meaning and importance. This leads to the conclusion that the agreement does not simply call for the County to spend this money in any way it sees fit as some have suggested. This sole discretion language is clearly tempered by the sentence indicating that the money is to recompense for socioeconomic impacts within the affected area. Iowa Hill is within the Camino/Apple Hill area of El Dorado County. The Grand Jury understands that no funds have been paid relative to item 3e above, and no funds will be paid until after completion of construction and assessment of socio economic impact pursuant to Exhibit I of the El Dorado-SMUD Cooperation Agreement. At that time an amount up to $2,000,000 will be paid by SMUD to the County for the socioeconomic impacts of the construction of the Iowa Hill project.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Gareth Harris, doing business as Tamalpais Emergency Services, provided radios and radio equipment to the Lake Valley Fire Protection District while serving first as Fire Marshall and Battalion Chief and later as Chief of the District.
F2:
While serving as Fire Marshall and Battalion Chief, Harris charged the District 5% over the amounts he paid Kenwood for equipment. Although he certainly had out of pocket costs, the Grand Jury had insufficient information to determine those costs.
F3:
While serving as Chief, Harris made no profit from the District but charged exactly the sum he paid to Kenwood Communications and to the Board of Equalization. He received no compensation from the District or Kenwood for these sales.
F4:
Procuring equipment through Harris and Tamalpais Emergency Services saved Lake Valley Fire District substantial amounts of money. Without Harris’ assistance in these procurements the District would have faced significant financial hardship in its efforts to comply with FCC requirements to upgrade its equipment. Public safety may well have been jeopardized.
F5:
While serving as Fire Marshall and Battalion Chief, Harris had no role in making procurement decisions for the District.
F6:
The only financial interest Harris may have had in sales to the District after he became Chief were those that might accrue in the future from his continued relationship with Kenwood. These are both speculative and de minimis.
F7:
Gareth Harris, acting as Tamalpais Emergency Services, did not violate Government Code § 1090 when he sold radios and equipment to the District.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Lake Valley Fire Protection District should resubmit its request that a check be issued to Tamalpais Emergency Services in the amount of $6,784.18.
R2:
The Auditor-Controller for El Dorado County should issue the check as requested. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 addressed to the Lake Valley Fire District and the El Dorado County Auditor Controller for review and response, and provided to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Between Environmental Impact Reports, Architectural Studies and the extended leasing of the temporary facilities in Placerville, the Shinn Ranch site decision cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars which cannot be recovered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Facilities Investment Team concept be kept active, but reviewed by the CAO on a regular basis for its effectiveness.
F2:
The County has taken steps towards an improved leasing and acquisition process by involving qualified professionals and clear written procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Although we found no evidence of improprieties, the same individual was used in each of the four projects where a real estate broker was utilized. We recommend that the CAO and Facilities Investment Team review the procedures and criteria for contracting with a real estate broker and propose an appropriate policy. This recommendation should ensure that the selection and decision process is competitive and transparent.
F3:
The Grand Jury concurs with the creation of the Facilities Investment Team as an advisory body for the facilities function.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the draft regarding Facilities Division Procedures be formalized by the CAO and then presented to the BOS for adoption.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
This Grand Jury recommends that the 2014-2015 Grand Jury review and follow up on the response to recommendations 2 and 3. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 and the Chief Administrative Office for review and response. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENTS [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachments ] A. El Dorado County Lease Schedule B. Preliminary Draft- Procedures for Leasing or Purchasing Real Property C. Outside Broker Commissions
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Both the Planning Department and Commission failed to properly review the Golden Center Golden Center Plaza design based on County Zoning Ordinances and accepted standards. a) The shopping center has significantly fewer parking spaces provided than are required by the Zoning Ordinance. b) There is no loading zone on site as required by Zoning Code 17.18.080. c) There are no recreational vehicle spaces as required by Zoning Code 17.18.060 d) No internal operations analysis was performed resulting in a highly congested shopping center which does not function well for pedestrians, vehicular traffic or tenants.
F2:
The lack of professional review by the Planning Department and Planning Commission along with failure to require proper parking, loading zones and recreational vehicle parking resulted in material benefits to the developer in terms of increased building coverage.
F3:
The action of (now) former Board of Supervisors member Jack Sweeney, interceding with the Director of Transportation to have a loading zone approved on Golden Center Drive, a public right of way, for the benefit of a private development, was inappropriate.
F4:
When deficiencies in the project became apparent no action was taken to require the developer to fix the deficiencies and bring the project into compliance with mandatory legal requirements.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Planning Department and Planning Commission need to reevaluate Golden Center Plaza parking as built based upon County ordinances and standards and report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors detailing any shortfall of parking based on County requirements.
R2:
If it is found by Planning Department and Planning Commission that any shortage of parking exists of any type at Golden Center Plaza, the Director of Development Services should notify the developer of the violation and require the developer to correct such zoning violations through site modifications to parking or other mitigation.
R3:
If the developer fails to correct the violation, the Director of Community Development or District Attorney should proceed with actions defined under Paragraph 17.12.030 Penalty of Violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
R4:
The Department of Transportation should not allow private citizens to perform painting of public curbs and erection of signage in a public right of way
R5:
The Planning Services Discretionary Review Process should be modified to include review of projects by the Department Director as well as the Principal Planner. RESPONSES Responses to both 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 Planning Department, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org