El Dorado County Grand Jury
2019-2020
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 (10)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
County airport management is stretched thin with other County responsibilities.
F2:
Management expects to complete a major analysis of the airports within the next 12 months.
F3:
County Policy F-10 is outdated and does not reflect current practice.
F4:
There are five main sources of revenue from the airport: ground leases, hanger rentals, tie- down rentals, fuel sales and personal property taxes.
F5:
The hanger rental agreement does not include language for rate increases. Insurance limits are not consistent with ground lease or tie-down contracts.
F6:
The tracking and maintenance of user insurance certificates has been haphazard.
F7:
Fuel pricing is done by airport staff without management review.
F8:
The semi-developed land parcels on the east side of the Placerville airport are inactive. Potential benefit to the County of continued development has not been adequately explored.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
County airport management needs to complete its airport review in a timely fashion.
R2:
County Airport Policy F-10 needs to be updated.
R3:
Hanger rental agreement should be updated to include current insurance requirements and new language providing for rate adjustments.
R4:
Insurance certificate verification process should be updated to ensure proof of insurance is kept up to date.
R5:
County management should develop a fuel pricing review procedure.
R6:
Airport management should explore potential increased revenue from the semi-developed parcels at the east end of the Placerville airport.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The benefits of drone usage in El Dorado County include streamlining everyday tasks, providing additional safety to County employees and a more efficient use of tax dollars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The District Attorney should consider developing a written policy establishing guidelines for their use of drones.
F2:
The District Attorney has no written policy on drone use.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County collects fees for recording and maintaining vital statistic certificates.
F2:
Fees collected are mandated by State statute and designated for various purposes.
F3:
The Local Vital Statistics Trust Fund is administered by the County Recorder.
F4:
The Children’s Trust Fund is administered by HHSA through a contract with EDCOE.
F5:
A community-based child abuse prevention program funded with the Children’s Trust Fund justifies the optional County charge of $3 for a Birth Certificate.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Long term fiscal sustainability of fire protection on the West Slope of the County is highly questionable.
F2:
County citizens on the West Slope experience a wide disparity in fire protection services often masked by Automatic Aid, based on their location and their specific fire district.
F3:
Efforts to improve fire protection on the West Slope of the County have been ongoing for many years with limited success.
F4:
Cal Fire has the infrastructure, staffing and expertise to be a major component of a solution to the County’s fire district disparities.
F5:
Improvements in the existing fire protection model for the West Slope requires all fire protection districts to take a holistic view of fire protection and the political will to embrace change.
F6:
Fire protection districts on the West Slope have not displayed the ability to take a holistic view of fire protection or the political will to embrace change, to the determent of all County citizens.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Fire Protection Districts, Cal Fire, BOS and LAFCO should continue discussing ways to improve County fire protection services. West Slope Fire Protection Update 6/8/2020
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendation has been implemented
R2:
Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implementing noting a timeframe
R3:
Recommendation requires further analysis or study noting a timeframe not to exceed six months from date Grand Jury Report was issued
R4:
Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation. TIME TO RESPOND The California Penal Code section 933(c) specifies response times. 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. ELECTIVE OFFICERS OR AGENCY HEADS All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond within 60 days of the release of the report to the public. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report violates of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action that may include additional investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. WHERE TO RESPOND All responses must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Response via Email to court-admin@eldoradocourt.org is preferred. The Court requests that you respond electronically with a Word or PDF document file to facilitate economical and timely distribution. Responding to a Grand Jury Report El Dorado County 2019-2020 Grand Jury CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933
R19-01:
Placerville City Police Facility
R19-02:
South Lake Tahoe City Police Facility
R19-04:
Policing Those with Behavioral Health Issues
R19-05:
County Vital Records Certificate Fees
R19-06:
West Slope Fire Protection Update
R19-08:
Jail and Juvenile Treatment Center Inspections
R19-09:
County Drone Use STATE OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF EL DORADO CIVIL GRAND JURY 2019-2020 June 2020 Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge California Superior Court, County of El Dorado Judge Kingsbury, It is my privilege to present the 2019-2020 Civil Grand Jury Final report. Once again, it exemplifies the collective effort of all jurors. And once again, I commend each juror for their individual contribution and collaborative success. Our efforts during the final four months of our term were curtailed by constraints of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Fortunately, we started this year using a new email system that includes a teleconferencing component. We were developing teleconferencing protocols to make participation by Lake Tahoe area residents more available. The transition to teleconferencing for all Grand Jury activities was straightforward and easily accomplished. It is most viable for future Grand Jury activities when needed. The number of reports is somewhat lower than our early expectation. Teleconferencing allowed us to finish many reports, while others required too many remaining interviews in an unfamiliar environment. Once again, Senior Deputy County Counsel Paula Frantz, Amy Miller in the Auditor-Controller’s Office and Superior Court Administrative Analyst Suzanne Thurman provided indispensable knowledge and assistance to ensure the Grand Jury functioned smoothly week after week. Future Grand Juries are assured success with the assistance of these dedicated individuals. Serving on the civil Grand Jury continues to be a personally rewarding experience and continues to be a thing worth doing. I look forward to serving again, Tom Simpson, Foreperson cc: Honorable Mark A. Ralphs
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Placerville Police Department facility is inadequate for modern police operations and requires funding for extensive renovation or replacement.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placerville should have a professional space and facilities needs study completed with cost estimates for a new or renovated police facility.
R2:
Placerville should explore funding options for the renovation or replacement of the current police facility.
R3:
Placerville should move expeditiously to renovate or replace their current police facility.
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
While not mandated by POST, the Sheriff’s Office provides its deputies with Continuing Professional Training in Crisis Intervention Training.
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office has not established an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours or for Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
F3:
The Sheriff’s Office has established innovative and effective programs for dealing with persons with behavioral health issues.
F4:
County Jails’ mental health screening and evaluations exceed standards established by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. PLACERVILLE
F5:
While not mandated by POST, the Placerville Police Department provides its officers with Continuing Professional Training in Crisis Intervention Training.
F6:
The Placerville Police Department has not established an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours or for Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Placerville Police Department should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
F7:
The Placerville Police Department participates in HOT and does not participate in PERT. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
Expansion of PERT into the Placerville Police Department should be explored with the County Health and Human Services Agency. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
R6:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department should explore with the County Health and Human Services Agency, the expansion of PERT into the City.
R8:
The County Health and Human Services Agency should explore the expansion of PERT into both Placerville and South Lake Tahoe Police Departments.
F8:
While not mandated by POST, the South Lake Tahoe Police Department does not provide its officers with Continuing Professional Training in Crisis Intervention Training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training and have their officers attend such training.
F9:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department has not established an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours or Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training and have their officers attend such training.
F10:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department does not participate in HOT or PERT. COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The County Sheriff’s Office should explore the expansion of HOT into the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. PLACERVILLE
R7:
Expansion of HOT into the South Lake Tahoe Police Department should be explored with the County Sheriff’s Office. COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
F11:
While PERT is funded only on the West Slope the MHSA Project Team has stated they will continue to evaluate PERT expansion needs. 5/1/2020 Policing Those with Behavioral Health Issues 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department Facility is inadequate for modern police operations and requires funding for extensive renovation or replacement.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City should have a professional space and facilities needs study completed with cost estimates for a new or renovated police facility.
R2:
The City should explore funding options for the renovation or replacement of the current police facility.
R3:
The City should move expeditiously to renovate their current police facility.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Respondent agrees with finding, 2. Respondent disagrees wholly with finding or 3. Respondent disagrees partially with finding. If respondent uses option 2 or 3 then the response must specify the portion of the disputed finding along with a clear explanation. IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT GRAND JURY FINDINGS The Grand Jury derives Findings from testimony and evidence. All testimony and evidence given to the Grand Jury remains confidential by law, and it is the Grand Jury’s responsibility to maintain it. California Penal Code §929 provides “… the name of any person, or facts that lead to the identity of any person who provided information to the grand jury, shall not be released.” Further, 86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 101 (2003) prohibits grand jury witnesses from disclosing anything learned during their appearance including testimony given. This is to ensure the anonymity of witnesses and to encourage open and honest testimony. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS Response R#. [Retype the text of the recommendation as written in the Grand Jury report, # is the recommendation number in the report.] Response: Review California Penal Code section 933.05 (b) (1) - (4). Respondents must specify one of four options: 1. Recommendation has been implemented 2. Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implementing noting a timeframe 3. Recommendation requires further analysis or study noting a timeframe not to exceed six months from date Grand Jury Report was issued 4. Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation. TIME TO RESPOND The California Penal Code section 933(c) specifies response times. 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. ELECTIVE OFFICERS OR AGENCY HEADS All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond within 60 days of the release of the report to the public. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report violates of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action that may include additional investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. WHERE TO RESPOND All responses must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Response via Email to court-admin@eldoradocourt.org is preferred. The Court requests that you respond electronically with a Word or PDF document file to facilitate economical and timely distribution. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933 933. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section “agency” includes a department. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) 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. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Recommendation has been implemented
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implementing noting a timeframe
R3:
Recommendation requires further analysis or study noting a timeframe not to exceed six months from date Grand Jury Report was issued
R4:
Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation. TIME TO RESPOND The California Penal Code section 933(c) specifies response times. 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. ELECTIVE OFFICERS OR AGENCY HEADS All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond within 60 days of the release of the report to the public. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report violates of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action that may include additional investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. WHERE TO RESPOND All responses must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court. Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Response via Email to court-admin@eldoradocourt.org is preferred. The Court requests that you respond electronically with a Word or PDF document file to facilitate economical and timely distribution. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The County collects fees for recording and maintaining vital statistic certificates.
F2:
Fees collected are mandated by State statute and designated for various purposes.
F3:
The Local Vital Statistics Trust Fund is administered by the County Recorder.
F4:
The Children’s Trust Fund is administered by HHSA through a contract with EDCOE.
F5:
A community-based child abuse prevention program funded with the Children’s Trust Fund justifies the optional County charge of $3 for a Birth Certificate.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Office should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
R2:
The County Sheriff’s Office should explore the expansion of HOT into the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. PLACERVILLE
R3:
The Placerville Police Department should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training.
R4:
Expansion of PERT into the Placerville Police Department should be explored with the County Health and Human Services Agency. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
R5:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department should establish an internal standard for Continuing Professional Training for Crisis Intervention Training course hours and Refresher Training Crisis Intervention Training and have their officers attend such training.
R6:
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department should explore with the County Health and Human Services Agency, the expansion of PERT into the City.
R7:
Expansion of HOT into the South Lake Tahoe Police Department should be explored with the County Sheriff’s Office. COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
R8:
The County Health and Human Services Agency should explore the expansion of PERT into both Placerville and South Lake Tahoe Police Departments.