El Dorado County Grand Jury
2021-2022
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Consolidated ER does not show the ratio or calculation to determine the special and general assessment for each LLAD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors should require the ERs for each LLAD to include: • The defined calculation for the special and general benefit using each LLAD’s unique boundaries; • An itemized list of improvements; • Readable boundary maps (for each LLAD) that easily determine the boundaries; • Deferred maintenance projects for the next year; • Usage surveys for LLADs to review/adjust the public-at-large component of the general benefit calculation; and • Recalculation of the Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment amount to eliminate the 50% reductions. These updates are to be completed with the FY 2023-2024 Final Engineer’s Report.
F2:
The Consolidated ER does not properly use the service radius to determine the special and general assessment for each LLAD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors should require the ERs for each LLAD to include: • The defined calculation for the special and general benefit using each LLAD’s unique boundaries; • An itemized list of improvements; • Readable boundary maps (for each LLAD) that easily determine the boundaries; • Deferred maintenance projects for the next year; • Usage surveys for LLADs to review/adjust the public-at-large component of the general benefit calculation; and • Recalculation of the Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment amount to eliminate the 50% reductions. These updates are to be completed with the FY 2023-2024 Final Engineer’s Report.
F3:
The ERs are incomplete and lack the required information for improvements and do not list upcoming major maintenance projects for each LLAD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors should require the ERs for each LLAD to include: • The defined calculation for the special and general benefit using each LLAD’s unique boundaries; • An itemized list of improvements; • Readable boundary maps (for each LLAD) that easily determine the boundaries; • Deferred maintenance projects for the next year; • Usage surveys for LLADs to review/adjust the public-at-large component of the general benefit calculation; and • Recalculation of the Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment amount to eliminate the 50% reductions. These updates are to be completed with the FY 2023-2024 Final Engineer’s Report.
F4:
Periodic surveys regarding park usage have not been conducted to determine if the special versus general benefit calculation for each LLAD is correct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Directors should require the ERs for each LLAD to include: • The defined calculation for the special and general benefit using each LLAD’s unique boundaries; • An itemized list of improvements; • Readable boundary maps (for each LLAD) that easily determine the boundaries; • Deferred maintenance projects for the next year; • Usage surveys for LLADs to review/adjust the public-at-large component of the general benefit calculation; and • Recalculation of the Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment amount to eliminate the 50% reductions. These updates are to be completed with the FY 2023-2024 Final Engineer’s Report.
F5:
Heritage Park in the Carson Creek LLAD #39 has not been accepted by the EDH CSD, yet assessments have been collected and the maximum assessment has increased every year since FY 2015-2016.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The EDH CSD should utilize the Carson Creek LLAD #39 deferred maintenance reserve to fund the approved assessment refund for FY 2021-2022. This should be completed by December 31, 2022.
R3:
The EDH CSD should recalculate the maximum assessment for Carson Creek LLAD #39 using the current number of benefit units. This recalculation should be completed by June 1, 2023.
F6:
There were differences found between the EDH CSD assessment file sent to the County Auditor-Controller and the property tax statements for Carson Creek LLAD #39 for FY 2019-2020 and FY 2020-2021.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The EDH CSD should contract with an outside consulting firm to develop and implement a quality control process to ensure the annual assessment file sent to the County Auditor-Controller’s Office is correct. This quality control process should be in place by June 1, 2023.
F7:
The EDH CSD does not transfer the general benefit amount specified in the ER to the LLADs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The EDH CSD should transfer the general benefit amount as calculated in the ER to the underlying LLAD.
F8:
The LLADs do not receive credit for rental income for the usage of their improvements, and thus, the ER does not use the rental income in its assessment calculation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The EDH CSD should change its internal processes and begin crediting rental income to the LLAD that generated the income. This should be completed by December 31, 2022. June 30, 2022 EDH CSD Management of the Landscape
F9:
The EDH CSD contracted with Zuri Alliance to outsource contract services that will impact LLAD assessments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The EDH CSD should provide the LLADs with more details on the financial effect the Zuri Alliance Consolidated Services agreement will have on their LLAD assessments. This should be completed by December 31, 2022.
F10:
The LLAD parcel owners’ complaint and assessment appeals process is unclear.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The EDH CSD should create and publicize policies and procedures, including timeframes and record-keeping requirements, in one accessible online location, to address assessment complaints and appeals. These policies and procedures should be completed and publicized by June 1, 2023.
F11:
The EDH CSD created a webpage for LLADs; however, all of the information concerning LLADs is not consolidated on this page.
F12:
There is an inherent conflict that exists between EDH CSD and the LLADs.
F13:
The LLAD parcel owners do not have an LLAD Advisory Committee to represent their interests. June 30, 2022 EDH CSD Management of the Landscape
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The EDH CSD should form an LLAD Advisory Committee with LLAD parcel owners to foster a productive environment between the EDH CSD and the LLADs. This LLAD Advisory Committee would provide input to park plans, financial plans, and ERs and be established by December 31, 2022.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
State law requires El Dorado LAFCO to prepare an MSR of a local agency in its jurisdiction when updating the government agency’s SOI.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
El Dorado LAFCO staff should present to the Commissioners a plan for the timely completion of MSRs and SOIs for the next cycle. The plan should be presented at a regular Commissioners’ meeting by December 31, 2022.
F2:
Preparation of an MSR is important for the effective and efficient delivery of municipal services to the residents of El Dorado County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
El Dorado LAFCO should complete all MSRs that are delinquent by June 30, 2023.
F3:
In violation of its policy and guidelines, El Dorado LAFCO has not made MSR preparation a priority and has not completed MSRs as required by State law and its project plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
El Dorado LAFCO should return to its MSR preparation cycle of five years.
F4:
El Dorado LAFCO changed the cycle for MSR preparation from five to eight years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
El Dorado LAFCO should have an updated MSR status report on its website by December 31, 2022, that specifies when the last MSR for each agency was completed and when the next one is due.
F5:
There is no status chart specifying the timeframe for MSR preparation of each agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
El Dorado LAFCO should make hiring a new Executive Officer a high priority.
F6:
El Dorado LAFCO has been without a permanent Executive Officer since July 6, 2021.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
El Dorado LAFCO should hire staff for current and future vacant positions as quickly as possible.
F7:
El Dorado LAFCO has four budgeted positions. Currently, only two and a half of the positions are filled, leaving one and a half positions vacant. This has had a direct negative effect on its ability to complete MSRs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The County has historically set pay levels below the median of other counties, based on compensation studies; as of April 19, 2022, they have adjusted this upward to meet the median.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide an annual recommendation to maintain, at a minimum, pay levels in the County at the calculated median total compensation, based on comparative analysis.
F2:
The comparative compensation levels determined by the County include other California counties and the State of California, but do not include local private industry.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should ensure that future compensation studies include pay levels only from Sacramento and Placer Counties and, where appropriate, similar classifications in local private industries.
F3:
Many employees see the County as a place to develop their skills and then leave for higher-paying positions in other counties or private industry, resulting in the County paying for training for which it does not receive the ongoing benefit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct staff to develop and implement policies that focus on employee retention as a priority within one year of the date of issue of this report.
F4:
The County does not have knowledge of the cost of hiring a new individual, including the recruitment process, County training, and learning the role, duties, and responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should commission a study into the true cost of recruiting and training new hires within one year of the date of issue of this report.
F5:
Due to the length of time required to complete the recruitment process, departments have lost potential candidates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Human Resources Department should maintain ongoing lists of potential candidates for all positions to decrease time to bring in new employees and keep the application process for lower-level positions open on a continuous basis, within 90 days of the date of issue of this report.
F6:
If there are not enough acceptable applicants for a position, the hiring department and the Human Resources Department can rewrite the specifications and advertise a revised position listing to attract more potential recruits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Human Resources Department, in conjunction with County departments, should review that job descriptions are written to the lowest possible level for the position (especially recurring) to ensure the largest selection for that role, completed within 180 days of the date of issue of this report.
F7:
With the pandemic, the County is attempting to become more telework-friendly by allowing certain staff to work from home. This tends to be on a hybrid schedule, as determined by an employee’s manager.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Chief Administrative Officer, in conjunction with the Human Resources Department, should expand the option of the hybrid telework model to as many positions as are practical within 180 days of the date of issue of this report.
F8:
Many managers expressed that there is a lack of morale among staff due to low staffing levels contributing to burnout and more staff attrition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the Human Resources Department and elected department heads to implement a program to foster teamwork and morale-building throughout the organization within 180 days of the date of issue of this report.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Probation and HHSA have a limited number of hotels available to them, resulting in both departments using the Quality Inn at a disproportionately higher rate than other hotels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The CAO should direct County departments to coordinate housing stays and work to use an expanded list of hotels, as appropriate, for emergency housing of their clients on the Western Slope. This directive should be given by September 30, 2022.
F2:
HHSA, Probation, and the Auditor-Controller's Office do not have written procedures detailing the credit card payment process for emergency homeless hotel stays, including the process and procedures to be followed if there is hotel damage or unauthorized charges from the stay.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Auditor-Controller’s Office should establish written procedures for processing credit card payments for emergency homeless hotel stays, including the process and procedures to be followed if there is hotel damage or unauthorized charges from the stay, and distribute throughout County departments. These written procedures should be distributed by September 30, 2022.
F3:
The Grand Jury found examples that HHSA did not follow its written procedures for invoice approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Probation and HHSA management should send a monthly report to the CAO demonstrating they are consistently following their internal written procedures for processing hotel vendor invoices, from receipt through fiscal oversight, until it is sent to the Auditor-Controller’s Office. This monthly reporting process should begin by September 30, 2022.
F4:
HHSA and Probation were under the impression they were unable to use credit cards for hotel stays. While no written procedures on this matter were found, the perception was strong enough for these departments not to use credit cards for hotel stays and instead, send approved invoices to the Auditor-Controller's Office for payment by check to the hotel vendor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Auditor-Controller’s Office should provide the CAO, HHSA, and Probation with a quarterly report of approved hotel vendors or whenever the list is changed. This quarterly reporting should begin by September 30, 2022.
F5:
There are no formal contracts in place between the County and hotel vendors. June 23, 2022 Hotel Emergency Housing
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The CAO should direct County Counsel to determine whether contracts should be in place with hotels that are used by the County departments for emergency housing hotel stays. The County Counsel should respond to the CAO by November 30, 2022.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Vegetation Management Office, tasked with the implementation and management of County Ordinance 5101, lacked expertise and adequate resources to meet the objectives of the Ordinance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS should provide the new Wildfire Resiliency Office with appropriate staffing, resources, and funding, to meet its goals by December 31, 2022.
F2:
As of May 2022, the County’s Vegetation Management Office has transitioned under the new Wildfire Resiliency Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The BOS should follow up with the newly formed Wildfire Resiliency Office and receive updates on a quarterly basis from the CAO by December 31, 2022.
F3:
There has been no comprehensive County plan to implement Ordinance 5101, which includes defensible space inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The BOS should direct appropriate County departments to comply with Ordinance 5101 by clearing County properties that violate the Ordinance by June 30, 2023.
F4:
The new Wildfire Resiliency Office has been given the responsibility to develop a comprehensive County plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS should decide whether the enforcement component of Ordinance 5101 needs to be amended by December 31, 2022.
F5:
The enforcement component of Ordinance 5101 has not been implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The BOS should send a letter by December 31, 2022, to the State Insurance Commissioner advocating that insurance companies provide or continue to provide insurance for rural areas. June 23, 2022 Ordinance 5101 - Vegetation
F6:
There are County properties in violation of its own Ordinance 5101.
F7:
Availability and affordability of fire insurance is an ongoing issue in the County.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
South Lake Tahoe Jail has not resumed the Parenting Class that was suspended due to COVID because of a lack of instructor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
South Lake Tahoe Jail should enlist or hire an instructor or implement a temporary alternative to resume the Parenting Class by December 31, 2022.
F2:
Placerville Jail has not resumed the Moral Recognition Therapy classes that were suspended due to COVID-19 because of a lack of instructor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Placerville Jail should enlist or hire an instructor or implement a temporary alternative to resume the Moral Recognition Therapy classes by December 31, 2022.
F3:
The three facilities inspected were well-maintained and appeared to be in working order and organized.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.