El Dorado County Grand Jury
2025-2026
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 (15)
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Mosquito Fire Protection District Board does not have a monthly spending plan.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
The Grand Jury recommends that Mosquito Fire Protection District Board of Directors require the Fire Chief to prepare a monthly spending plan for the 2026-2027 fiscal year to support regular fiscal monitoring and improved budget oversight by September 2026.
R1b:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board of Directors require the Fire Chief to prepare a monthly spending plan as a standard component of the District’s annual budget process.
F2:
The Mosquito Fire Protection District Board has improperly relinquished its governance responsibility regarding district spending.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board follow its own Policy of overseeing the District’s fiscal well-being with a monthly review of actual spending compared to its monthly spending plan starting September 2026.
F3:
Mosquito Fire Protection District Board Agendas and Board Member Packages have errors, are late, and are often incomplete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that all materials for the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board Member Package for each scheduled meeting be submitted to the Board Clerk at least 7 days before the regularly scheduled meeting to match the policy timeframe for agenda submission beginning with the September 2026 meeting.
F4:
Mosquito Fire Protection District Board meetings suffer from a lack of meeting control and discipline.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that at the beginning of each calendar year the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board select a Board President by reaffirming the sitting Board President or electing a new one beginning January 2027.
F5:
The Mosquito Fire Protection District Board President’s interactions with the Fire Chief go beyond the principles expressed in the Mosquito Fire Protection District Policy Manual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board and Fire Chief develop by January 2027 a communication plan that defines communication procedures to ensure all Directors are kept informed of all communications between the Board President and the Fire Chief.
F6:
The Mosquito Fire Protection District Board President violates District Policy by talking with legal counsel without Board approval and without another Director present.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board revise District Policy to specify the consequences against any Director who violates District Policy such as unauthorized contact with legal counsel, by September 2026.
F7:
The effectiveness of the Mosquito Fire Protection District Board is impeded by actions that likely constitute violations of the Brown Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that all Mosquito Fire Protection District Directors adhere to the requirements of the Brown Act immediately.
F8:
Mosquito Fire Protection District Board members lack knowledge in the governance and operations of a Fire Protection District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District work with the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and Local Agency Formation Commission to provide the means for practical, focused, hands-on business and governance training for every new Fire Protection District Director starting in January 2027.
F9:
Due to the end of the FEMA grant and decline in other funding sources the Mosquito Fire Protection District is very likely to experience a large reduction in funding leading to a financial crisis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Mosquito Fire Protection District address the financial crisis with the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors with a funding plan in place by July 2027 prior to the expiration of the FEMA grant in December 2027.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Adopt and deploy a software package that will assist staff in fully electronic processing of roadway complaints by January 1, 2026. Initial Response received 5/4/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. As noted in the response to
R2:
Direct the CAO to hire a Chief Information Officer (CIO) to lead Information Technology (IT) by January 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. As referenced above, the title of the position has yet to be determined, based on the research and recommendations the Board will receive from the CAO and HR this Fall; however, the goal is to hire a permanent head of Information Technologies by January 1, 2026.
R3:
Direct the future [Chief Information Officer] CIO to develop and present comprehensive storage and data center consolidation strategies by May 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation requires further analysis. As noted in the response to Recommendation #2, the Board hopes to find a permanent leader for the Information Technologies Department by January 1, 2026. The Board would then work with the new department head to identify any needed changes to the departments strategic plan and work to implement those. This will include encouraging discussions with the Sheriff and District Attorney regarding efficiencies. Follow-up Response received 4/29/26: EDSO and County IT are planning a joint data center review in FY 27/28. We will work together to analyze and inventory both systems and identify targets for future storage consolidation. This helps prevent redundant storage purchases. This timeline aligns with the required hardware refresh cycles for both data centers scheduled for FY 28/29. Although the full consolidation strategy will be informed by that review, EDSO and County IT are already collaborating on upcoming initiatives and expiring contracts to identify opportunities for countywide cost savings and improved operational efficiencies. [See Appendix A]
R4:
Instruct the future CIO and [Chief Administrative Officer] CAO to reconfigure the [Information Technologies] IT Steering Committee into a collaborative body to evaluate projects, consolidate infrastructure needs, coordinate County-wide IT purchases and report results regularly by May 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. This recommendation is dependent on recommendations 1 and 2. The IT department has already begun drafting recommended changes to the [Information Technology Steering Committee] ITSC structure, but a firm timeline for full implementation of this recommendation cannot be provided until a new head of the Information Technologies Department has been hired. Follow-up Response received 4/29/26: The ITSC agenda prior to the redesign included Security and Compliance, Project Intakes, Countywide Project Updates, Policy & Procedures, and Overall Communication. The meeting did not include project evaluations or coordination of purchases. After conducting research and consulting with other County CIOs, the following IT Governance Structure has been established for El Dorado County. ITSC remains a component of the Governance Structure, with additional committees added as part of the redesign. Each committee has a distinct role within the overall structure to ensure effective coordination and decision-making. These roles are aligned with the former ITSC agenda, enabling ITSC to function as a decision-making body. [See Appendix A]
R5:
Establish Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure IT effectiveness and efficiency across county departments by July 1, 2026, and provide quarterly reports to the BOS. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. This recommendation is dependent on recommendations 1 and 2. The IT Department has started drafting potential KPIs, but a firm timeline for full implementation of this recommendation cannot be provided until a new head of the Information Technologies Department has been hired. Follow up response 4/29/26: IT has started monitoring KPIs in 3 areas: Strategic Plan, Project Management Office, and Operations. IT plans to continue maturing its KPIs for service versus incident management and to refine ticket categories. [See Appendix A] 2025-2026 Grand Jury Opinion: Case # 25-05 called for the County of the El Dorado to hire a qualified Chief Information Officer (CIO) with county-wide IT authority. The Board of Supervisors pledged to hire one by January 2026. The 2025-2026 Grand Jury finds that the Board's response was facially compliant with Recommendations 1 and 2, but substantively inadequate. In the 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report on IT Leadership (Case #25-05), the Grand Jury recommended that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop a comprehensive Chief Information Officer job description by September 1, 2025, emphasizing measurable strategic responsibilities, county-wide technology alignment, and enhanced authority to drive innovation and efficiency. This was intended to address longstanding issues such as high IT leadership turnover, departmental silos, duplicate spending, and delayed strategic initiatives. The report further urged hiring a qualified CIO by January 1, 2026, to lead a transformative approach including reconfiguring the IT Steering Committee, consolidating data centers, and establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for accountability and estimated annual savings of between $1,000,000 to $3,000,000. While the Board conducted a competitive search and modified the job description to incorporate strategic elements such as enterprise IT governance, data management, and budget optimization, they ultimately appointed the interim IT Director to the CIO role effective January 10, 2026. The appointee is a 19-year internal candidate whose experience aligns more closely with tactical operations than the executive-level visionary leadership the Grand Jury envisioned. This approach perpetuates the tactical focus criticized in the original report, prioritizing reactive support over proactive planning and cross-departmental collaboration. Opportunities to optimize resources, reduce costs, and drive meaningful cultural change in technology adoption remain unaddressed. The significant potential savings identified by the Grand Jury including consolidating redundant systems, eliminating duplicative contracts, and unifying the District Attorney's and Sheriff's independent IT operations have not been implemented and merit continued monitoring by future Grand Juries.
R6:
Within 90 days of this report, [Community Services District] CSD should establish and document clearer guidelines for the CSD Board of Directors or [General Manager] GM certification of the assessment levy to the County Controller/Auditor and publish that procedure in the CSD Policies and Procedures documents. Initial Response received 7/3/2024: This Recommendation requires further analysis: To the extent the District can resolve its pending lawsuit with the County Auditor, there may be changes in the guidelines and procedure the District follows to provide the necessary certification of the assessment levies to the County Controller/Auditor. Only if a resolution is reached, short of court resolution, could the District create the appropriate documentation. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District's ability to make changes involving the certification of the assessment levy is intertwined with ongoing and pending litigation with the Auditor-Controller. The District possesses no power to unilaterally modify the certification process outside of County cooperation and agreement. This is precisely why we did not represent and did not agree to perform these actions within 90 days.
R9:
By September 30, 2024, [Community Services District] CSD should review, revise, and publicize its Master Plan from 2021 with realistic timelines for all new park development, as well as accurate and realistic cost estimates that can be funded and executed within a 10-year planning period. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: The District has planned and budgeted for a complete review and revision of the 2021 Master Plan beginning in FY25, which starts on July 01, 2024, in accordance to our policy for a five (5) year review. The outcome of the [El Dorado Hills Community Services District] EDHCSD Response El Dorado County Grand Jury Report #24-05 revised Master Plan will have an influence on the District’s ten-year Capital Improvement Plan. This is a very comprehensive review process and plan revision that includes community input on several occasions, which cannot be completed in the timeframe recommended. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District stated it could not implement the recommendation within the allotted timeframe but estimated it would start a review and possible revised or updated Master Plan beginning FY25. During the October 09, 2025, Regular Meeting, the District Board of Directors approved and awarded a contract to a consultant to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan for the District. As part of the Master Planning process, a development plan will be formulated. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: Master Plan is underway – Anticipated completion by the end of year (2026).
R10:
Within 90 days, [Community Services District] CSD should employ or retain a full-time licensed [Certified Public Accountant] CPA professional to be Treasurer/[Chief Financial Officer] CFO-equivalent. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: As stated in the Findings, the concerns of the Grand Jury are a function of District Policy and not due to the lack of having a CPA on staff or retainer. However, the District recognizes that government accounting is unique and complicated; and reporting is always changing with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regulations having new requirements that the District must adhere to each year. District staff understand that education is a priority and will work towards having at least one member of the finance department receive a certification in government accounting through a reputable government entity, including GFOA and/or California Society of Municipal [Financial] Officers (CSMFO). The goal will be to have this completed by December 2025. Additionally, the District will look at incorporating an appropriate accounting certification requirement for future recruitments Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District did not agree to employ or retain a full-time licensed CPA professional for the various reasons stated therein. However, the District did express its goal to endeavor to have a finance team member receive further certifications by December 2025, which is currently underway. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: The Grand Jury was referred by the Board to the General Manager for follow-up. Follow-up Response received 4/7/26: The District's former Senior Accountant has been promoted to the Director of Administration & Finance [Director] position. The [Director] investigated the certificate program, and it is extremely time intensive. We don't currently have the staffing levels necessary for the [Director] to go through this program but intend to do so when we are able. [The District is] also in the process of onboarding a Director of Finance, who will serve the District on a contract basis, to provide this level of expertise in government finance and strategic, fiscal leadership that will serve our board, our community and taxpayers at the highest and best standard practices.
R11:
Within 90 days, [Community Services District] CSD should get public input on its latest 10-year development plan, including any updates to the Master Plan from 2021, and how they plan to use [Park Impact Fee] PIF funds over an extended period. This development needs to include a contingency plan for new park development in a reasonable time frame if additional funds do not become available that are required for the current Master Plan. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: As noted in our response to
R12:
Within 90 days, [Community Services District] CSD should document its plans for Bass Lake Park and justify why CSD took on the obligation to build a turnkey park in Village J7, and how development of Bass Lake Park will now proceed up through park completion proposed by CSD in FY 31. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation requires further analysis: With the Districts acquisition of 55 acres of the old executive golf course and the option to acquire the remaining 41.5 acres, the Bass Lake Park design may be subject to change depending on the community input for the Central [El Dorado Hills] EDH Park and what amenities that park will have. The community outreach project for Central EDH Park will run through summer at which time the District will be in a better position to define and document its plans for Bass Lake park. With regard to the turnkey park in Village J, the District participated in a settlement which was negotiated between Parker Development, the District, and El Dorado County that provided the 12.5 acres and $3.5M in funding identified from the County’s Serrano CFD 1992-1 that had been slated for the development of the parkland. Given the years of delay in the construction of the turnkey park, and that the District had recently acquired acreage from Rescue Unified School District that was adjacent to the Village J lot, it was envisioned that the Village J lot could be incorporated into a larger park project. With that newer vision, the District elected to accept the land and funding and construct the park itself. To assist the community in understanding the history of this decision, the District will be seeking to create a public review of the information and series of events that led up to the settlement agreement between the three parties whereby the District accepted the 12.5 acres and $3.5M in funding in order to incorporate the J Lot H parkland into the larger Bass Lake Park project. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, this recommendation requires further analysis, and we did not agree to provide the requested information within 90 days. That being said, development of Bass Lake Park is still ongoing, and the current project description is being analyzed and studied through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At this time, it is unclear when the EIR will be completed. At that point, we should have more clarity in terms of any modifications to the current project based on the ongoing Master Planning process that has just commenced. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: The Grand Jury was referred by the Board to the General Manager for follow-up. Follow-up Response received 4/7/26: The property known as Bass Lake Park has been and is still currently undergoing an [Environmental Impact Review] EIR process with the County. While at this stage, no work can be done on the property. We have been notified that the EIR for Bass Lake will be completed in the next few months (anticipated completion no later than end of summer 2026), and we are working actively with LSA [Environmental Consulting] (firm handling the EIR) to come to conclusion. Grand Jury Term 2024-2025 Case #25-04 DOT Maintenance Report: https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/county/v/2/documents/public- safety-amp-justice/grand-jury/2024-2025/25-04-dot-report.pdf
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Citizens with complaints are not routinely informed of resolutions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the IT Chief Information Officer to establish a central web page and phone number that will provide the public with directions for submitting grievances to the appropriate authority by December 31, 2026.
F2:
There is no central County web page or phone number to direct complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Planning and Building Department Director to develop a Procedure Manual for the Code Enforcement Division by February 1, 2027.
F3:
There is no procedure manual specific to the Code Enforcement Division.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors form a working group of representatives from the Planning and Building Department and the Assessor’s Office by December 31, 2026, to propose solutions for property owners and stakeholders seeking verified property information.
F4:
The Planning and Building Department and the Assessor’s office have associated roles which are not being utilized to the fullest potential.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not provide information that explains the interview process.
F2:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the Grand Jury’s role, authority, and function.
F3:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not provide comprehensive eligibility criteria for individuals interested in joining the Civil Grand Jury.
F4:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not provide information about application procedures for joining the Grand Jury and timelines are not clearly presented.
F5:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not prominently display or clearly provide contact information, or guidance for inquiries.
F6:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury website does not provide a separate section for additional resources for those individuals seeking information about the Civil Grand Jury.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the IT department to consult annually with the sitting Grand Jury and the Court to review and update the Civil Grand Jury website as necessary to maintain current information and relevancy.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Staff vacancies at the County jails require current staff to work overtime on a regular basis. Excessive overtime can lead to fatigue, reduced work rate, absenteeism, and negatively impact employee morale.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Director of Human Resources to conduct a compensation study for Correctional Officers. The study should consider comparing with neighboring counties in State of Nevada to be completed no later than December 9, 2026.
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office has made progress in recruitment by streamlining the application and testing process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff, in cooperation with the Director of Human Resources, develop a plan for recruitment opportunities to specifically address the application process, testing, training, and incentives for open positions located in South Lake Tahoe by December 9, 2026.
F3:
Attracting qualified individuals to live and work in South Lake Tahoe and drive to Placerville for testing and training is a deterrent to recruitment.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R21-01:
2 0 Compliance Analysis of County Employee
R21-02:
6 6 1 2 3 Timekeeping Inspection of County Jails and
R21-03:
3 2 1 1 Juvenile Treatment Center Election Oversight of
R21-04:
0 0 Gubernatorial Recall Elections County Staffing Challenges 21-05 8 8 1 6 1 Hotel Emergency Housing for
R21-06:
5 5 1 2 2 Homeless Western Slope Growlersburg Conservation
R21-07:
0 0 Camp Inspection Report El Dorado Hills Community Services District Management of
R21-08:
13 9 2 3 3 Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts Ordinance 5101-Vegatation Management and Defensible 21-09 7 5 1 1 1 2 Space Timeliness of Municipal Service
R21-10:
7 6 1 5 Reviews TOTAL 51 41 2020/2021 County Cemetery Management 20-01 6 4 2 1 1 2 Inspection of County Jails and JuveniIe Treatment Center 20-02 3 3 1 1 1 Grand Jury Continuity and Compliance 20-03 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Following up on Mental Health Services Act Fund Spending 20-04 5 3 1 1 1 West Slope Emergency Services, Joint Powers Authority and Ambulance Service 20-05 4 3 1 2 Investigation of El Dorado County Probation Department 20-06 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 25 13 2 3 5 3 2 2019/2020 Placerville City Police Facility Citizens Deserve Better 19-01 1 3 3 2 South Lake Tahoe City Police Facility Citizens Deserve Better 19-02 1 3 3 2 County Credit Cards 19-03 7 3 1 1 1 2 Policing Those with Behavioral Health Issues a Challenge for County Law Enforcement 19-04 11 8 3 3 2 3 County Vital Records Certificate Fees-Why so Expensive? 19-05 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West Slope Fire Protection Update 19-06 6 1 1 County Airports 19-07 8 6 5 1 5 Jails and Juvenile Treatment Center Inspections 19-08 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A County Drone Use 19-09 2 1 1 1 TOTAL 46 25 3 16 4 2 15 2018/2019 Moving Forward in County Fire Services Sustainability 18-01 5 2 1 1 1 Mental Health Services Act Fund Spending 18-02 5 3 3 3 Jail and Juvenile Detention Centers Inspections 18-03 3 3 2 1 1 Election Observations (Informative Report) 18-04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grand Jury Continuity 18-05 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A A Fair Review 18-06 7 3 3 3 TOTAL 20 11 3 8 0 0 8 2017/2018 Carrying the Work of the Grand Jury Forward 17-10 4 2 Cameron Park Community Services District 17-01 10 5 El Dorado Irrigation District California Public Records Act Compliance 17-09 2 2 El Dorado County Fire Protection Consolidation 17-04 7 5 How El Dorado County Can Navigate the CalPERS Crisis 17-06 5 5 Oversight of Special District Mitigation Fees 17-12 3 1 El Dorado County Jails Inspections 17-03 7 6 TOTAL 38 26 2016/2017 El Dorado County South Lake Tahoe Jail 16-01 5 6 South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center 16-02 3 3 Performance of the Agreement Between El Dorado County and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians 16-04 7 4 El Dorado County Workers' Compensation Administration Program 16-05 6 2 Georgetown Divide Public Utility District - Positive Changes and Continuing Challenges 16-07 8 5 El Dorado County Legacy Application Migration and Mainframe Decommissioning Success 16-09 6 4 Cameron Park Airport District - Ceiling and Visibility Limited 16-11 8 8 El Dorado County Placerville Jail - Jail Inspection 16-13 4 4 Looking Back and Looking Ahead 16-15 3 1 TOTAL 50 37
R24-05:
El Dorado Hills CSD 17 12 6 6 0 0 Voter Initiative Petitions: The 24-06 6 3 People Need to be Heard County Office of Education: Are 24-07 Schools Doing Enough to 11 12 2 3 4 3 Address Sexual Harassment?
R24-07:
El Dorado County Schools 1 1 1 6 0 1 9 schools, responding to R.8 Emergency Services Authority: 24-08 14 9 Who Provides Oversight? Election Integrity: Separating 24-09 7 7 Fact from Fiction 2022/2023 $28K Sick Leave Oversight GJ.01 8 7 Procurement And Contracts GJ.02 12 15 Building Projects - Can You Help GJ.03 9 9 Me, … PLEASE? How Will Grizzly Flats Water GJ.04 9 6 District Survive? Compliance And Continuity GJ.05 1 2 Facilities Inspction Summary 0 0 2021/2022 Grand Jury Continuity and
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Staff vacancies at the County jails require current staff to work overtime on a regular basis. Excessive overtime can lead to fatigue, reduced work rate, absenteeism, and negatively impact employee morale.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Director of Human Resources to conduct a compensation study for Correctional Officers. The study should consider comparing with neighboring counties in State of Nevada to be completed no later than December 9, 2026.
F2:
The Sheriff’s Office has made progress in recruitment by streamlining the application and testing process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff, in cooperation with the Director of Human Resources, develop a plan for recruitment opportunities to specifically address the application process, testing, training, and incentives for open positions located in South Lake Tahoe by December 9, 2026.
F3:
Attracting qualified individuals to live and work in South Lake Tahoe and drive to Placerville for testing and training is a deterrent to recruitment.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F10:
contains requires a new application and application fees for any sale of the conflicting hangar that could result in a reassigned or new lease. However, language Section II, D requires “any individual or business desiring to enter regarding into a hangar or ground lease for personal or business use, or application any commercial operator intending to conduct business at the fees. airport, to complete and submit a County-prescribed application form and pay the application fee.” This provision does not differentiate between existing tenants and prospective users. Policy F-10 does not provide clear, non-conflicting language to specify how and when application fees are applied. Case # 26-02 2025-2026 Grand Jury 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F10:
contains requires a new application and application fees for any sale of the conflicting hangar that could result in a reassigned or new lease. However, language Section II, D requires “any individual or business desiring to enter regarding into a hangar or ground lease for personal or business use, or application any commercial operator intending to conduct business at the fees. airport, to complete and submit a County-prescribed application form and pay the application fee.” This provision does not differentiate between existing tenants and prospective users. Policy F-10 does not provide clear, non-conflicting language to specify how and when application fees are applied. Case # 26-02 2025-2026 Grand Jury 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The County does not follow the guidelines outlined in its Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, which was updated on July 29, 2025, as evidenced by Board approved changes to the ground lease standards resulting in discrepancies between adopted policy and current lease practices.
F2:
The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, does not define the duties and responsibilities of the Airports Director. The newly approved Airports Operations Officer role has both specific and general duties, which overlap with the Airports Director’s responsibilities and creates confusion.
F3:
The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, includes statements that lack specificity and fails to offer clear guidance for staff responsible for its implementation, such as clear criteria for lease extension or termination and new application requirements for existing versus prospective new users. The Policy's subjective language poses challenges for both staff and stakeholders in planning subsequent actions.
F4:
El Dorado County failed to sufficiently inform the public about major Airport Ground Lease changes. The Grand Jury found that subsequent outreach prompted by complaints led to ground lease revisions that could have been avoided with earlier engagement.
F5:
El Dorado County failed to meaningfully engage with the airport community in the same way it provides engagement for other special interest groups such as the Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Development Advisory Commission, and Agriculture Commission.
F6:
The County’s Airports website does not offer a subscription option to request updates for new postings or changes.
F7:
Without support from leaseholders, private pilots, and aviation businesses, County Airports would require additional general fund subsidies. These Airports benefit law enforcement, emergency services, and the broader local economy. Airport users should be respected as valuable contributors and need representation.
F8:
The County is concerned that turning airports over to private management might lead to expensive FAA penalties. Airports play a vital role in the community, but rising subsidies from the County General Fund may not be sustainable long term and need to be examined.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 in accordance with Board approved revisions to lease requirements by December 31, 2026.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 defining the duties, responsibilities, and authority over the Case # 26-02 2025-2026 Grand Jury 12 County Airport program (aka Airports Director and/or Airports Operations Officer) and ensure language is clear and based on specific criteria by December 31, 2026.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to add a subscription function to the County’s Airports web page by September 1, 2026, that will notify subscribers when a change or update is posted.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors establish an aviation advisory group to meet at least biannually with Airport administrators and provide feedback to the Board, when necessary, by December 31, 2026.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff by December 31, 2026, to develop a plan to increase Airport revenue, ensuring public access to events, business expansion, or other recommendations from airport advisors that could reduce the County General Fund contribution to Airport operations.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to work with the FAA and its Airport Investment Partnership Program to evaluate airport privatization.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The County does not follow the guidelines outlined in its Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, which was updated on July 29, 2025, as evidenced by Board approved changes to the ground lease standards resulting in discrepancies between adopted policy and current lease practices.
F2:
The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, does not define the duties and responsibilities of the Airports Director. The newly approved Airports Operations Officer role has both specific and general duties, which overlap with the Airports Director’s responsibilities and creates confusion.
F3:
The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, includes statements that lack specificity and fails to offer clear guidance for staff responsible for its implementation, such as clear criteria for lease extension or termination and new application requirements for existing versus prospective new users. The Policy's subjective language poses challenges for both staff and stakeholders in planning subsequent actions.
F4:
El Dorado County failed to sufficiently inform the public about major Airport Ground Lease changes. The Grand Jury found that subsequent outreach prompted by complaints led to ground lease revisions that could have been avoided with earlier engagement.
F5:
El Dorado County failed to meaningfully engage with the airport community in the same way it provides engagement for other special interest groups such as the Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Development Advisory Commission, and Agriculture Commission.
F6:
The County’s Airports website does not offer a subscription option to request updates for new postings or changes.
F7:
Without support from leaseholders, private pilots, and aviation businesses, County Airports would require additional general fund subsidies. These Airports benefit law enforcement, emergency services, and the broader local economy. Airport users should be respected as valuable contributors and need representation.
F8:
The County is concerned that turning airports over to private management might lead to expensive FAA penalties. Airports play a vital role in the community, but rising subsidies from the County General Fund may not be sustainable long term and need to be examined.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 in accordance with Board approved revisions to lease requirements by December 31, 2026.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 defining the duties, responsibilities, and authority over the Case # 26-02 2025-2026 Grand Jury 12 County Airport program (aka Airports Director and/or Airports Operations Officer) and ensure language is clear and based on specific criteria by December 31, 2026.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to add a subscription function to the County’s Airports web page by September 1, 2026, that will notify subscribers when a change or update is posted.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors establish an aviation advisory group to meet at least biannually with Airport administrators and provide feedback to the Board, when necessary, by December 31, 2026.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff by December 31, 2026, to develop a plan to increase Airport revenue, ensuring public access to events, business expansion, or other recommendations from airport advisors that could reduce the County General Fund contribution to Airport operations.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to work with the FAA and its Airport Investment Partnership Program to evaluate airport privatization.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.