El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Grading and Encroachment Securities
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
The County has been negligent in its duty and responsibility in administering the MOU between the County and TRPA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Development Services Department should develop and implement an action plan that would enable it to carry out its obligations under the MOU.
F2
The administration of the program has been lacking in several areas. Current inspections must be done on listed properties to determine the status of projects. a. Awareness of completed/incomplete security deposits: Projects may have been completed but owner did not request the security deposit; The project may not have been completed; The owner sold the property which required inspection and the present owner is not aware of the requirements. b. Efficient management of the security deposit: Many securities need review to determine the viability of the security deposit; There may be legal complications concerning ownership of some deposits. c. Timely inspection response: There is one inspector assigned to the Lake Tahoe area. There are 359 addresses still open without a completion date. d. Return of the security deposit: At last review, 55 properties were awaiting final inspection and return of the security deposit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Department Director should consult and work with Information Technology Systems to integrate the Department’s stand alone data base system into the County’s data base system.
F3
The list of properties to be inspected has its own stand alone data base, and is not incorporated into the County’s current financial management system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Department Director should integrate the financial aspects of the Department’s program into the County’s current financial management system.
F4
The MOU has not been updated since 1992, and some provisions may be outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County Counsel’s Office should review and amend the present MOU between the County and TRPA as necessary.
F5
Page 4
The Department Director should report to the County Administrative Officer to review progress on the conversion of the computer programs. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal §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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Department Director should report to the County Administrative Officer to review progress on the conversion of the computer programs. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal §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.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.