El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2009-2010 Fee Waivers
⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
Fee waivers, upon request, may be granted for building permits, encroachment permits, variances, zone reclassifications, administrative permits, and use permits.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Development Services Department does not advise applicants about fee waivers unless requested.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The following fee waivers were granted: a. $101,410 in 2006 b. $10,784 in 2007 c. $26,336 in 2008 d. $14,070 in 2009 These are exclusive of the special waivers granted for victims of the Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe ($735,870 from June 2006 to December 2008).
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Policy B-2 grants authority to the CAO to receive requests for and to grant fee waivers. The criteria for fee waivers are vague and lacking in definition. This provides the CAO with unlimited latitude in granting fee waivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County should review and update its fee waiver policy to include: a. A description of which fees may be waived and who has authority to grant fee waivers; b. A list of clear, objective standards for fee waivers; c. Documentation of specific reasons for granting fee waivers; d. Clearly state that the general public is eligible; e. Definitive guidelines to all applicants to include a statement that the general public is eligible for fee waivers.
F5
It is not sufficiently clear that fee waiver authority is limited to the CAO. It was noted that other agencies and departments are granting fee waivers. If the policy is being followed, only the CAO or BOS should be granting fee waivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County should review and update its fee waiver policy to include: a. A description of which fees may be waived and who has authority to grant fee waivers; b. A list of clear, objective standards for fee waivers; c. Documentation of specific reasons for granting fee waivers; d. Clearly state that the general public is eligible; e. Definitive guidelines to all applicants to include a statement that the general public is eligible for fee waivers.
F6
All waivers are to be reported to the BOS. While there is indication that reports are made to the BOS, the specific justification for granting a waiver is not noted. The specific reason fees are waived is only included in the letter to the applicant after approval and not entered into the County’s computer program for tracking.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The County should review and update its fee waiver policy to include: a. A description of which fees may be waived and who has authority to grant fee waivers; b. A list of clear, objective standards for fee waivers; c. Documentation of specific reasons for granting fee waivers; d. Clearly state that the general public is eligible; e. Definitive guidelines to all applicants to include a statement that the general public is eligible for fee waivers.
R2
Useful information should be easily retrievable from the appropriate County computer program. To that end, the information entered for each application should be consistent. It should include, at a minimum, who the initiating department is and specifically under which criteria outlined in the policy the waiver was approved and by whom.
F7
There is no indication from the CAO’s office in their report to the BOS of the identity of the initiating department(s).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Useful information should be easily retrievable from the appropriate County computer program. To that end, the information entered for each application should be consistent. It should include, at a minimum, who the initiating department is and specifically under which criteria outlined in the policy the waiver was approved and by whom.
F8
Reports extracted from the County’s computer program neither identify the reason nor which department(s) requested a fee waiver. Once approved, there is nothing in these reports to show what criteria is used to grant approval. Because there is not sufficient data that can be used for tracking purposes, the reports are limited in nature and meaningful information cannot be easily extracted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Useful information should be easily retrievable from the appropriate County computer program. To that end, the information entered for each application should be consistent. It should include, at a minimum, who the initiating department is and specifically under which criteria outlined in the policy the waiver was approved and by whom.
F9
The Permit Application, Parts 1-3, and Plan Review Submittal Forms given to applicants do not have a form number. The Plan Review Submittal Form also has no date of approval/revision noted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
All forms distributed to the public by Development Services Department should have a form number and date of approval/revision printed on all pages. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this report are required 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.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
El Dorado County District Attorney
Elected County Office
El Dorado County Sheriff
Elected County Office