Score: -5 (0/3/5)
El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2023-2024

El Dorado County Grand Jury 2023-2024

Published: June 30, 2024 236 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 17 findings

F1 Page 70
– The BOS is currently following the TOT Measure’s intent for the use of revenues/funds. Budget Resolution Number 063-2022 clarifies that TOT funds utilized by the BOS are the same as Sales and Property tax, meaning that the BOS has 100% discretionary authority to allocate TOT funds.
F2 Page 70
– There is no formal or consistent process for the various chambers or groups to request TOT funds, or transparency on how decisions are made to allocate funds.
F3 Page 70
– There is no compliance process to ensure the collection of all TOT revenues from short- term rental companies like Airbnb.
F4 Page 70
– The definition of ‘tourism and economic development’ is vague to the public and the source of misperception. Case #24-04 TOT
F5 Page 103
– Then-CSD GM failed to properly disclose income received from his consulting arrangement with DTA, a CSD contractor, on his Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700, which he signed under penalty of perjury.
F6 Page 103
- Then-CSD GM performed business development work to find new clients for DTA which, as far as the Grand Jury can verify from reviewed documents, was unrelated to CSD’s contracts with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative
F7 Page 103
- CSD has been ignoring the will of the voting citizens of LLAD #39 by not acting on two previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments for the Carson Creek/Heritage Park. Case #24-05 EDH CSD FINDINGS LLAD Assessment Policies and Objections
F8 Page 104
– Neither the former GM nor the CSD Board of Directors properly certified the engineering assessment reports for 2022 and 2023 to the satisfaction of the County Controller during the same period that the GM was consulting for the CSD engineering assessment firm, DTA. As a result, the County has held up billing parcel owners for LLAD assessments, ending up in litigation which will be costly to taxpayers.
F9 Page 104
– Two other LLADs are contesting their assessments, Promontory Park and Blackstone, using an identical ballot initiative as Carson Creek LLAD #39, which will have significant impact on CSD revenue going forward if they all pass as expected. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan
F10 Page 104
–CSD operates with 20-40% or more net revenue each year that accrues to increasingly larger treasury fund balances, now roughly $50 million.
F11 Page 104
- CSD Financial Assets are far more than their reserve policies allow as stated in their operational policy document.
F12 Page 104
– The CSD Master Plan is a long-term park enhancement and development plan that envisions spending $300 million according to a 2021 document, which seems unrealistic without significant additional funding sources.
F13 Page 104
- There appear to be calculation errors in the Master Plan overestimating the amount to fully fund the proposed developments by more than $100 million.
F14 Page 104
- CSD, despite its sizable financial holdings and the complexity of its accounts and revenue sources, does not have a licensed CPA on staff. Park Impact Fees and Reporting Requirements
F15 Page 104
– CSD has been retaining Park Impact Fees (PIF) for more than five years and may ultimately hold several million dollars in funds for ten or fifteen years or more. This opens the CSD to potential litigation for not spending PIF funds in the short term. Case #24-05 EDH CSD FINDINGS
F16 Page 105
– The plans to spend PIF through FY 29 and FY 31 on a Multigenerational Recreation Center and Bass Lake Park are contingent on significant additional funds of over $75 million. These plans are not consistent with the intent of the Mitigation Fee Act and will require a contingency plan in case the additional required funds are not available for the new park development. Developer Relationship
F17 Page 105
– The public is concerned about several recent financial deals CSD has made with Parker Development, such as the CSD’s purchase of the Old Executive Golf property, the CSD acquiring the12.5-acre Serrano Village J lot to develop a turnkey park at Bass Lake area rather than enforcing Parker’s obligation to do so, and a significantly reduced amount for Park Impact Fees (PIF) for Parker Development. Case #24-05 EDH CSD

Recommendations 12

Conclusions 1

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

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