📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F1
The District can no longer fund the law enforcement function solely through the fixed property tax. With department heads and city employees [sic]
F2
A flat, un-adjustable property tax to finance this ongoing cost-variable service requires going back to the voters repeatedly to raise the tax.
F3
Based on discussion with tax experts, it appears that the use of rubbish fund money may be in violation of Proposition 218 and the California Constitution, Section XIIIC, and Section XIIID, requiring that money designated for one function cannot be used for another.
F4
The rubbish fund has less money available to clean up the community, such as graffiti abatement and removal. Grand Jury Report
Recommendations 4
-
R1The Board put forth a ballot measure for the November 2020 election or a special election to adequately fund the District.
-
R2The ballot measure recommended by the Board include an appropriate escalator to keep up with the cost of the service, perhaps tying it directly to the price of the Sheriff's services.
-
R3Prior to the ballot measure, the Board get a legal opinion on whether their current "borrowings" can survive a challenge in court.
-
R4The Board spend the proceeds of the franchise fee exclusively for community clean up. Scope of Responses With respect to the "findings" contained in the Grand Jury Report, the District is aware that pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the District's responses must indicate one of the following: (1) The District agrees with the finding; or (2) The District disagrees wholly or Hon. John W. Vineyard, Presiding Judge COPY Riverside County Grand Jury Page | 3 partially with the finding, in which case the response must specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Regarding each "recommendation" contained in the Grand Jury Report, the District understands that pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the District is required to report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation; (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of such an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the District's governing body, provided that the timeframe does not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report; and (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. In light of the foregoing, the Board of Directors, as the governing body of the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District, respectfully responds to the Grand Jury Report's