El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
• Agency Response
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ 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
Page 3
Permit fees were required and paid for a Grading Permit and asbestos mitigation. The Board authorized reimbursement of the already paid fees. They were subsequently reimbursed. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 4
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors no longer waive or reimburse permit fees unless they are specifically allowed by a Board Policy, California Constitution or State statute. Waving fees in an ad hoc manner gives the impression of collusion and favoritism. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors believes that the identified fee waivers are consistent with Board discretionary authority to waive fees because the waivers were in the best interest of the public. While reasonable people can disagree whether theses specific circumstances fall within the confines of Policy B-2, policies established by the Board of Supervisors provide general guidance, and should not be construed to limit the Board’s lawful authority to consider unique situations that have an overall public benefit. In general, Policy B-2 has worked, but the Board may consider revising it from time to time to better express the types of public purposes for which fee waivers are appropriate.
F2
Page 4
Permit fees were required for a wheel chair ramp to be added to a home after the owner’s teenage son was critically injured. The Board authorized waiver of these fees. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 4
The Board has approved waiver of permit fees for owners of property burned in the Angora fire of 2007. Neither Resolution No. 180-2007 nor Policy B-2 nor any other policy authorized refund of these fees. No public purpose was stated for the refund of these fees. Response: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board of Supervisors waived permit fees for replacement of structures previously approved but destroyed by the catastrophic wildfire. The County continued to collect building fees from fire victims who were expanding their previously approved structures.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 4
The Grand Jury found no evidence that the Board sought out or provided relief to others in similar circumstances for grading of property, property lost in fire or the remodeling of a home made necessary by a family member’s critical injury. Response: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Policy B-2 leaves the discretion to pursue a fee waiver up to the individual applicants. Most projects will not fall under the narrow exception criteria outlined in Policy B-2, and it would not be a reasonable use of public resources to individually research each project for fee waiver eligibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 4
The Grand Jury finds that reimbursement of these fees was a gift of public funds in violation of Article XVI of the California Constitution. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. The Board of Supervisors believes that the fee waivers provided meet the definition of public purpose. The Angora Fire destroyed over 250 homes and devastated many families. It was in the best interest of those families and the community in general to hasten the reconstruction of homes and lives. Property owners had already paid permit fees when the homes were originally constructed. As noted, the County continued to collect building fees for expansion projects.
No recommendations for this finding