Come Downtown Place HOF El Dorado Hills Town Center

Recommendations 11

• R1
  The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
• R2
  The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. It is the expectation of the grand jury that the timeframe be specific and reasonable.
• R3
  The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
• R4
  The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. v RESPONSES There are two different response times set forth in the Penal Code essentially depending upon whether the respondent is elected or not elected. Public Agencies The governing body of any public agency (also referring to a department) must respond from the release of the report to the public. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court as indicated in the Response Section of each report. Elective Officers or Agency Head All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments are required to respond of the release of the report to the public. Responses must be sent to the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, as specified in the Response Section of each report, with a copy to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. FAILURE TO RESPOND Failure to respond as required to a grand jury report is in violation of California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action. Such action is likely to include further investigation on the subject matter of the report by the grand jury. The current Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court: Presiding Judge Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury Department 3 1354 Johnson Blvd, Suite 2 South Lake Tahoe CA 96150 The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that your responses be sent in an original “word” file, or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please e-mail to the Grand jury at: scadmin@eldoradocourt.org. Thank you. vi Estimated Economic Impact Report 2011-2012 Grand Jury 001 - El Dorado County Policies and Procedures There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 002 - Placerville Union School District Business Practices There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 003 - El Dorado County Business License Ordinance There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially receive revenues in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 004 - Department of Transportation – Financial Management There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 005 - California Grand Jury Budgets There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 006 - Fee Waivers – Iron Gate There are negative estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. El Dorado County could potentially lose revenues in the thousands of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. 007 - El Dorado County Detention Facilities There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 008 - South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 009 - Sheriff’s Department Incentive Pay – (Diploma Gate) Follow-Up There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $23,353.11 by following the recommendations in this report. 010 - Consolidation of City and County Services There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. No actual figure can be estimated at this time. The City of Placerville and the City of South Lake Tahoe could potentially save millions of dollars by following the recommendations in this report. vii 011 - Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds There are positive estimated financial impacts from this report. El Dorado County could potentially receive $22,000 by following the recommendations in this report. 012 - Placerville Police Investigative Policy There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. 013 - El Dorado County Contracts There are no estimated financial impacts from this report. Grand Jury There are positive estimated financial impacts. The Grand Jury applied for an Air Quality Resources Grant and was awarded $14,719.00 with the possibility of additional funds. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total estimated financial impact from Grand Jury Final Report: El Dorado County: Actual: $45,353.11 Estimated: $250,000.00 City of Placerville: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 City of South Lake Tahoe: Actual: $0 Estimated: $3,000,000.00 Grand Jury: Actual: $14,719.00 Estimated: $500 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Created by: Ryan Donner 2012 viii -001 1 Placerville Union School District - Policies and Procedures GJ-11-002 10 El Dorado County Business License Ordinance GJ-11-003 23 Department of Transportation - Financial Management GJ-11-004 33 California Grand Jury Budgets GJ-11-005 36 Fee Waivers - Iron Gate GJ-11-006 45 El Dorado County Detention Facilities GJ-11-007 50 South Lake Tahoe Ice Arena GJ-11-008 52 Sheriff’s Department - Incentive Pay (Diploma Gate) Follow Up GJ-11-009 65 Consolidation of City and County Services GJ-11-010 67 Unlawful Use of Taxpayer Funds GJ-11-011 70 Placerville Police Investigative Policies GJ-11-012 73 El Dorado County Contracts GJ-11-013 75 Index Title Page # Grand Jury Report Index by Group 78 Grand Jury Report Index by Year 83 -001 Reason for Report A recommendation was made by the 2010-2011 El Dorado County Grand Jury that the 2011-2012 El Dorado County Grand Jury consider investigating El Dorado County Counsel’s preparation of contracts entered into by the Board of Supervisors.
• R5
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
• R6
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Information Technologies respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
• R7
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Probation Department respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
• R8
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Procurement and Support Services respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
• R9
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Public Defender respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011.
• R10
  The Grand Jury recommends that the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department respond to our letter dated September 20, 2011. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law 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. This report has been provided to: El Dorado County Auditor/Controller El Dorado County Assessor El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Chief Administrative Office El Dorado County Counsel’s Office El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office El Dorado County Information Technologies El Dorado County Probation Department El Dorado County Procurement and Support Services El Dorado County Public Defender El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department 5 COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY Subject: Policy Number Page Number: C-17 1 of 1 PROCUREMENT POLICY Date Adopted: Revised Date: 10/11/2006 2/5/2008
• R11
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Treasurer/Tax Collector publish a list of businesses that are not operating with a current Business License monthly on the Treasurer/Tax Collector’s website and in other public media. Responses Reponses to both the findings and recommendations in this report are required by law 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. This report has been provided to the: El Dorado County Board of Supervisors El Dorado County Building Department El Dorado County Environmental Management Department El Dorado County Fire Protection Districts El Dorado County Planning Department El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department El Dorado County Treasurer/Tax Collector 27 DEPARTMENTS THAT RESPNDED IN PHONE RESPONSES WRITING. ATTACHMENT i El Dorado County Business License Utilization Survey The purpose of this document is to identify what departments use the Treasurer/Tax Collector's "Business License - Active List". Information provided by each Department. COULD DEPARTMENT PERFORM DEPARTMENTS CURRENT USER LIST? COULD USE LIST? IMPORTANT WITHOUT IT? Agriculture Yes Yes SOMEWHAT Without it would be difficult. List is very helpful to obtain owner names and to meet Constitutional requirements. Without it would be difficult. List used to meet Constitutional requirements and as a Assessor Yes yes EXTREMELY method of discovering businesses not required to report to Assessor. Without it would be more expensive, labor intensive, and time consumenng. Auditor/Controller CAO Child Support Services Yes Yes Yes Yes. List used for collection of money due parents and the collection of debts owed to Country and Courts. County Counsel Development Services No Without it would be difficult and cause considerable extra work. Used for fraud cases, District Attorney Yes yes EXTREMELY locating witnesses or victims criminal cases, workers comp cases, welfare fraud cases, contractor cases. Lack of reprt translates into more costs. DOT Elections No No Yes Environmental Management Yes Extremely No Health Services No No No Yes Human Resources No No No yes Human Services No No No Yes Information Technologies Library No No Yes Public Defender Without it would be difficult. Information is extremely valuable in our collaboration with Surveyor Yes Yes Extremely Developmental Services re address assignments for Suites/Units and Commercial Buildings. Recorder Clerk No No No Treasurer/Tax Collector Yes Extremely Creator of the list Sheriff Yes yes Somewhat Use to verify Business Licenses Veterans Affairs No No No -004 Reason for Report The Grand Jury is charged by law to identify inefficiencies in government. A water and sewer invoice was submitted to the County Department of Transportation (DOT), in the amount of $208,759.57, which was extremely high for a 60 day billing cycle.