⚠️ 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 12 findings
F1
There presently is no policy or ordinance in El Dorado County that provides for the oversight of roadside memorials. There are no restrictions regarding length of time memorials may exist or what form they may take.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Several discussions with the County Department of Transportation have resulted in the drafting of a departmental policy which will provide the necessary regulation and oversight of roadside memorials and to take action when these regulations are not followed. The Board of Supervisors will be advised of this Department of Transportation Memorial Policy. 17
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Accounting for expenses has been sporadic and lacks sufficient detail.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The annual meeting for ZOB’s, when scheduled, is overly focused on “ethics training” and does not adequately address ZOB operational issues. A training program for new ZOB coordinators does not exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Hold an annual meeting that focuses primarily on the operational concerns of ZOB’s.
F5
DOT does not provide much engineering expertise to assist ZOB’s. In the event road engineering information is required, the information is very slow in being provided.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
When ZOB homeowners volunteer to perform basic landscaping or road maintenance they find the process cumbersome relative to requirements, forms, and steps needed to purchase materials. In addition, a $1,000,000 insurance rider is required by the County for any landscape work performed by property owners 20
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The contract process for any roadwork takes too long and the DOT non-bid minimum threshold is too high. Since DOT does all of the administrative work for a contract, many of the smaller details of the contracted work get lost, resulting in work that has to be adjusted and done again. The cost of these errors is incurred by the ZOB. In some cases, work is being delayed due to the lack of expertise by one of the hired contractors. DOT does not allow for “splitting of contracts”, although there are often cases where two different contractors with different skills and expertise could handle a project more cost-effectively to the ZOB. Presently, prime contractors have to award subcontracts after bidding takes place.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
An emergency or quick turnaround process is not in place to fix problems. The ZOB has to wait its turn for approval, and in the meantime, a problem that could have been resolved quickly may get worse, and costs often go up accordingly.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Many of the ZOB’s are unhappy with the cost and structure of the ZOB process but do not see a viable way to exit from that road maintenance entity. Although they could vote to remove themselves from the ZOB, a readily available path to pursue an alternative entity is not in place. This is an important issue, as it remains one of the biggest frustrations of several ZOB’s.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Board of Supervisors should help facilitate a path for disgruntled ZOB’s to exit the system and re-organize under an entity that best suits their needs. This issue is currently being discussed by County Counsel and DOT. We recognize that this is not a simple issue. Both the transition out of a ZOB to another road maintenance entity, and the adjustment from “public access to private roads” to “private roads only” needs to be addressed as part of this solution. We would urge that this recommendation produce a solution by the end of this calendar year. RESPONSES Response(s) to both Findings and Recommendations in this report are required in accordance with California Penal Code 933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court 22 -023 REASON FOR REPORT This report is being issued in response to a citizen complaint regarding the lack of implementation of the El Dorado County Radon Awareness Program.
F10
Concerns over the safety of wandering clients are addressed by a non-automated exit alarm at the main entry.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The most recent Fire Marshall inspection prior to our initial visit was conducted 6½ years ago. After a Grand Jury inquiry, a Fire Marshall inspection was accomplished in October 2008.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The facility has its own kitchen which appears neat, orderly and clean.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 5
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1This year’s Grand Jury reaffirms last year’s Grand Jury recommendation that Aid to Fire, as it is currently structured, continues to be a tax distribution and fairness issue. This requires a majority of property owners in the County to pay for their own fire districts operations, and support through the General Fund, fire services in eight other fire districts in the County. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors cancel the Aid to Fire contract with the fire districts, and distribute the trust fund monies for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 consistent with current contract funding agreements. The Grand Jury recognizes the Board of Supervisors may have made this decision during budget negotiations as this Grand Jury report is being prepared. If not, we recommend this contract be cancelled for next fiscal year 2010-2011.
-
R2The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside qualified consulting firm to analyze, evaluate, and make recommendations relative to the structure of our County fire service operations. This analysis should include mutual aid agreements, emergency medical services, and the ability of fire departments to operate without Aid to Fire funding. All fire district concerns should be brought out in the open for discussion and resolution as part of the analysis.
-
R3We recommend that the cost of this independent analysis be paid by the current Aid to Fire funding. Based on interviews by the Grand Jury with two independent fire consulting firms we believe this analysis could be accomplished for an investment of under $100,000, which is only 7.7% of the current Aid to Fire funding. Not performing an independent analysis keeps the status quo and perpetuates the same problem of tax fairness and distribution. NOTE: It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors – as this report was going to press – at their June 2, 2009 meeting, addressed this Aid to Fire issue, and did, in fact, make the very changes recommended in this report. Below is that segment to those minutes from the June 2nd meeting. We applaud the BOS for their actions. “Chief Administrative Office recommending the Board discuss Supplemental Funding to Fire Districts (Aid to Fire) and take the following actions: 1) Adopt Resolution 111-2009 terminating Supplemental Funding for Fire Districts, making findings to support that termination, and providing for an additional appropriation of $335,537 in Fiscal Year 2009-2010; 2) Authorize staff to work with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to initiate a request for qualifications for a Fire Service Consultant and prepare a Memorandum of Understanding with LAFCO for the administration of a Fire Service Consultant Agreement; and 37 3) Bring Fire Service Consultant findings and recommendations back to the Board prior to the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 budget. FUNDING: General Fund A motion was made by Supervisor Santiago, seconded by Supervisor Knight, as follows: 1) Adopt Resolution 111-2009; 2) Authorize staff to work with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO0; And 4) Bring the draft findings and recommendations from the Fire Service Consultant back to the Board on or before January 26, 1020. Yes: 4 - Knight, Sweeney, Briggs and Santiago Noes: 1 Nutting” Grand Jury Report 07-030 Use of County Vehicles – County (CAO Office) Response The 2007- 2008 Grand Jury reported eight Findings and four Recommendations. The County responses met the requirements of the penal code. The Grand Jury recognizes the work of the CAO’s office following Board Policy #D4 to review permanent assignment and overnight retention of vehicles on an annual basis to continue or rescind authorization. The recent annual review has reduced the number of take home vehicles by County employees and cost savings will follow. Grand Jury Report 07-06 Audit of Human Services and Mental Health Medi-Cal Revenue Department Responses The 2007-2008 Grand Jury commissioned a respected and experienced firm, Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, to conduct an audit of our County Human Services and Mental Health Departments. This action was prompted by prior Grand Juries’ investigations that had identified problems in the proper management of Medi-Cal billing practices. The purpose of the audit was to determine how much loss in State reimbursement was occurring based on those departments’ operations. The audit did in fact show some serious process deficiencies, and the projected substantial dollar losses to the County were realized. The responses from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), presumably using input from the Mental Health and Human Services Departments, attacked the credibility and methods of the audit. The head of the Mental Health Department at that time publicly (at an open BOS meeting) denounced the audit findings, and indicated that all was well in his department. The BOS response focused on statistical methods and techniques, and virtually ignored the key findings and 38 recommendations of the audit and subsequent Grand Jury report. It should be noted that when the responses to that audit from the BOS were approved and given to the Grand Jury on September 30, 2008, the BOS had already approved the transfer of $3,319,000 from the County General Fund to cover the Mental Health Department’s 2007-2008 fiscal budget shortfall due to uncollected Medi-Cal payments. Time has certainly exonerated the damaged credibility of that audit. As indicated above, at the end of last fiscal year (2007-2008), the Mental Health Department needed over $3,000,000 to supplement its budget shortfall due to uncollected revenues from the State. Much of that shortfall can never be collected, as strict time rules exist between the State and Counties to recover past submission errors. And, per the County Auditor-Controller, it appears that the negative budget balance in the Mental Health Department will occur again this fiscal year (2008- 2009). In October of 2008 the Board of Supervisors changed the management of the Mental Health Department placing that department under the umbrella of the County Department of Public Health. This Grand Jury has met with members of the Public Health Department management team as well as our County Auditor/Controller to review the status of those fiscal problems. The Mental Health Department, under this new management, has recognized and embraced these problems, analyzed where the problems are, and, we believe, is taking steps to solve them. The Mental Health Department (under the supervision of the Public Health Department) has indicated that they are taking the following actions: An electronic “bridge” is being placed between the two electronic systems designed to bill the State in a proper and timely manner Payroll has been consolidated into one operation The contract process has been consolidated The purchasing function has been consolidated There is an ongoing attempt to change the culture in order to place the proper priority on the billing and reimbursement process According to the new management team at Public Health, the statewide average disallowance rate (non-reimbursed funds) is approximately 7%. The County is now running at 10%, which is down from 16% last year. This marked improvement in the disallowance rate still has much room to improve. The Mental Health Department will still require County “bailout” funds to balance the Mental Health Department budget this year. According to our County Auditor/Controller, at least 2.5 million dollars of General Fund money will again be needed this fiscal year (2008-2009) to cover the budget shortfall of the Mental Health Department.
-
R6RESOLUTION NO" 05-2008 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF El DORADO DECLARING JANUARY 1 - 31, 2008 RADON ACTION MONTH WHEREAS, radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring radioactive gas that threatens the health of our citizens; and WHEREAS, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer deaths in the United States and the number one cause among non-smokers; and WHEREAS, the only way to tell if radon is in your home [s to test, and testing for radon is simple and inexpensive; and WHEREAS, "Radon Action Month" will increase the public's awareness of radon and support efforts to encourage residents to test their homes for radon, mitigate elevated levels of radon, and build new homes with radon resistant materials and features. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors that the month of January 2008, be designated as "Radon Action Month" in EI Dorado County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of EI Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 8th day of January ,200 8 , by the following vote of said Board: Attest: Cindy Keck Ayes: Baumann, Sweeney, Dupray, Briggs, Santiago Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Noes: None Absent: None Deputy Clerk I CERTIFY THAT: THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. DATE: 26
-
R7RESOLUTION NO" 10-2009 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO DECLARING JANUARY 1 – 31, 2009 RADON ACTION MONTH WHERE·AS, radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring radioactive gas that threatens the health of our citizens; and WHEREAS radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer deaths in the United States and s the number one cause among non-smokers; and . WHEREAS, the only way to tell if radon is in your home is to test, and testing for radon is simple and inexpensive; and WHEREAS, "Radon Action Month" will increase the public's awareness of radon and support efforts to encourage residents to test their homes for radon, mitigate elevated levels of radon, and build new homes with radon resistant materials and features. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors that the month of January 2009, be designated as "Radon Action Month" in EI Dorado County. PASSEO AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of EI Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the ___ 27_day of January .2009 . by the follov.1ng vote of said Board: Ayes: Sweeney, Briggs, Knight, Nutting, Santiego Attest: Noes: none Suzanne Allen de Sanchez Absent: none I CERTIFY THAT: THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT IS A CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DATE: 2/2/09 Attest: By: 27 EL DORADO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RADON AWARENESS PROGRAM
Commendations 6
-
CM1 Page 18The County of El Dorado Department of Human Services, Adult Protective Services should be commended for their concern for elders and dependent adults. By co-locating various programs which focus on this population, they have created an atmosphere of convenient and rapid communication and problem solving. They continue to reach out into the County to cooperate and coordinate effectively with other service providers who also focus on this population. They interface with volunteer programs which provide older persons with meaningful opportunities to serve others and to benefit elders in the community. 33 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 Response Review Report Case No. GJ-08-025 REASON FOR REPORT To provide the public and future Grand Juries with a current status and update of pending actions to the findings, recommendations and responses of Grand Jury Final Reports.
-
CM2 Page 33The 2008-2009 Grand Jury commends the El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe for their dedication to providing a safe and secure custodial area for inmates. The administration and staff are also commended for the number of programs and opportunities they provide for the inmates. 47 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 El Dorado County Jail South Lake Tahoe, California Case No. GJ-08-026 REASON FOR REPORT The California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) requires the Grand Jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
-
CM3 Page 33The 2008-2009 Grand Jury commends the El Dorado County Probation Department and the El Dorado County Office of Education for their outstanding advocacy and rehabilitation programs for at-risk youth. 50 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 El Dorado County Jail Placerville Case No. GJ-08-028 REASON FOR REPORT The California Penal Code §919(a) and §919(b) requires the Grand Jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
-
CM4 Page 44The Grand Jury commends the El Dorado County Probation Department and the Office of Education for their outstanding advocacy and rehabilitation programs for at-risk youth. 55 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 Growlersburg Conservation Camp Georgetown Case No. GJ-08-030 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury is charged with inspecting correctional institutions in El Dorado County each year per §919(a) and §919(b) of the California Penal Code.
-
CM5 Page 47The 2008-2009 El Dorado County Grand Jury commends Growlersburg Conservation Camp. The excellent training provided by Growlersburg gives the inmates the opportunity upon release to lead productive lives and become solid members of society. As a result of the training programs, the inmates exhibit skills of qualified professionals in the fields of fire fighting, emergency response and woodworking. The Grand Jury commends Growlersburg for their exceptional community service. Growlersburg is commended for savings incurred by the maintenance of their produce garden. 58 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 El Dorado Senior Day Care Center Case No. GJ-08-007 REASON FOR REPORT The Grand Jury selected the Senior Day Care Center in Placerville as one of its general reviews and to observe implementation of Grand Jury recommendations of 2002-2003.
-
CM6 Page 63The City of South Lake Tahoe has meticulously maintained the airport and its operation. Of special interest, it has installed coyote decoys along the runway to deter birds and animals from being a hazard to aircraft. This is an exemplary solution to wildlife hazards at the airport and should be shared with other airports. 74 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008-2009 EL DORADO COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLACERVILLE Case No. GJ-08-017 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury conducts inspections of county, city and special district facilities owned or leased within El Dorado County per California Penal Codes §925, §925(a) and §928. The focus of this investigation is a periodic inspection for health and safety.