Score: +1 (4/2/3)

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Part I - Released March 2008(pdf, 885kb)

Published: March 26, 2008 29 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 5 findings

Road repair CSD's obtain most of their funds through special assessments previously approved by the district property owners and included as a separate item in their property tax bill. Annual funds accumulate over years and are held by the County Treasurer. The reserve funds are available to hire a contractor to provide road repairs when needed. Typically in a district, a repair project does not occur every year.

Related Recommendations (1)

The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

Road repair CSD's could opt to become Zones of Benefit under CSA #9, but this would necessitate paying fees for County DOT services. Department of Transportation charges hourly rates for time spent assisting ZOB's, and the Auditor- Controller charges one percent of the annual budget for providing financial services. While these fees may be reasonable, road repair CSD budgets on average are considerably smaller than ZOB budgets. 2

Related Recommendations (1)

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*

Road repair districts have limited technical expertise and may have limited understanding of State rules. Roads in their districts are legal public roads and rules must be followed that are not required for private roads in gated communities. Typical problems encountered are: creating or obtaining adequate specifications for road maintenance and drainage construction projects, drafting the scope of work for projects, seeking bids and selecting contractors, inspecting and approving work, and maintaining acceptable financial documentation.

Related Recommendations (1)

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 an agency of department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. **

Road repair district directors will benefit from more job training. The Department of Transportation provides annual training classes for ZOB advisory committee members that would be very useful to road repair district directors and could be provided to them at negligible incremental cost.

Related Recommendations (1)

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. * The time frame needs to be specific and reasonable. ** At the conclusion of this analysis, the recommendation must be responded to as required by items 1, 2, or 4. RESPONSE: TIME, WHERE AND TO WHOM The Penal Code identifies two different response times, depending upon the classification of the respondent (see below), and includes where and to whom the response is directed. Day one begins with the date of the Final Report.

Very recently, the DOT prepared a prototype handbook (“Zone of Benefit Advisory Committee Manual”) for advisory committee members. This Manual includes information on: ethics, the open meeting law (The California Brown Act), road maintenance and repair (engineering) guidelines, contracting and purchasing, insurance, volunteer work procedures, and budget preparation. This Manual is an excellent product, put together from existing information at DOT in a very short period of time. The Department of Transportation is commended for this effort. This Manual would also be very useful to board directors of road repair districts.

No recommendations for this finding

Commendations 8

CM1 Page 14

The leadership and staff of the Placerville Jail are commended for their rigorous adherence to its mission statement and dedication to the rehabilitation of incarcerated adults. 8 THE 2007-2008 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY COMMENDS The El Dorado County Jail Placerville For its rigorous adherence to its mission statement, specifically their commitment to public safety, secure incarceration and inmate self-improvement through educational programs and services Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 El Dorado County Jail South Lake Tahoe REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the grand jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
CM2 Page 15

The El Dorado County Jail Placerville For its rigorous adherence to its mission statement, specifically their commitment to public safety, secure incarceration and inmate self-improvement through educational programs and services Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 El Dorado County Jail South Lake Tahoe REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the grand jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
CM3 Page 17

Despite needing increased personnel and repairs in certain areas of the facility, many programs leading to rehabilitation of inmates were noted, most specifically in the areas of mental health, vocational training and community service. The leadership and staff at the South Lake Tahoe Jail are commended for their rehabilitation programs for inmates. Further, the leadership and staff are commended for their outstanding community response during the Angora Fire. 10 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall Placerville REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the grand jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
CM4 Page 19

The El Dorado County Probation Department and the Office of Education are commended for their outstanding advocacy and rehabilitation programs for at-risk children. The Grand Jury finds that the probation and educational staff have gone above and beyond what is required. The probation staff and the education staff are further commended for their immaculate facility observed during an unannounced visit. 12 ` THE 2007-2008 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY COMMENDS The El Dorado County Probation Department and Office of Education For their exemplary programs for youth at Placerville Juvenile Hall Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall South Lake Tahoe REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
CM5 Page 20

The El Dorado County Probation Department and Office of Education For their exemplary programs for youth at Placerville Juvenile Hall Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 El Dorado County Juvenile Hall South Lake Tahoe REASON FOR REPORT Section 919(a) and 919(b) of the California Penal Code requires the Grand Jury to annually inspect any jail or prison within the county. This includes juvenile correctional facilities.
CM6 Page 23

The 2007-2008 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 children. 15 THE 2007-2008 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY COMMENDS The El Dorado County Probation Department and Office of Education For its exemplary programs for youth at South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 Growlersburg Conservation Camp Georgetown, California 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.
CM7 Page 20

The El Dorado County Probation Department and Office of Education For its exemplary programs for youth at South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Treatment Center Date: Signed: EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 Growlersburg Conservation Camp Georgetown, California 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.
CM8 Page 27

The 2007-2008 El Dorado 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. 18 EL DORADO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2007-2008 Mother Lode Union School District Case No. GJ 07-001 REASON FOR REPORT The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen alleging that Mother Lode Union School District (MLUSD) was spending district funds inappropriately. These allegations were limited to expenditures for incremental building space, equipment, travel, and personnel costs for in-house technology services.

Agency Responses 1

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

BOS Response(PDF, 1MB)

September 15, 2009 • 83 pages • 9 responses • Score: +1 (+4, 2, -3) View Details ▾

PDF

9 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Title 12, Article I, Chapter 12.08 addresses road encroachments. Specifically, §12.08.030(B) defines encroachment as, "any thing or action with respect to a county highway for which a permit is required by the provisions of this chapter." In addition, §12.08.030(D) defines obstructions as any tower, pole, pole line, pipe, pipeline, fill, fence, billboard, sign, stand or building, or any structure or object of any kind or character not particularly mentioned in the foregoing, which is placed in, under or over any portion of the right-of-way o...

The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The Department of Transportation will work with staff to automate a process that will allow for the dissemination of detailed accounting information on a quarterly basis. Expected timeframe of implementation is December 31, 2009. 2. The contract process needs to be revamped to reduce the excessive time built into the current process, as well as increasing the dollar threshold for non-advertised contracts.

Response: Agree Score: +1

The respondent agrees with the finding. RECOMMENDATION The Grand Jury recommends that the County Department of Transportation have this policy reviewed and implemented by June 30, 2009.

The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.*

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Department of Transportation has obtained an opinion from County Counsel, as mentioned above, that will allow maintenance work to be performed under the Purchasing Ordinance competitive process threshold of $100,000 instead of the Public Contract Code (PCC) bidding threshold of $30,000. If work meets the definition of a Public Project as outlined in the PCC, the $30,000 will still apply. Wherever possible processes will be streamlined; however bidding thresholds and review requirements are not within the control of DOT...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The County agrees that accounting has been sporadic but disagrees that it lacks sufficient detail. 4. 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.

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. The Department of Transportation will submit the approved Volunteer Work Program for review by County Counsel and Risk Management. DOT will report on that review by December 31, 2009 through the Grand Jury Status Report provided to the Board of Supervisors. 4. Hold an annual meeting that focuses primarily on the operational concerns of ZOB's.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The respondent disagrees with the finding. The County disagrees with the finding that the training is overly focused on "ethics training" and does not adequately address ZOB operational issues and that a training program does not exist for new ZOB coordinators. As described under number 2 above, the Department of Transportation has conducted regular training for zone of benefit advisory committees and new advisory committee participants. A sample presentation from each training session is included as Attachment A to illustrate content. Topics for the training meetings include; review of progra...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Department of Transportation will continue to hold the meetings, workshops and training sessions as detailed under number 2 of the "Findings" section above. 5. 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 "...

Response: Agree Score: +1

The respondent agrees with the finding. The Department of Transportation does not provide much engineering expertise to assist ZOBs. Most of the work performed in the zones of benefit is for maintenance including patching, drainage maintenance, and minor surface treatment, none of which require a professional engineer. The Department has developed specifications for use in developing road maintenance projects that are found in the Zone of Benefit Advisory Committee Manual. The maintenance specifications have been presented at training meetings and are available on line at the link to the manua...

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

El Dorado County Auditor-Controller Elected County Office