Score: +1 (2/7/1)

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2023-2024

EL Dorado County

38 pages

Ver PDF original

⚠️ 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 17 findings

- The CSD Board of Directors for the last two plus years failed to provide adequate oversight of their General Manager to know that he had an outside consulting role at one of CSD’s contractors. Such outside work posed serious questions about a potential conflict of interest.

Related Recommendations (1)

– By December 31, 2024, the County District Attorney’s office should complete the investigation of any potential ethics or conflicts of interest violations, including required FPPC Form 700 disclosures, raised by the former GM’s consulting arrangement with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative

- CSD Board members subsequently failed to act in a timely way on the then-GM’s potential conflict of interest.

Related Recommendations (1)

- CSD Board members appeared to have engaged in a serial meeting in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act and CA Govt Code Section 53262 when they individually approved the GM’s outside consulting work, leading to a notice from the District Attorney’s Office requesting additional training.

Related Recommendations (3)

– of this report, as mandated by the District Attorney’s Office, all CSD Board members and management level employees should be required to complete Brown Act training and renew such training not less than every two years. In addition, all Board members and management level employees should be designated and required to complete AB 1234 Chapter 700 (link) Ethics training every two years.

– CSD should keep records of all Brown Act and AB 1234 Ethics training completed by the Board of directors and designated staff members for a minimum period of 10 years.

– , the County District Attorney’s office should continue to investigate Brown Act or CA Government Code Section 53262 violations by the CSD Board unless and until the CSD Board gets appropriate Brown Act and Ethics training.

– Brown Act training has been optional for CSD Board members and staff, while AB 1234 Chapter 700 Ethics training is required.

Related Recommendations (2)

– CSD should keep records of all Brown Act and AB 1234 Ethics training completed by the Board of directors and designated staff members for a minimum period of 10 years.

– Then-CSD GM failed to properly disclose income received from his consulting arrangement with DTA, a CSD contractor, on his Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700, which he signed under penalty of perjury.

Related Recommendations (1)

- Then-CSD GM performed business development work to find new clients for DTA which, as far as the Grand Jury can verify from reviewed documents, was unrelated to CSD’s contracts with DTA. Carson Creek LLAD #39 Ballot Initiative

Related Recommendations (1)

- CSD has been ignoring the will of the voting citizens of LLAD #39 by not acting on two previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments for the Carson Creek/Heritage Park. FINDINGS LLAD Assessment Policies and Objections

Related Recommendations (2)

– , CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. LLAD Assessment Policies and Objections

– Upon certification that the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiative petitions have been signed by the requisite number of voters, CSD must enact the Promontory and Blackstone LLAD initiatives without alteration, or submit the initiatives unmodified to the voters, as RECOMMENDATIONS required by California Elections Code Section 9310. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan

– Neither the former GM nor the CSD Board of Directors properly certified the engineering assessment reports for 2022 and 2023 to the satisfaction of the County Controller during the same period that the GM was consulting for the CSD engineering assessment firm, DTA. As a result, the County has held up billing parcel owners for LLAD assessments, ending up in litigation which will be costly to taxpayers.

Related Recommendations (1)

– of this report, CSD should establish and document clearer guidelines for the CSD Board of Directors or GM certification of the assessment levy to the County Controller/Auditor and publish that procedure in the CSD Policies and Procedures documents.

– Two other LLADs are contesting their assessments, Promontory Park and Blackstone, using an identical ballot initiative as Carson Creek LLAD #39, which will have significant impact on CSD revenue going forward if they all pass as expected. CSD Financial Health and Master Plan

Related Recommendations (1)

F10

–CSD operates with 20-40% or more net revenue each year that accrues to increasingly larger treasury fund balances, now roughly $50 million.

Related Recommendations (1)

– , CSD should document the projected use for all Treasury fund assets, clarify which fund accounts are earmarked for what purposes and open the spending plan for public comment and approval.

F11

- CSD Financial Assets are far more than their reserve policies allow as stated in their operational policy document.

Related Recommendations (1)

– , CSD should document the projected use for all Treasury fund assets, clarify which fund accounts are earmarked for what purposes and open the spending plan for public comment and approval.

F12

– The CSD Master Plan is a long-term park enhancement and development plan that envisions spending $300 million according to a 2021 document, which seems unrealistic without significant additional funding sources.

Related Recommendations (2)

– By September 30, 2024, CSD should review, revise, and publicize its Master Plan from 2021 with realistic timelines for all new park development, as well as accurate and realistic cost estimates that can be funded and executed within a 10-year planning period.

R11

– , CSD should get public input on its latest 10-year development plan, including any updates to the Master Plan from 2021, and how they plan to use PIF funds over an extended period. This development needs to include a contingency plan for new park development in a reasonable time frame if additional funds do not become available that are required for the current Master Plan. Developer Relationship

F13

- There appear to be calculation errors in the Master Plan overestimating the amount to fully fund the proposed developments by more than $100 million.

Related Recommendations (2)

R11

F14

- CSD, despite its sizable financial holdings and the complexity of its accounts and revenue sources, does not have a licensed CPA on staff. Park Impact Fees and Reporting Requirements

Related Recommendations (1)

R10

- , CSD should employ or retain a full-time licensed CPA professional to be Treasurer/CFO-equivalent. Park Impact Fees and Reporting Requirements

F15

– CSD has been retaining Park Impact Fees (PIF) for more than five years and may ultimately hold several million dollars in funds for ten or fifteen years or more. This opens the CSD to potential litigation for not spending PIF funds in the short term. FINDINGS

No recommendations for this finding

F16

– The plans to spend PIF through FY 29 and FY 31 on a Multigenerational Recreation Center and Bass Lake Park are contingent on significant additional funds of over $75 million. These plans are not consistent with the intent of the Mitigation Fee Act and will require a contingency plan in case the additional required funds are not available for the new park development. Developer Relationship

Related Recommendations (2)

R11

R12

– , CSD should document its plans for Bass Lake Park and justify why CSD took on the obligation to build a turnkey park in Village J7, and how development of Bass Lake Park will now proceed up through park completion proposed by CSD in FY 31.

F17

– The public is concerned about several recent financial deals CSD has made with Parker Development, such as the CSD’s purchase of the Old Executive Golf property, the CSD acquiring the12.5-acre Serrano Village J lot to develop a turnkey park at Bass Lake area rather than enforcing Parker’s obligation to do so, and a significantly reduced amount for Park Impact Fees (PIF) for Parker Development.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12

Agency Responses 2

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

El Dorado Hills Community Services District (CSD)(PDF, 2MB)

May 13, 2024 • 14 pages • 2 responses • Score: 0 (+0, 2, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

2 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

After it was certified by the Registrar on May 14, 2020, an initiative petition signed by the required number of voters in LLAD #39 was unilaterally not acted on by the EI Dorado Hills CSD. This non-action ignored the objections of the petitioners and violated Elections Code 9310 that required CSD to adopt the ballot measure or submit it to the voters. The District Partially Agrees with the Finding: The District agrees that it took no action based on advice from District Legal Counsel. In response to the finding regarding the previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments, at the October...

Response: Implemented

Due: Within 90 days Scheduled: Within 90 days Score: 0

El Dorado Hills Community Services District (EDH CSD)(PDF, 8MB)

July 03, 2024 • 107 pages • 8 responses • Score: +1 (+2, 5, -1) View Details ▾

PDF

8 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

The CSD Board of Directors for the last two plus years failed to provide adequate oversight of their General Manager to know that he had an outside consulting role at one of CSD's contractors. Such outside work posed serious questions about a potential conflict of interest. The District Partially Agrees with the Finding: The District agrees the former General Manager's undisclosed relationship with the DTA consulting firm was a serious conflict of interest and an inexcusable ethical breach. However, the former General Manager did not disclose his economic interest in the DTA firm on his Form 7...

- CSD Board members subsequently failed to act in a timely way on the then-GM’s potential conflict of interest.

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

potential conflict of interest. The District Partially Disagrees with the Finding: The District acknowledges the investigative report is being released approximately one (1) year after the announcement of the allegations. This is due to several factors including following the steps in District Board Policy 5090.20 (See Attachment B); the time required to research and contract with an outside Investigator, and a change to the Districts General Legal Counsel and the transfer of Attorney- Client privileged information. In summary, since the initial allegations were made public in July of 2023, th...

– Brown Act training has been optional for CSD Board members and staff, while AB 1234 Chapter 700 Ethics training is required.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

Brown Act training has been optional for CSD Board members and staff, while AB 1234 Chapter 700 Ethics training is required. The District Disagrees with the Finding: Per District Policy 4090.10.01 (See Attachment C)- Upon election to the CSD Board of Directors, all new Board Members are required to attend Special District Leadership Training within one (1) year of taking office and renew such training at a minimum of every two (2) years thereafter. Additionally, each new Board Member meets with the General Manager and Clerk of the Board to receive and review an orientation packet which include...

Response: Agree Score: +1

arrangement with DTA, a CSD contractor, on his Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700, which he signed under penalty of perjury. The District Agrees with the Finding: The evidence available to the District indicates the former General Manager had an economic interest in his relationship with the DTA consulting firm. This interest was never disclosed on the former General Manager's Form 700, which he signed under penalty of perjury. F6 Then-CSD GM performed business development work to find new clients for DTA which, as far as the Grand Jury can verify from reviewed documents, was...

Response: Agree Score: +1

Practice fiscal responsibility in all acquisitions, in particular the early stages of the sale and expenditure. Fiscal Impact: All associated assessments within the various reports include contributions from the District General Fund to aid in supporting the general benefit area(s) of each LLAD. Those values vary, as per the Engineer reports. Administrative Overhead reimbursements are assessed to the LLADs, as per the budget details found within the budget for FY23. Those values also vary. Please see the budget document within this Board meeting packet for those values and details associated w...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

two previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments for the Carson Creek/Heritage Park. The District Partially Agrees with the Finding: In response to the finding regarding the previous initiatives to modify or remove assessments, at the October 14, 2021, Board of Directors meeting (See Attachment D), the Board approved a refund of the LLAD #39 FY20 assessment (Total: $150,205.86) to homeowners who paid the assessment due to the construction delays at Heritage Village Park. Then again during the May 12, 2022, Board of Directors meeting (See Attachment E), the Board approved a refund of th...

Response: Disagree Partially Score: 0

Two other LLADs are contesting their assessments, Promontory Park and Blackstone, using an identical ballot initiative as Carson Creek LLAD #39, which will have significant impact on CSD revenue going forward if they all pass as expected. The District Agrees with the Finding: In purely technical terms, the finding is correct in that the two additional LLAD's are contesting their assessments on the same grounds that Carson Creek LLAD #39 has. Moreover, it must be noted that the Board of Directors has directed the General Manager to work with the LLAD representatives to resolve the assessment me...

Response: Requires Analysis

Due: September 30, 2024 Scheduled: Within 90 days Score: 0

, the District has planned and budgeted for a complete review and revision of its 2021 Master Plan in FY 24/25. As part of that process, the District solicits input from the community on the Master Plan and the 10-year development plan. Additionally, the significant amount of community input the District is currently receiving as a result of the Central EDH Park outreach project will be taken into consideration. <b>Developer Relationship</b> R12 Within 90 days, CSD should document its plans for Bass Lake Park and justify why CSD took on the obligation to build a turnkey park in Village J7, and...

No Responses Found 1

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

El Dorado County District Attorney Elected County Office