⚠️ 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 6 findings
F1
- 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 El 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
– of the release of this report, CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. (Note that this recommendation also appeared in the Grand Jury report Case #24-05).
F2
- After it was certified by the Registrar on September 9, 2020, the text of a second initiative petition signed by LLAD #39 residents was altered, resulting in it being essentially nullified before it was placed on the 2020 ballot and submitted to the voters. This action ignored the objections of the petitioners and Elections Code 9310 which requires that the initiative petition be submitted to the voters without alteration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
– of the release of this report, CSD should implement the intent of the Carson Creek LLAD #39 second ballot initiative to perpetually repeal LLAD assessments. (Note that this recommendation also appeared in the Grand Jury report Case #24-05).
F3
- In the Impartial Analysis of Measure H on the 2022 Ballot, County Counsel noted the alteration of the LLAD #39 voter petition; however, both the County Elections Department and County Counsel allowed the election process to proceed over the objections of the LLAD #39 petitioners and requirements of California Elections Code 9310.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
– El Dorado County has not published handbooks to provide voters with information to assist them in understanding the steps necessary to initiate, circulate, and file County initiative petitions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
– By December 2024, the Elections Department should develop and publish online documentation for sponsors of initiative petitions that provides a summary of the County initiative petition procedure and the requirements for preparing and qualifying County initiative petitions.
R2
– By December 2024, the Elections Department should offer training to County Boards and Commissions that provides training on the requirements and their responsibilities in the County initiative petition process.
F5
– Although CSD Legal Counsel advised CSD to not act on a ballot initiative to repeal assessments from LLAD #22, the CSD Board voted to pass the certified measure to the ballot in November 2023, while hoping to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution that would avoid going to ballot or to court for relief. FINDINGS
No recommendations for this finding
F6
– In situations where there are contested Proposition 218-related ballot initiatives, where the governing body disagrees with the legal foundations of the initiative and elects to not act on it, the only remediation path appears to be through the court system, which will cause delays and additional expense to the taxpayers.
No recommendations for this finding
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of El Dorado
Agency
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
El Dorado Hills Community Services District
Special District