Riverside County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

Saved by the Trash, but for HOW Long?

Published: June 30, 2019 15 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 5 findings

F1
The District can no longer fund the law enforcement function solely through the fixed property tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board put forth a ballot measure for the November 2020 election or a special election to adequately fund the District.
F2
A flat, un-adjustable property tax to finance this ongoing cost-variable service requires going back to the voters repeatedly to raise the tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The ballot measure recommended by the Board include an appropriate escalator to keep up with the cost of the service, perhaps tying it directly to the price of the Sheriff ‘s services.
F3
Based on discussion with tax experts, it appears that the use of rubbish fund money may be in violation of Proposition 218 and the California Constitution, Section XIIIC, and Section XIIID, requiring that money designated for one function cannot be used for another.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Prior to the ballot measure, the Board get a legal opinion on whether their current "borrowings" can survive a challenge in court.
F4
The rubbish fund has less money available to clean up the community, such as graffiti abatement and removal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Board spend the proceeds of the franchise fee exclusively for community clean up.
F5
LAFCO has not written a Municipal Service Review (MSR), which was to be done every five years, since 2005.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
LAFCO immediately conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District and the surrounding communities, as written in the LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines15.

Agency Responses 1

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