Case 26-07: Continuity and Compliance(PDF, 1mb)

Recommendations 10

• R1
  Adopt and deploy a software package that will assist staff in fully electronic processing of roadway complaints by January 1, 2026. Initial Response received 5/4/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. As noted in the response to
• R2
  Direct the CAO to hire a Chief Information Officer (CIO) to lead Information Technology (IT) by January 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. As referenced above, the title of the position has yet to be determined, based on the research and recommendations the Board will receive from the CAO and HR this Fall; however, the goal is to hire a permanent head of Information Technologies
• R3
  Direct the future [Chief Information Officer] CIO to develop and present comprehensive storage and data center consolidation strategies by May 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation requires further analysis. As noted in the response to Recommendation #2, the Board hopes to find a permanent leader for the Information Technologies Department by January 1, 2026. The Board would then work with the new department head to identify any needed changes to the departments strategic plan and work to implement those. This will include encouraging discussions with the Sheriff and District Attorney regarding efficiencies. Follow-up Response received 4/29/26: EDSO and County IT are planning a joint data center review in FY 27/28. We will work together to analyze and inventory both systems and identify targets for future storage consolidation. This helps prevent redundant storage purchases. This timeline aligns with the required hardware refresh cycles for both data centers scheduled for FY 28/29. Although the full consolidation strategy will be informed by that review, EDSO and County IT are already collaborating on upcoming initiatives and expiring contracts to identify opportunities for countywide cost savings and improved operational efficiencies. [See Appendix A]
• R4
  Instruct the future CIO and [Chief Administrative Officer] CAO to reconfigure the [Information Technologies] IT Steering Committee into a collaborative body to evaluate projects, consolidate infrastructure needs, coordinate County-wide IT purchases and report results regularly by May 1, 2026. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. This recommendation is dependent on recommendations 1 and 2. The IT department has already begun drafting recommended changes to the [Information Technology Steering Committee] ITSC structure, but a firm timeline for full implementation of this recommendation cannot be provided until a new head of the Information Technologies Department has been hired. Follow-up Response received 4/29/26: The ITSC agenda prior to the redesign included Security and Compliance, Project Intakes, Countywide Project Updates, Policy & Procedures, and Overall Communication. The meeting did not include project evaluations or coordination of purchases. After conducting research and consulting with other County CIOs, the following IT Governance Structure has been established for El Dorado County. ITSC remains a component of the Governance Structure, with additional committees added as part of the redesign. Each committee has a distinct role within the overall structure to ensure effective coordination and decision-making. These roles are aligned with the former ITSC agenda, enabling ITSC to function as a decision-making body. [See Appendix A]
• R5
  Establish Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure IT effectiveness and efficiency across county departments by July 1, 2026, and provide quarterly reports to the BOS. Initial Response received 6/25/25: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. This recommendation is dependent on recommendations 1 and 2. The IT Department has started drafting potential KPIs, but a firm timeline for full implementation of this recommendation cannot be provided until a new head of the Information Technologies Department has been hired. Follow up response 4/29/26: IT has started monitoring KPIs in 3 areas: Strategic Plan, Project Management Office, and Operations. IT plans to continue maturing its KPIs for service versus incident management and to refine ticket categories. [See Appendix A] 2025-2026 Grand Jury Opinion: Case # 25-05 called for the County of the El Dorado to hire a qualified Chief Information Officer (CIO) with county-wide IT authority. The Board of Supervisors pledged to hire one by January 2026. The 2025-2026 Grand Jury finds that the Board's response was facially compliant with Recommendations 1 and 2, but substantively inadequate. In the 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report on IT Leadership (Case #25-05), the Grand Jury recommended that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop a comprehensive Chief Information Officer job description by September 1, 2025, emphasizing measurable strategic responsibilities, county-wide technology alignment, and enhanced authority to drive innovation and efficiency. This was intended to address longstanding issues such as high IT leadership turnover, departmental silos, duplicate spending, and delayed strategic initiatives. The report further urged hiring a qualified CIO by January 1, 2026, to lead a transformative approach including reconfiguring the IT Steering Committee, consolidating data centers, and establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for accountability and estimated annual savings of between $1,000,000 to $3,000,000. While the Board conducted a competitive search and modified the job description to incorporate strategic elements such as enterprise IT governance, data management, and budget optimization, they ultimately appointed the interim IT Director to the CIO role effective January 10, 2026. The appointee is a 19-year internal candidate whose experience aligns more closely with tactical operations than the executive-level visionary leadership the Grand Jury envisioned. This approach perpetuates the tactical focus criticized in the original report, prioritizing reactive support over proactive planning and cross-departmental collaboration. Opportunities to optimize resources, reduce costs, and drive meaningful cultural change in technology adoption remain unaddressed. The significant potential savings identified by the Grand Jury including consolidating redundant systems, eliminating duplicative contracts, and unifying the District Attorney's and Sheriff's independent IT operations have not been implemented and merit continued monitoring by future Grand Juries.
• R6
  of this report, [Community Services District] CSD should establish and document clearer guidelines for the CSD Board of Directors or [General Manager] GM certification of the assessment levy to the County Controller/Auditor and publish that procedure in the CSD Policies and Procedures documents. Initial Response received 7/3/2024: This Recommendation requires further analysis: To the extent the District can resolve its pending lawsuit with the County Auditor, there may be changes in the guidelines and procedure the District follows to provide the necessary certification of the assessment levies to the County Controller/Auditor. Only if a resolution is reached, short of court resolution, could the District create the appropriate documentation. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District's ability to make changes involving the certification of the assessment levy is intertwined with ongoing and pending litigation with the Auditor-Controller. The District possesses no power to unilaterally modify the certification process outside of County cooperation and agreement. This is precisely why we did not represent and did not agree to perform these actions
• R9
  By September 30, 2024, [Community Services District] 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. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: The District has planned and budgeted for a complete review and revision of the 2021 Master Plan beginning in FY25, which starts on July 01, 2024, in accordance to our policy for a five (5) year review. The outcome of the [El Dorado Hills Community Services District] EDHCSD Response El Dorado County Grand Jury Report #24-05 revised Master Plan will have an influence on the District’s ten-year Capital Improvement Plan. This is a very comprehensive review process and plan revision that includes community input on several occasions, which cannot be completed in the timeframe recommended. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District stated it could not implement the recommendation within the allotted timeframe but estimated it would start a review and possible revised or updated Master Plan beginning FY25. During the October 09, 2025, Regular Meeting, the District Board of Directors approved and awarded a contract to a consultant to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan for the District. As part of the Master Planning process, a development plan will be formulated. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: Master Plan is underway – Anticipated completion by the end of year (2026).
• R10
  , [Community Services District] CSD should employ or retain a full-time licensed [Certified Public Accountant] CPA professional to be Treasurer/[Chief Financial Officer] CFO-equivalent. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: As stated in the Findings, the concerns of the Grand Jury are a function of District Policy and not due to the lack of having a CPA on staff or retainer. However, the District recognizes that government accounting is unique and complicated; and reporting is always changing with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regulations having new requirements that the District must adhere to each year. District staff understand that education is a priority and will work towards having at least one member of the finance department receive a certification in government accounting through a reputable government entity, including GFOA and/or California Society of Municipal [Financial] Officers (CSMFO). The goal will be to have this completed by December 2025. Additionally, the District will look at incorporating an appropriate accounting certification requirement for future recruitments Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, the District did not agree to employ or retain a full-time licensed CPA professional for the various reasons stated therein. However, the District did express its goal to endeavor to have a finance team member receive further certifications by December 2025, which is currently underway. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: The Grand Jury was referred by the Board to the General Manager for follow-up. Follow-up Response received 4/7/26: The District's former Senior Accountant has been promoted to the Director of Administration & Finance [Director] position. The [Director] investigated the certificate program, and it is extremely time intensive. We don't currently have the staffing levels necessary for the [Director] to go through this program but intend to do so when we are able. [The District is] also in the process of onboarding a Director of Finance, who will serve the District on a contract basis, to provide this level of expertise in government finance and strategic, fiscal leadership that will serve our board, our community and taxpayers at the highest and best standard practices.
• R11
  , [Community Services District] 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 [Park Impact Fee] 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. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implemented in the future: As noted in our response to
• R12
  , [Community Services District] 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. Initial Response received 7/3/24: This Recommendation requires further analysis: With the Districts acquisition of 55 acres of the old executive golf course and the option to acquire the remaining 41.5 acres, the Bass Lake Park design may be subject to change depending on the community input for the Central [El Dorado Hills] EDH Park and what amenities that park will have. The community outreach project for Central EDH Park will run through summer at which time the District will be in a better position to define and document its plans for Bass Lake park. With regard to the turnkey park in Village J, the District participated in a settlement which was negotiated between Parker Development, the District, and El Dorado County that provided the 12.5 acres and $3.5M in funding identified from the County’s Serrano CFD 1992-1 that had been slated for the development of the parkland. Given the years of delay in the construction of the turnkey park, and that the District had recently acquired acreage from Rescue Unified School District that was adjacent to the Village J lot, it was envisioned that the Village J lot could be incorporated into a larger park project. With that newer vision, the District elected to accept the land and funding and construct the park itself. To assist the community in understanding the history of this decision, the District will be seeking to create a public review of the information and series of events that led up to the settlement agreement between the three parties whereby the District accepted the 12.5 acres and $3.5M in funding in order to incorporate the J Lot H parkland into the larger Bass Lake Park project. Follow-up Response received 10/15/25: As indicated in our initial response, this recommendation requires further analysis, and we did not agree to provide the requested information That being said, development of Bass Lake Park is still ongoing, and the current project description is being analyzed and studied through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At this time, it is unclear when the EIR will be completed. At that point, we should have more clarity in terms of any modifications to the current project based on the ongoing Master Planning process that has just commenced. Follow-up Response received 2/13/26: An answer was not provided Follow-up Response In-person Meeting 3/24/26: The Grand Jury was referred by the Board to the General Manager for follow-up. Follow-up Response received 4/7/26: The property known as Bass Lake Park has been and is still currently undergoing an [Environmental Impact Review] EIR process with the County. While at this stage, no work can be done on the property. We have been notified that the EIR for Bass Lake will be completed in the next few months (anticipated completion no later than end of summer 2026), and we are working actively with LSA [Environmental Consulting] (firm handling the EIR) to come to conclusion. Grand Jury Term 2024-2025 Case #25-04 DOT Maintenance Report: https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/county/v/2/documents/public- safety-amp-justice/grand-jury/2024-2025/25-04-dot-report.pdf