Home
El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
June 29, 2004
El Dorado County
2003/ 2004
Grand Jury
Final Report
June 29, 2004
El Dorado County Grand Jury
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction ii
Grand Jury’s Letter to the Judge iii
Judge’s Letter to the Grand Jury iv
Grand Jury Members v
Notice to Respondents vi
Investigations/ Reports
Ambulance Billing 1
Child Protective Services 4
County Public Buildings 6
Information Technologies 12
Material Recovery Facility 14
Ranch Marketing Ordinance 17
Review of County Government 19
Trust Funds 22
Videotaping at County Jails 24
South Lake Tahoe
STPUD/ MTBE Lawsuit Fee 26
Tahoe Basin Cable TV Service 28
South Tahoe Redevelopment 30
Citizen Complaint Form & Instructions 48
Introduction
The 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury completed its term on June 30, 2004. In this report
readers will see the specific investigations leading to findings and recommendations for the
named county agencies, departments and other local government agencies and departments.
These investigations, however, do not cover the entire scope of the activities this jury pursued.
We investigated 75 citizens’ complaints and conducted additional investigations mandated by the
Penal Code or instituted by the Grand Jury.
One of the Grand Jury’s mandated functions, per Penal Code 919( b), is to visit each public
prison within the county. The El Dorado County Grand Jury toured the following facilities:
1. El Dorado County Jail, Placerville
2. El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe
3. Juvenile Hall, Placerville
4. California Dept. of Corrections Conservation Camp, Growlersberg, Georgetown
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury ii Introduction
Members of the
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury
Warren Wyllie, Foreman
Lyle Naffziger
Art Bullentini
Diane Wilkinson
Jytte Langlois
Ken Weitzman
Liz Pazdra
Jeanie Jackson
John Carter
Ginger Ward
Boyd Mahan
Michael Gray
Ted Long
Ira Mirsky
Jim Silva
John R. Plymyer
Robert ( Danny) Knappman Jr.
Mark Sandperl
Ralph Fernandez
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury v Introduction
Notice to Respondents
How to Respond to Findings
For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:
The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:
1. That you agree with the finding.
2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall
specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons for the disagreement.
How to Respond to Recommendations
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must
report action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports in this
manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe
not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the
officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Time To Respond, Where And To Whom To Respond
Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different
response times and to whom you must respond:
1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety
days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are
required to respond must do so within sixty days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court, with an informational copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury vi Introduction
Investigations
&
Reports
Ambulance Billing
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the county operated Ambulance
Billing Service ( ABS).
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Auditor- Controller
• Director, Public Health Department
• Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program ( HICAP)
• Medical Billing Supervisor, ABS
• Staff Members of ABS
Documents reviewed
• Auditor- Controller’s compliance review report of ABS dated 5/ 06/ 04
• Billing records of various time periods
• Board of Supervisors Policy B- 4, Collections Recovery Of Public Funds ( 9/ 02)
• Complaint
• Internal audit finding from ABS
• Letter from Marshall Hospital to Ambulance Billing Supervisor dated 02/ 06/ 03
Background
El Dorado County is the only county in the state of California that directly bills for services
performed by county paramedics in the Ambulance Transport Service. HICAP is a volunteer
based watchdog organization whose function is to serve the elderly and disabled regarding their
rights on Medicare services, among other services. A complaint was received from HICAP
regarding improper billing of multiple Medicare patients for services from the El Dorado County
Ambulance Transport. The complaint alleged that Medicare patients were being sent bills for
payment by ABS, and re- enforced by letters sent by County Counsel, demanding payment for
services that were rightfully covered by Medicare Insurance. HICAP alleged that ABS did not
pursue disputes in billing between the County and Medicare through resolution with Medicare
officials, but rather forwarded these bills to the patient, demanding payment. A number of the
disputed invoices were resolved in favor of the patient through the efforts of HICAP, and should
not have been forwarded to the patient for payment.
HICAP officials presented early investigation results to the Director of Public Health and
requests were made of County officials to look into the matter. Early findings by ABS
uncovered deficiencies in employee training and problems with insurance procedures that were
to blame for some of the improper billings of County patients. Continued audits by HICAP
uncovered additional problems.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 1 Investigations & Reports
An audit of the situation was conducted by the Auditor- Controller, as requested by the Grand
Jury in a letter dated 2/ 18/ 04.
Facts
1. ABS processes the billing for services provided by The Ambulance Transport Service.
2. Medicare uses the term “ Denies” for all services which are disputed or not covered under
the Medicare Insurance, and ABS is using the term “ Rejected” on bills sent to the patient.
3. Medicare patient bills are sent by ABS to Medicare Insurance for payment.
4. Medicare Insurance sends disputed invoices back to ABS for clarification/ correction.
5. Bills not paid in a reasonable time are referred to County Counsel for collection.
6. As quoted in Auditor- Controller compliance review report, “ The Department does not
have specific written policies and procedures that pertain to the billing of Medicare
beneficiaries for Ambulance services.”
7. Training by department staff is accomplished by on- the- job training rather than formal
training.
8. Per Auditor- Controller compliance review report, ABS’s unwritten policy is to refer bills
to the County Counsel collections after 120 days.
Findings
1. Rejected/ Denied Medicare bills were improperly sent to patients. Additional effort was
required by county employees to resolve disputes between Medicare Insurance and ABS.
2. ABS was requesting payments from patients through County Counsel even though the
Medicare disputes were not resolved.
3. A number of these disputed bills are not being resolved properly and patients are being
billed.
4. Different billing terminology between Medicare and ABS caused confusion among
patients. These differences caused difficulty when patients called Medicare to resolve the
disputes.
5. Lack of written policies and procedures in ABS resulted in improper handling of
ambulance transport claims.
6. Lack of training resulted in improper coding on Medicare forms.
Recommendations
1. ABS employees must be directed to resolve disputes with Medicare prior to billing the
patients.
2. The County should exclude ABS from sending disputed payment notices to patients per
Board Of Supervisors’ policy B- 4 in collections.
3. County must resolve differences in terminology used by Medicare Insurance and ABS.
4. The County must immediately direct ABS to develop and implement written policies and
procedures for detailed processing of ambulance transport billing.
5. ABS employees must be trained on the coding of Medicare bills and on the County’s
written policies and procedures.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 2 Investigations & Reports
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 3 Investigations & Reports
Child Protective Services
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint about inconsistent application of policies and
procedures in Child Protective Services ( CPS) and decided to review the 2001/ 2002 Health and
Social Services Committee report. As a result of this review a general investigation of CPS was
made.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Auditor- Controller
• Chairman of the 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury Health and Social Services Committee
• CPS Program Managers
• CPS Supervisor
• Current and former CPS employees
• Department of Social Services Accountant
• Director, Department of Human Services
• El Dorado County Judicial Commissioner
• Former acting Director of Human Resources
• Former Assistant Director, Department of Social Services
• Former Director, Department of Social Services
Documents reviewed
• 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury report
• CPS manual
Sites visited
• CPS, Placerville
• CPS, South Lake Tahoe
Background
The 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury identified significant deficiencies in CPS. The current Grand Jury
reviewed the responses to the report, and then conducted interviews to determine if changes had
been made, and if the changes corrected the deficiencies.
The investigation revealed that many of the negative issues in the prior Grand Jury report have
been addressed and corrected. The Grand Jury was helped by the cooperation of employees in
CPS.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 4 Investigations & Reports
Facts
1. There is no ongoing training between CPS and the local law enforcement agencies.
2. On the job training was the only type of training observed by the Grand Jury in CPS.
3. Supervisors do not complete evaluations or provide feedback on probationary personnel
on a regular basis.
4. Communication among management, supervisors, and line employees in CPS needs
improvement.
5. Confidential material is often left exposed on desks and subject to unauthorized access.
Findings
1. Local law enforcement and CPS do not understand each other’s needs and
responsibilities.
2. Budgetary cutbacks have reduced formal training in CPS.
3. The current evaluation and feedback system for probationary employees in CPS limits
understanding of their progress in work performance and affects the services they are
expected to provide.
4. Leadership fails to maintain effective communication between management and line
employees leading to confusion and angst among employees.
5. Security rules for confidential information are ignored.
6. Inconsistent application of written CPS guidelines diminishes care and support of
children and results in frustration of individual CPS workers.
Recommendations
1. Establish a formal training program between CPS and local law enforcement.
2. Additional formal training is required for CPS employees to understand the department’s
needs and objectives.
3. Perform evaluations more than once a year for probationary employees. Feedback must
be provided on a continuous basis.
4. Refine the program guidelines making them clear and concise. Leadership must monitor
and evaluate application of the revised guidelines.
5. CPS must comply with confidentiality rules and laws.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 5 Investigations & Reports
County Public Buildings
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury chose to review, inspect and tour a selection of
County offices and office buildings per California Penal Code ( PC) 925.
Scope of the investigation
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury toured, inspected and interviewed staff at the following County
offices and office buildings.
Sites visited
• Agriculture Building, Placerville
• Animal Control, South Lake Tahoe
• Assessors Office, Placerville
• Assessors Office, South Lake Tahoe
• Cameron Park Library
• El Dorado Hills Library
• Recorders Office, Lake Tahoe
• Sheriff’s Parking Lot, Placerville
• Veterans Services Office, Placerville
Background
PC 925 states in part “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts,
and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations,
accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created
pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity
as officers of the districts…”
The Grand Jury as part of its general review chose to review County offices and office buildings,
for maintenance, health and safety items, and overall appearances. The Grand Jury found a few
areas that needed improvement; overall the buildings and offices were maintained satisfactorily.
The areas that needed improvement are listed below.
The Grand Jury would like to thank all the county employees that took the time to show us
around and answer our many questions.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 6 Investigations & Reports
AGRICULTURE BUILDING
Findings
1. The heat/ air conditioning ceiling vents are dirty.
2. The modular building adjacent to the Agriculture Building has a doormat with ragged
edges, possibly causing someone to trip and fall.
3. The carpet between the public area and office has an open seam.
Recommendations
1. The heat/ air conditioning ceiling vents need to be cleaned.
2. Replace the existing doormat.
3. A carpet strip needs to be installed in the doorway over the open seam.
ANIMAL CONTROL, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Findings
1. There is a steep slope to the rear of the building. When there is precipitation, run off goes
directly to the building causing flooding or dangerous ice.
2. The parking lot and driveway are inadequate, they are on a slope causing winter safety
hazards due to ice and snow.
3. There is no handicap access to or inside the building.
4. The public restroom is located at the rear of the main staff office. This causes cross traffic
and disrupts productivity.
5. There is an inadequate exercise area. Only one animal may exercise at a time.
6. The cement runs stayed wet or damp and did not dry out very well. This is a safety
hazard for the public, staff and animals.
7. There are no facilities for larger animals, such as horses, goats, etc.
Recommendations
1. Erect a retaining wall with a drainage system at the rear of the building to curtail the
damage from snow and ice runoff.
2. The parking lot and driveway directly in front of the Animal Control Building should be
graded or modified to eliminate excess snow, ice and water accumulation. This would
also provide additional parking and easier access.
3. Access to and from the parking lot and the building should be handicap accessible.
4. Access to the public restroom should be redirected from the main staff office.
5. Provide additional space for animal exercise.
6. Provide additional ventilation for the animal runs to dry more quickly.
7. Additional facilities are needed for larger animals.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 7 Investigations & Reports
ASSESSORS OFFICE, PLACERVILLE
Findings
1. The water fountain located at the front door of the Assessors Office is out of order.
2. There are five to ten computer monitors stored on the top of a file cabinet. According to
staff this equipment has been waiting to be moved for months.
Recommendations
1. The water fountain needs to be fixed.
2. The computer monitors need to be removed.
ASSESSORS OFFICE, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Findings
1. Single pane windows are currently installed and insufficient. Staff stated ice has formed
on the inside of the windows in winter, and the offices are very cold.
2. A fire extinguisher in the office had an expired inspection tag.
3. A sizeable worn spot in the lobby carpet needs to be repaired.
Recommendations
1. Double pane windows should replace the single pane windows.
2. The fire extinguisher needs to be inspected.
3. The lobby carpet needs be repaired.
CAMERON PARK LIBRARY
Findings
1. The ceilings are very high causing acoustic problems. This problem was raised and
verified by library staff. The noise level is distracting and is not conducive to library
study.
2. The staff restroom has a leaky toilet and rust is visible on the supply line of the toilet.
3. Some acoustical tiles in the storage room ceiling were water stained.
Recommendations
1. The acoustical problem needs to be reviewed, as the Quiet Room affords only a small
number of library users the opportunity for quiet study.
2. The leak in the staff restroom toilet and rust on the supply line need to be repaired.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 8 Investigations & Reports
3. The acoustical tiles that are water stained need to be removed, so the roof can be checked
for possible leaks.
EL DORADO HILLS LIBRARY
Findings
1. The carpet located in the teacher’s check out area is in poor condition with some rippling
and loose seams. The carpet poses a safety hazard to users and is a potential liability.
2. Some acoustical tiles in the ceiling were water stained. This may indicate a possible roof
leak.
Recommendations
1. The carpet in the teacher’s check out area needs to be stretched or replaced.
2. The acoustical tiles that are water stained need to be removed, so the roof can be checked
for possible leaks.
RECORDER’S OFFICE, LAKE TAHOE
Findings
1. The fire extinguisher is located in an adjacent janitor’s office, rather than in the
Recorder’s office.
2. There is no fire sprinkler system in place.
Recommendations
1. The fire extinguisher needs to be relocated to the Recorders Office, so that it may be
accessible to staff.
SHERIFF’S PARKING LOT, PLACERVILLE ( 11/ 04/ 03)
Findings
1. The parking lot surface had several pot holes and uneven pavement.
2. The surface had cracks in the asphalt. There are low spots which accumulate rain, snow
and/ or ice.
3. The concrete steps from the Sheriff’s Department Building to Building “ A” showed
cracks and missing material.
4. Steps are not of uniform size, some having a higher than normal rise and longer than
normal run. This non- conventional size step could cause misjudgment in descending or
ascending.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 9 Investigations & Reports
5. Steps are wider at the top step and narrower at the bottom step. This could cause
misjudgment while descending or climbing.
6. The bottom step is angled unlike the top three steps. This could cause misjudgment while
descending.
7. There is a wall on one side of the stairs that further narrows the lower steps.
8. There is no handrail.
9. Although three large lights shine on the stairs, the lights are blocked by tree branches or
trunks.
10. No “ direct” lighting was on the stairs.
11. The entire parking lot is poorly lit.
12. The security gate allowing access to the parking lot is non- operable.
Recommendations
1. Fill the pot holes in the parking lot surface.
2. Seal the asphalt cracks.
3. Level the pavement to eliminate low spots.
4. Standardize the stair size.
5. Provide handrail.
6. Install individual step lights.
7. Prune tree branches away from the existing overhead lighting.
8. Install additional overhead lighting in the parking lot.
9. The security gate needs to be repaired and maintained.
Follow up
The Grand Jury made a follow up visit on 03/ 09/ 04, the following corrections had been made:
1. A sidewalk with a ramp has been installed, replacing the stairs.
2. A partial handrail has been installed. Full handrail still needs to be constructed.
3. Individual lights have been installed along the ramp.
4. Additional overhead lighting has been installed over the sidewalk area.
VETERANS SERVICES OFFICE
Findings
1. There is no counter to separate the public entering the office, from those desiring to speak
in confidence.
Recommendations
1. A counter should be installed. This would allow conversations and discussions to be
conducted in a private setting
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 10 Investigations & Reports
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 11 Investigations & Reports
Information Technologies
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to conduct a review of the County’s Information Technologies
Department ( IT).
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Director of IT
• IT staff members
• County Administrative Officer ( CAO)
• Members of the County Board of Supervisors ( BOS)
• Various Department Directors
Documents reviewed
• 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury report
• Information Services Strategic Plan
• BOS Policy A- 10, IT Steering Committee
Background
The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury findings and recommendations on Information Services General
Review, remain applicable this year.
Facts
1. Each county department is funded annually for technology ( computers, software,
systems, etc.).
2. Each department considers their own needs paramount when spending their allocated
monies.
3. Departments spending their allocation make no effort to integrate with the other
departments on technology.
4. No county- wide coordination to prioritize technology projects is made at any level of this
county’s government.
5. The County has an IT Steering Committee, whose written goal is to integrate county
technology needs.
6. The IT Steering Committee is attended by lower level staff members who do not have
authority to make decisions concerning information technology.
Findings
1. The BOS has no long- term vision pertaining to the future of information technology.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 12 Investigations & Reports
2. IT does not lead the county in technology advancements, nor does IT coordinate the
needs of each department into a county- wide, prioritized, technology program.
3. The IT Steering Committee meets irregularly and provides no direction to the county’s
decision makers ( ie: the BOS and CAO).
4. The lack of coordination between departments causes duplication of IT purchases.
5. Individual departments make expenditures without coordinating the main frame interface
needs of their new systems resulting in major impacts to the county’s existing hardware,
software, and IT personnel.
6. The County does not aggressively pursue the use of technology as an advancement in
methodology of doing county business for the purpose of economy, speed, or efficiency.
Recommendations
1. The County must work toward standardizing its software, hardware, and systems to
insure all county employees can work together on the same systems efficiently.
2. The BOS, CAO and the IT Director must take the lead on the IT Steering Committee
with participation by other key department heads.
3. The BOS, CAO and Director of IT must create a multi- year strategic technology funding
plan.
4. The IT Steering Committee must be assigned the responsibility for integrating,
prioritizing, and approving county technology projects, purchases, and funding.
5. The IT Steering Committee must revise and update controls on purchasing of
technologies, so that redundant systems are not purchased or adversely affect IT
infrastructure.
6. The County must aggressively pursue technological advancements with the objectives of
reduction in cost and improvement in efficiency.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 13 Investigations & Reports
Materials Recovery Facility
Reason For The Report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the operation of the El
Dorado County Materials Recovery Facility ( MRF) in Diamond Springs.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Complainant
• Director, County Environmental Management Department and staff members
• MRF staff
Documents reviewed
• County Environmental Management Department documents
• El Dorado County Agreement with Waste Management, Inc.
• New proposed County waste disposal Agreement
• Notice of Default from the County to MRF franchise
• Photographs and video of facility activities
• The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ( AB939)
Sites visited
• MRF, several occasions
• Board of Supervisors meetings
Background
In December 1996, the Union Mine Disposal site was closed to the public. Western El Dorado
Recovery Systems, Inc. opened a materials recovery facility in Diamond Springs. The County
contracted with Western El Dorado Recovery Systems, Inc., to help facilitate compliance with
California law AB939 which mandates a 25% diversion from landfills by 1995 and 50% by
2000, or face a $ 10,000 per day fine.
In the late 1990’ s Waste Management, Inc. assumed responsibility for both El Dorado Disposal,
Inc., and Western El Dorado Recovery System, Inc. The MRF in Diamond Springs is considered
a “ dirty materials recovery facility” because its operations separates the non- recyclable material
from the recyclables. Recycled materials are sent to a “ clean materials recovery facility” in
California where paper, cardboard, metal, glass and plastic are further separated. In early 1997
the County began the transition into a permanent “ exporting county” by taking all waste that
could not be recycled to landfills outside of the county.
The Grand Jury toured the MRF on several occasions observing the following: waste drop area,
recycling area, separating area, green waste area, carcass bin, thrift shop, and camera monitoring
room.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 14 Investigations & Reports
Facts
1. Waste Management, Inc., is currently operating under the original El Dorado Disposal
Company Agreement.
2. The State mandated recycling requirements of AB939, have not been met by the county
since 1995.
3. The County received a “ good faith” extension ( July 2000 to July 2004) from California’s
50% recycling requirement of AB939. Another extension request is being considered.
4. On 7/ 17/ 02, the County issued a Notice of Default to Waste Management, Inc., for failure
to operate the transfer station/ recycling facility in accordance with the contract.
5. The County will incur a $ 10,000 a day fine, if they do not meet the 50% recycling
requirements.
6. The County is no longer making regular on- site inspections of MRF to assure compliance
with AB939.
7. The state requires that non- recycled materials be hauled away within 24 hours.
8. There is a manual sorting of waste conducted at the MRF to help meet the recycling
requirement.
9. A camera system has been installed to monitor operational activities at MRF.
10. There is a non- refrigerated bin provided for animal carcasses.
11. There is only one register at the MRF for non- commercial refuse drop off payment.
Findings
1. By not enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements the County faces a $ 10,000 a
day fine.
2. Instead of enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements, of 50%, the County
continues requesting extensions. Currently the recycling is approximately half of the
mandated requirement.
3. The County has proposed a new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc.
4. Non- recycled materials are not hauled away within 24 hours as required by state law.
5. The County is no longer making on- site inspections of the MRF operations on a regular
basis.
6. The camera system, monitored at the Environmental Management Department, does not
provide adequate monitoring of the recycling activities.
7. The animal carcass bin is not always properly closed.
8. The MRF does not have the State required animal carcass freezer.
9. County residents can incur long wait times to drop off their refuse.
Recommendations
1. The County must enforce the state- recycling requirement of 50%.
2. The County must expedite the new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc., or contract
with a company that will meet state AB939 mandates.
3. The County must enforce California State Regulations requiring all non- recycled material
be removed within 24 hours, including weekends.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 15 Investigations & Reports
4. The County must not rely exclusively on camera monitoring of the MRF activities, and
must re- instate on- site inspections to ensure AB939 compliance.
5. The County must enforce compliance with state law regarding a freezer for animal
carcasses.
6. The County must direct Waste Management, Inc., to improve non- commercial customer
service at the MRF.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 16 Investigations & Reports
Ranch Marketing Ordinance
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizens’ complaint concerning the El Dorado County
Ranch Marketing Ordinance 17.14.190.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• The complainant
• Current and former Agricultural Commissioner
• Assistant Agricultural Commissioner
• Planning Department staff
• Agriculture Department staff
Documents reviewed
• The citizen's complaint
• The El Dorado County Ranch Marketing Ordinance
• Correspondence to and from the County and complainant
• Planning Department documents
• El Dorado County Crop Report 2002
Background
The following is the stated purpose of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance:
“ The purpose of this section is to provide for the development of ranch marketing
activities to encourage the economic development of the agricultural and tourism
industries while regulating such uses to protect the public health, safety and
welfare and the enjoyment of property by adjacent land owners…”
The complaint alleges, confusion within the County Government on the interpretation and
enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance. There is no uniform interpretation of the Ranch
Marketing Ordinance. This confusion is compounded by the transfer of the Ranch Marketing
Ordinance enforcement between the Planning and Agriculture Departments.
Facts
1. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance was originally written in 1988 and last revised in 2003.
2. The Agriculture Department took over sole code enforcement of the Ranch Marketing
Ordinance in 2003. Previously code enforcement was done by both the Planning and
Agriculture Departments.
3. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance does not define specific crops but does have acreage
requirements.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 17 Investigations & Reports
4. The Ordinance does not state a minimum crop density.
5. The Agriculture Department, in September 2003, gave approval of compliance with the
Ranch Marketing Ordinance to the complainant on acceptable crops and acreage
requirements.
6. The Agriculture Commissioner, in October 2003, rescinded the Department’s approval
based on his opinion that Christmas trees were not a crop as it pertains to the Ranch
Marketing Ordinance.
Findings
1. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those
attempting to comply with its requirements.
2. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those who
are attempting to explain and enforce its requirements.
3. There is inconsistency in the methodology of measuring acreage ( manual versus global
positioning satellite also known as GPS), resulting in possible disqualification.
4. The County generally does not enforce the Ranch Marketing Ordinance unless a
complaint is received, resulting in a lack of standardized enforcement.
5. Confusion between Agriculture and Planning Departments delays an applicant’s
qualification or rejection for Ranch Marketing.
Recommendations
1. The Agricultural Commissioner and the Director of the Planning Department need to
resolve the differences of interpreting the Ranch Marketing Ordinance until it is
rewritten.
2. The Agricultural Department should lead the expeditious rewrite of the Ranch Marketing
Ordinance to make it complete, clear and concise.
3. The Agricultural Department needs to become proactive rather than reactive regarding
enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance.
4. A specific timeframe should be set by the County to approve or disapprove Ranch
Marketing applications.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 18 Investigations & Reports
Review Of County Government
Reason for the Report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received numerous complaints regarding mismanagement of county
employees that evolved into an investigation concerning the competence, practices and
procedures of all levels of county government.
Scope of the Investigation
People interviewed
• The Board of Supervisors
• Chief Administrative Officer
• Department Directors
• Current and former county employees
• Union local # 1 representative
• An outside contractor and supplier
• Information Services representative
Documents reviewed
• Prior Grand Jury reports
• Numerous citizen and employee complaints
• County policy and procedure manuals
• The County/ Union Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU)
• Purchasing procedures and contracts
• Policies and procedures of other counties
Background
The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury concluded in their investigation of County Government that: “ Grand
Jury investigation of various departments of the El Dorado government indicates department
heads ( directors) failed to properly direct operations or properly oversee operations within their
departments.” Little, if any, progress has been made since that report.
There were repeated allegations to the Grand Jury of incompetence and lack of leadership. It is
not clear if the problems were a result of: policy- setting, hiring procedures, misdirected
promotions, improper delegation of responsibility, lack of training, or a combination of all of the
above. In any case, the issue demands immediate correction.
Facts
1. There is excessive turnover in department directors.
2. There are numerous incidents of general and specific employee abuses, such as: arriving
late and leaving early, long lunch hours, incidents of favoritism, wasted assets and wasted
time.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 19 Investigations & Reports
3. Management has failed to document policy/ procedure violations.
4. Management has failed to discipline documented violations.
5. Management has used flex hours as a reward and punishment tool.
6. There has been improper personal use of county computers, telephones, and vehicles.
7. There is general unrest and uncertainty among county employees and management due to
numerous abuses of authority, intimidation, lack of procedures, and duplication of effort
through lack of technology.
8. There is a lack of communication and cooperation between managers of various
departments and the Human Resources Department.
9. Human Resources has lost its ability to function effectively.
10. Standards of employee performance and behavior are “ loose”, nonexistent, or are not
enforced.
11. The number of abuses overwhelmingly indicates a lack of leadership and ability to
manage.
12. Business operations of El Dorado County are very poorly run, and all problems and lack
of management in the county are a direct result of poor leadership from the top down.
13. The county has not taken full advantage of available technology to integrate, streamline
and modernize its operation. ( see IT report)
14. The county negotiated away employee performance evaluations during county/ union
contract negotiations.
15. There is lack of training.
16. The county compensation package is inadequate.
Findings
1. There are county employees, at all levels, who do not acknowledge that they are part of
the county’s dysfunction.
2. County departments generally operate as separate entities with little regard or
communications with other departments.
3. The office of the Chief Administrative Officer has not always had strong support from all
department directors and the Board of Supervisors.
4. Department directors are not meeting regularly to discuss and resolve interdepartmental
and county- wide issues.
5. The Human Resources Department does not have a strong labor relations commitment.
6. Without regular meaningful performance evaluations, the county lacks the ability to
evaluate employees for promotion and discipline. Evaluations would also provide feed
back to the employees.
7. Training is often neglected due to budget limitations.
8. The Human Resources Department leadership, along with other county department
leaders, are not enforcing policies and procedures. This lack of leadership fosters
violations and misconduct by county employees.
9. The County does not attract sufficient qualified applicants due to lack of positive working
environment and competitive compensation policies.
10. Electronic technology is not being utilized to its fullest.
11. Workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism are not
always held in high regard.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 20 Investigations & Reports
Recommendations
1. For anything to change, there must first be a county- wide recognition and
acknowledgement of the county dysfunction. Employees at all levels must critique
themselves for improvement.
2. The Board of Supervisors and department directors must provide strong support for the
Chief Administrative Officer in consolidating and streamlining county government.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer and department directors must meet monthly to set
goals, make plans, review progress, and establish priorities.
4. The Board of Supervisors must direct the Chief Administrative Officer to establish a
strong labor relations program.
5. Meaningful performance evaluations must be done regularly. Each department director
must establish standards and goals that actually measure the effectiveness of their
department with time frames to meet these requirements.
6. Provide training programs for newly hired, recently promoted, and present employees.
Training must include department basics, leadership, and communications.
7. County- wide codes of behavior, conduct and dress must be developed by Human
Resources with cooperation of the union officials. Empower the Human Resources
Department to enforce these rules and provide these rules to employees.
8. Explore and develop a clear policy for employee promotion.
9. Review and upgrade compensation policies to allow the county to be competitive.
10. Major software companies should be consulted to review county operations and make
recommendations for improvement. See IT report for additional recommendations.
11. The Board of Supervisors, department directors and employees, must support important
workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism.
Commendations
El Dorado County currently supports numerous volunteer programs. The Grand Jury
recommends that the BOS empanel a blue ribbon committee to investigate and determine
additional areas to expand the volunteer programs.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 21 Investigations & Reports
Trust Funds
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to review county trust fund accounts.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Auditor- Controller
• Assistant Auditor- Controller
• Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO)
• Members of the Board of Supervisors ( BOS)
Documents reviewed
• BOS Agenda Transmittal Sheet dated 03/ 02/ 04
• Letter dated 2/ 11/ 04 from the Auditor- Controller to the BOS with attachment
• Trust Fund Accounts Reconciliation Sheets for fiscal year ending 6/ 30/ 03
Background
The Grand Jury attended the BOS meeting on 3/ 02/ 04 and received a copy of the Auditor-
Controller’s letter dated 2/ 11/ 04, which listed all trust fund accounts and balances.
A trust fund is a reserve account created to set aside money for a specific purpose prior to its
expenditure and reported separately from general fund accounts. The Grand Jury was concerned
about the number of open trust funds, the frequency of validation and reconciliation of the trust
fund accounts, and the authorization procedures for establishing trust fund accounts by
departments.
Facts
1. Department heads are not required to reconcile trust fund accounts. As of 6/ 30/ 03, five
departments had 15 unreconcilable trust fund accounts totaling $ 156,733.
2. As of 6/ 30/ 03, there existed 387 open trust fund accounts totaling $ 111,153,594.
3. There are 47 open trust fund accounts with a zero balance.
4. California and Federal grant trust accounts generally have expenditure closing dates. Not
all County trust fund accounts have closing dates.
5. The County does not have written procedures for authorizing, reconciling and closing
trust fund accounts.
6. The Auditor- Controller tracks receipts, expenditures, and balances for each individual
trust fund account.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 22 Investigations & Reports
Findings
1. Department heads are relied upon, but not required, to reconcile their department trust
fund accounts.
2. Not all department trust fund accounts set up from county budget funds have a scheduled
completion or expiration date. Encumbering funds for a long time can cause the loss of its
intent and purpose of the trust fund.
3. As of 6/ 30/ 03, forty- seven trust fund accounts have a zero balance.
4. Lack of written procedures by the County for authorizing, reconciling, and closing trust
fund accounts creates inconsistency and confusion.
Recommendations
1. Maintenance and reconciliation of each trust fund account must be reviewed by each
department and justified to the CAO on an annual basis.
2. County must establish definitive schedules for the expenditure of funds in trust accounts.
3. County must review the need for trust fund accounts that have zero balance and close
those whose need cannot be justified as to remaining open.
4. Unjustified or unused balances must be transferred ( escheated) to the general fund.
5. County must write procedures to include requirements for the, authorization,
reconciliation, and closure of trust fund accounts.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is
required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations
contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 23 Investigations & Reports
Videotaping at County Jails
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the lack of videotaping of
prisoners at the County Jail, Placerville.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Sheriff, County of El Dorado
• Commander, County Jail, Placerville
• Commander, County Jail, South Lake Tahoe
Documents reviewed
• Citizen’s complaint
• Sheriff’s Policy and Procedure manual
Sites visited
• County Jail, Placerville.
• County Jail, South Lake Tahoe.
Background
The complainant alleges that the county failed to videotape the booking process at the County
Jail, Placerville per standard procedure. Videotaping of the booking area is done 24 hours a day
7 days a week. This taping is for the protection of both the inmates being booked and the
booking personnel.
Facts
1. A videotape machine in the booking area of the county jail in Placerville malfunctioned
for an unknown period of time.
2. Sheriff’s Department personnel were unaware of the malfunctioning videotape machine.
Findings
1. Policy and procedures in place at the time at the county jails did not require regular
review of videotape for possible machine malfunction.
Recommendation
Policy and procedures be revised to require the videotapes and the taping machines be inspected
at regular intervals to insure proper functioning.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 24 Investigations & Reports
The El Dorado County Sheriff, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all
Findings and Recommendations contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 25 Investigations & Reports
South
Lake Tahoe
STPUD/ MTBE Lawsuit Fees
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a South Lake Tahoe citizen complaint concerning
the alleged excessive legal fees in the Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( MTBE) case filed by
the South Tahoe Public Utility District ( STPUD).
Scope of the investigation
People Interviewed
• STPUD representatives
Documents reviewed
• Citizens complaint
• STPUD board meeting minutes
• Law firm billing statements
Background
STPUD sued the gasoline providers ( oil companies) for providing gasoline that contained
a hazardous chemical. The gasoline containing the chemical leaked from numerous gas
station underground storage tanks into the ground water supply. The Grand Jury did not
look into the merits of the lawsuit nor the impact on the ground water supply.
Facts
1. Gasoline containing the hazardous chemical leaked from numerous underground
gas station storage tanks and contaminated the South Lake Tahoe ground water
supply.
2. Cleanup costs of $ 42 million were determined by hazardous waste experts and
approved by the court.
3. Legal fees of $ 27 million were approved by the court.
Findings
1. STPUD has not clearly communicated the proper allocation and distribution of
the settlement.
2. The oil companies paid for $ 42 million to cover cost of the cleanup at no cost to
the STPUD rate payers.
3. Legal fees paid by the oil companies were not included in the clean- up cost.
4. Legal fees and clean- up costs were approved by the court.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 26 Investigations & Reports
Recommendations
1. Future STPUD communications on this matter should be clear about the proper
allocation and distribution of the court awarded funds for cleanup and attorney
fees.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors, is required by Penal Code
933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this
report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 27 Investigations & Reports
Tahoe Basin Cable TV Service
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint that local cable TV was not
providing California station TV news to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin.
Scope of the investigation
People interviewed
• Local cable TV representative
• Local government officials
Documents reviewed
• Complaint
• Local cable TV contract with El Dorado County
• Applicable ordinances and statutes
Background
Complainant stated that customers of the local cable TV in the Meyers area of the Tahoe
Basin were not receiving California station TV news. The only news sources were from
the Reno, Nevada stations.
Facts
1. The El Dorado County contract did not specify that local California station TV
news service be provided to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin.
2. California station news was not being broadcast on the local cable TV in the
Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin.
3. The local cable TV franchise contract was purchased by the current cable TV
provider.
4. The Grand Jury investigation prompted the current cable company to look into the
matter.
Findings
1. The Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was not receiving California station local
cable TV news.
2. California station TV news to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was interrupted
by the business failure of a microwave relay company.
3. Local California station TV news broadcasting resumed after the current cable
company installed a new cable which replaced the microwave relay.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 28 Investigations & Reports
Recommendation
1. The County contract with cable TV signal providers should contain requirements
for uniform basic services to all the communities it serves.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05
to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 29 Investigations & Reports
South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
Reason for the report
The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to investigate the of South Tahoe Redevelopment
Agency ( STRDA), specifically the announced $ 7,000,000 deficit in funding of the Park
Avenue Project.
Scope of investigation
People interviewed
• See attached investigation report, page 1, ” Investigation Methodology”.
Documents reviewed
• See attached investigation report, page 13, “ Materials Reviewed”.
Background
In mid- 2003, the Grand Jury received information from a concerned citizen that millions
of dollars from the City of South Lake Tahoe general fund had been used to cover deficits
incurred by the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency. It was alleged that this money had
been used without the specific approval of the City Council, and that no repayment plan
had been established as required by an agreement between the two entities.
Reports in the local press during the same time period also indicated that general fund
money had been used to cover Agency deficits but city staff were not certain of the exact
amount of money involved.
The Grand Jury contracted a professional investigator to accomplish the investigation,
due to its complex nature and scope. The professional investigator’s report summary is
attached. A complete report, with addendum, is available at all El Dorado County
Libraries.
Facts
The attached investigative report enumerates several facts, and the Grand Jury concurs
with them as stated in the report.
Findings
1. There was poor oversight of the activities and inadequate financial management
of the Park Avenue project. This was due to the same people serving on the city
council and on the STRDA. Also there was high turnover of these elected official
and their supporting city staff.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 30 Investigations & Reports
2. The financial reporting system in use in the City of South Lake Tahoe during the
years in question ( 1999- 2002) was difficult to understand. There was a lack of
notification and/ or control in certain situations when overspending occurred. The
City Council did not receive cogent, on- going spending updates as each year
progressed.
3. The financial documents that the City Council received were difficult to
understand and were not presented on a regular basis. These non- user friendly
financial documents contributed to a lack of financial control over the project by
the city council.
4. The same auditor was used by the city for several years.
5. The STRDA audit report dated 9/ 30/ 01 clearly identified a large deficit in the
their fund. Nevertheless, no action was taken by staff or elected officials to
memorialize the deficit in a loan agreement as required by the Cooperation
Agreement.
Recommendations
1. Future STRDA Boards must be independent of the City Council, with no more
then one member of the City Council on the board. However the STRDA board
must be accountable and report to the City Council
2. The STRDA must be vigilant in monitoring actual expenditures against budgeted
amounts as the fiscal year progresses. STRDA must take prompt and decisive
action when negative variances are identified. STRDA shall continue to provide
the monthly budget update information to the City Council.
3. The City of South Lake Tahoe must strictly adhere to the financial controls
implemented by the City Manager and City Council as outlined in the 11/ 16/ 03
staff report.
4. The City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA must change independent outside
financial auditors on a regular basis to help ensure unbiased reviews of the city’s
and STRDA’s financial conditions.
5. When STRDA identifies deficit conditions, the circumstances need to be
promptly documented in a manner consistent with the Cooperation Agreement
between the City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA.
The South Lake Tahoe City Council/ STRDA Board of Directors, is required by Penal
Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within
this report.
Note: Respondent does not need to respond to the attached report.
See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 31 Investigations & Reports
Investigative Report
Financial Transactions Between
The City of the South Lake Tahoe
And the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
Background
In mid- 2003, the Grand Jury received information from a concerned citizen that millions
of dollars from the City of South Lake Tahoe general fund had been used to cover deficits
incurred by the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency. It was alleged that this money had
been used without the specific approval of the City Council and that no repayment plan
had been established as required by an agreement between the two entities.
Reports in the local press during the same time period also indicated that general fund
money had been used to cover Agency deficits but city staff were not certain of the exact
amount of money involved.
Scope of the Investigation
The Grand Jury requested that the Investigator look into the following issues:
• Money from the City’s general fund was being used to fund redevelopment
projects without proper documentation or approval;
• No conditions for repayment of such funds had been established as
required by a written agreement between the City and the Redevelopment
Agency; and,
• The Redevelopment Agency board was not exercising proper oversight
over expenditures.
Investigative Methodology
Key people from the City of South Lake Tahoe government structure were
interviewed either by the Investigator, Grand Jury members or both: A
representative from the CPA firm that conducted the annual audits of the City
and Redevelopment Agency’s financial status was also interviewed.
The interviewees included:
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 32 Investigations & Reports
Bruce Budman, Director of Finance for the City of South Lake Tahoe
Hal Cole, South Lake Tahoe City Council member
Bill Crawford, former South Lake Tahoe City Council member
Tom Davis, South Lake Tahoe City Council member and current Mayor
Don Fraser, financial consultant to the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
David Jinkens, City Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe
Brett Miller, partner in the CPA firm of Moss, Levy, and Hartzheim
Gene Palazzo, Redevelopment Manager, South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
The Investigator also reviewed numerous reports and other written materials and
listened to audio recordings of selected presentations at three City
Council/ Redevelopment Board meetings. Copies of the most significant written
materials have been included in the Addenda section of this report.
A more complete listing of the written materials reviewed is contained in the
“ Written Materials Reviewed” section on page 13 of this report.
City and Redevelopment Agency Organizational Structure
The City of South Lake Tahoe is governed by 5 elected council members who
serve four- year terms. Each year, the Council selects one member to serve as
Mayor.
The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Redevelopment
Agency. The member serving as Mayor serves as Chairperson of the Agency
board.
Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors
are generally held twice a month and are open to the public. Minutes are taken
and the meetings are tape- recorded. Copies of both are available though the
City Clerk’s office.
Oversight of the day- to- day operations of the City is the responsibility of the City
Manager who is appointed by the City Council. The City Manager also serves as
the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
The Redevelopment Agency employs staff to carry out its day- to- day functions.
The number and titles of these staff members have changed slightly over the
years based on the status of the project at the time. The salaries and other costs
for these employees are supposed to come from redevelopment funds.
However, the deficit condition of redevelopment finances has resulted in
employee costs being paid from the general fund. The agency also employs a
number of consultants who have expertise in various fields.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 33 Investigations & Reports
Employees from other city departments also perform tasks for the
Redevelopment Agency as part of their jobs. The Redevelopment Agency is
supposed to reimburse the City for the time and other expenses incurred by
these city employees while they are doing redevelopment work. Reimbursement
costs have fluctuated each year based on the current status of redevelopment
projects. Because of the current deficit situation, the City’s general fund has not
been reimbursed for all employee costs.
The City’s fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30.
Authority for City to Fund Redevelopment Agency Expenditures
On December 15, 1981, the City of South Lake Tahoe ( hereafter known as
“ City”) and the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency ( hereafter known as
“ Agency”) signed a “ Cooperation Agreement.” This agreement describes duties
and obligations each entity might incur toward the other.
Pertinent sections of the agreement have been paraphrased below. The entire
document can be found at Addendum 1 of this report.
1. City agrees to provide for the Agency such staff assistance, supplies,
technical services and other services and facilities of the City as the
Agency may require in carrying out its functions.
2. The City may, but is not required to, advance necessary funds to the
Agency or to expend funds on behalf of the Agency for the preparation
and implementation of a redevelopment plan.
3. The City will keep records of activities and services undertaken pursuant
to this Agreement, and the costs thereof, in order that an accurate record
of the Agency’s liability to the City can be ascertained. The City shall
periodically, but not less than annually, submit to the Agency a statement
of the costs incurred by the City in rendering activities and services of the
City to the Agency pursuant to this Agreement
4. The Agency agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by City
pursuant to this Agreement; however, Agency shall have the sole and
exclusive right to pledge any such funds to the repayment of other
indebtedness incurred by the Agency.
The costs of the City under this agreement will be shown on statements
submitted to the Agency pursuant to Section 3 above.
Although the parties recognize that repayment may not occur for a few
years and that repayment may also occur over a period of time, it is the
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 34 Investigations & Reports
express intent of the parties that the City shall be entitled to repayment of
the expenses incurred under this agreement, consistent with the Agency’s
financial ability, in order to make the City whole as soon as practically
possible.
5. ( Intentionally omitted.)
6. The obligations of the Agency under this Agreement shall constitute an
indebtedness of the Agency to be repaid to the City by the Agency with
interest at ten per cent ( 10%) per annum.
The Redevelopment Project
The project area encompasses 174 acres in the northeast portion of the city, generally
running along Highway 50 from Ski Run Boulevard to the California- Nevada border.
The current phase, referred to as the Park Avenue Project, is nearing completion. Some
of the highlights of this phase have included building a gondola to the ski slopes, a retail
center, time share resorts, expansion of existing shopping, a parking structure, a transit
center and public improvements.
Primary financing for the project has been through the sale of Bond Anticipation Notes
( BANS), with other fees also contributing to the total financing. Project cost, including
interest on the BANS, amounts to approximately $ 57 million.
This project has an extremely complex financing plan unprecedented for a city the size of
South Lake Tahoe.
The Deficit and Its Causes
David Jinkens stated that after he became city manager in August 2002, there
was a general awareness among staff and the City Council that the
Redevelopment Agency owed debt to the general fund. Much of it had to do with
unanticipated adverse court decisions and other overruns.
After Bruce Budman became the Director of Finance in March 2003, he noted
that the city’s balance sheets showed negative cash balances in the
Redevelopment Agency. Money from the general fund was being used to offset
the negative amounts but it wasn’t clear how much the deficit amounted to or
how it was to be repaid. Budman brought this to Jinkens’ attention.
Jinkens advised the City Council of the situation and, with the Council’s approval,
formed a committee to determine the extent of the deficit and how it occurred.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 35 Investigations & Reports
The committee consisted of Bruce Budman, the Director of Finance; Gene
Palazzo, the newly appointed Redevelopment Manager; Brad Vidro, the Director
of Public Works; and Don Fraser and Mark Northcross, long- time financial
consultants to the Redevelopment Agency.
Due to the complexity of the issues involved, the type of accounting system that
had been in place during previous fiscal years, and the fact that most key staff
members involved in the project had left city employment, it took the committee
six months to reach conclusions.
On November 7, 2003, Don Fraser authored a report that estimated the amount
of the current deficit at $ 7 million and explained how it had come about. A
summary of his findings is listed below. Fraser’s complete report can be found at
Addendum 2.
Staff also completed a report dated November 10, 2003, on these issues entitled
“ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.” It can be found at Addendum 3.
Fraser voluntarily testified before the Grand Jury on February 26, 2004 to explain
his findings and answer questions. The Grand Jury found him to be a credible
witness with expertise in the area of redevelopment financing.
In presenting his findings, Fraser split the financial analysis into two sections,
Debt Service/ Redevelopment Funds and the Capital Project Fund.
The Debt Service Fund and the Redevelopment Fund are two different funds in
the City’s accounting records.
The Debt Service Fund receives all major revenues ( specifically tax increment
and TOT revenues) and makes debt service payments on the Agency’s
outstanding bond issues. The Redevelopment Fund is used to pay for Agency
administrative costs. The committee combined these two funds because
revenues received in the Debt Service Fund are also used to fund the
administrative costs of the Agency.
The Capital Project Fund has been used to receive other revenue sources and to
pay the expenditures for the Park Avenue project.
Based on his investigation, Fraser concluded that the deficit in the Debt
Service/ Redevelopment Fund category amounted to $ 3.2 million and the deficit
in the Capital Projects Fund amounted to $ 3.8 million
These deficits occurred when expenses either exceeded anticipated costs or
when there was a shortfall in anticipated revenue or funding. The following
amounts are the major costs that resulted in a deficit condition occurring ( the
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 36 Investigations & Reports
overall totals in the previous paragraph also include a few smaller cost items that
are not listed below):
Debt Service and Redevelopment Funds
Late start at Park Avenue $ 500,000
The project started one year later than anticipated. It was
estimated that this reduced revenues by approximately
$ 1 million. This amount was offset by the developer
paying the Agency a penalty of $ 500,000.
Embassy Suites Hotel Reduction and Refund $ 371,000
In the 2001/ 2002 tax year, the County reduced the
value of the hotel by $ 17 million. This resulted in a loss
of tax increment revenue in the amount of $ 260,000.
The County also refunded some of the hotel’s tax payments
for prior years which resulted in $ 110,000 being deducted
from the Agency’s 2002/ 03 tax increment revenue payment.
BANS Proceeds Intended for Administration $ 1,200,000
At the time the BANS were sold to finance the project, $ 1.2
million of BANS proceeds were allocated for administrative
costs. However, due to cost overruns, the transfer of the
$ 1.2 million did not occur.
Overhead $ 1,184,000
During 1999/ 2000, the City completed a cost allocation
plan which allocates the overhead costs of the City to the
various operating departments, including the
Redevelopment Agency. This was not anticipated at
the time the financial projections were done for the BANS
and has added approximately $ 1.2 million to the deficit.
Capital Projects Fund
Transit Center – property acquisition $ 1,800,000
The Agency had anticipated receiving $ 4.7 million in
Proposition 118 funds for this purchase; however, they
were only granted $ 2.9 million.
Legal costs – related to property acquisition $ 1,100,000
Road construction cost overruns $ 476,000
Relocation cost overruns $ 333,000
It should be noted that it is not unusual for Redevelopment Agencies to engage in deficit
spending while projects are being built because costs often outpace revenue during that
time frame. It would appear that such a situation was anticipated here because Section 4
of the Cooperation Agreement states “ . . . the parties recognize that repayment ( of all
costs incurred by City) may not occur for a few years and that repayment may also occur
over a period of time.”
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 37 Investigations & Reports
While that may be true, the issue is not whether deficit spending is appropriate but
whether the expenditures that resulted in a deficit occurring were subjected to a proper
review and approval process.
City Expenditure Process
Each fiscal year, the City enacts a budget that delineates how much money can be spent
for certain specified purposes. The budget is adjusted throughout the year to react to
changing conditions. Depending on the dollar amount involved, adjustments may be
made by the City Manager acting alone or by the City Council by majority vote.
As with most government agencies, the City keeps its cash in one account, i. e., “ the pot”.
As expenditures are made, they are paid for with checks written on the account. When
expenditures for one category exceed the budgeted maximum, money from somewhere
else in “ the pot” is used to pay the overage. If there isn’t sufficient money in an active
fund category to pay the expenses, then money from a reserve account may be used. Pre-approval
by the appropriate oversight level should be obtained before funds from a
different account are used.
Based on interviews, it appears that, during the fiscal years in question ( 1999 through
2002), on some occasions, sufficient controls may not have been in place to alert staff
when the amount of a particular expenditure exceeded the allowable maximum. In other
instances, staff may have been alerted but did not seek spending approval. At the same
time, it is apparent that in many cases, particularly those involving litigation, staff did
seek and receive approval to spend money over and above the amount budgeted.
In any event, the system allowed overages in redevelopment spending to be automatically
covered by the movement of money from other parts of “ the pot,” sometimes without
timely review by the City Council.
The consensus of staff and elected officials interviewed was that there was an awareness
the Redevelopment Agency was involved in deficit spending but there was no idea it was
in the $ 7 million range. Some thought it was closer to
$ 2 million and that approval had been given for that amount of money to be taken from
the reserves.
While the elected officials were surprised by the size of the deficit when it was finally
identified, they added that if they had been asked, they would have approved the
expenditures that accounted for the deficit because they were necessary to complete the
project and the City had to live up to its contractual obligations. It was also mentioned
that the amount of the project overrun, compared to the total cost of the project, was well
within industry standards.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 38 Investigations & Reports
The Annual Financial Audit by the Independent Outside Auditor
Section 33080.1 of the California Health and Safety Code requires every
Redevelopment Agency to undergo an independent financial audit each fiscal
year. The section requires the audit to be conducted by a certified public
accountant, licensed by the state, in accordance with the Government Auditing
Standards adopted by the Comptroller General of the United States.
For fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01, and 01/ 02 the City contracted with the CPA firm of
Moss, Levy, and Hartzheim to conduct the annual independent review of the
financial condition of the City’s general fund and the Redevelopment Agency.
Brett Miller was the firm member who oversaw the audits.
The City has contracted with the firm of Maze and Associates to perform the
audits for FY 03/ 04. At the time this report was being prepared, their audit report
had not been completed.
Because of the voluminous nature of the audit reports, only those portions
pertinent to this investigation have been included in the Addenda section of this
report. The audit reports for the General Fund are included as Addendum 4, 5
and 6. The audit reports for the Redevelopment Agency are included as
Addendum 7, 8 and 9.
Typically, the audit reports were completed about six months after the end of the
fiscal year and given to city staff. A member of the audit firm also made a
presentation on the audit findings to the City Council at a public meeting and
answered questions the Council, staff or the public might have.
Findings of the Independent Outside Financial Auditor
The Investigator reviewed the completed audit reports listed above and noted the
following information concerning deficits in Redevelopment Department finances:
Redevelopment Agency Audit Report dated September 30, 2001 ( Addendum 8)
Page 4A lists two negative variances in the Capital Projects Fund. Both are
indicative of a deficit situation. They include a $ 1,370,382 negative variance in
the Unreserved, Undesignated Reserve Fund and a negative variance of
$ 1,366,955 in Total Fund Equity and Other Credits.
On page 11, Note 2 of the “ Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability” section
contains the following statement: “ A deficit fund balance of $ 1,366,955 exists in
the Capital Projects Fund. The deficit is due to the Agency incurring costs in
advance of revenues”.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 39 Investigations & Reports
Page 5 indicates an unfavorable budget- to- actual revenue and expenditure
variance of $ 1,334,658.
Audit Report of the Redevelopment Agency dated September 30, 2002
( Addendum 9)
Page 2 lists two negative variances in the Capital Projects Fund. Both are
indicative of a deficit situation. They include a negative variance of $ 9,365,004 in
the Unreserved, Undesignated Reserve Fund and a negative variance of
$ 3,640,776 in Total Fund Equity and Other Credits.
On page 14, Note 2 of the “ Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability” section
contains the following statement: “ A deficit fund balance of $ 3,640,776 exists in
the Capital Projects Fund. The deficit is due to the Agency incurring costs in
advance of revenues”.
General Purpose Financial Statement for the City dated September 30, 2001
( Addendum 5)
Note 15 on page 30 indicates that at the end of the fiscal year, the
Redevelopment Debt Service Fund had an “ Interfund Payable” balance due to
the general fund of $ 2,926,433. In other words, it owed that amount to the
general fund.
The audit report describes interfund balances as ones that arise during the
normal course of business and are expected to be repaid shortly after the end of
the fiscal year.
The Investigator interviewed the lead auditor, Mr. Miller, and asked him to further
define the time period contemplated in the phrase “ will be repaid shortly after the
end of the fiscal year.” Miller stated that was meant to include any balance
expected to be repaid before the end of the next fiscal year and that definition
was the industry standard.
In actuality, this debt not only was not repaid during the next fiscal year, it
continued at a substantial amount as documented in the next paragraph.
General Purpose Financial Statement for the City dated September 30, 2002
( Addendum 6)
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 40 Investigations & Reports
Note 15 on page 38 indicates that by the end of this fiscal year, the
Redevelopment Debt Service Fund and the Redevelopment Capital Projects
Fund had “ Interfund Payable” balances due to the General Fund of $ 2,445,124
and $ 2,149,169 respectively.
The inclusion of these debts as Interfund Payables mischaracterized their true
nature because they were not short term in nature and helped to obscure the
extent of the Redevelopment Agency’s deficit spending.
Page 2 indicates that the General Fund was owed $ 5,742,443 from “ other funds.”
Approximately $ 4 million of this amount was due from the Redevelopment
Agency.
Brett Miller made a verbal presentation to the City Council regarding this audit on
June 17, 2003. The Investigator listened to the audiotape recording of that
presentation.
During that presentation, there was discussion between Miller and City Council
members regarding the negative cash flow in the Redevelopment Agency. Miller
stated that in the past, these “ loans” appeared to be short- term in nature to be
paid back within a year. However, since they continue to be on- going, Miller
suggested that an actual loan agreement be setup between the City and the
Redevelopment Agency to repay the debt.
Conclusions
From all accounts, the financial reporting system in use in the City of South Lake
Tahoe during the years in question ( 1999- 2002) was difficult to understand. It
also appears there may have been a lack of notification and/ or control in certain
situations when overspending was occurring. The City Council was not receiving
cogent, on- going spending updates as each year progressed.
The audit reports completed by the independent outside auditor are difficult to
understand for people who do not have financial expertise.
However, the Redevelopment Agency audit report dated September 30, 2001
clearly identifies a large deficit in the Agency’s Capital Projects Fund and
indicates substantial negative variances in the Unreserved, Undesignated
Reserve Fund and the Total Fund Equity and Other Credits section. The report
presents the deficit in the Capital Projects Fund both as a numerical figure in a
box and in verbiage that clearly identifies the amount as a deficit and the reason
for its existence. Nevertheless, it does not appear that action was taken by staff
or elected officials to memorialize the deficit in a loan agreement as required by
the Cooperation Agreement.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 41 Investigations & Reports
Repayment Plan
On March 16, 2004, the City Council heard and approved a plan to repay the $ 7
million deficit to the general fund. The staff report outlining the proposed
repayment plan and a copy of an unexecuted copy of the “ Loan and Repayment”
agreement are included with this report as Addendum 10.
The highlights of the repayment plan include:
• The Redevelopment Agency will reimburse the City for all administrative
and program costs incurred by the City prior to and after the execution of
this agreement in furtherance of the redevelopment programs in the
Project Area. Presently, these costs include administrative and program
costs of $ 3,178,000 and public improvement costs of $ 3,829,000;
• A formal loan agreement will be executed and interest will be charged at
the applicable LAIF rate.
• It may be possible for up to $ 2 million to be returned to the general fund
over the next 3 years through the retirement of $ 9.4 million of the BANS
that come due in October 2004. This return of this money probably will
not begin until 2005.
• The balance of the deficit will need to be repaid from the future growth in
revenues. ( Note: Discussion during the Council meeting indicated that in
several years, the completed project should generate approximately
$ 1 million in excess revenue each year that will go back to the general
fund.)
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrences
After David Jinkens became City Manager and Bruce Budman became Director of
Finance, the format of the budget documents were reconfigured to make them more user-friendly.
The Council is also being given monthly reports comparing actual expenditures
against budgeted amounts in all major fund categories. Examples of these reports can be
found in Addendum 11.
Jinkens also reorganized the Finance Department, upgraded the top level
finance position from Manager to Director and had the Department report to him
directly.
In a staff report to the City Council dated November 16, 2003, City Manager David
Jinkens advised the Council of new controls he had implemented to ensure better
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 42 Investigations & Reports
accountability and greater review of financial transactions. The complete report can be
found at Addenda 12.
Highlights included the following:
• Reserves designated by the City Council for special purposes, as part of
the adopted Municipal Budget, shall not be drawn down for uses other
than those specified by the Council, without the consent of the Council.
• Public projects ( capital, acquisition) expenditures and revenues budgeted
in one fiscal year will be brought forward in a budget document for each
fiscal year to ensure proper accounting of revenues and expenditures in a
particular fiscal year.
• Anticipated cost overruns of capital, acquisition and/ or public projects will
be reported to the City Council as soon as practical.
• Approval for budgeted expenditures for RDA projects being implemented
by other City Departments shall require the approval of the originating
department manager, the RDA manager, Finance Department and the
City Manager.
• Checks made payable for contracted work shall originate from the
appropriate department, signed for approval by the project and
department managers for payment, forwarded to the finance department
for verification of funds in the approved budget, approved by the finance
director and then approved by the city manager.
• The City’s independent auditors shall highlight and report any substantive
irregularities in the handling of City finances, fund balance issues or
internal control issues to the Finance Director, City Manager and City
Council, in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures.
Recommendations
Many of the problems associated with this deficit will be moot in the future
because this phase of the project is almost complete and the current philosophy
is that no public money will be spent for future phases of the project.
Nevertheless, the following recommendations are being made:
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 43 Investigations & Reports
1. The City needs to be vigilant in monitoring actual expenditures against budgeted
amounts as the fiscal year progresses and must take prompt and decisive action
when negative variances are identified. To this end, the monthly budget update
information being provided to the City Council should be continued.
2. The City needs to strictly adhere to the financial controls implemented by the City
Manager and City Council as outlined in the November 16, 2003 staff report
delineated in the preceding section.
3. The City should consider changing independent outside financial auditors
on some regular, short- term basis to help ensure an unbiased review of
the City’s financial condition.
4. When deficit conditions are identified in the Redevelopment Department,
the circumstances need to be promptly documented in a manner
consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the City and the
Redevelopment Agency.
Written Materials Reviewed
The Investigator reviewed numerous reports and other written materials during
the investigation. The most significant included the following:
1. Report from Donald Fraser to Bruce Budman and Gene Palazzo, dated
November 7, 2003, regarding the financial status of Redevelopment
Project Area No. 1 for the period 1999- 2000 through 2002- 2003.
2. Report from Staff to City Manager David Jinkens, dated November 10,
2003 entitled “ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.”
3. Report from City Manager David Jinkens to the City Council, dated
November 16, 2003 entitled, “ City and Redevelopment Agency Financial
Controls, Review and Action.”
4. The General Purpose Financial Statements for the City of South Lake
Tahoe for fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01 and 01/ 02.
5. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Component Unit Financial
Statements for fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01 and .01/ 02.
6. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency consolidated “ Statements of
Indebtedness” for tax years 2000/ 2001, 2001/ 2002 and 2002/ 2003. These
reports are filed annually with El Dorado County.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 44 Investigations & Reports
7. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency “ Financial Transactions
Reports” for FY 00/ 01, 01/ 02 and 02/ 03. These reports are filed annually
with the State Controller’s office.
8. Memo from Redevelopment Manager Gene Palazzo to City Manager
David Jinkens, dated March 8, 2004 entitled, “ Loan and repayment
Agreement between South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and the City of
South Lake Tahoe.”
9. Examples of reports regarding the on- going financial condition of the City
of South Lake Tahoe now being provided to City Council members on a
monthly basis.
10. City of South Lake Tahoe budgets for fiscal years 99/ 00 through 02/ 03
( not included in the addenda due to their size).
11. All City Council and Redevelopment Agency meeting agendas and
minutes from October 1999 to March 2004.
12. The Redevelopment Agency’s five year Implementation Plan for the period
January 2000 to December 2004 ( not included in the addenda due to its
size).
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 45 Investigations & Reports
Addenda
1. Cooperation Agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and the
South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency dated December 15, 1981.
2. Report from Donald Fraser to Bruce Budman and Gene Palazzo, dated
November 7, 2003, regarding the financial status of Redevelopment
Project Area No. 1 for the period 1999- 2000 through 2002- 2003.
3. Report from staff to City Manager David Jinkens, dated November 10,
2003 entitled “ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.”
4. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the
City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 99/ 00.
5. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the
City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 00/ 01.
6. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the
City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 01/ 02.
7. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 99/ 00.
8. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 00/ 01.
9. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency
Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 01/ 02.
10. Memo from Redevelopment Manager Gene Palazzo to City Manager
David Jinkens, dated March 8, 2004 entitled, “ Loan and repayment
Agreement between South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and the City of
South Lake Tahoe.”
11. Examples of the monthly budget update reports now being provided to
City Council members by staff.
12. Report from City Manager David Jinkens to the City Council, dated
November 16, 2003 entitled, “ City and Redevelopment Agency Financial
Controls, Review and Action.”
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 46 Investigations & Reports
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 47 Investigations & Reports
Citizen
Complaint
Form
&
Instructions
El Dorado County Grand Jury
PO Box 472
Placerville, Ca 95667
Citizen Complaint Form
Person or agency complaint is about
Name: Tel. #
Address
Nature of complaint
( Describe events in the order they occurred as concisely as possible. Attach any additional
information)
Complaint contacts ( List persons or agencies contacted prior to Grand Jury)
Name: Telephone:
Name: Telephone:
Name: Telephone:
Witnesses the grand jury may contact for further information
Name: Telephone:
Name: Telephone:
Name: Telephone:
Describe action you wish the grand jury to take and why
Complainant
Name: Telephone:
Address: Drivers License No.
The information presented on this form is true, correct, and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature: ____________________________ Date:_____________________________
The grand jury will acknowledge its receipt of this complaint.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 48 Citizen Complaint Form
Instructions & Information For Filling Out and Filing a Grand Jury Citizen’s Complaint
The Civil Grand Jury ( Jury) is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the
enforcement of the law. It is an arm of the Court and a representative of the public. Although it is
an arm of the Court, it operates independently of direct Court supervision. It is a check against
governmental authority. It is not a branch of the County, nor is it answerable to the District
Attorney.
The Jury has oversight responsibility over local government, such as but not limited to: county
government, city government, special districts, local school districts ( financial not curriculum).
The Jury does not have jurisdiction over the Courts, other counties, federal or state governments
or private citizens. Typically the Jury looks at systems and processes. The Jury has no
enforcement authority, it can only make recommendations, through publication of a final report,
usually published at the end of June each year ( See Penal Code 933 & 933.05). The Jury cannot
normally resolve or solve emergency situations. Each complaint the Jury accepts for
investigation must be investigated thoroughly, seeking out facts, and analyzing the facts prior to
writing a report for publication. This is a time consuming process and usually takes many months
to complete. You may view the Final Report at http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html.
The typical process for the Civil Grand Jury a complaint is received, a preliminary investigation
is conducted to find out if there is enough information, if the complaint is valid, if the Jury has
jurisdiction, etc. and if warranted, a full investigation may be instituted. Upon completion of the
full investigation, a report is generated and issued as part of the annual Grand Jury Final Report.
Two Examples
Unacceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you. The Jury has no
jurisdiction to investigate your neighbor or to enforce barking dog laws.
Acceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you and you have contacted
the appropriate agency, and they have failed to enforce county or city
ordinances. You may file a complaint against the agency, and the Jury
does have the jurisdiction to investigate. The Jury does not have the
authority to order the agency to take an action or not to take an action,
only to recommend a course of action and to make that recommendation
public.
Preparation Instructions For Filing A Complaint
1. This complaint is against:
a. Include name of agency and/ or individual( s) the complaint is against. Ensure
correct spelling.
b. Give the name of the department involved and the supervisor, if known.
2. My complaint about the above:
a. Be clear and concise. Do not use broad statements.
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 49 Citizen Complaint Form
b. Attach copies ( no originals) of all available documentation, receipts, photos,
letters and notes of conversations or observations that support the complaint.
c. Number all attachments consecutively and on a separate page, describe each
document using the corresponding number.
d. Describe all past or pending legal actions, either civil or criminal, related to your
complaint.
3. Describe the action you wish the Jury to take and why.
a. Keep in mind the Jury’s jurisdiction.
4. List all other agencies, officials, attorneys or others you have contacted about this matter.
a. Provide a complete list of all persons contacted.
b. Include the address and/ or telephone number of each.
c. Attach copies of any documents you shared with those contacted.
d. Provide a summary of conversations with those you spoke to, including the date,
their names and telephone numbers.
e. Describe the results of these contacts.
5. About you:
a. Include your name, address, and telephone numbers. Anonymous complaints may
not be investigated.
b. You should sign and date the complaint form. The Jury may not respond to
unsigned complaints.
Do not send originals! Copies will not be returned.
Send this complaint along with copies of any documentation to:
El Dorado County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 472
Placerville CA 95667
Tel 530/ 621- 7477
Fax 530/ 295- 0763
http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html
Your Confidentiality Will Be Rigorously Protected
2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 50 Citizen Complaint Form
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | El Dorado County Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (El Dorado County)--Periodicals.; El Dorado County (Calif.)--Politics and government. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004 ; title from cover.; Harvested from the web on 2/1/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (El Dorado County) |
| Publisher | El Dorado County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144544458; http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/grandjury/index.html |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/144544458/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.; Mode of access: Internet. |
| Transcript | June 29, 2004 El Dorado County 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury Final Report June 29, 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Table of Contents Page Introduction ii Grand Jury’s Letter to the Judge iii Judge’s Letter to the Grand Jury iv Grand Jury Members v Notice to Respondents vi Investigations/ Reports Ambulance Billing 1 Child Protective Services 4 County Public Buildings 6 Information Technologies 12 Material Recovery Facility 14 Ranch Marketing Ordinance 17 Review of County Government 19 Trust Funds 22 Videotaping at County Jails 24 South Lake Tahoe STPUD/ MTBE Lawsuit Fee 26 Tahoe Basin Cable TV Service 28 South Tahoe Redevelopment 30 Citizen Complaint Form & Instructions 48 Introduction The 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury completed its term on June 30, 2004. In this report readers will see the specific investigations leading to findings and recommendations for the named county agencies, departments and other local government agencies and departments. These investigations, however, do not cover the entire scope of the activities this jury pursued. We investigated 75 citizens’ complaints and conducted additional investigations mandated by the Penal Code or instituted by the Grand Jury. One of the Grand Jury’s mandated functions, per Penal Code 919( b), is to visit each public prison within the county. The El Dorado County Grand Jury toured the following facilities: 1. El Dorado County Jail, Placerville 2. El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe 3. Juvenile Hall, Placerville 4. California Dept. of Corrections Conservation Camp, Growlersberg, Georgetown 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury ii Introduction Members of the 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury Warren Wyllie, Foreman Lyle Naffziger Art Bullentini Diane Wilkinson Jytte Langlois Ken Weitzman Liz Pazdra Jeanie Jackson John Carter Ginger Ward Boyd Mahan Michael Gray Ted Long Ira Mirsky Jim Silva John R. Plymyer Robert ( Danny) Knappman Jr. Mark Sandperl Ralph Fernandez 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury v Introduction Notice to Respondents How to Respond to Findings For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows: The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways: 1. That you agree with the finding. 2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement. How to Respond to Recommendations Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If a person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Time To Respond, Where And To Whom To Respond Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an informational copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury vi Introduction Investigations & Reports Ambulance Billing Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the county operated Ambulance Billing Service ( ABS). Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Auditor- Controller • Director, Public Health Department • Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program ( HICAP) • Medical Billing Supervisor, ABS • Staff Members of ABS Documents reviewed • Auditor- Controller’s compliance review report of ABS dated 5/ 06/ 04 • Billing records of various time periods • Board of Supervisors Policy B- 4, Collections Recovery Of Public Funds ( 9/ 02) • Complaint • Internal audit finding from ABS • Letter from Marshall Hospital to Ambulance Billing Supervisor dated 02/ 06/ 03 Background El Dorado County is the only county in the state of California that directly bills for services performed by county paramedics in the Ambulance Transport Service. HICAP is a volunteer based watchdog organization whose function is to serve the elderly and disabled regarding their rights on Medicare services, among other services. A complaint was received from HICAP regarding improper billing of multiple Medicare patients for services from the El Dorado County Ambulance Transport. The complaint alleged that Medicare patients were being sent bills for payment by ABS, and re- enforced by letters sent by County Counsel, demanding payment for services that were rightfully covered by Medicare Insurance. HICAP alleged that ABS did not pursue disputes in billing between the County and Medicare through resolution with Medicare officials, but rather forwarded these bills to the patient, demanding payment. A number of the disputed invoices were resolved in favor of the patient through the efforts of HICAP, and should not have been forwarded to the patient for payment. HICAP officials presented early investigation results to the Director of Public Health and requests were made of County officials to look into the matter. Early findings by ABS uncovered deficiencies in employee training and problems with insurance procedures that were to blame for some of the improper billings of County patients. Continued audits by HICAP uncovered additional problems. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 1 Investigations & Reports An audit of the situation was conducted by the Auditor- Controller, as requested by the Grand Jury in a letter dated 2/ 18/ 04. Facts 1. ABS processes the billing for services provided by The Ambulance Transport Service. 2. Medicare uses the term “ Denies” for all services which are disputed or not covered under the Medicare Insurance, and ABS is using the term “ Rejected” on bills sent to the patient. 3. Medicare patient bills are sent by ABS to Medicare Insurance for payment. 4. Medicare Insurance sends disputed invoices back to ABS for clarification/ correction. 5. Bills not paid in a reasonable time are referred to County Counsel for collection. 6. As quoted in Auditor- Controller compliance review report, “ The Department does not have specific written policies and procedures that pertain to the billing of Medicare beneficiaries for Ambulance services.” 7. Training by department staff is accomplished by on- the- job training rather than formal training. 8. Per Auditor- Controller compliance review report, ABS’s unwritten policy is to refer bills to the County Counsel collections after 120 days. Findings 1. Rejected/ Denied Medicare bills were improperly sent to patients. Additional effort was required by county employees to resolve disputes between Medicare Insurance and ABS. 2. ABS was requesting payments from patients through County Counsel even though the Medicare disputes were not resolved. 3. A number of these disputed bills are not being resolved properly and patients are being billed. 4. Different billing terminology between Medicare and ABS caused confusion among patients. These differences caused difficulty when patients called Medicare to resolve the disputes. 5. Lack of written policies and procedures in ABS resulted in improper handling of ambulance transport claims. 6. Lack of training resulted in improper coding on Medicare forms. Recommendations 1. ABS employees must be directed to resolve disputes with Medicare prior to billing the patients. 2. The County should exclude ABS from sending disputed payment notices to patients per Board Of Supervisors’ policy B- 4 in collections. 3. County must resolve differences in terminology used by Medicare Insurance and ABS. 4. The County must immediately direct ABS to develop and implement written policies and procedures for detailed processing of ambulance transport billing. 5. ABS employees must be trained on the coding of Medicare bills and on the County’s written policies and procedures. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 2 Investigations & Reports The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 3 Investigations & Reports Child Protective Services Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint about inconsistent application of policies and procedures in Child Protective Services ( CPS) and decided to review the 2001/ 2002 Health and Social Services Committee report. As a result of this review a general investigation of CPS was made. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Auditor- Controller • Chairman of the 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury Health and Social Services Committee • CPS Program Managers • CPS Supervisor • Current and former CPS employees • Department of Social Services Accountant • Director, Department of Human Services • El Dorado County Judicial Commissioner • Former acting Director of Human Resources • Former Assistant Director, Department of Social Services • Former Director, Department of Social Services Documents reviewed • 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury report • CPS manual Sites visited • CPS, Placerville • CPS, South Lake Tahoe Background The 2001/ 2002 Grand Jury identified significant deficiencies in CPS. The current Grand Jury reviewed the responses to the report, and then conducted interviews to determine if changes had been made, and if the changes corrected the deficiencies. The investigation revealed that many of the negative issues in the prior Grand Jury report have been addressed and corrected. The Grand Jury was helped by the cooperation of employees in CPS. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 4 Investigations & Reports Facts 1. There is no ongoing training between CPS and the local law enforcement agencies. 2. On the job training was the only type of training observed by the Grand Jury in CPS. 3. Supervisors do not complete evaluations or provide feedback on probationary personnel on a regular basis. 4. Communication among management, supervisors, and line employees in CPS needs improvement. 5. Confidential material is often left exposed on desks and subject to unauthorized access. Findings 1. Local law enforcement and CPS do not understand each other’s needs and responsibilities. 2. Budgetary cutbacks have reduced formal training in CPS. 3. The current evaluation and feedback system for probationary employees in CPS limits understanding of their progress in work performance and affects the services they are expected to provide. 4. Leadership fails to maintain effective communication between management and line employees leading to confusion and angst among employees. 5. Security rules for confidential information are ignored. 6. Inconsistent application of written CPS guidelines diminishes care and support of children and results in frustration of individual CPS workers. Recommendations 1. Establish a formal training program between CPS and local law enforcement. 2. Additional formal training is required for CPS employees to understand the department’s needs and objectives. 3. Perform evaluations more than once a year for probationary employees. Feedback must be provided on a continuous basis. 4. Refine the program guidelines making them clear and concise. Leadership must monitor and evaluate application of the revised guidelines. 5. CPS must comply with confidentiality rules and laws. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method to respond to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 5 Investigations & Reports County Public Buildings Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury chose to review, inspect and tour a selection of County offices and office buildings per California Penal Code ( PC) 925. Scope of the investigation The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury toured, inspected and interviewed staff at the following County offices and office buildings. Sites visited • Agriculture Building, Placerville • Animal Control, South Lake Tahoe • Assessors Office, Placerville • Assessors Office, South Lake Tahoe • Cameron Park Library • El Dorado Hills Library • Recorders Office, Lake Tahoe • Sheriff’s Parking Lot, Placerville • Veterans Services Office, Placerville Background PC 925 states in part “ The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts…” The Grand Jury as part of its general review chose to review County offices and office buildings, for maintenance, health and safety items, and overall appearances. The Grand Jury found a few areas that needed improvement; overall the buildings and offices were maintained satisfactorily. The areas that needed improvement are listed below. The Grand Jury would like to thank all the county employees that took the time to show us around and answer our many questions. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 6 Investigations & Reports AGRICULTURE BUILDING Findings 1. The heat/ air conditioning ceiling vents are dirty. 2. The modular building adjacent to the Agriculture Building has a doormat with ragged edges, possibly causing someone to trip and fall. 3. The carpet between the public area and office has an open seam. Recommendations 1. The heat/ air conditioning ceiling vents need to be cleaned. 2. Replace the existing doormat. 3. A carpet strip needs to be installed in the doorway over the open seam. ANIMAL CONTROL, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Findings 1. There is a steep slope to the rear of the building. When there is precipitation, run off goes directly to the building causing flooding or dangerous ice. 2. The parking lot and driveway are inadequate, they are on a slope causing winter safety hazards due to ice and snow. 3. There is no handicap access to or inside the building. 4. The public restroom is located at the rear of the main staff office. This causes cross traffic and disrupts productivity. 5. There is an inadequate exercise area. Only one animal may exercise at a time. 6. The cement runs stayed wet or damp and did not dry out very well. This is a safety hazard for the public, staff and animals. 7. There are no facilities for larger animals, such as horses, goats, etc. Recommendations 1. Erect a retaining wall with a drainage system at the rear of the building to curtail the damage from snow and ice runoff. 2. The parking lot and driveway directly in front of the Animal Control Building should be graded or modified to eliminate excess snow, ice and water accumulation. This would also provide additional parking and easier access. 3. Access to and from the parking lot and the building should be handicap accessible. 4. Access to the public restroom should be redirected from the main staff office. 5. Provide additional space for animal exercise. 6. Provide additional ventilation for the animal runs to dry more quickly. 7. Additional facilities are needed for larger animals. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 7 Investigations & Reports ASSESSORS OFFICE, PLACERVILLE Findings 1. The water fountain located at the front door of the Assessors Office is out of order. 2. There are five to ten computer monitors stored on the top of a file cabinet. According to staff this equipment has been waiting to be moved for months. Recommendations 1. The water fountain needs to be fixed. 2. The computer monitors need to be removed. ASSESSORS OFFICE, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE Findings 1. Single pane windows are currently installed and insufficient. Staff stated ice has formed on the inside of the windows in winter, and the offices are very cold. 2. A fire extinguisher in the office had an expired inspection tag. 3. A sizeable worn spot in the lobby carpet needs to be repaired. Recommendations 1. Double pane windows should replace the single pane windows. 2. The fire extinguisher needs to be inspected. 3. The lobby carpet needs be repaired. CAMERON PARK LIBRARY Findings 1. The ceilings are very high causing acoustic problems. This problem was raised and verified by library staff. The noise level is distracting and is not conducive to library study. 2. The staff restroom has a leaky toilet and rust is visible on the supply line of the toilet. 3. Some acoustical tiles in the storage room ceiling were water stained. Recommendations 1. The acoustical problem needs to be reviewed, as the Quiet Room affords only a small number of library users the opportunity for quiet study. 2. The leak in the staff restroom toilet and rust on the supply line need to be repaired. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 8 Investigations & Reports 3. The acoustical tiles that are water stained need to be removed, so the roof can be checked for possible leaks. EL DORADO HILLS LIBRARY Findings 1. The carpet located in the teacher’s check out area is in poor condition with some rippling and loose seams. The carpet poses a safety hazard to users and is a potential liability. 2. Some acoustical tiles in the ceiling were water stained. This may indicate a possible roof leak. Recommendations 1. The carpet in the teacher’s check out area needs to be stretched or replaced. 2. The acoustical tiles that are water stained need to be removed, so the roof can be checked for possible leaks. RECORDER’S OFFICE, LAKE TAHOE Findings 1. The fire extinguisher is located in an adjacent janitor’s office, rather than in the Recorder’s office. 2. There is no fire sprinkler system in place. Recommendations 1. The fire extinguisher needs to be relocated to the Recorders Office, so that it may be accessible to staff. SHERIFF’S PARKING LOT, PLACERVILLE ( 11/ 04/ 03) Findings 1. The parking lot surface had several pot holes and uneven pavement. 2. The surface had cracks in the asphalt. There are low spots which accumulate rain, snow and/ or ice. 3. The concrete steps from the Sheriff’s Department Building to Building “ A” showed cracks and missing material. 4. Steps are not of uniform size, some having a higher than normal rise and longer than normal run. This non- conventional size step could cause misjudgment in descending or ascending. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 9 Investigations & Reports 5. Steps are wider at the top step and narrower at the bottom step. This could cause misjudgment while descending or climbing. 6. The bottom step is angled unlike the top three steps. This could cause misjudgment while descending. 7. There is a wall on one side of the stairs that further narrows the lower steps. 8. There is no handrail. 9. Although three large lights shine on the stairs, the lights are blocked by tree branches or trunks. 10. No “ direct” lighting was on the stairs. 11. The entire parking lot is poorly lit. 12. The security gate allowing access to the parking lot is non- operable. Recommendations 1. Fill the pot holes in the parking lot surface. 2. Seal the asphalt cracks. 3. Level the pavement to eliminate low spots. 4. Standardize the stair size. 5. Provide handrail. 6. Install individual step lights. 7. Prune tree branches away from the existing overhead lighting. 8. Install additional overhead lighting in the parking lot. 9. The security gate needs to be repaired and maintained. Follow up The Grand Jury made a follow up visit on 03/ 09/ 04, the following corrections had been made: 1. A sidewalk with a ramp has been installed, replacing the stairs. 2. A partial handrail has been installed. Full handrail still needs to be constructed. 3. Individual lights have been installed along the ramp. 4. Additional overhead lighting has been installed over the sidewalk area. VETERANS SERVICES OFFICE Findings 1. There is no counter to separate the public entering the office, from those desiring to speak in confidence. Recommendations 1. A counter should be installed. This would allow conversations and discussions to be conducted in a private setting 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 10 Investigations & Reports The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 11 Investigations & Reports Information Technologies Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to conduct a review of the County’s Information Technologies Department ( IT). Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Director of IT • IT staff members • County Administrative Officer ( CAO) • Members of the County Board of Supervisors ( BOS) • Various Department Directors Documents reviewed • 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury report • Information Services Strategic Plan • BOS Policy A- 10, IT Steering Committee Background The 2002/ 2003 Grand Jury findings and recommendations on Information Services General Review, remain applicable this year. Facts 1. Each county department is funded annually for technology ( computers, software, systems, etc.). 2. Each department considers their own needs paramount when spending their allocated monies. 3. Departments spending their allocation make no effort to integrate with the other departments on technology. 4. No county- wide coordination to prioritize technology projects is made at any level of this county’s government. 5. The County has an IT Steering Committee, whose written goal is to integrate county technology needs. 6. The IT Steering Committee is attended by lower level staff members who do not have authority to make decisions concerning information technology. Findings 1. The BOS has no long- term vision pertaining to the future of information technology. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 12 Investigations & Reports 2. IT does not lead the county in technology advancements, nor does IT coordinate the needs of each department into a county- wide, prioritized, technology program. 3. The IT Steering Committee meets irregularly and provides no direction to the county’s decision makers ( ie: the BOS and CAO). 4. The lack of coordination between departments causes duplication of IT purchases. 5. Individual departments make expenditures without coordinating the main frame interface needs of their new systems resulting in major impacts to the county’s existing hardware, software, and IT personnel. 6. The County does not aggressively pursue the use of technology as an advancement in methodology of doing county business for the purpose of economy, speed, or efficiency. Recommendations 1. The County must work toward standardizing its software, hardware, and systems to insure all county employees can work together on the same systems efficiently. 2. The BOS, CAO and the IT Director must take the lead on the IT Steering Committee with participation by other key department heads. 3. The BOS, CAO and Director of IT must create a multi- year strategic technology funding plan. 4. The IT Steering Committee must be assigned the responsibility for integrating, prioritizing, and approving county technology projects, purchases, and funding. 5. The IT Steering Committee must revise and update controls on purchasing of technologies, so that redundant systems are not purchased or adversely affect IT infrastructure. 6. The County must aggressively pursue technological advancements with the objectives of reduction in cost and improvement in efficiency. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 13 Investigations & Reports Materials Recovery Facility Reason For The Report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the operation of the El Dorado County Materials Recovery Facility ( MRF) in Diamond Springs. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Complainant • Director, County Environmental Management Department and staff members • MRF staff Documents reviewed • County Environmental Management Department documents • El Dorado County Agreement with Waste Management, Inc. • New proposed County waste disposal Agreement • Notice of Default from the County to MRF franchise • Photographs and video of facility activities • The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ( AB939) Sites visited • MRF, several occasions • Board of Supervisors meetings Background In December 1996, the Union Mine Disposal site was closed to the public. Western El Dorado Recovery Systems, Inc. opened a materials recovery facility in Diamond Springs. The County contracted with Western El Dorado Recovery Systems, Inc., to help facilitate compliance with California law AB939 which mandates a 25% diversion from landfills by 1995 and 50% by 2000, or face a $ 10,000 per day fine. In the late 1990’ s Waste Management, Inc. assumed responsibility for both El Dorado Disposal, Inc., and Western El Dorado Recovery System, Inc. The MRF in Diamond Springs is considered a “ dirty materials recovery facility” because its operations separates the non- recyclable material from the recyclables. Recycled materials are sent to a “ clean materials recovery facility” in California where paper, cardboard, metal, glass and plastic are further separated. In early 1997 the County began the transition into a permanent “ exporting county” by taking all waste that could not be recycled to landfills outside of the county. The Grand Jury toured the MRF on several occasions observing the following: waste drop area, recycling area, separating area, green waste area, carcass bin, thrift shop, and camera monitoring room. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 14 Investigations & Reports Facts 1. Waste Management, Inc., is currently operating under the original El Dorado Disposal Company Agreement. 2. The State mandated recycling requirements of AB939, have not been met by the county since 1995. 3. The County received a “ good faith” extension ( July 2000 to July 2004) from California’s 50% recycling requirement of AB939. Another extension request is being considered. 4. On 7/ 17/ 02, the County issued a Notice of Default to Waste Management, Inc., for failure to operate the transfer station/ recycling facility in accordance with the contract. 5. The County will incur a $ 10,000 a day fine, if they do not meet the 50% recycling requirements. 6. The County is no longer making regular on- site inspections of MRF to assure compliance with AB939. 7. The state requires that non- recycled materials be hauled away within 24 hours. 8. There is a manual sorting of waste conducted at the MRF to help meet the recycling requirement. 9. A camera system has been installed to monitor operational activities at MRF. 10. There is a non- refrigerated bin provided for animal carcasses. 11. There is only one register at the MRF for non- commercial refuse drop off payment. Findings 1. By not enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements the County faces a $ 10,000 a day fine. 2. Instead of enforcing the State mandated recycling requirements, of 50%, the County continues requesting extensions. Currently the recycling is approximately half of the mandated requirement. 3. The County has proposed a new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc. 4. Non- recycled materials are not hauled away within 24 hours as required by state law. 5. The County is no longer making on- site inspections of the MRF operations on a regular basis. 6. The camera system, monitored at the Environmental Management Department, does not provide adequate monitoring of the recycling activities. 7. The animal carcass bin is not always properly closed. 8. The MRF does not have the State required animal carcass freezer. 9. County residents can incur long wait times to drop off their refuse. Recommendations 1. The County must enforce the state- recycling requirement of 50%. 2. The County must expedite the new Agreement with Waste Management, Inc., or contract with a company that will meet state AB939 mandates. 3. The County must enforce California State Regulations requiring all non- recycled material be removed within 24 hours, including weekends. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 15 Investigations & Reports 4. The County must not rely exclusively on camera monitoring of the MRF activities, and must re- instate on- site inspections to ensure AB939 compliance. 5. The County must enforce compliance with state law regarding a freezer for animal carcasses. 6. The County must direct Waste Management, Inc., to improve non- commercial customer service at the MRF. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 16 Investigations & Reports Ranch Marketing Ordinance Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizens’ complaint concerning the El Dorado County Ranch Marketing Ordinance 17.14.190. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • The complainant • Current and former Agricultural Commissioner • Assistant Agricultural Commissioner • Planning Department staff • Agriculture Department staff Documents reviewed • The citizen's complaint • The El Dorado County Ranch Marketing Ordinance • Correspondence to and from the County and complainant • Planning Department documents • El Dorado County Crop Report 2002 Background The following is the stated purpose of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance: “ The purpose of this section is to provide for the development of ranch marketing activities to encourage the economic development of the agricultural and tourism industries while regulating such uses to protect the public health, safety and welfare and the enjoyment of property by adjacent land owners…” The complaint alleges, confusion within the County Government on the interpretation and enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance. There is no uniform interpretation of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance. This confusion is compounded by the transfer of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance enforcement between the Planning and Agriculture Departments. Facts 1. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance was originally written in 1988 and last revised in 2003. 2. The Agriculture Department took over sole code enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance in 2003. Previously code enforcement was done by both the Planning and Agriculture Departments. 3. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance does not define specific crops but does have acreage requirements. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 17 Investigations & Reports 4. The Ordinance does not state a minimum crop density. 5. The Agriculture Department, in September 2003, gave approval of compliance with the Ranch Marketing Ordinance to the complainant on acceptable crops and acreage requirements. 6. The Agriculture Commissioner, in October 2003, rescinded the Department’s approval based on his opinion that Christmas trees were not a crop as it pertains to the Ranch Marketing Ordinance. Findings 1. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those attempting to comply with its requirements. 2. The Ranch Marketing Ordinance is open to interpretation and is confusing to those who are attempting to explain and enforce its requirements. 3. There is inconsistency in the methodology of measuring acreage ( manual versus global positioning satellite also known as GPS), resulting in possible disqualification. 4. The County generally does not enforce the Ranch Marketing Ordinance unless a complaint is received, resulting in a lack of standardized enforcement. 5. Confusion between Agriculture and Planning Departments delays an applicant’s qualification or rejection for Ranch Marketing. Recommendations 1. The Agricultural Commissioner and the Director of the Planning Department need to resolve the differences of interpreting the Ranch Marketing Ordinance until it is rewritten. 2. The Agricultural Department should lead the expeditious rewrite of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance to make it complete, clear and concise. 3. The Agricultural Department needs to become proactive rather than reactive regarding enforcement of the Ranch Marketing Ordinance. 4. A specific timeframe should be set by the County to approve or disapprove Ranch Marketing applications. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 18 Investigations & Reports Review Of County Government Reason for the Report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received numerous complaints regarding mismanagement of county employees that evolved into an investigation concerning the competence, practices and procedures of all levels of county government. Scope of the Investigation People interviewed • The Board of Supervisors • Chief Administrative Officer • Department Directors • Current and former county employees • Union local # 1 representative • An outside contractor and supplier • Information Services representative Documents reviewed • Prior Grand Jury reports • Numerous citizen and employee complaints • County policy and procedure manuals • The County/ Union Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) • Purchasing procedures and contracts • Policies and procedures of other counties Background The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury concluded in their investigation of County Government that: “ Grand Jury investigation of various departments of the El Dorado government indicates department heads ( directors) failed to properly direct operations or properly oversee operations within their departments.” Little, if any, progress has been made since that report. There were repeated allegations to the Grand Jury of incompetence and lack of leadership. It is not clear if the problems were a result of: policy- setting, hiring procedures, misdirected promotions, improper delegation of responsibility, lack of training, or a combination of all of the above. In any case, the issue demands immediate correction. Facts 1. There is excessive turnover in department directors. 2. There are numerous incidents of general and specific employee abuses, such as: arriving late and leaving early, long lunch hours, incidents of favoritism, wasted assets and wasted time. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 19 Investigations & Reports 3. Management has failed to document policy/ procedure violations. 4. Management has failed to discipline documented violations. 5. Management has used flex hours as a reward and punishment tool. 6. There has been improper personal use of county computers, telephones, and vehicles. 7. There is general unrest and uncertainty among county employees and management due to numerous abuses of authority, intimidation, lack of procedures, and duplication of effort through lack of technology. 8. There is a lack of communication and cooperation between managers of various departments and the Human Resources Department. 9. Human Resources has lost its ability to function effectively. 10. Standards of employee performance and behavior are “ loose”, nonexistent, or are not enforced. 11. The number of abuses overwhelmingly indicates a lack of leadership and ability to manage. 12. Business operations of El Dorado County are very poorly run, and all problems and lack of management in the county are a direct result of poor leadership from the top down. 13. The county has not taken full advantage of available technology to integrate, streamline and modernize its operation. ( see IT report) 14. The county negotiated away employee performance evaluations during county/ union contract negotiations. 15. There is lack of training. 16. The county compensation package is inadequate. Findings 1. There are county employees, at all levels, who do not acknowledge that they are part of the county’s dysfunction. 2. County departments generally operate as separate entities with little regard or communications with other departments. 3. The office of the Chief Administrative Officer has not always had strong support from all department directors and the Board of Supervisors. 4. Department directors are not meeting regularly to discuss and resolve interdepartmental and county- wide issues. 5. The Human Resources Department does not have a strong labor relations commitment. 6. Without regular meaningful performance evaluations, the county lacks the ability to evaluate employees for promotion and discipline. Evaluations would also provide feed back to the employees. 7. Training is often neglected due to budget limitations. 8. The Human Resources Department leadership, along with other county department leaders, are not enforcing policies and procedures. This lack of leadership fosters violations and misconduct by county employees. 9. The County does not attract sufficient qualified applicants due to lack of positive working environment and competitive compensation policies. 10. Electronic technology is not being utilized to its fullest. 11. Workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism are not always held in high regard. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 20 Investigations & Reports Recommendations 1. For anything to change, there must first be a county- wide recognition and acknowledgement of the county dysfunction. Employees at all levels must critique themselves for improvement. 2. The Board of Supervisors and department directors must provide strong support for the Chief Administrative Officer in consolidating and streamlining county government. 3. The Chief Administrative Officer and department directors must meet monthly to set goals, make plans, review progress, and establish priorities. 4. The Board of Supervisors must direct the Chief Administrative Officer to establish a strong labor relations program. 5. Meaningful performance evaluations must be done regularly. Each department director must establish standards and goals that actually measure the effectiveness of their department with time frames to meet these requirements. 6. Provide training programs for newly hired, recently promoted, and present employees. Training must include department basics, leadership, and communications. 7. County- wide codes of behavior, conduct and dress must be developed by Human Resources with cooperation of the union officials. Empower the Human Resources Department to enforce these rules and provide these rules to employees. 8. Explore and develop a clear policy for employee promotion. 9. Review and upgrade compensation policies to allow the county to be competitive. 10. Major software companies should be consulted to review county operations and make recommendations for improvement. See IT report for additional recommendations. 11. The Board of Supervisors, department directors and employees, must support important workplace values, such as pride, respect, responsibility, and professionalism. Commendations El Dorado County currently supports numerous volunteer programs. The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS empanel a blue ribbon committee to investigate and determine additional areas to expand the volunteer programs. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 21 Investigations & Reports Trust Funds Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to review county trust fund accounts. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Auditor- Controller • Assistant Auditor- Controller • Chief Administrative Officer ( CAO) • Members of the Board of Supervisors ( BOS) Documents reviewed • BOS Agenda Transmittal Sheet dated 03/ 02/ 04 • Letter dated 2/ 11/ 04 from the Auditor- Controller to the BOS with attachment • Trust Fund Accounts Reconciliation Sheets for fiscal year ending 6/ 30/ 03 Background The Grand Jury attended the BOS meeting on 3/ 02/ 04 and received a copy of the Auditor- Controller’s letter dated 2/ 11/ 04, which listed all trust fund accounts and balances. A trust fund is a reserve account created to set aside money for a specific purpose prior to its expenditure and reported separately from general fund accounts. The Grand Jury was concerned about the number of open trust funds, the frequency of validation and reconciliation of the trust fund accounts, and the authorization procedures for establishing trust fund accounts by departments. Facts 1. Department heads are not required to reconcile trust fund accounts. As of 6/ 30/ 03, five departments had 15 unreconcilable trust fund accounts totaling $ 156,733. 2. As of 6/ 30/ 03, there existed 387 open trust fund accounts totaling $ 111,153,594. 3. There are 47 open trust fund accounts with a zero balance. 4. California and Federal grant trust accounts generally have expenditure closing dates. Not all County trust fund accounts have closing dates. 5. The County does not have written procedures for authorizing, reconciling and closing trust fund accounts. 6. The Auditor- Controller tracks receipts, expenditures, and balances for each individual trust fund account. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 22 Investigations & Reports Findings 1. Department heads are relied upon, but not required, to reconcile their department trust fund accounts. 2. Not all department trust fund accounts set up from county budget funds have a scheduled completion or expiration date. Encumbering funds for a long time can cause the loss of its intent and purpose of the trust fund. 3. As of 6/ 30/ 03, forty- seven trust fund accounts have a zero balance. 4. Lack of written procedures by the County for authorizing, reconciling, and closing trust fund accounts creates inconsistency and confusion. Recommendations 1. Maintenance and reconciliation of each trust fund account must be reviewed by each department and justified to the CAO on an annual basis. 2. County must establish definitive schedules for the expenditure of funds in trust accounts. 3. County must review the need for trust fund accounts that have zero balance and close those whose need cannot be justified as to remaining open. 4. Unjustified or unused balances must be transferred ( escheated) to the general fund. 5. County must write procedures to include requirements for the, authorization, reconciliation, and closure of trust fund accounts. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, coordinating with the above mentioned agencies, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 23 Investigations & Reports Videotaping at County Jails Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint concerning the lack of videotaping of prisoners at the County Jail, Placerville. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Sheriff, County of El Dorado • Commander, County Jail, Placerville • Commander, County Jail, South Lake Tahoe Documents reviewed • Citizen’s complaint • Sheriff’s Policy and Procedure manual Sites visited • County Jail, Placerville. • County Jail, South Lake Tahoe. Background The complainant alleges that the county failed to videotape the booking process at the County Jail, Placerville per standard procedure. Videotaping of the booking area is done 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This taping is for the protection of both the inmates being booked and the booking personnel. Facts 1. A videotape machine in the booking area of the county jail in Placerville malfunctioned for an unknown period of time. 2. Sheriff’s Department personnel were unaware of the malfunctioning videotape machine. Findings 1. Policy and procedures in place at the time at the county jails did not require regular review of videotape for possible machine malfunction. Recommendation Policy and procedures be revised to require the videotapes and the taping machines be inspected at regular intervals to insure proper functioning. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 24 Investigations & Reports The El Dorado County Sheriff, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 25 Investigations & Reports South Lake Tahoe STPUD/ MTBE Lawsuit Fees Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a South Lake Tahoe citizen complaint concerning the alleged excessive legal fees in the Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ( MTBE) case filed by the South Tahoe Public Utility District ( STPUD). Scope of the investigation People Interviewed • STPUD representatives Documents reviewed • Citizens complaint • STPUD board meeting minutes • Law firm billing statements Background STPUD sued the gasoline providers ( oil companies) for providing gasoline that contained a hazardous chemical. The gasoline containing the chemical leaked from numerous gas station underground storage tanks into the ground water supply. The Grand Jury did not look into the merits of the lawsuit nor the impact on the ground water supply. Facts 1. Gasoline containing the hazardous chemical leaked from numerous underground gas station storage tanks and contaminated the South Lake Tahoe ground water supply. 2. Cleanup costs of $ 42 million were determined by hazardous waste experts and approved by the court. 3. Legal fees of $ 27 million were approved by the court. Findings 1. STPUD has not clearly communicated the proper allocation and distribution of the settlement. 2. The oil companies paid for $ 42 million to cover cost of the cleanup at no cost to the STPUD rate payers. 3. Legal fees paid by the oil companies were not included in the clean- up cost. 4. Legal fees and clean- up costs were approved by the court. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 26 Investigations & Reports Recommendations 1. Future STPUD communications on this matter should be clear about the proper allocation and distribution of the court awarded funds for cleanup and attorney fees. The South Tahoe Public Utility District Board of Directors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 27 Investigations & Reports Tahoe Basin Cable TV Service Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint that local cable TV was not providing California station TV news to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin. Scope of the investigation People interviewed • Local cable TV representative • Local government officials Documents reviewed • Complaint • Local cable TV contract with El Dorado County • Applicable ordinances and statutes Background Complainant stated that customers of the local cable TV in the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin were not receiving California station TV news. The only news sources were from the Reno, Nevada stations. Facts 1. The El Dorado County contract did not specify that local California station TV news service be provided to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin. 2. California station news was not being broadcast on the local cable TV in the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin. 3. The local cable TV franchise contract was purchased by the current cable TV provider. 4. The Grand Jury investigation prompted the current cable company to look into the matter. Findings 1. The Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was not receiving California station local cable TV news. 2. California station TV news to the Meyers area of the Tahoe Basin was interrupted by the business failure of a microwave relay company. 3. Local California station TV news broadcasting resumed after the current cable company installed a new cable which replaced the microwave relay. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 28 Investigations & Reports Recommendation 1. The County contract with cable TV signal providers should contain requirements for uniform basic services to all the communities it serves. The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 29 Investigations & Reports South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Reason for the report The 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury chose to investigate the of South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency ( STRDA), specifically the announced $ 7,000,000 deficit in funding of the Park Avenue Project. Scope of investigation People interviewed • See attached investigation report, page 1, ” Investigation Methodology”. Documents reviewed • See attached investigation report, page 13, “ Materials Reviewed”. Background In mid- 2003, the Grand Jury received information from a concerned citizen that millions of dollars from the City of South Lake Tahoe general fund had been used to cover deficits incurred by the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency. It was alleged that this money had been used without the specific approval of the City Council, and that no repayment plan had been established as required by an agreement between the two entities. Reports in the local press during the same time period also indicated that general fund money had been used to cover Agency deficits but city staff were not certain of the exact amount of money involved. The Grand Jury contracted a professional investigator to accomplish the investigation, due to its complex nature and scope. The professional investigator’s report summary is attached. A complete report, with addendum, is available at all El Dorado County Libraries. Facts The attached investigative report enumerates several facts, and the Grand Jury concurs with them as stated in the report. Findings 1. There was poor oversight of the activities and inadequate financial management of the Park Avenue project. This was due to the same people serving on the city council and on the STRDA. Also there was high turnover of these elected official and their supporting city staff. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 30 Investigations & Reports 2. The financial reporting system in use in the City of South Lake Tahoe during the years in question ( 1999- 2002) was difficult to understand. There was a lack of notification and/ or control in certain situations when overspending occurred. The City Council did not receive cogent, on- going spending updates as each year progressed. 3. The financial documents that the City Council received were difficult to understand and were not presented on a regular basis. These non- user friendly financial documents contributed to a lack of financial control over the project by the city council. 4. The same auditor was used by the city for several years. 5. The STRDA audit report dated 9/ 30/ 01 clearly identified a large deficit in the their fund. Nevertheless, no action was taken by staff or elected officials to memorialize the deficit in a loan agreement as required by the Cooperation Agreement. Recommendations 1. Future STRDA Boards must be independent of the City Council, with no more then one member of the City Council on the board. However the STRDA board must be accountable and report to the City Council 2. The STRDA must be vigilant in monitoring actual expenditures against budgeted amounts as the fiscal year progresses. STRDA must take prompt and decisive action when negative variances are identified. STRDA shall continue to provide the monthly budget update information to the City Council. 3. The City of South Lake Tahoe must strictly adhere to the financial controls implemented by the City Manager and City Council as outlined in the 11/ 16/ 03 staff report. 4. The City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA must change independent outside financial auditors on a regular basis to help ensure unbiased reviews of the city’s and STRDA’s financial conditions. 5. When STRDA identifies deficit conditions, the circumstances need to be promptly documented in a manner consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and STRDA. The South Lake Tahoe City Council/ STRDA Board of Directors, is required by Penal Code 933 and 933.05 to respond to all Findings and Recommendations contained within this report. Note: Respondent does not need to respond to the attached report. See page vi for the proper method for responding to Findings and Recommendations. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 31 Investigations & Reports Investigative Report Financial Transactions Between The City of the South Lake Tahoe And the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Background In mid- 2003, the Grand Jury received information from a concerned citizen that millions of dollars from the City of South Lake Tahoe general fund had been used to cover deficits incurred by the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency. It was alleged that this money had been used without the specific approval of the City Council and that no repayment plan had been established as required by an agreement between the two entities. Reports in the local press during the same time period also indicated that general fund money had been used to cover Agency deficits but city staff were not certain of the exact amount of money involved. Scope of the Investigation The Grand Jury requested that the Investigator look into the following issues: • Money from the City’s general fund was being used to fund redevelopment projects without proper documentation or approval; • No conditions for repayment of such funds had been established as required by a written agreement between the City and the Redevelopment Agency; and, • The Redevelopment Agency board was not exercising proper oversight over expenditures. Investigative Methodology Key people from the City of South Lake Tahoe government structure were interviewed either by the Investigator, Grand Jury members or both: A representative from the CPA firm that conducted the annual audits of the City and Redevelopment Agency’s financial status was also interviewed. The interviewees included: 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 32 Investigations & Reports Bruce Budman, Director of Finance for the City of South Lake Tahoe Hal Cole, South Lake Tahoe City Council member Bill Crawford, former South Lake Tahoe City Council member Tom Davis, South Lake Tahoe City Council member and current Mayor Don Fraser, financial consultant to the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency David Jinkens, City Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe Brett Miller, partner in the CPA firm of Moss, Levy, and Hartzheim Gene Palazzo, Redevelopment Manager, South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency The Investigator also reviewed numerous reports and other written materials and listened to audio recordings of selected presentations at three City Council/ Redevelopment Board meetings. Copies of the most significant written materials have been included in the Addenda section of this report. A more complete listing of the written materials reviewed is contained in the “ Written Materials Reviewed” section on page 13 of this report. City and Redevelopment Agency Organizational Structure The City of South Lake Tahoe is governed by 5 elected council members who serve four- year terms. Each year, the Council selects one member to serve as Mayor. The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Redevelopment Agency. The member serving as Mayor serves as Chairperson of the Agency board. Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors are generally held twice a month and are open to the public. Minutes are taken and the meetings are tape- recorded. Copies of both are available though the City Clerk’s office. Oversight of the day- to- day operations of the City is the responsibility of the City Manager who is appointed by the City Council. The City Manager also serves as the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency employs staff to carry out its day- to- day functions. The number and titles of these staff members have changed slightly over the years based on the status of the project at the time. The salaries and other costs for these employees are supposed to come from redevelopment funds. However, the deficit condition of redevelopment finances has resulted in employee costs being paid from the general fund. The agency also employs a number of consultants who have expertise in various fields. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 33 Investigations & Reports Employees from other city departments also perform tasks for the Redevelopment Agency as part of their jobs. The Redevelopment Agency is supposed to reimburse the City for the time and other expenses incurred by these city employees while they are doing redevelopment work. Reimbursement costs have fluctuated each year based on the current status of redevelopment projects. Because of the current deficit situation, the City’s general fund has not been reimbursed for all employee costs. The City’s fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. Authority for City to Fund Redevelopment Agency Expenditures On December 15, 1981, the City of South Lake Tahoe ( hereafter known as “ City”) and the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency ( hereafter known as “ Agency”) signed a “ Cooperation Agreement.” This agreement describes duties and obligations each entity might incur toward the other. Pertinent sections of the agreement have been paraphrased below. The entire document can be found at Addendum 1 of this report. 1. City agrees to provide for the Agency such staff assistance, supplies, technical services and other services and facilities of the City as the Agency may require in carrying out its functions. 2. The City may, but is not required to, advance necessary funds to the Agency or to expend funds on behalf of the Agency for the preparation and implementation of a redevelopment plan. 3. The City will keep records of activities and services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, and the costs thereof, in order that an accurate record of the Agency’s liability to the City can be ascertained. The City shall periodically, but not less than annually, submit to the Agency a statement of the costs incurred by the City in rendering activities and services of the City to the Agency pursuant to this Agreement 4. The Agency agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by City pursuant to this Agreement; however, Agency shall have the sole and exclusive right to pledge any such funds to the repayment of other indebtedness incurred by the Agency. The costs of the City under this agreement will be shown on statements submitted to the Agency pursuant to Section 3 above. Although the parties recognize that repayment may not occur for a few years and that repayment may also occur over a period of time, it is the 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 34 Investigations & Reports express intent of the parties that the City shall be entitled to repayment of the expenses incurred under this agreement, consistent with the Agency’s financial ability, in order to make the City whole as soon as practically possible. 5. ( Intentionally omitted.) 6. The obligations of the Agency under this Agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency to be repaid to the City by the Agency with interest at ten per cent ( 10%) per annum. The Redevelopment Project The project area encompasses 174 acres in the northeast portion of the city, generally running along Highway 50 from Ski Run Boulevard to the California- Nevada border. The current phase, referred to as the Park Avenue Project, is nearing completion. Some of the highlights of this phase have included building a gondola to the ski slopes, a retail center, time share resorts, expansion of existing shopping, a parking structure, a transit center and public improvements. Primary financing for the project has been through the sale of Bond Anticipation Notes ( BANS), with other fees also contributing to the total financing. Project cost, including interest on the BANS, amounts to approximately $ 57 million. This project has an extremely complex financing plan unprecedented for a city the size of South Lake Tahoe. The Deficit and Its Causes David Jinkens stated that after he became city manager in August 2002, there was a general awareness among staff and the City Council that the Redevelopment Agency owed debt to the general fund. Much of it had to do with unanticipated adverse court decisions and other overruns. After Bruce Budman became the Director of Finance in March 2003, he noted that the city’s balance sheets showed negative cash balances in the Redevelopment Agency. Money from the general fund was being used to offset the negative amounts but it wasn’t clear how much the deficit amounted to or how it was to be repaid. Budman brought this to Jinkens’ attention. Jinkens advised the City Council of the situation and, with the Council’s approval, formed a committee to determine the extent of the deficit and how it occurred. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 35 Investigations & Reports The committee consisted of Bruce Budman, the Director of Finance; Gene Palazzo, the newly appointed Redevelopment Manager; Brad Vidro, the Director of Public Works; and Don Fraser and Mark Northcross, long- time financial consultants to the Redevelopment Agency. Due to the complexity of the issues involved, the type of accounting system that had been in place during previous fiscal years, and the fact that most key staff members involved in the project had left city employment, it took the committee six months to reach conclusions. On November 7, 2003, Don Fraser authored a report that estimated the amount of the current deficit at $ 7 million and explained how it had come about. A summary of his findings is listed below. Fraser’s complete report can be found at Addendum 2. Staff also completed a report dated November 10, 2003, on these issues entitled “ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.” It can be found at Addendum 3. Fraser voluntarily testified before the Grand Jury on February 26, 2004 to explain his findings and answer questions. The Grand Jury found him to be a credible witness with expertise in the area of redevelopment financing. In presenting his findings, Fraser split the financial analysis into two sections, Debt Service/ Redevelopment Funds and the Capital Project Fund. The Debt Service Fund and the Redevelopment Fund are two different funds in the City’s accounting records. The Debt Service Fund receives all major revenues ( specifically tax increment and TOT revenues) and makes debt service payments on the Agency’s outstanding bond issues. The Redevelopment Fund is used to pay for Agency administrative costs. The committee combined these two funds because revenues received in the Debt Service Fund are also used to fund the administrative costs of the Agency. The Capital Project Fund has been used to receive other revenue sources and to pay the expenditures for the Park Avenue project. Based on his investigation, Fraser concluded that the deficit in the Debt Service/ Redevelopment Fund category amounted to $ 3.2 million and the deficit in the Capital Projects Fund amounted to $ 3.8 million These deficits occurred when expenses either exceeded anticipated costs or when there was a shortfall in anticipated revenue or funding. The following amounts are the major costs that resulted in a deficit condition occurring ( the 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 36 Investigations & Reports overall totals in the previous paragraph also include a few smaller cost items that are not listed below): Debt Service and Redevelopment Funds Late start at Park Avenue $ 500,000 The project started one year later than anticipated. It was estimated that this reduced revenues by approximately $ 1 million. This amount was offset by the developer paying the Agency a penalty of $ 500,000. Embassy Suites Hotel Reduction and Refund $ 371,000 In the 2001/ 2002 tax year, the County reduced the value of the hotel by $ 17 million. This resulted in a loss of tax increment revenue in the amount of $ 260,000. The County also refunded some of the hotel’s tax payments for prior years which resulted in $ 110,000 being deducted from the Agency’s 2002/ 03 tax increment revenue payment. BANS Proceeds Intended for Administration $ 1,200,000 At the time the BANS were sold to finance the project, $ 1.2 million of BANS proceeds were allocated for administrative costs. However, due to cost overruns, the transfer of the $ 1.2 million did not occur. Overhead $ 1,184,000 During 1999/ 2000, the City completed a cost allocation plan which allocates the overhead costs of the City to the various operating departments, including the Redevelopment Agency. This was not anticipated at the time the financial projections were done for the BANS and has added approximately $ 1.2 million to the deficit. Capital Projects Fund Transit Center – property acquisition $ 1,800,000 The Agency had anticipated receiving $ 4.7 million in Proposition 118 funds for this purchase; however, they were only granted $ 2.9 million. Legal costs – related to property acquisition $ 1,100,000 Road construction cost overruns $ 476,000 Relocation cost overruns $ 333,000 It should be noted that it is not unusual for Redevelopment Agencies to engage in deficit spending while projects are being built because costs often outpace revenue during that time frame. It would appear that such a situation was anticipated here because Section 4 of the Cooperation Agreement states “ . . . the parties recognize that repayment ( of all costs incurred by City) may not occur for a few years and that repayment may also occur over a period of time.” 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 37 Investigations & Reports While that may be true, the issue is not whether deficit spending is appropriate but whether the expenditures that resulted in a deficit occurring were subjected to a proper review and approval process. City Expenditure Process Each fiscal year, the City enacts a budget that delineates how much money can be spent for certain specified purposes. The budget is adjusted throughout the year to react to changing conditions. Depending on the dollar amount involved, adjustments may be made by the City Manager acting alone or by the City Council by majority vote. As with most government agencies, the City keeps its cash in one account, i. e., “ the pot”. As expenditures are made, they are paid for with checks written on the account. When expenditures for one category exceed the budgeted maximum, money from somewhere else in “ the pot” is used to pay the overage. If there isn’t sufficient money in an active fund category to pay the expenses, then money from a reserve account may be used. Pre-approval by the appropriate oversight level should be obtained before funds from a different account are used. Based on interviews, it appears that, during the fiscal years in question ( 1999 through 2002), on some occasions, sufficient controls may not have been in place to alert staff when the amount of a particular expenditure exceeded the allowable maximum. In other instances, staff may have been alerted but did not seek spending approval. At the same time, it is apparent that in many cases, particularly those involving litigation, staff did seek and receive approval to spend money over and above the amount budgeted. In any event, the system allowed overages in redevelopment spending to be automatically covered by the movement of money from other parts of “ the pot,” sometimes without timely review by the City Council. The consensus of staff and elected officials interviewed was that there was an awareness the Redevelopment Agency was involved in deficit spending but there was no idea it was in the $ 7 million range. Some thought it was closer to $ 2 million and that approval had been given for that amount of money to be taken from the reserves. While the elected officials were surprised by the size of the deficit when it was finally identified, they added that if they had been asked, they would have approved the expenditures that accounted for the deficit because they were necessary to complete the project and the City had to live up to its contractual obligations. It was also mentioned that the amount of the project overrun, compared to the total cost of the project, was well within industry standards. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 38 Investigations & Reports The Annual Financial Audit by the Independent Outside Auditor Section 33080.1 of the California Health and Safety Code requires every Redevelopment Agency to undergo an independent financial audit each fiscal year. The section requires the audit to be conducted by a certified public accountant, licensed by the state, in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards adopted by the Comptroller General of the United States. For fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01, and 01/ 02 the City contracted with the CPA firm of Moss, Levy, and Hartzheim to conduct the annual independent review of the financial condition of the City’s general fund and the Redevelopment Agency. Brett Miller was the firm member who oversaw the audits. The City has contracted with the firm of Maze and Associates to perform the audits for FY 03/ 04. At the time this report was being prepared, their audit report had not been completed. Because of the voluminous nature of the audit reports, only those portions pertinent to this investigation have been included in the Addenda section of this report. The audit reports for the General Fund are included as Addendum 4, 5 and 6. The audit reports for the Redevelopment Agency are included as Addendum 7, 8 and 9. Typically, the audit reports were completed about six months after the end of the fiscal year and given to city staff. A member of the audit firm also made a presentation on the audit findings to the City Council at a public meeting and answered questions the Council, staff or the public might have. Findings of the Independent Outside Financial Auditor The Investigator reviewed the completed audit reports listed above and noted the following information concerning deficits in Redevelopment Department finances: Redevelopment Agency Audit Report dated September 30, 2001 ( Addendum 8) Page 4A lists two negative variances in the Capital Projects Fund. Both are indicative of a deficit situation. They include a $ 1,370,382 negative variance in the Unreserved, Undesignated Reserve Fund and a negative variance of $ 1,366,955 in Total Fund Equity and Other Credits. On page 11, Note 2 of the “ Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability” section contains the following statement: “ A deficit fund balance of $ 1,366,955 exists in the Capital Projects Fund. The deficit is due to the Agency incurring costs in advance of revenues”. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 39 Investigations & Reports Page 5 indicates an unfavorable budget- to- actual revenue and expenditure variance of $ 1,334,658. Audit Report of the Redevelopment Agency dated September 30, 2002 ( Addendum 9) Page 2 lists two negative variances in the Capital Projects Fund. Both are indicative of a deficit situation. They include a negative variance of $ 9,365,004 in the Unreserved, Undesignated Reserve Fund and a negative variance of $ 3,640,776 in Total Fund Equity and Other Credits. On page 14, Note 2 of the “ Stewardship, Compliance and Accountability” section contains the following statement: “ A deficit fund balance of $ 3,640,776 exists in the Capital Projects Fund. The deficit is due to the Agency incurring costs in advance of revenues”. General Purpose Financial Statement for the City dated September 30, 2001 ( Addendum 5) Note 15 on page 30 indicates that at the end of the fiscal year, the Redevelopment Debt Service Fund had an “ Interfund Payable” balance due to the general fund of $ 2,926,433. In other words, it owed that amount to the general fund. The audit report describes interfund balances as ones that arise during the normal course of business and are expected to be repaid shortly after the end of the fiscal year. The Investigator interviewed the lead auditor, Mr. Miller, and asked him to further define the time period contemplated in the phrase “ will be repaid shortly after the end of the fiscal year.” Miller stated that was meant to include any balance expected to be repaid before the end of the next fiscal year and that definition was the industry standard. In actuality, this debt not only was not repaid during the next fiscal year, it continued at a substantial amount as documented in the next paragraph. General Purpose Financial Statement for the City dated September 30, 2002 ( Addendum 6) 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 40 Investigations & Reports Note 15 on page 38 indicates that by the end of this fiscal year, the Redevelopment Debt Service Fund and the Redevelopment Capital Projects Fund had “ Interfund Payable” balances due to the General Fund of $ 2,445,124 and $ 2,149,169 respectively. The inclusion of these debts as Interfund Payables mischaracterized their true nature because they were not short term in nature and helped to obscure the extent of the Redevelopment Agency’s deficit spending. Page 2 indicates that the General Fund was owed $ 5,742,443 from “ other funds.” Approximately $ 4 million of this amount was due from the Redevelopment Agency. Brett Miller made a verbal presentation to the City Council regarding this audit on June 17, 2003. The Investigator listened to the audiotape recording of that presentation. During that presentation, there was discussion between Miller and City Council members regarding the negative cash flow in the Redevelopment Agency. Miller stated that in the past, these “ loans” appeared to be short- term in nature to be paid back within a year. However, since they continue to be on- going, Miller suggested that an actual loan agreement be setup between the City and the Redevelopment Agency to repay the debt. Conclusions From all accounts, the financial reporting system in use in the City of South Lake Tahoe during the years in question ( 1999- 2002) was difficult to understand. It also appears there may have been a lack of notification and/ or control in certain situations when overspending was occurring. The City Council was not receiving cogent, on- going spending updates as each year progressed. The audit reports completed by the independent outside auditor are difficult to understand for people who do not have financial expertise. However, the Redevelopment Agency audit report dated September 30, 2001 clearly identifies a large deficit in the Agency’s Capital Projects Fund and indicates substantial negative variances in the Unreserved, Undesignated Reserve Fund and the Total Fund Equity and Other Credits section. The report presents the deficit in the Capital Projects Fund both as a numerical figure in a box and in verbiage that clearly identifies the amount as a deficit and the reason for its existence. Nevertheless, it does not appear that action was taken by staff or elected officials to memorialize the deficit in a loan agreement as required by the Cooperation Agreement. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 41 Investigations & Reports Repayment Plan On March 16, 2004, the City Council heard and approved a plan to repay the $ 7 million deficit to the general fund. The staff report outlining the proposed repayment plan and a copy of an unexecuted copy of the “ Loan and Repayment” agreement are included with this report as Addendum 10. The highlights of the repayment plan include: • The Redevelopment Agency will reimburse the City for all administrative and program costs incurred by the City prior to and after the execution of this agreement in furtherance of the redevelopment programs in the Project Area. Presently, these costs include administrative and program costs of $ 3,178,000 and public improvement costs of $ 3,829,000; • A formal loan agreement will be executed and interest will be charged at the applicable LAIF rate. • It may be possible for up to $ 2 million to be returned to the general fund over the next 3 years through the retirement of $ 9.4 million of the BANS that come due in October 2004. This return of this money probably will not begin until 2005. • The balance of the deficit will need to be repaid from the future growth in revenues. ( Note: Discussion during the Council meeting indicated that in several years, the completed project should generate approximately $ 1 million in excess revenue each year that will go back to the general fund.) Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrences After David Jinkens became City Manager and Bruce Budman became Director of Finance, the format of the budget documents were reconfigured to make them more user-friendly. The Council is also being given monthly reports comparing actual expenditures against budgeted amounts in all major fund categories. Examples of these reports can be found in Addendum 11. Jinkens also reorganized the Finance Department, upgraded the top level finance position from Manager to Director and had the Department report to him directly. In a staff report to the City Council dated November 16, 2003, City Manager David Jinkens advised the Council of new controls he had implemented to ensure better 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 42 Investigations & Reports accountability and greater review of financial transactions. The complete report can be found at Addenda 12. Highlights included the following: • Reserves designated by the City Council for special purposes, as part of the adopted Municipal Budget, shall not be drawn down for uses other than those specified by the Council, without the consent of the Council. • Public projects ( capital, acquisition) expenditures and revenues budgeted in one fiscal year will be brought forward in a budget document for each fiscal year to ensure proper accounting of revenues and expenditures in a particular fiscal year. • Anticipated cost overruns of capital, acquisition and/ or public projects will be reported to the City Council as soon as practical. • Approval for budgeted expenditures for RDA projects being implemented by other City Departments shall require the approval of the originating department manager, the RDA manager, Finance Department and the City Manager. • Checks made payable for contracted work shall originate from the appropriate department, signed for approval by the project and department managers for payment, forwarded to the finance department for verification of funds in the approved budget, approved by the finance director and then approved by the city manager. • The City’s independent auditors shall highlight and report any substantive irregularities in the handling of City finances, fund balance issues or internal control issues to the Finance Director, City Manager and City Council, in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures. Recommendations Many of the problems associated with this deficit will be moot in the future because this phase of the project is almost complete and the current philosophy is that no public money will be spent for future phases of the project. Nevertheless, the following recommendations are being made: 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 43 Investigations & Reports 1. The City needs to be vigilant in monitoring actual expenditures against budgeted amounts as the fiscal year progresses and must take prompt and decisive action when negative variances are identified. To this end, the monthly budget update information being provided to the City Council should be continued. 2. The City needs to strictly adhere to the financial controls implemented by the City Manager and City Council as outlined in the November 16, 2003 staff report delineated in the preceding section. 3. The City should consider changing independent outside financial auditors on some regular, short- term basis to help ensure an unbiased review of the City’s financial condition. 4. When deficit conditions are identified in the Redevelopment Department, the circumstances need to be promptly documented in a manner consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the City and the Redevelopment Agency. Written Materials Reviewed The Investigator reviewed numerous reports and other written materials during the investigation. The most significant included the following: 1. Report from Donald Fraser to Bruce Budman and Gene Palazzo, dated November 7, 2003, regarding the financial status of Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 for the period 1999- 2000 through 2002- 2003. 2. Report from Staff to City Manager David Jinkens, dated November 10, 2003 entitled “ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.” 3. Report from City Manager David Jinkens to the City Council, dated November 16, 2003 entitled, “ City and Redevelopment Agency Financial Controls, Review and Action.” 4. The General Purpose Financial Statements for the City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01 and 01/ 02. 5. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Component Unit Financial Statements for fiscal years 99/ 00, 00/ 01 and .01/ 02. 6. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency consolidated “ Statements of Indebtedness” for tax years 2000/ 2001, 2001/ 2002 and 2002/ 2003. These reports are filed annually with El Dorado County. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 44 Investigations & Reports 7. The South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency “ Financial Transactions Reports” for FY 00/ 01, 01/ 02 and 02/ 03. These reports are filed annually with the State Controller’s office. 8. Memo from Redevelopment Manager Gene Palazzo to City Manager David Jinkens, dated March 8, 2004 entitled, “ Loan and repayment Agreement between South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and the City of South Lake Tahoe.” 9. Examples of reports regarding the on- going financial condition of the City of South Lake Tahoe now being provided to City Council members on a monthly basis. 10. City of South Lake Tahoe budgets for fiscal years 99/ 00 through 02/ 03 ( not included in the addenda due to their size). 11. All City Council and Redevelopment Agency meeting agendas and minutes from October 1999 to March 2004. 12. The Redevelopment Agency’s five year Implementation Plan for the period January 2000 to December 2004 ( not included in the addenda due to its size). 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 45 Investigations & Reports Addenda 1. Cooperation Agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency dated December 15, 1981. 2. Report from Donald Fraser to Bruce Budman and Gene Palazzo, dated November 7, 2003, regarding the financial status of Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 for the period 1999- 2000 through 2002- 2003. 3. Report from staff to City Manager David Jinkens, dated November 10, 2003 entitled “ Discussion of Redevelopment Cash Balances.” 4. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 99/ 00. 5. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 00/ 01. 6. Pertinent pages from the General Purpose Financial Statement for the City of South Lake Tahoe for fiscal year 01/ 02. 7. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 99/ 00. 8. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 00/ 01. 9. Pertinent pages from the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency Component Unit Financial Statement for fiscal year 01/ 02. 10. Memo from Redevelopment Manager Gene Palazzo to City Manager David Jinkens, dated March 8, 2004 entitled, “ Loan and repayment Agreement between South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and the City of South Lake Tahoe.” 11. Examples of the monthly budget update reports now being provided to City Council members by staff. 12. Report from City Manager David Jinkens to the City Council, dated November 16, 2003 entitled, “ City and Redevelopment Agency Financial Controls, Review and Action.” 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 46 Investigations & Reports 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 47 Investigations & Reports Citizen Complaint Form & Instructions El Dorado County Grand Jury PO Box 472 Placerville, Ca 95667 Citizen Complaint Form Person or agency complaint is about Name: Tel. # Address Nature of complaint ( Describe events in the order they occurred as concisely as possible. Attach any additional information) Complaint contacts ( List persons or agencies contacted prior to Grand Jury) Name: Telephone: Name: Telephone: Name: Telephone: Witnesses the grand jury may contact for further information Name: Telephone: Name: Telephone: Name: Telephone: Describe action you wish the grand jury to take and why Complainant Name: Telephone: Address: Drivers License No. The information presented on this form is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature: ____________________________ Date:_____________________________ The grand jury will acknowledge its receipt of this complaint. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 48 Citizen Complaint Form Instructions & Information For Filling Out and Filing a Grand Jury Citizen’s Complaint The Civil Grand Jury ( Jury) is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the enforcement of the law. It is an arm of the Court and a representative of the public. Although it is an arm of the Court, it operates independently of direct Court supervision. It is a check against governmental authority. It is not a branch of the County, nor is it answerable to the District Attorney. The Jury has oversight responsibility over local government, such as but not limited to: county government, city government, special districts, local school districts ( financial not curriculum). The Jury does not have jurisdiction over the Courts, other counties, federal or state governments or private citizens. Typically the Jury looks at systems and processes. The Jury has no enforcement authority, it can only make recommendations, through publication of a final report, usually published at the end of June each year ( See Penal Code 933 & 933.05). The Jury cannot normally resolve or solve emergency situations. Each complaint the Jury accepts for investigation must be investigated thoroughly, seeking out facts, and analyzing the facts prior to writing a report for publication. This is a time consuming process and usually takes many months to complete. You may view the Final Report at http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html. The typical process for the Civil Grand Jury a complaint is received, a preliminary investigation is conducted to find out if there is enough information, if the complaint is valid, if the Jury has jurisdiction, etc. and if warranted, a full investigation may be instituted. Upon completion of the full investigation, a report is generated and issued as part of the annual Grand Jury Final Report. Two Examples Unacceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you. The Jury has no jurisdiction to investigate your neighbor or to enforce barking dog laws. Acceptable Your neighbor has a barking dog that annoys you and you have contacted the appropriate agency, and they have failed to enforce county or city ordinances. You may file a complaint against the agency, and the Jury does have the jurisdiction to investigate. The Jury does not have the authority to order the agency to take an action or not to take an action, only to recommend a course of action and to make that recommendation public. Preparation Instructions For Filing A Complaint 1. This complaint is against: a. Include name of agency and/ or individual( s) the complaint is against. Ensure correct spelling. b. Give the name of the department involved and the supervisor, if known. 2. My complaint about the above: a. Be clear and concise. Do not use broad statements. 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 49 Citizen Complaint Form b. Attach copies ( no originals) of all available documentation, receipts, photos, letters and notes of conversations or observations that support the complaint. c. Number all attachments consecutively and on a separate page, describe each document using the corresponding number. d. Describe all past or pending legal actions, either civil or criminal, related to your complaint. 3. Describe the action you wish the Jury to take and why. a. Keep in mind the Jury’s jurisdiction. 4. List all other agencies, officials, attorneys or others you have contacted about this matter. a. Provide a complete list of all persons contacted. b. Include the address and/ or telephone number of each. c. Attach copies of any documents you shared with those contacted. d. Provide a summary of conversations with those you spoke to, including the date, their names and telephone numbers. e. Describe the results of these contacts. 5. About you: a. Include your name, address, and telephone numbers. Anonymous complaints may not be investigated. b. You should sign and date the complaint form. The Jury may not respond to unsigned complaints. Do not send originals! Copies will not be returned. Send this complaint along with copies of any documentation to: El Dorado County Grand Jury P. O. Box 472 Placerville CA 95667 Tel 530/ 621- 7477 Fax 530/ 295- 0763 http:// co. el- dorado. ca. us/ grandjury/ index. html Your Confidentiality Will Be Rigorously Protected 2003/ 2004 El Dorado County Grand Jury 50 Citizen Complaint Form |
| PDI.Date | 2004 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2004 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2003-2004. |
| OCLC number | 144544458 |
Tags
Add tags for El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
Comments
Post a Comment for El Dorado County Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...