Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Highlights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves consent calendar; public raises concerns about Eldorado Hills CSD payments and DOT change orders
Summary
The board approved the consent calendar 5–0 with a recusal noted for one supervisor on item 11. Public commenters urged withholding funds to El Dorado Hills CSD pending forensic audit results and criticized a large lump-sum DOT change order; county staff responded to both concerns during the meeting.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 19 approved the consent calendar by a 5–0 vote; Supervisor Verkamp recused himself from item 11 as noted on the record.
Public comment on the consent calendar focused on a handful of items. Multiple speakers urged the board to withhold dispersal of impact-mitigation funds to the El Dorado Hills Community Services District (CSD) until a forensic audit and related documentation are complete. A resident who identified herself as Tara McCann, a construction engineer, urged transparency about the mitigation fee schedule and questioned disparities in the development impact fee amounts cited for El Dorado Hills versus Serrano.
County staff explained the legal authority: the Auditor-Controller may disburse funds only on board order. The Auditor-Controller confirmed it was appropriate for the board to order disbursement; county counsel and staff noted the mitigation fees at issue are restricted by the Mitigation Fee Act to recreation projects and must be spent on enumerated recreation purposes in El Dorado Hills.
Another speaker criticized retroactive, lump-sum change order No. 8 approved by the Department of Transportation on a local contract, arguing for force-account itemization rather than lump-sum change orders to increase transparency. A DOT representative with years of Caltrans experience responded that Caltrans prefers lump-sum or unit-price change orders in many cases, and that the contract change order at issue was negotiated on the basis of field records and justified by unanticipated rock that could not reasonably be anticipated at bid time.
Staff summarized consent modifications (Supervisor Verkamp’s recusal on item 11) and recommended approval with that change; the board approved the consent calendar 5–0.
