Tuolumne County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

Community Development Department

Published: October 14, 2009 3 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings 3 findings

F1
A previous Grand Jury finding was that building inspectors seemed to be interpreting building codes, not just enforcing them. This still seems to be a problem area. All inspectors, not just Tuolumne County inspectors, have areas they look at harder than others. This, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem is when the inspector asks for things not required by code. If the inspector is questioned on this, it appears future inspections become harder to pass.
F2
Computer security is not stressed as strongly as it should be. This is not a major problem at this time as the computer system is an “intranet” system, not an “internet” system. An intranet system is one not connected to the outside world. An internet system is one such as is used by most people to look up movies, check e-mail, and do other on-line transactions.
F3
The internal CDD Quarterly Performance Report is based only on the first review of a permit application, not subsequent reviews. For example, a permit application is made on January 1. Depending on the type of work, the first review must be completed not later than January 15. Any recommended changes, additions, etc., must go back to the applicant. The next review must be done within a different time period. This delay does not go into the Quarterly Report.

Recommendations 3