📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Shasta County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

Administrative Office 1450 Court St., SillT B a

Published: July 11, 2014 21 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 4 findings

F2 Page 115
11zere is a lack of specific tl111eli11es fo1• the steps withht the corfe e11force111e11t process (Fig11re 1). As a result, the Co1111ty does 1101 co11d11ct timely follow-11p act/011 to move cases to co11cl11slo11. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding. The difficulty in conducting timely follow-up is a direct consequence of limited resources. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 11, 2014 Page2
F3 Page 116
The Co1111ty's permit track/ug system (Permits Plus) is i,ot provirling enough informat/011 to cleal'!y 111ulerstall(f the type and the 11111/tre of the violations occurrhtg within the County 01· wltlch open cases still 11eed re111ediatio11. · Response: TI1e County Executive Officer agrees with the finding.
F4 Page 116
The Board of Supervisors camtot provide effective oversight of the code e11force111e11t process because It does not receive written reports regarding code e11force111e11t activities a11d statistics. Respo11se: The County Executive Officer partially disagrees with the finding. There are other methods of receiving results from code enforcement activities. FS. The total cost ofc ode enforcement Is 1101 clearji·om the County Budget, Response: The County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding. Infonnation regarding cost associated with a depaiiment's activities is reaclily available.
F5 Page 122
Bus schedules and route maps were not available to the extent stated on the RABA website which inhibits casual ridership and ability ofriders to use the system. Response: The respondent agrees with this fmding

Recommendations 3