📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Placer County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Placer County Grand Jury 2015-2016 Final Report City of Rocklin

Published: June 23, 2016 17 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19

Findings 14 findings

F1 Page 149
It is not readily apparent to the general public that the Newcastle Fire Protection District Budget accounting code 8105 Special Tax is combination revenue from both Measure F and Measure B. Therefore, it is not clear to the public that Measure F funds are being spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits.
F2 Page 149
Revenue generated from Measure F assessments is less than annual employee salaries and benefits. According to the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of Newcastle Fire Protection District revenues and expenses, firefighter wages have consistently been greater than the revenue generated by Measure F. Therefore, the Grand Jury has determined that revenues from Measure F were spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits. - 145 - -2016 Final Report
F3 Page 150
Accounting code 8105 Special Tax revenues for Measure F and B for Fiscal Years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 virtually mirrors the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of the same accounting periods.
F4 Page 150
There is no internal review of the Measure F or Measure B assessments for accuracy.
F5 Page 150
The Newcastle Fire Protection District lacks any access to a back up of assessment records or a recovery plan if the records are lost or destroyed.
F6 Page 150
The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not following the procedural requirements set forth in Measure F and Measure B for handling requests for appeals and exceptions.
F7 Page 150
The Newcastle Fire Protection District indicated in their 2013 response that they would implement several of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommendations. Recommendations #1 through #3 have not been implemented and are still applicable as they would improve transparency and accountability. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes the revenue generated from Measure F is being properly allocated to firefighter’s salaries and benefits. However, the Newcastle Fire Protection District, like all special districts, has a duty to run its organization in a transparent, accountable, and responsible manner. The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not meeting this obligation to improve transparency and accountability. The pubic trust is diminished when the Board fails to implement Grand Jury recommendations they agreed to and stated would be implemented. The proper processing and safeguarding of special tax assessment records is not being given proper attention at Newcastle Fire Protection District. Just as the district has invested in new firefighting equipment to best serve its residents; it also needs to invest in an off-site back up record keeping system. The differing language of Measure F and Measure B governing the appeals and exception process for property owners presents a unique bureaucratic challenge for the Newcastle Fire Protection District. Nonetheless, it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that each Measure’s specific language is followed. With the proper training and written procedures in place, the Newcastle Fire Protection District can improve the accuracy, consistency, and accountability of the Measure F and Measure B appeals and exception process. - 146 - -2016 Final Report
F20 Page 139
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
F21 Page 139
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F22 Page 139
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F23 Page 139
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Rocklin’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved for consistency. - 135 - -2016 Final Report
F24 Page 141
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
F25 Page 141
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
F26 Page 141
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint. Accela is an enterprise software solution with numerous preconfigured packages for private business and government organizations to manage core applications such as land management, licensing, asset management, and public health and safety data. Accela can be modified and tailored for the specific requirements of the agency and allows for public access to some functions. Other county governments utilize the Accela platform to track and resolve code enforcement complaints. - 137 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion The Grand Jury found that the City of Roseville has well-defined and documented code enforcement procedures. Their computer-based program tracks complaints from initiation through resolution and assures each department is accountable for resolving the complaint and closing out the issue. Procedures require follow-up contact with the complainants regarding on-going status and final resolution.

Recommendations 11