📋
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.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
Page 16
The PSCDA is not in compliance with BP Code § 12212(b) and CCR §4070, in that approximately three-quarters of the county’s fuel pumps have not been inspected within the mandated timeframe. 15
F2
Page 17
The PSCDA may become compliant with State law and regulation as to required fuel pump device inspections in one of three ways - (1) inspecting each device annually, (2) creating a written plan to inspect fewer then all devices annually, or (3) having the BOS enter into a contract with the State Secretary of Agriculture under which the Secretary will arrange for the conduct of the inspections.
F3
Page 17
The PSCDA device fee schedule is currently insufficient to cover the costs of device inspection and should be reviewed and upgraded by the PSCDA and submitted to the BOS.
F4
Page 17
The PSCDA lacks a functional consumer complaint intake, monitoring and logging process. The County Agricultural Commissioner website is incomplete, lacking an online consumer complaint process which would facilitate consumer needs, as well as a comprehensive description of what the department is responsible for.
F5
Page 17
Increased obligations on PSCDA staff not related to DMS work have significantly limited the amount of time that staff is able to spend on inspecting devices.
F6
Page 17
Decreased financial and technical support from CDA may have restricted the ability of PSCDA staff to perform and complete required device inspections. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury recommends:
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 17By no later than January 1, 2021, the PSCDA comply with CCR §4071- §4074 by either (i) completing all required device inspections within the appropriate timeframe, (ii) developing a written plan which addresses how the DMS will inspect devices non-annually and submitting said plan to the CDA Secretary for approval; or (iii) requesting the BOS to enter into an agreement with the CDA to facilitate inspections on behalf of Plumas County.
-
R2Page 17The PSCDA submit to the BOS an updated device fee schedule for all measuring devices inspected by the DMS to cover a higher portion of the cost of device inspections,
-
R3Page 17By March 1, 2021, the PSCDA update the department’s website to include brief descriptions of the main responsibilities of the PSCDA, including DMS aspects of the department, and that the PSDCA implement a consumer complaint process, including a complaints intake policy, complaints log and incorporating a link to an online complaint form. 16