📋
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.

Lake County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

County of Lake Administration Financial Oversight

6 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 4 findings

F1 Page 76
The County Administrator has never needed to use “one time” revenues to finance the operational budget. The county has strong reserves/contingencies and is able to close gaps in spending over next two years.
No recommendations for this finding
F2 Page 76
While the Recommended Final Budget book stated that no General Fund employees are to be subject to layoff, this tends to mislead the general public as they might not know what the qualifier “General Fund” means. Budget and Finance Committee The general public may misunderstand and think there are no layoffs planned by the county. This would be an incorrect conclusion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 77
The BOS and county administration avoid misleading statements that paint a rosier picture. (F2)
F3 Page 77
The LCA indicated that the BOS may have set up the initial Quagga and Zebra Mussel program including buying expensive and ineffective equipment with little apparent forethought as to how to enforce and/or manage the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 77
The BOS and the LCA ensure that future procurements be based on sufficient analysis to ensure that money will not be wasted. (F3)
F4 Page 77
The Megabyte annual software maintenance fee is outrageous for a software product that services such a broad audience. Given that the 36 other counties in California accomplish their job without Megabyte, there are likely other less costly solutions for Lake County. Recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 77
The BOS and the LCA establish an independent committee to investigate what software the other 36 California counties utilize for property tax management and make a recommendation on whether any of those packages might be more appropriate. Approaches to be considered include working with the other 21 counties to jointly come up with a project to replace Megabyte or just going on our own to contract with one of the 36 counties. This committee should not include any representative from the Tax Collector’s office so as to avoid taking away from the time needed in that job. The Tax Collector can be an advisor, but not a voting member. (F4) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond:  Lake County Administrator via Board of Supervisors - 90 days (R1, R2, R3) Budget and Finance Committee