⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
It could find no evidence that relatives were hired by SITOA, or of discrimination based on religious, national or racial issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
There was no evidence that SITOA was initially handling applications inappropriately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Airport staff should ensure that taxi contractors follow the procedures, protocols and requirements agreed to by it and the Sacramento County Counsel’s Office. 14
F3
The County Airports Office failed to provide oversight of SITOA’s hiring procedures prior to the complaints by applicants. However, the County Counsel now has the assignment to ensure compliance of the rules and to research future contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
County Counsel should continue to oversee the County contract between taxi contractors and the Airport.
F4
The Airport had no way of ensuring that the appropriate fees were being paid to the Airport. The Airport indicates that transponders have now been installed in all of the cabs to record each trip. This will provide a way to track the fees due to the Airport by the drivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Airport should continue to have an assigned employee oversee all taxicab issues, provide periodic public reports on the taxicab services of the airport, and act on problems in a timely manner. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the