📋
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.
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 4 findings
F1
Page 69
Based on the review of documents the policies and procedures currently in place in the CED adequately manage and monitor each public nuisance complaint from inception to resolution.
F2
Page 69
The nature of public nuisance abatement is ongoing and fluid. As existing complaints are resolved new complaints are being logged and tracked.
F3
Page 69
The CED’s budget for code enforcement is from the General Fund and is based upon abatement fees. This restricts the number of personnel assigned to code enforcement and in turn restricts the ability of the Officers to resolve complaints during times of increased filings, and track complaints moving through the Judicial and Administrative Processes.
F4
Page 69
Code Enforcement is “response driven” as per the policy of the Board of Supervisors; there is no proactive approach to public nuisance abatement in Yuba County.
Recommendations 2
-
R3Page 69The Board of Supervisors should revisit the operating budget for the CED in order to increase the number of Code Enforcement Officers. This will enhance the ability of the CED “to eliminate environments that create or support public health or safety hazards as well as promote a minimum standard of living” for the citizens of Yuba County. Further, augmenting the number of Code Enforcement Officers would lead to an increase in the number of abatements resolved and abatement fees collected.
-
R4Page 69“Response driven” public nuisance abatement may not be the best model for a sparsely populated, largely rural county such as Yuba. It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors revisit this policy for improving the purpose and mission effectiveness of the Code Enforcement Department. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Yuba County Grand Jury on June 2, 2009 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report June 25, 2009