📋
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.

Amador County Grand Jury • 2005-2006

Health and Human Services

32 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 4 findings

F1 Page 38
Progress is extremely slow or non-existent in meeting the agreed-to recommendations of the 2002/2003 Grand Jury. Response by Department Head: I agree that progress has been slow, but due to extenuating circumstances, such as changes in Department Heads of the Building Department. The hangar guidelines were necessary to resolve issues with regard to the regulation of hangar modifications, new lease agreements, Building Department issues, trailer, and airport security Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding
F2 Page 38
The "airport car" draft policy is severely lacking in several key areas that would protect the County from liability. Response by Department Head: I agree that the draft policy was lacking the recommendations of the Grand Jury regarding "key areas," however an "Airport Car Policy" was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 1, 2005. This policy was reviewed by County Counsel and our Risk Manager prior to the Board's action to approve it. The policy does not contain the Grand Jury's suggested "key areas" requirements for current registration and proof of insurance for "airport cars". Since State law already requires all vehicles to be registered with DMV and insured, staff feels a County requirement for the same would be a duplication of effort. Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding based upon the information provided in the Department Head's response.
F3 Page 38
When follow up questions about a project's status were pursued (for example the Building Code violations at the trailer behind hangar #6) responses changed. They went from “We forgot about that” to “We're handling that with the Building Department” to “The trailer is being moved.” 2005/2006 Grand Jury Final Report 23 Verbatim 2004/2005 Grand Jury Report This was a common response pattern about other issues, also. For example, we were told in September 2004 that debris and junk near hangar #6 were the responsibility of the tenant, who was supposedly moving out of state soon. As of April 2005 the trailer had not been moved, the Building Code violations still existed, and there is still the same amount (if not more) of debris and junk near hangar #6. Response by Department Head: I agree with the Grand Jury's finding and offer the following explanation. The confusion expressed by the Grand Jury members is partially due to the fact that there is a trailer and a motor home and both are sometimes referred to as RV's. This has been confusing to staff as well. The trailer is used for storage while the motor home is used as a residence. The Building Department's issues were with the motor home not the trailer. It is true that the debris and junk near hangar #6 is/was the responsibility of the tenant and he advised staff that he was moving it with him out of state. Again, the trailer was not the subject of any issues with the Building Department. The tenant has moved debris and "junk" aircraft out of the area. A twin-engine trailer which had been on a trailer for six months is now gone, along with many other items. Response by Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
F4 Page 35
As of March 2006, only one other grant has been approved. That grant was awarded to Los Angeles County. 5.7

Recommendations 4