📋
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 7 findings
F1
Page 136
Budgets are allocated by the Board of Supervisors based on the County's cost to provide the services. These budgets account for the overhead. When the Hall Board of Trustees is presented with the Hall's operating cost versus revenue reports by the County they see costs that are fully burdened with the overhead costs. These costs may seem to be excessive relative to the cost of the dedicated resource that previously performed the task as a part of their duties. No monies are taken from the Hall Groups.
F2
Page 136
The Grand Jury determined that the handling of the Hall calendars is centralized in Facility Services and is efficient and adequate. The calendars are online and available to the Hall Board of Trustees and were observed posted in the Halls we visited. Hall Boards identify non-recurring meetings on an annual basis. During monthly Hall Board of Trustee meetings the Board of Trustees can make requests for sponsored non-recurring events, and negotiate reduced rental rates up to 50% as defined in 2.82.120 of the Placer County Code. Non-veteran sponsored events are requested though Facility Services. Conflicts are always resolved giving the veteran event priority.
F3
Page 136
The scheduling conflict mentioned in the complaint was, perhaps, a one-time issue. In our interviews no one perceived it as an on-going problem.
F4
Page 136
The Grand Jury did not identify any misinformation by Facility Services. The issue here is lack of open communication at the monthly Board of Trustees meetings at the Halls. None of the people interviewed could identify a specific example of misinformation on the part of Facility Services.
F5
Page 136
The Grand Jury found that Facility Services is performing at a very good level and is compliant with the intent of Section 2.82 of the Placer County Code.
F6
Page 136
As a result of the deferred maintenance program, the quality and frequency of maintenance and janitorial service to the halls has been less than the dedicated services previously provided.
F7
Page 136
The heating and cooling system of the Auburn Memorial Hall was noted to be far from adequate during our interviews. 114 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 137The Grand Jury recommends that Facility Services take the initiative to inform the Hall Board of Trustees of the operational procedures that are now in place.
-
R2Page 137The Grand Jury recommends the heating and cooling system of the Auburn Memorial Hall be evaluated to determine its adequacy for the facility.
-
R3Page 135Noise and traffic standards are not addressed directly in the Wineries Ordinance. The ordinance refers to other standards in the Placer County Code therefore these are not violations of the Wineries Ordinance. 117 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury The Grand Jury found indicators that Placer County wants to establish and nourish a winery industry in Placer County. This report identifies our findings and makes recommendations to support this objective.