Gran Jurado del Condado de Sacramento

2006-2007

11 informes

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The planning and implementation of the development of North Natomas, and the push to develop to the Sutter County line, constitute the fiscalization of land use. In May 1986, the city rejected the no project alternative (Alternative A) and the limited development alternative (Alternative B) for fiscal reasons. The city noted when it made findings on May 13, 1986, (Resolution No. 86-348, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations supporting the NNCP and conforming to the general plan amendments), that the North Natomas area was going to grow in the unincorporated areas and other places in the region and that the city would not fiscally benefit unless it allowed the development to proceed on land within the city with full build out in the entire Natomas basin.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: An independent fiscal and compliance audit needs to be conducted to determine whether the city has met the stated fiscal goals and whether development has actually been completed and built in a timely and proper manner. This audit needs to be conducted by persons versed in land use and development, fiscal issues related to development, and familiar with municipal financing. Further, the audit needs to be conducted and overseen by some entity or independent persons not in association with the city. The audit should observe the actual results of development and compare the results to the stated goals for developing North Natomas. The following issues need to be addressed in the audit: 1. Has the development enhanced the city's ability to attract major industrial employers? 2. Does the area contain optimum amounts of land devoted to parks, recreational facilities and open space? 3. What has been and will be the fiscal impacts of the development on the city, i.e., is the revenue derived from the development supporting not only the capital cost of the infrastructure required for the development, but also the ongoing cost of maintaining that infrastructure including the development and maintenance of the regional park? 4. Do the actual tax revenues generated by the development of North Natomas provide an ongoing revenue surplus for use throughout the city? 5. Has the jobs-to-housing ratio goal of 60% been achieved? 6. Have the various fiscal devices that the city used to assist the developers provided a clear audit trail to determine that builders/developers did what they were supposed to do with the money and in a timely and proper manner? The audit report should be made readily available to the public at the same time it is given to the city.
F2: There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The city may be allowing untreated surface water containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The city should develop and then conduct, on a regular basis, an analysis of the water, sediments and soil in the drainage detention basins and provide that information to the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board.
F3: The plans to evacuate the area in case of a flood event are still being developed. However, to ignore the advice of DWR and to continue allowing building in the Natomas flood plain after the city has been put on notice that it does not meet the minimum flood protection status, raise the question of potential responsibility for flood related damages and loss of life.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The city should immediately stop allowing any further building in the North Natomas flood plain. The restriction should remain in effect until the federal government certifies the flood protection as meeting the minimum 100-year flood level. The city could allow for continued planning, and the maintenance of existing structures. In addition, the city should build or retrofit community buildings to a height sufficient to enable the buildings to act as a shelter for people to gather until help arrives. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: Sacramento City Council •
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: The planning and implementation of the development of North Natomas, and the push to develop to the Sutter County line, constitute the fiscalization of land use. In May 1986, the city rejected the no project alternative (Alternative A) and the limited development alternative (Alternative B) for fiscal reasons. The city noted when it made findings on May 13, 1986, (Resolution No. 86-348, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations supporting the NNCP and conforming to the general plan amendments), that the North Natomas area was going to grow in the unincorporated areas and other places in the region and that the city would not fiscally benefit unless it allowed the development to proceed on land within the city with full build out in the entire Natomas basin. 27
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: An independent fiscal and compliance audit needs to be conducted to determine whether the city has met the stated fiscal goals and whether development has actually been completed and built in a timely and proper manner. This audit needs to be conducted by persons versed in land use and development, fiscal issues related to development, and familiar with municipal financing. Further, the audit needs to be conducted and overseen by some entity or independent persons not in association with the city. The audit should observe the actual results of development and compare the results to the stated goals for developing North Natomas. The following issues need to be addressed in the audit: 1. Has the development enhanced the city’s ability to attract major industrial employers? 2. Does the area contain optimum amounts of land devoted to parks, recreational facilities and open space? 3. What has been and will be the fiscal impacts of the development on the city, i.e., is the revenue derived from the development supporting not only the capital cost of the infrastructure required for the development, but also the ongoing cost of maintaining that infrastructure including the development and maintenance of the regional park? 4. Do the actual tax revenues generated by the development of North Natomas provide an ongoing revenue surplus for use throughout the city? 5. Has the jobs-to-housing ratio goal of 60% been achieved? 6. Have the various fiscal devices that the city used to assist the developers provided a clear audit trail to determine that builders/developers did what they were supposed to do with the money and in a timely and proper manner? The audit report should be made readily available to the public at the same time it is given to the city.
F2: There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The city may be allowing untreated surface water containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The city should develop and then conduct, on a regular basis, an analysis of the water, sediments and soil in the drainage detention basins and provide that information to the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board. 28
F3: The plans to evacuate the area in case of a flood event are still being developed. However, to ignore the advice of DWR and to continue allowing building in the Natomas flood plain after the city has been put on notice that it does not meet the minimum flood protection status, raise the question of potential responsibility for flood related damages and loss of life.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: The city should immediately stop allowing any further building in the North Natomas flood plain. The restriction should remain in effect until the federal government certifies the flood protection as meeting the minimum 100-year flood level. The city could allow for continued planning, and the maintenance of existing structures. In addition, the city should build or retrofit community buildings to a height sufficient to enable the buildings to act as a shelter for people to gather until help arrives. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento City Council 29
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: While expenses for dealing with waste types "A", "B", "C" and "GTCC" are fully funded through 2028, the storage of used nuclear fuel, costing about $4.5 million per year, is not funded beyond 2008.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: SMUD should identify funding sources for appropriately dealing with storage of used nuclear fuel through at least 2028.
F2: It is not certain which entity (SMUD or DOE) is responsible for the cost of storing "GTCC" waste and used nuclear fuel rods until they can be removed to a permanent storage facility. SMUD contends, but DOE disagrees, that it is the responsibility of DOE.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: In the event that SMUD may ultimately be held responsible for storage of the used nuclear fuel rods, SMUD should develop contingency plans with sufficient funding to meet that obligation.
F3: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, nuclear waste storage facility may never be opened.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: SMUD should develop a plan that includes possible funding sources which will provide for the permanent storage of the Rancho Seco used nuclear fuel. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: Sacramento Municipal Utility District •
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: While expenses for dealing with waste types "A", "B", "C" and "GTCC" are fully funded through 2028, the storage of used nuclear fuel, costing about $4.5 million per year, is not funded beyond 2008.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: SMUD should identify funding sources for appropriately dealing with storage of used nuclear fuel through at least 2028.
F2: It is not certain which entity (SMUD or DOE) is responsible for the cost of storing "GTCC" waste and used nuclear fuel rods until they can be removed to a permanent storage facility. SMUD contends, but DOE disagrees, that it is the responsibility of DOE.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: In the event that SMUD may ultimately be held responsible for storage of the used nuclear fuel rods, SMUD should develop contingency plans with sufficient funding to meet that obligation.
F3: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, nuclear waste storage facility may never be opened.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: SMUD should develop a plan that includes possible funding sources which will provide for the permanent storage of the Rancho Seco used nuclear fuel. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: Sacramento Municipal Utility District •
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: Noncompetitive compensation and the lack of security for medical personnel have generated complaints from medical staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The additional nurses and deputies authorized by the Board of Supervisors should be selected and assigned as soon as possible.
F2: The few available vocational programs afford inmates the opportunity to increase their knowledge, training, self-esteem and the possibility for employment upon release. However, those programs appeared to be understaffed and lacking in resources. A complete evaluation of vocational training is needed to determine inmate needs and opportunities. Significant new resources should be devoted to vocational training, prospective employer contacts and community acceptance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: RCCC has a physical plant large enough to expand the current vocational programs and add other disciplines. Response Requirements Response Required: Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: Sacramento County Sheriff
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: Noncompetitive compensation and the lack of security for medical personnel have generated complaints from medical staff.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The additional nurses and deputies authorized by the Board of Supervisors should be selected and assigned as soon as possible.
F2: The few available vocational programs afford inmates the opportunity to increase their knowledge, training, self-esteem and the possibility for employment upon release. However, those programs appeared to be understaffed and lacking in resources. A complete evaluation of vocational training is needed to determine inmate needs and opportunities. Significant new resources should be devoted to vocational training, prospective employer contacts and community acceptance.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: RCCC has a physical plant large enough to expand the current vocational programs and add other disciplines. Response Requirements Response Required: Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: Sacramento County Sheriff
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: SAFCA has proposed increasing protection for the entire Sacramento flood risk area. Its goal is 100-year protection by 2008 and 200-year protection by 2021. Even though these levels of protection are less than what has been achieved at similar flood prone areas in the nation, they seem reasonable and achievable for Sacramento.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All government agencies, elected officers and residents in flood risk areas should support SAFCA in striving to reach the stated goal of providing 100-year and 200-year flood protection for the Sacramento area by 2008 and 2021, respectively, or sooner.
F2: Both the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento are allowing building to continue in areas that do not have 100-year flood protection. This is especially true in North Natomas that was found to have less than 100-year protection in 2006. Potential flood depths of greater than 15 feet in that area place immense risk to both lives and property.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The city and county should curtail all building in the North Natomas area until 100-year flood protection is certified by the Corps. A policy stopping all development immediately in North Natomas, as allowed by state law, is imperative. Extending the policy until 200-year protection is achieved is highly recommended. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (1) • Sacramento City Council (1, 2) • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1, 2)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: SAFCA has proposed increasing protection for the entire Sacramento flood risk area. Its goal is 100-year protection by 2008 and 200-year protection by 2021. Even though these levels of protection are less than what has been achieved at similar flood prone areas in the nation, they seem reasonable and achievable for Sacramento.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: All government agencies, elected officers and residents in flood risk areas should support SAFCA in striving to reach the stated goal of providing 100-year and 200-year flood protection for the Sacramento area by 2008 and 2021, respectively, or sooner.
F2: Both the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento are allowing building to continue in areas that do not have 100-year flood protection. This is especially true in North Natomas that was found to have less than 100-year protection in 2006. Potential flood depths of greater than 15 feet in that area place immense risk to both lives and property.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The city and county should curtail all building in the North Natomas area until 100-year flood protection is certified by the Corps. A policy stopping all development immediately in North Natomas, as allowed by state law, is imperative. Extending the policy until 200-year protection is achieved is highly recommended. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (1) • Sacramento City Council (1, 2) • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (1, 2)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: There is inadequate staffing in Work Project Field Operations. The Work Release Division has requested an Additional Growth Request for a position in this project five times since 2002, but the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has denied its request due to budgetary restraints.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: One additional Work Project Field Operations sergeant must be allocated to address this workload. This sergeant would share in the supervision of up to 36 deputies per week.
F2: The Sheriff's Department Toy Project is a valuable asset to the community. With little public promotion or advertisement, the Toy Project provides much needed help to Sacramento's families in need. The Toy Project is a nonprofit 501c(3) organization which allows corporations and private persons to make tax deductible donations for equipment and materials in order for them to continue their mission to serve families and children in our community.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Both the Sheriff and the county should facilitate increased funding for the advertisement and promotion of this exceptional program. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento County Sheriff
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: There is inadequate staffing in Work Project Field Operations. The Work Release Division has requested an Additional Growth Request for a position in this project five times since 2002, but the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has denied its request due to budgetary restraints.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: One additional Work Project Field Operations sergeant must be allocated to address this workload. This sergeant would share in the supervision of up to 36 deputies per week.
F2: The Sheriff's Department Toy Project is a valuable asset to the community. With little public promotion or advertisement, the Toy Project provides much needed help to Sacramento's families in need. The Toy Project is a nonprofit 501c(3) organization which allows corporations and private persons to make tax deductible donations for equipment and materials in order for them to continue their mission to serve families and children in our community.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Both the Sheriff and the county should facilitate increased funding for the advertisement and promotion of this exceptional program. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento County Sheriff
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: There is currently a shortage of pharmacists employed by Sacramento County. Without action on the county's part, it is likely that the recruitment and retention problems will increase. This will prove extremely costly and is likely to compromise medical services.
F2: The DHHS and the county purchasing department did not properly review the RFP for the CMMS. They further did not monitor compliance of the selected vendor as to the RFP requirements.
F3: The vendor (PCSI) did not fulfill its contractual obligations. The outpatient system is not fully operational and the inpatient system has never worked.
Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: The DHHS needs to restructure the salary scale for county pharmacists to make it competitive in today's market.
R2: DHHS must be certain that awarded contracts fulfill all requirements mandated by the RFP on any purchases made by the department.
R3: The DHHS needs to assure that the county has a functional CMMS as soon as possible. Within the provisions of the contract with PCSI, the county should seek restitution for any services paid for and not provided. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.5 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.