Sacramento County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The Sacramento County Internal Audit Unit lacks the necessary independence to perform operational audits and report their findings directly to the Board of Supervisors. Currently, there are five separate levels of supervision between the unit and the Board. As stated earlier, the grand jury believes that these multiple layers of reporting can diminish accuracy, effectiveness, and accountability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Create an elected position of County Auditor. Remove the Internal Audit Unit from the Department of Finance, eliminating unnecessary levels of supervision.
F2:
Sacramento County lacks a process for independent outside operational audits. The current practice is for departments to perform operational audits from within, using an operational audit team composed of members of that department. This approach reinforces long standing practices, and does not lend itself to innovation, efficiency and streamlining.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Emphasize independent operational audits to review processes and procedures. Emphasize Risk Assessment Modeling to develop operational audits and scheduling.
F3:
There is a lack of public transparency in the current audit process. Websites are disorganized and confusing. It is not easy to find a current schedule of audits or past audits. There are no clear mission statements or objectives shown for the Department of Finance or its sections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Establish a strong mission statement and objectives for the Internal Audit Unit. In order to ensure increased transparency, the County should work to improve its website and to support it, using a dedicated individual, either from the Department of Finance or from the County’s Information Technology support staff.
F4:
Current staffing levels are not at maximum strength and are not sufficient to undertake an increased role in performing internal operational audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Staffing increases are necessary to also undertake operational audit workloads.
F5:
Sacramento County currently lacks staff in the audit section with the breadth of experience or broader education to also process operational audits, in addition to financial audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Hire and retain staff with a wide breadth of education and experience that they can bring to operational and process audits.
F6:
Audit Reports that are available to the public are often written to address specific accounting and legal needs and are not readily understandable to the public. Reports conform to financial standards, requiring some degree of experience on behalf of the reader.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Make all reports more transparent to the public, particularly the readability and accessibility of completed operational and performance audits.
F7:
The Audit Committee is comprised of department heads. Other governments that have established audit committees have included decision-makers (elected officials) and members of the public to assist the Board and the Auditor in fulfilling oversight responsibilities. 24
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Maintain and expand the Audit Committee to include one or two members of the Board of Supervisors. The Board should also consider appointing members of the Public to the Audit Committee
F8:
The Internal Audit Unit, as well as the Department of Finance as a whole, are understaffed in IT Support. Maintaining transparency of operations to the public is difficult, if not impossible, without adequate IT support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Improve Information Technology support for the Internal Audit Unit and for the Department of Finance.
F9:
The Internal Auditor has infrequent, irregular input to the COMPASS Steering Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Auditor should be a permanent member of the COMPASS Steering Committee. 25
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
School Districts should adopt the recommendations of the 2010 Model School Library Standards to the fullest extent possible: The Model School Library Standards for California Public Schools (2010) are intended to provide students with “the skills and knowledge essential for students to be information literate.” This includes the skills to “effectively access, evaluate, use, and integrate information into their lives” and to “apply responsible research practices.” The standards also describe recommended educational standards for students at each grade level in addition to the level of library staffing and resources necessary for student achievement.
R2:
School Districts Should Collaborate with Public libraries: Districts should partner with Sacramento County’s two public library systems, (the Sacramento Public Library System or the Folsom Public Library) to provide library services to schools within their district.
R3:
School Districts Should Review Use of Contract Organizations that Provide Library Services: Districts should continually identify and seek the supplementary support of Contract organizations for applicable services.
R4:
Districts Should Constantly Be Aware of Local Fund Raising and Volunteerism Opportunities: To the extent possible, School Districts should continue to make use of support and/or funding from private organizations and directly affected groups such as parents and students. Conclusion: The ability to provide library services is problematic due to lack of funding. Innovation and creativity are necessary to address the current situation. School Districts should continue to be open to new and innovative ways to allow volunteers to help with their time, talent, and/or funds. The LCAP process is an avenue to encourage local participation in the budgeting process of the school district or school. This mechanism may be a way to incubate new methods and means of volunteerism as well as procurement of outside funding. 60
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
Until the ATIMS system becomes operational, the Jail continues to process releases without regard to the time of release. This results in more than necessary late-night releases occurring on a daily basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Until implementation of ATIMS, steps should be taken to minimize late night releases as recommended.
F3:
There may be inconsistencies within the different shifts regarding how CORs are processed by Jail desk personnel and given to release officers. The chain of command, including who is responsible, is not defined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Existing written instructions on processing CORs should be updated with a goal of processing such releases consistently and as quickly as possible.
F4:
The Jail has no written checklist type system in place to inform inmates of their options upon release.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A written or electronic checklist-type release form should be developed and utilized to fully inform persons being released of their options during late night hours to incorporate all suggestions previously noted. 47
F5:
The Jail does not have a taxi service contract or taxi voucher system that would provide persons being released in the middle of the night with the free option of a taxi service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should contract or use a voucher system to provide a taxi service option for late night releases.
F6:
The present debit card system is not user friendly, does not offer a cash option, and may result in a service charge. Further, use of the system may result in the loss of amounts under $20.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The existing debit card system should be reviewed, with the aim of making it more user friendly. Persons being released should be given cash if their balances are less than $20.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implementation of the new ATIMS system should be expedited and specifically be aimed at minimizing late night releases.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F2:
Until the ATIMS system becomes operational, the Jail continues to process releases without regard to the time of release. This results in more than necessary late-night releases occurring on a daily basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Until implementation of ATIMS, steps should be taken to minimize late night releases as recommended.
F3:
There may be inconsistencies within the different shifts regarding how CORs are processed by Jail desk personnel and given to release officers. The chain of command, including who is responsible, is not defined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Existing written instructions on processing CORs should be updated with a goal of processing such releases consistently and as quickly as possible.
F4:
The Jail has no written checklist type system in place to inform inmates of their options upon release.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A written or electronic checklist-type release form should be developed and utilized to fully inform persons being released of their options during late night hours to incorporate all suggestions previously noted. 47
F5:
The Jail does not have a taxi service contract or taxi voucher system that would provide persons being released in the middle of the night with the free option of a taxi service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The County should contract or use a voucher system to provide a taxi service option for late night releases.
F6:
The present debit card system is not user friendly, does not offer a cash option, and may result in a service charge. Further, use of the system may result in the loss of amounts under $20.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The existing debit card system should be reviewed, with the aim of making it more user friendly. Persons being released should be given cash if their balances are less than $20.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implementation of the new ATIMS system should be expedited and specifically be aimed at minimizing late night releases.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
An inordinate amount of the money and effort spent on the parkway is a result of the approximate 200 illegal campers on the parkway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The focus should be on the removal of the estimated 100 “service resistant” campers on the parkway.
F2:
Current ordinances do not act as an effective deterrent to illegal camping in the Parkway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A carefully crafted “stay-away” ordinance should be considered by both the City and County. 41
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
An inordinate amount of the money and effort spent on the parkway is a result of the approximate 200 illegal campers on the parkway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The focus should be on the removal of the estimated 100 “service resistant” campers on the parkway.
F2:
Current ordinances do not act as an effective deterrent to illegal camping in the Parkway.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A carefully crafted “stay-away” ordinance should be considered by both the City and County. 41
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
CFD has an ongoing lack of focus, priority and accountability in regard to inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Amend the job description for the Fire Marshal to include responsibility and accountability for California Fire Code required inspections. It is recommended that CFD implement scheduled rotation of all inspectors through all inspectable job classifications.
F2:
There is a lack of documentation of inspections and re-inspections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Establish and develop a training program for all applicable personnel and a staff of fully trained professionals to ensure continuity in the processing of the documents.
F3:
Previously purchased Image Trend software has not been fully implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Fully implement Image Trend software to improve documentation of inspections and re-inspections. The data system should include the ability to capture and identify violations, especially repetitive violations. Work with vendor on technical support.
F4:
Review of data received on high school re-inspections indicates 70% non-compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
School administration needs to be actively involved in the remediation of noted violations.
F5:
There is no incentive for schools to resolve listed violations due to lack of CFD enforcement. Not correcting these violations increases the risk to children in Elk Grove and Galt school districts. 33
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
CFD should process unresolved violations after re-inspections by issuance of citations.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R41:
Superintendent of Galt Joint Unified School District [finding and
Additional Recommendations
31
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
HFPD has made progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the report especially in the area of improving the safety of its volunteers.
R2:
The annual financial audits have not been completed and there are still six years outstanding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 through FY 2015- 2016
R3:
Additional work needs to be done to address the district’s financial vulnerabilities, especially in paying funds owed to CalPERS.
R4:
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) never completed the Municipal Service Review (MSR) of the HFPD that it agreed to conduct in response to the report. Summary of Recommendations
R5:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R6:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R7:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R8:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R9:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R10:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R11:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R12:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
R13:
The annual financial audits have not been completed and there are still six years outstanding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 through FY 2015- 2016
R14:
Additional work needs to be done to address the district’s financial vulnerabilities, especially in paying funds owed to CalPERS.
R15:
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) never completed the Municipal Service Review (MSR) of the HFPD that it agreed to conduct in response to the report. Summary of Recommendations
R16:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R17:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R18:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R19:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R20:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R21:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R22:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R23:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
R24:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R25:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R26:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R27:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R28:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R29:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R30:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R31:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
Additional Recommendations
31
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
HFPD has made progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the report especially in the area of improving the safety of its volunteers.
R2:
The annual financial audits have not been completed and there are still six years outstanding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 through FY 2015- 2016
R3:
Additional work needs to be done to address the district’s financial vulnerabilities, especially in paying funds owed to CalPERS.
R4:
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) never completed the Municipal Service Review (MSR) of the HFPD that it agreed to conduct in response to the report. Summary of Recommendations
R5:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R6:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R7:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R8:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R9:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R10:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R11:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R12:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
R13:
The annual financial audits have not been completed and there are still six years outstanding from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 through FY 2015- 2016
R14:
Additional work needs to be done to address the district’s financial vulnerabilities, especially in paying funds owed to CalPERS.
R15:
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) never completed the Municipal Service Review (MSR) of the HFPD that it agreed to conduct in response to the report. Summary of Recommendations
R16:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R17:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R18:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R19:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R20:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R21:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R22:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R23:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
R24:
The HFPD should continue to maintain a safe working environment by updating its policies, procedures, equipment and training for its volunteer firefighters.
R25:
The district should take steps to ensure that audits of past years are expedited bringing the financial records up to date.
R26:
The district should set aside a specific fund to pay any outstanding debts identified in the audits and the amounts owed to CalPERS. This fund should not be tapped to pay other ongoing expenses. 87 -2018
R27:
LAFCo should complete an MSR of the district no later than the end of FY 2017-2018, either as a separate entity or as part of a general review of fire district services in the southern part of the county. Summary of Responses
R28:
HFPD started with enhancing the individual safety equipment used by each volunteer. The investment of personal protection equipment totaled approximately $20,000 per volunteer. It is not the intent of the district to ignore the CalPERS contract termination. It has been a conscious effort to utilize the limited resources where they are most needed; protecting the safety of our volunteers and our community.
R29:
On August 30, 2017, Richardson & Company began the audit for FY2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012. District staff is making preparations for the remaining audits of FY 2012-2013 through FY 2015-2016 with a goal to begin those in the spring of 2018. The completion of these remaining audits will remain a top priority of the district and they will continue to strive to meet the internal completion deadline of December 31, 2018. These audits are also subject to budgetary restrictions.
R30:
Upon submitting the response to the grand jury in September 2017, the district has no outstanding debts, aside from the recent purchase of a new command vehicle. All outstanding debts that were found by district staff or auditors have been paid, including all payments requested thus far from CalPERS. The District received a letter from CalPERS, acknowledging their receipt of HFPD’s intent to terminate the contract and indicated that a valuation of the potential unfunded liability or surplus would be provided to the District in 4-6 weeks. As of September 2017, when the grand jury response was prepared, the district has not received a final valuation on the potential unfunded liability or surplus from CalPERS. Therefore, the District has chosen to budget neutrally for CalPERS, until receipt of the final valuation.
R31:
The Herald Fire Protection District MSR was completed in December 2017 by LAFCo. Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. HFPD put in place an aggressive plan to have all previous year audits completed at the close of the calendar year 2018. The district acknowledges a potential budget issue in relationship to CALPERS. However, HFPD has not received any indication from CALPERS as to either an unfunded liability or 88 when HFPD responded to the grand jury report. The district has decided to budget “neutrally” until final valuation has been received. HFPD has upgraded all of their personal protection equipment, as well as made changes to their training program, to improve the volunteer skills and knowledge of fire service. Their current budget funds the enhancement of equipment, service and hiring of additional personnel to increase the overall response levels. The district should be commended for the numerous steps made in increasing the ability to provide better service to their community. Note In November of 2017, after Herald Fire submitted their response to the 2016- 2017 Grand Jury report, CalPERS issued Herald Fire Protection District a $404,535 invoice. According to the January 31, 2018 Galt Herald a board representative stated, “The district is committed to fully executing this contract dissolution, including payment of the termination liabilities and finally ending this long chapter with CalPERS.” 89
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
CPSU has experienced, compassionate and dedicated staff whose priority is the welfare of the children they serve.
F2:
The current location of the CPSU is in a high crime neighborhood that places CPSU staff and traumatized youths in undue danger.
F3:
Since the enactment of SB 855 in 2014, no measurable progress has been made to find suitable options that address the unique treatment and placement needs of the expanded population of high risk children.
F4:
There is a lack of communication on spending priorities between senior management and the needs of the service providers.
F5:
CPS and DHHS are still focused on ineffective recruitment strategies rather than considering innovative approaches to gain more placement models for the expanded population it serves.
F6:
CPS personnel hired to recruit placement opportunities for children are unable to focus their efforts due to other job activities.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Acknowledge the social workers and supervisors of the CPSU for their outstanding service and dedication.
R2:
Relocate the CPSU to a safer environment.
R3:
Develop a plan and accelerated timeline to increase placement options for all children with immediate needs and children requiring Short Term Residential Treatment Centers. 9 -2018
R4:
Senior management needs to improve transparency and open communication between county policy makers and service providers so that budget allocations better match the needs of Sacramento County foster children.
R5:
Create an analytical model that compares cost effectiveness, resulting in the ability to pro-actively develop and implement alternative models.
R6:
Determine the necessary hiring or utilization of existing staff to allow recruiters to focus exclusively on placement opportunities for children.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
CPSU has experienced, compassionate and dedicated staff whose priority is the welfare of the children they serve.
F2:
The current location of the CPSU is in a high crime neighborhood that places CPSU staff and traumatized youths in undue danger.
F3:
Since the enactment of SB 855 in 2014, no measurable progress has been made to find suitable options that address the unique treatment and placement needs of the expanded population of high risk children.
F4:
There is a lack of communication on spending priorities between senior management and the needs of the service providers.
F5:
CPS and DHHS are still focused on ineffective recruitment strategies rather than considering innovative approaches to gain more placement models for the expanded population it serves.
F6:
CPS personnel hired to recruit placement opportunities for children are unable to focus their efforts due to other job activities.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Acknowledge the social workers and supervisors of the CPSU for their outstanding service and dedication.
R2:
Relocate the CPSU to a safer environment.
R3:
Develop a plan and accelerated timeline to increase placement options for all children with immediate needs and children requiring Short Term Residential Treatment Centers. 9 -2018
R4:
Senior management needs to improve transparency and open communication between county policy makers and service providers so that budget allocations better match the needs of Sacramento County foster children.
R5:
Create an analytical model that compares cost effectiveness, resulting in the ability to pro-actively develop and implement alternative models.
R6:
Determine the necessary hiring or utilization of existing staff to allow recruiters to focus exclusively on placement opportunities for children.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar’s office.
R2:
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
R3:
The process for voter signature verification should be automated. 91 -2018
R4:
Sacramento County should opt into the new election process. Registrar’s staff should visit other states that administer similar programs, such as Colorado and Oregon. Summary of Responses
R5:
Sacramento County CEO agrees with the finding. The CEO and Registrar have acknowledged the election staff for the excellent work they did for the November 2016 Election by holding a recognition luncheon for the staff. Sacramento County has 30 departments, and each department does an outstanding job providing exceptional public services to the residents of Sacramento County.
R6:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The move in 2003 to the current office allowed for an electronic voting system which did not come to fruition. Under the new Voters Choice Act, the Registrar is moving to a Vote Center model. After the June 2018 election, the Registrar will re-examine the flow pattern of the office. The Registrar visited the Butte and Solano County Election Offices this year and studied their ballot workflow processes. The Registrar will continue to reach out to other election offices.
R7:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented for the June 2018 election. On July 14, 2017 a Request for Proposal was issued for a new voting system to implement the California Voters Choice Act and an automated signature verification component was included.
R8:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The implementation of the California Voters Choice Act will be in place for the June 2018 elections. Grand Jury Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal or Sections 933 and 933.05. The County Registrar’s Office of Sacramento County continues to move forward on implementing new applications in the election process. New voting procedures are scheduled to be in place for the June 2018 elections. The grand jury notes that the County Registrar’s office has scheduled numerous ‘open houses’ for the public to view the new voting procedures system. After 92
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar’s office.
R2:
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
R3:
The process for voter signature verification should be automated. 91 -2018
R4:
Sacramento County should opt into the new election process. Registrar’s staff should visit other states that administer similar programs, such as Colorado and Oregon. Summary of Responses
R5:
Sacramento County CEO agrees with the finding. The CEO and Registrar have acknowledged the election staff for the excellent work they did for the November 2016 Election by holding a recognition luncheon for the staff. Sacramento County has 30 departments, and each department does an outstanding job providing exceptional public services to the residents of Sacramento County.
R6:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The move in 2003 to the current office allowed for an electronic voting system which did not come to fruition. Under the new Voters Choice Act, the Registrar is moving to a Vote Center model. After the June 2018 election, the Registrar will re-examine the flow pattern of the office. The Registrar visited the Butte and Solano County Election Offices this year and studied their ballot workflow processes. The Registrar will continue to reach out to other election offices.
R7:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented for the June 2018 election. On July 14, 2017 a Request for Proposal was issued for a new voting system to implement the California Voters Choice Act and an automated signature verification component was included.
R8:
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The implementation of the California Voters Choice Act will be in place for the June 2018 elections. Grand Jury Comments The 2017 – 2018 Grand Jury notes that the required response was submitted in a timely fashion in compliance with Penal or Sections 933 and 933.05. The County Registrar’s Office of Sacramento County continues to move forward on implementing new applications in the election process. New voting procedures are scheduled to be in place for the June 2018 elections. The grand jury notes that the County Registrar’s office has scheduled numerous ‘open houses’ for the public to view the new voting procedures system. After 92
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
LAFCo does not perform MSRs in a timely manner.
F2:
The questionnaire used by LAFCo is out of date and incomplete.
F3:
The content of MSRs is inadequate, failing to include analysis and findings to support conclusions and consideration of regional issues.
F4:
MSRs do not contain required analysis of environmental justice issues.
F5:
LAFCo does not retain experts to help perform MSRs, particularly in the water area.
F6:
LAFCo fails to use its authority to look at county and private water entities and provide recommendations regarding sensible integration of water supply and water quality solutions on a regional basis.
F7:
LAFCo’s budget does not support the best use of resources to accomplish its mandatory requirement to complete quality MSRs in a timely manner.
F8:
The LAFCo Commission does not adopt an annual plan or provide adequate direction to its staff, nor does it conduct annual reviews of staff performance. Summary of Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
MSRs should be completed for all special districts every five years.
R2:
The questionnaire sent to special districts at the start of the MSR process should be updated to address all of the current requirements in the law, as well as specific issues that are important to this region and problems that have been identified in prior reviews.
R3:
The content of MSRs should be improved to provide for more independent analysis of all of the issues facing Sacramento County with 83 -2018 regard to water quality, infrastructure maintenance, conservation storage and delivery.
R4:
MSRs must analyze required information on environmental justice issues.
R5:
LAFCo should hire experts to assist in the preparation of MSRs.
R6:
LAFCo’s process for conducting MSRs on water districts should be conducted on a regional or geographic basis, including county services areas and private water companies so that appropriate analysis of consolidation, reorganization possibilities and sensible integration efforts are seriously evaluated.
R7:
A performance audit of LAFCo’s MSR program should be conducted to assist the staff to identify ways to meet statutory requirements and achieve better outcomes within existing resources.
R8:
The LAFCo Commission should adopt an annual plan, provide better direction to its staff and require that an annual performance review be conducted for each staff member. Summary of LAFCo Responses RESPONSE 1. All MSRs were completed prior to December 18, 2017 and may be found on our website. RESPONSE 2. LAFCo has updated its MSR questionnaire in December 2017. RESPONSE 3. The content of the MSRs has been updated to provide more independent analysis. This was completed in December 2017. RESP0NSE 4. This particular finding of the grand jury is based upon the fact that the questionnaire asks the required information, but the grand jury determined that the MSR analysis was not adequate. LAFCo believes the reason is that environmental justice issues were answered adequately. In the future, LAFCO will add a clarifying statement with its analysis to be sure that this issue is resolved. This is an 84 . LAFCo does not retain experts to perform MSRs, as recommended by the grand jury. LAFCo does not concur that the in-house staff lacks the expertise to complete MSRs. RESPONSE 6. LAFCo does not concur with this statement. LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over private water companies. RESPONSE 7. The Commission determined in December 2017, that LAFCo shall do MSRs every five years as necessary. RESPONSE 8. LAFCo concurs with this recommendation in that it will provide an annual work plan in its budget report. LAFCo does not concur with the annual performance review requirement. Grand Jury Comments The 2017-2018 Sacramento County Grand Jury (current grand jury) notes the required response was submitted by LAFCo in compliance with Penal Code Section 933 and 933.5. Evidence of compliance was contained in a letter to the grand jury dated September 18, 2017. An additional response was received on January 5, 2018. Both responses were considered in these comments. The 2016-2017 Sacramento County Grand Jury Report (previous report) was based on interviews with senior management from area water districts and reviews of considerable documentation on the subject. The previous grand jury found that MSRs were not performed in a timely manner, their content was inadequate, and information forms were outdated. The previous grand jury also determined LAFCo failed to exercise its authority to review water issues on a county service related area basis, take advantage of consolidation opportunities, adopt an annual plan, and conduct staff annual performance reviews. The current grand jury is aware of LAFCo’s progress and implementation of some recommendations in the previous report. However, the current grand jury agrees with all recommendations made in the previous report and 85 years as necessary” instead of “at least every 5 years or sooner if necessary”. LAFCo’s interpretation could leave a district without an MSR for a period well beyond 5 years thereby defeating one of LAFCo’s original purposes of providing an oversight or watch role over Special Districts. 86
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
LAFCo does not perform MSRs in a timely manner.
F2:
The questionnaire used by LAFCo is out of date and incomplete.
F3:
The content of MSRs is inadequate, failing to include analysis and findings to support conclusions and consideration of regional issues.
F4:
MSRs do not contain required analysis of environmental justice issues.
F5:
LAFCo does not retain experts to help perform MSRs, particularly in the water area.
F6:
LAFCo fails to use its authority to look at county and private water entities and provide recommendations regarding sensible integration of water supply and water quality solutions on a regional basis.
F7:
LAFCo’s budget does not support the best use of resources to accomplish its mandatory requirement to complete quality MSRs in a timely manner.
F8:
The LAFCo Commission does not adopt an annual plan or provide adequate direction to its staff, nor does it conduct annual reviews of staff performance. Summary of Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
MSRs should be completed for all special districts every five years.
R2:
The questionnaire sent to special districts at the start of the MSR process should be updated to address all of the current requirements in the law, as well as specific issues that are important to this region and problems that have been identified in prior reviews.
R3:
The content of MSRs should be improved to provide for more independent analysis of all of the issues facing Sacramento County with 83 -2018 regard to water quality, infrastructure maintenance, conservation storage and delivery.
R4:
MSRs must analyze required information on environmental justice issues.
R5:
LAFCo should hire experts to assist in the preparation of MSRs.
R6:
LAFCo’s process for conducting MSRs on water districts should be conducted on a regional or geographic basis, including county services areas and private water companies so that appropriate analysis of consolidation, reorganization possibilities and sensible integration efforts are seriously evaluated.
R7:
A performance audit of LAFCo’s MSR program should be conducted to assist the staff to identify ways to meet statutory requirements and achieve better outcomes within existing resources.
R8:
The LAFCo Commission should adopt an annual plan, provide better direction to its staff and require that an annual performance review be conducted for each staff member. Summary of LAFCo Responses RESPONSE 1. All MSRs were completed prior to December 18, 2017 and may be found on our website. RESPONSE 2. LAFCo has updated its MSR questionnaire in December 2017. RESPONSE 3. The content of the MSRs has been updated to provide more independent analysis. This was completed in December 2017. RESP0NSE 4. This particular finding of the grand jury is based upon the fact that the questionnaire asks the required information, but the grand jury determined that the MSR analysis was not adequate. LAFCo believes the reason is that environmental justice issues were answered adequately. In the future, LAFCO will add a clarifying statement with its analysis to be sure that this issue is resolved. This is an 84 . LAFCo does not retain experts to perform MSRs, as recommended by the grand jury. LAFCo does not concur that the in-house staff lacks the expertise to complete MSRs. RESPONSE 6. LAFCo does not concur with this statement. LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over private water companies. RESPONSE 7. The Commission determined in December 2017, that LAFCo shall do MSRs every five years as necessary. RESPONSE 8. LAFCo concurs with this recommendation in that it will provide an annual work plan in its budget report. LAFCo does not concur with the annual performance review requirement. Grand Jury Comments The 2017-2018 Sacramento County Grand Jury (current grand jury) notes the required response was submitted by LAFCo in compliance with Penal Code Section 933 and 933.5. Evidence of compliance was contained in a letter to the grand jury dated September 18, 2017. An additional response was received on January 5, 2018. Both responses were considered in these comments. The 2016-2017 Sacramento County Grand Jury Report (previous report) was based on interviews with senior management from area water districts and reviews of considerable documentation on the subject. The previous grand jury found that MSRs were not performed in a timely manner, their content was inadequate, and information forms were outdated. The previous grand jury also determined LAFCo failed to exercise its authority to review water issues on a county service related area basis, take advantage of consolidation opportunities, adopt an annual plan, and conduct staff annual performance reviews. The current grand jury is aware of LAFCo’s progress and implementation of some recommendations in the previous report. However, the current grand jury agrees with all recommendations made in the previous report and 85 years as necessary” instead of “at least every 5 years or sooner if necessary”. LAFCo’s interpretation could leave a district without an MSR for a period well beyond 5 years thereby defeating one of LAFCo’s original purposes of providing an oversight or watch role over Special Districts. 86