Report 2015-134 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2015-134: Residential Building Records: The Cities of San Rafael, Novato, and Pasadena Need to Strengthen the Implementation of Their Resale Record Programs (Release Date: March 2016)

Recommendation #1 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it is aware of the degree of property owners' compliance with its resale record ordinance, San Rafael should implement procedures that can help it monitor the sale or exchange of properties that require resale record inspections. The city should work with applicable stakeholders, such as realtors, to aid in this effort.

1-Year Agency Response

Once a week, City staff reviews the residential property listings and sales in San Rafael through on-line resources (Zillow and Redfin). Through this weekly review, staff can confirm that resale reports have been requested and issued for properties.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

San Rafael also clarified that its review is designed to identify those properties that have sold but have not had resale reports requested.


6-Month Agency Response

On August 1st and Sept 6th City Council held public study sessions in order to hear testimony from all interested parties on whether or not to maintain our Resale program in it's present state. No determination was made, and staff is now in the process of preparing a list of options for modification of the program based on the public testimony heard. That will be presented to Council at some future date to be determined. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, procedures for monitoring the sale or exchange of property will be developed and explored.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

See May 21, 2016 memorandum forwarded via email to Myriam Czarniecki. On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council directed staff to return with options to the residential building records program. A report on the options will return to the City Council in June/July 2016. Web links to the staff report and streaming video of this public meeting are provided in this memo. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, procedures for implementing the sale or exchange of property will be developed and implemented. On April 15, 2016, City staff met with the stakeholders (Marin Association of Realtors) to discuss ways to monitor the sale/exchange of property. Several potential measures were discussed.

  • Estimated Completion Date: To be determined
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #2 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it is aware of the degree of property owners' compliance with its resale record ordinance, Novato should implement procedures that can help it monitor the sale or exchange of properties that require resale record inspections. The city should work with applicable stakeholders, such as realtors, to aid in this effort.

1-Year Agency Response

As noted in our May 23, 2016 response, City staff met with the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted several other municipalities to identify any reliable and current data sources which would identify all residential property sales transactions. Each indicated that no such data source exists. Even daily review of the MLS listing would not include all potential properties sales and transfers. The County Assessor's records as as much as 90 days out of date. The State Auditor's Assessment is that even transactional data that is several months old is still valuable in determining compliance. However, since the City's ordinance places responsibility for a resale inspection on property sellers, finding out that a transfer has occurred after the fact will not put the City in a position to create recourse for a non-compliant seller who has already disposed of the subject property.

We continue to consider the audit recommendation impractical and contend that our subsequent investigation bears this out, and that we have therefore satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we commented on page 53 in our report, it is our position that having better information regarding the occurrence of residential real property transactions would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met. Although the city continues to express concerns over the timeliness of data sources, our recommendation is focused on Novato being able to monitor the property transfer transactions in order to inform it of the degree that property owners have complied with obtaining resale record reports, but does not specify that the monitoring occur in advance of property sale transactions being completed. As we discuss on pages 15 and 16 of our report, the city is not monitoring this information. Thus, it cannot know how well the ordinance is being followed and take steps to gain greater compliance from stakeholders in the future. We believe that historical information would still be valuable in determining compliance regardless of the city's ability to seek recourse.


6-Month Agency Response

As noted in our May 23, 2016 response, City staff met with the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted several other municipalities to identify any reliable and current data sources which would identify all residential property sales transactions. Each indicated that no such data source exists. Even daily review of the MLS listing would not include all potential properties sales and transfers. The County Assessor's records as as much as 90 days out of date. Since the City's ordinance places responsibility for a resale inspection on property sellers, finding out that a transfer has occurred after the fact will not put the City in a position to create recourse for a non-compliant seller who has already disposed of the subject property.

We continue to consider the audit recommendation impractical and contend that our subsequent investigation bears this out, and that we have therefore satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we commented on page 53 in our report, it is our position that having better information regarding the occurrence of residential real property transactions would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met. Although the city expressed concerns over the timeliness of data sources, our recommendation is focused on Novato being able to monitor the property transfer transactions in order to inform it of the degree that property owners have complied with obtaining resale record reports, but does not specify that the monitoring occur in advance of property sale transactions being completed. As we discuss on pages 15 and 16 of our report, the city is not monitoring this information. Thus, it cannot know how well the ordinance is being followed and take steps to gain greater compliance from stakeholders in the future. Even if the information Novato uses is several months old, the information is still valuable in determining compliance.


60-Day Agency Response

City staff met with the chief executive of the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted several other municipalities with resale inspection programs to determine if any knew of reliable and current data sources identifying all residential property sale transactions. Each indicated they knew of no such data source available. As we discussed with the State audit team, the County Assessor's records can be as much as 90 days old, meaning that transactions would have been concluded before the City became aware through the County's records. Since the City's ordinance places the responsibility for a resale inspection on property sellers, finding out months after a transfer has occurred will not put the City in a position to create recourse for a non-compliant seller who has already disposed of the subject property. Even daily monitoring of the multiple listing service would not identify all sales.

We consider this investigation as having satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

As we commented on page 53 in our report, it is our position that having better information regarding the occurrence of residential real property transactions would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met. Although the city expressed concerns over the timeliness of data sources, our recommendation is focused on Novato being able to monitor the property transfer transactions in order to inform it of the degree that property owners have complied with obtaining resale record reports, but does not specify that the monitoring occur in advance of property sale transactions being completed. As we discuss on pages 15 and 16 of our report, the city is not monitoring this information. Thus, it cannot know how well the ordinance is being followed and take steps to gain greater compliance from stakeholders in the future. Even if the information Novato uses is several months old, the information is still valuable in determining compliance.


Recommendation #3 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it is aware of the degree of property owners' compliance with its resale record ordinance, Pasadena should implement procedures that can help it monitor the sale or exchange of properties that require resale record inspections. The city should work with applicable stakeholders, such as realtors, to aid in this effort.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Pasadena previously reported in its six-month response that it would not implement this recommendation because it believed that its current ordinance, rules and regulations, and policies provide a reasonable way to monitor the sale or exchange of properties. However, it is now evaluating the viability of the program, so the status of the recommendation's implementation is pending.


6-Month Agency Response

The City's current ordinance, rules and regulations, and policies provide a reasonable way for the city to monitor the sale or exchange of properties.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

Pasadena also made the same statement in its formal response to our report and its 60-day response. However, we commented on page 61 of our report that we believe the city should do more. As stated on page 15 of our report, Pasadena lacks procedures to monitor the sale or exchange of properties. In addition, as further noted on page 16, the city receives updates from the county assessor regarding property transfers, but it has not used this information to monitor property owners' compliance with the city's ordinance.


60-Day Agency Response

The City's current ordinance, rules and regulations, and policies provide a reasonable way for the city to monitor the sale or exchange of properties.

  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Pasadena also made the same statement in its formal response to our report. However, we commented on page 61 of our report that we believe the city should do more. As stated on page 15 of our report, Pasadena lacks procedures to monitor the sale or exchange of properties. In addition, as further noted on page 16, the city receives updates from the county assessor regarding property transfers, but it has not used this information to monitor property owners' compliance with the city's ordinance.


Recommendation #4 To: San Rafael, City of

To verify that new property owners are aware of the health and safety concerns at their properties and any corrections they need to make, San Rafael should develop a process to ensure that it receives homeowners' cards.

1-Year Agency Response

The "homeowner's cards" are entitled, "Returned Receipt and Buyer's Certification." If the receipt is not signed and returned to the City of San Rafael within 30 days following the issuance/posting of the resale report, a reminder letter is generated and mailed to the property owner.

  • Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

On August 1st and Sept 6th City Council held public study sessions in order to hear testimony from all interested parties on whether or not to maintain our Resale program in it's present state. No determination was made, and staff is now in the process of preparing a list of options for modification of the program based on the public testimony heard. That will be presented to Council at some future date to be determined. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, procedures for monitoring the return of confirmation cards will be developed and explored.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

See May 21, 2016 memorandum forwarded via email to Myriam Czarniecki. On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council directed staff to return with options to the residential building records program. A report on the options will return to the City Council in June/July 2016. Web links to the staff report and streaming video of this public meeting are provided in this memo.

  • Estimated Completion Date: To be determined
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #5 To: Novato, City of

To verify that new property owners are aware of the health and safety concerns at their properties and any corrections they need to make, Novato should develop a process to ensure that it receives homeowners' cards.

1-Year Agency Response

As stated in our May 23, 2016 response, City staff met with the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted other municipalities with resale inspection programs to determine if any could identify means of ensuring return of homeowners' cards. Each indicated they knew of no such data source or means of assuring and monitoring the return of the cards by new homeowners.

As we previously discussed with the State audit team, the City's ordinance requires the seller to return the homeowner card, since it is the seller who is required to obtain the inspection and comply with the ordinance. However, once the sale transaction has been completed, the City has no way to know the seller's new address, often having moved out of town, and subsequent to the sale the City only has legal recourse against the seller.

The City expressed the impracticality of this recommendation to the State audit team and considers this investigation confirming these constraints as having satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As referenced in our assessments of Novato's 60-day and six-month responses, we do not believe that this recommendation has been sufficiently addressed. The city should still develop a process, as having signed homeowner cards would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met.


6-Month Agency Response

As stated in our May 23, 2016 response, City staff met with the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted other municipalities with resale inspection programs to determine if any could identify means of ensuring return of homeowners' cards. Each indicated they knew of no such data source or means of assuring and monitoring the return of the cards by new homeowners.

As we previously discussed with the State audit team, the City's ordinance requires the seller to return the homeowner card, since it is the seller who is required to obtain the inspection and comply with the ordinance. However, once the sale transaction has been completed, the City has no way to know the seller's new address, often having moved out of town, and subsequent to the sale the City only has legal recourse against the seller.

The City expressed the impracticality of this recommendation to the State audit team and considers this investigation confirming these constraints as having satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As referenced in our assessment of Novato's 60-day response, we do not believe that this recommendation has been sufficiently addressed. The city should still develop a process, as having signed homeowner cards would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met.


60-Day Agency Response

City staff met with the chief executive of the Marin Association of Realtors and contacted several other municipalities with resale inspection programs to determine if any knew of reliable and current data sources identifying all residential property sale transactions or other means of ensuring return of homeowners' cards. Each indicated they knew of no such data source or means of assuring and monitoring the return of the cards by new homeowners.

As we discussed with the State audit team, we cannot determine a way to ensure return of the homeowner's cards. The City's ordinance requires the seller to return the homeowner card, since it is the seller who is required to obtain the inspection and comply with the ordinance. However, once the sale transaction has completed, the City has no way to know the seller's new address and in many instances the seller is no longer present in the jurisdiction.

We consider this investigation as having satisfied the recommendation of the audit.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We do not believe that this recommendation has been sufficiently addressed. The city should still develop a process, as having signed homeowner cards would enhance the city's confidence that buyers and sellers are more fully complying with the resale record ordinance and that the purposes of the ordinance are being met.


Recommendation #6 To: Pasadena, City of

To verify that new property owners are aware of the health and safety concerns at their properties and any corrections they need to make, Pasadena should develop a process to ensure that staff sign the inspection certificates and add them to the city's database.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum directing staff to sign inspection certificates and add them to the city's land management system. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #7 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it can monitor the satisfaction individuals have with the resale record program and that it has a uniform approach for resolving complaints, San Rafael should develop a formal process for tracking the complaints it receives. In addition, San Rafael should develop a formal policy that describes how staff should evaluate complaints, and it should document its activities associated with resolving complaints, such as the resolution and the rationale for the resolution. The city should also establish a designated location in its database to record this information.

1-Year Agency Response

An appeal process has been developed and memorialized in City Ordinance No. 1945, adopted by the San Rafael City Council on December 5, 2016. Ordinance No. 1945 established a new municipal code chapter (Chapter 12.36) adopting new provisions and requirements for a Report on Residential Building Record. A copy of this ordinance is provided as a supplement to this response.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

San Rafael cites the formal appeal process in the new city ordinance and informed us that all appeals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, meaning that the measures used to reach a decision will vary depending on the nature of the appeal. As referenced in its six-month response, the city is tracking complaints in its database.


6-Month Agency Response

City staff has set up a procedure for receiving and tracking complaints in our Trakit permit tracking system. Additional fields have been added to the resale report file to enter the complaint and follow-up response/resolution.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

The city has begun identifying complaints in its database. In addition, as of November 2016, the city was considering the implementation of an appeal process. However, documentation that the city provided did not contain any details on how its staff should evaluate complaints and document activities related to complaints. We look forward to learning of the city's progress in fully addressing the recommendation in its one-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

See May 21, 2016 memorandum forwarded via email to Myriam Czarniecki. On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council directed staff to return with options to the residential building records program. A report on the options will return to the City Council in June/July 2016. Web links to the staff report and streaming video of this public meeting are provided in this memo.

City staff has set up a procedure for receiving and tracking complaints in our Trak-it permit tracking system. Additional fields have been added to the resale report file to enter the complaint and follow-up response/resolution.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

The city's procedures identify obtaining formal complaints, but the policy does not identify how staff should evaluate complaints and document activities related to complaints. We look forward to learning of the city's progress in fully addressing the recommendation in its six-month response.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #8 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it can monitor the satisfaction individuals have with the resale record program and that it has a uniform approach for resolving complaints, Novato should develop a process for tracking the complaints it receives. In addition, Novato should develop a formal policy that describes how staff should evaluate complaints, and it should document its activities associated with resolving complaints, such as the resolution and the rationale for the resolution. The city should also establish a designated location in its database to record this information.

6-Month Agency Response

As noted in the May 23, 2016 response, a complaint/dispute process has been created an is being implemented, including creation of a complaint form (previously attached) and a dispute resolution procedure (previously attached).

  • Completion Date: May 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

A complaint/dispute process has been created and is being implemented. A dispute submittal form has been prepared (see Attachment 1), allowing the public to disagree with the findings of the resale inspection in written form. A dispute resolution procedure has also been created (see Attachment 2) and is being implemented to direct staff and clarify for the public the steps which will be followed in the resolution of the dispute, including a decision by the Community Development Director within 10 working days and the ability to appeal this decision to the City's Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board. The procedures also include direction to enter the disputes received into the City's permit tracking system to retain the data, including outcomes of the disputes.

This recommendation has been fulfilled.

  • Completion Date: May 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city identifies that the complaint/dispute process was implemented in May, the city later clarified to us that the process will be initiated by July 1. We look forward to learning of the city's progress when it submits its six-month response.


Recommendation #9 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it can monitor the satisfaction individuals have with the resale record program and that it has a uniform approach for resolving complaints, Pasadena should develop a formal process for tracking the complaints it receives. In addition, Pasadena should develop a formal policy that describes how staff should evaluate complaints, and it should document its activities associated with resolving complaints, such as the resolution and the rationale for the resolution. The city should also establish a designated location in its database to record this information.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum notifying staff of items regarded as complaints, identifying where in the city's land management system to enter complaint information, and identifying a higher level position to refer complaints that cannot be resolved. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #10 To: San Rafael, City of

San Rafael should develop formal written procedures for staff to follow up on property owners' correction of violations. These procedures should identify the method in which staff document in the database the violations identified during inspections and their actions to bring the property into compliance. In addition, the procedures should identify where within the database these documents should be kept as well as identify the protocol for ensuring that repeat violations are corrected in a timely manner.

1-Year Agency Response

A code enforcement case is opened whenever violations are identified on a property within 10 days of completion of the report. All correspondence and phone communication is documented in the electronic record of the code case. Follow-up dates are set as triggers within the code case, and our designated CE officer (Lamonte) will follow up with a letter or phone call as appropriate. When the violations are resolved, the code case is closed, and the address "falls off" our active case list. As this case is always attached to the property record, repeat violations are readily apparent.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

Procedures have been developed for City staff to implement follow-up and enforcement. The procedures will be submitted once finalized. Currently, all violations are followed up with a Notice and Order within 10 business days. Further, as discussed in the May 21, 2016 memorandum submitted to Myriam Czarniecki, enforcement for the backlog of violations for 2015 has been initiated and many cases have been resolved. We are now commencing with the enforcement of the 2014 backlog.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Procedures have been developed for City staff to implement follow-up and enforcement. The procedures will be submitted once finalized. Further, as discussed in the May 21, 2016 memorandum submitted to Myriam Czarniecki, enforcement for the backlog of violations for 2015 has been initiated and many cases have been resolved. We are now commencing with the enforcement of the 2014 backlog.

  • Completion Date: January 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city has identified this recommendation as being fully implemented, the city has not finalized these procedures. We look forward to learning of the city's progress when it submits its six-month response.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #11 To: Novato, City of

Novato should develop formal written procedures for staff to follow up on property owners' correction of violations. These procedures should identify the method in which staff document in the database the violations identified during inspections and their actions to bring the property into compliance. In addition, the procedures should identify where within the database these documents should be kept as well as identify the protocol for ensuring that repeat violations are corrected in a timely manner.

6-Month Agency Response

The City has prepared formal, written differentiation between High and Low Priority Violations requiring corrections, which was previously provided in the May 23, 2016 response. A copy is also attached for this response.

Written procedures have been prepared for staff to identify prioritization of High and Low Priority Violations and required staff follow-up (see attached).

  • Completion Date: August 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

The City has prepared formal differentiation between High and Low Priority corrections, with those requiring a subsequent building permit included in the High Priority category (see Attachment 3). A "self-certification" has been added to the New Owner Card (see Attachment 4), allowing the buyer to certify that he/she will be responsible for correction of Low Priority items identified, or that these have been corrected by the former owner prior to transfer of the property.

Written procedures will be created in the next several weeks to identify expectations for staff follow-up on a property owner's correction of High Priority violations and for retention of the documents.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #12 To: Pasadena, City of

Pasadena should develop formal written procedures for staff to follow up on property owners' correction of violations. These procedures should identify the method in which staff document in the database the violations identified during inspections and their actions to bring the property into compliance. In addition, the procedures should identify where within the database these documents should be kept as well as identify the protocol for ensuring that repeat violations are corrected in a timely manner.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum to inform staff of the method to document violations in the land management system. The City anticipates reporting completion of this item in its scheduled report due at the six month interval. The City will consider a protocol to address repeat violations. Any formal written procedures will involve input from local stakeholders and if there are any changes to current protocols, the changes will be issued to staff by memorandum from the Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department. The City will provide a progress report of this item due at the six month interval.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #13 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that staff can identify any repeated violations, San Rafael's staff should review prior resale inspection reports before conducting subsequent resale record inspections.

60-Day Agency Response

See the May 21, 2016 memorandum submitted to Myriam Czarniecki. City staff is now reviewing the prior resale report as part of the permit records search and in conjunction with the resale property inspection.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #14 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, San Rafael should develop a work plan by July 2016 to identify and address its enforcement backlog by April 2017, so that the city is up to date with its enforcement actions, such as issuing notice letters and monitoring property owners' actions to resolve violations. San Rafael's work plan should also include updating the completion status of the violations so unresolved violations can be identified and monitored for subsequent correction.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

As previously reported, all violations from 2017 (to date), 2016 and 2015 have been documented. For these three years, all violations have either been resolved or are being tracked for compliance through the City's Code Enforcement process. Due to the limited staff and the goal and need to keep current with the recently issued resale reports, the City has not addressed the 2014 violations. At this point, the City does not plan on proactively pursuing the violations identified in the 2014 reports, except for those violations that are specific to life safety. For non-life safety violations cited in the 2014 residential resale report, our permit tracking program (Trakit) will place a "restriction" on the property. Therefore, in the event the property owner requests a permit(s) or another residential resale report, the violations will be required to be addressed and corrected at that time.

  • Completion Date: July 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

San Rafael subsequently demonstrated to us that it has a process in place for addressing the backlog from 2014. It determined that an overwhelming number of violations have been addressed and resolved. Those remaining (about 10 percent) are being addressed through the Trakit permit tracking program.


1-Year Agency Response

All violations from 2017, 2016, and 2015 are current. That is; all are either resolved, or being tracked thru the code enforcement process. Due to the high volume of current and ongoing violations, and limited staffing, we have not begun to address the 2014 violations as we had hoped to do.

  • Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

Although San Rafael is up to date with its enforcement actions for violations from 2015 and later, it has not yet developed a work plan to address violations from previous years.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

6-Month Agency Response

Procedures have been developed for City staff to implement follow-up and enforcement. The procedures will be submitted once finalized. Currently, all violations are followed up with a Notice and Order within 10 business days. Further, as discussed in the May 21, 2016 memorandum submitted to Myriam Czarniecki, enforcement for the backlog of violations for 2015 has been initiated and many cases have been resolved. We are now commencing with the enforcement of the 2014 backlog.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city states that it has fully implemented this recommendation, it has not finalized its procedures for addressing its enforcement backlog. The city has also not developed a work plan, although it reports having made some progress in addressing its backlog.


60-Day Agency Response

As noted in the response to recommendation #10 and as outlined in the May 12, 2016 memorandum forwarded to Myriam Czarniecki, enforcement for the backlog of violations has been initiated for 2014 and 2015. The work plan is in process.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #15 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Novato should develop a work plan by July 2016 to identify and address its enforcement backlog by April 2017, so that the city is up to date with its enforcement actions, such as issuing notice letters and monitoring property owners' actions to resolve violations.

1-Year Agency Response

The City has prepared a work program to address outstanding resale violations, provided under separate cover. Of the outstanding violations for the period of 2008-2012, 99% have been corrected through mailed notices (three successive warning notices) and voluntary compliance by owners. Since August 2016 a total of 26 cases have been scheduled for hearing before the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board for resolution. Additional Board hearings will be scheduled through June 2017 to eliminate the remaining unresolved cases. For the period between 2013 and 2015 there are 36 unresolved cases out of 2,186 inspections, which will be scheduled for Board action between April and July 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Novato provided a work plan that identified and addressed its enforcement backlog. Therefore, we have assessed its response as fully implementing our recommendation.


6-Month Agency Response

The City continues to rectify outstanding resale violations. Of the outstanding violations for the period of 2008-2012, three successive warning notices have been sent to property owners. 8 of these have gone before the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board in August, 2016 for resolution. Additional Board hearings will be scheduled through January, 2017 to eliminate the remaining backlog of cases. For the period between 2013 and 2015 there are 60 unresolved cases, which will be scheduled for Board action between January and May 2017 to eliminate the backlog.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

The city did not provide a workplan or indicate that it is developing a workplan. However, it did provide evidence of tracking the rectifying of violations and discussing these violations during a zoning board hearing.


60-Day Agency Response

Clerical staff have initiated Final Notices of Violation for all outstanding resale violations dating from 2008 to 2012 (see Attachment 5 for adopted procedures). These letters will require that owners secure necessary permits to correct violations within 30 days or these cases will be scheduled for resolution by the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board. At the current rate of completion, these notices will be mailed to all outstanding properties by the end of May, 2016. Staff anticipates bringing the unresolved high priority cases to the Appeals Board beginning in June. The length of time to send all unresolved cases to the Board will depend upon the number of outstanding cases remaining after the Final Notices are sent out.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #16 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Pasadena should develop a work plan by July 2016 to identify and address its enforcement backlog by April 2017, so that the city is up to date with its enforcement actions, such as issuing notice letters and monitoring property owners' actions to resolve violations. Pasadena's work plan should also include updating the completion status of the violations so unresolved violations can be identified and monitored for subsequent correction.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department had staff begin to address the backlog. A formal work plan has not been developed as mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of Planning and Community Development will direct staff to identify and develop a work plan by July 2016 to address the backlog by April 2017. The City will provide a progress report of this item due at the six month interval.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #17 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, San Rafael should follow through with its enforcement policies, such as issuing notice letters.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

As previously reported, on December 5, 2016, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 14323, which sets forth policies, practices and procedures for the Residential Building Record Program. The enforcement portion of the program is currently being implemented consistent with this resolution and there have been no changes or amendments to it since its adoptions. No further action is needed on this item.

  • Completion Date: July 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

San Rafael previously reported that it is up to date with its enforcement actions for violations from 2015 and later. San Rafael subsequently demonstrated to us that it has a process in place for addressing the backlog from 2014. It determined that an overwhelming number of violations have been addressed and resolved. Those remaining (about 10 percent) are being addressed through the Trakit permit tracking program.


1-Year Agency Response

The City has adopted policies, practices and procedures for administering and enforcing the Residential Building Record Program. These policies, practices and procedures are outlined in City Resolution No. 14243, adopted by the San Rafael City Council on December 5, 2016. A copy of this resolution is provided as a supplement to this response.

  • Completion Date: March 2016
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

Although San Rafael is up to date with its enforcement actions for violations from 2015 and later, it has yet to follow through with addressing violations from previous years.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

6-Month Agency Response

Procedures have been developed for City staff to implement follow-up and enforcement. The procedures will be submitted once finalized. Currently, all violations are followed up with a Notice and Order within 10 business days. Further, as discussed in the May 21, 2016 memorandum submitted to Myriam Czarniecki, enforcement for the backlog of violations for 2015 has been initiated and many cases have been resolved. We are now commencing with the enforcement of the 2014 backlog.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

According to the Community Development Director, as of November 2016 the city had not yet commenced follow up on 2014 resale record reports. In addition, the city did not provide us evidence that demonstrates that it is following up on violations within 10 business days. However, we reviewed the city's report for 2016, and the report indicates that the city has issued notice letters as well as closed many of the violations it identified. We look forward to learning of the city's progress when it submits its one-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

See responses to recommendations #10 and #14 and the May 12, 2016 memorandum forwarded to Myriam Czarniecki. Enforcement has been initiated and the Notice & Order process has been used to seek resolution of violations.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Being implemented; on-going
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #18 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Novato should follow through with its enforcement policies, such as issuing notice letters.

1-Year Agency Response

The City has prepared a work program to address outstanding resale violations, provided under separate cover. Of the outstanding violations for the period of 2008-2012, 99% have been corrected through mailed notices (three successive warning notices) and voluntary compliance by owners. Since August 2016 a total of 26 cases have been scheduled for hearing before the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board for resolution. Additional Board hearings will be scheduled through June 2017 to eliminate the remaining unresolved cases. For the period between 2013 and 2015 there are 36 unresolved cases out of 2,186 inspections, which will be scheduled for Board action between April and July 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Based on additional information provided, Novato demonstrated that it is following through with its enforcement policies. Therefore, we have assessed its response as fully implementing our recommendation.


6-Month Agency Response

See response to Recommendation #15.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

As part of the city's response to recommendation 15, it provided us evidence that it has begun to implement its enforcement policies.


60-Day Agency Response

Clerical staff have initiated Final Notices of Violation for all outstanding resale violations dating from 2008 to 2012 (see Attachment 5 for adopted procedures). These letters will require that owners secure necessary permits to correct violations within 30 days or these cases will be scheduled for resolution by the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board. At the current rate of completion, these notices will be mailed to all outstanding properties by the end of May, 2016. Staff anticipates bringing the unresolved high priority cases to the Appeals Board beginning in June. The length of time to send all unresolved cases to the Board will depend upon the number of outstanding cases remaining after the Final Notices are sent out.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #19 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Pasadena should follow through with its enforcement policies, such as issuing notice letters.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum directing staff to schedule follow-up inspections and issue non-compliance letters or warning notices if violations are not corrected. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #20 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, San Rafael should establish a written process for staff to monitor and ensure that property owners correct violations, including accurately identifying the properties that have not obtained necessary permits or have not had required reinspections performed.

1-Year Agency Response

See response to No. 17, above. The written process is addressed in Resolution No. 14243.

  • Completion Date: March 2016
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

See response to item 10

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city has identified this recommendation as being fully implemented, the city has not yet finalized these procedures. We look forward to learning about the city's progress when it submits its one-year response.


60-Day Agency Response

See response to recommendation #10.

  • Completion Date: January 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city has identified this recommendation as being fully implemented, the city has not yet finalized these procedures. We look forward to learning about the city's progress when it submits its six-month response.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #21 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Novato should establish a written process for staff to monitor and ensure that property owners correct violations, including accurately identifying the properties that have not obtained necessary permits or have not had required reinspections performed.

1-Year Agency Response

The City has prepared a work program to address outstanding resale violations, provided under separate cover. Of the outstanding violations for the period of 2008-2012, 99% have been corrected through mailed notices (three successive warning notices) and voluntary compliance by owners. Since August 2016 a total of 26 cases have been scheduled for hearing before the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board for resolution. Additional Board hearings will be scheduled through June 2017 to eliminate the remaining unresolved cases. For the period between 2013 and 2015 there are 36 unresolved cases out of 2,186 inspections, which will be scheduled for Board action between April and July 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

In addition to providing a work plan, Novato provided us with written procedures for staff to monitor and ensure that property owners correct violations. Therefore, we have assessed its response as fully implementing our recommendation.


6-Month Agency Response

See Response to #15.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: January 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

As stated in its response to Recommendation 15, the City continues to rectify outstanding resale violations. Its response status to this recommendation about establishing a written process indicates that it is not fully implemented, which is similar to its status at the 60-day response.


60-Day Agency Response

Clerical staff have initiated Final Notices of Violation for all outstanding resale violations dating from 2008 to 2012 (see Attachment 5 for adopted procedures). These letters will require that owners secure necessary permits to correct violations within 30 days or these cases will be scheduled for resolution by the Zoning, Housing and Building Codes Appeals Board. At the current rate of completion, these notices will be mailed to all outstanding properties by the end of May, 2016. Staff anticipates bringing the unresolved high priority cases to the Appeals Board beginning in June. The length of time to send all unresolved cases to the Board will depend upon the number of outstanding cases remaining after the Final Notices are sent out.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #22 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that property owners correct violations in a timely manner, Pasadena should establish a written process for staff to monitor and ensure that property owners correct violations, including accurately identifying the properties that have not obtained necessary permits or have not had required reinspections performed.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum informing staff of the process to monitor and ensure property owners correct violations. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #23 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, San Rafael should establish a process to monitor its ability to meet its established time goals from application date to report issuance, such as developing a reminder report or using an automated feature of its database.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

In our last report to the State, it was indicated that the City informally monitors the timeline goals for conducting inspections, as well as completing and posting the resale reports. We indicated that a custom tracking report would be developed in our "Trakit" permit tracking program to provide a more formal monitoring. This custom report has not been created as it has been determined that it is not necessary. The current process of informally monitoring is working well given the volume of application activity. On average, we have been holding to the goal of issuing the resale report within three (3) working days of the inspection.

  • Completion Date: November 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


1-Year Agency Response

Timelines for accepting, processing and issuing a residential resale report are set forth in City Resolution No. 14243 referenced above and provided as a supplement to this response. In terms of monitoring the timeline goals, City staff informally monitors this activity by using the permit tracking program (Trak-it). City staff is in the process of developing a custom report in the Trak-it program to provide an average of the individual report timelines to assist in this monitoring.

  • Completion Date: March 2016
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

Based on the description of the activities being performed, we are assessing this recommendation to be partially implemented.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

6-Month Agency Response

We are satisfied that our timelines are reasonable and we meet them 95% of the time which is an realistic standard.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The city did not provide us evidence of how it is tracking its ability to meet its established time goals. We look forward to learning of the city's process when it submits its one-year response.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

60-Day Agency Response

See May 12, 2016 memorandum to Myriam Czarniecki. City staff is working on a program to better track the timing or tasks to meet the established time goals.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Within one month
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #24 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Novato should establish a process to monitor its ability to meet its established time goals from application date to report issuance, such as developing a reminder report or using an automated feature of its database.

6-Month Agency Response

Procedures have been established to monitor time goals for inspections and report completion (see attached under "Tracking Report"), including the creation of a field in our permit tracking system to indicate in the inspection log whether a later inspection date than the first available date was required by property owners.

  • Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

The city provided us a tracking report that identifies its timeliness in conducting inspections and issuing resale record reports.The city's database also includes an option to indicate when a property owner requested a later inspection date than the first available date.


60-Day Agency Response

City staff are considering changes in procedures for resale inspections and follow-up that will likely shorten the time a report is provided.

The City's 2016-17 proposed budget includes a combination building inspector/code enforcement officer who will assist in performing resale inspections during peak periods to reduce delays in completing reports when real estate transactions are high.

The City has created a field in its permit tracking system to indicate in the inspection log whether a later inspection date than the first available date was requested by the property owners.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #25 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Pasadena should establish a process to monitor its ability to meet its established time goals from application date to report issuance, such as developing a reminder report or using an automated feature of its database. Pasadena should also document the date the report is issued on the resale record report and in its database.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum informing staff of the process to enter the date the report is issued on the resale record report and add the report issuance date in the City's land management system. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #26 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, San Rafael should review its time goals by July 2016 for the resale record program and modify them if necessary, factoring in property owners' expectations and staff resources to complete the resale record reports. If applicable, San Rafael should update its policies and procedures to reflect the revised time goals.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

On July 17, 2017, a six-month report on the progress of the program was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council report and video stream of the July 17, 2017 meeting can be accessed at the following links:

http://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1181&meta_id=109312

http://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1181&meta_id=109313

Overall, the six-month report resulted in no further changes to the Residential Building Record Program. As outlined in City Council Resolution No. 14323 (previously provided to your office), City staff is working toward preparing an informational video, which will supplement all other informational resources that have been prepared to facilitate public education. Further, it is expected that an amnesty program will be launched in early 2018, which will provide an opportunity for property owners to secure permits for unpermitted work without paying penalties or fines.

  • Completion Date: July 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


1-Year Agency Response

As part of the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 1945 and Resolution No. 14323, the San Rafael City Council mandated a six-month progress report and review. At the end of the first six months of the new program (commencing in mid-January 2017), City staff is to return to the City Council with a report on the progress of the program. Further, this action requires that the City complete a periodic review of the program policies, practices and procedures to amend them as deemed necessary.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

On August 1st and Sept 6th City Council held public study sessions in order to hear testimony from all interested parties on whether or not to maintain our Resale program in it's present state. No determination was made, and staff is now in the process of preparing a list of options for modification of the program based on the public testimony heard. That will be presented to Council at some future date to be determined. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, procedures for monitoring these timelines will be developed and explored.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

Time goals will be reviewed in July 2016 to determine compliance with this recommendations.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #27 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Pasadena should review its time goals by July 2016 for the resale record program and modify them if necessary, factoring in property owners' expectations and staff resources to complete the resale record reports. If applicable, Pasadena should update its policies and procedures to reflect the revised time goals.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/02/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will evaluate the established time goals to determine if any revisions to the time goals are necessary.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #28 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Novato should review its time goals by July 2016 and establish an expectation that is significantly shorter than 10 business days for the period from inspection to report issuance and that is commensurate with the effort required to issue the report. Further, it should establish a time goal for the period of application to inspection. If applicable, Novato should update its policies and procedures to reflect the revised time goals.

6-Month Agency Response

Administrative procedures have been established for the resale program, including time objectives from the date of application to the scheduling of an inspection (7 working days) and from the inspection date to completion of the resale report (3 working days) in the attached Administrative Policies and Procedures.

  • Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

City staff are considering changes in procedures for resale inspections and follow-up that will likely shorten the time a report is provided.

The City's 2016-17 proposed budget includes a combination building inspector/code enforcement officer who will assist in performing resale inspections during peak periods to reduce delays in completing reports when real estate transactions are high.

A revised time goal will be established pending review of the success of procedural changes and enhanced staffing.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #29 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Novato should establish a method to identify those inspections that have inspection dates requested by property owners.

60-Day Agency Response

The City has created a field in its permit tracking system to indicate in the inspection log whether a later inspection date than the first available date was requested by the property owners.

  • Completion Date: May 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #30 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it conducts its resale record inspections and completes the reports in a timely manner, Pasadena should establish a method to identify those inspections that have inspection dates requested by property owners.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The City's Department of Information Technology will create a field to capture requested inspection dates in the city's land management system. When available, the Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum informing staff of the field's location in the database and staff will be directed to track and note property owner requested inspection dates in the appropriate field. The City anticipates reporting completion of this item due at the six month interval.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #31 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that the resale record fees it charges is appropriate, San Rafael should conduct a formal fee study by December 2016 that incorporates the actual costs associated with the issuance of a resale record report by dwelling type.

1-Year Agency Response

A formal study of the program fees was conducted in late 2016. As a result of this study, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 14244, which amended the master fee schedule and updated all fees related to the Residential Building Record Program. A copy of this resolution is provided as a supplement to this response.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

On August 1st and Sept 6th City Council held public study sessions in order to hear testimony from all interested parties on whether or not to maintain our Resale program in it's present state. No determination was made, and staff is now in the process of preparing a list of options for modification of the program based on the public testimony heard. That will be presented to Council at some future date to be determined. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, or revised as to scope, a recommendation will be brought forward to Council to adjust the fee appropriately.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Our recommendation addresses San Rafael conducting a fee study to determine whether the fees it charges are appropriate before proposing any adjustments.


60-Day Agency Response

See May 21, 2016 memorandum forwarded via email to Myriam Czarniecki. On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council directed staff to return with options to the residential building records program. A report on the options will return to the City Council in June/July 2016. Web links to the staff report and streaming video of this public meeting are provided in this memo.

Should the City Council decide to continue the current program or adjust the scope of the program, a fee study will be completed.

  • Estimated Completion Date: To be determined
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #32 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that the resale record fees it charges is appropriate, Pasadena should finalize its formal fee study by April 2016.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Pasadena previously reported in its six-month response that it had partially implemented this recommendation and would begin a new citywide cost of service study in Fall 2016 and reevaluate the Occupancy Inspection Program Fee as part of the citywide fee schedule. However, it is now evaluating the viability of the program, so the status of the recommendation's implementation is pending.


6-Month Agency Response

The Planning and Community Development Department presented its FY2017 proposed budget to the City Council as part of the City's annual budget adoption process. The Occupancy Inspection Program fee was discussed. The City's Finance Department will begin a new citywide cost of service study in Fall 2016 and reevaluate the Occupancy Inspection Program Fee as part of the citywide fee schedule.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

The Planning and Community Development Department presented its FY2017 proposed budget to the City Council as part of the City's annual budget adoption process. The Occupancy Inspection Program fee was discussed. The City's Finance Department will begin a new citywide cost of service study in June 2016 and reevaluate the Occupancy Inspection Program Fee as part of the citywide fee schedule.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented


Recommendation #33 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that the resale record fees it charges is appropriate, San Rafael should establish a time frame to periodically determine whether the fees are commensurate with the cost of administering the resale record program. The city should ensure that it retains any documentation used to support its analyses and any subsequent adjustments to fees.

1-Year Agency Response

The Residential Building Record Program fees will be reviewed bi-annually, commencing in January 2017.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

On August 1st and Sept 6th City Council held public study sessions in order to hear testimony from all interested parties on whether or not to maintain our Resale program in it's present state. No determination was made, and staff is now in the process of preparing a list of options for modification of the program based on the public testimony heard. That will be presented to Council at some future date to be determined. At that time, it will be determined if the program will continue. Should the program continue in its current form, this will be done.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

See May 21, 2016 memorandum forwarded via email to Myriam Czarniecki. On April 4, 2016, the performance audit report was presented to the San Rafael City Council. The City Council directed staff to return with options to the residential building records program. A report on the options will return to the City Council in June/July 2016. Web links to the staff report and streaming video of this public meeting are provided in this memo.

Should the City Council decide to continue the current program or adjust the scope of the program, a fee study will be completed and the fee will be reviewed periodically.

  • Estimated Completion Date: To be determined
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #34 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that the resale record fees it charges is appropriate, Novato should establish a time frame to periodically determine whether the fees are commensurate with the cost of administering the resale record program. The city should ensure that it retains any documentation used to support its analyses and any subsequent adjustments to fees.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The City of Novato periodically performs updates of its municipal fee schedule, including fees for the resale inspection program. While the City is in the process of updating its fee schedule, which has been funded by the City Council in the FY 17/18 budget, the City will not establish a schedule for future, periodic updates of the fee schedule due to implications of costs and staff resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


1-Year Agency Response

The City has solicited and received 3 consultant proposals for a comprehensive fee study, including the resale inspection fee. A consultant contract is expected to be executed in April, and adoption of a revised fee schedule by the City Council is expected to occur in September 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Although Novato indicates that it expects to conduct a fee study in 2017, it has informed us that it does not plan to establish a time frame for periodically determining whether the resale record fees are commensurate with the cost of administering the program.


6-Month Agency Response

The fees for the resale program will be evaluated as part of a comprehensive Fee Study for all city fees by May, 2017, for adoption in the FY 17/18 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 2017
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

In November 2016 the Community Development Director informed us that the city had not yet issued a Request for Proposals or entered into a contract for a fee review.


60-Day Agency Response

The fees for the resale program will be evaluated as part of a comprehensive Fee Study for all city fees by February, 2017 for adoption in the FY 17/18 budget.

The auditors previously accepted that Novato's resale inspection fees are below the current cost of service.

  • Estimated Completion Date: February 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

In June 2016 the Community Development Director clarified that the city prefers to conduct full nexus studies for all city fees and it has not established a time frame to conduct these studies.


Recommendation #35 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that the resale record fees it charges is appropriate, Pasadena should establish a time frame to periodically determine whether the fees are commensurate with the cost of administering the resale record program. The city should ensure that it retains any documentation used to support its analyses and any subsequent adjustments to fees.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The Occupancy Inspection Program fee is reviewed annually with City Council adoption of a fee schedule. The city will conduct a cost of service study periodically and will retain the documentation used to support the analysis.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Pasadena is reiterating the statement it made in its formal response to our report and its 60-day response. However, we commented on page 61 of our report that although Pasadena states that the city council reviews the fees annually, the fees are not always changed. We noted on page 32 of our report that the city adjusted its fees periodically based on the consumer price index, but that it was unable to document how the current fee amounts were calculated and how those fees are commensurate with the costs incurred to operate its resale record program.


60-Day Agency Response

The Occupancy Inspection Program fee is reviewed annually with City Council adoption of a fee schedule. The city will conduct a cost of service study periodically and will retain the documentation used to support the analysis.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Pasadena is reiterating the statement it made in its formal response to our report. However, we commented on page 61 of our report that although Pasadena states that the city council reviews the fees annually, the fees are not always changed. We noted on page 32 of our report that the city adjusted its fees periodically based on the consumer price index, but that it was unable to document how the current fee amounts were calculated and how those fees are commensurate with the costs incurred to

operate its resale record program.


Recommendation #36 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it can demonstrate that its resale record inspectors are qualified, San Rafael should develop a process to maintain continuing education attendance records. The city should ensure that staff receive periodic continuing education through internal and external sources to keep them current on code requirements, especially when the requirements are updated.

1-Year Agency Response

Staff continues to receive continuing education and classes in their related fields. This is additionally necessary to maintain their ICC certifications (see item #39)

  • Completion Date: January 2015
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

This recommendation has been initiated, but a process has not been developed to date.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation has been initiated, but a process has not been developed to date.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Initiated; no specific date at this time
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #37 To: Novato, City of

To ensure that it can demonstrate that its resale record inspectors are qualified, Novato should develop a process to maintain continuing education attendance records. The city should ensure that staff receive periodic continuing education through internal and external sources to keep them current on code requirements, especially when the requirements are updated.

6-Month Agency Response

As noted in the May 23, 2016 response, a spreadsheet was created to track training classes taken and certifications attained for each officer on the City's servers and Human Resources files.

  • Completion Date: May 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

The city provided us the documents it uses to track the continuing education sessions its staff attend. The documents demonstrate that the staff have attended multiple continuing education training sessions, including prior to our audit and subsequent to the issuance of our audit report.


60-Day Agency Response

A spreadsheet has been created to track training classes taken for each officer (see Attachment 6). This spreadsheet, along with certifications obtained by the officers, will be retained in the division's server and in the City's Human Resources division.

This recommendation has been fulfilled.

  • Completion Date: May 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Partially Implemented

Although the city has created a spreadsheet for staff to use, the spreadsheet did not report any attendance at training classes as of the city's response. We will assess the city's progress in implementing this recommendation during the six-month reporting period.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #38 To: Pasadena, City of

To ensure that it can demonstrate that its resale record inspectors are qualified, Pasadena should develop a process to maintain continuing education attendance records. The city should ensure that staff receive periodic continuing education through internal and external sources to keep them current on code requirements, especially when the requirements are updated.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending


6-Month Agency Response

The City is re-evaluating administrative changes to the Occupancy Inspection program. The Director of the Planning and Community Development Department did not issue a memorandum mentioned in the 60-day report.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

The Interim Director of the Planning and Community Development Department will issue a memorandum directing staff to submit copies or documents of any course work completed, outside trainings attended, certifications/licenses received, degrees completed, and any other records of job related training to the Department's Management Analyst by June 1 annually. Training with staff will be held to review this administrative change to the City's Residential Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #39 To: San Rafael, City of

To ensure that it can demonstrate that its resale record inspectors are qualified, San Rafael should ensure that staff who are required to have certifications continue to maintain them in good standing to perform their necessary job functions.

1-Year Agency Response

We have added a review of staff member's certification status as part of their normal annual performance evaluations.

  • Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

See response to recommendation #36

  • Estimated Completion Date: 2/1/17
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

See response to recommendation #36.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Initiated; no specific date at this time
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #40 To: Pasadena, City of

If Pasadena subsequently requires its resale record inspectors to have International Code Council certifications, it should ensure that those staff maintain them in good standing to perform their necessary job functions.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 01/01/2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


1-Year Agency Response

The City of Pasadena is evaluating the viability of the Occupancy Inspection Program with the FY2018 budget.

  • Estimated Completion Date: July 1, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Pasadena previously reported in its six-month response that it would not implement this recommendation because it had no intention to require ICC certification for resale records inspectors. However, it is now evaluating the viability of the program, so the status of the recommendation's implementation is pending.


6-Month Agency Response

The City has no intention to require ICC certification for resale records inspectors. If an individual inspector has ICC certification it will be their personal responsibility to maintain the certification.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

Pasadena also made the same statement in its formal response to our report and its 60-day response. However, we noted on page 37 of our report that the interim director of the planning and community development department acknowledged that his department would benefit from its resale record inspectors obtaining International Code Council certification so they would have advanced knowledge of code requirements. Accordingly, our recommendation focuses on ensuring that staff maintain certifications in good standing if the city subsequently decides to require these certifications.


60-Day Agency Response

The City has no intention to require ICC certification for resale records inspectors. If an individual inspector has ICC certification it will be their personal responsibility to maintain the certification.

  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Pasadena reiterates the statement it made in its formal response to our report. However, we noted on page 37 of our report that the interim director of the planning and community development department acknowledged that his department would benefit from its resale record inspectors obtaining International Code Council certification so they would have advanced knowledge of code requirements. Accordingly, our recommendation focuses on ensuring that staff maintain certifications in good standing if the city subsequently decides to require these certifications.


All Recommendations in 2015-134

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader