Laserfiche WebLink
sheets to accurately reflect the actual days and hours employees worked during a <br />pay period. This is due to employees having to turn in their time sheets before the <br />actual end of the pay period. A pay lag would cut back on making the <br />adjustments, avoid overpaying, and be more efficient. In addition, the State <br />appeazs to have been successful with implementing its pay lag. <br />C. Recommend that the County explore the possibility of leasing County vehicles. <br />Background/Exnlanation: When the County purchases a vehicle, it makes a one- <br />time allocation of funds for the purchase. If vehicles were to be leased, the cost <br />would become part of a department's operating budget. The leasing agent would <br />provide for the maintenance of the vehicles, and the vehicles would be newer. <br />Newer, well-maintained vehicles would reduce the County's liability and <br />maintenance costs. <br />D. Recommend discontinuing having all depaHmental bills come with return <br />envelopes enclosed for automatic payment customers. <br />Back¢round/Explanation: Several members of the public who aze on automatic <br />payment plans for their bills wrote to complain about their water bills coming <br />with redundant, return envelopes enclosed. Because there may be other <br />departments with this happening, the recommendation was worded to include all <br />departments. <br />IX. FIRE DEPARTMENT <br />A response dated May 2, 2006, was received from the Fire Department. After reviewing <br />and discussing the response, no recommendations were made by the COGC. <br />X. HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT <br />A response dated May 4, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire was received from the <br />Human Services Department (formerly the Civil Service Department). In addition, Director <br />Mike Ben and Deputy Director Ron Takahashi met with the COGC on September 21, 2006. No <br />recommendations were made by the COGC. <br />XI. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT <br />A response dated September 8, 2006, to the COGC's questionnaire was received from the <br />Office of Housing and Community Development. After reviewing and discussing the response, <br />no recommendations were made by the COGC. <br />9 <br />