Placer County Grand Jury
2008-2009
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (6)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The Attorney General's recently published opinion makes it unlikely that any future cash out refundings will take place, unless case law develops from future lawsuits or legislation that overrides that opinion. The Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District agrees with this opinion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School districts should not do cash out refundings in the future without voter approval. This recommendation has been implemented. The Loomis Union School District has never participated in the practice of generating cash out refundings in regards to refinancing a voter approved General Obligation Bond.
F2:
Even if the Attorney General's opinion had not been issued, it is, at best, legally questionable for additional money for capital projects to be taken out of a bond refinancing beyond what was approved by voters. Partially Agree: Initially, education officials were guided by bond counsels in concert with underwriters and financial advisors who were and are considered top experts in the field of California public finance. These bond counsel firms put their names on legal opinions regarding the validity of these financings. It is important to note the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District did not participate in cash out refinancing and instead used the savings to reduce the taxpayer debt of the existing funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
School districts should regularly survey their outstanding bond issues in light of then- current market decisions to determine if refinancing the bonds could benefit taxpayers. The districts should make use of their various bond company contacts as appropriate to obtain analysis and counsel regarding market conditions as they apply to their existing bonds. This recommendation has been in place in the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District. In fact, as evidenced on of the Grand Jury report, Dry Creek refinanced an existing GO bond which resulted in a savings to the taxpayer. This refinancing was the result of an extensive review of existing debt and the market conditions at that time.
F3:
Voters and taxpayers received virtually no communication from the school districts in the seven cases of bond refinancing examined by the Grand Jury, either before or after the decisions were made other than publicly noticed on agendas. Disagree with finding: As required by law and according to District practice, all public hearing notifications, board agenda postings and documentation of minutes of meetings were posted for the public. In fact, the Brown Act requires the District to post notification of public meetings only on the front door of the District office. However, in the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, additional notification is posted at all school sites, in school newsletters, and on the District web site.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
When a potential bond refinancing is being considered by a school district (and it will not go before the voters for a decision), the district should make a special effort to disclose the costs and benefits to the public. It should actively seek public input before and during the board meeting at which the decision is to be made. Once a decision is made to refinance, the decision and its rationale should be disclosed and communicated to the public. This recommendation is currently the practice at Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District. In accordance with the Brown Act, in fact above and beyond the requirements of the Act, all decisions to be made are first itemized in the board agenda and posted in multiple locations, including electronically online, public comment is invited at the board meeting, and all resulting decisions are documented in the board minutes which are distributed in both paper and electronic versions.
F4:
Refinancing decisions may involve millions of dollars, but no requirement exists for communicating these decisions to taxpayers beyond minimal legal notice. The District agrees with this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each school district should voluntarily provide the Treasurer's office with all relevant documentation for future bond refinancings in the same manner as for original bond issues. This recommendation will be implemented and the Treasurer will be added to the distribution list for all bond documents in future refinancings, as with an original bond issuance.
F5:
Especially because the document involved in refinancing a bond issue does not normally disclose explicitly the details about the bond proceeds and what is done with the money, refinancings present a high potential for abuse. This can include cash being taken out of the transaction without being authorized, excessive fees being charged for issuance, taxpayer savings being much less than expected when the effort was approved, etc. The District agrees a potential for abuse may exist. The District does not have actual information on how often this is the case on a market basis and, therefore, cannot make a determination as to qualifying the potential as high or otherwise. Additionally, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District publically stated in the published annotation that ALL proceeds would be used to reduce the existing debt of the taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each of the school districts with currently outstanding refinanced bond issues should work with the Treasurer's office to ensure that the documentation on file for those issues is complete. The District will work with the Treasurer to identify any financings for which bond transcripts are not on file with the Treasurer. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations on Refinancing School District Bonds. Sinterely, Æéyer Superintendent Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District School District Board of Trustees Cc: Eureka Union School District WON SCHOO 5455 Eureka Road Dr. Tim McCarty, Superintendent Assistant Superintendents: Granite Bay, CA 95746 Rick Schrichfield Phone: 916-791-4939 Dr. Heidi Dettwiller FAX: 916-791-5527 Chief Business Officer: Melody Glaspey www.eureka-usd.k12.ca.us Director of Special Education: OGETHER FOR Teri Louer September 11, 2009 RECEIVED CCT 1 - 2003 Placer County Grand Jury The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi Placer County Grand Jury Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 11490 C Avenue County of Placer Auburn CA 95603 PO Box 619072 Roseville CA 95661 RE: Response to Grand Jury Report on Refinancing School District Bonds Dear Judge Pineschi and Members of the Grand Jury: Response to Grand Jury Findings:
F6:
No timely, reliable State oversight exists for the refinancing process. School boards generally accept the recommendations of district personnel and those are generally guided significantly by the investment bankers and bond counsels whose opinions can be, by their nature, self-serving. The District agrees that there is no timely, reliable State oversight for the refinancing process. The District also agrees that investment banker and bond counsel opinions "can be" self-serving.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The County Treasurer should establish an annual program to communicate with County school districts to remind them about the potential benefits and costs of refinancing GO Bonds depending on market conditions. The communication should include a request that the districts voluntarily review with the Treasurer's office in advance the plans for any new issue and refinancing being considered. This recommendation has been implemented. The Loomis Union School District will work with the Treasurer's office to determine if the potential costs and benefits of refinancing its GO Bond is of benefit to the taxpayer community. The Treasurer's office will be notified in advance of plans for any new issue or refinancing. Sincerely, Shuson Paul Johnson Superintendent . Newcastle Elementary School District *Newcastle Elementary School (est 1865) *Newcastle Charter School (est 2005) 8951 Valley View Dr., Newcastle, CA 95658 phone 1.916.663.3307 ---- fax 1.916.663.3524 Kathleen Daugherty, Supt/Principal RECEIVED Nancy McKenzie, CBO September 30, 2009 Placer County Grand Jury The Honorable Alan V. C Ave. Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Auburn, CA 95603 County of Placer PO Box 619072 Roseville, CA 95661 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report on Refinancing School District Bonds Dear Judge Pineschi and Members of the Grand Jury: Response to Grand Jury Findings:
F7:
Existing State law does not require the office of the [County] Treasurer to be involved early in the process of issuing GO bonds or to be involved at all in bond refinancings. However, the Treasurer can provide valuable services to school districts regarding their proposed bond issues. The Treasurer's office can offer an impartial viewpoint on alternatives and provide access to others in the financial community with different points of view. The Treasurer can help structure the many variables of a bond offering to be in the best interests of the district. The Treasurer can help evaluate the fee structure to ensure costs are not excessive and can help make sure that the terms of the proposed issue are well understood and do not include cash out provisions or other inappropriate features. A school district and its property taxpayers would benefit from taking advantage of the Treasurer's knowledge, experience and capabilities. In the absence of any State statues that require this communication to take place, this arrangement may best be established by mutually voluntary agreement. The District agrees with this finding.
F8:
The currently outstanding GO bonds in Placer County school districts represent a significant potential opportunity for taxpayers to benefit from refinancing those bonds when market conditions permit. The District agrees that taxpayers can benefit from refinancing outstanding bonds "when market conditions permit." This includes consideration of features included in the outstanding bonds that may affect the feasibility of refunding in any given market. Overall consideration must be given to the net savings generated for the benefit of taxpayers as well as refinancing costs. The Dry Creek District regularly reviews outstanding GO bonds for opportunities to achieve net savings on bonds outstanding. Response to Recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The MRF, with its updated equipment and use of technology, is a very well managed and efficient recycling facility. Its recyclable recovery program is improved marginally, if at all, by the Blue Bag Programs.
F2:
Making residents aware of the value of recycling is beneficial. However, Jurors found no evidence the time, effort or money spent on the Blue Bag Programs by residents contributed anything significant toward achieving the recycling goals of the jurisdictions.
F3:
Since the MRF is classified as “dirty”, any handling of separated recyclables, such as filled blue bags, adds to processing costs. Jurors found the blue bags added to the total cost of recycling programs in at least three ways. a) The bags cost the residents money either directly by purchase or indirectly through town or city purchase. b) Extra time and labor are required to retrieve bags placed alongside full containers. c) Extra time and labor are required to process saved bag contents at a later time. Blue Bag Recycling Program Assessment 6 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury
F4:
One negative aspect to eliminating the Blue Bag Program is that in some jurisdictions residents will lose the benefit of placing blue bags next to the full container. The extra space can save residents money by allowing more trash to be disposed of without paying for an additional container.
F5:
Especially because the documentation involved in refinancing a bond issue does not normally disclose explicitly the details about the bond proceeds and what is done with the money, refinancings present a high potential for abuse. This can include cash being taken out of the transaction without being authorized, excessive fees Refinancing School District Bonds 67 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury being charged for issuance, taxpayer savings being much less than expected when the effort was approved, etc.
F6:
No timely, reliable State oversight exists for the refinancing process. School boards generally accept the recommendations of district personnel, and these are generally guided significantly by the investment bankers and bond counsels whose opinions can be, by their nature, self-serving.
F7:
Existing State law does not require the office of the Treasurer to be involved early in the process of issuing GO bonds, or to be involved at all in bond refinancings. However, the Treasurer can provide valuable services to school districts regarding their proposed bond issues. The Treasurer’s office can offer an impartial viewpoint on alternatives and provide access to others in the financial community with different points of view. The Treasurer can help structure the many variables of a bond offering to be in the best interests of the district. The Treasurer can help evaluate the fee structure to ensure issuance costs are not excessive, and can help make sure that the terms of the proposed issue are well understood and do not include cash out provisions or other inappropriate features. A school district and its property taxpayers would benefit from taking advantage of the Treasurer’s knowledge, experience and capabilities. In the absence of any State statutes that require this communication to take place, this arrangement may best be established by mutually voluntary agreement.
F8:
The currently outstanding GO bonds in Placer County school districts represent a significant potential opportunity for taxpayers to benefit from refinancing those bonds when market conditions permit.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
R2:
Elective Office or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are required to respond must do so within sixty (60) days, to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors. Respondents must provide two originals of their responses, one to the Presiding Judge of the Placer County Superior Court and one to the Placer County Grand Jury at the addresses listed below. When responding to more than one report, respondents must respond to each report separately. The Honorable Alan V. Pineschi Placer County Grand Jury Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 11490 C Avenue County of Placer Auburn, CA 95603 P.O. Box 619072 Roseville, CA 95661 xi Placer County 2008– 2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 933.05 a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: i. The Respondent agrees with the finding. ii. The Respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following actions: i. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. ii. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementations. iii. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. iv. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. xii Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury d) A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. e) During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding that investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two (2) working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the Presiding Judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the Final Report. California Penal Code Section 933.05 xiii Placer County 2008–2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org HISTORY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE GRAND JURY HISTORY Juries stem from the eleventh century. In 1215, the concept of a jury had become a pledge expressed in the Magna Carta, that no free man would be “imprisoned or dispossessed or exiled or in any way destroyed . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers . . .” In 1635, the Massachusetts Bay Colony impaneled the first grand jury to consider cases of murder, robbery and wife-beating. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and the California Constitution call for grand juries. Grand Juries were established throughout California during the early years of statehood. As constituted today, criminal and civil grand juries are a part of the judicial branch of government, arms of the court system. The criminal grand jury may conduct hearings to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to bring an indictment charging a person with a criminal offense. However, the district attorney usually empanels a separate jury drawn from the petit (regular trial) jury pool to bring criminal indictments. Civil and criminal grand juries have the power to subpoena. FUNCTIONS The grand jury is an investigatory body created for the protection of society and the enforcement of the law. The grand jury in California is unusual because its duty includes investigation of county government as provided by statutes passed in 1880.Only a few other states require grand jury investigation beyond alleged misconduct of public officials. Although the jury responsibilities are many and diverse, the three predominant functions include: Civil Watchdog Responsibilities - This is the major function of present day California grand jurors and considerable effort is devoted to these responsibilities. The xiv Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury grand jury may examine all aspects of county and city government and special districts to ensure they are serving the best interests of Placer County residents. The grand jury reviews and evaluates procedures, methods and systems used by county government for efficiency and economy. The grand jury is also authorized to: Inspect and audit books, records and financial expenditures to ensure that public funds are properly accounted for and legally spent. Inspect financial records of special districts in Placer County. Inquire into the conditions of jails and detention centers. Inquire into charges of willful misconduct in office by public officials or government, district or agency employees. Most grand jury “watchdog” findings are contained in reports describing problems they discover and their subsequent recommendations for solutions. To accomplish the county watchdog functions, the grand jury normally establishes several committees. During its term, the grand jury issues final reports on government operations in Placer County. After a final report is published, the official or governing body of an agency or government covered in the report must respond to the grand jury within a given period of time, as prescribed by California law. Officials must respond within 60 days; governments or agencies must respond within 90 days. The following year’s grand jury publishes the responses to the final report. Citizen Complaints - As part of the civil function, the grand jury receives complaints from residents alleging official mistreatment, suspicious conduct, or governmental inefficiencies. The grand jury investigates reports from residents for their validity. All such requests are kept confidential until a final report is published. In fact, the complainant is not told whether or not the grand jury will investigate a complaint until the report is issued. Criminal Investigations – Upon occasion, the district attorney asks the grand jury to hold hearings to determine whether evidence presented by the district attorney is sufficient to indict an individual, who would then stand trial in court. A minimum of 12 grand jurors must vote for an indictment in any criminal proceeding. History and Functions of the Grand Jury xv Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury QUALIFICATIONS Prospective grand jurors must possess the following qualifications (Penal Code Section 893): Be at least 18 years old. Be a resident of California and Placer County for at least one year immediately prior to selection. Be in possession of his or her natural facilities, of ordinary intelligence, of sound judgment and fair character. Possess sufficient knowledge of the English language to communicate both orally and in writing. A person is NOT competent to act as a grand juror if any of the following apply: The person is serving as a trial juror in any California court. The person has been discharged as a grand juror in any California court within one year of the beginning date of service, July 1. The person has been convicted of malfeasance in office or any felony or other high crime. The person is serving as an elected public official. Desirable qualifications for a grand juror include the following: Be in good health. Be open-minded with concern for the views of others. Have the ability to work with others. Have genuine interest in community affairs. Have investigative skills and an ability to write reports. Have modest computer and Internet communication skills. SELECTION In the spring of each year the presiding Judge selects residents at random from the list of applicants. Applicants should expect that a criminal records check will be conducted. Applications are reviewed and an interview is scheduled with the presiding Judge, the foreperson of the outgoing grand jury, and perhaps the presiding Judge’s assistant. After the interview process, prospective applicants are requested to appear for the final selection, held in a Placer County Superior Court courtroom. At this time, with outgoing grand jurors in attendance, 19 names are drawn randomly by the court clerk. Another History and Functions of the Grand Jury xvi Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury 12 names are drawn and ranked to form a list of alternate jurors. The new 19 grand jury members are sworn in and given a description of their duties and responsibilities by the Presiding Superior Court Judge. The jurors begin a one- year term on July 1. COMMITMENT Persons selected for grand jury service can expect to serve 25 to 30 hours per month for a period of one year, July 1 through June 30. REMUNERATION Grand jurors receive a nominal payment for meetings they attend, and they are reimbursed for mileage to attend meetings, training, and possibly other minor expenses. ORIENTATION New jurors are encouraged to attend an orientation program about grand jury functions, and on county, city and special district governments. WHY BECOME A GRAND JUROR? Those who volunteer and are accepted for grand jury service should feel privileged to be selected. They enter this service with interest and curiosity to learn more about the administration and operation of Placer County government. Serving as a grand juror requires many hours and serious effort, and reflects a generous commitment to public service. REPORTS OF THE GRAND JURY The Placer County Courts maintains web pages for the Grand Jury on the Placer Courts website. Past and present final reports, and responses to those final reports, may be found on the Placer County Superior Court website: http://www.PlacerGrandJury.org History and Functions of the Grand Jury xvii HOW TO APPLY FOR OR CONTACT THE GRAND JURY Placer County residents are encouraged to volunteer for Grand Jury service. This may be done by visiting the Grand Jury website listed below and filling out the Application for Service. Residents of Placer County are encouraged to write or contact the Placer County Grand Jury in one of the following ways: C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Grand Jury website: http://www.PlacerGrandJury.org Grand Jury e-mail address: [email protected] Telephone: 530-886-5200 Fax number: 530-886-5201 xviii REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY ACTION FORM INSTRUCTIONS I. Submit a Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form only after you have tried all other options to correct a problem or concern and they have proved unsuccessful. II. Instructions for preparing the Citizen Complaint Form: a. The complaint is against: 1) Include the name of the individual(s) or organization(s) the complaint is against. 2) Check for correct spellings of names and organizations. 3) If the complaint is against an individual within an organization, include the individual’s title or position on the organization. 4) Provide the individual’s or organization’s physical address (not a P.O.Box), city and zip code. 5) Provide the telephone number of the individual(s) or organization(s) cited, including the area code. b. My complaint against the above-named person or agency is: 1) Describe the problem in your own words. Be as concise as possible. Provide dates, times, and names of individuals involved. 2) Cite specific instances rather than broad generalizations. 3) Attach any available photographs, correspondence or documentation that supports your complaint. 4) If more room is required, attach extra sheets and include their number on the last line of the first sheet, e.g., “three (3) additional sheets are attached.” c. Complainant: 1) Include your name, street address, city, zip code, telephone number and area code. 2) Your name will be held in strictest confidence. All grand jury documents are secret and cannot be subpoenaed in court or revealed to the public. Mail this complaint form to the address shown on the front. xix Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury Please sign your complaint. You may file an anonymous complaint if you wish; however, the grand jury is less likely to investigate anonymous complaints because they will not be able to contact you for clarification and follow-up. The jury is also less likely to get to the truth of the matter if it does choose to investigate. III. The grand jury will respond to your complaint and acknowledge its receipt. The grand jury may contact you directly during its inquiries. Request for Grand Jury Action Form Instructions xx REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY ACTION Placer County Grand Jury DeWitt Center 11490 C Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603 Notice: This form and any supplemental material will be treated confidentially. The Grand Jury is prohibited by law from disclosing any aspect of an inquiry prior to issuing a final report. For various reasons the Grand Jury cannot investigate all requests for action, therefore you may wish to pursue other avenues. Your Name Your Mailing Address City Zip Code Home Telephone Work Telephone PERSON / AGENCY YOU ARE REPORTING Name Address City Zip Code Telephone Please use space on back of form for a brief narrative of key events. Attach any correspondence or documents about the subject. LIST OTHER OFFICIALS / AGENCIES YOU HAVE CONTACTED ABOUT THIS SUBJECT Official / Agency Address Approximate date of contact PAST OR PENDING LAWSUITS Explain what you know of past or pending lawsuits related to this matter Your Signature: Date: Please mail completed form to the Placer County Grand Jury Foreperson at the above address. For Official Use Only. Do not write in the space below. Number: Date Received: Date Considered: Disposition: xxi REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY ACTION, CONTINUED NARRATIVE OF KEY EVENTS (Please include dates and names of persons / agencies involved) xxii 1 Program Assessment Blue Bag Recycling Placer County 2008–2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org BLUE BAG RECYCLING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Photo by Win Gredvig Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury BLUE BAG RECYCLING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Summary Four jurisdictions in Placer County utilize a voluntary Blue Bag Recycling Program. These are the cities of Auburn and Lincoln, the Town of Loomis, and unincorporated areas of Placer County. Residents and businesses place clean and dry recyclables in blue bags that are commingled with regular trash and transported to the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Materials Recovery Facility for processing at a later date. The 2008–2009 Grand Jury agrees with last year’s Jury in its recommendation that all Blue Bag Programs be eliminated. Because of the responses received from the cities of Lincoln and Auburn, this Grand Jury reinvestigated the program and determined the residents’ time, effort and expense were of marginal value to any of the jurisdictions’ recycling programs while additional costs were incurred in processing intact bags.
R3:
If the complaint is against an individual within an organization, include the individual’s title or position on the organization.
R4:
Provide the individual’s or organization’s physical address (not a P.O.Box), city and zip code.
R5:
Provide the telephone number of the individual(s) or organization(s) cited, including the area code. b. My complaint against the above-named person or agency is:
R6:
The County Treasurer should establish an annual program to communicate with County school districts to remind them about the potential benefits and costs of refinancing GO bonds depending on market conditions. The communication should include a request that the districts voluntarily review with the Treasurer’s office in advance the plans for any new issues and refinancing being considered. Request for Responses Mark Geyer, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District 9707 Cook Riolo Road Roseville, CA 95747 Tim McCarty, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Eureka Union School District 5455 Eureka Road Granite Bay, CA 95746 Paul Johnson, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Loomis Union School District 3290 Humphrey Road Loomis, CA 95650 Kathleen Daugherty, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Newcastle Elementary School District 8951 Valley View Drive Newcastle, CA 95658 Bart O’Brien, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3, 4 and 5 - Due by October 1, 2009 Placer Union High School District P.O. Box 5048 Auburn, CA 95604-5048 Refinancing School District Bonds 69 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury Kevin Brown, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Rocklin Unified School District 2615 Sierra Meadows Drive Rocklin, CA 95677 Richard L. Pierucci, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Roseville City School District 1050 Main Street Roseville, CA 95678 Tony Monetti, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Roseville Joint Union High School District 1750 Cirby Way Roseville, CA 95661 Dr. Leo E. Chavez, / #’s 2, 3 and 4 - Due by October 1, 2009 Superintendent/President Sierra Joint Community College District 5000 Rocklin Road Rocklin, CA 95677 Stephen Jennings, Superintendent /#’s 2, 3, 4 and 5 - Due by October 1, 2009 Tahoe Truckee Joint Unified School District 11839 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96161 Scott Leaman, Superintendent / #’s 2, 3, 4 and 5 - Due by October 1, 2009 Western Placer Unified School District 600 Sixth Street, Fourth Floor Lincoln, CA 95648 Jenine Windeshausen, / #’s 5 and 6 - Due by September 1, 2009 Treasurer-Tax Collector County of Placer 2976 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The MRF, with its updated equipment and use of technology, is a very well managed and efficient recycling facility. Its recyclable recovery program is improved marginally, if at all, by the Blue Bag Programs.
F2:
Making residents aware of the value of recycling is beneficial. However, Jurors found no evidence the time, effort or money spent on the Blue Bag Programs by residents contributed anything significant toward achieving the recycling goals of the jurisdictions.
F3:
Since the MRF is classified as “dirty”, any handling of separated recyclables, such as filled blue bags, adds to processing costs. Jurors found the blue bags added to the total cost of recycling programs in at least three ways. a) The bags cost the residents money either directly by purchase or indirectly through town or city purchase. b) Extra time and labor are required to retrieve bags placed alongside full containers. c) Extra time and labor are required to process saved bag contents at a later time. Blue Bag Recycling Program Assessment 6 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury
F4:
One negative aspect to eliminating the Blue Bag Program is that in some jurisdictions residents will lose the benefit of placing blue bags next to the full container. The extra space can save residents money by allowing more trash to be disposed of without paying for an additional container.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Due to the recyclable recovery efficiency at the MRF, all Blue Bag Programs within Western Placer County should be eliminated.
R2:
All Western Placer County jurisdictions with Blue Bag Programs should notify their residents that their time, effort and expense marginally increase, if at all, the amount of materials recycled. The notice should educate the public on the effectiveness of the recycling process and the collection of comingled materials at the MRF. The notification could be a direct mailing or inclusion in the billing. Request for Responses Spencer Short, Mayor / #’s 1, 2 - Due by September 1, 2009 City of Lincoln 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Mike Holmes, Mayor / #’s 1, 2 - Due by September 1, 2009 City of Auburn 1225 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA 95603 F. C. “Rocky” Rockholm, Chair / #’s 1, 2 - Due by September 1, 2009 Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Walt Scherer, Mayor / #’s 1, 2 - Due by September 1, 2009 Town of Loomis 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road, Suite K Loomis, CA 95650 Jim Durfee, Executive Director / #’s 1, 2 - Due by October 1, 2009 WPWMA 11476 C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Blue Bag Recycling Program Assessment 7 8 Procedures Child Abuse Reporting Placer County 2008–2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org CHILD ABUSE REPORTING PROCEDURES WITHIN PLACER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury CHILD ABUSE REPORTING PROCEDURES WITHIN PLACER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Summary Teachers are often the first to witness symptoms of child abuse. The Grand Jury investigated child abuse reporting procedures at three schools in Placer County. The school staff interviewed during the investigation were found to be knowledgeable and well trained in matters involving reporting suspected child abuse. They were aware of their responsibilities as mandated child abuse reporters which are required by the State of California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Despite the building’s condition, the shelter appears to be well run, and the animals appear to be well cared for.
F2:
Past Grand Juries have repeatedly recommended the replacement of the Auburn Shelter, but to date little has been accomplished. The start of the Auburn facility construction is contingent on the completion of the South Placer facility which is now only in its planning stages. Therefore, this Grand Jury is concerned that the replacement of the Auburn Shelter may be delayed. Conclusion Given the condition and limitations of the facility, the Placer County Animal Services Division is doing a satisfactory job.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
All of the cemetery districts in Placer County appear to be serving the public well and operating in an acceptable manner.
F2:
Based on the Jury’s review of each district’s policies and practices, the Jury was satisfied that unrestricted reserves are being controlled properly.
F3:
Two districts (Colfax and Tahoe City) are very small with few reserves and small incomes. This makes them vulnerable to future unexpected problems. It also results in customer fees that are the largest in the County.
F4:
The Colfax District's ownership of the Indian Cemetery exposes the District to potential liability issues.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The cities of Rocklin and Roseville should regularly (e.g., annually) identify, document and quantify any adverse financial impacts the Casino has had on their government operations. Where appropriate, overtures should then be made to the Tribe to reach or modify agreements that would mitigate any of these actual costs.
R2:
Local government agencies that incur costs resulting from Casino operations should seek financial resources other than grants from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund in order to help mitigate those costs. That fund should not be considered to be permanent or otherwise available each year. Thunder Valley Casino: Mitigating Costs to Local Governments 44 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury
R3:
The LCBC should immediately develop and implement procedures to ensure that recipients spend grant money only for intended purposes. At a minimum, this should include requiring statements and documentation from grantees at the end of the fiscal year supporting the appropriate use of the grant money. It might also include a requirement that such documentation be received and approved by the LCBC before any grant money is disbursed for each project. Request for Responses Peter Hill, Mayor / #1- Due by September 1, 2009 City of Rocklin 3970 Rocklin Road Rocklin, CA 95677 Gina Garbolino, Mayor/ #1 - Due by September 1, 2009 City of Roseville 311 Vernon Street Roseville, CA 95678 Thomas M. Miller, County Executive Officer / #3 - Due by October 1, 2009 County of Placer 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Copies Sent To Spencer Short, Mayor City of Lincoln 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Thunder Valley Casino: Mitigating Costs to Local Governments 45 Auburn Animal Shelter Placer County 2008–2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org PLACER COUNTY AUBURN ANIMAL SHELTER Photos by Win Gredvig 46 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury PLACER COUNTY AUBURN ANIMAL SHELTER
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found that the teachers, principals, and vice-principal interviewed had knowledge of what they should do in order to properly report any case of suspected child abuse.
F2:
Although the written procedures used by each of the schools varied, the materials provided the needed information that would guide a mandated reporter of suspected abuse through the reporting process. Child Abuse Reporting Procedures within Placer County School Districts 10 Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury Conclusion The Grand Jury was satisfied with the knowledge exhibited by all of those interviewed. Based on those interviews, the Grand Jury concluded that these schools demonstrated an understanding of the proper reporting procedures under The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. Request for Responses None Copies Sent To Jeremy Lyche, Principal Western Placer Unified School District Twelve Bridges Elementary School Board 2450 Eastridge Drive 600 Sixth Street Lincoln, CA 95648 Lincoln, CA 95648 Michael Garrison, Principal Rocklin Unified High School District Rocklin High School Board 5301 Victory Lane 2615 Sierra Meadows Dr. Rocklin, CA 95765 Rocklin, CA 95677 Tracy Robinson, Principal Dry Creek Joint Elementary School Quail Glen Elementary School District Board 1250 Canevari Drive 9707 Cook Riolo Road Roseville, CA 95747 Roseville, Ca 95747 Gayle Garbolino-Mojica County Superintendent of Schools Placer County Office of Education 360 Nevada Street Auburn, CA 95603 Child Abuse Reporting Procedures within Placer County School Districts 11 12 Call Centers Placer County Emergency Placer County 2008–2009 Grand Jury www.PlacerGrandJury.org PLACER COUNTY EMERGENCY CALL CENTERS Photos by Win Gredvig City of Roseville Call Center Final Report 2008–2009 Grand Jury PLACER COUNTY EMERGENCY CALL CENTERS Summary Emergency call centers are typically accessed in the United States by dialing 9-1-1. These centers serve as the first point of contact between a pending emergency and local police, fire fighters, or health services. Advanced technology and human resource practices greatly impact the responsiveness and effectiveness of a 9-1-1 system—a system that often determines the outcome of life or death situations. The 2008–2009 Grand Jury toured and evaluated the following dispatch call centers: Auburn, Lincoln, Rocklin and Roseville. Additionally, call centers within the Sheriff’s Department located in Auburn and Tahoe City were inspected and reviewed. Jurors found that all call center operations within Placer County reflect the changing technology in the industry. Currently, 9-1-1 calls originating from cell phones in California can be directly routed to local call centers. All call centers in Placer County plan to implement this service by the end of 2009. This technology is an important improvement from past years when 9-1-1 cell phone calls had to be routed through the California Highway Patrol (CHP). This enhanced communication technology is resulting in improvements in the way all emergency calls are handled and tracked.