Placer County Grand Jury
2012-2013
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The physical condition of the main jail is very good.
F2:
The minimum-security barracks are functional, but old.
F3:
The PCMJ is well managed despite crowded conditions.
F4:
The PCMJ do not have enough Taser weapons to issue to all on-duty jail staff.
F5:
SPACF is not open at time of this writing. Conclusion The PCMJ is well managed and well maintained despite crowding challenges. 37 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
To purchase enough Tasers to enable these weapons to be issued to each on-duty jail personnel.
R2:
The staffing and opening of the SPACF should be expedited to alleviate potential problems due directly to crowded conditions of the PCMJ.
R3:
If the AOC is able to partner in a co-located site, then it must be determined if that can be accomplished at the Burton Creek site. If not, then the County must purchase a suitable site while the property costs are relatively low.
R4:
If the AOC is unable to commit at this time, the County should proceed with the design and construction of a replacement Sheriff's Substation in a building separate from the Court facility.
R5:
The County should pre-plan for co-located buildings adjacent to the Sheriff's Substation and Court buildings for County Administration Offices and a Tahoe Jail facility which can be justified and constructed at a future date. Request for Responses: Board of Supervisors R1-R5 Due by July 8, 2013 Placer County 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Edward Bonner, Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal Due by June 10, 2013 Placer County R1 - R5 29129 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 David Boesch, CEO R1 - RS Due by July 8, 2013 Placer County 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Jim Durfee R1-R5 Due by July 8, 2013 Director, Facility Services 11476 C Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Copy to Administrative Office of the Courts 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95833-3509 62 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury Addendum: Letter of Support from Presiding Placer County Judge, Alan V. Pineschi , dated August22,2012 http:/lwww.courts.ca.gov/documents/CFWG-09-05-12-Piacer.pdf 63 PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEASURE F Inconsistency and Confusion 64
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found the APD jail holding facility is adequate and well maintained for the purposes it is used.
F2:
APD has a vacant Captain position. Conclusion APD's jail holding facility is well maintained and utilized.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
I (we) agree with the findings, numbered: _______
F2:
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings, numbered: _____ (Describe here or attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed or not applicable; include an explanation of the reasons therefore.)
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Recommendations numbered have been implemented. (Describe here or attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefore.)
R2:
Recommendations numbered ______ have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (Describe here or attach a timeframe for the implementation.)
R3:
Recommendations numbered require further analysis. (Describe here or attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.)
R4:
Recommendations numbered will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Describe here or attach an explanation.) Date: Signed: Number of pages attached __ 7 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: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) 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 recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) 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 & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Measure F was intended to (among several items) provide firefighter benefits. However, this did not occur until the March 2012 passage of Measure B.
F2:
The language of Measure F is unclear in some situations and there is a need for clarification by the NFPD. Areas of Measure F requiring clarification include: 70 2012 - 2013 Placer Grand Maximum tax rates There is confusion as to whether to apply a $100 maximum tax (plus CPI adjustments) to all parcels. For example, in 2012 for the first time a consultant was used to calculate tax rolls. Their initial tax roll submittal to the County Auditor erroneously applied the $100 maximum limit to all parcels. a.) Businesses on residential properties There are parcels on which there are both businesses and residences which are only charged the single unit parcel rate. There is confusion as to whether if a residential property also contains a separate business (i.e. welding shop, boarding stable, etc) it should be assessed as both residential and business. b.) Application of Improved Parcel Acreage Rate on parcels over 4.7 acres The NFPD was inconsistent throughout the years in charging the Improved Parcel Acreage Rate for Business unit parcels and for multiple-family unit parcels. In reviewing the past levies, the Grand Jury found the District in some cases charged extra for acreage over the average of 4.7 acres for multiple-family unit parcels. c.) Business units In the Business category there has been a significant change in tax levies since 2006/2007. In 2006/2007 some parcels which had multiple businesses were charged for each business. The Grand Jury noted major drops in tax levies for those same parcels in subsequent years and that currently the parcels are only being charged for each building that contain businesses, not for each business when there are two or more businesses in a building. d.) Exemptions Although Section XIII addresses how to request an exemption, criteria (if any) to be used in exempting properties from Measure F taxes are not addressed. However, there have been several exemptions which have been granted. At least one homeowner's association's common area consisting of several acres has been classified as exempt even though it is entitled to fire protection. Other properties 71 2012 - 2013 Placer Grand have been exempted because they are considered "undevelopable" or too small. In addition, there are examples of businesses on "exempt" parcels that have not been assessed a Measure F tax levy and other examples of businesses on "exempt" parcels that are being assessed the Measure F tax. e.) Use of Assessor's Records Updated Assessor records are not available by March 1st. If these records are used for determining the improvement values of structures for the purposes of establishing whether a parcel is unimproved or improved the records may be as much as a year out of date.
F3:
There are no written guidelines or Policies and Procedures on how to apply Measure F. Personnel charged with calculating assessments have changed throughout the years. Accordingly, interpretation of Measure F has been inconsistent.
F4:
Different parcel owners, when challenging their assessments, found difficulty in getting answers as to why their particular assessments have changed from year to year, and how to appeal their charges. A few citizens complained about being "bounced around" from NFPD to the Assessor, Auditor and to the Tax Collector. In the property tax bill from the Tax Collector, next to the Direct Charge line item, there is a phone number provided to call with regards to questions about that Direct Charge. In smaller districts such as NFPD, it is very easy for the person most knowledgeable in answering those types of questions not to be available. Also, if there is no written guideline, that person may not give a well thought out or consistent response.
F5:
The 2012 Board approved a Resolution for the 2012-2013 tax levy for Measure F before the levy was ready for submittal. The tax roll was later corrected prior to the tax bill being sent out.
F6:
The NFPD does not have checks and balances to assure accuracy of its tax levies. 72 2012 - 2013 Placer Grand Conclusion The Newcastle Measure F, passed in 1997 by the voters of the NFPD, is not clearly written. Based on our review of the ballot language and a sampling of special taxes, the Grand Jury encountered contradictions, uncertainties and issues that Measure F does not address. As a result, we found a number of inconsistencies in taxes levied and differences in interpretation of the Measure. There is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of the Measure.
F8:
NFPD's allocation of Prop 13 taxes is among the lowest offire districts within the County thereby exacerbating its financial condition. There is a perception that other fire districts in the surrounding area (which receive a higher percentage of Prop 13 tax allocation) are not interested in consolidation with NFPD because its share of Prop 13 taxes is so low.
F9:
The percentage allocation of Prop 13 property taxes to special districts is generally limited to the percentage the geographical area collected prior to 1978, when the NFPD was all voluntary. Although there is great debate occurring at the State level on the fairness of Prop 13 allocation of collected tax dollars, there currently is very little latitude for the Auditor-Controller to change this percentage allocation. Some other County Boards of Supervisors have found other (non-Prop 13) sources of revenue to supplement special fire districts which are on the lower end of the Prop 13 property tax allocation.
F11:
The reason for rejection of the property donation for a new fire site was not adequately articulated to members of the public. 92 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury F 12 The 2004 LAFCo Report provided a very useful analysis in the review of facts and issues facing special fire districts in Placer County within the 2004 time frame. The LAFCo review has not been updated since that report. Conclusion The NFPD has experienced a rapidly declining financial condition, which is based in part on increased operating costs, lower development fees (because of real estate development downturn) and lower Prop 13 taxes (because of declining real estate values). Also, much of the financial deterioration can be attributed to costs associated with the delay in dealing with Station 41's physical problems. This inaction, whether intentional or by misunderstanding, resulted in imprudent and reactive decision-making by the NFPD. Ultimately, NFPD did need to take action to increase its revenues, but did so in a way that alienated some of its constituents. There is a completely new Board which has to address some hard decisions going forward, particularly as it relates to a long-term solution to its fire station. It appears they are off to a good start.
F12:
The 2004 LAFCo Report provided a very useful analysis in the review of facts and issues facing special fire districts in Placer County within the 2004 time frame. The LAFCo review has not been updated since that report. Conclusion The NFPD has experienced a rapidly declining financial condition, which is based in part on increased operating costs, lower development fees (because of real estate development downturn) and lower Prop 13 taxes (because of declining real estate values). Also, much of the financial deterioration can be attributed to costs associated with the delay in dealing with Station 41's physical problems. This inaction, whether intentional or by misunderstanding, resulted in imprudent and reactive decision-making by the NFPD. Ultimately, NFPD did need to take action to increase its revenues, but did so in a way that alienated some of its constituents. There is a completely new Board which has to address some hard decisions going forward, particularly as it relates to a long-term solution to its fire station. It appears they are off to a good start. Recommendations The Grand Jury recommends: R1 NFPD complete immediate "permanent repairs" to Station 41 and continue to explore the prospects of a new fire station, including any possible land donations. R2 NFPD Board adopt a five year financial plan identifying financial resources required to maintain Fire Station 41 in the short-term, along with a task timeline and projected dollar amounts needed to address a new fire station. R3 NFPD implement the recommendations in the 2012 Financial Statement by the County Office of Auditor-Controller as it relates to updating its capital assets records as well as formulating a plan for replacement of aging fire fighting equipment. 93 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury R4 NFPD should seek legal advice as to whether the lease agreements for the trailers are void based upon long term obligations not being agendized, voted upon and approved by way of a Board resolution at a public Board meeting. R5 NFPD should verify whether it can, or should, collect Emergency Service User Fees to offset expenses it incurs in responding to transient emergency incidents along Highway 1-80. ESU fees are intended to be collected from persons whose actions along transient corridors such as Interstate-SO result in the need for emergency response, or from their insurance companies. R6 NFPD seek advice as to whether there is a legal or practical basis to explore with the Auditor-Controller, County Board of Supervisors or any other necessary entity as to the possibility of supplementing its low allocation of Prop 13 taxes so that it is on par with other fire districts. R? NFPD contact other fire districts to explore other sources of revenue. RB NFPD work with the Board of Supervisors to update a review by LAFCo which would include a review for potential beneficial consolidation of fire districts within Placer County. Request for Responses NFPD Board of Directors I# R1-R8 Due by September 10, 2013 P.O. Box 262 Newcastle, CA, 95658 Placer County Board of Supervisors I# R8 Due by September 10, 2013 175 Fulweiler Ave. Auburn, CA 95630 94 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury Copy Sent To: Auditor-Controller Attn: Andrew Sisk 2970 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 LAFCo Attn: Kristina Berry 145 Fulweiler Ave. Suite 110 Auburn, CA 95603 Community Development Resource Agency Attn: Tim Wegner, CBO 3091 County Center Dr. Auburn, CA 95603 95
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
NFPD Board adopt written guidelines on NFPD's implementation of all special taxes per NFPD Policy 00011, "Adoption/Amendment of Policies". Include provisions for checks and balances for accuracy and validity in the guidelines
R2:
NFPD include these guidelines in a written Policy and Procedures manual, which would be available upon request by the public.
R3:
NFPD adopt a written appeals process for all of its special tax assessments using its written guidelines as a basis to respond to citizen inquiries regarding their special tax bills.
R4:
NFPD verify that the annual Special Tax roll to be turned over to the Auditor (and then the Tax Collector) is complete as of the date of the NFPD Board's resolution authorizing the transmittal. 73 2012 - 2013 Placer Grand
R5:
NFPD should verify whether it can, or should, collect Emergency Service User Fees to offset expenses it incurs in responding to transient emergency incidents along Highway 1-80. ESU fees are intended to be collected from persons whose actions along transient corridors such as Interstate-SO result in the need for emergency response, or from their insurance companies.
R6:
NFPD seek advice as to whether there is a legal or practical basis to explore with the Auditor-Controller, County Board of Supervisors or any other necessary entity as to the possibility of supplementing its low allocation of Prop 13 taxes so that it is on par with other fire districts. R? NFPD contact other fire districts to explore other sources of revenue. RB NFPD work with the Board of Supervisors to update a review by LAFCo which would include a review for potential beneficial consolidation of fire districts within Placer County.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Bill Santucci Justice Center court holding facility is well maintained and well managed.
F2:
The facility is not used as a jail. It is used as a court holding facility only.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continue the current practice of using the jail facilities as court holding cells.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There have been recommendations of consolidating 911 centers. The Grand Jury recognizes some efficiency may be realized but the bulk of 911 calls are not fire related. Residents believe it is important for 911 dispatch personnel to have expert knowledge of the local community within their area of responsibility. When considering consolidation, the lack of local knowledge can be mitigated by training and technology.
F2:
There are sufficient redundant capabilities in the emergency dispatch centers. Redundant capability is advantageous if one or more centers were affected as the result of computer failure, major electrical breakdown or a catastrophic event.
F3:
The City of Lincoln 911 dispatch center is not always able to staff the facility full time. When they need to close, the City of Rocklin 911 dispatch center assumes the responsibility for the City of Lincoln. They share the same 911 operating system. 127 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
F4:
Upgrading of technology is a continuous process and involves significant IT support.
F5:
Most winery events occur on the weekends or evenings.
F6:
Many complaints refer to excessive noise and traffic. These conditions exist only at the time of the event. After the fact investigations by CORA do not reflect the conditions at the time of the complaint.
F7:
Written complaints after the fact for non-permanent violations such as noise, traffic, and special events have no residual evidence other than accusations.
F8:
As shown in Table Three, staff vacancies in HHS and restrictions imposed on the use of some vehicles because they were purchased with federal funds, accounted for why ten vehicles, were underutilized. Table Three HHS Vehicles Driven Fewer Than 4,000 Miles Explanation Provided By HHS #of for Low Mileage vehicles Restricted Purpose Vehicle 5 Short, Frequent Trips 3 Staff Vacancies 5 Departments Acting to Increase the Use of the Vehicle 8 Mechanical Problems 1 Only vehicle for use by 70 staff 1 Total 23 148 20212-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
F9:
Another three of the vehicles did not log many miles, but were used frequently on short trips close to County offices.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County rewrites the Wineries Ordinance eliminating the vague terminology and conflicting standards. It is recommended that the new ordinance be applicable to all wineries in Placer County and eliminate the distinction between pre and post ordinance wineries. This allows for consistent application of the ordinance and eases enforcement.
R2:
The Planning Commission and the CORA staff review ordinances of other counties that have an established wine related industry in their efforts to update ordinances. This may identify best practices.
R3:
A process be established by CORA code enforcement in partnership with the Placer County Sheriff to receive and investigate complaints as they occur. 120 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The EIR is progressing. The first phase is completed with the identification of the baseline conditions. Facility Services is currently assessing the baseline conditions and evaluating the benefits of the proposed changes. The baseline report is expected to be published by mid-summer 2013.
F2:
The EIR costs will be borne by the citizens of Placer County. 105 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
F3:
On March 12, 2012, CORA and the Fair Association participated in an on-site meeting at the All American Speedway to discuss after-the-fact permits for the speedway ensuring public safety. CORA identified 12 modifications made to the All American Speedway that must be either permitted or removed.
F4:
On April 30, 2012, a letter from CORA was sent to the Fair Association specifically outlining the after-the-fact permits required by CORA. The Fair Association was totally non-responsive.
F5:
October 4, 2012, CORA sent a FINAL NOTICE regarding after-the-fact permits for the All American Speedway. Thirty (30) weeks elapsed between the initial letter and the final notice. The Fair Association was non-responsive. The Fair Association stated that they had no funds in the budget to comply with the CORA requirements.
F6:
The Fair Association failed to meet the contract condition established by the Board of Supervisors which was to secure after-the-fact permits for the 2006-2007 construction by 12:00 noon, December 28, 2012. The Fair Association did not respond to CORA or attempt to negotiate. As of 12:01 pm, December 28, 2012 the Fair Association does not have a valid contract with Placer County, yet they continue to operate the fairg'rounds and speedway.
F7:
As of February 25, 2013, per CORA, they had not received any indication that the Fair Association intends to comply or respond. Twelve (12) weeks elapsed between the Final Notice and action by CORA.
F8:
The Fair Association informed the Grand Jury that the after-the-fact permits were not completed due to insufficient funds.
F9:
The Fair Association informed the Grand Jury that their first attempt to comply with the after-the-fact permits failed because the contractor, working pro-bono, abandoned the project.
F11:
The Fair Association informed the Grand Jury that the income generated by the All American Speedway was required to fund the Placer County Fair.
F12:
No evidence was found to indicate that the Fair Association presented an operating budget to the BOS for 2010, 2011, and 2012. On April 9, 2013, a 2013 budget was presented to the Board of Supervisors.
F13:
A new Operating Agreement between Placer County and the Fair Association is not expected until year 2014. 106 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
F14:
The County is indirectly funding the All American Speedway by authorizing funds for the EIR. The EIR is required as a result of unauthorized changes to the All American Speedway by the Fair Association in 2006-2007.
F15:
Since there is no record of an audit of the Fair Association for the past 4 years it was not possible for the Grand Jury to assess the Fair Association's financial position. It is also not possible to determine whether Fair Association funds are available to complete County required mandates. Conclusion On July 10, 2012, the Placer County Board of SupeNisors extended the Fair Association's contract through December 31, 2013, subject to the condition that the Fair Association acquire after-the-fact building permits for improvements constructed in 2006-2007. The Fair Association did not comply, the Board of SupeNisors took no action, and yet the Fair Association continues to manage and operate the Fairgrounds and All American Speedway. Also on this date, the Board of SupeNisors approved allocation of funds not to exceed $84,400 of taxpayer money for Phase II of the EIR. This was necessitated by decisions made by the Fair Association in 2006-2007. The Fair Association maintains that they have insufficient funds to comply with the conditions imposed. This investigation did not identify any independent audits of the Fair Association financials that would support this position. In response to a comment from the floor, at the April 9, 2013 Placer County Board of SupeNisors meeting, SupeNisor Jack Duran stated "No Winners Here-Just Degrees of Loss". This Grand Jury agrees that this is an accurate assessment of the situation, but it does not justify lack of action by the Board of SupeNisors.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of SupeNisors oversight of the Fair Association be increased to ensure the Fair Association's responsiveness with County Departments, specifically Facility SeNices and CORA. 107 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors require and closely review the Fair Association financial audits.
R3:
The Grand Jury appreciates that CORA's code enforcement procedure is to constructively work with violators and it is our recommendation that the procedure be enhanced with a maximum time line for each step of the process.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that CORA move forward with their code enforcement process, in a timely manner, to assure that the after-the-fact permits are acquired by the Fair Association.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors become directly involved in the examination of the qualifications and credentials of the contractor selected to operate and manage the fairgrounds.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the 2013-14 Grand Jury continue to monitor the status of the commitments made by the Board of Supervisors relative to the Fairgrounds and the All American Speedway.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors explore alternative economic opportunities for the Fairgrounds property.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Historic Courthouse holding facility is well maintained and well managed.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Budgets are allocated by the Board of Supervisors based on the County's cost to provide the services. These budgets account for the overhead. When the Hall Board of Trustees is presented with the Hall's operating cost versus revenue reports by the County they see costs that are fully burdened with the overhead costs. These costs may seem to be excessive relative to the cost of the dedicated resource that previously performed the task as a part of their duties. No monies are taken from the Hall Groups.
F2:
The Grand Jury determined that the handling of the Hall calendars is centralized in Facility Services and is efficient and adequate. The calendars are online and available to the Hall Board of Trustees and were observed posted in the Halls we visited. Hall Boards identify non-recurring meetings on an annual basis. During monthly Hall Board of Trustee meetings the Board of Trustees can make requests for sponsored non-recurring events, and negotiate reduced rental rates up to 50% as defined in 2.82.120 of the Placer County Code. Non-veteran sponsored events are requested though Facility Services. Conflicts are always resolved giving the veteran event priority.
F3:
The scheduling conflict mentioned in the complaint was, perhaps, a one-time issue. In our interviews no one perceived it as an on-going problem.
F4:
The Grand Jury did not identify any misinformation by Facility Services. The issue here is lack of open communication at the monthly Board of Trustees meetings at the Halls. None of the people interviewed could identify a specific example of misinformation on the part of Facility Services.
F5:
The Grand Jury found that Facility Services is performing at a very good level and is compliant with the intent of Section 2.82 of the Placer County Code.
F6:
As a result of the deferred maintenance program, the quality and frequency of maintenance and janitorial service to the halls has been less than the dedicated services previously provided.
F7:
The heating and cooling system of the Auburn Memorial Hall was noted to be far from adequate during our interviews. 114 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Facility Services take the initiative to inform the Hall Board of Trustees of the operational procedures that are now in place.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the heating and cooling system of the Auburn Memorial Hall be evaluated to determine its adequacy for the facility.
R3:
Noise and traffic standards are not addressed directly in the Wineries Ordinance. The ordinance refers to other standards in the Placer County Code therefore these are not violations of the Wineries Ordinance. 117 2012-2013 Placer County Grand Jury The Grand Jury found indicators that Placer County wants to establish and nourish a winery industry in Placer County. This report identifies our findings and makes recommendations to support this objective.