Placer County Grand Jury
2015-2016
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 (22)
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Due to incomplete information regarding human traf�icking, there may not be
F2:
adequate resources dedicated to human traf�icking. Roseville Police Department is addressing human traf�icking via social media
F3:
platforms with increased cyber work and sting operations. Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice and Roseville Police Department have taken
F4:
an active leadership role in tackling the issue of Human traf�icking in Placer County. Placer County is a known transit and destination area for human traf�icking due to its proximity to major highways/freeways and tourist spots. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F5:
Placer County has done a good job of creating and funding support for human
F6:
traf�icking victims. Placer County Of�ice of Education provides support and training to its individual school districts and relies strictly on annual certi�ication (CARS) data to determine if
F7:
the districts are in compliance with AB 1227. Roseville Police Department and Placer County Sheriff’s Of�ice are partnering with
F8:
the Sacramento Regional Task Force to address human traf�icking issues. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force does not have Recomrmepernedsaetnitoantisv es from all Placer County local law enforcement agencies.
F9:
California Community Schools Partnership Program. Heat map data suggests expanded busing could improve overall attendance, Recomfmaveonrdabaltyio imnsp acting student performance and increased revenue from the state.
F10:
700 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Training. Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, and Rocklin do not include enforcement authority in their con�lict of interest codes, leaving no de�ined consequences if a designated individual fails to timely �ile Form 700 or complete Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics Form 7T0r0a ining.
F11:
Across all local agencies, most of the individuals who did not timely �ile Form 700
F12:
were designated �ilers. For Colfax, Lincoln and Loomis, incomplete information in recordkeeping for designated Form 700 �ilers prevented the grand jury from accurately assessing the
F13:
timeliness of the �ilings. As a general matter, insuf�icient oversight by the local agencies has contributed to Ethics uTnratiimnienlyg Form 700 �ilings for designated �ilers.
F14:
Auburn and Rocklin currently place responsibility for Assembly Bill 1234 Ethics
F15:
Training on their Human Resource/Administrative Services staff. Across all local agencies, insuf�icient oversight resulted in many individuals not receiving ethics training by the deadline set by State law. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F16:
Across all local agencies, overreliance on the individual to schedule and receive
F17:
ethics training resulted in untimely training. All local agencies’ recordkeeping was dif�icult to review and often failed to contain
F18:
necessary information. A lack of enforcement authority within all local agencies led to failures to receive Recomtmimeenldy aettihoincss training.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All Placer County law enforcement agencies and Placer County Health and Human Services should increase efforts to identify and record human traf�icking cases to
R2:
better allocate resources by December 31, 2025. Placer County Children’s System of Care should encourage the Placer County Probation Department and all Placer County law enforcement agencies within Placer County be included in the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Task Force to improve enforcement, communication, training, and recordkeeping by November 1,
R3:
easily accessible on Code Enforcements’ website. The Placer County Board of Supervisors should request Code Enforcement to develop procedures for handling chronic complainers by October 31, 2025. The
R4:
November 1, 2025. Placer County Of�ice of Education should develop a certi�ication/veri�ication system to ensure staff involved with middle and high school students are properly trained in
R5:
human traf�icking identi�ication and prevention by December 31, 2025. Placer County Board of Supervisors should require Health & Human Services to provide a written evaluation and assessment from each of the four non-pro�it organizations (Stand Up Placer, Crisis Intervention Services, Child Advocates of Placer County, and KidsFirst) to determine if their individual outreach efforts had an
R6:
impact within the community by December 31, 2025. Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice should continue its efforts in obtaining funding for Victim Services from the California State Legislature by appropriating critical funds effective July 1, 2026. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to -2025 Final Report Placer County Code Enforcement Services: Residents’ Code Enforcement Complaints The mission of Placer County Code Enforcement Services is to promote and maintain a safe and desirable living and working environment. Code Enforcement is a complaint-driven process, with the sole purpose of maintaining established norms and standards for the community. The Placer County Grand Jury sought to determine whether Code Enforcement conducts its investigations in a timely and appropriate manner, providing complainants with proper noti�ications, resolving alleged violations in accordance with the code, and reducing its complaint backlog. As part of the investigation into complaints regarding the lack of response or status regarding open complaints, the grand jury reviewed staf�ing, organizational structure, procedure and policies and the various reporting responsibilities of the unit in order to ascertain its ef�iciency and effectiveness. While the grand jury found Code Enforcement is committed to resolving all complaints as quickly as possible, the grand jury determined Code Enforcement could improve its performance and public image by providing residents with more information on the status of cases. The current reporting structure may need to be reassessed so delays in the resolution of complaints are reduced. The grand jury also found a need for updated and standardized procedures for handling chronic complainers and identi�ied the potential for eFfi�nicdiienngcsy improvements for hazardous vegetation management services.
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Placer County uses a third-party vendor to identify properties subject to Transient Occupancy Tax compliance. Since moving to third party vendors for this process, more than 1,500 properties have been identi�ied which were previously unknown to the county and have operations subject to Transient Occupancy Tax compliance. Identi�ication of such properties improves compliance and Transient Occupancy Tax
F2:
revenue for Placer County. Audits of individual properties for Transient Occupancy Tax compliance are not effective; audit volume is low, and the third-party vendor audit reports lack professionalism. The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Of�ice is investigating the bene�its of discontinuing the contract with HdL Companies and using the Placer County Audit Department to better meet audit needs. Responses to -2025 Final Report
F3:
The Transient Occupancy Tax remittance process is not ef�icient. The Treasurer's of�ice is reviewing software vendors to allow property owners to easily remit
F4:
Transient Occupancy Tax dollars online. The Placer County Auditor-Controller’s Of�ice internal audit report of Revenue Services for �iscal year 2021-22 identi�ied several recommendations regarding the Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs, including Transient Occupancy Tax oversight, Transient Occupancy Tax audit, and
F5:
Tourism Business Improvement District agreement compliance. The Placer County website has extensive information on the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, managed by the North Tahoe Community Alliance. However, the website has very limited information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District, only addressing the lodging Tourism Business
F6:
Improvement District rate on one webpage. The Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business Improvement District programs have provided a signi�icant boost to funds available for investment in the North Lake RecomTmaehnoed aretigoionns, bene�iting both Placer County residents and visitors.
F7:
The South Placer Main Jail demonstrates a commitment to inmate health by
F8:
providing access to medical, dental and mental health services. The South Placer Main Jail’s new vocational training facility will help reduce
F9:
recidivism by equipping inmates with practical skills for employment upon release. The South Placer Main Jail is enhancing its mental health services with newly designed facilities, providing the care and support detainees which have mental
F10:
health challenges need.
F11:
No maintenance records for the ductless fume hood were found. All of the facilities at this location were found to be well maintained and controlled Historibcya ls tAauffb. urn Courthouse
F12:
Although the historic Auburn courthouse is old, it has been well maintained and
F13:
remains in good condition The historical Auburn courthouse provides excellent educational outreach and engages the community in preserving its history through guided tours, school
F14:
programs, and community events which highlight its rich history. While the facility met expectations for cleanliness and maintenance overall, the Hon. Hsotwaiarrcdas Ge .l eGaibdisnogn t oC othuer thhoolduisneg cells lacks cleanliness.
F15:
F16. This facility was found to be well maintained and controlled by staff. Supports collaboration with the Placer County Probation Department, District Attorney’s Of�ice, and Public Defender’s Of�ice to provide support for legal
F17:
proceedings. The courthouse works closely with the Placer County Sherriff’s Of�ice for inmate Tahoe tSruabnsstpaotritoanti on and courtroom security, promoting safety and ef�iciency.
F18:
Several previous Grand Jury reports have cited potential liability issues which are
F19:
shared by the current Grand Jury. While this facility is well maintained and operated by staff, the facility is outdated and in need of renovation or replacement. Responses to -2025 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Treasurer-Tax Collector should develop Transient Occupancy Tax audit expectations and an audit solution which are both effective and cost-wise by
R2:
November 1, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should pursue approval and installation of new technology solutions to revamp the Transient Occupancy Tax and Tourism Business
R3:
Improvement District collection process by December 31, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should complete the follow-up review of the �iscal year 2021-22 internal audit and report on any corrections or additional action to be
R4:
taken by October 31, 2025. The Treasurer-Tax Collector should oversee an update to the Placer County website to include detailed information on the Olympic Valley Alpine Meadows Microtransit District Tourism Business Improvement District by November 1, 2025. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to -2025 Report Inspections of Jails and Holding Facilities, Community Update on Coroner’s and District Attorney’s Offices As part of its statutory responsibility, the Placer County Grand Jury conducted on-site inspections of three county jails and three holding facilities to assess their condition, operations, and adherence to state and local standards. The inspections included detailed observations of cleanliness, maintenance, safety protocols, and the overall treatment of detainees. The grand jury also visited the Placer County Sheriff’s Coroner’s Of�ice and the Placer County District Attorney’s Of�ice. The Placer County Grand Jury found Placer County’s correctional facilities to be well- maintained and operating at a satisfactory level. The correctional staff demonstrated professionalism, courtesy, and a strong understanding of their responsibilities. Facilities were clean, bright, and organized, re�lecting a commitment to safety and professionalism. While most locations met high standards, the Placer County Main Jail in Auburn and the Tahoe Substation in Tahoe City presented some areas for improvement. The grand jury found the former in need of certain maintenance and the latter to be outdated and in need oFfi nredninogvsa tion, which impacts the ef�iciency of the services provided. Placer County Main Jail (Auburn)
R5:
The staircase leading to the holding cells should be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. The grand jury recommends Placer County Sheriff maintain and clean Tahoe tShueb ssttaaitricoanse no later than September 1, 2025.
R6:
The Placer County Board of Supervisors should review and update plans for the renovation or replacement of this facility by December 1, 2025. The Board of Supervisors should continue to support building a replacement Burton Creek Hon. HSouwbasrtadt Gio.n G fiabcsiloitny Caonudr steheo iut steh rough to completion. The grand jury had no recommendations. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to - 2025 The Placer County Probation Department oversees the operation of the Juvenile Detention Facility. The Placer County Grand Jury inspects the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility annually; that inspection was conducted on October 22, 2024. The grand jury found the Juvenile Detention Facility to be maintained in a professional manner. The staff was observed to be polite and engaging, demonstrating genuine concern for the youths in their charge. The staff was focused on offering educational opportunities, addressing mental health issues, and providing positive reinforcement for good behavior. The housed youths readily interacted with the staff in a respectful and collegial manner. The overall impression was, through a focus on education opportunities and the development of life skills, the incarcerated would bene�it from their stay. Juvenile Detention Facility staff displayed an optimism that through their efforts, the chances of recidivism would be greatly decreased. The grand jury identi�ied a need to recoup the actual cost of housing youths from outside of PFilancdeirn Cgos unty.
R8:
Foresthill Public Utility District expenditure approvals should adhere to stated amounts in the Policy Handbook immediately, with acknowledgement to the Placer
R9:
County Grand Jury no later than September 1, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District should review its investment strategy and
R10:
realized asset returns at the next review cycle or no later than December 31, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should update the status of
R11:
securing its water right permit expired in 2011 no later than September 30, 2025. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should review Form 700 �iling requirements for district and board individuals no later than September 30,
R12:
2025, and review annually thereafter. The Foresthill Public Utility District Board of Directors should schedule a meeting to establish performance goals and objectives for the General Manager no later than September 30, 2025, and for each �iscal year thereafter. Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to Responses to million a year for the last three �iscal years. This revenue has allowed the county to invest in a variety of projects bene�iting the North Lake Tahoe area residents and visitors. Transient Occupancy Tax revenue also results in a sizable addition to the county’s general fund, roughly $11 million a year. The Tourism Business Improvement District programs also play a key role for the Lake Tahoe region, an additional bene�it for the county. The grand jury identi�ied several concerns with the TOT and TBID programs, and county leadership shared both their concern and thoughts on �inding solutions. The audit program for Transient Occupancy Tax compliance needs work, as both the audit volume and con�idence in the vendor are lacking. Transient Occupancy Tax revenue collection also nFieneddisn agns overhaul, both in terms of technology and staff direction.
Findings & Recommendations
26 findings
F1:
The student handbook and the dance contract do not contain the necessary policies and procedures concerning the use of the alcohol detection device and the subsequent consequences.
F2:
Staff and administration should have written policies and procedures concerning training and use of the alcohol detection device.
F3:
All agencies have a cooperative working relationship and coordination of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation. This is reflected in the establishment of the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center and Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Team. This enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation.
F4:
The Grand Jury was unable to verify that the agencies provide training for volunteers related to child abuse/neglect reporting.
F5:
Residents of the Town of Loomis value their library services to the extent they have proposed a ballot measure to increase local sales tax to keep their library.
F6:
Loomis and Meadow Vista residents’ needs regarding library services were not addressed. These communities were not included in the community conversations as conducted by the Placer County Library Services consultants.
F7:
Both communities conducted their own surveys to address their needs and concerns. The majority of survey participants in each community indicated support to keep libraries open (See Attachments A and B).
F8:
Colfax does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F9:
At the time of this report, Colfax is implementing a web-based citizen reporting system.
F10:
Lincoln has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F11:
Lincoln utilizes an informal bullet list as their guidelines for dealing with code enforcement complaints.
F12:
Lincoln tracks complaints and actions in a spreadsheet, however it was not being kept current.
F13:
Lincoln has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F14:
Lincoln does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F15:
Loomis has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F16:
Loomis has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F17:
At this time residents of Loomis are limited to filing their complaint over the phone or in person at City Hall.
F18:
The Town of Loomis website does not explain how to file a complaint while the new system is under development. Findings and Recommendations -2016 Final Report
F19:
Loomis does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F20:
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
F21:
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F22:
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F23:
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint.
F24:
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
F25:
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
F26:
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implement written policies and procedures for staff and administration regarding the training and use of the alcohol detection device.
R2:
Amend the dance contract and student handbook to include the alcohol screening policy and the consequences of a positive result.
R3:
At least six months prior to proposing a library closure the Placer County Library Services must hold local public forums and perform input surveys in every affected community.
R4:
The Supervisor of the impacted district should solicit input from their constituents prior to making library decisions. 21
R5:
Lincoln ensure that their written procedures address a process to keep the tracking log current.
R6:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint. 40
R7:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
R8:
Loomis include information on the website regarding how a citizen can file a complaint to report code violations. Recommendations Request for Responses Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Rick Angelocci R6, R7, R8 August 31, 2016 Loomis Town Manager 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Copies sent to: Mr. Brian Baker Mayor, Town of Loomis 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Crickett Strock Loomis Town Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Carol Parker Loomis Administrative Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 City of Rocklin 42
R9:
Rocklin define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
R10:
The written code enforcement procedures, in R9, include measures to keep complainant informed on the resolution to their complaint.
R11:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District maintain an accurate tracking log, from initiation to outcome, for all appeals and exception requests. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Jim Jordan R1-R11 September 30, 2016 Chairman of the Board of Directors Newcastle Fire Protection District 461 Main Street Newcastle, CA 95658 Copies sent to: Mr. Andrew Sisk Placer County Auditor-Controller 2970 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 77
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input from homeless individuals, general public, homeless advocates, city and county governmental agencies.
F2:
This process began in 2004 with the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness In Placer County and continues today without a stated strategy for resolution.
F3:
The counting of the homeless occurs one day every two years. This methodology is inadequate due to the mobility of the homeless, difficulty locating them, and possible duplicate counting of individuals.
F4:
There is insufficient affordable housing available throughout the county.
F5:
Due to the various circumstances affecting the homeless population there is no simple solution to meet all the needs and concerns in Placer County.
F6:
It is unlikely that any decision related to the location of a homeless shelter will satisfy all concerned. Conclusion In 2004 the Placer Consortium on Homeless and Affordable Housing Committee presented a ten- year plan to end homelessness in Placer County to the Board of Supervisors. Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input on this issue. As of this writing Placer County provides only a temporary emergency shelter located in the DeWitt Campus. There is a continuing and growing need for services that are accessible to the homeless population throughout the county. - 120 - -2016 Final Report
F7:
Colfax has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F8:
Colfax does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
F9:
At the time of this report, Colfax is implementing a web-based citizen reporting system. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Colfax’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved. - 129 - -2016 Final Report
F10:
Lincoln has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F11:
Lincoln utilizes an informal bullet list as their guidelines for dealing with code enforcement complaints.
F12:
Lincoln tracks complaints and actions in a spreadsheet, however it was not being kept current.
F13:
Lincoln has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F14:
Lincoln does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. - 131 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Lincoln’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a formal written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
F15:
Loomis has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F16:
Loomis has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F17:
At this time residents of Loomis are limited to filing their complaint over the phone or in person at City Hall.
F18:
The Town of Loomis website does not explain how to file a complaint while the new system is under development.
F19:
Loomis does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. - 133 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the Town of Loomis’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, at the time of the investigation, there were some deficiencies in their procedures and complaint process. The deficiencies are the lack of a written procedure for managing complaints and for keeping complainants apprised of the resolution. Also, information on the website does not explain to a citizen how to file a complaint.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County adopt and implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to address the needs of the homeless, including shelter, before the close of Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R2:
Placer County continue to work with the various stakeholders (municipalities, county, private agencies, medical facilities, etc.) to develop a wide range of innovative and proven services addressing the cycle of homelessness.
R3:
Placer County continue to support the public-private partnerships that provide services for the homeless in the County.
R4:
Placer County continue to work with citizens that have concerns about the issues that accompany homeless individuals. - 121 - -2016 Final Report
R5:
Lincoln ensure that their written procedures address a process to keep the tracking log current.
R6:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
R7:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
R8:
Loomis include information on the website regarding how a citizen can file a complaint to report code violations. Recommendations Request for Responses Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Rick Angelocci R6, R7, R8 August 31, 2016 Loomis Town Manager 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Copies sent to: Mr. Brian Baker Mayor, Town of Loomis 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Crickett Strock Loomis Town Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Carol Parker Loomis Administrative Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 - 134 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
It is not readily apparent to the general public that the Newcastle Fire Protection District Budget accounting code 8105 Special Tax is combination revenue from both Measure F and Measure B. Therefore, it is not clear to the public that Measure F funds are being spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits.
F2:
Revenue generated from Measure F assessments is less than annual employee salaries and benefits. According to the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of Newcastle Fire Protection District revenues and expenses, firefighter wages have consistently been greater than the revenue generated by Measure F. Therefore, the Grand Jury has determined that revenues from Measure F were spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits. - 145 - -2016 Final Report
F3:
Accounting code 8105 Special Tax revenues for Measure F and B for Fiscal Years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 virtually mirrors the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of the same accounting periods.
F4:
There is no internal review of the Measure F or Measure B assessments for accuracy.
F5:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District lacks any access to a back up of assessment records or a recovery plan if the records are lost or destroyed.
F6:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not following the procedural requirements set forth in Measure F and Measure B for handling requests for appeals and exceptions.
F7:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District indicated in their 2013 response that they would implement several of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommendations. Recommendations #1 through #3 have not been implemented and are still applicable as they would improve transparency and accountability. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes the revenue generated from Measure F is being properly allocated to firefighter’s salaries and benefits. However, the Newcastle Fire Protection District, like all special districts, has a duty to run its organization in a transparent, accountable, and responsible manner. The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not meeting this obligation to improve transparency and accountability. The pubic trust is diminished when the Board fails to implement Grand Jury recommendations they agreed to and stated would be implemented. The proper processing and safeguarding of special tax assessment records is not being given proper attention at Newcastle Fire Protection District. Just as the district has invested in new firefighting equipment to best serve its residents; it also needs to invest in an off-site back up record keeping system. The differing language of Measure F and Measure B governing the appeals and exception process for property owners presents a unique bureaucratic challenge for the Newcastle Fire Protection District. Nonetheless, it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that each Measure’s specific language is followed. With the proper training and written procedures in place, the Newcastle Fire Protection District can improve the accuracy, consistency, and accountability of the Measure F and Measure B appeals and exception process. - 146 - -2016 Final Report
F20:
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
F21:
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F22:
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F23:
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Rocklin’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved for consistency. - 135 - -2016 Final Report
F24:
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
F25:
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
F26:
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint. Accela is an enterprise software solution with numerous preconfigured packages for private business and government organizations to manage core applications such as land management, licensing, asset management, and public health and safety data. Accela can be modified and tailored for the specific requirements of the agency and allows for public access to some functions. Other county governments utilize the Accela platform to track and resolve code enforcement complaints. - 137 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion The Grand Jury found that the City of Roseville has well-defined and documented code enforcement procedures. Their computer-based program tracks complaints from initiation through resolution and assures each department is accountable for resolving the complaint and closing out the issue. Procedures require follow-up contact with the complainants regarding on-going status and final resolution.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Newcastle Fire Protection District adhere to the appeals and exception processes as set forth in Measure F and Measure B.
R2:
The revenue generated from Measure F and Measure B be designated with separate accounting codes in the Newcastle Fire Protection District budget.
R3:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District develop an off-site storage and back-up of assessment records, including appeal and exception requests, in coordination with a recovery plan in the event records are lost or destroyed.
R4:
At least one Board Member and the Fire Chief are cross trained in the operations and calculations of the property owner assessments to ensure accurate processing.
R5:
At least one of the cross trained individuals also check the final calculations for accuracy of any property exceptions.
R6:
To guarantee accuracy, consistency, and transparency to property owners, the Newcastle Fire Protection District publish online, by Assessor Parcel Number, Measure F and Measure B assessments along with all exceptions that have been granted.
R7:
There be a printed form at the Newcastle Fire Protection District office, and available online, for use by property owners in the appeals and exceptions process as outlined in both Measure F and Measure B (See Attachments A and B).
R8:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District implement the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Recommendations #1, #2, and #3 as indicated in their 2013 response to the 2012 - 2013 Grand Jury Final Report.
R9:
Rocklin define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
R10:
The written code enforcement procedures, in R9, include measures to keep complainant informed on the resolution to their complaint.
R11:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District maintain an accurate tracking log, from initiation to outcome, for all appeals and exception requests. - 147 - -R11 September 30, 2016 Chairman of the Board of Directors Newcastle Fire Protection District 461 Main Street Newcastle, CA 95658 Copies sent to: Mr. Andrew Sisk Placer County Auditor-Controller 2970 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Ms. Kristen Spears Placer County Assessor 2980 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Ms. Jenine Windeshausen Placer County Treasurer-Tax Collector 2976 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Mr. Mitch Higgins Newcastle Fire Chief 9211 Cypress St. Newcastle, CA 95658 - 148 - , 1997 Section XIII. Requests for exceptions: Any property owner who believes that a parcel of property which they own should not be charged as per this schedule must request such exception in writing to the Fire Chief. Such requests for exception shall include the description of the property in question, including the parcel numbers, name of the owner, physical description and location of the property along with a detailed explanation of why this property should be an exception. The Fire Chief shall conduct a through investigation and as soon as possible prepare a recommendation concerning the requested exception. A copy of this recommendation shall be given to the property owner and the matter shall be scheduled for presentation at the next regularly scheduled Meeting of the Board of Directors. The person requesting the exception shall be given notice of the date and time of such review by the Board of Directors and shall be given the opportunity to make a reasonable presentation of the facts and circumstances which in their opinion give rise to the exception. The Chairman of the Board shall direct the time and manner of such presentation. The Board of Directors may determine that additional information is needed, and if so may continue the matter as necessary in order to allow for collection or review of the matter as required for a fair review of the request. The Board shall determine the validity and extent of any exception requested. The decision of the Board is Final. The Board of Directors shall notify the County concerning any change which may result from the decision concerning the tax for the parcels reviewed. Any exception which has been finally approved by the Board of Directors may be reviewed by them at any time based upon a change in the circumstances which gave rise to the exception, and the Board may determine that based upon changes the property is no longer subject to the exception. In such circumstance, the property owner will be so notified by the Board and may be given opportunity to present information to the Board of Directors. The exception may be reduced or removed entirely. Any such changes would be reflected in the next fiscal year beginning on July 1st following the date of such decision by the Board of Directors. - 149 - , 2012 Section 10: Any property owner who is assessed a special tax as provided for herein may appeal any determination by the District concerning the nature of the use of the property or the calculation of the amount of the tax by filing a notice of appeal with the District offices. Any such appeal shall be filed by December 1st of the calendar year for which the tax is levied. The appeal shall be filed on the form provided by the District and shall contain a statement by the property owner as to the nature and basis for the appeal in accordance with District’s appeal procedure. - 150 - /16* FY14/15 FY13/14 FY12/13 FY11/12 FY10/11 FY09/10 FY08/09 FY07/08 FY06/07 FY05/06 FY04/05 FY03/04 FY02/03 FY01/02 FY00/01 FY99/00 FY98/99 Revenues: Property taxes 1 26,680 2 01,769 1 89,121 1 96,770 1 76,902 1 78,182 1 66,098 1 93,172 1 98,239 1 90,100 1 75,497 1 56,081 1 45,146 1 35,070 1 25,510 1 16,061 1 06,095 1 07,544 Interest 1,893 3,278 3,295 2,733 1,565 3,003 4,442 7,110 7,285 3,301 11,729 6,710 6,973 9,706 13,950 15,619 14,692 6,712 Intergovernmental 940 1,821 1,861 1,914 1,930 1,909 1,805 1,809 1,840 1,857 1,892 1,940 1,935 26,190 2,997 23,563 2,017 1,898 Direct charges - Measure F (1997) 79,475 1 44,188 1 39,062 1 40,074 1 39,897 1 36,643 1 34,583 1 30,455 1 30,925 1 29,298 1 20,986 1 16,519 1 13,602 1 11,257 1 08,175 1 02,625 97,705 96,143 Direct charges - Measure B (2012) 1 65,076 2 99,287 2 83,479 2 97,877 Other charges for services 29,288 5,752 17,615 38,437 - 3,014 161 39,282 15,790 - 52,152 65,344 74,122 55,752 87,032 49,398 55,105 31,886 Donations - 151 35,000 50 - - 1,271 790 100 - 400 - - - - - - - Miscellaneous 4,413 15,607 67,363 65,051 26,732 13,196 34,089 82,998 4,676 - 40 - - 4,277 - 1,241 - 2,500 Total revenues 4 07,765 6 71,853 7 36,796 7 42,906 3 47,026 3 35,947 3 42,449 4 55,616 3 58,855 3 24,556 3 62,696 3 46,594 3 41,778 3 42,252 3 37,664 3 08,507 2 75,614 2 46,683 Expenditures: Salaries and benefits 1 35,888 2 74,448 2 95,780 3 40,523 2 60,378 2 52,016 2 48,266 2 40,002 2 09,738 1 49,725 1 65,000 1 65,000 1 82,500 1 80,000 1 85,361 1 70,248 1 50,000 1 72,907 Services and supplies 1 47,868 2 86,647 2 33,906 1 76,814 1 00,649 1 31,306 1 46,404 1 26,954 1 74,590 98,008 1 45,572 1 70,062 1 16,368 1 07,776 1 04,699 88,433 74,934 74,989 Capital assets: Equipment - (27,773) 2 14,315 - - - - 3,810 - - 52,930 40,828 30,146 18,329 22,708 9,423 36,237 26,280 Buildings and improvements - - - - - - - - - - - - 9,965 9,963 528 - - Total expenditures 2 83,756 5 33,322 7 44,001 5 17,337 3 61,027 3 83,322 3 94,670 3 70,766 3 84,328 2 47,733 3 63,502 3 75,890 3 29,014 3 16,070 3 22,731 2 68,632 2 61,171 2 74,176 *Note: Through 12/31/15 - 151 -
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The student handbook and the dance contract do not contain the necessary policies and procedures concerning the use of the alcohol detection device and the subsequent consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Implement written policies and procedures for staff and administration regarding the training and use of the alcohol detection device.
F2:
Staff and administration should have written policies and procedures concerning training and use of the alcohol detection device. Conclusion The Grand Jury commends Del Oro High School administration for taking a bold, proactive and preventative approach regarding students’ health and safety at school dances. With this impactful decision to test for alcohol, they are still providing an activity to socialize, dance and support school spirit. The inclusion of the recommendations below will clarify and strengthen the process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Amend the dance contract and student handbook to include the alcohol screening policy and the consequences of a positive result.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
All six Placer County Jails and Holding Facilities were clean, well maintained and well managed with the exceptions noted. It was apparent that staff takes great pride in their facilities.
F2:
The Burton Creek Substation Jail/Holding Facility is functional and operational, in spite of its age and the fact that it is not ADA compliant. The staff does an exceptional job in utilizing a very outdated facility.
F3:
AB109 has impacted Auburn Main Jail and the South Placer Main Jail. With some inmates now spending up to 8 years in a county facility, long-term rehabilitation and medical services as well as educational/vocational opportunities are more critical than ever.
F4:
The opening of the booking facility at the South Placer Main Jail will enable south county law enforcement officers to return to duty more quickly than the current system. It will also enable smaller facilities run by cities to expedite their own booking routines.
F5:
The floor of the kitchen area in the South Placer Adult Correctional Facility has missing, torn, and/or worn non-slip floor tapes in the food storage and preparation areas.
F6:
The floor in the kitchen area of the South Placer Adult Correctional Facility has cracks that could harbor bacteria.
F7:
On the day of the inspection of the Historic Courthouse, exposed and damaged drywall or plaster was observed on the bottom right of the doorjamb entering the facility through the sally port. - 187 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion As a result of the shifting of responsibilities from the state to counties, the jail population now consists of individuals incarcerated for more serious offenses and for longer terms. Progress is being made in providing educational, vocational, mental and physical health services. These services are necessary to meet the needs of this evolving inmate population and potentially reduce recidivism rates. All Placer County Jails and holding cells are secured, well managed, and in overall good condition with the exception of the recommendations noted below. The limitations of the old Burton Creek facility hinder the county’s ability to provide adequate services to the eastern end of the county.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Repair the drywall or plaster that is exposed on the bottom right of the doorjamb entering the facility from the sally port. Burton Creek
R2:
Implement changes to make the facility ADA compliant. South Placer Main Jail
R3:
Repair or replace missing, torn, or worn non-slip floor tapes in the kitchen, food storage, and food preparation areas.
R4:
Repair the floor cracks throughout the building with special emphasis in sealing the cracks in the kitchen area. South Placer Minimum Security Facility No recommendations Auburn Main Jail No recommendations Santucci Courthouse No re
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The combination of a police officer and/or a camera provides adequate monitoring of the detention area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The make-shift electrical extension cord holder be removed from the fire extinguisher door in the sally port.
F2:
An updated Computer Aided Dispatch Software could improve records management, crime mapping, GPS officer location, and various other department functions. Conclusion The Grand Jury was generally satisfied with the operation of the Auburn Police Department facility, although there were some possible safety and operation concerns noted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The APD research and implement a more comprehensive Computer Aided Dispatch System. Request For Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. John Ruffcorn R1- R2 August 31, 2016 Public Safety Director, City of Auburn 1215 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA 95603 Copies sent to: Mr. Tim Rundel Auburn City Manager 1225 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA 95603 Dr. Bill Kirby Auburn City Mayor 1225 Lincoln Way Auburn CA 95603
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Sworn personnel and dispatchers in all five law enforcement agencies receive mandatory reporting and investigation training regarding child abuse/neglect.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All five law enforcement agencies establish written policies and procedures for all non-sworn and volunteer personnel regarding child abuse/neglect reporting.
F2:
All five law enforcement agencies work closely with the Placer County Children’s System of Care in the reporting and investigation of child abuse/neglect allegations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The law enforcement agencies ensure that all new and current volunteers and staff have received training on child abuse/neglect reporting. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. John Ruffcorn R1, R2 August 31, 2016 Public Safety Director, City of Auburn 1215 Lincoln Way Auburn CA 95603 Mr. Rex Marks R1, R2 August 31, 2016 Police Chief, City of Lincoln 770 7th Street Lincoln CA 95648 Mr. Edward Bonner R1, R2 August 31, 2016 Placer County Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal 2929 Richardson Drive Auburn CA 95603 Mr. Ron Lawrence R1, R2 August 31, 2016 Police Chief, City of Rocklin 4080 Rocklin Road Rocklin CA 95677 Mr. Daniel Hahn R1, R2 August 31, 2016 Police Chief, City of Roseville 1051 Junction Blvd. Roseville CA 95678 Copies sent to: Mr. Jeff Brown Director of Health and Human Services 3091 County Center Drive #290 Auburn CA 95603 Ms. Twylia Abrahamson Children’s System of Care 11716 Enterprise Drive Auburn CA 95603
F3:
All agencies have a cooperative working relationship and coordination of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation. This is reflected in the establishment of the Multi-Disciplinary Interview Center and Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Team. This enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation.
F4:
The Grand Jury was unable to verify that the agencies provide training for volunteers related to child abuse/neglect reporting. Conclusion All five law enforcement agencies and Placer County Children’s System of Care place a high priority on child protection. They coordinate and cooperate with each other regarding referrals and investigations of child abuse/neglect allegations. All five law enforcement agencies provide training for sworn personnel and dispatchers relating to child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation. They have excellent working relationships and formal written agreements with the Placer County Children’s System of Care which has overall responsibility for child welfare services. The Grand Jury could not conclude that all non-sworn staff and volunteers are provided with child abuse/neglect reporting. The Grand Jury would like to commend the Placer County Children’s System of Care, Placer County Sheriff’s Department, Auburn Department of Public Safety, Lincoln Police Department, Rocklin Police Department and Roseville Police Department for their coordination in investigating child abuse/neglect referrals.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input from homeless individuals, general public, homeless advocates, city and county governmental agencies.
F2:
This process began in 2004 with the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness In Placer County and continues today without a stated strategy for resolution.
F3:
The counting of the homeless occurs one day every two years. This methodology is inadequate due to the mobility of the homeless, difficulty locating them, and possible duplicate counting of individuals.
F4:
There is insufficient affordable housing available throughout the county.
F5:
Due to the various circumstances affecting the homeless population there is no simple solution to meet all the needs and concerns in Placer County.
F6:
It is unlikely that any decision related to the location of a homeless shelter will satisfy all concerned. Conclusion In 2004 the Placer Consortium on Homeless and Affordable Housing Committee presented a ten- year plan to end homelessness in Placer County to the Board of Supervisors. Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input on this issue. As of this writing Placer County provides only a temporary emergency shelter located in the DeWitt Campus. There is a continuing and growing need for services that are accessible to the homeless population throughout the county.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County adopt and implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to address the needs of the homeless, including shelter, before the close of Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R2:
Placer County continue to work with the various stakeholders (municipalities, county, private agencies, medical facilities, etc.) to develop a wide range of innovative and proven services addressing the cycle of homelessness.
R3:
Placer County continue to support the public-private partnerships that provide services for the homeless in the County.
R4:
Placer County continue to work with citizens that have concerns about the issues that accompany homeless individuals.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
26 findings
F1:
Auburn has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F2:
Auburn has a written document defining their code enforcement procedures, which includes a method for tracking complaints through resolution.
F3:
Auburn has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F4:
Auburn's procedure does not include following up with the complainant regarding the resolution. Conclusion With the exception of the recommendation noted below, the Grand Jury’s review of Auburn’s code enforcement policy and procedures found that they are adequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Auburn revise their code enforcement procedures to include measures to keep complainants informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F5:
Colfax has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F6:
Colfax has informal procedures for tracking and dealing with code enforcement complaints. These procedures are not detailed in a written document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Colfax define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
F7:
Colfax has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F8:
Colfax does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The written procedures, in R2, include measures to keep complainants informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F9:
At the time of this report, Colfax is implementing a web-based citizen reporting system. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Colfax’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The written code enforcement procedures, in R9, include measures to keep complainant informed on the resolution to their complaint.
F10:
Lincoln has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F11:
Lincoln utilizes an informal bullet list as their guidelines for dealing with code enforcement complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Lincoln expand their informal bullet list to a formal written document that defines their code enforcement and their tracking log procedures.
F12:
Lincoln tracks complaints and actions in a spreadsheet, however it was not being kept current.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Lincoln ensure that their written procedures address a process to keep the tracking log current.
F13:
Lincoln has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F14:
Lincoln does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Lincoln’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a formal written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F15:
Loomis has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
F16:
Loomis has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
F17:
At this time residents of Loomis are limited to filing their complaint over the phone or in person at City Hall.
F18:
The Town of Loomis website does not explain how to file a complaint while the new system is under development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Loomis include information on the website regarding how a citizen can file a complaint to report code violations. Recommendations Request for Responses Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Rick Angelocci R6, R7, R8 August 31, 2016 Loomis Town Manager 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Copies sent to: Mr. Brian Baker Mayor, Town of Loomis 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Crickett Strock Loomis Town Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Carol Parker Loomis Administrative Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 City of Rocklin Facts
• The City of Rocklin’s Municipal Code is available on the city’s website. It contains a detailed definition and process for abatement of nuisances.
• Rocklin has one certified code enforcement officer and a part-time administrative assistant for a population of approximately 60,000 citizens.
• Rocklin has no internal written code enforcement procedures.
• Rocklin has a computer-based tracking log.
• Complaints can be filed on a pre-printed form, by phone, by e-mail or through an on-line application.
• Rocklin does not follow-up with complainant unless requested. However, if the complaint is submitted through the website, the complainant can log in to see the resolution.
F19:
Loomis does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the Town of Loomis’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, at the time of the investigation, there were some deficiencies in their procedures and complaint process. The deficiencies are the lack of a written procedure for managing complaints and for keeping complainants apprised of the resolution. Also, information on the website does not explain to a citizen how to file a complaint.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F20:
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
F21:
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Rocklin define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
F22:
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
F23:
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Rocklin’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved for consistency.
F24:
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
F25:
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
F26:
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint. Accela is an enterprise software solution with numerous preconfigured packages for private business and government organizations to manage core applications such as land management, licensing, asset management, and public health and safety data. Accela can be modified and tailored for the specific requirements of the agency and allows for public access to some functions. Other county governments utilize the Accela platform to track and resolve code enforcement complaints. Conclusion The Grand Jury found that the City of Roseville has well-defined and documented code enforcement procedures. Their computer-based program tracks complaints from initiation through resolution and assures each department is accountable for resolving the complaint and closing out the issue. Procedures require follow-up contact with the complainants regarding on-going status and final resolution.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
It is not readily apparent to the general public that the Newcastle Fire Protection District Budget accounting code 8105 Special Tax is combination revenue from both Measure F and Measure B. Therefore, it is not clear to the public that Measure F funds are being spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Newcastle Fire Protection District adhere to the appeals and exception processes as set forth in Measure F and Measure B.
F2:
Revenue generated from Measure F assessments is less than annual employee salaries and benefits. According to the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of Newcastle Fire Protection District revenues and expenses, firefighter wages have consistently been greater than the revenue generated by Measure F. Therefore, the Grand Jury has determined that revenues from Measure F were spent on firefighter’s salaries and benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The revenue generated from Measure F and Measure B be designated with separate accounting codes in the Newcastle Fire Protection District budget.
F3:
Accounting code 8105 Special Tax revenues for Measure F and B for Fiscal Years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 virtually mirrors the Auditor-Controller’s reconciliation of the same accounting periods.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District develop an off-site storage and back-up of assessment records, including appeal and exception requests, in coordination with a recovery plan in the event records are lost or destroyed.
F4:
There is no internal review of the Measure F or Measure B assessments for accuracy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
At least one Board Member and the Fire Chief are cross trained in the operations and calculations of the property owner assessments to ensure accurate processing.
F5:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District lacks any access to a back up of assessment records or a recovery plan if the records are lost or destroyed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
At least one of the cross trained individuals also check the final calculations for accuracy of any property exceptions.
F6:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not following the procedural requirements set forth in Measure F and Measure B for handling requests for appeals and exceptions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
To guarantee accuracy, consistency, and transparency to property owners, the Newcastle Fire Protection District publish online, by Assessor Parcel Number, Measure F and Measure B assessments along with all exceptions that have been granted.
F7:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District indicated in their 2013 response that they would implement several of the 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommendations. Recommendations #1 through #3 have not been implemented and are still applicable as they would improve transparency and accountability. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes the revenue generated from Measure F is being properly allocated to firefighter’s salaries and benefits. However, the Newcastle Fire Protection District, like all special districts, has a duty to run its organization in a transparent, accountable, and responsible manner. The Newcastle Fire Protection District is not meeting this obligation to improve transparency and accountability. The pubic trust is diminished when the Board fails to implement Grand Jury recommendations they agreed to and stated would be implemented. The proper processing and safeguarding of special tax assessment records is not being given proper attention at Newcastle Fire Protection District. Just as the district has invested in new firefighting equipment to best serve its residents; it also needs to invest in an off-site back up record keeping system. The differing language of Measure F and Measure B governing the appeals and exception process for property owners presents a unique bureaucratic challenge for the Newcastle Fire Protection District. Nonetheless, it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that each Measure’s specific language is followed. With the proper training and written procedures in place, the Newcastle Fire Protection District can improve the accuracy, consistency, and accountability of the Measure F and Measure B appeals and exception process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
There be a printed form at the Newcastle Fire Protection District office, and available online, for use by property owners in the appeals and exceptions process as outlined in both Measure F and Measure B (See Attachments A and B).
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District implement the 2012-2013 Grand Jury Recommendations #1, #2, and #3 as indicated in their 2013 response to the 2012 - 2013 Grand Jury Final Report.
R9:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District only accept a request for an appeal or exception on an approved written form.
R10:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District provide the property owners an acknowledgement of the original filing of an appeals and/or exception form to improve accuracy, consistency, and transparency.
R11:
The Newcastle Fire Protection District maintain an accurate tracking log, from initiation to outcome, for all appeals and exception requests. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Jim Jordan R1-R11 September 30, 2016 Chairman of the Board of Directors Newcastle Fire Protection District 461 Main Street Newcastle, CA 95658 Copies sent to: Mr. Andrew Sisk Placer County Auditor-Controller 2970 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Ms. Kristen Spears Placer County Assessor 2980 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Ms. Jenine Windeshausen Placer County Treasurer-Tax Collector 2976 Richardson Drive Auburn, CA 95603 Mr. Mitch Higgins Newcastle Fire Chief 9211 Cypress St. Newcastle, CA 95658 Attachment A: Measure F Appeal Instructions June 3, 1997 Section XIII. Requests for exceptions: Any property owner who believes that a parcel of property which they own should not be charged as per this schedule must request such exception in writing to the Fire Chief. Such requests for exception shall include the description of the property in question, including the parcel numbers, name of the owner, physical description and location of the property along with a detailed explanation of why this property should be an exception. The Fire Chief shall conduct a through investigation and as soon as possible prepare a recommendation concerning the requested exception. A copy of this recommendation shall be given to the property owner and the matter shall be scheduled for presentation at the next regularly scheduled Meeting of the Board of Directors. The person requesting the exception shall be given notice of the date and time of such review by the Board of Directors and shall be given the opportunity to make a reasonable presentation of the facts and circumstances which in their opinion give rise to the exception. The Chairman of the Board shall direct the time and manner of such presentation. The Board of Directors may determine that additional information is needed, and if so may continue the matter as necessary in order to allow for collection or review of the matter as required for a fair review of the request. The Board shall determine the validity and extent of any exception requested. The decision of the Board is Final. The Board of Directors shall notify the County concerning any change which may result from the decision concerning the tax for the parcels reviewed. Any exception which has been finally approved by the Board of Directors may be reviewed by them at any time based upon a change in the circumstances which gave rise to the exception, and the Board may determine that based upon changes the property is no longer subject to the exception. In such circumstance, the property owner will be so notified by the Board and may be given opportunity to present information to the Board of Directors. The exception may be reduced or removed entirely. Any such changes would be reflected in the next fiscal year beginning on July 1st following the date of such decision by the Board of Directors. Attachment B: Measure B Appeal Instructions March 6, 2012 Section 10: Any property owner who is assessed a special tax as provided for herein may appeal any determination by the District concerning the nature of the use of the property or the calculation of the amount of the tax by filing a notice of appeal with the District offices. Any such appeal shall be filed by December 1st of the calendar year for which the tax is levied. The appeal shall be filed on the form provided by the District and shall contain a statement by the property owner as to the nature and basis for the appeal in accordance with District’s appeal procedure. Attachment C: Auditor-Controller Measure F & B Revenue, Salaries - 13 - R e v e n u e s : P ro p e rty ta x e s In te re s t In te rg o v e rn m e n ta l D ire c t c h a rg e s - M e a s u re D ire c t c h a rg e s - M e a s u re O th e r c h a rg e s fo r s e rv ic e D o n a tio n s M is c e lla n e o u s T o ta l re v e n u e s E x p e n d itu re s : S a la rie s a n d b e n e fits S e rv ic e s a n d s u p p lie s C a p ita l a s s e ts : E q u ip m e n t B u ild in g s a n d im p ro v e T o ta l e x p e n d itu re s * N o te : T h ro u g h 1 2 / 3 1 / 1 5 F Bs m (1 9 9 7 (2 0 1 2 e n ts )) F Y 1 5 / 1 6 * 1 2 6 ,6 8 0 1 ,8 9 3 9 4 0 7 9 ,4 7 5 1 6 5 ,0 7 6 2 9 ,2 8 8 - 4 ,4 1 3 4 0 7 ,7 6 5 1 3 5 ,8 8 8 1 4 7 ,8 6 8 - - 2 8 3 ,7 5 6 F Y 1 4 / 1 5 2 0 1 ,7 6 9 3 ,2 7 8 1 ,8 2 1 1 4 4 ,1 8 8 2 9 9 ,2 8 7 5 ,7 5 2 1 5 1 1 5 ,6 0 7 6 7 1 ,8 5 3 2 7 4 ,4 4 8 2 8 6 ,6 4 7 (2 7 ,7 7 3 ) - 5 3 3 ,3 2 2 F Y 1 3 / 1 4 1 8 9 ,1 2 1 3 ,2 9 5 1 ,8 6 1 1 3 9 ,0 6 2 2 8 3 ,4 7 9 1 7 ,6 1 5 3 5 ,0 0 0 6 7 ,3 6 3 7 3 6 ,7 9 6 2 9 5 ,7 8 0 2 3 3 ,9 0 6 2 1 4 ,3 1 5 - 7 4 4 ,0 0 1 F Y 1 2 / 1 3 1 9 6 ,7 7 0 2 ,7 3 3 1 ,9 1 4 1 4 0 ,0 7 4 2 9 7 ,8 7 7 3 8 ,4 3 7 5 0 6 5 ,0 5 1 7 4 2 ,9 0 6 3 4 0 ,5 2 3 1 7 6 ,8 1 4 - - 5 1 7 ,3 3 7 F Y 1 1 / 1 2 1 7 6 ,9 0 2 1 ,5 6 5 1 ,9 3 0 1 3 9 ,8 9 7 - - 2 6 ,7 3 2 3 4 7 ,0 2 6 2 6 0 ,3 7 8 1 0 0 ,6 4 9 - - 3 6 1 ,0 2 7 F Y 1 0 / 1 1 1 7 8 ,1 8 2 3 ,0 0 3 1 ,9 0 9 1 3 6 ,6 4 3 3 ,0 1 4 - 1 3 ,1 9 6 3 3 5 ,9 4 7 2 5 2 ,0 1 6 1 3 1 ,3 0 6 - - 3 8 3 ,3 2 2 F Y 0 9 / 1 0 1 6 6 ,0 9 8 4 ,4 4 2 1 ,8 0 5 1 3 4 ,5 8 3 1 6 1 1 ,2 7 1 3 4 ,0 8 9 3 4 2 ,4 4 9 2 4 8 ,2 6 6 1 4 6 ,4 0 4 - - 3 9 4 ,6 7 0 F Y 0 8 / 0 9 1 9 3 ,1 7 2 7 ,1 1 0 1 ,8 0 9 1 3 0 ,4 5 5 3 9 ,2 8 2 7 9 0 8 2 ,9 9 8 4 5 5 ,6 1 6 2 4 0 ,0 0 2 1 2 6 ,9 5 4 3 ,8 1 0 - 3 7 0 ,7 6 6 F Y 0 7 / 0 8 1 9 8 ,2 3 9 7 ,2 8 5 1 ,8 4 0 1 3 0 ,9 2 5 1 5 ,7 9 0 1 0 0 4 ,6 7 6 3 5 8 ,8 5 5 2 0 9 ,7 3 8 1 7 4 ,5 9 0 - - 3 8 4 ,3 2 8 F Y 0 6 / 0 7 1 9 0 ,1 0 0 3 ,3 0 1 1 ,8 5 7 1 2 9 ,2 9 8 - - - 3 2 4 ,5 5 6 1 4 9 ,7 2 5 9 8 ,0 0 8 - - 2 4 7 ,7 3 3 F Y 0 5 / 0 6 1 7 5 ,4 9 7 1 1 ,7 2 9 1 ,8 9 2 1 2 0 ,9 8 6 5 2 ,1 5 2 4 0 0 4 0 3 6 2 ,6 9 6 1 6 5 ,0 0 0 1 4 5 ,5 7 2 5 2 ,9 3 0 - 3 6 3 ,5 0 2 F Y 0 4 / 0 5 1 5 6 ,0 8 1 6 ,7 1 0 1 ,9 4 0 1 1 6 ,5 1 9 6 5 ,3 4 4 - - 3 4 6 ,5 9 4 1 6 5 ,0 0 0 1 7 0 ,0 6 2 4 0 ,8 2 8 - 3 7 5 ,8 9 0 F Y 0 3 / 0 4 1 4 5 ,1 4 6 6 ,9 7 3 1 ,9 3 5 1 1 3 ,6 0 2 7 4 ,1 2 2 - - 3 4 1 ,7 7 8 1 8 2 ,5 0 0 1 1 6 ,3 6 8 3 0 ,1 4 6 3 2 9 ,0 1 4 F Y 0 2 / 0 3 1 3 5 ,0 7 0 9 ,7 0 6 2 6 ,1 9 0 1 1 1 ,2 5 7 5 5 ,7 5 2 - 4 ,2 7 7 3 4 2 ,2 5 2 1 8 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 7 ,7 7 6 1 8 ,3 2 9 9 ,9 6 5 3 1 6 ,0 7 0 F Y 0 1 / 0 2 1 2 5 ,5 1 0 1 3 ,9 5 0 2 ,9 9 7 1 0 8 ,1 7 5 8 7 ,0 3 2 - - 3 3 7 ,6 6 4 1 8 5 ,3 6 1 1 0 4 ,6 9 9 2 2 ,7 0 8 9 ,9 6 3 3 2 2 ,7 3 1 F Y 0 0 / 0 1 1 1 6 ,0 6 1 1 5 ,6 1 9 2 3 ,5 6 3 1 0 2 ,6 2 5 4 9 ,3 9 8 - 1 ,2 4 1 3 0 8 ,5 0 7 1 7 0 ,2 4 8 8 8 ,4 3 3 9 ,4 2 3 5 2 8 2 6 8 ,6 3 2 F Y 9 9 / 0 0 1 0 6 ,0 9 5 1 4 ,6 9 2 2 ,0 1 7 9 7 ,7 0 5 5 5 ,1 0 5 - - 2 7 5 ,6 1 4 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 7 4 ,9 3 4 3 6 ,2 3 7 - 2 6 1 ,1 7 1 F Y 9 8 / 9 9 1 0 7 ,5 4 4 6 ,7 1 2 1 ,8 9 8 9 6 ,1 4 3 3 1 ,8 8 6 - 2 ,5 0 0 2 4 6 ,6 8 3 1 7 2 ,9 0 7 7 4 ,9 8 9 2 6 ,2 8 0 - 2 7 4 ,1 7 6 Attachment D: Newcastle Fire Protection District 2013–2014 Budget and Revenue NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2014 / 2015 FINAL BUDGET SUB: 360 DESCRIPTION 2013/2014 2013/2014 2013/2014 2014/2015 REVENUE: BUDGET CURRENT % BUDGET 6100 General Taxes $179,512.00 $176,121.37 98.1% $189,217.00 6106 Railroad Unitary Property $195.00 $194.97 99.9% $210.00 6107 Unitary Taxes $4,436.00 $4,436.42 100.0% $4,800.00 6108 Property Tax Impounds $0.00 -$5.04 0.0% $0.00 6111 Unsecured Taxes $4,860.00 $4,698.31 96.4% $4,783.00 6132 Redemption - General $0.00 -$87.22 0.0% $0.00 6140 Prior Unsecured $0.00 $512.72 0.0% $62.00 6171 Current Suppemental Taxes $1,500.00 $3,233.65 215.6% $2,783.00 6196 Prior Supplement Prop. Taxs $0.00 $15.84 0.0% $15.00 6199 Prop 1A Suspension $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 6950 Interest Income $3,000.00 $3,628.74 121.0% $3,000.00 6957 R&T 5151 Interest Refunded $0.00 -$333.79 0.0% -$300.00 7205 Homeowners Property Tax $1,835.00 $1,861.30 101.4% $1,788.00 7326 Federal - Other $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 7455 State Match $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8105 Special Tax $422,020.00 $422,539.85 100.1% $423,000.00 8171 Const. Inspection Fees $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8176 Inspection Fees / Commercial $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8193 Other Svc's, Strike Team Deployments $10,000.00 $17,614.93 0.0% $0.00 8215 Administrative Contract $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8263 Development Fees $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8746 Grants-Private Funds $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8764 Other Misc. $35,000.00 $102,362.84 292.5% $30,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE: $662,358.00 $736,794.89 111.2% $659,358.00 Transfer From: 2453, 552000, Assign-Con. To: 2455 Unassigned Fund Balance $100,000.00 $103,955.00 Estimate Fund Balance: $0.00 -$38,795.00 TOTAL: $762,358.00 $724,517.00 SALARY & WAGES: 1002 Salaries and Wages $210,000.00 $179,303.90 85.4% $210,000.00 1003 Extra Help (Pt. Time) $40,000.00 $19,385.32 48.5% $40,000.00 1005 Overtime / Call Back $25,000.00 $20,777.56 83.1% $30,000.00 1301 FICA 7.656% $23,000.00 $19,044.02 82.8% $21,000.00 1310 Employee Grp. Ins. $20,000.00 $29,011.26 145.1% $45,000.00 1315 Workers Comp. Ins.(.0675%) $22,000.00 $28,258.00 128.4% $31,000.00 1565 Emp. Ben. (other Agency) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 TOTAL SALARIES & WAGES: $340,000.00 $295,780.06 87.0% $377,000.00 Attachment D (Continued) NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2014 / 2015 FINAL BUDGET SUB: 360 DESCRIPTION 2013/2014 2013/2014 2013/2014 2014/2015 BUDGET CURRENT % BUDGET OPERATIONS: 2017 Uniforms $4,000.00 $3,979.54 99.5% $3,500.00 2020 Cloths & Personal Supplies $0.00 $294.26 0.0% $0.00 2051 Communications, Tel $4,000.00 $5,718.76 143.0% $6,000.00 2140 Insur. Liab. & Gen $11,000.00 $9,613.00 87.4% $9,700.00 2290 Equipment - Vehicles $15,000.00 $16,063.30 107.1% $12,000.00 2404 Maintenance Services $4,000.00 $579.80 14.5% $0.00 2405 Building & Impr. / New Building $20,000.00 $13,308.10 66.5% $112,000.00 2422 Medical Oxygen $4,000.00 $1,246.14 31.2% $720.00 2439 Dues & Subscriptions $500.00 $1,438.00 287.6% $1,600.00 2456 Misc. (Special Exp.) $3,000.00 $3,861.49 128.7% $3,000.00 2508 County Coll. Charges $7,500.00 $6,734.63 89.8% $6,700.00 2511 Printing Costs $500.00 $1,012.68 202.5% $200.00 2517 SB 2557 Co. Cost $3,995.00 $4,045.44 101.3% $4,176.00 2521 Operating Supplies $1,500.00 $572.72 38.2% $0.00 2522 Supplies (Equip. Misc.) $2,000.00 $2,420.80 121.0% $10,000.00 2523 Office Supplies $5,500.00 $6,702.75 121.9% $3,500.00 2528 Services / Penryn Contract $1,000.00 $420.00 42.0% $75,000.00 2555 Professional Services $102,740.00 $130,894.53 127.4% $60,000.00 2770 Gasoline & Oil $12,000.00 $10,033.56 83.6% $12,000.00 2772 Other Contract Svcs. $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 2821 Small Equipment (Grant) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 2831 Precinct Elections $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $6,000.00 2840 Special Exp. / Strike Team $0.00 $1,414.78 0.0% $0.00 2844 Training $3,500.00 $3,177.00 90.8% $3,000.00 2939 Admin. Board Exp. (Dir) $1,000.00 $760.00 76.0% $2,200.00 2965 Utilities $9,000.00 $9,463.80 105.2% $10,000.00 3547 LAFCO Dues $500.00 $150.75 30.2% $221.00 3785 Local Matching Funds (Grants) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 4455 Fire Equipment $206,123.00 $214,314.98 104.0% $6,000.00 TOTAL OPERATIONS: $422,358.00 $448,220.81 104.0% $347,517.00 TOTAL EXPENSES: $762,358.00 $744,000.87 97.6% $724,517.00 RESERVES: 2453,514000: General Reserve $59,362.00 $0.00 $59,362.00 2453,552000: ASSIGN-Contingencies: $343,243.08 $278,084.08 TOTAL: $402,605.08 $0.00 $337,446.08 Attachment E: Newcastle Fire Protection District 2014–2015 Budget and Revenue NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2015 / 2016 BUDGET SUB: 360 DESCRIPTION 2014/2015 2014/2015 2014/2015 2015/2016 REVENUE: BUDGET CURRENT % BUDGET 6100 General Taxes $189,217.00 $187,410.87 99.0% $212,009.00 6106 Railroad Unitary Property $210.00 $212.25 101.1% $240.00 6107 Unitary Taxes $4,800.00 $4,849.25 101.0% $5,100.00 6108 Property Tax Impounds $0.00 -$19.68 0.0% $0.00 6111 Unsecured Taxes $4,783.00 $4,712.62 98.5% $4,878.00 6132 Redemption - General $0.00 -$10.25 $0.00 6140 Prior Unsecured $62.00 $94.10 151.8% $77.00 6171 Current Suppemental Taxes $2,783.00 $4,502.30 161.8% $4,674.00 6196 Prior Supplement Prop. Taxs $15.00 $17.08 113.9% $15.00 6950 Interest Income $3,000.00 $3,506.15 116.9% $3,000.00 6957 R&T 5151 Interest Refunded -$300.00 -$228.64 0.0% $0.00 7205 Homeowners Property Tax $1,788.00 $1,821.38 101.9% $1,800.00 7326 Federal - Other $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 7455 State Match $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8105 Special Tax $423,000.00 $443,474.25 104.8% $443,674.00 8193 Other Svc's, Strike Team Deployments $0.00 $5,751.68 0.0% $21,300.00 8215 Administrative Contract $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8746 Grants-Private Funds $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 8764 Other Misc. $30,000.00 $15,758.45 52.5% $5,000.00 TOTAL REVENUE: $659,358.00 $671,851.81 101.9% $701,767.00 Transfer To: 2453, 552000, Assign. Conting. From: 2455 Unassigned Fund Balance $103,955.00 $60,125.00 Estimate Fund Balance: 2455 -$38,795.00 $175,915.00 TOTAL: $724,517.00 $817,558.00 SALARY & WAGES: 1002 Salaries and Wages $210,000.00 $149,290.61 71.1% $230,000.00 1003 Extra Help (Pt. Time) $40,000.00 $19,043.79 47.6% $40,000.00 1005 Overtime / Call Back $30,000.00 $44,101.63 147.0% $45,000.00 1301 FICA 7.656% $21,000.00 $18,975.85 90.4% $26,000.00 1310 Employee Grp. Ins. $45,000.00 $9,712.21 21.6% $25,000.00 1315 Workers Comp. Ins.(.0675%) $31,000.00 $30,112.00 97.1% $32,000.00 1565 Emp. Ben. (other Agency) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 TOTAL SALARIES & WAGES: $377,000.00 $271,236.09 71.9% $398,000.00 Attachment E (continued) NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2015 / 2016 BUDGET SUB: 360 DESCRIPTION 2014/2015 2014/2015 2014/2015 2015/2016 BUDGET CURRENT % BUDGET OPERATIONS: 2017 Uniforms $3,500.00 $1,935.74 55.3% $4,000.00 2051 Communications, Tel $6,000.00 $4,924.94 82.1% $5,000.00 2140 Insur. Liab. & Gen $9,700.00 $8,289.00 85.5% $8,500.00 2290 Equipment - Vehicles $12,000.00 $11,246.07 93.7% $22,000.00 2405 Building & Impr. / New Building $112,000.00 $106,507.95 95.1% $144,000.00 2422 Medical Oxygen $720.00 $582.43 80.9% $720.00 2439 Dues & Subscriptions $1,600.00 $1,751.00 109.4% $1,800.00 2456 Misc. (Special Exp.) $3,000.00 $1,560.69 52.0% $3,000.00 2508 County Coll. Charges $6,700.00 $4,449.98 66.4% $6,700.00 2511 Printing Costs $200.00 $140.83 70.4% $200.00 2517 SB 2557 Co. Cost $4,176.00 $4,175.87 100.0% $4,950.00 2522 Supplies (Equip. Misc.) $10,000.00 $7,698.46 77.0% $11,000.00 2523 Office Supplies $3,500.00 $4,293.23 122.7% $4,000.00 2528 Services / Penryn Contract $75,000.00 $93,750.00 100.0% $105,000.00 2555 Professional Services $60,000.00 $24,308.10 40.5% $45,000.00 2770 Gasoline & Oil $12,000.00 $8,699.08 72.5% $12,000.00 2772 Other Contract Svcs. $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 2821 Small Equipment (Grant) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 2831 Precinct Elections $6,000.00 $4,236.25 70.6% $0.00 2840 Special Exp. / Strike Team $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $20,000.00 2844 Training $3,000.00 $1,170.00 39.0% $4,000.00 2939 Admin. Board Exp. (Dir) $2,200.00 $1,360.00 61.8% $2,200.00 2965 Utilities $10,000.00 $7,890.74 78.9% $10,000.00 3547 LAFCO Dues $221.00 $220.59 99.8% $488.00 3785 Local Matching Funds (Grants) $0.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 4455 Fire Equipment $6,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL OPERATIONS: $347,517.00 $299,190.95 71.4% $419,558.00 TOTAL EXPENSES: $724,517.00 $542,654.05 74.9% $817,558.00 RESERVES: 2453,514000: General Reserve $59,362.00 $59,362.00 $59,363.00 2453,552000: ASSIGN-Contingencies: $239,288.08 $239,288.08 $299,412.08 TOTAL: $298,650.08 $298,650.08 $358,775.08
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Substantiated complaints within Code Enforcement’s jurisdiction can take six to twelve months to bring to resolution.
F2:
The Accela database is not being used to its full potential to track the status, age, or resolution of a complaint.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
F3:
There is no mechanism in place to determine how many complaints are open or closed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
While R4 and R5 are in the process of being implemented, create an independent tracking system, such as a simple spreadsheet, for management to review, which lists all incoming complaints, dispositions and final resolutions.
F4:
The public may find that there is no staff from Code Enforcement available at the office during business hours to answer their questions.
F5:
Code Enforcement Officers must spend part of their time helping and training the temporary part-time clerical worker to research and identify complaints for processing.
F6:
The Code Enforcement department is understaffed for the volume of complaints that are received.
F7:
The Code Enforcement department does not have a full-time supervisor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Have the Code Enforcement Supervisor’s sole responsibility be to manage this department.
F8:
The Code Enforcement department has abandoned any attempt to communicate with the reporting party about the status of their complaint. The reporting party is not informed if the complaint has been received, if the complaint has been dismissed, has been directed to a different department or is currently under investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement a standard procedure to issue a Letter of Receipt to the complainant, within 10 days of complaint receipt. The letter should indicate if the complaint:
• Will be actively investigated
• Is outside the scope of Code Enforcement
• Has been forwarded to another department Include general information regarding the code enforcement process with the letter.
F9:
Lack of a comprehensive tracking program for complaints severely limits management’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the department’s operation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
While R4 and R5 are in the process of being implemented, create an independent tracking system, such as a simple spreadsheet, for management to review, which lists all incoming complaints, dispositions and final resolutions.
F10:
Because there is no Code Enforcement Technician and a permanent full-time clerical support staff position has not been filled, Code Enforcement Officers spend more time managing operations and less time resolving complaints. Conclusion While the Code Enforcement department is comprised of dedicated and hardworking staff members, the operations and management seem to be dysfunctional. There is no central coordination or tracking of complaints. Management does not know how many complaints are open, the disposition of those complaints, nor the manner in which they were resolved. Without meaningful data regarding the productivity of the department, it is doubtful that management can make any assessments about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Code Enforcement department. Without operational data, funding and staffing levels cannot be properly assessed and/or addressed. The process of investigating and resolving code violations can be complicated. It can take several months for a Code Enforcement Officer working with a property owner to satisfactorily resolve a violation. However, the complicated nature of resolving verifiable code violations does not absolve either the Code Enforcement department or the Community Resource Development Agency from their responsibility to communicate with the reporting party and to track complaints. Placer County should make a commitment to its citizens to provide an efficient and consistent Code Enforcement department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Staff the full-time positions of Code Enforcement Technician and permanent clerical support.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
When the Placer County Board of Supervisors adopted Laura’s Law, Placer County moved quickly and comprehensively to plan for and implement this program.
F2:
Laura’s Law is an effective legal option in delivering needed mental health services in Placer County.
F3:
Laura’s Law has been useful in encouraging voluntary participation in mental health services.
F4:
There has been limited usage of Laura’s Law since its implementation.
F5:
There has been insufficient outreach to medical and educational professionals and the general public beyond the limited distribution of a basic flyer. Conclusion To date, Laura’s Law has proven to be an effective option to support client participation in outpatient mental health services. Placer County successfully planned for and implemented Laura’s Law with the noted exception of the public awareness effort.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Placer County Health and Human Services expand current information outreach efforts to make medical and education professionals, as well as the general population, more aware of Laura’s Law. This would include the Law’s benefits, qualifications and operational policies. Request For Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Jeff Brown R1 August 31, 2016 Director, Health and Human Services 3091 County Center Drive #290 Auburn, CA, 95603 Copies sent to: Ms. Maureen Bauman Director, Placer County Adult System of Care 11512 Ave B Auburn, CA, 95603 Mr. David Boesch Chief Executive Officer, Placer County 175 Fulweiler Ave. Auburn, CA 95603
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The JDF to be clean, well maintained, and well staffed with trained personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The staff continue to manage and operate the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility in the same positive manner. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date No Responses Required -- -- Copies sent to: Mr. Marshall Hopper Chief Probation Officer Placer County Probation Department 2929 Richardson Drive, Suite B Auburn, CA 95603 Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Mr. Jeffery Cann Superintendent, Placer County Juvenile Detention Center 11260 B Avenue Auburn, CA 95603
F2:
Detainees in the JDF are treated with respect with a focus on education and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
F3:
School programs appear to comply with state education code requirements. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes that the staff and management of the JDF are to be commended for their positive attitudes when dealing with detainees as well as providing continuing educational opportunities, including job seeking skills, for the long term detainees.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The lack of proper lighting to monitor inmate activities during pupil dilation drug testing is problematic. The existing lighting interferes with the ability to conduct a proper and safe pupil dilation test related to drug and alcohol screening. When the light is turned off to properly conduct the test, the lack of any lighting creates a safety and security threat to detainees and police officers. Conclusion The RCPS and holding cells appeared to be well-managed and maintained by staff. The Grand Jury commends the RCPS for its operation and upkeep of its facility. However, the lighting issue in the holding facility is a problem for officer safety. The Grand Jury also commends the RCPS for working with other community partners and making their facility available for training and regional emergency services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
RCPS purchase and install appropriate lighting equipment in its booking and holding area to increase officer and detainee safety. Request For Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Ron Lawrence R1 August 31, 2016 Police Chief, City of Rocklin 4080 Rocklin Road Rocklin, CA 95677 Copies sent to: Rocklin City Council 3970 Rocklin Road Rocklin, CA 95677
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a written policy outlining the use of force. Force and levels of force are well defined and communicated to officers. The ramifications of unnecessary use and abuse of force are also communicated to officers.
F2:
Placer County Sheriff’s Officers are trained as to when and how force may be employed and are required to adhere to written departmental policy and procedures.
F3:
The use of improper force by any member of the Placer County Sheriff’s Office against any person is not tolerated.
F4:
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a structured and well defined procedure for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints.
F5:
Placer County Sheriff’s Office is proactive in maintaining a positive relationship with the community. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes that Placer County Sheriff’s Office’s internal policy, training, and procedures regarding use of force, and complaint submittal and investigation process, demonstrates a positive level of dedication and professionalism. The Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a procedure for receiving and processing complaints that meets or exceeds state requirements. The Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office has developed and implemented an appropriate policy pertinent to the use of force. This Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office is well aware of the need for, and places a high priority on, trust between citizens and law enforcement personnel.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County Health and Human Services expand current information outreach efforts to make medical and education professionals, as well as the general population, more aware of Laura’s Law. This would include the Law’s benefits, qualifications and operational policies. Request For Responses:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
closing these two libraries.
F2:
County property tax revenue is increasing as the County recovers from the recent recession. Decreased hours at the Loomis Library have restricted citizen usage.
F3:
F4. Loomis and Meadow Vista citizens are actively exploring options in order to retain their libraries and accompanying services.
F4:
The Grand Jury was unable to verify that the agencies provide training for volunteers related to child abuse/neglect reporting. Conclusion All five law enforcement agencies and Placer County Children’s System of Care place a high priority on child protection. They coordinate and cooperate with each other regarding referrals and investigations of child abuse/neglect allegations. All five law enforcement agencies provide training for sworn personnel and dispatchers relating to child abuse/neglect reporting and investigation. They have excellent working relationships and formal written agreements with the Placer County Children’s System of Care which has overall responsibility for child welfare services. The Grand Jury could not conclude that all non-sworn staff and volunteers are provided with child abuse/neglect reporting. The Grand Jury would like to commend the Placer County Children’s System of Care, Placer County Sheriff’s Department, Auburn Department of Public Safety, Lincoln Police Department, Rocklin Police Department and Roseville Police Department for their coordination in investigating child abuse/neglect referrals. -
F5:
Residents of the Town of Loomis value their library services to the extent they have proposed a ballot measure to increase local sales tax to keep their library.
F6:
Loomis and Meadow Vista residents' needs regarding library services were not addressed. These communities were not included in the community conversations as conducted by the Placer County Library Services consultants. Both communities conducted their own surveys to address their needs and concerns. The
F7:
majority of survey participants in each community indicated support to keep libraries open (See Attachments A and B). Fallon Research & Communications, Inc. is a full-service public opinion research and polling firm that services a variety of clients, from major political, corporate and public affairs campaigns to local governments and community initiatives. 7 http://loomis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1 Library Presentation. -2016 Final Report Conclusion Every community has specific library requirements which should be taken into consideration before a library is considered for closure. This was not done. The Grand Jury investigation found the needs of the citizens in Meadow Vista and Loomis were not taken into consideration before determining the closure of the libraries. The Grand Jury could find no significant financial savings by closing these libraries.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County Library Services make the wants and needs of each community a major priority.
R2:
Placer County Library Services revise the strategic plan to reflect those wants and needs of the affected communities rather than, "moving beyond an interconnected system of small 'town' libraries to a fully independent network of County library service outlets."8
R3:
At least six months prior to proposing a library closure the Placer County Library Services must hold local public forums and perform input surveys in every affected community.
R4:
The Supervisor of the impacted district should solicit input from their constituents prior to making library decisions. Placer County Library Strategic Plan, dated December 10, 2013, . -2016 Final Report
R17:
Provide services N=250, +/- 6.19% libraries in the county? Q. 17. Provide servicesand programs for children and teens, who could noteasily get to other
R26:
1.5% %9.98 11.9% 100.0% Yes, for Col % 11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015N=250, +/- 6.19%Adult Town Residents 18 or Older Disagree DK/NA Disagree Agree DK/NA Agree Town of Loomis, California or disagree that the next in Rocklin, is too far way LIBRARY SURVEY ability of town residents closest library, which is speaking, do you agree when they need them? in Rocklin, is too far way or disagree that the nextclosest library, which is to use library services ability of town residents speaking, do you agree to use library services when they need them? and will reduce the and will reduce the Q. 7. Generally Q. 7. Generally Table Total Table Total 100.0% 3.6% 22.4% 74.0% Col % TableTotal 100.0% 3.6% 22.4% 74.0% 6.2% 100.0% 71.1% 22.6% Col % registered Table Total to vote Col % Not STATUS 100.0% 21.4% 6.9% 71.8% TURNOUT propensity HISTORY VOTING election primary 3.0% 100.0% 74.7% 22.3% voters Registered High Col % PAST Col % voter 100.0% 31.3% 6.2% 62.5% TURNOUT HISTORY: propensity 100.0% election 35.1% 5.0% general 29.9% More than voters High Col % PAST 1 mile Col % DISTANCE FROM LIBRARY: 22.6% 6.2% 100.0% 71.1% 100.0% 4.4% %9.67 16.1% registered One-half mile to 1 Col % % loo mile Not PARTISAN REGISTRATION: www.FallonResearch.com %0. 100.0% 72.8% 27.2% Less thanone-half 100.0% 29.2% 2.9% Unaffiliate %6.79 Col % d/other mile Col % 53.8% %0. 100.0% 46.2% 100.0% 2.0% 75.9% 22.0% Republica DK/NA Col % Col % LIBRARY CARD HOLDER. 100.0% 28.2% 6.7% 65.0% 100.0% 18.1% 4.7% 77.1% Democrat Col % å Col % 100.0% 16.5% 82.7% %8. Col % Yes Disagree DK/NA Agree Disagree or disagree that the next in Rocklin, is too far way closest library, which is ability of town residents speaking, do you agree Adult Town Residents 18 or Older when they need them? DK/NA to use library services ee Agr and will reduce the Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015N=250, +/- 6.19% Q. 7. Generally or disagree that the next in Rocklin, is too far way speaking, do you agree ability of town residents closest library, which is Table Total when they need them? LIBRARY SURVEY to use library services and will reduce the Q. 7. Generally Table Total 100.0% 8.6% 32.9% 8.6% 100.0% 58.5% 32.9% .5% Col % Col % TableTotal Table Total
R58:
100.0% 29.9% 21.4% 100.0% 18.7% 46.3% 53.7% %0. Col % Other DK/NA Col % HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILDREN. 100.0% %0: 100.0% %0. simulation against it s (Qs. 8&19) 100.0% 33.3% 6.9% 8.69 OPINION DYNAMICS: in both ballot Col % ģ Col % å 100.0% 59.4% 40.6% %0: to Yes, for Switches it by end of survey Col % 100.0% 10.6% 31.8% 24.6% Col % Yes 100.0% %0. %0: 100.0% simulations (Qs. Yes, for itin both Col % ballot 100.0% 819) % % 100.0% DK/NA Col % 100.0% 52.7% 25.3% 22.0% Q. 19. Once again, supposing that today were Election Day, and you were voting, would you vote yes, for the tax, or no, against it? DK/NA Col % 100.0% 5.5% 64.8% 29.7% 65 and Col % over AGE GROUP www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% 2.9% %0. 97.1% against Col % Š 100.0% 9.5% 52.0% 8% 45 to 64 Col % 38 100.0% 8.0% 5.5% 86.5% Yes, for Col % 100.0% 10.0% 28.3% 61.7% 18 to 44 Col % 100.0% 100.0% %0. %0. one percent for 10 years that would go to the General Fund of the Town, with Election Day, and you were voting, would you vote for or against a tax on sales transactions of one-quarter of DK/NA Col % Q. 8. Supposing that today were the majority of the revenue. 100.0% 6.7% 68.7% 24.6% Female Col % 100.0% %0: %0: 100.0% against Col % GENDER Š 100.0% 10.6% 41.4% 47.9% Col % Male 100.0% %0. %0: 100.0% Yes, for Col % No, against Older No, against ō Þ DK/N Adult Town Residents 18 or Yes, for Yes, Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015N=250, +/- 6.19% DK/NA LIBRARY SURVEY Town, with the majority voting, would you vote for or against a tax on sales transactions of General Fund of the Town, with the majority General Fund of the percent for 10 years Q. 8. Supposing that voting, would you vote that would go to the for or against a tax on today were Election Day, and you were one-quarter of one sales transactions of Q. 8. Supposing that percent for 10 years that would go to the today were Election one-quarter of one Day, and you were of the revenue... of the revenue... Table Total Table Total 100.0% 58.5% 32.9% %9.8 Col % Table Total 100.0% 8.6% 58.5% 32.9% 100.0% 16.9% 58.2% 24.9% Col % registered TableTotal to vote Col % Š STATUS 100.0% %0. 36.3% 63.7% TURNOUT HISTORY: propensity VOTING election 100.0% primary 34.9% 6.5% 58.5% voters Col % Registered High PAST Col % voter 100.0% 1.5% 50.7% 47.8% TURNOUT HISTORY: propensity 100.0% election general 2.6% 41.4% 53.0% More than voters Col % High PAST 1 mile Col % DISTANCE FROM LIBRARY: 100.0% 16.9% 24.9% 58.2% 100.0% 9.1% 59.3% 31.6% registered One-halfmile to 1 Col % Col % S mile PARTISAN REGISTRATION: www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% 25.8% 9.7% 64.4% 100.0% Less than one-half 2.6% 63.6% 33.7% Unaffiliate Col % d/other Col % mile 100.0% %0: 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% 40.8% 8.6% %9.03 Republica DK/NA Col % Col % LIBRARY CARD HOLDER 100.0% 7.9% 50.4% 41.7% 100.0% 69.1% 25.4% 5.5% Democrat Col % % loo 2 100.0% 8.7% 25.2% 66.1% No, against Col % Yes Yes, for DK/NA against N=250, +/- 6.19%Adult Town Residents 18 or Older percent for 10 years that would go to the General Fund of the Town, with the majority for voting, would you vote for or against a tax on sales transactions of DK/NA Q. 8. Supposing that today were Election Yes, Day, and you were one-quarter of one Š Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015 of the revenue... Table Total LIBRARY SURVEY Town, with the majority of the revenue... voting, would you vote for or against a tax on sales transactions of that would go to theGeneral Fund of the percent for 10 years Q. 8. Supposing that today were Election Day, and you were one-quarter of one Table Total 7.2% 100.0% 2.7% %9.9 10.3% %6. 20.8% 16.4% 26.1% Col % Table Total o, 100.0% %0. %0: %0: %0. %0. %0. %0: 100.0% Col % Other 100.0% 6.9% 3.1% 7.7% 11.7% 12.1% 21.4% 19.2% 17.9% simulations (Qs. 8&19) against it in both OPINION DYNAMICS. ballot Col % ģ 100.0% %0. 11.4% %0. %0. 22.9% %0: %0. 65.7% to Yes, for Switches it by end of survey Col % %0. 100.0% %0. %0. %0. %0. %0. %0. %0: simulations (Qs. 8&19) Yes, for it in both ballot Col % 100.0% %0. %0. %0. %0: %0. %0: %0. 100.0% Q. 19. Once again, supposing that today were Election Day, and you were voting, would you vote yes, for the tax, or no, against it? DK/NA Col % www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% %6.9 3.1% 11.7% 7.7% 21.4% 19.2% 12.1% 17.9% against Col % ŝ 11.4% 100.0% %0. %0. %0: 22.9% %0. %0. 65.7% Yes, for Col % 100.0% %0. %0. %0: %0. %0. %0. %0. %0. one percent for 10 years that would go to the General Fund of the Town, with would you vote for or against a tax on sales transactions of one-quarter of DKINA Col % Election Day, and you were voting, Q. 8. Supposing that today were the majority of the revenue. 100.0% 7.2% 2.7% %6. 6.6% 10.3% 26.1% 20.8% 16.4% against Col % 0 ģ 100.0% %0: %0: %0. %0. %0. %0. %0. %0. Yes, for Col % Older Amount is too high/Asking for too much/More than not The money should come from other sources þe S want taxes to increase No guarantee the fund library/Won't be spent anymore/Do not use it Taxes are too high/Do Existing funds should used/Use money from othe rparts of budget The Rocklin library is Adult Town Residents 18 or The library isn't used LIBRARY SURVEYTown of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015 will be used on the N=250, +/- 6.19% properly needed better Other Table Total reason thatyou would against it? Q. 9. What is the vote no, biggest 7.2% 2.7% 100.0% 8.6% %9.9 16.4% 10.3% 26.1% 20.8% Col % TableTotal % 100.0% 100.0% %0. %0: %0. %0. %0: %0. DK/NA Col % HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILDREN: 100.0% 9.5% %0. 5.7% 7.9% 6.2% 18.3% 23.9% 28.9% Col % oZ 3.9% 100.0% 3.6% 22.3% 26.1% 3.6% 19.0% 14.0% 7.5% Col % Yes 100.0% %0. %0. %0: %0: %0. %0: %0. %0: DK/NA Col % 11.1% 100.0% %0. 7.4% %0. 3.7% 37.0% 18.5% 22.2% 65 and Col % over AGE GROUP: www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% 2.6% 10.5% 2.6% 21.1% 7.9% 21.1% 23.7% 10.5% 45 to 64 Col % 11.8% 100.0% 5.9% 11.8% 11.8% 17.6% %0: 17.6% 23.5% 18 to 44 Col % 6.4% 100.0% %0. 15.8% 20.1% 13.1% 7.0% 24.7% 12.8% Female Col % GENDER: 7.6% 100.0% 4.3% 23.8% 18.6% 8.0% 6.3% 4.3% 27.0% Col % Male othe rparts or ways Amount is too high/Asking Taxes are too high/Do not come Existing funds should be N=250, +/- 6.19%Adult Town Residents 18 or Older No guarantee the funds will be used on the want taxes to increase used/Use money from The library isn't used anymore/Do not use it library/Won't be spent .v from other sources The money should The Rocklin library Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 - 11/22/2015 LIBRARY SURVEY properly needed better Other reason that Table Total Q. 9. What is the vote no,against it? you would biggest 7.2% 100.0% 2.7% %9.9 8.6% 16.4% 10.3% 20.8% 26.1% Col % TableTotal %0: 100.0% 9.2% %0. 16.7% 9.5% 16.7% 15.2% 32.8% registered to vote Col % Š STATUS: 100.0% VOTING 8.5% 1.5% 7.8% 10.1% 21.8% 16.3% 9.2% 24.9% Registered voter Col % 100.0% 3.5% 4.3% 4.8% 33.4% 7.1% 3.5% 13.4% 29.9% More than1 mile Col % DISTANCE FROM LIBRARY: 9.4% 100.0% %0. %9.6 11.1% 8.5% 21.7% 14.5% 25.2% One-halfmile to 1 Col % mile www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% 7.5% 10.2% %0. %0: 10.2% 46.2% 18.4% 7.5% Less thanone-halfmile Col % %0. 100.0% %0: %0. %0: %0. %0. %0: %0. DK/NA Col % LIBRARY CARD HOLDER: 100.0% 5.1% %0: 8.6% 10.1% 9.6% 18.6% 29.9% 17.7% Col % S 100.0% 6.8% 10.3% 3.6% 10.7% 10.0% 6.8% 12.9% 39.0% Col % Yes Amount is too high/Asking for too much/More than Taxes are too high/Do not The money should come Existing funds should be No guarantee the funds will be used on the used/Use money from want taxes to increase use it library/Won't be spent Older The Rocklin library is othe rparts of budget The library isn't used from other sources Adult Town Residents 18 or anymore/Do not Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 - 11/22/2015 LIBRARY SURVEY properly needed N=250, +/- 6.19% better Other Table Total reason that Q. 9. What is the you would vote no,against it? biggest \tilde{\mathcal{C}} 7.2% 100.0% 2.7% 20.8% 16.4% 10.3% 9.6% %9.9 26.1% Col % Table Total 100.0% %0: 7.8% %0: 28.4% 9.5% 25.0% 10.5% 18.9% TURNOUT propensityprimary HISTORY election voters Col % High PAST 100.0% 15.9% 2.8% 14.1% 11.0% 10.2% 18.9% 11.5% 15.6% TURNOUT HISTORY: propensity election general voters Col % High PAST %0. %0: 9.2% 100.0% 16.7% 9.5% 15.2% 16.7% 32.8% registered Col % Š PARTISAN REGISTRATION: www.FallonResearch.com 8.6% 100.0% %0: 39.3% 8.6% 7.8% 8.6% 27.0% %0. Unaffiliate d/other Col % 100.0% 8.9% 7.8% 2.5% 8.0% 7.8% 24.1% 17.7% 23.2% Republica Col % 7.1% 100.0% %0. 17.4% 12.9% 18.7% 7.1% 25.2% 11.6% Democrat Col % Amount is too high/Asking for too much/More than Taxes are too high/Do not The money should come Existing funds should be used/Use money from No guarantee the funds will be used on the taxes to increase anymore/Do not use it library/Won't be spent othe rparts of budget The Rocklin library is The library isn't used from other sources Adult Town Residents 18 or Older properly needed better Other want t Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015 LIBRARY SURVEY reason that Table Total Q. 9. What N=250, +/- 6.19% against it? you would vote no, biggest is the 2.4% 100.0% 1.9% 62.4% 100.0% 2.4% 33.3% 1.9% 62.4% 33.3% Col % Col % Table TableTotal Total 100.0% %0. 72.7% 14.8% 12.5% 100.0% 46.3% %0. %0: 53.7% Col % Other DK/NA Col % HOUSEHOLD WITH CHILDREN: 1.2% 100.0% 2.7% 77.5% 18.6% simulation against it s (Qs. 8&19) 100.0% 2.4% 31.1% 3.0% 63.5% OPINION DYNAMICS. in both Col % ballot Š Col % ŝ 40.2% 4.6% 100.0% 51.3% 3.8% to Yes, for Switches it by end of survey 100.0% Col % 62.1% 1.3% %0. 36.7% Col % Yes 100.0% 39.7% 1.3% 57.6% 1.4% simulations (Qs. Yes, for it in both ballot Col % 819) 100.0% %0. 100.0% %0. %0: DK/NA Col % 100.0% 17.5% 67.8% 14.7% %0: O. 19. Once again, supposing that today were Election Day, and you were voting, would you vote yes, for the tax, or no, against it? DK/NA Col % 100.0% 2.2% 3.3% 54.9% 39.6% 65 and Col % over AGE GROUP: www.FallonResearch.com 100.0% 78.1% 1.2% 18.1% 2.6% against Col % ģ 100.0% 2.0% 70.4% 25.5% 2.0% 45 to 64 Col % 100.0% 55.3% 1.8% 1.7% 41.3% Yes, for Col % 100.0% 1.7% %0. %0.09 38.3% 18 to 44 Col % 100.0% 9.4% 61.8% 4.0% 24.8% sales transactions of one-quarter ofone percent for 10 years that would goto the General Fund of the Town, with would you vote for or against a tax on DK/NA Col % Election Day, and you were voting, Q. 8. Supposing that today were the majority of the revenue 100.0% 1.5% 57.2% 39.2% .2% Female Col % ď 100.0% 2.3% 72.0% 2.3% 23.4% against GENDER Col % Ś 100.0% 3.3% 1.5% %6.79 27.3% Col % Male 100.0% 57.2% 1.4% 40.2% 1.3% Yes, for Col % difference More likely Less likely No difference Older More likely DK/NA Less likely No d DK/NA Adult Town Residents 18 or Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 - 11/22/2015 favor that form of funding LIBRARY SURVEY Q. 10. If you learned that for the library or would it groceries and medicine N=250, +/- 6.19% favor that form of funding would be exempt from make no difference in Q. 10. If you learned that for the library or would it the tax, would you be groceries and medicine more or less likely to would be exempt from make no difference in the tax, would you be more or less likely to Table Total your view? Table Total your view? 100.0% 62.4% 2.4% 33.3% 1.9% Col % TableTotal 62.4% 2.4% 33.3% 1.9% 100.0% Col % 100.0% 2.9% 33.9% 1.7% 58.5% Table Total registeredto vote Col % Not VOTING STATUS: 100.0% %6.9 62.0% %9.9 24.5% TURNOUT propensity HISTORY: primaryelection voters Col % 100.0% PAST High 1.5% 33.2% 1.9% 63.4% Registered Col % voter 2.6% 100.0% 3.8% 65.2% 28.4% TURNOUT HISTORY: propensity election general voters 100.0% 31.2% 67.3% 1.5% Col % %0. More than1 mile High PAST Col % DISTANCE FROM LIBRARY 5.9% 100.0% 33.9% 1.7% 58.5% 100.0% 59.3% 2.9% registered 35.7% 2.1% One-half mile to 1mile %||| % loo ž PARTISAN REGISTRATION: 100.0% 65.7% 2.4% 28.0% 3.9% www.FallonResearch.com Less thanone-half 2.9% 100.0% 45.3% %0: 51.8% Unaffiliate Col % d/other mile Col % 100.0% %0: 53.8% %0: 46.2% 2.7% %8. 100.0% 62.0% 34.5% Republica DK/NA Col % Col % LIBRARY CARD HOLDER 100.0% 2.3% 29.2% 2.5% %0.99 100.0% 1.7% 1.8% 73.9% 22.6% Democrat %Col % å Col % 100.0% 1.7% 1.3% 36.9% %0.09 Col % No difference Yes More likely Less likely DK/NA difference More likely Less likely would be exempt from the tax, would you be more or that Adult Town Residents 18 or Older DK/NA groceries and medicine form of funding for the library or would it make less likely to favor that ŝ no difference in your Q. 10. If you learned Town of Loomis, California11/16/2015 – 11/22/2015N=250, +/- 6.19% would be exempt from the tax, would you be more or less likely to favor that form of funding for the library or would it make no difference in your
R30-45:
46-60 >60 40 50 10 20 30 0 <12 31.9% 38 16%
R46-60:
41.2% 49 >60 44.5% 53 Are there Special Needs persons in your home that use the local library? 4.4% Yes 5 No 95.6% Meadow Vista Community Survey - Local Library Use - Google Forms 11/23/2015 democracy. I also believe that we all benefit from a good public library system, whether we personally use the services or not. In addition, MV branch personnel are always friendly and helpful, and I love it that I can access books from anywhere within the Place County iibrary system. My household would absolutely pay more in taxes if it meant that we could keep our library as a functional branch. I also like the location because I can walk to it. However, I would support a move of the branch to the community center because that would likely be a much more attractive and visually prominent location -- which would probably lead to more patronage. Please do not close this important community resource. Thank you for your consideration. It is incredibly important that our small community have a resource and space like the library. We need it for our growing children to use and feel they have a space that belongs to them. We need it for the elders in the community and those with special needs. It should be a place where we can all find resources and use the materials that our tax dollars pay for, as well as a space where we feel a sense of community and gathering. I don't want my children to grow up thinking that our town isn't important enough to have a library but it's ok to have a pizza place and hardware store. Our priorities need to be kept in check. I will be very sad if we close the Meadow Vista Library. Since retirement I am happy to do my share to save the earth by limiting my driving time. If I have to go to Auburn every time I want a book I am much less likely to use the library at all. I love the idea of using the community center to house the library! It is important to have a Library in our community. Let's look at the current Placer County Library management practices before proposing higher taxes as a solution. Driving into another library wastes gas and pollutes the air - as we age we don't want to go far to services - nice to have near the grocery store - one stop shopping. Please keep this library open. It is an important resource for the families in our community Not enough money in the pot always leaves libraries and schools trying to make every dollar count. Our library system is no exception. Since taxpayers seem so reluctant to increase taxes to pay for these things the Placer County library system is between a rock and a hard place. Those who suffer from the closing of small, local library branches are those who do not drive, and/ or do not have access to a computer (youth, low- income folks, the old or infirm, shut-ins, etc.). The library makes Meadow Vista feel more like a community and is one of the factors we looked at when decided where we wanted to raise our children. The librarians are always so friendly and I like having a library so close and convenient. My wife and I just mothed to Colfax 6 months ago. We did don't books to the library during our move. Sadly, I'm afraid with the advent of the internet and e-books, the days of the local library are numbered. Having said that, I don't know how much use the library is getting. 11/23/2015 Meadow Vista Community Survey - Local Library Use - Google Forms I feel lucky to have MV and Applegate libraries, but reality is we don't really need both since they are located fairly close together -- I would like to see them combined into one. Applegate is too small to accommodate space for community use (e.g. 4h small group meeting), love having MV library in town close to other errands -gas, PO, bank, grocery. It would be nice for library to stay in MV -- I'm a resident of Colfax/Eden Valley and prefer 1/ the MV library because of proximity to other businesses. Though I don't use the children's programs anymore, I did a lot when my children were still home. We were there multiple times a week. I consider the children's programs very important, even though I didn't include them in my three choices. I wanted to choose all the services as important! I would like to see even more services offered. I've heard of libraries that have items like sewing machines that can be checked out. Our local branch is very important in bringing us together as a community. Reduced hours are better than NO hours! My 2 kids love our little library. We would not go to Auburn for our library needs. I would probably just use the Internet more at home and buy books from Amazon. A library is an important part of any community. It helps to promote literacy. Perhaps we could also increase the access and availability of the Book Mobile. The library is an integral part of the community. Children need to be exposed to books at an early age and throughout their lives. Reading is key to becoming a successful person. And close access makes the experience more meaningful and plentiful. Please keep our library OPEN!! The library is one of the only community enhancing services in our little village. It is a spot to see and get acquainted with local residents as well as a spot to access printed and other media. For the low income residents it provides a place to gain computer access. For some it is a place to get together to discuss good books. For families the reading programs and summer programs offer enrichment for their children. If it disappears our village will lose one of the last places where we can get together and be "a real community". There are some county employees who earn over $100,000 a year in OVERTIME alone. If you stop these abuses and cut the high administrative over head in the CEO's office, there will be more than enough money to keep the libraries open and serve the public. It would be a shame to loose this Wonderful Library and Staff! I think our local library is part of what makes our community so wonderful. It's just another added draw for families looking to mover into our community. extended hours would be nice but we wouldn't get to the regional (bigger) library as often. The closest library is MV and we appreciate the convenience. When my two children were young we used the library weekly, the applegate and the auburn libraries were what was available. i think you need to allocate funds to both...develop a couple good large regional libraries Meadow Vista Community Survey - Local Library Use - Google Forms 11/23/2015 and close a few of the little libraries based on #s to keep a few of the outskirt branches available to those rural citizens. Meadow Vista library is the heart of our community and has played a critical role in my children's education and love of books. I realize that having a MV community library is of significant importance to many in Meadow Vista. A location change to the Community Center makes good sense and my cause an increase in visits by school children to the library. The library in our community is a lovely asset. I'd hate to lose it and would be happy to support its continuance via a special tax. Like many in our community, my support for maintaining the MV library is not just about my particular needs, but about the needs of our community as a whole--especially children! Meadow vista is an aging community. There will be more demand for local services. Thank you for letting us give our opinions - a local library DEFINES a community! Our community is strengthened by having a local public facility like our Meadow Vista Library. Some people, especially elderly or special needs, count on having the library close by, in order to have computer access, or access to free books, movies, and music. It is a wonderful place to take your children for fun programs or homework help, and the staff are familiar with most people who come in regularly, so they make appropriate recommendations and are helpful in all ways. Definitely removing the library from the basement would help in motivating more to go. Having a nice place to go and read where the moms of the book clubs don't change their babies diapers on the tables wouldn't hurt, either. The Meadow Vista Library is a staple to the community. It makes the town complete and rounded. Taking away such a valuable asset to a community with it's diversity and potential would not be a good decision for Placer County and it's future plans. This is just another example of cutting services important to FAMILY and COMMUNITY
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Other than rent for the Meadow Vista facility, no substantial money will be saved by closing these two libraries.
F2:
County property tax revenue is increasing as the County recovers from the recent recession.
F3:
Decreased hours at the Loomis Library have restricted citizen usage.
F4:
Loomis and Meadow Vista citizens are actively exploring options in order to retain their libraries and accompanying services.
F5:
Residents of the Town of Loomis value their library services to the extent they have proposed a ballot measure to increase local sales tax to keep their library.
F6:
Loomis and Meadow Vista residents’ needs regarding library services were not addressed. These communities were not included in the community conversations as conducted by the Placer County Library Services consultants.
F7:
Both communities conducted their own surveys to address their needs and concerns. The majority of survey participants in each community indicated support to keep libraries open (See Attachments A and B). Fallon Research & Communications, Inc. is a full-service public opinion research and polling firm that services a variety of clients, from major political, corporate and public affairs campaigns to local governments and community initiatives. 7 http://loomis.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1_Library_Presentation.pdf - 37 - -2016 Final Report Conclusion Every community has specific library requirements which should be taken into consideration before a library is considered for closure. This was not done. The Grand Jury investigation found the needs of the citizens in Meadow Vista and Loomis were not taken into consideration before determining the closure of the libraries. The Grand Jury could find no significant financial savings by closing these libraries.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County Library Services make the wants and needs of each community a major priority.
R2:
Placer County Library Services revise the strategic plan to reflect those wants and needs of the affected communities rather than, “moving beyond an interconnected system of small ‘town’ libraries to a fully independent network of County library service outlets.”8
R3:
At least six months prior to proposing a library closure the Placer County Library Services must hold local public forums and perform input surveys in every affected community.
R4:
The Supervisor of the impacted district should solicit input from their constituents prior to making library decisions. Placer County Library Strategic Plan, dated December 10, 2013, . - 38 - -2016 Final Report
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input from homeless individuals, general public, homeless advocates, city and county governmental agencies.
F2:
This process began in 2004 with the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness In Placer County and continues today without a stated strategy for resolution.
F3:
The counting of the homeless occurs one day every two years. This methodology is inadequate due to the mobility of the homeless, difficulty locating them, and possible duplicate counting of individuals.
F4:
There is insufficient affordable housing available throughout the county.
F5:
Due to the various circumstances affecting the homeless population there is no simple solution to meet all the needs and concerns in Placer County.
F6:
It is unlikely that any decision related to the location of a homeless shelter will satisfy all concerned. Conclusion In 2004 the Placer Consortium on Homeless and Affordable Housing Committee presented a ten- year plan to end homelessness in Placer County to the Board of Supervisors. Placer County has done a good job in soliciting and gathering input on this issue. As of this writing Placer County provides only a temporary emergency shelter located in the DeWitt Campus. There is a continuing and growing need for services that are accessible to the homeless population throughout the county. - 120 - -2016 Final Report
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Placer County adopt and implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to address the needs of the homeless, including shelter, before the close of Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R2:
Placer County continue to work with the various stakeholders (municipalities, county, private agencies, medical facilities, etc.) to develop a wide range of innovative and proven services addressing the cycle of homelessness.
R3:
Placer County continue to support the public-private partnerships that provide services for the homeless in the County.
R4:
Placer County continue to work with citizens that have concerns about the issues that accompany homeless individuals. - 121 - -2016 Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a written policy outlining the use of force. Force and levels of force are well defined and communicated to officers. The ramifications of unnecessary use and abuse of force are also communicated to officers.
F2:
Placer County Sheriff’s Officers are trained as to when and how force may be employed and are required to adhere to written departmental policy and procedures.
F3:
The use of improper force by any member of the Placer County Sheriff’s Office against any person is not tolerated.
F4:
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a structured and well defined procedure for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints.
F5:
Placer County Sheriff’s Office is proactive in maintaining a positive relationship with the community. Conclusion The Grand Jury concludes that Placer County Sheriff’s Office’s internal policy, training, and procedures regarding use of force, and complaint submittal and investigation process, demonstrates a positive level of dedication and professionalism. The Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office has a procedure for receiving and processing complaints that meets or exceeds state requirements. The Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office has developed and implemented an appropriate policy pertinent to the use of force. This Grand Jury concludes that the Placer County Sheriff’s Office is well aware of the need for, and places a high priority on, trust between citizens and law enforcement personnel.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.