Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer
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 (18)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
26 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
26 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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. 95
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 recommendations
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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).
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.”
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Amend the dance contract and student handbook to include the alcohol screening policy and the consequences of a positive result.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The combination of a police officer and/or a camera provides adequate monitoring of the detention area.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Sworn personnel and dispatchers in all five law enforcement agencies receive mandatory reporting and investigation training regarding child abuse/neglect.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
26 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Staff the full-time positions of Code Enforcement Technician and permanent clerical support.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The JDF to be clean, well maintained, and well staffed with trained personnel.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
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.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
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
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
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.