Placer County Grand Jury
2018-2019
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The city has repeatedly failed to conduct required nexus studies to determine reasonable costs for the PCWA connection fee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Lincoln refund charges that exceed the regulated and unregulated PCWA connection fees due to modification of the rate structure in 2017, even if it exceeds the statute of limitations.
F2:
The rate modification in 2017 was not done in a manner required by statute.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Lincoln identify and refund excess water connection charges to homes in low-density villages for wrong EDU water factor even if in excess of the statute of limitations.
F3:
Lincoln’s 2019 modification of the PCWA water connection fee did not correct the fees that were improperly established in 2017 and also did not comply with statutory requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Lincoln identify homes not in villages 13, 19, 23, and portions of 18 that were charged the unregulated PCWA water connection fee instead of the regulated fee, and refund the overcharge even if it exceeds the statute of limitations,
F4:
Lincoln’s unlawful actions resulted in significant over-charges to its citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Lincoln City Council require a review every 5 years for all connection fees to determine reasonable costs.
F5:
Lincoln made loans from the WCF to other city funds with no assurances that the funds receiving the loans will be capable of repayment within any reasonable timeframe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Lincoln restructure loans made from the WCF to comply with state regulations or return the funds to the WCF.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Lincoln City Council conduct a retroactive study of the performance of city officials and initiate systemic corrective actions including closer oversight of city functions going forward. Exhibit M, 1998 Placer Holdings, Inc. Development Agreement with City of Lincoln detailing the projects EDU schedule. 22001188--22001199 FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt
R7:
Take appropriate steps to collect court-ordered debt locally before referring it to the Franchise Tax Board for collection.
R8:
Participate in the Franchise Tax Board Court-Ordered Debt (COD) collection program.
R9:
Participate in the Franchise Tax Board Interagency Intercept Collections (IIC) program. 10.Establish a process for handling the discharge of accountability for uncollectible court-ordered debt. 11.Participate in any program that authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend or refuse to renew driver’s licenses for individuals with unpaid fees, fines, or penalties.2 12.Conduct trials by written declaration under Vehicle Code section 40903 and, as appropriate in the context of such trials, impose a civil assessment. 13.Implement a civil assessment program and follow the Criteria for a Successful Civil Assessment Program.3 14.Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of external collection agencies or companies to which court-ordered debt is referred for collection. 15.Accept payments via credit and debit card. Assembly Bill 103 (Stats. 2017, ch.17) was chaptered June 27, 2017, and limited collections program driver’s license suspension or hold actions to only failures to appear in court. 3 http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/Rev-Dist-Criteria-for-Successful-Civil-Assessment-Program.pdf 16.Accept payments via the Internet. 17.Include in a collection program all court-ordered debt and monies owed to the court under a court order. 18.Include financial screening to assess each individual’s ability to pay prior to processing installment payment plans and account receivables. 19.Charge fees as authorized by Penal Code section 1202.4(l). 20.Charge fees as authorized by Penal Code section 1205(e). 21.Use restitution rebate, as authorized by Government Code section 13963(f), to further efforts for the collection of funds owed to the Restitution Fund. 22.Participate in the statewide master agreement for collection services or renegotiate existing contracts, where feasible, to ensure appropriate levels of services are provided at an economical cost. 23.Require private vendors to remit the gross amount collected as agreed and submit invoices for commission fees to the court or county on a monthly basis. 24.Use collection terminology (as established in the glossary, instructions, or other documents approved for use by courts and counties) for the development or enhancement of a collection program. 25.Require private vendors to complete the components of the Collections Reporting Template that corresponds to their collection programs. Additional information regarding best practices, including guidelines and standards, can be obtained on the external collections Web site: http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/collections; or by contacting staff of the Funds and Revenues Unit at collections@jud.ca.gov. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE: Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Todd Leopold R1, R2 July 30, 2019 County Executive Officer 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Copies sent to: Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY Report Response Revisited California Public Records Act Compliance Page -35- Report Responses SUMMARY Last year’s grand jury conducted an investigation into the Placer County Sheriff’s handling of telephone and fax requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The grand jury found there was no tracking mechanism in place for telephone requests. A recommendation was made for the department to implement such a tracking system. The Placer County Board of Supervisors and Placer County Sheriff responded to the report and indicated they did have a tracking system for telephone calls. This seemed contrary to what was reported, so a review of the investigation was undertaken. The review confirmed there was no formal tracking system for telephone calls or faxes. It also became apparent that there is a lack of understanding of the role of the grand jury amongst county employees. APPROACH The grand jury reviewed last year’s investigation and responses. Interviews were conducted with current sheriff’s office employees along with last year’s respondents.
R10:
Is the sex offender registry used to screen visitors?
R11:
Does staff confirm visitor identification and check against a student’s emergency data card? VENDOR SIGN IN - Contractors/Bus Drivers
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The city has repeatedly failed to conduct required nexus studies to determine reasonable costs for the PCWA connection fee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Lincoln refund charges that exceed the regulated and unregulated PCWA connection fees due to modification of the rate structure in 2017, even if it exceeds the statute of limitations.
F2:
The rate modification in 2017 was not done in a manner required by statute.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Lincoln identify and refund excess water connection charges to homes in low-density villages for wrong EDU water factor even if in excess of the statute of limitations.
F3:
Lincoln’s 2019 modification of the PCWA water connection fee did not correct the fees that were improperly established in 2017 and also did not comply with statutory requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Lincoln identify homes not in villages 13, 19, 23, and portions of 18 that were charged the unregulated PCWA water connection fee instead of the regulated fee, and refund the overcharge even if it exceeds the statute of limitations,
F4:
Lincoln’s unlawful actions resulted in significant over-charges to its citizens.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Lincoln City Council require a review every 5 years for all connection fees to determine reasonable costs.
F5:
Lincoln made loans from the WCF to other city funds with no assurances that the funds receiving the loans will be capable of repayment within any reasonable timeframe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Lincoln restructure loans made from the WFC to comply with state regulations or return the funds to the WFC.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
Lincoln City Council conduct a retroactive study of the performance of city officials and initiate systemic corrective actions including closer oversight of city functions going forward. Exhibit M, 1998 Placer Holdings, Inc. Development Agreement with City of Lincoln detailing the projects EDU schedule.