Placer County Grand Jury
2018-2019
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 (8)
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.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The county has entered into a new agreement for the operation of the fairgrounds with Placer Valley Tourism and the speedway. This agreement puts into place specific language to address noise concerns that were brought to the county’s attention more than ten years ago.
F2:
Failure to complete the EIR prevented transparency and public input on the changes to the speedway.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The county should explain why it committed to, but never completed, an EIR.
R2:
The county should assess whether or not the failure to complete the EIR has adversely affected the public, and take any remedial action warranted. - REQUEST FOR RESPONSE: Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body: Mr. Todd Leopold County Executive Officer 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Recommendations Requiring Response
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The county’s inappropriate inclusion of costs related to non-delinquent debt in its cost of collection for court-ordered debt reduces net collections available for distribution to entitled entities.
F2:
The 2017 initiation of an annual discharge from accountability process is lowering the total court-ordered debt target towards a more accurate reflection of collectable amounts.
Additional Recommendations
25
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The county should only claim, as a cost of collection for court-ordered debt, the time the traffic court clerks work on delinquent debt or seek to modify this arrangement with the court per GC §77212 (b).
R2:
The county should discontinue claiming time spent on setting up and collecting non- delinquent debt via payment schedules as a cost of collections. -
R3:
Meet the components of a comprehensive collection program as required under Penal Code section 1463.007 in order that the costs of operating the program can be recovered.
R4:
Complete all data components in the Collections Reporting Template.
R5:
Reconcile amounts placed in collection to the supporting case management and/or accounting systems.
R6:
Retain the joint court/county collection reports and supporting documents for at least three years.
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.
R10:
Establish a process for handling the discharge of accountability for uncollectible court-ordered debt.
R11:
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
R12:
Conduct trials by written declaration under Vehicle Code section 40903 and, as appropriate in the context of such trials, impose a civil assessment.
R13:
Implement a civil assessment program and follow the Criteria for a Successful Civil Assessment Program.3
R14:
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of external collection agencies or companies to which court-ordered debt is referred for collection.
R15:
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. -
R16:
Accept payments via the Internet.
R17:
Include in a collection program all court-ordered debt and monies owed to the court under a court order.
R18:
Include financial screening to assess each individual’s ability to pay prior to processing installment payment plans and account receivables.
R19:
Charge fees as authorized by Penal Code section 1202.4(l).
R20:
Charge fees as authorized by Penal Code section 1205(e).
R21:
Use restitution rebate, as authorized by Government Code section 13963(f), to further efforts for the collection of funds owed to the Restitution Fund.
R22:
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.
R23:
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.
R24:
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.
R25:
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: Mr. Todd Leopold County Executive Officer 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Recommendations Requiring Response R1, R2 Response Due Date July 30, 2019 Copies sent to: Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The three doors of the holding cells slide from side-to-side. There is no grab handle to securely close the door on the outside. There is only a small indentation that one must use their fingers to slide close the door.
F2:
The locks of the three sliding holding cell doors are not self-locking when slid closed. The deputy must insert a small key in the lock and turn it to secure and lock the door.
F3:
There is no camera in the hallway between the three holding cells and the jail office. Placer County Main Jail
F4:
The floor in the booking area of the jail is industrial rolled out vinyl with sealed seams that is about five years old. The vinyl floor is separating and rising from the concrete slab, creating large bumps on the surface of the floor in many locations. The bumps or bubbles bulging on the vinyl floor can create a tripping hazard if allowed to continue to degenerate.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Install a strong grab handle on the outside of each sliding holding cell door.
R2:
Install self-latching locks that are engaged when the sliding holding cells doors are slid shut.
R3:
Install video camera to monitor holding cell hallway (common area). Placer County Main Jail
R4:
Repair vinyl floor in booking area. - Request for Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code §933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body or elected official: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Sheriff Devon Bell
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Information on technical trainings and other career opportunities is not currently provided.
F2:
Technical educational programs for youth are not offered.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Educational opportunities for youth are expanded to include technical training programs.
R2:
Provide information on career and technical training opportunities. National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Strengthening Education in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report December 2016 (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251118.pdf) - 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. Joseph Netemeyer, Superintendent
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Most schools visited did not have adequate visitor badge information.
F2:
Visited schools are diligent in creating a culture of safety and security for the students, staff, and communities with the resources available.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Visitor access badges for all Placer County schools should include name, date, time in, purpose of visit, and where they will be on campus.
R2:
Require all visitor badges be retrieved at the end of the visit. -
R3:
Does the facility limit building access points?
R4:
Does the school have a designated primary point of entry/exit to each building?
R5:
Are the designated points of entry monitored to control building access, including student arrival and departure?
R6:
Are positive entry control systems established (e.g., telephone entry control, biometric access control)?
R7:
Is attendee access to the rest of the school controlled during performances or sporting events?
R8:
Are card access systems installed throughout the campus for use by students and staff?
R9:
Are visitor passes closely monitored?
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
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
There was no telephone or fax tracking log in place contrary to the county responses.
F2:
Employees do not understand the need for confidentiality.
F3:
There is a lack of understanding of the grand jury’s function and authority.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
County management should ensure its employees are aware of their responsibilities when approached by the grand jury.
R2:
The county should assure responses to grand jury investigative reports are accurate. - 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
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Training for sworn personnel users was delayed for several months impacting their ability to effectively use the system.
F2:
The RPD issue log has proven effective in identifying issues and driving their resolution.
F3:
The vendor is addressing infrastructure problems in a timely manner.
F4:
No critical law enforcement incidences reported by the police department as a result of the P25 radio errors and deficiencies.
F5:
The city has appropriately withheld final payment until all system issues are addressed.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
RPD personnel using the P25 radio system are adequately trained.
R2:
RPD continue using the issue log to identify and address system problems as needed. - REQUEST FOR RESPONSES: Pursuant to Penal Code section §933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body: James R. Maccoun, Chief of Police Roseville Police Department 1051 Junction Boulevard Roseville, California 95678 Recommendations Requiring Response