Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer
2022-2023
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The Veterans Service Office is underfunded.
F2:
The Veterans Service Office is underfunded. : The Veterans Service Office does not have adequate accredited veteran service representatives to answer phones and process approved claims in a
F3:
timely manner to receive subvention funds. There are opportunities to partner with other programs in the Placer County
F4:
Department of Health and Human Services to further support veterans. The Veterans Service Office’s social media presence is insufficient in
F5:
providing online information and promotion of their services. The Veterans Service Office is working to increase their outreach through the
F6:
Veterans Advisory Council. There are benefits available to veterans and their families of which they may
F7:
not be aware. The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act broadens the benefits and
F8:
services for which veterans may be eligible. There has been a high turnover of the County Veteran Service Officer over
F9:
the past five years. The grand jury found the Veterans Service Office staff to be dedicated to their
F10:
job and to the veterans seeking assistance. Depending on the complexity of the claim, it can take an accredited staff member up to four hours to compile required documentation and manually Recominpmuet inndtoa VteiotPnrso. TRh1e: grand jury recommends that: The Veterans Service Office budget be increased dramatically to reflect the importance of our veterans and their service to our country by
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The veteran provides a supplemental review of their injuries or illness with more evidence from a medical professional.
R2:
January 1, 2024. Additional accredited Veterans Service Office positions be added to process
R3:
claims and answer phones by January 1, 2024. The Placer County Department of Health and Human Services will identify opportunities to cross train CalFresh, Medi-Cal, and Veterans Service programs by December 1, 2023. 29 -2023 Final Report
R4:
The Veterans Service Office will work with the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a social media
R5:
presence by January 1, 2024. The Veterans Service Office continue with the Veterans Advisory Council to Requiirnecrde/aRsee oquutreesatcehd a mRoensgp voentesreans:s . Required Responses: Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requires a response f rom th e follow ing go verning body:R ecommendations Response Requiring Response Due Date Placer County Board of Supervisors R1, R2 October 1, 2023 175 Fulweiler Ave RAuebquurne,s CtAe d95 R6e03p onses: The Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing b ody as they a re affec ted by the repRoertc:o mmendations Response Requesting Response Due Date Placer County Department of Health and Human Services Director R1, R2, R3, R4 September 1, 2023 3091 County Cente r Drive S uite 290 APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 D03epartment of Health and Human Services Deputy Director R1, R2, R3, R4 September 1, 2023 11512 B Ave APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 V0e3t erans Service Office County Veterans Service Officer R2, R4, R5 September 1, 2023 1000 Sunset Blvd Suite 1500 DRoicskclilna, iCmAe 9r5 765 In the process of preparing this report, two grand jury members were recused from all aspects of the investigation and report writing. 30
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Showers, toilets, sinks, and cells are not adequately cleaned in the Placer County Main Jail and South Placer Adult Correctional Facility.
F2:
Main Jail and South Placer Adult Correctional Facility. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office lacks detailed procedures for cleaning of the
F3:
facilities and staff follow-up. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Tahoe Substation is outdated and needs to be
F4:
further analysis. Three percent of the responding entities stated the recommendation(s) will not be Recomimmpleemnednatetido. ns TChoeprei earse sneo nretc toom:m endations for this report. Foresthill High School Ms. Erin Davenport, Principal 23319 Foresthill Rd FLoinrceostlhni lHl, iCgAh 9S5ch6o31o l Ms. Jennifer Hladun, Principal 790 J St LPilnaccoelrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 B48o ard of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Ave PAluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 C0o3m munity Development Resource Agency Mr. David Kwong, Director 3091 County Center Dr A uburn, CA 95603 140 Fulweiler Ave PAluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 J0u3v enile Detention Center Mr. Eric Guerena, Manager 11260 B St APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 O03ff ice of Education Ms. Gayle Garbolino, Superintendent 360 Nevada St PAluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 P0r3o bation Department Mr. Marshall Hopper, Chief 10810 Justice Center Dr Suite 170 PRloasceevril lCeo, uCAnt 9y5 S6h7e8r iff's Office Wayne Woo, Sheriff 2929 Richardson Dr APluabcuerrn U, CnAio 9n5 H60ig3h School District Board of Trustees 13000 New Airport Rd APluabcuerrn U, CnAio 9n5 H60ig3h School District Dr. George Sziraki, Superintendent 13000 New Airport Rd ARuobseuvrnil,l Ce AC i9t5y6 C0o3u ncil City of Roseville 311 Vernon St RCiotsye ovifl lReo, CseAv 9il5le6 7 8 Mr. Dominick Casey, City Manager 311 Vernon St Suite 200 R oseville, CA 95678 141 Cirby Way RRoosseevviillllee, CHAig 9h5 S6c6h1o ol District Mr. John Becker, Superintendent 1750 Cirby Way RRoosseevviillllee, CHAig 9h5 S6c6h1o ol Dr. Nicholas Richter, Principal 1 Tiger Way RWoessetveilrlne, PClAa c9e5r6 U78n ified School District Ms. Kerry Callahan, Superintendent 600 Sixth St Suite 400 Lincoln, CA 95648 142 -2022 Final Report 143 -2022 Final Report Summary The primary duty of the Placer County Grand Jury is to investigate the functions of city and county government, schools, and special districts. Each year the grand jury conducts inspections of the jails, holding facilities, and the juvenile detention center in the county. Additionally, the grand jury investigates different aspects of city and county government. Reports are written on the inspections and investigations conducted during the term with each report listing the grand jury’s findings and recommendations. These documents are combined into a final report published each June. The final report provides findings and recommendations for each investigation and inspection. Traditionally, a response report is issued in the November timeframe by the grand jury containing the responses from the investigated entities to their respective
F5:
All facilities appeared well organized, safe, and secure. California Assembly Bill 109 continues to have a profound negative impact on the county jail system. 120 -2023 Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Placer County Sheriff develop written policies and procedures for cleaning of the cells, showers, and common areas that meet Board of State and Community Corrections standards for all facilities by September 1, 2023.
R2:
Corrections standards for all facilities by September 1, 2023. The Placer County Sheriff develop a method to measure, follow-up, and track the cleaning of holding cells, showers, and common areas for all facilities by September
R3:
1, 2023. The Placer County Board of Supervisors provide a public progress report and timeline to the citizens of Placer County on the status of the Placer County Sheriff’s RequiOrfefidce R Teahsopeo Snubsseta: tion’s new facility by October 1, 2023. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing body: Recommendations Response Requiring Response Due Date Placer County Sheriff R1, R2 September 1, 2023 2929 Richardson Dr APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 B0o3a rd of Supervisors R3 October 1, 2023 175 Fulweiler Ave Auburn, CA 95603 Copies Sent to: Board of State and Community Corrections 2590 Venture Oaks Way Sacramento, CA 95833 121 -2023 Final Report Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility Annual Inspection
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
The grand jury found that: Lincoln has significant financial issues and needs to find additional ways to increase
F2:
overlapping services. Placer County officials were repeatedly unable to provide the grand jury with requested detail and information about the homeless problem, resulting in a lack of
F3:
transparency. No Placer County official was able to provide the grand jury with accurate statistics related to costs, funding, and population of the homeless, making analysis of the
F4:
homeless issue difficult. The Placer County Board of Supervisors allocated a $195,000 contract with Moore Iacofano Goltsman to provide facilitation, planning, and technical assistance to a regional workgroup. Despite repeated requests for information gathered by the consultants, the grand jury was refused access to the draft report, revealing a lack of
F5:
transparency. Martin v. Boise mandates that campers cannot be removed from their place of encampment if there are no adequate shelters available to house them, thus facilitating continued growth of hazardous encampments on county property. Responses to -2022 Final Report
F6:
The creation of low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. Boise and the Placer County Housing Element 2021 – 2029, HE-41. Low barrier shelters could resolve many of the homeless problems Placer County and local jurisdictions
F7:
a re faced with today. A local non-profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of
F8:
the needs of the homeless in Placer County. The State of California Assembly Bill 2630 if passed, would require all cities and counties to declare all homeless funds received and how those funds were spent, which would force Placer County executives to be transparent about funding
F9:
received and spent. The approved camping ordinance is inadequate in discouraging the continued use of encampments. As written, the “clean and clear” provision will allow the campers’ homesite to be improved with no cost or responsibility placed on the camper. Allowing the campers to remain without accountability deters them from seeking
F10:
help through county services. The passing of this revised camping ordinance does not resolve the issue of how to
F11:
reduce the number of campers and encampments in Placer County. Campers migrate to Placer County due to the lax camping ordinance. Only 55-60 percent of the campers in the PCGC encampment at the DeWitt Center are from
F12:
Placer County, placing a burden on local taxpayers and public safety. The DeWitt Center encampment is rampant with crime including assaults, batteries, sales and usage of narcotics, domestic violence, and possession of deadly weapons,
F13:
creating an unsafe environment. Not all homeless individuals make the choice to accept support services or enter
F14:
shelters due to mental health or behavioral anomalies. There is a lack of leadership, responsibility, and accountability among Placer County
F15:
officials in dealing with the homeless situation. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team is doing an effective job interacting with and controlling the situation at the DeWitt Center. The officers have
F16:
excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate in dealing with the campers. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team would be strengthened
F17:
with the addition of more deputies. All three of the previously contracted consultant reports, across nearly three decades and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, address the same issues and appear to have similar findings and recommendations, and have been ignored by previous and current county officials. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The grand jury recommends that:
R2:
homeless. This individual will report to the County Executive Officer. By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall implement the provisions of proposed Assembly Bill 2630, requiring all unincorporated areas and cities in Placer County to be transparent on all funding received and expended on
R3:
homelessness. By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Executive Officer shall create a transparent homeless expense report for the public. This report must include all county costs, expenses, and funding for all county programs relating to the homeless population. This report shall be published semi-annually on January 1 and July 1 of each year
R4:
and shall be placed prominently on the county website. By January 1, 2023, and to meet the obligations of the Martin v. Boise decision and the requirements of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall immediately seek and obtain funding to
R5:
create low barrier shelters throughout Placer County. By January 1, 2023, all cities and jurisdictions in Placer County shall identify and apply for grants, allocate funds, and establish their own municipal low barrier
R6:
facilities. By October 1, 2022, in compliance with of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall seek out and approve a
R7:
multi-service, including low-barrier, facility within Placer County. By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall pass an effective and enforceable ordinance to manage and remove unsanctioned camping on Placer
R8:
County property. By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office shall increase staffing and funding for the Homeless Liaison
R9:
Team. By October 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall compare and evaluate the two prior homeless consulting reports (2004 and 2015) with the current 2022 report to determine why little or no action has been taken on the previous and almost identical report recommendations. No further consultants should be hired or compensated until previous recommendations have been implemented. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
The grand jury found that:
F2:
The City of Colfax has an incomplete complaint process. The City of Colfax does not provide training on its complaint process to city
F3:
employees. The Colfax City Complaint Form is not easily accessible on the City of Colfax website
F4:
and it is not clear on what happens to the complaint once filed. The city manager stated that he lacked knowledge of the city’s citizen complaint Recomprmoceesnsd, aast hioe ndsis closed in his interview with the grand jury.
F5:
transparency. Martin v. Boise mandates that campers cannot be removed from their place of encampment if there are no adequate shelters available to house them, thus facilitating continued growth of hazardous encampments on county property. Responses to -2022 Final Report
F6:
The creation of low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. Boise and the Placer County Housing Element 2021 – 2029, HE-41. Low barrier shelters could resolve many of the homeless problems Placer County and local jurisdictions
F7:
a re faced with today. A local non-profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of
F8:
the needs of the homeless in Placer County. The State of California Assembly Bill 2630 if passed, would require all cities and counties to declare all homeless funds received and how those funds were spent, which would force Placer County executives to be transparent about funding
F9:
received and spent. The approved camping ordinance is inadequate in discouraging the continued use of encampments. As written, the “clean and clear” provision will allow the campers’ homesite to be improved with no cost or responsibility placed on the camper. Allowing the campers to remain without accountability deters them from seeking
F10:
help through county services. The passing of this revised camping ordinance does not resolve the issue of how to
F11:
reduce the number of campers and encampments in Placer County. Campers migrate to Placer County due to the lax camping ordinance. Only 55-60 percent of the campers in the PCGC encampment at the DeWitt Center are from
F12:
Placer County, placing a burden on local taxpayers and public safety. The DeWitt Center encampment is rampant with crime including assaults, batteries, sales and usage of narcotics, domestic violence, and possession of deadly weapons,
F13:
creating an unsafe environment. Not all homeless individuals make the choice to accept support services or enter
F14:
shelters due to mental health or behavioral anomalies. There is a lack of leadership, responsibility, and accountability among Placer County
F15:
officials in dealing with the homeless situation. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team is doing an effective job interacting with and controlling the situation at the DeWitt Center. The officers have
F16:
excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate in dealing with the campers. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team would be strengthened
F17:
with the addition of more deputies. All three of the previously contracted consultant reports, across nearly three decades and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, address the same issues and appear to have similar findings and recommendations, and have been ignored by previous and current county officials. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The grand jury recommends that: By October 1, 2022, the city manager and other City of Colfax officials shall review
R2:
and publish documented policies and processes on managing citizens’ complaints. By October 1, 2022, the city shall provide training to management staff and city officials on the citizen complaint process and their responsibilities on how to handle
R3:
complaints. By October 1, 2022, the City of Colfax shall make the complaint form and instructions easily accessible and available in a drop-down menu on the city’s main web page. Responses to -2022 Final Report
R4:
By November 1, 2022 the Colfax City management will communicate the new complaint process and inform Colfax citizens about the process and how to file a
R5:
complaint. By November 1, 2022, all complaints shall follow a written complaint process
R6:
facilities. By October 1, 2022, in compliance with of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall seek out and approve a
R7:
multi-service, including low-barrier, facility within Placer County. By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall pass an effective and enforceable ordinance to manage and remove unsanctioned camping on Placer
R8:
County property. By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office shall increase staffing and funding for the Homeless Liaison
R9:
Team. By October 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall compare and evaluate the two prior homeless consulting reports (2004 and 2015) with the current 2022 report to determine why little or no action has been taken on the previous and almost identical report recommendations. No further consultants should be hired or compensated until previous recommendations have been implemented. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F1:
The grand jury found that:
F2:
The City of Colfax has an incomplete complaint process. The City of Colfax does not provide training on its complaint process to city
F3:
employees. The Colfax City Complaint Form is not easily accessible on the City of Colfax website
F4:
and it is not clear on what happens to the complaint once filed. The city manager stated that he lacked knowledge of the city’s citizen complaint Recomprmoceesnsd, aast hioe ndsis closed in his interview with the grand jury.
F5:
transparency. Martin v. Boise mandates that campers cannot be removed from their place of encampment if there are no adequate shelters available to house them, thus facilitating continued growth of hazardous encampments on county property. Responses to -2022 Final Report
F6:
The creation of low barrier shelters would fulfill the requirements of Martin v. Boise and the Placer County Housing Element 2021 – 2029, HE-41. Low barrier shelters could resolve many of the homeless problems Placer County and local jurisdictions
F7:
a re faced with today. A local non-profit entity proposes a facility that, if approved, might address some of
F8:
the needs of the homeless in Placer County. The State of California Assembly Bill 2630 if passed, would require all cities and counties to declare all homeless funds received and how those funds were spent, which would force Placer County executives to be transparent about funding
F9:
received and spent. The approved camping ordinance is inadequate in discouraging the continued use of encampments. As written, the “clean and clear” provision will allow the campers’ homesite to be improved with no cost or responsibility placed on the camper. Allowing the campers to remain without accountability deters them from seeking
F10:
help through county services. The passing of this revised camping ordinance does not resolve the issue of how to
F11:
reduce the number of campers and encampments in Placer County. Campers migrate to Placer County due to the lax camping ordinance. Only 55-60 percent of the campers in the PCGC encampment at the DeWitt Center are from
F12:
Placer County, placing a burden on local taxpayers and public safety. The DeWitt Center encampment is rampant with crime including assaults, batteries, sales and usage of narcotics, domestic violence, and possession of deadly weapons,
F13:
creating an unsafe environment. Not all homeless individuals make the choice to accept support services or enter
F14:
shelters due to mental health or behavioral anomalies. There is a lack of leadership, responsibility, and accountability among Placer County
F15:
officials in dealing with the homeless situation. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team is doing an effective job interacting with and controlling the situation at the DeWitt Center. The officers have
F16:
excellent rapport and are caring and compassionate in dealing with the campers. The Placer County Sheriff’s Office Homeless Liaison Team would be strengthened
F17:
with the addition of more deputies. All three of the previously contracted consultant reports, across nearly three decades and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, address the same issues and appear to have similar findings and recommendations, and have been ignored by previous and current county officials. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The grand jury recommends that: By October 1, 2022, the city manager and other City of Colfax officials shall review
R2:
and publish documented policies and processes on managing citizens’ complaints. By October 1, 2022, the city shall provide training to management staff and city officials on the citizen complaint process and their responsibilities on how to handle
R3:
complaints. By October 1, 2022, the City of Colfax shall make the complaint form and instructions easily accessible and available in a drop-down menu on the city’s main web page. Responses to -2022 Final Report
R4:
By November 1, 2022 the Colfax City management will communicate the new complaint process and inform Colfax citizens about the process and how to file a
R5:
complaint. By November 1, 2022, all complaints shall follow a written complaint process
R6:
facilities. By October 1, 2022, in compliance with of the Placer County Housing Element 2021 - 2029, HE-41, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall seek out and approve a
R7:
multi-service, including low-barrier, facility within Placer County. By January 1, 2023, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall pass an effective and enforceable ordinance to manage and remove unsanctioned camping on Placer
R8:
County property. By September 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office shall increase staffing and funding for the Homeless Liaison
R9:
Team. By October 1, 2022, the Placer County Board of Supervisors shall compare and evaluate the two prior homeless consulting reports (2004 and 2015) with the current 2022 report to determine why little or no action has been taken on the previous and almost identical report recommendations. No further consultants should be hired or compensated until previous recommendations have been implemented. Responses to -2022 Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The grand jury found that: Placer County schools have numerous free mental health services available
F2:
to staff, students, and families. School districts focus primarily on two types of intervention programs: Multi-Tier System of Support and Positive Behavior Intervention and RecomSumppeonrtds.a tions TChoep gireansd s juernyt h taos :n o recommendations. Placer County Office of Education Superintendent 360 Nevada St APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 B0o3a rd of Supervisors 1 75 Fulweiler Ave Auburn, CA 95603 48 SIBP SSTM rehtO ecaloS eraC supmaC nO stsiparehT retneC ssenlleW noitneverP ediciuS gniniarT TSISA KLATefaS ssenlleW lautriV margorP latneM rehtO ro secivreS htlaeH smargorP lanoitiddA setoN/ofnI ESSER (Elementary & Ackerman Secondary Y Y Y Y Y Charter School Emergency Relief) Alta Dutch Y Y Virtual Y MH Funds Flat Auburn Virtual Chill Y Y Y Y Y Unified Zone Colfax Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Elementary Dry Creek Joint Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Elementary Eureka PCGJ did not receive a response from the school district Union Foresthill PCGJ did not receive a response from the school district Intervention Loomis Y Y Y Y (including risk Union assessments) Newcastle Elementary PCGJ did not receive a respo nse from the school district 1.6 School Placer Hills PREPaRE Y Y Y Y Y Y Psychologists for Union Trained two schools Placer GritX, Mental Resources for Union High Y Y Y Health Parents and School Newsletters Teachers Rocklin Y Y Y Y Y Y Unified Roseville Y Y Y Y Y Y City Roseville Joint Union Y Y Y Y Y Y High Tahoe Truckee Y Y Y Y Y Y Unified Western Y Y Y Y Y Y .ca.us/district/health-and-wellness Alta Dutch Flat www.alta.k12.ca.us/our-school/pbis Auburn USD www.auburn.k12.ca.us/departments/education- services/student-support/mental-health Colfax Elementary www.colfax.k12.ca.us/article/944271 Dry Creek Joint Elementary www.drycreek.k12.ca.us District (search Multi-Tiered System of Support) Eureka Union www.eurekaausd.org (Instructional Programs – select Interventions and Supports) Foresthill School District There is no direct link to mental health services for students, parents, or staff Loomis School District www.loomis-usd.k12.ca.us (Board Policy 5030) Newcastle Elementary There is no direct link to mental health services for students, parents, or staff Placer Hills Union SD www.husd.k121.ca.us/school-board/board-goals Placer Union HSD www.sites.google.com/puhsd.k12.ca.us/puhsd-mental-health- services/home Rocklin Unified SD www.rocklinusd.org/Departments/Health-Services/Mental- Health-Supports Roseville City School District www.sites.google.com/puhsd.k12.ca.us/puhsd-mental-health- services/home Roseville Joint Union HSD www.rjuhsd.us/Domain/14 Tahoe/Truckee Unified www.ttusd.org (Parents & Students – two options: Wellness Centers and Wellness Resources for Parents and Students) Western Placer SD www.wpusd.org/in-our-schools/programs-resources/mental- health-resources 50 . The report was titled, “Placer County Animal Services Facility—in a Perfect World.” The report recommended the original facility be “fixed versus replaced” and disagreed with a proposal presented to the Placer County Board of Supervisors to build a new facility. Given it has been nine years since the last report, and a new facility was constructed in 2016, the 2022-2023 Placer County Grand Jury determined it was time to revisit Placer County Animal Services. This report focuses on the new facility, animal shelter operations, and animal control procedures in the greater Placer County community. Placer County Animal Services faces unique challenges due to the growth of Placer County’s Wildland Urban Interface and increased occurrences of wildfires. Their motto, “Saving people from animals and animals from people,” drives Animal Control Officers and Animal Services personnel to provide the best care and services in its daily and emergency operations. The grand jury found that Placer County Animal Services lives up to its motto while administering the many dGultoiesss oaf rthye ir department. ASPCA: CalifornAiam Seernicaatne S Boiclile 1ty7 8fo5r (t1h9e 9P8re):vention of Cruelty to Animals. The Bill addresses stray animals and the Cduhtaimese olfe poonu:nds and shelters. Software application used by animal shelters to manage daily oFpEeMrAat:ions. Federal Emergency Management Agency, the operation of FEMA is to lead ANmexetrdicoao tro.c pormep: are for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disasters. PawBoost.com:A hyperlocal social networking service for neighborhoods. A website designed to assist people with lost pets by raising local aPwetacroe nLeosvse o Lf othset: missing pet. A program sponsored by Petco retailer to help reunite pets with tWheilidr lpaenodp lUer bbya uns Iinntge ar fpahcoet:o of the pet. A zone of transition between wilderness and land d eveloped by human activity . Board of Supervisors (BOS) in September 2008. During the next five years, several more revised proposals were presented to the BOS. The 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury (PCGJ) report focused on the proposed construction of a new shelter to replace the existing shelter. At that time, the PCGJ found the existing shelter met many of the goals defined in an assessment report prepared by an outside consulting firm. It was recommended that before the county move forward with the construction of a new facility, a “fix versus replace” cost analysis be completed for the existing animal shelter. The grand jury, at that time, found the consultant’s report to be too broad-based, lacking focus on Placer County’s specific needs. While the 2013-2014 BOS agreed with the PCGJ’s findings, they concluded the existing facility did not meet Placer County’s twenty-five-year, long-term needs and a new facility was warranted. On February 5, 2013, the BOS gave approval to 14 proceed with a new Animal Services facility. The BOS approved the construction of the new animal shelter on August 26, 2014. The newly built Placer County Animal Services (PCAS) shelter complies with a set of 15 standards put in place by California Senate Bill 1785 (1998) which expanded the policies related to stray animals and the duties of animal shelters. Senate Bill 1785 prov• ides that animal shelters shall: • Provide a safe, healthy environment to house lost animals. • Have adequate capacity to hold the animals. • Facilitate reunification of animals with their caregivers. • Promote good health and prevent the transmission of contagious diseases. • Provide an adequate opportunity for each adoptable animal to find a home. • Reduce the killing of shelter animals. • Increase shelter holding periods. Enable rescue groups to take shelter animals scheduled for death. 12 www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26935/bosd13020507ap49p52-PDF. Accessed March 20, 2023. 13 www.placer.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/gj_final_report_2013_2014.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2023. 14 www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30571/11-PDF. Accessed March 20, 2023. Senate Bill 1785 (1998). SB 1785 Senate Bill - Chaptered (ca.gov). Accessed March 20, 2023. California State Association of Counties which spotlights the most innovative programs developed and implemented by California counties • 16 (PetSmart Adoption Partnership). • 17 LEED Gold Certification for the Animal Shelter Facility (2017). National Animal Care and Control Association 2016 through 2019 Awards 18 Winner; 2020-2021 Award Nominees. Placer County Animal Services is divided into three operational units: Field Services Division, Animal Shelter, and Administration (see Appendix A). In addition, there are currently 150 volunteers, a number which has tripled since the opening of the new fMaceiltihtyo ind o20lo16g. y The• 2 022-2023 Placer County Grand Jury: Attended a presentation of overall services offered to the public by PCAS • staff. • Participated in a tour of the new facility, led by PCAS staff. o Reviewed: o Previous Placer County Grand Jury reports. o Other counties’ grand jury animal services reports. Newspaper and web articles, as well as community postings on social • media sites. o Interviewed: o Representatives of PCAS. • Private citizens who have interacted with PCAS. Attended a hands-on demonstration of Chameleon, the software • application used for internal management and reporting by PCAS. Utilized Chameleon in gathering information for this report. 16 https://www.placer.ca.gov/8472/Placer-County-HHS-programs-receive- state#:~:text=Placer%20County%20HHS%20programs%20receive%20state%2C%20nati onal%20awards,innovative%20programs%20developed%20and%20implemented%20by %20California%20counties. Accessed March 24, 2023. 17 www.dreyfussblackford.com/press-release/placer-county-animal-services-center- receives-prestigious-leed-gold-award-from-u-s-green-building-council/. Accessed March 24, 2023. 18 www.nacanet.org/2021-award-nominees/. Accessed March 24, 2023. 19 https://chameleonbeach.com. Accessed March 8, 2023. B Ave, in Auburn, opened in October 2016. The building sits on 4.3-acres of county land and can house approximately 80 percent more dogs and 75 percent more cats than the previous facility (see chart below). The modern, 29,500 square- foot facility was built in compliance Photo credit: Richard Ferguson with 2016 Humane Society Standards.Placer County Animal Services also worked with the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program for guidance and 20 facility design. The new center has the capability to house more than twice the capacity of animals during large incidents, such as wildfires, than the previous shelter. The grand jury found the facility to be clean, well-organized, and inviting to potential animal adopters. In addition, the grand jury observed the standards set forth in Senate Bill 1785 (1998) are being followed. This state-of-the-art facility showcases a large public lobby and reception area with touch screen informational kiosks, as well as a small retail store. Past the reception area there is a veterinary clinic/operating room and administrative offices. The dog enclosures and cat condos, and their respective exercise courtyards, are in opposite areas from each other, reducing the stress on the animals. Housing for feral cats is in a separate section of the facility. A barn and pasture are available for livestock. The facility’s multipurpose room serves the employees as well as outside groups. Community education classes are offered at the new facility with a focus on responsible pet ownership. This room is available for non-profit organizations and volunteer partners to use for training, meetings, and other activities that are 21 beneficial to the animals. A comparison between the old and new shelter shows that capacity has doubled, and there is now a state-of-the-art veterinary clinic with on-site veterinarian and medical technicians. The facility provides offices for Animal Control Officers (ACOs), field services, and administrative offices all under one roof. 20 https://www.sheltermedicine.com/uc-davis-koret-shelter-medicine-program-awards- animal-shelters-more-than-5-8million-dollars-through-california-for-all-animals-spring- grant-cycle/. Accessed March 19, 2023. 21 www.placer.ca.gov/1037/New-animal-services-center. Accessed November 7, 2022. 56 animal capacity. 193 kennels, many of which provide group housing (adoptable cat and feral cat areas) or opportunity to double up animals that prefer companionship. Shelter has housed upwards of 225 animals during the busy summer season and nearly 400 animals during the Mosquito Fire. Received Receives more than 3,400 animals annually. approximately 2,300 animals per year. Contracted State of the art, 2,105-square-foot veterinary clinic. Contracted veterinarian on-site veterinarian on-site three days per week. Contracted registered three days per week. veterinary technician on-site three to four days per week. All full- time animal care attendants trained to vaccinate, perform diagnostic testing for heartworm, FIV/FeLV, giardia, parvo, and panleuk and have received the Certification for the Veterinarian Assistance Controlled Substance Permit to provide medication to shelter animals. Did not euthanize Does not euthanize for time and space, only if sick and animals for time and untreatable, aggressive, and untreatable, or declared vicious and space, only if sick or unadoptable. Live release rate has increased to 94 percent. vicious and unadoptable; live release rate 77 percent. Six-stall stable for Ten-stall stable for horses and other livestock and a large pasture horses and larger area for routine exercise of large animals. animals. Portable, modular In-house state of the art, 2,105-square-foot veterinary clinic unit type building includes exam room, surgical suite, wet table and prep area, for the veterinary dental cleaning and treatment machine, and dental x-ray unit. All clinic. spay/neuter surgeries now done on-site along with specialized treatment and surgeries. Portable, modular A 1,409-square-foot ACO work area and dispatch office attached unit for animal to the administrative offices within the building. Secured parking control staff and area for Animal Control vehicles. Covered 1,320-square-foot sally dispatcher. port for unloading animals into the shelter. 57 ,500 animals each calendar year. In 2022, PCAS had a live release, or save rate, of 94.2 percent, higher than the no-kill threshold of 90 percent. The national animal rescue organization, Best Friends, considers a shelter “no-kill” when it consistently euthanizes no more than 22 10 percent of all the animals coming in the door. Progress in national save rate and number of animals killed, 2014-2019 23 22 www.aol.com/news/no-kill-animal-shelters- 100000560.html#:~:text=To%20account%20for%20these%20cases%2C%20animal%20r escue%20organization,down%20is%20referred%20to%20as%20a%20kill%20shelter. Accessed March 9, 2023. The State of U.S. Animal Sheltering, 2019 | Network Partners (bestfriends.org) https://network.bestfriends.org/research-data/research/state-us-animal-sheltering- 2019#key. Accessed March 11, 2023. 58 . Collect information, history, and circumstances for intake. 2. Enter information and photo of animal into Chameleon database, creating a unique identification number. 3. Full body scanning of animal for a microchip. 4. Physical examination of animal, with a follow-up veterinarian visit, if necessary. 5. Administer intake vaccination(s) and preventative treatment, depending on age and medical condition of animal. Throughout this process, Chameleon is continuously updated with detailed information on the animal. Information entered in Chameleon, including location found, photo, and description of the animal, will appear on the shelter website within one hour. The PCAS volunteers post stray and found animals on Nextdoor.com to the four closest neighborhoods where the animal was Photo credit: Placer County Animal Services found. Animals will also appear on Petco Love Lost and PawBoost.com. The PCAS uses an electronic billboard on Interstate 80 in Placer County to alert passersby of animals being held at the facility. After the intake process is completed, the animal is housed in a clean kennel with a bed, blanket, food, and water and held anywhere from four to ten days for the owner to claim. See Appendix B for a summary of the Intake and Release totals for calendar y ear 2022. 59 complaints per week which are processed by a dedicated dispatcher. All calls are logged and categorized. Calls are dispatched to the appropriate officer(s) based on location and complaint type. The county is separated into geographic areas, or beats, which are assigned to individual ACOs. Generally, the ACOs stay assigned to their beats throughout their tenure with the county, assisting fellow ACOs when needed. When a new officer is hired, they shadow a senior officer to learn protocols and procedures. Once trained, the new ACO will be assigned to their own beat. Map courtesy of Placer County Animal Services Coverage in the cities of Roseville and Rocklin is managed directly by each city. Placer County Animal Services provides assistance to these cities when needed. Placer County Animal Services has contracts with the cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, and Loomis to provide field services (see Appendix C). Placer County Animal Services’ goal is to provide optimum coverage throughout the entire county. All ACOs are required to have PC 832 Certification before they are hired. The PC 832 24 Arrest and Firearms Course is the minimum training standard for California Peace Officers as specified in Commission Regulation 1005. All Placer County ACOs obtain National Animal Care & Control Association certification within the first two years 24https://post.ca.gov/pc-832-arrest-and-firearms-course. Accessed March 19, 2023. 60 after hiring. In addition, all Placer County ACOs are Certified Animal Control 26 Officers by the California Animal Welfare Association, having completed the approved sixty hours of training in Animal Care and State Laws. After certification, personnel participate in continuing education courses throughout their tenure with PCAS, the most recent being tranquilizer training sponsored by the San Diego Zoo. Placer County ACOs receive an average of 7,000 to 10,000 calls for service each year. The average ACO response time during 2022 for priority calls was twenty-five minutes. Priority levels are assigned a range from one to five, with one being the most urgent (i.e., an animal bite) to five being the least urgent (i.e., a dead animal on the ro ad). Calls are also assigned a category as noted below: 1. INV (investigation) 2. STRAY 3. BITE 4. BARK 5. ASSIST (assistance required) 6. WILD (wild animal involved) 7. KENINSP (kennel inspection) 8. DEAD According to PCAS data, from January through December 2022, ACOs responded to 7,36•2 calls for service: o 2,327 Investigations including: o 1,171 Bite and Quarantine Calls o 513 Welfare Checks o • 517 Barking Complaint Calls 55 Neglect Calls o 1,893 Stray Animal Calls including: o 763 At large/loose o 589 Aggressive o • 309 Confined or housed with finder 64 Repeated/habitual stray • 1,374 Calls to assist other Animal Control, Police, Sheriff’s department, and • other agencies • 820 Deceased animal pickups • 191 Animal Transport Calls • 96 Patrols 58 Kennel Inspections 41 Protective Custody Calls 25 https://www.nacanet.org/naca-aco-certification/. Accessed March 19, 2023. 26 https://www.calanimals.org/certified-animal-control-officer-pr. Accessed March 19, 2023. 61 :00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., calls are answered directly by the Animal Control Dispatcher. After- hours and weekend calls are answered by the Placer County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch and transferred to an on-call ACO. The Animal Control Dispatcher, or on-call ACO, logs the date and time the call was received and the date and time the call was dispatched. The responding ACO logs the date and time they began working on the call, as well as the date and time the call was completed. The ACO inserts notes, attaches pictures (if applicable), and documents outcome information on each call when completed. If a call requires a follow-up visit, the ACO or dispatcher creates a call for the future date of follow-up to be assigned to an ACO. Some examples of calls that require follow-up are barking complaints, rabies quarantine re-checks/releases, kennel inspections, follow-up patrols, animal cruelty/neglect, notice to comply, and feeding at a location during evacuation. Depending on the type of complaint, an ACO may do the follo• wiPngro: vide education or resources to address the issue, o for example: o Suggest adequate shelter solution if animal is housed outside. o Offer to spay/neuter if animal frequently gets loose. o Offer a free microchip to assist in reunification. o Connect with a trainer for animal behavior problems. o Refer to a veterinarian or rescue for assistance with medical care. o Discuss methods to control barking. • Give owAndveirs ea onwotniecre otfo t choem expplyec wtaittihoinn t ao fiisxoeladt eti amne a fnriammale during a bite quarantine. , allowing owner to obtain a license, seek veterinary care, provide grooming, repair a fence, etc. Usually, this is a period of ten to fourteen days, with a follow up by an • AIsCsOu.e I fa c coimtaptiloiann ctoe iosw nnote rforthcoming, an ACO may issue a citation or seize the animal. . This occurs if owner refuses to comply, or has been given a previous opportunity to comply, and has not done so. Citations • mIssauy ea las oth bier dis-spuaerdt yif c tihtea tmioantt teor oisw sneveerr.e and education and/or a notice to comply would not effectively resolve the situation. This is used when the ACO is not a witness to the incident and another party would like to be a witness and • eSneiszuer ea na icmitaatli.on is issued. This is generally done for barking and nuisance complaints. There are very specific situations where PCAS is legally allowed to seize an animal. It is done only when it can be proven that it is immediately necessary to protect the health and safety of the animal and/or the public. The owner of the animal is entitled to a post-seizure hearing and opportunity to appeal in some of these situations. Seizure would be used in the following situations: 62 or require it be housed at the shelter. Cases that involve the district attorney may result in increased sentencing. The PCAS must respond to citizen complaints that are received by their office. While PCAS has a presence on social media, posting a message on social media does not constitute a complaint to Animal Services. Animal Service’s Field Services division has a robust information tracking system for responding to and investigating complaints. It is the policy of PCAS for ACOs to follow up with the originating party when possible. At times, the public does not see the full scope of a PCAS investigation and its resolution. Therefore, they may submit a public records request with PCAS to learn what steps were taken regarding a specific complaint. The PCGJ noted the amount of work, due diligence, rules, regulations, and legal procedures each ACO must follow aEnmde drogceunmceyn Rt feosrp eovnersye c—omThpela 2in0t2 r2e cMeiovseqd.u ito Fire The PCAS has a written disaster response plan, which is reviewed and updated regularly. Staff completes national training developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). In addition, there is targeted training depending on staff position. All officers are required to take FEMA’s National Incident Management Training courses and ASPCA disaster Photo credit: Placer County Animal Services 27 https://california.public.law/codes/ca_penal_code_section_597.1. Accessed March 19, 2023. 63 , 29 preparedness training courses. Disaster response supplies are restocked annually to ensure that Animal Services response vehicles, trailers, and supplies are adequate and in good working order. The capacity of the new shelter was challenged during the Mosquito Fire in September and October of 2022. The Mosquito Fire burned in Placer and El Dorado Counties and was California’s largest wildfire in 2022 30 and Placer County’s largest in history. All Placer County ACOs are fire-line trained by CAL FIRE and allowed to go behind established fire lines during a 31 wildfire. During the Mosquito Fire, PCAS received between 150- 200 calls a day, compared with an average of forty to fifty. Calls for field services by ACOs for the period September 7–October 22, 2022, increased to 1,707, compared with 842 during the same period in 2021. The Photo credit: Placer County shelter was open for extended hours and PCAS staff Animal Services stayed overnight at the shelter and Gold Country Fairgrounds to provide care for animals and assist customers that needed immediate sheltering. From September 7 through October 22, 2022, 851 animals were received by the shelter (373 during the same period in 2021), of which 485 animals were Mosquito Fire evacuees. In addition to dogs and cats, other types of animals were received. These included livestock, horses, birds, bunnies, guinea pigs, lizards, and fish. The animals were housed at the shelter and fairgrounds. Due to the Avian Photo credit: Placer County Animal Services Influenza, Animal Services was unable to accommodate poultry, but of fered 28 https://training.fema.gov/nims/. Accessed March 19, 2023. 29 https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/general-pet-care/disaster-preparedness. Accessed March 19, 2023. 30 https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/55478/Appendix-G-Fire-History. Accessed March 7, 2023. 31 www.osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/state-fire-training/. Accessed March 19, 2023 64
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
Placer County Animal Services is following all local and state ordinances, laws, policies, and procedures.
F2:
laws, policies, and procedures. Placer County Animal Services is organized, well-run, dedicated, and
F3:
compassionate in carrying out its duties. Placer County Animal Services has set the standard for award-winning Recomshmelteern odpaetriaotinosns and programs. TChoep gireansd s juernyt h taos :n o recommendations. Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Ave PAluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 H03e alth and Human Services Director 3091 County Center Dr Suite 290 APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 H03e alth and Human Services Deputy Director 11512 B Ave APluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 A0n3 imal Services Program Manager 11232 B Ave Auburn, CA 95603 Disclaimer In the process of preparing this report, one grand juror withdrew from the investigation due to previous interactions with Placer County Animal Servic es. Once this juror was recused, they no longer took part in the remainder of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, writing, and approval of this report. Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Homeward Bound Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Humane Farming Association Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Humane Society Tahoe Truckee Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Itsie Bitsie Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Kitten Crossing Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Labs 2 Love Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Leaps and Bounds (rabbit rescue) Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Muttville Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter NorCal Aussie Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Norcal Boxer Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter NorCal Bully Breed Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter NorCal Cocker Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter NorCal GSP Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Northern California Border Collie Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively Rescue pulls animals from our shelter Northern California Doberman Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively Rescue pulls animals from our shelter One Planet Rescue Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Passion for Paws Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Pug Rescue of Northern California Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter Pug Rescue of Sacramento Non-Profit Animal Rescue Partner – Actively pulls animals from our shelter 71 South Placer Fire District Fiscal Challenges and Station Closures South Placer Fire District Station 15 Photo credit: Barbara Ferguson 73 as a special district. Special districts are a form of local government created by a community to meet a specific need. Inadequate tax bases and competing demands for existing taxes can make it hard for cities and counties to provide services for citizens. When landowners want new services or higher levels of existing services, they can form their own district to pay for and administer them. The South Placer Fire District has reported ongoing financial difficulties over the past several years, due in part to its operational costs increasing faster than its sources of funding. Increased administrative and operational costs, diminished revenue streams, and changing service provision demands have required Division 2 of the South Placer Fire District to make significant changes to maintain their level of community service. These challenges, however, are not unique to South Placer Fire District, as they are being reported throughout the State of California. Financial shortfalls within established revenue collections are requiring fire districts to become more creative in manpower distribution, facility usage, and asset allocations. In many instances, potential reorganization of districts is a necessary, vGialoblse ssoalruyti on, allowing for increased overall efficiency. Benefit Assessment: An amount levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public iCmApLr FoIvReEm: ent, which benefits the assessed property. Cost-Of-LivCianligf oArlnloiaw Daenpcaer:t ment of Forestry and Fire Protection. An increase in fees, benefits, or salaries to counteract iInnfslautriaonn.c e Services Office A company that provides statistical, actuarial, uLnodcaelr wAgrietnincgy, aFnodr mclaaitmiosn i nCfoomrmmaitsiosino ann: d analytics. A state mandated independent regulatory body whose role is to encourage the orderly formation of local governmental agencies, preserve agricultural and open space resources, and discourage urban sprawl through the review of city and special district boundary changes and the eMxutennisciiopna lo Sf ethrve isceer vRiecvesie twhe y provide. A comprehensive study performed by and designed to better inform the Local Agency Formation Commission, local agencies, and the community about the provision of municipal services. 75 (1978): Proposition 13 requires assessment of each taxable property based on its fair market value and limits a property owner’s general levy tParxo tpoo 1s ipteiornce 2n1t 8o f( t1h9e9 a6s)s:e ssed value. Proposition 218 restricts local governments’ ability to impose assessments and property-related fees and requires elections to approve mSaacnrya mloceanlt goo Mveertnrmopeonlti ttaaxne Fs.i re District Provides fire protection and emergency medical services to many unincorporated areas of Sacramento County and a small pSoourttihon P olaf cPelar cFeirr eC oDuinsttyri. ct: Serves the communities of Granite Bay, Loomis, and sSopuetchiearl nA asrseeasss mofe Pnetn: ryn and Newcastle. It is comprised of two divisions. A tax levied on property owners to pay for specific local iSnpferacsiatrlu Dcitsutrrei cstesr:vices or projects. Local governments created by the people of a community to deliver specialized services essential to their health, safety, economy, and well- being. A community forms a special district to provide specialized services the local cSiptyh eorre c oouf nIntyfl duoe nncoet :p rovide. A region or concept over which a state or organization has a Blevaecl kofg erxoculunsidvi ty. South Placer Fire District (SPFD) serves the communities of Granite Bay, Loomis, and southern areas of Penryn and Newcastle, encompassing fifty-five square miles of territory and a population of more than 42,000. The district responds to structure, wildland, vehicle, and other types of fires. Medical emergencies, vehicle accidents, rescue emergencies, public service calls, and hazardous material response are all part of the services provided. Formed in 1952, SPFD was administered as part of the Citrus Heights Fire District (CHFD). The Citrus Heights Fire District operated a paid fire district and brought paid administrative staff to SPFD to oversee volunteer operations. In 1962, SPFD formally ended its agreement with CHFD, and the chiefs working at SPFD became full-time paid personnel. In 2017, Loomis Fire District consolidated with SPFD and transferred its fiscal responsibility to SPFD. Fire districts are funded by a portion of the parcel owners’ overall pro perty taxes. Special Districts include fire protection, cemetery, water, utility, community services, and park & recreation districts. Special districts receive an average of5.83 percent of the base Proposition 13 property taxes. 76 also receives a special tax assessment of seventy dollars per parcel within its area of coverage. This amount has remained unchanged since 1981. Other funds received are derived from the ambulance transport division fees, cellular tower leases, cost recovery from emergency incidents, fire prevention, and mitigation charges. The SPFD is not funded by the Placer County or the State of California. Since 19 81, the SPFD region has gone through significant levels of growth in population and residential development. The Annex Q South Placer Fire Protection District flyer (see Bibliography #3) of 2016 stated SPFD served thirty-seven square miles and 21,600 residents. As of 2022, the area of coverage is fifty-five square miles, servicing more than 42,000 residents, an increase in area and population of 69 percent and 54 percent, respectively. A major portion of this growth is in the Granite Bay area, part of Division 2 of SPFD. SPFD Neighborhood Meeting Presentation, April 25, 2022 77 of SPFD coordinated a special ballot initiative in 2022, asking district homeowners to amend and increase the seventy-dollar flat-rate special tax assessment established in 1981. This initiative Mfaieletdh tood poaslso. gy The Placer County Grand Jury (PCGJ) conducted interviews with SPFD and the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Research documents obtained by the PCGJ, via the SPFD website, included an accounting of all revenues and expenses beginning in 2011 and annual budgets from 2019 to present. Also obtained through the SPFD and LAFCO websites, were the independent audit report prepared on the South Placer Fire District Financial Statements and the Independent Auditor’s Report (see Bibliography #5), for the year ending June 30, 2021. The 2022-2023 Preliminary Engineer’s Report on SPFD was prepared by SCI Consulting Group (see Bibliography #6). Reports, budgets, audits, and related LAFCO observations from fire districts within neighboring counties were reviewed and compared for perspective and continuity of the PCGJ’s investigation (see Bibliography). The PCGJ reviewed local news reports and articles (see DBiibslicougrsasphioyn). Since the early sixties, the SPFD has operated successfully on the primary funds obtained through property taxes from parcels within the boundaries of the fire district. These tax revenues were controlled by provisions within Proposition 13 (1978), and later by Proposition 218 (1996), which constrained local governments’ ability to raise property taxes, the mainstay of local government financing. Proposition 13 also specified if a raise in local taxes is sought to pay for specific governmental programs, this special tax assessment must be approved by a two- thirds majority of voters. Such a tax was put in place in 1981 for Division 2 of the SPFD, establishing a seventy-dollar fee assessed to property owners. No Cost-Of- Living Allowance (COLA) provision was written into the funding regulations. Following the economic downturn of 2008, budgetary concerns became more urgent. Operational costs for the fire district increased. Property development continued in the area, requiring more services to be provided, without generating tax reassessments to increase revenues. These cost increases are in direct correlation to the number of additional structures that have been built in Division 2 during the past forty years. According to the 2000 – 2020 U.S. Census reports, the housing units in Granite Bay increased by 1,317 units from 6,626 to 7,943, an increase of approximately 16.5 percent. 78 , SPFD consolidated with its neighboring fire department, Loomis Fire Protection District (now SPFD Division 1), with the support and approval of LAFCO. The consolidation of the two districts has been operationally complete for several years. Yet, there are still ongoing revenue issues including training costs, SPFD Funding Sources competitive wages, employee retention, and population growth. SPFD Neighborhood Meeting Presentation, April 25, 2022 Today, the two divisions of SPFD are governed by an independent, seven-member board of directors and serves the communities of Granite Bay, Loomis, and the southern areas of Penryn and Newcastle. The SPFD covers fifty-five square miles and serves a population of more than 42,000. It operates fire stations in Granite Bay and Loomis. The SPFD responds to over 3,500 service calls per year, including structure fires, brush fires, vehicle fires, traffic collisions, industrial accidents, hazardous materials incidents, emergency medical calls, and search and rescue. Additionally, SPFD provides fire prevention services, community education, emergency preparedness, and other safety amenities. The PCGJ’s research indicates that over the last forty years, the cost of providing fire protection and emergency services continues to grow with inflation and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The SCI Consulting Group report states: The cost of providing fire protection and emergency response services continues to rise each year due to increasing emergency calls, enhanced firefighter training requirements, the growing wildfire risk to the community, and substantial increase in operational costs, including fuel, utilities, equipment, insurance, and personnel over the last 40 years. 79 , 2022 The SCI Consulting Group Report supports a proposed new assessment rate to enhance existing funding sources. The proposed rates for this assessment are shown in the table below from the report. The proposed assessment rates are based on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) fire score factor and a travel time factor for each parcel. Insurance Services Office creates ratings for fire departments. These ratings determine the efficiency of fire departments in their communities. The ISO provides this score, often called the "ISO fire score," to homeowners insurance companies. Insurers then use it to help set homeowners insurance rates. Greater fire department performance directly correlates to reduced fire insurance rates. What this means to the homeowner is, the better equipped a fire department is to put out a fire, the less likely a house is to burn down. This makes your home lessP rriospkyo,s aendd A tshseersesfomree,n lte sRsa etxepse fnosri vSeo utot hin Psluarcee. r Fire Protection District Property Type Proposed Rate Single Family $214.16 Multi-Family $125.82 Commercial/Industrial $619.83 Office $434.79 Storage $1,281.47 Parking Lot $15.72 Vacant $57.41 Agriculture $8.47 RSPaFnDg Ne eLigahnbdor &ho Oodp Menee Stipnga cPere sentation, April 2$5,0 2.01272 80
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F2:
maintain their current level of operations. South Placer Fire District Division 2 parcel assessment is insufficient for the division
F3:
to maintain their current level of operations. South Placer Fire District constituents seem unaware of the district’s performance
F4:
and operating needs. Budget shortfalls will result in additional justification for reorganization of South Placer Fire District. 84 -2023 Final Report
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
maintain their current level of operations South Placer Fire District Division 2 continue efforts to reintroduce a special
R3:
assessment ballot measure, that will also adjust for inflation, by November 30, 2023. South Placer Fire District increase constituents’ awareness of district performance and operating costs by proactively advising the public through town hall meetings, newsletters, social media, email, and direct mail before the next special election date
R4:
by November 30, 2023. South Placer Fire District and the Local Agency Formation Commission reorganize and consolidate administrative and/or operational functions with neighboring Requdiirsetrdic tRs ebsy pDoecnesmeb:e r 31, 2023. Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from t he follo wing g overni ng bod y: Recommendations Response Requiring Response Due Date South Placer Fire District R1, R2, R3, R4 October 1, 2023 Board of Directors 6900 Eureka Rd GPrlaacneitre C Boauyn, CtyA L 9A5F7C4O6 R4 October 1, 2023 Board of Directors 110 Maple St ACuobpurien,s C sA e9n56t 0t3o : Placer County Board of Supervisors 175 Fulweiler Ave SAouubtuhr nP, lCaAce 9r5 F6i0r3e District Fire Chief 6900 Eureka Rd G ranite Bay, CA 95746 85 -2023 Final Report
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
Spending for homelessness in Placer County exceeded $80 million for the periods covered in this report and is made up of funding by city, town, county, state, federal, and non-profit organizations.
F2:
The Placer County does not clearly define or report all sources of funding and expenditures on homelessness in the county budget.
F3:
It appears there is little to no communication or coordination of spending among the incorporated cities and town, and the county.
F4:
Funding for homelessness services comes from various sources including city, town, county, state and federal governments, and non-profit organizations.
F5:
The five incorporated cities and one incorporated town in Placer County do not have Recomhommeelnesdsa btuidognest line items that define sources of funding and expenditures. The grand jury recommends that:
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Placer County establish a full accounting of homeless funding and expenditures to citizens on an annual basis by January 1, 2024, and include in the annual budget going forward.
R2:
Each of the five incorporated cities and one incorporated town in Placer County establish a full accounting of homeless funding and expenditures to its citizens on an annual basis by January 1, 2024, and include in the annual budget going forward. Request for Response: Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05, the Placer County Grand Jury requests a response from the following governing bod ies: 10 July 1, 2021 census, www.census.gov/quickfacts/placercountycalifornia, U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Placer County, California. Accessed March 9, 2023. October 1, 2023 175 Fulweiler Ave AAuubbuurrnn, CCAit y9 5C6o0u3n cil R2 October 1, 2023 1225 Lincoln Way ACoulbfuarxn C, iCtAy 9C5o6u0n3c il R2 October 1, 2023 33 South Main St CLionlfcaoxl,n C ACi 9ty5 7C1o3u ncil R2 October 1, 2023 600 6th St LLionocmolins, TCAow 95n6 C4o8u ncil R2 October 1, 2023 3665 Taylor Rd LRooocmkliisn, CCAit 9y 5C6o5u0n cil R2 October 1, 2023 4060 Rocklin Rd RRoocskelvinil,l CeA C i9t5y6 C7o7u ncil R2 October 1, 2023 311 Vernon St RCoospeviiellse, SCAe n95t 6t7o8: Placer County Executive Officer 175 Fulweiler Ave PAluabcuerrn C, CoAu n9t5y6 H03e alth and Human Services Director 3 901 County Center Dr Auburn, CA 95603 99 11 Current Investments to Address Homelessness, Investments in Homelessness 6.14.22 v5 (ca.gov), www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62346/Investments-in-Homelessness. Accessed February 7, 2023. 100 12 Placer County FY 2022-2023 Budget, , FY-22-23-Budget-Book-Final (ca.gov), www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62118/FY-22-23-Budget-Book-Final. Accessed February 7, 2023. 101 , 2023 102 , 2023 103 -2023 105 -2023